Over at
bioRxiv at this
LINK. From the preprint:
The ancient Hungarians originated from the Ural region of Russia, and migrated through the Middle-Volga region and the Eastern European steppe into the Carpathian Basin during the 9th century AD. Their Homeland was probably in the southern Trans-Ural region, where the Kushnarenkovo culture disseminated. In the Cis-Ural region Lomovatovo and Nevolino cultures are archaeologically related to ancient Hungarians. In this study we describe maternal and paternal lineages of 36 individuals from these regions and nine Hungarian Conquest period individuals from today's Hungary, as well as shallow shotgun genome data from the Trans-Uralic Uyelgi cemetery. We point out the genetic continuity between the three chronological horizons of Uyelgi cemetery, which was a burial place of a rather endogamous population. Using phylogenetic and population genetic analyses we demonstrate the genetic connection between Trans-, Cis-Ural and the Carpathian Basin on various levels. The analyses of this new Uralic dataset fill a gap of population genetic research of Eurasia, and reshape the conclusions previously drawn from 10-11th century ancient mitogenomes and Y-chromosomes from Hungary.
...
Majority of Uyelgi males belonged to Y chromosome haplogroup N, and according to combined STR, SNP and Network analyses they belong to the same subclade within N-M46 (also known as N-tat and N1a1-M46 in ISOGG 14.255). N-M46 nowadays is a geographically widely distributed paternal lineage from East of Siberia to Scandinavia 33 . One of its subclades is N-Z1936 (also known as N3a4 and N1a1a1a1a2 in ISOGG 14.255), which is prominent among Uralic speaking populations, probably originated from the Ural region as well and mainly distributed from the West of Ural Mountains to Scandinavia (Finland). Seven samples of Uyelgi site most probably belong to N-Y24365 (also known as N-B545 and N1a1a1a1a2a1c2 in ISOGG 14.255) under N-Z1936, a specific subclade that can be found almost exclusively in todays’ Tatarstan, Bashkortostan and Hungary 17 (ISOGG, Yfull).
Csaky et al., Early
Medieval Genetic Data from Ural Region Evaluated in the Light of Archaeological Evidence of Ancient Hungarians,
bioRxiv, Posted July 13, 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.13.200154
See also...
Hungarian Conquerors were rich in Y-haplogroup N
On the association between Uralic expansions and Y-haplogroup N
More on the association between Uralic expansions and Y-haplogroup N
Ancient DNA confirms the link between Y-haplogroup N and Uralic expansions
Interesting paper, so modern-day Hungarians do not have much of this ancestry do they?
ReplyDeleteDo you also know if southern Slavs show any Eastern Eurasian influence from that time or earlier movements ? (thinking of Serbs and Croatians for example)
There's still a bit of this type of ancestry in Hungary and surrounds. Some Hungarians do belong to these early Uralian N subclades.
ReplyDeleteNot sure about Croats and Serbs though. Probably not.
I don't know of any Serbs that belong to any of those early Uralian N clades although there could be some not found yet of course. Pretty much all of the N found among Serbs is the type of N that peaks in the Balkans ie. not N-tat.
ReplyDelete@gamerz_J
ReplyDeleteIt is correct to say that modern Hungarians have not much of this ancestry. However they have some and there are connections that look rather specific.
The current article refers to N-B545. The source is this article: Y-chromosomal connection between Hungarians and geographically distant populations of the Ural Mountain region and West Siberia
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-44272-6
There is Davidski's post on the occasion of that article: https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/05/more-on-association-between-uralic.html
And there: https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2020/01/on-paternal-ancestry-of-hungarian.html
It might be useful to reread these for better understanding.
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteThe paper by Lamnidis et al, 2019 on Fennoscandia also showed some East Asian (Uralic) ancestry in Hungarians now that I think about it but seems to be about 5% or less.
Carlos believes neo-Siberian like Arctic groups infiltrated the CWC derived Uralic groups to the south during the BA-IA. He's already covered this and the Sargat kurgans which which are thought to be Ugric and turned out N1c (5) and R1a (2).
ReplyDeleteHaving absolutely no R1a in this study is certainly augment against Hungarian being CWC derived but I'm sure Carlos will explain this away via founder effect.
Unfortunately the only thing that will put CWC=Uralic to rest is aDNA showing a demic expansion of N1c during the BA that did not stem from the Arctic.
@Anthony Hanken
ReplyDeleteThe CWC=Uralic thing is just Carlos Quiles' personal fantasy so there's nothing to put to rest.
@Slumberry
ReplyDeleteThanks, I re-read them. Yes some connections indeed exist and it's interesting to see.
Carlos' analysis is garbage. We shouldn't give that crap even a second of attention. That is way more than it deserves.
ReplyDeleteSome Romanians and Moldovans do show a little bit east asian thought.
ReplyDelete@Anthony Hanken,
ReplyDeleteDo think Bolshoy Oleni spoke Uralic?
The Turkic tribes of Kubars that joined the Magyars when they moved to Hungary how are they detected?
ReplyDeleteThere were three tribes of Kubars that left the declined Khazar khaganate and joined the Magyars and followed them from the invasion of the Volga Bulgaria to the land of the "nine Ogurs" aka Honoguria which is what we call Hungary.
Are they be detected in the DNA studies of modern Hungarians?
It is my current conclusion based on all the existing ancient and modern autosomal and uniparental genetic results and comparisons that the Hungarian conquerors were genetically most similar to the Bashkirs among modern populations. The East Eurasian ancestry of the Bashkirs is a mixture of the Turkic and Uralic varieties, but the Turkic variety constitutes a bigger portion in it. There is apparently a similar situation in the East Eurasian ancestry of the modern Hungarians. I can change or update my consclusion based on new data, but this is my current conclusion. So prolly the Hungarian conquerors were a coalition of Turkic (of the Oghuric/Hunnic/Bulgaric subgroup) and Uralic (of the Ugric subgroup) tribes, but over the course of the centuries the Turkic groups were assimilated by the Uralic ones along with the pre-Hungarian-migration native populations of the Carpathian Basin, who still constituted the majority of the population of the Carpathian Basin and thus are the main reason why the modern Hungarians are genetically most similar and almost indistinguishable from their neighbors.
ReplyDeleteThe 'Balkan N' is from the highly divergent, but recent TMRCA "N5"
ReplyDelete? seems to track via a Bronze Age movement via Russia
It is worth to note, that up till 10th century "relatives" of Magyars - Khanty and Mansi originally lived in European side of Urals on Volga-Kama river basin. Mansi migrated to east of Urals starting from 5th century and were pushed out of Europe by around 10th century. However, modern Khanty and Mansi share a lot more N1a2b than N1a(Figure 6 is showing only N1a1-Tat), just like Nenets people.
ReplyDeleteNenets people themselves reached Arctic around 10th century, so it might be possible, that Samoyedic and Ugric languages due to close proximity mixed a lot in the region.
It is interesting to add on to what was mentioned in paper about Magyar y-dna differences from other Finns, that Yakuts and those ancient Magyars were closer to each other(that can be seen on graph of Figure 6) and belong to one sister branch and Finnic people and Chukchi, Korjak, some Innuit and Aleutians and N1a of Baltic people belong to other branch. For some reason some of mentioned are not shown on graph, but at least for Baltic it is possible to use Ukrainian as N1a of Ukrainian is nearer to Baltic.
Due to Yakut and Magyar similarities it raises a question of how much Yukagir and Ugric languages are related to each other.
That all illustrates how everything was changing and not static in time and that migrations happened not only in Europe.
@Ιωαννης θεοδωρος Γαβρας
ReplyDeleteSome Romanians and Moldovans do show a little bit east Asian thought.
Yes, that's true, but there are probably different reasons for this, like, say, Tatar settlements in the eastern Balkans.
@ David
ReplyDeleteHungarians,Moldovans,Romanians all of them have complex genetics.How Moldovans and Romanians have become so Slavic admixed?They look mostly native balkan(Vlach) and the rest being East Slavic or something right?
Romanians have quite a bit of early Slavic ancestry. Moldovans have that too, but many of them also have very recent East Slavic ancestry.
ReplyDeleteI guess it's undeniable at this point that everybody in the Balkans has quite a bit of Slavic ancestry. Even Albanians, who apparently have the least. Southeast Europe would look a lot different if it weren't for them wandering Slavs.
ReplyDelete@ Μιχαλης
ReplyDeleteWhy Albanians have the least?Norhern Albanians(Gheghs) are more Slavic than David's ass xD.Even Tosks(south albanians) have the same amounts of Slavic admixture like mainland Greeks do.Actually South Albanians and Norhern Greeks (Macedonians,Thessalians,Epirotes) are all pretty much the same when it comes to Slavic admixture.
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteYes, that's true, but there are probably different reasons for this, like, say, Tatar settlements in the eastern Balkans.
Many Bulgarians have a tiny bit of East Eurasian ancestry too though. I guess it is something related to the Turkic Bulgars (also in the case of the Romanians, but in their case the Hungarian conquerors and the Cumans prolly played a role too). Tatars, I do not think so, they were Muslims, as such, they preferred to settle in the already Islamized regions of the Balkans.
@Samuel Andrews
ReplyDelete"Do think Bolshoy Oleni spoke Uralic?"
BOO seems to be a recent mix of two different populations with one sample being much more eastern than the others autosomally. I think its possible they spoke Uralic as evidenced by their N-L1026 however they also may have spoken whatever east Siberian/Arctic language they mixed with, possibly related to Yukaghir?
@ gL: the main Uralic Hungarian N-Z1936 lineage is actually quite far from the Turkic Yakut N-M2019 lineage. Yakuts BTW are late immigrants in modern Sakha and don't speak Yakagir, they speak Turkic. However, both N-Z1936 (Bashkirs, Volga Tatars and such, besides fex Finns through a different West Uralic sub lineage) and N-M2019 seem to point to a situation, where many originally Uralic speaking N-lineages have been Turkified, especially taking into account the fact that Uralic speaking Permic N-Y9022 is an older sublineage than Yakut N-M2019.
ReplyDelete@Rob
ReplyDelete"The 'Balkan N' is from the highly divergent, but recent TMRCA "N5"
? seems to track via a Bronze Age movement via Russia"
This branch has been found in Botai, IR1 a 9th century BC nomad from Hungary and DA247 a Baikal HG. My guess is that it was relatively wide spread on the steppe before the bronze age.
@ Antony
ReplyDeleteThanks. I’m aware IR1 could be ; but so far I see P189.2.
Has anyone resolved it further down ?
@Antony Hanken,
ReplyDeleteBolshoy Oleni's Y DNA N1c and high East Asian ancestry and probable Uralic language come from the same place.
European variation would be more interesting if the Slavic expansions never happened.
ReplyDeleteHuck Finn wrote,
ReplyDelete"@ gL: the main Uralic Hungarian N-Z1936 lineage is actually quite far from the Turkic Yakut N-M2019 lineage. Yakuts BTW are late immigrants in modern Sakha and don't speak Yakagir, they speak Turkic. However, both N-Z1936 (Bashkirs, Volga Tatars and such, besides fex Finns through a different West Uralic sub lineage) and N-M2019 seem to point to a situation, where many originally Uralic speaking N-lineages have been Turkified, especially taking into account the fact that Uralic speaking Permic N-Y9022 is an older sublineage than Yakut N-M2019."
I would add here that N-M2019 is not limited to Yakutia. It also has been observed in individuals from present-day Hungary as well as Estonia, Turkey, Croatia, Lebanon, Chuvashia, Shaanxi, and South Korea. YFull estimates the TMRCA to be 3,600 (95% CI 3,000 <-> 4,400) ybp, with the member from Estonia being basal to all other tabulated members.
@Samuel Andrews
ReplyDelete„European variation would be more interesting if the Slavic expansions never happened.”
But without Slavic expansions, Europe would not be Indo-European. Yamnaya didn’t do it alone.
https://i.postimg.cc/bYxfWzPZ/screenshot-81.png
Greeks and Balkaners in general are very lucky that they have Slavic gene and not Turkish/Ottoman. After so many ages of Ottoman occupation and the majority of them do not show any Turkish related admixture.That would be a shame for the Orthodox Christian nations in terms of Proudness.
ReplyDelete@ East Pole
ReplyDeleteYes the Slavs were also Italian
The distrbution and modern frequency of N-M2019 is a good example showing that modern distribution and frequency should not be taken as representative of any original distribution.
ReplyDeleteN-M2019 has also been detected among the Hungarian conquerors:
Hungarian conqueror period Karos-Eperjesszög K2/51 N1a1a1a1a4-M2004 (at the level of M2019)
Hungarian conqueror period Karos-Eperjesszög K1/1 N1a1a1a1a4-M2004 (at the level of M2019)
While TMRCA of the Yakut M2016 is 2400 ybp, TMRCA of pan-Eurasian branch, M2058, is 3600 ybp.
ReplyDelete@ Sam
The Slavs themselves did not really erase any diversity, even though they raided Roman provinces etc. Their expansion filled the demographic vacuum which was caused by a series of events in E.E. from ~ 400s to 700s
So it’s very important to understand the demographics behind genetic patterns
I know that N was found in Botai but I would guess N was still a rare lineage on the steppe. Botai was probably mostly R1b no? N probably helps explain its ENA side to some degree.
ReplyDeleteAlso regarding Slavic settlement in the Balkans do we know or can we work out the frequencies fo various subclades of R1a, I2 and other lineages among the founding population?
I actually don't care to see what Carlos has to say about this after the mind-boggling cognitive dissonance where he called the R1b Corded Ware sample a 'mislabeled Balto-Slav'. Really? First of all, there are no R1b lines from the L51 tree that can be called Balto-Slavic, as they are all the result of German introgression and cannot be found in the early Balto-Slavic community; my own R1a clade is the result of early Wendish introgression into the German community as an example in the reverse. At any rate, the only Slavic countries with appreciable R1b are those in the western fringe like the Czechs where there was an established people in the area before Slavic settlement (like the Germanic tribes and Celtic Boii) that was majority R1b.
ReplyDeleteIn a lot of Romanian regions it was very close between Slavic and Vlachs dominance. In the early phase of the immigration the Slavs which settled down were clearly dominant. How exactly the Romanian side became dominant again is an interesting question, because elsewhere Slavs kept the rule, sometimes even in places where there were less of them.
ReplyDeleteThere are modern Slavic people with less Slavic-like ancestry than Romanians. Question is also how much of this Slavic-like ancestry could be pre-Slavic and from Dacians and Sarmatians.
gL wrote,
ReplyDelete"It is worth to note, that up till 10th century "relatives" of Magyars - Khanty and Mansi originally lived in European side of Urals on Volga-Kama river basin. Mansi migrated to east of Urals starting from 5th century and were pushed out of Europe by around 10th century. However, modern Khanty and Mansi share a lot more N1a2b than N1a(Figure 6 is showing only N1a1-Tat), just like Nenets people.
Nenets people themselves reached Arctic around 10th century, so it might be possible, that Samoyedic and Ugric languages due to close proximity mixed a lot in the region."
It is true that present-day Khanty and Mansi have a great deal of N1a2b-B523/P43: this is probably the most frequently occurring Y-DNA haplogroup among both populations, as among the Nenets, Enets, and Nganasans.
However, the Ugric members of this clade and the Samoyedic members of this clade belong almost entirely to different subclades whose most recent common ancestor lived approximately 4,800 (95% CI 3,900 <-> 5,800) ybp -- in fact, they have not shared a common patrilineal ancestor since the MRCA of all members of N-P43 currently tabulated by YFull. (The Samoyeds belong to the "N2-Asian" cluster that was defined by Y-STRs early in the era of Y-DNA studies, whereas nearly all Ugric members of N-P43 belong to the "N2-European" cluster.)
The Samoyedic branch of N-P43 has closer relatives (both basal, i.e. perhaps reflecting some ancestral connection with pre-Samoyeds, and derived, i.e. probably a result of historical assimilation of Samoyeds) among Turks and Mongols than it has with the Finno-Ugric branch of N-P43.
I have a question for Kristiina. What is the frequency of mtDNA U5b2 in various Uralic groups and especially in Saami?
ReplyDelete@Samuel Andrews
ReplyDelete"Bolshoy Oleni's Y DNA N1c and high East Asian ancestry and probable Uralic language come from the same place."
The male BOO have significantly less Siberian admixture and require a fully European population to be modeled which BOO006, one of the females does not.
I don't doubt the PU population had a large amount of Siberian ancestry but BOO is probably the result of a Uralic population being integrated into an Arctic one. It remains to be seen how much PU will actually resemble BOO.
I forgot, N5 has also been found in Poltavka (id I11735).
ReplyDelete@Jatt_Scythican
Who knows how common it was across the steppe but it was certainly wide spread. Found in Botai and a BHG at roughly the same time in the late Neolithic.
Hi David,
ReplyDeleteUsually you're pretty dismissive of mtDNA and NRY only studies. However lately you have featured a couple of them. Any particular reason? I could guess that if "that's the only game in town" then that's what is covered.
Cheers,
Guy
Did anyone see the post about Phoenician influence on Germanic that Razib shared? Seems a bit crazy but who knows.
ReplyDeletehttps://phys.org/news/2020-07-shillings-gods-runes-clues-language.html
@Guy
ReplyDeleteThis preprint includes low-coverage genome-wide DNA. Take a look at the supplementary info PDF.
So it has high-resolution Y-DNA data and some autosomal data. If it was just based on mtDNA, I wouldn't post about it.
@ Anthony
ReplyDelete''I forgot, N5 has also been found in Poltavka (id I11735).''
Not that I’m doubting you; but has this been described by a credible source or pipeline ?
@All
ReplyDeleteI updated the post with one of the PCA plots from the paper.
Check out the East Eurasian shift in those Uyelgi samples!
Proto-Uralic speakers weren't EHG people, that's for sure.
@Rob
ReplyDelete"Not that I’m doubting you; but has this been described by a credible source or pipeline ?"
The samples are from the Narasimhan paper but their N5 classification came from amateurs on Anthrogenica.
"I11735 ; 2462-2299 BC; Mereke Kazakhstan; N2-Y6503> pre-P189.2 (17 derived, 3 ancestral)"
@Zardos
ReplyDeleteDid Romanians have much of literary tradition in the Middle Ages, and if so in what language? I know the liturgical language of the Orthodox Church in Romania was Old Church Slavonic, was that also the court language of the nobility as well?
"Fig. S11 Median Joining Network analysis of G2a2-U1 Y-haplogroup based on 14 STRs. The Uyelgi4 sample (marked with yellow) has identical all investigated 14 STR loci with a Cherkessian individual from Caucasus region. One-step-neighbours to Uyelgi4 are further Cherkessian and two Abazas individuals from Caucasus region and one Kyrgyz individual from Central Asia. The Hungarian Conqueror sample from Rétközberencs-Paromdomb (RP/2) surrounded with Caucasian samples is three-steps away from the Uyelgi4 sample (for the population information, STR data and references see Supplementary Table S9)."
ReplyDeleteUyelgi4 is the most southern shifted in the PCA. I remember the previous Hungarian study also featured some individuals with Caucasian haplogroups. Interesting.
@ TLT
ReplyDeleteThere are some U5b2* haplotypes in Finns, e.g. U5b2a1a1b is a Finnish haplotype.
I have not been able to confirm any U5b2 in other Uralics. Almost all is probably U5b1b1*, while U5b2 is more probable in Bashkirs and Tatars.
16189C appears in both U5b2 and U5b1 haplotypes.
Have a look at this old paper: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226229560_Diversity_of_Mitochondrial_DNA_Haplogroups_in_Ethnic_Populations_of_the_Volga-Ural_Region/link/00463516d3f859db4a000000/download
Tolliver, the Church Slavonic language was then the official language of the Romanian chancellery and administration.
ReplyDelete@Ryan
ReplyDeleteProvocatively worded, isn't it?
I wonder whether it's truly necessary to resort to Germans "married into their families and had bilingual children", which along with "Semitic Superpower in Northern Europe!!" obviously carries massive weight as an attention grabber in the media.
Phoenician traders were present along the coasts of NW Europe as far as Scandinavia soon after 1000BC, assuredly during or prior to proto-Germanic. I wonder how much described here can just be attributed to such forms of contact.
So it seems most Clades of Hg N were present in Neolithic Baikalia
ReplyDeleteThey then started diffusing west; Eneolithic Botai establishes for us the earliest arrival of some varieties of hg N.
On the other hand back home they seem to have been supplanted by arrivals from the West (somewhat paradoxically) ; Q1a/ ANE rich
@Rob,
ReplyDeleteThat makes sense. It seems Y DNA N was originally deep in Asia until recently.
@Cy: Slavonic was still used in the administration of the state and church according to most sources and the full shift to Romanian happened only in the 13th century according to some. It is assumed that there were at some point a lot of bilinguals in Romania. So the Slavic heritage was in part kept alive much longer, and the knowledge about it not lost. Romanian just made it to the top over a wide range of territories. My idea is that the many invasions by steppe people of all kinds severely disrupted the Slavic settlements in the open lowlands. This made the more reclusive and self-sufficient small scale pastoralists of the mountains and woodlands, which were the Vlachs, the dominant group in the aftermath. I am, in any case, sure that the Romanian shift would have been much harder to achieve without the constant invasions from the Eastern steppe folks, because in the early phase the Slavic dominance seems to have been archaeologically firmdly established.
ReplyDeleteCan't but help think about Macedonia & Thessaly, where Vlachs live to this day. They were semi-autonomous groups moving about the Byzantine empire. Although a popular theory, I don't think they hid in the hills and mountains. Not much evidence for that
ReplyDeleteAnother possibiity is around the Banat or Pannonia. Late Roman communities are archaeologically attested until at least the 7th centry, into the Avar period.
What the Iron age European PCA looked like...before the Slavs and Middle Eastern migrants in Italy messed it up.
ReplyDeleteMy prediction, is there were three basic clines. And that there were tiny but significant gaps between each one caused by different ratios of WHG ancestry. Europe's PCA would make more sense back then, with easy to see patterns.
Northeast European/BaltoSlavic cline: Baltic>Belarus>Ukraine.
Significant Gap
West European cline: Scandinavia>Britain>France>Spain.
Significant Gap
Southeast European cline: Croatia/Slovenia/Italy>Bulgaria>Greece
The gaps are caused by different ratios of WHG ancestry. Northeast Eurpe highest north, West Europe second, Southeast Europe third.
I'm pretty sure that the highland and woodland refuge theories will hold, because its the same for so many places throughout prehistory. The dominant new group holds the best grounds on the lowland, their cemeteries are almost "pure" and suddenly from somewhere the "previous" population reemerges. This is not just those earlier inhabitants being "underrepresented" in the burials, this is also about them living in places and under conditions which are not that easy to detect by archaeological surveys. In the case of the Vlachs the situation in Romania was similar to the I2a becoming dominant in the Middle Neolithic in my opinion, just with a heavier demographic impact.
ReplyDeleteBut what's your take on pre-Slavic but still Slavic-like ancestry from Thracians and Sarmatians? I mean how much of the Slavic-like ancestry in Romanians is "real Slavic" and how much just resembles it from earlier people?
The Greek_Thessaly samples on G25 could easily represent Vlachs since the majority of the people there have Vlach roots.Vlachs have come in contact with Slavs hence their high steppe.The pre-Slavs in balkans would have been something like Bulgaria IA or the HRV IA samples thought.Mostly EEF with a decent steppe and to some way limited CHG/Iran N and WHG.Also the Greek Macedonia region and also North Macedonia are actually full of Vlach people.It is very likely many Slavic lineages in southern balkans to arrived not just from Slavs but also from Vlachs.
ReplyDeleteI find Celtic-Slavic cline very interesting:
ReplyDeletehttps://i.postimg.cc/15cLfGz2/Celtic-Slavic-cline.jpg
@Ιωαννης θεοδωρος Γαβρας: Ok, but how for the Dacians and Sarmatians in the North Carpathian and Pannonian region? I guess we have to wait for the pre-Slavic samples from a wider range there to be sure.
ReplyDelete@Rob: I wasn't drawing the analogy from the Neolithic, but made this comparison for an overtake. However, there are plenty of cases throughout prehistory and early history. I might just refer to a comparison of Reihengräber Germanics vs. modern Bavarians and Austrians, or the same for early Slav burials in various places, vs. the modern Slav speaking populations in the respective regions. There must have been not just later migration and gene flow from outside, but a portion of the locals must have hid out or retreated to other places. And from later historical and modern sources we know that some backward villages and highland valleys or the like were the last places dialects from the previous poplulation survived. For Romania I'm just drawing conclusions from extrapolating other known cases. I mean how much evidence is there for a surviving large centre outside of the Slavic dominance of Vlachs from which they could have expanded between the 10th and 13th century? I think the use of the Slavonic languages and terms too speaks for Vlachs almost taking over "from within" established Slavic structures, taking opportuntieis on a regional level.
@ Zardos
ReplyDeleteWell its best to follow data instead of analogy.
For ex, the fortified hilltop sites are in fact found in the western Balkans. In Romania, its all valley and river settlements & villages.
In fact, with the provided analogy: ''The dominant new group holds the best grounds on the lowland, their cemeteries are almost "pure" and suddenly from somewhere the "previous" population reemerges. This is not just those earlier inhabitants being "underrepresented" in the burials, this is also about them living in places and under conditions which are not that easy to detect by archaeological surveys. In the case of the Vlachs the situation in Romania was similar to the I2a becoming dominant in the Middle Neolithic in my opinion, just with a heavier demographic impact.''
The lack of Mesolithic finds in early farmers, e.g. Starcevo, LBK is simply because they weren't there (apart from clusters like Iron Gates & Malaki Presljavets)
Hunter-gatherers had concentrated in the Atlantic/ Paris basin, Baltic, the East, which is why they 'suddenly appear' in the MNE
Pre-Slavic substrate - Depends which part of the Balkans is sampled; & from when
ReplyDelete"Did anyone see the post about Phoenician influence on Germanic that Razib shared? Seems a bit crazy but who knows.
ReplyDeletehttps://phys.org/news/2020-07-shillings-gods-runes-clues-language.html"
Pretty far fetched, sensationalistic and unfounded. Lol. The runic alphabet was always thought to be derived from a north italic alphabet, which again are derived from phoenician. So any similarity is hardly a surprise. Words like shilling seem to have a clear etymology. So what do thet have for their hypothesis? How can uncertain etymological origins for plough and penny become semitic super power dominance. Lol. Absurd for sure to suppose something like that wouldn't have left strong archeological and genetic traces. Their hypothesis isn't serious and it isn't science. It's complete rubbish.
@EastPole,
ReplyDeleteThe Celti-Slavic cline, is caused by West European (German) ancestry in West Slavs.
@ Zardos
ReplyDeleteOfc we need more samples from BA/IA balkans and pre-Slavs in general but i do not really believe Dacians would have been very different from Thracians or Illyrians.I have mention in previous thread's that Ottomany culture might be an early Daco-Thracian source.As for Sarmatians dont we got some samples from them or not?Or you think the samples from Russia are not the best?
@Samuel Andrews
ReplyDelete„The Celti-Slavic cline, is caused by West European (German) ancestry in West Slavs.”
I think it is caused by Slavic ancestry in Germanized Celts.
@Rob: "In Romania, its all valley and river settlements & villages."
ReplyDeleteIf a people is truly dominant, times are rather peaceful and they feel safe, they settle that way. If they come under pressure, they make fortified hilltop settlements. Slavs in Romania were, in some ways, more dominant than elsewhere, you see that in the record.
My question remains from where the Vlachs should have come from? I don't believe they trickled in from the very South, some clans did, but the majority rather not. Romania has plenty of space to survive in fairly high numbers with the lifestyle they had. If the lowlanders would have been weakened, and they surely were if you look at the history before the Romanian takeover, it would have been fairly easy to do and the Romanian side is now all too dominant for an elite phenomenon.
@Ιωαννης θεοδωρος Γαβρας: People like "the" Cimmerians, Scythians and Sarmatians were often somewhat confederation-like, even more so than lets say Germanics and Slavs. Both the samples we got so far, as well as the physical remains, prove that. I would rather look at the closest samples, from the exact tribes and ethnic groups in question. Under the label Sarmatians quite different pheno- and genotypes could be found.
I know there are various Scythian and Sarmatian samples, but I'm not sure whether we have some from late Roxolani in particular. Iazyges too. And from Sarmatian Pannonia we don't have too many samples if any at all? Iazyges from East of the province of Pannonia would be interesting. But even more so Roxolani for the Romanians.
@Johnny
ReplyDelete@zardos
The thing is, Slavs were already settled in Greece hundreds of years before Vlachs arrived (900s AD), and did so throughout mainland Greece. By contrast the majority of Vlachs settled in Epirus-Thessaly-Macedonia exclusively, with big waves in 1300s from Albania, and some more in 1800s.
So while it may be the case thatbVlachs have mediated Slavic ancestry into Greece a lot probably came along Slavs themselves earlier, they were just totally assimilated.
@Bastian
Its nothing but sensationalist, probably angled and marketed to rile up Europeans like the so called "Muslim Vikings".
@ LGK
ReplyDeleteWe dont know specific where Vlachs started migrating to Greek Mainland.During migration period Vlachs were something like mercenaries for the Roman Army.Later many of them have become Byzantine rulers.Many Byzantine Emperors and Generals had Vlach origins(Illyro-Roman),(Thraco-Roman),(Daco-Roman etc).The Aromanian community in Greece trace its origins back to 11th century.We need samples from Byzantium Empire to estimate the northern elements in southern balkans.
@ Zardos
ReplyDeleteI see your point.About Dacians don't expect crazy things.They would have been pretty much EEF with a decent Steppe/WHG.
I don't expect anything crazy, I just wonder how much Slavic-like ancestry they had. I guess definitely more than more Southern Thracians, Greeks and others South of the Carpathians.
ReplyDelete@ Zardos
ReplyDeleteWell I’m simply not sure . adna might helps solve the riddle
But my point remains, although you could be right; there is no evidence for a highland / lowland dichotomy
"The Celti-Slavic cline, is caused by West European (German) ancestry in West Slavs".
ReplyDeleteSam, there is no basis for such a statement. This cline already existed in the Lusatian culture (https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/10/tollense-valley-bronze-age-warriors.html). At that time, there was also the Proto-Slavic language, and the Proto-Germanic language was not there yet (it appeared 700-800 years later). As you can see, the Western Slavs have not fundamentally changed genetically since then.
Really looking forward to seeing what the Y-DNA haplogroups are of the Thracians, Dacians and Illyrians.
ReplyDeleteApparently in the early Neolithic, haplogroup N was located around lake Baikal. This is the Kitoy culture. Burials of this culture are mainly found in 3 burial grounds. This is Lokomotiv 8000-6000 BCE. Shamanka 2 period 7500-5500 BCE. Fofonovo 8000-6500 BCE. Fofonovo in accordance with the study Sirak2020 gave N1a-Y24317. Shamanka 2 according to the Damgaard2018 study gave N1a-L666. The study of the Lokomotiv burial conducted by Maussa2016 turned out to be of poor quality and showed only haplogroup K. But the burials that this study examined on Shamanka 2 also showed only K. So obviously, a re-examination of the Lokomotiv burial site will reveal deeper subclades of haplogroup N1a. All three of these burial Lokimotiv, Shamanka 2 and Fofonovo belong to the same culture Kitoy. A characteristic feature of this culture is the widespread use of jade. What is interesting is that jade is widely used in the graves of the Seymo-Turbino culture, in which haplogroup N1a is also found.
ReplyDelete@Zardos
ReplyDeleteYes, very interested to see if any of those Avar/Hun period R1a-Z94s were Sarmatian remnants or something else.
What clade of N did the Botai guy belong to? Botai had some N but I would put my money on it being mostly R1b though. I wonder if there's some weird Q or R2 there too.
ReplyDeleteOn the origin of the ethnonym «Slavs” S. Nazin, 2018.
ReplyDeleteAbstract
The paper examines emergence of the ethnonym «Slavs» (Slověne). The name «Slavs» originated in the Danubian provinces of the Roman Empire shortly before the «crisis of the 3rd century» as a self-name of the un-Romanized populace, which spoke a common language that developed from Pannonian under heavy influence of Latin. In the 6th – 8th centuries the Danubian name «Slavs» and their «tribal» language spread to the peripheral proto-Slavic population north of the Carpathians (to the Wends in the 1st – 3rd centuries and to the Antes in the 4th – 6th centuries).
In Russian: http://histformat.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/2018-1-2.pdf
@Zardos
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to "hiding places" during troubled times, the usual suspect within modern day Romania is Transylvania. However it is very unlikely that there was a Latin speaking population in Transylvania in the 10-11th century.
There is multiple reason for this. Among them:
- the lack of Latin/Vlach toponym substrate, including even the lack of Vlach/Latin names for waters in the mountains.
- also the lack of Vlach/Latin personal names in any 11th century and early 12th century Hungarian administrative texts (that were otherwise written exclusively in Latin).
Note that Slavic personal names in the same texts and Slavic geographical names are abundant. Most of the population there was probably Slavic at the end of the 9th century, they were not limited to the plains.
BTW, the names of the antique Roman settlements were also completely forgotten, but that could be explained away with the mountain hiding.
This does not mean that Romanians have nothing to do with the Roman Dacia. Eutropius says: "'the province of Dacia, established by Trajan on the far side of the Danube, was evacuated and abandoned by Aurelianus after the devastation of Illyria and Moesia. The Romans were resettled from the towns and land of Dacia to the middle of Moesia, which he renamed Dacia. It separates the two Moesiae, and after standing on the left of the Danube, it now stands on the right'." (63. Eutropius, Breviarium... IX, 15.).
Combine this with the linguistic connection with Albanian and you have no choice but look at the Balkan mountains or the mountain regions W/SW of it as shelter in troubled times, rather than the Carpathians. (Unless we assume that Albanians also lived north of the Danube in early Medieval times, but we are getting pretty packed there then.)
@Rob
ReplyDelete@Samuel Andrews
Agreed. There seems to be a lot of diversity in the N branches of Neolithic Baikal and northern China. As far as I'm aware though the branch ancestrial to European N has not been found in either (N-F1419 on YFull TMRCA 10700ybp).
Also, the N5 that appears in Baikal is from the late Neolithic and has more west Eurasian ancestry than the early Neolithic N-L666 carrying BHGs.
Ultimately I don't think N5 or the European N branch spread from Neolithic China or Baikal even if N itself most likely originated in the region given its high diversity.
@Cy Tolliver
ReplyDeleteDid Romanians have much of literary tradition in the Middle Ages, and if so in what language? I know the liturgical language of the Orthodox Church in Romania was Old Church Slavonic, was that also the court language of the nobility as well?
Yes, it was, the transition from Church Slavonic to Romanian in administration happened during the 16th century in Walachia and Moldavia. Written literary tradition in Romanian also began in that century. In fact, there are no written texts in Romanian or mention of a Romanian (or Vlach or Walachian) language before the 16th century or at most the last decades of the 15th century.
https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=JzkWDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA352&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_language#Early_history
In fact, the Romanians/Vlachs are first explicitly mentioned north of the Danube in the second half of the 12th century. All earlier explicit references to them mention them south of the Danube.
The toponyms and archaeology also point to a late Romanian/Vlach arrival to what is now Romania north of the Danube (so excluding the small Dobruja part south of the Danube) and what is now Moldova.
The Romanian/Vlach language contains no clear early influence from the North Slavic and Hungarian languages, but has enormous early influence from the South Slavic languages.
The Roman rule in what is now Romania north of the Danube lasted a little more than 150 years and it was only in the western regions of what is now
Romania north of the Danube. After it ended, what is now Romania north of the Danube and what is now Moldova were occupied by first various East Germanic peoples and then by a long series of Turco-Mongolic peoples and also by early Hungarians within a duration of 1000 years. No briefly Romanized population is expected to preserve its already weak Roman culture in a territory that was invaded by all sorts barbarian nations for 1000 years.
Also note that the Second Bulgarian Empire is mentioned in the medieval records also as "Vlachia and Bulgaria."
These all bring us back to genetics. The Romanians/Vlachs are genetically like a mirror image of the Bulgarians. It seems that the Romanians/Vlachs formed during the second half of the 1st millennium south of the Danube in the genetic cocktail of the Romanized Balkaners, the Slavic invaders and the small Turkic Bulgar invaders, and some of them crossed the Danube and started to replace with minimal admixture the existing populations in what is now Romania north of the Danube and what is now Moldova beginning from the 12th century (or at most the 11th century). That region was already heavily nomadic back then, being inhabited for centuries by pastoral nomadic peoples, and the Romanians/Vlachs, also being pastoral nomads, would clash with the already existing pastoral nomadic peoples on the use of the pastures, fight and massacres were inevitable. This is all too human.
@zardos
ReplyDeleteSlavonic was still used in the administration of the state and church according to most sources and the full shift to Romanian happened only in the 13th century according to some.
Certainly it happened centuries later than that like I pointed out above.
@Valdimir
ReplyDeleteGenerally I think there are a lot of conjecture in your little essay on the topic of the origin of Slavs. But I would like to concentrate on a side point for now:
The attitude of "Turks" (as the Byzantines called Hungarians) to the "tats" is reflected in sayings Tutsis Turck bulmas, basses Burke bulmas "there is no Turk without a nanny, there is no cap without a head" (Turk.) and kasa nem etel, a tot nem ember "cereal is not food, he (i.e. the Slav) is not a man" (eng.).
1. What language is the first saying? I can't recognize it and google translate can't recognize it either. Also do not understand based on the supposed Engish translation what is the point you want to make with that one.
2. As for the second one, it is indeed a Hungarian saying, although I never heard it before, but just checked in a collection of sayings. BTW, kása does not really mean cereal, but that is not very relevant there. What is more relevant that this saying is probably nowhere near as old as the 10th century.
The origin of the Hungarian ethnonym tót (h) (mn. CH. tót (h)ok) "(Danube) Slavs" is most plausibly explained from the Turkic "tat", which nomads called the conquered agricultural population (Shusharin 1997: 262).
Or it is a variation of tauti/tauta/teuton, a generic IE ethnic name that was possibly picked up from the slavified remains of Pannonian Gepids. Regardless of where Hungarians picked up the word, the origin from a Trukic "tat" works much less sound-wise.
Also saying that the Hungarians recognized a specific subgroup with the naming is a conjecture. A simpler explanation that Hungarians used the other names for Slavic groups that had some kind of country and used the generic szláv and tót naming for Slavs that did not have a country (most notable the ones that were their subjects).
if N was so Far East what was between the steppe and Baikal and north of that?
ReplyDeletehttps://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/ancient-human-dna_41837#4/55.55/93.60
There doesn't seem to be much aDNA from that regions.
@Vladimir
ReplyDelete"the Seymo-Turbino culture, in which haplogroup N1a is also found."
You're doing the baseless throwing in again. Quick, it's where and when and by whom she was found.
Answer for what you're saying.
"On the origin of the ethnonym «Slavs” S. Nazin, 2018."
A freak who is despised by everyone, this man is disrespected and despised by everyone. He's just fooling everybody. He's just an uneducated profane, a legacy of decadence.
There's no need to reprint his meaningless sheets from fake statements.
Anthony Hanken said...
" Ultimately I don't think N5 or the European N branch spread from Neolithic China or Baikal even if N itself most likely originated in the region given its high diversity."
A contradictory statement, if something originated in one place and then spread to another, it means it spread from where it originated.
Of course, this is one of the hypotheses. I translated a small part of it. The work itself is very large in Russian. And this saying is probably in Turkish.
ReplyDeletetatsız Türk Bülent, başsız burk Bülent "tatsız Türk yok, başsız şapka yok" (Türkçe.)
After it ended, what is now Romania north of the Danube and what is now Moldova were occupied by first various East Germanic peoples and then by a long series of Turco-Mongolic peoples and also by early Hungarians within a duration of 1000 years.
ReplyDeleteI mean in addition to the already mentioned Slavic occupation there.
@Slumbery
ReplyDeleteThe attitude of "Turks" (as the Byzantines called Hungarians) to the "tats" is reflected in sayings Tutsis Turck bulmas, basses Burke bulmas "there is no Turk without a nanny, there is no cap without a head" (Turk.) and kasa nem etel, a tot nem ember "cereal is not food, he (i.e. the Slav) is not a man" (eng.).
1. What language is the first saying? I can't recognize it and google translate can't recognize it either. Also do not understand based on the supposed Engish translation what is the point you want to make with that one.
The first saying is indisputably Turkic. I can easily understand it from just my Turkish (the language of Turkey). In Turkish it would be: "Tatsız Türk olmaz (would be "bolmaz" in the earlier varieties of Turkish as still is in most other Turkic languages), başsız börk ("börk" is no longer used in Turkish, but in the past it was) olmaz." It means: "There is no Turk without a Tat (just as) there is no head without a hat." Tat means "non-Turk", especially used for Iranians, but can be applied to other non-Turks as well depending on the environment. The same exact saying is recorded as "Tatsız Türk bolmas, başsız börk bolmas" by Mahmud Kashgari in his Dīwān Lughāt al-Turk as a saying of the Central Asian Turks in reference to their relationship with their Iranian neighbors.
Or it is a variation of tauti/tauta/teuton, a generic IE ethnic name that was possibly picked up from the slavified remains of Pannonian Gepids. Regardless of where Hungarians picked up the word, the origin from a Trukic "tat" works much less sound-wise.
The Turkic etymology makes sense given the information above.
But in General, this version is interesting for several reasons. First, it corresponds to the chronicle of ancient sources. Secondly, this can be considered as the reason for the presence of Slavic admixture in the southern component. But if you look even deeper into history, you can find a parallel between these Pannonian Slavs and the Bastarnae.
ReplyDeleteThey appeared in the Eastern Balkans around 200 BCE, settling among the Thracians. By the time of the Roman conquest, they had already settled on the Middle Danube. The fact that the ancient authors did not know who they were by nationality is also an argument. They were called Getae, Celts, Germans, and Scythians. Just as the ancient authors did not know the nationality of the wends, referring from or to the Celts or to the Germans or to the Sarmatians.
@ Anthony
ReplyDeleteI think 1or 2 are
@Vladimir
ReplyDeleteOf course, this is one of the hypotheses. I translated a small part of it. The work itself is very large in Russian. And this saying is probably in Turkish.
tatsız Türk Bülent, başsız burk Bülent "tatsız Türk yok, başsız şapka yok" (Türkçe.)
I gave the true transliteration and translation in my above comment as a native Turkish speaker. You can check it out.
"There is no Turk without a Tat (just as) there is no head without a hat."
ReplyDeleteThe true translation is "there is no Turk without a Tat (just as) there is no hat without a head," sorry, accidentally switched the places of "hat" and "head" due to their similar spellings.
@ambron
ReplyDeleteI doubt Poland has been genetically static since the Bronze Age, since Welzin warriors aren’t genetically identical to Poles and medieval people seemed to be quite Western.
Gabriel, there is no indication that Poland has changed fundamentally genetically since the Bronze Age. Although there are no complete genomes from Poland itself, we can infer from its immediate surroundings. There are a few warriors from Welziny very similar to Western Poles, and the main group (12 samples) is located in the West Slavic cluster. An early Slavic sample from the Czech Republic is also located in the same place. There are also 3 samples from Lithuania from the Bronze Age which are grouped with Northeast Poles. Specifically from Poland (Kujawy) we have only one sample N47 that looks autosomal like today's Kashubian, but it comes from the Copper Age.
ReplyDelete@Onur: The South Slavic influences worked on Romanians much longer, especially from Bulgaria, but also from Serbia. The Slavs which were assimilated by the Vlachs were most likely, for the most part, local Carpathian Slavs with Bulgarians having slightly less Slavic probably and more Iranian-like ancestry in comparison to Romanians.
ReplyDeleteSo the Bulgarian influences are historically easy to explain, yet you don't know what kind of dialect the Slavs in Pannonia and the Carpathian region spoke.
But there are some studies on the issue and they read like that:
"R’s conclusion about the nature of Pannonian, based on the analyzed material, seems correct, and there is a high likelihood that Proto-Serbocroatian is a source for Pannonian loanwords."
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/187251
As for the archaeological record, if you look at the traditional Vlach shepherd life, its far more difficult to trace in my opinion. Ancient and modern DNA comparisons, with the reconstruction of migrations paths and shifts, are the only way to solve that in a satisfactory manner.
My current assumption is a South-North migration too, but along the Carpathians and not from a source South of the Danube of course.
The even distribution of about 1 percent East Asian ancestry in Romanians is remarkable. Wonder where this was coming from.
@Ambron,
ReplyDeleteThe Welzin warriors are in the G25 PCA.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/07/getting-most-out-of-global25_12.html
They are significantly different from modern Poles/West Slavs. These are the modern pops they cluster closest to.
Welzin_BA_Germany
Czechavg 0.045345179
Swedishavg 0.047498023
Polishavg 0.049088179
Hungarianavg 0.051546053
German 0.051547944
Their distance to Poles/Czech in 0.045-0.05. In comparison the distance between Ukrainians and Poles is 0.012 and between Ukrainians and Czech is 0.03. West Slavs are closer to East Slavs than they are to Welzin_BA.
Welzin_BA's basic ancient ancestry makeup does not match Poles.....25% Yamnaya, 40% East/Central hunter gatherer, 36% Anatolian farmer.
Poles on the other hand are 45-50% Yamnaya. Poles have signifcantly more "Yamnaya" and less hunter gatherer.
There is a direct relationship between Welzin_BA population and Slavs but no one knows what it is yet. What is clear, is West Slavs are mostly related to East Slavs, not to Welzin-BA.
Samuel Andrews said...
ReplyDelete"Welzin_BA_Germany"
Don't talk nonsense, there's no such cluster. There each sample is unique and it's simply forbidden to combine them, it's just a direct deception.
For the tenth time, I repeat that this is not a cluster, this is a set of different people from different clusters of different armies.
I counted them as D-statistics and modeled them, they're all very different.
Tollense Valley Bronze Age warriors were very close relatives of modern-day Slavs
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/10/tollense-valley-bronze-age-warriors.html
https://i.ibb.co/0Zsj4Gv/pca-Weltzin.png
https://i.ibb.co/HXV2WTY/pca-Weltzin2.png
https://preview.ibb.co/hfBH0m/PCA_WEZ_a.png
https://i.imgur.com/77XFCey.png
Samuel Andrews said...
ReplyDelete"Welzin_BA population"
Welzin_BA is not a population, there is no such population. It can be seen not only from their genomes, but also written in historical studies on the Battle of Tollenze.
I agree with Archi, this was an army, no people. The majority were regional tribals, but there were also foreign fighters, probably allies, mercenaries or simply retainers for a great hero or chief, which were gathered in previous campaigns. And even the regional tribals might have been from quite different ethnic groups.
ReplyDelete@zardos
ReplyDeleteThe South Slavic influences worked on Romanians much longer, especially from Bulgaria, but also from Serbia. The Slavs which were assimilated by the Vlachs were most likely, for the most part, local Carpathian Slavs with Bulgarians having slightly less Slavic probably and more Iranian-like ancestry in comparison to Romanians.
So the Bulgarian influences are historically easy to explain, yet you don't know what kind of dialect the Slavs in Pannonia and the Carpathian region spoke.
No mater how hard we try, we cannot find more Iranian-like ancestry in the Bulgarians than the Romanians/Vlachs, those peoples are genetically too similar to each other, there are no meaningful genetic differences.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uJMxG8YOFTzaVBk6BkEPq0lcVSBDCse5/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Iw5gILG31wKRn3fLc_RUaEqdSBAISh2l/view?usp=sharing
The Moldovans (Moldavians of Moldova) have a bit more steppe, but that can be explained by their living close to the North Slavs for centuries in their current geography.
Also, I did not mean to say that the South Slavic ancestry of the Romanians/Vlachs is only from the Bulgarians, the Serbs might have played a role there too even if less.
What is now Romania north of the Danube and Moldova was geographically a transition zone between the North Slavs and South Slavs, so any people living there since the Early Middle Ages should have cultural and genetic influence from the North Slavs too, not to mention the influences from the early Hungarians and the various Turco-Mongolic groups inhabiting those areas, but we do not see those in the Romanians/Vlachs living north of the Danube except the recent influences.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fMitr6Ko0Kz9ZRDQ_mcjal2hHNY2yF_I/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xc4eWr6hbIuTojmAZQTcGa2SoPHOCckr/view?usp=sharing
Note how the fits significantly decrease as we move towards the North Slavs, so these analyses actually do not capture the differences well and downplay them. A better analysis would be something like this:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9n4j3PQ81RcU0FkYXhLSl9UeVU/view?usp=sharing
But there are some studies on the issue and they read like that:
"R’s conclusion about the nature of Pannonian, based on the analyzed material, seems correct, and there is a high likelihood that Proto-Serbocroatian is a source for Pannonian loanwords."
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/187251
That article is about the Slavic substrate in Hungarian, not Romanian/Vlach, so irrelevant. Hungarian of course received its main Slavic influence from the Carpathian Basin and environs, no doubt about it. Genetically the Hungarians are transitional between the North Slavs and the South Slavs while the Romanians cluster with the southernmost South Slavs such as the Bulgarians.
As for the archaeological record, if you look at the traditional Vlach shepherd life, its far more difficult to trace in my opinion. Ancient and modern DNA comparisons, with the reconstruction of migrations paths and shifts, are the only way to solve that in a satisfactory manner.
My current assumption is a South-North migration too, but along the Carpathians and not from a source South of the Danube of course.
My scenario is currently better supported by genetics, history, archaeology, linguistics and the toponyms than yours. But of course the future ancient DNA tests will better clarify which scenario fits the reality more. I am open to all scenarios.
The even distribution of about 1 percent East Asian ancestry in Romanians is remarkable. Wonder where this was coming from.
The future ancient DNA tests will better clarify that too.
My view of Welzin clusters, their attribution and cultural affiliations. Everything is naturally very speculative.
ReplyDeletehttps://i.ibb.co/pKTKyyF/Tollense-Valley-warrirors-PCA-clus.png
1. Baltic / Eastern - either from the territory of the Baltic or some Sosnitsa/Lebedovsky.
2. Proto-Slavic - from the South-Eastern part of Lusatian culture.
3. Venedic (conditionally) - from the North-Western part of the Lusatian culture or maybe from the future Pomeranian culture. In the direct sense it has not survived, but part of it entered the Slavic (and may be Germanic) people.
4. Proto-Germanic - Nordic Bronze Age culture. Maybe not one cluster, but two different, second from another (Tumulus?) culture.
5. Proto-Celtic - from Tumulus / Urnfield Culture.
6. Proto-Italic - from the north-eastern Italy, the Alps, the Western Carpathians (proto-Urnfield Culture).
Sam, the f3 statistics show the greatest resemblance of Welzin to Poles. The distances in the G25 do not suit me either, because Tomenable has made their thermal map (I have it on my disk), on which the Poles are also the closest. I also have a Lucas correlation map (I think from K36), where the most similar to Welzin are Western Poles, Eastern Germans and Czechs.
ReplyDeleteNever mind ... The problem is what Archi says. We assume the average of the population, yet Welzin, Poland and Ukraine are characterized by a wide range of genetic variation. The eastern Pole cannot be distinguished from the western Ukrainian, which reduces the genetic distance between Poland and Ukraine. At the same time, a Western Pole may differ significantly genetically from an Eastern Pole. This difference is mainly created by the HG component, which is very elevated at eastern Poles, especially in the north.
The majority of the WelzinBA samples are very similar and clearly come from the same population. I put them together, made a population average, end of story.
ReplyDeleteArchi, we now have WelzinBA genomes. Look at their G25 coordinates, they clearlly come from the same population.
Ethnic groups make armies. WelzinBA guys come from the same ethnic group.
@Archi
ReplyDelete"A contradictory statement, if something originated in one place and then spread to another, it means it spread from where it originated."
Your reading comprehension is terrible. N may have originated in Upper-paleolithic China but some of its Neolithic subclades may not have.
@ Onur
ReplyDeleteYep; and generous amounts of J2 and E-V13
@ Mr J
I bet Dacians will be exceedingly I2 with some R1b; drop of J2 and G2
Probably autosomally rather “western”
Samuel Andrews said...
ReplyDelete" The majority of the WelzinBA samples are very similar and clearly come from the same population. I put them together, made a population average, end of story.
Archi, we now have WelzinBA genomes. Look at their G25 coordinates, they clearlly come from the same population.
Ethnic groups make armies. WelzinBA guys come from the same ethnic group."
You're just not writing the truth. You're just writing mistakes. And you ignore the evidence without bringing your own, all your claims are always unsubstantiated.
It's just a fact that archaeologically Tollense was on the border of two cultures with different genesis. So this battle categorically could not be a battle of one ethnicity, no one here has any doubts. Naturally, the armies there were from different cultures with different origins, but in fact there was even a border of three cultures. Naturally, archaeological artifacts show that there were even more people from different cultures.
ReplyDeleteIt is bad that this work on China does not have single-marker y aDNA results. But if you think about it, we can assume that the NO population entered China from the North, and the native populations of southern China are populations F*, M*, P*, K* and the southwestern (Tibetan) population D.
ReplyDelete@Onur: Even in your run the more South Eastern, Balkan-Anatolian shift of Bulgarians relative to Romanians is quite clear in a comparison. Like if you add an Iranian and Caucasian source instead of Tepecik. With Tepecik its still clear enough at least in this G25 sample. In other runs its even more obvious and even though the Bulgarians had the known Turkic influence, Romanians have on average both more Turkic and North Western influences too. That Romanians are therefore more Northern is the result of a more Northern shifted local population and a large portion of the Vlachs not coming from the very South.
ReplyDeleteTo get an impression of later Serbian influences, not just early ones, just check for the related surnames like Sirbu and Sirbulescu:
https://forebears.io/surnames/sirbu
https://forebears.io/surnames/sirbulescu
But we won't resolve this with new data and samples. This is a debate going on for hundreds of years...
"Vladimir said...
ReplyDeleteAncient DNA indicates human population shifts and admixture in northern and southern China"
The link to the paper from David Reich Lab is:
https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/sites/reich.hms.harvard.edu/files/inline-files/YangSciecne2020.pdf
Are Uralics from Liao?
ReplyDeleteI mean this conclusion from the article. Of course, in China there are both N and C, but it is unlikely that we are talking about them. This is probably a Neolithic settlement by haplogroup O.
ReplyDelete“Our genetic survey of Neolithic northern and southern East Asians shows population differentiation during the Early Neolithic to an extent not observed in present-day East Asians. In a craniometric analysis of ancient and present-day Asians, it has been proposed that a second layer of northern East Asian–related populations spread across East Asia around the Early Neolithic, replacing, at least in part, a first layer of pre-Neolithic hunter-gatherers (13, 30). Although we did not find evidence of a first layer population in coastal southern East Asia by 8400 years ago, we did observe increased northern influences in southern East Asia between the Early Neolithic and today. Thus, the argument for the spread of a second layer associated with northern East Asian ancestry is still an important model to explore in the context of East Asian prehistory.“
@Cpk
ReplyDeleteUralic(as a language family) probably are not from Liao and are later development, though language families that are showing similar traits to Uralic languages are present nearby(Japanese and Korean).
Comb Ceramic culture is from around Liao and M178(N1a1) and L666(N1a2) also seems to have originated around Liao, however common clade of N1 is widely present in China and even more to southern part of it, so N1(as common clade that would include all Uralics) most probably originated in southern China, so at this point it is really hard to name this as Uralic, if most of people with N are living in China.
Wasn't there an R1b guy in the mix here? Yet I don't see any information regarding this sample, other than the fact there were no matches on YHRD as per the paper. (No surprise really)
ReplyDeleteHow did the Hungarians become so aggressive such that we can refer to them as "conquerors"? Was it through contact with the Caucasian people or the militarization of east Asian pastoralists? It seems other Finno-Ugric clans are generally passive in comparison.
ReplyDelete@East Pole
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty sure most of western Europe and central Europe were speaking Indo-European dialects long before the Slavs.
@AWood
ReplyDelete“I'm pretty sure most of western Europe and central Europe were speaking Indo-European dialects long before the Slavs.”
Depends on how you define Slavs.
I link Slavs with Corded Ware, i.e. early Corded Ware used language we would probably understand.
Their noun inflection, verb conjugation, as reconstructed from Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic, were very similar to ours, plus hundreds of almost identical words we share with Indo-Iranians makes it very likely that we could communicate. Language intelligibility, even partial, defines ethnos. Plus similarity in culture, religion, genetics, etc.
Plus other things:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/Slavic_distribution_origin.png
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-kLtueODMsOk/XwBdy5dfCGI/AAAAAAAAI_U/89OWg6Bif-k2iU66O8zmc8vAskRu0n9ugCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Saag_2020_Fig_1.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/Wp68wCJW/CWC-Wave-Theory.jpg
@EastPole
ReplyDeleteOnly the spread was from west to east. And the Slavic, of course, had no influence on anyone.
"CWC-Wave-Theory.jpg"
This scheme is not confirmed at all, it has no scientific basis. I only wrote about the wave linguistic model.
@zardos
ReplyDeleteEven in your run the more South Eastern, Balkan-Anatolian shift of Bulgarians relative to Romanians is quite clear in a comparison. Like if you add an Iranian and Caucasian source instead of Tepecik. With Tepecik its still clear enough at least in this G25 sample. In other runs its even more obvious and even though the Bulgarians had the known Turkic influence, Romanians have on average both more Turkic and North Western influences too. That Romanians are therefore more Northern is the result of a more Northern shifted local population and a large portion of the Vlachs not coming from the very South.
To get an impression of later Serbian influences, not just early ones, just check for the related surnames like Sirbu and Sirbulescu:
https://forebears.io/surnames/sirbu
https://forebears.io/surnames/sirbulescu
But we won't resolve this with new data and samples. This is a debate going on for hundreds of years...
I am not engaged in any such debate, I am just saying what I think to be closer to the truth based on all the existing material. Do not think we had enough material to resolve the question of Romanian/Vlach origins 200 ago, but today we have much more, and with the increasing number of ancient genomes we will have even more in the near future.
As for the genetic differences of the Bulgarians and Romanians, you are making the mistake of relying on the Global25 Bulgarian average for the average Bulgarian genetics. There are only 5 individuals among the Bulgarians of Global25 and one of them is atypical and significantly Near Eastern-shifted than the rest pulling the Bulgarian average towards the Near East.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sH45YjKMhvhNO5UVkpXZ_Xc9eCT_B8kF/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/14QrASZuQxHUFhhJ2krCTNAotFGYJWnO_/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_IOuAqZi8xHv12eglU-VvwqQ2_sBwTyd/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qTnnEB2-3E5I5uaYVqp1shZxrhCIhthN/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1utLrDccRSVDkgAKQ0y421l-bVHVGRsYD/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-sNelE3XXVGT1ejKbd7NTneRqBAv-CEK/view?usp=sharing
Note that the Global25 Macedonians, due to not having an atypical and likely ethnically mixed individual among them like the one Global25 Bulgarian individual I mentioned, are on average less Near Eastern-shifted than the Global25 Bulgarians and cluster more closely with the Global25 Romanians than they do despite being a more southern population than the Bulgarians, which should ring a bell. Indeed, when you look at the analysis results from various studies you will see that the Bulgarians and Romanians are genetically effectively indistinguishable from each other:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9n4j3PQ81RcNGpTODFXQVhNWFk/view?usp=sharing
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-5a9999c74ffb08f75e2fd8cdd8ad5efe
https://s2.desu-usergeneratedcontent.xyz/his/image/1513/38/1513386057521.png
Do note that the Turkish and Greek samples in these studies are from the Anatolian Turks and Balkan Greeks respectively.
@ EastPole
ReplyDelete"I link Slavs with Corded Ware, i.e. early Corded Ware used language we would probably understand."
Of course not. The Corded ware language was PIE. We would not understand him.
"CWC-Wave-Theory.jpg"
I've already written that this construction is completely wrong. I have already written that the Slavs in any case from the west, the Trzciniec culture appeared in the west and spread to the east, and then from its western part appeared the Lusatian culture. In the east any Slavs could not be, there was non-Slavic Fatyanov's culture R1a-Z93, and in Belorussia there were not corded cultures which had no relation to Indo-Europeans.
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/Slavic_distribution_origin.png"
Not the Slavs lived in the Chernoles and Komarov cultures.
scy009 Ukraine Starosillya 770 - 415 BCE XY J2b1a6 R1b1a1a2 R-P312
Do not think we had enough material to resolve the question of Romanian/Vlach origins 200 ago
ReplyDeleteDo not think we had enough material to resolve the question of Romanian/Vlach origins 200 years ago
@ East Pole
ReplyDeleteLove you trolling hehe :DDDD
I think it’s clear to everyone, expect a couple of Poets, that CWC is only a late, boreal branch of Indo-European
ReplyDelete@AWood
ReplyDelete"How did the Hungarians become so aggressive such that we can refer to them as "conquerors"? Was it through contact with the Caucasian people or the militarization of east Asian pastoralists? It seems other Finno-Ugric clans are generally passive in comparison."
Hungarians had extensive contacts with various steppe groups and spread via the steppe unlike other Uralic groups. This migration is also well attested to in the historical record.
Unless you belive in the "continuation theory" early Uralics probably weren't passive either. S-T engaged in an aggressive expansion westward and the Netted Ware tribes of the IA are described as well armed and commonly used hill forts. The idea that Uralics were HGs native to Europe and pushed to their current location by IE expansion is looking more and more infeasible.
Who did they actually conquer ? It remains to see who was left in the carpathian basin after charlemagne routed the last Avars
ReplyDeleteObviously the western area was habited; but the rest needs some modern archaeological attention.
@AWood
ReplyDelete"How did the Hungarians become so aggressive such that we can refer to them as "conquerors"? Was it through contact with the Caucasian people or the militarization of east Asian pastoralists? It seems other Finno-Ugric clans are generally passive in comparison."
By the time of the Hungarian conquests, there were plenty of "aggressive" (in the sense of military expansions or assaults like you use) Uralic-speaking groups, the agriculturalist Finnic peoples being the foremost among them, they took part in the "Viking" phenomenon and played a fundamental role in the Rus' Khaganate. Peaceful Finn is a myth that only belongs to the fantasy genre, not real history.
On the other hand, it is true that the Uralic peoples tend to be less "aggressive" as you move towards Siberia or the Arctic, which brings to my mind traditional Uralic songs like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZTEO9gaBrc
@ Onur Dincer
Delete"By the time of the Hungarian conquests, there were plenty of "aggressive" Uralic-speaking groups"
As an example, name some.
"played a fundamental role in the Rus' Khaganate"
It would be great if you could provide some facts, including archaeological ones, about their fundamental role.
@Rob,
ReplyDeleteYes, and to be exact Corded Ware is the source of most Indo European languages. This is big discovery which has gone unnoticed. All Indo European experts should take notice of it. I know you probably don't think this is the case.
Anyways, this may not defeat the idea Yamnaya is main source of Indo European considering Corded Ware may come from Yamnaya. And that Western Yamnaya may be source of Illyrian language .
ReplyDeleteSamuel
Yes, and to be exact Corded Ware is the source of most Indo European languages
Definitly not true. The exact source of all the indoeuropean languages is the culture that yelds PIE which of course is not Corded Ware.
Corded Ware does not come out of the blu.
It was just the main vector of IE west of the former Soviet Union.
Considering now that Fatyanovo is not from Corded Ware but we now know that it came from somewhere around the westernmost part of the steppe it is now parsomonius to say that this culture ( likely Usatovo or Budzhak) is the source aldo of the western branch of CWC.
the steps are these
Neolithic Ukraine ( including westernmost Russia) early PIE ( from Dneper to Don)
Sredni Stog PIE
Usatovo LPIE
@old europe
ReplyDeleteFatyanovo is just eastern Corded Ware.
ReplyDeleteFatyanovo is just eastern Corded Ware.
Agree but the new data say that the eastern branch of Corded Ware is not a product of a reflux from the western CW but indicate that in the western steppe there was a population that was Sintashta/ Andronovo like alredy during Yamnaya. This was a surprise even to me. I thought that Indo aryan came from Germany or Poland but now we know that it was different.
To sum up western and eastern CW are from a post stog development in the north west black sea region. That is the basically definition of Usatovo.
@Archi
ReplyDelete„Of course not. The Corded ware language was PIE. We would not understand him.”
What is PIE language? It is a reconstructed language that never existed. Look at all those computer simulations which locate PIE in Anatolia or South Caucasus. People who don’t know languages but play with rules and laws create artificial languages. People who really know languages and can show the origin of words and fully explain their etymology, show that PIE reconstructions based on laws and rules are wrong and pseudo-scientific.
The problem is with the archaic nature of Slavic languages. Many people think CWC was Balto-Slavic.
Carlos Quiles explains the archaic character of Balto-Slavic languages, which he thinks were spoken in CWC, by Uralic substratum of CWC.
There is a linguistic theory that explains the archaic character of Balto-Slavic languages by conserving influence of a Uralic substratum:
“Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics” by Sarah Grey Thomason & Terrence Kaufman
https://books.google.es/books?id=8a0wDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=pl&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
“Similarly, interference through shift in particular may even be responsible sometimes for lack of change. This means that, since retention as well as innovation may be externally motivated, the presence of inherited features is not always adequately explained once one determines their genetic origin. For example, the elaborate systems of noun inflection in most Balto-Slavic languages resemble reconstructed proto-Indo-European noun inflection (or, at least, one common reconstruction which rests heavily on the evidence of Indo-Iranian) in a number of striking ways. The possibility should at least be considered that the Balto-Slavic case systems were retained under the conserving influence of a Uralic substratum, because the relevant Uralic languages have some of the most elaborate case systems in the world “
But
“Uralic influence on northern Russian dialects and on Latvian is, as far as we know, generally accepted. The most controversial claims are those made for Uralic influence on Slavic as a whole, since such interference would have to have occurred at a period before the final breakup of Common Slavic and thus before we have direct evidence of intensive Slavic-Uralic contacts. One common objection to any such hypothesis is that Slavic has no old Uralic loanwords, so that there cannot have been any other early interference from Uralic in Slavic either.”
There is no trace of Uralic influence in West Slavic languages which are the most archaic Slavic languages. And also as we know now, there is no N Y-DNA among West Slavs.
Archaic nature of Slavic languages can be explained more simply: Many linguists believe that Slavs never left PIE homeland and this explains why proto-Slavic language changed little and also this and what I wrote above is why I believe it was close to CWC language.
It will be mind blowing to see when, we have the data, that early R1b L51 and R1a Z93 carriers were genetically identical and both apart of Corded Ware. They were basically the same people.
ReplyDeleteWhich means, this is crazy, that early Romans and Scythians shared significant amount of recent common ancestry (from Corded Ware).
@Old europe,
ReplyDelete"Agree but the new data say that the eastern branch of Corded Ware is not a product of a reflux from the western CW but indicate that in the western steppe there was a population that was Sintashta/ Andronovo like alredy during Yamnaya."
This was a guess made by the authors. They have no evidence for it.
What Andronovo's DNA shows is their farmer ancestry came from Globular Amphora. So it is impossible that a population like Andronovo/Fatyanovo existed in the Yamnaya period.
Fatyanovo comes from Central European Corded Ware, who had Globular Amphora admixture, and who migrated east into Northern Russia.
And, Bell Beaker on the other hand, also comes from Central European Corded Ware who had Globular Amphora admixture who instead migrated west into Northwest Europe.
ReplyDelete@old europe
ReplyDelete"Definitly not true."
Definitly true.
"Considering now that Fatyanovo is not from Corded Ware"
Definitly not true. Fatyanovo is Corded Ware, part of CWC and from the west, from Central Europe.
https://i.ibb.co/FmqRxs9/Central-CWC-to-Fatyanovo.png
All Indo-European languages from CWC, possibly excluding the two Hittito-Luwian and Tocharian.
The following groups of division of IE can be presented
1. Outside CWC -> Hittito-Luwian and Tocharian
2. Pure CWC -> Satem group -> Slavic, Baltic, Thracian/Albanian, Indo-Iranian, Armenian.
3. CWC + BBC -> Centum group -> Germanic, Italic, Celtic, Lusitanic, Illiric (https://i.ibb.co/ysMC0zL/Centum-IEgroups.png).
4. CWC (+BBC?)+Catacomb -> Greek, Phrigian.
ReplyDeletesamuel
you do not understand the dynamic
enriched WHG EEF ancestry ( Globular amphora like) was alredy present in the steppe much before the genesis of CW ( Yamnaya has GAC farmers ancestry too)
so it was not picked up in northern europe.
You need to update
Fatyanovo is contemporary of western CWC how the hell can the former being from the latter.
It is obvious that both eastern and western CWC are from a third source in the western most steppe.
ReplyDeletejust to go to the basics ( quote from the paper)
the Fatyanovo Culture individuals were genetically similar to other Corded Ware cultures, carrying a mixture of Steppe and European early farmer ancestry and thus likely originating from a fast migration towards the northeast from somewhere in the vicinity of modern-day Ukraine, which is the closest area where these ancestries coexisted from around 3,000 BC.
Get it Samuel. Fast migration towards the northeast from Ukraine ( obviously they refer to its westernmost part)-
How the hell a western CWC population could migrate from Poland where they have 10% of EEF and end up around Moscow having double digit farmer ancestry.
How the hell this is possible?
@old europe
ReplyDelete"Agree but the new data say that the eastern branch of Corded Ware is not a product of a reflux from the western CW but indicate that in the western steppe there was a population that was Sintashta/ Andronovo like alredy during Yamnaya. This was a surprise even to me. I thought that Indo aryan came from Germany or Poland but now we know that it was different."
All to the contrary This is a completely categorical error. You have made a categorical mistake. The text says exactly the opposite. We know for sure that Fatyanovo is from Central Europe, they are not local and do not continue the local population, this is firmly shown by their autosomal data. The new data unequivocally proves it and does not allow any other interpretation.
@EastPole
"What is PIE language? It is a reconstructed language that never existed"
This is categorically not the case. It is as reconstructed and never existed as reconstructed Proto-Slavic language, common for all Slavs.
"Many people think CWC was Balto-Slavic."
There is no such. It's just uneducated amateurs who don't understand anything at all, they just make it up.
" Carlos Quiles explains the archaic character of Balto-Slavic languages, which he thinks were spoken in CWC, by Uralic substratum of CWC.
There is a linguistic theory that explains the archaic character of Balto-Slavic languages by conserving influence of a Uralic substratum"
It's crazy crazy. There are no such theories, there is only the theory concerning origin of Baltic languages under the influence of the coming Finno-Ugric superstratum. Slavic has nothing to do with it at all.
Samuel Andrews said...
"And, Bell Beaker on the other hand, also comes from Central European Corded Ware"
It's not happening, it's a mistaken belief.
Correction- well there is some post-Srubnaja in Bulgaria; and the latter is “eastern CWC” ...
ReplyDeleteanyway; all these old conventions will need revision soon
@old europe,
ReplyDeleteNo, there's no evidence that WHG rich farmer populations lived in Southeast Europe or Ukraine in 4000-3000 BC.
Farmers in Southeast Europe had small amounts of WHG ancestry. Chalcolithic people in Bulgaria and Romania had only a little hunter gatherer ancestry than Neolithic farmers from two thousand years earlier.
I'm sure, Tryipole admixed with Ukraine hunter gatherers. But, Andronovo's farmer ancestry isn't admxied with Ukraine hunter gatherers, it has WHG hunter gatherer ancestry.
@old europe,
ReplyDeleteGlobular AMphora had about 50% West European farmer ancestry
West European farmer mtDNA exists in Andronovo, which is evidence they have Globular AMphora ancestry.
mtDNA J1c1b, K1b1a1, H3 are found in Andronovo or its relatives. None have been found in hundreds of mtDNA samples from Neolithic Hungary (who came from the Balkans).
ReplyDelete@ Sam
Not even Yamnaya is the ultimate source.
The earliest relevant dispersal is ~ 3800 BC, with Cernavoda cuture toward Balkans & Anatolia
This was then followed by & added to by the main Yamnaya - CWC expansion
Then of course there were further shifts within the steppe, central Asia & central Europe
But as O/E stated, their roots go back to Ukr N, DDII, etc
@oldeurope,
ReplyDeleteI don't believe we have any samples, showing WHG enriched farmers in Ukraine before Globular AMphora.
Ancient DNA, authors wrongly put all Late Neolithic European farmers in the same WHG-rich category. WHG ancestry varied by region. Italy and Southeast Europe had low levels of WHG. The farmers who lived near the Steppe came from Southeast Europe.
I believe our Tripolye samples have Ukraine hunter gatherer ancestry. However, Andronovo's farmer ancestry has WHG admix not UkraineHG admix. Also, Andornovo has West European farmer affinities in G25 PCA.
In recent times I think that the Hittit-Luwians originate from what is called post-corded culture. The fact is, they have one of the three Indo-European traits.
ReplyDelete1. Corded ware are absent in Anatolia, as they are absent in post-corded cultures. But there are in the Balkans.
2. There are no barrows in Anatolia, although the texts mention them. But there are in the Balkans. The Hittito-Luwians use the cremation rite, which is characteristic of the after corded Indo-European cultures.
3. The battle axes in Troy (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/58/Axes,_found_in_Troy_II.jpg/220px-Axes,_found_in_Troy_II.jpg) are and are widely represented, they do not differ from CWC (https://www.guideservicedanmark.dk/fil.asp?id=1973&kode=a9dxBRzqpr&imageResize=1&size=450x300&forceResize=1) and Sintashta (https://arheologija.ru/wp-content/uploads/pozdniy-bronzovyiy-vek-7.jpg), only the material is different.
4. Wagons, horses and towns similar to Sintasta are all there.
Yes, of course, Yamnaya was not the ultimate. I didn't say they were. The ultimate source, the real Proto-Indo Europeans, I believe were a CHG-rich population in Southwest Russia around 5000 BC.
ReplyDeleteI understand you think Proto-Indo European comes from Western Ukraine, from hunter gatherers hevily influenced by Neolithic farmers.
IMO, this doesn't work because the CHG signal is what distinguished early Indo Europeans from other populations in Eastern Europe. This came from a population who lived near the Caucasus, hence that's the place to look to find the pre-Proto-Indo Europeans. Western Ukraine isn't where to look.
Yes there are Corded ware pottery & Battle axes in Balkans. But that's a very different thing to 'the Corded Ware culture' which expanded in central-northern Europe
ReplyDeleteANyhow, the earliest steppe people - Suvorovo disappeared with Varna
Cernavoda started it all
Indo European languages in Southeast Europe and Anatolia, don't come from Corded Ware. However most other do.
ReplyDeleteCorded Ware being the main dispenser of Indo European languages makes sense considering took over a huge area of land in the heart of Europe. People wonder why almost all languages in Europe are Indo European, well Corded Ware looks like a good answer to that question.
I want to remind everyone, I have a hard time not being a jerk when I dis agree with people. This is a cool historical topic we're all trying to learn about, I have no hard feelings towards people I dis agree with.
ReplyDelete@Onur: You are right, Bulgarian H2 is sticking out. I would do a slightly different comparison, but he has the lowest Yamnaya and the highest Iranian component, so he is a clear outlier which can pull such a small sample.
ReplyDelete@ Sam
ReplyDelete''IMO, this doesn't work because the CHG signal is what distinguished early Indo Europeans from other populations in Eastern Europe. This came from a population who lived near the Caucasus, hence that's the place to look to find the pre-Proto-Indo Europeans. Western Ukraine isn't where to look.''
Yes, CHG/EHG developed in SW Russia, but PIE did not
What you're looking at is just a statistical pattern, not the historic reality
You should probably take another look at the Y-DNA in Progress _Eneolithic as a simple way to test your hypothesis
Its called causation v association, or causation vs correlation
https://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/a3121120.nsf/home/statistical+language+-+correlation+and+causation#:~:text=A%20correlation%20between%20variables%2C%20however,relationship%20between%20the%20two%20events.
"Yes, of course, Yamnaya was not the ultimate. I didn't say they were. The ultimate source, the real Proto-Indo Europeans, I believe were a CHG-rich population in Southwest Russia around 5000 BC."
ReplyDeleteAgree with samuel here. However where he is mistaken is that steppe_en and yamnaya are not merely chg rich but also iran_n rich along with traces of wshg and anatolia_n. So the ultimate population goes one-step prior to steppe_en.
@ vaSisTHa
ReplyDeleteSorry bud.
Progress donated a whole lot of autosomal ancestry to formative PIE. Iran N, not much
@vAsiSTha
ReplyDeleteThat's very funny.
You'll soon have a hell of a time explaining why those Eneolithic samples from east of Khvalynsk have less "Iran_N" ancestry than those from Khvalynsk.
And also why those Eneolithic samples from around the Don have even more "Iran_N" ancestry than those from Khvalynsk.
So that'll be even funnier than your current mental gymnastics, and I'll be laughing my ass off at you for the next ten years.
@ Sam
ReplyDelete''I understand you think Proto-Indo European comes from Western Ukraine, from hunter gatherers hevily influenced by Neolithic farmers.''
Not so stringently. It's just that they were the link between EEF & the steppe.
Its also those specific guys who moved off first
But the process of PIE genesis amongst these disparate steppe commonuties was a complex phenomenon, which we cannot fully recover, but it probably encompassed a much wider zone up to the Caspian, etc
@Rob,
ReplyDeletePIE genesis need not be complex.
I'd agree with Rob regarding the likely complex origins of the PIE and also the multilingual steppe environment it likely originated in. But at this point I think we should also begin to discuss the origins of the Caucasian language families given the relatively high number of ancient genomes we have from the Pontic-Caspian steppe and the Caucasus, its southern neighbor. Which of those language families have steppe origins and which have local Caucasus or more southern origins for instance?
ReplyDelete@old europe
ReplyDeleteYou are quite right. The only argument of your opponents is the GAC in Sintashta and probably in Fatyanovo, when they publish full-genome data. This argument is very weak because since the Mesolithic in the area from Poland to Moscow lived people of the Svidersk culture, and this is WHG and I2a. So the population of Sintashta to get an admixture of WHG did not have to go from the don river to Germany, but it was enough from the Upper don to go North 300 kilometers to Smolensk and get to the area inhabited by WHG and I2a.
@ Samuel
ReplyDeleteI think it's too early to state that R1b-L51, R1a-Z93 were from the same place and shared the same history. The same could be said also about R1b-Z2103 and R1a-Z282.
The pattern is confused now, because, if it is sure to link R1a-Z93 and R1a-Z282 with IE expansion, the two R1b branches aren't yet.
The most important thing to close the case about R1b and IE expansion from the beginning, is to trace once for all the path of L51. If Bell Beaker culture originated from Single Grave Culture and this SGC originated from Corded Ware, then the case would be mostly closed. It only would remain how R1b-M269 entered Corded Ware or if it was part of Corded Ware Culture from the beginning.
@Vladmir
ReplyDeleteWhat makes you think the natives of South China would be y F*, K* and P*?
@ Sam
ReplyDeleteWell; your proposal is very difficult to sustain
People moved into SW Russia; they didt expand from there; and the lineages did not expand
It needn’t be too complex; and in fact it’s not
But it’s certainly more than Looking at colours . As I said; we need to go & learn demography; otherwise it’s just constant air swings
@Vladimir
ReplyDelete"You are quite right. The only argument of your opponents is the GAC in Sintashta and probably in Fatyanovo, when they publish full-genome data. This argument is very weak because since the Mesolithic in the area from Poland to Moscow lived people of the Svidersk culture, and this is WHG and I2a. So the population of Sintashta to get an admixture of WHG did not have to go from the don river to Germany, but it was enough from the Upper don to go North 300 kilometers to Smolensk and get to the area inhabited by WHG and I2a."
You are quite not right. Don't talk nonsense, it's not WHG, it's EEF (European Farmers). In CWC and Sintashte, the component is TRB rather than Polish GAC. So in archaeology. Fatyanovo's complete genomic data are published in the paper, and they are no different from Central CWC. I2a are not in Fatyanovo and Sintashta.
So all your distortions are impossible.
@ Sam
ReplyDelete“ PIE genesis need not be complex.”
And it’s not . R1a ; I2a2 were in Meso & Neolithic Ukraine .
Where exactly M269 was still to be seen, and also why CHGEHG diffused so much through the steppe , but given that autosomal ancestry can change within a few generations, it’s not that hard to explain.
So yeah the populations in Southwest Russia actually got replaced
It’s it’s kind of surprising you’re struggling with this so much
@rob
ReplyDelete"Sorry bud.
Progress donated a whole lot of autosomal ancestry to formative PIE. Iran N, not much"
I think you havent bothered to get into what constitutes the ancestry of progress & vonyuchka, and also the khvalynsk I0434 yhg Q outlier (davidski should change the name in G25, this one is different from the other 2). What makes you give such confident opinions is just the feelgoodness of the claim.
Target,Distance,GEO_CHG,Darkveti-Meshoko,Karelia_HG,Khvalynsk_En,Sarazm_En
RUS_Progress_En:PG2001,0.03251104,19.8,2.8,0.0,54.2,23.2
RUS_Progress_En:PG2004,0.03788846,12.6,0.0,2.8,61.2,23.4
RUS_Vonyuchka_En:VJ1001,0.03352390,22.0,0.6,3.8,46.6,27.0
Average,0.03464113,18.1,1.1,2.2,54.0,24.5
24.5% Sarazm_en in the 3 Steppe_en samples, as opposed to 18% CHG_Kotias.
And i assure you 1. Theres ~0 EHG in Sarazm, so the (oft repeated) accusations of it being a bad proxy dont hold 2. The distance between CHG and both sarazm_en is 15% on g25, so vahaduo is for sure not getting confused between the two. 3. Without sarazm, the avg distance shoots up from 3.4% to 4.65%, which is significantly worse.
qpAdm agrees. And btw if you check the nested qpAdm submodel without sarazm (in the linked result file), the model fails badly with p-value dropping from 0.41 to 1.67e-05.
left pops:
Steppe_Eneolithic
Georgia_Kotias.SG: 0.118 +- 0.037
Caucasus_Eneolithic: 0.124 +- 0.037
Russia_Khvalynsk_EN: 0.542 +- 0.018
Sarazm_EN: 0.216 +- 0.037
tailprob: 0.41
resultfile: https://pastebin.com/eU9a5q5t
@Rob
ReplyDelete"And it’s not . R1a ; I2a2 were in Neolithic Ukraine"
There was no R1a in Neolithic Ukraine.
PIE has nothing to do with Neolithic Ukraine at all. Autosomatically, Neolithic Ukraine has nothing to do with the PIE and WSH. I2a2 has nothing to do with the PIE and WSH.
@vAsiSTha
ReplyDeleteSarazm_EN was after Piedmont_Eneolithic (---Steppe_Eneolithic---) (500-800 years).
Maykop could influence to Sarazm.
Archi is right! It is very unlikely that R-M417 sprung up in neolithic Ukraine. This seems to be a forager lineage that came either from the Middle-Don or from somewhere in the central Chenozen. But this is pure speculation.
ReplyDeleteThere was no genetic barrier between the Neolithic populations of what is now Ukraine and the Don region of Russia.
ReplyDeleteAnd there's definitely R1a in the Eneolithic samples from the Don region. These samples have varying levels of CHG-related ancestry, so they're not migrants from somewhere else but derived from the local Neolithic population.
It's the CHG-related ancestry that came from elsewhere, and it spread north of the Caucasus primarily via female mediated gene flow.
@ Archi
ReplyDelete''There was no R1a in Neolithic Ukraine.''
No there was no R1a in Siberia & Baikalia, contrary to your convolutions. On the other hand, it is highly likely that there was R1a in northern & Eastern Ukraine, it just got pushed out a little between 5000 & 4000 BC.
''PIE has nothing to do with Neolithic Ukraine at all. Autosomatically, Neolithic Ukraine has nothing to do with the PIE and WSH. I2a2 has nothing to do with the PIE and WSH.''
Well the fact is the oldest PIE are from Neolithic Ukraine, and yeah they took a lot of SW Russian wives.
@ Mike
''Archi is right!''
Archie cant even see the data which already exists, so his prophetic abilities are unlikely to be correct.
@Davidski
ReplyDelete"There was no genetic barrier between the Neolithic populations of what is now Ukraine and the Don region of Russia."
There was a genetic, anthropological, archeological barrier. The populations of the Don and the Dnieper in Neolithic were very different. But it changes even more strongly in Ukraine with the arrival of the Eneolithic, which has nothing to do with the Ukrainian Neolithic.
https://i.ibb.co/g9pfjgj/Genetic-bariers-Mathieson.jpg
@Rob
"IN reality, PIE has nothing to do with karelia, the Urals, or whatever whack theories you propose
Because they had too much sex with Women from SW Russia, after taking their lands
It is the original & oldest PIE. Again, it doesn't matter if it doesn't suit your hymns"
You can rest with your religious nonsense. I'm always right, you're always wrong that everyone knows. Everything you write is completely unproven and a cry of the pure inquisition.
"Archie cant even see the data which already exists, so his prophetic abilities are unlikely to be correct."
Everyone sees that you don't know any genetic data, you don't know haplogroups or autosomes. You know absolutely nothing about any of the topics you're writing in. You don't really know anything about genetics, you can't count anything, you know nothing about archaeology, languages or history. You proved it to everyone. I know everything that exists now and I've proven it many times. So you're just lying.
@Draft Dozen
ReplyDeleteAs an example, name some.
See the latest archaeogenetic and archaeological research on the Vikings.
It would be great if you could provide some facts, including archaeological ones, about their fundamental role.
Read up on the Chudes, Merya, Muromians, Russian history (including the medieval Russian chronicles), archaeology, toponyms and also Russian genetics.
@Archi
ReplyDeleteNo, there's no genetic barrier between the population of Neolithic Ukraine and the R1a-rich population of the Eneolithic Don region.
They're part of the same genetic cline and actually very similar.
@Davidski
ReplyDelete"No, there's no genetic barrier between the population of Neolithic Ukraine and the R1a-rich population of the Eneolithic Don region."
Proof.
I have evidence.
@Archi
ReplyDeleteIt's not my problem that you can't see the evidence yet. Maybe you should try a little harder to be better informed?
But anyway, you'll see this soon.
Davidski
ReplyDeleteMaybe you should try a little harder to be better informed?
Archi said...
I have evidence.
https://i.ibb.co/WkgKyvN/East-Europe-peoples.png
12 - Sredniy Stog
18-23 - Neolithic Ukraine
Davidsky is right when he says that there are no barriers between neolithic ukraine and the Don.By the way, In the Black Kalitva burial ground was found Ceramic of the donetsk culture.
ReplyDelete@ vASISTA
ReplyDeleteThose populations are not so relevant. Yamnaya/Afanasievo, CWC, Bell Beakers and populations derived from them (including even the typical Sintashta and Andronovo samples have almost no Iran N-like genetic contribution. Most of the people who carried the Indo-Iranian languages from the steppe to the sedentary southern territories came with no Iran N-like ancestry.
@ Archie
ReplyDelete'I know everything that exists. I'm always right ''
Oh, why didn;t you say so ? Now I get it
@ Vasistha
ReplyDeleteTo elaborate more fully, now that im not rushed . Unfortunately, it's going to be difficult to have convincing models with Sarazm_EN, because it's too late, although i understand you are using it as a proxy. But it's probably barking up the wrong tree. The Iran N.-related stuff came with Majkop etc.
The CHG in the Piedmont steppe & Khvalynsk is different. Its demographic basis probably lies in the trans-Caspian-Caucasian geometric microlith mesolithic traditions; and these populations began to diverge when those in the south became intertwined with the West Asian Neolithic; whilst those in the north with the Samara valley
Given that you're handy with qpADM, you should look into complex models incorporating continual migration, leap frogs, etc, as recently discussed in Harney et al (although first mentioned by yours truly)
The precipitous rise of CHG on the steppe is likely due to a multiplier effect caused by multiple founder effects, rather than a demographic or cultural avalanche. Simply put, the north Caucasus steppe region was barely populated ~ 5000 BC. If a band of 20 CHG rich people intertwine with a band of 20 EHG people, then you get the piedmont steppe group with ''a whopping 50% CHG''. These then became the preferred choice for 'outgroup' mating around the steppe from ~ 5000 BC, as the Sredni-Stog network went into full swing (perhaps because they were the key link to the Caucasus).
So Khvalynsk is just an associated phenomenon which gives clues to what was unfolding ~ 5-4000 BC, but themselves became marginalised as pastoralists took over their lands (that is, the R1b-Z2013 clan arguably from near the Don)
The archeology of the Dnieper and Don rivers is not just similar, but identical. The early Mesolithic is the Zimovniki culture. Late Mesolithic is a Donetsk Mesolithic culture. Neolithic on the Don is the Middle Don culture on the Dnieper is the Dnipro Donets culture. Both of these cultures belong to the community of Pricked ceramic ornamentation cultures. Then the circle of cultures Mariupol.
ReplyDelete@Archi
ReplyDeleteIn CWC and Sintashte, the component is TRB rather than Polish GAC.
I will definitely agree with you when R1A-M417 and R1b-M269 are found in TRB
@Jatt_Scythian
ReplyDeleteWhat makes you think the natives of South China would be y F*, K* and P*?
The presence of these haplogroups in the modern population of austronesia and the conclusion of the study that the pre-Neolithic population of China was displaced by the flow of genes from the North to the Islands.
Colleagues, genetics will of course not tell us where and when the first Indo-European words were spoken. Linguistics will not show us that either. Such inquiries do not make sense. It only makes sense to explain how it happened that today a substantial part of Europe and a large part of Asia speak Indo-European. And here all the clues lead to CWC.
ReplyDeleteI used the "ghost" feature from Genoplot to do the following.
ReplyDeleteAssuming that Progress is 50% CHG:
Target: RUS_Progress_En
Distance: 0.0000% / 0.00000000
50.0 GEO_CHG
50.0 Progress-CHG
Target: Progress-CHG
Distance: 9.9443% / 0.09944308
70.2 RUS_Karelia_HG
21.2 RUS_AfontovaGora3
8.6 Corded_Ware_Baltic_early
Distance to: Progress-CHG
0.10504325 RUS_Karelia_HG
0.11356098 RUS_Samara_HG
0.12373185 RUS_Sidelkino_HG
0.13237299 RUS_Khvalynsk_En
0.13327370 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o3
0.14627559 KAZ_Oy_Dzhaylau_MLBA_o
0.15486044 RUS_Srubnaya_MLBA_o
0.15689588 RUS_Sosonivoy_HG
0.15690633 KAZ_Mereke_MBA
0.15787306 RUS_AfontovaGora3
And now subtracting the "Progress-CHG" from Progress leaves you with this:
Target: Progress-EHG
Distance: 0.0000% / 0.00000000
100.0 GEO_CHG
However, simulating a sample with proportions similar to that of,
Target: Progress-CHG
Distance: 9.9443% / 0.09944308
70.2 RUS_Karelia_HG
21.2 RUS_AfontovaGora3
8.6 Corded_Ware_Baltic_early
and that subtracting that ghost from Progress will leave you with this:
Distance to: Progress-EHG2
0.09970810 GEO_CHG
0.12196746 TKM_Parkhai_LBA_o
0.13047122 RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En
0.13126166 TKM_Namazga_Tepe_En
0.13253324 Kura-Araxes_RUS_Velikent
0.13436606 TJK_Sarazm_En
0.13496834 TKM_Geoksyur_En
0.13563751 RUS_North_Caucasus_MBA
0.13689332 TKM_Parkhai_LBA
0.13692643 TKM_Parkhai_MBA
0.13743094 TKM_Sumbar_LBA
0.13850830 RUS_Maykop_Novosvobodnaya
Target: Progress-EHG2
Distance: 7.7724% / 0.07772399
57.2 GEO_CHG
22.4 TKM_Parkhai_MBA
20.4 RUS_Afanasievo
now to remove any samples that are too similar to "Rus_Afanasievo" from the source,
Target: Progress-EHG2
Distance: 8.2726% / 0.08272646
62.0 GEO_CHG
15.6 TKM_Parkhai_MBA
13.0 UKR_Sredny_Stog_En_o4
8.8 TJK_Sarazm_En
0.6 RUS_Srubnaya_MLBA_o
Is the method reliable in any ways?
Rob: If a band of 20 CHG rich people intertwine with a band of 20 EHG people, then you get the piedmont steppe group with ''a whopping 50% CHG''.
ReplyDeleteHmmm... Taken extremely literally, groups of 20 people on each side would be difficult with the genetics because that would imply huge founder effects that we don't really see. Particularly if 20 people is literally 20 people and not even 20 people of reproductive age. I'm not totally sure if a population from that few founders would be viable, but if it was you'd probably see huge founder effects like seen in Mesolithic Irish HGs (or more), like elevated short RoH, elevated Fst.
But if this is more just a random number for example and we're talking about sizes that could be in hundreds of reproducing adults that did not really have very strong genetic founder effects in the autosome relative to the source population, that is more viable.
In principle, we could also estimate the kind of population size that CHGs in the Caucasus must have been maintaining from the distribution of RoH. See https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342250265_A_dynastic_elite_in_monumental_Neolithic_society Fig 3 and Fig 5 and https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms9912 Fig 3. Satsurblia shows some possible excess of longer RoH, but the later Kotias sample does not, so you could probably work out that there was a large enough homogenously CHG-like population to support those sort of networks.
Some of the other discussion coming up recently in thread about presence or absence of low level contributions of WSHG / Anatolia / IranN related ancestries in Steppe_En (Piedmont_En) is interesting, but pretty skeptical we can really be clear about these things. All the methods at the moment still have question marks for detecting whether low level signals are real or not; projection issues and other biases in PCA, selected pleft and other statistical biases in qpAdm, etc.
@ambron
ReplyDeleteWell I predicted that now that both the northern caucasus and the middle Volga are fading away as the basic source of PIE and everything is pointing to a Ukraine Meso and Neo as the first PIE on genetic forums the mantra would shift to "the PIE question is irrilevant" . It is not irrilevant. It is the basic fact that some people do not like the outcome.
@CrM
ReplyDeleteI don't know how reliable your method is, but I would caution you to remove parkhai, geoksyur, namazga etc from your analysis as those have steppe_en components, and the affinity may be due to that.
Sarazm is a safe bet because it the easternmost and does not suffer from these problems as it has minimal ehg, so we know the affinity to steppe_en is not due to the ehg component.
@rob and @matt
The onus is actually on you guys to show that a population like you mention existed in the Caucasus which mimics sarazm like ancestry. Davidski also makes similar claims about a hidden population from the steppe/Caucasus contributing to progress/vonyuchka.
This fact is undeniable:
Progress/vonyuchka cannot be modeled as chg+ehg. the only way this model succeeds in qpAdm is if you remove iran_n from right pops, which we know is BS.
Another fact is also clear, progress/vonyuchka has immense affinity to sarazm pop. Eventually you will have to explain this affinity.
Let me also come to the Khvalynsk I0434 outlier. It is clearly an outlier if you plot it on PCA as well. This sample is one of the 5 yhg Qs from Khvalynsk as per anthony, coming from "rich graves". However one word of caution - this sample is low coverage, only 61k snps. Hence i do not emphasize this sample much.
ReplyDeleteBut i am quite perplexed as to why these yhg Q samples have not been published. given that I have 0 trust in Anthony - i can not rule out that they know whats in there, and its not comfortable for them.
Target: RUS_Khvalynsk_En_o:I0434
Distance: 2.8266% / 0.02826592
64.2 RUS_Khvalynsk_En
14.8 TJK_Sarazm_En
8.6 GEO_CHG
7.4 RUS_Tyumen_HG
5.0 RUS_Karelia_HG
@Rob
ReplyDelete“@ Sam
“ PIE genesis need not be complex.”
And it’s not.”
The proto-Indo-European problem is incredibly complex, so complex that it may be not solvable IMO. It may be a waste of time.
Place, time, culture, genetics, language, religion, etc... are not known and may never be known.
@ambron
“Colleagues, genetics will of course not tell us where and when the first Indo-European words were spoken. Linguistics ill not show us that either. Such inquiries do not make sense. It only makes sense to explain how it happened that today a substantial part of Europe and a large part of Asia speak Indo-European. And here all the clues lead to CWC.”
The Indo-Slavic problem need not be complex and it is not complex.
Place, time, culture, genetics, language, religion, etc... are known. It is CWC.
old europe, it's unreal. As the examples of the American Indians and the Australian Aborigines show, the language of a small homogeneous population after many millennia creates dozens of unrelated linguistic branches.
ReplyDelete@vAsiSTha
ReplyDeleteRemoved the samples that you mentioned plus heavy Steppe_en/EBA descended samples.
Target: Progress-EHG2
Distance: 8.3363% / 0.08336318
63.8 GEO_CHG
23.2 TJK_Sarazm_En
13.0 UKR_Sredny_Stog_En_o4
T thought I might as well remove Central Asian sources to see how far it will lead me.
Target: Progress-EHG2
Distance: 8.7020% / 0.08701979
70.6 GEO_CHG
13.8 UKR_Sredny_Stog_En_o4
11.0 IRN_Tepe_Hissar_C
3.0 IRN_Belt_Cave_Meso_low_res
1.6 KAZ_Kumsay_EBA
Target: Progress-EHG2
Distance: 8.7169% / 0.08716909
72.4 GEO_CHG
16.8 UKR_Sredny_Stog_En_o4
8.0 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
2.8 IRN_Belt_Cave_Meso_low_res
Vladimir wrote,
ReplyDelete"The presence of [Y-DNA haplogroups F*, K* and P*] in the modern population of austronesia and the conclusion of the study that the pre-Neolithic population of China was displaced by the flow of genes from the North to the Islands."
Most present-day speakers of Austronesian languages belong to various subclades of Y-DNA haplogroup O-M175, although members of various subclades of haplogroup C1b2a-M38 and K2b1-P399 are also common among speakers of Austronesian languages in Wallacea and eastward throughout Oceania.
How would you explain the present-day distribution of subclades of haplogroup O-M175 (whose TMRCA is greater than 30,000 ybp) under the assumption that members of haplogroup O-M175 have migrated "from the North" and displaced previous inhabitants (of South China, Mainland Southeast Asia, or both -- the details of your hypothesis are unclear to me) "to the Islands"?
Also, how would you explain the dearth of members of any subclade of haplogroup O-M175 (among both ancient specimens and present-day inhabitants) in regions north of the Yellow River basin (with the exception of present-day Northeast China, Korea, and Japan)?
@Vladimir
ReplyDelete"I will definitely agree with you when R1A-M417 and R1b-M269 are found in TRB"
It's a stupid statement. The GAC doesn't have R1a either. You don't understand what autosomal components and mtDNA are. You ignore absolutely every science.
@CrM
ReplyDelete"Target: Progress-EHG2
TJK_Sarazm_En
UKR_Sredny_Stog_En_o4
KAZ_Kumsay_EBA"
Completely erroneous models. They are impossible. Progress lived much earlier than these populations. You can't model your ancestor's sources with his descendants.
@Archi
ReplyDeleteI know, but those can be seen as proxies. Hence why I kept boiling it down to (after removing Sarazm and the like):
Target: Progress-EHG2
Distance: 8.7169% / 0.08716909
72.4 GEO_CHG
16.8 UKR_Sredny_Stog_En_o4
8.0 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
2.8 IRN_Belt_Cave_Meso_low_res
Removing Sredny Stog and some anachronistic
Target: Progress-EHG2
Distance: 8.9464% / 0.08946425
71.4 GEO_CHG
11.6 RUS_Khvalynsk_En
7.8 RUS_Maykop_Novosvobodnaya
7.2 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
2.0 IRN_Belt_Cave_Meso_low_res
Removing Maykop
Target: Progress-EHG2
Distance: 8.9867% / 0.08986725
75.6 GEO_CHG
12.2 RUS_Khvalynsk_En
9.0 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
1.4 IRN_Belt_Cave_Meso_low_res
1.0 RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En
0.8 RUS_Saltovo-Mayaki_low_res
Adding Sarazm:
Target: Progress-EHG2
Distance: 9.1928% / 0.09192777 | ADC: 1x
85.6 GEO_CHG
14.4 TJK_Sarazm_En
Replacing with GeoksiurN:
Target: Progress-EHG2
Distance: 9.4433% / 0.09443327 | ADC: 1x
89.2 GEO_CHG
10.8 TKM_Geoksyur_En
If you remove Geoksiur too then it will want Iran_N, but if you keep increasing ADC then it will end up like this:
Target: Progress-EHG2
Distance: 9.9708% / 0.09970810 | ADC: 1x
100.0 GEO_CHG
And if there really is something related to Iran_N in Progress:
ReplyDeleteTarget: RUS_Progress_En
Distance: 4.7197% / 0.04719671
38.2 GEO_CHG
30.8 RUS_Samara_HG
14.6 RUS_Karelia_HG
8.8 RUS_AfontovaGora3
7.6 IRN_Tepe_Abdul_Hosein_N
Subtracting it will create a Ghost that will provide a better fit for Yamnaya:
Target: Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
Distance: 3.1799% / 0.03179902
80.2 RUS_Progress_En
13.4 UKR_Meso
6.4 UKR_Globular_Amphora
Target: Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
Distance: 2.8649% / 0.02864935
83.4 Progress_Ghost
8.6 UKR_Meso
8.0 UKR_Globular_Amphora
The genetic structure of the Eneolithic groups from Progress-2 and Vonyuchka isn't very important.
ReplyDeleteThat's because they're only a clue about where Yamnaya and Corded Ware people got their CHG-related ancestry, rather than its source.
A hunter-fisher population with a lot of CHG-related ancestry already existed in the Don region and eastern Ukraine before the Progress-2/Vonyuchka people were alive, and it had nothing to do with any farmers from Iran or Sarazm in Tajikistan.
Davidski said...
ReplyDelete"A hunter-fisher population with a lot of CHG-related ancestry already existed in the Don region "
In that case, they could have nothing to do with Ukraine Neolithic.
Davidski said...
They're part of the same genetic cline and actually very similar.
July 19, 2020 at 4:29 PM
@Archi
ReplyDeleteA population similar to Ukraine_N, but slightly more eastern, existed in eastern Ukraine and in the Middle/Lower Don during the Neolithic.
At some point, this population acquired CHG-related ancestry, so that by the Eneolithic there was a population very similar to Yamnaya and early Corded Ware in that part of the steppe.
Davidski said...
ReplyDelete" A population similar to Ukraine_N, but slightly more eastern, existed in eastern Ukraine and in the Middle/Lower Don during the Neolithic.
At some point, this population acquired CHG-related ancestry, so that by the Eneolithic there was a population very similar to Yamnaya and early Corded Ware in that part of the steppe."
Ukraine_N is EHG+WHG. The steppe component (WSH) is not Ukraine_N + CHG. All data from all sciences say there is no clina. Therefore, I absolutely cannot agree with this opinion.