search this blog

Tuesday, September 29, 2020

Viking world open analysis and discussion thread


Global25 and Celtic vs Germanic coordinates for most of the samples from the recent Margaryan et al. Viking paper are now available HERE and HERE, respectively. Look for the VK2020 prefix.

Feel free to put them through their paces and let me know what you find. Below are a couple of examples of what can be done with these coordinates using Vahaduo Global25 Views.

See also...

Viking invasion at bioRxiv

Commoner or elite?

Who were the people of the Nordic Bronze Age?

313 comments:

1 – 200 of 313   Newer›   Newest»
Andour said...

Hi, David. Thanks for adding the Vikings to the G25 lists. I'd like to have your opinion on a question that has been nagging me ever since the Viking results became available.
At first, I took it for granted that the samples that plotted south were of mixed ancestry - the offspring of Scandinavian fathers and southern wives or captives.
But... some of the "southern" samples, like eg Funen VK314, plot so far south that I wonder where on the map their mothers could have come from.
Hence the question : were those southern people the outcome of "mixed marriages", or were they mercenaries hired during the course of long-distance expeditions? And... is there any way of knowing for sure?

Davidski said...

@Andour

Have a close look at their Y-haplogroup and/or mtDNA lineages.

Limiting the autosomal analysis to two-way models might also be useful. If such models produce sensible outcomes that are in line with the uniparental markers, then that's at least a good start.

Andour said...

Good idea(s)... Thanks.

weure said...

Great thanks!!! Interesting stuff!

ph2ter said...

@Andour
They could be Byzantine. The Varangian guard was an elite unit of the Byzantine Army from the tenth to the fourteenth century.

Ariel said...

could VK538 be a Byzantine or a mercenary?

Distance to: VK2020_ITA_Foggia_MA:VK538
0.01984135 Romanian
0.02058580 Bulgarian
0.02365298 Italian_Northeast
0.02412798 Macedonian
0.02630910 Serbian
0.02747256 Gagauz
0.02865534 Montenegrin
0.02996796 Italian_Veneto
0.03208541 Swiss_Italian
0.03219078 Italian_Trentino-Alto-Adige
0.03239295 Greek_Central_Macedonia

Ioannis Gavras said...

@ Andour

Probably Byzantine influence or slave trade.

Norfern-Ostrobothnian said...

I think VK519 might be a Permian. A Saami admixed Nordic doesn't really line up (1/3rd Norwegian vs 2/3rd Saami) but it clusters with the Komi and has pretty similar patterns in admixture. Could there be a way to confirm this?
Target: Komi
Distance: 3.3197% / 0.03319724
66.6 Saami
33.4 Norwegian

Target: VK2020_NOR_North_VA_o2:VK519
Distance: 3.7559% / 0.03755931
66.2 Saami

Distance to: VK2020_NOR_North_VA_o2:VK519
0.03433875 Komi
33.8 Norwegian

Michał said...

David, what is your opinion about the fact that the majority of the "Viking" samples with the so-called Slavic Y-DNA haplogroup R1a-M458, mostly with subclade CTS11962(>L1029) but also L260, look very Eastern European (I mean East Slavic-like or Baltic-like) regardless of whether they were found in Medieval Denmark (VK139), Sweden (VK438, VK452), Poland (VK212, VK494) or Russia (VK160). Don't you think that when aditionally supplemented with samples like Av2 from Early Medieval Hungary and RISE568 from Medieval Bohemia and when confronted with an apparent absence of Slavic-looking samples in pre-Medieval Poland (Wielbark culture), all these results strongly suggest that those Medieval samples is more or less how the Early Slavs (or Proto-Slavs) looked like autosomally when they expanded from their Proto-Slavic homeland, and if so, don't you think this strongly supports the Eastern European (or Dnieper-Pripyat) location for the Proto-Slavic homeland, exactly as it has been suggested by the vast majority of modern historians and archaeologists since at least a couple of decades?

Davidski said...

@Michał

I haven't really looked at these samples yet, so it's hard for me to comment about their potential origins.

You're probably right about the location of the Slavic homeland.

However, I think it's important to note that contextualizing ancient samples with modern populations can be problematic because it's anachronistic.

In this instance, we simply don't know yet where these sorts of seemingly very eastern peoples lived during the Viking Age.

Modern Poles might be more western than them possibly because we have very recent western ancestry.

weure said...

'However, I think it's important to note that contextualizing ancient samples with modern populations can be problematic because it's anachronistic.'


Yes but sometimes also very consistent....see the placing ('codename' Finn/ mom-dad) in the Viking/Germanic landscape:

https://www.mupload.nl/img/v2x73whn.00.32.png

Medini said...

I didn't see VK214 in the data. That is from a late Neolithic/early Bronze grave. Her MtDNA group is the same as my father's maternal line and her grave is in a part of Denmark not far from where his line can be traced at least back into the 1600s. Are there autosomal data for VK214?

Andour said...

@Ph2ter / G2a-M406

In case my post above (#1) wasn't clear enough... I was not referring to the Foggia samples, but to some samples which come out as 100% French Occitanie or Provence when run against Modern Averages - ie, areas which can't have changed much autosomally in the past thousand years. By Viking times, the Byzantine Roman genetic makeup must have pulled away quite perceptibly from French Occitania. So those "French Vikings" are unlikely to be "Scando-Byzantine hybrids". I'll try the methods David suggested above when I am done with the day's work. I'll see what happens. Anyway, thanks for your suggestions. They'll be duly taken into account.

Norfern-Ostrobothnian said...

I checked the y-DNA and mtDNA for VK519, and they were I1 and HV0a1 respectively, which are typical to the Saami. So it is probably just a more westerly Saami.

ambron said...

David, in the Polish context the most interesting is probably the Jutland sample from the Iron Age, grouping with Poles. It was the population of Jutland IA that was supposed to maintain a military garrison in Kowalewko from the Roman period.

Arza said...

Samples from Gotland are quite interesting. What on a standard PC1/PC2 West Eurasian PCA looks like a single cline is in fact two separated clusters (or rather a Germanic cluster and a Balto-Slavic cline), as you can see on this 3D PCA (X:PC1 / Y:PC2 / Z:PC6):

https://vahaduo.github.io/3d/g25/westeurasia

Image 1. Image 2. Image 3.

@ all

Are there any Gothic/Wielbark I1a3 among the Vikings (especially in their supposed homeland - Scandinavia) besides the Slavic-looking VK157 from Bodzia, Poland?

If not - why?

Anthony Hanken said...

@Norfern-Ostrobothnian

Maybe VK519 was a Bjarmian?

"Accordingly, many historians assume the terms beorm and bjarm to derive from the Uralic word perm, which refers to "travelling merchants" and represents the Old Permic culture.[5] However, some linguists consider this theory to be speculative".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bjarmaland

EastPole said...

@Davidski

“You're probably right about the location of the Slavic homeland.”


No, he is wrong. He does not understand the word Slavic. He lives in the XIX century.

Vistula-Dnieper-Pripyat was the homeland of Indo-Slavic tribes (CWC). Those Indo-Slavic tribes which moved east (R1a-Z93) became proto-Indo-Iranians. Those which stayed in the original Indo-Slavic homeland (R1a-Z283) became proto-Slavs and those which moved north proto-Balts.
It is all very simple now, genetics, linguistics, culture, religion support all of it and there is no way around it.

One very important thing to remember is that Slavs preserved Indo-Slavic religion, i.e. worshiped sun and fire and cremated their dead, to the very end. They were the last to abandon it, and they did it only partially because a lot of it was assimilated into Christianity.

ambron said...

Michał, the East European genome is characteristic of a significant area of Poland towards the north-east, showing a gradient towards the Baltic genome. These people could not arrive from Pripyat in the Middle Ages, because Mittnik inferences about the population flow between Poland and the Pribaltyka since the Bronze Age. Margaryan, on the other hand, inferences about the population flow between the south-eastern Baltic and Scandinavia since the Iron Age. So the East European genome certainly did not come to Sweden from Pripyat, because it was much closer - on the South-East Baltic.

Arch Hades said...

There is a Viking that clusters with Mesolithic Hunter Gatherers? whoa. Anyway, looks like they are almost entirely Northern-Central European like aside from 1 or 2 outliers. I remember reading some stupid news article the other day talking about how genetics is proving they were some "multicultural unit". I was pretty skeptical.

Davidski said...

@Medini

Are there autosomal data for VK214?

Coverage 0.131, damage 28.25! See here...

https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41586-020-2688-8/MediaObjects/41586_2020_2688_MOESM3_ESM.xlsx

Didn't make it into the Global25 with those stats.

Norfern-Ostrobothnian said...

Permians were have had close ties to Fennoscandia for thousands of years at this point, I wouldn't be surprised if Permians could be found in Fennoscandia. However this does seem like a typical albeit a little western Saami individual. VK518 however is more easternly.

Norfern-Ostrobothnian said...

That is a late Neolithic sample I would associate with the Slate culture (Skifferkulturen).
https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skifferkulturen

Davidski said...

@Arch Hades

There is a Viking that clusters with Mesolithic Hunter Gatherers?

VK2020_NOR_North_LN_HG:VK531

LN stands for Late Neolithic. If you're looking for Vikings, you need VA or EVA (Viking Age and Early Viking Age).

Norfern-Ostrobothnian said...

What do you think of this sample?

Ioannis Gavras said...

@ Norfern

What is this culture?Native HG?

Archi said...

@Arza

There are many clusters there.

Scandinavian:
Distance to: VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK479
0.01368124 Dutch
0.01378600 Norwegian
0.01512453 Icelandic
0.01525505 Swedish
0.01600441 Danish
Distance to: VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK469
0.01735797 Dutch
0.01765231 Swedish
0.01774137 Icelandic
0.01801811 Scottish
0.01841186 English_Cornwall
Distance to: VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK468
0.01386619 Danish
0.01466428 Dutch
0.01559164 English_Cornwall
0.01639635 English
0.01690040 Shetlandic
Distance to: VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK460
0.01640747 Icelandic
0.01671555 Swedish
0.01756341 Welsh
0.01780551 Danish
0.01788992 Norwegian
Distance to: VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK455
0.03061560 Icelandic
0.03086072 Norwegian
0.03215991 Irish
0.03260419 Dutch
0.03316062 Welsh
Distance to: VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK433
0.01675146 Danish
0.01780755 Swedish
0.01955065 Orcadian
0.01972575 German_East
0.02028028 Icelandic
Distance to: VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK430
0.02134940 Swedish
0.02397802 German
0.02474887 Czech
0.02582295 Dutch
0.02611919 Afrikaner
Distance to: VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK429
0.01505977 Dutch
0.01528782 Welsh
0.01567265 English
0.01610992 English_Cornwall
0.01678049 Scottish
Distance to: VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK428
0.01671066 Danish
0.01691243 Icelandic
0.01847566 Swedish
0.01851668 Shetlandic
0.01888712 Dutch
Distance to: VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK232
0.02192882 Icelandic
0.02226911 Scottish
0.02245195 English
0.02271779 English_Cornwall
0.02294943 Shetlandic
Distance to: VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK58
0.01467596 Dutch
0.01600675 Norwegian
0.01638231 Icelandic
0.01654634 Welsh
0.01658057 Swedish
Distance to: VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK50
0.01336564 Swedish
0.01717938 Danish
0.01735821 Icelandic
0.01854986 Dutch
0.01857782 Norwegian
Distance to: VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK48
0.01980161 Norwegian
0.02388022 Dutch
0.02438949 Icelandic
0.02510106 Irish
0.02516628 Welsh

Slavic:
Distance to: VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK440
0.02429790 Russian_Smolensk
0.02561955 Belarusian
0.02630171 Lithuanian_PZ
0.02714479 Lithuanian_VZ
0.02756203 Polish
Distance to: VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK454
0.01902962 Moldovan_o
0.02032437 Sorb_Niederlausitz
0.02052792 Slovakian
0.02149152 Ukrainian
0.02319463 Polish
Distance to: VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK457
0.02093736 Russian_Tver
0.02119933 Lithuanian_PA
0.02154533 Polish
0.02186601 Belarusian
0.02196596 Russian_Orel
Distance to: VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK473
0.01650191 Polish
0.01658931 German_East
0.01693802 Czech
0.01908789 Hungarian
0.01920138 Russian_Smolensk
Distance to: VK2020_DNK_Langeland_VA:VK274
0.01287362 German_East
0.01482687 Slovenian
0.01607391 Czech
0.01732468 Croatian
0.01757210 Hungarian
Distance to: VK2020_DNK_Funen_VA:VK139
0.01250023 Belarusian
0.01377513 Lithuanian_PA
0.01379742 Russian_Orel
0.01387090 Russian_Voronez
0.01399374 Lithuanian_VZ
Distance to: VK2020_SWE_Skara_VA:VK309
0.01572334 Polish
0.01700119 Ukrainian
0.01757527 Cossack_Ukrainian
0.01780893 Russian_Tver
0.01888899 Russian_Orel
Distance to: VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK64
0.01894844 Czech
0.02037033 German_East
0.02110672 Hungarian
0.02130937 Polish
0.02261383 Finnish
Distance to: VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK53
0.01525951 Polish
0.01617170 Slovenian
0.01749758 German_East
0.01790189 Ukrainian
0.01811647 Croatian
Distance to: VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK438
0.02245596 Cossack_Ukrainian
0.02257374 Lithuanian_VA
0.02292606 Lithuanian_PA
0.02327847 Russian_Orel
0.02329887 Lithuanian_VZ
Distance to: VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK463
0.02421383 Lithuanian_RA
0.02609314 Lithuanian_PA
0.02627112 Lithuanian_VA
0.02695827 Russian_Tver
0.02759978 Lithuanian_SZ
Distance to: VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK452
0.01503077 Estonian
0.01666702 Lithuanian_VZ
0.01671865 Russian_Tver
0.01749616 Russian_Smolensk
0.01791915 Lithuanian_PZ

Distance to: VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK476
0.02425629 Moldovan
0.02431109 Serbian
0.02462557 Croatian
0.02515730 Macedonian
0.02582139 Slovenian

Archi said...

continue

Baltic:
Distance to: VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK439
0.01793366 Latvian
0.01925133 Lithuanian_PZ
0.02050834 Lithuanian_SZ
0.02412757 Lithuanian_VZ
0.02424549 Lithuanian_VA
Distance to: VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK434
0.01976805 Lithuanian_PZ
0.02282613 Lithuanian_VZ
0.02408186 Latvian
0.02432739 Lithuanian_SZ
0.02565777 Lithuanian_RA
Distance to: VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK432
0.02365874 Latvian
0.02476247 Lithuanian_SZ
0.02558351 Lithuanian_PZ
0.02712795 Lithuanian_RA
0.02838672 Lithuanian_VA
Distance to: VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK472
0.02670955 Lithuanian_PZ
0.02747949 Lithuanian_VZ
0.02818996 Latvian
0.02834434 Belarusian
0.02876724 Lithuanian_PA
Distance to: VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK471
0.01701145 Lithuanian_RA
0.01822811 Lithuanian_VA
0.01863856 Estonian
0.01874466 Lithuanian_VZ
0.01882211 Lithuanian_PA
Distance to: VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK464
0.03188658 Lithuanian_PZ
0.03237112 Lithuanian_VZ
0.03414726 Belarusian
0.03465452 Latvian
0.03507249 Lithuanian_PA
Distance to: VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK462
0.03318710 Lithuanian_PZ
0.03335327 Russian_Smolensk
0.03489663 Russian_Pinega
0.03551139 Vepsian
0.03589077 Karelian
Distance to: VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK459
0.02919814 Lithuanian_RA
0.03118171 Lithuanian_PA
0.03130275 Lithuanian_SZ
0.03130399 Belarusian
0.03163155 Lithuanian_VZ
Distance to: VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK458
0.01877071 Lithuanian_RA
0.01938324 Latvian
0.01994984 Lithuanian_SZ
0.02156585 Lithuanian_VA
0.02238474 Lithuanian_PA
Distance to: VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK478
0.01542893 Lithuanian_PZ
0.01827753 Latvian
0.01933681 Lithuanian_VZ
0.02056585 Lithuanian_SZ
0.02215803 Estonian
Distance to: VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK475
0.01415521 Lithuanian_VA
0.01491986 Lithuanian_SZ
0.01580840 Lithuanian_RA
0.01599294 Latvian
0.01691027 Lithuanian_VZ
Distance to: VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK474
0.01714976 Lithuanian_PA
0.01812451 Lithuanian_VA
0.01884683 Russian_Tver
0.01999803 Lithuanian_RA
0.02021213 Cossack_Ukrainian
Distance to: VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK60
0.01619321 Estonian
0.01705397 Lithuanian_VA
0.01776283 Lithuanian_SZ
0.01786740 Latvian
0.01852101 Lithuanian_PZ


Finnish:
Distance to: VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA_o:VK56
0.01117309 Karelian
0.01211890 Vepsian
0.01308510 Russian_Pinega
0.01362345 Finnish_East
0.01388665 Ingrian
Distance to: VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK51
0.02253795 Finnish
0.02467667 Estonian
0.02511388 Ingrian
0.02520075 Russian_Smolensk
0.02567895 Finnish_East

Celtic & Britannic:
Distance to: VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK456
0.01412055 Orcadian
0.01484354 Irish
0.01551472 Scottish
0.01593137 Welsh
0.01600999 French_Brittany
Distance to: VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK63
0.02200537 Welsh
0.02250655 French_Brittany
0.02271185 English
0.02278885 Scottish
0.02280406 Irish

Distance to: VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK477
0.02153960 French_Pas-de-Calais
0.02174527 French_Paris
0.02190389 Italian_Aosta_Valley
0.02289857 Belgian
0.02385638 French_Nord
Distance to: VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK57
0.02068382 French_Pas-de-Calais
0.02712444 Swiss_French
0.02750382 Italian_Aosta_Valley
0.02810018 French_Provence
0.02838922 Belgian

Distance to: VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK450
0.01670561 English
0.01763560 English_Cornwall
0.01827560 Afrikaner
0.01872746 French_Nord
0.01892068 Belgian

Samuel Andrews said...

I look at distance of Viking samples to modern, Iron age, Bronze age pops. I think that' the best way to get a good idea where each individual was from.

So far I've looked at Viking sample from Denmark.

Most are Scandinavian. But, a large percentage are foreign. And a large majority of foreign individuals are from France.

But some are "North Slavic", some look Croatian or Hungarian, and only a few seem to be British. But British is so similar to Scandinavian, it is hard to distinguish.

Norfern-Ostrobothnian said...

Native HG seems to be the case, shares common origins with the Pitted Ware Culture I believe.

Rob said...

@ East Pole
It seems you don’t appreciate the aspect of time and dynamics in your now standardised expressions of outrage
Your postulates on Bronze Age aryans in EE have nothing to do with the expansion of proto-Slavic thousands of years later . Those lands had been long abandoned by indo-Iranians (~1200!BC).

Matt said...

Pastebin of a merge between sample meta data from Supplementary Table 1 and the G25 data for these new samples: https://pastebin.com/DLpY1B5t

In case anyone wishes to look at correlations between metadata aspects (y-dna, mtdna, etc) and the positions on G25.

Samuel Andrews said...

One of the things the Viking samples can do, is reveal substructure within Scandinavia which helps understand Germanic language origins.

For example, the Swedish Vikings from Estonia, are closest to Swedish Iron age (500 BC), Iron age outliers from Finland, and to Swedish Late Neolithic RISE 98 (2000 BC).

Which means some substructure in Scandinavia, pre-dates Germanic languages. Swedes have ancestry from a Bronze age populations which Norwegians do not have/have less ancestry from.

The Swedish Viking samples are a different population than the Iron age samples from Denmark, but both spoke Germanic languages.

Anthony Hanken said...

@Norderm-Ostrobothnian

"However this does seem like a typical albeit a little western Saami individual. VK518 however is more easternly."

Are you sure you don't have them mixed up? From what I've seen VK519 resembles Komi while VK518 is closer to Saami.

Ryan said...

Narashimhan et al is out and should kill any Out of India theory ideas if they weren't dead already btw.

https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/sites/reich.hms.harvard.edu/files/inline-files/eaat7487.full_.pdf

Davidski said...

@Ryan

Yeah, it came out last year, at the same time as this paper.

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/09/on-surprising-genetic-origins-of_5.html

But guess what, some of the co-authors on these papers have since been claiming that not only India is the Indo-European homeland, but that Sanskrit is ancestral to European Indo-European languages.

Haha.

Ryan said...

@David - Oops! I just saw it on Razib's blog and assumed it was new.

Also that hunter gatherer Viking sample is insane. That's like someone walking up to you on the street who only speaks Ancient Sumerian. Like, where the hell have you been for 4000 years? What pocket of hunter-gatherer subsistance survived half way through the Common Era?

Davidski said...

@Ryan

Have you been drinking today? Be honest.

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2020/09/viking-world-open-analysis-and.html?showComment=1601409901398#c553510334776638572

Ryan said...

@David - God damn it.

No, not drinking yet. Just burned out. Doing proposal writing for a new hospital in northern Canada.

Davidski said...

@Vahaduo

I've got a challenge for you, should you wish to accept it.

Can you add a plot of Northwestern Europe based on the Celtic vs Germanic PCA and the relevant new Viking samples that aligns with geography?

Archi said...

@Davidski

Why is VK542 missing?

Davidski said...

@Archi

I'm getting some weird results with this one. Seems to have a lot of damage.

VK2020_UKR_Chernigov_VA:VK542,0.114961,0.125926,0.059962,0.046189,0.029236,0.010319,0.00846,0.011307,-0.008181,-0.017859,0.001137,-0.004046,0.013677,0.026286,-0.012079,-0.003713,-0.01369,-0.004054,0.003142,0.00075,-0.004118,0.002349,0.007272,-0.003735,0.005389

VK2020_UKR_Chernigov_VA:VK542,0.0101,0.0124,0.0159,0.0143,0.0095,0.0037,0.0036,0.0049,-0.004,-0.0098,0.0007,-0.0027,0.0092,0.0191,-0.0089,-0.0028,-0.0105,-0.0032,0.0025,0.0006,-0.0033,0.0019,0.0059,-0.0031,0.0045

Gabriel said...

What would French-like individuals be doing in Scandinavia? Would they really be French?

Andour said...

@ Gabriel
re: French-like individuals in Scandinavia.
Well... VK146 hails from Central France autosomally, but his yDna is I-M6155, which is very restrictedly Scandinavian. So his mum must have been Andalucian!
On the other hand, VK286, also south central French, is R-S10708, below R-L20 < R-L2. So, probably a Frenchman who either sought employment with, or was hired as a mercenary by a Viking crew.
VK326 and VK335 are also below R-L2. VK329 and VK403 are below R-DF27.
So those French Vikings were not all of them of mixed ancestry.

Davidski said...

VK146 might be a Norman with minor autosomal Scandinavian ancestry from a few generations ago.

ambron said...

I see at least 3 Scandinavian samples with a Slavic haplogroup and a West Slavic genome. So Michał's precise plan will probably not work out.

ambron said...

Arza, have you tried to look at the sample labeled Jutland IA on the PCA? It seems to me that she is grouping with Poles.

Davidski said...

@ambron

Which Jutland IA sample are you talking about? There's only a Jutland VA female that clusters with Poles.

Are you sure that you're not confusing data points because the PCA is doubling up on symbols?

And I don't see anything controversial about East Slavic-like Vikings in Poland or Scandinavia, considering that the Varangians would've plausibly had a lot of East Slavic ancestry and they were very mobile.

This isn't very informative about the Proto-Slavic homeland either way.

vahaduo said...

@ Davidski

Challenge accepted!

Is such level of correlation with geography sufficient? ;)
https://i.postimg.cc/pPNfMwHX/NWeurope-Genes-Vs-Geography.png

Ancients will be projected only... just like everything else here actually. In the source tab there are only 3 points - averages of Celtic, Romance and Germanic clusters. PC1 - y-axis, PC2 - x-axis + mirrored.

I think that it will be best to select the ancient set automatically, basing on the distance to the nearest sample in the modern set.

If you want, I can add it to the g25views today or tomorrow.

Davidski said...

@vahaduo

Very nice.

Yes, please add it.

ambron said...

David, PCA graphics don't seem to show the full list of symbols. So this sample looks labeled Jutland IA, so I guess that's my mistake.

Agree that the Vikings will not tell us much about the Slavic homeland, because wandering was the content of their lives.

Have you confirmed Michał's opinion about the Slavic homeland seriously or just casually, because you do not want to discuss it?

Davidski said...

@ambron

I'm waiting for the relevant samples from Poland and surrounds before I discuss this topic in any detail here.

ambron said...

David, exactly! I say the same to my Polish friends.

Michales said...

Very doubtful that West Pomeranian sample from XI century is a Kievan Rus:)
The thing that such eastern autosmally person lived in NW corner of Poland in this time tells us a lot.

Target: VK2020_POL_Cedynia_VA:VK212
Distance: 2.1523% / 0.02152283 | ADC: 0.5x
91.0 Belarusian
8.4 Lithuanian_RA

Archi said...

@Davidski

"VK542 I'm getting some weird results with this one. Seems to have a lot of damage."

There is nothing strange about it. This is the most ancient Varangian Rurikid Gleb Svyatoslavich (I2a1 S17250 S20602; H5a2a) and he has no Scandinavian origin. He is a Slav, from 1/16 on the Scandinavian line from his grandmother Ingegerd, whose mother and grandmother were Slavs. Her grandmother, the Polish princess Sigrid Proud, was married to King Erik Segersäll of Sweden, son of Björn Erikson who was apparently married to a British woman. The mother of Gleb Svyatoslavich was a certain Kilikia or Kikilia, a half Slav from southern Europe.

Björn Erikson (~100% Scand. cond.(<Finn./Swed./Dane./Slav.)) - British women (~100% British)
|
Erik Segersäll (~50% Scand/50% British) - Sigrid Storråda (daughter of Meshoko I, ~100% Slavic)
|
Olof Skötkonung (~25% Scand/25% British/50% Slavic) - Estrid of the Obotrites (~100% Slavic)
|
Yaroslav the Wise (~100% Slavic) - Ingegerd Olofsdotter (~12.5% Scand/12.5% British/75% Slavic)
|
Sviatoslav II Yaroslavich (~6.25% Scand/6.25% British/87.5% Slavic) - Kilikia/Kikilia (~50% Slavic/50% South European)
|
Gleb Svyatoslavich (~3.125% Scand/3.125% British/68.75% Slavic/25% South European)


Characteristically, his percentages match perfectly with his pedigree.

Sample Museum_ID "UK""British-like""/""North Atlantic""" "Denmark""Danish-like""" "Sweden""Swedish-like""" "Norway""Norwegian-like""" "Poland
""Polish-like""" "Italy""Southern European-like""" "Finland""Finnish-like"""

VK542 Chernigov_ НАІЗЧС КН 188 0,023 0,004 0,004 0,001 0,711 0,246 0,01

vahaduo said...

@ Davidski

Northwest Europe PCA is already online:

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

Let me know if you want to add or remove any samples (e.g. Foggia at the bottom or that tail on the right). Ancients were filtered by distance (less than 0.045 to the nearest modern sample from this set).

ambron said...

Michales, such people have lived in West Pomerania since the Bronze Age - WEZ56.

ambron said...

Michales, quote from Lewandowska's paper:

"The lack of genetic continuity between the contemporary Polish population and the historical ones from Cedynia and Siedlce and the presence of appropriate haplogroups suggest the influence of distant populations on the composition of their gene pool, which is probably the result of earlier migrations related to trade or periods of war".

Samuel Andrews said...

Every Viking site has at least some French individuals. In sites from mainland Norway and Sweden, most foreign individuals are French.

Were they French slaves or French Vikings? My guess is they were slaves.

Archi said...

@Samuel Andrews

"Were they French slaves or French Vikings? My guess is they were slaves."

You have some poor knowledge of history, the Carolingian Empire was actively engaged in trade and wars. Merchants, including those from France, sailed everywhere there, and otherwise who could the Vikings rob?
The only source of silver in Europe at that time was Arab silver, which was brought from Persia along the eastern route; own silver was not mined in Europe at that time.

Ioannis Gavras said...

@ Samuel


What if they got Norman roots?

Dave the Slothtopus said...

@samuelandrews -- I'm not so sure: One of the most "French" samples is VK146, who I think is a St. Brice's Day Massacre (Oxford) victim: "The skeletons of 34 to 38 young men, all aged 16 to 25, were found during an excavation at St John's College, Oxford, in 2008.[2][3] Chemical analysis carried out in 2012 by Oxford University researchers suggests that the remains are Viking; older scars on the bones provide evidence that they were professional warriors. It is thought that they were stabbed repeatedly and then brutally slaughtered. Charring on the bones is consistent with historical records of the church burning (see above)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Brice%27s_Day_massacre

Dave the Slothtopus said...

Despite his presence at the edge of the Romance cluster on the NW Euro PCA, VK146 is I1a2a1a1d1a and mtDNA J1c3e1 and shows exactly 50% "Italy/Southern Europe" in the paper's calculations. Maybe he's the son of an already-mixed Viking father and a southern mother?

Dave the Slothtopus said...

VK146's YDNA, I1a2a1a1d1a is, I think, I-Z73 which (looking at SNP tracker, and I-Z73's descendants) looks completely Nordic and not very French at all.

MitchellSince1893 said...

@vahaduo

Will the Celtic vs Germanic PCA be a drop down menu choice at this site
https://vahaduo.github.io/g25views/#NorthEurope

or will new Celtic vs Germanic coordinates tom match geography be provided to use here?

https://vahaduo.github.io/custompca/

Gabriel said...

@Davidski

Is there any reason to believe some of the western ancestry is from medieval times, or is it all from East Germanics?

Samuel Andrews said...

When I model modern Scandinavians as mix between Viking pop averages and modern pops.

They score a lot of Scottish/British. But this is probably mostly an artifact of Scottish being very similar to Scandinavian in the first place.

Sweden scores 10% Baltic, 5% Finnish.

Simon_W said...

Quite appreciable Viking admixture there:

Target: French_Seine-Maritime
Distance: 2.0464% / 0.02046354

68.2 French_Nord
23.2 VK2020_DNK_Langeland_VA
5.4 VK2020_DNK_Jutland_VA
3.2 French_Pas-de-Calais

Simon_W said...

Very nice that there's at least one individual from IA Jutland. If there was a North European element being formative for the early West Germanics that came out of the North with the Jastorf culture, then it must have come from IA Jutland, not from Scandinavia.

Apparently, the Baiuvari didn't have a lot of this:

Target: DEU_MA
Distance: 3.4946% / 0.03494603

85.2 DEU_Halberstadt_LBA
14.8 VK2020_DNK_Jutland_IA

Target: DEU_MA
Distance: 2.5768% / 0.02576776

52.4 DEU_Halberstadt_LBA
33.2 CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany:DA111
14.4 VK2020_DNK_Jutland_IA

Simon_W said...

Although the Vikings from POL_Bodzia are closest to modern Poles, they may still have some Scandinavian admixture:

Target: VK2020_POL_Bodzia_VA
Distance: 2.1668% / 0.02166791

80.6 Polish
19.4 VK2020_SWE_Malmo_VA

Or with ancient samples only (it works even better):

Target: VK2020_POL_Bodzia_VA
Distance: 1.9078% / 0.01907838

50.8 HUN_Avar_Szolad
27.0 VK2020_SWE_Malmo_VA
21.4 Baltic_LTU_BA
0.8 CZE_Early_Slav

Samuel Andrews said...

Substructure in Viking samples which exists in modern Norway and Sweden.

Distance of Viking pops to other Viking pops and to modern Norway/Sweden.

Vikings_Early_Estoniaavg
Viking_Denmark_Langelandavg 0.012424065
Swedish 0.013567162
Viking_Denmark_Sealandavg 0.013989165
Viking_Norway_Southavg 0.018356218
Norweigan 0.021524501
Viking_Denmark_Jutlandavg 0.024614201

Viking_Denmark_Sealandavg
Viking_Denmark_Langelandavg 0.011248864
Vikings_Early_Estoniaavg 0.013989165
Viking_Sweden_Skaraavg 0.015386963
Viking_Denmark_Funenavg 0.015652482
Swedish 0.016284187
Viking_Norway_Southavg 0.01853975
Norweigan 0.019709123
Viking_Denmark_Jutlandavg 0.021359638

Viking_Norway_Southavg
Viking_Sweden_Skaraavg 0.010696361
Viking_Sweden_Olandavg 0.013763416
Viking_Denmark_Jutlandavg 0.014536696
Viking_Denmark_Funenavg 0.014988881
Norweigan 0.015066923
Viking_Denmark_Langelandavg 0.016657486
Vikings_Early_Estoniaavg 0.018356218
Viking_Denmark_Sealandavg 0.01853975
Swedish 0.018950451

Viking_Denmark_Jutlandavg
Viking_Norway_Southavg 0.014536696
Viking_Sweden_Skaraavg 0.015112765
Viking_Denmark_Funenavg 0.016319937
Norweigan 0.016980498
Viking_Denmark_Langelandavg 0.017881914
Viking_Denmark_Sealandavg 0.021359638
Vikings_Early_Estoniaavg 0.024614201
Swedish 0.022116432

Samuel Andrews said...

This substructure is also seen in the lone Iron age sample from Sweden. She is closer to Viking Zealand, Estonia (Swedish Vikings), modern Swedes than to Viking South Norway and modern Norwegians.

Sweden_IA
Vikings_Early_Estoniaavg 0.02486725
Viking_Denmark_Sealandavg 0.027236773
Viking_Denmark_Langelandavg 0.027497289
Swedish 0.027663737
Viking_Denmark_Funenavg 0.031772469
Viking_Norway_Southavg 0.034895028
Norweigan 0.035625002
Viking_Denmark_Jutlandavg 0.040368411

Samuel Andrews said...

Another way G25 detects the tiny differences between Viking populations is.......

It picks up, Germanic ancestry in Vikings from Juteland.

Overall the Juteland samples are closest to Saxons from England.

Also, overall they equally close to Scottish/Irish and Lombards as to modern Swedish and to Swedish/Zealand Vikings.

This is very interesting because Denmark/Juteland was Germanic before it was Norse/Danish. And the Jutes were basically the same people as Saxons, hence their close relation to Saxons.

The Danes came from Sweden, but Juteland Vikings don't have the Swedish-drift seen in Zealand Vikings. Which is more evidence they to large extent descended from Jutes.

Simon_W said...

To the contrary, Jutland_IA seems to have more Halberstadt_LBA-like ancestry than the Baiuvari have Jutland_IA ancestry:

Target: VK2020_DNK_Jutland_IA
Distance: 4.2785% / 0.04278477

79.8 DEU_Halberstadt_LBA
20.2 DNK_BA:RISE47

And Sealand_IA in turn has more Jutland_IA than DNK_BA:

Target: VK2020_DNK_Sealand_IA
Distance: 4.3246% / 0.04324557

72.4 VK2020_DNK_Jutland_IA
27.6 DNK_BA:RISE276

SWE_IA has also more Jutland_IA than SWE_BA:

Target: SWE_IA
Distance: 5.1208% / 0.05120802

63.8 VK2020_DNK_Jutland_IA
36.2 SWE_BA

Target: VK2020_SWE_Oland_IA
Distance: 3.9462% / 0.03946207

78.4 VK2020_DNK_Jutland_IA
21.6 SWE_BA

This seems to suggest a proto-Germanic expansion from somewhere south of Jutland. But the fits are pretty bad in these models, there seems to be something missing.

Simon_W said...

Modelling the Saxons from England with 3 pops: Jutland_IA, DEU_MA and England_Roman, I obtain Romano-British admixture values ranging from 20.4% in England_Saxon:I0773 to 78.8% in England_Saxon:I0159, with the average having 51.2%. That's more than I expected.

Gabriel said...

@Simon_W

I doubt Jutland_IA is representative of the early West Germanics, they seem pretty extreme compared to modern Scandinavians. Also uniparentals in West Germanic areas don’t show a lot of Halberstadt influence.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Dave the Slothtopous,

The vast majority of the males who cluster with French in G25 PCA have Y DNA R1b. There's no doubt they're French.

Deeper analysis, might show some have Norse admixture.

But, overall there are not many mixed individuals in these Viking samples. Almost all are either entirely Norse or something else.

Samuel Andrews said...

The two cemeteries of which the England Viking samples come from are both mass execution cemetaries. Both date to circa 1000ad, the short period when Denmark conquered then lost England.

The DNA of the executed dead soldiers can show which army was at the losing end, Danish or English.

Dorset Cemetery. N=6
British=3, Norse=1, Mixed British and Norse=2

Oxford Cemetery. N=15
Norse=10, British=2, French=2, mixed British Norse=1

Samuel Andrews said...

Sweden, Skara cemetary. Dates to circa 1000 AD.

Rune inscriptions in the cemetery have the title 'Thegnar' which was the name for followers of the Danish king Cnut who ruled England for a short time.

19 DNA samples. 17 are male.

15 are Norse, 4 are British.

The British individuals were definitely in the Danish army.

Rob said...

The expansion of Germanic groups/ languages is more complex than that of, say, Common Slavic, which is was comparatively more rapid and homogeneous phenomenon. It was more complex than the picture from Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jastorf_culture

There are several Germanic archaeological groups: North Sea Germanic, Rhine-Weser group, Elbe Germani, Eastern Germani, Nordic, etc.

For the territory of Poland, the expansion of Jastorf influences was variegated. Most of it appears to have come from Jutland ~ 4th/3rd century, probably as family groups positioning them onto the periphery of preceding post-Luzatian & Pomoranian culture areas, although the exact chronological relationship is not 100% secure. Perhaps there had been an element of population decline preceding it. A more distinctive phenomenon is the Gubin group in the the middle Oder area, which looks like a compact migration from the middle Elbe variant of jastorf culture into previously unopulated lands.
But then Celtic influences began moving north from enclaves in Silesia (e.g. first modest reception of brooch forms, then a more generalised uptake of advanced iron processing). This ultimately formed the Przeworsk culture, and Im not sure that the usual ascription of it being 'Germanic' is necessarily correct. On the other hand, the expansion of the Wielbark culture, to the east of that was later and more tangibly a phenomenon connected to Scandinavia linking into the Black Sea region

The Rhine -Weser group is a later formation ~ 2/1st cc BCE after the collapse of the oppida system. Here it would be a return to more household (basic) economy of local groups supplemented by migrants from the Werra basin

Similarly, the advent of Germanic groups in southern Germany, Bohemia & Moravia is a post-oppidum phenomenon. After the collapse of the La Tene phenomenon, in the wake of Rome's conquest of the Gallic heartland, the east-west near-homogeneous oppidum horizon stretching from Gaul to Pannonia was disrupted, and groups east of the Rhine forged new relations with northerners. The result was a heterogeneous world, and some of the early leaders of Marcomanni (e.g. Vannius) hold Celtic names. I think this region was definitively Germanicized in the wake of the marcomannic wars when new groups of Elbe-Germanic migrated south

Im not very infomred about North Sea Germani, but I do know that the post-Roman Frisi are not the same as the pre-Roman/ Roman age Frisi. Instead, they are essentially Anglo-Saxons.

Lastly, some have advocated for a rather late Germanicization of Scandinavia (Osten-Dahl, Udolph), more Common Era than anything Bronze Age, and i;d tend to agree

Vladimir said...

@Rob As far as I know, it is now clearly established that the Guba group was the source of the Polish culture of poklosh burials ( grobów (pod)kloszowych) which, in turn, was the source of the Zarubinets culture, which ceased to exist Milograd culture and eventually in its place there was a mixed Kiev culture, which was the basis of the Prague culture of the Slavs.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Gaberial,

The Jutland_IA sample dates to 1st century AD. So he was for sure a Jute and therefore West Germanic. But he is low coverage so can't be used for models. If he was high coverage he would be representative of early West Germanics.

There are decent Iron age samples from Norway, Zealand, and Sweden though. Together I made 3 pop averages from them.

They all have lots of Scandinavian-drift, more than the Viking-era population averages, and are clearly a different population than Anglo Saxons and Juteland_IA (even though he is low coverage).

Juteland_IA and JUteland_Vikings are more similar to Saxons than to Scandinavia Iron age.

When Juteland_VIking is modelled as Scandinavian_IA and Saxon, Juteland_Viking scores 81% Saxon.

All other, Viking-era pop averages are also an intermediate between Saxons and Scandinavian Iron age.

ambron said...

Vladimir, these areas underwent Slavization only at the end of the first millennium AD, so the Kiev culture could not be Slavic.

Archi said...

@Vladimir
"Kiev culture, which was the basis of the Prague culture of the Slavs."

Kiev culture has nothing to do with Prague culture at all. It certainly did not become the basis of Prague culture.

Gabriel said...

@Samuel Andrews

Interesting.

But what I was saying is that I don’t think West Germanics had Halberstadt_IA ancestry, unlike what some users said here. Even Danes show some West Germanic influence.

dsjm1 said...

@Vahaduo

Thanks a mill for your Global25 link.
This was great for illustrating to members of the S1194 FTDNA project what other peoples and Vikings were closely clustered to VK234 (who is S1194) - what the PCA data showed was how widely dispersed these close PCA matched burials were located. I.e. Very close PCA matches showed up in burials from Sweden, Gotland, nth Norway, sth Norway, Faroe Islands, Iceland, The Orkneys, and the Viking burials found at Wareham in Dorset England.

Fantastic stuff - thanks!.
Dsm

Gabriel said...

Also interesting that there’s French-like individuals in the Oxford cemetery. Could they be Normans?

Rob said...

@ Vlad
Yes it is the Gubin group with which some specifically connect the link to Zarubinets culture, but also the related Poienesti-Lukashevka culture in the Dniester-Prut region. Historically, these have been linked with Basternae & Skirii

However, the link with the Kiev culture is more difficult due to the typological differences and chronological gap (even with the proposed Rakhy-Pochep transitional phase). Rather, the Kiev culture looks like a Baltic -forest culture emerging from groups like Dnieper-Dvina and Stroked pottery cultures moving south down the Dnieper and consolidating in the face of Wielbark expansion

Ioannis Gavras said...

@ Gabriel


I am not sure about the historical info of these samples but Normans can be explained well i guess.Frankish Kings allowed them to take Normandy.They become Christians and they adopted the Frankish culture and nobillity and ofc they mixed with the native folks there.

About Germanics,we should wait for samples from Jastorf culture and also Nordwestblock to have a better view.

weure said...

@Sam agree in the Celtic vs Germanic PCA, Jutland IA almost is in the Celtic kind of cluster, may be low coverage, but weren't they Cimbri like? (Germanic/ Celtic intermediate?).

Most of the Vikings plot close to the 'Germanic core' or Saxons and Elb Germanics (Bavarian samples).

A substantial part ha a more Baltic/ NE European shift. We already knew from Sigtuna. Also some Norwegian ones! (but they are from the eastern part I guess).

A few of them are in the Celtic corner like Orkney, or mixed like the ones on Farao or Iceland.

And also a big chunk SWE Karda, Pol Cedynia and some DNK Langeland heavily Italic/Byzantium like? (And some could have had a shot Hunnic kind of blood.... ;)

PCA (GvsC) with the different sphere, above 'Celtic', middle core 'Germanic', below 'Baltic', besides 'Romance':

https://www.mupload.nl/img/l53n4w10toqtb.png

WeightofAudio said...

It will be interesting to see if any of this sheds light on the Cimbri-“question”...I don’t think they were straight up La Tene celts, but Perhaps represent some remnants of something that Norse and Ingvaeonics didn’t completely level out. Or maybe it’s the car that early west Germanics just had more complex substrata than we typically consider.

Arza said...

@ Davidski
I'm waiting for the relevant samples from Poland and surrounds before I discuss this topic in any detail here.

That was fast, lol.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTXiFIV0amY?t=1500

This teaser looks awesome.

WeightofAudio said...

Maybe it’s the case*

Sorry, weird autocorrect...

Arza said...

f3-based plot from the video:
https://i.postimg.cc/cxqqLv98/Anna-Szecsenyi-Nagy.png

It looks like even in the Bronze Age the Carpathian Basin was a hot-spot of Iron-Gates-related HG ancestry.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Arza,

Yes, and that's why I think the Welzin warriors came from the Carpathian not Germany.

vahaduo said...

@all
I've updated Custom PCA tool. Changes:

Click a "logo" on the right to open Vahaduo App Gallery where you'll find all the current and future web apps.
Custom Labels are now separated into Custom Group Labels and Custom Sample Labels.
RUN PCA button turns green for a moment if a PCA was successfully created.
// Use double slashes at the beginning of the line to comment it out.
In the PCA DATA tab at the end you'll find information about explained variance per PC.
It's possible now to set the same PC for different axes.

And finally - if there are more than 2 dimensions you can switch to 3D PCA.

Just be careful - adding new labels for the first time is for some reason extremely slow in the 3D mode. It's better to turn off labels if there are many (tens or hundreds) before switching to 3D (you need to test how many is too many for your computer).

@MitchellSince1893

Will the Celtic vs Germanic PCA be a drop down menu choice at this site
https://vahaduo.github.io/g25views/#NorthEurope


It's already there - "Northwest Europe", second position in the menu.

or will new Celtic vs Germanic coordinates tom match geography be provided to use here?
https://vahaduo.github.io/custompca/


Sure!

Data with instructions for the Northwest Europe PCA are here:
https://gist.github.com/vahaduo/891b53a237e39398409b37a0e76d7f11

I've also created a spreadsheet with Y-DNA labels for Custom PCA tool:
https://gist.github.com/vahaduo/932559943acacd0f0c0edf80d1b999b9

To use it with g25views just remove all the "label@" via search and replace.

@dsjm1

I'm glad that my tools are so helpful!

Davidski said...

@vahaduo

MitchellSince1893 is referring to this analysis, not the Global25.

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/09/celtic-vs-germanic-europe.html

That's what I was referring to originally as well.

The big difference between the G25 data and the CvsG data is that the latter discriminates more strongly between Germanic and Celtic ancestry in the UK and Ireland.

Leron said...

Proto-Celts would be a mix of Beaker and an early pre-Germanic population. Coincidentally, sharing closer linguistic affinity to Italics due to similar substrate, which also correlates to lower HG genetics.

When modeling with modern populations the pre-Germanic component is transferred to relatively isolated Celtish groups like Scots.

ambron said...

Arza, Z645 from Hungarian research is reportedly Z280+.
Can IG HG be a source of Balto-Slavic drift, since they are associated with Latvia HG?

Matt said...

Related, Schiffels has a project which may be of interest re; Iron Age Central Europe - ERC Project MICROSCOPE - https://www.shh.mpg.de/person/44297/2375

@ambron, I know the question was to arza, but as an answer, while it could be plausible in genetic terms, I don't see how Iron Gates HG could live in SE Central Europe for thousands of years undetected, with signs of ongoing, increasing admixture ceasing by early Copper Age, then be thought to be responsible for EBA pulse of increase. Iron Gates is early neo. It seems like must be from elsewhere, though all late Neolithic/Chalcolithic samples seem to have at least some EHG (even Norway sample in this paper).

Norfern-Ostrobothnian said...

The Norwegian late Neolithic HG is typical for it's region (around 70% EHG vs 30% WHG). Baltic drift could be related to Baltic Comb Ceramic or late Narva groups.

vahaduo said...

@Davidski && MitchellSince1893

Direct link:
https://vahaduo.github.io/g25views/cvg/

In g25views "Choose PCA > Go to: Celtic vs Germanic PCA" (opens in a new tab).

I assumed that the challenge was to find maximal separation in G25.
This wasn't challenging at all, I had to delete just a few blocks of code and it's done!

MitchellSince1893 said...

@Davidski,

I probably missed it, but is there a link to Celtic vs German with the new Viking samples included?

Thanks

MitchellSince1893 said...

@Davidski,

Disregard, found it
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1k5XB-kQUul8yFC5reGLQw2-7HOdxrBij/view

Samuel Andrews said...

@Norfern-Ostrobothnian,

It is interesting Scandinavian HGs still lived in Northern Norway to 2400 BC, alongside ancestor of modern Scandinavians in Southern Scandinavia.

Modern Saami have 15-20% ancestry from late EHG/SHG hunter gatherers, but it probably comes from Northwest Russia not Scandinavia. Yet, still it is interesting.

Matt said...

Re; Szecsenyi-Nagy's presentation, what seemed quite interesting was to me was the finding using Ringbauer's new method (about 26 mins in) which is informative about population size at low bounds, that there's a very sharp reduction in population size (bottleneck) at 2000BCE, followed by recovery.

This also seems to be the peak period for her BA->IA sampling, judging by the y DNA plot (about 35 mins in) with relatively little sampling between 3000 and 2000BCE (some R1b Beaker folk seem apparent).

This does make me wonder if there is some depopulation of this region in this period, followed by resurgence. Perhaps this area became some disputed zone which was thinly populated?

This is also when the new more HG heavy balance comes in?

I'll have to look at this presentation again on my computer and not phone...

Norfern-Ostrobothnian said...

Asbestos culture (CCC derived) related people existed even as late as the first millenium BCE in Fennoscandia. And the Choinovtin culture too existed in Vychegda and Pechora basins.
http://www.ural.ru/spec/ency/encyclopaedia-23-2306-chojnovtinskaya-kultura-ili-galovskij-kult-tip.html
Where did you get that 15%-20% figure by the way? I think it's higher than that.

MitchellSince1893 said...

@ vahaduo

Thanks!

Samuel Andrews said...

@Norfern,

Thanks for the link. It would be even more of a shocker if SHG lived almost into historical era.

The 15-20% figure for Saami, comes from results using tools from this website for years. First D-stats then G25 PCA. I kept getting the same result of 15-20%.

Here are G25 PCA result for ancient Saami in Finland 500 AD (modern Saami sample has minor Norse, Finnic admixture).

2.9013"

Levanluhta_IA

Swedish 25.4
Nenets 21.6
EHG 16.7
Baltic_IA:DA171 15.2
Baltic_EST_BA 9.8
Nganassan 7.6
Devils_Gate_Cave_N 3.7

Saami get a better fit when Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov is used. Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov were 1500 BC mix between an East Asian and EHG/Northwest Russia populations. They lived in Karelia. It is more evidence Saami's Neolithic hunter gatherer ancestry comes from Northwest Russia.

But, hunter gatherers in Northwest Russia and Northern Scandinavia were basically the same. So.........

Davidski said...

@All

I haven't seen that new Hungarian clip, and I'm not quite sure what the big deal is about these upcoming Nitrianska samples.

Overall, they're basically identical to this guy.

SVK_EBA:S11953,0.12862,0.120848,0.065619,0.074613,0.02739,0.025937,-0.000705,0.001615,-0.008181,-0.018953,0,-0.003447,-0.002081,-0.018717,0.016558,0.022275,0.016298,-0.006334,-0.004902,0.007128,-0.006364,0.004204,-0.003451,0.001807,0

So yeah, not sure what the fuss is about here?

ambron said...

Matt, thanks for the answer. I am also thinking about it all now.

David, on PCA S11953 is located among or near Poles. Probably the point is that the Slavs did not come from Pripyat in the Middle Ages.

Bernadette said...

What exactly is the difference between Celtic vs Germanic groups? I'm specifically meaning Northwest European groups. Is it just drift i.e. Irish being peripheral just further from the Continent? Can someone really explain this?

Davidski said...

@Bernadette

What exactly is the difference between Celtic vs Germanic groups? I'm specifically meaning Northwest European groups. Is it just drift i.e. Irish being peripheral just further from the Continent?

It's due to suble differences in both deep and more recent ancestry proportions. In other words, due to both ancient and more recent genetic drift and admixture.

For instance, the Irish and Scandinavians have hunter-gatherer ancestry from slightly different groups, and Scandinavians have somewhat more hunter-gatherer ancestry. Some Scandinavian groups also have Siberian ancestry from admixture with the Saami people, while the Irish obviously don't.

Genetic drift from the last 2,000, 1,000 years or even 500 years adds to these differences.

Matt said...

@ambron, thanks. In fairness, Szecsenyi-Nagy herself does talk about IronGatesHG ancestry increasing through the period (which could suggest holdout populations with high IronGatesHG still in region), but to me in models it looks like most/all of the increase happens by about 5000BCE (and then any other change is probably slow and could be explained by long distance contacts if at all).

Had a chance to look at the presentation on computer and in higher resolution, so could see population labels: https://imgur.com/a/DajRJEG

Not sure if all the labelling schema on each of the slides are the same, or that some of the phenomena coincide (e.g. do the HG rich samples coincide with RoH change indicating population bottleneck/reduction?). Will need to see her full paper to check.

Rob said...


There are some settlement shifts in Carpathian basin ~ 2000 BC, it might be the effect of the 4.2 ky event. Interestingly, the post 22/2000 BC sees re-appearance of Tell settlement. But I’m not sure if this entails drops in population . It would certainly have to be a very sensitive method to detect if it exists

Intuitively, any HG ancestry which increases in BA would be via Poland or even west-central Europe

vahaduo said...

@All

I'll update Vahaduo admixture tool soon and there are few changes that require some explanation.

Default cycles multiplier will be lowered to 0.25x (new range 0.25x - 4x), which will speed up the calculation up to four times.

On average it will slightly increase distances, but it's not a bug, it's a feature, as the slightly worse fit will be usually due to dropping some samples which score below 1% with the multiplier set to 1x. Highly unstable models (target and sources highly mixed and similar to each other) will be a little bit more unstable. Anyway, old default setting will be just two clicks away.

And a reminder - this is not nMonte, the required number of cycles is not comparable.

Another change will be in the "Add Distance Column" function. By default results will be recalculated at the end without ADC. This way distances to the target will influence which samples will be picked, but they won't skew the final proportions. To go back to the old setting set RECALCULATE to NO.

In the DISTANCE tab there will be 4 modes to choose.

SINGLE, DIFFERENCE (AC-BC), RATIO (AC/BC) and D3 (AC-BC)/(AC+BC)

About the last one you can read here:
https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/36/12/2878/5543093

E.g. the second mode will show the difference between SampleA-SampleC and SampleB-SampleC distances. Neutral value - 0. Value below 0 - SampleA is closer to SampleC than SampleB.
Value above 0 - SampleA is further away from SampleC than SampleB.

Ratio - neutral value is 1. Values below 1 - A closer to C, values above 1 - B closer to C.

D3 - neutral value is 0. Values below 0 - A closer to C, values above 0 - B closer to C.

Ratio and D3 give almost the same result (the order of samples is identical). I'm leaving both, because while D3 is normalized, ratio simply says how many times further sample B or A is. Also when the values are plotted the curves are different and it seems that D3 gives a stronger signal. I hope that someone will investigate these differences.

As a SampleC all samples from the SOURCES tab are used. Samples A and B are picked from the TARGET tab. You need to first select the SampleA (click to select/deselect). It will be marked by an outline around the clicked button. Then click another sample to pick SampleB, or click RUN ALL to calculate all "Sample A - all other targets as B - all sources as C" triplets.

Romulus said...

The most interesting part of the new Carpathian Basin data is that they have more Beakers from this region who have no Steppe ancestry. This proves the Beaker material culture originated with farmers, probably in Iberia.

Why the Steppe people adopted it

Samuel Andrews said...

@Bernadette,

More on what Davidski said. Yeah, the difference between for example Irish and Swedish is mostly due to drift in the last 4,000 years. And doesn't necessarily have anything to do with Celtic & Germanic languages.

Late Neolithic samples from Sweden and British Isles, are basically the same because they had the same 'ancient' ancestry (Steppe Farmer hunte rgatherer). Modern British Isles and Scandinavia are different in ancient ancestry, but only slightly, this explains a good portion of their difference (which isn't a lot).

But a lot of the difference between modern Sweden and Ireland for example, is drift in the las 4,000 years.

This drift doesn't necessarily have anything to do with Celtic & Germanic languages.

Namely, because British Irish Celts are not mostly Celtic in blood. The majority of their ancestry comes from pre-Celtic Bronze age British Isles.

It is doubtful, that continental Celts carried anything resembling 'Irish' drift. There is drift unique to Gealic, as well as to British & irish/Gealic Celts, but it originated in the British Isles and didn't exist in continental Celts.

Michalis Moriopoulos said...

@Romulus

Huh? It might prove that if the no-steppe farmer element in the Carpathian Basin is Atlantic Farmer-like as opposed to something Alford-like. Otherwise it's easy to see these as simply local Carpathian farmers acculturated to a Beaker lifestyle that was introduced by steppe-heavy people.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Bernadette,

There may actual Celtic drift in Western Europe. But probably not. There's probably only regional drift.

Also, there is for sure Germanic drift. As we can see a relation between Iron age samples from Scandinavia & Germanic tribes from continental Europe. Lombards and Saxons for example are closer to Vikings than to modern Germans and Dutch.

Davidski can correct me, but Celtic vs Germanic PCA, is really Northwest Europe PCA. Because, it is unknown how important Celtic drift is.

vahaduo said...

New version is already online. Sample output from the distance comparison tool (scaled averages of ancient populations in the SOURCE tab, Irish and Swedish scaled averages in the TARGET tab):

Distance D3: ( AC - BC ) / ( AC + BC ) ↑
A: Irish
B: Swedish
C: ↴
-0.41850118 VK2020_Scotland_Orkney_VA
-0.36228493 England_Roman
-0.27775592 Scotland_LBA
-0.26552586 VK2020_Faroes_EM
-0.21074875 England_IA

Distance D3: ( AC - BC ) / ( AC + BC ) ↓
A: Irish
B: Swedish
C: ↴
0.44348833 VK2020_EST_Saaremaa_EVA
0.41186057 SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna
0.39397464 VK2020_RUS_Ladoga_VA
0.32258925 VK2020_NOR_Mid_VA
0.28983390 VK2020_SWE_Uppsala_VA

Distance difference: ( AC - BC ) ↑
A: Irish
B: Swedish
C: ↴
-0.01659292 VK2020_Scotland_Orkney_VA
-0.01523274 ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA
-0.01479695 England_Roman
-0.01420372 TZA_Zanzibar_Euro_outlier
-0.01339357 TUR_Barcin_C

Distance difference: ( AC - BC ) ↓
A: Irish
B: Swedish
C: ↴
0.02549859 Baltic_EST_IA
0.02489556 Baltic_EST_BA
0.02467000 RUS_Ingria_IA
0.02462527 Baltic_LVA_BA
0.02442813 Baltic_EST_MA

Samuel Andrews said...

There's no point in discussing with Romulus. He has a strange ideological reasons for opposing every mainstream view on Indo European story. He doesn't care about evidence.

Romulus said...

@Michalis

That doesn't explain the no-steppe Sicilian Beaker. Or the Beaker precursors from 2800 B.C Iberia.

Rob said...

@ Romulus
You’ve been making very odd claims lately
Unfortunately None of those samples from Sicily are associated with a BB context. It’s written clearly so in the supplementary info, despite the fact that the Reich lab misclaimed them to be so in the body of the manuscript
Also, please show a single genuine BB sample from Iberia which dates to 2800 BC

Romulus said...

How is it an odd claim? It's the conclusion of the Olade paper

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180221131858.htm

Rob said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Samuel Andrews said...

Ghe Olalde paper didn't realize what they had on their hands in 2018. It took a year for this blog to understand what the Bell Beaker ancient DNA meant. Rob was one of the first posters here to point that Bell Beaker in Iberia wasn't real Bell Beaker culture.

The real reevaluation ancient DNA has made about Bell Beaker, is what people call Bell Beaker culture are actually two different phenomena.

Bell shaped Beakers originated in Iberia. But, Bell beaker culture is more than a bell shape of Beakers. True Bell Beaker culture, which includes a lot more than Bell Beakers, originated in Netherlands, derives from Corded Ware, and represents a western expansion of Corded Ware.

All Bell Beaker, is were Corded Ware people who imitated the Bell shape of Beaker style in Western Europe. Bell shaped Beakers were being created in France and Spain by 2700 BC. Western Corded Ware imitated this style. Then wazam they created Bell Beaker culture.

All, Bell beaker is is Corded Ware with bell shaped Beakers.

ambron said...

Matt, I'm just thinking ... maybe there were two centers for the assimilation and homogenization of related surviving HG groups such as IG GH and Latvia HG - one in Pribaltica and the other in the Carpathians. And because the Carpathian homogenization was earlier and more complete, today we have the impression of a gradient of Balto-Slavic drift from Pribaltica towards the south.

Davidski said...

The idea that Balto-Slavic specific drift comes largely, let alone exclusively, from a peculiar hunter-gatherer population is really dumb.

Matt said...

@ambron, that seems like it could be so, we just don't have any evidence to speak for it and support it. At the moment for the Eastern European drift there's only this one way cline that terminates in Baltic_LVA_BA with most EE drift and HG ancestry (and which we can theoretically project beyond that point, at which point we eventually converge with HG cline, or not). Perhaps there will be some samples in this new paper to speak for that though. The Croatia EBA samples have interesting position in her f3 plot.

Davidski said...

By the way, this screen cap is interesting.

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-XPfZV6twWik/X3rNfOhZ3lI/AAAAAAAAJPc/LtqmLp-Hqa8ZMnt9emfLqOTQkyikq24iACLcBGAsYHQ/s1366/CarpathianBasin_presentation2020.png

Carlos Quiles must know what this implies (ie. no L51 in Hungarian Yamnaya). But he's obviously choosing not to accept it.

My predictions from well over a year ago are coming true...whoohoo!

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/01/hungarian-yamnaya-predictions.html

Rob said...

Interesting that Y-Hg G2 goes up % from the Neolithic to Chalcolithic, different to central and Western Europe

ambron said...

David, so what is your idea of the Balto-Slavic drift? Balto-Slavic drift looks like an elevated proportion of specific HG with a downward gradient from Pribaltica. If you could to reveal any of your ideas, you would help me a lot.

Rob said...

In fact, those percentages represent the sample set of the study. E.g. Bell Beaker & Nitra were relatively small groups, so the actual % of R1b/ R1a in the Bronze Age would be different (smaller) than presented in Nagy's talk

Davidski said...

@ambron

This sort of a signal is likely to be connected to a sudden expansion of a population initially with a low effective population size.

It's not the result of the survival of a peculiar hunter-gatherer group, which is an idiotic argument that contradicts logic.

ambron said...

David, I get it, so you mean a typical genetic drift. I thought about it too, of course, but then I couldn't explain the gradient.

Davidski said...

Ancient gradients must be accommodated at least to some extent within PCs defined by modern populations, especially those that are well represented in the analysis, like Balto-Slavs.

Michał said...

@Davidski
"This sort of a signal is likely to be connected to a sudden expansion of a population initially with a low effective population size."

What would be the most likely time-frame and location for this sudden expansion of a small CWC-derived population? Did it happen after the Z93-rich Pre-Proto-Indo-Iranian subgroup of CWC got separated from the remaining subgroupings of CWC (including their close Pre-Proto-Balto-Slavic relatives)?

I guess all samples from Baltic_BA, as well as sample WEZ56 from Weltzin, have the majority of their genetic ancestry descending from such a hypothetical Proto-Balto-Slavic population. How about the remaining samples from Weltzin or some older EBA samples from Poland (Gustorzyn) and Slovakia (Blatne)? Would you be able to estimate how much of their overall ancestry (if any) descends from that suddenly expanding Pre-Proto-Balto-Slavic population that is supposed to be the source of the observed Balto-Slavic drift?

Davidski said...

@Michał

The earliest individual that shows this signal is probably Spiginas2 (2130-1750 calBCE). And then obviously it's widespread in the BA Baltic. But the BA Baltic people look like newcomers to the area.

Not sure about the other stuff. I think it might be better to wait for some new samples.

Michał said...

@Davidski
"The earliest individual that shows this signal is probably Spiginas2 (2130-1750 calBCE)"

Since both Gustorzyn and Blatne are Post-CWC Z280+ samples from about the same period like Spiginas2 (a sample that was Z280+ but also CTS1211+), it seems that the Balto-Slavic drift did not come neither from Central Poland nor from the Carpathian region, so this points quite strongly to the region east of Poland and south of the Baltic states as the homeland of the Balto-Slavs, which is additionally supported by the fact that early Z280 was also found much farther east, namely in the South Ural region (two samples described as Srubna-Alakul and dated to 1880-1690 BC).

Also, since Baltic Bronze Age is, so far, almost exclusively Z280>CTS1211 and Z280>Z92, it seems that only some specific subclades under Z280, and more specifically CTS1211 and Z92 (constituting together more than 99% of all Z280 among the modern Balto-Slavs), have been initially associated with the demographic expansion of the small Pre-Proto-Balto-Slavic population, which leaves most of the remaining subclades directly under Z280 (including S24902 found in Gustorzyn and encompassing some relatively rare subclades that are found today predominantly in Central-Western Europe) outside of the Proto-Balto-Slavic population.

According to YFull, the TMRCA age for CTS1211 and Z92 is in both cases about 4400 years (or about 5000 years when assuming that YFull underestimates by about 10-20%, as has been demonstrated on multiple examples), so this places the very start of the demographic expansion of those two clades about 3000 BC, thus likely at the very start of the territorial expansion of the parental CWC population. It must have taken some time (likely about 500-1000 years) for the CTS1211 and Z92 progenitors to produce a descending population of several hundreds or thousands of people who could have then been able to initiate a moderate territorial expansion directed north, south, west and east. This corresponds quite well with the territorial expansion of the Trzciniec-Sosnica-Komarov horizon that is commonly considered the best candidate for the Early Balto-Slavic population.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a1/Balto-Slavic_lng.png/800px-Balto-Slavic_lng.png

Samuel Andrews said...

@Davidski,

Yep, and a different picture shows she has a lot of samples dating 3000-2700 BC with 70-100% Yamnaya ancestry and Y DNA R1b Z2103 in the Carpthian Basin (Hungary).

What is interesting, is R1b Z2103 Yamanay pops seem to have contributed 30-40% ancestry to Bronze age West Balkans but R1b Z2103 did not become popular in these mixed pops in the Bronze age West Balkans. Unlike R1a M417 and R1b L51 which became the main lineages in mixed pops in most of Europe.

Romulus said...

@Davidski

What do you think of all the R1a in Nitra?

Davidski said...

@Romulus

What do you think of all the R1a in Nitra?

Nitra is Epi-Corded Ware.

I love it!

Archi said...

@Michał

"Since both Gustorzyn and Blatne are Post-CWC Z280+ samples from about the same period like Spiginas2 (a sample that was Z280+ but also CTS1211+), it seems that the Balto-Slavic drift did not come neither from Central Poland nor from the Carpathian region, so this points quite strongly to the region east of Poland and south of the Baltic states as the homeland of the Balto-Slavs, which is additionally supported by the fact that early Z280 was also found much farther east, namely in the South Ural region (two samples described as Srubna-Alakul and dated to 1880-1690 BC).

This corresponds quite well with the territorial expansion of the Trzciniec-Sosnica-Komarov horizon that is commonly considered the best candidate for the Early Balto-Slavic population."


The Trzciniec culture originates from the territory of Poland. Nothing that you described indicates any eastern connections. It's just that there are few tested CWCs in Central Europe and they all have a shallow depth of SNPs.

The Nitra culture shows that Z280 is from Central Europe. So Z280 is not from the east.

----

R1b-Z2103 has nothing to do with CWC.

Norfern-Ostrobothnian said...

Could the Unetice people be closely related to this Nitran population?

Archi said...

@Norfern-Ostrobothnian
"Could the Unetice people be closely related to this Nitran population?"

Surely it has to do with the Proto-Unetice culture of Slovakia. They were side by side.

AWood said...

The R1a-Z280 shows a different pattern from the other common groups of the Bronze Age Carpathians. Z280 makes a sudden appearance, and there is a gradual decline in steppe ancestry. This is in stark contrast to the other groups, even the non-R1b ones in the BA period who cover a wider range of steppe ancestry. One of the instinctive reasons is that this Z280 group is a migrant from a region richer in steppe ancestry, maybe from the north-east where steppe ancestry proportions were higher even as late as 2100 BC? Alternatively, it could be just sampling and maybe all the burials were from one place.

Not sure what other explanations there could be, but the contrast is quite evident.

AWood said...

@Samuel

R1b-Z2103, R1b-L51, and I bet even the R1a-Z280+ (specific branch is important) groups are not *as* common in Slovakia/Hungary today, or wherever these burials were taken from because plenty of new Y lineages have entered the region since. I bet these I2 guys are I2-M223 and not the common Balkan/central Europe I2-M423 lineage either. We need to wait and see though.

Michał said...

@Archi
"The Nitra culture shows that Z280 is from Central Europe."

Z280 is from Corded Ware, and Corded Ware is from Eastern Europe, thus Z280 is from Eastern Europe. It expanded as a part of Early CWC, with different subclades migrating in different directions, so this is why Z280 is found in Bronze Age in many different locations, from Germany in the West to the Ural in the East, and from the Baltic in the North to the Carpathian Mountains in the South. The Nitra samples are not older than Spiginas2, and if they indeed resemble the I11953/BLAT_33 sample from Blatne in Slovakia (as suggested by Davidski) then they don't have enough Balto-Slavic drift to be the source of the Baltic Z280. Importantly, Baltic Z280 is predominantly Balto-Slavic CTS1211 and Z92 which cannot be said neither about the Nitra Z280 in Slovakia nor about Gustorzyn Z280>S24902 in Poland. Also, Spiginas2 is actually older than the Trzciniec culture, so subclade Z280>CTS1211 that was found in this sample could not have been brought to Lithuania from Poland with the Trzciniec people (nor with people resembling the N17 Gustorzyn sample that belongs a non-Balto-Slavic subclade under Z280 and doesn't show enough Balto-Slavic drift.

There is no data indicating that Z280 originated in Central Europe rather than in Eastern Europe.

Ric Hern said...

@ Davidski

Sorry this is a bit of topic but very interesting.

Some interesting study about the Y-DNA and MtDNA of Neanderthals and Denisovans. Apparently some admixture by Neanderthal with a line of Modern Humans between 100 000 and as early as 370 000 years ago.

Ric Hern said...

@ Davidski

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/369/6511/1653

Romulus said...

How do you explain Basques within the context of the Steppe theory? Typically they are characterized as a group of Steppe people who adopted the Basque language from the farmers. But where why when and how? The only potential explanation at the moment is that they became basqified in the Carpathian Basin where they morphed from Corded Ware (or Yamna) into Beakers through contact with these original Farmer Beakers and importing women from this culture as we saw in the Lech valley paper.




Samuel Andrews said...

we have enough ancient DNA from Spain to understand Basque.

Basque mainly derive from Bronze age Spain. But, also have Celtic admixture. But les than Spanish do.

Basque langauge is from bronze age Spain. The IE R1b invaders adopted the language of natives. End of story.

Archi said...

@Michał
"Z280 is from Corded Ware, and Corded Ware is from Eastern Europe, thus Z280 is from Eastern Europe."

Wrong logic. I'm not from where my father was from. This is R1a from Eastern Europe, but Z280 is already from Central Europe. Your arguments do not make sense until the samples themselves are available, and in general, the autosomal profile of the Central European CWCs is very little known, all the data on them are very old and there are very few of them.

"Importantly, Baltic Z280 is predominantly Balto-Slavic CTS1211 and Z92 which cannot be said neither about the Nitra Z280 in Slovakia nor about Gustorzyn Z280>S24902 in Poland."

This is just your personal speculation, there is no such data. What Baltic are you talking about? About the Baltic of the Iron Age and the end of the Bronze Age? But this is more thousand years later.

"There is no data indicating that Z280 originated in Central Europe rather than in Eastern Europe."

There is absolutely no evidence that Z280 is from Eastern Europe and not from Central Europe. Moreover, your opinion is completely contrary to everything, Fatyanovo is Z93.


@Romulus
"How do you explain Basques within the context of the Steppe theory? Typically they are characterized as a group of Steppe people who adopted the Basque language from the farmers. But where why when and how? The only potential explanation at the moment is that they became basqified in the Carpathian Basin where they morphed from Corded Ware (or Yamna) into Beakers through contact with these original Farmer Beakers and importing women from this culture as we saw in the Lech valley paper."

Some kind of nonsense. The Corded Ware have nothing to do with the Basques.

Samuel Andrews said...

Just look at the fact 90%+ of Beakers outside Spain have 40-60% Steppe ancestry. Beaker culture was not spread by a farmer population. Period.

Copper Axe said...

@Romulus

Matrilocality.

If the Basque people were matrilocal, then it would explain why they retained their maternal language despite an influx or steppe related Y-dna.

Also, founder effects.

Rob said...

People like Archi, Ambron and East Pole are using Z93 to muddy the waters about the eastern origins of *extant* Z280 Clades
Sure, Z280 might have moved eastward ~ 1200 BC to occupy lands vacated by Z93
But in 500 AD , Z280 was moving west and southwest

Rob said...

@ Romulus
Basque obviously derived from BB Iberia, but perhaps it was a pre-Beaker language in SW Europe . Who knows
Lusitanian can in turn be explained by the LBA Trans-Atlantic koinin; whilst the Celtic is from Urnfield, La Tene etc

Archi said...

@Rob
"People like Archi, Ambron and East Pole are using Z93 to muddy the waters about the eastern origins of *extant* Z280 Clades"

Learn to read what I write. You wrote exactly the opposite of what I claim.

Archi said...

@Rob
"People like Archi, Ambron and East Pole are using Z93 to muddy the waters about the eastern origins of *extant* Z280 Clades"

Learn to read what I write. You wrote exactly the opposite of what I claim.


The Lusitanians were from the Urnfield culture that reached Spain.

Rob said...

@‘Sam
I find the idea of 2 different Bell Beaker cultures absurd . We’re there 2 different corded wares , or 2 different Afanasievo?
Obviously there’s something seriously wrong with that explanation; but academics just go along with it. Just goes to show what’s sad state western academia is in

Michał said...

@Archi
"There is absolutely no evidence that Z280 is from Eastern Europe and not from Central Europe. Moreover, your opinion is completely contrary to everything, Fatyanovo is Z93"

Who is talking about Fatyanovo? I guess we should wait for the results from the Middle Dnieper Culture. This should settle the whole thing.

BTW, what is your explanation for the much higher level of the Balto-Slavic drift in EBA Spiginas2 (and in all remaining Z280 samples from Baltic Bronze Age) when compared to EBA Z280 from Gustorzyn and Blatne?

Samuel Andrews said...

@Rob,

I said Bell beaker represents two different phenomena.

what I mean, is the emergence of Bell beakers and the emergence of Bell Beaker culture were two different phenomena. Early Bell Beakers in Iberia/France represents a separate phenomena than Bell Beaker culture.

What I mean, is what archaeologists call a single entity "Bell beaker culture" is two phenomena not one. Archaeologists acknowledged this was a possibility because of the cultural difference between Kurgan and Iberian beakers.

Davidski said...

I think we're basically stuck with the Bell Beaker culture from Iberia meme.

Too many papers, books etc. have been written about it by too many people for it to be dismissed as a silly mistake.

That is, too many careers and salaries are at stake.

Ryan said...

@David - I think we're basically stuck with the Bell Beaker culture from Iberia meme.

Too many papers, books etc. have been written about it by too many people for it to be dismissed as a silly mistake.

That is, too many careers and salaries are at stake.


How do you explain the early non-steppe beaker samples then? There had to have been an earlier non-steppe wave of beaker folk for that to make any sense. Obviously the later steppe-admixed beaker folk had a far greater genetic impact on Europe, but those older samples still exist and require explanation.

Rob said...

@ Sam
But that explanation isn’t correct- there is no especially different origin of BB pottery cf the rest of the culture
It’s about how different components of the package were used in different situations and contexts

Davidski said...

@Ryan

There are no early non-steppe Beaker samples.

They're all either badly dated, or at least imprecisely dated, or wrongly classified.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Davidski,

Bell shaped Beakers were invented in Iberia.

Ryan said...

@David - if even one is just badly dated rather than wrongly classified, then that still suggests some kind of non-steppe Beaker Folk asking sometime, somewhere.

Of course, if late non-steppe Beakers exist, then maybe that means there was a cultural assimilation component to the Beaker Folks' spread too? At least in more demographically robust areas? Would that explain the Basque?

Archi said...

@Michał
"BTW, what is your explanation for the much higher level of the Balto-Slavic drift in EBA Spiginas2 (and in all remaining Z280 samples from Baltic Bronze Age) when compared to EBA Z280 from Gustorzyn and Blatne?"

Show this drift.

@Davidski
"I think we're basically stuck with the Bell Beaker culture from Iberia meme."

@Ryan
"How do you explain the early non-steppe beaker samples then? There had to have been an earlier non-steppe wave of beaker folk for that to make any sense."

Actually we don't have any data on the Bell Beakers in Iberia before the general BBC, all dates there fall within the BBC interval.

Copper Bell Beaker Spain Paris Street, Cerdanyola, Barcelona [I0261 / 10378A, 2976] 2850–2250 BCE M R1b1a (xR1b1a1a2a) U5b1i


Romulus said...

In the presentation she talks about finding more non-steppe Beakers, which is the entire reason I bring it up. They're coming. The I-M26 in the one we have is no coincidence.

Copper Axe said...

There isn't any strong evidence that the Bell Beaker pottery originated in Iberia in my opinion to be honest. Take a good hard look at these so called early Iberian Bell Beaker sites and why they are called such, and then try to convince me that the pottery we see with the Bell Beakers in Holland were derived from Iberian beakers. Like Rob and Dave are saying, the Iberian beaker is a meme.

Arza said...

@ Davidski
The idea that Balto-Slavic specific drift comes largely, let alone exclusively, from a peculiar hunter-gatherer population is really dumb.

It's not the result of the survival of a peculiar hunter-gatherer group, which is an idiotic argument that contradicts logic.

Let's for a moment assume that there is nothing special in this "drift" and that WHG in Baltic_BA is of the same kind as in I5882.

West Eurasian PCA:

https://i.postimg.cc/bJGrZbvM/pca.png

Can you explain how Baltic_BA have got to this position without an admixture from a WHG-like population?

Take this plot and draw the lines, please. I want to see your logic.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Rob,

You list sites with Bell shaped Beakers in Iberia predating 2600 BC which are wrongly dated.

I find it hard to believe the many Beaker sites in Iberia, which show no Steppe DNA, did not have Bell Beaker pottery.

Rob said...

If anyone were to find a human individual ID# - whether from aDNA, arcaheology or an isotope study, which has any component of the BB culture, - whether BB pottery, or wristguards, or Palmella points, which can be found in Iberia in 2800 BC, then the case can be made.

@ Archi

''Copper >Bell Beaker< Spain Paris Street, Cerdanyola, Barcelona [I0261 / 10378A, 2976] 2850–2250 BCE M R1b1a (xR1b1a1a2a) U5b1i''

Those samples from Paris street are from the pre-Beaker layer. This is a fact directly from the archaeologist who provded the samples. They are not from the BB layer of the hypogeum
Another Harvard mis-attribution

Davidski said...

@Arza

The plot you posted doesn't show anything specifically Balto-Slavic.

Of course Baltic BA has extra hunter-gatherer ancestry, and it forms a peculiar cline, but:

1) this isn't what makes it so archetypically Balto-Slavic-like

2) the peculiar cline isn't necessarily due to a peculiar type of hunter-gatherer ancestry.

Balto-Slavic genetic drift shows up in the European and North European G25 plots as a tendency to pull strongly Southeast, and largely independently so of any extra European hunter-gatherer ancestry, which is shown as a pull towards the Northeast.

So when we're discussing Balto-Slavic-specific drift, we have to make sure we're talking about the same thing, and thus not bringing the basic West Eurasian components into the discussion, because they have nothing directly to do with what is a much later phenomenon.

Romulus said...

Beaker copper daggers are 100% non beaker origin and we have perfect precursors in Remedello, where suprise surprise we see the non-steppe Beaker I-M26

Romulus said...

TAKE NOTE: Hung_EBA_Beaker_1

blob:https://imgur.com/5c7bb9b7-6b40-473e-8faf-acec3a0ccfb1

Romulus said...

https://imgur.com/a/DyTNdtG

Davidski said...

@Romulus

The EBA suffix means that this is a late Beaker from the transition period into the Bronze Age.

Early Beakers were people of the Late Neolithic.

Romulus said...

The slide says individuals from 2500-2100 B.C. , some EBA Beakers have about 1% Steppe, EBA Beaker 2 has about ~15%. Group 3 and 4 have 50-70%. "Heterogeneity in the Beaker complex related Carpathian Basin" is accurate. 2 way mix. Sure Beakers acquired more farmer ancestry upon entering south-west france, but they acquired local farmer ancestry everywhere they went. It was in the Carpathian Basin that they became Beakers. Basque there is a much more rational idea than arbitrarily upon entering Gascony. South west France has no meaningful border between it and Celtic people. Celtic came from much later out of the (Nitra?)->Unetice->Tumulus->Urnfield area.

Rob said...

@ Sam

“ I find it hard to believe the many Beaker sites in Iberia, which show no Steppe DNA, did not have Bell Beaker pottery.”

Well, believe it. BB pottery was deposited after the megalithic phase use ; either BB pots were placed to “cleanse“ or close the chambers, or a new individual was placed there , either a male or female with Central European / steppe ancestry
This was what detailed analysis shows, when and if the position of those buried there have been adequately documented

Davidski said...

@Romulus

It was in the Carpathian Basin that they became Beakers.

So you're pushing for a Hungarian model? Well that's novel at least.

Nope, I don't like your chances, considering Hungarian Beaker dates are later than those in North-Central Europe.

Rob said...

@ Romulus

'In the presentation she talks about finding more non-steppe Beakers, which is the entire reason I bring it up. They're coming. The I-M26 in the one we have is no coincidence.''

The situation in the Carpathian basin is different. The west Carpathian zone seems to have been part of an 'Alpine metallurgical zone' along with northern Italy.
The diffusion of G2a, I2c & I-M26 across those zone demonstrates this, which persist into the Unetice period also.
So clearly, a role of this region in enriching the Corded-Ware based pre-Beaker culture is evident- the idea of daggers, Polypod bowls, stelae, etc

It is interesting also that in the Olalde 2019 data set, the guy in Csepel kitted out with dagger and wrist guards was I2a-M26. At the same time, in the C.B. R1b-M269 guys could be assimilated into non-BB cultures (e.g. Nagyerev). Such a bidirectionality is not evident in Iberia, where it is always the R1b-L151 guys who are kitted out in the full BB set, + a couple of I2a / G2a guys partially incorporated (e.g. daggers + Beakers); but the overwhelming majority on contemporaneous males have no goods, or non-BB goods. At the same time, there is no assimilation of R1b-L151 guys into local Iberian cultures.

Norfern-Ostrobothnian said...

If you take GAC into account, I think the hunter-gatherer component leans more EHG than WHG. It's probably from multiple sources like late Narva, something Ukrainian/Belarusian(?) and Comb Ceramic.

Target: Baltic_LTU_BA
Distance: 7.9289% / 0.07928911
38.4 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
34.0 POL_Globular_Amphora
20.0 RUS_Karelia_HG
7.6 WHG

Target: Baltic_LVA_BA
Distance: 9.9943% / 0.09994283
34.8 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
29.2 POL_Globular_Amphora
22.8 RUS_Karelia_HG
13.2 WHG

Target: Baltic_EST_BA
Distance: 10.1335% / 0.10133486
34.6 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
29.0 POL_Globular_Amphora
24.2 RUS_Karelia_HG
12.2 WHG

ambron said...

West Eurasia: We inferred strong founder events in the history of seven West Eurasian
present-day populations, including in Western Europe (Basque country and Sardinia), Eastern
and Northern Europe (Belarus, Estonia, Finland and Lithuania) and Anatolia (Turkey)
(Figure 2). The timing of the founder events in Basque people (~1,700–2,500 years ago)
overlaps with the Roman colonization of the Basque country. Strikingly, in Eastern and
Northern Europe, the timing coincides with the spread of Steppe Pastoralists and the
appearance of Beaker and Corded Ware cultures. The founder event in Sardinia occurred
~3,400-4,900 years ago and is coincident with the appearance of the Beaker culture on the
island34. Similarly, in Eastern Europe (Lithuania, Estonia and Belarus) and Northern Europe
(Finland), the estimated founder ages of ~4,500-5,000 years ago overlaps with the arrival of
the Corded Ware culture.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.07.286450v1

ambron said...

In early February 2017, Generalissimo wrote on AG that Bronze Age genomes from Poland are very similar to contemporary Polish genomes. David, have you heard anything about the upcoming publication of this research?

Davidski said...

@Ryan

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2020/04/aesch25.html

Davidski said...

@ambron

Yeah, Bronze Age samples from Poland and surrounds are very similar to Poles in terms of genome-wide genetic structure.

But that doesn't necessarily mean that there's been any genetic continuity in Poland since that time.

ambron said...

David, that's what the principle of the economy of thinking would tell us. For example, the genetic continuity of Kuyavia was confirmed, which was mentioned twice in the media by Lorkiewicz.

Davidski said...

@ambron

Often the truth is a lot more complex than a straightforward explanation, and this is especially true in regards to European prehistory.

And I haven't seen Lorkiewicz demonstrate in detail that there really was genetic continuity in Kuyavia.

Michał said...

@Davidski
"And I haven't seen Lorkiewicz demonstrate in detail that there really was genetic continuity in Kuyavia."

Actually, he said that he got results indicating that Kuyavia shows continuity from the Early Middle Ages to modern times, but that this population has its deeper roots in the (local?) Neolithic or even in the Mesolithic, so apparently he understands this kind of much deeper roots (or this kind of "continuity") in a very specific way that has nothing to do with any absence of significant population replacement since the pre-Medieval times.

ambron said...

David, we are speculating today. However, we have to wait for a detailed study of the team from Łódź and Poznań. And for more genomes.

Davidski said...

I'm not waiting for a detailed study from them, I'm waiting for the genomes so I can have a look myself.

ambron said...

Exactly!

Matt said...

@ambron, yeah I think that's a very good question; I would tend to guess at the moment that populations in Poland, as the Bronze Age goes through, were coming to be more constituted by geneflow from Baltic-BA and the Carpathian Basin (bidirectional gene flow I'd add, not purely as a sink), and less by direct continuity by the GAC+early Corded Ware populations of LN+CA.

The genetic drift that defines Balto-Slavic cline and is most intense in Baltic-BA could have happened in a specific HG population (as per arza's sort of idea I think), as it's not like a small isolated late HG population wouldn't go through profound bottlenecks (though I think arza suggests an early split?). Or could have happened in agro-pastoralist population that contributed to Baltic-BA, as we know maintaining large populations pretty challenging for them at that latitude so probably went through boom and bust. Neither is really too unlikely. Or in post-fusion Baltic-BA population itself.

(E.g. we can construct a "Balto-Slavic HG ghost" and it works well, but we don't know yet if this is a statistical construct of greater HG becoming correlated with drift in all the extent populations we have. Between them and within them, as I get exactly the same results simply from pattern with Baltic-BA. In Western Europe we have an extensive enough sequence to guess that distinct drift in Western Europe MN farmers probably gets rolled together with some actually separate HG contributions and is just highly correlated, though there may still be some chance. But no signal is as clear in post-LN East Europe).

The "advantage" of having drift occur after Baltic-BA populations form and in them *themselves* though, and not in another contributor to them (whether a HG like one or Corded Ware like one), is that the overall genetic drift has to be much more intense in any contributor, if Baltic-BA only represent a diluted form...

More studies will tell.

Ioannis Gavras said...

@ Romulus


Its time for you to understand That BB is not about the same genetics but about a cultural phenomenon. Btw could someone help me and tell me with exception British/Irish and even the Belenux people where else we can see strong BB admixture? Basques are also BB remains for the most part. It is actually hard for me to separate BB from Celts specifically in central Europe.The whole area is a mess I think.

ambron said...

Matt, indeed, if I understand Arza correctly, he too sees shaping the Polish population as a return flow of genes between the Baltic BA and the Carpathian Basin from the later Bronze Age. Ralph recorded a similar flow in his study. The local CWC populations are of slightly less importance. The Lusatian culture could have an integrating character. The BR2 sample, which shares the most IBD with Poles, is important. Such a scenario seems to confirm the best suited model of Poles with ancient samples by Arza:

Target: Polish
Distance: 0.7167% / 0.00716747
47.0 Baltic_EST_BA
30.2 Corded_Ware_DEU
22.8 HUN_Baden_LCA

Matt said...

Ambron: Yeah, that seems like a reasonable model; if EST_BA about 29% from the MN farmer group (upthread model) and CWC_DEU about 27%, then present day Polish about 20% from that group which seems plausible. Though proportions could change with more direct Carpathian BA references.

Davidski said...

The problem is that EST_BA, CWC_DEU etc. are all proxies for an as yet unsampled population or populations from somewhere very roughly in between.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 313   Newer› Newest»