search this blog

Saturday, February 13, 2021

The Uralic cline with kra001 - no projection this time


A whole lot of nonsense was posted online, often by people who should've known better, after I claimed that kra001 was a solid proxy for a proto-Uralic genome (see here).

For those of you who still don't get it, below are three Principal Component Analysis (PCA) plots featuring Uralic speakers and other present-day Eurasians. Kra001 is also there. These graphs are based on genotype data not reprocessed Global25 data. The relevant datasheet is available here.

Compared to my previous PCA with kra001, here I included a bigger range of East Eurasian populations to help mitigate the effects of extreme genetic drift in some of the Siberian groups, at least on the first few Principal Components (PCs). Moreover, kra001 wasn't projected onto PCs computed with modern-day samples, so he was free to influence the outcome of the PCA.


Note the east to west clines made up largely of Uralic speaking groups on the first two plots. These plots are based on PCs 1/2 and 1 /3, respectively. The third plot, based on PCs 1/4, is more complex and thus more difficult to interpret, but it also manages to isolate many of the Uralic populations from the others.

The Uralic-specific clines do intersect with the clines and clusters formed by the other linguistic groups. However, based on the three plots, the Yeniseian-speaking Kets are the only Asian group that can plausibly be confused for Uralic speakers.

Importantly, apart from the Kets, kra001 is the only Asian individual who shifts his position on all three plots as if he were a Uralic speaker. This might well be a coincidence, and we'll never know what language was spoken by kra001, but it does suggest to me that his genome is a solid proxy for a proto-Uralic genome.

See also...

First taste of Early Medieval DNA from the Ural region

The BOO people: earliest Uralic speakers in the ancient DNA record?

Fresh off the sledge

771 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   401 – 600 of 771   Newer›   Newest»
Jaakko Häkkinen said...

Davidski:
"So it makes no difference whether we're talking about one haplogroup or 50 haplogroups. We just need to see that all or almost all Uralic speakers harbor ancestry from the Uralic homeland.
And of course that's what we see. Almost all Uralic speaking populations carry N-L1026 and kra001-like genome-wide ancestry, and most of this is surely from the Uralic homeland."

Just show me the evidence: a genetic research with reliable methods, which shows that there is more of certain ancestry in all Uralic populations and less in any non-Uralic populations. Then we would have a good match. But of course the situation is not that simple, because
1. there are other waves than Uralic, both before and after the Uralic spread, partially with similar distribution, and
2. the Uralic languages have not spread to their current regions in one step but in many consequent steps.

You just cannot present any credible model if you keep ignoring the linguistic results.
And your bluff has been checked already: you have no arguments supporting your unscientific fantasies, you just bark and hope that your cult followers fall into your lies.

Davidski said...

@Jaakko

Just show me the evidence: a genetic research with reliable methods, which shows that there is more of certain ancestry in all Uralic populations and less in any non-Uralic populations.

This is absolutely not necessary.

All that I need to demonstrate is that all or almost all Uralic populations share a genetic signal that is specific to them and the populations that they plausibly came in contact with, and that this relatedness plausibly stems from the Uralic homeland, and I've already done this using genome-wide data and PCA.

Of course, this finding has to correlate with linguistics results, and it does.

Linguists data show that Proto-Uralic was profoundly affected by early Indo-European languages, and especially Indo-Iranian languages.

At the same time, modern and ancient DNA data show that the aforementioned genetic signal shared by almost all Uralic speakers came from Siberia, and ancient DNA data strongly suggest that waves upon waves of Indo-European speakers, and especially Indo-Iranian speakers, moved into Siberia during the Bronze Age.

Ergo, there's no problem. Both linguistics data and DNA data show the same thing. That is, a Proto-Uralic homeland in Siberia, and this is going to be the consensus very shortly. So get with the program.

Anthony Hanken said...

"You cannot claim that. You are repeating the mistakes of the archaeological continuity theories. They also claimed that because some cultural flow came from the same area, it must have been connected to the same language, and finally they decided that already the Ice Age periglacial population was Uralic-speaking! So the continuity argument leads to absurd results – and also results contradicting each other, because by this method, all the later waves could equally be claimed to be connected to the Uralic language."

Now you don't think Uralic languages were spoken on the Volga during the LBA?

Valter Lang himself, connects Tapiola ware to textile/netted ware of the Volga region. According to him, fortified settlements, Tarand graves, Akozino-Malar axes, types of bone pins and, arrow heads, harpoons, etc. all came from the east.

"Still, in the Estonia they originally were build continuing the Bronze Age stone cist graves. So this grave type seems to have several roots, like often is the case with archaeological and genetic phenomena. It is impossible to guess to which root the language is connected."

Do you have a source for this? I have only seen them connected to the eastern 'house of the dead' burials.

Andrzejewski said...

Proto-IE is from Eastern Europe. PU is from Western Siberia.

PIE was most likely a language isolate, or at least all WSH clans were speaking a dialect continuum.

Uralic is much more closer to Altaic than to anything IE

Andrzejewski said...

If Ötzi was from a Remedllo-associated Kumtepe-like population, closer to Kura Araxes or Anatolian BA, does it mean that the language he may have spoken may have been something closer to Colchian, Hurrian, Hatti or Minoan rather than Raetian or Etruscan? The latter groups (Lemnian, Thyessian) had a much more Barcin affinity.

Davidski said...

@Andrzejewski

If Ötzi was from a Remedllo-associated Kumtepe-like population, closer to Kura Araxes or Anatolian BA...

How do you come up with this sort of crap years after first getting into this hobby?

Huck Finn said...

@ Anthony and re: "Do you have a source for this? I have only seen them connected to the eastern 'house of the dead' burials."

Possibly/apparently only the so called classical Tarands should be connected to House of Dead-tradition. The early Tarands are basically just circles made of stones, whereas the latter, classic ones can easily be seen as foundations for a house, made of stones.

Davidski said...

The stone cist graves aren't Tarand graves.

Also, unfortunately for Jaakko, the remains from the stone cist graves are exclusively R1a.

N-L1026 only shows up in the Uralic-associated Tarand graves, along with Siberian ancestry.

Genos Historia said...

@Davidski,

Question about Indo European languages in Corded Ware.

Do you think Balto-SLavs & Indo Iranians come from the same Corded Ware community? Or at least do you think they originated in the same region of Corded Ware?

It seems you think first Balto Slavs resembled Fatyanovo genetically. In other lacked the excess hunter gatherer ancestry in Corded Ware sample from Lithuania with Balto SLavic drift. That we tend to think distinguishes Balto-Slavs from other Europeans.

This would place origins of pre-Balto-Slav and pre-Indo Iranian languages in Poland/Middle of Corded Ware.

Davidski said...

I think Balto-Slavs and Indo-Iranians both share deep ancestry from the eastern Corded Ware populations that lived in northern Ukraine and southern Belarus.

Anthony Hanken said...

@Huck Finn

"One or two centuries later, however, new people arrived in coastal Estonia, who buried their dead in so-called early tarand cemeteries. This is a type of burial sites, which directly resembles the houses of the dead known among the eastern Finno-Ugrians (Patrushev, 2000 139 ff., figs 47-48)."

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333176681_Fortified_Settlements_in_the_Eastern_Baltic_From_Earlier_Research_to_New_Interpretations

ambron said...

David, the natives, or Pannonian Slavs, are labeled as CONQ EU CORE. They are identical to the people of Iron Age Pannonia who are labeled as HUN SCYTHIAN. You can see it better here:

http://www.historycy.org/index.php?showtopic=164942&st=855#

Huck Finn said...

@ Anthony: it may however well be that the division between Early and Typical Tarand grave types is just based on construction based fashion and they still both represent the same collective burial tradition.

ambron said...

Rob what I don't understand? I repeat the facts presented by the Hungarian geneticist, only using different words.

Davidski said...

@ambron

I've never heard of the Carpathian Basin being one of the candidates for the Proto-Slavic homeland.

The consensus is that Slavs migrated into the Carpathian Basin from somewhere else, rather than originating there from the local Iron Age/Scythian population.

ambron said...

David, historical sources - Nestor and Jordanes speak of the Carpathian Basin as a Slavic homeland. Among contemporary researchers, this view was shared by, among others, Trubaczow, Kobyczew, Trbuhović, Curta and Nazin.

So if the Slavs actually came from another place to the Carpathian Basin, they only culturally assimilated the local population here, because in the Slavic times it looked genetically the same as the earlier population of the Iron Age. At least this is the result of the results of Hungarian geneticists' research presented by Tibor Torok.

Davidski said...

@ambron

Are you sure that you're not misrepresenting Tibor Torok here?

So far all we've got is a broad genome-wide similarity to West Slavs.

The problem, of course, is that the Medieval samples from West Slavic or former West Slavic settlements in Bohemia, eastern Germany and Denmark, show a heterogeneous genetic structure that looks East Slavic and a mixture between East Slavs and Germanics.

You've tried to explain this East Slavic ancestry by claiming that these people may actually have been people of Baltic origin, which didn't sound very convincing.

Ergo, it looks like you need a couple of things to happen to push the Slavic homeland into some part of East Central Europe, like the Hungarian Plain:

- find a plausible explanation for the persistent East Slavic/Baltic-like genetic structure of the Medieval populations in the Slavic and formerly Slavic speaking parts of Central and Northern Europe

- find Slavic-specific Y-haplogroups in the samples from Iron Age Hungary.

Agreed?

Archi said...

@Rob

Stop trolling.

"1. ANE arrived in the paleolithic , not Mesolithic. Even within your simplistic schema of “EHG = R1a”, R1a is already present by the earliest phase of the Mesolithic, so it cannot have arrived 'in the Mesolithic”"

You have useless verbiage, I wrote everything right, you write everything wrong.


"2. but some Siberian tribes might have been important for introducing eastern pottery in 6000s BC"

And what does Neolithic have to do with Mesolithic? You're just talking out of your ass.

3. The main basis of European Mesolithic was southeastern Europe/Molodova/ Italy (“villabruna people”); not Siberia

This is anti-scientific nonsense, a direct anti-scientific lie by an ignorant deceiver. Stop deceiving, you've had enough of your deceptions.

"3. ANE arrived ~ 16,000 years before any reasonable estimate of IE expansion . Your Uralo-Siberian model of IE does not constitute “reasonable theory” but by all means feel free to believe in it
4. The deep origins of FU populations are evidently disconnected from PIE. Even when Yana people were roaming around Siberia; haplogroup N affinity people were south in China. This is what the current state of the art tells us"

These are your fantasies. You have no logic in your head, you have lost on all counts, you are always wrong. This is a firmly established fact. And you can't contradict anything so you just twist it. Haplogroup N people have nothing to do with Nostratic languages, they came to western Siberia during the Early Neolithic and adopted the Proto-Finno-Yukagir language from the local population. Just like the Haplogroup C people adopted, say, Mongolian.

ambron said...

David, it was not my intention to point to Pannonia as the Slavic homeland. I repeat: not all early Slavs looked genetically like East Slavs. For example, the Pannonian Slavs looked like the Western Slavs. And they were not the East Slavs mixed with Celto-Germans, but the local population, keeping their genetic continuity at least from the Iron Age.

Davidski said...

@ambron

How do you know that the Pannonian Slavs are direct descends of the Iron Age population in Pannonia, and not similar to then coincidentally?

And if they are their direct descendants then how do you know that they're not language shifters?

Obviously, this is your hypothesis and still needs to be proven. So to prove it you need to:

- show that the Pannonian Slavs are indeed the direct descendants of their Iron Age predecessors in Pannonia

- also show that they're closely and not coincidentally related to other western Slavs

- somehow explain why the West Slavs north of Pannonia look like they're recently admixed, with most of their ancestry stemming from an East Slavic-like population.

Are we in agreement?

EastPole said...

@ambron
“the Carpathian Basin as a Slavic homeland”

Ambron, Slavic homeland was were Indo-Slavic homeland was. Proto-Indo-Iranians left and went east and proto-Slavs remained in their homeland in Eastern Poland. Then Slavs started to diverge. Western Slavs emerged probably as a result of interactions of proto-Slavic post-CWC cultures in Poland with the populations of Carpathian Basin. Nitra, Eastern Unetice contributed to Western Slavic ethnos (we have to wait for aDNA from Nitra to get some details). Carpathian Basin became Slavic, yes, but it was not the homeland, it became Slavic as a result of Nitra expansion and probably Slavicisation of Fuzesabony. Eastern Slavs also were mixing and all this is a very complex process of diverging and converging of many Slavic ethnicities in Central-Eastern Europe.

Archi said...

Andrzejewski said...
"PIE was most likely a language isolate,"

Stop writing nonsense. You always don't understand a word you write. There are no isolated languages in nature, linguistics denies them. Linguists call an isolated language only a language for which cognates have not yet been established, for PIE all cognates are firmly established and proven and this is not denied by anyone.

@Jaakko Häkkinen

" 1. Historical phonology shows that Hungarian, Mansi, Khanty and Samoyedic branches derive from Late Proto-Uralic, which was spoken in the Volga-Kama region.
2. The eastern branches also have Archaic IE (formerly known as Proto-IE)"

1. There is no historical phonology, there is historical phonetics. And of course it says nothing of the sort, so you have written only your personal anti-scientific fantasies. Fatyanovo in Khanty, Mansi, Samoyeds = 0%.
2. That's just your personal anti-scientific fantasy.

@Davidski

Within the CWC it is very hard to divide into future peoples right now, there is catastrophically little data, it has been researched an order of magnitude worse than the BBC. It is clear that the Proto-Slavs are not Germanic CWC, but more eastern, but there is no reason to associate them with the territory of the Ukraine or Belarus. We can still speculate about later times. Now we can only speculate with certainty that the Proto-Slavs come from the Trzyniec culture. Further definitely pointing to the Lusatian culture.

@ambron
"historical sources - Nestor and Jordanes speak of the Carpathian Basin as a Slavic homeland. Among contemporary researchers, this view was shared by, among others, Trubaczow, Kobyczew, Trbuhović, Curta and Nazin."

They are wrong. Jordanes did not say that at all, he wrote only about the spread of the Slavs in his time. The latter two are not respectable people at all.

ambron said...

David, I think that Hungarian geneticists are driven by the economy of thinking. If the population of the Iron Age and the Middle Age are genetically the same, then there is biological continuity in the region.

Davidski said...

@ambron

Or they might not be very good at analyzing fine scale structure, which is a serious problem that still plagues population genetics.

In any case, whatever they claim, they need to prove it and not just choose the simplest solution based on some basic Admixture runs.

Archi said...

@Jaakko Häkkinen

" 1. Historical phonology shows that Hungarian, Mansi, Khanty and Samoyedic branches derive from Late Proto-Uralic, which was spoken in the Volga-Kama region."

Historical phonetics cannot tell you the place of origin, it has no method to tell you the coordinates.

ambron said...

David, I think when the paper comes out it will all become clear.

Archi said...

@vAsiSTha
Read this very very, very very, very very carefully.......

Read carefully, it's their suggestion within their proposed method alone, not a generic name. Their method is not tested, it is not tested physically or mathematically. In any case, it does not exist without a normal outgroup method. since their method can give absolutely any p-value depending on any right population getting close to the left population, which leads to unpredictable changes in the p-value. In any case, even in their method the right populations must be out of the group with the left populations.

Their method is only used if you produce a dozen models with different right populations. that's the essence of their method, a few basic models at that are classical where all right populations are outgroups in classical meaning. Their method is designed precisely to assess the plausibility of the p-value for the classical method.

Genos Historia said...

Where, pre-Indo Iranian lived I think has to overlap with Globular Amphora since they have GAC admixture.

Globular Amphora didn't live in Belarus. But I guess they did in Western Ukraine. So I guess that fits.

Andrzejewski said...

@Archi “ There are no isolated languages in nature, linguistics denies them. Linguists call an isolated language only a language for which cognates have not yet been established, for PIE all cognates are firmly established and proven and this is not denied by anyone.”


“Isolate” in the sense that there are no ties to any other language family, just like Sumerian, Basque, Elamite, Burusho, Nihali, Kusunda, etc.

There are no known PIE cognates between the word for father between PIE and some EHG, EEF, CHG, WHG, Sumerian, Afro-Asiatic or any other macro-family. OTOH, all WSH people including Progress, Khvalynsk, Yamnaya, Sredny Stog and CWC spoke some para-pre-PIE-whatever that had the same basic cognate with each other, and with English and Latin.

Jaakko Häkkinen said...

Davidski:
"Ergo, there's no problem. Both linguistics data and DNA data show the same thing. That is, a Proto-Uralic homeland in Siberia, and this is going to be the consensus very shortly. So get with the program."

You still ignore the linguistic results:
- Pre-Proto-Uralic probably arrived from Siberia, but
- Late Proto-Uralic was spoken in the Volga-Kama region.

Only if your genetic results match these - or are vague enough to be interpreted to match these - we can accept them.

Jaakko Häkkinen said...


Davidski:
"Ergo, there's no problem. Both linguistics data and DNA data show the same thing. That is, a Proto-Uralic homeland in Siberia, and this is going to be the consensus very shortly. So get with the program."

You still ignore the linguistic results:
- Pre-Proto-Uralic probably arrived from Siberia, but
- Late Proto-Uralic was spoken in the Volga-Kama region.

Only if your genetic results match these - or are vague enough to be interpreted to match these - we can accept them.

Anthony Hanken:
“Now you don't think Uralic languages were spoken on the Volga during the LBA?”

Late Proto-Uralic was spoken in the Volga-Kama region around 2000 BC; this is what the linguistic evidence shows. The earlier stages are more open, but Pre-Proto-Uralic probably arrived from Siberia.

AH: “Valter Lang himself, connects Tapiola ware to textile/netted ware of the Volga region. According to him, fortified settlements, Tarand graves, Akozino-Malar axes, types of bone pins and, arrow heads, harpoons, etc. all came from the east.”

Yes?

AH: “Do you have a source for this? I have only seen them connected to the eastern 'house of the dead' burials.”

Lang himself writes about this at least in his books in Estonian (Läänemeresoome tulemised) and Finnish (Homo Fennicus).

Jaakko Häkkinen said...

Andrzejewski:
“PU is from Western Siberia.”

Pre-Proto-Uralic may be from Siberia, but Late Proto-Uralic was spoken in the Volga-Kama region around 2000 BC. You cannot reach the language at all, if you ignore the linguistic results.

Davidski:
“The stone cist graves aren't Tarand graves.”

Of course not. But the early Tarand graves were built around the older stone cist graves. Read more.

Davidski:
“Also, unfortunately for Jaakko, the remains from the stone cist graves are exclusively R1a.
N-L1026 only shows up in the Uralic-associated Tarand graves, along with Siberian ancestry.”

Again you are unscientific: genetics cannot testify for archaeological phenomena any more than it can testify for languages. And if it could, most of the Tarand grave people are also R1a, so this would testify just the opposite to what you claim.

So, you (1) are unscientific, (2) have double standards, and (3) see everything too black-and-white.

vAsiSTha said...

@archi

"Their method is not tested, it is not tested physically or mathematically. "

The whole paper Harney 2021, in which Reich and patterson are co authors, tests the best practices for qpAdm mathematically. Im pretty sure they know about this than you, since they developed the math and tools. On the other hand, I have not seen you run a single good qpadm model

"since their method can give absolutely any p-value depending on any right population getting close to the left population"

No it doesnt give 'any pvalue'. P-value can fall drastically with the introduction of a new right population because the source list probably needs a population like this new right population. That's the whole purpose of the right population. to help reject bad models and only accept a few models.

and the right populations should indeed be differentially related to the left populations ie. they are closer to one or more of left populations as compared to others. if they're all as distant from the sources, the model is useless for us as it cannot differentiate between those sources.

In any case, these are the only caveats given by the Harvard team for modeling: from harney 2021

"These results indicate that when selecting populations to include in qpAdm models, users should avoid including source populations that may have experienced gene flow that is more recent than the admixture event of interest. In cases where this is unavoidable, users should make particular effort to avoid including reference populations that may have acted as sources of this gene flow and exercise particular caution when interpreting qpAdm results."

Inlcuding Iran_N in right populations when Kotias is a source, breaks neither of these rules.

ambron said...

Archi, Jordanes spoke literally of the Slavs (Sclavini) as inhabitants of the area between the Danube and the Vistula. However, as I said, it is not my intention to start a discussion about the Slavic homeland in Pannonia.

EastPole, I think it is easiest to see it like Arza, that the Indo-Slavs arose somewhere in the Carpathian surroundings. The Balts are those of them who went north, the Indo-Iranians are those who went east, and the Slavs are those who stayed in the Carpathian surroundings. Only that between the Balts and the Slavs there wested a continuous flow of genes.

Anthony Hanken said...

@Jaakko

"Late Proto-Uralic was spoken in the Volga-Kama region around 2000 BC; this is what the linguistic evidence shows. The earlier stages are more open, but Pre-Proto-Uralic probably arrived from Siberia."

"Yes?"

Earlier you claimed connecting Tarand graves to the Volga/Netted ware area and, west-Uralic was an "unscientific guess". It's not, by your own methodology.

"Lang himself writes about this at least in his books in Estonian (Läänemeresoome tulemised) and Finnish (Homo Fennicus)."

I appreciate you telling me where you read that. But, does he say early-tarands are derived from stone-cist graves? Or, are early-tarands merely buried around, older stone-cist graves? There is obviously a big difference.

I just quoted Lang saying, the early-tarands are analogous to the eastern 'house of the dead' burials.

Archi said...

@Andrzejewski

"“Isolate” in the sense that there are no ties to any other language family, just like Sumerian, Basque, Elamite, Burusho, Nihali, Kusunda, etc."

That's what I wrote to you. Indo-European is directly related to Finno-Samoyedic, Kartvelian, Semito-Hamitic, Altaic, Dravidian. It is connected to Finno-Samoyedic by 700 related words that are not borrowed. Here they correlate with each other like English and Latin.
And your fantasies about this are of no interest to anyone, you do not understand anything in this, so you can not argue.


@Jaakko Häkkinen

" - Late Proto-Uralic was spoken in the Volga-Kama region.

Only if your genetic results match these - we can accept them."

Don't write in the plural about yourself, you're not a king. No one cares whether you accept them or not, you are frankly no one.


@vAsiSTha

"The whole paper Harney 2021, in which Reich and patterson are co authors, tests the best practices for qpAdm mathematically. On the other hand, I have not seen you run a single good qpadm model"

Nonsense, it's all your models that are wrong, their models are just right. There is no mathematical justification for their new method, they just have observations.

" That's the whole purpose of the right population. to help reject bad models and only accept a few models."

No, it's just analysis increasing plausibility or decreasing plausibility.

" Inlcuding Iran_N in right populations when Kotias is a source, breaks neither of these rules."

No, it's allowed to be done in their way of analysis when there is a correct model without including ingroups. This is the way to analyze exactly the correct model without the inclusion of the right populations from the ingroup. It is only an additional way to analyze the correctness of the model, but then it also requires the inclusion of ingroups in the right populations for the other left populations.

@ambron "Jordanes spoke literally of the Slavs (Sclavini) as inhabitants of the area between the Danube and the Vistula."

This is by no means Pannonia territory. The Prague culture was located just between the Danube and the Vistula.

ambron said...

David, I am reviewing Matt's principal component analyzes, made according to your guidelines, and I wonder why the similarity of bronse and iron Hungarians to today's Hungarians and Western Slavs may be a coincidental similarity, and for example the similarity of medieval Germans to Eastern Slavs proves actual kinship?

Does your method differentiate between coincidental similarity and actual kinship?

Davidski said...

@ambron

Real ancient Slavs will cluster with modern Slavs in all dimensions in all PCA.

Fake, coincidental Slavs will cluster somewhere else in some of the dimensions in some PCA.

EastPole said...

@Davidski

“Real ancient Slavs will cluster with modern Slavs in all dimensions in all PCA.

Fake, coincidental Slavs will cluster somewhere else in some of the dimensions in some PCA.”


And Indo-Slavs, who will they cluster with?

vAsiSTha said...

@archi

"Nonsense, it's all your models that are wrong, their models are just right. There is no mathematical justification for their new method, they just have observations."

Ok archi.. patterson and reich are wrong, you the boy wonder who knows it all without having done anything, is always right.

Gabriel said...

@Jaakko Häkkinen

There is not much reason to think that Indo-Iranian was from Catacomb, considering not only genetic evidence but also the fact that we do not need them to explain Indo-Iranians in other aspects.

@ambron

How would you explain the R1b and I1 found in many West Slavic groups?

Genos Historia said...

Who are the strange Welzin and Slavic like people in Iron/Bronze age Central Europe and what language did they speak? That is hard question.

We always knew there were people there before Goths & Slavs. But apparently we're never know what language they spoke.

They in large part don't even seem to be from Corded Ware. Y DNA I2a, hunter gatherer ancestry, Danube farmer ancestry points to ancestry south of Corded Ware.

Jaakko Häkkinen said...


Anthony Hanken:
“Earlier you claimed connecting Tarand graves to the Volga/Netted ware area and, west-Uralic was an "unscientific guess". It's not, by your own methodology.”

No, you misunderstood something. Unscientific guess is anything which claims to know something about language only based on genetics or archaeology, while ignoring the linguistic results. Certain Netted Ware waves can be connected to the so-called B-lineage = northern route of West-Uralic spread (> Saami), like Valter Lang does, because it acknowledges and matches the linguistic result.

AH: “I appreciate you telling me where you read that. But, does he say early-tarands are derived from stone-cist graves? Or, are early-tarands merely buried around, older stone-cist graves? There is obviously a big difference.”

It is difficult to say for certain if something is derived or just similar or close to. Like the houses of the dead: it may be that tarand graves derive from them, but as long as there are no timber evidence, it remains speculative: similar rectangular shapes can very easily occur independently. Probably most of the grave types all around the world are somehow rectangular.

I checked the newest = Finnish version (2020) of Lang:
- There is a continuity from the stone cist graves to the tarand graves: the latter often continue and sometimes are even build upon the earlier. (This points to genealogical continuum of population.) Common to these grave types is the stone structure on the ground, although the shape is different.
- Houses of the dead contain a pit and only wooden structure, while the tarand graves are rectangular fields of stone built on the ground, so the only common feature seems to be the shape.

Therefore it is possible that the tarand graves are two-rooted: shape may have come from the east, but the stone structure from the west. Still, all common features are on very general level and nothing is certain.

Parastais said...

Re Slavs in Pannonia,

This is all of course speculations, but there were different linguists who demonstrated possible close affinities of Dacian (and maybe even Thracian) to Balto-Slavic languages. Might as well be similar affinities between Dacians and Balto-Slavs were on genetic level.
If that is correct, how would one differentiate an ancient Dacian from speculative Daco-Balto-Slavic branch from ancient Slav or Balt from Balto-Slavic branch?

ambron said...

David, if I understand correctly, we should design coordinate systems from consecutive components, not only PC1 and PC2. Does Vahaduo allow this?

I don't know, what it looks like in Vahaduo, but usually PC1 and PC2 exhaust the vast majority of the genome composition. Shifts in relation to successive components indicate only the directions of possible fine admixtures. Is this how we can actually distinguish a random similarity from a real kinship?

What is causing the random similarity in your opinion?

Archi said...

@vAsiSTha

"Inlcuding Iran_N in right populations when Kotias is a source, breaks neither of these rules."

No changes in the previous rules they do not override. So if they didn't write something in their additive reasoning, it doesn't mean anything, it was all described before.

Understand, f4 is a completely symmetric statistic, right populations are the same outgroups for left populations as left outgroups for right populations, so any gene flow for these populations should be excluded there. f4 statistics knows nothing about the timing of populations, it sees any gene flow regardless of direction and therefore it becomes a group situation.

Archi said...

@Parastais
" Re Slavs in Pannonia,
This is all of course speculations, but there were different linguists who demonstrated possible close affinities of Dacian (and maybe even Thracian) to Balto-Slavic languages. Might as well be similar affinities between Dacians and Balto-Slavs were on genetic level.
If that is correct, how would one differentiate an ancient Dacian from speculative Daco-Balto-Slavic branch from ancient Slav or Balt from Balto-Slavic branch?"

It is amazing, but it was Trubachev, who was the author of the hypothesis that the Slavs came from Pannonia, who determined and proved that the Thracian-Dacian languages had no connections with the Slavic languages, but had huge connections with the Baltic languages only running through the territory of Ukraine. But if the Slavs lived in the Carpathian Basin, they would have had numerous connections with the Thracian-Dacian languages, which are absent.


@ambron
"I don't know, but usually PC1 and PC2 exhaust the vast majority of the genome composition. Shifts in relation to successive components indicate only the directions of possible fine admixtures."

This is completely erroneous opinion, in the genome just all the opposite, there all the fractions of the explained variance are minuscule and vary weakly.

Andrzejewski said...

@Pasatais @Genos Historia “ This is all of course speculations, but there were different linguists who demonstrated possible close affinities of Dacian (and maybe even Thracian) to Balto-Slavic languages. Might as well be similar affinities between Dacians and Balto-Slavs were on genetic level.
If that is correct, how would one differentiate an ancient Dacian from speculative Daco-Balto-Slavic branch from ancient Slav or Balt from Balto-Slavic branch?”

Not Balto-Slavic but Thraco-Cymmerian, which is a branch of Indo-Iranian (close to Scythians and Sarmatians). As such, it’s a derivative of Corded Ware Satem speech.

Anthony Hanken said...

@Jaakko


"No, you misunderstood something. Unscientific guess is anything which claims to know something about language only based on genetics or archaeology, while ignoring the linguistic results. Certain Netted Ware waves can be connected to the so-called B-lineage = northern route of West-Uralic spread (> Saami), like Valter Lang does, because it acknowledges and matches the linguistic result."

My argument is in line with Lang's.

The tarand graves people migrated from the Upper-Volga (Netted Ware area), to the Baltic during the LBA-IA. Pre-D'yakovo pottery is derived from Netted ware as well.

What language do you suppose, was spoken near the Upper-Volga at this time?

"Therefore it is possible that the tarand graves are two-rooted: shape may have come from the east, but the stone structure from the west. Still, all common features are on very general level and nothing is certain."

That's fine, but it's almost indisputable that new people arrived from the east. Based on genetics of those buried in tarands and, new material culture that shows up, with parallels to the east.

ambron said...

Gabriel, these are old Central European haplogroups. The main mutations of R1b took place in Central Europe, which probably everyone agrees with today. For example, the Hungarian Scythian, autosomal Polish, came from the paternal line I1.

ambron said...

Archi, that's right! Linguists showed strong linguistic connections between the Balts and the Daco-Thracians. Some even considered the Daco-Thracian dialects to be the third group of Baltic languages - the South Baltic group, next to the East Baltic and West Baltic groups.

Archi, remember the Vikings paper. There were component analyzes from PC1 to PC4. For example, in the analysis with PC1 and PC2, Polish Vikings grouped with Poles, but in the analysis with PC1 and PC4, some clearly moved towards the Scandinavians, which was evidence of a Scandinavian admixture. Nevertheless, their kinship with Poles was still real.

vAsiSTha said...

@archi

"No changes in the previous rules they do not override. So if they didn't write something in their additive reasoning, it doesn't mean anything, it was all described before."

Quote their "previous rule". please. let me have a good laugh.
Please quote where it is "all described before"

Rob said...

@ parastais

Dacians-Thracian should have no close affinities with Baltio-Slavic , even though some linguists think they do (probably due to the nature of Baltic itself- “conservative “ & therefor having wide chances resemblances with other IE langauges
Dacian moved north of the Danube quite late- after the la Tene period- splitting off from Thracian in the south
A lot of Romanian scholars would have Daco-Thracian as far as Ukraine; but this isn’t correct. Those languages (eg chernolis people) are extinct idioms

Archi said...

@ambron

"but usually PC1 and PC2 exhaust the vast majority of the genome composition."

The problem is that genetic studies almost never print on PCA the proportion of variance explained, which is the reason for your mistake. But sometimes it does slip in, as in this case https://i.ibb.co/6yCqsJK/Saag-2021-Genetic-ancestry-changes-in-Stone-to-Bronze-Age-transition-in-the-East-Europe-PCA.png

Davidski said...

@ambron

The less significant dimensions are vital in such analyses because they pick up ultra fine scale differences.

So, like I said, if you're looking for ancient Slavs, then to find them you need to get a perfect match with modern Slavs across all dimensions.

Unless of course some dimensions pick up the difference between modern and ancient samples, which does happen. But this is an artifact that can be ignored.

Archi said...

@Rob said...
"@ ambron

“ Archi, that's right! Linguists showed strong linguistic connections between the Balts and the Daco-Thracians”

Not it’s not right. You two are as dumb as each other"

ambron wrote the truth, you freak who knows nothing about linguistics. That's what all linguists write. Stop trolling and lying.

Rob said...

@ parastais

Dacians-Thracian should have no directly close affinities with Baltio-Slavic , even though some linguists think they do (probably due to the nature of Baltic itself- “conservative “ & therefor having wide chances resemblances with other IE langauges ; even Illyrian which Trubachev outlined
Dacian moved north of the Danube quite late- after the la Tene period- splitting off from Thracian in the south
A lot of Romanian scholars would have Daco-Thracian as far as Ukraine; but this isn’t correct. Those languages (eg chernolis people) are extinct idioms

@ ambron

“ Archi, that's right! Linguists showed strong linguistic connections between the Balts and the Daco-Thracians”

Unlikely , above

Archi said...

@Rob said...
"@ ambron

“ Archi, that's right! Linguists showed strong linguistic connections between the Balts and the Daco-Thracians”

Not it’s not right. You two are as dumb as each other"

ambron wrote the truth, you freak who knows nothing about linguistics. That's what all linguists write. That's what Toporov wrote about. Stop trolling and lying.

Rob said...

@ Andrze

“ Not Balto-Slavic but Thraco-Cymmerian, which is a branch of Indo-Iranian (close to Scythians and Sarmatians).”

There is no such thing as Thraco-Cimmerian language
It is a made up archaeological horizon

Rob said...

@ Archie

''ambron wrote the truth, you freak who knows nothing about linguistics. That's what all linguists write. That's what Toporov wrote about. Stop trolling and lying.''

Why need do I have to lie ? As I said, your problem is that you don't understand that I'm aware of these banalities and old theories that. But, unlike you, I also know that this is not substantiated in population historical terms. My aim here is to evaluate, challenge & move forward; your aim is to defend whichever theories resonate with you personally. That's all your pea brain can muster, so you yammer like a little chihuahua.

So the linguist Toporov wrote in 1958 needs to be tempered by the current state of the art, not vice-versa

Jaakko Häkkinen said...

Anthony Hanken:
“What language do you suppose, was spoken near the Upper-Volga at this time?”

Uralic languages, Baltic languages, possibly Iranian languages, possibly even Palaeo-European languages.

AH: “That's fine, but it's almost indisputable that new people arrived from the east. Based on genetics of those buried in tarands and, new material culture that shows up, with parallels to the east.”

All the time there were new people coming from the east. But we cannot just guess that all or some of them were Uralic-speaking.

AH: “The tarand graves people migrated from the Upper-Volga (Netted Ware area), to the Baltic during the LBA-IA. Pre-D'yakovo pottery is derived from Netted ware as well.”

R1a is still most common in the tarand graves, and this seems to be a continuation of earlier local inhabitants (stone cist graves). N3 is a small minority only.

Genetics cannot testify about archaeological cultures any more than it can about language – therefore you just cannot ignore the stone cist connection and claim that the tarand graves came from the east, because they didn’t. Only the shape of the grave is similar than in the east. At most we can say that tarand graves could have been born from the influences of two directions.

Davidski said...

@Jaakko

Published and yet to be published data show that N-L1026 becomes progressively more common in the Baltic Stats and Fennoscandia from the Iron Age, and it's likely that this process started somewhat earlier.

Of course, this correlates nicely with the arrival and spread of Uralic languages in these regions as well as the appearance of the Tarand "house of death" tradition.

So these things aren't the complete mystery that you make them out to be. Everything, including linguistics, actually fits quite nicely.

Genos Historia said...

@Davidski,

Is it legal for me to mention in a youtube video.......unpublished Y DNA shows N1c became established in Northeast Europe in Iron age/1st millennium BC.

Do you think the will the scientists have a problem with that? It might not be necessary.

Genos Historia said...

Off Topic,

Am I the only one, who thinks it seems migration and ethnic/linguistic change was relatively common in prehistoric Europe.

The creation of more advanced kingdoms in Middle Ages seems to made migration like this impossible and undesirable.

This is just an observation. I'm dogamatic about it.

The Roman empire halted migration of Germans into Western/Southern Europe. Then when Roman empire collapsed you had the "Migration period" in which Slavs, Germans, Turks, Uralics took lots of land in Europe.

Davidski said...

@Genos

I don't think you'll be breaking any laws.

That's what published data show anyway, and the yet to be published stuff is hardly a secret.

Anthony Hanken said...

@Jaakko

"Uralic languages, Baltic languages, possibly Iranian languages, possibly even Palaeo-European languages."

One of those is a winner.

"All the time there were new people coming from the east. But we cannot just guess that all or some of them were Uralic-speaking."

What do you mean "all of the time"? You should be more specific. Stone-cist graves certainly didn't cone from the east.

Tarand burials are in the right place and, time to be associated with Uralic speakers.

"R1a is still most common in the tarand graves, and this seems to be a continuation of earlier local inhabitants (stone cist graves). N3 is a small minority only."

That's not true, there are only 6 male tarand samples. 3/R1a, 3/N3a.

"Genetics cannot testify about archaeological cultures any more than it can about language – therefore you just cannot ignore the stone cist connection and claim that the tarand graves came from the east, because they didn’t. Only the shape of the grave is similar than in the east. At most we can say that tarand graves could have been born from the influences of two directions."

Potential influence from local stone-cist burials does not negate the eastern origin of Tarand burials.

"Genetics cannot testify about archaeological cultures any more than it can about language"

Actually it can. In fact, they are inextricably linked.

Parastais said...

But of course you expect arriving population and local population in Tarands. Both by simple logic and by facts of Baltic & preGermanic substrates in Baltic Finns.
It is clear that N were arriving people. R1a could be local, arriving or both.

Jaakko Häkkinen said...


Davidski:
“Published and yet to be published data show that N-L1026 becomes progressively more common in the Baltic Stats and Fennoscandia from the Iron Age, and it's likely that this process started somewhat earlier.”

Yes, that is the result of genetics at the moment.

D: “Of course, this correlates nicely with the arrival and spread of Uralic languages in these regions as well as the appearance of the Tarand "house of death" tradition.
So these things aren't the complete mystery that you make them out to be. Everything, including linguistics, actually fits quite nicely.”

Correlation in place is not enough: there are similar spatial correlations in different times. The only correlation which matters, is the spatio-temporal correlation.

As I wrote, tarand graves are not direct descendants of the houses of the dead – the only common thing seems to be the rectangular shape. So you cannot claim that tarand graves arrived from the east, because there are no evidence for that.

And if you think that there was a cultural or genetic flow from the east to Estonia at the beginning of the Iron Age, then this is a poor match for the Finnic branch, which seems rather have spread to Estonia from the south at the Bronze Age; see the Daugava route from Upper Volga argued by Valter Lang.

So, rather than Finnic, the linguistic match then should be the Meryanic branch: east from Estonia there are no Finnic but Meryan-related placenames.

Jaakko Häkkinen said...


Anthony Hanken:
“What do you mean "all of the time"? You should be more specific. Stone-cist graves certainly didn't cone from the east.”

I mean since the Stone Age there are many visible cultural flows from the east to Fenno-Baltia: early comb ceramic, Lyalovo ceramic, Typical comb ceramic, Seima-Turbino network, Netted Ware etc. Any of these “matches” the Uralic languages spatially, but only one also temporally. At that we cannot guess based on archaeology (nor genetics), but we must look at the linguistic results.

AH: “Tarand burials are in the right place and, time to be associated with Uralic speakers.”

Yes, but which Uralic speakers? According to Valter Lang, Finnic spread to Estonia already during the Bronze Age from the south (Daugava route). So any wave from the east at the Iron Age doesn’t match Finnic but rather Meryanic.

Besides, there are different layers of tarand graves, and we cannot assume 100 % genetic or linguistic continuity from one layer to another. And of course there were still room for many other language communities in Estonia.

AH: “That's not true, there are only 6 male tarand samples. 3/R1a, 3/N3a.”

There are 15 tarand samples in the supplementary table 1 from Saag et al. 2019. Of those, 4 is R1a, 3 is N3 and 8 have no Y-result.

AH: “Potential influence from local stone-cist burials does not negate the eastern origin of Tarand burials.”

And vice versa: potential influence from the east does not negate the local origins of tarand graves. As I already told you, the only feature common with the houses of the dead is the rectangular shape. Otherwise tarand graves are stone squares on the ground, when the houses of the dead are timber structures in a pit.

AH: “Actually it can. In fact, they are inextricably linked.”

You are being unscientific again. No geneticist ever has been able to present a method how we could predict the language from DNA. And you guys cannot present such a method, either. Please, try to explain how it could even in theory be possible!

ambron said...

David, maybe otherwise... Which ancient samples would you consider genetically Slavic?

Archi said...

@Rob

Once again, the links, and quite young ones, between the Thracian-Dacian languages and the Baltic languages are a statement of all linguists, including Trubachev and Toporov. The Slavic language did not participate in these links at all.

@Jaakko Häkkinen

Here Netted Ware is the time of arrival of the Finno-Ugric to Europe, all the sciences of linguistics, archaeology, anthropology, and genetics agree on that.

I am tired of your constant anti-scientific nonsense that the biological kinship of people has nothing to do with the transmission of their language. In ancient times, it was the movement of people that spread languages, and not a single scientist denies this.

Davidski said...

@Jaakko

You know as well as me and everyone else here that the same population brought Uralic languages and N-L1026 to the Baltic region.

Obviously, other options look totally out of place in the overall scheme of things.

EastPole said...

@Davidski

“The less significant dimensions are vital in such analyses because they pick up ultra fine scale differences.

So, like I said, if you're looking for ancient Slavs, then to find them you need to get a perfect match with modern Slavs across all dimensions.”

Yes, of course, natuerlich, jawohl, absolument, and if you're looking for ancient Indo-Iranians, then to find them you need to get a perfect match with modern Indo-Iranians across all dimensions.


@ambron

I think genetics will tell us soon which linguists were right, those who claimed that Daco-Thracians were Slavs, those who claimed that they were Balts or those who said that they were Greeks.

HUN_Fuzesabony_MBA:I20772, properly understood Thracian religion and many linguistic facts look very promising.

Heyerdahl said...

"The Roman empire halted migration of Germans into Western/Southern Europe. Then when Roman empire collapsed you had the "Migration period" in which Slavs, Germans, Turks, Uralics took lots of land in Europe."

The term you are looking for is Germanics, not Germans. Even though this may just seem like stuck-up semantics, this is very important if the topic is genomics.

Rob said...

@ Archie

“ Once again, the links, and quite young ones, between the Thracian-Dacian languages and the Baltic languages are a statement of all linguists, including Trubachev and Toporov. The Slavic language did not participate in these links at all.”

I know. And it’s common knowledge
But linguists also know that the attestation of Thracian & other Paleobalkan languages is meagre barr some inscriptions and names; so we cannot precisely know what they were
Moreover it’s the nature of Baltic itself which makes it seem to share affinities with many other IE language, so much that at some point some scholars thought that the PIE homeland was in the Baltic
So, the conservative nature of Baltic combined with the conservative nature of comparative corpora (river names etc) will make it look like there are some close connections
Moreover, the said non-participation of Slavic is because it is “innovative”, due to its recent expansion and resulting koinization

But let’s look at a sample of data:
https://imgur.com/G0F70mL

There is no clear link or direct cline , at present between these groups
I also propose that Dacian is an offshoot off Thracian from the south. They took the carpathian basin from the Celts
~ 200 BC

Archi said...

@Rob
"I also propose that Dacian is an offshoot off Thracian from the south. "

Thracians from Sabatinovka culture.

Herodotus clearly described that they dress like northerners.
"The Thracians wore fox hats on their heads during the campaign. On their bodies they wore chitons, and on top they wore colorful burnuses. On their legs and knees they had deer skin wraps. They were armed with darts, slingshots and small daggers."

Xenophanes described that they looked like northerners - blue-eyed and red-haired.

You constantly stated that the Thracians only burned, but this is not so, this is what Herodotus writes:

"The burial rites of the rich Thracians are as follows. The body of the deceased is exposed for three days. At the same time, sacrificial animals of all kinds are slaughtered and after the funeral cries they arrange a funeral feast. Then the body is burned or in some other way buried and, having poured a mound, they arrange various competitions. The highest awards are assigned for single combat, depending on the importance of the competition. These are the burial customs of the Thracians."


Explaining the links between the Baltic language and Daco-Thracian through the mythical properties of the Baltic languages ​​does not work, this is a completely different level of ties that lie in a new cultural and religious plane and common toponymy. The absence of any connections with Slavic cannot be explained by some kind of mythical innovativeness of the Slavic languages, it all proceeds due to your ignorance of what kind of connections linguists found between the Daco-Thracian and Baltic languages.

Archi said...

@Rob
"I also propose that Dacian is an offshoot off Thracian from the south. "

Thracians from Sabatinovka culture.

Herodotus clearly described that they dress like northerners.
"The Thracians wore fox hats on their heads during the campaign. On their bodies they wore chitons, and on top they wore colorful burnuses. On their legs and knees they had deer skin wraps. They were armed with darts, slingshots and small daggers."

Xenophanes described that they looked like northerners - blue-eyed and red-haired.

You constantly stated that the Thracians only burned, but this is not so, this is what Herodotus writes:

"The burial rites of the rich Thracians are as follows. The body of the deceased is exposed for three days. At the same time, sacrificial animals of all kinds are slaughtered and after the funeral cries they arrange a funeral feast. Then the body is burned or in some other way buried and, having poured a mound, they arrange various competitions. The highest awards are assigned for single combat, depending on the importance of the competition. These are the burial customs of the Thracians."


Explaining the links between the Baltic language and Daco-Thracian through the mythical properties of the Baltic languages ​​does not work, this is a completely different level of ties that lie in a new cultural and religious plane and common toponymes. The absence of any connections with Slavic cannot be explained by some kind of mythical innovativeness of the Slavic languages, it all proceeds due to your ignorance of what kind of connections linguists found between the Daco-Thracian and Baltic languages.

ambron said...

EastPole, well said! I mean the Indo-Iranians.

In general, this discussion was about the West Slavic genome, that is, characteristic of most of today's Western and historical Slavs, such as Pannonian Slavs (today's Hungarians) and the Polabian Slavs (today's East Germans). Michał always forced the thesis that the West Slavic genome is a mixture of the East Slavic genome with the Celto-Germanic genome, which did not exist before the Middle Ages. David once fought vigorously against Michał's views, but now he forcing them himself.

So when quite a lot of pre-medieval West Slavic genomes begin to appear, a discussion about their coincidental similarity begins. And yet the determinant of the real kinship of the Slavs was to be the Balto-Slavic drift.

EastPole said...

@Archi

“The absence of any connections with Slavic”

Except that Thracians had Slavic religion, not Baltic.

Thracian/Phrygian Sabazios/Bagaios, Old Persian Baga-, Vedic Bhaga all came from Slavic Bogъ. Balts don’t have it.

Thracian goddess Bendis, worshiped also in Greece – see Plato’s ‘Republic’, is Polish goddess Wanda(Vanda).
Phrygian word bedu (βέδυ) meaning 'water' (in Polish woda (voda) ‘water’) appeared in Orphic ritual. Three goddesses Łada, Boda i Leli, worhiped on Łysa Góra were still known in XVI century.
All Slavic influences in Greek Orphico-Pythagorean religion most likely came from Thrace.

There is much more to it and it is now clear where was the source, as we have learned that Slavs didn’t come from India but it was the opposite. With this knowledge ancient religion can be properly reconstructed and we can forget XIX century BS.

Anthony Hanken said...

@Jaakko

"I mean since the Stone Age there are many visible cultural flows from the east to Fenno-Baltia: early comb ceramic, Lyalovo ceramic, Typical comb ceramic, Seima-Turbino network, Netted Ware etc. Any of these “matches” the Uralic languages spatially, but only one also temporally. At that we cannot guess based on archaeology (nor genetics), but we must look at the linguistic results."

You've named five. Over what? The last 7,000 years? I know you are trying to make a point, but three of those migrations pre-date Proto-Uralic.

Trand graves match the linguistic results, as per Valter Lang.

"Yes, but which Uralic speakers? According to Valter Lang, Finnic spread to Estonia already during the Bronze Age from the south (Daugava route). So any wave from the east at the Iron Age doesn’t match Finnic but rather Meryanic.

Besides, there are different layers of tarand graves, and we cannot assume 100 % genetic or linguistic continuity from one layer to another. And of course there were still room for many other language communities in Estonia."

The earliest Tarand graves people may have spoken some dead branch of West-Uralic, replaced by a later Finnic migration. Maybe the earliest already spoke Finnic. The point I'm making is that they almost certainly spoke Uralic.

Tarands could have taken the southern route. The northern and southern routes have the same origin point anyways.

"There are 15 tarand samples in the supplementary table 1 from Saag et al. 2019. Of those, 4 is R1a, 3 is N3 and 8 have no Y-result."

We are talking about those with Y-results.

The relevant sample IDs are V7, OLS10, V10, V12, X04 and, VII4.

Where is the seventh R1a sample? Maybe you are confusing one of the later samples from Ingria?

"And vice versa: potential influence from the east does not negate the local origins of tarand graves. As I already told you, the only feature common with the houses of the dead is the rectangular shape. Otherwise tarand graves are stone squares on the ground, when the houses of the dead are timber structures in a pit."

They have been linked to eastern burial traditions by actual archeologists.

It doesn't matter if there was local influence. A migration from the east is clear. This is based not only on the Tarands, but an influx of other eastern materials at the same time.

"You are being unscientific again. No geneticist ever has been able to present a method how we could predict the language from DNA. And you guys cannot present such a method, either. Please, try to explain how it could even in theory be possible!"

I wasn't talking about language. Genetics and archaeology are inextricably connected.

Davidski said...

@EastPole & ambron

Indo-Iranians, except maybe Pamir Tajiks, are very mixed nowadays.

But even though they are mixed they still sit on clines reflecting their admixture from the Sintashta chain of cultures. I showed that here.

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/04/on-doorstep-of-india.html

So my point stands.

Archi said...

@EastPole
"...Thracian/Phrygian Sabazios/Bagaios, Old Persian Baga-, Vedic Bhaga all came from Slavic Bogъ.
...
All Slavic influences in Greek"

EastPoleGaska Please do not text me all this nonsense, my eyes hurt.

Rob said...

Further -
Dacians are late to the north. Again this should be obvious. From 450 BC to 200 BC the carpathian basin was ruled by Celts . The entire area came under La Tene models
During this same time, the northeast carpathian region was occupied by Lukashevka-Poienesti culture ; which is from Pomoranian etc
After 200 BC Thracian conquered north the Danube; as the Dacians and Getae

@ east Pole

Who ever said slavs came from India , apart from Vasistha ? :)

Rob said...

@ Archie

What do Xenophanes stereotypes about red hair and fox furs prove ?
Maybe Thracians are from Ireland ? Beautiful lasses
The problem here is you guys don’t know how to carefully read ancient sources - you just naively assume they were accurate historical empiricists


“ Explaining the links between the Baltic language and Daco-Thracian through the mythical properties of the Baltic languages ​​does not work, this is a completely different level of ties that lie in a new cultural and religious plane and common toponymes. The absence of any connections with Slavic cannot be explained by some kind of mythical innovativeness of the Slavic languages, it all proceeds due to your ignorance of what kind of connections linguists found between the Daco-Thracian and Baltic languages”

So says the insolent mortal to the God . But despite your claims to the contrary, i know about these alleged connections, but you don’t know their formulations & limitations


“ Thracians from Sabatinovka culture”

Well I partially agree here, because unlike the KMK, it was the sabatinivka - Noua-Cosgleni which moved into Romania and north Balkans at the final stages of BA ; so they might have imparted an adstrate influence
But you are still ignoring the question - explain the stark distinction between BGR IA and Baltic LBA ; and why non-contaminated Thracian are characterised by R1b-Z2103, J2 and E-V13


“ You constantly stated that the Thracians only burned, but this is not so, this is what Herodotus writes”

What ? Show where i wrote that. Imagining things which have not been said is called confabulation

Jaakko Häkkinen said...

Parastais:
“But of course you expect arriving population and local population in Tarands. Both by simple logic and by facts of Baltic & preGermanic substrates in Baltic Finns.
It is clear that N were arriving people. R1a could be local, arriving or both.”

Yes indeed. But we cannot see from the DNA which language spoke the locals or the newcomers.

Davidski:
“You know as well as me and everyone else here that the same population brought Uralic languages and N-L1026 to the Baltic region.
Obviously, other options look totally out of place in the overall scheme of things.”

For you everything is so black-and-white, that you only see one option when there are actually many possibilities. It is possible that the spread of N-L1026 is still connected to some other language than Uralic, an even if it was Uralic, you cannot see from the genes which Uralic language it was.

So you just make a guess, and then you take this guess as a fact and build new guesses upon it. This is exactly the reason why your method is unscientific.

Ebizur said...

Davidski wrote,

"Indo-Iranians, except maybe Pamir Tajiks, are very mixed nowadays.

But even though they are mixed they still sit on clines reflecting their admixture from the Sintashta chain of cultures. I showed that here.

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/04/on-doorstep-of-india.html

So my point stands."

Speaking of Tajiks, has anyone tried to explain why such large percentages of them belong to mtDNA haplogroup H?

With the possible exception of the Sarikolis, who are the easternmost subgroup both in regard to geography and in regard to their mtDNA, the Tajiks seem to be closer to modern Europeans as far as their mtDNA haplogroup H:U ratios are concerned than they are to Sintashta and Andronovo.

Pamiri Tajik (Gorno-Badakhshan, Tajikistan)
1/50 = 2.0% C1
2/50 = 4.0% C4
2/50 = 4.0% G1
5/50 = 10.0% East Asian/Siberian mtDNA total

1/50 = 2.0% M65

1/50 = 2.0% H110
9/50 = 18.0% H15
1/50 = 2.0% H16
8/50 = 16.0% H2
1/50 = 2.0% H41
2/50 = 4.0% H5
2/50 = 4.0% H6
24/50 = 48.0% H total


1/50 = 2.0% HV25
1/50 = 2.0% HV18
1/50 = 2.0% J1
1/50 = 2.0% J2
3/50 = 6.0% T1
4/50 = 8.0% T2
5/50 = 10.0% U2
1/50 = 2.0% U5
1/50 = 2.0% K1
2/50 = 4.0% W3

Wakhi Tajik (Taxkorgan, Xinjiang, China)
2/66 = 3.0% C4

1/66 = 1.5% M30
1/66 = 1.5% M3

2/66 = 3.0% R0

2/66 = 3.0% H109
4/66 = 6.1% H110
1/66 = 1.5% H1
5/66 = 7.6% H14
6/66 = 9.1% H2
4/66 = 6.1% H5
3/66 = 4.5% H6
25/66 = 37.9% H total


4/66 = 6.1% R2
5/66 = 7.6% J1
5/66 = 7.6% T1
1/66 = 1.5% T2
2/66 = 3.0% U2
2/66 = 3.0% U4
1/66 = 1.5% U5
2/66 = 3.0% U7
5/66 = 7.6% K1
8/66 = 12.1% W3

Lowland Tajik (Dushanbe, Tajikistan)
1/28 = 3.6% M11

1/28 = 3.6% M30
2/28 = 7.1% M33
3/28 = 10.7% Indigenous Southern Asian mtDNA total

1/28 = 3.6% H110
1/28 = 3.6% H111
2/28 = 7.1% H2
1/28 = 3.6% H5
2/28 = 7.1% H6
2/28 = 7.1% H7
9/28 = 32.1% H total


3/28 = 10.7% HV14
1/28 = 3.6% HV1
1/28 = 3.6% HV2
1/28 = 3.6% R2
3/28 = 10.7% J1
3/28 = 10.7% T2
2/28 = 7.1% U4
1/28 = 3.6% W6

Sarikoli Tajik (Taxkorgan, Xinjiang, China)
1/86 = 1.2% A1
1/86 = 1.2% B4
6/86 = 7.0% C4
3/86 = 3.5% D4
3/86 = 3.5% G1
1/86 = 1.2% G3
1/86 = 1.2% M7
16/86 = 18.6% East Asian/Siberian mtDNA total

1/86 = 1.2% M30
1/86 = 1.2% M35
2/86 = 2.3% M3
2/86 = 2.3% M65
6/86 = 7.0% Indigenous Southern Asian mtDNA total

1/86 = 1.2% H109
1/86 = 1.2% H110
2/86 = 2.3% H1
3/86 = 3.5% H15
9/86 = 10.5% H2
3/86 = 3.5% H6
19/86 = 22.1% H total


1/86 = 1.2% HV13
1/86 = 1.2% HV2
4/86 = 4.7% J1
2/86 = 2.3% J2
1/86 = 1.2% T1
1/86 = 1.2% T2
2/86 = 2.3% N1
2/86 = 2.3% I1
8/86 = 9.3% U2
1/86 = 1.2% U3
6/86 = 7.0% U4
6/86 = 7.0% U5
2/86 = 2.3% U7
5/86 = 5.8% K1
3/86 = 3.5% X2
64/86 = 74.4% Western Eurasian mtDNA total

(Data sourced from Min-Sheng Peng et al. 2017, "Mitochondrial genomes uncover the maternal history of the Pamir populations.")

Jaakko Häkkinen said...

East Pole:
“I think genetics will tell us soon which linguists were right, those who claimed that Daco-Thracians were Slavs, those who claimed that they were Balts or those who said that they were Greeks.”

Genetics can never testify for language, because genetics has no methods which could even reach and study language. The sooner you accept this basic principle of science, the better it is for you.

Anthony Hanken:
“You've named five. Over what? The last 7,000 years? I know you are trying to make a point, but three of those migrations pre-date Proto-Uralic.”

All those five happened within 3000 years.
And still there are unscientific people, who say that because there is an areal correlation with the Uralic languages, then all those cultures must have been Uralic-speaking. This only shows how wrong the unscientific guessing method is!

One of these eastern cultural waves could be connected to the spread of Uralic language, but it can only be seen if there is a spatio-temporal match with the linguistic results. And the same goes with gene flows – there is absolutely no method to see in DNA or archaeological data, which wave is connected to which language.

AH: “Trand graves match the linguistic results, as per Valter Lang.”

In some point of time they are probable match for the (Pre-)Proto-Finnic language. Still, this momentaneous match cannot testify of the continuity of match: we cannot follow the roots of the tarand graves or tarand people and claim to know that some of them is connected to Pre-Proto-Finnic. Because there is absolutely no method to see in DNA or archaeological data, which root is connected to which language.

AH: “The earliest Tarand graves people may have spoken some dead branch of West-Uralic, replaced by a later Finnic migration. Maybe the earliest already spoke Finnic. The point I'm making is that they almost certainly spoke Uralic.”

How can you claim that, when you don’t even know the roots of the tarand graves?
If the tarand graves were formed on the basis of the stone cist graves connected to the Germanic speakers, how could they suddenly start to speak Uralic?

It is very probable that during the Common Era, the tarand graves are connected to the Finnic speakers: they spread to Finland in that point, which matches the spread of (already Middle) Proto-Finnic to Finland. But before that stage, we cannot see the language from the genetic or cultural continuity.

Jaakko Häkkinen said...


AH: “Tarands could have taken the southern route. The northern and southern routes have the same origin point anyways.”

It is good that you start to realize, that there are more possibilities than just one in every case.
If we are accurate, the starting point is not the same: Lang wrotes that although the both routes start in the Upper Volga region, the northern route originates in the area of Jaroslavl-Kostroma ceramic, while the southern route originates in the area of Oka-Moscow ceramic (Klimentovo ware). Differences in these source cultures are reflected in the two branches of the Tapiola ceramic (northern branch equals the so-called netted ware / textile ceramic).

AH: “The relevant sample IDs are V7, OLS10, V10, V12, X04 and, VII4.
Where is the seventh R1a sample? Maybe you are confusing one of the later samples from Ingria?”

VIII8 and VII15 are R1a men: these Ingrian tarands are dated around 75-200 AD.

AH: “They have been linked to eastern burial traditions by actual archeologists.”

Yeah, with poor arguments: as I said, there is nothing more common to those than the rectangular shape.

AH: “It doesn't matter if there was local influence. A migration from the east is clear. This is based not only on the Tarands, but an influx of other eastern materials at the same time.”

Eastern material can tell about contacts but not reliably about migration. In the archaeological data, migration is clear only when we have a whole new culture with distinct dwellings and grave types. Few newcomers from the east, as the two from the Kunda tarand graves, still aren’t archaeologically distinct newcomers, although isotopic results prove them to be newcomers.

AH: “I wasn't talking about language. Genetics and archaeology are inextricably connected.”

Wrong, wrong, wrong, if you mean that you could see DNA from archaeological data, or culture from genetic data? If not, then I don’t know what you mean by “inextricably connected”.

Genos Historia said...

@Rob,

Rykundo is also wrong on Uralic stuff. He claimed two things we know to be false. He might have a different tune now. But he was quite the arrogant prick about this two years ago when he argued agianst me.

-Bolshy Oleni wasn't Uralic
-Uralic isn't from Siberia

Norfern-Ostrobothnian said...

The buried in stone cist graves in the Baltic aren't Germanic but more so Baltic like. It would make sense if a small group that took a huge Baltic substrate would adopt culture.

ambron said...

David, but most of the ancient West Slavic samples also sit on the Balto-Slavic cline.

Rob said...

@ Genos
Yes I remember, but I guess nobody is right all the time. As long as people move with evidence.
Yet, i see he continues to make bizarre claims, such as WHG coming from outside of Europe. It seems he & matt have really taken a liking to that dubious paper by Excoffier's team

@ Ebizur
Have a look at the Wusun & Kangju mtDNA from Damgaard

Anthony Hanken said...

"It is good that you start to realize, that there are more possibilities than just one in every case.
If we are accurate, the starting point is not the same: Lang wrotes that although the both routes start in the Upper Volga region, the northern route originates in the area of Jaroslavl-Kostroma ceramic, while the southern route originates in the area of Oka-Moscow ceramic (Klimentovo ware). Differences in these source cultures are reflected in the two branches of the Tapiola ceramic (northern branch equals the so-called netted ware / textile ceramic)."

These are all derivatives of the same early textile/netted ware from the Volga region.

"VIII8 and VII15 are R1a men: these Ingrian tarands are dated around 75-200 AD."

Yes, from Ingria. Dated later than the relevant samples to this discussion, that are from Estonia.

Those Ingrian Tarands are apparently a local variation. Also more rich in eastern grave goods. Nonetheless, distinguishable from Estonian Tarands.

"Yeah, with poor arguments: as I said, there is nothing more common to those than the rectangular shape."

Valter Lang supports the connection to "house of the dead" burials. You seem to be referencing him a lot.

"Eastern material can tell about contacts but not reliably about migration. In the archaeological data, migration is clear only when we have a whole new culture with distinct dwellings and grave types. Few newcomers from the east, as the two from the Kunda tarand graves, still aren’t archaeologically distinct newcomers, although isotopic results prove them to be newcomers."

"on the basis of the available archaeological material, noticeable immigration from the region of the Upper Dnieper, Volga, and Oka rivers seems highly probable. The aDNA studies have proven that (one more) group of newcomers arrived in coastal Estonia (and most likely also in coastal Finland and central Sweden) during the period between 800 and 500 BC. They built early tarand cemeteries and many of them carried Y-haplogroup N3a, which was not known in this region before and which certainly came from the east. There is no doubt that some smaller groups came from the east even later, during the entire Pre-Roman and even the Roman Iron Age (Lang, 2018, 243.)."

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333176681_Fortified_Settlements_in_the_Eastern_Baltic_From_Earlier_Research_to_New_Interpretations

"Wrong, wrong, wrong, if you mean that you could see DNA from archaeological data, or culture from genetic data? If not, then I don’t know what you mean by “inextricably connected”."

Where do you think aDNA comes from? Is the DNA from a man buried in a Tarand grave, not relevant to the archaeological context it was extracted from?

Welcome to the field of archaeogenetics.

Matt said...

Rob - Re; Marchi 2020, there is much interesting promise to understand population genetic history that can be determined by models looking at whole-genome sequences, including their distribution of rare and de novo mutation. Such models will improve as datasets improve. People like David Reich know this, hence why his group just released a large ancient high coverage WGS shotgun dataset at great financial expense. Those models will be complementary to their attempts to improve capture adna. Perhaps as you don't have any real interest in that in and of itself, so understandable that you simply label it 'bad', but none of the people doing the genetic work would agree.

Ebizur said...

Rob wrote,

"Have a look at the Wusun & Kangju mtDNA from Damgaard"

What should those data reveal?

Since the Wusun and Kangju were already in situ in the area inhabited by Tajiks at present (or at least the immediate vicinity), archaeological specimens attributed to those peoples cannot answer how the mitochondrial lineages in question have arrived in Central Asia. They can, at best, present a terminus ante quem for the migration of these H subclades to Tajikistan and the Pamirs.

Erik Andersson said...

@Jaakko Häkkinen
Both isotopes and aDNA are in alignment with archaeology that Tarand graves came with migrations from the east. Both 0LS10 and V10 are migrants. And unlike the earlier inhabitants, their DNA connects them with Uralic speakers.
Also, there is no chance that Stone-cist grave people were Germanic. Maybe they had contacts with Scandinavia, but there was no migration from there that could have brought Germanic to the East Baltic in the Bronze Age. They are the same as Latvian Bronze Age people, and very different from any Germanic people, ancient or modern.
https://imgur.com/a/AJ8QUVV

Rob said...

@ Ebizur
you asked ''as far as their mtDNA haplogroup H:U ratios are concerned than they are to Sintashta and Andronovo''
The Wusun etc have suspiciously European-looking mtDNA H which nearby Sakae etc do not. I have just pointed you to the possible source populations.

ambron said...

David:
"The less significant dimensions are vital in such analyses because they pick up ultra fine scale differences".

Consent! Only that these differences are minor because we have a close kinship here after common ancestors. It is difficult to speak of a coincidental similarity in this situation.

Rob said...

@ Matt

''Rob - Re; Marchi 2020, there is much interesting promise to understand population genetic history that can be determined by models looking at whole-genome sequences, including their distribution of rare and de novo mutation. Such models will improve as datasets improve. People like David Reich know this, hence why his group just released a large ancient high coverage WGS shotgun dataset at great financial expense. Those models will be complementary to their attempts to improve capture adna. Perhaps as you don't have any real interest in that in and of itself, so understandable that you simply label it 'bad', but none of the people doing the genetic work would agree.''

Im sure everyone is all for generating greater coverage. You therfore miss the point, which is that the conclusions in Marchi et al are simply wrong. They fail a simple sanity check, because the lineages assoc. with WHG were already present during the Gravettian period, whilst they are lacking in this 'West Asian Ice Age refuge' which they dreamed up, and of course there is no archaeological evidence for a migration from this imaginary West Asian refuge into Europe. Therefore, there is something wrong with their methodology - not only the statistics (which seems to be the only thing you have an understanding of), but they have also ignored all other lines of evidence.

Archi said...

@Rob

"So says the insolent mortal to the God ."

The gods are sitting in the same ward with Napoleon. Say hello to Napoleon.

"explain the stark distinction between BGR IA and Baltic LBA"

Here is the answer to your question https://i.ibb.co/YNZrGqQ/UKR-Thraco-Cimmerian-BGR-IA-line-PCA.png.
You do not know the history at all, the Balts in the Bronze Age were not in the Baltic at all, they came to the Baltic only at the beginning of Our Era. Before that, they lived much further south. The Balts are Baltic IA.
Srubnaya / KMK (-> Sabatinovka -> Thracians) has nothing to do with Baltic LBA.

Rob said...

@ Archie

What that PCA in fact shows is that, compared to the early Bronze Age, Iron Age Thrace has shifted toward Anatolia due to influences from the latter during the LBA
(The so-called “Thraco-Cimmerian” on the other hand confirms the heterogeneity of Cimmerians - some Hallstatt; some very Siberian, some Srubnajans; which then later coalesced )

Balts : R1a-Z280
Thracians: R1b-Z2103; E-V13; J2a
No special link; no Polish princesses

Parastais said...

@Eric Anderson,
“Also, there is no chance that Stone-cist grave people were Germanic. Maybe they had contacts with Scandinavia, but there was no migration from there that could have brought Germanic to the East Baltic in the Bronze Age. They are the same as Latvian Bronze Age people, and very different from any Germanic people, ancient or modern.”
I feel Petri Kallio might be onto something when he wrote on possibility that earliest pre-Germanic loanwords did not necessarily came from Germanic language. I am starting to see more and more pointers showing that early Baltic IEs were pre-Baltic or pre-Satem Baltics. Gauja, centum (not Satem) stems in Baltic languages, etc.

Having said that Est_IA samples (unlike cist graves EST_BA) do show Germanic-ish influence. Lots of that in Saaremaa samples.

Parastais said...

@Archi,
“The Balts are Baltic IA”
Did not understand what you meant here. But if it is about Estonian_IA. Then no.
When Balts can pick from LVA_BA, Hun_Avar_Szolad and Est_IA, then Lithuanians are like 50-60% Szolad and 40-50% LVA_BA. Latvians do have some Est_IA in the mix. Being roughly 60-30-10 LVA_BA-Szolad-EST_IA.
Seems like East Balts proper (Lithuanians before mixing with LVA_BA) were quite Szolad like.
So, the story goes:
Pre-Satem-Balts (LVA_BA),
Baltic Finns (EST_IA eventually)
West Balts (??? Probably assimilated EST_IA + something else LVA_BA like, maybe more farmer)
East Balts (very Szolad like initially, then assimilated locals, probably Latvians were first wave, Lithuanians followed)

Archi said...

@ Davidski

Why did you refer the samples in the source as UKR_Thraco-Cimmerian:MJ12 and UKR_Belozerskaya:MJ31 to the UKR_Cimmerian cluster?

Naturally, they have nothing to do with the Cimmerians. Belozerskaya culture is pre-Cimmerians, but since for another 20-30 years no one doubted that the Cimmerians were entirely local, unlike the alien Scythians, the Belozerskaya culture was attributed to the ancestors of the Cimmerians. For the first time, evidence that the Cimmerians were newcomers from Central Asia were transferred about 30 years ago and, accordingly, the fact that the Belozerskaya culture has nothing to do with the Cimmerians. Now this has been proven for sure, but old ideas still live in old sources.

Vladimir said...

@Archi

Today, the population of the three Baltic States roughly consists of two large groups: R1a-Z280 and N1a-VL29. In all States, these groups make up about 80%. Judging by the study of Estonia, R1a-Z280 was there in BA. Apparently this applies to both Lithuania and Latvia. Therefore, the only ones who could come to the Baltic States from the south in IA are N1a-VL29. What culture in the south could be near Sabatinovka and belong to this group N1a-VL29? Bondarikha culture?

Archi said...

@Parastais
"When Balts can pick from LVA_BA,"

No, Balts are not Baltic_LVA_BA (800-200BC). Look carefully at the PCA, they have nothing to do with them. The Balts are located between Srubnaya and Baltic_LVA_BA, close to the South-West Ukrainian Belozerskaya culture FBA/EIA.

The Balts are more similar to Baltic_LTU_BA (Trzciniec??) from the Polish border on south, but these are hardly the Balts themselves. Baltic_LTU_BA close to Baltic IA. The line goes from it.

Rob argued that Balts is Balts_LVA_BA, expressing it in a vague way.

I repeat once again, before ~​​AD the Balts did not live at all on the coast of the Baltic Sea, they lived in Belarus, Western Russia, Northern Ukraine. They were the first time to reach the coast in the northwest in Prussia.

@Rob
"Thracians: R1b-Z2103; E-V13; J2a
No special link; no Polish princesses"

Don't fantasize, you don't have any records of the Thracians. And in this case no haplofreackhood not help, because it is not about the migrations and the cultural relations.

Erik Andersson said...

@Parastais
"Having said that Est_IA samples (unlike cist graves EST_BA) do show Germanic-ish influence. Lots of that in Saaremaa samples."
Fair point: https://imgur.com/a/BDvESoN
But I don't think 0LS10 has Germanic ancestry. Like I said to Norfern-Ostrobothnian in the last thread, he might have CWC-derived ancestry from European Russia, like what we see in e.g. Udmurts.

Target: Baltic_EST_IA:s19_0LS10_1
Distance: 2.5863% / 0.02586291
55.4 EST_BA
27.6 KAZ_Karagash_MLBA
10.8 RUS_Volosovo_N
4.4 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA
1.8 Nordic_LNBA_Average

Target: Udmurt
Distance: 2.2211% / 0.02221138 | R4P
45.2 UKR_MBA
22.2 Russian_Kursk
22.0 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA
10.6 RUS_Tyumen_HG

Jaakko Häkkinen said...

Genos Historia:
“-Bolshy Oleni wasn't Uralic
-Uralic isn't from Siberia”

Are these your claims? Here are the correct answers:
1. BOO had nothing to do with the Uralic language: neither in the source area nor in the target area there were Uralic languages anywhere near for yet 2000 years. You must understand, that you cannot see language from the genes and that any claim which is so poor match to the linguistic results is worthless.

2. Late Proto-Uralic was spoken in the Volga-Kama region in the European side of Urals, but Pre-Proto-Uralic probably arrived from Siberia. You must understand, that you cannot see language from the genes.

Norfern-Ostrobothnia:
“The buried in stone cist graves in the Baltic aren't Germanic but more so Baltic like. It would make sense if a small group that took a huge Baltic substrate would adopt culture.”

Baltic and Germanic are linguistic labels, not genetic. How could you know which was the genetic composition of ancient populations speaking Baltic or Germanic? You cannot see language from the genes.

Jaakko Häkkinen said...

Anthony Hanken:
“These are all derivatives of the same early textile/netted ware from the Volga region.”

But they have also other roots: Lang says that the Jaroslavl-Kostroma ware has some Fatyanovo ware influence. Even the “original“, oldest Netted Ware has multiple roots.

AH: “Valter Lang supports the connection to "house of the dead" burials. You seem to be referencing him a lot.”

Does he support it? What work, what page? Your citing does not show support to that connection.
I told you what he says about the shared features: as a whole, very different. Lang just lists possibilities, as do I.

AH: “Where do you think aDNA comes from? Is the DNA from a man buried in a Tarand grave, not relevant to the archaeological context it was extracted from?”

Define “relevant”. If you mean that you could tie certain DNA to certain culture, no, you cannot do that. There is no tie between DNA and culture and language – only momentaneous correlations. Even if there is a correlation in one place at one time, you cannot claim that there must be the same correlation in another place or at another time.

Jaakko Häkkinen said...


Erik Anderson:
“Both isotopes and aDNA are in alignment with archaeology that Tarand graves came with migrations from the east. Both 0LS10 and V10 are migrants. And unlike the earlier inhabitants, their DNA connects them with Uralic speakers.”

As I told earlier, it is not at all certain that Tarand graves came from the east.
Some of its people came from the east, but which route? We don’t know yet.
And some of its people (R1a men) probably did not come from the east.
You have no method to see from the DNA, if Uralic language was connected to either of the genetic roots. Do not mistake a momentaneous correlation as a permanent tie.

EA: “Also, there is no chance that Stone-cist grave people were Germanic. Maybe they had contacts with Scandinavia, but there was no migration from there that could have brought Germanic to the East Baltic in the Bronze Age.”

How can you claim that, when it is the mainstream view that the stone cist graves came from Scandinavia and that the Scandinavian Bronze Culture is connected to the Germanic speakers?

EA: “They are the same as Latvian Bronze Age people, and very different from any Germanic people, ancient or modern.”

You still cannot see language from DNA! Wake up now. All you can do is to check, if there are genetic matches for the linguistic results.

vAsiSTha said...

@rob said
"Who ever said slavs came from India , apart from Vasistha ? :)"

Lol rob quote me once where I said this. Misrepresention of my views suits your style very nicely.

@archi

I am still waiting for your quotes for qpAdm rules where 'it has all been described before'. How come it's taking so long, usually your reply is under a minute.

Aleph said...

@Rob

"They fail a simple sanity check, because the lineages assoc. with WHG were already present during the Gravettian period, whilst they are lacking in this 'West Asian Ice Age refuge' which they dreamed up, and of course there is no archaeological evidence for a migration from this imaginary West Asian refuge into Europe. "

Those lineages were in Europe, and agree with your notion of WHGs not migrating from west Asia recently. Even the northernmost west Asians had enough basal Eurasian to be excluded from being major contributors towards the general WHG genepool. However I also think that the WHGs did move deeper into Europe after originating probably in eastern Europe. This is because the proto WHG-like ancestry in Dzudzuana, the clade 1 ancestry in Gravettians and Sunghir (that distinguishes them from Aurignacians) and WHGs look like they could all center when regressed to the point of origin somewhere in Eastern Europe. Meaning that the ancestors of WHGs, Gravettians (sans Aurignacian ancestry) and the proto-WHG-like ancestors of Dzudzuana may have all originated in eastern Europe. My own guess for the phylogeny split is currently as follows: WHG-like ancestors of Dzudzuana split first from this clade 1 mass (J splitting out of IJ and migrating south), and then the ancestors of WHG proper split from non-Aurignacian component ancestors of Gravettians. Then the non-Aurignacian ancestors of Gravettians (divergent haplogroup I migrating west early on) mixed with Aurignacians to produce Gravettians. The ancestors of WHG proper remained around in some eastern European refugia for a while before they started expanding westwards (probably around the end of the LGM or during the LGM). The only other place I can see them originating in is probably southeastern Europe, but there aren't enough refugias there it seems. Southern Europeans like the very early Epigravettians of Italy seemed to have been replaced by the marginally later WHG wave which also contributed to form the Magdalenian cluster.

With all of that being said, I think that some later remaining WHG of the Balkans did receive some post LGM admixture from Anatolian HG, probably just before the beginning of the Holocene. Some Balkan HGs show Anatolian mtDNA lineages and mild amounts of Anatolian HG admixture. This is obviously not to say that WHGs themselves came from Anatolia or west Asia, but some geographically southeastern WHGs would have had Anatolian admixture prior to farming.

EastPole said...

@Archi
“my eyes hurt”

Yes, I know that you have problems with your eyes. I am sorry for you. You should avoid discussing problems you don’t understand, “lest we talk like blind men about colors” (Plato).


@Rob
“Who ever said slavs came from India , apart from Vasistha ? :)”

Itihasa Darpan, vol. 25, 1-2, pp. 59-66, 2020
Subhash Kak „Uttarakuru and the Slavs”

“Scholars know that Slavic Gods are no other than Vedic Gods, although they see the historical relationship between the two variously. The connection shouldn’t be surprising since the Slavs (who include the Śaka or the Scythians) lived just northwest of India in the wide expanse of Central Asia and beyond”


http://scholar.google.com/scholar_url?url=https://www.academia.edu/download/65641183/ItihasaDarpan2020.pdf&hl=en&sa=X&d=13016408025928560446&ei=4XA5YNyjN4fEmgGCi6uoDQ&scisig=AAGBfm1Hza2BX7_0A0qOdS7XvH1gDbwS-A&nossl=1&oi=scholaralrt&hist=NDRTIeUAAAAJ:17717559756386973443:AAGBfm1hkVB-yefeGTXXYOnROd6g8k9S8w&html=&folt=kw

Anthony Hanken said...

@Jaakko

"But they have also other roots: Lang says that the Jaroslavl-Kostroma ware has some Fatyanovo ware influence. Even the “original“, oldest Netted Ware has multiple roots."

This is true, but all cultures in European Russia have some amount of IE or Indigenous cultural influence. Whether that is Volosovo, Garino-Bor, or Fatyanovo. Unless you accept continuity theories, (Pre?)Proto-Uralic languages must have arrived at some point from the east. Most likely alongside N-L1026 which, also has not been found prior to 2000BC.

"Does he support it? What work, what page? Your citing does not show support to that connection.
I told you what he says about the shared features: as a whole, very different. Lang just lists possibilities, as do I."

In the work I cited, he literally says, aDNA has proven the eastern origin of the Estonian Tarands.

"Define “relevant”."

If you reread my comments, I was specifically referring to Estonian Tarands and Uralic languages in the Baltic.

"If you mean that you could tie certain DNA to certain culture, no, you cannot do that. There is no tie between DNA and culture and language – only momentaneous correlations. Even if there is a correlation in one place at one time, you cannot claim that there must be the same correlation in another place or at another time."

With this line of thinking, archaeology itself can only be considered through the lens of "momentaneous correlations". Any migration established through archeology must be thrown out because "even if there is a correlation in one place at one time, you cannot claim that there must be the same correlation in another place or at another time".

In reality, aDNA can be a tool to better understand an archaeological complex. Similar to radiocarbon dating.

Rob said...

@ Aleph

Yep agree, although I would point out that EE & SEA probably formed a continuum, with the overlap being in Molodova. Moreover, the Ice Age typo-sequences in EE are extremely complex and its chronology needs clarification, cautioning against any essentialist notions an "eastern European refuge' .



''With all of that being said, I think that some later remaining WHG of the Balkans did receive some post LGM admixture from Anatolian HG, probably just before the beginning of the Holocene. Some Balkan HGs show Anatolian mtDNA lineages and mild amounts of Anatolian HG admixture. This is obviously not to say that WHGs themselves came from Anatolia or west Asia, but some geographically southeastern WHGs would have had Anatolian admixture prior to farming.''

Yes, it seems later on in the Mesolithic. The issue is - there is little Middle Upper Paleolithic to speak of in central-western Anatolia, in fact not a single site has been discovered, although research has been poor. Okizuni and other Antalyan sites all begin during , after the LGM. When we look at the presence of I2c in Barcin & Mentese, then the possibility of migration from Europe to Anatolia opens.

In addition, there was an epi-Natufian migration from the Levant toward the Aegean, but that has nothing to do with WHGs.

Genos Historia said...

@Aleph, Rob

About WHG. Yeah, hopefully Reich's team will figure it out.

Davidski has hinted on this blog towards 17ky WHG rich person in Balkans with Y DNA R1b.

I agree with Aleph, WHG originated in (South)East Europe. BUt, Italy, I think is where WHGs expanded out of in the Mesolithic.

The Western European WHG, like Cheddar man with mtDNA U5b, I think all come from Italy Mesolithic expansion. But the Eastern European WHG ancestry seen in Serbia Mesolithic with mtDNA U5a, never actually lived in Western Europe. The whole concept of WHG being Western European will need to change.

Erik Andersson said...

@Jaakko Häkkinen
"You still cannot see language from DNA!"
But you can see it in material culture, apparently? But only sometimes... So the spread of Stone cist graves without migration can be linked to Germanic, but the spread of Tarand graves with migration cannot be linked to Finnic?

Rob said...

@ Davidski -> Andrze



If Ötzi was from a Remedllo-associated Kumtepe-like population, closer to Kura Araxes or Anatolian BA...

How do you come up with this sort of crap years after first getting into this hobby?”

The paper on kumtepe did claim some kumtepe / CHG type ancestry was found in Oetzi
~ 5 % , but low coverage genome

Genos Historia said...

@Rob,

mtDNA K1 gives insight on link between Upper Paleolithic East Europe and Near East.

K1 originated maybe 27ky, that is my estimate based on mtDNA sequences.

It exists in both Serbia HGs and Anatolia farmers. But they belong to different basal K1 lineages, meaning their common ancestor lived in the Upper Paleolithic.

K1 in the Middle East as a whole all goes back to Anatolia. Their K1 diversity is only as old as the Neolithic.

Their K1, I think entered the Middle East from Europe in Upper Paleolithic circa 27ky around the time Dzunda lived. These K1 ancestors may have been very WHG-like.

Genos Historia said...

U8c mtDNA in Gravvitean Europe is a relative of mtDNA K (U8b2).

They share the U8b'c clade.

U8c is as close to K1 as the Gravitean U5 is to later U5.

So, pretty good evidence K1 and U5 originated in EpiGravitean in East Europe.

Genos Historia said...

There's also U8a in Magdalonian Germany. Which is a basal U8 lineage.

This all points to U8 being European, and mtDNA K1a/b, K2, K3 in Near East being from Upper Paleolithic Europe.

Archi said...

@EastPole & Rob

"Yes, I know that you have problems with your eyes. I am sorry for you. You should avoid discussing problems you don’t understand"

My eyes hurt from your nonsense of people who do not understand anything and carry all the anti-scientific nonsense from the common chamber with Napoleon and those suffering from the God complex. Both of you claim to be Gods. You have to marry each other, a pair of Gods.

@Rob

" Nothign vague. There is continuity between LBA Baltic & modern Baltics, grosso modo"
"Really ? Can you demonstrate that on one of your PCAs which always prove me right."

Look https://i.ibb.co/6bx6q4c/Baltic-LVA-EST-LBA-PCA.png, but you can't even look at any PCA, you just can't analyze anything except troll. You have proved everything rigorously that you have no analytical skills. You cannot prove anything to anyone, you have not presented a single proof of your own words, everything that you write is only your personal unscientific fantasies, here absolutely everyone will confirm this.

Everything that you write has been refuted from the first to the last word, here absolutely everyone will confirm it. You write only lies and mistakes without exception, here absolutely everyone will confirm it. Everything that you write has categorically refuted all sciences, without exception, here absolutely everyone will confirm it. All my PCA and models categorically refuted you, without exception, on all counts, here absolutely everyone will confirm this. You are always absolutely wrong in everything, without exception, here absolutely everyone will confirm this. You do not know how to read or watch or analyze, here absolutely everyone will confirm this.

@Aleph

Kostenkis and Sunghirs do not show any WHGs in Eastern Europe. We have a lot of samples from all over Europe during the Gravettian culture, there are no WHGs there. The Gravettian cluster has nothing to do with the Villabruna cluster, therefore, before the Late Upper Paleolithic west of the Don, WHG simply did not exist and could not exist.



Genos Historia said...

@Rob,

Do you see any reason to believe that the first Celts were not descended from Bell Beaker (R1b P312+).

Rob said...

@ Sam
Some borrowings and inter-penetrations aside, there wasn’t any major “Mesolithic expansions” aside from the final push to the north (Scandinavia & NE Baltic). Each region of Europe had its own Mesolithic technocomplex which became progressively more differentiated
Otherwise all major expansions & reconfigurations had occurred by the late paleolithic

Ric Hern said...

Sorry a bit of topic.

If Early Neanderthal Y-DNA and MtDNA were replaced by Early Modern Human lineages as claimed in a recent study, under which Haplogroups will they be ? Y-DNA Haplogroup A00 ? MtDNA...?

Jaakko Häkkinen said...


Anthony Hanken:
“This is true, but all cultures in European Russia have some amount of IE or Indigenous cultural influence. Whether that is Volosovo, Garino-Bor, or Fatyanovo. Unless you accept continuity theories, (Pre?)Proto-Uralic languages must have arrived at some point from the east. Most likely alongside N-L1026 which, also has not been found prior to 2000BC.”

It is possible, but so far nobody has shown very convincing matches for the linguistic results. There seems to have been more genetic and archaeological waves than linguistic waves, but still many people think like there is only one eastern wave which would explain all the eastern lineages, cultural features and languages. That is plain wrong.

AH: “In the work I cited, he literally says, aDNA has proven the eastern origin of the Estonian Tarands.”

No, he literally does not say so – it is only your interpretation. Your quote from Lang was this:

“on the basis of the available archaeological material, noticeable immigration from the region of the Upper Dnieper, Volga, and Oka rivers seems highly probable. The aDNA studies have proven that (one more) group of newcomers arrived in coastal Estonia (and most likely also in coastal Finland and central Sweden) during the period between 800 and 500 BC. They built early tarand cemeteries and many of them carried Y-haplogroup N3a, which was not known in this region before and which certainly came from the east. There is no doubt that some smaller groups came from the east even later, during the entire Pre-Roman and even the Roman Iron Age”

What he actually says here:
1. There were newcomers,
2. they built early tarand graves in Baltia,
3. some of them carried N3 lineage,
4. which has its origins in the east.

He does not claim that the tarand graves themselves were brought from east – he just states that some tarand grave men had also some eastern paternal lineage. Lang knows that every level must be kept independent: archaeology, genetics, and linguistics. Although there are genes from the east, it cannot testify that archaeological (like tarand graves) or linguistic phenomena (like Uralic language) came with those genes.

All correlations between these independent levels are always only momentaneous, and every moment in time the connection must be proven separately.

AH: “If you reread my comments, I was specifically referring to Estonian Tarands and Uralic languages in the Baltic.”

I know, but my point is:
You cannot tie together language, culture and DNA, so the only relevant results for language are linguistic, and the only relevant results for DNA are genetic, and the only relevant results for culture are archaeological.

AH: “With this line of thinking, archaeology itself can only be considered through the lens of "momentaneous correlations". Any migration established through archeology must be thrown out because "even if there is a correlation in one place at one time, you cannot claim that there must be the same correlation in another place or at another time".”

No, every discipline makes its own results, contact networks and chronologies. But when the results are compared to the results of another discipline, then there can only be momentaneous correlations.

AH: “In reality, aDNA can be a tool to better understand an archaeological complex. Similar to radiocarbon dating.”

Of course. This does not contradict with that what I said.

Jaakko Häkkinen said...


Jaakko: "You still cannot see language from DNA!"

Erik Anderson: "But you can see it in material culture, apparently? But only sometimes... So the spread of Stone cist graves without migration can be linked to Germanic, but the spread of Tarand graves with migration cannot be linked to Finnic"?

No, you cannot see language from the culture, either. And you cannot see culture from DNA nor DNA from the culture. All these levels are totally independent.

Oldest stone cist graves were built in Scandinavia. So, when they spread to Fenno-Baltia (like other cultural features of the Scandinavian Bronze Culture), they are momentarily connected to the language which was spoken in Scandinavia that time: Pre- or Palaeo-Germanic.

A match means exactly that: we look at the results of archaeology, and we look at the results of linguistics, and it there are phenomena in the same place at the same moment, then we have a match = momentaneous correlation.

Tarand graves are more vague phenomenon:
- They didn’t spread from anywhere, but they were built around earlier stone cist graves. The only shared feature with the houses of the dead in the east is the rectangular shape.
- Items in the tarand graves include both western and eastern types.

So, there is no spread of tarand graves from other area: that type was born in Baltia, possibly due to influence from multiple directions. The difference is great compared to f.e. Corded Ware Culture, which was clearly an intrusive culture from different area, which is seen in every level of the culture. Only in the latter case we have traces of clear migration.

Norfern-Ostrobothnian said...

Anything Mesolithic related within Eastern Europe would have been submerged by the time Uralic started to diffuse, the cultures hardly passed on outside of Saami which has an obvious genetic and linguistic substrate. The small populations left in Volga-Ural and Komi couldn't have possibly passed on their language to the Siberia rich populations as they hardly left an archaeological or genetic impact, that's two out of the big three.

vAsiSTha said...

"You look for scraps of Turan ancestry in Scythians to show that they came from Turan, then imparted their formative influences on Slavs. Hence, although tongue-in-cheek, my summary was apt"

Turan is not India is it Rob? 1st lie of yours.

The scythians have more than 'scraps' of turan like ancestry. Everyone except you accepts this. In fact even you did accept this last time. Plus there are uniparentals from S central asia.

As far as formative influences on Slavic language (not slavs as a genetic people) is concerned, yes the scythians, sarmatians, alans etc did rule over the southern steppe region for quite a long time and the Iranian language family did exert a lot of influence on the already existing language of the region but apparently couldnt fully satemize the languages there.


Parastais said...

@Archi,

I agree that modern Balts are on different place on PCA than Baltic_BA. My point was that probably "proto-East-Balts" before arrival to Baltics looked slightly different than after arrival to Baltics. They did not 100% replace LVA_BA locals, but rather intermingled with them.
Latvians can be actually modelled as majority LVA_BA plus Szolad. Whereas Lithuanians as majority Szolad plus LVA_BA. Which is consistent with the view that Latvians were the first wave into Baltics who got more local genes into mix and Lithuanians followed as another layer over Latvians.

Genetically I am with Rob, large part of modern Baltic (Latvian more than Lithuanian) genes comes from local LVA_BA, like Greeks are largely made of pre-Greeks, Latvians are largely made of pre-East-Balts.
But linguistically I am not with Rob. Proto-East-Balts were not like LVA_BA.

Anthony Hanken said...

@Jaakko

"It is possible, but so far nobody has shown very convincing matches for the linguistic results. There seems to have been more genetic and archaeological waves than linguistic waves, but still many people think like there is only one eastern wave which would explain all the eastern lineages, cultural features and languages. That is plain wrong."

The Estonian Tarands are a convincing match for the linguistic results. There still may have been multiple migrations or, sustained contacts. These things are not mutually exclusive.

"No, he literally does not say so – it is only your interpretation."

Here is another quote from Lang,

"new people arrived in coastal Estonia, who buried their dead in so-called early tarand cemeteries. This is a type of burial sites, which resembles the houses of the dead known among the eastern Finno-Ugrians (Patrushev, 2000)".

Tarand graved are not local. They may have some local influences, but there are no analogous local burial traditions.


"You cannot tie together language, culture and DNA, so the only relevant results for language are linguistic, and the only relevant results for DNA are genetic, and the only relevant results for culture are archaeological."

A chronology involving all three fields can be developed. For example, Parapola's work on the spread of Uralic and Indo-European was a synthesis of archeology and linguistics. Even though I disagree with his assessment of Seima-Turbino.

Obviously it is impossible to know for sure. At least, until all relavent archeological sites, have corresponding aDNA samples. However, when enough correlations are present, accurate predictions can be made.

"But when the results are compared to the results of another discipline, then there can only be momentaneous correlations."

In practicality, aDNA is archeological material. It should be viewed as such. Not something completely foreign, that must be placed in its own category. That would defeat the whole purpose of analyzing ancient skeletons.

ambron said...

Archi, what is your opinion about the Slavic homeland? I am asking because you impress me with your erudition.

As I have already written, I am closest to Arza's concept that it is about the Carpathian neighborhood. On the other hand, the Dnieper concept, forced by some, must be rejected, mainly due to linguistic data - the lack of the old layer of Slavic toponymy. The analyzes of the principial components also clearly show the genesis of the East Slavic genome, which David considers to be native Slavic:

In today's genetically East Slavic areas, the genome of the CWC/Steppe MLBA type was dominant in the Bronze Age. This genome was overlapped by a genome of the Baltic BA type, which gave a genome similar to today's Balts. This genome was overlapped by the West Slavic genome, which gave the East Slavic genome. The genetic processes here reflect the layers of East Slavic areas toponymy - Iranian, Daco-Thracian, Baltic and Slavic. They are also in line with the historical knowledge of the Slavic movements in the north-eastern directions.

Old chronicles can be interpreted in various ways, but we have a thorough historical knowledge of the Slavic assimilation of the Balts in Poland. We can clearly see the effect of such a process here - the East Slavic genome in north-eastern Poland.

old europe said...

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/685404v2.full

This paper on Gravettian's origin stetes clearly were CWE ( proto WHG ) was at least between 36 and 32 Kya :it was in central western europe with a west to east cline ( decreasing from west to east. Obviously proto WHG were likely an aurignacian population.

Relative quote from the paper:

The results of the genome-wide analysis of BuranKaya3A offer important evidence linking the previously established genetic signature of the manufacturers of the Gravettian in Central Europe to a much earlier appearance of the Gravettian in Eastern Europe. The absence of the “Common West Eurasian” ancestry, as represented by Villabruna, in BuranKaya3A marks a key genetic distinction between the Gravettian inhabitants of Buran-Kaya III, possibly including the broader populations of EUP Eastern Europe as well, and the UP populations of Western and Central Europe, which is characterized by a West-to-East reduction in “Common West Eurasian” ancestry (seen in Extended Data Figure 10

Rob said...

@ Parastais

''But linguistically I am not with Rob. Proto-East-Balts were not like LVA_BA.''

No, I did not say anything about East Balts, or any relation between LVA_BA with language

I was rather disputing the notion '' the Balts in the Bronze Age were not in the Baltic at all, they came to the Baltic only at the beginning of Our Era.'' (Archie)

Look at the East Balt cultures which exist between 500 BC & 500 AD. Several differing cultures (Dolkeim-Kovorovo, West Lithuanian Stone Circles, Lower Neman fields, Sudovian cultures, Bogaczewo, etc). This goes against a recent migration but instead demonstrates centuries/ millenia of differentiation. The diversity of Baltic languages (East Baltic, West Baltic, proto-Slavic) also goes against a very recent expansion.
The major phases of change in the Baltic were ~ 500 BC and ~ 500 AD, not the turn of the Era.

Archi said...

@Rob

"''The Gravettian cluster has nothing to do with the Villabruna cluster''
Most people, perhaps everybody, except you can understand that this is an erroneous statement."

Again you know absolutely nothing and carry all sorts of nonsense without knowing anything. You haven't seen a single PCA or a single genetic article at all. All of your statements are perceived by everyone as a complete mistake.

https://i.ibb.co/S3YwSkx/Paleo-Mesolithic-West-Eurasian-clusters-f3.png
https://i.ibb.co/c6y1DTT/UP-PCA.png
etc etc etc


@Parastais

"Genetically I am with Rob, large part of modern Baltic (Latvian more than Lithuanian) genes comes from local LVA_BA"

You say the same as me, in defiance of Rob, who claims that Balty is pure LVA_EST_LBA. He denies that the Balts came from the south. That is, they moved towards LVA_EST_LBA. So you are in opposition to Rob. And the degree of mixing can be determined only after the ancient samples of the area of ​​residence of the Balts in antiquity have been tested.

@ambron

"Archi, what is your opinion about the Slavic homeland? I am asking because you impress me with your erudition."

North of the Carpathians, not in the Carpathians themselves, but north of the Carpathian Mountains. In ancient times, the Slavs knew both the concept of "mountains" and the concept of "sea", while the Balts did not know either one or the other. This could only be if they lived between the Carpathians and the Baltic, for this there is still linguistic evidence. Before the very formation of the Prague-Korczak culture, they probably lived to the North-North-East of the Carpathians, for this there is still linguistic evidence.




Rob said...

@ Vasistha

Yes everybody understands that BMAC_related admixture was prevalent in Tia-Shan Saka, as well as Wusun, etc. Its ~ 10% in central Saka. Some individuals even made it to the western steppe. No issues

@ Genos

On top of my head, I would think that proto-Celtic developed in northwestern Europe in R1b-P312 rich populations.

Genos Historia said...

@Rob,

It does seem there was an expansion of WHG of Italy across Western Europe. Whether in the Mesolithic or Epipaelolithic. Was it not was caused the beginning of Mesolithic in West Europe? I heard the Mesolithic begins with this new population.

They replaced Magdalonian. This is where it seems mtDNA U5b, I2a, Loschbour/Cheddar man WHGs come from. While WHG in East Europe has a different origin.

Erik Andersson said...

@Jaakko Häkkinen
"All these levels are totally independent."
Except they're not, because migrating peoples bring all three with them.
But there was no migration from Scandinavia to Estonia that brought Stone-cist graves. The people there were locals. Stone-cist graves in Estonia are the result of cultural exchange between different peoples speaking different languages.
Compare the Tarand graves. Some archaeologists have seen precedents for them in the mortuary houses of Volga-Oka. This idea is now corroborated by strong evidence for migrations from the east during this time period. Some of the people buried in the earliest Tarand graves were non-locals. And their DNA connects them to Uralic speakers, from west to east, all the way deep in Siberia.
Tarand graves are rooted in eastern traditions that were brought to Estonia by Uralic speakers. Simple as that.

Genos Historia said...

@Rob,

It would annoy me very much if Celtic had a different origin. That would be too confusing.

ambron said...

Archi, this is in line with the linguistic data, because north of the Carpathians we have the most compact area of the old Slavic toponymy.

Parastais said...

@Rob, Archi,
There are West Balts, East Balts and different Baltoids :)))
For East Balts I agree to late (post AD) arrival from South.
For West Balts I believe they arrived earlier.
For Baltoid folk I believe even LVA_BA spoke some sort of pre-Baltic/pre-Satem speech.

old europe said...


WHG west and WHG east have the same origin. Iron Gates are something like 70% Grotta Continenza. The only difference is that Serbia/Romania Mesolithic have an Afontonova Gora admixture for obvious geographical reason and also a tad Barcin always for obvious geographical proximity to Anatolia.
Differentiating between Villabruna and Iron Gates is just crazy talk.

Rob said...

@ Archi

PCAs inform about ancestry streams of modern populations which reach to the Late Paleolithic/ Epipaleolithic time -frame, but it does not discern the preceding streams which led to that point. Formal stats demonstrate shared ancestry between Gravettians & WHG, and all collateral data points to a ~ 35,000 calBP time frame. Any claims, informal or formal, which suggest otherwise are wrong.

Archi said...

@Genos Historia

"It does seem there was an expansion of WHG of Italy across Western Europe. Whether in the Mesolithic or Epipaelolithic. Was it not was caused the beginning of Mesolithic in West Europe? I heard the Mesolithic begins with this new population."

It's called Epi-Paleolithic and is what the WHG brings. Then it develops into the Final Paleolithic in the sense of European archaeologists, or it is also called the Remnant Paleolithic, it exists simultaneously with the Mesolithic, and which Rob passes off as the Mesolithic. The Mesolithic in Europe begins in Eastern Europe and then spreads to Northern Europe (the SHG cluster appears) and penetrates the Balkans, this is Iron Gates. They all have EHG influence.

The problem is that terminologically the Mesolithic is not only a technocomplex, but also time. There is a time of the Mesolithic and in this sense it is used for the whole of Europe and even for the Near East, although there was no Mesolithic there in the classical sense, the term Epi-Paleolithic is used there.

@Rob

"Formal stats demonstrate shared ancestry between Gravettians & WHG, and all collateral data points to a ~ 35,000 calBP time frame. Any claims, informal or formal, which suggest otherwise are wrong."

This is an absolute lie, everything that you write is purely your inventions, which you have never even tried to prove. You never have anything but unfounded words.

And yes, to you everyone is always wrong, absolutely everyone is always wrong on every issue without exception. You already wrote that you know best because you are God.

Jaakko Häkkinen said...

Norfern-Ostrobothnian:
“Anything Mesolithic related within Eastern Europe would have been submerged by the time Uralic started to diffuse, the cultures hardly passed on outside of Saami which has an obvious genetic and linguistic substrate. The small populations left in Volga-Ural and Komi couldn't have possibly passed on their language to the Siberia rich populations as they hardly left an archaeological or genetic impact, that's two out of the big three.”

What are you talking? Archaeological continuity is evident about everywhere in the world – in the Volga region also. And most cultures have many roots, not only one.

Anthony Hanken: “The Estonian Tarands are a convincing match for the linguistic results. There still may have been multiple migrations or, sustained contacts. These things are not mutually exclusive.”

Indeed.
Tarand graves are a possible match, just like any other culture in Estonia. The chronology then decides, if the match is probable or not: the later the moment in time, the more probable is the correlation with the Finnic languages.

AH: “Here is another quote from Lang,
‘new people arrived in coastal Estonia, who buried their dead in so-called early tarand cemeteries. This is a type of burial sites, which resembles the houses of the dead known among the eastern Finno-Ugrians (Patrushev, 2000).’
Tarand graved are not local. They may have some local influences, but there are no analogous local burial traditions.”

And there are no analogous foreign traditions, either.
Lang only says: “resembles”. By that he means: the rectangular shape is common. You still haven’t presented any arguments which would show that the tarand graves had more common with the houses of the dead than with the stone cist graves.

And “new people in coastal Estonia” doesn’t tell where they came from: from the inland Estonia? From the south? From the east? You seem too eager to make too black-and-white interpretations about the non-conclusive shreds of facts – like you have some innate urge to tightly tie the language to some genetic and archaeological phenomena. Why is that?

AH: “A chronology involving all three fields can be developed. For example, Parapola's work on the spread of Uralic and Indo-European was a synthesis of archeology and linguistics. Even though I disagree with his assessment of Seima-Turbino.”

Yes, a synthesis can be done. But it requires the use of the scientific method. I repeat:

Scientific method:
1. Let’s look at the genetic results.
2. Let’s look at the linguistic results.
3. Let’s look if there are in both of these any phenomenons which match concerning time, place and direction of spread.

Unscientific method of many people here:
1. Let’s look at the genetic results.
2. Let’s ignore the linguistic results.
3. Let’s decide ad hoc that this genetic wave in certain place at certain time represents certain language.

AH: “Obviously it is impossible to know for sure. At least, until all relavent archeological sites, have corresponding aDNA samples. However, when enough correlations are present, accurate predictions can be made.”

What kind of predictions do you mean? You shouldn’t go beyond the proven correlations – you still cannot reliably predict language from genes or culture (and vice versa) outside these proven correlations.

AH: “In practicality, aDNA is archeological material. It should be viewed as such. Not something completely foreign, that must be placed in its own category. That would defeat the whole purpose of analyzing ancient skeletons.”

Ancient DNA tells about people, not about culture. If the DNA is found with certain cultural frame, then we have the momentary correlation – that’s all. You should accept this sooner or later, so why not sooner? Unless you can finally tell me how you can predict culture or language from the DNA?

Jaakko Häkkinen said...


Erik Andersson:
“Except they're not, because migrating peoples bring all three with them.”

They are still independent – it means that there can never be permanent connection between language, culture or genes. All correlations are only momentary, with no predicting power whatsoever.

How could I make you people understand? Let’s try this:
- A man stands in the rain. In that time and that place his Y-DNA lineage correlates with a certain weather. Still, you can never predict Y-DNA lineage with the methods of meteorology, and you can never predict weather with the methods of genetics. Do you understand?

EA: “But there was no migration from Scandinavia to Estonia that brought Stone-cist graves. The people there were locals. Stone-cist graves in Estonia are the result of cultural exchange between different peoples speaking different languages.”

How can you claim that? How do you disprove the mainstream view?
How do you even know that the people were local? You just build guesses upon guesses!

EA: “Compare the Tarand graves. Some archaeologists have seen precedents for them in the mortuary houses of Volga-Oka. This idea is now corroborated by strong evidence for migrations from the east during this time period. Some of the people buried in the earliest Tarand graves were non-locals. And their DNA connects them to Uralic speakers, from west to east, all the way deep in Siberia.
Tarand graves are rooted in eastern traditions that were brought to Estonia by Uralic speakers. Simple as that.”

1. I repeat: the only common feature with the houses of the dead seems to be the rectangular shape. Tarand graves are stone shapes on the ground, houses of the deads are wooden structures in a pit.
2. Some of the people were newcomers probably from the east, yes. That’s all we can say.
3. How their DNA connects them to Uralic speakers? N-L550 is common within Balts and Slavs, while it is not found in most of the Uralic-speaking populations.

Your conclusion is erroneous and too black-and-white: you just choose one option of many possible options, and then you build new guesses upon your older guesses. This is very unscientific.

Davidski said...

@Jaakko

They are still independent – it means that there can never be permanent connection between language, culture or genes. All correlations are only momentary, with no predicting power whatsoever.

This is your most idiotic statement here to date, and that's really saying something.

You admit that there are correlations between language, culture and genes, and yet you're arguing that culture and genes can't be used to make inferences about language.

Of course, that's not true. Making inferences about language from archeological and genetic data is something that is done frequently in peer reviewed science, and not at all peculiar to this blog.

You've lost the plot completely.

Rob said...

@ genos


“It does seem there was an expansion of WHG of Italy across Western Europe. Whether in the Mesolithic or Epipaelolithic. Was it not was caused the beginning of Mesolithic in West Europe? I heard the Mesolithic begins with this new population.

They replaced Magdalonian. “

Not Mesolithic. This occurred from < 14000 cal Bp; which is “final paleolithic”- the Azilian culture in Western Europe , epigravettian in Italy
Then Mesolithic starts ~ 11,000 BP; we see several cultures emerge : Beuronian, sauveterrian, Mesolithic-epigravettian, etc
Moreover, the term Epipalaeolithic is generally not used in nowadays literature for Europe , occasionally for balkans, but it is used in the near east where it is felt the transition to agriculture is more gradual & intrinsic

Rob said...

Eg from Fu et al

“ Fifth, beginning with the Villabruna Cluster at least ~14,000 years ago, all European individuals analyzed show an affinity to the Near East. This correlates in time to the Bølling-Allerød interstadial, the first significant warming period after the Ice Age. Archaeologically, it correlates with cultural transitions within the Epigravettian in Southern Europe35 and the Magdalenian-to-Azilian transition in Western Europe. Thus, the appearance of the Villabruna Cluster may reflect migrations or population shifts within Europe at the end of the Ice Age, an observation that is also consistent with the evidence of turnover of mitochondrial DNA sequences at this time”

The correct classification of period by time and climate can be seen here (from Naudinot)

Aleph said...

@Archi

I didn't mean that Gravettians have actual WHG ancestry. According to a model in the Salkhit paper (https://imgur.com/a/pI4aXjx, more specifically model A that I talk about), Gravettians (Vestonice) and Sunghir lie on a cline between Aurignacian (Goyet)-like ancestry and something related to Kostenki. The thing related to Kostenki isn't exactly Kostenki so I call it para-Kostenki. Gravettians have ancestry from this component. I have labeled the Kostenki, para-Kostenki and pre-Sunghir group clade 1, while the ancestors of Aurignacian and ANE were clade 2. I suspect that WHGs may have come from a different clade 1 group which isn't shown in the Salkhit paper model (because WHGs weren't the subject).

Of course there are slightly different models as well, but the model A has the lowest absolute Z score value. Kudos to Matt for providing me and others with that screenshot from the paper.

Aleph said...

@Rob

"In addition, there was an epi-Natufian migration from the Levant toward the Aegean, but that has nothing to do with WHGs."

Incidentally, a very late mesolithic grave from Theopetra (Greece) namely Theopetra 2 is said to have resembled the Nahal Oren Natufian burials. Interestingly, Theopetra late mesolithic mtdna turned out to be K1c. But the autosomal DNA is unavailable. Looking at late northern Balkan HGs, there are a few H and K carriers but they only have like 7% to 11% Anatolian autosomal ancestry. I suspect something similar for the Theopetra cave burials- they may have had a small amount of recent Anatolian admixture (albeit more than what is found in the few northern Balkan carriers) at the turn of the Holocene and that it was maternally derived. This maternal derivation may also explain the cultural influence from the Levant. Still, for there to be such a cultural influence, I think the Theopetra individuals must have had more than 11% Anatolian/Levantine autosomal ancestry. Likely still a minority admixture.

Jaakko Häkkinen said...

Davidski:
"This is your most idiotic statement here to date, and that's really saying something."

You are just too stupid to understand science or even normal English text. I'm sorry for your sad destiny: there is no cure for stupidity. :(

Luckily there are people within your readers who have more intelligence and can understand right what is written, and then even understand the arguments.

Jaakko Häkkinen said...

@Davidski,
would it be impossible for you to hide your bitterness and childishness and to stop behaving like a ridiculous idiot? You only embarrass yourself, throwing tantrums like a little baby while being totally impotent to present any intellectual arguments whatsoever.

ANI EXCAVATOR said...

@ Rob

Ryukendo didn't talk about WHG not being native to Europe, he talked about the ancestor of WHG and ANE not having arisen in Europe.


@ Jaako

I wonder about your statistical or mathematical thinking. You're not making much sense here. If correlations between genetic descent, culture, and language exist, of course one can be used to predict the other. Its literally what the word "predict" means.

If all conjunctions of language, genes or culture are "momentary", that means there is no correlation at all. Correlations can only exist if, across a set of datapoints covering time and space, a group having language A predicts having some descent from B predicts having cultural pattern C. Correlations are by definition not "momentary".

EastPole said...

Does anybody know anything about this:

“Abstract summary:
Two recent methodologies claim revolutionary new potential for resolving the question of Indo-European origins: ancient DNA, and Bayesian phylogenetics. This talk gives a linguistic perspective on progress in both. Ancient DNA findings are less clear-cut than first appeared, while flaws in both data and methods are shown to undermine all past Bayesian phylogenetic analyses of Indo-European. A radically new, improved and expanded language database yields results that support no single existing theory, but a new composite hypothesis of Indo-European origins. Multiple new test-cases against known histories also identify where phylogenetic models still need significant refinements”

https://www.linguisticsociety.org/abstract/new-twists-indo-european-origins-debate-aligning-bayesian-phylogenetics-and-ancient-dna

Anthony Hanken said...

@Jaakko

"Tarand graves are a possible match, just like any other culture in Estonia. The chronology then decides, if the match is probable or not: the later the moment in time, the more probable is the correlation with the Finnic languages."

Some are more likely than others. Stone-cist graves for example, show ties to Scandinavia and, aDNA seems to suggest they were locals. Not exactly a perfect match for the Uralic newcomers.

"And “new people in coastal Estonia” doesn’t tell where they came from: from the inland Estonia? From the south? From the east? You seem too eager to make too black-and-white interpretations about the non-conclusive shreds of facts – like you have some innate urge to tightly tie the language to some genetic and archaeological phenomena. Why is that?"

Isotopes have shown the earliest Tarands are non-local and, did not come from SW Finland or, Sweden.

At the same time, Akozino-Mälar axes, hill forts similar to the gorodishche of western Russia, and other eastern materials, as well as a new type of pottery (Ilmandu ceramics in Estonia, Morby ceramics in Finland) appear.

I have no "innate urge" to connect any of the above. Instead, I'm using common sense.

You just said, Tarands are a possible match. So, what are the other possible matches?

"Yes, a synthesis can be done. But it requires the use of the scientific method."

Asko Parapola's synthesis on the spread of West-Uralic languages to the Baltic region, is pretty much the same as mine. In fact, its lining up quite well with the genetic data. He connects Tarands to the east.

"What kind of predictions do you mean?"

Reasonable predictions, based on previously established trends. You can't know for sure, what language any pre-historic culture spoke.

"Ancient DNA tells about people, not about culture. If the DNA is found with certain cultural frame, then we have the momentary correlation – that’s all. You should accept this sooner or later, so why not sooner?"

If that were true, archaeology wouldn't be able to tell us anything about the populations involved. Instead inferences are made, if the culture is static, archeologists assume there is continuity within the population. If a material culture is disrupted, archeologists assume discontinuity within that population.

"Unless you can finally tell me how you can predict culture or language from the DNA?"

Through correlations. The same way you predict what language an ancient culture spoke.

Rob said...

@ Archie

“ it exists simultaneously with the Mesolithic, and which Rob passes off as the Mesolithic.”

Lol yes how absurd am I? I call the Mesolithic the Mesolithic like to agreed European archaeological convention, instead of Archies homeschool invention of 1
You’re now just trying to twist definitions Because you know you’re gonna be wrong about everything. This is your escape clause


“The Mesolithic in Europe begins in Eastern Europe and then spreads to Northern Europe (the SHG cluster appears) and penetrates the Balkans, this is Iron Gates. They all have EHG influence.“


Sheer nonsense which you invented because you don’t understand anything. The Mesolithic did not “start” in Eastern Europe
You’re confusing the mere presence of ehg admixture in iron gates as causal. In Scandinavia; it’s all female mediated

“ And yes, to you everyone is always wrong,”

No just you seem to excel at it because (I) you’re far less bright than you dream you are (I) you’re a chauvinist with a shit attitude

“ You already wrote that you know best because you are God.”
Don’t be jealous. You at least have Ambron....

Rob said...

“ momentous matches”
Sounds like a title for the new Romantic comedy

Genos Historia said...

@old europe,
"WHG west and WHG east have the same origin"
"Differentiating between Villabruna and Iron Gates is just crazy talk."

There were for sure two different WHG lineages. A western one (from Italy) and an eastern one.

Here's the evidence

>U5b is 90% in Western WHGs. Is very rare in Latvia, Serbia HGs who are 70%+ WHG.
>U5a1 is 0% in Western WHGs. But is the most common mtDNA in Latvia, Serbia HGs.
>I2a1 is most common Y DNA in Western HGs. But is basically 0% in Latvia, Serbia HGs

You can't say Serbia, Latvia HGs came from the exact same source as western WHGs, when they show different mtDNA and Y DNA.

Genos Historia said...

More on WHG mtDNA, Y DNA.....

I'm pretty confident Narva culture was created by Western European hunter gatherers who migrated east after farmers took over their homeland. I don't know if anyone else has suggested this.

If, true, this is important for Neolithic Europe history.

The mtDNA, Y DNA of Narva is Western European. It is different than the preceding Mesolithic HGs in Latvia.

In G25, Narva isn't fundamentally different from Latvia HGs. BUt, Y DNA and mtDNA don't lie. They could be a combination of new migrations from the west and east, so superficially look like Latvia HGs.

Genos Historia said...

@Rob, Archi

Thanks for the info on the Mesolithic. The classifications are bit confusing.

@Aleph,

mtDNA K1 at first glance looks Near Eastern, but for reasons I explained in this thread, I think it is originally European.

Keep in mind, the K1 in European HGs and Anatolian farmers belong to different basal clades which separated like 20,000 years ago or more.

Archi said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Archi said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rob said...

@ ANI

Sorry but Ryu isn’t making much sense
Eg “ This means that the oldest West Eurasian ancestry that exists actually comes in admixed form from Northeast Siberia and even Mongolia”

This isn’t likely to be the case. Instead, there was a common movement from a northwest Asian region toward Europe and Siberia ~ 35,000 Bp; in the latter replacing populations of the Ust-Ishm - TianYuan cline
Similarly; the odd TianYuan affinity in Goyet-Q116 is a relict of pseudo-East Asian character of IUP populations
Given that this movement was occurring ~35,000 - still within the earliest peopling of Eurasia- it is redundant to exclaim exogenous origins

Archi said...

@Rob

" Sheer nonsense which you invented because you don’t understand anything. The Mesolithic did not “start” in Eastern Europe"

You are talking nonsense without understanding anything, you just invent and contradict everyone.

"You’re confusing the mere presence of ehg admixture in iron gates as causal."

You contradict everyone because you know nothing. you can't even read the link I gave you, then I'll quote it:

"It is equally important to recognize that the Balkan upper Palaeolithic was a long period containing little significant internal change. The Mesolithic may not have existed in the Balkans for the same reasons that cave art and mobiliary art never appeared: the changes in climate and flora and fauna were gradual and not drastic. (…) Furthermore, one of the reasons that we do not distinguish separate industries in the Balkans as Mesolithic is because the lithic industries of the early Holocene were very firmly of a gradually developing late Palaeolithic tradition"

"In regions with limited glacial impact (e.g. the Balkans), the term Epipalaeolithic is preferable. Regions that experienced less environmental impact during the last ice age have a much less apparent and straightforward change, and occasionally are marked by an absence of sites from the Mesolithic era. See the above Douglass W. Bailey quote.

There is lithic evidence of the Iron Gates mesolithic culture, which is notable for its early urbanization, at Lepenski Vir. Iron Gates mesolithic sites are found in modern Serbia, south-west Romania and Montenegro. At Ostrovul Banului, the Cuina Turcului rock shelter in the Danube gorges and in the nearby caves of Climente, there are finds that people of that time made relatively advanced bone and lithic tools (i.e. end-scrapers, blade lets, and flakes)."
"The aforementioned allows us to speculate whether or not there was a period which could be described as Mesolithic in southeastern Europe, rather than an extended Upper Palaeolithic."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistory_of_Southeastern_Europe#Mesolithic

Naturally, it is unacceptable for your nervous state that the Mesolithic did not appear in the Balkans and it was brought by EHG.

" In Scandinavia; it’s all female mediated"

These are just your fantasies, and in general, it does not matter. It is important that it came to Northern Europe together with the EHG.

@Genos Historia
" I'm pretty confident Narva culture was created by Western European hunter gatherers who migrated east after farmers took over their homeland."

From the Balkans or what? Who was a farmer in the West at this time? Thanks for making fun.

"The mtDNA, Y DNA of Narva is Western European. It is different than the preceding Mesolithic HGs in Latvia."

Nonsense, it is not.


@Aleph

You see, Proto-WHG is an Anti-Gravettian and Anti-ANE cluster. He separated from the Western Eurasian branch somewhere between the time of Ust-Ishim and Proto-Aurignacian (44-38kya) together with Proto-ANE, apparently about 28 thousand years ago he split from Proto-ANE and after that began to drift in the opposite direction, moving further away from the Gravettians and ANE, but then was influenced by the Gravettians and possibly someone else from the South.

Its origin can be said only indirectly by the mutation of lightening of the eyes, this mutation is known to be useful only to those who live a lot in the dark, for whom it is dark for half a year. Blue eyes see better in the dark than brown eyes, I know this even from myself because I see in the dark like a cat, unlike my relatives who have brown eyes. Consequently, it could gain a foothold only among the northern people in conditions of prolonged darkness of the year, which is observed in the north, people with blue eyes received an obvious advantage. The north of Europe in those days was constantly covered with a glacier, but in the north of Siberia there was no glacier and people lived there.

Aleph said...

@Genos Historia

K is European in the sense that its ancestors back-migrated to form the Levant Aurignacian culture. So its U8 precursors may have come from Europe tens of thousands of years ago. But the formation of K proper in of itself looks like it happened outside of Europe. Case in point: only mixed European HGs seem to have K (and H). The more pure ones (from the point of view of no Levantine admixture) have other kinds of U8 like U8a. U8c was present in two dead-end instances, maybe they branched away from the pre-U8b'c that migrated to form the Levant Aurignacian.

Kind of like how U6 might be claimed to be originally European, but the IBM subclades would have formed more recently and outside of Europe in a different population.

Rob said...

@ Archie

The text you’re quoting is describing the gradual nature of change in the Balkans, because the shift from late paleolithic to Mesolithic in Italy, Balkans, Crimea and part of Ukraine is far more gradual; hence still called “epigravettian”. The authors pose an almost philosophical question about terminology - “in regions with limited glacial impact (e.g. the Balkans), the term Epipalaeolithic is preferable [over Mesolithic ]”.
The term’s use in Balkans is variable, depending on choice of the scholar, but it is more uniformly used in the near east
They nowhere state about Mesolithic “coming from Siberia or east of the Don”.

The favourable climate in fact explains why Italy & Balkans were the immediate source populations for the WHG expansion during the late paleolithic, as the rise in temperature decimated the Magdalenian system in northwest Europe

We all understand that there is EHG admixture in the iron gates. Similarly, we understand that SHG have EHG admixture, via different routes and different means. This does not, however, mean that the Mesolithic came from the east. No source has ever made such a suggestion- it is merely your own confusion. The Iberian Mesolithic, British Mesolithic ; German, so forth have little to do with Eastern Europe . Every region has a different Mesolithic dynamic. Your catch -all ‘everything comes from Russia’ ideas are wholly uncontributory

Aleph said...

@Archi

If that is true then WHG should have higher affinity to ANE than to Gravettians, Sunghir or Goyet. But according to the Tagliente paper, WHGs had a higher affinity to Gravettians, Sunghir and Goyet. Though even those affinities weren't very high compared to the affinity to more recent HGs. I don't see WHGs would make a clade with pre-ANEs to the exclusion of the rest. It would have been nice if that Salkhit paper had included WHGs in their A model.

Genos Historia said...

@Aleph,
"Case in point: only mixed European HGs seem to have K (and H)"

I'm personally not convinced IronGateHGs have Near Eastern ancestry.

I know a study says they did have 10-15% Near Eastern admix. No one at this blog has looked at the issue with tools other than G25.

In G25 PCA they behave like normal European HGs.

ALso keep in mind the frequency miss match between K1 and H in IronGates. K1 outnumbers H, 5 to 1.

R0>HV>H are of for sure Near Eastern origin, but K1 in IronGates I think is native to Europe. But it is interesting they have the highest frequency of K1 and they lived near the Near East. We'll see.

Ric Hern said...

@ All

Bacho Kiro Samples = MtDNA Haplogroups M, N, R and U8. +-46 000 years old....

Jaakko Häkkinen said...

ANI EXCAVATOR:
“I wonder about your statistical or mathematical thinking. You're not making much sense here. If correlations between genetic descent, culture, and language exist, of course one can be used to predict the other. Its literally what the word "predict" means.”

I’m saying that predicting is not a scientific method in this case.
1. Predicting weather with meteorological methods is scientific; predicting language with linguistic methods is scientific.
2. Predicting weather or language with the genetic or archaeological methods is unscientific.

Do you understand?

AE: “If all conjunctions of language, genes or culture are "momentary", that means there is no correlation at all. Correlations can only exist if, across a set of datapoints covering time and space, a group having language A predicts having some descent from B predicts having cultural pattern C. Correlations are by definition not "momentary".”

It seems that we use the same word in different meanings.
You should understand that there is no predicting power of the momentary crossroads between different levels (which I called correlations). Think about it:
1. In certain population speaking language X there are different uniparental lineages.
2. Now, if we go back or forth in time, the situation is such, that we cannot see from DNA if a carrier of certain lineage spoke the language X or not.

Or if you know the method by which you can see language from the genes, please feel free to aim for the Nobel prize.

Jaakko Häkkinen said...

Anthony Hanken:
“Some are more likely than others. Stone-cist graves for example, show ties to Scandinavia and, aDNA seems to suggest they were locals. Not exactly a perfect match for the Uralic newcomers.”

That is exactly why time is crucial: if the Uralic spread was earlier, like it was thought before 2000’s, then this would be a good match.

Now, only because of the linguistic results we know that the beginning of the stone cist graves in Bronze Age Scandinavia don’t match with the Uralic language. Still, the ending phase of them is a possible match. Because the stone cist people – like every other people in all the continents of the world – did not live in isolation, but they received cultural, genetic and linguistic influences from other people. This is the mistake many laymen do: they ignore all the contact-based influences between populations, cultures and languages and only stare the original root.

It is well possible, that some of these influences caused the people in some or all parts of that culture to shift their older language to a new one: the Uralic language. There is no way how you could see from DNA or culture, whether a language shift happened or didn’t happen! Do you understand this crucial point?

AH: “Isotopes have shown the earliest Tarands are non-local and, did not come from SW Finland or, Sweden.”

No, you once again unscientifically tie culture to people! Try to get rid of this black-and-white misinterpretation of yours. Isotopic results only show that some individuals in the tarand graves were newcomers, probably from the east. They cannot tell anything about the origin of the archaeological phenomenon itself.

AH: “At the same time, Akozino-Mälar axes, hill forts similar to the gorodishche of western Russia, and other eastern materials, as well as a new type of pottery (Ilmandu ceramics in Estonia, Morby ceramics in Finland) appear.”

Yes. There are clear influences from the east. But you cannot see from the archaeological data which paternal lineage or which language was connected to those influences. Do you understand?

AH: “I have no "innate urge" to connect any of the above. Instead, I'm using common sense.”

You seem to have such; see above. You try all the time to tie together DNA, culture and language, but they are independent levels.

AH: “You just said, Tarands are a possible match. So, what are the other possible matches?”

The latest possible match is the spread of cremation field cemeteries from Estonia to Southwestern Finland around 500 AD. Soon they were the dominating grave type in all the southern and western coast of Finland, and it is difficult to see the spread of North Finnic to Finland being any more later than that.

Before that time there were many different grave types and cultures in Finland and Estonia; some of them were Finnic-speaking, but we cannot see from the archaeological material which ones. This also means that there could have been some other language communities within some other cultures in these areas. In ancient times language areas were not exclusive but more or less overlapping insulas.

Jaakko Häkkinen said...

AH: “Reasonable predictions, based on previously established trends. You can't know for sure, what language any pre-historic culture spoke.”

You should understand that there is no predicting power of the momentary crossroads between different levels (which I called correlations). Think about it:
1. In certain population speaking language X there are different uniparental lineages.
2. Now, if we go back or forth in time, the situation is such, that we cannot see from DNA if a carrier of certain lineage spoke the language X or not.

So much of the predicting power!

AH: “If that were true, archaeology wouldn't be able to tell us anything about the populations involved. Instead inferences are made, if the culture is static, archeologists assume there is continuity within the population. If a material culture is disrupted, archeologists assume discontinuity within that population.”

Continuity and discontinuity appear everywhere. There is no culture with 100 % continuity or 100 % discontinuity. So, you really cannot predict the linguistic or genetic continuity from the archaeological continuity. The method is totally unreliable and produces contradicting results. Read this:
http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/Uralic.html

AH: “Through correlations. The same way you predict what language an ancient culture spoke.“

How? That doesn’t answer the question. It is impossible to predict language from genes or culture. The only scientific way is to see, if there is a match with the linguistic results.

Davidski said...

@Jaakko

Have you heard of ancient DNA?

Yeah, it's a really interesting tool that lets us go back in time to test the genetic ancestry of populations that lived in the past.

Not only that, but thanks to ancient DNA we can track how populations changed and how new populations formed.

Of course, these sorts of things can be correlated very precisely now across space and time with archeological data and linguistic data so that sensible inferences can be made about, say, the spread of language families.

This is not science fiction and it's nothing new.

Jaakko Häkkinen said...

Davidski:
“Have you heard of ancient DNA? Yeah, it's a really interesting tool that lets us go back in time to test the genetic ancestry of populations that lived in the past.
Not only that, but thanks to ancient DNA we can track how populations changed and how new populations formed.”

Yes, I know all that very well.

Davidski:
“Of course, these sorts of things can be correlated very precisely now across space and time with archeological data and linguistic data so that sensible inferences can be made about, say, the spread of language families. This is not science fiction and it's nothing new.”

Yes, indeed we can find correlations. There are two methods for that: one scientific and one unscientific.

Scientific method:
1. Let’s look at the genetic results.
2. Let’s look at the linguistic results.
3. Let’s look if there are in both of these any phenomenons which match concerning time, place and direction of spread.

Unscientific method of many people here:
1. Let’s look at the genetic results.
2. Let’s ignore the linguistic results.
3. Let’s decide ad hoc that this genetic wave in certain place at certain time represents certain language.

So far you have ignored the linguistic results = used the unscientific method. I have repeated this already many times, but you don’t seem to understand it. Could you tell me where the problem is, so I could offer targeted medicine for that particular problem blocking your understanding?

ANI EXCAVATOR said...

It is a strange sort of mind that can see things like "60% probability of rain tomorrow" as scientific, and "60% probability that this population in the past spoke Uralic" as unscientific. Just because numbers are usually used in one field and not in the other? Implicitly we are doing the same thing, even if not in a formal mathematical way!

In fact, we have a much better understanding of the process that creates correlations between language, culture and genes and that give us the ability to predict one of them from the others than we have of the processes, which are much more opaque, that let us predict the weather. And actually there are some very simple rules of thumb that can give you almost perfect accuracy when predicting whether an ethnic group today speaks a Uralic language.

1) Is the genetic composition of the ethnic group mostly European ancestry + Kra001, with no other kinds of East Asian DNA?
2) Do men in this ethnic group have more than 20% Haplogroup N?

If the answers are yes, then the group speaks a Uralic language. How could this happen if "correlations" are all "momentous" and if ancient Uralics did not transmit such a signature to their descendants?

ANI EXCAVATOR said...

David, can you project BOO onto the same PCA that you posted here? I bet that in PC4 the Saami would be drawn toward BOO.

Dmytro said...

Re Slavic genetic origins:

Do we have any aDNA results from the Trziniec, Milograd, and Lusatian cultures? Are any expected?

Archi said...

@Jaakko Häkkinen

"Unscientific method of many people here:
1. Let’s look at the genetic results.
2. Let’s ignore the linguistic results.
3. Let’s decide ad hoc that this genetic wave in certain place at certain time represents certain language."

You are repeating this for the umpteenth time, but it is you who deny any scientific method. You ignore linguistics, linguistics has strictly proved that the Finno-Samoyedians are from Siberia, there is no other data. Linguistics has strictly proved that the Finno-Samoyedic languages ​​did not come into contact with the Indo-European ones until the Indo-Iranian era and their contacts with the Finno-Ugrians.

You have written a bunch of useless posts, all your posts are 100% useless. So it was you who proved to everyone that you are not a scientist, that you are the enemy of science and the scientific method.

You are not a scientist, you are a useless chatterbox pouring water.

@Dmytro
"Do we have any aDNA results from the Trziniec, Milograd, and Lusatian cultures?"

No autosomal data available. There is uniparental data from Trziniec and Lusatian cultures. There are specimens that do not belong to the Trziniec culture, but are located next to it.

Rob said...

@ all
I think the main aspects of east Baltic linguistic history can be understood
Proto-balto-Slavic arrived ~ 1000 BC with hilltop sites and striated pottery traditions . This includes inland Baltic . The source origin is tbd , but could be Poland, with influences from Scandinavia too
The Baltic-Finnic etc groups arrived with tarand graves and eastern ancestry at around same time, although Finns had reached eastern Finland considerably earlier

Erik Andersson said...

@Jaakko Häkkinen
Weather and genes do not correlate.
Genes and languages do correlate.
That's why it's possible to make predictions about language from DNA, but not about weather. I don't know why I'm having to explain this.
"How do you disprove the mainstream view?"
aDNA has already disproved the idea that the stone-cist graves in Estonia were erected by migrants from Scandinavia (or even by 'mixed natives' as suggested by Lang 2015), and thus naturally also casts doubt on the idea that the people who did were Germanic speakers.
"How their DNA connects them to Uralic speakers? N-L550 is common within Balts and Slavs, while it is not found in most of the Uralic-speaking populations."
N-L550 is probably younger than Proto-Uralic, so there's no reason why all Uralic speakers should have it. Of course, it is common among Finnic speakers, and close relatives of it are widely distributed among Uralic peoples.

mary said...

@Archi

Blue eyes DON'T see better in the dark than brown eyes. This is a myth. Even because you can't see with your iris, but with your pupil. The only thing that is certain is that people with light eyes are more sensitive to ultraviolet light, in the sense that this type of radiation can cause more damage than in people with dark eyes.

BTW, WHG could not be in Siberia during the Paleolithic end. For example, Lazaridis modeled the relationship between the Dzudzuana samples and the WHG in two ways: either Dzudzuana is primarily WGH plus Basal Eurasians, or WGH is Dzudzuana plus Vestonice and Afontova Gora. In both cases, WGH is unique to Europe and its surroundings.

Archi said...

@mary

"Blue eyes DON'T see better in the dark than brown eyes. This is a myth."

This is a scientific fact. The blue iris allows more light to enter the eye, but less protects it from bright light.

"WHG could not be in Siberia during the Paleolithic end."

And no one says that they were at the end of the Paleolithic in Siberia - the Villabruna cluster is in Europe. But it did not occur in Europe until the beginning of the Late Upper Paleolithic it was not west of the Don.

Simon_W said...

Regarding the correlation of language and DNA; I remember someone arguing a couple of years ago, drawing upon some dubious linguistic evidence, that the proto-Germanic homeland was in central Europe, around Austria, in the eastern Hallstatt culture. Now compare the genomes of the West Germanic Alemanni, Baiuvari and Anglo-Saxons with each other and with modern populations. And compare them with IA North Europeans and with IA people from around Austria; that theory should be completely off the table now.

Archi said...

@Erik Andersson

"N-L550 is probably younger than Proto-Uralic"

It is not probably, but categorically definitely younger. It is definitely Saami-Finnish.

N-L550 CTS8428 * L550/S431 * Z4776(H)+3 SNPs formed 3100 ybp, TMRCA 2800 ybp

mary said...

@Archi

"This is a scientific fact. The blue iris allows more light to enter the eye, but less protects it from bright light."

I will be happy to see your sources. :)) The light that generates the image on your retina does not pass through the iris. On the contrary, the iris has to contract in order to be able to pass more light. Nocturnal animals do not have blue eyes, generally speaking, but they have different mechanisms to be able to see in low light, as for example it is common for animals to have a reflective membrane at the bottom of the eyes. I only know one author who dedicated himself to explaining the spread of this phenotypic trait, Peter Frost. According to him, blue eyes have become common due to sexual selection.


"And no one says that they were at the end of the Paleolithic in Siberia - the Villabruna cluster is in Europe. But it did not occur in Europe until the beginning of the Late Upper Paleolithic it was not west of the Don."

Vestonice is also modeled as being partly WHG. So Lazaridis himself (and other authors) believes WHG is a lineage that was probably in Europe somewhere long before Villabruna. And even if it wasn't, the second most likely picture that WHG is a type of lineage that was formed in Europe from lineages that were already there, added to something related to Afontova Gora. And of course, a considerable amount of drift also contributes to the genetic differentiation of these.

Rob said...

@ Mary

Yesp, the paleolithic in Eastern Europe is very interesting & complex but there is a 20,000 + year gap in sampling between Kostenki & Sungir and EHGs at the start of the Mesolithic. So most rational people understand that there is significant uncertainty.

However, after 30,000 BP, Gravettians from Central Europe migrated to Eastern Europe, where along with whatever (relatively sparse) population was already there the Eastern Gravettian formed in the Dnieper -Desna-Don region. Contact with Dzudzuana -related populations might have been mediated via the Black Sea region during the LGM.

Regions east of the Don are irrelevant for proto-WHG, but is obviously where ANE arrived also sometime during or just after the Ice Age

Archi said...

@mary

"The light that generates the image on your retina does not pass through the iris."

It does not penetrate it through brown, but it penetrates through the blue, short-wave light - ultraviolet. It is thin, which is why it has a blue color. It is possible that the light shell also allows you to better redirect light inside the eye to the peripheral areas where night vision is located.

"Vestonice is also modeled as being partly WHG. So Lazaridis himself (and other authors) believes WHG is a lineage that was probably in Europe somewhere long before Villabruna."

According to the main hypothesis, the Vestonice cluster (I-haplogroup) came from east Eastern Europe from the Cis-Caucasus. Obviously, then it could contact Proto-WHG that obviously dwells then to the east. Well, it should be borne in mind that the models are not perfect, therefore, rather, it has the Villabrune cluster (Epigravettian) has a part of the substrate of the Vestonice cluster (Gravettian).

Dmytro said...

@ Archi
"No autosomal data available. There is uniparental data from Trziniec and Lusatian cultures. There are specimens that do not belong to the Trziniec culture, but are located next to it."

Thank you. I take it (having checked your point in Wikipedia) that these results are from the area of contemporary Poland, and thus we have nothing from "eastern Trziniec" (also called the Sosnitska culture) which developed into Milograd /from Ukraine and Belarus/. These are the closest to the "best guess" for the putative Slavic homeland. Hopefully their inhumation burial DNA will eventually be studied. Only western Trziniec developed into Lusatian.

Jaakko Häkkinen said...

ANI EXCAVATOR:
“It is a strange sort of mind that can see things like "60% probability of rain tomorrow" as scientific, and "60% probability that this population in the past spoke Uralic" as unscientific. Just because numbers are usually used in one field and not in the other? Implicitly we are doing the same thing, even if not in a formal mathematical way!”

Didn’t you read what I wrote? The point is, that a prediction is scientific only when scientific methods are used. Numbers are totally irrelevant. Scientific method means, that the discipline has methods to study the subject.

1. Only meteorology can study weather, and only linguistics can study language.
2. You cannot predict language by meteorological methods, and you cannot predict weather by linguistic methods.

Do you understand what I write?

AE: “1) Is the genetic composition of the ethnic group mostly European ancestry + Kra001, with no other kinds of East Asian DNA?
2) Do men in this ethnic group have more than 20% Haplogroup N?
If the answers are yes, then the group speaks a Uralic language. How could this happen if "correlations" are all "momentous" and if ancient Uralics did not transmit such a signature to their descendants?”

1. So, are you claiming that no Volga Turkic, Altay Turkic or Eastern Siberian peoples fulfil your criteria 1 and 2?
2. And even if your correlations were perfect, so that none of the non-Uralic peoples fulfilled the criteria, you still cannot know, are those genetic phenomena contemporaneous with the spread of Uralic languages, or earlier, or later.

Jaakko Häkkinen said...


Rob:
“The Baltic-Finnic etc groups arrived with tarand graves and eastern ancestry at around same time, although Finns had reached eastern Finland considerably earlier”

Impossible, because this contradicts the linguistic results. When you speak about Finns here, they were not linguistical Finns but only “genetically close to Finns”, if even that. Southeastern Finland got its Finnic speakers only around 600-800 AD, and more northern parts even later.

So here is again a nice testimony how unreliable and false it is, if you try to see language from DNA! How long you people are going to use this unscientific method, which cannot produce credible results?

Erik Andersson:
“Weather and genes do not correlate.
Genes and languages do correlate.
That's why it's possible to make predictions about language from DNA, but not about weather. I don't know why I'm having to explain this.”

Everything correlates, if they meet in the same place at the same time. But these correlations disappear whenever we move in time or place. Just above in this same comment you see one more prove how unreliable it is, when you try to predict language from DNA. How many times I must repeat these arguments, until you people understand them?

EA: “aDNA has already disproved the idea that the stone-cist graves in Estonia were erected by migrants from Scandinavia (or even by 'mixed natives' as suggested by Lang 2015), and thus naturally also casts doubt on the idea that the people who did were Germanic speakers.”

Really? Please show me the arguments which disprove the Scandinavian origin of the first stone cist grave people. I guess you have again made too black-and-white interpretation, like you people here always do.

EA: “N-L550 is probably younger than Proto-Uralic, so there's no reason why all Uralic speakers should have it. Of course, it is common among Finnic speakers, and close relatives of it are widely distributed among Uralic peoples.”

So, if L550 was not Proto-Uralic, which lineage was? Be precise. You remain in too vague and indefinite level. Present some concrete mutation which can be connected to Proto-Uralic, and present the evidence supporting your claim.

Rob said...

@ Jaako


Impossible, because this contradicts the linguistic results. When you speak about Finns here, they were not linguistical Finns but only “genetically close to Finns”, if even that. Southeastern Finland got its Finnic speakers only around 600-800 AD, and more northern parts even later.

So here is again a nice testimony how unreliable and false it is, if you try to see language from DNA! How long you people are going to use this unscientific method, which cannot produce credible results?”


Well there might be linguistic layering ; but the evidence points to the earliest FU speaking groups arriving ~ 1500 BC.
Linguistics is a craft which guides the hard data from archaeogenetics. It all correlates nicely

Jaakko Häkkinen said...

Rob:
"Well there might be linguistic layering ; but the evidence points to the earliest FU speaking groups arriving ~ 1500 BC.
Linguistics is a craft which guides the hard data from archaeogenetics. It all correlates nicely"

What evidence? There is no evidence pointing to the arrival of earliest Uralic speakers around 1500 BC. Only evidence that there even could be, should be linguistic evidence.

Genes or archaeology can tell, if there were genetic or cultural waves from the east, but you cannot see from archaelogical or genetic data, which of those waves was connected to the Uralic language. There have been eastern waves earlier, later and simultaneously with the spread of the Uralic languages. You cannot just decide that certain wave is connected to the Uralic languages!

How long will it take, until you understand this?

Davidski said...

@Jaakko

Before writing and the internet, languages were spread by people.

When people migrated, they took their languages and genes with them.

Ergo, since we know what sort of genes are specific to Uralic peoples, we can use ancient DNA to find out where these genes originated and how and when they spread into their current range.

And when correlated with linguistic data, this is very likely to tell us about the spread of Uralic speaking populations.

Vladimir said...

@Rob
"I think the main aspects of east Baltic linguistic history can be understood
Proto-balto-Slavic arrived ~ 1000 BC with hilltop sites and striated pottery traditions . This includes inland Baltic . The source origin is tbd , but could be Poland, with influences from Scandinavia too
The Baltic-Finnic etc groups arrived with tarand graves and eastern ancestry at around same time, although Finns had reached eastern Finland considerably earlier"


It turns out that the Baltic-CWC population (Kunila2, MA973.SG, Ardu1_r, MA968, MA976, Gyvakarai1,Gyvakarai0), which apparently were Z284, eventually went to Scandinavia. There is a question with the Z92, which may have remained in the Baltic since the CWC. And those who came to the MLBA, starting with Spiginas2, were all CTS1211, which brought with them this increased HG component.

ambron said...

Dmytro, so far we have probably only two samples from the Trzniec culture and the satellite culture of the Ottomany (Füzesabony). Both Z280, one autosomal CWC and the other similar to East Germans and Kashubians. A genetic paper about the Trzciniec culture is announced for this year. But we know from leaks that there will be a lot of Z280 and a lot of similarity to modern Poles.

We already have many samples from Germany and Hungary from the times of the Lusatian culture. Is among them Z280, many Slavic maternal uniparental markers, autosomal resemblance to the Balts and Western Slavs, sharing kinship with Poles and a high degree of genetic continuity with today's inhabitants of the region.

The Slavic homeland on the border of Belarus and Ukraine are just fantasies of some archaeologists, such as Kossinna, Godłowski and Parczewski. This is contradicted by linguists who do not find the old Slavic toponymy in these areas.

Archi said...

@Jaakko Häkkinen

"if even that. Southeastern Finland got its Finnic speakers only around 600-800 AD, and more northern parts even later.“

You juggle with concepts. These are just local issues of resettlement in Southeastern Finland tribes Saami, Suomi and Jäämit, Karela; the Southwestern Finland was settled by Finns Suomi to 400 AD.

Your tribal story no proves anything. All of them are Finnic-speaking in the sense of Finno-Sami languages.

Jaakko Häkkinen said...

Davidski:
“Before writing and the internet, languages were spread by people.”

Right.

D: “When people migrated, they took their languages and genes with them.”

Right.

D: “Ergo, since we know what sort of genes are specific to Uralic peoples, we can use ancient DNA to find out where these genes originated and how and when they spread into their current range.”

1. That is only the first step.
2. After that, you must use historical linguistics to find out where different stages from Proto-Uralic to present-day languages were spoken.
3. Then, only if there is a match between genetic and linguistic results, you can say that certain genetic phenomenon probably corresponds to the spread of certain Uralic language stage.

If you do not follow this scientific procedure, you cannot reliably compare DNA to language. Because there can be genetic phenomena shared by the Uralic peoples either (1) earlier, (2) later, or (3) contemporaneous with some stage of the language. Without the linguistic results you can never know which one it is, but you are only guessing.

Norfern-Ostrobothnian said...

VL29 is most definitely a proto-Uralic, or at least European Uralic clade.

@Jaakko
Could we get a quick rundown on why proto-Uralic was spoken in Volga-Ural at 2000 BCE?

Dmytro said...

@ Ambron
"The Slavic homeland on the border of Belarus and Ukraine are just fantasies of some archaeologists, such as Kossinna, Godłowski and Parczewski. This is contradicted by linguists who do not find the old Slavic toponymy in these areas."

Nope.
Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Proto-Slavic#Progressive_palatalization

esp. "The most archaic Slavic hydronyms are found here, along the middle Dnieper, Pripet and upper Dniester rivers. This agrees well with the fact that inherited Common Slavic vocabulary does not include detailed terminology for physical surface features peculiar of the mountains or the steppe, nor any relating to the sea, to coastal features, littoral flora or fauna, or salt water fishes. On the other hand, it does include well-developed terminology for inland bodies of water (lakes, river, swamps) and kinds of forest (deciduous and coniferous), for the trees, plants, animals and birds indigenous to the temperate forest zone, and for the fish native to its waters.[8] Indeed, Trubachev argues that this location fostered contacts between speakers of Pre-Proto-Slavic with the cultural innovations which emanated from central Europe and the steppe.[9] Although language groups cannot be straightforwardly equated with archaeological cultures, the emergence of a Pre-Proto-Slavic linguistic community corresponds temporally and geographically with the Komarov and Chernoles cultures (Novotna, Blazek). Both linguists and archaeologists therefore often locate the Slavic Urheimat specifically within this area."

P.S. This is not correct as to all statements. But good enough for starters. Happy reading!
My own view is that one cannot really speak of Slavs as a distinct group until the first millennium CE. Its incipit is closely bound to the Bastarnian takeover of old Scythia.
P.P.S. This will be my only contribution on this blog. I don't really care for its virulent ad hominem practices. So, to quote old Nietzsche "quickly in quickly out"....

«Oldest ‹Older   401 – 600 of 771   Newer› Newest»