R1a-M417 and R1b-L51 are by far the most important Y-chromosome haplogroups in Europe today. More precisely, R1a-M417 dominates in Eastern Europe, while R1b-L51 in Western Europe.
It's been obvious for a while now, at least to me, that both of these Y-haplogroups are closely associated with the men of the Late Neolithic Corded Ware culture (CWC). Indeed, in my mind they're the main genetic signals of its massive expansion, probably from a homeland somewhere north of the Black Sea in what is now Ukraine.
I'm still not exactly sure how the east/west dichotomy between R1a and R1b emerged in Europe, but, thanks to a
new paper by Papac et al. at
Science Advances, at least now I have a working hypothesis about that. Below is a quote from the said paper, emphasis is mine:
In addition to autosomal genetic changes through time, we observe a sharp reduction in Y-chromosomal diversity going from five different lineages in early CW to a dominant (single) lineage in late CW (Fig. 4A). We used forward simulations to explore the demographic scenarios that could account for the observed reduction in Y-chromosomal diversity. Performing 1 million simulations of a population with a starting frequency of R1a-M417(xZ645) centered around the observed starting frequency in Bohemia_CW_Early (3 of 11, 0.27), we assessed the plausibility of this lineage reaching the observed frequency in Bohemia_CW_Late (10 of 11, 0.91) in the time frame of 500 years under a model of a closed population and random mating (Materials and Methods). We reject the “neutral” hypothesis, i.e., that this change in frequency occurred by chance, given a wide range of plausible population sizes. Instead, our results suggest that R1a-M417(xZ645) was subject to a nonrandom increase in frequency, resulting in these males having 15.79% (4.12 to 44.42%) more surviving offspring per generation relative to males of other Y-haplogroups. We also find that this change in Y chromosome frequency is extreme compared to the changes in allele frequencies at fully covered autosomal 1240k sites within the same males, suggesting a process that disproportionately affected Y-chromosomal compared to autosomal genetic diversity, ruling out a population bottleneck as the likely cause. Our results suggest that the Y-lineage diversity in early CW males was supplanted by a nonrandom process [selection, social structure, or influx of nonlocal R1a-M417(xZ645) lineages] that drove the collapse in Y-chromosomal diversity. A simultaneous decline of Y-chromosomal diversity dating to the Neolithic has been observed across most extant Y-haplogroups (64), possibly due to increased conflict between male-mediated patrilines (65). We view that changes in social structure (e.g., an isolated mating network with strictly exclusive social norms) could be an alternative cause but would be difficult to distinguish in the underlying model parameters.
Right, so even though the CWC was clearly a community of closely related groups, there must have been some competition between its different clans. And since these clans were highly patriarchal and patrilineal, this competition probably led to different paternal lineages dominating different parts of the CWC horizon, with M417 becoming especially common in the east and L51 in the west.
Of course, the expansions of post-Corded Ware groups, such as the M417-rich Slavs in Eastern Europe and L51-rich Celts in Western Europe, were also instrumental in creating Europe's R1a/R1b dichotomy, but obviously these groups were in large part the heirs of the CWC.
By the way, most of the samples from Papac et al. are already in the Global25 datasheets linked
here. Look for the labels listed
here. Below is a plot made from the Global25 data courtesy of regular commentator Matt.
Citation: L. Papac, M. Ernée, M. Dobeš, M. Langová, A. B. Rohrlach, F. Aron, G. U. Neumann, M. A. Spyrou, N. Rohland, P. Velemínský, M. Kuna, H. Brzobohatá, B. Culleton, D. Daněček, A. Danielisová, M. Dobisíková, J. Hložek, D. J. Kennett, J. Klementová, M. Kostka, P. Krištuf, M. Kuchařík, J. K. Hlavová, P. Limburský, D. Malyková, L. Mattiello, M. Pecinovská, K. Petriščáková, E. Průchová, P. Stránská, L. Smejtek, J. Špaček, R. Šumberová, O. Švejcar, M. Trefný, M. Vávra, J. Kolář, V. Heyd, J. Krause, R. Pinhasi, D. Reich, S. Schiffels, W. Haak,
Dynamic changes in genomic and social structures in third millennium BCE central Europe. Sci. Adv. 7, eabi6941 (2021).
See also...
On the origin of the Corded Ware people
Understanding the Eneolithic steppe
Conan the Barbarian probably belonged to Y-haplogroup R1a
303 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 303 of 303"Just to address another issue, by the way: no, Corded Ware groups would not really have been speaking different languages. CWC is just too early - we're talking two thousand years before Proto-Celtic and Proto-Germanic. It undoubtedly makes no sense to talk about distinct Celtic, Italic, Germanic or Balto-Slavic languages at such an early date"
@wastrel
so you agree then that Bell Beaker is too early to be talking about Italian Bell Beaker as Italic speaking or British Beakers to be Celtic speaking?
For Germanic, I see the evolution as:
(Unetice->Tumulus)->Nordic Bronze Age -> Jastorf, who would be representative of early Germanic speakers.
At the beginning of the bronze age Scandinavians are importing bronze from the Bohemia. At the beginning of the Nordic Bronze age Scandinavians begin making bronze their own metalworks from abundant local metal deposits. As the umbilical cord from Bohemia is cut, Germanic begins to form. To what degree migration played a role in local Scandinavian metal working, I am not sure but I expect it was at a minimum somewhat significant.
With respect to Italic, this begins with Polada but Italo-Celtic was probably spoken in Polada and the Tumulus culture. Celtic begins to form with Urnfield.
@ arza
That would be interesting if correct
But still, L621 is missing in MLBA & IA Balkans due to population flux which followed the EBA
@Wastrel,
Thanks for responding to what I saying. The tribes, languages of Corded Ware is an interesting discussion.
I would say even though Germanic, Celtic, Slavic originated in LBA/Iron age, they had been separate branches for a long time before then.
Germanic began in 500 BC, but this isn't relevant when talking about when IE speech in Nordic lands became unique for the first time.
What we call Germanic is definitely the last survivor of a bigger language family which had existed there long before 500 BC.
The start date of modern IE branches doesn't tell you how old their separate history is.
Indo iranian is recognized as being as old as 2000 BC. Actually, many say Indic & Iranian split from each other by 2000 BC.
Well, the separate branches which Germanic, Balto-Slavic, Celtic come from should be just as old as Indo Iranian.
2000 BC is getting close to the Corded Ware period.
Sure this isn't the Corded Ware period. Considering Corded Ware's founders may have come from a small area of PC Steppe, they may have spoken the same language.
But, they could also have spoken different IE languages.
@ Romulus "With respect to Italic, this begins with Polada but Italo-Celtic was probably spoken in Polada and the Tumulus culture. Celtic begins to form with Urnfield."
As Peter Schrijver pointed out in 2020, while there is a good correlation between linguistic and historically attested Celtic, there is a very POOR fit between those two groups and the so-called "archaeological" Celts. If Urnfield was some kind of early proto-Celtic, which led to eastern Halstatt Celtic, which led to La Tene, then why do the earliest Celtic texts, in areas where Celtic people are attested by Greeks and Romans, found in areas to the west of the Hallstatt area, and who no significant ties to Hallstatt?
Celtic may have come out of the French areas of Urnfield, but it is difficult to imagine Celtic belonging to the entire horizon.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/cambridge-archaeological-journal/article/an-alternative-to-celtic-from-the-east-and-celtic-from-the-west/4F186F087DD3BE66D535102484F8E8C3
@ Romulus
Thank you very much for your answer.
I was hoping, however, that it was a man from the north who, along with the disturbed Germanic tribes, had reached this place. This would be another "brick" to the theory that a small group of Z2103 has been present in Central Europe / NW since the Bronze Age.
Unfortunately, I'm still waiting :)
@Desdichado
The three Celt-Iberians we have, have a North-Central European Autosomal makeup showing they came originally from Urnfield or Halstatt.
With respect to Britain, there was a 50% population replacement 1200 BCE corresponding to the beginning of Urnfield/Halstatt:
https://i.imgur.com/hscYPVL.png
@Slumbery “ There is no such ethic group as "Afghan". If you mean the Pashtun (the biggest ethic group in Afghanistan), they are something like 3:1:1 - BMAC : Steppe MLBA : ancient Indian.”
If Pashtun etc are mostly BMAC, then they are related to Iran_N, which means that they are related to Elamites, and they also have 1:1 Dzudzuana: ANE, although the latter is highly divergent than the one in CHG and EHG.
If it includes “Ancient Indian”, then it elevates the Iran_N (Dzudzuana + ANE) component, even though the Iran elements in Ancient Indians is mostly Mesolithic (Iran HG) rather than Iran Neolithic.
But I do wonder if Pashtun phenotype can be attributed to the Onge-like contribution of Ancient Indians.
@ Desdichado
'' If Urnfield was some kind of early proto-Celtic, which led to eastern Halstatt Celtic, which led to La Tene, then why do the earliest Celtic texts, in areas where Celtic people are attested by Greeks and Romans, found in areas to the west of the Hallstatt area, and who no significant ties to Hallstatt?''
The keltoi mentioned by Greeks had shifted toward coastal France recently, being pulled in by Greek colonies
Extent of western Halstatt
@Arza,
Thanks, I appreciate it. The results look consistent with previous results. So they should be right. But I do wish geneticker would get back to getting phenotype results for ancient DNA.
I am surprised to see no LCT gene in any Corded Ware samples. Maybe a deeper analysis will show some of them had it.
Thousands of Chinese words are originally Indo-European, mediated via Sanskrit: https://www.sundayguardianlive.com/opinion/sanskrit-influence-chinese-language
Although the new version of genomic dating has moved both samples to the Bronze Age:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/828962v5.full.pdf
@Matt
Feel free to make your point to ambron without too much focus on what Elhaik is and isn't.
@Davidski, lol, so Elhaik does that kind of thing to bloggers who allow comments against him to be published huh? Well, anyway, so I don't have time to rewrite the comment, but thanks for giving me an explanation rather than just not letting it go through without one. (Whether or not you'll publish this one of course up to you).
@MikeW
Thanks for the information. Do you have any links concerning I6222’s Y-DNA assignment? Perhaps discussions, data files, or analyses from professional geneticists confirming the R1b-P310* result? I would just like some primary source material to read.
Thanks
@ Romulus
"The three Celt-Iberians we have, have a North-Central European Autosomal makeup showing they came originally from Urnfield or Halstatt.
With respect to Britain, there was a 50% population replacement 1200 BCE corresponding to the beginning of Urnfield/Halstatt:
https://i.imgur.com/hscYPVL.png"
That's a pretty interesting slide. Is the entire presentation available? In any case; which one in Britain, Urnfield or Hallstatt? I know that the dates kind of overlap to some degree, but that's kind of exactly my point; if Urnfield and Hallstatt overlapped in the same time and space, very broadly including most of Central Europe, and even within Hallstatt movements from east to west are postulated in the default narrative, then it is impossible to talk about the entire horizon as if it's likely that it was linguistically homogenous. I'm not suggesting that Celtic didn't come out of a Urnfield/Hallstatt area, just that the entire Urnfield/Hallstatt horizons are very unlikely to be Celtic, or any other unified language either for that matter. Although many often talk about Celtic originating in the eastern Hallstatt and then moving west, Caesar is adamant that Noricum was settled by Celts moving FROM the west, and the placenames corroborate that approach.
Most likely the Urnfield/Hallstatt was--linguistically--a fairly nebulous blob of "central European Indo-European" from which developed at some point Celtic and a whole host of para-Celtic or other languages as well that we no longer have any evidence for. It's also worth pointing out that the same general area and time frame in which Celtic is supposed to have originated is also the homeland of completely unrelated non-Indo-European languages like Rhaetic, and that Etruscan is also proposed by historical records to have come from the north (although that's not the only theory.)
I think in general, the field has been rather cavalier in assigning proposed ethno-linguistic identities to material cultures or genetic population clusters that are attested many centuries or even millennia before any written documentation can tie them to a language. After the Indo-Europeanization of Europe, the genetics all become rather similar, and where we can detect finer structure, it looks more and more like one wave after another of "cousins" came to dominance or prominence and replaced what was there before. So yeah... I have no doubt that Celtic came out of an area that was probably related to the Urnfield/Hallstatt complexes, probably in southeastern France where it would have been adjacent to the Italic languages, where historically attested Celts are known from a very early age, and where they could spread eastward into Noricum and beyond like the historical record says. But that would mean that the entire Urnfield/Hallstatt horizon is unlikely to be Celtic. Although it may well have included para-Celtic languages, like an easterly counterpart to Lusitanian, etc.
@ Romulus
"With respect to Britain, there was a 50% population replacement 1200 BCE corresponding to the beginning of Urnfield/Halstatt:"
This 50% population replacement was only in Southeastern Britain which was mostly a marshland at the time. The rest of Britain do not show this same replacement. Was this the most densely populated area in Britain at the time ? I don't think so. So I personally will not go "Eureka!" with that paper.
@Romulus: nevermind; I found the full lecture. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoGmPJJS3X8&ab_channel=SimonsFoundation
@Simon Steven
"Do you have any links concerning I6222’s Y-DNA assignment? Perhaps discussions, data files, or analyses from professional geneticists confirming the R1b-P310* result?"
You can pull up the raw data and review directly.
Here is a thread on YFull's Facebook that discusses the details. Oct 24,2020 by Ted Kandell.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/yfull/posts/1279616939068142/
Ted actually started the thread on a different track so I engaged. I didn't say so but I already had the advantage of knowing FTDNA's analysis with the R1b-M269>L23>L51>P310* subclade placement based on multiple variant calls and phylogenetic consistency.
@Copper axe
"Little shoutout to the big man himself in the supplementaries"
Nice to see that. Stark contrast from "how dare you mention me in such a shit" that a certain Indian academic commented.
Desdichado: I agree with you in turn, and would like to emphasis two things myself - first, as you say, we must always remember that most language-varieties from prehistory will have no descedents, and so we mustn't try too hard to fit every prehistoric culture to a surviving language. In particular, northern Europe was steamrollered by Celts, Germans, and later Slavs in the east, so it should be no surprise at all that many languages have been lost. As you see, it's probably not a coincidence that we see the greatest variety in places where we have the most surviving eyewitness accounts!
[we also shouldn't overlook the fact that, just as in historic times, there were probably massive migrations in prehistory, and so we can't just assume the nearest historical group reflects the ancient inhabitants of an area - for all we know, the Battle Axe Culture spoke Greek! I mean, they probably didn't, but who the hell knows. To take one area we happen to know a lot about, Anatolia has seen speakers of Anatolian, Greek, Phrygian, Armenian, Indo-Aryan, Iranian, Thraco-Cimmerian (assuming the ancients were right about Cimmerians speaking more like Thracians), Celtic and Germanic, not to mention a lot of Italic speakers along the way. Genetics can of course give us some sense of security in ruling out some migrations, but it's of limited use when the groups in question were both internally varied and externally closely related to one another! Particularly because, while genes are often linked to language, it's certainly not an absolute, particularly when two groups are closely culturally related to begin with.]
But (/and) the second thing is: it's often really hard to assign partially-known early IE languages to specific families, or even to assign individual words to specific languages. In part, this is just because we don't have enough surviving material to do a full analysis. But it's also because these languages... just aren't that different! Once you take out the more recent, distinctive changes, early IE (at least, Northwestern) looks a lot more homogenous. And bear in mind, while we might think Family X has 10 features and Family Y has 10 other features, in reality there may once have been a Family Z with 5 X features and 5 Y features! Particularly since the distinctive changes, both grammatical and morphological, can just as easily happen areally as genetically. It's easy to draw a family tree when all branches immediately leave an area and expand again... but in Europe, it seems as though these branches coexisted for thousands of years, making it very hard to distinguish borrowing from relation...
Romulus:
Undoubtedly the Bell Beakers who first came to Britain did not speak Celtic. They were far, far, far too early for that. Proto-Celtic is dated around 800BC. You could probably push that up a bit if you wanted, but not far enough! When did BB reach Britain? 2500BC? Way, way too early for Celtic. Even if you wanted to push Celtic that early, you run into the problem that at that point your "pre-Celtic" language would look exactly like a "pre-Italic", "pre-Germanic", "pre-Venetic", etc, language, and not even that different from a "pre-Baltic". In 2500BC, you're looking at Proto-Indo-European (or at least, 'Late', non-Anatolian, non-Tocharian, maybe non-Greek, PIE). A PIE with dialects, sure, but not meaningfully divided into clearly distinct languages.
What would presumably have happened would have been that BBs would have arrived in Britain, and their dialect(s) would have developed into their own early branch of IE, due to partial isolation from the continent. This branch would probably have looked more like Celtic and Germanic than like Indo-Aryan, but we couldn't say much more than that (and frankly, even that's just guesswork - maybe a satemising tribe broke away from central europe and migrated to Britain - there's no real reason why that couldn't have happened!). In any case, this language would have been eradicated when the Celts arrived two thousand years later. Or, indeed, at any point along the way, because who knows how many times Britain was invaded BEFORE the Celts? It may not be obvious from the genes... but when we're talking partial invasions (just enough to change the language) by closely-related tribes, that might not be that obvious in the genes.
As regards Germanic: yes, Jastorf is assumed to be the origin. However, Proto-Germanic is definitely not equivalent to Jastorf: early Jastorf emerged too early, and later Jastorf spread too far. Proto-Germanic must have been one specific dialect that emerged within Jastorf, and somehow took over all the others (it follows that many people the Romans called 'Germans' were not Germanic in the modern sense, but close relatives of Germanic-speakers). Proto-Germanic itself very late in date - by 400AD, all three high-level branches, while distinct, are still very similar to one another. It's particularly notable that the most distinctively Germanic phonological features - Grimm's Law in the consonants and the development of the weird vowel system - can't have predated about 500BC.
We know that Pre-Germanic (before Grimm's Law) must have had a lot of contact with Celtic, because of the loanwords (which seem particularly related to politics, war, and technology - words like 'fort', 'iron' and 'king' are all from Celtic). This suggests close contact with Celtic in the 1000-500BC period, which makes sense geographically. More oddly, there must also have been contact with Iranian at some point(presumably Scythians). Before that, a lot of people assume Germanic is more closely related to Balto-Slavic than to Celtic, so at some point they were probably living in, say, northern Poland or the like, but what route they took to get to Jastorf we don't know. We do know that some centum language not a million miles from Germanic lent words into Finnic when it was in the Baltic area, but since there was plenty of trade on the Baltic they needn't necessarily have been adjacent.
For Celtic, to me Urnfield looks perfect for Proto-Celtic, yes.
@ Wastrel
''. This suggests close contact with Celtic in the 1000-500BC period, which makes sense geographically.''
IMO the main phase of Celto-Germanic contact was quite late: precisely when large areas of Celtic Europe were becoming Germanicized at the turn of the Era. Grossromstedt horizon, etc
And contrary to linguistic views, the Germanic groups would have been socially dominant at this time.
Before this, the La Tene world & Jastorf although contiguous, seemed to have almost avoided each other.
@Desdichado
“I found the full lecture. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoGmPJJS3X8&ab_channel=SimonsFoundation”
@Wastrel
“no, Corded Ware groups would not really have been speaking different languages. CWC is just too early - we're talking two thousand years before Proto-Celtic and Proto-Germanic. It undoubtedly makes no sense to talk about distinct Celtic, Italic, Germanic or Balto-Slavic languages at such an early date.”
Wastrel, you should listen to this fragment of Reich’s lecture and try to understand:
https://youtu.be/QoGmPJJS3X8?t=3209
2000 BC proto-Indo-Iranians were in South Asia. They had to separate from proto-Slavs and proto-Balts much earlier, closer to 3000 BC, in the Vistula-Dnieper CWC area from where their migration started. So you are wrong.
https://postimg.cc/Vrnrt9w9
Proto slavic is from early 1st millenium CE
The Balto-Slavic branch must be as old as Balto-Slavic drift, because otherwise it's difficult to explain the fact that this drift is limited to the speakers of Baltic and Slavic languages, plus also nearby Germanic and Finnic speakers who are known to have had contacts with Balts and/or Slavs.
Or a bigger language family of which Balto Slavic is the only living member of.
Sister languages to Celtic and Balto-Slavic existed but went extinct by historic times.
@vAsiSTha,
It is annoying EastPole insists Slavic is a fossil language. This is a type of nationalism which was acceptable in the 1800s. Modern linguistics makes this impossible.
@EastPole,
The R1b L151 tribes in Corded Ware did not speak Slavic. They are just as much Corded Ware as is R1a M417.
Vasistha, you have rejuvenated the Proto-Slavic one by 1500 years.
@David Will you make a new blog post about Cosmopolitanism at the Roman Danubian Frontier, Slavic Migrations, and the Genomic Formation of Modern Balkan Peoples?
@Davidski
An alternative explanation would be that proto-Balto-Slavic speakers were just a later formed subset, but eventually expanded over the territory where people with that drift lived and assimilated most of them. It is not a very difficult explanation actually.
(Note: as far as I know the linguistically estimated age of Balto-Slavic 4000 years or so and that is a pretty good match to the age of Spiginas2. So you are probably right. I just hair-splitting because I do not think it would be difficult to explain an alternative if it needed.)
@vAsiSTha
Proto slavic is from early 1st millenium CE
Would you be so kind and attempt to logically explain and maybe even prove it somehow, please?
Can you describe your version of the origin (place, time, etc,) of the IE languages?
Below you will find my version of the formation of the PIE and Anatolian (Hittite), S/Hellenic, Armenian, Celto-Italic, Germanic, Indian (Vedic Sanskrit), Iranian (Avestan), Baltic, Slavic, Tocharian.
I described it here:
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2021/06/the-pie-homeland-controversy-june-2021.html?showComment=1629812861271#c1763298311345031019
Here is part of it:
Indian (Vedic Sanskrit)
EEF? + WHG? + EHG, WSH / Post-Yamna? + Post-Sredny Stog + Post-CWC + Post-BMAC? + Harappan substrate.
Slavic, not Indo-Iranian etymology for Z+Altay proves that the Proto-Indo-Iranian could not have developed earlier in Fatianovo, Balanovo, Abashevo, Sintashta, but only later in Andronovo or only in BMAC, see:
‘It has nothing to do with the Iranian languages, see L>R, Proto-Indo-Iranian *ȷ́ʰr̥Hanyam (“gold”), Proto-Indo-Aryan *źʰárHiṣ, from Proto-Indo-Iranian *ȷ́ʰárHiš, from Proto-Indo-European *ǵʰelh₃- (“to shine”), cognate with Avestan (zairi) Sanskrit हिरण्य (hiraṇya), Avestan (zarańiia, “gold”), etc.’
The Vedic Sanskrit was secondarily distorted and devoiced in comparison to CWC language (L>R, +H, etc.).
Note! Compare Polish / Slavic simultaneous ‘satem’ and ‘centum/kentum’ alternations, which I am going to publish soon in the following posts.
Iranian (Avestan)
EEF? + WHG? + EHG, WSH / Post-Yamna? + Post-Sredny Stog + Post-CWC + Post-BMAC/Yaz + Elamite substrates?
Iranian (Avestan) is a logical reverse of Vedic Sanskrit, see e.g. deva, etc. It is even more distorted and devoiced than Vedic Sanskrit, i.e. it must have been formed much later, somewhere below BMAC / Yaz or already in the Iranian Plateau, as another distortion of the already partially distorted form of Vedic Sanskrit (L> R, S>H, +H, +F, P/B>F, G/Z>J, etc.).
Possible BMAC/Yaz or/and Elamite substrates in Proto-Iranian.
Baltic
EEF? + WHG + EHG, WSH / Post-CWC + Ugro-Finnic N1c / Post-Seima Turbino adstrate ???
The majority of Slavic sufixes and NIE substrate do not exist in Baltic!?
Slavic
EEF? + WHG? + EHG, WSH, Post-Suvorovo, Post-Sredny Stog, Post-CWC + GAC/TRB?
There is not NIE substrate in Proto-Slavic or Polish!?
There are not any alleged Iranian / Scythian-Sarmatian-Alanian-Ossetian genetic and linguistic borrowings in Proto-Slavic or Polish!!!
@EastPole, I don't think that's correct at all, whatever Reich has said there. The Pakistan_IA samples with Steppe_MLBA ancestry are only firmly dated to >1000 BCE, and the samples from Tajikstan (Dashty_Kozy) with substantial steppe_MLBA ancestry are slightly after 1500 BCE. There's nothing genetically speaking that requires a 2000 BCE arrival of I-I in South Asia (presuming the standard model of I-I from steppe_MLBA). I don't see an argument other than "Reich says so" there.
Expansion of steppe ancestry to a much larger range at 3000 BCE and then continued interaction of proto-Balto-Slavic and proto-Indo-Iranian cultures in the Eastern edge of that range leaves plenty of time for common I-I and B-S mutual influence to develop. (There might be some other influences between I-I and other IE that happen via some other channels, which reflect a later period of influence on I-I or another contact zone at this time).
What Wastrel says is quite conventional and normal linguistics, it seems to me; IE suddenly expands across Europe at around 3000 BCE, and then evolves in a more or less "star-like" / "rake-like" independent way with some relatively weak influences and shared innovations between sub-branches which are in some degree of contact (possibly indirect and mediated by extinct varieties), before later expansions in late Bronze and Iron Age of Celtic, Germanic, Italic, Greek, etc, with the final of such largely in the "Migration Period", and with varying degrees of mobility and linguistic assimilation. Typical sort of model. The rake-like structure of Indo-European languages, with a large number of primary branches and little strong subgrouping between those branches, supports the model of a fast expansion and then development of divergent, strong, local cultural identities with divergent burial rites etc before re-expansion slightly later in history.
(As another aside, I don't think there's much that supports generally an early influence of steppe cultures and ancestry on South Asia - you only have things like Parpola banging on about a supposed steppe influence, but well, he made similar claims of steppe influenced elites at Gonur / BMAC, which soundly did not exist at all in genetic terms when the data came through).
@Tom
Will you make a new blog post about Cosmopolitanism at the Roman Danubian Frontier, Slavic Migrations, and the Genomic Formation of Modern Balkan Peoples?
Yes, I just need to read it properly, and I haven't had a chance to do that yet.
@Romulus @Ric Hern “ This 50% population replacement was only in Southeastern Britain which was mostly a marshland at the time. The rest of Britain do not show this same replacement. Was this the most densely populated area in Britain at the time ? I don't think so. So I personally will not go "Eureka!" with that paper.”
Are you referring to the supposed “replacement” of Neolithic Britain by the hands of the invading Dutch Beakers, or is it a much later phenomenon?
@Matt
“Expansion of steppe ancestry to a much larger range at 3000 BCE and then continued interaction of proto-Balto-Slavic and proto-Indo-Iranian cultures in the Eastern edge of that range leaves plenty of time for common I-I and B-S mutual influence to develop.”
This doesn’t seem very likely.
This is what linguistics shows:
https://postlmg.cc/QHtfTPq3
Proto-Balto-Slavs and Proto-Indo-Iranians were separated very early and never mixed. Read Burrow on II and BS languages. This is confirmed by genetics. If BS and II had interacted we would have had mixed R1a-Z93/R1a-Z283 populations. We don’t have such.
Something happened around 3000 BC which separated p-II and p-BS and prevented mixing.
It is well known that CWC and GA were not friendly. I suspect it could be eastern expansion of GA that separated Indo-Slavs into Western Indo-Slavs from which p-BS emerged and Eastern Indo-Slavs which migrated to Asia and formed p-II there:
https://postimg.cc/V5jpnzwX
Then BS started to mix with some drifted population around Carpathian mountains and this happened:
https://postimg.cc/64y9tHdK
@skribha
Alena Kushniarevich et al. Genetic heritage of the Balto-Slavic ...
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file%3Ftype%3Dsupplementary%26id%3Dinfo:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0135820.s008&ved=2ahUKEwiN88Dvr-XyAhVhIbcAHVZpAdoQFnoECDgQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2SiYPEzGjoakUTNHE4RdPc
Proto slavic 100ad according to this
@matt
Parpola is claiming that the sanauli chariot definitely is indoaryan culture and is steppe influence. A claim which aDna will most definitely disprove.
@EastPole, I think there are some reasons to be more wary of "Y-dna divergence; early cultural split" after the publishing of the recent paper on Bohemia. That's dissolved the notion of early Corded Ware as R1a only, as Davidski's preview turned out to be completely accurate and said it would. There may well turn out to be early CWC cultures that have both of those branches of R1a at some point or a more patchy disribution of both. Also the cultures are patrilocal and exclude male mediated geneflow between them, so even a finding of sites having exclusive y-dna does not preclude contacts (and a contact mediated females still would have influenced the emergence of dialect features).
Another problem is that you're talking about a split before 3000 BCE, then used as a genetic reference for the population that's splitting the Sintashta culture samples that are dated from on average at 1800 BCE! The earliest genetically confirmed culture with an ancestry profile like this is Fatyanovo, which is more like 2600 BCE. (I suspect Fatyanovo samples may be slightly wrongly dated as they seem to have about 20% less steppe ancestry EEF compared to the average contemporary Corded Ware from the Czech Republic, and even later Corded Ware from Poland and Czech Republic, and in fact more EEF ancestry than steppe admixed people from France and Switzerland of the time, which seems very unintuitive to me, but I suppose it's possible, maybe they absorbed more GAC people than typical, and there is the overlapping Poltavka outlier).
@ Andrzejewski
1200 BCE. When Neolithic type Ancestry seems to have picked up drastically in Southeastern Britain.
Eg. Replacing 50% of a total population of 10 is not impressive. If I remember correctly the estimated population size of Britain during the Bronze Age was 1 Million. If this possible migration replaced only 50% of one quarter of Britain it basically means only 1/8th of the Total population if the population density was spread evenly.
@ Andrzejewski
And the Neolithic Ancestry apparently came from females. So a mass migration of females from the Continent ? Maybe this makes sense because women could protect themselves better within a Marshy environment ?
Interesting. This theory by Kushniarevich et al moves things back a bit. I am particularly enamored by the assertion that West Slavic formed in the early to mid 5th century, at least a century - and possibly nearly two centuries - before East and South Slavic. What does that say about Proto Slavic migration, genetics vis-vis clan formation and the Slavic homeland(s)?
@vAsiSTha
Alena Kushniarevich et al. Genetic heritage of the Balto-Slavic… Proto slavic 100ad according to this
Quote from this paper:
(…) In both studies (Gray and Atkinson 2003, Bouckaert et al. 2012/2013) authors have also attempted to date major nodes of the tree of Indo-European languages including the BaltoSlavic branch. The initial split of Proto-Slavic dates back to AD 700 according to Gray and 33 Atkinson 2003 and falls within the range AD 250–650 according to Bouckaert et al. 2012/2013. Bouckaert et al.’s date range fits better the available historical and archaeological evidence and does not seriously contradict our lexicostatistical date (AD 100). As for internal nodes dating in Bouckaert et al. 2012/2013, the authors provide wide and partially overlapping temporal estimates for the majority of nodes that probably require further elaboration. (…)
This is old stuff and already criticised here:
https://youtu.be/4jHsy4xeuoQ
Mismodeling Indo-European Origins: The Assault On Historical Linguistics | GeoCurrents
Can language spread be modeled using computational techniques designed to trace the diffusion of viruses? As recently announced in the New York Times, a team of biologists claims to have solved one of the major riddles of human prehistory, the origins of the Indo-European language family, by applying methodologies from epidemiology. In actuality, this research, published in Science, does nothing of the kind. As the talk presented here shows, the assumptions on which it rests are demonstrably false, the data that it uses are woefully incomplete and biased, and the model that it employs generates error at every turn, undermining the knowledge generated by more than two centuries of research in historical linguistics and threatening our understanding of the human past. (...)
Would you be so kind and attempt to logically explain and maybe even prove it somehow, please?
The single Z2103 from the Bohemian study is interesting. It's assigned to CWC based on the date but based on the grave goods does not look like CWC, looks like Beaker. The woman he is buried with dates similarly and grave goods also don't look like CWC. :
OHR001 Praha 5 - Malá Ohrada_10 (Buchv 54) Bohemia Corded Ware Corded Ware 2571 2467 direct H R1b - Z2103 Z2109
Grave 10 (Buchv 54). Skeleton: right-sided crouched burial, head towards the south-east. Sex: archaeology
– M, anthropology – M, aDNA – M. Age: adultus II – maturus I (30–50). Grave goods: amphora, beaker,
beaker with the handle, stone flat axe, copper artefact – knife?, whetstone, chipped industry – blade and
flake. Archaeological dating: Corded Ware culture, local (late) stage. Radiocarbon dating: MAMS-44709
(3987±25) 2571–2467 cal BC 2-sigma (165). Pandora No.: OHR001. NM Prague Inv. No.: P7A 38757.
Grave 26 (Buchv 55). Skeleton: left-sided crouched burial, head towards the east. Sex: archaeology – F,
anthropology – ?, aDNA – F. Age: juvenis (14–15). Grave goods: two amphorae, beaker with handle, pot,
copper spiral temple ring, two drilled shell discs, 275 drilled animal teeth and their imitations, 134 shell
beads, 4 bone beads, chipped industry – blade and flakes. Archaeological dating: Corded Ware culture,
local (late) stage. Radiocarbon dating: MAMS-41374 (4017±25) 2579–2472 cal BC 2-sigma (165). Pandora
No.: OHR002. NM Prague Inv. No.: P7A 38771.
These graves are very wealthy compared to the others. These look like Beakers more than CWC. We have another Z2103 in a Hungarian Beaker.
@arran
Seems like these early Indoeuropeans were a lot more like urban street gangs than any social order we're used to today.
Constant violence, polygamy, wars and battles, destruction of competing groups... Very grisly ��
Where are you getting this? Excess polygamy? The women were traveling with the men over very long distances and/or long periods of time. Because most of the early CW Bohemia women had the exact same steppe composition as the men (3 out of 5 of the most steppe like individuals were women) so we know the women were migrating with the men from the forest steppe all the way to central Europe in a short period of time. What highly polygamous society behaves like this? It seems like the family unit was very powerful.
Once the CW people became settled maybe you would argue your point from there but the CW men were barely incorporating farmer women. So they werent violent thugs that took women from outside their culture. I dont see why they would do just that from within their culture. I think davidski is right when he says prosperity and networking could explain why one lineage became dominant over another.
Does anybody know of the exact numbers of early CW men and early CW women, and how many of them were immediate family? Also, what do the authors mean exactly when they say that the early CW and late CW did not form a clade and they dont have the exact same farmer ancestry? Does that simply mean the late CW in bohemia new arrivals from elsewhere?
@davidski
In this paper, the authors claim that Early and Late CW Bohemia as well as CW Germany are better modeled with an addition of BA Latvia or something similar. How did we not know about this before? The only thing I ever heard about the CW formation before this paper was that the farmer source of CW was probably GAC, which gives some extra WHG.
Also, is the the inclusion of BA Latvia, Pitted Ware, or Ukraine Neolithic into CW necessary because of recent ancestry or is it just about getting the additional WHG and EHG? Given that CW needed this forrest steppe contibution what is your opinion on the evolution of L51 and any role volosovo might have played?
@wastrel
hat would presumably have happened would have been that BBs would have arrived in Britain, and their dialect(s) would have developed into their own early branch of IE, due to partial isolation from the continent. This branch would probably have looked more like Celtic and Germanic than like Indo-Aryan, but we couldn't say much more than that (and frankly, even that's just guesswork - maybe a satemising tribe broke away from central europe and migrated to Britain - there's no real reason why that couldn't have happened!). In any case, this language would have been eradicated when the Celts arrived two thousand years later. Or, indeed, at any point along the way, because who knows how many times Britain was invaded BEFORE the Celts? It may not be obvious from the genes... but when we're talking partial invasions (just enough to change the language) by closely-related tribes, that might not be that obvious in the genes.
Very interesting theory. It is hard to not expect genetic turnover whenever we see linguistic turnover in pre writing Europe, so the celtic language in the british isles is interesting. I would like to see if there was a series of small scale migrations from the mainland to Britain between BB and the proper Celtic arrival. Do you think a continuum could have been maintained between ireland and switzerland rather than repeated replacement of continental languages with british isles languages?
https://www.shh.mpg.de/2038011/papac-central-european-history?c=1935799
Once established, individuals of the Corded Ware culture (4,900-4,400 years ago) changed genetically through time. One important change seems to have been the sharp decline in Y-chromosome lineage diversity. Although initially carrying five different Y-lineages, later Corded Ware males carry almost exclusively only a single lineage, essentially being descended from the same man in the recent past. “This pattern may reflect the emergence of a new social structure or regulation of mating in which only a subset of men fathered the majority of offspring” says first author Luka Papac, a researcher at the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History.
This social structure seems to have been even stricter in the following Bell Beaker society (4,500-4,200 years ago) where every single male sampled belonged to a single, newly introduced Y-lineage. Remarkably, this Bell Beaker Y-lineage is never seen before in Bohemia, implying that a new clan arrived in the region and almost immediately replaced all pre-existing Y-lineages with not a single lineage from Corded Ware or previous societies found among Bell Beaker males.
Cultural, biological, and social changes
original
Exemplary grave goods of one of the earliest Corded Ware burials in Central Europe.
© Miroslav Dobeš
The Early Bronze Age Unetice culture has traditionally been thought of descending from Bell Beaker individuals, with perhaps limited input from the southeast (Carpathian Basin). However, the new genetic data supports yet another genetic turnover originating from regions northeast of Bohemia. Remarkably, also 80 percent of the early Unetice Y-lineages are new to Bohemia, some of which are previously found in individuals from north-eastern Europe, providing clues to where they originated from. “This finding was very surprising to us archaeologists as we did not expect to see such clear patterns, even though the region has played a critical role, e.g. in the emerging trade of amber from the Baltic and became an important trading hub during the Bronze and Iron Ages”, adds co-author and co-PI Michal Ernée from the Czech Academy of Sciences.
There is a picture in that article of the Burial of ORB003, the only Early CWC R1b guy with an (a-type) battle axe.
To be clear, the line between a language and a dialect is not an absolute one, but a continuum. In 3000BC, there was probably one 'Core PIE' language; by 2000BC, there were probably several distinct languages. 2500BC would be traditionally thought of as still PIE, though there must have been dialectical differences, and it's possible some languages had broken away.
But we need to be clear about the different between a physical 'breaking away' and a linguistic 'breaking away'. The fact that two groups have migrated to different places does not mean they don't speak the same language, or couldn't understand each other if they had the opportunity. It's likely to encourage their languges to diverge once they have left contact with one another, but it's not a sign of their already having done so.
In the case of II... we know that a range of relatively close II dialects were being spoken by 1400 (we know this because the superstrate in Mitanni horse-training terminology is clear II, but not ancestral to any surviving language; however, it is not (from what we can tell) hugely divergent from either Iranian or IA, with only a few hints that it's closer to the latter than the former)). But we can't go back too far from this early II without looking like other IE languages. So it would make sense to suggest that over about a thousand years or so, the II languages had broken away from other core IE languages, and had begun to differentiate into (probably still mutually intelligible?) dialects or even closely-related but distinct languages. This conveniently lines up with the cultural-archeological-genetic hypothesis that the Sintashta culture migrated away from CWC and became the ancestor to late II-speaking cultures at exactly the right time to match the linguistic evidence.
[it also puts it into a position to borrow the augment from the Catacomb Culture, if we assume that those were the ancestors of the Greeks].
From there, over the next thousand years Indo-Aryan diverges across northern India, Iranian diverges across the steppe, and Mitanni-like relatives of Indo-Aryan on the steppe are replaced with Iranian.
Matt: thanks for the back-up! Yes, I think I've given a fairly mainstream interpretation. It's not got any sexy surprises or any red meat for the ethnonationalists, but it seems to be what common sense and the evidence largely dictate.
[I'm only sorry my rare contributions here 90% of the time have to boil down to just 'hey guys, remember you can't meaningfully project modern linguistic groups back that far!'... I don't really know enough to contribute otherwise (and even when I learn something, I can't keep the hundred different acronyms and their associate precise timings that you guys use straight without a reference of some sort...]
Davidski: it's likely that much of Balto-Slavic is 'missing'. Balto-Slavic probably once covered a large area; it's unlikely that East and West Baltic, two adjacent branches from the northern fringe of the BS area that later migrated to the Baltic coast, would happen to represent the most divergent branches, while Slavic is so late that either we have to assume one tiny language surviving by itself for two thousand years, OR it's the last survivor of a much larger continuum of dialects, which seems much more likely. But in the same way, if we accept a large number of lost BS branches, there's no reason not to imagine a large number of lost 'para-BS' branches. The flip side of migrations and expansions, after all, is that most languages are generally lost.
Cultural and genetic expansions don't always exactly match linguistic expansions. As mentioned above, the early expansion of 'Germanic' tribes from the Jastorf culture must, we know now, not really have been of Germanic tribes at all, but rather of 'para-Germanic' tribes, only one (or a few) of which were genuinely Germanic in the modern sense. The later expansion of 'true' Germans completely obscured their para-Germanic cousins - from their point of view, of course, this was just one dominant dialect replacing other closely-related dialects. The same could easily have happened with BS.
[specifically, we can imagine a community of people speaking different para-Germanic dialects - some mutually intelligible, some peripheral ones perhaps not - but a very similar culture expanding culturally, politically, militarily, and only then gradually giving up their local dialects in favour of a general lingua franca - in much the same way that, for instance, most Scottish people now speak English.]
Indeed, we already know that Slavic, thousands of years later, expanded to destroy many other languages in its vicinity - some Iranian, some presumably other Balto-Slavic, almost certainly some of them 'para-Slavic'. It would be a great coincidence if they ONLY replaced other Balto-Slavic groups and NOT any other unattested 'para-Balto-Slavic', which could have shared in your 'Balto-Slavic' genetic markers. But of course linguistically when we go back to PBS in 1500BC or so, and then go backward even further to a proto-para-BS, then we really have to ask ourselves what makes that groups proto-para-BS, and not, say, proto-para-Dacian, or proto-para-Illyrian or whatever. Because again, the linguistic gap between PBS in 1500BC and unambiguous core IE in, say, 3000BC is really not that great! And most attested languages are far later than the time periods we're discussing.
As Genos says, it would be hard to distinguish one expansion (a combined genetic/linguistic BS expansion) from two (a genetic expansion of para-BS, with a secondary expansion of actual BS language over a similar area). Indeed, we already know there were at least two such expansions, since Slavic itself represents a later expansion of BS genes over, completely coincidentally, most of the original BS territory.
Rob: "IMO the main phase of Celto-Germanic contact was quite late: precisely when large areas of Celtic Europe were becoming Germanicized at the turn of the Era."
I'm afraid this isn't possible, for a simple reason: every single known Celtic loanword into Proto-Germanic that is eligible has undergone Grimm's Law. By contrast, Latin loanwords into Proto-Germanic, around the ttime you're talking about, don't undergo Grimm's Law. The Celtic loanwords must be earlier.
Mainstream science puts Grimm's Law and related changes no later than 500BC. It then takes about 1000 years to divide into completely unintelligible branches, though by 0BC there would have been clear dialect distinctions.
Genos: just to address a misconception: just because one daughter branch has a certain age doesn't mean the others have to.
We can imagine a large blob of people, from which a smaller blob separates. Due to continued close contact, language in the big blob is likely to remain fairly homogenous, while due to separation, language in the smaller blob is likely to diverge from that of the big blob - this is a new language and the beginning of a new language family. Later, more little blobs can emerge from the big blob - new languages, new families, with the same parent, but much younger than the first divergent family. Daughter languages of the same mother therefore need not all be the same age.
@pnuadha
Volosovo is largely R1b, but it isn't ancestral to Corded Ware.
In fact, Corded Ware completely replaced Volosovo.
The most noteworthy thing about this study is the conclusion that Unetice was not a local development but yet another population turnover, originating in a migration from Northeastern Europe of people with bronze.
At the same time this is happening in Central Europe, a migration of people from Northeastern Europe drives the Yamnaya->Catacomb transition, and as well the Abashevo Culture shows up further to the east, 2300 BCE, with bronze.
It's easy to place a common ancestor of Centum in Unetice, and a common ancestor of Indo-Iranian in the Abashevo/Catacomb area. Balto Slavic seems to have a common ancestor in Trzciniec. Slavic in Lusatian.
Steppe ancestry seems to be a red herring for the spread of Indo-European languages in Europe. A rational explanation ties , late PIE at least, to the spread of bronze in Central and Eastern Europe.
So was the PIE homeland Northeastern Europe? It could be if either Catacomb or Unetice is shown to be ancestral to Greek/Hittite/Armenian. Steppe ancestry shows up in the Helladic MBA at just the right time. But if bronze was the driving force behind this transition, wouldn't it be reasonable then to suspect that PIE might not originate in Northeastern Europe but instead in the people who taught bronze technology to this group? So who was that? Yamnaya? I'm not sure.
However what I am sure of is that Bell Beakers brought the Basque language to Iberia, and the picture of Etruscans is becoming clear that this was a parallel case. It's also clear that Basque and Etruscan are related, and Etruscan is simply Basque with some archaic PIE mixed in. The location of Rhaetic in the same area further cements this. Now given all these non-Indo European connections to Beaker why would we assume British Beakers spoke a dead IE language when they demonstrably introduced non-IE everywhere else they went. Given this we can make the reasonable conclusion Steppe ancestry is not the vector for the spread of Indo European languages.
My thoughts at the moment.
@pnuadha
You're confusing Latvia_MN with Latvia_BA.
We've known this for years.
There's no additional Latvia_MN admixture in early CWC. It's the opposite - excess of Progress/Khvalynsk-related ancestry in Yamnaya. Authors simply try to save face after years of claiming that Yamnaya was the source of Indo-European migration from the steppe.
@ wasrrel
''Mainstream science puts Grimm's Law and related changes no later than 500BC. It then takes about 1000 years to divide into completely unintelligible branches, though by 0BC there would have been clear dialect distinctions''
Haha yes the 'science' of dating language shifts in preliterate societies & loanword stratigraphies, Refer to Jaska's masterful commentary
Sound changes do no occur simulataneously, and they were still occurring quite late, refer to Cimbri & Tutones, as some has suggested
''I'm afraid this isn't possible, for a simple reason: ''
Instead of conjuring out of the mists, I know for a fact that the main episode of Germanic - Celtic contact occurred when half of Central Europe shifted from Celtic to Germanic.
Before this, contact was rather minimal, as shown by the absence of exchange between la Tene & Jastorf
This is the reality
https://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.com/2014/09/neolithic-population-busts-study.html
This blog post (by the most handsome ancient DNA blogger) is highly relevant for this Bohemia paper as it has analysis of population density of Bohemia for the LN-EBA period. From BBB:
What I find interesting is that there are catastrophic declines in Europe throughout the third millennium, even after the arrival of Bell Beakers in the relevant regions. Of course, dates end at 2,000 B.C., which is frustrating and very relevant for this blog. I would imagine an increase occurred everywhere after this date.
There is, however, a massive population spike with the arrival of Bell Beakers in Bohemia and Moravia. The population of Britain more than doubles and the population of Ireland nearly quadruples with the arrival of Beakers (1.0 paper). The population of the Czech Republic almost triples and quadruples at the end of the millennium.
Putting this in context is more interesting. It's not surprising to see the population of Britain expanding during this time, as it would appear to have been the subject of ongoing Beaker immigration from everywhere (Lower Rhine and Central Europe).
However, the Moravian and Bohemian numbers are simply jaw dropping. Not only did it defy the continental trend from the sampled areas, it was likely the baby factory that sent immigrants to other parts of Central and Eastern Europe. So it wasn't just 3-4 times expansion.
It's also worth pointing out that the longevity and infant mortality estimates of several of the Moravian and Bohemian cemeteries are almost unrealistically modern. Beakers in this region appear to have lived long and healthy lives. To me this indicates the early establishment of a stable tribal nation with strong leadership.
@ Romulus
''The most noteworthy thing about this study is the conclusion that Unetice was not a local development but yet another population turnover, originating in a migration from Northeastern Europe of people with bronze''
Good to see details fleshed out, but this is old news to some of us
It seems rather unlikely that Unetice and its bronze technology came from Northeastern Europe, like the East Baltic.
Rather, I think that there was a movement of people from somewhere in Eastern Europe both into Central Europe and Northeastern Europe.
And another branch of this movement was Fatyanovo, which eventually ended up deep in Asia.
Would be good to see what Nitra culture looks like.
@Davidski
Although the geographic origin of this new ancestry cannot be precisely located, three observations offer clues. First, the Latvia_BA ancestry that improves all model fits (table S33) suggests an ultimate northeastern origin. Second, Y-haplogroup R1a-Z645 appears in Bohemia (and wider central Europe) for the first time at the beginning of the EBA, a lineage previously fixed in Baltic and common in Scandinavian CW males (23, 24), supporting a north/northeastern genetic contribution. Third, an Únětice genetic outlier (VLI051, male, Y-haplogroup R1a-Z645; table S34) resembles individuals from Bronze Age Latvia (Fig. 2D) (68), providing direct evidence for migrants from the northeast.
That's from the paper, seems pretty concrete to me.
With respect to Fatyanovo, they had no bronze. Bronze appears first with Abashevo at an extremely similar time period as Unetice appears in Central Europe. I am not saying Abashevo was not majority descendant from Fatyanovo, but simply that the cultural shift was not simply autochthonous. The presence of I2a2 in SWAT also supports contact with a group similar to Unetice. No I2a2 in Fatyanovo, just as no I2a2 in Late CWC.
@Romulus “ However what I am sure of is that Bell Beakers brought the Basque language to Iberia, and the picture of Etruscans is becoming clear that this was a parallel case. It's also clear that Basque and Etruscan are related, and Etruscan is simply Basque with some archaic PIE mixed in. The location of Rhaetic in the same area further cements this. Now given all these non-Indo European connections to Beaker why would we assume British Beakers spoke a dead IE language when they demonstrably introduced non-IE everywhere else they went. Given this we can make the reasonable conclusion Steppe ancestry is not the vector for the spread of Indo European languages.”
No, no and emphatically nope!
You are right that Basque and Etruscans (=“Villanovans”) have a huge amount of Steppe ancestry, which also turns out to be the case in many other non-IE speaking groups, both modern and ancient: from Hungarians to Finns and Estonians, from Sami/Lapps to Ashkenazi Jews. Indo-Europeans are present and ubiquitous throughout Europe, across linguistic barriers.
Basque is NOT related to Etruscan or Raetian; rather, Basque, as a Cardial Pottery derived speech may hypothetically be joint at the hip with the language of GAC (if indeed the latter spoke one uniform language), while Lemnian languages eg Etruscan or Raetian (Tyrrhenian family?) are descendants of the Barcin migrants who took the Balkan land route.
Ötzi the Ice Man may or may not be related to these LBK-related speech communities. In any case, it seems to me that Basque/Noraghic in Sardinia have a Cardial Pottery link to GAC, but Etruscans spoke a language closely related to Linear Pottery Culture.
@ Andrzejewski
''Basque is NOT related to Etruscan or Raetian; rather, Basque, as a Cardial Pottery derived speech may hypothetically be joint at the hip with the language of GAC '
How do you come up with these bizarre ideas ?
GAC has nothing to do with Cardial culture
@vAsiSTha
"Parpola is claiming that the sanauli chariot definitely is indoaryan culture and is steppe influence. A claim which aDna will most definitely disprove."
Parpola claims Sanauli chariot is from Indo-Iranian provenance, not Indo-Aryan, and considers Indo-Aryans arrived later.
@Rob “ How do you come up with these bizarre ideas ?
GAC has nothing to do with Cardial culture”
From @Genos Historia: he claims that TRB have largely and violently replaced LBK. TRB are Michelsberg farmers who came from France and who are largely Cardial Pottery + a significant amount of western euro HG. TRB have assimilated the LBK remnants, and once they integrated with Erteboelle and some Narva HG they formed GAC. Ergo, GAC = mostly Cardial Pottery.
Andrzejewski said...
based on what? you provided nothing. Why not just simply write "I disagree", those two words have equivalent value to what you wrote. There are many linguistic connections between Etruscan and Vasconic, and also the Uralic languages. That they are all agglutinating is one of them.
What is true is that there is a far greater basis and much more objective evidence for a relationship between Vasconic and Etruscan, than there is for a relationship between EEF and Vasconic or Etruscan, because the basis for the relationship between Vasconic/Etruscan and the EEF language is absolutely zero, nothing, simply imagination. We know absolutely nothing about the EEF language.
Intelligent people use Occam's razor when they form a hypothesis. In my context there are two languages, a non/pre-Indo European family , and the Indo-European family. This is already infinitely better than a scenario necessitating the invention of random arbitrary unrelated languages springing forth. This does not happen in reality. Now where did the non/pre-Indo European languages come from, from EEF or from Beaker? First of all the non/pre-Indo European languages overlap perfectly with Beaker everywhere except Britain (which is an unknown). Further, you have to be an idiot to think the Iberian language came from Iberian EEF when there was a 100% replacement of Y Chromosomes in Iberia by Beaker.
@carlos
That's as ludicrous because we won't be finding any steppe aDna at that time in sanauli
@vAsiSTha
Do you have some news about Vagheesh Narasimhan try to save the aDNA samples from Sanauli?
@ Andrze
There are by now so many papers , and even Wikipedia to refer to
It would be a good start to understand the phraseology first . Eg TRB does not follow LBK anywhere , so that scenario can’t be correct
The progression as relevant from Central Europe was :
LBK
BKG/ Gatarsleben/ lengyel
TRB
GAC
the further you go into northern & western Europe, the smaller the presence of EEF . So what you had was small EEF outposts surrounded by bands of gatherers . There, in the post-LBK horizon, we see immediate introgression of huntergatherers in a male biased manner.
But further south in the Danube plains; it was still mostly classic EEF predominantly G2a rich
As the studies have shown, TRB was highly heterogeneous. You see G2a, H2, all sort of I2, C1a, R1b-V88
This isn’t consistent with any violent takeover
Because of this broad zone of interaction; some post-Cardial genes flowed to the east
Then ~ 3300 BCE TRB enters a “crisis”. After couple hounded years, new more mobile groups enter the picture :
CWC: as we know
GAC: a monolineage society with clear links to Baden culture ; in make up mostly Danubian farmer with east Baltic (senso lato) HG lineages
@Rob
GAC: a monolineage society with clear links to Baden culture ; in make up mostly Danubian farmer with east Baltic (senso lato) HG lineages
They probably had significant TRB ancestry though, maybe as much as 50%, with regional variety. However it is difficult to determine without a deep dive (like it is done in the Bohemian article).
@Rob,
TRB and GAC come out 50% French farmer in nMonte runs. I haven't looked at the new TRB, GAC samples in Czech, however.
Western/French farmer ancestry seems to be linked to the arrival of TRB.
@carlos
I have no news
I made a video on Corded Ware
Corded Ware DNA fundamentally changes the Indo European story
https://youtu.be/TgFx0925TKU?t=595
I trash David Anthony at the time slot I give you in this link. Enjoy.
O, I missed that I7272 was reassigned to FBC. This one, that is.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/03/awesome-substructure-within-czech.html
Come to think of it: Where is these turnovers does I1 come into play?
I know most of you know, Corded Ware is the source of most IE languages. So what is worth hearing what you already know?
But the thing is, I do take a new spin on this in the video which you guys might be curious about.
What I do is I point out the fact Corded Ware redraws the IE migration map. It fundamentally changes the story we tell of how IE languages spread.
We now see Corded Ware, as a mass migration which initiated a series of further mass migrations which made IE languages widespread.
People did not expect this to be the case. I point out in the video, archaeologists did not see Corded Ware in this way.
We can't pretend this doesn't change the story the way we see Corded Ware, the way we see the IE story.
The Harvard lab will probably ignore this. They will probably won't make any paper or do media interviews about how Corded Ware is the most consequential IE migration. They are comfortable with the story line they already have and are reluctant to accept changes.
@Sam, I'd say it gives more fire to criticism of one of Harvard's interpretation of Indo-European expansion in South Asia and Europe as parallel stories where both were affected by migration from "steppe", more or less at the same time, admixing with EEF/WHG in Europe and INF/AASI in India. Instead it's more complicated than this and "Europe" has constant early cultural interaction with steppe (and maybe Caucasus a bit too) and then SA is affected by ancestry bearing EEF/WHG components.
I would say though, be careful before going too far with the idea of "CWC was everything; Yamnaya was nothing". For one, the points about the likelihood of low levels of dialect divergence between CWC and Yamnaya (in a way it doesn't really change the linguistic story very much).
But for another, though I do think we need to see the full complement of Yamnaya etc adna from Central Europe and SE Europe - though the R1b-Z2103 haplogroup did not become frequent, Indo-European expansions may have happened that involved integrating more local males in the Carpatho-Balkan sphere, but still might have spread varieties of IE. I expect the Mycenaean / Greek colonist males with haplogroup J2 with steppe ancestry spoken IE, after all. And then there are later interactions like Unetice which could plausibly have spread varieties of IE to Central Europe that gave rise to Italic and Celtic etc. I'm not saying this exact scenario did happen, but there are possibilities in that direction, so it will be worth seeing this data and retaining as a possibility rather than just going "R1b and R1a and most steppe ancestry in Northern Europe look like via Corded Ware so all IE languages spread via CW horizon".
The upcoming papers on Yamnaya in Southeast and Central Europe will be important to take into consideration too before leaping to a judgement (and then we get dogmatic about it). We know that it's wrong to say L23 is from Yamnaya (whether there is some unsampled Yamnaya that bore it or not) but its still uncertain about whether the Yamnaya migrations to Central / SE Europe mattered.
@epoch, I1 is still the mystery haplogroup. As far as I know we don't find it anywhere in North, South, East, West Europe before the Iron Age, not even in the Mesolithic, and then in cultures influenced by the Germanic Iron Age or which are near it, it becomes very common in the Iron Age. Either something has gone very wrong with mapping early I1 in ancient dna and its about somewhere, or its something that has diverged from I2, early, somehow completely hidden from us in the record, and which has then exploded. (Was it just really low frequency in some unsampled WHG like groups for a long time or what?)
@ Genos
''TRB and GAC come out 50% French farmer in nMonte runs. ''
You would have to do an entire series of D-stats and sequential qpADM to flesh this out
In any case, if you add BKG or Polish TRB in your G25 runs, you would see that GAC is mostly 'local'.
With qpADM (as a quick look):
Poland_Globular_Amphora
Lithuania_EMN_Narva
France_MN
best coefficients: 0.109 0.891
TP 0.16
Poland_Globular_Amphora
Lithuania_EMN_Narva
Poland_BKG.SG
best coefficients: 0.154 0.846
TP 0.23
Poland_Globular_Amphora
Lithuania_EMN_Narva
Poland_TRB.SG
best coefficients: 0.043 0.957
TP 0.57
@ Slumberry
''They probably had significant TRB ancestry though, maybe as much as 50%, with regional variety. However it is difficult to determine without a deep dive (like it is done in the Bohemian article).''
Correct & more
They obviously emerge from the greater TRB zone, but represent a radical departure in socio-cultural terms
@ Matt
I1 is characteristic of iberian foragers
It then appears in MN france
It then appears in “LN” Scandinavia; coincident with gallery graves & west shift at GW level
@genos
"I know most of you know, Corded Ware is the source of most IE languages."
Debatable as to what is the ultimate source.
I'll bet it is Yamnaya or steppe eneolithic.
@Rob, which ones of the Iberian HG had it again? Admit I didn't check the HO anno before making that comment.
@ Matt
No issues, i was just saying.. I think one of the Mesolithic & one Late Paleolithic look as if they're the closest thing to an I1. Then one of the Michelsberg in France.
One of the SF foragers from east Sweden is also pre-I1
Otherwise, your right - its rare before LN-BA Scandinavia.
@Matt
In total we have 4 I-Z2699*/pre-I1 samples. They're from Mesolithic Iberia, Mesolithic Sweden and Neolithic Hungary. The Hungarian sample I'm not sold on because he was only tested for 1 SNP and they were using old methods. The 'real' I1 could really have been hiding anywhere before its MRCA 2500 BCE. The first I1 sample is oll009 from SWE_LN.
@wastrel
"Cultural and genetic expansions don't always exactly match linguistic expansions."
Thank you for the common sense
@Rob/Elk, thanks both for the explanation on the pre-I1s.
Re discussion of contact between different EEF groupings, I think the Czech EEF samples had an least one outlier who seemed highly "Atlantic farmer" in G25 (I14168 - TRB female).
Here are some example distances against allpop averages for the Atlantic outlier against the other CZE Neolithic populations (using the labels from the paper/Davidski): https://imgur.com/a/kHCo22j
You can see there's an Atlantic character to the outlier, though, oddly enough, that also seems a bit true of the Baden group from Czechia (possibly they were some Atlantic influenced group who adopted similar material culture to known Baden groups in Hungary? The comment in the paper is "The earliest stage of Baden in Bohemia (Boleráz) is thought to present a new population from the core of the Baden cultural complex in Carpathian Basin" but the autosome doesn't really seem like that. What about the y?). CZE_GAC look more like other GAC.
So I think there was at least some contact, maybe only via women (but not very much sample size to confirm). Maybe these RoH matching methods will help sort some of this out or provide some additional validation.
I've also put some distance for the "NoSteppe" CWC females in the above - they're ususual in that as a group of four, combined, their average is like GAC, but VLI079 and VLI009 as individuals find some of their closest populations are populations with low levels of steppe/Ukraine/SHG admixture populations like Hungary_Bell_Beaker or FRA_Bell_Beaker_lowsteppe, while ST003 has a bit of an Atlantic attraction. I still don't know what to make of them.
Some of the variation of the "NoSteppe" CWC may need some thought - one strand of thinking on the CWC incorporation of local women into the CWC was that this had happened in a big pulse at the founding of CWC in Europe, from one specific group. (The memed model being "Men only migrated, so koryos groups fought pitched battle against GAC groups and seized a lot of local women at once".) But as I've noted before, if you look at the changes with the sample dates, to me it looks more like a gradual change of 1/40 to 1/50 offspring per generation kind of thing, and these women that we find do seem to have some different affinities indicating that they've come from generally EEF but somewhat differentiated cultures and also their isotopes I think are non-local. So does that change our ideas? These women seem important to understand because they're our example of catching CWC in the middle of mixing with EEF - the idea of the bulk of EEF ancestry in later Northern European cultures being from GAC may still be true, but it may be that we can confirm that other things happened as well.
What happened to that I1, one study found in neolithic France, some year ago?
@Genos Historia
“It is annoying EastPole insists Slavic is a fossil language.”
I watched your video on Corded Ware and noticed that you really don’t understand eastern migrations of Corded Ware and probably this is the reason why you don’t understand Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian separation date:
https://youtu.be/TgFx0925TKU?t=464
Proto-Balto-Slavs and Proto-Indo-Iranians probably separated around 3000 BC. Fatyanovo is dated to 2900/2800 BC and this is a R1a-Z93 dominated population linked to proto-Indo-Iranians separate from BS.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2020/07/fatyanovo-males-were-rich-in-y.html
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2020/11/fatyanovo-as-part-of-wider-corded-ware.html
@Elk/Rob/Matt
There is actually a post-LGM late Paleolithic pre-I1, assigned to the Azzilian culture (i.e. post-Magdalenian) but a sample with the most Magdalenian admixture we have. It's called Balma Guilanya, and it's published in this paper, which showed Magdalenian survival in Iberia:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982219301459
The mesolithic sample from Ibera is I10899/Car1 from the Olalde Iberian paper, also packed with a large Magdalenian ancestry.
https://bit.ly/2Z3CJk7
So maybe pre-I1 originated in the Magdalenian, and either spread to the north west (see the Magdalenian in Loschbour), matured there and exploded with CWC/BB or even FBC. Or maybe it spread north east (see Magdalenian in Baltic HG) and came to the north west with CWC. The Hungarian sample maybe hold some clues there. Also, the paper above showed a very small El Miron admixture in GAC!
Yes, all highly speculative, but the oldest pre-I1's are in Iberia and Magdalenian survived there the longest.
@vAsiSTha
If you have nothing more to say on the subject of the alleged 'reliability of dating' of the Slavic and other languages, then I will finish this off, see:
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0135820
Genetic Heritage of the Balto-Slavic Speaking Populations: A Synthesis of Autosomal, Mitochondrial and Y-Chromosomal Data
(…) Balto-Slavic speakers comprise around one-third of present-day Europeans and occupy nearly a half of the European subcontinent. There is a near consensus among linguists that the Baltic and Slavic languages stem from a common root, Proto-Balto-Slavic, which separated from other Indo-European languages around 4,500–7,000 years before present (YBP) [1–8] and whose origin is mapped to Central Europe [8]. The Balto-Slavic node was recognized already in the pioneer Indo-European tree by [9]. The split between Baltic and Slavic branches has been dated to around 3,500–2,500 YBP [6–8], whereas further diversification of the Slavic languages probably occurred much later, around 1,700–1,300 YBP according to [6–8,10–12].
(...)
Although there is no single archaeological signature for their spread, historical records suggest that a major Slavic expansion across Europe took place approximately 1,400–1,000 YBP [16–19]; reviewed recently in [20]. The Slavic expansion in Eastern Europe affected areas previously occupied by Baltic, Finno-Ugric and Turkic speaking populations; in Central-West Europe groups speaking Germanic languages; and in the Balkans populations of diverse linguistic affiliation [10,11,18,19,21]. (...)
6. Novotná P, Blažek V. Glottochronology and its application to the Balto-Slavic languages. Baltistica 42/2: 185–210; Baltistica 42/3: 323–346. Baltistica. 2007;42: 323–346.
7. Gray RD, Atkinson QD. Language-tree divergence times support the Anatolian theory of Indo-European origin. Nature. 2003;426: 435–439. pmid:14647380
8. Bouckaert R, Lemey P, Dunn M, Greenhill SJ, Alekseyenko AV, Drummond AJ, et al. Mapping the origins and expansion of the Indo-European language family. Science. 2012;337: 957–960. pmid:22923579
/wiki/Glottochronology
(…) Since its original inception, glottochronology has been rejected by many linguists, mostly Indo-Europeanists of the school of the traditional comparative method. Criticisms have been answered in particular around three points of discussion:
• Criticism levelled against the higher stability of lexemes in Swadesh lists alone (Haarmann 1990) misses the point because a certain amount of losses only enables the computations (Sankoff 1970). The non-homogeneity of word lists often leads to lack of understanding between linguists. Linguists also have difficulties finding a completely unbiased list of basic cultural words. it can take a long time for linguists to find a viable word list which can take several test lists to find a usable list.[8]
• Traditional glottochronology presumes that language changes at a stable rate. Thus, in Bergsland & Vogt (1962), the authors make an impressive demonstration, on the basis of actual language data verifiable by extralinguistic sources, that the "rate of change" for Icelandic constituted around 4% per millennium, but for closely connected Riksmal (Literary Norwegian), it would amount to as much as 20% (Swadesh's proposed "constant rate" was supposed to be around 14% per millennium). That and several other similar examples effectively proved that Swadesh's formula would not work on all available material, (...)
• A serious argument is that language change arises from socio-historical events that are, of course, unforeseeable and, therefore, uncomputable. New methods developed by Gray & Atkinson are claimed to avoid those issues but are still seen as controversial, primarily since they often produce results that are incompatible with known data and because of additional methodological issues. (...)
.....
LOL :-)
Another comment on the archaeology of the CWC "NoSteppe" females; 3 out of 4 are quite mature women, aged skeletally at 40-60 years old, but unexpectedly to me 1 of the 4 was a small girl aged 5-7 years old (crouched burial but no grave goods and no ceramic). This was VLI079, who is the sample who looks most like she may possibly have some low steppe/UkraineN ancestry.
Maybe a late Trypillian/Usatovo child? Since that seems like the only plausible way for us to have this profile of slight steppe related admix on an EEF background. OTOH Trypillian samples don't give very good matches for her in G25 euclidean distance.
Possibly that shows that CWC groups were willing to take children from other groups to raise as their own, to provide a wife in the longer term for sons and were not only concerned for women of fertile age. Or maybe it is nothing of the sort.
Some versions of Vahaduo PCA that illustrate some trends in these samples - https://imgur.com/a/ZeIFKU2
@Genos Historia
@vAsiSTha, It is annoying EastPole insists Slavic is a fossil language. This is a type of nationalism which was acceptable in the 1800s. Modern linguistics makes this impossible.
Could you be so kind and try to logically explain:
1. Where allegedly 'EastPole insists Slavic is a fossil language'?
2. What kind of alleged 'nationalism' do you mean?
3. How does 'Modern linguistics make this impossible'?
@EastPole, The R1b L151 tribes in Corded Ware did not speak Slavic. They are just as much Corded Ware as is R1a M417.
4. Can you prove in any logical way what you state above?
(It may be difficult for you but maybe you will be able to write something more than just plain balderdash like the ones above?) :-(
@skribha you said earlier
"There are not any alleged Iranian / Scythian-Sarmatian-Alanian-Ossetian genetic and linguistic borrowings in Proto-Slavic or Polish!!!"
You seem to be quite fanatic about this topic even while being completely wrong. I am not even going to bother about giving you references of multiple lingists and prove you wrong. In general i find your rather long ramblings not at all interesting so i avoid.
As far as the dating of proto slavic split from proto balto-slavic is concerned, i really dont care except for the fact that first attested slavic writing is from 800-1000 CE. if you go back some 3000 years to 2000BCE for proto slavic split using some linguistic hocus pocus im just going to laugh at you. have to be a bit reasonable and not so liberal in your bias.
unlike say hittite, or indo-iranian which is firmly dated at least to 1400bce from mitanni.
@vAsiSTha
@skribha you said earlier "There are not any alleged Iranian / Scythian-Sarmatian-Alanian-Ossetian genetic and linguistic borrowings in Proto-Slavic or Polish!!!"
You seem to be quite fanatic about this topic even while being completely wrong. I am not even going to bother about giving you references of multiple lingists and prove you wrong. In general i find your rather long ramblings not at all interesting so i avoid.
Well. I have to disagree with that because it is you who has been a typical hard core hindutva fanatic with no logical arguments, evidence, nor examples.
Be mature! Instead of acting like an offended toddler, get the courage and simply admit that you do not understand the illogicality of what you yourself wrote and referred to, see the quote from this source
(…) There is a near consensus among linguists that the Baltic and Slavic languages stem from a common root, Proto-Balto-Slavic, which separated from other Indo-European languages around 4,500–7,000 years before present (YBP) [1–8] and whose origin is mapped to Central Europe [8]. (…) The split between Baltic and Slavic branches has been dated to around 3,500–2,500 YBP [6–8], whereas further diversification of the Slavic languages probably occurred much later, around 1,700–1,300 YBP according to [6–8,10–12]. (…)
Logically, according to you and your ‘precise and reliable source’:
1. Proto-Balto-Slavic must have existed before it allegedly separated from other Indo-European languages around 4,500–7,000 YBP / 2500-5000 BCE!
2. Proto-Slavic must have existed before the split between Baltic and Slavic branches (which) has been dated to around 3,500–2,500 YBP / 1500-500 BCE!
3. Proto-Slavic must have existed up to further diversification of the Slavic languages (which) probably occurred much later, around 1,700–1,300 YBP / 300 – 700 CE…
What a precision of reliable predictions and lack of any logical contradictions! LOL :-)
As far as the dating of proto slavic split from proto balto-slavic is concerned, i really dont care except for the fact that first attested slavic writing is from 800-1000 CE.
So according to this "logic" Sanskrit and Vedas were created when Vyasa wrote them down, that is around 500-200BCE ... LOL :-)
Now imagine that Vyasa never wrote down the Vedas, or that they were written in an artificially created language by the Turkic-Mongolian Mughals who converted to Hinduism. This comparison is more or less logical to how OCS came to existence ... :-)
if you go back some 3000 years to 2000BCE for proto slavic split using some linguistic hocus pocus im just going to laugh at you. have to be a bit reasonable and not so liberal in your bias.
I do not not care what you would do, but you could rewrite and recalculate this again, because 3000 years back from now was 1000BCE. Is maths now rasist in India too? :-)
unlike say hittite, or indo-iranian which is firmly dated at least to 1400bce from mitanni.
So prove that “indo-iranian is firmly dated at least to 1400bce from mitanni”...
@ Matt
''You can see there's an Atlantic character to the outlier, though, oddly enough, that also seems a bit true of the Baden group from Czechia (possibly they were some Atlantic influenced group who adopted similar material culture to known Baden groups in Hungary? The comment in the paper is "The earliest stage of Baden in Bohemia (Boleráz) is thought to present a new population from the core of the Baden cultural complex in Carpathian Basin" but the autosome doesn't really seem like that. What about the y?). CZE_GAC look more like other GAC.''
A while back Baden was thought to be from Troy, because of wagons etc. But C14 showed its much earlier than Troy. But the perception that it's southern was kept. More recently, the Boleraz (ie pre-Baden) phase has been considered separately. It looks like a TRB-influenced culture. But I think Baden is a also a central European culture, bearing Alpine/Remedello-type I2a (In addition to G2a). So I think the GW- is consistent with that.
'' out of 4 are quite mature women, aged skeletally at 40-60 years old, but unexpectedly to''
Interesting. Are they incorporating older matriarchs as a way to integrate into the new land ?
Exactly my thoughts, the way things are going. Ride the tiger my friend. Kali Yuga is coming. ;)
@ Genos Historia
You posted "I trash David Anthony at the time slot".
Why? It is great to disagree with some of his theories, assumptions, wording, etc. but I don't think he is inherently sinister.
Some of his writings are quite dated by now so there is plenty to criticize, I agree.
@Rob: I would call that an interesting comment about Baden (although it is a bit of a bland and repetitive statement coming from me, as we've established in the past ;-).) Have to moderate my statement to note that while I say average (for CZE_Baden) there are only a couple of samples from that CZE_Baden group and both women from the same grave, which also means so we can't say anything about their y-dna unfortunately. (Autosomally I also checked on Vahaduo's PCA if they were a continuation of a cline in the Hungarian Baden group - https://imgur.com/a/4XpscF1 . Doesn't seem so but that doesn't necessarily mean anything too much anyway).
Re; the relatively old women, that seems like an possible hypothesis but I can't think of how to test it, since I don't know if we'll ever at what age or the women were incorporated into the group (maybe some archaeological mechanism can work it out).
@Rob & Matt
The idea that matriarchs are incorporated is interesting as it would provide a mechanism for the spread of steppe ancestry and R1b in Iberia as well.
So if the early CWC, or at least the ones who moved through Lesser Poland to the west were R1b, and if the reflux back of BB was R1b (which we knew it was), does this mean the early CWC were also broad headed robust skeletons? I haven't seen anything on this.
The authors are missing the fact that R1b-L151, in the form of R1b-P312, persisted and was dominant in Bell Beaker, and that Bell Beaker was simply the western development in Single Grave Corded Ware.
Treating Bell Beaker as completely separate from Corded Ware makes it look as though R1b-L151 disappeared or nearly disappeared from Corded Ware by 2600 BC and was replaced by R1a-M417. However, if R1b-L151 was predominant in Single Grave Corded Ware and became Bell Beaker, then no such replacement took place. R1b-L151 simply moved west, and R1a-M417 moved in behind it. Thus, if there was any "replacement", it was geographic. R1a-M417 came to dominate in the East because R1b-L151 had moved west, and not because R1a-M417 had eliminated or outbred R1b-L151 within Corded Ware, as that paper seems to imply.
IMHO the Dutch Model of Beaker origins is the closest to correct, and it posits that Beaker developed from Single Grave Corded Ware in the Netherlands. Take a look at the gradual transition from Corded Ware All Over Ornamented beakers to the Bell Beaker maritime beaker to get the idea. You can see the gradual expansion of undecorated zones in AOO beakers and on into the bell beaker.
@Rich
As much as I like to criticize the Max Planck crew because of their rather strange behavior in regards to the PIE question, I think that in this case they simply didn't get into the Bell Beaker and Single Grave issue because they didn't have any Single Grave samples for this paper.
But note that they did imply in this paper that the Rhine region was the most likely dispersal point for the P312 in Bell Beakers, so it seems to me that they're aware of the Dutch model.
@Davidski -
Well said. Yes, that crossed my mind, too. They have barely scratched the surface of the CWC story (and, consequently, of the BB story).
@ Romulus
"However what I am sure of is that Bell Beakers brought the Basque language to Iberia, and the picture of Etruscans is becoming clear that this was a parallel case. It's also clear that Basque and Etruscan are related, and Etruscan is simply Basque with some archaic PIE mixed in."
I know of know evidence whatsoever that makes either of those statements clear, or even very likely or probable. Or even, for that matter, possible in a completely specious and speculative manner.
I also watched that David Reich video with the slide you showed, going back to some earlier posts in this thread. It does NOT have "Urnfield/Hallstatt" DNA arriving in Britain in the late Bronze Age. It makes no claim whatsoever to the nature of the arrival other than that it happened. I imagine that there's some more detail somewhere. I'd be interested in seeing it, if you know where it is.
And as far as I know, there are no Urnfield DNA samples, because by definition, the Urnfield people were noted for CREMATING their dead and burying them in urns. Is there some sample of some body that is associated with an Urnfield cultural context in an unambiguous way that I'm not aware of? Conflating Urnfield and Hallstatt as if they are the same thing and can be used interchangeably is equally handwavy and unlikely. And using either of them as if they are interchangeable with Celtic is nonsense. Even the most conservative, mainstream interpretation recognizes a very distinct and different eastern and western zone to Hallstatt and does not assign a Celtic linguistic identity to the entire horizon. Celtic could well have developed in the western zone of the Hallstatt culture, but suggesting that the entire Hallstatt culture, or the entire Urnfield culture was proto-Celtic is linguistic nonsense. And even that association of Celtic and Hallstatt is, as the Shcrijver paper I linked earlier shows, a pretty handwavy just-so story anyway.
At first was competition who controls more livestock & space for it (fe warhorses), then who is on good terms with metallurgical centers & can participate in traderoutes (advanced arms, projection of power). At first african way of "how many camels for your daughter", later "how many daughters to send for good relations & safe commerce... Scandinavian ironore was transported to south the same traditiinal routes until Lion of the north banned export, earlier only Charlemagnes banned export of swords (not sure if Ceasar didnt mess up old routes & transregional wealth exchange routes esp. in Gaulia). Then slavetrade became more trendy. In era of migrations when a tribe was pressured leaving own domain into foreign one leaders of it were overenjoyed - it was act of subjugation & the tribe became warlike mercenaries used for politics = war. IMO Corded Ware wasnt mainly military expansion but also GO like game - radiating pressure around, especially after hoarding resources & knowhow accumulation centers. Like the viking era did for scandinavia. Cities werent their thing too. Like the Goths limiting commerce to one spot. Semiisolated tribal life & direct bloodrelation conserved culture.
People who still blather on about a connection between Basques and R1b are lost in 2005. Pre-BB Basque Country Y-DNA was I2a in skeletons without any steppe autosomal DNA.
Post a Comment