The origin, development, and legacy of the enigmatic Etruscan civilization from the central region of the Italian peninsula known as Etruria have been debated for centuries. Here we report a genomic time transect of 82 individuals spanning almost two millennia (800 BCE to 1000 CE) across Etruria and southern Italy. During the Iron Age, we detect a component of Indo-European–associated steppe ancestry and the lack of recent Anatolian-related admixture among the putative non–Indo-European–speaking Etruscans. Despite comprising diverse individuals of central European, northern African, and Near Eastern ancestry, the local gene pool is largely maintained across the first millennium BCE. This drastically changes during the Roman Imperial period where we report an abrupt population-wide shift to ~50% admixture with eastern Mediterranean ancestry. Last, we identify northern European components appearing in central Italy during the Early Middle Ages, which thus formed the genetic landscape of present-day Italian populations.Citation: C. Posth, V. Zaro, M. A. Spyrou, S. Vai, G. A. Gnecchi-Ruscone, A. Modi, A. Peltzer, A. Mötsch, K. Nägele, &. J. Vågene, E. A. Nelson, R. Radzevičiūtė, C. Freund, L. M. Bondioli, L. Cappuccini, H. Frenzel, E. Pacciani, F. Boschin, G. Capecchi, I. Martini, A. Moroni, S. Ricci, A. Sperduti, M. A. Turchetti, A. Riga, M. Zavattaro, A. Zifferero, H. O. Heyne, E. Fernández-Domínguez, G. J. Kroonen, M. McCormick, W. Haak, M. Lari, G. Barbujani, L. Bondioli, K. I. Bos, D. Caramelli, J. Krause, The origin and legacy of the Etruscans through a 2000-year archeogenomic time transect. Sci. Adv. 7, eabi7673 (2021). See also... Etruscans, Latins, Romans and others
Monday, September 27, 2021
The genetic origin and legacy of the Etruscans (Posth et al. 2021)
Over at Science Advances at ths LINK. I'll take a closer look at this issue after I get the relevant genotype data. Anyone got the link? Here's the paper abstract:
Read the rules before posting.
Comments by people with the nick "Unknown" are no longer allowed.
New rules for comments
Banned commentators list
David, but you've already processed them before:ReplyDelete
The haplogroups of Etruscan individuals were 20 samples of R1b, 6 samples of G2a and 2 samples of J2b. What was the developmental process of their language like?ReplyDelete
I'm talking about the genotype data from this paper.
It corroborated the hypothesis that every extant European population, including non-IE speaking ones, from Basques to Etruscans, from Ashkenazi Jews to the Tatars in Kazan on the Volga, all the way to Uralic pops eg Finns, Sami, Estonians and Hungarians - all have at least 25% WSH ancestry, if not 50% or more in many cases.ReplyDelete
The Corded Ware contribution to the turnover in Europe is huge, and IIRC, even in Sardinia it’s not less than 15% .
I really dont get why I still see so many people surprised by the fact that iron age Etruscans had a similar amount of steppe ancestry as their contemporary neighbours.ReplyDelete
The G2a lineages are interesting, but I dont have enough of an understanding of haplogroup G to understand the implications it has for the Etruscan ethnogenesis, the relation to other Tyrsenian languages and the presence of it in modern Europe.
1. They found ~20% Germanic admixture in early Medieval central Italians, and by consequence in modern central Italians, that's a lot. Much more than I had ever expected. I used to believe that Longobard admixture matters only north of the Po. This new evidence suggests that modern-day frequency differences in blond hair colour in Italy are strongly affected by differences in Germanic admixture and do not reflect Iron Age differences.ReplyDelete
2. This paper refutes once and for all the theory that Etruscans were from Anatolia. This theory has to be buried, as well as the fringe theory that Etruscan is an Anatolian IE language related to Luwian. This never made sense to me anyway.
3. It will be interesting to see in the G25 if these new Etruscan samples also have a somewhat lower WHG than the Latins, as did the few previously sampled Etruscans, or if this was just random.
@Copper Axe “ I really dont get why I still see so many people surprised by the fact that iron age Etruscans had a similar amount of steppe ancestry as their contemporary neighbours.ReplyDelete
The G2a lineages are interesting, but I dont have enough of an understanding of haplogroup G to understand the implications it has for the Etruscan ethnogenesis, the relation to other Tyrsenian languages and the presence of it in modern Europe.”
Because we associate G1a with Barcin farmers. The J2a must indicate some Balkanic origin, and it could he the Anatolian BA influence with CHG interspersed in it.
People are perplexed how come a pop with as much Steppe contribution as its surrounding neighbors speak a non-IE language. The same goes pertaining to Basques and their equally obscure origins.
@Andrzejewski, a model I run finds Sardinians probably have 5% Steppe_Eneolithic ancestry or 6% Steppe_EMBA ancestry - https://imgur.com/a/xEJPxg1 . Where do you get 15% from?ReplyDelete
ETR005 must be a Villanovan, going by the C14 date, 850-770 calBCE.ReplyDelete
Most of this G2 might be L497. Which was suspected to be an Etruscan lineage since longtime and now proven correct.ReplyDelete
It's a young bronze age lineage that expanded somewhere from Alps to Etruria with some other R1b-s. I doubt it was native to Etruria.
If rumours are correct that Polada culture was predominantly G2 then this could mean that it was proto Tyrsenian while Lemnians are migrants from Italy like the paper makes the assumption.
Based on the evidence from this paper, it's become likely that Etruscans and Basques represent parallel cases of pre IE autochthonous groups receiving substantial IE and steppe input but failing to undergo a language shift. In both cases geography and local pop density/complexity probably played important roles.ReplyDelete
It now seems unlikely that the linguistic ancestors of Etruscans arrived from the east post neolithic.
I7796 Italy_Sicily_EBA 1800bce J2a1a1b1a1aReplyDelete
I8728 Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2_published 2500bce J2a1a1b1a1a
Im wondering how this haplogroup reach sicily
One narrative that had been quite attractive was that Etruscans were either a non-IE pilot wave into Italy with IE expanding populations at their heels, or an indigenous non-IE population of Italy from the Antatolian farmer expansion, that survived as long as it did due to culturally adopting IE-expansion driving technologies without significant admixture.
Y-DNA G and low levels of steppe ancestry would be consistent with this hypothesis. But, lots of Y-DNA R and up to 50% Bell Beaker ancestry is not consistent with this hypothesis. So, this hypothesis seems not to be the case.
Most mass demic replacements of this magnitude result in language shift. For example, the amount of genetic admixture of Turks in Turkey is much less than what pre-IE people in Etrusca experienced but resulted in language shift. Sardinia and Malta likewise experienced language shifts with much less admixture. The Jomon of Japan likewise experienced language shift when the first wave of Yayoi Manchurian type people arrived from Korea even though that was not really a male dominated conquest model of demic replacement. The IE proportion in linguistically IE India was similarly less than we see in the Etruscans.
The Basque also have very significant Y-DNA and significant steppe automsomal ancestry introgression, although they lack the post-Iron Age further steppe introgression and of course, their language and culture survived so we can make much more informed statements about it.
We don't really understand the cultural process that would allow the Etruscan and Basque languages to survive despite such large infusions of steppe ancestry.
"the relation to other Tyrsenian languages and the presence of it in modern Europe."
The discussion in the new paper sees the hypothesis of Etruscans as a source population for Tyrsenian language speaking populations to the Maritime East into the Aegean, rather than the other way around, due to the lack of Eastern Mediterranean or Iranian ancestry in the main cluster of Etruscans from 800 BEC to 0 CE.
Linguistically, while the Tyrsenian languages bear a facial similarity to Etruscan, the linguistic connection of these languages (apart from a general non-IE character) as a single common origin language family is not very well established because the languages other than Etruscan are very thinly attested in writing and Etruscan itself, while much better attested in surviving writing, has not been fully deciphered despite the fact that it was a healthy living language spoke also by some leading figures in the Roman Empire as recently at the 1st century CE. During the Roman era there were Etruscan-Latin dictionaries, for example, none of which survived.
Will be interested in your take David. If there's no sign of recent ancestry from Anatolia or the Aegean, I guess that implies Etruscans are of local origin?ReplyDelete
I wonder if Gioiello is going to read this. It's about his very own ancestry and it's in deep conflict with everything he held true (Italians are WHG from the Italian refugium, they have nothing to do with a Levantine La La Land, J2 is from Italy).ReplyDelete
The case of Etruscan is similar to that of ancient Iberians. They algo had wsh ancestry, but they did not Spoke an indoeuropean language.ReplyDelete
I don’t think Etruscans are entirely local, in the sense that there’s been significant flux in north-central Italy since NeolithicReplyDelete
Eg from G2a/ J2a inflected early farmers to I2a1-rich Copper Age Remedello
But then you do see a return to G2a groups (Eg Ferrières & Trielles culture in southern France) ; must be peri-alpine groups
Etruscans mostly r1b - non Indo-European. Basques - almost all R1b - non indoeuropean. Strong arguments that r1b is originally not indo-european haplogroup, but indoeuropenized. Recently paper from Bohemia (Papac) could show this process.Earliest CWC is mostly R1b, but soon arrived R1a males who dominated and imposed indoeuropean language, maybe some R1b people fleed before indo-europeanization?ReplyDelete
P.s. almost 25 years ago i studied archeology (only 1 year, so I.m not archeologist :d). I remember 25 years ago, Bell Beaker (today we know BB is R1b) was recognized as non-indoeuropean culture, maybe this was right?
p.p.s. sorry for my english
“ from Ashkenazi Jews to the Tatars in Kazan on the Volga”
These populations aren’t European and aren’t relevant to the discussion
(Almost) Everyone in mainland Europe by the Iron Age had WSH & Yamnaya ancestry; so it’s of little help to point that out. A binary approach won’t be the main driver of distinction, nor would simple equivalence of indo -european languages with steppe ancestryReplyDelete
People need to focus on some details
MH_82, yes sir.ReplyDelete
I'm finishing a video on this Etruscan DNA talking about exactly that.
The Etruscans are 83% R1b P312.
Several of the none-R1b samples are the immigrants. When you exclude the immigrants, the actual Etruscans are 83%.
This is about as much R1b as the rest of Iron age Western Europe. So, yeah Italy was just as impacted by Bell beaker-derivatives as the rest of Western Europe. Let that sink in.
Linguistically, while the Tyrsenian languages bear a facial similarity to Etruscan, the linguistic connection of these languages (apart from a general non-IE character) as a single common origin language family is not very well established because the languages other than Etruscan are very thinly attested in writing and Etruscan itself, while much better attested in surviving writing, has not been fully deciphered despite the fact that it was a healthy living language spoke also by some leading figures in the Roman Empire as recently at the 1st century CE. During the Roman era there were Etruscan-Latin dictionaries, for example, none of which survived.ReplyDelete
I was going to suggest something very similar. There may not be any such thing as "Tyrsenian languages." The evidence used to erect such a structure is pretty scanty and amounts to as much speculative wishful thinking as it does reality. It MAY exist. But it very well may not as well. If genetic evidence suggests no linkage to a putative Tyrsenian language homeland, then that makes it much more likely that Etruscan (the language, not necessarily the genetics, which obviously had a lot of admixture in the Bronze or early Iron Age) is either autochthonous to the area—a distant descendent of what Otzi's people spoke, maybe—or, if its related to Rhaetic, which is also not very well established, then a prior wave of linguistic replacement that preceded the Indo-Europeanization of the peninsula and resisted it for a time.
@Desdichado “ . It MAY exist. But it very well may not as well. If genetic evidence suggests no linkage to a putative Tyrsenian language homeland, then that makes it much more likely that Etruscan (the language, not necessarily the genetics, which obviously had a lot of admixture in the Bronze or early Iron Age) is either autochthonous to the area—a distant descendent of what Otzi's people spoke, maybe—or, if its related to Rhaetic, which is also not very well established, then a prior wave of linguistic replacement that preceded the Indo-Europeanization of the peninsula and resisted it for a time.”ReplyDelete
I was thinking along a similar vein here: ötzi’s people, Tripolye, Etruscan-Raetian and pre-Hellenic natives might’ve descended from Barcin farmers who took Balkanic route and spoke Lemnian-like or Aegean languages. On the other hand, GAC and Basques might be related through the common thread of lineage from Cardial Pottery farmers who sailed across the Mediterranean instead. Therefore Basque and Etruscan may represent 2 distinct language families, of Pottery and Balkanic wave, respectively.
I overestimated Steppe ancestry by 5%.
According to the aforementioned study, Sardinians are >60% Barcin, ~10% WHG, ~10% and <15% Ganj Dareh.
@MH_82 “ These populations aren’t European and aren’t relevant to the discussion”ReplyDelete
I know what you mean. These pops aren’t originally European, let alone dating back to BA or IA eras, nevertheless they have lived for centuries in Central/Eastern European territories and both have significant amount of European admixture, including a considerable portion of Yamnaya-related blood.
Etruscans are 83% P312, conversely if you look at the Latins only 2/6 are P312, 3 of the R1bs from the Latins are non-P312 R1b.
The best model of the Etruscans (the ones without Carthaginian or Gaulish admixture) is a 2 way mix of Sicily_EBA and Germany_Bell_Beaker, the only other 2 feasible models were Sicily_MBA,Germany_Bell_Beaker and
they used Iceman and Remedello in a model with German Bell Beaker and it was rejected.
The Etruscan language is closely related to Lemnian which is right off the coast of Anatolia though.ReplyDelete
I wonder if Herodotus' account was based on some garbled folk memory of Etruscans (Tyrrhenian=Tyrsenian=Teresh/Tursha) amongst the Sea Peoples returning home after their failed adventures in the eastern Mediterranean? And the Lemnians, a leftover of those pirates who didn't make it back home.ReplyDelete
I overestimated Steppe ancestry by 5%.
According to the aforementioned study, Sardinians are >60% Barcin, ~10% WHG, ~10% and <15% Ganj Dareh."
I can't find any section of this paper that says Sardinians as a whole or any Sardinian subgroup have those exact ancestry proportions.
What is present are: Models with direct continuity from Villamar to the present are rejected (Table 2F, Supp. Table 6). In contrast, nearly all the other post-Nuragic sites produce viable models as single sources for the modern Sardinians (e.g., Sar-COR qpAdm p-values of 0.16 and 0.261 for Cagliari and Ogliastra, respectively; Sar-SNN qpAdm p-values of 0.037 and 0.016, similarly Table 2F, Supp. Table 6). .
Best fitting is Sar-COR. The 3-way model for SAR-COR in the supplement is: 0.141:0.761:0.098 of WHG:Anatolian:Steppe
Alternatively they present this model: https://imgur.com/a/pVMaD80
Where present day Sardinians have approximately 80% Anatolia_N+WHG (68% Anatolian, 12% WHG), 8% Steppe, 10% Iran_N and 2% North African.
The other three Latin R1bs weren't tested for P312. But they definitely are P312.
So 5/5 of Latins are R1b (P312), 83% of Etruscans are R1b (one is U106, seriously).
In G25 PCA, Etruscans come fit well as a mix between Bell Beaker & Italy CA. Honestly G25 is more reliable and easy than formal stats.
@Pio that’s why at the start of the Bronze Age, R1b-M269 and R1b-V1636, suddenly appear in Northern, Central, Western, and Southern Europe, along with Steppe autosomal DNA. R1b-V1636 was found in the Corded Ware (CW/CWC) cultural offshoot, the Single Grave Culture (SGC), as well as in Vonyuchka/Progress, and Khvalynsk.ReplyDelete
R1a, R1b, and Q, all descend from P. Yana belonged to P, the Mal’ta boy belonged to R, and Afontova Gora 2 belonged to Q1a1. These samples make up the ANS/ANE genetic cluster. EHGs have much more ANE than WHGs, for they were geographically closer to Siberia/North Asia. R1a and R1b have been found together in Khvalynsk, Mesolithic/Eneolithic Ukraine, in Pit-Comb Ware, in West Russian EHGs, in Polish CW, in the Single Grave Culture, and now, in early Bohemian CW.
There is no R1b-M269/V1636 outside of the Steppe/Eastern Europe, prior to the Copper and Bronze Ages. Everywhere R1b-M269 is found, Indo-European languages and autosomal DNA are found. You’re also neglecting to mention the appearance of Q1b2a in early CW Bohemia, alongside R1b-L51. Funnily enough, both R1b-L51, and Q1b2a appear in Afanasievo, and Afanasievo is completely Yamnaya derived (with the exception of a few Central/East Asian admixed outliers). What are the odds then that R1b-M269 is non-Indo-European speaking, despite it having been found in Yamnaya, Khvalynsk, Corded Ware, Vonyuchka/Progress, and Afanasievo (alongside R1a in the cases of Corded Ware and Khvalynsk)? You would have to assume then, that somehow, only R1a-M417 Corded Ware males spoke Indo-European, despite those males being identical to Yamnaya in terms of autosomal DNA (excluding the Baltic_HG/WHG and EEF admixture some of them have). Yet Corded Ware males carried R1b-Z2103, R1b-V1636, Q1b2a, and R1b-L51, like Afanasievo/Yamnaya, Khvalynsk, and Vonyuchka/Progress. These are peoples/cultures CW just so happens to be heavily genetically related to. Your postulation is ridiculous. Why would genetically indistinguishable clans with identical autosomal make ups, living in the same regions, descended from the same Mesolithic/Neolithic hunter gatherer populations, with the same Y-DNA haplogroups (at varying frequencies), speak completely different languages? The dominance of either R1a or R1b (I2a, J1, and Q1 as well), in any given steppe clan, is due to male driven founder effects. R1a, R1b, and Q, are brother lineages rooted in ANE ancestry; all three have a common root in P, and all three have been found in EHGs.
A Chinese paper published in 2018, found R1a-Z94 in 38.5% (15 / 39) of Keriyalik Uyghurs from Darya Boyi / Darya Boye Village, Yutian County, Xinjiang, as well as R1a-Z93 in 28.9% (22/76) of a sample of Dolan Uyghurs from Horiqol township. Uyghurs are a Turkic people, they don’t speak an Indo-European language, yet they have a high level of R1a-M417. Most Swedes belong to I1, a WHG lineage, yet they speak an Indo-European language. Sardinians mostly belong to I2a, yet they too speak an Indo-European language. Where is your evidence? This isn’t 1979, 1993, or 2005; it’s asinine to challenge this in 2021.
The haplogroups of Etruscan individuals were 20 samples of R1b, 6 samples of G2a and 2 samples of J2b. What was the developmental process of their language like?
Do the Etruscan R1b samples relate to individuals from Villabruna or Yamna, or rather just from CWC or BB?
So Etruscan adna has a lot of steppe but Etruscan isn't IE?ReplyDelete
Who would have thunk that ancestries don't necessarily correlate with language :P
"The Etruscan language is closely related to Lemnian which is right off the coast of Anatolia though."
True; I think I will look up what Helmut Rix wrote about this, when I'm back home. Andrew's skepticism towards a genetic relationship seems excessive. It's not as unfounded and speculative as a wider Aegean language family that also includes Eteocretan and Eteocypriot.
But whatever, the genetic evidence of the Etruscans precludes a recent origin in Anatolia and large parts of Greece. We don't even need Bronze Age and Villanovan DNA to say that for sure.
I'm not 100% convinted that R1b is non-indoeuropean. But I don't pretend i can't see something doesn't sum up. Too many ANCIENT R1b people are non-indoeuropean. Basques, Etruscans, Ligures, probably Rhaetians, maybe Picts. Do you know that basque language is almost impossible to learn (speak fluently anyway)for adult indo-european speaker with average language skills? Do you belive that R1b conquerors, who killed almost all neolithic men from todays Basque Country, learned extremely difficult language from subjected women? Is it plausible for you? Becouse for me much more plausible is that basque was native language for R1b conquerors.ReplyDelete
As I said, i'am not 100% convinted that R1b is non-indoeuropean. It's too early, too many unanswered questions. But... theoretically.... CWC image from Papac's paper ("Dynamic changes in genomic and social structures in third millennium BCE central Europe") fits to indo-europeanization model. R1a1 arrives, grows, dominates, imposes indoeuropean language and finnaly eliminates (kill or banish) all other yDNA lines. It could explain why today R1b is associated wit IE langueges (descendants of indoeurpoeanized R1b men from CWC), and why so many ancient R1b people were non indoeuropean (descendants of R1b men who managed to escape before indoeuropeanization).
The one U106 is undated
Are you sure about the Latins? Last time I checked at least two were downstream on non P312 branches.
@Pio sorry, some minor corrections on my part. Firstly, neither R1a-M417 nor R1b-M269, have been found in Khvalynsk, or Vonyuchka/Progress for that matter. However, R1a, R1b, Q1a (Q1a1b), I2a, and J1, have all been found together in Khvalynsk, and R1b-V1636 has been found in Vonyuchka/Progress, Khvalynsk, and in the Corded Ware descended, Single Grave Culture. R1a and R1b were found together in both Mesolithic, and Neolithic hunter gatherers from Ukraine. Q1b2a and R1b-L51 were both found in early Bohemia Corded Ware, as well as in Afanasievo. R1b-Z2103 also arrived in Bohemia CW around the same time R1a-M417 did.ReplyDelete
@DragonHermit "The Etruscan language is closely related to Lemnian which is right off the coast of Anatolia though."ReplyDelete
Maybe. And even if it is, the prevailing opinion right now is that the Lemnian-speaking para-Etruscans arrived during the late Bronze Age as part of the wave of Sea Peoples, or as mercenaries hired by Myceneans from the Italian peninsula. In other words, the presence of Lemnian doesn't represent a wave of "Tyrsenian" languages that spread from the Aegean to the Italic peninsula and the mountains beyond, it rather represents a relative (again, perhaps. Based on two or three stelae inscriptions on Lemnos) of Etruscan that arrived from the Italic peninsula quite late.
Interesting how easy some jump on the R1b = Non-Indo-European Wagon. When we look at languages like Basque we see that they are spoken in a very small area. It is very easy to get as much as 100% of a specific Haplogroup in a small area. One out of a Hundred R1b Males in Western Europe speak a Non-Indo-European Language and suddenly everyone go nutty....ReplyDelete
Sample R1021, one of the Latini, his Y Chromosome downstream SNP is
You can see this is not below P312, it is downstream on a parallel branch. Negative for P312 positive for Z2118. So at least one of the Latini is not P312+
Two of the other Latini are upstream of P312 (R851, R1016), but they must have tested for P312 in this study since the two Prestini Tribe latins were positive for it.
There is actually another sample from Italy, prior to the Latins that is positive for Z2118 and downstream on it. I don't want to like to Carlos's blog as that is blasphemy on this here the one true aDNA blog (lol) but he has a post on it:ReplyDelete
Another interesting finding from Human auditory ossicles as an alternative optimal source of ancient DNA, by Sirak et al. (2020):
A sample classified as Italy Middle Bronze Age from Olmo di Nogara (ca. 1400-1200 BC), who is R1b-L51 (xP311, xL52, xL151), CTS6889+ (T->C, 1 read). See YFull’s corresponding R-S1161.
The key to the Basque and Etruscan questions is that these populations are attested as speakers many many centuries after the likely first arrival of IE speaking people in their region. There's no "massive demographic replacement" needed to explain steppe ancestry and R1b in Etruscans--by the time we call them Etruscans they'd probably been living as neighbors with Italic speakers for around a millennium. That's plenty of time to absorb large amounts of admixture over time without a large single pulse and language shift.
"One narrative that had been quite attractive was that Etruscans were either a non-IE pilot wave into Italy with IE expanding populations at their heels, or an indigenous non-IE population of Italy from the Antatolian farmer expansion, that survived as long as it did due to culturally adopting IE-expansion driving technologies without significant admixture.
Y-DNA G and low levels of steppe ancestry would be consistent with this hypothesis. But, lots of Y-DNA R and up to 50% Bell Beaker ancestry is not consistent with this hypothesis. So, this hypothesis seems not to be the case."
Why so? Etruscans are from the iron age and steppe/bell beaker ancestry reached Italy almost two thousand years prior.
If we take that in mind, then you also have the issue that Etruscan was quite intermixed with Italic during the iron age, with many Etruscans likely having recent Italic ancestry or just simply being Italic assimilates into an Etruscan society.
I really dont see how this theory would necessitate a low amount of steppe_emba ancestry and a high amount of G2a lineage in the iron age.
And also I'd say its fairly clear that Raetic and Etruscan are related and its not a superficial similarity or the result of a sprachsbund.
What I find more enigmatic is that many linguists support the east-to-west migration due to the Italic substrate in Etruscan being mostly Umbrian related and there are loanwords which came from Anatolian languages (predating the orientalizing period) and some have been suggested to have derived from non-IE greek substrate (a bit wishywashy imo), which currently is a bit hard to gell with what the ancient DNA shows.
"We don't really understand the cultural process that would allow the Etruscan and Basque languages to survive despite such large infusions of steppe ancestry"
Well with Basque its quite clear the language expanded over territories formerly inhabited by Indo-European speakers for example, and there are some cultural hints of matrilocality/partial matrilineality amongst them.
Etruscan is a more complex situation but I dont think the degree of steppe ancestry and R1b-P312 lineages are one of the complicating matters here.
When they say "East Mediterranean ancestry" what exactly do they mean? Like Greeks? or like Phoenicians/Levantines?ReplyDelete
As for the Etruscans it's not really surprising. Were people expecting some giant genetic chasm between they and the Latins or other people who lived in the Italian Peninsula at the time? There's no chasm between modern Hungarians and their Indo-European neighbors. Also, the Etruscan language isnt even definitively known.
"These pops aren’t originally European, let alone dating back to BA or IA eras, nevertheless they have lived for centuries in Central/Eastern European territories and both have significant amount of European admixture"
Yup, European Jews (Romaniotes, Italkim, Sephardim, Ashkenazim) are at least half European by DNA. This explains why only some of them look "exotic", while others look perfectly European. And with my ~10% Levant Yehud IBA admixture, mostly from my Italian grandfather, I'm similar to someone who is ~20% European Jew.
''There is no R1b-M269/V1636 outside of the Steppe/Eastern Europe, prior to the Copper and Bronze Ages. Everywhere R1b-M269 is found, Indo-European languages and autosomal DNA are found. You’re also neglecting to mention the appearance of Q1b2a in early CW Bohemia, alongside R1b-L51. Funnily enough, both R1b-L51, and Q1b2a appear in Afanasievo, and Afanasievo is completely Yamnaya derived (with the exception of a few Central/East Asian admixed outliers). What are the odds then that R1b-M269 is non-Indo-European speaking, despite it having been found in Yamnaya, Khvalynsk, Corded Ware, Vonyuchka/Progress, and Afanasievo''
Do you perhaps mean to say that R1b-M269 was originally associated with the early dispersal of IE languages, but then might have become dissacoaited ?
We aer not aware of of M269 has not been found in Khvalynsk, Progress or Vonuchka
The previous CWC study in fact showed that BB & CWC were distinctive although sharing a common deep ancestor
BTW, I remember an American Jewish acquaintance who believed that the European admixture in European Jews is mostly the result of rape in the context of pogroms. But genetic evidence does not support this view, as the uniparental markers of European Jews are more European on the mtDNA side, and more Levantine on the yDNA.ReplyDelete
What you say reminds of this redhaired, blue eyed Jew who says.....
"There's some possible European hiding" in his family tree. Lol.
If it weren't for DNA, I would guess Ashkenazi Jews are like 80% Europeans, mostly northern European. I've grown up by a orthodox Jewish community. They really are very white in complexion. Southern Italians are darker than them.
It is really shocking how fair complexed Ashkenazi are despite having like 20% northern European ancestry at the most.
When they went back to the Middle East in 1800s, they had to realize quickly they have gentile European ancestry somewhere in their history.
Then again in this guy you can see strange Middle Eastern facial features. This is common in Ashkenazi, their facial features makes it easy to identify them.
I definitely think natural selection made Ashkenazi more fair than they should be based on their ancestry. Maybe it has to do with less sunlight in northern Europe.
W.r.t Basque we need to remember that it used to be a lot more widespread, the Vasconic languages, and whatever their affinities with "Iberian', Tartessian (which most consider to be non-IE). Then we have Ligurian, which might have been non-IE also.ReplyDelete
Therefore, we know that most of SW Europe was non-IE before Celts, Romans, etc.
The key to non-IE languages of SW Europe is to understand how BB & post-BB trajectories developed across Europe. We need to move past BB = R1b ='Italo-Celtic' paradigms.
For ex: in Iberia, El Argar society was dominant until it underwent a major collapse ~ 1600 bce, at which point Cogotas culture took over, based in central-northern Iberia.
It is really that Spain was almost entirely none IE. While, Italy was almost entirely IE.ReplyDelete
It is safe to assume the British Isles were IE before the Celts. France is iffy, but if anything it was IE.
Ok, yeah I guess Basque used to live mainly in Southern France.ReplyDelete
I don't think this means though most of France was IE before the Celts.
Actually, there's a chance Celts originated in France.
The process does seem simple though.ReplyDelete
IE speaking Bell Beaker adopted the language of native people sometimes. That's it.
I think we can still view Beaker folk as basically IE people. *who sometimes adopted language of other people.
Hey did you get my email? I think we should do a video on the Tarim Mummies.
@MH_82 thanks, see my previous comment correcting some of my errorsReplyDelete
@Pio are you implying Basque came from the Steppe? As Ric Hern said, the Basques are a relatively small population, and they occupy a relatively small area. In such circumstances, it’s quite easy for male founder effects to occur. Sardinians have very minor Steppe autosomal DNA (around 8-11%), less than Basques in fact, yet they speak an Indo-European language. Same with Greek Cypriots. The Maltese are majority R1b-M269, (they are primarily descended from Indo-European/Latin speaking Southern Italians), and yet they speak a Semitic language. Balts have roughly 30-40% N1a, and speak an Indo-European language. What about E-V13, J2b, and I2a in the Balkans, J2 in Italy and Greece, or I1 in Germanic countries, especially Sweden? These are all prominent male lineages that aren’t associated with the Indo-Europeans (with the exception of clades such as I2a2a-L699), and yet all of those regions speak Indo-European languages. Basques have steppe autosomal DNA. R1b-M269 suddenly appeared in France/Iberia in the Bronze Age, along with unique burial customs, and steppe autosomal DNA—these things did not exist there prior. However, compared to Northern/Central Europe, the genetic turnover in Iberia was not as substantial. That is why pre-Indo-European languages survived in parts of Iberian/France, and also Italy for that matter. Furthermore, R1b coalesced about 20000 years ago; the genetic landscape was different then; R1b itself predates the very ethnicities/genetic groups we’re talking about here. Because of this, there are different sub-clades of R1b, associated with different groups, groups who hold a very distant, paternal relationship with each other. The R1b clades found in Iberian WHGs, fall under R1b-V2219, and it’s sub-clade R1b-V88 (that’s even if they can be discerned past R1b-L754). However, the great majority of Basques don’t belong to V88, they belong to M269, an Indo-European clade. Basques have steppe ancestry, and R1b-M269 is from Eastern Europe, it’s time to accept it, and move on.
''Who would have thunk that ancestries don't necessarily correlate with language''ReplyDelete
Ancestry relates to language during expansion. During this time, there is often a fairly clear relationship between material culture, genetics and language. But this is a comparatively shorter time
During the rest of time, people and societies are in a sort of 'steady-state'. There are changes here & there, but its fairly gradual. It is at this stage mixing and levelling occurs.
The case of Hungarians someone pointed out above has already been clarified. Early Hungarians were obviously different to their central European neighbours
Also, apparently the Finns are autosomally the most IE of them all, but definitely do not speak an IE language.ReplyDelete
"Do you belive that R1b conquerors, who killed almost all neolithic men from todays Basque Country, learned extremely difficult language from subjected women?"
It could be like this... Herodotus: "These Pelasgians dwelt at that time in Lemnos and desired vengeance on the Athenians. Since they well knew the time of the Athenian festivals, they acquired fifty-oared ships and set an ambush for the Athenian women celebrating the festival of Artemis at Brauron. They seized many of the women, then sailed away with them and brought them to Lemnos to be their concubines . These women bore more and more children, and they taught their sons the speech of Attica and Athenian manners. These boys would not mix with the sons of the Pelasgian women; if one of them was beaten by one of the others, they would all run to his aid and help each other."
ANE is just another and older layer of WHG. Not obviously the more recent WHG we know very well ( Loschbur, Bichon, Iron Gates and Baltic HG) but the very first western eurasian HG, that is upper paleolithic euros. There is obvoiusly a connection because the fatehr of ANE is the father of WHG. the first is an older son while the WHG is a more recent one. The connection is also geographical because the territory that saw the birth of proto ANE ( that is ANE minus east asian ) is the same region that nearly two thousand years after saw the birth of WHG.
Finns aren't the most IE.
They have slightly less IE ancestry than their neighbors, because of their EHG-Siberian admixture.
Cultural diffusion: Non-IE tribe and IE-tribe are neighbours. With time the IE tribe appropriates culture and language from non-IE tribe because they are main trading partner, and seems more advanced.ReplyDelete
Elite dominance: non-IE tribe conquers and dominates IE tribe, causing a language shift. With time the non-IE DNA and haplogroups are watered down over thousands of years by drift and contact with other IE tribes, even though the non-IE language persists. There's many possibilities.
Generally basque nationalists are complete morons. Basque most likely isn't from basque country, but from southern Francr.
Genome-wide autosomal, mtDNA, and Y chromosome analysis of King Bela III of the Hungarian Arpad dynasty
@Genos “ They have slightly less IE ancestry than their neighbors, because of their EHG-Siberian admixture.”ReplyDelete
Why do so many people confuse the N1c to be an EHG marker is beyond me. Uralic language speakers have a very marginal WSHG autosomal contribution, and their origin is either in Northern China or the same Trans-Baikal Ulchi-like pop that’s related to the East Asian component in Native Americans.
ANE is only Q1a (WSHG), R1a and R1b.
@Andrzejewski Genos probably didn't mean that the N-L1026 haplogroup is an EHG marker. I think he was talking about the admixture in West Uralic peoples. Few would deny that N-L1026 was probably originally associated with Nganasan-related Siberian admixture but that ancestry is comparably low in most West Uralics nowadays.ReplyDelete
@Simon_W "BTW, I remember an American Jewish acquaintance who believed that the European admixture in European Jews is mostly the result of rape in the context of pogroms. But genetic evidence does not support this view, as the uniparental markers of European Jews are more European on the mtDNA side, and more Levantine on the yDNA."ReplyDelete
Indeed. Rather than rape during pogroms, you could flippantly turn that script around and suggest that the men of the Ashkenazi Jews were the first Middle Eastern "refugees" to come to Europe saying "where them white womens at?" Sure, it's flippant, but it'll get that obviously incorrect story to shut up, plus it is actually genetically accurate. The mtDNA contribution to today's Ashkenazi Jews is about 80% "Old French" or north Italian.
Curiously, founder effects and strict cultural population boundaries and its effect on genetics would probably be a very interesting study among the Ashkenazi. I can't remember where I read it anymore, but it's been suggested that the entire population (until the last generation or two, at least) has the same autosomal relatedness as if they were all no further apart from each other than fourth cousins.
@Genos Historia "It is safe to assume the British Isles were IE before the Celts. France is iffy, but if anything it was IE."
Curiously, in Pictish studies, the default assumption is that Pictish was related to Brythonic Celtic, but there is a minority opinion that it was non-IE. This seems based on the flawed assumption that Celtic was the first likely IE language to enter the British Isles. It seems that a more likely null hypothesis (if the Celtic nature of Pictish is to be rejected) isn't that it's non-IE, but that it's some kind of extinct IE descended from the Bell Beakers of Britain.
By an “older layer of WHG,” I assume you are talking about the Gravettian-Aurignacian related ancestry, ancestry that makes up roughly 50-80% of ANE/ANS? Tianyuan/AR33K related DNA forms the rest of ANE’s ancestry; that’s where the K2b/P Y-DNA lineages come from, as well as mtDNA C. However, as Rob has pointed out before, Tianyuan-like populations spawned from IUP hunter gatherer tribes, and the IUP has it’s origins further west, firstly in the Levant, and then in Southeastern/Eastern Europe. The Eurasian steppe has always acted as a super highway.
@Genos “ If it weren't for DNA, I would guess Ashkenazi Jews are like 80% Europeans, mostly northern European. I've grown up by a orthodox Jewish community. They really are very white in complexion. Southern Italians are darker than them.”ReplyDelete
I’m pretty sure that future research would find all the potentially missing Slavic, Germanic and Khazarian dna that give many EE Jews fair skin and red hair. Current genetic studies might underestimate these contributions.
@Tom “ Genos probably didn't mean that the N-L1026 haplogroup is an EHG marker. I think he was talking about the admixture in West Uralic peoples. Few would deny that N-L1026 was probably originally associated with Nganasan-related Siberian admixture but that ancestry is comparably low in most West Uralics nowadays.”ReplyDelete
The deal is that even autosomally Uralic people have very few WSHG from the people they assimilated in their way to Europe. WSHG peaks at Kett and other Yenisseyan speakers, who are hypothesized to be speaking a Botai-related language, although 75% of their current DNA derived from Ymalkhakh East Asians close to Yukaghir and Tungus.
Kett score <25% WSHG, and Uralic people do much lower.ReplyDelete
Going off on a tangent here - recently reading history books about the Bulghar and Kievan Rus Varangian equivalent of 2 non-Slavic people constituting a military aristocracy and eventually assimilating into a much numerous Slavic pop without leaving barely a linguistic trace at all. I suspect that Russians might be something at least 15%-20% Norse, just like Northern France could be up to 40% Germanic and Northern Italy up to 20% Germanic. In the case of the Bulghars it would be tough to measure because their East Asian Turkic ancestors had already mixed extensively with Steppe nomadic Scythians, Sarmatians etc before making it to the Balkan, so they were already overwhelmingly European before assimilation into Slavs.ReplyDelete
What seems baffling and perplexing is how come the Magyars were in the same position numerically and politically as the Bulghars and the Varangians, and nevertheless they managed to impose their language on their subjects. Let alone, that Magyar invaders consisted of 7 Uralic tribes and 3 Kabar/Khazar Turkic ones, hence they aren’t even cohesive as a unit but we’re more like the Hunnic confederation.
Are "deep origins of haplogroups" comments still banned? (I checked the rules and didn't see it but seem to recall something along those lines?)ReplyDelete
Not really, but any discussions here should be realistic.ReplyDelete
It is all good.
But I was talking about EHG not WSHG.
Finns, Saami have EHG on top of Siberian, which makes it so they have less IE ancestry than their neighbors.
Noted David, and thanks. Here it goes.ReplyDelete
So impetus is from one of Razib's recent substack posts, and it's about haplogroup P.
So my understanding of the Y-haplogroup situation with the various living Australo-Papuan-related groups is:
Actual Australo-Papuan populations: haplogroups C1b, K2b (particularly M and S).
Aeta: C1b, K2b (particularly P and P2).
Andamanese/Onge: D + some (one 18th century sample) P-M1254*
So my thinking is there was a coastal migration of Onge-like people (not controversial here I think), and that migration brought with it Y-DNA haplogroups D, C1b and K2b.
Now, the Yana paper modeled ANE (ie both the Yana samples and MA-1) as 78% West Eurasian-derived and 22% Onge-like, perhaps not an unreasonable model if there was gene flow between this coastal migration (perhaps making use of the Amur river) and more West Eurasian-derived populations living around lake Baikal.
Does that sound reasonable?
No, Onge-like people actually moved from west to east.ReplyDelete
Something is off with the fact, that Indo-Europeans who were violent, and highly patriarchal invaders couldn't impose their language on the Etruscans and Basques. For instance, the Arabs who were only a small ruling elite managed to impose their language and their identity on the people they have conquered.ReplyDelete
"For instance, the Arabs who were only a small ruling elite managed to impose their language and their identity on the people they have conquered."
How big is the influence writing and a very well structured religion have on this language imposing process?
@Wise Dragon, nothing is "OFF". Language change or continuation depends on individual circumstances which are often non recoverable. As for early IE being warlike, that seems to be true, but it has not been demonstrated that this continued into day to day life which even for warriors was 99% of the time. The areas where IE genetic imprint did not match language change are at the edges of the expansion, particularly where there had been geographic or culural resistance. The key fact is the language the children speak in each generation and this can only seem an obvious choice for the people at the time. As I said this sociolinguistic information is often lost.ReplyDelete
Who knows what other languages we'd have known if temperate Europe also had texts from older periods..ReplyDelete
Who says bell beakers conquered the ancestors of the etruscans? Very probably they were neighbours for 1500 years, and ended up genetically indistinct by close proximity. Or an elite of proto-etruscans conquered and dominated a bell beaker tribe. Who knows, a multitude of scenarios are possible.ReplyDelete
the ancient coordinates you updated 3 hours ago contain modern populations (Armenian_Erzurum, Balkar, Chechen and Karachay).
"onge like people moved west to east"ReplyDelete
Absolutely not lol. Andamanese and aasi populated from se asia.
Yeah, Bacho Kiro people were from SE Asia.ReplyDelete
You have earlier stated that SE asia is a sink, not a source. A more foolish statement could not have been made.ReplyDelete
A Southeast Asian origin for present-day non-African human Y chromosomes
There was a 50% population turnover between the arrival of Beakers with Steppe ancestry in Italy and the Etruscan/Latin Iron Age cluster.ReplyDelete
Where did the Etruscans come from?ReplyDelete
The best models of the non-foreign Etruscan cluster from the new paper use a two way admixture of German Bell Beakers and Sicily EBA. This shows us that the type of ancestry present in Sicily EBA spread at least as far North as Tuscany.
Test Pop1,Pop2 p-value % Pop1 % Pop2 St.Err. Pop1 St.Err. Pop2
C.Italy_Etruscan Sicily_EBA,Germany_Bell_Beaker 0.0875718 0.542 0.458 0.018 0.018
C.Italy_Etruscan Sicily_MBA,Germany_Bell_Beaker 0.0722644 0.54 0.46 0.02 0.02
C.Italy_Etruscan Sicily_LBA,Germany_Bell_Beaker 0.0507444 0.6 0.4 0.019 0.019
C.Italy_Etruscan Rome_CopperAge,Germany_Bell_Beaker 0.0131467 0.502 0.498 0.016 0.016
C.Italy_Etruscan Italy_Iceman_MN.SG,Germany_Bell_Beaker 0.00607015 0.571 0.429 0.026 0.026
C.Italy_Etruscan Italy_Bell_Beaker_I2477,Germany_Bell_Beaker 0.00158723 0.57 0.43 0.024 0.024
C.Italy_Etruscan Italy_Remedello_BA.SG,Germany_Bell_Beaker 0.000814114 0.611 0.389 0.021 0.021
C.Italy_Etruscan Rome_Neolithic,Germany_Bell_Beaker 1.01E-05 0.456 0.544 0.013 0.013
C.Italy_Etruscan Sicily_MN,Germany_Bell_Beaker 6.09E-07 0.462 0.538 0.015 0.015
C.Italy_Etruscan Sar-MN,Germany_Bell_Beaker 3.54E-08 0.543 0.457 0.017 0.017
C.Italy_Etruscan Sar-ECA,Germany_Bell_Beaker 1.38E-09 0.506 0.494 0.015 0.015
C.Italy_Etruscan Sar-Nur,Germany_Bell_Beaker 4.28E-11 0.527 0.473 0.014 0.014
C.Italy_Etruscan Sar-EMBA,Germany_Bell_Beaker 3.72E-12 0.525 0.475 0.014 0.014
The fit gets worse from the EBA->MBA->LBA transition. What happened between Siciliy EBA – MBA?:
We detect Iranian-related ancestry in Sicily by the Middle Bronze Age 1800–1500 BCE, consistent with the directional shift of these individuals toward Minoans and Mycenaeans in PCA (Fig. 2b); in distal modeling, Sicily_MBA requires 15.7 ± 2.6% of Iran_Ganj_Dareh_Neolithic-related ancestry (p=0.060) (Fig. 4, Supplementary Table 14). Sources closer in time always require Minoan_Lassithi or Anatolia_EBA as a source (Supplementary Table 21). Modern southern Italians harbor Iranian-related ancestry,74 and our results show this ancestry must have reached Sicily before the period of Greek political control when Sicily and southern Italy were part of Magna Graecia.
The appearance of Iranian related ancestry in Sicily_MBA decreases the fit, showing that Etruscans mixed with this “Sicily_EBA” population before the arrival of Mycenean/Minoan DNA from the east 1800-1500 BCE.
The Spread of Steppe and Iranian Related Ancestry in the Islands of the Western MediterraneanReplyDelete
Daniel M. Fernandes,1,2,3 Alissa Mittnik,4 Iñigo Olalde,4 Iosif Lazaridis,4
In the Middle Neolithic, Sicilians harbored ancestry typical of early European farmers, which we can fit as a mixture of Anatolia_Neolithic and WHG (Fig. 2, Fig. 4, Supplementary Table 14). We also approximately tripled coverage on a previously reported Beaker complex-associated individual, and our reanalysis of these data confirmed the previous finding of no evidence of Steppe ancestry.5
In the Early Bronze Age, we find evidence of Steppe ancestry by ~2200 BCE. In distal qpAdm, the two outliers with the strongest evidence have 22.1 ± 3.6% Steppe ancestry (Sicily_EBA8561) and 39.0 ± 3.5% Steppe ancestry (Sicily_EBA11443); the latter individual is consistent with forming a clade with Mallorca_EBA (p=0.245) which suggests that they may harbor ancestry from a similar source (most plausibly Iberian, see below) (Fig. 4a, Supplementary Table 14). For the main Early Bronze Age cluster of four individuals and two other outliers, we also fit Steppe ancestry albeit at lower proportions of 14.1 ± 3.4% in Sicily_EBA3123, 13.5 ± 3.4% in Sicily_EBA3124, and 9.9 ± 2.2% in the main cluster of Sicily_EBA (Fig. 4, Supplementary Table 14, Supplementary Materials). For Sicily_EBA and Sicily_EBA3123 we could not rule out an alternative model of Iranian-related ancestry rather than Steppe as a third ancestry source, although we favor Steppe models because of the results from the proximal modeling and the definitive presence of this ancestry in the two extreme outlier individuals. The presence of Steppe ancestry in Early Bronze Age Sicily is also evident in Y chromosome analysis, which reveals that 3 of the 5 Early Bronze Age males carried haplogroup R1b1a1a2a1a2 (R1b-M269) associated with the first western Europeans who carried significant proportions of Steppe ancestry (Online Table 1). Two of these four individuals carried the Y haplogroup subtype R1b1a1a2a1a2a1 (Z195), which today is largely restricted to Iberia and has been hypothesized to have originated there 2500–2000 BCE71. A parsimonious scenario is that west-to-east gene flow from Iberia introduced these haplogroups into Sicily as well as to the Balearic Islands where Y haplogroup R1b-M269 is also found in Menorca_LBA.
There are a total of 6 Sicilian EBA Y-Chromosomes in this paper (1 they omit above was from an earlier paper). 5 R1b, 1 J. The J was present in Sicily previously in Sicily_MN. 5/5 R1b are P312+, 2/5 are S227+ which is below the Basque/Iberian DF27.
Sicily_EBA autosomal DNA:ReplyDelete
Sicilian Bronze Age Proximal Modeling
Early Bronze Age: We used the following populations as possible sources for Sicily_EBA:
Iberia_Bell_Beaker, Iberia_Bell_Beaker_highSteppe, France_Bell_Beaker, France_Bell_Beaker_lowSteppe, Sicily_MN, Mallorca_EBA, Minoan_Lassithi, Anatolia_EBA,
Italy_Bell_Beaker, Italy_Remedello.SG, Sardinia_Chalcolithic
Since the great majority of individuals from the Sicily_EBA group formed a clade with the
individuals from Sicily_MN in the qpWave analysis, we modeled Sicily_EBA as Sicily_MN and any
combination of the other sources (Supplementary Table 20). The valid fits had as a second source
of ancestry Iberia_Bell_Beaker_highSteppe, Italy_Bell_Beaker, or Mallorca_EBA, which shows some
agreement with the Y chromosome evidence of an Iberian affinity of some of the Early Bronze Age
Sicilians. These are the most parsimonious models and do not require any source of Iranian-related
ancestry to model Sicily_EBA, despite such ancestry being part of a valid model in the distal
analysis. So, despite the higher rank 3-way models that also provide valid fits with the addition of a
source of that ancestry, we favor the models with Steppe-related ancestry because 1) in the distal
modeling they consistently gave the highest P-value, and 2) the simplest proximal models require
only a source of that ancestry. Supplementary Table 20: Two and 3-way qpAdm models for the Early Bronze Age Sicilians
Here's the table:
What does this tell us holistically? Beakers arrived in the Italian Peninsula not just from the North (Italian Beakers), but also from the West(Iberian Beakers). However, a two-way mixture of Iberian and/or Italian Beakers and prior Neolithic Farmers was not the genesis of the Etruscan gene pool, it was the genesis of the Sicilian_EBA population. Revisiting the models of the Etruscans, they are 50% Sicily EBA and 50% German Beaker. This necessitates a second migration from the North after the initial arrival of Steppe ancestry in the Italian Peninsula, that represents a 50% population turn over. This German Beaker like population, potentially Polada or even as late as Urnfield are the best candidate for the arrival of the Latins. The Sicilian_EBA population neatly ties Etruscans to Basques from the demonstrated Iberia->Italy population movement.ReplyDelete
Of course modern humans did not originate in SE asia, they had to reach from africa to E/SE asia and oceania through some unclear route. Bacho Kiro may or may not be a remnant of that route. However bacho-kiro is irrelevant as the population died out early in west eurasia.ReplyDelete
The modern day andamanese have no direct connection to bacho kiro. their haplogroups D and P have no connection whatsoever to bacho kiro since that expansion happened from SE asia into south asia.
@Simon Stevin "are you implying Basque came from the Steppe?"ReplyDelete
"Implying" is too strong word. I only speculate, it's not theory, even not hipothesy. Today i can't say "I belive all r1b is originally non-indoeuropean". But i can't say "I belive r1b is for sure protoindoeuropean" too.
Basque language.... Genereally basque is recognized as isolate language. But some linguists see remotely similar between basque and kartvelian languages from Caucasus. Caucasus - near pontic steppe,ancient R1b area. Interesting, isn't it?
You wrote "M269, an Indo-European clade". For me correctly is "M269, TODAY an Indo-European clade". Today, becouse I am not sure if it has always been this way.
Sardinians aren't good counterexample for Basques. Sardinians lost their language under Rome Empire rule, where Latin was official language of goverment and administration. Language shift is understandable in this case. I don't suppose that Basque Country was part of non-indoeuropean empire with strong administration :D In basque's case there is no clear answer. Why R1b-richest european people, as the only lost their IE language? And maybe just the opposite? R1b-richest european people as the only preserved their original language? If you want, you can belive in founder effect, or that IE R1b conquerors took extremely hard to learn language from the subjected women. But I have doubts, this is not a convincing explanation for me. Especially since we are already sure that Basques aren't only ancient, non-indoeurpean r1b people from West Europe.
Over 20 years ago, when i studied, CWC was considered as culture responsible for spread indoeuropean languages in Europe. And Bell Beaker was considered as most probably non-indoeuropean culture, strong associated with many non-indoeuropean toponyms. It seems twentieth century science finnaly was right about CWC. Maybe it was right about Bell Beaker Culture too? There are more and more premises that it could be so.I hope, time will tell.
It isn’t by any means settled that Etruscan is non-IndoEuropean. Surprising to see so many people take this for granted.ReplyDelete
In many ways it seems to behave like an agglutinative language, but look at what there is if a Swadesh list and the vocabulary is strangely IE - like a kind of Celtic/Baltic/Germanic. Most of the words for family and people are clearly IE, as are basic verbs. (Also it has the same set of verb cases as Lithuanian has today.)
grandmother = teta. (Lithuanian Tėta)
clan = son (Irish, Scottish Gaelic for offspring, also tress or curl, lock, of hair.)
tin = day. (Lit. diena)
pes = land. (? Pit-?)
lautun = a gens, people (German leute)
mech = people, folks (Ger. mensch)
cer- = to make. (Gaelic ceard)
am- = to be
tur = to give (Lit. tureti)
tenu, etc = to hold office (Fr. tenir)
tiu/tivr = moon
Loads of it is Italic-like as well, but there is a circular argument that defines any of that as borrowed from Latin or borrowed by Latin.
By the way, no-one in linguistics thinks that Pictish is a non-ie language. Everything that is known about it suggests not just IE but some variety of Celtic that was more conservative in the sense of being less influenced by everyday Roman occupation / romanisation than the speech of, say, the Welsh (half of Welsh daily vocab is from Roman Latin) but also developing in its own trajectory. (Funny how no-one ever asks what the tribes of rural Yorkshire or Hampshire were speaking before the 5th-6th century.). Pictish seems to most resemble “primitive” Irish, is the latest thinking: they’re trying to decide whether its apparent stripped-down grammar is a feature of the spoken language (like a pidgin primitive-Irish) or just the local convention for abbreviating carved writing.
(As for the PQ thing — to this day, people in England will pronounce Van Gogh as “Van Goff” rather than replace the (difficult fir them) “gh” with a K: the PQ difference runs through several IE language groups, but most of them are not grouped on that one sound-change alone.)
"onge like people moved west to east"ReplyDelete
I'm not arguing otherwise? Just that the route they took was coastal.
"Yeah, Bacho Kiro people were from SE Asia."
I don't think the Bacho Kiro people have any special relationship with the Onge or Aeta or Papuans, do they? They contributed to Tianyuan though and have East Eurasian affinity, but that affinity is stronger for mainland populations than for Papuans and such.
This is more speculative, but I'd imagine that would have been via an overland route. My guess would be that Bacho Kiro's descendants were K2a and C1a, and that both Bacho Kiro and the Onge descendant from northern and southern branches of a common source population. Modern East ASians would be a compound of the two branches.
TL;DR - I'm definitely not arguing against an overland route playing a role in the people of East Asia. I just don't think that people was exclusively overland.
After looking over and reading this study more thoroughly, I'll say one disappointing thing is that the samples from Southern Italy [Venosa] are all dated to the medieval period. They have an average dating to about 700 AD. We can say that the modern Southern Italian genetic profile goes back to that age (mostly), but I'm curious just how far back it goes. I'd like to know what Southern Italians were like 300 AD, 300 BC, 500 BC, and 1,000 BC.ReplyDelete
The idea of a rapid / early southern coastal dispersal of Humans has almost become an anti-truth. it's draped in dubious inferences from modern mtDNA and problematic radiometric datings of '70,000 bp'' Otherwise evidence for it is paultryReplyDelete
The idea that most modern Y-chromosomes derive from Southeast Asia is about as insane as the idea that R1a came from India.ReplyDelete
Of course, this doesn't stop papers being published claiming that it's so, obviously by very confused scientists.
To be clear I am also suggesting SE Asia as a sink. Just a stop along a journey.ReplyDelete
On an only somewhat related note, I think it's interesting that the Indigenous South Americans with excess Onge-like ancestry also have an excess of Tianyuan-like ancestry. Was there an initial coastal wave into the Americas that heavy on those two components and light on ANE?
Interesting too that those groups with excess Tianyuan and Onge ancestry have reduced Denisovan ancestry.
On Romulus/Pio's discussion, I think it's probably true that Urnfield == Proto-Italo-Celtic, and that the earlier Beakers are either a dead branch of IE or something else. I think the possibility of the Basque as a second steppe-derived language family is worthwhile but hard to test. I don't think linguists link the Basque and Etruscans though?ReplyDelete
There is also 27% basal K-M526 in Australians. One of the Australian hair-lock DNA sample turned out to be Y-DNA basal K2.
I have tried modeling native Australians, Papuans, native Americans before but David said their distance on G25 will be bad because of heavy genetic drift. Australians/Papuans always come out as Tianyuan and Ust Ishim.
Distance: 40.9992% / 0.40999201
Distance: 40.4365% / 0.40436497
Tested native Americans to show heavy genetic drift, they still pick closest ancient sources confirmed in genetic studies, despite poor fit here.
Distance: 48.8405% / 0.48840524
My attempt at rough idea of possible ancestral sources in Australians and Papuans.
Pille Hallast was kind enough to answer some questions i asked her on twitter about their Y-DNA paper last year
Hallast is one of those very confused scientists that I was talking about.ReplyDelete
Its funny how the recent paper on y DNA H2 claims that it originates in South Asia https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-94491-zReplyDelete
This is an paper by ancient DNA team citing an outated modern Y-DNA paper from 2004 instead of looking to data generated by themselves and other ancient DNA teams
Academics are battlers sometimes.
Yah I wouldn't go as far as Hallast though I realize she's the expert and I'm just some rando. To my untrained eye at least, haplogroup F seems to be structured like you would expect from a west-to-east serial founder e. K2 would be the eastern branch.ReplyDelete
Maybe more waves radiating out of the Persian Gulf or something like that with K2 the last wave. But you get the point.
@Nyan - Thanks for that. I don't think we have great ancient samples to serve as proxies for Oceanian's ancestors yet. I assume you're only using ancient samples for that?
Like I said, "experts" claimed that R1a was from India.ReplyDelete
I'd agree. Nothing experts say based on modern DNA should be taken seriously.ReplyDelete
Pretty much everything they said about every haplogroup has been disproven by ancient DNA.
It is the job of scientists to present an answer in their studies, so they will say "I have what is probably the answer" even when there's very little evidence pointing in that direction.
This is a huge problem with DNA studies. They present their answers confidently, then we take them too seriously.
What they should say is we have no way of knowing, we need ancient DNA to be confident of anything.
Oh please, onge are not from bacho kiro.ReplyDelete
the Y-Hg D. associated with Onge, Jomon and some other Asian groups might correlate with a southern dispersal route.ReplyDelete
Let me break it down:
1.) Basques are not the modern day embodiment of an "ancient population," pre-Bronze Age. They are essentially Iron Age Iberians. They have Steppe autosomal DNA, which is something you need to acknowledge. From Olalde et al. 2019: "We reveal sporadic contacts between Iberia and North Africa by ~2500 BCE and, by ~2000 BCE, the replacement of 40% of Iberia's ancestry and nearly 100% of its Y-chromosomes by people with Steppe ancestry. We show that, in the Iron Age, Steppe ancestry had spread not only into Indo-European-speaking regions but also into non-Indo-European-speaking ones, and we reveal that present-day Basques are best described as a typical Iron Age population without the admixture events that later affected the rest of Iberia." Basques also have high percentages of R1b-DF27, an Indo-European/steppe derived Y-DNA lineage. R1b-DF27 is derived from R1b-P312; the oldest P312 (pre-P312) samples are from early Bohemia Corded Ware. They all derive R1b-M269 and it's subclade R1b-L51, and both came from Eastern Europe.
2.) Y-DNA haplogroup R1b-M269 appeared in France/Iberia at the start of the Bronze Age. At the same time, unique burial customs also appeared in the aforementioned regions, along with steppe autosomal DNA—these things did not exist there prior. However, compared to Northern/Central Europe, the genetic turnover in Iberia was not as substantial. That is why pre-Indo-European languages and genes, were better preserved in parts of Iberia, France, and Italy (Southern Europe in general).
3.) Most Y-DNA/mtDNA haplogroups are tens of thousands of years old; some are even hundreds of thousands of years old. R1b coalesced approximately 20000 years ago; the genetic landscape was quite different then. Because of this, there are many different subclades of R1b, subclades which split from each other a very long time ago. Think of haplogroups and subclades as branches, branches that are a part of a common tree. Most of these clades have their own sub-branches, and so on. R1b has many subclades, some of which predate both the Proto-Indo-Europeans of Eastern Europe, and the Mesolithic/Neolithic WHGs of Iberia/France. The oldest R1b bearing sample to date, is the Villabruna man of Northern Italy (dated to 12268-11851 calBCE); he lived towards the end of the Upper Paleolithic. Ultimately, the R1b clades found in both EHGs and WHGs (including Villabruna), have their origins in the Ancient North Eurasian (ANE) tribes of Upper Paleolithic Siberia. Moreover, Iberian WHGs didn't belong to R1b-M269, they belonged to R1b-V2219, and it's subclade R1b-V88. Furthermore, R1b was a minor Y-DNA lineage among WHGs; the vast majority belonged to clades of both I and C1a. Regardless, modern Basques don’t belong to V2219/V88, they belong to R1b-M269, an Indo-European subclade, one with origins in EHGs, not WHGs. Basques also have steppe/EHG autosomal DNA.
4.) You need to read more about archaeogenetics, population genetics, and biology. Y-DNA/mtDNA halpogroups make up only a small portion of the genome. We have 23 pairs of chromosomes, 46 chromosomes all together. The Y and X chromosomes are the sex chromosomes, we only have one pair of those (two all together), and obviously, only males carry Y chromosomes. The rest of the chromosomes contained within the genome are autosomes, the non-sex chromones so to speak. In order to understand the genetic history and structure of populations (their ancestry), we analyze the other 44 chromosomes, and the various forms of genetic variation that are contained within them, such as SNPs, STRs/tandem repeats, indels, etc...Stop thinking in terms of monolithic Y-DNA haplogroups; that can lead you to misleading, incorrect, or superficial conclusions. Think more in terms of subclades, SNPs, STRs, indels, alleles, and autosomes/autosomal DNA.
@Simon Stevin “ However, compared to Northern/Central Europe, the genetic turnover in Iberia was not as substantial. That is why pre-Indo-European languages and genes, were better preserved in parts of Iberia, France, and Italy (Southern Europe in general).”ReplyDelete
Would we ever be able to discover if Basque is ultimately of a WHG v. Anatolian Barcin source?
"Would we ever be able to discover if Basque is ultimately of a WHG v. Anatolian Barcin source?"Delete
Not without texts to compare them to. Languages don't have genetics and the ancestors of the Basques obviously have plenty of genetics from both, as well a from the steppes. You'll never figure out there linguistic affinities without linguistic evidence that is totally lacking in the form of some kind of whg text or Barcin text to compare it to.
"However, compared to Northern/Central Europe, the genetic turnover in Iberia was not as substantial. That is why pre-Indo-European languages and genes, were better preserved in parts of Iberia, France, and Italy (Southern Europe in general)."
What % was steppe ancestry after the arrival?
@Pio Let me break it down: (...)
I have not read such a reasonable comment here for a long time! After all, someone who understands what it was like with Basques, (and Duke-2)!
I have already asked about it here, but no one answered me:
Do the Etruscan R1b samples relate to individuals from Villabruna or Yamna, or rather just from CWC or BB?
The haplogroups of Etruscan individuals were 20 samples of R1b, 6 samples of G2a and 2 samples of J2b. What was the developmental process of their language like?
Please take a look at this new paper:ReplyDelete
Ning et al. (22 September 2021). "Ancient Mitochondrial Genomes Reveal Extensive Genetic Influence ot the Steppe Pastoralists in Western Xinjiang"
The population prehistory of Xinjiang has been a hot topic among geneticists, linguists, and archaeologists. Current ancient DNA studies in Xinjiang exclusively suggest an admixture model for the populations in Xinjiang since the early Bronze Age. However, almost all of these studies focused on the northern and eastern parts of Xinjiang; the prehistoric demographic processes that occurred in western Xinjiang have been seldomly reported. By analyzing complete mitochondrial sequences from the Xiabandi (XBD) cemetery (3,500–3,300 BP), the up-to-date earliest cemetery excavated in western Xinjiang, we show that all the XBD mitochondrial sequences fall within two
different West Eurasian mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) pools, indicating that the migrants into western Xinjiang from west Eurasians were a consequence of the early expansion of the middle and late Bronze Age steppe pastoralists (Steppe_MLBA), admixed with the indigenous populations from Central Asia. Our study provides genetic links for an early existence of the Indo-Iranian language in southwestern Xinjiang and suggests that the existence of Andronovo culture in western Xinjiang involved not only the dispersal of ideas but also population movement.
Keywords: mitochondrial genome, ancient DNA, Eurasian Steppe, Silk Road, Andronovo
This comment has been removed by the author.ReplyDelete
Survive the Jive.ReplyDelete
Yamnaya: Faces of the Indo-Europeans
@ Simon StevenReplyDelete
''However, compared to Northern/Central Europe, the genetic turnover in Iberia was not as substantial
by ~2000 BCE, the replacement of 40% of Iberia's ancestry and nearly 100% of its Y-chromosomes by people with Steppe ancestry''
I recall that the original modelling was based on central German BB, so that figure might be ~ 60% with more proximal sources, which might align with the ~ 100 % Y-hg shift and wide-ranging archaeological transitions.
Whatever the case, whilst is true that the absolute levels of steppe admixture are higher in north-central Europe, as late as MLBA we still see in Central Europe populations with ~ 50% pre-Yamnaya Y DNA and autosomics, which in some way points to a greater diversity in N-C Europe than Western Europe, incl. the SW.
What we see is that the BB imparted the most profound impact was in western Europe, including southwestern Europe (nothing really new here, although the tables might be turned in terms of relative zones of genesis). The suggestions someone made above that impact was a function of distance is not really the case. Some of the least turnover was in the northwestern Balkans - close to the steppe.
@Genos I guess the Romans inherited their sandals and tunics from their Yamnaya/CWC ancestorsReplyDelete
@Genos Do you infer that the Western Yamnaya’s skulls were less robust compared to their Eastern counterparts because of admixture with farmers and foragers?ReplyDelete
@Genos It’s not PC nowadays to state this because of past associations with Nazism, race theory, the Thule Society and White Nationalism, nevertheless STJ states the obvious that Yamnaya inherited genes from their ANE forebears for (AG3 to be precise!) blond hair. One issue I take with him is his (and Dr. Anthony’s) consistent and persistent failure to acknowledge that Yamnaya not only had ANE from EHG but also from their CHG side.ReplyDelete
I noticed he mentioned a bottleneck. Perhaps that explains why PiE doesn’t seem to be related to any ancient language family.ReplyDelete
An intriguing fact is that the evolution of fair skin, hair and eye colors among Yamnaya, along with their lactose tolerance, domestication of the horse and kurgan traditions - all took place throughout the Bronze Age, so maybe their migrations also had something to do with the underlying factors behind the changing of their lifestyle. I personally agree with STJ on the selective breeding rather then admixing with farmers and foragers to be responsible for Northern Euro’s fair traits.
@Genos The reconstructed Yamnaya men didn’t look that different than the Loschbour Man WHG one. There might be a reason why Davidski doesn’t put too much stock into physical anthropology.ReplyDelete
The Neolithic farmer pops were of various appearance between themselves, and I guess the huge maternal mtDNA variety among Anatolian farmers has a lot to do with it.
Anyway, this reconstruction of Ötzi the Ice Man looks much more realistic than the model shown in the vid:
Has anyone seen whay Reich is claiming?ReplyDelete
Celtic immigrants to Britain had a 50% genetic replacement. Whattt?
He obviously does not means Beaker bronze age ancestry but rather contietal Iron Age Celtic heritage to British Isles. Also, that Anglo-Saxons made about 40% replacement in Britain.
In a few words according to Reich modern British folks are a mix of Celts(Gauls/Belgae) and Anglo-Saxons. Somehow he rejects or something the British-Dutch beaker(bronze age devired) ancestry of British folks. I really doubt how right he can be, since modern British/Irish people plot way more northern compared to French, Germans, Belgians and other mainland Europeans and ofc I really doubt this has to do because of their Germanic(angle-Saxon, Norman, danish) admixture.
Its from the unpublished paper of Reich et al..I can't wait to publish it and explain with more details about the Celtic replacement.
I am not as skeptical towards STJ's reconstructions. Physical anthropology is hard to make sense of but it can be mastered. At leas STJ is trying with the best tools available.
The only reason his reconstructions might look unrealistic is because he uses computer graphics.
His Yamnaya reconstructions look unique to me. Which makes it seem the person he hired to make them is really on to something.
"so maybe their migrations also had something to do with the underlying factors behind the changing of their lifestyle"
I think you may be onto something with this. A change in lifestyle in Europe sounds like a good explanation selection for fair pigmentation & lactose persistence.
Indo Europeans may have driven this change in lifestyle.
I'm not quite convinced that this evolutionary pressure has changed the pigmentation of West-Eurasian populations so quickly.
Consider, for example, that populations close to Europe, but with no, or almost no, WSH ancestry, have a pigmentation close to that of Europeans.
It would have to have the same evolutionary pressure on populations as disparate as Kabile Berbers, Sardinians, and Karelians, for example. Which seems unlikely to me. Most likely, the evolutionary pressure for fairer phenotypes starts in the Mesolithic period, but it gradually acts on Western-Eurasian populations.
"Yeah, Bacho Kiro people were from SE Asia"ReplyDelete
Bacho Kiro maybe were not from SE Asia but its undeniable a big part of ANE ancestors were which can be seen in their carrying haplogroup R descendant of P found among Andamanese and Aeta peoples.
It is a fact that "ANE" have Onge ancestry (Sikora, Yang group papers on ANE have shown it) which is why groups with high ANE like the Iranian Neolithic samples and CHG show affinities with South Asia and AASI/Onge.
The east asian ancestry in WHG may also be related to Onge populations...
ANE isn't from Southeast Asia.ReplyDelete
Southeast Asia is a genetic sink, not a source.
@Davidski “ ANE isn't from Southeast Asia.ReplyDelete
Southeast Asia is a genetic sink, not a source.”
Isn’t ANS (Yana) from Northeastern Siberia (Magadan area) ancestral to ANE (west of Lake Baikal)? If so, then the trajectory is North —> South/SW.
Beyond the Etruscan ancestry, which has been discussed extensively in this post, the overall central Italian ancestry from the IA to Medieval times, as revealed from this paper, is quite interesting.ReplyDelete
The most striking (and still rather mysterious) phenomenon is the huge Eastern Mediterranean genetic impact in Italy during Roman times, which seems to be diluted by Medieval times in Central Italy, but holds on in Southern Italy, where it seems to be even more apparent.
The authors of the paper do not seem to provide much answers as to the origin of this phenomenon, although they do present a rather good fit for Roman era Central Italians, between Etruscans and BA/IA Levantines. Still work to be done...
Yana is nowhere near old enough to be proximate to the source of the migration they are talking about. Also the extreme tundra by the Polar Sea is not really a likely place.
"Do you infer that the Western Yamnaya’s skulls were less robust compared to their Eastern counterparts because of admixture with farmers and foragers?"
Issue with Survive the Jive is that when it comes to physical anthropology, he cannot understand much beyond "brachycephalic" or "dolichocephalic", but even that I doubt he understands fully, because brachycephalic individuals weren't even that common in Western Yamnaya. His approach at measuring robusticity based on qualities such as brow ridge is an incorrect one. There are many other factors at play as well.
The skull series from Samara differ from the Western ones by having an overall smaller cranial length, breadth and height, which makes them by definition, less robust than their Western counterparts:
Yamnaya Volga region series, (Firstein, 1967, males only) : m1 - 189, m8 - 137, m20 - 116
Yamnaya Northwest Blacksea region series, (Zinevich 1970, males and females, though the female samples weren't large in quantity) - m1 - 192, m8 - 143, m20 - 117
This was mentioned to him by multiple people, and it seems as a result he created the sarcastically voiced "Yamnaya skull types" part of the video, but once again he ignored the specifics of craniometry.
What's even more amusing, the Khvalynsk series had dimensions even smaller than that of Yamnaya.
"Southeast Asia is a genetic sink, not a source."ReplyDelete
This statement is as good as 'only Africa is a source, rest all regions are sinks' which basically doesn't convey much information.
If onge and aasi had populated from the west, the diversity of old clades like C D FT and it's subclades must be highest in west Asia/central Asia/india etc but that is not the case at all..
Modern diversity after all of this time is useless for this.ReplyDelete
Diversity was erased multiple times in West Eurasia since then, while in Southeast Asia it just piled up.
Climate & landscape shaped archaic & early modern humans. Various microniches in SEA enabled the co-survival of several archaic & ancient modern lineages. But once adapted to the coasts or rainforests, there's no chance they could migrate north to the periglacial steppe which stretched from France to the Far East.ReplyDelete
I do wonder about the role of Y-hg D as a 'southern IUP marker' (Hoabinhan, Onge, Jomon; although all these samples are late)
For Y-Hg C, for ex, if you add archaic lineages to modern ones, an interesting story emerges.
Yes well the diversity was erased all right, by migrations from the east.ReplyDelete
There is no evidence of C D and FT expanding in the west, the only proof we have so far is that it expanded in the east. All possible options and their pros cons have been detailed in the paper.
"The default explanation for the observed patterns is perhaps that the initial divergences within the Y-chromosomal phylogeny did indeed occur in the west, but that the deepest rooting lineages have now been lost from this part of the world, consistent with the lack of genetic continuity in West Eurasia seen in autosomal aDNA and the presence of Y haplogroup C lineages in West Eurasia until ~ 8000 years ago (Mathieson et al. 2018). In principle, this could be because C, D and F lineages all migrated east, together with some GHIJK lineages, leaving only GHIJK lineages in the west; or more plausibly that C, D and F were lost by genetic drift in the west, but not in the east. The first scenario would imply unprecedented levels of male-structured migration, and would be difficult to reconcile with subsequent divergences within GHIJK during the next few thousand years, whereby some of the descendent lineages such as G1, H1 and H3 would also need to have migrated east in a male-structured way. The second scenario is not easy to reconcile in a simple way with the inference that genetic effective population sizes have been lower in East Asia than in Europe (Gutenkunst et al. 2009; Kelleher et al. 2019), so less genetic drift is expected in the west. Further explanations should, therefore, also be considered; one such is that initial western Y chromosomes have been entirely replaced by lineages from further east (Fig. 3), perhaps on more than one occasion. This is supported by the observed patterns of early-diverging lineages of C, D and FT now being located in East and Southeast Asia, and, according to our present-day dataset of surviving lineages, the more likely origin of GHIJK in the east
I'd gladly accept the "Onge-from-the-West" theory. However, my issue is from where?ReplyDelete
-Eastern Europe>Altai>Mongolia>North China>South China>SEA?
-Eastern Iran>Central Asia>Altai>Mongolia>North China>South China>SEA?
Can anybody illuminate on this?
Possible little g25 fix, the Ceu Etruscan outliers are labeled one with "CEU"(all caps), the other as "Ceu", I guess you may want them uniform actually.ReplyDelete
It's interesting that the two individuals dating to the Villanovan era, ITA_Villanovan:RMPR1015 and ITA_Etruscan_Chiusi:ETR005 have vastly different levels of WHG:ReplyDelete
Distance: 2.8756% / 0.02875593
Distance: 4.5464% / 0.04546376
While the later Etruscans have WHG levels that vary inbetween these, with one exception who has 13.8%. This might be a hint of two different source populations that merged. The Etruscans with the lowest WHG apart from ETR005 are those from Civitavecchia, followed by those from Tarquinia. But from this area we've got some Mycenaean pottery, dating to the 12th century BC:
So it's still possible that the original speakers of Etruscan were Helladic_MBA-like people from somewhere in northern Greece, Helladic MBA from Logkas being devoid of WHG and Anatolia_BA:
Distance: 3.0232% / 0.03023235
But, in general these various Etruscan samples don't have less WHG than the Latins, so it's far from being a smoking gun.
As per above, I think Onge-related dispersal might correlate with Y-hg D, so it would be a coastal movement via southern India / Sri Lanka
I think the derivatives of Y-hg K reached southeast Asia from China (ie north) & ultimately from west.
Oberall, however, I think India housed some dead end lineages, certainly not anything to do with Iran _N or early Farmers. Will soon find out
In any case it would be premature to rule out an Aegean origin. BTW, I looked up what I've got from Helmut Rix at home, it's just a book chapter on the Etruscan language and script where he mentions the (according to him proven) genetic relationship with Lemnian just briefly, witout going into details. But meanwhile the wikipedia article on Tyrsenian languages lists some of the evidence:ReplyDelete
The paper mentions Dionysius of Halicarnassus as the first eminent proponent of the theory of an autochthonous origin of the Etruscans. This is what basically all the DNA papers dealing with the Etruscans say. What they fail to mention however, is that Dionysius recounts, in that very same book, a story about some Pelasgians from northern Greece settling the coast of Etruria in the LBA. And he recounts that after a while, these Pelasgians were suffering from a mysterious streak of bad luck and essentially disappeared, the Etruscans taking over their lands. Needless to say this sounds odd. He also adds some arguments why the Etruscans and the Pelasgians cannot have been the same people. But at close examination his arguments are very weak. So instead of reducing Dionysius to the major autochthonist proponent, it's worth taking his account of Pelasgian migrations into account.ReplyDelete
Rough idea..tried modeling Onge with only Paleolithic and Holocene samples. Oldest Bacho Kiro and Zlaty Kun is not G25 so i could not use them here.ReplyDelete
Distance: 6.5896% / 0.07589614
Distance: 6.8864% / 0.06886424
They come out as Tianyuan or Amur River + Ust Ishim. Surprisingly...distance between Onge and Tianyuan/Amur_River_33000bp is same as distance between modern Russian_Pskov and Russian_Orel, or Lithuanian and Russian_Pinega which is incredible
OK, but the overall picture still looks too ambiguous to me
How did eastern eurasians (Tianyuan and Onge) get to eastern eurasia and from where? where did the radiation originate?
Paleolithic Eastern Europe>Altai>China?
Paleolithic Iran>Central Asia>Altai>China?
Paleolithic Iran>India>Southeast Asia>China?
Tianyuan and Onge seem so close to me that it's hard to imagine that they came from separate migrations, and I guess the IUP expanded with them.
We have to remember the Onge are a modern population, despite the fact they are treated as a 'relict population'. Obviously this is wrong to do so.
The routes have been discussed here before, but the evidence for early ( ~ 45,000 calBP) radiation come from
(i) Levant - East Europe - Siberia - norheast Asia
(ii) Sri Lanka / south India
Elsewhere in in land Asia, the dates of humans are much later. The earliest humans in Iran and Caucasus are ~ 41,000 calBP.
I would also say that there is a lot of problematic data from southeast Asia and Australia eg claims of modern humans as early as 70,000 calBP. Until we see properly dated evidence from humans, its best to ignore such claims
The claims of Hallast & Tyler-Smith are nonsense.
BK was CF*, take a look at all the C1 in UP Europe and Anatolia. The earliest G-H is from a Boncuklu type population, hg I in UP Europe, J in UP Caucasus, R1 in west Siberia, with subsequent diversification & expansion from eastern Europe, earliest L & T in west Asia, H from West Asia too.
All the C1 and F from Europe is already mentioned in the hallast paper. It does not change their conclusion. It seems like you people do not even understand their claim lol. The claim is not that C D FT were never present in the west.ReplyDelete
In case you didn't know, other andamanese also contain basal subclades of F P L O. Onge D is likely from founder effect.
So was Bacho Kiro essentially a very early form of East Eurasian, or rather are East Eurasians (Tianyuan-like) simply a drifted, down-stream branch of Bacho Kiro?ReplyDelete
Does Bacho Kiro seem to have any particular affinity to Tianyuan over Onge (or vice versa)?
We now have multiple 40,000+ year old Upper Paleolithic samples from Europe (Zlaty Kun, Oase, Back Kiro) and near-Europe (Ust-Ishim), and not a single one of them seems to be related to West Eurasians. So, where the heck were West Eurasians at that time? What even are West Eurasians at this point?
Obviously, East Eurasians existed in Europe well before they appeared in East Asia.ReplyDelete
Eventually, they did make it down to Southeast Asia.
But the suggestion that they migrated back out again and into Europe is completely insane.
West Eurasians are a sister clade, apparently also with some unusual basal admixture(s), but it's still a mystery where they came from and how they formed.
I see... I mentioned Iran a lot because it seemed like an obvious bridge to me between the Levant and Central Asia/India. And I have read a few papers that claim the same thing.
Why didn't this initial upper paleolithic Levantine people turn right, towards Iran? Was the climate too bad there at the time? Why just Europe?
Obviously, people didn't get to India/Sri Lanka out of nowhere, so are you saying they got there from Altai/North Central Asia?
Years ago, I posted here how a simple application of logic would show the Etruscans to be indigenous. (How did a landlocked, starving people from central Anatolia, as the story goes, travel across hostile territory of several tribes to the coast, build ships, and sail to the western side of Italy?) was one question I posed.ReplyDelete
I also stated that time would show that the Lemnian language represented eastward gene flow from Italy, not the other way around.
Many/most people here ridiculed me. These same folks now see the evidence. It’s nice to be proven right.
Now let me tell you the key to understanding why Etruscans and Basques have stepped ancestry but no IE language: the steppe expansion was not of conquerors. It was of refugees. The people immigrating from Lebanon and Syria right now will bring their languages and genes to neighboring lands. The people immigrating from Mexico and Central America are doing the same. They come as poor refugees.
In some places, the existing language continues to exist. (North Dakota). In some places (south Texas and south California), the language is that of the refugees.
Now you understand.
No Sri Lanka has nothing to do with the altai; they might have come directly from Near East or Arabia . We should know more soon
Central Asia was mostly devoid of humans; apart from the Tian Shan which shows similarities to the zagora region, and by comparative means also dates to after 40000 bp
Early humans engaged in leap frog migrations to preferred regions. Obviously EE was one of them
“In case you didn't know, other andamanese also contain basal subclades of F P L O. Onge D is likely from founder effect.“
These studies showed that ~ 75% of Andamanese were hg D
They were conducted in early 2000s, hence they had poorly resolved lineages like P & F. But obviously they aren’t really “basal” at all; but recent introgressions.
You keep making confused claims of basalness without properly understanding much about dna
"We now have multiple 40,000+ year old Upper Paleolithic samples from Europe (Zlaty Kun, Oase, Back Kiro) and near-Europe (Ust-Ishim), and not a single one of them seems to be related to West Eurasians. So, where the heck were West Eurasians at that time? What even are West Eurasians at this point?"
Despite dating from around the same period as the Bacho Kiro remains, Zlaty kun does not share genetic links to either modern Asian or European populations. Besides, Peştera Muierii woman from 34k years ago is related to Europeans, but she is not a direct ancestor. Furthermore, ANE is mostly Western Eurasian with a small East Asian related admixture.
This paper doesn't actually prove that Etruscan was native to Italy. All it shows is that Etruscan and non-Etruscan populations were very similar.
And it also says this...
Despite comprising diverse individuals of central European, northern African, and Near Eastern ancestry, the local gene pool is largely maintained across the first millennium BCE.
So the Etruscan language could have potentially arrived from any of these places, but it's just that there's no clear Etruscan genetic signature.
As for your claims that steppe people were refugees, this might be correct up to a point.
Please note, however, that here were no refugee relocation programs at the time, and yet the steppe people made a big impact wherever they went.
They did this because they were able to make room for themselves, often with force, and not because they were invited and made welcome by the locals.
So try to be more objective and realistic when commenting here next time.
This paper makes a suggestion to fit the findings:
I was reading that when the Romanians started excavating neolithic Parta [in the Banat] they discovered that there was 7km of settlement. Now Romanian geologists are claiming they have found that under that there is actually a 60km wide function roundel [or henge]... that is the ditches were actual wide canals.ReplyDelete
The whole thing was flooded pre-neolithic.
Officially the National Geological Institute of Romania says they have found Atlantis [Mircea Ticleanu].
But Atlantis is actually the Indo-European creation myth of Yima from Vendidad 2 right?
The Serbians have found the pen he survived the flood in but they are attributing it to the wrong religiomythology too.
Just fantasizing about an "easy" answer for it all. Sorry. Wrong thing to do in my first ever post.
I said they had 'basal subclades'..
Just like andamanese 100bp individual is P-m1254.
Now tell me that's not a basal subclade of P.
With more Andamanese individuals, they would form their own "P" clade which is paraphyletic but not basal to R1. It will also establish their TMRCA which in lieu of direct aDNA give clues about when they may have acquired it
I don't know why Davidski is saying it isn't proven. It is proven Etruscans were native. Yes 8 of 48 of the Etruscans came from outside Italy but that is not at all evidence of a foreign origin for Etruscans.
So congrats on seeing how unlikely it is Etruscans could not be from Lemnos. The theory was exaggerated from the beginning.
What's the source for Great Andamanese having basal subclades of this stuff? - other than the P, which is definitely real.
The only SNP data I have seen is from Thangaraj et al (2003), "Genetic affinities of the Andaman Islanders, a vanishing human population" (n=10):
2 O3-M122 - different 5 STR haplotypes
2 K-M9(xL-M11, M1-M5, O-M175, P-92R7/M45), T1a-M70) - same 5 STR haplotype
4 P1-M45(xR1-M173, Q1a1-M120) - all same 5 STR haplotype
Since these are not tested for anything downstream, and have been in close contact with outsiders for a long time, I see no reason to think the L and O are ancient or basal.
The K* is probably the basal P we know, but maybe not. The P1* could be Indian R2-M479, or maybe it is basal P, I'm not certain about the placement of M45 and 92R7.
I hope we know more about this whole thing soon because it's really fascinating.
If people came to India directly from the near east/arabia (southern route?), then those people had nothing to do with the Initial Upper Paleolithic people because that migration was clearly happening in the northern route (Altai-Northeast Asia), and to me that also means that they had nothing to do with Tianyuan/Onge because the latter clearly descend from this northern Initial UP expansion, correct?
So who were the earliest settlers of India? were they basal to other eurasians? were they eventually replaced by an Onge-like population (AASI?), because thousands of years later in south central asia and India there's a clear connection with Onge (Indus periphery, Neolithic Iran, etc)
Most of the issue for me is that I refuse to believe that eastern eurasians got there through 2 different routes because Tianyuan and Onge look so similar.
@MH - I would also say that there is a lot of problematic data from southeast Asia and Australia eg claims of modern humans as early as 70,000 calBP. Until we see properly dated evidence from humans, its best to ignore such claimsReplyDelete
I don't think we should be overly skeptical of that (though I thought for Australia the oldest claim was 60kya). There's a great deal of archeology supporting modern humans in West Asia at an early date, and even a 300kya modern human related-relic DNA introgressed into late Neanderthals. It seems like that there were pulses out of Africa whenever climate permitted. They just don't all have modern descendants.
@David - This paper doesn't actually prove that Etruscan was native to Italy. All it shows is that Etruscan and non-Etruscan populations were very similar.
They did rule out a recent Anatolian origin though, no? Which is something of note.
Obviously, East Eurasians existed in Europe well before they appeared in East Asia.
Eventually, they did make it down to Southeast Asia.
But the suggestion that they migrated back out again and into Europe is completely insane.
There's modern humans at least as far as Sri Lanka as of 48kya. Source:
And cave art in Sulawesi from 44.5 kya. Source: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abd4648
Obviously we don't have evidence one way or the other on who these people were related to, but as contemporaries of Bacho Kiro, I think it's fairly plausible that could have been genetically similar. I think our ancestors moved pretty widely and quickly whenever the climate was favourable.
West Eurasians are a sister clade, apparently also with some unusual basal admixture(s), but it's still a mystery where they came from and how they formed.
I'd bet good money on it being one of the major river valleys in SW Asia.
''I don't think we should be overly skeptical of that (though I thought for Australia the oldest claim was 60kya). There's a great deal of archeology supporting modern humans in West Asia at an early date, and even a 300kya modern human related-relic DNA introgressed into late Neanderthals. It seems like that there were pulses out of Africa whenever climate permitted. They just don't all have modern descendants.''
There is either convincing evidence or there is not; and it is lacking for a pre-50 kyBP radiation into SEA.
Of course, there is convincing evidence for early Sapiens in the Near East (Qafzeh cave for ex), and this is a likely scene for early archaic introgression.
''If people came to India directly from the near east/arabia (southern route?), then those people had nothing to do with the Initial Upper Paleolithic people because that migration was clearly happening in the northern route (Altai-Northeast Asia), ''
They had different armatures, to be sure (long blades vs microliths), but they might have still be related as humans were just beginning to radiate. So they could be genetically quite similar to BK or Ust-Ishm, hypothetically.
Their subsequent fate remains to be determined. We hopefully should soon know, because the Sri Lankan early humans are being studied by MPI
On the language question: There are the Dravidian speaking Brahui that are genetically almost indistinguishable from their Balochi speaking neighbours.ReplyDelete
W.r.t Etruria, several aspects may be considered which, with more aDNA, might clarify the processes which led to Etruascans:ReplyDelete
- there has often been a 'divide' between east (Tyrrhenian) & western (Adriatic) Italy, e.g. during Neolithic & Chalcolithic
- during the Bronze Age, the 'Appenine culture' covered much of central & southern Italy, incl future Etruria. So at this point, there is no sharp distinction
- the role of central European Urnfield is questionable: it impacted virtually all of Italy. It might represent a pan-European adaptation of new cremation practices
- toward the end of LBA, most sites in Etruria were abandoned and new proto-Urban centres developed with large community cremation burials. No such developments are seen in othr parts of Italy
- the main external contacts of future Etruria were with Levant, via Phoenecian networks, vs Aegean/ Greek in southern Italy
Don't you mean western Italy (Tyrrhenian) and eastern Italy (Adriatic)?ReplyDelete
"I don't think we should be overly skeptical...."
Well given that the evidence for onge being from western Eurasia is nil, you're being too generous.
ANE definitely have some type of East Asian-like ancestry (or East Eurasian that is) but I think it's of northern origin, and it's not unlikely that Southeast Asia saw multiple gene flow events from the north, or alternatively that this Onge-like population was originally located more northern than it is now.ReplyDelete
"West Eurasians are a sister clade, apparently also with some unusual basal admixture(s), but it's still a mystery where they came from and how they formed."
Well, Kostenki from 37kya is a West Eurasian, so I think the West Eurasian genetic profile is at least 40k years old. Or abouts...
There is definitely a weird relationship with East Asians though in some later samples like WHG or CHG, but it seems to me the same type of Eastern thing that ANE have.
I wonder if that relates to IUP-like ancestry like that found in Bacho Kiro you mentioned.
"Their subsequent fate remains to be determined. We hopefully should soon know, because the Sri Lankan early humans are being studied by MPI"
Any idea how early we are talking about?
"As per above, I think Onge-related dispersal might correlate with Y-hg D, so it would be a coastal movement via southern India / Sri Lanka"
Not implausible, but they do seem very closely related to IUP peoples like Ustishim and Tianyuan do they not?
The remains at Fa-Hien lena are as early as 30,000 Bp.
I personally havent looked at Onge yet, but if others say they're close to TY, that's possible (~ early 'cobble & flake' industries)
Here's a Belarusian from 1035-1203 CE. Part Jewish??
Some questions for the Admixtools wizards here:ReplyDelete
1. Are Kostenki and Sunghir more closely related to modern Europeans/West Eurasians than Tianyuan is to modern East Asians, or vice versa?
2. Does Yana and the other most ancient ANE samples (Malta, Afonotova Gora) prefer Tianyuan or Onge for it's East Asian affinity? What about Iran_N and CHG, what is there East Asian best modeled as?
3. My understanding is that East Asians are basically Tianyuan-like with a minority of Onge-related affinity. Outside of groups like Negritos, Papuans, Melanesians, etc., does this pretty much apply across the board for all "proper" East Asian groups - Sino-Tibetans, Austro-Asiatics, Thai-Kradai, Austronesians, Koreans, Mongolians, Japanese, etc? Obviously the further south, the more the Onge stuff increases, but are contemporary Southeast Asians pretty much mostly Tianyuan like?
@Wee e "It isn’t by any means settled that Etruscan is non-IndoEuropean. Surprising to see so many people take this for granted.ReplyDelete
By the way, no-one in linguistics thinks that Pictish is a non-ie language. Everything that is known about it suggests not just IE but some variety of Celtic that was more conservative in the sense of being less influenced by everyday Roman occupation / romanisation than the speech of, say, the Welsh (half of Welsh daily vocab is from Roman Latin) but also developing in its own trajectory."
Yes, that's the majority opinion, as I noted. But there is a minority opinion that sees Pictish as non-Celtic and non-Indo-European. I just read a paper by Simon Rodway published in the Journal of Celtic Studies last year that made the case, for example, and he cited other recent papers as well.
Ironically for your point, more linguists working in the field probably see Pictish as non-Indo-European than see Etruscan as Indo-European. The evidence is better. Still not convincing in either case, but better.
That would be my guess too, but interestingly none of the modern European Jew groups seem to be a particularly good fit. I just make a really quick look in the morning, but BEL024 lacks the excess Caucasus related (in my model KAC) ancestry the others have.
@Davidski that Belarussian sample doesn't seem very Jewish, but might have some Caucasian/Iranian admix:ReplyDelete
Distance: 2.3981% / 0.02398085 | R4P
Though the Sardinian-like is weird.
With ancients one gets an even weirder model:
Distance: 2.2369% / 0.02236853 | R3P
But for some reason the overall admixture doesn't seem to pull it away too much from modern East Slavs:
Distance to: BEL_Med:BEL024
Here's a quick typology for ANE, Onge, TianYuan, etc I did a few weeks ago when I was playing around, almost passed.ReplyDelete
Adding archaics was interesting too
The level of ENA in MA1 is 20- 30 % when the tree includes more western Pops.ReplyDelete
“Here's a Belarusian from 1035-1203 CE. Part Jewish??”
@Slumbery “ but BEL024 lacks the excess Caucasus related (in my model KAC) ancestry the others have.”ReplyDelete
By “Caucasian”, do you mean CHG admixture in Near Eastern “Semitic” groups that came with KAC and “Abrahamic” migrants 2300BCE (Canaanites were created when immigrants from Iran and Caucasus introgressed into PPNC Anatolian/Levant natives);
CHG through their Yamnaya partial ancestry through intermarriage to Christian Europeans;
Or the Caucasus, Scythian and other influences that came with the Khazarian kingdom?
Maybe this is related to Christianization? It's seems Byhau it's Bykhov/Bykhaw. And was founded in the 14th century. During that period (9th to 11th CE), it was a small Dregovichi settlement. There is no sense for the Jews to live in a very small settlement, far from then centers among the pagans. And Christians with their sermons make sense. Part Bulgarian?
Thanks, they will probably help clarify a lot about South Asian prehistory (and maybe not just that)
I am not really familiar with ADMIXTOOLS (beyond interpreting their output) but for what it's worth, my impression from the Sikora/Fu/Yang/Reich papers (I can link them if you are not familiar with them already) is that MA1 prefers Onge but Yana apparently prefers Tianyuan. Perhaps MA1 has both Onge and Tianyuan. See also this: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/370/6516/579
Thanks for linking the graph, though if you don't mind some things puzzle me a bit.
1) MA1 being 45% ENA but then you say that if you include more western pops (as in Sunghir?) it drops to 20-30% which seems reasonable to me.
2) Hoabinhian being a mix of Onge and something mostly Tianyuan like is a bit odd to me, since Onge seems to be very close to Hoabinhians. I think they even share uniparentals. Also, 900 units of drift, probably not very possible...
3) Out of curiosity what happens when you include archaics?
@Erikl86 “ Though the Sardinian-like is weird”ReplyDelete
Probably a Barcin proxy, not necessarily Sardinian per se
Historical Picts seem having spoken a brittonic Celtic, as it appears in most of the anthroponymy,and also toponymy which shows aside some other (previous) I-E traces; if I read well the question of another language arose with runs which are not understood when interpreded through ancient Irish runs rules.ReplyDelete
@Moesan “ Historical Picts seem having spoken a brittonic Celtic, as it appears in most of the anthroponymy,and also toponymy which shows aside some other (previous) I-E traces”ReplyDelete
Historically, not many Scots have ever spoken Gaelic outside of Dal Riata. During medieval time lowland Scots spoke either English (of the time, which was to become the ‘Scots’ vernacular) or some Welsh-related Britonic dialect. At the same time some sort of Norse related language was spoken by islanders (Shetland and Orkney). Most Scottish people’s language was English centuries before the American revolution. All those Gaelic enthusiasts should strive to revive the Pictish language instead, for historic accuracy.
@gamerz, @MH - MA1 prefers Onge but Yana apparently prefers Tianyuan. Perhaps MA1 has both Onge and TianyuanReplyDelete
Interestingly, per the Tianyuan paper, the Indigenous Americans who show extra affinity to Onge also show extra affinity to Tianyuan in roughly equal amounts.
So it's quite possible that there was a mixed-Tianyuan/Onge population that existed before any interactions with the West Eurasian ancestors of ANE.
See figure 3. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6592271/
I don't think either the Tianyuan or Onge populations were/are "pure" representatives of the ancient streams of ancestry that seem to have comingled.
"Interestingly, per the Tianyuan paper, the Indigenous Americans who show extra affinity to Onge also show extra affinity to Tianyuan in roughly equal amounts."
I noticed that too, but to me that is somewhat contradictory since usually affinity to one decreases affinity to another. But it's not unlikely at all that these components started mixing early or were never exactly separate to begin with.
And well, Tianyuan and Onge do seem related so they probably share the same components but whether they are "pure" probably not. And like MH_82 mentioned there may be a difference in archaic levels at play too.
It still seems to me the most parsimonious explanation that ANE formed in Central Asia/Siberia someplace. That's why some ancient Central Asians also this show this (imo) same type of ENA that ANE does.
"By “Caucasian”, do you mean CHG admixture in Near Eastern “Semitic” groups that came with KAC and “Abrahamic” migrants 2300BCE "
I think Levantines have Iran_N too not just CHG. G25 seems to prefer both and J1 makes more sense to me to be of Iran_N origin in the Near East. Caucasian groups although having both tend to have more CHG than Iran_N and seems like the further back and more north you go the stronger CHG signal is over Iran_N in the Caucasus (which kinda makes sense)
Yeah, Southeast Scotland including Edinburgh is basically English ethnically. They are Northumbrians who were acquired by Scotland in the 10th century.
Northern Scotland, Highlands, though did speak Gealic before the United Kingdom was created in circa 1600. Scots Gealic revalists are preserving something. Gealic is the original language of Scots, so yes this is a real part of the identity of Scotland.
Fits for Medieval Belarusian using averages for *all* ancients and modern (and degrees of the Dist Col function to force some parsimony): https://imgur.com/a/6N0eTtRReplyDelete
Fits using all modern single samples: https://imgur.com/a/ZxnsSrt
The Medieval Belarusian seems to get loaded with a being like Lithuanian+ a little (5%) Levant component, but I don't know if it is very necessary and seems likely to me to just be some artefact?
The general plotting of the person seems Ukrainian like, which doesn't seem implausible. I don't think the sample could be picking up any ancestry from European Jews, from this model.
Have a look at what happens with their other sequences and see if there's anything systematically odd with these ones? (e.g. if you end up with their other medieval folks from Britain or whatever doing the same thing, something's probably up).
Distance difference on moderns does indicate that the medieval is basically closer to present day Southwest Europe (i.e. probably has more EEF ancestry, assuming zero projection biases): https://imgur.com/a/AFK3NxD
It's possible that some Belarusians of this time had more EEF than was typical for today, and there was some later collapse of reproductive barriers between them and other people who lived in the region who were more Baltic_BA/Steppe_LBA like.
Rumour has it that according to a soon-to-be published study of Anglo-Saxon England, population turnover was considerable especially in Eastern England. The same rumouring birds whisper of a later resurgence of Celtic Briton ancestry. Celtic guerilla warfare?
Re; Medieval Belarusian again, drawing a very simple cline using contemporary Belarus and the Medieval sample, then running a Vahaduo (only moderns + only ancients) on the end points: https://imgur.com/a/hhECK1IReplyDelete
Relative to present day Belarusians, the Medieval sample draws in some influences from Southeast Europe (the exaggerated cline end point for Medieval Belarusians draws on BGR_EBA, GRC_Minoan and ISR_Levant_MLBA), while the simulated population representing the shift from present day relative to the Medieval has pulses from the Northeast, Ingria_IA and EST_MA (poss haplogroup N, etc). It could be possible that either the sample has unusual influences, or more that it is typical and present Belarusians just have some more shared ancestry with people from the Northeast.
Maybe the “East Eurasian” related DNA in both Mal’ta and Yana, is slightly basal and/or upstream from Tianyuan. It could be that the affinity displayed towards either the Onge or Tianyuan, is the result of a common, crown “Central/proto-East Eurasian” lineage (derived from IUP HGs), one that predates the Onge/Tianyuan ancestral split in Northern Asia, which occurred approximately 42yka. Perhaps drift within various ANE tribes, can explain the slight affinity for one over the other? Some ANE tribes may have acquired more direct admixture from drifted, Tianyuan derived groups (like AR33K), while others didn’t, hence the varying preferences.ReplyDelete
As for Y-DNA D, that’s still a mystery. D2 has been found in Assyrian descended males, and D0 exclusively in Nigerians. Bacho Kiro IUP had pre-C-M130, pre-C1-F3393, pre-F-Y27277, and F-M89; as far as I’m tracking, none of these samples could be derived for further Y-DNA SNPs. Bacho Kiro also had mtdna M, N, and R. With that in mind, and in light of the contemporaneous Ust’-Ishim (K2a*), and the slightly younger Tianyuan and Oase (K2b and K2a* respectively), these F lines are either F-Y27277, or K (likely K2a). Therefor, Bacho Kiro IUP males likely belonged to various clades of K2 (K2a/K2b, NO, P), C1, and maybe K1, with minor frequencies of F subclades, such as F-Y27277. Y27277 just so happens to have been found in present day Chinese and Vietnamese males, according to YFull. Though the fact that D is lacking in Papuans, yet present in the Onge, leads me to believe a displacement occurred. Perhaps F/K/P/C1 bearing populations, fled further southeast, due to the D and C2 bearing, UP newcomers, who were migrating from the West? D could also have been a minor IUP lineage, and due to founder effects, it became more pronounced in populations like the Onge/Andamanese.
Sorry for the off-topic, but one of the Etruscans seems to be... interesting:ReplyDelete
Distance difference: ( AC - BC ) ↑
So... maybe that Belarusian was part Etruscan?!?
Distance: 2.0401% / 0.02040090
Just joking. It's hard to tell how his southern ancestry looked like exactly. IMHO it may be due to the processing of the data. If we ignore Yemenite_Mahra in the results, he won't be much different from Ukrainian samples with a Balkan shift that we already have in G25.
Anyway, CSN009 is partly Slavic.
Do you have all the samples from that paper?
Arza, it is also worth recalling the maternal lineage that connects the Etruscans with the early Slavs.ReplyDelete
No, at least not for now.
It's dated to a later period.
TAQ020 TAQ020 148 Tarquinia (Viterbo, Lazio) 42.249972, 11.767892 Tooth Direct 1844±23 (MAMS-43992) 89-236 CE -162.5 C.Italy_Imperial Included 103,648 UDG-half/1240K male n/a 18 0.01 (0-0.02) 37.99 H44a J2a1a1a2 Z2229
But it's still interesting that Roman sample shares such rare mtDNA with a supposedly "pure and unadmixed Early Slav" - RISE568.
If the paternal line wasn't J2 I would also call it noise or something but it is interconnected very well.
J2 -> J-M102 -> J-Z534 -> J-M205 -> J-Y3165 -> J-PF7321 -> J-CTS1969 -> J-YP51 -> J-Y22075 (ISOGG: J2b1a~)ReplyDelete
@Tom "Rumour has it that according to a soon-to-be published study of Anglo-Saxon England, population turnover was considerable especially in Eastern England. The same rumouring birds whisper of a later resurgence of Celtic Briton ancestry. Celtic guerilla warfare?"ReplyDelete
Or simple back migration from the east after the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms were first established. I suspect that the cultural frontier was pretty porous and the Anglo-Saxons and the Britons treated each other much as they did different tribes of their own people, in many cases. They weren't always at each others' throats non-stop.