I'm seeing increasing numbers of Bronze and Iron Age samples from Central Europe and surrounds with this peculiar set of traits:
- shared genetic drift with present-day Balto-Slavic speakers to the exclusion of most other Europeans
- and yet, an unusually low level of Yamnaya-related steppe ancestry
- so much so, in fact, that they're often outside the range of modern European genetic variation.
As far as I can tell, currently the best examples of this unusual population are HUN_Mako_EBA_o:I1502 (Mathieson et al.
Nature 2015) and HUN_EIA_Prescythian_Mezocsat_o1:I18241 (Patterson et al.
Nature 2021). Both are from the Carpathian Basin in what is now Hungary.
I ran a series of qpAdm mixture models to try and learn more about their origins. The most robust outcomes, out of about 50 different attempts, are these:
right pops:
CMR_Shum_Laka_8000BP
MAR_Taforalt
IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
Levant_PPNB
TUR_Barcin_N
Iberia_Southeast_Meso
UKR_Meso
England_Meso
RUS_Karelia_HG
RUS_West_Siberia_HG
MNG_North_N
TWN_Hanben
BRA_LapaDoSanto_9600BP
HUN_Mako_EBA_o
Baltic_LTU_Narva 0.149 ∓0.028
POL_Globular_Amphora 0.613 ∓0.028
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara 0.238 ∓0.029
chisq 10.836
tail prob 0.370463
Full output
HUN_EIA_Prescythian_Mezocsat_o1
Baltic_LTU_Narva 0.186 ∓0.028
POL_Globular_Amphora 0.592 ∓0.027
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara 0.222 ∓0.029
chisq 12.492
tail prob 0.253499
Full output
Combining the two genomes produces a very similar result:
HUN_EBA-EIA_o
Baltic_LTU_Narva 0.160 ∓0.023
POL_Globular_Amphora 0.612 ∓0.023
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara 0.227 ∓0.023
chisq 14.653
tail prob 0.14524
Full output
Importantly, when I move RUS_Karelia_HG from the right pops to the left pops, to test whether HUN_EBA-EIA_o really has steppe ancestry, as opposed to closely related hunter-gatherer ancestry, I still get a very similar outcome:
HUN_EBA-EIA_o
Baltic_LTU_Narva 0.158 ∓0.027
POL_Globular_Amphora 0.605 ∓0.033
RUS_Karelia_HG 0.014 ∓0.038
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara 0.223 ∓0.053
chisq 10.461
tail prob 0.234171
Full output
So these largely Globular Amphora-related individuals do harbor as much as a quarter of steppe ancestry, which is to be expected considering the massive genetic turn-over that most of Europe experienced just before their time as a result of population expansions from the Pontic-Caspian steppe.
Nevertheless, this is ~20% less steppe ancestry than in the present-day populations of the region, and it clearly shows in any decent Principal Component Analysis (PCA) of West Eurasia. For instance:
At the same time, the relatively close genetic relationship between these ancients and present-day Balto-Slavic speaking populations shows up in fine-scale intra-European PCA.
The origins and implications of this population are still a mystery to me. I don't think it's native to the Carpathian Basin. Indeed, my qpAdm models suggest that it may have moved into this region from somewhere to the northeast, because its ancestry is best modeled with ancient groups from present-day Lithuania, Poland and Russia.
I'm adamant that these people weren't Balto-Slavic speakers, and certainly not proto-Slavs. Rather, I suspect that much like the Welzin warriors of Bronze Age North-Central Europe, they were closely related to a contemporaneous group that eventually gave rise to proto-Slavs. At best, they may have somehow contributed to the ethnogenesis of Balto-Slavs.
By the way, using the Global25 to model their ancestry is highly problematic, because of the strong Balto-Slavic genetic drift that affects some of the dimensions. So be careful when you try it, or better yet, don't try it at all, and stick to formal stats in this particular instance.
See also...
Tollense Valley Bronze Age warriors were very close relatives of modern-day Slavs
262 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 262 of 262The issue here is mass-shifts to cremation / inhumation. So we have large periods without samples, then when Iron Age comes up, it looks like there is a different population
In fact, as I outlined above, late LBA indiviudals from ~ 400 BC already cluster with Iron Age Pops. We will need to study the archaeology in detail
Then we need expert dissection of Baltic CTS-1211 & N1c clades
E.g. if East Baltic clades relate to Estonians & Fins, then an in situ model should be preferred.
@ambron
If so, then via female biased gene flow.
@Rob
"Could the significant levels of BMAC-ancestry in some Chermuchek individuals be a sign of this purported Asian affinity. I can;t recall Chernykh making that link. Who did ?"
The lost wax casting method was already known in southern Central Asia by then, but not by western steppe herder populations like Afanasievo or Abashevo. This method probably spread with trade along the IAMC between Afanasievo/Chemurchek and Southern Central Asian farmers. There is archaeological evidence for trade with Afanasievo at Sarazm for example, and yes I think the south central asian ancestry in the two Chemurchek samples is a reflection of these connections, they kind of look like a 50% Dzungaria_Eba_1 with the other 50% being a mix of Siberian and SCC Asian.
David Anthony talked about it but in a bit of a shortsighted manner:
"Lost-wax and hollow-mold casting methods probably were learned from the BMAC civilization, the only reasonably nearby source (perhaps through a skilled captive?)."
The BMAC doesn't really begin until 2100 BC and this transferral probably predates it. Lost wax casting goes back to the 4th millenium BC in southern Central Asia thus there is no need for a " BMAC skilled captive".
The Tocharian languages also share some of the substrate loanwords in Indo-Iranian generally attributed to the BMAC, but its hard to say how they got these (direct contact, Indo-Iranians, wanderworts etc)
As you already had cultures in Siberia with metalworking such as the Okunev (based on WSH traditions), as well as a spread of pastoralism amongst south Siberian peoples due to Afanasievo > Okunev type infuence in the altai-sayan region and Abashevo > Andronoid type influence in the western areas of Siberia, its not all that wild that these metallurgical techniques spread rapidly.
I really dont get logic as to why Uralic would be a lingua franca in this 'network', given that you had centres where Indo-European languages were spoken with a whole bunch of West-Siberian peoples inbetween. Maybe Napolskikh's idea of Para-Tochars being involved could be reconsidered however, although I dont know how valid the linguistic arguments behind it were.
@ambron
"Erik, the VK432 is simply proof of the survival of the Baltic BA population into the Middle Ages."
VK432 clearly does have more of this ancestry than moderns, but that doesn't mean that she is unmixed. One individual on the edge of the cluster doesn't prove the survival of the entire population into the Middle Ages, let alone the continuity of language.
Allow me this comment. Australia is a great country and thanks to taking all this covid 19 crap seriously Mr. Rafael Nadal has won his 21st grand slam. Thanks for the support of the Australians, good people.
David, by the way... Where did the two Turlojiske samples go? One of them grouped with Poles.
@ambron
None of the Turlojiske samples cluster with Poles.
I can't put all of them in the G25 because they don't have enough data.
When did Saami like people get replaced in Southern Finland?
So the mtDNA T2d1b1 in BOO003 might be from Chemurchek?
@Davidski
Someone previously mentioned the contribution of Unetice to the genesis of the Slavs. Do you find it credible? Or rather, such central / western cultures did not have much influence on it?
If so, what about BB? Do you think that genetically BB had an influence on the rise of the Slavs / Balto slavs?
One of the Turlojiske samples cluster with Poles.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EWIsxP1dJvV9hqBJyKJ12GwMeEqpmNcu/view
@ Gaska
because the Joker wasn’t playing & Medvedev was exhausted ! :)
To clarify myself about something earlier, it might be that Siberian-like ancestry spread via the northern Forests (in case 'sub-Arctic' sounds alarmingly extreme), dropping south into forest-steppe and even steppe
@ambron
Only in that PCA because of the large number of Finnic samples and smaller number of Baltic samples, which reduces the level of differentiation across PC1.
Also, keep in mind that Turlojiske is in southern Lithuania, so that might be a clue as to what happened in the East Baltic during the Iron Age.
@Draneol
Bell Beakers have nothing to do with Slavs.
Unetice is probably related at some level to pre-proto-Slavic cultures.
To clarify myself about something earlier, it might be that Siberian-like ancestry spread via the northern Forests ('sub-Arctic' sounds too far)
@ CopperAxe- cheers
@Davidski
Thank you for your answer.
And how is it all going back in the Bronze Age, is the Tumulus culture somehow related to later Slavs or not?
Sorry for such "simple" questions, but sometimes a short question and a short answer help the fastest and don't waste your time :)
I'm not seeing any links between Slavs and the Tumulus culture.
Turbo Slavs, on the other hand...
@Davidski
I see. then how to explain the fact that somehow we have continuity on the BB-Unetice-Tumulus-Urnfields line and the Slavs are only randomly related to one of these groups?
Yeah. But turbo-Slavs are a different story. They gave birth to all other people!
@Rob said "because the Joker wasn’t playing & Medvedev was exhausted"
It is simply unacceptable for a world tennis figure to try to cheat a serious government that is only trying to protect its citizens. I respect people who don't want to get vaccinated but they also have to accept the rules. Have you seen what is happening in Eastern Europe (including Serbia) because of low vaccination rates? - it's a disaster-He was supposed to set an example, yet he and his family have acted like hooligans.Do you want to bet with me? Do you think he will be vaccinated to go to Roland Garros?
just an example (all these countries are equally screwed)
Bulgaria-4.830 deaths/1M pop
Australia-145 deaths/1M pop
The answer to this is related to the Bükk culture, of Swiderian origin (European HGs who picked up farming). Swiderians culturally occupied the zone from Poland and further North-Eastwards and were distinct from the West-Central European HGs. Doesn’t need more discussing 😉
@Dranoel
The Unetice population was mixed, with input from eastern Corded Ware groups.
Slavs are related to the eastern Corded Ware part of its ancestry.
@ Gaska
Agree it didn’t shine him in a good light expecting special treatment when there are so many suffering
But also Tennis Aus made a blank cheque promise which was silly
The other aspect this topic raises is the population flux in the forest zones
Most people are probably aware of shifts in steppe due to periodic climate changes
But there were also shifts further north. Perhaps not as pronounced but they must have been fairly significant in some areas for Fatyanovo populations to disappear . But I don’t think it has anything to do with 2200 bc or ST
@Dawidski
Thank you for answering my questions :)
@Rob,
I'm doing research on bell Beaker.
I have heard you talk down to the Iberian origin theory.
Would you say, there was no indigenous bell beaker pottery in pottery. That instead, all Bell Beaker pottery types in Iberia derive from Kurgan migrants from the Rhine region.
I used to be under the impression the so called Maritime style is an indigenous Iberian type of Beaker. Then I took a closer look at the archaeology, and see this is clearly not the case. It is obviously derived from Kurgan Bell beaker. The burials associated with it follow Kurgan traditions, plus all ancient DNA with maritime Beakers in them have Kurgan ancestry.
There is this debate on whether Maritime Beakers created AOC Beakers, or AOC Beakers created Maritime Beaker, it looks to me it is easy to prove AOC Beakers created Maritime Beakers.
Is there an indigenous Bell beaker pottery in Iberia? Do those old radiocarbon dated Bell beaker sites in Portugal have maritim Beakers? If so, the the radiocarbon date must be wrong.
@Rob,
We can have this conversation via email. Here is my email.
thepopulationgeneticschannel@gmail.com
@ Genos
If you mean by 'talk down' be sceptical of the way it has been advocated by archaeologists and even geneticists despite some inconsistencies, then yep. Sure, will email you
Btw just want to clarify - the Bükk culture of Hungary is of Swiderian-derived peoples who picked up agriculture. I’m not saying Swiderians themselves picked up farming. Ultimately though that’s the answer, “Swiderian” may as well be a by-word for Eastern European HGs (not EHGs), and also is a distinguishing factor between the HG ancestry of Eastern Europe and of Western Europe. The European HG ancestry of (North-)Western Europeans would be closer to Ukrainian Mesolithic ancestry because of greater ancestry from Corded Ware populations, and Eastern European HG ancestry is more “Baltic Blonde” Swiderian. Eastern Europeans mainly consist of two populations: Forest-zone populations (areas like Belarus) who were mostly Swiderian-derived and survived in great number relatively untouched by the Corded Ware expansion given the refuge that forests provide, and Steppe populations (for example the Early Slavs from the Zarubintsky culture of Western Ukraine); Balts had earlier mixed with these forest-zone populations from Poland to Moscow and were pocketed to the Baltic coast by the expansion of the Slavs who themselves assimilated Balts and other forest-zone populations. It’s also why you see increasing brachycephaly during the early Medieval period, because when East Slavic (effectively one group: Ruthenian/Russian) ethnogenesis took place the gene pool opened up given the idea of nationhood. Beforehand you’d have the people of the forest, the people of the plains etc and there would have been caste systems based on that when slaves were taken by the plains people (more dominant as they own the plains) but with a nation in a more modern Roman-inspired sense everyone was part of the same nation and the gene pool equalises. It happened in Central Europe too, everywhere really.
I also want to voice two things on top of that: regarding the Uralic question (how people can think Corded aware is Uralic, I’ll never know) - these are the people who brought Pit-Comb Ware across Eurasia (the pottery reached as far as Northern Scandinavia). The Y DNA N1c correlation between people as different as Samoyeds and Estonians was brought by people of the Ymyyakhtakh culture who would have been assimilated by the culturally dominant Uralic peoples (people like Udmurts originally) and just became part of the tribes. That’s not an unusual process at all and it’s archaeologically supported. With the language of the Swiderians, it would have been Uralicised with the spread of comb ceramic pottery in much the same way. The Hungarian language is a relict of this, from the Bükk culture which is totally unique. The original language of the Swiderians probably forms the substrate in Fenno-Samic languages.
It’s a lot easier to assimilate if you’re a reindeer hunting population like the Uralic peoples were, as well as the Ymyyakhtakh culture. Those tribes that do assimilate are more likely to gain a territorial advantage over neighbouring tribes, as they become a bigger group. The Ymyyakhtakh culture is clearly the source of this “Uralic N1c”, by the way.
With the Ymyyakhtakh culture, their way of life explains it all:
The head of every clan was an elder called a Ligey Shomorokh. His was the final word in all aspects of life. Hunting leaders were Khangitche, and war leaders were Tonbaia Shomorokh ("the mighty man"). Women and teenagers had equal voices with men. The internal life of the community was under the control of the older women. Their decisions in those matters were indisputable.
Effectively a division for the grown men for hunting/warring (involving the same broad area of hunting-territory, so think of them as “territorials”) and the young and women for domestic (which was maternalistic in a sense). From a archaeogenetic standpoint the main thing is the women stay put and the men move. This explains the diluting effect for populations with high level of Y DNA N1c as different as Estonians and Samoyeds. The language would have been of the females, as they controlled everyday life. The males when moving to new territory would be assimilated and the newcomers would have had preferential access to their women. They probably wouldn’t have understood the language of their children for the first generation but you don’t need to, “mummy would explain” as they’re both reindeer hunting populations ultimately. This is the only way the Ymyyakhtakh culture could have spread so fast, conquering and settling on repeat can’t explain it.
@James Roper
It's not just about N1c. It's about the subclades and their relationships. For instance...
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/05/more-on-association-between-uralic.html
The idea that Ymyyakhtakh males just happened to spread mainly into Uralic speaking areas and created an illusion of near and far paternal relatedness between different Uralic groups is very difficult to accept for me.
Erik, geneticists say that where one archaeological genome was found, a larger similar population may have lived. We have two Baltic BA genomes from the Roman period and the Middle Ages from near the eastern Baltic - from Ingria and Gotland. In the G25 there is a Latvian who does not differ much from the Baltic BA. I think that if they tested the Latvians well, they would be even closer to the Baltic BA.
But they’re reindeer hunters, it doesn’t leave much to chance for where they went. Besides this culture is timed to perfection: 1500BCE. It’s not a coincidence.
@James Roper,
Hi, in this field we are coming to view how language change happened, really in an opposite way.
It is difficult to reconstruct what was going on, on the ground but we're confident Y DNA suggests patrlinealism/patrilocalism and that men drove the language change. We see this in Indo Europeans, we can presume the same is true for Uralics.
Patrilinalism means the identity of the tribe was defined by male decent, a lineage. It explains why bell Beaker are R1b p312, why all Yamanya are R1b Z2103., why uralics are N1c. It also means the men stayed home/local with the tribe of their birth. So it as a byproduct also patrilocalism.
Women on the other hand, were free to marry men from other tribes because their identity was defined by their husband.
This creates a process where women, and their children adopt the language of their husband. The identity of the tribe was paternal, therefore the language was passed down paternally.
This is how IE languages spread. It was often because IE men assimilated native women when they moved into new areas. In the process they replaced Y DNA and language of native men.
Uralic people seem to have done the same thing. This explains why majority of Finnish men have N1c and speak Uralic, but only like 5% of their ancestry comes from the original Asian N1c men.
@ James Roper
I agree with you on one point (see below), although the rest of your suggestions appear difficult to reconcile with the available evidence (e.g. Bukk -> Hungarian; CCC -> Fino-Uralic; not sure how Zarubintsy fits here, or that it is even proto-Slavic given the lack of continuity with early Slavs). Also how do you know that Ymmyaktakh people only learned language from women ? Sounds like an ethnographic trope
But one thing worth highlighting is the Bukk , aka ALPc culture. Along with Koros, these north/east Carpathian groups are all I2a, most of them the specific I2a2 clade found in Nelithic Ukr, Yamnaya, Ezero, Swat culture. These are an early link between Early Farmers and the pre-pastoralist phase HGs in the steppe, being themselves HG but some are almost 100% some are 0%. Very interesting link.
This is at the core of early pre-Nuclear IE/ Anatolian network, although many smartasses have smirked at this idea for years
@ambron
Balts are not the same population as Baltic BA, even if they have substantial ancestry from Baltic BA.
And the main reason that Balts are different is not Slavic admixture, because we can see this is their Y-DNA.
@James Roper
Are you suggesting that the Hungarian Conquerors rich in N-Z1936 were actually the descendants of Ymyyakhtakh males, rather than the first speakers of Ugric in the Carpathian Basin?
If so, what you're saying is that these distant sons of the Ymyyakhtakh expansion just happened to migrate into an area of Central Europe which was also the only place in this region where Ugric speech somehow survived since the Neolithic?
Sorry with Hungarian and Bükk - I’m not sure how that came out, bad phrasing or wrong train of thought when typing but I think Hungarian came with the Avars
@James Roper
If Hungarian came with Avars, then can you explain the N-Z1936 link between Hungarian Conquerors and other Ugric speakers, and the lack of N-Z1936 in Avars?
But I’m pretty certain YYT (seriously that name is way too long) is the source of this N1c. The dates match the arrival of most European N1c perfectly though.
Because the Avars were multiethnic, suspected of having Turkic, Mongolic (amongst others) origin but the linguistic evidence is effectively null. See Avar continuation hypothesis. As for the lack of Y DNA N, given this post dates YYT, it’s known the Avars were strongly casted. I don’t think these were YYT people, they were just reindeer hunters. Rather, I think the population who moved with these conquerors were Uralic populations with these YYT lineages who were coopted further East by these probably Turkic warlords. Ethnicity was loose as anything with the Avars.
As in (bad explanation previously) you have Ugric populations already “N1c- infused” and they speak proto-Magyar, ruled by a warlord clan of Turkic origin, and these migrating Avars who were coopted by this Turkic ruling clan spoke Ugric.
They left a tiny genetic footprint though. Hence no N1c.
It'll be pretty easy to work out from ancient and modern DNA if Ymyyakhtakh males spread the Uralic-specific subclades of N around North Eurasia.
By the way, looks like they were of Y DNA N (and Q) - doesn’t go into much further detail from what I can see
Phylogeny should match the expansion time as YYT was a rapid expansion, around 2nd mBCE
Well, I can definitely say that Avars didn't speak Hungarian. Hungarian Conquerors did, both in the Carpathian Basin and on the Volga.
And I reckon there's very little going for the idea that Uralic N subclades actually came from the YYT.
See Gyula László for Avar-Hungarian connection
Ancient DNA shows that there was no real connection between Avars and Hungarians.
It's now clear that early Hungarian speakers in the Carpathian Basin were closely related to Ugric speakers in Western Siberia.
@ambron
"Each model shows Baltic BA as the base component of modern Balts."
Baltic_BA peaks in Latvia and even there it's not the largest component, as you get into Lithuania it starts to decline.
qpAdm using Av2 + Latvia_BA
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cmpHG1PFW948Z9Ly7iPY8WjBJbCxt7GO_OGOHgSfAJs/edit?usp=sharing
https://pastebin.com/Bx9wG64u
left pops:
Lithuanian_PA
Latvia_BA
Hungary_Avar_AV2
summ: Lithuanian_PA 2 0.878180 0.209 0.791 10796 -10796 10796
It's possible to use Turlojiske and get slightly different percentages but even then it's very difficult to argue for genetic continuity in the Baltics since the BA.
This is of course assuming that initially East-Balts were similar to Av2/Avar-Szolad. If they were more like Turlojiske/Lithuania_BA there's probably even less Baltic_BA ancestry in the Baltics today.
@Davidski
Could you get G25 coordinates for these ancient samples from Nepal?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19mVJOnu94GQVGsrvQxIpWUtpUYwiK8Iy/view?usp=sharing
Ihttps://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB41752?show=reads
I downloaded the BAMs and used pileupcaller to call genotypes. Coverage is very good for the majority of samples.
Final comments
- I don;t think the Baltic question is settled.
- Actually, I think the original Avar leaders were Uralic pre-BC. Some groups in the pre-Ural-Samoyed-Yukaghir network became Turkicized, e,g. Yakuts
David, the Baltic N1c is a founder effect that is not related to population exchange. In addition, there is very little N1c south of the eastern Baltic, which contradicts the exchange of the Baltic BA population by the population arriving from the southern direction.
Altvred, let's talk seriously, please!
After all, Baltic BA is the main component of Av2. Anyway, this model is only confirmed by the fact that today's Balts are Baltic BA with a Slavic admixture.
@ambron
Baltic N1c is a founder effect that is not related to population exchange.
That's your hypothesis, not a fact.
Here are the facts:
- N1c is found at high frequencies in all Balts, so this founder effect must have happened early, and no one can say where exactly
- Balts differ from Baltic BA in terms of R1a subclades too
- there were population shifts in the East Baltic during the Iron Age, when Baltic languages are hypothesized to have arrived there.
According to the mainstream of science, the Balts come from the northern variant Trzciniec culture, which was already in the Eastern Baltic areas during the Baltic BA times.
Well, I don't think many people would argue that East Baltic languages were in the East Baltic during the BA.
I am not argue it either. Biological continuity does not imply linguistic continuity.
This population was likely Celtic speaking, and it clusters close to Celts from France and Spain. The "Balto-Slavic drift" means that it's a contributor to modern Central and Eastern Europeans.
@jparada
This population was likely Celtic speaking, and it clusters close to Celts from France and Spain.
lol
Post a Comment