Sunday, November 19, 2023
Musaeum Scythia on the Seima-Turbino Phenomenon
A few weeks ago bioRxiv published two preprints on the Seima-Turbino Phenomenon (see here and here).
I can't say much about these manuscripts until I see the relevant ancient DNA samples, and that might take some time.
However, for now, I will say that both preprints really need to emphasize the profound impact that the Sintashta-related early Indo-Iranian speakers had on the Seima-Turbino Phenomenon. This, of course, would require Wolfgang Haak and friends to pull their heads out of their behinds and admit that the proto-Indo-Iranian homeland was in Eastern Europe, not in Iran.
At the same time, it's likely that the Seima-Turbino Phenomenon originated deep in Siberia, and its inception was probably most closely associated with the West Siberian Hunter-Gatherer (WSHG) genetic component. It's important that the preprints emphasize this too.
Moreover, I can't see any convincing arguments in either preprint that the Seima-Turbino Phenomenon was mainly associated with proto-Uralic speakers, or even that it was an important vector for the spread of proto-Uralic. So there's not much point in forcing the Uralic angle on studies focused on the Seima-Turbino Phenomenon. Indeed, what we also need is an archaeogenetics paper dealing specifically with the proto-Uralic expansion.
Apart from that, I'd like to direct your attention to the fact that Musaeum Scythia has already written a fine blog post about these preprints:
Genomic insights into the Seima-Turbino Phenomenon
See also...
Finally, a proto-Uralic genome
The Uralic cline with kra001 - no projection this time
Slavs have little, if any, Scytho-Sarmatian ancestry
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
521 comments:
1 – 200 of 521 Newer› Newest»It's interesting how the question of proto-Uralic has produced a series of non-concordant theories, ranging from Ice Age models, to Comb Ceramics, Ive even seen Kelteminar mentioned in some Russian literature.
With the obvious non-viability of the middle Volga, this does shift things to the East. However the S-T theory rests on an outdated notion that S-T represents some kind of migration from the Altai-Baikal region by local groups who somehow, perhaps by the hand of God, become masters of metallurgy and rolled west as if quasi-Scythians. I agree, it doesn't really get to the heart of things, in fact it misses the ballpark.
The first paper seems to show (Figure 1b) that Sintashta culture began around 2400 BC, in line with previous Russian Academy's datings, an that Sintashta is a culture earlier than that of Abashevo!!
@ambron
“And I understand that we are drawing symmetrical conclusions... “
I am very much interested how David is going to do it, i.e. to prove that Sintashta was Proto-Indo-Iranian and not Indo-Slavic, and Proto-Indo-Iranians came from Eastern Europe and not from Central Asia, and at the same time using symmetrical reasoning show that Mierzanowice/Strzyżów/Iwno was not Proto-Slavic and Proto-Slavs didn’t come from Poland.
Well, it's pretty obvious that Fatyanovo wasn't Balto-Slavic, but rather the precursor of Sintashta.
That's why it has a shitload of Z93 and genome-wide structure that later appear in Indo-Iranians, as far as South Asia.
So what was Fatyanovo? Dravidian, Uralic or Turkic?
Kargaly copper was used in burial kurgans of Turganic elite, Potopovka, and Sintashta, Any connection with regard to copper ore and smelting? Where did ST culture +Abashevo, Fatyanovo, Srubnaya, and Corded Ware mine for their copper to make weapons and or tools?
@ Davidski
“So what was Fatyanovo? Dravidian, Uralic or Turkic?”
There was a CWC tribe rich in R1a-Z645 which spoke Indo-Slavic language around 3000 BC and then that tribe started to split and migrate.
Few hundred years later they were still the same people:
https://postimg.cc/23PKKTJQ
There is absolutely no reason to think that Fatyanovo spoke the language which originated in Central Asia and not the language of their brothers and neighbors i.e. Indo-Slavic.
There's no direct relationship between Fatyanovo and any ancient or modern Slavic group.
Indians are more directly related to Fatyanovo than Poles.
Yakutia_LNBA groups migrated thousands of kilometers before reaching Rostovka. Their continued expansion west, was likely not dependent on their initial encounters with ST metallurgists. I suppose in that sense, it does not appear as though ST had a significant role in facilitating the 'Uralic' expansion.
However, we now have evidence that Yakutia_LNBA populations did closely interact with (and became integrated within) ST. Moreover, traces of ST metallurgical infuence are found throughout the LBA and even IA forest zone, from Volga to Baikal. I'd argue that ST was still an important vector for technology and the prominence of Steppe_MLBA individuals may also explain related early PIIr loan words. In some cases, Yakutia_LNBA MIGHT have even become the dominant component within an ST context (see CopperAxe re: Kaninskaya cave).
At this point, it doesn't seem possible to associate the Uralic expansion with a well defined archaeological phenomenon. Any link will only become apparent through aDNA.
Thoughts?
@EastPole
I wanted to avoid returning to this topic, but I guess it won't work. You keep writing about "Slavic cultures in Mierzanowice/Strzyżów/Iwno" - so tell us what proof there is for this? On your blog, you repeat like a mantra that since the dawn of time, Slavs have their origins in Poland. You write about the Slavic culture in Trzciniec - perhaps in the eastern part... but you still believe that the later Iwno culture was also Slavic. As a group located between Western and Eastern cultures, it is obvious that it had a mixed character to some extent. No less visible are the huge influences of the Unietics. And how does this relate to the Slavs??????????
As a reader of this forum, not specializing in genetics, etc., I would ask you to write an argument that Davidski could argue with. So far, you write on your blog that Davidski cannot justify or explain anything, so please, rise to the challenge and convince us, the readers, that you are right. And I'm not talking about Mierzanowice culture, but about IWNO.
East Pole has a point in regard to Fatyanovo, at such an early state, was still probably pre-Indo-Iranian and at that point more closely related to pre-Balto-Slavic.
Thank you for the shoutout Dave, much appreciated!
"However, for now, I will say that both preprints really need to emphasize the profound impact that the Sintashta-related early Indo-Iranian speakers had on the Seima-Turbino Phenomenon. This, of course, would require Wolfgang Haak and friends to pull their heads out of their behinds and admit that the proto-Indo-Iranian homeland was in Eastern Europe, not in Iran."
The ironic thing is that Harvard has no problems with this, they even wrote articles about it, but they barely mentioned this too. It is kind of a shame because they have some interesting samples, Satyga-16 is a wild location for individuals with 70% steppe_mlba ancestry to appear circa 2000 BC. But now that you mention it, Childebayeva's article actually makes zero mentions of Indo-Iranian speakers in their article in general, although referring to steppe_mlba material cultures such as Sintashta or Alakul.
@Rob
East Pole has a point in regard to Fatyanovo, at such an early state, was still probably pre-Indo-Iranian and at that point more closely related to pre-Balto-Slavic.
There was no pre-Balto-Slavic in the Russian forest zone.
@ Dave
I didn’t say there was pre-Balto-Slavic in Russia
What I think is that Fatyanovo was not yet indo-Iranian, but still closer dialectical late IE
New article on Proto-Uralic, in the end considering the Seima-Turbino Network and the Koptyaki Culture in the Central Ural Region around 2000 BCE:
Häkkinen, Jaakko 2023: On locating Proto-Uralic
https://journal.fi/fuf/article/view/120910
About Balto-Slavic, we must acknowledge that the extant Baltic and Slavic languages are only a portion of ancient Balto-Slavic diversity. There are apparently loanwords in Uralic languages from Proto- and Archaic Balto-Slavic, from different Baltic lineages, and even from Para-Slavic. If one tries to locate the Balto-Slavic homeland based merely on the extant languages, which represent only the westernmost portion of the ancient Balto-Slavic region, then the homeland does not concern the whole of Balto-Slavic. It is like locating Proto-Slavic by counting only the westernmost Slavic languages - small chance that the result would be correct.
Häkkinen, Jaakko 2022: Recurring irregularities in West Uralic 1: Para-Slavic loanwords
https://helda.helsinki.fi/items/3b11da50-54c1-4ce5-ba58-d085c64e5d29
@Jaakko Häkkinen
Recognizing proto, archaic and para loanwords from thousands of years ago is not an exact science, and that's a massive understatement.
All we can say for certain is that Balto-Slavs and Uralians were in contact somewhere in North Eurasia during the metal ages, which makes sense considering the high mobility of humans at this time in the region.
Everything else is debatable.
And you can't project Balto-Slavic languages on Fatyanovo.
That because if Fatyanovo was Balto-Slavic, then you need to come up with all sorts of weird scenarios in which modern Balto-Slavs aren't derived genetically from proto-Balto-Slavs, while modern Indo-Iranians at best only have trace ancestry from proto-Indo-Iranians.
In addition to claiming Fatyanovo as Balto-Slavic, Jasko thinks the Baltic Bronze Age people are Germanic.
So he’s completely out of touch with the evidence & his models lack a sane foundation
To make matters worse, he’s completely dishonest, as he cherry picks archeogenetic evidence to support his claims (albeit wrongly), but whenever it’s pointed out how incompatible his ideas are , he likes to pretend that his vague ruminations on loan words are “scientifically indisputable”
@Jaakko Häkkinen
Pinning down the Koptyaki culture as Proto-Uralic seems like a large shift from your previous positions considering:
- Koptyaki culture dates to the second millenium b.c is contemporary to Andronovo in chronologies
- Koptyaki culture is located in the Transurals mainly and this is a firmly Siberian population with cultural ties to populations to their east
- Proto-Uralic had to be spoken in the Volga-Kama region around or before 2000 BC (note; this is a must) based on NWIE Indo-European and Pre-Indo-Iranian strata in Uralic. Kotpyaki culture is both younger and further to the east than this earlier location you suggested with such vigour.
I think there are some prophetic comments of mine from a few years ago that got lost in the loss of Anthrogenica that would've been funny to post again in the light of your new article :)
In any case you still seem to be flirting with a Pre-Proto-Uralic origin in Europe, which I don't think is tenable if you also hold that the Koptyaki culture would be "Late Proto-Uralic", furthermore you do not really provide a strong explanation how and why this would be to Samoyedic, what type of evidence we have beyond your linguistic interpretations that support this etc. But I will stay this is a step into the right direction, even if it is a small one.
EastPole
Many family trees of Indo-European languages predict an Indo-Slavic stage. The problem is its location in place and time. Logic, however, suggests that its best vector is CWC. Currently, the cradle of CWC is most often located in western Ukraine. Thus, the expansion of the CWC to the northwest would give rise to the Slavo-Germanic branch, from which the Balto-Slavic branch emerged, and the expansion to the northeast would give rise to the Indo-Iranian branch.
At least that's how I see it, because it seems the most logical to me.
Thank you guys for your comments.
Davidski:
“Recognizing proto, archaic and para loanwords from thousands of years ago is not an exact science, and that's a massive understatement.”
In that case, neither are qpAdm or similar guessing methods exact science, producing different results in every research. You would benefit greatly from familiarizing yourself with the methods of historical linguistics.
Davidski:
“And you can't project Balto-Slavic languages on Fatyanovo. That because if Fatyanovo was Balto-Slavic, then you need to come up with all sorts of weird scenarios in which modern Balto-Slavs aren't derived genetically from proto-Balto-Slavs, while modern Indo-Iranians at best only have trace ancestry from proto-Indo-Iranians.”
You must know by now that the genetic composition of language carriers could have changed between every step of the expansion of certain language; just think of ancient Anatolians and people of India compared to the European Indo-Europeans.
To what origin of Indo-Iranians is your last sentence related? This does not seem to fit in with my view.
Copper Axe:
“Pinning down the Koptyaki culture as Proto-Uralic seems like a large shift from your previous positions considering:
- Koptyaki culture dates to the second millenium b.c is contemporary to Andronovo in chronologies
- Koptyaki culture is located in the Transurals mainly and this is a firmly Siberian population with cultural ties to populations to their east
- Proto-Uralic had to be spoken in the Volga-Kama region around or before 2000 BC (note; this is a must) based on NWIE Indo-European and Pre-Indo-Iranian strata in Uralic. Kotpyaki culture is both younger and further to the east than this earlier location you suggested with such vigour.”
You should always read the article carefully before commenting on it.
1. I do not associate Koptyaki Culture with Late Proto-Uralic, because they are not contemporaneous. Koptyaki Culture is associated only with the later stages of Uralic disintegration.
2. You should read works of Korochkova and others I referred to. They do not agree with your claims. And how can you say anything about the population, when there are no ancient DNA samples from that culture? But I hope there will be in the future.
3. The Central Ural Region is western enough also for the NwIE loanwords and certainly for the Early/Middle Proto-Indo-Iranian loanwords; just read the article.
Copper Axe:
“In any case you still seem to be flirting with a Pre-Proto-Uralic origin in Europe, which I don't think is tenable if you also hold that the Koptyaki culture would be "Late Proto-Uralic", furthermore you do not really provide a strong explanation how and why this would be to Samoyedic, what type of evidence we have beyond your linguistic interpretations that support this etc. But I will stay this is a step into the right direction, even if it is a small one.”
I only acknowledge the fact: we have no reliable way to assess whether the Indo-Uralic or some other connection of Uralic to the further east is more plausible. Nobody can claim to know where distant Pre-Proto-Uralic was spoken. You cannot just decide that the Uralic language follows the Yakutia_LNBA ancestry – that would be unscientific, because you know that language is not inherited in DNA and that the genetic composition could have changed between every step of language expansion.
Samoyedic is easy to derive from the Central Ural Region, and the linguistic results require its presence close to the other Uralic branches for a long time after the actual Late Proto-Uralic (it is all presented in that article). These results you cannot disprove.
Yeah definitely. The Slavic Fatyanovans transmutated into Indo-Iranians when they met Jasko’s imaginary proto-Uralics at the Volga
Comparing various stelae for animals, weaponry and religious solar symbols.
1)Kurgan stelae Ukraine -Kernosivsky idol, axe-horse
2)Corded Ware???
3) Scythian?
4)Slavic Poland-Ukraine, Swiatowid ze zebrucza.
EastPole:
“Many family trees of Indo-European languages predict an Indo-Slavic stage. The problem is its location in place and time. Logic, however, suggests that its best vector is CWC. Currently, the cradle of CWC is most often located in western Ukraine. Thus, the expansion of the CWC to the northwest would give rise to the Slavo-Germanic branch, from which the Balto-Slavic branch emerged, and the expansion to the northeast would give rise to the Indo-Iranian branch.”
There are indeed many different family trees for the Indo-European language family, based on different data sets and different methods. Also different levels of language have different taxonomic value. Shared vocabulary can tell about areal proximity, but it is difficult to assess, which words have been inherited from the common proto-language/dialect and which have been borrowed between already diverged branches, or from the third language to them both.
Phonological changes leave less room for different interpretations, when the relative order of sound changes has been found out. For example, satemization and the Ruki-rule seem to be areally spread features between already diverged Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian branches. Therefore, these changes require adjacency of these “proto-dialects” but they do not require Balto-Slavo-Indo-Iranian proto-language.
I agree with you that the Corded Ware Cultures seem to have included the early stages of Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian, but exact location is more difficult to give. There were probably also Indo-European proto-dialects which did not survive to the historical era, and also para-lineages of Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian, which did not survive to the historical era. So, the whole picture cannot be reached by taking into consideration only the extant languages and forcing/stretching their ancestral stages to certain locations only to fill the "void".
@Davidski
Have you ever noticed diminutive Yakutia_LNBA ancestry in the EST_BA samples? Check out figure 3. in Peltola et al.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982222018267
Specifically, sample X10 in G25. Roughly 500 years earlier than the first Tarands. Any idea if it is legit?
The problem with all the other archaeological cultures being the source of pre-Proto-Uralic is that all EHG cultures were annihilated and left little to no trace to the following cultures besides Finland, Karelia and Lapland. In Volga-Kama they were wiped out so their heritage persisting through the Uralic languages seems dubious especially when there was no resurgence of EHG culture or admixture which would be consistent with Uralic languages spreading about. Sure you could claim that for whatever reason Uralics ultimately descend from an obscure group of EHGs in the Urals, but what is achieved with that statement? When the Uralics did begin spreading the connections with Siberia were quite heavy.
And entertaining any connection with Corded Ware is foolish at this point
As for the Baltic connections, the only languages with the said connections are Finno-Volgaic, Permic languages having some can be explained by further interactions with Slavs and diffusion through Volgaics. It is likely that by the time Finno-Volgaics started to spread, Fatyanovo culture and it's descendants had been displaced by Baltic like people. Then Finno-Volgaics would be able to adopt these words as they spread through the Textile Ware and other cultures like Dyakovo and Ryazan-Oka.
@Zelto
It's possible but I'm only seeing ~1% of something Siberian, as well as ~2% of something African.
The African admix is there because this is a low quality sample, so the Siberian admix might be there for the same reason.
@Davidski
I had another go at the Chinese samples. This time trimming them like in the study and improving the filtering. I also removed one contaminated individual.
Could you try to run those: https://ufile.io/1jsr8uyz
Thanks!
First apologies, I erroneously named EastPole in my previous message, when I meant Ambron who replied to EastPole.
Norfern-Ostrobothnian:
“The problem with all the other archaeological cultures being the source of pre-Proto-Uralic is that all EHG cultures were annihilated and left little to no trace to the following cultures besides Finland, Karelia and Lapland.”
To whom and to what is this an answer? I assume that you mean “other archaeological cultures than where the Yakutia ancestry originates”, but you may correct if I interpreted it wrong. The relationship between Pre-Proto-Uralic and Late Proto-Uralic is comparable to the relationship between Proto-Indo-Anatolian and Late Proto-Indo-European: gap of ca. a millennium or more, possibly also thousands of kilometers. No wonder then, that the genetic composition was already very different between PIA and LPIE, and the same should be expected between PrePU and LPU.
Even if PrePU was spoken in the Late Neolithic Yakutia (which could agree with the proposed Uralo-Eskimo or Uralo-Yukaghir hypotheses) and its speakers had 100 % of Yakutia_LNBA ancestry, this still could not prove anything about the genetic composition of the LPU speakers. The Nganasans are the northernmost Samoyedic frontier population, gone through serious bottleneck and other processes and differing considerably from other Samoyedic populations. Therefore, Nganasans are not a proxy even for the speakers of Proto-Samoyedic, not to speak of the speakers of Late Proto-Uralic. All the other Samoyedic and Uralic populations contain several different ancestry components, and therefore it seems probable that so did already the speakers of Late Proto-Uralic.
Norfern-Ostrobothnian:
“Sure you could claim that for whatever reason Uralics ultimately descend from an obscure group of EHGs in the Urals, but what is achieved with that statement? When the Uralics did begin spreading the connections with Siberia were quite heavy.”
Hopefully we will get more ancient DNA samples from the Taiga zone in and around the Central Ural Region in the third and second millennium BCE, so that we could see which components were present there. Assuming that they were all carriers of pure EHG ancestry seems a bit premature at the current state of knowledge.
Yes, Siberian connections were there, and also European connections and steppe connections. Indeed, the Central Ural Region was a crossroad of different cultural influences.
Norfern-Ostrobothnian:
“And entertaining any connection with Corded Ware is foolish at this point”
Do you mean concerning the Uralic speakers? How so? Fatyanovo-Balanovo is early enough and eastern enough for offering one possible genetic root for the expanding Uralic population towards the west. But we cannot say yay or nay until we get more ancient DNA samples from the relevant region at the relevant time frame. We should not exclude any possibilities, when there is no data supporting such exclusion.
A question out of curiosity, where did the Botai people actually leave their mark? As far as I know they were ANE rich hunter-gatherer population and a smaller amount of AEA? I don't understand why YOURDNAPORTAL includes them as a gene component in their chromosome analysis
And thanks CopperAxe for your Nice Paper !
Speaking of Indo-Iranian, any chance that these publicly available Sinhalese samples (the southern most indo European speakers) can be added to G25? They are a much neglected population in genetics and poorly analyzed including by this present study. Thanks
https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/Reconstructing_the_population_history_of_Sinhalese_the_major_ethnic_group_in_r_La_k_/23975601
@Optimus
What does STS stand for?
Time out: On a personal little tangent, my mtdna via Galicia, Spain is H41a. The oldest H41 I've seen in the literature was an R1a guy from the Fatyanovo culture.
Carry on...
@Jaakko Häkkinen
There was a massive movement of Fatyanovo derived groups rich in R1a-Z93 from Eastern Europe into Central Asia during the Bronze Age.
These groups moved in such numbers and so fast that they hardly had time to mix with anyone, and they still often looked genetically like Fatyanovo people as far as eastern Siberia and right up to India.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/04/on-doorstep-of-india.html
There's no way that this wasn't the expansion that carried Indo-Iranian languages into Asia, because there's no other plausible alternative. There's no plausible explanation for how these people would've picked up Indo-Iranian from someone else, and if they spoke something else, there's no way that this language would disappear without any trace.
You can't make this population Balto-Slavic or Finnic, because they don't resemble any Baltic, Slavic or Finnic populations that have ever been recorded in ancient or modern DNA.
Especially not in terms of Y-DNA, because R1a-Z93 is extremely rare in Europe, and most often found in Jewish and Turkic groups that are known to have ancestry from Iranians.
Indeed, Fatyanovo ancestry is carried by ancient and modern Indo-Iranian speakers.
So proto-Indo-Iranian eventually did come from Fatyanovo. And this makes perfect sense also because other different Corded Ware groups are obviously linked to the eventual appearance of Balto-Slavic, Germanic and most other Indo-European branches.
At some point you'll have to accept this. If you don't accept it, then none of your models about the origin of Uralic and Finnic and their speakers will make any sense.
@crashdoc
CDG60:CDG60_scaled,0.01935,-0.419414,0.015085,-0.054587,0.025235,0.000558,0.018331,0.011999,0.003477,0.01549,-0.096459,-0.002248,0.013379,-0.015414,-0.015336,-0.008486,0.008996,-0.000253,-0.01898,-0.007879,0.01148,0.026338,0.017131,0.005181,0.042631
CDG86-1:CDG86-1_scaled,0.020488,-0.42246,0.014708,-0.041344,0.034468,0.008367,0.0047,0.002308,0.024134,0.010023,-0.060084,-0.013938,0.014569,0.007569,-0.004072,-0.02201,0.004172,-0.00152,-0.013198,0.000125,-0.000749,0.024112,0.009244,0.000361,0.022752
JHC20:JHC20_scaled,0.013659,-0.426522,0.011691,-0.037145,0.029544,0.014502,-0.003995,-0.007846,0.002863,0.012574,-0.079895,-0.016186,0.01219,-0.001239,-0.016151,-0.002784,-0.003912,0.006714,-0.002388,0.006753,0.006863,0.019784,0.00419,-0.00241,0.032931
JHC28:JHC28_scaled,0.011382,-0.434647,0.015462,-0.044897,0.037853,0.006136,0.015746,0.009,0.002045,0.022051,-0.073724,-0.013338,0.009068,-0.015964,-0.021715,0.014054,0.002999,-0.004561,0.000503,0.011255,0.013476,-0.002844,0.011339,0.013134,0.041314
CDG60:CDG60,0.0017,-0.0413,0.004,-0.0169,0.0082,0.0002,0.0078,0.0052,0.0017,0.0085,-0.0594,-0.0015,0.009,-0.0112,-0.0113,-0.0064,0.0069,-0.0002,-0.0151,-0.0063,0.0092,0.0213,0.0139,0.0043,0.0356
CDG86-1:CDG86-1,0.0018,-0.0416,0.0039,-0.0128,0.0112,0.003,0.002,0.001,0.0118,0.0055,-0.037,-0.0093,0.0098,0.0055,-0.003,-0.0166,0.0032,-0.0012,-0.0105,0.0001,-0.0006,0.0195,0.0075,0.0003,0.019
JHC20:JHC20,0.0012,-0.042,0.0031,-0.0115,0.0096,0.0052,-0.0017,-0.0034,0.0014,0.0069,-0.0492,-0.0108,0.0082,-0.0009,-0.0119,-0.0021,-0.003,0.0053,-0.0019,0.0054,0.0055,0.016,0.0034,-0.002,0.0275
JHC28:JHC28,0.001,-0.0428,0.0041,-0.0139,0.0123,0.0022,0.0067,0.0039,0.001,0.0121,-0.0454,-0.0089,0.0061,-0.0116,-0.016,0.0106,0.0023,-0.0036,0.0004,0.009,0.0108,-0.0023,0.0092,0.0109,0.0345
@Optimus
What does STS stand for?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mQueowVKSZcjHT8KEjr3tXXLj6eFfUF6/view?usp=sharing
@Davidski
Thanks! Much appreciated
@ Jaskoo
''All the other Samoyedic and Uralic populations contain several different ancestry components, and therefore it seems probable that so did already the speakers of Late Proto-Uralic.''
But the only one which is common to all is that Kra_1/Yakutia_LN. All others feature only here & there. That's what you're refusing to understand.
It's not a choose-your-own adventure novel
@Davidski
Thanks for checking.
The Stone-cist graves do have a connection to the east, i.e. 'SW Tapiola ware'. More specifically, Lüganuse ceramics, which first appear as grave goods ~1100/1000 BC (a century or two later than the earliest Stone-cist graves).
However, the miniscule/dubious Siberian ancestry probably only serves to complicate the facile relationship between Textile ware and Yakutia-LNBA ancestry. Not to mention, out of 16 male samples with viable Y- coverage, all belonged to R1a-Z280.
'Sri Lankan Tamils in Sri Lanka' which results are akin to the STU (Sri Lankan Tamils in UK) of 1000genomes.
@Davidski
“You can't make this population Balto-Slavic or Finnic, because they don't resemble any Baltic, Slavic or Finnic populations that have ever been recorded in ancient or modern DNA.”
I said that Fatyanovo was most probably Indo-Slavic speaking population because of the common origin and genetic similarity to Mierzanowice/Strzyżów/Iwno cultures from which rich in Slavic R1a variants Trzciniec/Komarów cultures originated and which therefore can be considered as a Proto-Slavic population.
You are saying that Fatyanovo were Indo-Iranians “because they don't resemble any Baltic, Slavic or Finnic populations that have ever been recorded in ancient or modern DNA”.
OK, so show me Indo-Iranian “populations that have ever been recorded in ancient or modern DNA” which are more similar to Fatyanowo than the Baltic, Slavic and Finnic populations.
We know how in Europe mixing of CWC and BB groups with local farming and HG populations influenced development of languages: Celtic, Germanic, Slavic etc. I don’t believe that Indo-Iranian languages originated in Eastern-Europe and were unchanged by the heavy mixing with more advanced farming civilizations of Central Asia.
@EastPole
OK, so show me Indo-Iranian “populations that have ever been recorded in ancient or modern DNA” which are more similar to Fatyanowo than the Baltic, Slavic and Finnic populations.
This Yaz II sample is basically half Fatyanovo. How are you not aware of this?
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/07/an-early-iranian-obviously.html
Fatyanovo artifacts found at Bronze Age site in suburban Moscow,
https://popular-archaeology.com/article/artifacts-found-at-bronze-age-site-in-suburban-moscow/
Some interesting links with Corded ware
"Scientists believe the site had been a settlement of Fatyanovo culture, as evidenced by the eastern origins of the battle-axes and corded-ware ceramics."
“What’s special about these finds are their extreme rarity” said Dr Asya Engovatova, Deputy Director of the RAS Institute of Archaeology.
From the dozens of fresh samples of decayed wood and coal from the roof of the funeral chamber, radiocarbon analysis may be able to put an accurate date, for the first time, on a Fatyanovo burial site. This will bring new scientific data into play, and such a dating would enable comparisons to be made with similar Cordware Culture sites in other locations in Europe – and make a reliable basis for determining the locations of the Fatyanovo people in this wider community.
I am not convinced:
Distance to: Russia_Moscow_Fatyanovo_BA.SG:HAN004_noUDG.SG
0.05204073 Ukraine_Komarow_Culture:poz296_dr
0.05221579 Poland_Trzciniec_Culture:poz702
0.05439226 Poland_Trzciniec_Culture:poz655
0.05472396 Ukraine_Komarow_Culture:poz296
0.05768684 Ukraine_Komarow_Culture:poz644
0.05796994 Poland_Trzciniec_Culture:poz651
0.05838777 Poland_Trzciniec_Culture:poz747
0.06179384 Polish:Polish18
0.06307069 Polish:Polish11
0.06703149 Polish:Polish16
0.11137492 Turkmenistan_IA.SG:DA382_noUDG.SG
@EastPole
Quite acting like a complete tard.
The European admixture in this sample is 100% Fatyanovo, just like in all Indo-Iranian speakers.
@Davidski
“The European admixture in this sample is 100% Fatyanovo, just like in all Indo-Iranian speakers.”
It is because Indo-Iranian languages evolved in Central Asia by mixing of Indo-Slavic languages derived from Fatyanovo with local Asian substrata.
@EastPole
It is because Indo-Iranian languages evolved in Central Asia by mixing of Indo-Slavic languages derived from Fatyanovo with local Asian substrata.
Bullshit.
The influence in Uralic is early Indo-Iranian, not Indo-Slavic.
Davidski:
“There was a massive movement of Fatyanovo derived groups rich in R1a-Z93 from Eastern Europe into Central Asia during the Bronze Age. These groups moved in such numbers and so fast that they hardly had time to mix with anyone, and they still often looked genetically like Fatyanovo people as far as eastern Siberia and right up to India. There's no way that this wasn't the expansion that carried Indo-Iranian languages into Asia, because there's no other plausible alternative.”
Yes, I know and I agree.
Davidski:
“You can't make this population Balto-Slavic or Finnic, because they don't resemble any Baltic, Slavic or Finnic populations that have ever been recorded in ancient or modern DNA.”
I do not intend to make THIS populations Balto-Slavic or Finnic. I am just pointing out that there were four regional variants within the wide Fatyanovo cultural sphere. Therefore, there could have been several languages present. Ancestral stage of Indo-Iranian seems to be one of those languages, but what were the other possible languages?
There are shared regional (contact-induced) innovations between Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic: satemization and the Ruki rule. If Pre-Proto-Balto-Slavic was not present within the Fatyanovo Culture, how could you explain these shared features? You would have to pull Indo-Iranian to the very westernmost end of the Fatyanovo Culture, if Balto-Slavic was spoken somewhere to the west or south of it.
Moreover, there are traces of early Balto-Slavic languages in the east, already in the Upper Volga Region. And these traces cannot be explained by later Baltic or Slavic expansion from the west, because they do not represent those lineages. So, all the evidence seems to point towards the conclusion that ancestral stages of both Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic were spoken within the wide Fatyanovo cultural sphere.
What comes to later Baltic and Slavic populations: they represent only later and westernmost portion of the earlier, wider Balto-Slavic continuum. As we know, the genetic composition of population can change between the steps of linguistic expansion. Besides, the northeasternmost part of the Trzciniec Culture overlaps areally with the southwesternmost part of the Fatyanovo Culture. When we get more ancient DNA samples from these cultures, we may still see a descendance of people there to some extent. All the Fatyanovo samples in Saag et al. 2021 were from a narrow area in the Volga-Oka Region.
Finnic and Saami populations, then, seem to have ca. 50 % of their ancestry from the steppe, mediated by the Corded Ware populations. And this same ancestry seems to be strongly present in the Uralic populations at least up to the Permic speakers (qpAdm results by Peltola et al. 2023; no data from Siberian Uralic speakers). Zeng et al. 2023 used Srubnaya instead of Yamnaya or Corded Ware, but at least that ancestry is present in Siberian Uralic speakers, too – the Nganasans being the only exception.
Part 2:
Davidski:
“Especially not in terms of Y-DNA, because R1a-Z93 is extremely rare in Europe, and most often found in Jewish and Turkic groups that are known to have ancestry from Iranians.”
That is true. So, we can conclude that these 6 certain and 9 possible Fatyanovo men of R1a-Z93 have extant descendants in Asia but not so much in Europe. However, in the tables of Underhill et al. 2014 there are Z93 men among Estonians (1,7 %), Maris (2,0 %), Udmurts (1,9 %), and Tatars (4,5 %). Therefore, we cannot exclude the possible continuity from the Fatyanovo men. The Uralicization of the region – apparently associated with the expansion of subhaplogroups of N-Z1936 – had a great impact on the frequencies of paternal lineages there.
Davidski:
“So proto-Indo-Iranian eventually did come from Fatyanovo. And this makes perfect sense also because other different Corded Ware groups are obviously linked to the eventual appearance of Balto-Slavic, Germanic and most other Indo-European branches. At some point you'll have to accept this. If you don't accept it, then none of your models about the origin of Uralic and Finnic and their speakers will make any sense.”
Tell us, which Corded Ware group you would associate with early Balto-Slavic lineage and based on which evidence? I have above presented the evidence supporting the presence of early stage of both Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian within the Fatyanovo Culture.
By the way, the region of Balto-Slavic has absolutely no consequences on my views about the origin of Proto-Uralic. It is a totally irrelevant side note concerning that topic.
@Davidski
“The influence in Uralic is early Indo-Iranian, not Indo-Slavic.”
This doesn’t say anything about the language of Fatyanovo. We don’t know when, where and how such influences occurred. There are Baltic and Slavic influences in Uralic and in Tocharian languages. It is all debatable.
There are some elements common in Greek and Indo-Iranian but absent in Balto-Slavic languages. Were these elements present in the Fatyanovo languages? If not then Fatyanovo languages were not Indo-Iranian.
Abstracts from the conference, no more detailed information yet.
"Kristina Zhur, who works in the laboratory of the Federal Research Center “Fundamental Foundations of Biotechnology” of the Russian Academy of Sciences, spoke about a paleogenetic study that made it possible to test the hypothesis about human migration routes. A tooth from a burial ground dated 5197–4850 BC was examined near the city of Nalchik. This burial ground is one of the earliest known burial complexes in the Caucasus. Scientists compared DNA isolated from the tooth with other ancient genomes to choose one of three hypotheses for the origin of man from Nalchik. The position of the genome from Nalchik in the space of principal components turned out to be intermediate between the steppe and the Caucasus, which indicates contacts with the population of the steppe."
@Jaakko
The thing is not that just that Fatyanovo was R1a-Z93 but that Balto-Slavic related R1a-Z280 clades were only found around Bronze Age Poland (see Spiginas2 and Pol_EBA_o). These are also the first samples which show Balto-Slavic specific drift which in Fatyanvo and later Srubnaya is exactly zero. Also if Balto-Slavic was from Fatyanovo you would need to show a migration from Central Russia into Baltics, Poland and Belarus around 1500-2000 B.C but there is no archaelogical evidence for something like this but we have evidence for TCC from East Poland expanding into West Russia around 1500 B.C. Balto-Slavic cant be genetically and archaelogically from Central Russia.
@EastPole
-"Were these elements present in the Fatyanovo languages? If not then Fatyanovo languages were not Indo-Iranian."
What is the answer you are expecting to this question, when you know well that this is just untestable? You cannot assess the nature of the Fatyanovo language by requirements like this, because - obviously - it is not attested. So the best you can do is working backward.
Fatyanovo is a rather homogenous CWC offshoot, its existence was not very long for such assumed diversification, and genetically it is a much better fit for Indo-Iranians that Balto-Slavs. Not to mention that there should be an archeological trace for the westward movement somewhere, but instead apparently they moved in the opposite direction. Or you say Sintashta was still Indo-Slavic too and then Baltio-Slavic came back into Europe with the Scythians?
Always cool to see samples closer to 5000 BC with Steppe ancestry (although I thought Nalchik carbon dating was more like 4800BC), presumably this sample should be half-Progress-like. Would also corroborate the observations some people have made regarding PG2001.
@EastPole
"there are Baltic and Slavic influences in... Tocharian languages."
Lol
@Slumbery
“Fatyanovo is a rather homogenous CWC offshoot, its existence was not very long for such assumed diversification, and genetically it is a much better fit for Indo-Iranians that Balto-Slavs. Not to mention that there should be an archeological trace for the westward movement somewhere, but instead apparently they moved in the opposite direction. Or you say Sintashta was still Indo-Slavic too and then Baltio-Slavic came back into Europe with the Scythians?”
Yes, Fatyanovo was a rather homogenous CWC offshoot, very similar genetically to Mierzanowice/Strzyżów/Iwno post-CWC cultures in Poland. It is reasonable to assume that original CWC R1a rich tribes, from which Fatyanovo and Mierzanowice/Strzyżów/Iwno CWC tribes originated, were speaking Indo-Slavic languages.
Mierzanowice/Strzyżów/Iwno tribes in Poland abandoned nomadic CWC way of life, settled down and started farming, mixing with local EEF-HG resulting in Trzciniec-Komarów cultures which are considered Proto-Slavic because they were rich in Slavic variants of R1a. Similar processes occurred in the north where Balts emerged. But some CWC R1a rich tribes were moving east without mixing with EEF-HGs and therefore most likely preserved the original Indo-Slavic language.
There is no reason to believe that Fatyanovo tribes spoke Indo-Iranian languages and had common elements with Greek and Armenian languages influenced by West Asian substrata.
@EthanR
https://twitter.com/avzaagzonunaada/status/1567105620129775616
Linguistically I imagine
Trzciniec culture - Balto-Slavic
Balts may be in the north east and Slavs in the central east or south east
Central and north Urnfield culture- Celtic
Central south Urnfield - Italic
Nordic Bronze Age - Germanic
Fatyanovo - Indo-Iranian
Atlantic Bronze Age - some extinct Nordwestblock language
And then Paleo-Balkan languages coming from Yamnaya with important intermediate hubs like Vučedol, Cetina
That's not evidence of a baltic or slavic influence on Tocharian.
Comparing some Fatyanovo IBD shared segments with various groups.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.03.08.531671v1.full.pdf
ancIBD - Screening for identity by descent
segments in human ancient DNA
Using IBD, we find that individuals from diverse Corded Ware cultural groups, including from Sweden (associated
with the Battle Axe culture), Russia (Fatyanovo), and East/Central Europe share high amounts of long IBD with each other, and also have IBD sharing up to 20 cM with various Yamnaya groups (Fig. 5, Fig. E2).
The “regional variants” of Fatyanovo are chronological progressions of the gradual exodus of pII groups from west to east. Jasko’s claim that Balto-Slavic was hidden within one of them rather than the obvious location further West within the broader Trziniec complex is highly dubious.
The RUKI question is complex, but such shared shifts would have occurred as the Baltic and Russian-central asian CW populations split near the western Bug-Dniester region
Coldmountains:
“The thing is not that just that Fatyanovo was R1a-Z93 but that Balto-Slavic related R1a-Z280 clades were only found around Bronze Age Poland (see Spiginas2 and Pol_EBA_o). These are also the first samples which show Balto-Slavic specific drift which in Fatyanvo and later Srubnaya is exactly zero. Also if Balto-Slavic was from Fatyanovo you would need to show a migration from Central Russia into Baltics, Poland and Belarus around 1500-2000 B.C but there is no archaelogical evidence for something like this but we have evidence for TCC from East Poland expanding into West Russia around 1500 B.C. Balto-Slavic cant be genetically and archaelogically from Central Russia.”
1. This “Balto-Slavic drift” should actually be called “Baltic-WestUralic-EastSlavic drift”, according to the results of Davidski:
Latvian 10,0
Lithuanian 9,4
Estonian 8,4
Russian west 7,9
Belarussian 7,7
Polish 7,0
Mordovian 6,7
Russian north 6,6
Ukrainian 6,6
Komi 6,4
Vepsian 6,4
Croatian 5,4
Finnish 5,2
Karelian 5,2
Hungarian 4,3
Serbian 4,2
Romanian 4,1
Macedonian 3,9
German 3,7
Bulgarian 3,6
Saami 3,4
Swedish 3,1
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2021/06/balto-slavic-drift.html
Many South Slavs generally have no more this drift than the Germanic-speaking populations. Calling it “Balto-Slavic” seems to ignore the real distribution, the top results being very north-eastern.
Moreover, if this drift is later than Fatyanovo, only occurring during the 2nd millennium BCE, then it cannot exclude Fatyanovo as the origin for the Balto-Slavic people. And even if it was contemporaneous with Fatyanovo, it could only exclude Fatyanovo as the origin of some ancestors of the Balto-Slavic people.
2. Why is R1a-Z280 considered Balto-Slavic? In FTDNA Discover, it and all of its subhaplogroups only have the frequency of 9 % in Latvians and 8 % in Lithuanians. Is this really the strongest strait you can find connecting the extant Baltic and Slavic populations together? For a comparison, R1a-Z93 and its subclades have the frequency of 2 % in Latvians and 3 % in Lithuanians. One can ask, if 8 % is enough for the language, why 3 % is not enough?
As I have said many times, the genetic composition of language carrier population could have changed between every step of expansion. Moreover, language shift is a complex, socially conditioned process: language of the majority does not always prevail.
3. There was indeed movement from the Upper Volga Region to the west during the 2nd millennium BCE: the Seima-Turbino Network, Textile Ceramic waves etc. They did not reach Poland, though. But with the top values of the “Baltic-WestUralic-EastSlavic drift” these expansions match very well. Then, to explain the spread of this drift to the more southern regions, other cultural connections are needed. Later phase of the Trzciniec Cultural Complex and/or its successor cultures would probably fit here nicely.
Needless to say, there are always many cultural expansions to every direction. It is axiomatic to look only those cultural expansions, which agree with one’s premeditated opinion. You cannot just decide that the Trzciniec Cultural Complex spread Balto-Slavic language from the west to the east – you should present supporting evidence for this view.
You cannot ignore the linguistic results showing that the extant Balto-Slavic languages are only the westernmost part of the earlier wider Balto-Slavic continuum, reaching all the way to the Upper Volga Region. And results which are based only on selected, partial evidence, are not very credible results.
@Jaakko:
Who knows what language R280s spoke back then. It’s possible that it’s just Slavic and the 280s in Latvia and Lithuania are Slavic remnants.
We will need many more samples to make any theories with any level of certainty.
@Jaako
I was not talking about R1a-Z280 in general but specific Balto-Slavic-related Z280 sublines like R1a-CTS1211 which were found in Bronze Age Poland and Lithuania.
R1a-Z93 in the Baltics is today 99% of Jewish or Tatar orgin and this is the R1a-Z93 showing up on FTDNA in Lithuania (Ashkenazi Jews). Also FTDNA includes in its haplogroup frequency estimates people who did just Y-Str 37 tests and can only be assigned to R1a and no deeper clade so the actual frequency of R1a-Z280 is much higher.
@Jaakko Häkkinen
Either you didn't read my blog post, or you did read it but you didn't understand it. Or you're misrepresenting what it says because you're dishonest.
Obviously, those stats aren't Balto-Slavic ancestry proportions, they're Z scores. And, as the blog post clearly states, some caveats apply.
So it's no wonder that South Slavs aren't getting higher Z scores because Balto-Slavic drift is also North European drift, and South Slavs are significantly Southern European.
If we were to measure Balto-Slavic ancestry proportions, then South Slavs would show higher levels of such proportions than Germanics and Finns.
Nevertheless, South Slavs do score significant Z scores (>3), as expected, because they're Slavs despite being from Southern Europe.
Indeed, all of the populations on that list you posted are known to have come into contact and mixed with Balts and/or Slavs during the last ~1,000 years. So there's no major issue with the stats if you know what you're looking at and honest about it.
@Jaakko Häkkinen
For a comparison, R1a-Z93 and its subclades have the frequency of 2 % in Latvians and 3 % in Lithuanians. One can ask, if 8 % is enough for the language, why 3 % is not enough?
These are Jews not Balts.
You are clueless and this is the only reason you think you have an argument.
@a, when it comes to IBD, what I found from Ringbauer's set is that:
1) In some processing that took a long time around IBD with Sintashta, there's a very strong founder effect that seems to be the case with Sintashta and later Steppe_MLBA populations - https://imgur.com/a/4cyVcdI
The Fatyanovo samples that precede Sintashta seem to have some but only have a very little bit of this. (The Poltavka outlier pre-Sintashta has much more, but I think that's a misdated outlier on the order of 700 years too early).
The way this generally tends to look to me is that it's a very smooth pattern. You have the peak Sintashta IBD at around 1900 BCE, the Kazakhstan Steppe_MLBA (attributed to various cultures) show a bit less from 1800-1500 BCE (some samples out at the western limit of China, at the Altai as well, near the Kazakhstan border but not it seems to me in the west or centre or south of Xinjiang), then the first Uzbekistan and Tajikistan samples with still less show up around 1400 BCE, then you finally are filtering through more to more samples in Xinjiang from wider afield around 1400-1000 BCE, and to some very low (but still enriched relative to other MLBA Europe) level in Pakistan_IA around 900 BCE. Last presumably arrives earlier somewhere in the phase of 1400-1000 BCE. So it's taking about 500-900 years, or 30 to 16 generations. Sufficient time to allow for required population growth.
(If a population increases by 40% per generation, i.e. every 1 man and 1 woman leave 2.8 children, over 22.5 generations, then the population size will increase by 1940. So that could be an increase from 1000 people to 1.94 million).
2) I couldn't replicate the above link for Fatyanovo because it would just take a lot of time due to the way Ringbauer et all provided the data (I had to do lots of processing to add population labels, then dates to all population pairs, then work out averages controlling for different potential combinations per population etc).
However it doesn't like Fatyanovo has any strong IBD founder effects of any sort that link it disproportionately with any particular early European LNBA subgrouping; the ones that have most links just look like the ones which are early (so less time for IBDs to decay) and where we have more samples (e.g. large Czech Corded Ware set). Whether an IBD match is found is strongly biased by sample size (more samples, more potential matches) and its important to keep some control for this. At a quick guess I'd guess Fatyanovo are *mostly* just part of a larger metapopulation with some incipient branching but without any specific strong founder effect, which only comes into play with the rapid expansion across the steppe zone from where Fatyanovo predecessors are based. But I think that more work by Ringbauer, Flegontov and all using this IBD reconstruction will be informative.
@EthanR
"That's not evidence of a baltic or slavic influence on Tocharian."
There was Slavic influence on Tocharian:
https://postimg.cc/qzgKpMQf
Lane, George S. "Tocharian: Indo-European and Non-Indo-European Relationships,"
Some tried to explain it by theory that at some remote time Slavs and Tocharians were neighbors on the steppe. As the Tocharians began to move east, the last contacts that they had with other Indo-Europeans (before their much later interaction with the Indians and Iranians) was with the Slavs, resulting in some Slavic influence.
Tocharians probably come from Afanasievo and from Yamnaya. But we know that Slavs didn’t originate from Yamnaya but from Corded Ware. So such an explanation is unlikely.
An alternative explanation is that Fatyanovo was Indo-Slavic, and so was Sintashta and Andronovo until they started to mix with populations in Central Asia where they became Indo-Iranians.
Coldmountains:
“I was not talking about R1a-Z280 in general but specific Balto-Slavic-related Z280 sublines like R1a-CTS1211 which were found in Bronze Age Poland and Lithuania.”
R-CTS1211 has the frequency of only 6 % in Latvians and Lithuanians. Do you realize that when you accept so small portion for language carriers, there appear many other possible candidates for the language carriers? The reality is such that it is not easy to find the right correlation between language and DNA; we cannot see from the DNA which lineage carried certain language. We must take the linguistic results as the starting point and try to find the best possible matches for them, building a model of successive steps of expansion, and in every step the dominant lineage could have been different.
Coldmountains:
“R1a-Z93 in the Baltics is today 99% of Jewish or Tatar orgin and this is the R1a-Z93 showing up on FTDNA in Lithuania (Ashkenazi Jews). Also FTDNA includes in its haplogroup frequency estimates people who did just Y-Str 37 tests and can only be assigned to R1a and no deeper clade so the actual frequency of R1a-Z280 is much higher.”
In Discover all the samples that I have seen are BigY-tested: all of them have much more recent terminal mutations than just R1a-M420. Every sample in every country in every haplogroup which I have followed, comes very close to the present time.
It is possible that R-Z93 in the Balts is of Tatar or Jewish origin. But with the same criteria, how can you prove that your R-CTS1211 does not also represent some later expansion to the East Baltic Region?
Davidski:
“Either you didn't read my blog post, or you did read it but you didn't understand it. Or you're misrepresenting what it says because you're dishonest. Obviously, those stats aren't Balto-Slavic ancestry proportions, they're Z scores. And, as the blog post clearly states, some caveats apply.”
I did not speak about ancestry proportions. You presented those numbers as a proof of Balto-Slavic drift. I commented that a more suitable label would be “Baltic-WestUralic-EastSlavic drift”. We should not let our axioms direct our interpretation of data.
Davidski:
“Indeed, all of the populations on that list you posted are known to have come into contact and mixed with Balts and/or Slavs during the last ~1,000 years. So there's no major issue with the stats if you know what you're looking at and honest about it.”
So, you claim that the Saamis, the Swedes, etc. have had so strong admixture with Baltic or Slavic speakers during the last 1000 years that the whole population now shows this drift? Seems quite incredible. Could you present a time and a place for such admixture events?
When the drift itself is much older, would not it be more credible to explain it rather within the last 3000 years? In that time-depth there were admixture events with Finnic, Saami etc.
This is nonsense. Even if an indo-slavic-tocharian clade exists at some point in CWC (and is not a result of shared retentions), calling this a slavic influence is incorrect. Slavic is much younger than its parent languages.
Further, there is no scenario where historic slavic speakers came into contact with Tocharians.
EastPole:
“There was Slavic influence on Tocharian:”
Modern view does not seem to acknowledge such influence:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/indoeuropean-language-family/tocharian/C416BA98689B60615EDD977E07CE5173
EastPole:
“An alternative explanation is that Fatyanovo was Indo-Slavic, and so was Sintashta and Andronovo until they started to mix with populations in Central Asia where they became Indo-Iranians.”
1. There is no linguistic evidence supporting your Indo-Slavic proto-dialect.
2. It is universally agreed that Indo-Iranian languages developed in Europe and only spread beyond Southern Trans-Urals after the Sintashta Culture. (Stray wanderers excluded.)
3. There are early Indo-Iranian, not Indo-Slavic, loanwords in Uralic languages.
@ Jakko Häkkinen
R1a Z93 in Poland and Lithuania are either lower class Ashkenazi Jews or Lipka Tatars, only one person from FTDNA is an ethnic Pole with Z93!
@Matt
Indo-European---Balto-Slavic, Indo-Iranian?
Any ideas, how some old areas of CWC(Southeast Poland and Poland) could possibly be connected with Russian Fatyanovo culture 2900 BC?
Jaakko Häkkinen said "Do you realize that when you accept so small portion for language carriers, there appear many other possible candidates for the language carriers? The reality is such that it is not easy to find the right correlation between language and DNA; we cannot see from the DNA which lineage carried certain language. We must take the linguistic results as the starting point and try to find the best possible matches for them, building a model of successive steps of expansion, and in every step the dominant lineage could have been different"
The direct relationship between language and DNA (male markers) is easy to demonstrate in Spain because the Iberians and Tartessians were 100% R1b-DF27 (I guess that will be a good percentage for you) and they spoke Iberian and Tartessian (both non-Indo-European languages).
In addition there is genetic continuity of this marker at least since 2500 BC which means that the BB culture did not speak an Indo-European language either. If you add to this that we Spaniards are 70% R1b and that the Basques have preserved a Non-Indo-European language, it is evident that in our case we can know exactly which male lineage spoke a certain language.
That is, according to your reasoning
1-Starting point & Linguistic results-We have more than 7.000 inscriptions in Iberian ergo Iberians spoke and wrote Iberian.
2-The best and only matches belong to the lineage R1b-Df27 (100% of the Iberians analyzed).
3-No need to build an expansion model because there is genetic and cultural continuity from the Chalcolithic to the Iron Age and the Roman conquest, then there is no change in the male uniparental markers (until today).
This that seems to be easy to understand is unacceptable for the supporters of the Kurgan theory.
Fatyanovo comes from where the oldest R1a-z93 comes from, Romania 3500-3000 BCE, GLAV_14.
@a
In fact, the answer to this question lies on the surface. But it is impossible to write this answer because it contradicts the consensus of both archaeologists and paleogeneticians that CWC originated in Poland. Then the culture is equated with the population and as a result, the population is withdrawn from Poland. If we discard dogmas, then the population in Poland appears about 3000 BC. But this population, at least the early CWC of Poland, did not form in Poland, but came there already established. Yes, it wasn't CWC yet, but autosomally these people formed in a different place. Here's the answer. Where did the people of early CWC Poland come from? It is this place that is the desired place, it was in this place that the western and eastern CWC existed nearby until 3000 BC, and in the same place next to them was the Yamnaya/Afanasievo population. The best candidates are the area of the middle Dnieper. And Fatyanovo in this case is not the beginning and end of Z93, but just one of the Z93 groups, apparently there were other groups in the area of the lower Dnieper, from which Abashevo and not only came out. And that's where Z93 lived together with Z283/Z282. Mallory wrote about it at the time. In the steppe and forest-steppe zone of Russia there are cultures not derived from Fatyanovo, but ending in Sintashta. We cannot solve this issue without high-quality processing of northern Ukraine, Belarus and western regions of Russia.
@Romulus
Fatyanovo comes from where the oldest R1a-z93 comes from, Romania 3500-3000 BCE, GLAV_14.
GLAV_14 is a Sarmatian.
@ Vlad
''In fact, the answer to this question lies on the surface. But it is impossible to write this answer because it contradicts the consensus of both archaeologists and paleogeneticians that CWC originated in Poland.''
No such claims of consensus exist, I think you're imagining things.
''The best candidates are the area of the middle Dnieper. And Fatyanovo in this case is not the beginning and end of Z93, but just one of the Z93 groups, apparently there were other groups in the area of the lower Dnieper, from which Abashevo and not only came out. And that's where Z93 lived together with Z283/Z282. ''
This is unlikely for several reasons.
Firstly, the middle Dnieper groups are fairly late, C14 dating only to 2700/2600 BC. They culturally synchronise with the Catacomb culture, and MDC has Catacomb artefacts, not anything of the 'Corded Ware X' horizon
Secondly, there are many more sites of Yamnaya & pre-Yamnaya in the Podol forest-steppe in the middle Dniester, and that is why Polish-Ukrainian scholars are focussing excavations there, contrary to your claims about them believing that pre-CW is from Poland.
Thirdly, it is unlikely that the required EEF found in Fatyanovo will be found in the middle Dnieper region, it has to be more western, ie southern Bug / middle Dniester region as I suggested above.
''In the steppe and forest-steppe zone of Russia there are cultures not derived from Fatyanovo, but ending in Sintashta. We cannot solve this issue without high-quality processing of northern Ukraine, Belarus and western regions of Russia.''
This is a fallacy, you're merely parroting outdated Soviet archaeological opinion & ignoring current facts, as per usual.
All the Russian forest/steppe and southern forest groups are fairly monolithic and spread through western Russia from the west. Sure genomes from Belarus would be great, but theyre only going to confirm what we already know - from the west, EEF- rich and R1a-Z93.
@Davidski
Not a Sarmatian, neither is Glăvăneşti 11913
https://haplotree.info/maps/ancient_dna/slideshow_map.php?searchcolumn=Object_ID&searchfor=I11913_I11914_I11915&ybp=500000,0
Glăvăneşti 11913 was a man who lived between 3500 - 1100 BCE during the European Bronze Age and was found in the region now known as Grave, Glăvănești, Romania.
He was associated with the Monteoru cultural group.
His direct maternal line belonged to mtDNA haplogroup U2e1h.
Reference: I11913 from Harney et al. 2021
@Vladimir
Where did you get this? And link?
Kristina Zhur, who works in the laboratory of the Federal Research Center “Fundamental Foundations of Biotechnology” of the Russian Academy of Sciences, spoke about a paleogenetic study that made it possible to test the hypothesis about human migration routes. A tooth from a burial ground dated 5197–4850 BC was examined near the city of Nalchik. This burial ground is one of the earliest known burial complexes in the Caucasus. Scientists compared DNA isolated from the tooth with other ancient genomes to choose one of three hypotheses for the origin of man from Nalchik. The position of the genome from Nalchik in the space of principal components turned out to be intermediate between the steppe and the Caucasus, which indicates contacts with the population of the steppe.
IMO the presence of Steppe_MLBA-like, I guess Abashevo-derived, samples in Seima-Turbino cemeteries is probably enough to explain pre-Proto-Indo-Iranian loans in Uralic.
Proto-Uralic *će̮lǝ cannot be reliably translated as 'elm' either, since it could've referred to any other tree from which bast can be harvested. A similar situation occurs in LPIE, where *bʰeh₂ǵos gives rise to words for 'beech' in Italic, Celtic and Germanic, but 'oak' in Greek (and, according to Wiktionary, 'oak' and 'chestnut' in Albanian, 'elderberries' in Slavic). Beech trees don't grow in the steppes, even less likely thousands of years ago when beech range was even more limited, so most likely the word was transferred to beech in the western branches, originally referring to a mast-producing tree, probably oak. So the Proto-Uralic word could've similarly been transferred to elm in the western branches.
If I'm right about both of these, there is nothing linking Proto-Uralic to Europe or the Urals. Still, I like the model for the break-up of Proto-Uralic in Häkkinen's paper. I just really don't think it happened in the Middle Urals.
I tried to model Saami with NEO538 in Vahaduo.
Target: Saami
Distance: 1.9125% / 0.01912527
59.4 Russia_Minino_LBA:NEO538
22.2 Scandinavia_4000BP_3000BP
13.4 Estonia_BA.SG
5.0 Norway_LN_BA.SG:VK531_noUDG.SG
Target: Finland_Levanluhta
Distance: 2.5448% / 0.02544785
60.8 Russia_Minino_LBA:NEO538
25.4 Scandinavia_4000BP_3000BP
13.8 Estonia_BA.SG
These look like the kinds of admixtures Proto-Saami people might have acquired in, say, southern Finland.
According to Pribislav on GenArchivist, NEO538 belongs to N-SK1485.
There's an abstract of a study titled Finnish Y chromosome sequencing data suggests dual paths of haplogroup N1a1 into Finland that was also posted on GenArchivist. Quote:
We show that haplogroup N1a1-TAT, traditionally associated with eastern Finnish ancestry, splits into two unique lineages: N1a1a1a1a2a1-CTS2733 (53%) enriched in the northeast, and N1a1a1a1a1a-VL29 (16%) more frequent in the southwestern coast, specifically in Southwest Finland (64% of N1a1, chisq p=5e-11). Carriers of these two N1a1-TAT lineages displayed differences in their autosomal genome (PC1) in Southwest Finland (wilcoxon p<2e-16) but not elsewhere in Finland, with the VL29 carriers resembling closely southwestern Finns, suggesting its arrival to the southwestern coast may occurred more likely via the Baltic Sea rather than through the mainland. Overall, our results suggest two separate routes of haplogroup N1a1-TAT into Finland, N1a1a1a1a2a1-CTS2733 from the east and N1a1a1a1a1a-VL29 from the southwest.
N-SK1485 is a subclade of N-CTS2733, although not the one that's dominant in modern Saami (N-Z1926).
As such I think it's likely that NEO538 is a good stand-in for the pre-Proto-Saami population that migrated into Finland from the east.
@Jaakko Häkkinen
Here's the crux of the matter: to make things fit in terms of your loan word analysis, you're forced to build a house of cards in which Fatyanovo ancestry is the true Balto-Slavic ancestry.
But then it somehow very quickly becomes Indo-Iranian ancestry in Asia.
On the other hand, Balto-Slavic ancestry is initially something unknown, but it somehow becomes Balto-Slavic ancestry as a result of contacts with Fatyanovo without any gene flow.
Why bother with this?
I think I speak for almost everyone here when I say that it'd be a lot easier if you just fixed your loan word analysis to reflect reality.
Scandinavia_4000BP_3000BP, that I used to model Saami, is the average of the samples included in the IBD group by the same name in Allentoft et al., inspired by CopperAxe's earlier attempt at this.
Scandinavia_4200BP_3200BP,0.1215838,0.1260181,0.0660649,0.0591677,0.0379371,0.0187364,0.0017092,0.005748,0.0009669,-0.0051025,-0.0009447,0.0031062,-0.0061087,-0.0143754,0.0223938,0.011909,-0.0011498,0.0025914,0.0045707,0.0057642,0.0106177,0.0047775,-0.0030139,0.0022235,-0.0030264
Scandinavia_4000BP_3000BP,0.1268179,0.1309186,0.07313,0.0618814,0.0432899,0.0191272,0.0054443,0.0097112,0.0070049,-0.0073503,-0.0028825,0.0035219,-0.0087338,-0.0061127,0.020652,0.0071488,-0.0044332,0.0063345,0.0065154,0.0095775,0.0126132,0.0048842,-0.0020232,0.0094189,-0.0016565
Affinity to Scandinavia_4000BP_3000BP over Scandinavia_4200BP_3200BP appears to be strongly linked with Germanic ancestry even here, despite the fact that they are very similar. Check this out:
"Distance D3: ( AC - BC ) / ( AC + BC ) ↑"
"A: Scandinavia_4000BP_3000BP"
"B: Scandinavia_4200BP_3200BP"
"C: ↴"
-0.27804017 Estonia_EarlyViking.SG
-0.25608175 Poland_Weklice_WielbarkCulture_Roman.SG
-0.24325875 Denmark_IA.SG
-0.18320800 Swedish
-0.18249806 Sweden_IA_2.SG
-0.16578417 Norway_IA.SG
-0.16141429 Slovakia_Zohor_Germanic_Roman.SG
-0.15157224 Netherlands_Friesland_Saxon_Medieval.SG
-0.12800347 Greenland_EarlyNorse.SG
-0.12559897 Sweden_Late_N.SG
"Distance D3: ( AC - BC ) / ( AC + BC ) ↓"
"A: Scandinavia_4000BP_3000BP"
"B: Scandinavia_4200BP_3200BP"
"C: ↴"
0.26407547 Scotland_MBA
0.25089821 Scotland_C_EBA
0.24582920 Switzerland_EBA_2
0.20149168 England_C_EBA
0.19578688 Poland_BellBeaker
0.18973872 Czech_EBA_Unetice
0.18887438 Germany_EBA_Unetice
0.18062031 Czech_EBA
0.17748136 Czech_LBA_IA_Knoviz_Hallstatt
0.17235557 Sweden_LN.SG
"Distance to:" Scandinavia_4200BP_3200BP
0.01437875 Netherlands_MBA
0.01742679 Scotland_MBA
0.01744486 England_MBA
0.01754259 Iceland_Viking.SG
0.01790070 Scotland_C_EBA
0.01797750 Iceland_Pre_Christian.SG
0.01807183 Denmark_EarlyViking.SG
0.01810735 England_Viking.SG
0.01817419 Norway_Viking.SG
0.01827024 England_C_EBA
"Distance to:" Scandinavia_4000BP_3000BP
0.01509116 Denmark_EarlyViking.SG
0.01525432 Poland_Weklice_WielbarkCulture_Roman.SG
0.01536224 Norway_Viking.SG
0.01628476 Estonia_EarlyViking.SG
0.01706402 Swedish
0.01722450 Denmark_IA.SG
0.01750896 England_EarlyMedieval_Saxon
0.01788026 Sweden_Late_N.SG
0.01794159 Norwegian
0.01837819 England_Saxon
Here are some neat models:
Target: Sweden_IA_all
Distance: 1.3860% / 0.01385983
88.2 Scandinavia_4000BP_3000BP
11.8 Estonia_IA.SG
Target: Denmark_IA.SG
Distance: 1.7225% / 0.01722450
100.0 Scandinavia_4000BP_3000BP
Target: Norway_IA.SG
Distance: 1.7736% / 0.01773645
96.6 Scandinavia_4000BP_3000BP
3.4 Norway_LN_BA.SG
Target: Poland_Wielbark_IA_all
Distance: 1.2068% / 0.01206760
94.0 Scandinavia_4000BP_3000BP
6.0 Estonia_IA.SG
@Romulus
They're wrongly dated. No C14.
They lived well after Fatyanovo.
Y-hg R1a-M558 (CTS-1211) in Latvians ~35 % , not 9%.
Y-Chromosomal Lineages of Latvians in the Context of the Genetic Variation of the Eastern-Baltic Region. 2015.
@ Zelto
Those Estonian LBA genomes are interesting. They look like some post-Corded, Scandi-related population rich in Narva-like and EHG ancestry.
So theyre essentially the norther parallel of the HG-rich Latvia-LBA group
I think the Estonian-Finns moved down from the north at some point late in the game.
C14 dating could just as well confirm the original dating. Currently those are the best estimates. You can't state they are wrong when it's an unknown. What we do know is they come from the area already identified as the origin of Fatyanovo.
You'll see a big red arrow, hard to miss.
@Davidski
This is an overview of the presentations of the Paleogenomics section at the Molecular Diagnostics 2023 forum
https://pcr.news/novosti/md-2023-paleogenomika/
@Romulus
Fatyanovo is obviously a mix between early Corded Ware and GAC. So it's not from the Balkans.
And you can't get Fatyanovo from those Romanian Z93 samples because they have something Asian about them, you know, like Sarmatians and Scythians do.
@ Erik Andersson quoted
''We show that haplogroup N1a1-TAT, traditionally associated with eastern Finnish ancestry, splits into two unique lineages: N1a1a1a1a2a1-CTS2733 (53%) enriched in the northeast, and N1a1a1a1a1a-VL29 (16%) more frequent in the southwestern coast, specifically in Southwest Finland (64% of N1a1, chisq p=5e-11). Carriers of these two N1a1-TAT lineages displayed differences in their autosomal genome (PC1) in Southwest Finland (wilcoxon p<2e-16) but not elsewhere in Finland, with the VL29 carriers resembling closely southwestern Finns, suggesting its arrival to the southwestern coast may occurred more likely via the Baltic Sea rather than through the mainland. Overall, our results suggest two separate routes of haplogroup N1a1-TAT into Finland, N1a1a1a1a2a1-CTS2733 from the east and N1a1a1a1a1a-VL29 from the southwest.''
Although I welcome their data, I doubt their conclusions are going to be supported by aDNA. We already know this by the dearth of N1c in the East Baltic coast.
Quite the contrary, both lineages arrived inland via the Ladoga - Onega corridor.
And this happened much earlier than Minino_LBA
Accurate depiction of GAC sites in the East.
This establishes Volhyn-Podol region as a (? the) departure point for Fatyanovo-Abashevo-Sintastha folk.
The handful of sites further east of that aren't GAC sites, but non-GAC sites with occasional GAC axe or pot due to trade, etc.
@Rob
By fitting the place to the Fatyanovo samples, you lose the early CWC samples of Poland, the Baltic and the Czech Republic, which have practically no EEF. As for theories, there have been and are many theories. I wrote about the prevailing theory, I think it is wrong. To judge the current state of affairs in the archeology of Russia, you need at least to know this state of affairs, which, unfortunately, you do not know. The current state of affairs is such that Abashevo is being comes of the BBC culture. Which is actually also nonsense. But the real state of affairs with the spread of Z93 in the Russian European forest-steppe zone, we do not yet know even half. There will be a lot of surprises when the genetics of the forest-steppe strip appears. The first surprise has already appeared in Anthony's presentation, when the genetics of not the standard Yamnaya culture, but the genetics of early CWC samples from the Baltic, Poland and the Czech Republic were discovered in the archaeological burials of the Yamnaya Don culture
@Vladimir
The first surprise has already appeared in Anthony's presentation, when the genetics of not the standard Yamnaya culture, but the genetics of early CWC samples from the Baltic, Poland and the Czech Republic were discovered in the archaeological burials of the Yamnaya Don culture.
Don Yamnaya isn't ancestral to Corded Ware, it's just coincidentally similar.
Some of the Don Yamnaya samples actually have more hunter-gatherer ancestry than early Corded Ware.
But all the males are Z2103.
@Davidski
There are no such coincidences. I also don't think that Yamnaya Don is the ancestor of CWC. But it is obvious that the ancestors of the early CWC were next to Yamnaya Don.
@ Vladimir
''By fitting the place to the Fatyanovo samples, you lose the early CWC samples of Poland, the Baltic and the Czech Republic, which have practically no EEF. ''
It’s a question of time, the ‘place’ is fine.
The proto-Fatyanovids departed after 2700 BC, which is 2-300 years later than the earliest proto-Cordeds reached the Uplands (from near the Don steppe or whenever it might have been), hence they had time to mix with GAC whilst others of their kin dispersed further afar into Europe & the Baltic. Mind you at 3000 BC, the GAC expansion from Kayuvia toward the East had not yet occurred. Ive already outlined this before.
I think that we must perceive the PIE differentiation process in a modern way, i.e. diachronic and synchronic. As archeology and genetics show, the CWC population spread rapidly from its cradle in the Polish-Uranian border. Therefore, these people could have used a group of closely related PIE dialects, which we can identify with the Indo-Slavic stage. Then, as a result of the transition to a sedentary lifestyle and the assimilation of the local demographic and linguistic substrate, innovation centers were established in the east, north and in the center of the CWC area, respectively Iranian, Baltic and Slavic. And because the isloglosses spread from these centers in waves, mixed dialects (now extinct) - Balto-Slavic, Balto-Iranian or Slavo-Iranian - were created in the buffer zones. Some Iranian, Baltic or Slavic isoglosses could, of course, also reach Uralic dialects.
Erik Andersson:
“IMO the presence of Steppe_MLBA-like, I guess Abashevo-derived, samples in Seima-Turbino cemeteries is probably enough to explain pre-Proto-Indo-Iranian loans in Uralic.”
Dozens of loanwords from successive Indo-Iranian layers require adjacency of the speech communities. If random wanderers would suffice as the source of loanwords, we should see in every language dozens of loanwords from very distant languages. But we do not see that: languages tend to have loanwords only from their neighbor languages (before the modern era). Also large groups of immigrants from a remote region are enough, and the influence of such colonies is usually seen widely also culturally and genetically.
Erik Andersson:
“Proto-Uralic *će̮lǝ cannot be reliably translated as 'elm' either, since it could've referred to any other tree from which bast can be harvested.”
How could it have referred to any other tree, when it has exclusively the meaning ‘elm’ in Mordvin, Mari, and Hungarian. Do you really think that all these branches have shifted the meaning independently from some other tree to ‘elm’? Highly improbable. The semantic shift in Mansi clearly reflects the limited distribution of elm: it does not grow in the Mansi area.
Erik Andersson:
“A similar situation occurs in LPIE, where *bʰeh₂ǵos gives rise to words for 'beech' in Italic, Celtic and Germanic, but 'oak' in Greek (and, according to Wiktionary, 'oak' and 'chestnut' in Albanian, 'elderberries' in Slavic). Beech trees don't grow in the steppes, even less likely thousands of years ago when beech range was even more limited, so most likely the word was transferred to beech in the western branches, originally referring to a mast-producing tree, probably oak. So the Proto-Uralic word could've similarly been transferred to elm in the western branches.”
There is a clear difference between these cases: the original tree cannot be firmly reconstructed for that Indo-European word, but the original meaning of the Uralic word is much clearer – only Mansi shows the shifted meaning ‘bast’, achieved mainly from elm and linden. Therefore, this Uralic word rather corresponds to the IE word for ‘alnus’, having this meaning in the IE branches except in Indic the meaning is ‘Crataeva roxburghii’; or to the IE word for ‘birch’, having the different meaning ‘ash’ only in Latin.
Moreover, the word for ‘beech’ in Albanian and Greek is cognate of the word for ‘ash’ in many other branches. Because beech was known also for the speakers of these branches, the distribution cannot be used to explain the difference in the meaning.
Erik Andersson:
“If I'm right about both of these, there is nothing linking Proto-Uralic to Europe or the Urals. Still, I like the model for the break-up of Proto-Uralic in Häkkinen's paper. I just really don't think it happened in the Middle Urals.”
Unfortunately, to me this seems that you just try to explain away these arguments, because you believe in the Siberian homeland. But there really are no valid arguments supporting the Siberian homeland for LATE Proto-Uralic. Instead, there are these arguments supporting the homeland in the Central Ural Region. In science, we must accept the best-argued view and discard the weaker propositions.
Davidski:
“Here's the crux of the matter: to make things fit in terms of your loan word analysis, you're forced to build a house of cards in which Fatyanovo ancestry is the true Balto-Slavic ancestry.”
You have here a serious misunderstanding. The location of Balto-Slavic is totally irrelevant in my analysis for Proto-Uralic, and I do not even consider any Balto-Slavic loanwords in that article. All I am saying is: you should stay open for the possibility that there could have been other languages alongside Indo-Iranian within the wide Fatyanovo Culture. Satemization and the Ruki rule require that Balto-Slavic was spoken somewhere close to Indo-Iranian. So tell us, where do you put the early stages of Balto-Slavic lineage during the 3rd millennium?
Entirely another question are the Balto-Slavic loanwords in the western Uralic branches. These contacts began only in the mid-second millennium BC in the Upper Volga–Oka Region. Were the Balto-Slavic languages spoken there since the 3rd millennium or did they spread there from somewhere else, that is irrelevant.
Davidski:
“On the other hand, Balto-Slavic ancestry is initially something unknown, but it somehow becomes Balto-Slavic ancestry as a result of contacts with Fatyanovo without any gene flow.”
Tell us, what do you mean by Balto-Slavic ancestry and where do you derive it from? Autosomally, the Fatyanovo ancestry is similar to other Corded Ware Cultures. So, are you looking only at the paternal lineages?
Rob:
“Y-hg R1a-M558 (CTS-1211) in Latvians ~35 % , not 9%.
Y-Chromosomal Lineages of Latvians in the Context of the Genetic Variation of the Eastern-Baltic Region. 2015.”
- 159 Latvians in the study of Pliss et al., versus 211 Latvians in FTDNA Discover.
- Four distant regions in the study of Pliss et al., excluding e.g. the capital city and ca. half of the country.
- CTS1211 is not Z280. In Discover, 6 % of Latvians belong to the first, but 9 % to the latter.
The frequency difference is admittedly great between Pliss et al. and Discover. Hopefully there will appear larger sample of Latvians.
@Vladimir
“In fact, the answer to this question lies on the surface”.
The origin of Fatanovo is quite complex:
“More profitable to my mind is to look for analogies amongst the cord and epicorded ceramic cultures of the Baltic coast, Belarus and South Poland, where analogies are plentiful. The loops are typical in decoration styles of late cord ceramic cultures of South Poland and West Ukraine (Bunyatyan and Pozikhovskyin 2011; Kadrow and Machnik 1997). Sometimes similar loops are found in the Rzucewo culture of the Baltic coast (Kilian 1955; Rimantienë 1989; Zal’cman, 2010)”.
“It is possible to propose that the origin of the Fatyanovo culture was very complicated. Finds from ZBS-5 have parallels amongst corded ware cultures on the Baltic coast and in Poland, while those from ZBS-4 are closer to the Middle Dnieper culture. This suggests that groups belonging to different strands of the corded ware tradition penetrated the Moscow region”.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261710934_Corded_ware_Fatjanovo_and_Abashevo_culture_sites_on_the_flood-plain_of_the_Moskva_River
If Fatyanovo originated from the Middle Dnieper they would be genetically close to Yamnaya. But they are identical to Mierzanowice/Strzyżów/Iwno from Poland with around 50 % GAC ancestry. So I think the substantial portion of Fatyanovo ancestry came from Poland not from the Middle Dnieper.
One thing also puzzles me:
https://oldeuropeanculture.blogspot.com/2021/03/double-spiral.html?utm_source=pocket_saves
The author thinks that the oldest double spiral pendants are from Fatyanovo, but actually they were very common in Lengyel culture in Poland: Brześć Kujawski, Jordanów etc.:
https://postimg.cc/8fWpZ3cT
Later they were also very common in Trzciniec and Lusatian cultures, also in Abashevo and Sintashta, so I would link them with Indo-Slavic religion.
@Jaakko Häkkinen
Satemization and the Ruki rule require that Balto-Slavic was spoken somewhere close to Indo-Iranian. So tell us, where do you put the early stages of Balto-Slavic lineage during the 3rd millennium?
Both Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian are from Corded Ware in Eastern Europe, so this is the obvious link.
There were also contacts between them later when the Indo-Iranians moved back west into Eastern Europe.
Tell us, what do you mean by Balto-Slavic ancestry and where do you derive it from? Autosomally, the Fatyanovo ancestry is similar to other Corded Ware Cultures. So, are you looking only at the paternal lineages?
I mean the autosomal drift that is most extreme in the ancient and modern Baltic samples in this PCA (as well as many other tests).
https://vahaduo.github.io/g25views/#Europe2
Fatyanovo samples don't share this drift in this PCA or any other analysis. Have a look where they plot.
Russia_Moscow_Fatyanovo_BA.SG:HAN002_noUDG.SG,0.126344,0.109677,0.049403,0.088502,0.000923,0.032909,0.00611,0.006,-0.022293,-0.04647,0.004872,-0.002847,-0.002825,-0.01913,0.025244,0.020021,0.008996,0.00038,-0.008296,0.009254,-0.005366,-0.003091,0.000863,0.008796,-0.013651
Russia_Moscow_Fatyanovo_BA.SG:HAN004_noUDG.SG,0.121791,0.123895,0.062225,0.076228,0.016311,0.034025,0.003055,0.006692,-0.016771,-0.029887,0.001299,-0.004946,-0.002676,-0.01913,0.022937,0.006762,-0.010691,-0.002787,0.00817,-0.003252,0.005865,0.008656,0.001849,0.007471,-0.00479
Russia_Tver_Fatyanovo_BA.SG:BOL003_noUDG.SG,0.124067,0.117801,0.070144,0.08075,0.015387,0.024542,0.001645,0.005077,-0.009204,-0.024966,-0.010555,0.004496,-0.002527,-0.019542,0.030809,0.027313,0.010691,-0.002787,-0.012821,0.004752,0.005865,0.003833,0.001725,0.002771,-0.007305
Russia_Yaroslavl_Fatyanovo_BA.SG:HAL001_noUDG.SG,0.117238,0.111708,0.059585,0.084303,0.009232,0.02761,0.0094,-0.004615,-0.031906,-0.028611,-0.001461,0.007194,-0.00996,-0.019955,0.018865,0.022938,0.013951,0.001267,-0.004777,0.002251,-0.004367,-0.00371,0.009613,0.018677,-0.004311
Russia_Yaroslavl_Fatyanovo_BA.SG:NAU001_noUDG.SG,0.126344,0.125926,0.053928,0.081396,0.016311,0.033188,0.006345,-0.003923,-0.017385,-0.02606,0.001299,0.012739,-0.001933,-0.028488,0.022801,0.018165,0.005737,0.007981,0.000377,0.014257,-0.001872,-0.004451,0.003944,0.015665,-0.006826
Russia_Yaroslavl_Fatyanovo_BA.SG:NAU002_noUDG.SG,0.119514,0.122879,0.050534,0.076874,0.010771,0.024821,0.003525,0.007384,-0.010635,-0.029158,0.005521,0.005845,-0.015609,-0.021469,0.028908,0.007823,-0.009909,-0.003547,-0.002891,0.001501,0.009858,0.013725,0.001356,-0.001325,0.001676
Russia_Yaroslavl_Fatyanovo_BA.SG:VOR004_noUDG.SG,0.121791,0.110693,0.055814,0.085918,0.000923,0.027889,0.00423,0.008769,-0.026384,-0.03262,-0.005359,-0.00045,-0.0055,-0.014588,0.022937,0.008884,-0.016689,0.004687,0.000251,0.001,-0.000624,0.000989,-0.006779,0.000482,-0.002994
@Jaakko Häkkinen
It requires interaction between speakers over an extended period of time, nothing else.
The comparison with beech is also motivated by the economic importance of the trees to the respective ancient speech communities, hence why the word may have changed meaning.
You also can't get away from the fact that the large, rapid westward expansion of Yakutia_LNBA ancestry fits the timing, distribution and cultural context of Uralic, explains the mechanism behind its dispersal (migration of speakers), and would also explain earlier connections to other languages like Altaic.
This isn't 2009 anymore, when Janhunen wrote that "population genetics tells us what the distribution of specific genetic markers is on the map, but for the time being, at least, it does not give us reliable tools to specify the direction of movement and absolute age of the underlying gene flows."
Now ancient DNA does exactly that, and it really is a game-changer.
But this has been discussed at length already, so I'm not going to continue it further.
@Gaska
Could you remember me the numbers of Tartessian and Iberian "speakers" who made these 100%?
BTW, A man in Tartessos could have spoken a not Tartessian language because it seems that a kind of Celtic has been spoken in some parts of their territories...ATW I 'd be pleased to have these absolute numbers of every sample. Thanks beforehand.
@Jaska and re: "Also large groups of immigrants from a remote region are enough, and the influence of such colonies is usually seen widely also culturally and genetically."
While I think that the recent paper of yours was excellent, I have to admit that this is the Achilles heal of the "European Uralic" model. Where are the signs of either Trans Baikal Neolithic or Yakutia_MN type of linguistic substratum in Uralic? That being said, "East Siberian Uralic" does not look too promising either, in terms of items such as loand words. Sure there is the typological similarity, but as we know it is not worth a lot.
Where does it necessitate that the loanwords to Finno-Volgaics came during the Fatyanovo culture and completely outrules a TCC derived population we know would end up settling Western Russia, the very location Finno-Volgaics would later settle and pick up substantial admixture from?
Is there some dates in the Balto-Slavic or Uralic split times that makes it impossible for them to have occurred any time after the Fatyanovo culture?
Ambron:
“Therefore, these people could have used a group of closely related PIE dialects, which we can identify with the Indo-Slavic stage.”
What is this Indo-Slavic stage? Can you tell us on which linguistic results you base such a proto-dialect? Or do you mean an areal unit?
Davidski:
“Both Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian are from Corded Ware in Eastern Europe, so this is the obvious link. There were also contacts between them later when the Indo-Iranians moved back west into Eastern Europe.”
Yes, Iranians apparently moved to the west during the 2nd millennium BCE, and naturally also later waves from the east to the west occurred. The spread of the Ruki rule in Balto-Slavic seems uneven, but satemization must precede the disintegration of Proto-Balto-Slavic. For satemization, Iranian is not a suitable donor language, because in Proto-Iranian the Late Proto-Indo-Iranian satem-reflexes were depalatalized: *ć, *ʒ́ > *c, *ʒ ([ts], [dz]). Balto-Slavic had *ś, *ź.
Can you give any more precise location within the huge Corded Ware Cultures? Like, a modern country label or something?
Davidski:
“I mean the autosomal drift that is most extreme in the ancient and modern Baltic samples in this PCA (as well as many other tests).
https://vahaduo.github.io/g25views/#Europe2
Fatyanovo samples don't share this drift in this PCA or any other analysis. Have a look where they plot.”
Is it not more a temporal than spatial question? Before that drift occurred, it was present nowhere, and still the Proto-Balto-Slavic population descends from some other population(s). I mean, the drift is not present in any other population either during the 3rd millennium BCE – the Fatyanovo population is not an exception.
And because the Fatyanovo population is similar to other Corded Ware populations, which also lack this drift, how would these other CW populations be more probable ancestral populations for Balto-Slavs?
@Davidski
"I mean the autosomal drift that is most extreme in the ancient and modern Baltic samples in this PCA (as well as many other tests)"
Sorry for joining the discussion with an amateurish question of a fan of your blog and underlying discussions:
Is it really a drift or rather a result of an admixture? I guess the drift would need time, isolation and small population size. At least a combination of time and isolation on the European Plain during the ending of the Mid-Holocene seems unlikely.
Even if PCA is not the right tool for tracking admixtures it is interesting to change the Europe 2 for West Eurasia PCA for a moment and some insights appear. If we assume that the initial population was somewhere on the line between Early Corded Ware and GAC, depending on the closeness to one of the ends, it would need a pull (probably admixture) from quite pure WHG (when starts close to CWC) or Ukraine Meso/MN (when starts closer to GAC). The position of the line of this pull does not have to be identical or even parallel to what we see later as the direction of the mixing of this extreme pop with other European pops, which finally created Baltic and Slavic pops as we know it. It just needs to have one crossing point.
I can imagine that other tools would not support or would simply contradict the idea. So the question is:
Is there any check or just an stron insight that this was a drift and not the admixture (or perhaps some of both)?
@Jaakko
Eastern European countries in FTDNA and YFull's databases have a significant sampling bias towards Jewish diaspora. For instance, in FTDNA discover: 27% of Lithuanians belong to J-M304; that is higher than N (17%) and R1a (19%). Compare that to Kasperavičiūtė et al. (2004), which did not find any J in "ethnolinguistic" Lithuanians.
@Rob
I don't think early-Tarands came from the North. Isotopic analysis of the two earliest samples (OLS10 & V10) were incompatible with Central Sweden and SW Finland. Their 'Ilmandu' pottery, is a development of the preceding 'Asva coarse grain'; both are considered 'SW Tapiola' ware. Valter Lang sees analogous ceramic motifs in the Moskva region, i.e. pre/early D'yakovo. However, the grave structure itself is almost identical to Chizhevsky's 'type II' 'Houses of the Dead', from the Ananyino horizon. The main differences being construction from stone vs. wood and grave goods. The Comb and Cord ceramics which begin being deposited in Tarands by 500/400 BC, are also quite similar to Ananyino ceramics, but a direct relationship needs verification.
With all of that said, I am skeptical about labeling early-Tarands proto-Finnic. Broadly West Uralic is a much safer bet, IMO. Northern elements were very important for the development of Finns in particular, perhaps Estonians too. I'll leave it at that for now.
@Maciej Pogorzelski
It's drift that can probably be detected at various stages in ancient DNA and was spread via admixture at different times.
@Jaakko Häkkinen
There are probably signs of this signal in hunter-gatherers from Lithuania.
And then Lithuanian Corded Ware outlier Spiginas2 basically looks like an extreme Balto-Slav at 2132-1749 calBCE.
So it's something that seems to have happened over time in and around what is now Belarus, and shows a pretty good correlation with the spread of certain lineages under R1a-Z280.
Fatyanovo is totally removed from this process.
@HuviMitan
Y3 was recently found in remains from a Srubnaya kurgan in Chelyabinsk, Southern Urals. Sample b8-2 here...
https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB63318
Apart from that, Y3 and L657 are derived from Z93, and Z93 is from Fatyanovo. So it's obvious that Indians have Fatyanovo ancestry and proto-Indo-Iranians came from Eastern Europe.
Stop trolling here because I won't approve your dumb comments anyway.
@ Jasko
1. ftDNA is good for discovering new branches, but for overall understanding of data , academic publications are better.
either way, the R1a- within the broader Balto-Slavic r1a-subclade gene pool in Latvias in not only common, but the most prevalent lineages by far. So your point is moot
2. '' Satemization and the Ruki rule require that Balto-Slavic was spoken somewhere close to Indo-Iranian. So tell us, where do you put the early stages of Balto-Slavic lineage during the 3rd millennium?''
That's already been answered- northwestern Ukraine . This is beyond doubt as to where proto-Indo-Iranians and pre-Balto-Slavic split
3. ''Dozens of loanwords from successive Indo-Iranian layers require adjacency of the speech communitines..''
And Sintashta is no the focus. Sintashta was NOT yet in contact with proto-Uralic. The bulk of Indo-Iranian, esp Iranian loans entered proto-Uralic (post-Samoyedic) AFTER Sintashta. The entire southern forest zone from western Russia to the Altai was population by Andronovo-like communities.
If you are competent & honest enough to understand, you will see that the Siberian homeland for proto-Uralic prevails
@ Queequeg said...
'That being said, "East Siberian Uralic" does not look too promising either, in terms of items such as loand words. ''
yeah right.
Can you outline these issues ? Ill melt them away for you, rest assured
@ Jaska
further, you have to admit, there is also no other population vector to explain Fino-Uralic expansion.
There is no population migration from the middle Urals in either direction.
But there is migration from Siberia to northeastern Europe via a path which precisely fits the distribution of Uralic languages
The only other such movement occurred about 20,000 years earlier. You dont believe Fino-Uralic isn an Ice Age language ?
An finally, you're wrong about 'population and cultural expansions occur all the time and in every direction'. That is simply not the case
Erik Andersson:
“It requires interaction between speakers over an extended period of time, nothing else.”
Many speakers = speech communities. Random wanderers have not been able to leave loanwords which spread to the whole community and survived. We do not have e.g. Celtic or Italic loanwords in Finnic and Saami – we should have, if random wanderers were enough. We only have loanword layers from languages which were spoken nearby at some point in the past.
Erik Andersson:
“The comparison with beech is also motivated by the economic importance of the trees to the respective ancient speech communities, hence why the word may have changed meaning.”
The main reason, why that correspondence was not correct, is for the Uralic word ‘elm’ there is semantic deviation only in one branch. Therefore I presented more suitable examples, where there is also semantic deviation only in one IE branch.
Erik Andersson:
“You also can't get away from the fact that the large, rapid westward expansion of Yakutia_LNBA ancestry fits the timing, distribution and cultural context of Uralic, explains the mechanism behind its dispersal (migration of speakers), and would also explain earlier connections to other languages like Altaic.”
It is very possible (although far from certain) that Pre-Proto-Uralic was spoken in the Neolithic Yakutia. But Late Proto-Uralic was not spoken in Yakutia, that is certain. Do you understand the difference between Pre-Proto-Uralic and Late Proto-Uralic?
Erik Andersson:
“This isn't 2009 anymore, when Janhunen wrote that ‘population genetics tells us what the distribution of specific genetic markers is on the map, but for the time being, at least, it does not give us reliable tools to specify the direction of movement and absolute age of the underlying gene flows.’
Now ancient DNA does exactly that, and it really is a game-changer.”
True, now we have evidence of population movement. But we must understand the restrictions, too: - Language cannot be seen from the DNA.
- Speakers of related languages can have very different genetic composition.
- Genetic composition of the language carriers could have changed between every step of expansion.
- Language does not always follow the majority genetic root.
You are welcome to present your method how you can see the language from the DNA. Go ahead and tell us, how the Uralic language lineage must follow the Yakutia_LNBA ancestry.
@Moesan
Is easy to remember because almost all the analyzed genomes from the Iron Age in Spain are R1b-M269 and those with sufficient coverage, DF27. Curiously the only case that is not R1b is a sample I2a in La Hoya (Berones-Celtiberians), Alava, current Spanish Basque Country-The Iberian peoples analyzed are Ilerkavones, Indiketes, Cantabros & Layetanos and in all these sites, writings in Iberian language have also been found.
That is, 100% of analyzed Iberians are R1b, and 100% of Celtiberians I2 (evidently it is only one sample, I suppose that also R1b will appear among the Celts when more genomes are analyzed).
As you are French I will tell you that also the Iberians north of the Pyrenees (which as you know reached up to the Herault river) and where there is Iberian epigraphy in abundance are also P312 (Pech Maho etc...).
Obviously some J1 and J2 have also appeared in the Greek colony of Ampurias, but obviously these are not Iberians but Greek colonists.
And regarding the Tartessians, it is true that there were Celtic migrations at the end of the Iron Age that settled in Tartessos-Turdetania, but the analyzed Tartessian men (La Angorrilla, Sevilla) are also P312.
The Iberian Bronze Age is even more surprising because there are about 200 male genomes analyzed, 197 are R1b-M269 (the vast majority Df27 like the Argarians), 1-E1b, 1-G2a and 1-I2a= R1b-98,5%, E1b-0,5%, I2a-0,5%, G2a-0.5%-Surely some genius will be able to explain to us how that 1.5% of NON R1b men imposed their Non-Indo-European languages on the steppe shepherds. It will be fun to discuss the arguments with them.
Compare this data with the Balkans, Italy or Central Europe and you will understand why Spaniards think that the BB culture never spoke an Indo-European language.
@ Zetlo
''I don't think early-Tarands came from the North. Isotopic analysis of the two earliest samples (OLS10 & V10) were incompatible with Central Sweden and SW Finland. Their 'Ilmandu' pottery, is a development of the preceding 'Asva coarse grain'; both are considered 'SW Tapiola' ware. Valter Lang sees analogous ceramic motifs in the Moskva region, i.e. pre/early D'yakovo. However, the grave structure itself is almost identical to Chizhevsky's 'type II' 'Houses of the Dead', from the Ananyino horizon. The main differences being construction from stone vs. wood and grave goods. The Comb and Cord ceramics which begin being deposited in Tarands by 500/400 BC, are also quite similar to Ananyino ceramics, but a direct relationship needs verification.''
I wasnt talking about Tarrand graves per se.
As you're gradually coming to accept, the archaeology of western Russia is farcical, and many an old dogma has been invalidated by aDNA. Did know that 12 different 'archaeological cultures' have been described in the Russian plan for the Upper Paleolithic, but we know in fact that this population was monophyletic ? They also stilll believe that EHG are from northwestern Europe, rathern than being predominantly Siberian origin. And from Vlad we have just heard about how Russian archaeologists have invented a series of nonsense claims about Fatyanovo & Abasehvo not being related.
Maybe the old theories on Tarand graves will be one of the few survivors, but I frankly doubt it, as it looks like coasal phenomenon.
What I was mostly referring to was the path of Y-hg N and Siberian inflow. A sparsity of such signal in the East Baltic and its early presence in Murmansk peninsula leads to the inescapable conclusion that early west Uralics took a cery northern route on their path to the West
Queequeg:
“While I think that the recent paper of yours was excellent, I have to admit that this is the Achilles heal of the "European Uralic" model.”
Correction – my model is not European: it is right on the boundary between Europe and Siberia.
Queequeg:
“Where are the signs of either Trans Baikal Neolithic or Yakutia_MN type of linguistic substratum in Uralic?”
Let us talk only about loanwords, because it could be also a matter of superstrate, if people came from some distant region among the speakers of Uralic and became uralicized. There are actually many potential eastern loanwords in Uralic (or vice versa), but so far no clear, regular loanword strata have been presented. I give just two example words:
Uralic *kura ‘knife’ ~ Yukaghir *kire ‘knife’ ( Yakutia?)
Uralic *ńe̮lǝ ‘arrow’ ~ Tungusic *ńure ‘arrow’ ( Trans-Baikal/Amur?)
These meanings are identical, very specific, and very concrete, but it is not easy to find more shared words showing the same sound correspondences. Therefore such words remain possible yet uncertain loanwords.
Queequeg:
“That being said, "East Siberian Uralic" does not look too promising either, in terms of items such as loand words. Sure there is the typological similarity, but as we know it is not worth a lot.”
That is true.
Norfern-Ostrobothnian:
“Where does it necessitate that the loanwords to Finno-Volgaics came during the Fatyanovo culture and completely outrules a TCC derived population we know would end up settling Western Russia, the very location Finno-Volgaics would later settle and pick up substantial admixture from?
Is there some dates in the Balto-Slavic or Uralic split times that makes it impossible for them to have occurred any time after the Fatyanovo culture?”
There seems to be a misunderstanding. Nobody here assumes that the Balto-Slavic loanwords to West Uralic came from the Fatyanovo Culture. Those contacts only occurred during the mid-second millennium BCE, long after Fatyanovo.
Northeastern part of the Trzciniec Cultural Complex overlaps with the southernmost Fatyanovo Region, very close to the Upper Oka Region. The contacts took place in the Upper Volga–Oka Region, irrespective of whether (1) the Balto-Slavic lineage was present there already since the Fatyanovo times or (2) Balto-Slavic lineage spread there from the southwest.
But it is of course interesting to compare different hypotheses. So far I have not seen convincing arguments why the Balto-Slavic lineage could not have been developed within the wide Fatyanovo Culture, when there were four distinct regional subcultures. I do not deny that Indo-Iranian probably was spoken there, but there could have been also other dialects spoken within the same culture.
@Rob
I'm not appealing to the amorphous institution of 'Russian archaeology'. There's almost nothing about Tarands in Russian literature; Chizhevsky's monograph not much of an exception. Early-Tarands are a fairly unique grave structure, but their resemblance to 'type II' 'Houses of the Dead' is undeniable. Early-Tarands themselves, are definitely a coastal phenomenon, so were the preceding Stone-cists.
Yakutia_LNBA arrived in the South Baltic late, but we need LBA aDNA from the Volga-Kama region before the importance of BOO is overemphasized.
@ Zelto
Are there any images of the 'Houses of Dead' ?
'Yakutia_LNBA arrived in the South Baltic late, but we need LBA aDNA from the Volga-Kama region before the importance of BOO is overemphasized.''
It's not over-emphasied. It's either appreciated, because one is astute, or not , because one is sheepishly brainwashed by flawed linguistic paradigms (+ suffer from confirmation bais + Eurocentric Nationalistic wishes)
Ths issue is Lillak et al state Tarrand graves appear in LBA in Finland, Estonia and eastern Sweden. And ''Tarand graves are also present in northwestern Russia, northern and western
Latvia, occurring there slightly later, at the end of PreRoman Iron Age (Lang
2007b, 112; Yushkova 2011; 2016; Yushkova & Kulešov 2011).''
Zelto:
“Eastern European countries in FTDNA and YFull's databases have a significant sampling bias towards Jewish diaspora. For instance, in FTDNA discover: 27% of Lithuanians belong to J-M304; that is higher than N (17%) and R1a (19%). Compare that to Kasperavičiūtė et al. (2004), which did not find any J in "ethnolinguistic" Lithuanians.”
Very interesting, that is indeed a huge difference. For Uralic populations there seems to be nothing like that, but the percentages agree with earlier studies.
Davidski:
“And then Lithuanian Corded Ware outlier Spiginas2 basically looks like an extreme Balto-Slav at 2132-1749 calBCE.
So it's something that seems to have happened over time in and around what is now Belarus, and shows a pretty good correlation with the spread of certain lineages under R1a-Z280.
Fatyanovo is totally removed from this process.”
Thank you. Belarus sounds a valid region for the development of that drift.
@Rob
"Are there any images of the 'Houses of Dead' ?"
https://imgur.com/a/7JnfsVs
"It's not over-emphasied. It's either appreciated, because one is astute, or not , because one is sheepishly brainwashed by flawed linguistic paradigms (+ suffer from confirmation bais + Eurocentric Nationalistic wishes)"
BOO may have been Uralic speaking. I highly doubt they were ancestral to all West Uralic speakers though, if that's what you are alluding to. I will reconsider if Yakutia_LNBA is not sufficiently present in the LBA Volga-Kama.
"Ths issue is Lillak et al state [...]"
Why is that statement an issue?
@ Zelto
“ BOO may have been Uralic speaking. I highly doubt they were ancestral to all West Uralic speakers though, if that's what you are alluding to”
Don’t be absurd. The people at BoO specifically could be a dead-end for all we care, but its significance is it nevertheless establishes a TAQ & migratory latitude
“ I will reconsider if Yakutia_LNBA is not sufficiently present in the LBA Volga-Kama. ”
Yes those of you still enslaved to the dogma & obvious failings of past scholarship seem enfatuated by the Volga-Kama region. But that’s not going to change the fact that west Uralic speakers were inn Eastern Europe by 1700 bc.
Similarly, Ananyino is too late on in the game to place all eggs in.
“ Why is that statement an issue”
Lillak et al, also Gottberg, state that Tarand graves are earlier in the northern Baltic than northwestern Russia. Doesn’t straightforwardly support an eastern origin. they suggest a local origin to manifest local identities.
But the shape does indeed resemble the HoD
Rob:
“What I was mostly referring to was the path of Y-hg N and Siberian inflow. A sparsity of such signal in the East Baltic and its early presence in Murmansk peninsula leads to the inescapable conclusion that early west Uralics took a cery northern route on their path to the West”
It is absurd to claim that certain genetic trait always carries certain language. Everybody should know that language is not inherited in DNA. The Siberian migration to the Kola Peninsula almost 4000 years ago had nothing to do with the Uralic languages. Here is the linguistic evidence:
1. The first Uralic language in the northernmost Fennoscandia was Saami. It spread from Southern Finland to the north only after ca. 200 CE.
2. The Saami languages replaced in the north Paleo-European languages. There are hundreds of loanwords and placenames originating in those earlier languages. Many of them cannot go phonologically beyond Late Proto-Saami, and many of them show phonotactic features unfamiliar to the Uralic languages. Moreover, related languages were spoken also in the south, all the way to the Upper Volga Region.
3. Ca. 2000 BCE there were no Uralic speakers anywhere near Northern Siberia, from where the people moved to the Kola Peninsula. Uralic expansion only began from the Central Ural Region ca. mid-second millennium BCE. The first Samoyedic speakers reached northernmost Siberia only during the Common Era.
The unscientific absurdity of Rob’s method can be demonstrated with the following example:
1. There was a man of haplogroup N-L1026 in the BOO cemetery in Kola Peninsula during the early second millennium BCE.
2. Tens of percents of Buryats belong to the subhaplogroup N-F3271, which is a descendant of N-L1026.
3. Buryats speak a Mongolic language.
4. Therefore, the N-man in BOO spoke a Mongolic language.
With this absurd method we can get as many contradicting results as there are language families associated to the men of N-haplogroup: not only Uralic and Mongolic, but also Sinitic, Yukaghiric, Turkic, Tungusic, Eskimo-Aleutic, Chukchi, Indo-European…
@Jaakko Häkkinen
I already explained why I associate this ancestry with Uralic - because it fits the criteria I mentioned (timing, distribution, cultural context). Nor did I say Late Proto-Uralic was spoken in Yakutia. I'm not going through this useless debate again, especially when you keep strawmanning my position.
Erik Andersson:
“I already explained why I associate this ancestry with Uralic - because it fits the criteria I mentioned (timing, distribution, cultural context). Nor did I say Late Proto-Uralic was spoken in Yakutia. I'm not going through this useless debate again, especially when you keep strawmanning my position.”
I apologize if I misunderstood your meaning. But Uralic means everything after Late Proto-Uralic, so it would be clearer if you then used a label “Pre-Proto-Uralic” or “Para-Uralic”.
About distribution: that ancestry relates also to many non-Uralic populations, and regions where Uralic language has never been spoken. So, how can you see that it is just the Uralic language and not something else? See also the example in my previous message.
About cultural context: if you mean hunter-gatherers, that is again much wider phenomenon than just the Uralic language family.
I shall also clarify my own view, lest people made erroneous interpretations:
I find it very probable that the Yakutia_LNBA ancestry was involved in the expansion of the Uralic languages – after it reached the Central Ural Region (sometimes around 2000 BCE; hopefully we will get illustrative ancient DNA samples from there in the future), and alongside some other ancestries (there is no evidence supporting the assumption that the Late Proto-Uralic speakers were 100 % of this Yakutia ancestry).
@Rob
"Don’t be absurd. The people at BoO specifically could be a dead-end for all we care, but its significance is it nevertheless establishes a TAQ & migratory latitude"
Try to be less vague then. BOO establishes that some Yakutia_LNBA groups were at very northern latitudes, not all.
"Yes those of you still enslaved to the dogma & obvious failings of past scholarship seem enfatuated by the Volga-Kama region. But that’s not going to change the fact that west Uralic speakers were inn Eastern Europe by 1700 bc."
Archaeology supports connections to the Volga-Kama, not northern Fennoscandia. There's no aDNA from the former. Where is the dogma?
"Similarly, Ananyino is too late on in the game to place all eggs in."
It's where the most analogous grave form is found. Some ceramic materials in early-Tarands have parallels farther west, in the East Baltic and Upper-Volga-Oka region.
"Lillak et al, also Gottberg, state that Tarand graves are earlier in the northern Baltic than northwestern Russia. Doesn’t straightforwardly support an eastern origin. they suggest a local origin to manifest local identities."
I'm not proposing a simple migration from NW Russia. Lillak et al. are reffering to Ingrian Tarands. There are also 'single' 'houses of the dead' from NW Russia, which appear ~100 BC and continue until the Middle Ages. The early-Tarands ONLY resemble 'type II' graves from the Mid-Volga-Kama, associated with the Ananyino horizon (>800-300 BC).
@ Jassko
''It is absurd to claim that certain genetic trait always carries certain language'''
This statement is nonsensical. We are not talking about 'certain genetic traits', such as the predisposition to being blue-eyed, or Rhesus blood groups. We are talking about genome-wide affinities within individuals and populations.
Any half-credible historical linguist understands that language expansions do not just happen out of the blue, as you're trying to imply. They need mechanisms. All prehistoric langauge expansoins occurred with at least some population movement. And contrary to your claims, such migrations and events only occured at specific times and in specific manners - they did not 'occur all the time and in all directions'.
And what aDNA is clearly showing is that all speakers of proto-Uralic derive from Siberia, although they picked up other ancestries as well, the latter were regionally circumscribed and not common to all pFU groups. Face the facts, Jaska.
''The Siberian migration to the Kola Peninsula almost 4000 years ago had nothing to do with the Uralic languages. ''
Bullshit
'The first Uralic language in the northernmost Fennoscandia was Saami. It spread from Southern Finland to the north only after ca. 200 CE....
Actually Aiko is agnostic about this. He even filrted with 700 BC, and although scholars currently *believe* it is somewhat later, I think something higher as that is far more likely. The truth is linguistics cannto do much with absoluate dates, I wont need to reference multipl books on how credible lingusits have come to terms with that fact. Certainly, the evidence of early Germanic loans into Saami supports early northern contacts as early as the Bronze Age. And that is why BOO is such great evidence, although you and other zealots such as Queequeg & mademoisselle Angelesqueville dislike it- we have eastern people with eastern pottery and axes buried in ways obviously influenced by Nordic Bronze Age. We will see the final details when we get a population transect from Finland. The future now lies with archeogenetics for the final details. Any honest Finnic linguists will move with the evidence.
''The unscientific absurdity of Rob’s method can be demonstrated with the following example:
1. There was a man of haplogroup N-L1026 in the BOO cemetery in Kola Peninsula during the early second millennium BCE.
2. Tens of percents of Buryats belong to the subhaplogroup N-F3271, which is a descendant of N-L1026.
3. Buryats speak a Mongolic language.
4. Therefore, the N-man in BOO spoke a Mongolic language.
With this absurd method we can get as many contradicting results as there are language families associated to the men of N-haplogroup: not only Uralic and Mongolic, but also Sinitic, Yukaghiric, Turkic, Tungusic, Eskimo-Aleutic, Chukchi, Indo-European…''
The absurdity lies in the mismatch between your own pomposity and obvious lack of basic understanding. You chime about science when you have no background in science whatsoever. You're a linguist buddy, and not exactly the top of the class at that. So drop the act.
Now, Buryats are an exception amongst Mongolic speakers, all others of which belong under lineaeges for Y-hg C2. This has been detailed here in threads recently.
Buryats belong to one specific lineage within N-L1026- B197, We know Avars also belong to this group. We also know the Turkic & Mongolia confederations resettled groups as part of military strategy.
> 66% of Yukagir Y-DNA belongs to C and Q1. But they do have Nc-TAT as well. If anything, this affirms the Siberian origin of proto-Uralic. And we can explain all your other alleged counter-examples, but much of that has already been done in Zeng et al.
NB : your talk of 'late proto-Uralic'' is simply more dishonest goal-post shifting. The other guys here are too soft. Im calling it from what it is.
@ Zelto
''Try to be less vague then. BOO establishes that some Yakutia_LNBA groups were at very northern latitudes, not all.'
Okay ill go at average mortal pace and spell out basics.
Recall the Mezhovskaya genomes ~ 1600 BC ? They have Yakutia _LN ancestry too, but only ~ 15%. The men belong to R1b and R1a. Mezhovskaya is part of a broader complex of cultures including Maklasheyevsky, Atabay-Kaibel cultural type and Akim-Sergeevsk. This takes us up to the Volga Kama.
So Mezhovskaya populations had contact with Uralics, but were themselves obviously not Uralic.
And given these groups existed up to the southern forest zone, it doesnt leave mugh wiggle room for the Uralic Elephant in the Room, does it ?
The strongest proto-Uralic signal is all the way up north in BOO.
@ Jaska: Superstratum, adstratum, something anyway. The possible loan words you mentioned might be the smoking gun. More of those fex confirming a sound change such as r > l between Tungusic and Uralic should be enough.
Jaakko
In some models, the Indo-Slavic branch is simply a stage of PIE differentiation.
Jaakko
We need to decide whether or not it is possible to track ethnolinguistic processes using genetics. If we come to the conclusion that it is possible, we can track enolinguistic processes mainly using paternal uniparental markers. This is because languages were cultivated in patriarchal societies in paternal lineages. Alternatively, very characteristic whole-genome markers, such as the Balto-Slavic drift, i.e. specific WHG genetic variants, may also play an auxiliary function. However, Fatyanovo is missing three essential Balto-Slavic markers - CTS1211, I2a and BS drift. So from the point of view of genetics, there could have been no Balto-Slavics in Fatyanovo.
@Rob
"Recall the Mezhovskaya genomes ~ 1600 BC ? They have Yakutia _LN ancestry too, but only ~ 15%. The men belong to R1b and R1a. Mezhovskaya is part of a broader complex of cultures including Maklasheyevsky, Atabay-Kaibel cultural type and Akim-Sergeevsk. This takes us up to the Volga Kama.
So Mezhovskaya populations had contact with Uralics, but were themselves obviously not Uralic."
You mean the two samples from the Kapova cave, in the Southern Ural region? That's about as far south as Mezhovskaya extends. The fact that they have any Yakutia_LNBA ancestry ~1500 BC is somewhat remarkable and points to Siberian- rich populations nearby.
BTW, these cultural affiliations are being made by your archaeo-Russian boogeymen. Your grace deems them valid?
"And given these groups existed up to the southern forest zone, it doesnt leave mugh wiggle room for the Uralic Elephant in the Room, does it ?"
We don't know how representative the two Mezhovskaya samples are of the entire 'andronoid' horizon- up to and including the forest-zone. It's possible Yakutia_LNBA groups initially crossed the Urals at a northern latitude (Kaninskaya cave), but by 1500 BC, they had evidently reached quite far south.
There are no BOO or Ymyyakhtakh related materials between Kola and Taimyr. A leap-frog migration doesn't exactly support a diffusion southwards from the areas in-between. I'm pretty sure some BOO samples had enough coverage to be determind basal N-CTS3103. That makes them more phylogenetically distant to modern Uralic speakers, than our N-Z1936 friend at Rostovka.
@Davidski
“There are probably signs of this signal in hunter-gatherers from Lithuania.
And then Lithuanian Corded Ware outlier Spiginas2 basically looks like an extreme Balto-Slav at 2132-1749 calBCE.
So it's something that seems to have happened over time in and around what is now Belarus, and shows a pretty good correlation with the spread of certain lineages under R1a-Z280”.
Daniel Gerber does not agree with you:
“The analyzed population originates from a largely intact hunter-gatherer source in Eastern Europe prior to their appearance in Transdanubia. It is important to note that a recent, parallel study (Chylenski et al. 2023) also recognised the importance of this genetic component, based on the data from the Eastern European region, but they linked this source to the Baltic region, whereas present publication points to a previously unknown source in present-day western Ukraine/Moldova.”
https://agi.abtk.hu/en/news/bronze-age-descendants-of-a-previously-unknown-population-near-the-lake-balaton-new-archaeogenomic-results
The drift probably occurred in Bug - Dniester Mesolithic HGs who later switched to farming in Bug - Dniester culture. Bug - Dniester culture population was assimilated by some Tripilian farmers. Drifted Tripilian farmers were then mixed with some Baltic and Slavic CWC groups like Lithuanian Corded Ware outlier Spiginas2. Some drifted samples occurs in Slavic Mierzanowice/Strzyźów/Iwno like Poland_Strzyzow_Culture_oBS:poz794 and Czech_EBA_Unetice_o:VLI051 (Unietice came from Mierzanowice/Nitra)
Ambron:
“In some models, the Indo-Slavic branch is simply a stage of PIE differentiation.”
Well, the only mention of that label by a linguist is based on assumption that satemization and the Ruki rule were clade-defining changes. However, nowadays it is known that these changes are not the earliest sound changes of those branches, but instead areally spread innovations after the separation of these branches. So, Indo-Slavic is OK as a label for areal unit or dialect continuum but not as a node in the family tree.
Ambron:
“We need to decide whether or not it is possible to track ethnolinguistic processes using genetics. If we come to the conclusion that it is possible, we can track enolinguistic processes mainly using paternal uniparental markers. This is because languages were cultivated in patriarchal societies in paternal lineages. Alternatively, very characteristic whole-genome markers, such as the Balto-Slavic drift, i.e. specific WHG genetic variants, may also play an auxiliary function. However, Fatyanovo is missing three essential Balto-Slavic markers - CTS1211, I2a and BS drift. So from the point of view of genetics, there could have been no Balto-Slavics in Fatyanovo.”
Sure, we can “track” ethnolinguistic processes to certain degree from the DNA. But we cannot see the language or language continuity vs. language shift from the DNA. That is because the language does not always follow the majority root, and every population has several root (both in autosomal and uniparental level). That is why the method becomes pure guessing, if one ignores the linguistic results.
In every “admixture event” (meaning here: two lineages or ancestries meet and appear in the same population) there are two possible roots, but only one linguistic root. Going further back in time, these possibilities multiply. For example, if there were R1a and I2a in the Proto-Balto-Slavic population, through which of them you trace the language back in time? And eventually, you still have to shift to R1b to get the language back to Late Proto-Indo-European. The genetic composition of language carriers can change between every step of the expansion.
@Jaakko Häkkinen
Almost certainly both R1a and I2 were present in the initial proto-Balto-Slavic gene pool. This is nothing surprising, because most ethnic groups have Y-chromosome gene pools that are fairly varied and usually dominated by a couple of haplogroups.
So there's no need to trace the Balto-Slavic line through either R1a or I2, because Y-chromosome phylogeny and linguistics are two different things.
Likewise, since we already know that R1a was present in the Sredny Stog gene pool, and this was probably the proto-Indo-European gene pool, there's no need to switch to R1b during the Late proto-Indo-European stage.
What happened is that two different populations formed from Sredny Stog that gave rise to Corded Ware and Yamnaya.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2021/07/on-origin-of-corded-ware-people.html
Davidski:
“Almost certainly both R1a and I2 were present in the initial proto-Balto-Slavic gene pool. - - So there's no need to trace the Balto-Slavic line through either R1a or I2, because Y-chromosome phylogeny and linguistics are two different things.”
I am talking about the Balto-Slavic language lineage before Proto-Balto-Slavic (that is the period between ca. 3000–1500 BCE), all the way from Late Proto-Indo-European. Through which paternal lineage you derive it? From which population, from which culture? Based on the next quote from you, I assume you choose here R1a-M417?
Davidski:
“Likewise, since we already know that R1a was present in the Sredny Stog gene pool, and this was probably the proto-Indo-European gene pool, there's no need to switch to R1b during the Late proto-Indo-European stage. What happened is that two different populations formed from Sredny Stog that gave rise to Corded Ware and Yamnaya.”
So, let us assume that Late Proto-Indo-European was already a language of two main haplogroups. Then, how about Early Proto-Indo-European (Proto-Indo-Anatolian)? Ancient Anatolians do not show these R1a or R1b lineages.
Then, from LPIE onwards, which IE branches you bring with R1a and which with R1b?
@Davidski
"It's drift that can probably be detected at various stages in ancient DNA and was spread via admixture at different times"
But is it detected on varius stages or only can probably be? It seems a little strange to me that unadmixed hg populations are keeping their places on this PCA for thousands of years and most of other moves on it are interpreted as admixtures, yet the pull done on one of the CWC groups (the one which leads to the formation of Balto-Slavic genetic characteristic) had to be done by drift. Why is it so?
We simply don't need Balto-Slavic in Fatyanovo to explain anything
We already have the Baltic Bronze Age people for the genetic component, the subsequent Balto-Slavic languages seemingly being concentrated in the Baltics not in ex-Fatyanovo territory (since Ilmen'kovskaya and D'yakovo displaced them) and we have Trzciniec for the archaeological culture that would eventually spread it to Russia anyways. We just don't have any use for Fatyanovo as it being Balto-Slavic would have no reprecussions in the long run because they would eventually be wiped out and all Balto-Slavic languaged descend from populations with Baltic Bronze Age affinities instead.
It's important to keep in mind the constraints on Proto-Uralic are fundamentally linguistic. This is why even if the circumstantial genetic evidence points to Yakutia as the shared link of all Uralic speakers, this does not prove anything about where the ancestor of all documented Uralic languages broke up.
It's perfectly possible, and maybe even likely, that the linguistic ancestors of Uralic speakers came from LN Yakutia, but didn't leave any surviving linguistic descendants until after they reached the Urals. The linguistics provide an important constraint, because as has been mentioned, LNBA Yakutia ancestry is found in all sorts of contexts that clearly are not all Uralic.
@ Zelto
“You mean the two samples from the Kapova cave, in the Southern Ural region? That's about as far south as Mezhovskaya extends. ''
Back to my broader point - Mezhovskaya belongs to a similar series of groups which are Andronovo-ancestry dominant stretching to the Volga-Kama. Hence the main centre is far to the north. In fact, that's what the new data from east of the Urals also shows The drift from north to south is a certainty, arguing against it is an absurdity at this stage, as the Andronovo-related horizon flaked out ~ 1200 BC, some Uralics occupied their place.
“BTW, these cultural affiliations are being made by your archaeo-Russian boogeymen.”
Sorry to disappoint but they’re wrong
They called Mezhovskaya “Uralic” and described an utter rejection of Andronovo
My abject summary tells why they’re wrong
Further, there is no 'Russian boogeyman' here. Rather the (justified & characteristically on-target) critique levelled here has diverse features, sharing in commonality their relevance to the broader 'proto-Uralic question':
-the faulty basis of the S-T hypothesis, originally forumlated by Chernykh as a 'invasion from Baikal-Altai'.
- the over-sub-division of cultures in Soviet archeological tradition. Fair critique
- general parody of the entire proto-Uralic question
. - the need for reality check by (some) linguistics, and in the case of one, acquisition of basic knowledge & honesty. The latter is more a side-show who’s obviously getting a dose of reality out here in the real world, so has called from support from his personality cult on pseudoGeneArchivist. According to them, alls well , Kurt like according to Kim Jong North Korea is the most prosperous nation on earth
“Your grace deems them valid?''
I'm not the Queen of England, so you don't need to call me Your Grace, but you may gently bow your head
cont,@ Zelto
''There are no BOO or Ymyyakhtakh related materials between Kola and Taimyr'' You're just echoing Murashkin 2016. However, I would not forget about the circumpolar zone with “waffle” type ceramics just East of Kola. ''A leap-frog migration doesn't exactly support a diffusion southwards from the areas in-between. I'm pretty sure some BOO samples had enough coverage to be determind basal N-CTS3103. That makes them more phylogenetically distant to modern Uralic speakers, than our N-Z1936 friend at Rostovka.''
You seem to be over-reaching. We should see where Rostovka gets placed by ftDNA. In any case, the fact that BOO is CTS3103 is still highly relevant, not a 'dead-end', and there's always going to be difficulty in ascertainment at the sub-sub-lineage level with aDNA Y-SNP reads due to variability in coverage even with good overall genome-coverage. Moreover, it is unlikely that BOO is a dead end, or at least the larger parental population from which they came. These probably continued into Lapland & Saami regions, and might have contributed to Saami ethnogenesis*.
From Lamnidis ''Such contact is well documented in archaeology, with the introduction of asbestos-mixed Lovozero ceramics during the second millennium, and the spread of even-based arrowheads in Lapland from 1900 BCE51. Additionally, the nearest counterparts of Vardøy ceramics, appearing in the area around 1,600-1,300 BCE, can be found on the Taymyr peninsula, much further to the East. Finally, the Imiyakhtakhskaya culture from Yakutia spread to the Kola Peninsula during the same period. '' (But I'll take whatever date the eventually aDNA supports for their arrival to regions west of Kola) Ive already explained that there were at least 3 waves of Yakutia-LN related admixtures, and already mentioned a later, perhaps more predominant, Ananiyino wave.
* The issue of 'what langauge BOO community spoke' needs careful analysis by someone competent based on contextual awareness and understanding of population dyamics, sociolinguistics and contact-linguistics. They were a mixed community, but mantained their eastern material culture and were headed by two males bearing Y-Nc. I dont see why these groups would have decided to just abandon their native tongue without any economic or social imperative.
@ Synome
“It's important to keep in mind the constraints on Proto-Uralic are fundamentally linguistic. This is why even if the circumstantial genetic evidence points to Yakutia as the shared link of all Uralic speakers, this does not prove anything about where the ancestor of all documented Uralic languages broke up.
It's perfectly possible, and maybe even likely, that the linguistic ancestors of Uralic speakers came from LN Yakutia, but didn't leave any surviving linguistic descendants until after they reached the Urals.''
It's astounding that someone who fancies himself as something of a linguist utters such biazarre claims. Have you heard of the Samoyedic branches, Khanty, Mansi, pre-proto-Hungarian ?
Synome, pull yourself into reality instead of parrotting the pseudoscience from those threads on Gene-Archiver militantly based on personality cult of the dishonest & incompetent.
As for your other genetic objections, they've already been addressed herein. Suffice to say your genetic summaries completely miss the mark because your sources are worthless.
Norfern-Ostrobothnian:
“We simply don't need Balto-Slavic in Fatyanovo to explain anything”
Then the question is, how far to the west will you pull Indo-Iranian? Because contact-induced shared innovations require geographical adjacency. And in the opposite direction, the Uralic contacts pull Indo-Iranian to the east, because these contacts between Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian were contemporary with the contacts between Indo-Iranian and Uralic.
You see, if you move one piece of the puzzle, all the other pieces move, too – if there are no anchors binding them to certain location. Is there any paleolinguistic (like for Uralic) or archaeolinguistic (like for Late Proto-Indo-Iranian) evidence helping to locate the early stage of the Balto-Slavic lineage?
I emphasize that this situation in the late 3rd millennium is totally independent from the later occasion, namely the contacts between Proto-Balto-Slavic (and its descendant dialects) and West Uralic since the mid-second millennium BC in the Upper Volga–Oka Region. This latter event would agree with both (1) the local origin of Balto-Slavic, and (2) its arrival from the southwest (theTrzciniec sphere).
@Maciej Pogorzelski
Balto-Slavic drift is the culmination of various processes, including admixture and random drift.
I know for a fact that it existed in the proto-Balto-Slavic gene pool.
But I can't track its development before that with any degree of certainty.
@Jaakko Häkkinen
You keep telling us that genes don't speak languages and then you come up with this eyesore.
So, let us assume that Late Proto-Indo-European was already a language of two main haplogroups. Then, how about Early Proto-Indo-European (Proto-Indo-Anatolian)? Ancient Anatolians do not show these R1a or R1b lineages.
Then, from LPIE onwards, which IE branches you bring with R1a and which with R1b?
We use genetic markers like Y-chromosome haplogroups, or a specific type of autosomal signal, to track the development and expansion of language groups when they obviously correlate with each other more or less to the exclusion of other language groups.
But since genes don't speak languages and they're not linked directly, then they won't always correlate with each other.
It's likely that the linguistic process that led to the development of Balto-Slavic was closely associated with R1a-M417 all the way from the early proto-Indo-European stage. But this isn't necessary.
It's also possible that R1a-M417 was a very minor lineage in the population that eventually became Balto-Slavic speaking, and that it only started its main expansion during the Corded Ware migrations. This would mean that some other lineage or lineages were more closely correlated with the pre-proto-Balto-Slavic line before that.
But all we can realistically do is to try and characterize the proto-Balto-Slavic Y-chromosome gene pool, and say that it was dominated by certain subclades of R1a-M417 and I2. Some of the these subclades can probably be traced back to the early proto-Indo-European stage, while others entered the proto-Balto-Slavic gene pool before or during its development with admixture and became important due to founder effects. Obviously, the proto-Balto-Slavs weren't purely of Corded Ware origin, so various Y-haplgroups could have entered their gene pool through admixture with other Indo-European groups and/or non-Indo-European speaking groups.
Likewise, in regards to the proto-Anatolians, even if the main Y-haplogroups in the Late Proto-Indo-European gene pool were R1a-M417 and R1b-M269, then this doesn't mean that we have to find either one or the the other in the remains of Anatolian speakers.
That's because it's likely that the early proto-Indo-European Y-chromosome gene pool on the Pontic-Caspian steppe was much more diverse, and due to founder effects the ancestors of the Anatolians ended up with Y-chromosome lineages and haplogroups that were not carried by the other R1a/R1b-rich Indo-Europeans.
But we really need samples from early Anatolian graves to work out what those lineages were, and whether they included any lineages under R1a and R1b.
Keep in mind that the only way it was established that early Hungarian speakers came from Siberia was by sampling Hungarian Conqueror remains and finding that they belonged to a Uralic-specific lineage under Y-haplogroup N.
Davidski:
“You keep telling us that genes don't speak languages and then you come up with this eyesore.”
I thought you were one of those people having an erroneous view about the relationship between language and DNA, so I urged you to write open your method. But I am glad that I was wrong and you understand the situation.
Davidski:
“Keep in mind that the only way it was established that early Hungarian speakers came from Siberia was by sampling Hungarian Conqueror remains and finding that they belonged to a Uralic-specific lineage under Y-haplogroup N.”
I am not sure if I understand your point here. We know for certain that the Hungarian language came from the east, and we know that a group of people had to bring it to Central Europe. This is not dependent on any ancient DNA findings.
But finding out that many ancient and some modern Hungarians shared N-Y13851 >> L1034 with Ob-Ugrians, Bashkirs, and Tatars, and the archaeological context and dating of these N-men have given more accurate and concrete framework for the spread of the Hungarian language. Of course the prerequisite is again that the haplogroup must match the linguistic results by time, place, and the direction of expansion.
@Jaakko Häkkinen
I am not sure if I understand your point here. We know for certain that the Hungarian language came from the east, and we know that a group of people had to bring it to Central Europe. This is not dependent on any ancient DNA findings.
From the east, yes, but that still left a lot of room for nonsense.
I can tell you that even Carlos Quiles' online shenanigans had an impact, almost convincing some ancient DNA scientists that Uralic may have been present in Northern Europe since the Corded Ware period.
So the finding of Y-haplogroup N and substantial eastern Siberian autosomal ancestry in the Hungarian Conqueror remains was important to finally establishing that Hungarian came from the east, and indeed in all likeliness from Siberia.
I apologize if I post a little note now, because I have to study all the thread that I downloaded and above all to deepen the ideas of an expert linguist of the matter, but all peoples, whose origin was in the Far East, like Turks, arrived in the West after a long travel and their uniparental markers were largely mixed with only a few percentage of the original ones linked firstly with their language. This is worth also for Uralic peoples and for, for instance, the Gypsies, and many of those markers were European ones migrated before eastward. I think above all to hg R1, whose possible old Asian one could be only R-PH155, but to be verified, because it isn’t older in Asia than the R-M73* surely from the Baltic and before, I think, from the Alpine refugium.
Before ancient Hungarian aDNA, Hungarians were a key case example used amongst those who claimed 'genes dont correlate with languages' or 'only superficially so" (whatever that means).
@ Rob - correcting Typo in ''They called Mezhovskaya “Uralic” and described an utter rejection of Andronovo. My abject summary tells why they’re wronng''
Should say ''above (previous) summary''. To recap, Meshovskaya was thought to be Uralic on basis of their apparent 'rejection' of previous Andronovo pottery designs. But (at least so far) theyre dominated by R1 lineages and derive ~ 85% of their ancestry from Andronovo groups, the rest Yakutia_LN.
There are no "Laws" governing this, but there is conscientious and reasonable decipherment. And that logic tells us these were still IE-speaking (pulling in a vast array of demographic, cultural and socio-linguistic parameters,. Nobody has delineated these formally, but they will be soon).
The more difficult quesiton is their ultimate fate...
Yeah, if we didn't have those Hungarian Conquerors rich in Y-hg N, Jaakko would be the one shouting loudest from the rooftops that we can't track language expansions with genes.
The further we go into history, the more problems we encounter. And this principle applies to every scientific discipline. In the case of the Balto-Slavics, we are very lucky, because in this case the genetics show very clear traces.
What distinguishes Balto-Slavic from late PIE is its richer agricultural substrate. And this is reflected in genetics - the CWC population, rich in R1a and EHG/CHG, overlaps with the local, Central European Neolithic substrate, rich in I2a and WHG. And so Late PIE differentiates into Balto-Slavic.
I think the interactions simply happened during the same period of Fatyanovo and they diffused within the culture. It's not unreasonable to say that there was a certain level of cohesion even with a territory that large.
It especially works if the interactions are Indo-Iranian to Balto-Slavic and not the other way around instead. That way a western dialect can interact with Balto-Slavs and easterners can spread it to Uralics instead.
Let's look at an equivalent: Slavs. Their languages stayed similar to one another on a much larger range for a much longer time period than what Fatyanovo was. Turkics are also a good example at least for a certain time period at the start of their expansion. Fatyanovo isn't even that big of an area and the cultural differences in it aren't that dramatic and there's no reason to assume that it's impossible for them to spread innovations adopted from other cultures to all parts of it.
@Rob
"Back to my broader point - Mezhovskaya belongs to a similar series of groups which are Andronovo-ancestry dominant stretching to the Volga-Kama. Hence the main centre is far to the north. In fact, that's what the new data from east of the Urals also shows The drift from north to south is a certainty, arguing against it is an absurdity at this stage, as the Andronovo-related horizon flaked out ~ 1200 BC, some Uralics occupied their place."
We can agree that a north-south cline probably existed. It follows that these northern cultures (Lugovskaya, Atbaevskaya-Maklasheevo, etc.) would have had higher frequencies of Yakutia_LNBA ancestry.
"Sorry to disappoint but they’re wrong
They called Mezhovskaya “Uralic” and described an utter rejection of Andronovo
My abject summary tells why they’re wrong [...]"
Who are you reffering to? The paramount importance of various Steppe cultures on the genesis of Mezhovskaya has been attested to by numerous archaeologists. Proposed language affiliations are a dime a dozen and ultimately inconsequential, even within their own context. Every culture in the northern half of Eurasia has been descibed as 'Uralic' at one point or another.
"You're just echoing Murashkin 2016. However, I would not forget about the circumpolar zone with “waffle” type ceramics just East of Kola"
Have 'waffle' ceramics been found between Kola and Taimyr?
"You seem to be over-reaching. We should see where Rostovka gets placed by ftDNA. In any case, the fact that BOO is CTS3103 is still highly relevant, not a 'dead-end', and there's always going to be difficulty in ascertainment at the sub-sub-lineage level with aDNA Y-SNP reads due to variability in coverage even with good overall genome-coverage. Moreover, it is unlikely that BOO is a dead end, or at least the larger parental population from which they came. These probably continued into Lapland & Saami regions, and might have contributed to Saami ethnogenesis"
You and everyone else here consider subclades when analyzing aDNA. Someone can correct me, but the BOO samples have negative calls at the CTS3103 level (i.e. a dead end). Their position on the FTDNA tree at the root of this branch and upstream would thus not be due to shoddy coverage.
The Rostovka sample is N-Z1936 in Zeng et al., confirmation pending.
"From Lamnidis ''Such contact is well documented in archaeology, with the introduction of asbestos-mixed Lovozero ceramics during the second millennium, and the spread of even-based arrowheads in Lapland from 1900 BCE51. Additionally, the nearest counterparts of Vardøy ceramics, appearing in the area around 1,600-1,300 BCE, can be found on the Taymyr peninsula, much further to the East. Finally, the Imiyakhtakhskaya culture from Yakutia spread to the Kola Peninsula during the same period. '' (But I'll take whatever date the eventually aDNA supports for their arrival to regions west of Kola) Ive already explained that there were at least 3 waves of Yakutia-LN related admixtures, and already mentioned a later, perhaps more predominant, Ananiyino wave."
Asbestos-mixed ceramics are very old in North Fennoscandia and the connections to the east described in Lamnidis et al. are disputed by their own sources. The singleton outlier at the BOO site with 'waffle' ceramics wasn't even tested, although he did probably have Siberian ancestry.
Again, are there sites with even-based arrowheads and Lovozero/Vardøy/'waffle' ware between Kola and Taimyr? Do these materials manifest south of the Arctic zone, where most West Uralic languages are actually spoken and historically attested? Is the reconstructed lexicon of West Uralic compatible with Tundra flora and fauna?
@Davidski
"Balto-Slavic drift is the culmination of various processes, including admixture and random drift.
I know for a fact that it existed in the proto-Balto-Slavic gene pool. But I can't track its development before that with any degree of certainty."
Thanks, I see your point is about the very existence of such a specific characteristic of the proto-Balto-Slavic gene pool and I am fully convinced that you've found it. However, if the making of these characteristics ("Balto-Slavic drift") included admixture and not only random drift (this was the point of my question) it leaves the field to look for this admixture/s.
@ Zelto
''Who are you reffering to? The paramount importance of various Steppe cultures on the genesis of Mezhovskaya has been attested to by numerous archaeologists. Proposed language affiliations are a dime a dozen and ultimately inconsequential, even within their own context. Every culture in the northern half of Eurasia has been descibed as 'Uralic' at one point or another.''
Yes that's true, no matter.
''Have 'waffle' ceramics been found between Kola and Taimyr?''
Schumkin depicts that area as part of circumpolar 'waffle ceramics' (fig 1, 2017)
''You and everyone else here consider subclades when analyzing aDNA. Someone can correct me, but the BOO samples have negative calls at the CTS3103 level (i.e. a dead end). Their position on the FTDNA tree at the root of this branch and upstream would thus not be due to shoddy coverage. The Rostovka sample is N-Z1936 in Zeng et al., confirmation pending.''
It may be so, but as I said, it depends on the chances of where damage lies giving no reads. Im aware of this and take into account when I comment. And even if BOO itself is a dead end, chances are there are goups already in Europe which survived, rather than coming afresh from the East. I get the feeling that Ananiyono is moderately 'downstream' in the Uralic dispersal process. Perhaps proto-Mari, Mordvin, etc, maybe also impacted Permic-Finnic (rigid family trees are BS due to the fakeness of 'clean split model')
''Asbestos-mixed ceramics are very old in North Fennoscandia and the connections to the east described in Lamnidis et al. are disputed by their own sources. ''
It's merely the act of adding asbestos into the pottery mix which is the long-tradition, and indeed, incoroprtation of local population to bring in such traditions. But this is not to say the things were static. So the 'long continuity' of absetos-ceramics, which are a rather heterogeneous phenomenon in itself, does not speak against new developments in pottery making, and indeed, new people arriving.
'' Is the reconstructed lexicon of West Uralic compatible with Tundra flora and fauna?''
Thinking back, Janhunen suggests the lexicon speaks of a originally forest advanced hunter-gatherers, and Im sure as adaptable groups they'd be comfortable with the sub-taiga (not that Im one to be held to ransom by the 'craft' of paleolexicon, as there'd be those that say the reconstructed lexison of PIE is from Mountains, or the Iranian landscape).
But anyway you're kinda strawmanning there, because 'the north' simply means north of the Anrdonov-oid horizon, not Santa's workshop in the North Pole.
Davidski said... "Yeah, if we didn't have those Hungarian Conquerors rich in Y-hg N, Jaakko would be the one shouting loudest from the rooftops that we can't track language expansions with genes."
But, David, it says on the web that today the Y-hg N only appears in 0.5 of the Hungarian population. Is that right?
Whatever happened with Hungary 1000 years ago, the language hung around but it looks like at least that specific gene pretty much disappeared. It's a bit weird thing about the Maygar invasion is that they dropped a non_IE language in the middle of Europe and then disappeared -- leaving just the language.
It seems like -- yes, genetic change very much can account for language change -- and then suddenly they become disconnected. Sure makes it look like both scenarios can happen.
Davidski:
“Yeah, if we didn't have those Hungarian Conquerors rich in Y-hg N, Jaakko would be the one shouting loudest from the rooftops that we can't track language expansions with genes.”
You still have a serious misunderstanding here.
We can try to track linguistic expansions from the DNA, but we cannot guess the language from the DNA. It is important to understand their difference, so here it comes:
- The tracking is done by taking the linguistic results as the starting point.
- The guessing (Rob's method) is done by ignoring the linguistic results and just deciding which language was spoken by the carriers of certain lineage or ancestry.
Tracking is scientific. Guessing is unscientific.
I have always and I will always support tracking and reject guessing. I think you do the same, so our views are exactly the same.
Norfern-Ostrobothnian:
“Let's look at an equivalent: Slavs. Their languages stayed similar to one another on a much larger range for a much longer time period than what Fatyanovo was.”
Really? Please, give us the exact geographical delimitation and the period in years, where you claim that Slavic remained uniform.
Norfern-Ostrobothnian:
“Turkics are also a good example at least for a certain time period at the start of their expansion.“
Please give us the same information about Turkic, too. Then we can see whether your claims are true or not.
Rob:
“Schumkin depicts that area as part of circumpolar 'waffle ceramics' (fig 1, 2017)”
What source is this? It is not Shumkin, Vladimir 2017: The Early Holocene (Mesolithic)
sites on the Kola Peninsula.
@Rob
"Schumkin depicts that area as part of circumpolar 'waffle ceramics' (fig 1, 2017)"
I don't see that secific publication. In more recent articles, Shumkin only refers to materials in the Bolshezemelskaya tundra. It seems like that depiction could just be based on an anticipated migration path to Kola.
"But anyway you're kinda strawmanning there, because 'the north' simply means north of the Anrdonov-oid horizon, not Santa's workshop in the North Pole."
I'm not strawmaning, you didn't specify. The area between 'Andronoid' cultures and Santa's workshop, was occupied by groups continuing the Comb ceramic tradition (Lebyazhskaya, late Kargopolskaya, late Nebelomorskaya, etc.). Starting ~1000 BC, populations derived from the Atlym culture expanded into this area, but their distinctive material culture was short lived. The Korshakov culture arrived around the same time, also from across the Urals, but they were mostly limited to the Tundra zone. Both may have brought an influx of Siberian ancestry, but they are too late to explain the initial expansion.
Regarding Ananyino, I agree that it is also too late to be considered proto- West Uralic or any similar designation. However, Ananyino was not a monolith and this does not seem to be a result of superfluous "Soviet" subcategorization of archaeological cultures. Rather, Ananyino included populations with completely unrelated ceramic conventions, primarily united by the spread of a common metallurgical tradition and some other cultural traits. In theory, the Ananyino horizon could be responsible for the spread of multiple diverged branches of West Uralic. Of course, it still remains to be seen how widespread Yakutia_LNBA was during the LBA/EIA. The northerly Comb-cord groups spread over a vast swathe of the northern forest-zone, stretching into Finland. The southerly Ananyino cultures were incorporated into a trade network with Central Sweden and the East Baltic. The early-Tarands may be involved with the latter, but that's admittedly speculative.
@LivoniaG
Yes, Uralic has become disconnected from Siberian ancestry in Central Europe.
But that's why ancient DNA is so important for tracking language expansions.
For example, we can use ancient DNA to track the expansion of Uralic into Central Europe with Siberian ancestry, but we can also track its subsequent expansion from Central Europe into the Balkans with Central European (modern Hungarian) ancestry.
This sort of approach is going to be very important when trying to accurately track the expansion of Indo-Anatolian from the steppe into Anatolia.
The Slavs are also a good test of the usefulness of genetics in tracking ethnolinguistic processes. In this case, the function of the Uralic N1c is fulfilled by the Slavic M458.
Half thank for you, Gaska.
Sorry the others because it isn’t not the topic. Maybe Gaska could give me is mail address ?
Gaska, you didn’t give me detailed answer (dates, places). I looked at Olalde’s work (a Basque name!) but the most of the dates are between Chalco and BA, not too recent and the most downstream Y-R1b are just M269. Have you more recent and precise data ? The linguistic affiliation of people in ancient Iberia is very hard work. BTW the 2 Angorilla (central Tartessos, not southern) persons studied are “with unkown language attribution. The first apparition of writings in diverse Iberian orthographs in supposed Iberian language are very late, between XI° Century and our era. The region and the peoples settled in it in Northern Spain has shown lately enough texts written with the help of northeastern Iberian alphabet. Apparently some texts there showed links with Basque on one side ans with Iberian on another side. A remote rough link between Basque and some sort of Iberian seems evident based on what we can guess of their phonetic trends, even if the ties between Basque and Aquitain are far stronger. The question is that « Iberian » seems very heterogenous and besides a true one could exist some koïnes or commercial linguae franca more or less pidgin-like sometimes so the embarras of specialists. It would mark the commercial leadership and cultural superiority of the big cities of the Mediterranean seasides of Iberia at IA last times, and even the prestige so adoption of the alphabet by inland regions people and as far as your mentioned places between current Cantabricas and Basque country. By the fact, I read some Spanish authors about some texts found there that cannot be labelled proto-Basque or Aquitain, spite some vague similarities. This northern region of Iberia was a patchwork of Celtic, Basque and other I-E speaking tribes at some time. I remember Celts and Northern European ethnies left very few inscriptions on their territories and this very late (even taking in account possible on-wood writings disappeared since).
So I’m in front of a gap of sometimes more than 2000 years between first Y-R1b-P312 and writings, in a country where Iberians seems having taken the strong side maybe lately enough, what I think is proved by the anteriority of a lot of Indo-European toponyms even in Northeastern Spain. Yes I know well a language can precede writings for a long enough time but... If you can indicate me some precise surveys or tables with deep subclades…
&: BTW the density of Iberian pop in Southern France is subject to debate too.
@ Jasko
“The tracking is done by taking the linguistic results as the starting point. ”
Your linguistic tracking is simply your opinion. And unfortunately your opinion is formulated on a series of grave misunderstandings, and you’ve demonstrated that here in every sentence you’ve made.
Putting your woeful understanding of population dynamics aside, your linguistic arguments are also naive, such the claim of your faithful Queequeg that Uralic languages should show Mongolian influences for the Siberian hypothesis to hold.
How is it that Yakutia_LN males “usurped the languages of phantom metal smiths from the Volga-Ural region” ? What mechanisms were operating ? And why did they borrow the languages of extinct EHGs rather than the more poplar indo-Iranian. What are the sociolinguistic conditions there ?
Such thing things can happen on an individual basis, but you can’t explain the spread of an entire language family with such a fanciful scenario
@Gaska
Sorry, first Iberian writings around VI°C, not XI°Cy!
Davidski said...
"For example, we can use ancient DNA to track the expansion of Uralic into Central Europe with Siberian ancestry, but we can also track its subsequent expansion from Central Europe into the Balkans with Central European (modern Hungarian) ancestry."
This is where things go beyond my understanding. I'm totally unaware of the Hungarian language being spoken in Balkans. So I think you are talking about modern Hungarian genetic flow into the Balkans I would have expected that to be Slavic -- language and genetics. Steppes ancestry and language would appear to show up in Anatolia better than Hungarian show up in the Balkans. Not getting what I'm missing here.
"And why did they borrow the languages of extinct EHGs rather than the more poplar indo-Iranian." It's kind of pity that Rob himself apparently does not understand how funny he/she is.
@ Moesan
The decimal system similarity between Baque & Iberian cannot be mere chance
In order to figure out the use of “Iberian Lingus franca“ in late Iron Age Eastern Iberia it would be useful to understand what occurred there in the LBA, after the calamitous collapse of the El Argar society
@ Zelto
“ВВЕДЕНИЕ В АРХЕОЛОГИЮ АНАНЬИНСКОЙ КУЛЬТУРНО-
ИСТОРИЧЕСКОЙ ОБЛАСТИ: СЕВЕРО-ВОСТОК ЕВРОПЫ
В ФИНАЛЕ БРОНЗОВОГО И РАННЕМ ЖЕЛЕЗНОМ ВЕКАХ”
Kuzmin & Chizhevsky, well known publication
As you say, it’s not just waffle ceramics but multiple diverse elements of Siberian origin, including ornamentation with with snake motifs. And they occupied forest zone and subtaiga, all in all not a Cooky-cutter model
I’m fairly sure these are the early West Uralics & confirmatory adna from LBA northern and eastern Finland would be essential.
These will give more precise scientific models for the ethnogenesis of Sami , rather than the nebulous “invisible horizon” and paleo -Lap substrate theorems currently expressed by linguists. + Then we don’t have to overate of the relevance of Rostovka, either
@LivoniaG
I meant that there are large Hungarian communities in Romania, and genetically they're relatively distinct from Romanians and any Slavs.
You probably wouldn't be able to trace their presence with Uralic DNA, but you would with modern Hungarian DNA.
If we use this analogy for Anatolian speakers, then potentially Uralic DNA is steppe DNA and modern Hungarian DNA is something West Asian.
@Rob
Snake-like ornamentation is characteristic of 'Cross' ceramics, derived from the Atlym culture. It formed around the 12/11th century BC in the Lower Ob area. This population only began to spread ~1000-800 BC. Unlike Atlym derived groups, the earlier aforementioned waves and the Korshakov culture were largely limited to the Tundra zone; this would still require an "invisible" diffusion southwards.
Ancient DNA from the LBA Volga-Kama would be far more salient, IMO. The presence of Yakutia_LNBA populations here, or lack thereof, would leave less room for interpretation.
@ Zelto
Not really, it just points to a heterogeneous (materially & chronologically) set of dispersals, all of which emanate from north-central Siberia.
And there’s nothing unusual about leap-frog migrations, they happened all the time- Cardial Neolithic and Afansievo to mention but two.
Slavs before the migration period or more accurately pre-Slavs inhabited a quite a comparable range in Poland, Belarus and Ukraine for many thousands of years to Fatyanovo which in it's state only existed for 900 years. Not to mention that starting from the migration period Slavs began to spread around and there was still a lot of mutual intelligibility as evidenced by Church Slavonic being very archaic and undifferentiated despite being a South Slavic dialect. proto-Slavic proper began to spread around a huge range in a comparable manner to Turkics around the year 400 and Church Slavonic was still pretty similar to this language 600 years later. So is it so radical to suggest that a culture which didn't undergo this migration and spread before the year 2000 BCE stayed in a single language instead of being comprised of several languages?
@Rob
These cultures don't all originate from North-Central Siberia (emphasis on "central") and are not recognized as related. They don't even really share a common habitation zone; Atlym groups are from the Northern Taiga, while Ymyyakhtakh and related phenomenon were Circumpolar. You can argue that they may have all been rich in Yakutia_LNBA ancestry, but again, these genetic correlation are not mirrored by the archaeological evidence. Some aspect of this current understanding is clearly inadequate.
My point was that a leap-frog migration from the Bolshezemelskaya tundra to Kola does a poor job of explain Uralic languages and Yakutia_LNBA ancestry in the southern forest-zone between these two areas.
Norfern-Ostrobothnian:
“Slavs before the migration period or more accurately pre-Slavs inhabited a quite a comparable range in Poland, Belarus and Ukraine for many thousands of years”
So say you, but can you give any scientific sources confirming so long-lasting existence in so wide region?
Norfern-Ostrobothnian:
“So is it so radical to suggest that a culture which didn't undergo this migration and spread before the year 2000 BCE stayed in a single language instead of being comprised of several languages?”
Languages always disintegrate after they spread to a wide area. Different parts of speech areas go though different changes, no longer shared changed. Naturally, the mutual intelligibility does not occur instantly: it requires a lot of changes. Therefore, there is a long period of dialectal difference, before we enter to a period of different languages.
@ Jaakko Häkkinen
“Languages always disintegrate after they spread to a wide area. Different parts of speech areas go though different changes, no longer shared changed. Naturally, the mutual intelligibility does not occur instantly: it requires a lot of changes. Therefore, there is a long period of dialectal difference, before we enter to a period of different languages”.
Of course, but we have to read linguistics in the light of history. If I consider only my country, Italy, after the fall of the Romam Empire and the end of a political unity, Latin language was broken in many different dialects, also not understandable each other, but not only a new united state but also a common cultural unity gave birth to a new unified language. That may have happened also not only in the Slav world but also elsewhere. Always linguistics in the light of history. Genetics of course may help.
@Moesan
I have mentioned the situation in Spain and the south of France (we have hundreds of Iberian inscriptions in Occitania) because according to Jaako's scientific method there can be no better example to prove the relationship between genes and languages than the Iberian people.
We are privileged because unlike other regions of Western Europe such as France or the British Isles because we can prove without any doubt which is the language spoken by both Celtiberians and Iberians (we have thousands of written records from the 4th century BC to the 1st century AD). And we also have analyzed genomes from sites where important Iberian written texts have been found.
For example, in the Iberian fortress of Turó Can Oliver belonging to the Layetans, the analyzed individuals are R1b-Df27 and an Iberian text has been found that uses the word "egiar" very similar to the current Basque "egin"-therefore it is an indisputable fact that the Iberians were Df27 (exclusively) and that they spoke a Non-Indo-European language. This is a proven scientific truth. Afterwards, and given that in all of Europe there are no Bronze Age writings (except for the Mycenaean), we have to see if there is genetic continuity through the male line. And also here we are privileged because we have Df27>Z195 from the Chalcolithic to the Iron Age in sites located in the Iberian territory.
*CLL007 (3.300-2.300 BCE)-Cueva de las Lechuzas, Spain-HapY-DF27>Z195
*ALM020 (1.875 BCE)-La Almoloya, Argar-HapY-R1b1a/1b1a/1a2a/1-DF27>Z195
*LHO001 (1.532 BCE)-La Horna, cultura de El Argar-HapY-R1b1a/1b1a/1a2a/1-DF27>Z195
*I3315 (861 BCE)-Naveta des Tudons, cultura Talayótica, Iberia-HapY-R1b-DF27>PF6566
*I19722 (398 BCE)-Mas Castellar, Indiketes-HapY-R1b-DF27>Z195>S1221>Y8715>Y192807>Y96610
*I19990 (80 BCE)-Monte Bernorio, Cántabros, Iberia-HapY-R1b-P312>DF27>FGC15733
-Then the reasoning could not be simpler because it is also the basis of all the scientific theory that supports for example the attempt to demonstrate the Kurgan theory (i.e. the genetic continuity through the male line between the steppes and the known Indo-European peoples).
In the absence of known migrations that affected the Iberian territory (remember that the Urnfielders only populated the Ebro valley and the eastern Castilian plateau) and given the existence of genetic continuity (R1b-P312>DF27) between the chalcolithic and the Iron Age, the most logical thing to think is that these men did not change their language when crossing the Pyrenees, ergo the BB culture did not speak IE. The Argarians (2,200-1,500 BC) are Proto-Iberians because they are genetically indistinguishable from the historical Iberians (800 BC onwards) ergo they did not speak IE either.
Isn't this the best proof of what Jaako is trying to tell us?-“We must take the linguistic results as the starting point and try to find the best possible matches for them, building a model of successive steps of expansion, and in every step the dominant lineage could have been different”
What happens is that the linguistic results are a disaster for the Kurgans' theory because ironically, the supposedly steppe male lineages that reached Western Europe (R1b-M269 only) when we have written records only appear linked to NON-IE languages (Basque-Aquitanian, Iberian, Tartessian, Etruscan and Sicanian)
If you are interested in the relationship between Iberian and Basque you can look at this link that refers to the recent discovery of the bronze hand of Irulegui in the heart of the Iron Age Basque territory (Navarra, not the current Basque country). It is written in Iberian (we can only translate the word sorionak with current Basque). This shows that the Basques of the 1st century BC also spoke Iberian and of course we are also overwhelmingly R1b-Df27
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mano_de_Irulegui
sorioneku tenekebeekiŕateŕe oTiŕtan : eseakaŕi eŕaukon
What are the first texts written in Uralic, Baltic or Slavic? The time lapse between the cultures studied (CWC, Fatyanovo, etc etc) and the written records is so great that it prevents a correct correlation between languages and male lineages
@Gaska
Just to mention the oldest DF27 to date is from Narbonne, France
GBVPK (2,461-2,299 cal. years BCE).
@all
New thesis:
https://www.theses.fr/2023BORD0215
Migration and social organization of human groups between the Neolithic and the Bronze Age in Southern France : a view from palaeogenomics from Ana ARZELIER:
Through a multiscale paleogenomic approach, this study aims to document the genetic diversity of human groups in Southern France from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age in relation to the cultural transformations highlighted in the archaeological record. With a regional and diachronic perspective, this study was built around a broad chronological range, spanning from the VIth to the IInd millennium BCE, and a spatial area restricted to the Occitanie region. We focused on a corpus of eleven archaeological sites, totaling 184 analyzed human remains and providing genomic data for 78 individuals. We conducted a population-based approach, documenting regional genetic variability between the Neolithic and the Bronze Age. This allowed us to discuss the transformations in genetic pools and population dynamics identified during both the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition and the IIIrd millennium BCE. Our results reinforce the dichotomy between Continental and Mediterranean Neolithization waves. Mediterranean Neolithic diffusion appears to be associated with smaller groups, characterized by recurrent admixture with Mesolithic groups. The observation of regional genetic variability between the second phase of Neolithization and the first half of the IIIrd millennium BCE also illustrates a relative genetic continuity within the groups of southern France, despite cultural transformations. From the second half of the IIIrd millennium BCE, a different genetic ancestry originating from the Pontic steppes spreads more widely in Western Europe. Our results complement and support previous observations made at the scale of Western Europe, pointing to a later and less pronounced diffusion of this genetic ancestry in Southern France. Additionally, we characterized the genetic diversity of the studied groups at the scale of funerary sites to enhance understanding of the social functioning of these communities and their funerary practices. We extensively documented the Late Neolithic burial cavity of the Aven de la Boucle (Corconne, Gard) using genomic data, archaeo-anthropological data, and Bayesian modeling based on radiocarbon dates. The analyses revealed the existence of a patrilineal system in which the association to a specific paternal lineage and the access to the burial appear to be correlated. Through multiple scales of resolution, our results initiate the filling of a temporal and spatial gap for the groups inhabiting southern France between the VIth and Ist millennium BCE, highlighting the potential of a multidisciplinary paleogenomic approach, thus enabling a better understanding of regional funerary contexts.
@Davidski
"Apart from that, Y3 and L657 are derived from Z93, and Z93 is from Fatyanovo."
Neither the Y3 nor L657 clades are found in Fatyanovo. Not a single Y,Y27 or L657 has been found in the steppe. How do you explain that?
@Bad karma
Y3 has been found in Srubnaya and Srubnaya is obviously derived from Fatyanovo you idiot.
Fatyanovo is the source of all Z93-derived lineages in Asia, including Y3 and L657.
You better get used to this fact.
@JS thanks for the thesis, it seems very interesting.
And yes, officially GBVPK is the oldest DF27 and has been found in the Franco-Cantabrian region, which shows that Spanish researchers were right when they stated that the origin of this lineage is in the region of the Eastern Pyrenees (to the chagrin of those who have been defending a Central European origin for years). And just remind you that this man appeared in a BB culture site with Pyrenean style ceramics that is almost identical to the Ciempozuelos style that is exclusive to Iberia and the south of France. Therefore, culturally, it has nothing to do with Germany etc….
Also mention that FTDNA has classified CLL007 as DF27>Z195 and that this man appeared in a neolithic site dated by archaeologists to 3,300-2,300 BC. In the absence of exact dating, even taking the lower range of 2,300 BC, this sample is contemporary with that of Narbonne. Df27 is definitely a Mediterranean affair (Narbonne, Alicante, Sicily are the oldest samples).
“La majorité des individus yamnaya séquencés à ce jour portent en effet l’haplogroupe du chromosome Y R1b-Z2103, alors que cet haplogroupe spécifique présente seulement deux occurrences au sein des groupes cordés […] Ces données suggèrent donc que d’autres groupes que les Yamnaya aient pu être à l’origine de la diffusion de cette ancestralité génétique steppique. Récemment, M. Furholt a ainsi soulevé l’hypothèse qu’au sein des régions des steppes d’Europe de l’Est, les sépultures yamnaya aient été réservées à certaines lignées tandis que les groupes migrants originaires de ces mêmes régions appartiendraient à des lignages différents (Furholt, 2021). (ARZELIER_ANA_2023, p. 91).
Furholt is clueless.
He claimed in his 2021 paper that R1a came from Maykop.
@Gio
Actually, here is the full paragraph:
The human groups of the Pontic steppes associated with the Yamnaya culture are currently the
best proxy to document this new genetic ancestry, even if we cannot exclude that another population very close genetically to the Yamnaya and not being currently not or poorly documented from a genetic point of view, is also involved in these migratory movements.
The majority of yamnaya individuals sequenced to date carry indeed the Y chromosome haplogroup R1b-Z2103, while this specific haplogroup presents only two occurrences within the cordate groups, which mainly carry haplogroups R1b-L51, R1b-U106, R1a-M417 and R1a-Z282 (Haak et al., 2015; Allentoft
et al., 2015; Jones et al., 2017; Malmström et al., 2019; Fernandes et al., 2018; Mathieson and al., 2015 & 2018; Mittnik et al., 2019; Narasimhan et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2019; Linderholm et al., 2020; Papac et al., 2021; Saag et al., 2017 & 2021; Heyd, 2021, Figure 22).
These data therefore suggest that groups other than the Yamnaya could have been at the origin
of the diffusion of this steppe genetic ancestrality.
Recently, Mr. Furholt raised the hypothesis that within the steppe regions of Eastern Europe, yamnaya burials were been reserved for certain lineages while migrant groups originating from these same regions would belong to different lineages (Furholt, 2021).
Such a scenario, although difficult to verify, could be compatible with the currently observed diversity ofhaplogroups of the Y chromosome and would thus involve several groups emanating from
different regions of the Ponto-Caspian steppes, characterized by different haplogroups,
were able to contribute to the formation at the biological and cultural level of the first groups
roped in Eastern Europe (Heyd, 2021).
Ana ARZELIER page 90
She is just speculating.
@ Zelto
''My point was that a leap-frog migration from the Bolshezemelskaya tundra to Kola does a poor job of explain Uralic languages''
Nobody has said that these guys are proto-Uralic or even some kind of proto-West-Uralic, so I'm not sure why you keep missing (or inventing) the point.
But I do think they might be linked to an early diffusion of something which contributed to Saami.
''These cultures don't all originate from North-Central Siberia (emphasis on "central") and are not recognized as related. They don't even really share a common habitation zone; Atlym groups are from the Northern Taiga, while Ymyyakhtakh and related phenomenon were Circumpolar'''
These groups don't need to be identical, what's important is they're relatively contiguous and share ancestry. And I'd wait until aDNA from Altym to slot it's relevance into my novel schema, instead of relying on the claims of our beloved Old Pottery Fables & Schumkin's recent methodologically archaic 'head shape' article. Those old stories are wrong, they were chauvinistically dismissive of circum-polar groups as primitive Eskimo type people, and instead placed the origins of Fino-Uralic in groups which arent event Uralic at all (such as Mezhovskaya). Grand effort !
In terms of bigger picture- i've already outlined what this means : there is no cookie-cutter archaeological template for the expansion of Uralic groups to the West. Just like there is no single dispersal model for IE across Eurasia - it expanded with several distinctive movements (Cernavoda, Yamnaya-Afansievo, Fatyanovo-Andronovo, etc).
@ JS - is full thesis PDF available anywhere ?
I believe there are two L21 and one U106 in the French Bronze Age.They may be the oldest L21s in continental Europe. NO DF27 & U152
Anthony's explanation makes the most sense. Different Y-DNA/paternal clans dominated over different regions. Z2103 clans in the open steppe and along the danube, later R1a clans north of that, and later r1b-l51 later in central and western europe. In the late PIE homeland it seems to be RZ2103 clans that dominated and the migrations of R1a/R1b-L51 could straight up be to get away from the Z2103 dominance/violence, as has AlWAYS happened in the steppe (see huns, avars, turks, etc...).
To believe that Yamnaya overnight eliminated the Y-DNA diversity of SS/Khalvynsk is idiotic. There were clearly R1a/R1b-L51 (which are shown in Afanasievo) living among them, and we even have I2s as well. Linguistic evidence also shows that CW/Yamnaya bifurcation is impossible and IBD strongly backs this. SS is just too early for late PIE and the only people I've seen this from are online posters.
@DragonHermit
SS is just too early for late PIE and the only people I've seen this from are online posters.
You must be making shit up. I've never seen anyone claim this.
Anthony's explanation makes the most sense.
Yeah, the Yamnayans with R1b were the upper class buried in kurgans, while those with R1a were the artisans buried out the back somewhere.
Then there was a social revolution, and the R1a artisans became the upper class in Central and Eastern Europe.
LOL
Maybe David Reich and Nick Patterson believe in this nonsense, but I don't.
@ Rob
I downloaded all the book but I have to read that.
@ J.S.
I thank you for the google translation, but I am Italian and was a teacher also of Latin and am able to read all the neolatin languages.
@ all
Not always Davidski publishes my posts, where I express some of my ideas. Of course he is right in not sharing some positions of mine as to his positions. This was my last post without those positions:
All what you discuss is well known about Italy and my personal case. I am a Tuscan, documented from at least 1300 by paper trails, thus I should be “Etruscan”, but I am by the autosomic point of view above all “Roman”, of course of that Imperial Rome that Harvardians thought to be all except “Italic” […] My Y R-L23-Z2110-FGC24444 was probably from the chieftains of Yamnaya, and they entered all the dinasties of Middle East (from where they took some hg. J like the Thebean dinasty), Egypt, Greece and probably also Latin or Italic, because it seems it is in Italy from at least 3100 years ago) and my line could descend more from the centuriations in Tuscany than the previous Etruscans, themselves largely from the eastern Alps/Central Europe more than the probable origin from the agriculturalists of the Aegean Sea. Thus only by tracing all the single lines we may understand more, and not all hg N was a sign of Uralic expansion, because also hg N expanded into Europe in different waves. We have to link some subclades to the Uralic languages, and a deep exam like that of Hakkinen’s may help. Beyond that I think that all the languages of the Siberian corridor are linked, but in different times. When I look at the Hungarian verb conjugation in my adolescence I had no doubt that the link with Indo-European was old: third person singular at zero degree and the others singular/plural.
@ Rob
https://theses.hal.science/tel-04300426
@Rob
"Nobody has said that these guys are proto-Uralic or even some kind of proto-West-Uralic, so I'm not sure why you keep missing (or inventing) the point.
But I do think they might be linked to an early diffusion of something which contributed to Saami."
I can't read your mind, you called them "early West-Uralics" and argued that "Estonian-Finns" came from the north. If you were only referring to something related to Saami, you should have specified.
"These groups don't need to be identical, what's important is they're relatively contiguous and share ancestry. And I'd wait until aDNA from Altym to slot it's relevance into my novel schema, instead of relying on the claims of our beloved Old Pottery Fables & Schumkin's recent methodologically archaic 'head shape' article. Those old stories are wrong, they were chauvinistically dismissive of circum-polar groups as primitive Eskimo type people, and instead placed the origins of Fino-Uralic in groups which arent event Uralic at all (such as Mezhovskaya). Grand effort !"
I don't disagree, you were the one citing Shumkin here. I'd also be hesitant to call Mezhovskaya not "Uralic at all". We need samples from farther north in its distribution range to see what extent they were mixed.
"In terms of bigger picture- i've already outlined what this means : there is no cookie-cutter archaeological template for the expansion of Uralic groups to the West. Just like there is no single dispersal model for IE across Eurasia - it expanded with several distinctive movements (Cernavoda, Yamnaya-Afansievo, Fatyanovo-Andronovo, etc)."
The situation is different than with IE; relationships between the cultures you mentioned are at least defined. Right now, even the individual burials Yakutia_LNBA has popped up in require novel explication (kra001-Tatarka hill, BOO & Rostovka). Only the former two seem to share visable cultural traits, which is no surprise considering their spacial/temporal proximity.
It's a fierce competition here but it is looking like Gio might have the most severe delusions of grandeur.
Post a Comment