Saturday, January 13, 2024
Romans and Slavs in the Balkans (Olalde et al. 2023)
It's always amusing to see some random Jovan or Dimitar arguing online that Slavic speakers have been in the Balkans since at least the Neolithic.
Obviously, Slavic peoples only turned up in the Balkans during the early Middle Ages. It's just that their linguistic and genetic impact on the region was so profound that it may seem like they've been there forever.
A new paper at Cell by Olalde et al. makes this point well. See here.
That's not to say, however, that it's an ideal effort. The paper's qpAdm mixture models probably could've been more precise and realistic. Genes of the Ancients has a useful discussion on the topic here.
Interestingly, Olalde et al. admit that they can't detect much, if any, admixture from the Italian Peninsula in the Balkans, even in samples dating to the Roman period. And yet, this doesn't stop them from accepting that the Roman Empire had a massive cultural and demographic impact on the Balkans.
I also assume that, by extension, they don't deny that Latin was introduced into the Balkans from the Italian Peninsula.
That is, Latin spread into the Balkans without any noticeable genetic tracer dye, and it eventually gave rise to modern Romanian spoken by millions of people today in the eastern Balkans. This might be a useful data point to keep in mind when discussing the spread of Indo-European languages into Anatolia.
See also...
Dear Iosif, about that ~2%
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
615 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 615 Newer› Newest»Simon-W
"It's funny how the spreaders of Russian propaganda always seem particularly inclined to deplore the fate of the Ukrainian war vicitims. Obviously holding pro-Russian views, shouldn't they deplore the Russian vicitims in the first place?"
I don't find it funny at all. The Ukrainians were weaponized by NATO to fight their proxy war at Ukraine's expense while the west sits back and eggs them on while they're exterminated.This war was not in their interest but in the interest of the Anglo-zionist hegemon following the Mackinder Plan to its logical conclusion. Far from funny or amusing. And speaking of propaganda, you sure you want to blindly trust the likes of Biden, Blinken, and Nuland?
@Davidski
"Putin's next targets are Moldova, the Baltic states and Poland, probably in that order.
He'll make his move very soon if Trump wins the election.
If Trump loses, it'll take a little longer. But it's generally accepted that Poland now has only a short time to get ready for a direct conflict with Russia."
So your position is that Russia is definitely getting its ass kicked and is losing against Ukraine big time, yet it's going to quadruple down and attack the above enumerated countries as well even though they're in NATO? You think you're being rational and not at all shrill?
@RobertN
Ukraine wasn't weaponized by NATO until Russia's full scale invasion in 2022 you utter moron.
Since 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea, right up to 2022, Ukraine was denied sales of hi-tech Western weapons so as not to upset Russia.
It was only and finally Russia's invasion that turned Ukraine into a NATO-armed military power and potential NATO member.
@Robert if Ukraine loses and Russia wins, then rest assured that in neighboring Slavic countries, such as Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia Kosovo and others, out of nowhere pro-Russian populists will appear among politicians who will, under Russian funding, promote their right-wing ideas that the Slavs should unite against the United States, England, Zionists and so on, the rest of the European countries will be forced to stand aside. Propaganda turns everything upside down. What the Russian imperialists are striving for will not bring anything good to the world. it is a fact.
@RobertN
Russia is getting its ass kicked in Ukraine. That is a very rational and accurate assessment.
But it makes no difference how rational I am because the problem is that Russia is no longer a rational nation state.
Russia will try to attack a NATO member sooner or later, even if it gets it ass kicked in Ukraine, and it will be defeated again.
This is the most likely scenario for the foreseeable future until Russia is no longer a fascist state and it starts acting like a rational actor.
@Rob ,@RobertN
Poland remembers very well what Russian imperialism is, the Baltic countries also know this very well. Russia has unlimited controlled territories, where there is a lot of oil, gas, diamonds, gold, metals, and so on. Having everything in her hands, she simply bribes among politicians in the West and around the world populists. And among the residents of Western countries there will always be those who will follow the lead, who will agree with the opinion of such populists (Trump is a prime example, although I do not claim that he is Putin’s puppet), thus there will be a redistribution of the world order in favor of the Russians, thanks to corrupt Western officials, for whom money is more important than honor and freedom. And the more Russia seizes territories, the more influence it will have on other states with stronger economies. This is what the Russian imperials are trying to achieve.
@davidski
"Ukraine wasn't weaponized by NATO until Russia's full scale invasion in 2022 you utter moron.
Since 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea, right up to 2022, Ukraine was denied sales of hi-tech Western weapons so as not to upset Russia.
It was only and finally Russia's invasion that turned Ukraine into a NATO-armed military power and potential NATO member."
The shelling of Donbas since 2014, the U.S. agitation and Nuland's interference during the events of the Euromaidan...surely all of no consequence, you rude emotional shrill baboon.
@RobertN
The shelling of the Donbass was done by Russia you brain dead moron.
There was no shelling until Russia invaded in 2014.
@Davidski “There was no shelling until Russia invaded in 2014.”
Under the Obama-Biden-Nuland administration.
I would’ve opted for Sanders rather than Trump, but the DNC and its “superdelegates” system made sure to deprive me of this option in favor of an establishment candidate.
@RobertN
It 's an ordinary move by Russian propagandists , just to shout to the whole world about the shelling of dombas
what kind of shelling of Donbass are you talking about? would these shelling of Donbass have happened if Russia had not attacked these territories, annexed them and created quasi-states on these lands? which are completely controlled by Russia, having absolutely no opinion of their own, but recently these lands were officially united to Russia, the Russians called these lands are not a little or a lot - “Novorossiya”, loudly and pretentiously, as the populist bastards like to do, why shouldn’t Ukraine shell these territories where Russian troops are illegally located? These are occupied lands taken from Ukraine, seized by Russia, you see, ethnic Russians live there, who are “forbidden to speak Russian,” although this is a common pretext for invasion; in Ukraine there have never been problems with Russian or with any other language.
And judging by the logic of the Russians, why don’t they liberate the lands of the Caucasians, the Bashkirs, the Tatars, the Yakuts, the Tuvinians, the Mari, the Khanty, the Mansi Nganass, and many other peoples that she occupied and is imposing their culture on their languages? while brazenly and godlessly pumping out natural resources from these lands and using other gods occupied lands. ORDINARY HYPOCRISY
Russia has zero respect for territorial integrity, and everything else flows from that fact.
US leadership is imperfect, yet is still the most moral hegemon in modern history, which explains why vulnerable states gravitate toward the West. I don't see why anyone would be attracted to the alternatives available, barring threat of force or regional necessity (as is the case with Armenia).
@ Ethan
Yea that’s true, they’re quite backward
A more sophisticated scheme would be: place a puppet, then call him a terrorist when he’s no longer of use, drone bomb the country, “re-build” it (using their conveniently pre-made industry), charge the country debt for it, pull out and watch anarchy unfold.
But they preserved territorial integrity 👍🏻
To the contrary, the US' good will is evident even within mistakes like Iraq and Afghanistan. Few other countries would endeavor to build self-sufficient democracies from such conditions.
And before that, virtually every country the US had significant conflict with is now is better off in part due to that good will, and views the US positively.
Even still in the middle east, despite past errors, regional power brokers are willing to cooperate with the US, even to the point of normalizing relationships with Israel.
Russia seems to have a lot more trouble making friends, for some reason. Aside from, of course, war criminals like Assad who can find nobody else immoral enough willing to condone their behavior.
There is nothing about Russia, in foreign affairs or domestically, that earns the deference they receive from some circles online, aside from pure contrarianism. Abroad, even potential/nominal allies have minimal trust in them. At home I don't think it's even worth going into depth outlining the extent to which Russia is a shithole.
@ Ethan
The sooner you step out of your NeoCon bubble (as more & more Americans are), and the EU out of the zombie like obedience to it (as more & more are), the less lives will be lost.
More & more objective commentators are coming out
https://youtu.be/CsDPDIx8bPY?si=tvdZgAbEKuwLjc8L
@Rob
Russia is a fascist state and a total dump on top of that.
You can't deflect attention away from that by bringing up America's mistakes.
If it’s a fascist state, get your pink pussy hat on and go protest. Don’t start wars for your value judgement
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that when Russia invades Poland we'll have Jeffrey Sachs and his ilk telling us on Youtube that Poland attacked Russia.
That's the playbook.
@Davidski ,Let's take the best scenario for the development of events, if after the capture of Ukraine, Russia does not attack Poland. but I assure you, she will make the most of her position in order to do as much harm as possible to Poland, she will organize sabotage, provocations, bring in migrants, in order to destabilize the situation within Poland itself. As I wrote above, the Kremlin will bribe local corrupt officials and politicians so that they promote pro-Russian views. At the same time, anti-Polish propaganda will be promoted to the maximum extent within Russia itself. They will talk about how bad everything is for you, how you were captured by America and how America is manipulating you, while itself will try with all its might to manipulate your state. As I wrote, Poland, of all the Slavic countries, can be called a developed, rich, successful country. For Russian bros, it’s an insult and a bone in the throat that a former colony of the Russian Empire lives richer than Russia itself
@Rob
If it’s a fascist state, get your pink pussy hat on and go protest. Don’t start wars for your value judgement
You must be aware that Russia started this war by invading Ukraine. Sending in troops, bombing civilian targets, mass destruction of whole cities, kidnapping children and denial of Ukranian national identity in captured areas. This not just the western press but actual claims by the Putin regime.
@Rob
"pay closer attention to what has been said instead of deflecting onto selective remembrances about the 90s lest we reminded you about the collaborationist 40s. How did you misinterpret “going your own path” as becoming serbia , Russia or North Korea. The EU is a great idea but it’s morphing into something bad, it’s surprising you can’t see it. You shouldn’t argue with caricatures of reality, because the EU is a small part of the world, and the future lies with a greater collaboration, not an EU puppet state."
You act like a Russian agent. What a twisted view on EU and Russia. Davidski detected in his previous posts why Russian propaganda takes exactly such stance. The 'divide at impera' is behind all of this.
How can you compare anything into where Europe is going with the dictatorship of Russia. Explain any such thing in EU that you think is bad and compare that thing with the situation in Russia.
What I am upset is that such Russian propaganda really have some success in the west. When we are united we are strong. "Going your own path" is a path into weakness and destruction. Destruction of freedom.
"But if you want to fight for Israel or Ukraine, good luck, but you won’t be around to create your maps too long"
No, they will fight for themselves. They do not need me to fight for them. They only need the material and financial help (Israel doesn't actually).
But if that help stops, then we all really will find ourselves in wars with Russian gorgon (including Iran, China and North Korea). Then you won't be writing blog posts either.
"It’s fun to demonise trump, sure he’s got his negatives. But he started 0 wars (“spreading democracy”, as you might term it), wanted to focus on building US and likes women. What a psychopath ! It’s bizarre you interpret this as him being a Russian puppet."
He is exactly that, a Russian puppet, being he aware of this or not. He almost started a civil war in America and Americans have already forgotten all this.
He only care for his business. In this he is capable to destroy everything else. Putin roots for Trump's victory.
And it will happen. God help us all.
@ Arsen
"Let's take the best scenario for the development of events, if after the capture of Ukraine, Russia does not attack Poland. but I assure you, she will make the most of her position in order to do as much harm as possible to Poland, she will organize sabotage, provocations, bring in migrants, in order to destabilize the situation within Poland itself. As I wrote above, the Kremlin will bribe local corrupt officials and politicians so that they promote pro-Russian views. At the same time, anti-Polish propaganda will be promoted to the maximum extent within Russia itself. They will talk about how bad everything is for you, how you were captured by America and how America is manipulating you, while itself will try with all its might to manipulate your state. As I wrote, Poland, of all the Slavic countries, can be called a developed, rich, successful country. For Russian bros, it’s an insult and a bone in the throat that a former colony of the Russian Empire lives richer than Russia itself",
Viva, slava Arsen! You well described what the democratic United States made infinite times in Latin America and all over the world, even in Europe. I know very well Italy and who killed Enrico Mattei, Aldo Moro, exilated Bettino Craxi and who made all the "stragi di stato" perhaps through Licio Gelli, Loggia P2 and monavalance of left and right.
@Gio
I didn’t say that the USA is poor and fluffy, I don’t know the details about Latin America, but I guess that the USA wants to be the king of two Americas. In fact, it is also the same imperial. But the USA is a multicultural region. It is a country of emigrants and freedom-loving people, the USA in fact, a superstate. I’m ready to forgive all the sins of the United States for giving funk to the world. But Russia doesn’t give anything to the world and doesn’t produce anything. except for raw materials to which it has nothing to do.
@Rob
"If it’s a fascist state, get your pink pussy hat on and go protest. Don’t start wars for your value judgement "
You are aware that Russia started that war?
@ Arsen
For what I know about you, you are from Dagestan, probably of muslim religion. You hate Russians because the tsars conquired your country, even though at the time of URSS every people used and wrote its language and its culture. I received "Novij knigij" and know that very well. Of course you know that Americans exterminated Native Americans, someone speaks about 100 million, and they are a country of migrants. It seems that Italians are 18 million, but I remember that the father of an American adopted, whom I found the parents to, and resulted 100% Italian, and was named Maley, from Italian Di Mele, had 73 first cousins. I have many relatives up there, known or only through IBD, but I don't love that country, which is the worst enemy of Europe and my country, and the provoked war in Ukraine demonstrates that. Unfortunately Davidski doesn't publish my letters about what I think about history. I have nothing against Caucasian people (we are all of "Caucasian race"), but you should ask yourself who is beyond your ideas, if Muslims, Turks, Jews or others. In my letters not published I explsained how this issue will end.
@Gio If we count the Native Americans who lived in the United States, then according to various sources there were from 1 to 10 million by the time European colonists arrived, and most of them died from diseases that were brought by the pale-faced, yes, I know in the United States, especially New York, there are enclaves where they live there are a lot of Italians, but I can’t understand why you consider the USA an enemy, because in fact the USA comes from the same Europe...
@Gio I have a feeling that the Kremlin’s political technologists know about this hidden hatred of Europeans for Americans and it is on this topic that propaganda against the United States is fixated, maybe out of envy, maybe because the Europeans are tired of the dominance of the United States .. I can only guess about the internal political games of different countries but I’m sure about Russia. This country wants to revive the damn empire
I'm not American and if the last 4 years of American foreign policy is "neocon", well outside of getting bullied by Israel, I don't see how American foreign policy isn't net beneficial for the world.
But this again deflects from Russia's behavior. The West continually can find and maintain mutually beneficial relationships, even among former adversaries, yet Russia, as it almost alway has, proceeds with paranoia and a zero-sum vision.
If a people's prosperity stands on its productivity, and its productivity stands on the pillars of its resources, its people's education and intellectual genius, and finally on its quality of government, then Russia's government should be worried about what the implication from that is for the quality of Russia's government. And so it becomes necessary to seed conspiracies ("Corruption is everywhere and Russia is just perceived badly internationally because of Russophobia! Discrimination! Even stereotypes in Hollywood movies!").
There are of course many fair reasons that the Europeans could be skeptical of America. But when the worst the Americans do is conduct or back wars (in other continents) that you don't agree with, push you to pay for American military exports, and call you "Europoors" who "live in a museum and take vacations and do nothing in Tech" on social media, then the contrast with Russia is clear.
Russia commits assassinations of its dissidents on your territory. Russia directly attempts to fiddle European elections. Russia leads expansions of its nuclear arsenal and its pundits make threats on the news to destroy utterly your countries. Russia cuts off gas exports for political pressure. Russia disrespects the borders and grabs land. Russia goes to Africa and feeds propaganda about how Europeans' prosperity is built on thieving from Africans. Russia supports their Belarusian tool Lukashenko in sending illegal migrants across the Polish borders. It goes from bad to worse. (America is close to this, for Europeans? Spare us.)
How the military situation in Ukraine will end, I don't know (with Ukraine's pre-war borders or not). But an impact of this war will be that Europe is more economically dependent on resources that either come from the US, or are guaranteed to be transported on ocean lanes under the protection of the US navy (and not from or overland through Russia). Even if the US is overtaken by an administration from the very radical end of the Republican Party that reduces what is commonly thought of as its level of democracy, makes Europe more alienated from the USA, then Europe will still get closer and closer to the US rather than to Russia.
There is really no military defensive case for this war - who would really invade or attack a nuclear armed nation with a vast population that would rise up to defend the country? The largely (but probably in future less so) demilitarized or anti-military European nations? The Americans who are worried about being stretched in Taiwan and for who deployment in international wars is increasingly unpopular, and who are already semi-reluctant to spend in Ukraine right now? If Putin is worried that Russians will see a Ukraine that gets richer from being closer to the EU and US, then there is a whole world full of examples out there and he can't conquer nearly any of them. There is no case for it that I can see, only that Putin thought he could get away with it, with no consequences, and that he had been disrespected.
@Gio good points.
Many ydna posting on this forum(R1b,R1a,I) have ancestral connections 5000+/- years to Russia-Ukraine lands, Sredny Stog -Yamnaya- Corded Ware-Bell Beaker etc...
Rob and Gio look like this taxi driver
https://youtube.com/shorts/x_3FSfPaHBc?si=hiK4keU6a35-_tDv
@Matt
It is definitely much better to live in a museum than in the American prairies or in the Russian steppes, maybe that is why life expectancy is much higher in Europe than in the US or Russia.Perhaps someone could also explain to the gang of super-intelligent Silicon Valley technocrats that technology has not improved life expectancy in California.
2021
Japan-84.65
Switzerland-83.65
Spain-83.18
Norway-83.16
Italy-82.80
France-82.32
Germany-80.90
Croatia-76.42
Costa Rica-77.02
United States-76.33
Ukraine-69.65
Russia-69.36
Nigeria-52.68
Maybe if Putin instead of being an egocentric psychopath aspiring to emulate Catherine the Great, would be a true democrat, he could take these data into consideration and not send his young people to die in Ukraine.
@davidski
Russia is a dump. Right now it's only marginally better than North Korea, and that's the best thing I can say about it.
That makes me sad, actually.
We dissidents in the West are looking for some alternative to challenge the current regime. That doesn't mean I will pain Russia as some great nation. I wish their were one. But the US hegemony needs to die. The West actually hates its native white population. Their leaders are allowing for replacement level migrations. We wont exist if the trend continues. Nothing can be worse than dying out, not even communism. White countries dont even want their people to have babies. At least Hungary, Russia, and China view anti natalism as a bad thing. This anti European narrative you have noticed in regard to the IE question comes from the West and only the West.
Its only the West that hates its own people and its own heritage. China and Russia fall outside the control of the West which is a good thing; someone needs to challenge the West. That doesnt mean that China and Russia are inherently good. Its stupid to think that way. We need to build our own path, eventually.
@matt
Russia commits assassinations of its dissidents on your territory
America has its own version of silencing thought. I wont say its as bad as russia but the propaganda involved is carried out by the most unstable people teaching your kids. We are so indoctrinated that we tried to spread our propaganda to Afghanistan...
Davidski
Which would you rather. Poland getting invaded by Russia and economically ruined, demoralized, and brutalized by Russians for 50 years but then achieving freedom? Or would you rather Polish become a minority in their own home, and soon after no longer exist as a people. Keep in mind that while you are being replaced and your heritage destroyed forever, you will have to pay for the lifestyle of your replacements. Your replacement will be hastened by policies that favor the newcomers in terms of hiring, social benefits, and political organization (you dont get to organize on your behalf but they do). You will also be resented by the people replacing you and told to accept it as karma. Yeah poland didnt invade the third world, but neither did Ireland and they are still being told the same anti colonial things.
Temporary prosperity is not worth it. The prosperity of the West will die. Demographics is destiny.
@ Arsen aka Bilal
''Rob and Gio look like this taxi driver
https://youtube.com/shorts/x_3FSfPaHBc?si=hiK4keU6a35-_tDv''
Funny movie, but I look like neither Jackie Chan, Chsit Tucker or the taxi driver
But you can kiss whosever ass you want, as a slave you're used to it.
BTW you should thank the Soviets for giving your tribe literacy & flushing toilets
@ Epoch
''You are aware that Russia started that war?''
An emotionally detached and comprehensive analysis is more complex.
The Russian responce was to an existential threat posed NATO expansion into areas (1) beyond it sphere of influence (2) had no threat to US or even the EU (3) there had been no humanitarian crisis or moral obligation to intervene.
Rather, this was part of the 2008-104 sweep of US intervention ranging from Syria and the Arab spring, to remove regimens deemed not in obliging in US political interests, incl a goal for Russia. The CIA_backed coup in Ukraine was an affront and an existential threat through loss of Black Sea ports, which the Russians were paying Ukraine in multiple ways, incl cheap Gas.
There was a miscalculation, as the thought that a disoriented and clunky Russia would collapse on the battle field and economically. This has not occurred.
The war began in 2014, as pro-western Ukraine forces were armed by the West and
led by covert US, German, Swiss, and British commanders. The 2022 attack intercepted what was going to be a full-fledged attack by the West on pro-Russian areas of Don bas, maybe even beyond border.
Across the world, most countries have not condemned Russia but stood on the sidelines, almost a tacit approval. That is because they have seen the mess US can create, themselves want a multipolar world, increasingly admire the conservatism of Russian society (c.f. USA), ardent Zionism, and have a resentment agauinst the US economic exploitation of the world in the form of little industry but exportation of its own debt and inflation onto the rest via its manipulation of the petro-dollar.
@ Matt
“There is really no military defensive case for this war?”
As my above comment, the aim was for swift regimen change after check-mating Russia with their loss of Black Sea ports, following the wave of violence instigated by USA across the Middle East to serve its/ Israel’s geopolitical goals.
They even sent that oaf, Boris Johnson, to sabotage prospective peace talks.
@ Ethan
Can you explain how the Vietnam war was well intentioned ?
What claim did US have there and what threat did Vietnamese peasant farmers pose to USA ?
Recently the following list appeared here, offered as "evidence" that R1b-M269 originated in western Europe. Here it is:
*NP548 (5.000 BCE)-Niederpöring, EF-LBK, Germany-HapY-R1b1a/2a1a-M269
*I2181/21 (4.497 BCE)-Smyadovo, Gumelnita-Karanovo VI culture, Bulgaria-HapY-R1b-M269
*ATP3 (3.389 BCE)-El Portalón, Atapuerca, Iberian_chalcolithic, Iberia-HapY-R1b1a/1a2-M269
*AF023 (3.245 BCE)-Trou Al’Wesse, SOM culture, Belgium-HapY-R1b1a/1a2-M269
The list is entirely bogus, in the sense that it does not prove what it is alleged to prove and in fact does just the opposite. To deal with all of those samples requires more than one post, so I hope you all will indulge me, especially Davidski. Let's start with the first sample.
1. NP548 (5.000 BCE)-Niederpöring, EF-LBK, Germany-HapY-R1b1a/2a1a-M269. NP548, also known, significantly, as “KH180171_outlier”, is from the as-yet-unpublished Da Silva paper, "Admixture as a source for HLA variation in Neolithic European farming communities", which has been discussed at Eurogenes before. There is no evidence in the Da Silva paper and its supplementary materials that NP548 has been directly c14 dated or that it was part of the paper's autosomal analysis of the Early (EF) and Late (LF) farmers. Even though "Admixture as a source for HLA variation in Neolithic European farming communities" is the title of the paper and is its subject, NP548 was not included in the HLA frequencies of the paper's farmers. That's odd, if NP548 was one of the Neolithic European farmers.
The macro-Y-DNA haplogroups of the paper's EF and LF (Early and Late farmers) groups appear in Figure S7B on page 8 of Da Silva's Supplementary Materials. R is not one of the macro-Y-DNA haplogroups listed. So, either none of the farmers belonged to Y-DNA haplogroup R, or Da Silva et al left it out. Why would they do that, if one of the farmers was R1b-L151?
As I mentioned, NP548 (KH180171_outlier) was not used for the HLA frequencies among Neolithic farmers, and admixture as a source for HLA variation in Neolithic farming communities was the actual subject of the paper (see the title). Why not, if he was one of the Neolithic farmers? NP548 also did not pass the popgen filter, at least according to the Data S1 spreadsheet.
I suspect that Da Silva and his colleagues probably do not view NP548 (KH180171_outlier) as one of the LBK Neolithic farmers, which is the reason Y-DNA haplogroup R does not appear in Figure S7B in the Supplementary Materials and why NP548 was not used for the farmers' HLA frequencies. I suspect there are three reasons for that: NP548 has steppe autosomal DNA, belongs to a steppe Y-DNA haplogroup (obviously), and the sample is too late to belong to LBK.
Continuing on with the list of samples that "prove" M269 is of western European origin, let's talk about the next sample.
2. I2181/21 (4.497 BCE)-Smyadovo, Gumelnita-Karanovo VI culture, Bulgaria-HapY-R1b-M269. This one has been discussed ad nauseam at Eurogenes and elsewhere. Here are some important things to keep in mind about I2181/Smyadovo:
a. Lazaridis et al, the authors of the paper in which that sample first appeared, "The Genomic History of Southeastern Europe" (2018), said this about it:
"In two directly dated individuals from southeastern Europe, one (ANI163) from the Varna I cemetery dated to 4711-4550 BCE and one (I2181) from nearby Smyadovo dated to 4550-4450 BCE, we find far earlier evidence of steppe-related ancestry (Figure 1B, D). These findings push back the first evidence of steppe-related ancestry this far West in Europe by almost 2,000 years, but it was sporadic as other Copper Age (~5000-4000 BCE) individuals from the Balkans have no evidence of it."
b. Sample I2181 is a low coverage sample whose Y-DNA placement cannot be determined. That is what FTDNA’s team has observed, which is why Smyadovo does not appear in FTDNA Discover’s Ancient Connections.
c. I2181 is listed in the 2022 Patterson et al paper, "Large-Scale Migration into Britain During the Middle to Late Bronze Age", as belonging to Y-DNA haplogroup F.
d. The 2022 Penske et al paper, “Early contact between late farming and pastoralist societies in southeastern Europe”, also lists I2181 as Y-DNA F.
e. Reich’s AADR lists no Y-DNA haplogroup for I2181, Smyadovo.
Here's the next "proof sample", a seriously hoary old chestnut.
3. ATP3 (3.389 BCE)-El Portalón, Atapuerca, Iberian_chalcolithic, Iberia-HapY-R1b1a/1a2-M269. ATP3 is a low coverage sample with contradictory calls in a number of Y-DNA haplogroups, including R, which is probably why the authors of the 2015 paper it originally appeared in, Gunther et al, “Ancient genomes link early farmers from Atapuerca in Spain to modern-day Basques”, did not assign it a Y-DNA haplogroup. ATP3 still does not have a Y-DNA haplogroup assignment in the Allen Ancient DNA Resource (AADR) of the Reich lab. ATP3 was discussed at length when it first appeared. It is not a good sample. If it had really been R1b-M269, and dated to ~3,400 BC, one would expect that by now other early Iberian examples of R1b-M269, predating steppe Beaker, would also have appeared. Tellingly, they have not.
Here's the last sample on the list of proofs that M269 is western European in origin.
4. AF023 (3.245 BCE)-Trou Al’Wesse, SOM culture, Belgium-HapY-R1b1a/1a2-M269. That’s from the 2020 Fichera thesis, “Archaeogenetics of Western Europe: the transition from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic”. AF023 is part of Fichera’s “Neolithic-B” group, all of which had steppe DNA (see Figure 24 on p. 82 of the paper).
First off, That date is not accurate. It’s much too old. Fichera says this on page 116 of the date ranges for Neolithic-B:
“However, given the newly obtained radiocarbon dates for individuals AF007 and AF017, respectively dated 4,828-4,626 cal BP and 1,929-1,827 cal BP, the Neolithic B group includes now individuals spanning the Late Neolithic (AF007) to the Iron Age (AF017).”
Next, Fichera says this on page 116 of the Neolithic-B group, to which AF023 belongs:
"“Neolithic-B Belgians overall, resemble Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age individuals from Europe, Single Grave and Battle Axe (Figure 23).”
Not enough? Here's more from page 116:
“Genetically, in addition to the WHG and Neolithic components, Neolithic-B individuals display a substantial third genetic component (CHG), ranging from 20% to 35% (Figure 24). This CHG component, associated with the Pontic-Caspian Steppe populations, was not present in comparable amount in any of the Neolithic A samples (Figure 24). Late Neolithic/Bronze Age populations from Europe overall show a decreasing cline of Steppe ancestry from east to west mirroring the direction of the migration (Juras et al. 2018). The presence of this Steppe ancestry in the PCA plot pushes the Neolithic-B group towards Yamnaya populations, overlapping Late Neolithic/Bronze Age individuals from Europe (Figure 21). To further investigate the origin of this Steppe component in Neolithic-B Belgians, a D-statistics test was performed (Figure 31). As expected, the results assign the source of the Steppe ancestry carried by Neolithic-B Belgians to the Yamnaya population from Russia (Figure 31). The confirmation of the presence of this component in Neolithic individuals from Belgium is surprising, since, considering the age of the sites, it could represent an early appearance of CHG ancestry in Western Europe. In particular, the newly obtained date for AF007 (4,828-4,626 cal BP), makes this the oldest ancient individual from Western Europe having Steppe component and carrying R1b-M269 as Y-chromosome haplogroup marker. The oldest sample from the whole Europe, instead, is represented by an Eneolithic individual from Croatia, dated 4,833- 4,615 cal BP (Mathieson et al. 2018). Currently, we are in the progress of radiocarbon dating the remaining Neolithic-B individuals to add more data supporting this hyphothesis [sic].”
@pnuadha
There's nothing you can teach me about Poland or Russia so save your time.
I don't think the US should have engaged in Vietnam. Although, it should be noted that their entrance in that conflict happened nearly 60 years ago.
Their post-war conduct, including both allyship with Vietnam and encouragement of Vietnamese integration into global trade, is testament to the US' noteworthy lack of vindictiveness.
@Gio “ For what I know about you, you are from Dagestan, probably of muslim religion.”
At least he’s pro-Israel; that’s very rare for a Muslim
@pnuadha
you wrote that the West is guilty of replacing the indigenous white European population with migrants, I don’t understand who you call the West, the state in which you live or America? If you’re talking about the USA, then why is such a trend of replacing the population with migrants not observed in Taiwan Japan South Korea and other Asian countries associated with the USA? or for example, in countries such as the UAE Kuwait Bahrain, which are also under American influence, where the indigenous population live like kings and migrants from Asian countries are used as slaves? I think the replacement of the white population of Europe is due to politics of your countries, since Europeans have become lazy from freedom from democracy. And there is no one to give birth and work. This is my personal opinion.
@Rob
My name is not Bilal Gandon, my name is Arsen, this is a local Caucasian name, very common in Armenia in Dagestan, this excerpt from the film was just a joke, I was flipping through shorts on YouTube and came across this video and thought, here he is Rob
"But you can kiss whosever ass you want, as a slave you're used to it.
BTW you should thank the Soviets for giving your tribe literacy & flushing toilets"
I’m sure your ancestors were descendants of slaves, the Soviet Union came to the point that it eventually collapsed. Many former colonies of the Soviet Union have still not recovered from communism and live like backward third world countries, that’s what your Soviet Union led to. Regarding the tribes which you wrote, before the arrival of the Russians throughout the northern Caucasus and Dagestan, the local population lived much better than in the Russian empire. people in the Russian Empire lived under serfdom and were slaves to their masters, but here people were free and lived according to their own laws. not one of your written comments is true, you are a blatant liar, you write like a Russian, they throw the same takes as you The Russians brought education to the peoples of the Caucasus. but in Dagestan there was the formation of a school and even its own writing based on the cuneiform script of Caucasian Albania, many hundreds of years earlier than the Russians.
@Rob
This clip presents the nuances of the Russian position perfectly.
https://twitter.com/RussEmbSwe/status/1749522122765164953
@Davidski “ This clip presents the nuances of the Russian position perfectly.”
I don’t like the Russians, but the ISW claims that they have advanced on the key city of Avdiivka lately.
@Andrzejewski
Let's put your comment into its proper context.
Kyiv, Kharkiv, Odesa and Dnipro are key Ukrainian cities. Avdiivka is a town that no longer really exists because the Russians have already destroyed most of it.
So after two years and hundreds of thousands of casualties the mighty Russian army is closing in on the burnt out remains of a town in eastern Ukraine.
This invasion is not going well. But of course that's not stopping Russia, and it won't stop Russia from trying to pick a fight with NATO.
That's the kind of stupidity that Europe has to deal with when it comes to Russia.
@Арсен
You can't post comments like that here because they'll attract complaints against the blog.
@ Davidski - there does seem to be a resemblance in longheadedness between Lavrov & the donkey.
@ Arsen - yes I know it was a joke, as was mine. Like I said; funny movie. I enjoy American movies, even Gangsta rap, whatever. My points have been been cold evaluations of the situation.
@ Davidski
Putin wont attack Poland. On the contrary, Poland will probably acquire Galicia, sadly if Ukraine collapses. I told you this 2 years ago.
I know it's a waste of time because knuckleheads are incapable of recognizing their mistakes, but I'll be brief. We already have 4 neolithic farmers R1b-M269 between 5000 and 3250 BC. All of them have been published and recognized as such by European and American professional researchers. If anyone thinks there are problems with low coverage, dating or marker assignments you should talk to Da Silva (Niederporing), Lazaridis (Smyadovo), Carvalho, Gerber (ATP3) or Fichera (AF023) in this order. In the meantime, any attempt to deny that these samples are M269 will be a pathetic maneuver of desperation. I wanted however to say something about AF023 and ATP3 because I am tired of reading stupid things about these two samples;
-Regarding AF023, I know it is very difficult to accept reality, but in the chimney burial of the Trou Al’Wesse cave, ceramics belonging to the SOM culture were found. In addition, in layer4 where the remains of this individual were found, two 5th left human metatarsals belonging to a man and a woman were dated - the C14 data not only appear in Fichera's thesis, they also appear in Isabelle Ernotte's doctoral dissertation and in these papers;
-Radiocarbon dating of mesolithic human remains in Belgium and Luxembourg-Christopher Meiklejohn (2.014)-
-Interpretation chronostratigraphique de la sequence holocene du Trou Al’Wesse a la lumiere des nouvelles datations: du Mesolitique ancien au neolitique moyen (Modave B)-Rebecca Miller (2.012)-
-Historique du Trou Al’Wesse (Modave) Avant les fouilles modernes commencées en 1988-Dr Philippe Masy (1.993)-
Ergo, we have another late neolithic collective burial well dated and associated to the Seine-Oise-Marne culture with an individual that is R1b-M269 and another one that due to its low coverage could only be considered R-M207.
@Gaska
https://genarchivist.com/showthread.php?tid=475
Regarding ATP3, I know that the anti-Iberian gang has had nightmares for ten years with this sample and have used any kind of argument to discredit it (poor coverage, dead line, bad dating, recurrent SNP in too many haplogroups etc etc), but the truth is that after this time and having been conveniently reanalyzed it appears in many papers as R1b-P297, for example
-Interdisciplinary analyses of Bronze Age communities from western Hungary reveal complex population histories-D.Gerber (2023)-Sup information-Table S8-Database data of this study-ATP3.SG-Spain_C, Spain_C.SG-Coverage on 1240k target (36681)-HapY-R1b1a/1
-Hunter-gatherer genetic persistence at the onset of megalithism in western Iberia: New mitochondrial evidence from mesolithic and neolithic necropolises in central-southern Portugal-Carvalho (2.023)-Database-List of samples studied for ancient DNA in Iberia-Table S3-5c (Spain)
-Between 6 and 4.3 BC there are three R1b (V88 in Els Trocs and cueva de Chaves)
-Between 3.5 and 3.0 appears R1b-P297 (ATP3)
-Finally between 3.0-2.5 appears R1b-L51, sample CLL007 cueva de las Lechuzas found in another collective burial typical of the Iberian neolithic (3,300-2,300 BC).
-ATP3 in addition to being positive for P297 is positive for the PF6518 marker (Y: 23,099,729 A>C) PF6518 is a transversion, and it is not a C>T or G>A which could be the result of DNA damage. Therefore, we have R1b1a/2-M269 present in the Pre-Bell Beaker/Chalcolithic (5.526-5.372 ybp-Cal BP + 60 years)
-Furthermore, ATP3 has enough coverage to be modeled using qpAdm, see Ana Arzelier 2023 (no steppe ancestry)
Iberia:ATP3 SG
Atapuerca (3.389 BC)
HapY-R1b-M269
0.774-Anatolia_Neolithic
0.226-Villabruna_HG
Then, according to european geneticists, we not only have one but two M269s in Iberia before 2,500 BC, everyone will understand why we should ignore the opinion of this ignorant and those who advise him. It's okay, you can continue believing in your dogma of faith but don't force others to think like you when there is evidence that we could be talking about a fairy tale.
The king of disinformation continues with the disinformation.
I won't repeat his disinformation since it would be tied to my username.
I only accept that the geneticist reported that result. I haven't seen reliable proof. PF6518 is an SNP that is so unreliable that it is still not even included in the ISOGG tree and not a single scientist has reported ATP3 to be derived for a phylogenetic equivalent of M269. No one has ever argued that PF6518 is C>T or G>A. That was never the issue. An analysis of ATP3 using ISOGG included Y-DNA SNPs that only down to F370/M708/Y479 is reliable when removing possible deamination reads. The total number of Y-DNA reads is just over 1100. There needs to be a better sample to get more reads for an accurate result. There are no reliably tested specimens that are R-L23, or even R-M269, in western Europe without Steppe autosomal DNA. What Gerber reported about ATP3 doesn't change that. If haplogroup R specimens in western Europe prior to the Steppe migration had anything to do with R-L23 then there would be more specimens in western Europe that belong to subclades of R-M269 and R-L23.
Smyadovo I2181 has PF6452/YSC0000167 which can possibly be due to deamination. It does not show to be an unreliable mutation and is included in the ISOGG tree. Smyadovo I2181 has Steppe autosomal DNA. There are no reliably tested specimens that are R-L23, or even R-M269, in western Europe without Steppe autosomal DNA.
AF023 (3.245 BCE)-Trou Al’Wesse has Steppe autosomal DNA. There are no reliably tested specimens that are R-L23, or even R-M269, in western Europe without Steppe autosomal DNA.
CLL007 has Steppe autosomal DNA and was never directly dated so the dating is for the other remains that have to Steppe autosomal DNA. There are no reliably tested specimens that are R-L23, or even R-M269, in western Europe without Steppe autosomal DNA.
Dating charcoal and directly dating skeletal remains are two different things. Only directly dating skeletal remains is proof of the 14c dating. You can't say you know how to read when you obviously confound easily understood details.
I posted that there are no reliably tested specimens that are R-L23, or even R-M269, in western Europe without Steppe autosomal DNA multiple times due to the fact that the main point is overlooked with all of the disinformation and it applies to every single specimen posted that has supposedly been a counterpoint.
@ Gaska
Unfortunately the SNP PF6518 [hg19:23099744, hg38: 20937858] is a little reliable because we find it as MF116136 A>T, MF53635 A>C and PF6518 C>A and as A is present in many hgs. We have to think that it was originally A and that firstly we had the mutation MF53635 A>C and then a back mutation C>A. In fact in hg R1a we find always C, thus the mutation A>C may have happened at the level of R1 or before, but we should verify with more data that I haven’t.
"The paper's qpAdm mixture models probably could've been more precise and realistic."
Doubt this was the paper's intent. It's a layman study, meant to render some basic information easy to understand for hobbyists and non-hobbysists alike. Virtually 99% of the people who have an interest, big or not, in aDNA are tourists who just follow some grifter on xwitter or youtube. This paper basically supplants this role and with some crude models splits the ancestry of modern Balkanites in easy-to-understand "Paleo-Balkan" and "Slavic". If more precise sources were used (like IA Croatia, BA Latvia etc and also rotating sources to account for potential C-W European ancestry and East Med ancestry) then it wouldn't be as easy to understand for someone who basically doesn't know anything and just consooms g25 infographics. Hence why Mycenaeans (before Lazaridis' and Skourtanioti's recent paper I assume too) were used as a source for Romania or Croatia, with overall bad fits or even failing models in the main paper, with sources that give unrealistic distant ancestry proportions compared to the passing models so far (consistent since Haak's 2015 paper even without CHG/Iran).
Good effort overall.
@Genes of the Ancients Ottoman Turks as well as modern Turks probably didn't have a lot of Greek ancestry. They're mostly BA-IA Anatolian. Maybe Medievals had a bit more Turkic/Asian ancestry from Yoruks or whoever.
@Steppe Doubt Illyrians have anything that can resemble Greco-Roman ancestry. You can check out some samples from Lazaridis et al 2022 and juxtapose them to as early as Mycenaeans, differences are pretty noticeable in CHG/Iran component (almost absent in Northern Balkans at the time).
On a semi-related anecdotal note I already saw the paper's figures on a few casual online flame wars between Balkanites (as is tradition) uninterested in reading any study so the paper is confirmed to have fulfilled its purpose in eliminating the middlemen (read: grifters).
@Andrze There were no EEFs in Anatolia, ANFs is the term you're looking for. There's a 40%+ admixture somewhere in 5000-4000 BCE and possibly some waves later.
Admixture in Minoans occured ~5000 BCE or something like that (see Skourtanioti et al). Surprisingly old. Local farmers + ~50% Chalcolithic Anatolia. Maybe it could be dated earlier with better sources since they used a very CHG/Iran heavy one iirc and not directly Anatolia_ChL
@Andrze The "Indo-Anatolian" hypothesis is basically the consensus among linguists and posits Anatolian as a sister branch of PIE. What you're thinking of is the "Southern Arc" hypothesis.
If Anatolian is not decoupled from PIE then you get far more agricultural terms and a connection with the Fertile Crescent is inevitable as we saw in a recent linguistic paper even though we obviously know the languages do not date to 9000 BCE.
@DragonHermit Many places did not have direct steppe migrations. In fact most of Europe didn't. Bell Beakers served as a major intermediary, for example. Late CWC was also heavily admixed by then.
@Arsen People bearing CHG ancestry in Ukraine (pre-Yamnaya) seem to just be migrants from the Volga area around 5000-4500 BCE and have similar if not lower CHG than Khvalynsk. Maybe they mixed a bit with the previous hunter-gatherer inhabitants.
@Rob Imagine thinking you can find a non-cringe non-hysterical take on geopolitics here lmao. Don't bother mate, just laugh at the boomers
The Belgian sample AF007 from the late Neolithcs, from the SOM culture site, is actually extremely interesting as it is dated from before the onset of the Bell beaker culture, but after the the arrival of the SGC in the Netherlands. And there is a presence of Grand-Pressigny flint knives in Dutch SGC graves.
There is even a battle axe in a burial within 100km of Grand-Pressigny.
https://www.archaeologs.com/w/seine-oise-marne-culture/en
"Trade brought copper, Callaïs stone and beads, and Grand Pressigny flint to the region."
Dospaises wrote:
The king of disinformation continues with the disinformation . . .
My response:
You're too kind. What that person does is lie, over and over. All of his list of "proof samples" have been addressed many times before. He knows that list is bogus, yet he continues with it in order to mislead the few novices who take him seriously.
@Orpheus
There's nothing clever about being a Russian shill online.
Also nothing clever about pretending that Iran was the Indo-Anatolian homeland.
And anyone still arguing that Indo-Aryans didn't come from Fatyanovo needs to find another hobby, because your IQ isn't up to the task.
Regarding the terrible tragedy of the Russo-Ukrainian War:
I am in the position of having close family in both Russia and Ukraine. I think a lot of Russian and Ukrainian people are in the same boat.
Thank God some of our family in Ukraine who are well-to-do sent their kids to school in Britain! May they stay safely there until all this spawn-of-the-devil is over.
@Davidski “ Putin wont attack Poland. On the contrary, Poland will probably acquire Galicia, sadly if Ukraine collapses. I told you this 2 years ago.”
Why shouldn’t Polska do it? As much as I despise the Soviets for imposing communism on us and oppressing us, and as much as I loath the Russian Empire for conquering and colonizing us, pilfering our natural resources, Ukraine’s history isn’t all without blemish.
Some notable incidents:
1. Chmiełnicki and his Cossack uprising during 1666-1667, raided and murdered 500,000 Polish-Catholics and Polish Jews.
2. Petliura in 1918 - fighting with his “White Army” against the Reds - massacred 100,000 Polish-Jews as well as a similar number of ethnic Poles, IN POLAND.
3. During WWII, Bandera and his cohorts the Ukrainian nationalists massacred 300,000 Poles and Jews.
And right now, Polish, Romanian, Hungarian and Slovak farmers are up in arms because the influx of cheap Ukrainian grains into the EU market are threatening their subsistence and livelihoods.
I’m reluctantly supporting Ukraine’s fight because Putin poses a much larger danger to the sheer existence and way of life of the West, particularly to Poland next door.
Galicia? It used to be our for centuries. We should reacquire it.
"It used to be our for centuries. We should reacquire it."
Most people do not want to open this pandora's box
@Andrzejewski
Your ideas are totally outdated.
Poland has no interest in occupying western Ukraine and forcing western Ukrainians to be Polish, and western Ukrainians by and large have no interest in becoming Polish.
The long term plan is for Poland and Ukraine to create a powerful conservative Slavic block within the EU and NATO.
The work on this project has already started. Try to keep up with the times.
BTW, ATP3 has positive reads in haplogroups E and I, and probably some others. It's a mess. I don't believe any R-P297 call, not a good, clean one anyway.
Drop ATP3 for a minute. Where are all the other M269s in Iberia before the arrival of steppe Beaker? If ATP3 was M269, or even P297, where are all the others that should have followed? They are Missing In Action (MIA). In other words, ATP3 was a lousy sample that wasn't any kind of R. Probably he was I2, like the other samples recovered at the same site.
Use your head. Geez.
@ Andrze
Pretty sure it was toing & fro-ing between Russian & P-L empire. Initially, there was certainly alliances betwen the Rus and Polish kings.
Many Ukrainians (e.g. Slavpophones who colonized the steppe) were mostly Orthodox Slavs who chose to flee the Catholic Polish kingdom.
It's not logical to get into recompenses for past resources used, otherwise Egypt will have to ask to Romans compensation for the Grain they used, and you certainly dont want to get into a silly 3-war brother war like what happened in Bosnia. No one wins
@Dospaises-
You only accept that the geneticist reported that result?-Please don't make me laugh
Marker-PF6518-SNP-Position (hg19)-23.099.744-Position (hg38)-20.937.858-Coincident with M269-Marker name-rs9786203-Ancestral alelle-C>A-Paolo Francalacci (2.011)
-Smyadovo, AF023 & CLL007 have steppe autosomal DNA? Don't make me laugh again please, this autosomal component did not exist in Smyadovo's time, AF0023 is buried in a neolithic mass grave of the SOM culture with a male and a female (mtDNA-T1a1), typical steppe marker, enough to explain the small percentage of steppe ancestry in that sample, and if you could read Spanish you could understand the archaeological report of the excavation of the neolithic collective burial, in Las Lechuzas cave, CLL007 was never considered an outlier and is contemporary with his colleagues H2-P96 of the site since his skull appeared together with three other skulls that had received a special treatment in the burial (inside a stone cist).
If I were you, I would spend my time finding M269 and L51>L151 in the steppes instead of talking nonsense about the samples belonging to this marker that have appeared in western Europe.
Accusing me of being the king of disinformation means that you are accusing me of lying?
-Regarding the knucklehead that bores everybody-
I know that now you have taken refuge in a new forum to be able to continue propagandizing your steppe theory and your anti-Iberian propaganda but remember that ATP3 appears in many published papers as R1b-P297, so try to deal with this, I was right and you were all wrong again
-The genetic connection between the WHGs of Italy (Villabruna), France (Iboussieres) and Iberia (Atapuerca) has been conveniently demonstrated with the uniparentals R1b-L754>P297 (Villalba Mouco had already demonstrated the autosomal relationship).
Remind you again that all comments are recorded and archived, are you really accusing me of lying?
@Orpheus
"If Anatolian is not decoupled from PIE then you get far more agricultural terms and a connection with the Fertile Crescent is inevitable as we saw in a recent linguistic paper even though we obviously know the languages do not date to 9000 BCE."
I have some trouble understanding what exactly you mean here, but if you think Gavashelishvili 2023 inevitably proved anything about the PIE homeland you should actually read the paper.
Mr. Disinformation
I can't laugh at you. I feel sorry for you. You have a hard time grasping basic information and constantly omit important data that has repeatedly been pointed out. You constantly ignore that all of the R-M269 samples, with reliable results, in Europe have Steppe autosomal DNA even though it has been pointed out to you repeatedly. It's like whack a mole with you.
If I were you I would spend less time repeating disinformation, omitting information that proves your points invalid and contesting details that prove you wrong.
CLL007 definitely has Steppe autosomal DNA. That why it is stated that it is EXCLUDED Intrusive (Steppe ancestry in Southern CA) in the spreadsheet of the study. The It was also never directly 14C dated. I can read, write and speak Spanish. What you can't do it post links to sources of information that purportedly support your stances. Post a link to the archaeological report of the excavation of the neolithic collective burial, in Las Lechuzas cave so we can read it. For those that can't read and write Spanish they can use a translator. The language of it has no importance. The DNA of CLL007 is the key data and invalidates any speculation that it is not from a population without Steppe autosomal DNA. It is directly related to our stance that to this date there is no R-M269, and especially no R-L23, in western Europe without Steppe autosomal DNA. Do you know what without means or do I need to feel sorry for you about not knowing what without means?
PF6518 is unstable and it is why it is not in the ISOGG tree. Period. You can repost all you want about it but it doesn't change the fact that it is unreliable. Additionally that SNP, or any other phylogenetic equivalent to M269, is not accepted by any of the academic studies for ATP3. Part of your disinformation is to repeatedly comment about this marker when it has no reliability. I was never wrong about it being unreliable which has been my stance all along.
Nowhere does it state that AF023 was directly 14C dated. More importantly, AF023 has Steppe autosomal DNA. Why do you have such a hard time seeing that information in the thesis? As Rich pointed out, it specifically shows that AF023 has Steppe (red) in figure 24. Omitting important data is your modus operandi of your disinformation campaign.
Villabruna is ancestral for R-P297 SNPs even though it is young enough to have been derived for many of the phylogenetic equivalents so we don't care about this specimen other than it shows haplogroup R in western Europe prior to the Steppe migration. It does not show relatedness in a direct paternal line since it is a different branch way too far in the past. Part of your disinformation is the posting of this specimen as if it had proof that R-L23 could have had it's origins in western Europe. The phylogeny proves it did not. Were you not aware of the ancestral R-P297 SNP calls or are you purposely omitting that information?
Smyadovo I2181 is definitely young enough to have Steppe autosomal DNA. You can't even provide a source to prove you are right that Smyadovo I2181 is older than Steppe autosomal DNA.
Your comments are so full of nonsense everyone should be able to see them for what they are.
@Twocountries
At this point, the only reason I am talking to you is because it gives me slight joy humiliating morons who think they even have a slight understand of the topic they are discussing
Arthur Schopenhauer były bardzo zadowolony że jego dzieło „Die eristische Dialektik” jest tak popularne w całej. Europie
According to Kristian Kristiansen:
“The genetic mixing of the Yamnaya people with the Corded Ware people gave rise to the Single Grave culture in Denmark (which in Sweden is called the Battle Axe culture)”
https://www.gu.se/en/news/new-light-shed-on-the-stone-age-invisible-wall
But according to the Allentoft’s article he refers to SGC was the regional
manifestation of the CWC complex, not the mixing of CWC and Yamnaya.
@EastPole
I imagine Kristian did not personally write the article and it was instead done by a Communications Officer insufficiently familiar with the subject matter.
Perfect explanation, not only Justinian plague but 3 centuries of crysis.
EastPole
There was probably some slight admixture of Yamnaya to the CWC. Probably from the Carpathian Basin. This can be seen in the modern distribution of the Z2103. But this admixture had no effect on the SGC genetics. SGC is CWC, i.e. WSH plus GAC. Kristian should realize this.
@Davidski
What do you think about Z2103 in CWC? Could we ever find Z2103 in the SGC or battleaxe culture?
When do you think Z2103 reached north?
Z2103 was a low frequency marker in the CWC population, so it may or may not have been present in the proto-CWC gene pool, and it may or may not turn up in Single Grave and Battle-Axe samples.
If it wasn't originally in the CWC gene pool, then it was probably introduced on one or more occasions via contacts with Yamnaya and/or Catacomb.
@Davidski
If so, the Yamnaya culture movement could have been from the Carpathian Basin, or together with the BB... that's my guess. But what do we know of Catacomb's movements towards Northern Europe? I don't remember such a phenomenon... What situation are you thinking about?
@epoch No, Yang et al 2024. Had Anatolian as a daughter language of PIE and ended up finding that under that framework, Renfrew's Anatolian hypothesis was correct.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-44430-5
If Anatolian is treated like a daughter language, the reconstructed agricultural terms for PIE puts it in line not even with the Southern Arc/Iran but straight up Fertile Crescent Anatolia, Renfrew's Neolithic PIE theory. Which as we know didn't happen, even Indo-Anatolian itself isn't that old.
Hence why Indo-Anatolian as a term is generally used now, with Anatolian as a sister language to PIE. I was pointing out that "Indo-Anatolian theory" is not the Southern Arc hypothesis but something entirely different.
Most of the Z2103 in western & northern Europe has a Balkan origin, both from the Roman and Late Antique/Migration periods. The more samples we get from the Balkans it's becoming increasingly clear that many native lineages went extinct and others became very rare, and today these mostly survive in populations such as modern British and Germans, who had a more stable population history, relative to the Balkans (and are much more densely tested on FTDNA and yfull).
And it's not just R-Z2103, the same can be observed with certain branches belonging to other haplogroups, such as E-V13, J-L283, G2a, I2, J2a, etc.
@Marus
Late CWC in Southeastern Poland has Catacomb influences in terms of burials and weapons.
@ Orpheus
Technically Anatolia isn’t part of the Fertile Crescent (apart from Eastern Turkey)
It’s more of its own entity
@Davidski
Ok, but there's still a piece of the puzzle missing. Even if the late CWC from Poland had catacomb elements, how did they later end up even further north? You don't see a catacomb in the Nordic Bronze Age, etc.
@Alex
Well, I haven't seen such stupidity for a long time. From time to time, local enthusiasts and total patriots of some option write on the forums, but I have never seen anything like this! I see that you have a problem not only with the analysis of historical data, but even with contemporary history.
@Alex
I think it's 100% the other way around. For several years now, archaeological research and ancient DNA results have clearly shown that Z2103 split in different directions quite early and then developed quite independently. And the Balkans are a place where in subsequent centuries, as part of subsequent wars, migrations, etc., all genes crossed many times.
In fact, it is so obvious that it is difficult to write about it.
@Orpheus “If Anatolian is treated like a daughter language, the reconstructed agricultural terms for PIE puts it in line not even with the Southern Arc/Iran but straight up Fertile Crescent Anatolia, Renfrew's Neolithic PIE theory. Which as we know didn't happen, even Indo-Anatolian itself isn't that old.
Hence why Indo-Anatolian as a term is generally used now, with Anatolian as a sister language to PIE. I was pointing out that "Indo-Anatolian theory" is not the Southern Arc hypothesis but something entirely different.”
I don’t care how you call it so long as you acknowledge that PIE is from Eastern Europe.
@ Rob
Sorry lost track of replies after the geopolitics talk. I agree Ostorf is a great sign, do you know of any other possible clues or links ?
My father's family is Finnish otherwise I'm Swedish. I don't see why some Finnish people have problems with Fino-Uralic being from Siberia, that theory has been around for quite a while.
@Marus
I said that there were contacts between Polish CWC and Catacomb/Yamnaya. This is in line with Z2103 being a low frequency marker in CWC.
It's not necessary for Catacomb to have migrated to Northern Europe because the CWC expanded across much of Northern Europe, and even distant CWC groups are known to have been in contact with each other. Use your imagination.
"Genetic data further indicates that Yaghnobis "have been isolated for a long time with no evidence of recent admixture". Yaghnobis derive around 93% of their ancestry from historical Indo-Iranian sources (represented by an Iron Age sample from Turkmenistan and Tajikistan and Western Steppe Herders) and around 7% from Baikal EBA groups (a population with 80-95% Ancient Northeast Asian and 5-20% Ancient North Eurasian ancestry)."
This is according to published paper....
My model ain't great but it's as follows
Target
Distance
China_Xinjiang_Kuokesuxi_EIA_oWestEurasia
China_Xinjiang_Wutulan_IA
Kazakhstan_Kangju.SG
Pakistan_Arkotkila_IA
Pakistan_Loebanr_IA
Turkmenistan_IA.SG
Tajik_Yaghnobi
0.01783468
38.4
6.8
39.6
7.0
8.2
0.0
They seem to be a mix of Kangju (Sogdian), probably Yuezhi and North Pakistan IA groups....
@Orpheus
Their new framework or method is heavily biased towards neolithic (i.e. agriculture) cultural spread. So they basically assumed Renfrew's theory was correct.
They appear kushan like who had more xinjiang ancestry in them and less Kangju...
Yuezhi migrated to Sogdia where some picked kangju like admixture by 200bce and migrated south into bactria and India along with kangju and established Kushan dynasty....
Seems to fit the historical narrative...Any guess by others....
@ Marus
Not sure what Alex said which was quite so stupid or ‘patriotic’. Whatever the case might be about Z2103, the other examples are correct. You see E-M78, pre-EV13 in Neolithic Western Europe, but later clades expanded with movements from/ via the Balkans.
We need to better transects of places like Germany, where sampling seems to stop at BB and the later Bronze Age is poorly represented
@ Jaerl
No kidding, that’s just like my sister in law, although her fathers family might be more Estonian than Finnish. They moved to Sweden to flee the Bolsheviks .
I had heard about another I1 in late Neolithic Belgium , also ~ 3000 bc, but haven’t seen it surface yet.
No I don’t think anyone competent or honest will have a problem in accepting what the emerging evidence, in whatever topic of queation. That forum simply isn’t credible and I don’t think it’s even predominantly Finns there who have an issue with the evidence, apart from a linguist who has failed to cope, understand & adapt. He’s just mutually romancing another, even less relevant pet theorist, and the clown duo pass themselves off as academics to an echo-chamber of boomers who probably don’t know what century they’re in.
Forget it....a better model with 0.008 distance is sappali teppe ba + sintashta mlba + some Mongolian...
Distance to: Serbia_ViminaciumSvetinja_1200AD:I32300
0.00000000 Serbia_ViminaciumSvetinja:1200AD:I32300
0.02251173 HUN_Sarmatian_Late:A181025
0.02348258 HUN_middle_Avar:KDA517
0.02544921 HUN_Conqueror_commoner:IBE176
0.02558468 Croatia_Gornji_1700AD_R1a_CTS1211_YP613:I35008
0.02723809 HUN_Sarmatian_Late:I20802
0.02733690 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ18
0.02817788 HUN_middlelate_Avar:ALT442
0.02854893 HUN_Conqueror_elite:AGY87
0.02866341 HUN_Sarmatian_Late:A181020
0.02872136 Croatia_Nustar_800AD_J2b_L283:I34800
0.02907601 Croatia_SisakPogorelec_400AD:I28446
0.02949319 HUN_early_Arpadian_commoner:IBE116
0.02966997 Serbia_TimacumKuline_900AD:I15540
0.02997157 HUN_Conqueror_commoner:IBE154
0.03032538 VK2020_ITA_Foggia_MA:VK538
0.03052746 HUN_Conqueror_commoner:PLE57
0.03085564 HUN_middle_Avar:MT17
0.03094799 HUN_late_Avar:OBT3
0.03095661 HUN_late_Avar:OBH52
0.03130547 HRV_MBA_LBA:I18719
0.03132015 HUN_late_Avar:TMH1273
0.03155752 Croatia_Nustar_800AD_J2b_L283:I28397
0.03278283 FRA_Metz_Sablon:R2057___AD_470
0.03285356 HUN_Sarmatian_Late:A181022
Distance to: Serbia_TimacumKuline_900AD:I15540
0.02712958 HUN_Sarmatian_Late:A181022
0.02914007 Croatia_Nustar_800AD:I28394
0.02966997 Serbia_ViminaciumSvetinja:1200AD:I32300
0.02968646 Croatia_Nustar_800AD_J2b_L283:I34800
0.03064098 Croatia_Gornji_1700AD_R1a_CTS1211_YP613:I35008
0.03081642 HUN_Conqueror_commoner:PLE57
0.03137470 HUN_Sarmatian_Late:A181024
0.03190957 HUN_middle_Avar:KDA517
0.03232037 HUN_Sarmatian_Late:I20802
0.03261180 HUN_Sarmatian_Late:A181025
0.03272413 HUN_early_Arpadian_commoner:MH88
0.03281804 Medieval_Silesia:PCA0140
0.03289679 HUN_Conqueror_commoner:SH182
0.03292991 HUN_late_Avar:OBT56
0.03314213 VK2020_ITA_Foggia_MA:VK538
0.03386068 HRV_MBA_LBA:I18719
0.03396189 HUN_Conqueror_commoner:SZA44
0.03402807 HUN_Conqueror_commoner:IBE154
0.03412330 Croatia_Nustar_800AD_J2b_L283:I28397
0.03449445 HUN_Conqueror_commoner:IBE176
0.03493756 HUN_late_Avar:ALT369
0.03500960 HUN_late_Avar:OBT3
0.03516736 HUN_middlelate_Avar:ALT442
0.03577644 VK2020_DNK_Langeland_VA:VK362
0.03628663 SVK_Tes_Mlynany:R2211___AD_400
Distance to: Croatia_Nustar_800AD_J2b_L283:I28397
0.02513025 HUN_Conqueror_commoner:IBE176
0.02513167 HUN_middlelate_Avar:ALT442
0.02577179 VK2020_ITA_Foggia_MA:VK538
0.02973842 HUN_Sarmatian_Late:A181025
0.02983072 HUN_Sarmatian_Late:I20802
0.02991935 HUN_Sarmatian_Late:A181022
0.03030846 HUN_Conqueror_commoner:PLE57
0.03080397 HUN_Conqueror_commoner:SZOD394
0.03097339 HUN_middle_Avar:KDA517
0.03106609 AUT_Klosterneuburg:R10660___AD_217
0.03124411 FRA_Metz_Sablon:R2057___AD_470
0.03138895 HUN_middle_Avar:KD29
0.03155752 Serbia_ViminaciumSvetinja:1200AD:I32300
0.03193073 HUN_middle_Avar:MT17
0.03194782 HUN_early_Avar:SSD17
0.03200503 HUN_middle_Avar:SSD144
0.03200685 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ27
0.03210135 Croatia_Nustar_800AD_J2b_L283:I34800
0.03295828 SVK_Tes_Mlynany:R2206___AD_450
0.03304400 HUN_Sarmatian_Late:A181024
0.03327736 HUN_Conqueror_commoner:IBE154
0.03389942 HUN_late_Avar:ALT596
0.03399471 HUN_Conqueror_commoner:SZA44
0.03412330 Serbia_TimacumKuline_900AD:I15540
0.03421790 HUN_late_Avar:ALT414
https://torch.ox.ac.uk/event/the-language-of-kalasma-a-new-branch-of-anatolian
In case anyone is interested. Probably won't be able to watch live myself but am greatly interested in whether either have insight on its classification within Anatolian (which is obviously relevant given its geography).
I'd also encourage people to read Yakubovich' long manuscript on Luwians.
"Jaerl and re:"I don't see why some Finnish people have problems with Fino-Uralic being from Siberia, that theory has been around for quite a while." While there might be some Finnish people having problems with their Siberian traits, the main issue seems to be the one related to linguistic evidence, - or the lack of it. Some people seem to think that Yakutia_LNBA type of ancestry is enough to prove that (Proto) Uralic i.e. the language, not just people, came from Siberia. Other people, including of course many linguists, just see the lack of linguistic evidence, apparently toying with some kind of a "Normans in Normandy" type of a scenario, related to a language switch into Uralic, first possibly spoken by some local group next to Ural mountains (and not for instance in Trans Baikal or anywhere near that area).
@Rob Jaska contradicts himself all the time
http://anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org/blog/2012/10/01/on-the-homeland-of-the-uralic-language-family/
Normans in Britain might be a scenario worth testing for Anatolian languages.
@Rob
I suspect Anatolian might have diffused in very different ways depending on the time period and region.
The entrance into Anatolia via the NW likely had to involve some population movement.
However, by the time of the Hittite kingdoms they certainly had the administrative capacity to spread east and south of Nesa without very noticeable demographic impact. Ditto the Syro-Luwian states.
@ Ethan
Agree, some for of population movement in dring the middle-Late Chalcolithic, then establishment of beuracratic system of mixed populations during the Bronze Age
@ Andrze
Even putting the idea of Altaic typological convergences to one side, the Uralic-Yukaghir loans are highly informative. Clearly, Samoyedic groups branched off first, and represent remnants of what was once a larger dialect chain extending toward central-eastern Siberia, rather than the alternative/ minority viewpoint that they migrated east, or their language somehow 'diffused' east without any accompaying evidence.
On the other hand, the 'linguistic evidence' cited for a Volga-Ural homeland, namely the influence of Indo-Iranian (at various stages) obviously occurred further east, as (virtually) everyone understands that Andronovo groups existed deep in Siberia. Given that even those indoctrinated into the minority viewpoint understand this, we can only conclude that a continued avoidance of the present state of evidence is due to disingenuity.
@Rob “ Even putting the idea of Altaic typological convergences to one side, the Uralic-Yukaghir loans are highly informative. Clearly, Samoyedic groups branched off first, and represent remnants of what was once a larger dialect chain extending toward central-eastern Siberia, rather than the alternative/ minority viewpoint that they migrated east, or their language somehow 'diffused' east without any accompanying evidence.”
I stopped paying attention to this clown’s stupidity after reading an article he had written on pre-Uralic substrate in Eastern Europe, alleging that the Combed Ceramic Culture, Narva and Volosovo were all mostly EHG speaking forager societies dwelling between the Ural and the Baltic, which were likely driven away by WSH pastoralists (to which I agree wholeheartedly), only later to contradict himself and champion that the Proto-Uralic speakers originated west of the Ural, which is the very exact locations that he had claimed in his academic dissertation were inhabited by EHG groups who spoke some “sybilant rich” languages. I remember how he was going back and forth trying to convince us that Uralic languages were from Europe.
Another Elhaik/Gaska
I’m reading Samuel Andrews aka Genos Historia’s telegram channel and I’m starting to think that Proto-Indo-European speech in its infancy did develop somehow among CHG-rich tribes just north of the Caucasus mountains, in Eastern Europe, although with a significant CHG percentage.
Somehow I’m suspecting that the language of our ancestors was created in Europe but it was the CHG tribes of Russia who “invented” it rather than Dnieper Donetsk Culture (Ukraine_HG?).
EHG probably sounded like all these substrate roots in Uralic languages from the Lapland through the Baltics to the Volga; the same languages that Jaska used to claim were pre-Uralic, before changing his mind and sh*tposting in this blog over and over again that Proto-Uralic was first spoken in those regions west of the Urals.
@EthanR
There is a theory there was a Great Caravan Route between Troy and Cillicia from the end of the early Bronze age on.
"EHG probably sounded like all these substrate roots in Uralic languages from the Lapland through the Baltics to the Volga;"
-- Yes, I agree.
"...the same languages that Jaska used to claim were pre-Uralic, before changing his mind and sh*tposting in this blog over and over again that Proto-Uralic was first spoken in those regions west of the Urals."
-- Pre-Uralic? Like ancestor of Uralic? I have never said so. If by Pre-Uralic you mean just languages which preceded Uralic languages, then you have understood correctly.
Late Proto-Uralic was "first" spoken in the Central Ural Region, if we accept all the relevant linguistic evidence. There is no escaping this scientific result.
I only meant Z2103. I know practically nothing about the other Y DNAs - but I haven't mentioned or written anything about them either. I don't comment on topics I know absolutely nothing about.
As for Z2103 - perhaps it entered the Carpathian Basin from the Balkans, and then went further up from the Carpathian Basin... but this took place during the CWC times. Perhaps there were such movements later as well... But since the CWC we have enough evidence to be able to claim that part of Z2103 has been present in central and northern/western Europe since then and no further migrations from the south are necessary.
In fact, it is worth noting that new research shows that we have Z2103 migrating back to the Balkans after many hundreds of years of stay in central/northwestern Europe. These are movements of other people, other cultures, not related to the Balkans.
@Jaska “ -- Pre-Uralic? Like ancestor of Uralic? I have never said so. If by Pre-Uralic you mean just languages which preceded Uralic languages, then you have understood correctly.
Late Proto-Uralic was "first" spoken in the Central Ural Region, if we accept all the relevant linguistic evidence. There is no escaping this scientific result”
Read your own article..
@Jaakko Häkinnen https://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust264/sust264_hakkinenj.pdf
However, Jaakko Häkkinen argues that the language of the Volosovo culture was not itself Uralic, but a Paleo-European substratum to Uralic, especially its westernmost branches, and identifies Proto-Uralic with the Garino-Bor culture instead.
It’s from Wikipedia entry for Proto-Uralic homeland - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Uralic_homeland
Jaska wrote 2 articles that pointed out to Proto-Uralic originating in Trans-Baikal and how both Sampyedic and European Uralic branches used to have lots of non-Uralic non-IE that was probably of EHG origin but lately he has been changing tack to claim a west of Ural homeland for PU
@Marus
Remember, Anthony already confirmed an IBD connection between Altai and Eastern Slovak in a recent interview. We are still waiting for the Yamnaya Eastern Slovak Tumulus samples from Anna Szécsényi-Nagy paper back in 2020+/-(appeared briefly on Youtube, before being taken down), + the Hungarian Yamnaya samples. With those samples + Yamnaya/Afanasievo we can compare Z2103 between dated samples like I2787/14253/17044/CBV95(Poland-Hungary)-13026(Netherlands)Gen72(Croatia)I13467 (Czech Corded Ware)+ Z2103 Russian Pepkino Pepkinsky mound samples if they are ever released.
@ queequeg
'' the main issue seems to be the one related to linguistic evidence, - or the lack of it. Some people seem to think that Yakutia_LNBA type of ancestry is enough to prove that (Proto) Uralic i.e. the language, not just people, came from Siberia. Other people, including of course many linguists, just see the lack of linguistic evidence, apparently toying with some kind of a "Normans in Normandy" type of a scenario, related to a language switch into Uralic, first possibly spoken by some local group next to Ural mountains (and not for instance in Trans Baikal or anywhere near that area).'''
Thanks. It seems linguists can have different opinions on things, and that is why aDNA has become so popular - to help sway debates either way.
I guess the scenario your proposing sounds interesting but probably too convoluted in light of the evidence. It seems that Jaha Janhunen was ultimately correct about the Siberian origins Uralic speaking peoples.
@ Jaerl and re: ”I guess the scenario your proposing sounds interesting but probably too convoluted in light of the evidence. It seems that Jaha Janhunen was ultimately correct about the Siberian origins Uralic speaking peoples.” I was actually not suggesting anything in terms of linguistics, even if in terms of genetics the situation is already pretty clear. However genetics is just anecdotal evidence if we're discussing linguistics, even if many people don't seem to appreciate the fact. That being said, I'd imagine that Uralic was first either very eastern i.e. something like Trans Baikal or western i.e. something like ”West of areas biased towards WSHG” type of a language. This, because Uralic speakers don't seem to share enough WSHG type of traits, just Yakutia_LNBA which is based on neolithic Trans Baikal and Yakutia_MN, surprisingly similar to very eastern ancient samples such as Xianbei. Otherwise Uralic speakers are of course mostly similar to their neighbours, where ever they live.
Andrzejewski:
"However, Jaakko Häkkinen argues that the language of the Volosovo culture was not itself Uralic, but a Paleo-European substratum to Uralic, especially its westernmost branches, and identifies Proto-Uralic with the Garino-Bor culture instead."
I have always agreed and I still do agree with that opinion about the earlier non-Uralicness of the Upper Volga Region. So, what is your problem?
Andrzejewski:
"Jaska wrote 2 articles that pointed out to Proto-Uralic originating in Trans-Baikal and how both Sampyedic and European Uralic branches used to have lots of non-Uralic non-IE that was probably of EHG origin but lately he has been changing tack to claim a west of Ural homeland for PU"
You have severely misunderstood things. I have never written that Proto-Uralic originated in Trans-Baikal Region. I have only written that PRE-Proto-Uralic probably was spoken in Siberia. In my articles I have never written about EHG - genetics is not at all relevant in a linguistic article. You just made up false claims about my articles, or you mistake your own interpretations as my opinions.
Jaerl:
"I guess the scenario your proposing sounds interesting but probably too convoluted in light of the evidence. It seems that Jaha Janhunen was ultimately correct about the Siberian origins Uralic speaking peoples."
1. You cannot see language from DNA, it is impossible and unscientific.
2. It is Juha Janhunen.
3. PRE-Proto-Uralic speakers might have dwelled in Siberia, as many linguists have proposed. However, LATE Proto-Uralic is a different matter, and there is no valid evidence supporting its presence in Siberia. Please read:
https://journal.fi/fuf/article/view/120910
As I have already mentioned, I think that the recent article of Jaska is excellent. However related to the earlier presence and later absence of the WSHG biases in the Koptyaki area and surroundings (Zeng et al 2023) I'd imagine that Yakutia_LNBA based groups migrated into the area in greater numbers only after 2000 BC, possibly even as late as 1500 BC. The other option is that if they arrived already by 2000 BC, - or even earlier, they just did not mix with WSHG biased groups, unlike BOO people did, possibly somewhere else.
@ Jaska
you’re artificially constraining proto-Indo/Iranian to the Urals to support the “European” origins of late proto-Uralic, not to mention you’re manipulating & adjusting terms related to how you qualify “proto-Uralic”.
The evidence from Krasnoyarsk demonstrates the proximity between In-Ir and proto-Uralic, and you cannot demonstrate a migration of Samoyeds from the Volga region to western Siberia.
Lastly your speculations, which are somewhat off, are not “indisputable scientific evidence” . Only zealots speak in such absolute terms.
@ Queequeg
What are “WSHG biases & traits”?
Learn the lingo because you don’t make any sense
@ Rob: for instance Fig 5 at Allentoft et al seems to point to a scenario where Steppe, some time after 4000 BP, almost displaces Botai related groups and only after 3500 BP, or even later, mostly Amur based groups begin to migrate into the area East of Urals.
@Rob https://journal.fi/fuf/article/view/120910
@Jaakko - didn’t you write this peer reviewed paper?
@A
Approx. What do you think such a comparison can indicate? What is the purpose? What can he prove?
Andrzejewski:
"@Jaakko - didn’t you write this peer reviewed paper?"
I did. If you have read and understood it (unlike Rob), you can ask questions about it. I still do not know why you claim that I contradict myself, so please explain your claims.
@ Queequeg
Yes I recall those paper. Can you elaborate what you mean ?
@ Jasko
I’ve read your papers. I even think they’re well written, but final conclusion isn’t quite correct because it’s not good enough to just make generic claims like “you can’t see language from genes” or “many different languages can be spoken in one culture”
We are past that. I can move beyond blanket cliches and come up with specific & empirically based conclusions which actually fit the case at hand. You need to humble yourself & learn
Parpola & Haakinen both link proto-Samoyeds with expasion of Cherkaskul Culture to the west, based on earlier Russian linterature (e.g. Chlenova).
However the Ugric ascription of this group is not viable, indeed Soviet literature has at one time or another ascribed virtually every archaeological group near to or east of the Urals to ''Ugrians'', that is almost everyone except the actually correct ones !
It is abundantly obvious by now that groups like Cherkaskul, Mezhovskaya, Koptyaki Cultures, etc are not the domains of Fino-Ugric speakers. They are instead the descendents of western steppe herders, bearing 80% + Andronovo ancestry and being rich in R1a-Z93.
They dont even have West Siberian / Ural hutner-gateherer ancestry but do have a small amount of Yakutia_LN (in the case of Mezhovskaya) or neo-Baikal/ Shamanka ancestry (in the case of Cherkaskul's succesor -Karasuk).
Fino-Uralic populations lived to the north east and north at this time. They are northern Boreal and subarctic peoples
@Marus
When we add Identical by descent (IBD) segments, we can get an idea of close and distant biological relatives for R1b-Z2103 in Europe.
Besides Yamnaya/Afanasievo IBD matches, we have IBD from other potential R1b-Z2103 groups to compare .
For example in Europe we could compare IBD in Hungary, and East Slovakia Yamnaya samples with -- I5884,I23207,Gen72,I2787,14253,I7o44,CBV95,I13467,I14983,I4996,I3026
We could also compare samples from Pepkino-Pepkinsky with I7670,I0980,I1020,I1028(Sintashta).
We also have to wait for more samples from Sredny Stog(Deriivka?)Catacomb, Armenia(Rise 397), and Sarmatian, to get a better understanding how they are related in time and migrations.
@ a
"@Marus
When we add Identical by descent (IBD) segments, we can get an idea of close and distant biological relatives for R1b-Z2103 in Europe.
Besides Yamnaya/Afanasievo IBD matches, we have IBD from other potential R1b-Z2103 groups to compare .
For example in Europe we could compare IBD in Hungary, and East Slovakia Yamnaya samples with -- I5884,I23207,Gen72,I2787,14253,I7o44,CBV95,I13467,I14983,I4996,I3026
We could also compare samples from Pepkino-Pepkinsky with I7670,I0980,I1020,I1028(Sintashta).
We also have to wait for more samples from Sredny Stog(Deriivka?)Catacomb, Armenia(Rise 397), and Sarmatian, to get a better understanding how they are related in time and migrations".
As I belong to this haplogroup (R-L23-Z2110-FGC24408-FGC24444 etc) and probably my ancestors were among Italic people at least from 3000 years ago, and anyway the oldest samples of R-FGC24408 are in Northern and Western Europe, can you answer my question that the presence of it in Yamnaya (and your IBD calculation of descendants living up there) actually lived at least 700 years after that the hg R-Z2103* was formed (as to the YFull tree) and the autosome after 700 years doesn't prove anything about the origin?
@Gio
You and I both share many same ideas , and connect by common ancestor Z2110-- R-FGC24408 in Northern and Western Europe, not the Near East as as you are aware all these years.
However there are also old branches, in the East, as well as old brother L51+ branches in Poland-- like PCW070, as well as old cousin R1a clades in Russia and Ukraine that are of interest because we are all related . In my view the information at hand is incomplete; we just have to be patient until more samples are released, to get a better understanding of how the puzzle pieces fit together in migration .
https://amtdb.org/sample/I0443
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-M12149/
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-L51/
@ a
I thank you for your answer. I agree with you. Actually in my first research I tried to link also R1a to the Alpine refugium when I studied, then, the samples R-M420*, but after I convinced me, through the arriving data, that R1a and R1b separated at least 17000 years ago when R1b, among the hunter-gatherers of the Siberian corridor, arrived in the Alpine region, and after the Gaska's demonstration, I convinced me that R1b left its language ancestress of the IE and spooke probabvly the caucasian language of hg I (but I hope that the oldest hg J than Satsurblia 13000 years ago may be found linked to hg. I in westernn Europe). Of course I don't agree that Villabruna or Les Iboussiéres are dead end lines but the ancestors of all the R1b descendants, that of course after the Younger Dryas migrated elsewhere, in fact many subclades expanded from Northern Europe (R-M73) or central Europe (R-V88). Anyway from 6100 years ago (R-Z2103*) and the clear expansion from Yamnaya (5300 years ago) also our haplogroup may have lived westernmost. It is possible to me every place between the Alps and the Baltic.
“ link proto-Samoyeds with expasion of Cherkaskul Culture to the west,”
^ that should say East
@Jaakko Hääkinen At least we agree that the indigenous population of Eastern Europe stretching from The Baltic theough the Forest Steppe zone and all the way to the Volga and the Ural were most likely EHG ethnicities, most notably the Combed Ceramic, Narva and Volosovo Cultures. We both also are in agreement that the non-Uralic substrate in Lapland’s natives tongue and all the way to the Volga, some of which has identical cognates, derived from an EHG family of languages.
Do you agree with me on that point, that PIE has zero cognates in common with the EHG languages and therefore it cannot be an “EHG-derived language”? My idea is that just like PU languages were created by the admixture that begat Yakutia_MNLA, and just as Yeniseian languages were created by an admixture of a different Siberian (or perhaps Chinese) population admixing with the local ANE natives, PROTO-IE or its para-languages were only created ONCE EHG and CHG-like people from Eastern Europe amalgamated to the Steppe Component or WSH.
Do you agree with me on that?
Let’s have a survey:
1. PIE was an EHG language (disproved by lack of congnates with pre-IE pre-Uralic substrate languages of Eastern Europe).
2. PIE was a CHG-rich language from Piedmont who later imposed its language on Khvalynsk and Sredny Stog (Samuel Andrews opinion).
3. PIE was a language isolate (or a group of sister languages) but it was formed independently by amalgam of EHG, CHG and to a lesser extent EEF.
Andrzejewski:
“Do you agree with me on that point, that PIE has zero cognates in common with the EHG languages and therefore it cannot be an “EHG-derived language”?”
We cannot know that. There were different EHG populations and EHG-mixed populations in different regions. There is no law dictating that all their languages must have been related and of the same origin. EHG ancestry itself seems to consist of WHG ancestry + a little eastern ancestry/ies.
Even if Indo-European language family was related to these EHG language families, since the last glacial maximum ca. 18 000 BCE they could have already developed into so different languages that their relatedness could no longer be proven. Therefore, we cannot just decide that Indo-European was not an EHG language, and we certainly cannot take that arbitrary decision as a fact and then build new assumptions upon it.
Andrzejewski:
“My idea is that just like PU languages were created by the admixture that begat Yakutia_MNLA, and just as Yeniseian languages were created by an admixture of a different Siberian (or perhaps Chinese) population admixing with the local ANE natives, PROTO-IE or its para-languages were only created ONCE EHG and CHG-like people from Eastern Europe amalgamated to the Steppe Component or WSH.”
True mixed languages are rare occasions. Usually, it is a matter of language shift: when two populations admix, one language prevails and other leaves in it random loanwords and perhaps other material (substrate or superstrate). It is not automatically the language of the majority which wins, so every admixture event further blurs our vision: we simply cannot see the prevailing language from the DNA.
Consequently, we cannot trace the Uralic language back to the Yakutia_LNBA ancestry any more certainly than we can trace it back to any other ancestry which is present in many Uralic speaking populations. People who choose to believe that the Yakutia ancestry is automatically related to the Uralic language have not understood that the language does not automatically follow the majority ancestry through every successive admixture events.
If you try to apply the rule of the majority ancestry to the Estonians, the Hungarians, and the Nganasans, you end up to three different ancestries which allegedly all must be associated with Proto-Uralic. But naturally they all cannot be associated with Proto-Uralic, so this method is a dead end.
@Jaakko
If you try to apply the rule of the majority ancestry to the Estonians, the Hungarians, and the Nganasans, you end up to three different ancestries which allegedly all must be associated with Proto-Uralic. But naturally they all cannot be associated with Proto-Uralic, so this method is a dead end.
That's a straw man argument.
The important point that you're missing, probably intentionally, is that Nganasan-related ancestry along with N-L1026 can be the only type of ancestry associated with the Uralic family and its expansion.
That's because this is the only type of ancestry that is shared between all Uralic speakers that can be plausibly linked to the Uralic expansion.
There are no other common genetic threads like this between all Uralic speaking populations.
Ergo, proto-Uralic must have been spoken in a population that had significant Nganasan-related ancestry and a significant frequency and diversity in N-L1026.
It's really that simple, and you have to make the linguistic hypothesis fit this fact, otherwise you're not operating in the real world.
@ Jaakko @ Davidski
Jaakko says: "EHG ancestry itself seems to consist of WHG ancestry + a little eastern ancestry/ies". WHG were (apart the extinct or a little survived hgs C and H) above all hg I2 (and the old ancestors of I1) and I think from at least 18000 years ago hg R1b1 (Villabruna) which came very likely from the Siberian corridor. Not found so far R1a and hg J in the Palaeiolithic Alpine region, thus these was the hgs brought from WHG to EHG. I recounced, after the analyses of Gaska, that IE expanded fron tha Alpine regions as R1b (centum) and R1a (satem), and accepted that R1b1 left its original language for sharing the Caucasian languages of the Alpine region of hg I (look at Sardinian, Basque and partially Tyrsenisn: Trombetti though Etruscan as intermediate between IE and Caucasian). I accepted that IE was above all expanded by hg R1a. Of course the expansion presupposes that from many dialects one prevailed and diffused a common language (look at Latin and many other samples).
I have always thought that the closest language family to IE was Uralic, and of course a true linguist as Jaakko may distinguish their phases of relation, but I though to a very old phase, and to give a time to that would be fundamental.
What Davidski says is important: to take into consideration a hg present in all the daughter languages, as for Alpine Caucasian could be I-M26 etc. But of course the discourse becomes very complex both at the genetic and the linguistic level.
In a study of my youth I thought that Sino-Tibetan for "6" (*druk) was linked to IE *swek-, but after I did other in my life.
@Rob
Not taking a strong stance on whether any of these groups were the direct ancestors of extant Uralic speakers, but I wouldn't be surprised if certain Cherkaskul groups had significant Yakutia_LBNA admixture. Perhaps relevant, the funeral rite of northern (forest) Cherkaskul differed from their southern (forest-steppe) comrades. Moreover, these "Andronoid" cultures were probably not nearly as homogeneous as Andronovo itself; see models of the Chernnoozerye-1 sample in Zeng et al.
Kapova cave is pretty far south within the Mezhovska culture. The presence of any Yakutia_LNBA ancestry there circa 1500BC is quite telling, IMO. Also, the Steppe_MLBA in Karasuk is probably directly from Andronovo.
Regarding the Uralic urheimat, a certain linguist once advocated for a pre-PU origin in Central/Eastern Siberia- where we now know Yakutia_LNBA ancestry emerged. Seems a little too convenient to be a coincidence.
@ Zelto
'Perhaps relevant, the funeral rite of northern (forest) Cherkaskul differed from their southern (forest-steppe) comrades. Moreover, these "Andronoid" cultures were probably not nearly as homogeneous as Andronovo itself; see models of the Chernnoozerye-1 sample in Zeng et al''
As I said, even Mezhovskaya has some Yakutia_LN ancestry. So these groups had evidence of itneraction with Uralic groups, but were not Uralic themselves. Could be some form of Iranic speakers, possibly contributed to Iron Age Sarmatians.
'' a certain linguist once advocated for a pre-PU origin in Central/Eastern Siberia-''
Except it's not pre-proto-Uralic, but proto-Uralic itself, as most of us understand :)
@Jaakko Hääkinen How IYO were the Yenisseyan languages created? I’ve read that there was an admixture event near Lake Baikal that created them ~5,000 ybp, which is 1000-1500 years after PIE was formed and 1000 years before Proto-Uralic.
Yenisseyans came from Cisbaikal_LNBA culture with 80% NEA snd 20% ANE IIRC.
The only thing that Yeniseian shares with WSHG pops is the broader vague definition of being “Paleo-Siberian”. From some reason a few linguists theorize that Botai and Kelteminar and even perhaps Steppe Maykop spoke a Yeniseian language. Do you think that it’s even possible?
Where *did* PIE come from, ultimately?
@Jaakko Hääkinen https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glazkov_culture
Glazkovo was a Paleo-Siberian culture formed 5,000 ybp with its speakers being 80% ENA + 20% ANE.
Botai was formed 7000ybp with 55% ANE and 45% ENA. But all the Botai specimens found had East Asian ydna, though,
That’s why I’m skeptical about Botai and other WSHG ever speaking anything even remotely resembling Yeniseian.
Another issue- does the fact that Proto-Uralic languages urmheit was in geographic proximity to Transeurasian/Amur River HG/Altaic/DevilsGate originating region, would it revive the now-obsolete long held theory of “Uralic-Altaic” Neo-Siberian macro-family?
Davidski:
“The important point that you're missing, probably intentionally, is that Nganasan-related ancestry along with N-L1026 can be the only type of ancestry associated with the Uralic family and its expansion. That's because this is the only type of ancestry that is shared between all Uralic speakers that can be plausibly linked to the Uralic expansion.”
It is shared by all Uralic speakers, if we accept the ~1 % of the South Finnic peoples and 0 % of modern Hungarians (ancient Hungarians had a little of it). It is also shared by many non-Uralic speakers. To conclude:
1. Uralic language can be inherited without the Yakutia ancestry.
2. Yakutia ancestry can be inherited without the Uralic language.
Clearly there is no interdependency between the Uralic language and the Yakutia ancestry. Different ancestries can carry the Uralic language, and different languages can be carried by the Yakutia ancestry.
Davidski:
“There are no other common genetic threads like this between all Uralic speaking populations.”
Really? European ancestry is also present in all Uralic populations except perhaps in the Nganasans (depends on the applied methods).
Davidski:
“Ergo, proto-Uralic must have been spoken in a population that had significant Nganasan-related ancestry and a significant frequency and diversity in N-L1026. It's really that simple, and you have to make the linguistic hypothesis fit this fact, otherwise you're not operating in the real world.”
Erroneous interpretation. In the real world we cannot invent illusory interdependence between a language and an ancestry.
Zelto:
“Regarding the Uralic urheimat, a certain linguist once advocated for a pre-PU origin in Central/Eastern Siberia- where we now know Yakutia_LNBA ancestry emerged. Seems a little too convenient to be a coincidence.”
Many linguists consider it possible that distant Pre-Proto-Uralic* was indeed spoken in Siberia. In that case its speakers were carriers of some Siberian ancestry/ies.
However, many linguists consider it possible that distant Pre-Proto-Uralic was related to or at least in contact with Pre-Proto-Indo-European. In that case its speakers were carriers of some European ancestry/ies.
We cannot just pick one ancestry and claim that we can see language from DNA. It does not work in the real world; see my previous comment.
(* = Late Proto-Uralic is another stage; it is dated and located based on the linguistic evidence, not genetic evidence – this seems to be too difficult to understand for many non-linguists.)
Chernnoozerye-1 represents individuals occasionaly dropping south from the homeland further north, he might have been a dead end because thost Andronovoid cultures eventually 'collapsed' in some way.
@Rob
Yeah, I don't think the Kapova cave samples were Uralic speakers. Although, I'm not sure if that can be said for all "Andronoid" cultures, since that label is so broadly defined. It at least seems likely that Yakutia_LNBA admixture would have been higher in northern Mezhovska/Cherkaskul groups. Possibly analogous to interactions in the northern Taiga/Arctic that led to BOO.
@Jaakko
You constantly twist the facts to try and get away from the obvious conclusion.
Hungarian conquerors didn't just have a little of the specific Siberian ancestry that is shared by all Uralic speakers, they had a lot of it.
And there is no specific type of European ancestry shared by all Uralic speakers. They have different types of European ancestries that cannot be plausibly linked to the spread of proto-Uralic.
Carlos Quiles already tried and failed to make proto-Uralic European based on DNA. Right now you sound as ridiculous as he does.
This is a bit off topic, but could someone explain to me how Dzudzuana is meant to make up the vast majority of the ancestry of both Anatolian Farmers/Hunter Gatherers and the majority of the ancestry of the CHG? Like in this infographic:
https://indo-european.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/dzudzuana-admixture-sidelkino.png
How can that be possible when the two populations are so vastly distant from one another? Is this just a case of over-reading into a paper's written statement, like those early papers which claimed Europeans have North Asian DNA based on the early detection of ANE? How can they share so much ancestry from Dzudzuana when they're more the same distance WHG and ANE are to each other? Is the high Mbuti here hiding a larger ancestral contribution in CHG and Iran-Neolithic from a separate population to Dzudzuana? Or is there something I am missing here?
@ Zelto
' at least seems likely that Yakutia_LNBA admixture would have been higher in northern Mezhovska/Cherkaskul groups. ''
Quite possible. A key theatre for the main body of Iranic loans into F-U.
@ Jaasko
''We cannot just pick one ancestry and claim that we can see language from DNA. It does not work in the real world''
There's nothing to choose - only neo-Siberian/ Yakutia-LN ancestry is common to Uralic speakers.
Despite your sermonizing, it is unfortunately you who doesn't live in the real world of facts.
Andrzejewski:
“@Jaakko Hääkinen How IYO were the Yenisseyan languages created? - - Yenisseyans came from Cisbaikal_LNBA culture with 80% NEA snd 20% ANE IIRC.
From some reason a few linguists theorize that Botai and Kelteminar and even perhaps Steppe Maykop spoke a Yeniseian language. Do you think that it’s even possible?”
Difficult to say. As long as there is no reliable method to recognize relatedness between language families, I remain skeptical.
Andrzejewski:
“Where *did* PIE come from, ultimately?”
Ultimately it is impossible to say. For me it is enough to locate Proto-Indo-Anatolian somewhere around Caucasus and Black Sea.
Andrzejewski:
“Another issue- does the fact that Proto-Uralic languages urmheit was in geographic proximity to Transeurasian/Amur River HG/Altaic/DevilsGate originating region, would it revive the now-obsolete long held theory of “Uralic-Altaic” Neo-Siberian macro-family?”
Do you mean Pre-Proto-Uralic?
The problem with the Ural-Altaic hypothesis is that there are apparently no concrete shared grammatical or lexical material (versus allegedly shared Indo-Uralic case endings and personal endings), only abstract typological features. Such features could be due to long-lasting contacts, but they could also be due to chance: similar typological tendencies leading to similar results.
@Scott
There's no evidence that Dzudzuana is ancestral to anyone. It might and probably is a dead end lineage.
In a very broad sense, Dzudzuana-related ancestry is the main type of ancestry shared by all West Eurasians today, but I think many people are making far too much of this fact.
Davidski:
“Hungarian conquerors didn't just have a little of the specific Siberian ancestry that is shared by all Uralic speakers, they had a lot of it.”
Irrelevant. Relevant is that modern Hungarians still speak a Uralic language, even though they have no Yakutia ancestry. This clearly shows that there is no interdependence between the language and the ancestry. You must already understand this, so I do not understand why you act like you disagree with me.
Davidski:
“And there is no specific type of European ancestry shared by all Uralic speakers. They have different types of European ancestries that cannot be plausibly linked to the spread of proto-Uralic.”
Look at the results in Zeng et al. 2023, there you can see the specific type of European ancestry shared by the Uralic peoples (Nganasans are an exception: highly drifted northern population, different from the other Samoyeds). This European ancestry diminishes to the east, while the Siberian ancestry diminishes to the west. You cannot just decide that one of them is associated to the Uralic language lineage.
@ Scott
''How can that be possible when the two populations are so vastly distant from one another? Is this just a case of over-reading into a paper's written statement, like those early papers which claimed Europeans have North Asian DNA based on the early detection of ANE? How can they share so much ancestry from Dzudzuana when they're more the same distance WHG and ANE are to each other? Is the high Mbuti here hiding a larger ancestral contribution in CHG and Iran-Neolithic from a separate population to Dzudzuana? Or is there something I am missing here?''
I agree with Lazaridis. Dzudzuana is the core of both CHG & AHG
It's just that they have different layers of additional ancestry, which makes them appear 'widely divergent'. AHG are linked to Europe; CHG to Iran, Siberia, even southeast Asia
I realize this is probably way off topic, but it is prompted by some utter bilge posted earlier in this thread about R1b and Caucasian languages, etc., and R1a being the sole purveyor of early Indo-European. Pretty obviously, Indo-European emerged from a Eurasian steppe milieu that included a number of different Y-DNA lineages, including mainly R1b and R1a, but also Q, I2, and some clades of J. The apparent homogeneity of steppe DNA was maintained by the exogamous exchange of brides among the various tribes of the steppe, which preserved the unique Y-DNA identity of the separate tribes, and thus the Y-DNA diversity of the Indo-Europeans overall, while preserving their similarity in autosomal DNA.
As far as R1b goes, its phylogeny pretty obviously points to an eastern origin. First off, R1b-M343 and R1a-M420 are brother clades under R1-M173. The differences in the current MRCA estimates for R1b-M343 and R1a-M420 make it difficult to say anything about the origin of either one from its relationship to the other, except to say that they appear to be decidedly eastern.
Under R1b-M343, there are thus far two sibling branches: L754 and BY14355. Under L754 there are thus far two sibling branches: L761 and FTE1. L761 is fairly well known as the western Eurasian branch of L754 under R1b-M343. The oldest known R1b-L761 sample thus far, Villabruna 1, 12,268 - 11,851 BC, even though he was recovered in NE Italy, had ANE (Ancient North Eurasian) autosomal DNA, which is an indication that his ultimate origin was far to the east of where his skeleton was found.
FTE1 is somewhat more mysterious and interesting. A recently discovered SNP, it is currently found in five modern men: four from China, and one from Tajikistan. So, FTE1 has an eastern Eurasian distribution, at least among modern men. Thus far, there are no known ancient R1b-FTE1 samples.
BY14355 is the brother clade of L754 under R1b-M343. Thus far it is L754's only known sibling. There are quite a few ancient samples on the BY14355 line under its offspring PH155 and FTB1, most of them from China (Xinjiang mainly). BY14355 definitely has an eastern Eurasian center of gravity.
This is just my opinion, but it seems to me the preponderance of the evidence that R1b-M343 probably had a North Asian origin. More on this in subsequent posts.
BTW, anyone who speaks of "analyses" from Inspector Gadget has obviously lost his mind.
L761 has two branches: PF6323 and L389.
PF6323 is represented in its two descendant branches, FT360002 and V88, by Mesolithic Hunter-Gatherer samples from Ukraine, Romania, and Serbia. It appears to be the first R1b-L761 clade west of the steppe after the lone L761 sample Villabruna 1.
Some people attach a lot of importance to Villabruna 1, since his skeleton was recovered in NE Italy and dated to 12,268-11,851 BC, but no other L761 appears in the ancient peninsular European record until the R1b-V88 samples at the Iron Gates in Serbia 3,000 years later. As mentioned before, Villabruna 1 had ANE (Ancient North Eurasian) autosomal DNA, and so did the Iron Gates Hunter-Gatherers. That seems to me to indicate an origin much farther east than either NE Italy or Serbia.
Naturally, some desperate western European chauvinists will cry out, "What about Iboussieres?" Well Iboussieres, i.e., sample Iboussieres31-2 (Aven des Iboussières à Malataverne, Rhône-Alpes, France) from the 2018 Mathieson et al paper, "The Genomic History of Southeastern Europe", is a low coverage sample with a very small BAM file of 39 Mb and one call at R1, which is insufficient to confidently declare his Y-DNA haplogroup. It's just a no-good sample, like so many put forward as "proofs" of peninsular origin for R1b.
More on this in a subsequent post, as long Davidski tolerates it.
L389 has two branches thus far: P297 and V1636. First, let's talk about V1636. V1636 has a decidedly steppe pastoralist bent. Its oldest sample in FTDNA Discover's Ancient Connections is Progress 2001, 4994 - 4802 BC, from Progress, Stavropol Krai, Russian Federation. Progress 2001 belonged to what FTDNA characterizes as an "Eneolithic Steppe cultural group".
V1636 has a number of similar ancient samples, including one belonging to the Single Grave Corded Ware culture from Denmark, Gjerrild 5, 2341 - 2061 BC. Pretty obviously, V1636 is an Indo-European steppe pastoralist lineage.
The oldest R1b-P297 in FTDNA Discover's Ancient Connections so far is "Minino 2-3", dated to 8634-8393 BC. He comes from the Minino II site in Vologda, Russia. That site is some distance directly east of the Baltic. In other words, it's not close to the Baltic. That is important because the oldest known M73 samples thus far known are from some hunter-gatherers from the Baltic, and M73 is one of the two sibling branches under P297, M73 and M269. Since the MRCA of P297 is currently estimated at ~12,000 BC, Minino 2-3 must be derived for something downstream of it, but the location where his remains were recovered is informative, since he predates the R1b-M73 HGs in Latvia. It seems likely to me they or their ancestors got to the Baltic from farther east in Russia. Of course, we don't have enough evidence to know that for sure yet.
M269 is the brother clade to M73 under P297. Thus far it has two branches: PF7562 and L23. PF7562 seems to be uniquely tied to the Mycenaeans, Indo-European Greek invaders of mainland Greece and the Aegean archipelago. Of course, L23 is represented by its offspring, L51 and Z2103. The former is very well represented in Corded Ware and its offshoot, Bell Beaker. Z2103 thus far is the dominant Y-DNA haplogroup in Yamnaya.
Anyone who knows anything about the phylogeny of R1b-M343 and its descendants, and the ancient samples thus far connected to them, would not even begin to imagine the crap a couple of the rabid western European ethno-nationalists currently post here.
The person who above linked hg R1b1 to Caucasian spoken languages of the Alpine region is me, but only because I thought that the R1b1 hunter-gatherers of the Siberian corridor who wintered in the Alps (Villabruna and Les Ibousiéres) left (perhaps) their Nostratic language for the Na Denè Caucasian language of the hg. I/J, whereas R1a remained easternmost and probably resulted the main hg of the future IE language. What was doing Rich S when Gioiello, 15 years ago, foresaw Villabruna in Italy just only by examining the STRs at our disposal then?
“The idea that R1b is somehow peninsular European is just idiotic.
It seems likely to me they or their ancestors got to the Baltic from farther east in Russia. Of course, we don't have enough evidence to know that for sure yet” etc etc.
I say to Rich S that “idion” in Greek does mean “my own”, my identity, just what Hegej named the “bone” of the “Geist”, what permits me to say that I am not him and his descendants, i.e. what in political meaning I wrote for all my life.
Unfortunately for you you met someone who knows pretty much all in pretty much all the fields and I wrote in books of poetry already from my 13 years that at the end the lamb will show the wolf and that it is dangerous to be the armed arm of the finance, and anyway intelligence isn't acquired through wedding.
@ RichS
Eastern Eurasia has nothing to do with R1b, don’t be mislead by modern genealogy of Chinese males.
It is absurd to claim that R1a is east Eurasian or even Siberian, it’s clearly east European in terms of its departure and its origins.
R1b as a whole is a bit more complex, but it’s imo more western than it seems.
Extant R* lineages are definitely aralo-Caspian in diffusion origin
V88 is also certainly a European lineage : Villabruna , Iboussieres arent flukes. It has no bearing in Eastern Europe even
You need to plot out all ancient data on a map, incl the recent allentoft set
You will realise the near extinction of P-derived clades in Siberia and come to more sensible conclusions.
@ Jaako
''Irrelevant. Relevant is that modern Hungarians still speak a Uralic language, even though they have no Yakutia ancestry. This clearly shows that there is no interdependence between the language and the ancestry.''
This is sad. You are either woefully incompetent, or a pathologically dishonest charleton.
@Jaakko
As you mentioned, a connection between the Yakutia_LNBA "Siberian" component and pre-PU/PU is conceivable, even within your framework.
Historical linguistics in this application is not an exact science. I'm afraid the implementation of overly ambitious areal and temporal constraints might be a problem. A multidisciplinary approach should be stressed in this otherwise ambiguous situation. The underlying demograghy is relevant to the spread of language after all.
@Jaakko
Dilution of genetic ancestry can be a problem for tracing ancient language expansions with DNA, but obviously it doesn't mean that there's no correlation between language and genetic ancestry.
There is almost always some correlation, it's just that it's usually easier to find with ancient DNA than modern DNA.
I'm actually telling you things that you should and probably already know, but you've chosen to suffer from some very selective amnesia just to avoid the obvious conclusion that Uralic is a Siberian language family associated with a very specific Siberian genetic signature.
Zelto:
“Historical linguistics in this application is not an exact science. I'm afraid the implementation of overly ambitious areal and temporal constraints might be a problem. A multidisciplinary approach should be stressed in this otherwise ambiguous situation. The underlying demograghy is relevant to the spread of language after all.”
So, can we also say that population genetics is not an exact science as long as every study gives us different qpAdm-results?
Multidisciplinary approach means that results from every relevant discipline is accepted as they are, and then these independent results are used to form a holistic picture. It is not multidisciplinary but non-disciplinary (unscientific), if you imagine you can see the language from the DNA. It is not any more possible than seeing the DNA from the language.
As I have presented, there is always different possible interpretations based on genetic results, because the language does not always follow the majority ancestry. No “underlying demography” can therefore overrule the linguistic results, when we study language.
Zelto:
“As you mentioned, a connection between the Yakutia_LNBA "Siberian" component and pre-PU/PU is conceivable, even within your framework.”
As I wrote, there are at least two ancestries widespread in the Uralic speaking populations. You cannot just decide which of them was originally connected to the Uralic language, but it depends on the linguistic results.
- If Pre-Proto-Uralic was spoken in Europe, then the Uralic language lineage was originally associated with a European ancestry.
- If Pre-Proto-Uralic was spoken in Siberia, then the Uralic language lineage was originally associated with a Siberian ancestry.
Besides, language can also shift its “vehicle” (the ancestry of the language carriers), as we can see from the fact that the Hungarians and the Nganasans do not share any common ancestry component even though their languages are related.
Davidski:
“Dilution of genetic ancestry can be a problem for tracing ancient language expansions with DNA, but obviously it doesn't mean that there's no correlation between language and genetic ancestry. There is almost always some correlation, it's just that it's usually easier to find with ancient DNA than modern DNA.”
True. Yet a correlation is nothing more than a starting point, especially when there are several correlations like in the case of the Uralic language family: the Siberian ancestry and the European ancestry (you did not look at Zeng et al. 2023?).
Davidski:
“I'm actually telling you things that you should and probably already know, but you've chosen to suffer from some very selective amnesia just to avoid the obvious conclusion that Uralic is a Siberian language family associated with a very specific Siberian genetic signature.”
Similarly, I tell you things that you must already know. This shows that for some reason we talk crosswise and do not understand each other. There is nothing selective in my behavior: the selectiveness is in your behavior. You ignore the European component widely present in the Uralic speaking populations – why?
You cannot just throw a dice and claim that “Uralic is a Siberian language family associated with a very specific Siberian genetic signature”. That is not a fact – that is only your belief, which is possible only when you close your eyes from other possibilities.
- If Pre-Proto-Uralic was spoken in Europe, then the Uralic language lineage was originally associated with a European ancestry.
- If Pre-Proto-Uralic was spoken in Siberia, then the Uralic language lineage was originally associated with a Siberian ancestry.
Only historical linguistics can tell about language. You cannot see language from the DNA. Unfortunately at the moment there is no reliable linguistic method to tell us, whether Pre-Proto-Uralic was spoken in Europe or in Siberia, so we simply must keep all possibilities open. It is not objective or scientific to close your eyes from some possibilities and just arbitrary decide that one possibility is correct. You must already know this, so I wonder why I must tell you this.
@ Jaaski
'' You ignore the European component widely present in the Uralic speaking populations – why?''
You fail to understand that groups like Samoyeds lack European admixture, apart from occasional individuals with some recent Russian admixture
Finns and Estonians have Baltic and Germanic admixture
Mari have Sarmatian and other nomad Iranic admixture
Early Magyars have Alan, Slav and some Germanic admixture
There is therefore no common 'European' thread amongst Fino-Uralic populations, the only link is the specific Siberian one you're ignoring.
@Jaakko
You cannot associate the broad "European" genetic component with Uralic, because its different streams are already more strongly associated with Indo-European languages.
The European ancestry in Hungarians is obviously West Slavic and West Germanic, in Finns it's Baltic and North Germanic, in more easterly Uralic speakers it's East Slavic and Iranian, and so on.
Again, you must know this, but you're playing dumb - why?
Davidski:
“You cannot associate the broad "European" genetic component with Uralic, because its different streams are already more strongly associated with Indo-European languages.”
In Zeng et al. 2023 you can see the Srubnaya-like ancestry in the Uralic speaking populations. Corded Ware Culture and population spread all the way to the Ural Region before the expansion of the Uralic languages, so it is old enough to have been able to participate in the Uralic expansion.
You cannot claim that this ancestry component could not be associated with the Uralic language any more than you can claim that
(1) the Yakutia ancestry could not be associated with the Yukaghirs or Yakuts only because it is associated with the Uralic languages; or
(2) the European Farmer ancestry could not be associated with the West Uralic populations only because it is associated with many Indo-European populations; etc.
Of course any ancestry component can be associated with several linguistic groups. There is no law preventing this. Moreover, also EHG ancestry is widespread in the Uralic populations according to Zeng et al. 2023.
For some reason you close your eyes and mind from other possibilities and just want to believe that only the Yakutia ancestry is associated with the Uralic languages. Do you see your bias now?
@ RMS2
''You need to plot out all ancient data on a map, incl the recent allentoft set
You will realise the near extinction of P-derived clades in Siberia and come to more sensible conclusions.''
That should say R.
@Jaako “ Of course any ancestry component can be associated with several linguistic groups. There is no law preventing this. Moreover, also EHG ancestry is widespread in the Uralic populations according to Zeng et al. 2023. ”
Because they assimilated EHG pops when they migrated from Siberia to EE.
@Jaakko “ 1) the Yakutia ancestry could not be associated with the Yukaghirs or Yakuts only because it is associated with the Uralic languages; or…”
Yughakir and other Paleo-Siberian tribes are from Ymakhtakh. That includes Nivkh, Katmachdals and Ket.
@Jaakko
You can't pretend that some distal component like EHG is associated with the Uralic expansion, because it's obvious that EHG-related ancestry was acquired by different Uralic groups in different ways.
We can track how this happened with ancient DNA, and there's nothing there that explains the Uralic expansion. All we have are different types of Indo-European Corded Ware ancestry in different Uralic speakers.
So can you actually pinpoint any type of specific European ancestry that is associated with the expansion of Uralic languages as obviously as Nganasan-related ancestry, along with an associated Y-chromosome haplogroup like N-L1026?
I made some excerpta by reading the Jaakko's paper. He is making a good work, i.e. by trying to link linguistic introgressions with probable genetic ones. Unfortunately he admits that linguistic introgressions not always are detactable, just for the Uralic phonetics, thus he should abstain in doing generalizations not supported by data, but I think that his linguistic work is good.
"The suggested Ural-Altaic features of an areal-typological nature and possible distant contacts or even relatedness with Indo-European, Yukaghir, or Eskimo-Aleut would in any
case precede Late Proto-Uralic by several millennia. p. 44
These phenomena are just as irrelevant for locating Late Proto-Uralic as the location of Late Proto-Uralic is for locating Late Proto-Finnic (in Estonia) or Late ProtoSamoyedic (in South Siberia). p.44
For example, the famous words for ‘bee’ and ‘honey’ do not have cognates beyond Hungarian in the east, making them too suspect as Late Proto-Uralic words. p.45
The distinction between borrowing into the uniform proto-language and into later stages has been generally acknowledged, but it is necessary to increase the resolution here. p. 47
Within the Early Indo-European loanword layers, I include early stages of two separate donor lineages, which descend from Late Proto-Indo-European (LPIE): the Indo-Iranian lineage consisting of Early (EPIIr) > Middle (MPIIr) > Late Proto-Indo-Iranian (LPIIr) > Proto-Iranian (PIr), and the Northwest Indo-European lineage consisting of Archaic Indo-European
(AIE) > Northwest Indo-European (NwIE). At the moment the number of convincing loanwords in the Early Proto-Indo-Iranian layer is about a dozen, and greater still in the Late Proto-Indo-Iranian and Proto-Iranian layers (Grünthal et al. 2022: Appendix 2 “Indo-Iranian loans in Uralic”).There are several dozen proposed Archaic and Northwest Indo-European
loanwords, but their reassessment is still an ongoing process. p. 48
Most if not all of the Archaic Indo-European loanwords could probably be explained as borrowed from the ancestor of Northwest Indo-European. p. 49
Northwest Indo-European is not a proto-dialect in the same sense as Late Proto-Indo-Iranian, but rather a continuum of phonologically conservative Indo-European varieties roughly corresponding to the wide area of the Corded Ware Cultures. Northwest Indo-European branches (at least Balto-Slavic, Germanic, Celtic, and Italic) share quite a lot of words that
lack cognates in more distant branches. Consequently, earlier datings were rejected and later datings around 2000 BCE were accepted for Late Proto-Uralic (Kallio 2006; J. Häkkinen 2009; Parpola 2012b). p. 50
By resolution I mean the density of successive distinguishable reconstruction stages in a donor lineage, seen in the loanwords through the Uralic filter. In a donor lineage, there might have occurred changes concerning word-initial consonant clusters or voiced obstruents, but many such changes would remain invisible due to the restrictions caused by Uralic
phonology and phonotactics: an initial cluster would have been substituted by a single consonant, and a voiced obstruent would have been substituted by a voiceless obstruent. Similarly, the presence of the Indo-European palatovelars and labiovelars in a donor lineage would be difficult to recognize reliably (Holopainen 2021). p. 51
Concerning the disintegration of Late Proto-Indo-European, centumization and satemization are no longer considered clade-defining changes: the first occurred independently across different branches, and the second has spread secondarily (Ringe 2017). There are more exceptions to satemization in Balto-Slavic than in Indo-Iranian, which points to its secondary spread (Kim 2018: 1975). In the position after *s LPIE *ḱ was depalatalized to *k before satemization in Balto-Slavic (Matasović 2005: 148), showing that satemization was not the earliest Balto-Slavic sound change. p. 51"
@Rob
Iboussieres certainly isn't a fluke. It's not even a good enough sample to qualify as a fluke. It's a nothing. No one really knows what Iboussieres was, which is why he is not in FTDNA Discover's Ancient Connections.
Villabruna is a legitimate L761 sample. No one with good sense disputes that, but he had ANE. His Y-DNA lineage did not have its ultimate origin in Europe west of the steppe. After Villabruna, no L761 appears in Europe west of the steppe until those Iron Gates V88s, who also had ANE.
The most recent common ancestor V88 shares with M269 is L761 at about 15,000 BC. It has its own separate trajectory and history, but it isn't likely it began west of the steppe either.
If you read back through what I wrote, you will see I didn't spend much time on the modern Chinese. I only really mentioned them in connection with FTE1, the brother clade to L761 under L754, because we don't yet have any ancient FTE1 samples. So far, FTE1 is limited mainly to China, with one in Tajikistan.
I know you are already pretty familiar with the ancient samples that are PH155 and FTB1 under BY14355. No need to repeat where they were found. And of course BY14355 is the brother clade to L754 under R1b-M343.
I don't think I said R1a-M420 is East Eurasian. I did not say much about it at all except that it has an eastern distribution, which is at least a little bit of clue to the origin of R1b-M343.
The rednecks are so desperate that they are able to claim that R1, R1b & R1a have their origin in China to avoid the debate of the dozens of pre-Yamnaya R1b in Europe, just pathetic.
After 1000 comments nobody pays any attention to them in their new forum, someone should recommend them a good shrink.
Andy:
“Because they assimilated EHG pops when they migrated from Siberia to EE.”
This is only your interpretation. Why here you do not claim that this ancestry spread to the east with the Uralic speakers, because it diminishes towards east? You claim that the Yakutia ancestry spread to the west with the Uralic speakers, because it diminishes towards west. Double standard?
Andy:
“Yughakir and other Paleo-Siberian tribes are from Ymakhtakh. That includes Nivkh, Katmachdals and Ket.”
My point was that one ancestry is often associated with several linguistic groups. There is no requirement that it could only be associated with one linguistic group.
Davidski:
”You can't pretend that some distal component like EHG is associated with the Uralic expansion, because it's obvious that EHG-related ancestry was acquired by different Uralic groups in different ways.”
Obvious how?
Why here you do not claim that this ancestry spread to the east with the Uralic speakers, because it diminishes towards east? You claim that the Yakutia ancestry spread to the west with the Uralic speakers, because it diminishes towards west. Double standard?
Davidski:
“We can track how this happened with ancient DNA, and there's nothing there that explains the Uralic expansion. All we have are different types of Indo-European Corded Ware ancestry in different Uralic speakers.”
As I already wrote, one ancestry can be associated with several linguistic groups. Corded Ware ancestry can equally well be associated with Uralic speakers than with Indo-European speakers, because its spread predates the Uralic expansion. This means that you cannot just decide that the Corded Ware ancestry is not associated with the Uralic languages.
Davidski:
“So can you actually pinpoint any type of specific European ancestry that is associated with the expansion of Uralic languages as obviously as Nganasan-related ancestry, along with an associated Y-chromosome haplogroup like N-L1026?”
About the “as obviously”: see above.
You have not disproved the connection of the two aforementioned European ancestries to the Uralic languages: you just decided to ignore them. Naturally there are other Y-DNA haplogroups than N which would descend from the carriers of these European ancestries. R1a-Z93 is found in the Volga Region (the Maris, the Udmurts and the Tatars) and rare also to the west.
Gio:
“I made some excerpta by reading the Jaakko's paper. He is making a good work, i.e. by trying to link linguistic introgressions with probable genetic ones.”
Archaeological, actually. Only passingly some few genetic results are mentioned.
Gio:
“Unfortunately he admits that linguistic introgressions not always are detactable, just for the Uralic phonetics, thus he should abstain in doing generalizations not supported by data, but I think that his linguistic work is good.”
Thank you.
Can you tell, which are these generalizations not supported by data?
@Jaakko
"So, can we also say that population genetics is not an exact science as long as every study gives us different qpAdm-results?"
From Harney et al., "The chief purpose of qpAdm is to identify a subset of plausible models of a population’s ancestry from a larger set of possible models". You should not be taking individual models in these studies literally.
"No “underlying demography” can therefore overrule the linguistic results, when we study language."
Firstly, it wouldn't be "overruling the linguistic results". Many linguists place PU in Siberia. Second, if knowledge of aDNA forces you to accept one or many unlikely language shifts, that seems like a strike against the model in question. Think about the implications if the Koptyaki culture has little, or no Yakutia_LNBA ancestry.
"Besides, language can also shift its “vehicle” (the ancestry of the language carriers), as we can see from the fact that the Hungarians and the Nganasans do not share any common ancestry component even though their languages are related."
That's one, out of how many Uralic branches? We also know the Magyar "vehicle" drove through Medieval Europe; a situation not exactly comparable to EBA societies in the Taiga. A hierarchical social structure facilitated your Hungarian example.
@ Jaakko
I didn't read all your paper, because I work above all on poetry, philosophy, politics, a little also about genetics because I made my theories 15 years ago and I am waiting now only to know if I was right or wrong, and you of course are an expert of Uralic languages and IE etc, and I unfortunately don't speak 30 languages as Alfredo Trombetti and also some dialect of the Himalaya, anyway a grammar of the Ladakh convinced me that Sumerian was a linked language...
For what I know of Uralic I'd say above all when you wrote:
"There are several dozen proposed Archaic and Northwest Indo-European loanwords, but their reassessment is still an ongoing process" (p. 48) thus "an ongoing process" doesn't permit to reach certain conclusion.
"By resolution I mean the density of successive distinguishable reconstruction stages in a donor lineage, seen in the loanwords through the Uralic filter. In a donor lineage, there might have occurred changes concerning word-initial consonant clusters or voiced obstruents, but many such changes would remain invisible due to the restrictions caused by Uralic
phonology and phonotactics: an initial cluster would have been substituted by a single consonant, and a voiced obstruent would have been substituted by a voiceless obstruent. Similarly, the presence of the Indo-European palatovelars and labiovelars in a donor lineage would be difficult to recognize reliably (Holopainen 2021)" p. 51.
"Concerning the disintegration of Late Proto-Indo-European, centumization and satemization are no longer considered clade-defining changes: the first occurred independently across different branches, and the second has spread secondarily (Ringe 2017). There are more exceptions to satemization in Balto-Slavic than in Indo-Iranian, which points to its secondary spread (Kim 2018: 1975). In the position after *s LPIE *ḱ was depalatalized to *k before satemization in Balto-Slavic (Matasović 2005: 148), showing that satemization was not the earliest Balto-Slavic sound change" (p. 51).
About this argument I read an interesting paper of Woudhuizen, a great "citizen linguist", unfortunately dead too soon, but, as I said above, I have had too many interests and not only one (linguistics) as you and I never learned well Russian or Hungarian to read a book I bought through the old "Novij knigij" about Uralic languages. I remember the name *nim "name" in Uralic, probably an old IE introgression etc etc.
@Jaakko
Your comments about Hungarian are woefully ignorant and very strange.
Thanks to both modern and ancient DNA there are no longer any doubts that Hungarian came from Siberia with a population rich in N-L1026.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/05/more-on-association-between-uralic.html
So obviously Hungarian can't be used to argue against the hypothesis that Proto-Uralic is from Siberia, and yet here you are actually attempting to do so.
@ RMS2
''Iboussieres certainly isn't a fluke. It's not even a good enough sample to qualify as a fluke. It's a nothing. No one really knows what Iboussieres was, which is why he is not in FTDNA Discover's Ancient Connections.''
You shouldnt talk about things you don't understand.
Just because Iboussiere's didnt make into your single holy refencence point, it doesnt mean it isnt Y-hg R. It's coverage is 0.085x. Fine for macro-haplogroup determination at least.
''Villabruna is a legitimate L761 sample. No one with good sense disputes that, but he had ANE. His Y-DNA lineage did not have its ultimate origin in Europe west of the steppe. After Villabruna, no L761 appears in Europe west of the steppe until those Iron Gates V88s, who also had ANE.''
(1) You're making a strawman statement, (2) you're wrong and (3) you'r banking on claims that moron 'modellers' from LameArchiver fed you. You shouldn't talk about matters unless you can prove them yourself.
''The most recent common ancestor V88 shares with M269 is L761 at about 15,000 BC. It has its own separate trajectory and history, but it isn't likely it began west of the steppe either.''
You're completely wrong. V88 emerged in south-central Europe
''I know you are already pretty familiar with the ancient samples that are PH155 and FTB1 under BY14355. No need to repeat where they were found. And of course BY14355 is the brother clade to L754 under R1b-M343.''
Yes from the Bronze Age ~ 2000 BC.
Stop being lazy - list for yourself all the Paleolithic and Meslithic R1b samples.
I told you hanging on LameArchiver with your loser friends JDean, Jaaski, & pussylesquevil isn't good for your cognition & honesty.
@Jaakko “ As I already wrote, one ancestry can be associated with several linguistic groups. Corded Ware ancestry can equally well be associated with Uralic speakers than with Indo-European speakers, because its spread predates the Uralic expansion. This means that you cannot just decide that the Corded Ware ancestry is not associated with the Uralic languages.”
Sound like Quilles.
BTW, did you just post that EHG spoke Uralic?
Zelto:
“Firstly, it wouldn't be "overruling the linguistic results". Many linguists place PU in Siberia. Second, if knowledge of aDNA forces you to accept one or many unlikely language shifts, that seems like a strike against the model in question. Think about the implications if the Koptyaki culture has little, or no Yakutia_LNBA ancestry.”
1. Those linguists ignore many relevant pieces of evidence and confuse different chronological stages together (Late Proto-Uralic ~ distant Pre-Proto-Uralic). All these arguments can be found in my recent article.
2. Why would a language shift be unlikely? There are necessarily language shifts involved always when there is a wide speech region, because every language is born in a narrow homeland. Within old, widespread language families there are always very diverse populations, which also requires language shifts.
3. Why should there not be Yakutia ancestry in the Koptyaki population? We can assume that there was, because that ancestry apparently spread to Europe exactly through that region. But there probably were also other ancestries present, which you guys here for some reason want to ignore.
Zelto:
“That's one, out of how many Uralic branches? We also know the Magyar "vehicle" drove through Medieval Europe; a situation not exactly comparable to EBA societies in the Taiga. A hierarchical social structure facilitated your Hungarian example.”
What do you mean by “that’s one”? My point was that there are several ancestry components widespread in the Uralic populations, and none of them is present in all the Uralic populations, and all of them are present also in non-Uralic populations. Why you only look at one ancestry and ignore all the rest, when you should be objective and neutral and treat them all according to the same criteria?
Language expansion always involves language shift and population admixture. There is no reliable method for predicting which language will prevail, and certainly no method for seeing from the DNA which population’s language prevailed. The model for the spread of the language of the Hungarian nomads is not much different from the model for the spread of the language of the Indo-European nomads thousands of years earlier. Also the Eurasian Taiga zone is full of known linguistic expansion through the millennia.
Zelto:
“From Harney et al., "The chief purpose of qpAdm is to identify a subset of plausible models of a population’s ancestry from a larger set of possible models". You should not be taking individual models in these studies literally.”
So, on which method you base your claim that historical linguistics is not an exact science? Is there a double standard here, too?
Davidski:
“Your comments about Hungarian are woefully ignorant and very strange.”
Please try to support your claim with evidence, otherwise it is mere trolling.
Davidski:”
Thanks to both modern and ancient DNA there are no longer any doubts that Hungarian came from Siberia with a population rich in N-L1026.”
Yes, and nobody denies that.
Davidski:
“So obviously Hungarian can't be used to argue against the hypothesis that Proto-Uralic is from Siberia, and yet here you are actually attempting to do so.”
No, I do not.
1. Location of Proto-Uralic is a linguistic question. You cannot answer this question based on genetics. In my earlier comments I already explained you why it cannot work. You try to do it all backwards and unscientifically, when you arbitrarily pick one ancestry component and then claim that it must be the component associated with the Proto-Uralic speakers. You must first look when and where Proto-Uralic was spoken according to the linguistic results, and only after you know the time and the place, you can try to find out the genetic ancestry of the Proto-Uralic speakers.
2. Hungarians are an important example about how ancestry of the language carriers changes through time. Similar ancestry changes obviously have occurred also during the prehistoric times. This is just one of the many facts that demonstrate us why you cannot see the language from the DNA:
- The Uralic language can remain even when the Yakutia ancestry disappears.
- The Yakutia ancestry can remain even when language shifts.
How many times do I have to repeat these points to you, before you acknowledge your bias and methodological error?
Andrzejewski:
“Sound like Quilles.”
Not at all. Tell me with which part you disagree and on what basis?
Andrzejewski:
“BTW, did you just post that EHG spoke Uralic?”
No, I did not speak about the EHG population at all. I wrote that EHG ancestry component could have been one of the ancestry components present in the Proto-Uralic speaking population. Do you understand the difference between a population and an ancestry component?
Poor Jasko isn’t dealing well with the fact that his life’s work on “proving” Uralic comes from a corded ware type population (and more recently from what are actually Iranian groups from the Ural middle Bronze Age) has been deftly disproven with adna analysed within a competent anthropological framework.
He’s left rambling with a nonsensical verbal incontinence.
Poor Rub is too stupid to understand written text in any language.
I had never analyzed Iboussieres31-2 before. It shows to be derived for R-F356/M703/PF5919 and R1-F211/Y290 which are reliable SNPs that are at YFull and the mutations can't be caused by deamination. FGC35 is a C->T mutation so possibly caused by deamination. It isn't even in the YFull tree. Additionally it is ancestral for PF6271 which is at least 17,100 years old. Iboussieres31-2 is 14C dated to 10090-9460 BCE. Ergo, Iboussieres31-2 is a dead lineage that has nothing to do with R-P297 much less R-M269.
Personally, I care much more about specimens that can prove where R-L23 likely was when the mutation first occurred, or at least a specimen that is, at most, a few hundred years removed from 6250 ybp based on direct 14C dating of the skeletal material.
Additional important information about my previous post on Iboussieres31-2 is that when I filtered out all C>T and G>A mutations there are only 4 that are not part of the phylogeny of haplogroup R. So R-F356/M703/PF5919 and R1-F211/Y290 are likely real. But that still does not negate the fact that it is ancestral/negative for R-PF6271 and therefore NOT related to the R-M269 or even R-P297 branches. If the BAM file size was at least 100MB we would likely have more haplogroup R SNPs to more derived and ancestral calls.
R1b-FTE1 is defined by hg19 position 2825099 A>T. Most of the ancient specimens are tested for the Reich 1240K SNP panel which does not include hg19 position 2825099 so there is no way to tell if there are any ancient samples that would show derived for R1b-FTE1 if had been included in the 1240k SNP panel.
I can't wait until we get multiple ancient specimens with 10,000 or more Y-DNA SNP calls that are derived for R-L23 and directly 14C dated to close to the origin date of the mutations. Same for R-M269 but I am not as interested in that. 10,000 calls of Y-DNA SNPs seems to be the amount that provides a large enough number of both ancestral and derived calls of reliable SNPs to where there is little debate about the accuracy.
Rob -
One has to have standards. Iboussieres is a low coverage sample whose Y-DNA haplogroup cannot be determined. Pretty soon Inspector Gadget and Jello will be claiming those two recent females from France were really L52. They'll make the famous list, no doubt.
And you should not resort to insulting me because we don't agree about everything. That's just impolite, not to mention arrogant. After all, I've been nice and said I respect your opinions.
Nevertheless, I don't agree that V88 originated in Central Europe, which you assert without any support.
GenArchivist has nothing to do with what I think about the origin of R1b-M343 and its subclades. Geez. If you read the thread there I started about the origin of R1b-M343, you'll see that I am almost the only who has posted in it. I would welcome constructive input there, however.
Have you seen FTDNA's Globetrekker lately? It has R1b originating in Uzbekistan. I think it was probably farther north than that, but that's not too bad.
Dospaises said...
R1b-FTE1 is defined by hg19 position 2825099 A>T. Most of the ancient specimens are tested for the Reich 1240K SNP panel which does not include hg19 position 2825099 so there is no way to tell if there are any ancient samples that would show derived for R1b-FTE1 if had been included in the 1240k SNP panel.
I can't wait until we get multiple ancient specimens with 10,000 or more Y-DNA SNP calls that are derived for R-L23 and directly 14C dated to close to the origin date of the mutations. Same for R-M269 but I am not as interested in that. 10,000 calls of Y-DNA SNPs seems to be the amount that provides a large enough number of both ancestral and derived calls of reliable SNPs to where there is little debate about the accuracy.
My response:
I agree. It seems to me the R1b-M343 clade has far more weight in the East than is commonly acknowledged. FTE1 under L754, is one example. Even though L754 is thought of as western, FTE1 is obviously eastern. BY14355, under R1b-M343, with plenty of ancient samples in China, is another.
@ Dospaises said...
''Iboussieres31-2 is a dead lineage that has nothing to do with R-P297 much less R-M269.
Personally, I care much more about specimens that can prove where R-L23 likely was when the mutation first occurred, or at least a specimen that is, at most, a few hundred years removed from 6250 ybp based on direct 14C dating of the skeletal material.'
The problem is you & RMS fail to understand the big picture because you are locked into your parochial little crusade about M269 origins, therefore resort to ill-conceived & even at times dishonest commentary. At least you bothered to look at the calls, which is useful.
But it is pointless to make claims about 'dead-ends' based on individuals, as they are part of a community or population. The population to which Iboussieres belonged to links with Villabruna and other future individuals which represent an early movement of R1b-L754 into central parts of Europe (taken as eastern France, northern Italy, northern Balkans, western Ukraine), and from this V-88 emerged locally. The fact that V88 does pop in HG-rich early Neolithic groups from El Trocs should caution against claims that they became locally extinct (again, it's a matter of laziness, lack of knowledge, emotions,..).
Moreover, R1b-L754 didnt just waltz in from Siberia, as you cowboys like to imagine. That specific lineage has little direct links with Siberia, except of course, when populations bearing it migrated there from Europe during the Bronze Age. So you & RMS should try to get a grip on reality.
To be precise, M73 moved to Siberia during late “first Neolithic” and M269 3000 bc
But the lazy man relying on Apps to do their globe tracking work for them won’t appreciate that detail.
Rob -
Citing Iboussieres as something when it is nothing makes you sound like, dare I say it, Inspector Gadget and his sidekick, Jello.
I don't have a "parochial crusade" about M269 origins.
Please give us your full opinion on the origin of R1b-M343 and how some of its subclades got to peninsular Europe.
How do you explain the BY14355 branch under R1b-M343 and the FTE1 branch under L754? Negligible? L761 is all there is?
@ Rich S
"Pretty soon Inspector Gadget and Jello will be claiming those two recent females from France were really L52".
Gadget explained that those two samples weren't worth anything about our theory, and of course Jello asked that those SNPs were verified for instance by Pribislav, who seems to me having got the tools after that Genetiker stopped in using his. Of course I didn't get those tools having I many other things to do, in fact Pribislav answered and fortunately I was able to look at his answers whereas from 2013 it was forbidden to me from "Anthrogenica" where I wrote 1200 letters and had even a thread for me "Rathna's assessmnent of genetical materials". Thus I always verify my assumptions. I don't reply frequently to you because I largely agree with Gadget and Rob and they are doing that well. About R-V88 and R-M73 and also R-V1636 etc I wrote tons of letters (not so many as yours, but probabvly about 20000) and you knew them very well. Don't you remember that R-V88 was thought from your friends and genetical linked by descent that it was from Middle East and about the "levantinists-kurganists-levantinist" I based my fight, probably won if they landed at the "Southern ark theory", and don't forget that about R-V1636 I demonstrated more than ten years ago that Italy gets all the 5 known haplotypes and other countries only one. Of course modern distribution doesn't mean that they were here also in old times, in fact I am waiting for aDNA.
Seen that you use a cryptic language, decipher also mine, because those things I cannot clearly say, but of course I think that they are right as the Bible to you.
Rob wrote,
"I know for a fact that you got your info on modern "Chinese' men from Ebizur, who recently embarrased himself about N1c-TAT."
The most recent comment I have made regarding N-Tat is to point out that its N-L1026 subclade is not commonly found among present-day Samoyeds (Nenets, Nganasan, Selkup, etc.) despite certain persons' having asserted that the distribution of N-L1026 is congruent with the distribution of a Nganasan-related autosomal component as well as with the distribution of Uralic languages.
I also asked for someone to present a modification of the N-L1026 = Nganasan autosomal component = Proto-Uralic language hypothesis that would explain the predominance of Y-DNA haplogroup N-P43 among actual Samoyeds, but no one bothered to answer my request.
@Ebizur
Uralic populations closer to the proto-Uralic homeland should show greater diversity in proto-Uralic lineages. So there's nothing odd about them carrying local lineages of other types.
N-L1026 is very useful because it can be used to track the Uralic expansion from Siberia to the west, not to predict who currently speaks Uralic.
Davidski,
Thank you for your reply.
You seem to be suggesting that both N-L1026 and N-P43 should have been present in a single polymorphic ancestral population, one subset of which has migrated westward while spreading the proto-Uralic language.
In that case, can you (or anyone else reading this) present ancient DNA evidence to the effect that such a population bearing both N-L1026 and N-P43 lineages has in fact existed in a particular area in Siberia roughly around the time when the proto-Uralic language should have been spoken?
@Ebizur
You posted the evidence yourself in your previous post.
Davidski:
"Uralic populations closer to the proto-Uralic homeland should show greater diversity in proto-Uralic lineages. So there's nothing odd about them carrying local lineages of other types."
This is indeed true. Composition of the carrier lineages can also change in every step of linguistic expansion, because linguistic expansion always involves assimilation and language shift of original inhabitants of the region, who earlier spoke some other language.
Davidski:
“N-L1026 is very useful because it can be used to track the Uralic expansion from Siberia to the west, not to predict who currently speaks Uralic.”
The end of your sentence is important, because there are too much erroneous black-and-white beliefs about the interdependence of the language and the DNA. However, the truth that one cannot see the language from the DNA at the present also prevents one from seeing the language from the DNA in the past. All you can see is the expansion of N-L1026 from Siberia to the west, but you cannot just arbitrarily put linguistic label on it.
We have no certainty about the paternal lineages of the population speaking Late Proto-Uralic. The only scientific way to find them out involves this procedure:
1. We take the linguistic results as the starting point: when and where was Late Proto-Uralic spoken?
2. We look at the genetic data in the relevant spatio-temporal coordinates: what is present there is a tentative genetic correlate for Late Proto-Uralic.
3. Spatial or temporal match alone is not enough, but they must coexist. There have occurred migrations in all times, and the spread of N-L1026 could be either (1) earlier, (2) simultaneous, or (3) later than the expansion of Late Proto-Uralic. The situation where N-L1026 partially overlaps the modern region of the Uralic language family cannot testify that their expansions were simultaneous, not to speak of proving that their expansions were causally related to each other.
For some reason you do not follow the scientific procedure. Instead, you just randomly decide that the expansion of N-L1026 must be associated with the Uralic expansion. Then, based on this dice-roll, you claim that the linguistic evidence can now be ignored, because by some mystical skill you can see the language directly from the DNA. You must understand how bizarre and unscientific this sounds, right?
When someone is so blind that he is unable to recognize a European origin of the R1b marker, even when this lineage has been documented in the epigravetian culture 15.000 years ago, it is useless to try to argue in a reasonable way.
Can anyone answer a very simple question?, Which is the oldest R1b in Asia (Siberia, Mongolia, China, India, Pakistan, Iran etc etc)?
This is a problem derived from the obsession to link the diffusion of IE with the branches under R1b-M269; in the heated imagination of some, all R1b that appears west of the Dniester river have to be dead lines, specimens with low coverage, bad datings... because they think that if this were not the case, their fairy tale of the steppe origin would be definitively buried.
However, year after year, more and more pre-Yamnaya R1b in its different branches appear throughout Europe, from Spain to Bulgaria, from the Baltic to Italy and from Norway to Serbia until it finally became a lineage that appears in both WHGs, Iron Gates HGs, Scandinavian HGs, Baltic HGs, Eastern HGs and EEFs because some markers were incorporated to some extent into European neolithic cultures.
So, we have to look at the data in an unbiased way, we have a population of WHGs R1b-L754>P297, in the Epigravetian culture (Italy) that probably originated in the Balkans (Iron Gates-R1b-V88), that moved west (Iboussieres & Atapuerca) and also northward (Baltic-P297 & M73). To claim that all those foragers belong to dead lines when we see that they belong to different branches of R1b is idiotic.
If we also have M269 in the Balkans (Bulgaria-4500 BC), everything points to an origin west of the steppes, not in the steppes and certainly not in central Asia, Mongolia or China. The two main marker lines R1b-L754>P297 and R1b-V88 were incorporated along with their colleagues I2a into european neolithic cultures throughout the continent.
*XN191 (5.199 BC)-Stuttgart-Mühlhausen I-Male-HapY-R1b-L754-
*NP548 (5.000 BCE)-Niederpöring, EF-LBK, Germany-HapY-R1b1a/2a1a-M269
*PIE026 (4.458 BC)-Pietrele Măgura Gorgana, Gumelnita culture-HapY-R1b1-L754
*I2181/21 (4.497 BC)-Smyadovo, Gumelnita-Karanovo culture, Bulgaria-HapY-R1b-M269
*ATP3 (3.389 AC)-El Portalón, Atapuerca, Iberia-HapY-R1b1a/1a2-M269
*AF023 (3.245 BC)-Trou Al’Wesse-NEO-B, Belgium-HapY-R1b1a/1a2-M269
*R6 (5.209 BC)-Grotta Continenza, neolíthic, Italy-HapY-R1b1b/1a1b/1-V88-Y7777-Y8451
*I0410 (5.180 BC)-Els Trocs, Bisaurri, Iberia-HapY-R1b-V2219>PF6340>Y8457>V88>Y7777>Y8451
*PIE004 (4.623 BC)-Pietrele, Gumelnita culture, Romania-HapY-R1b1b-V88-Y7777
*VAR019 (4.623 BC)-Varna, Varna culture, Bulgaria-HapY-R1b1b-V88-Y7777
*NEO866 (3.507 BC)-Lundby-Falster, FBC culture-HapY-R1b1a-V2219>V88>PF6343
*I14169 (3.650 BC)-Makotřasy, Bohemia_TRB, Czech Republic-HapY-R1b-V2219>V88
*I1593 (3.429 BC)-Blätterhöhle-MN-HapY-R1b1b/1-V2219>V88-PF6340
And evidently these Balkan and Baltic foragers also moved eastward as shown by samples of L754 and V88 in Ukraine, V1636 in Khvalynsk, M73 in Botai and Z2103 in Yamnaya.
I.e. Ex occidente Lux not the other way around.The light comes from the West, not from China or Uzbekistan.
Post a Comment