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 401 – 600 of 615 Newer› Newest»The irony is we have R1b-L754 in Central & Western European hunters .
None exist in Eastern Eurasia, not even Central Asia
In fact, we don’t even have any of the PH155 in central Asian hunters (yet); and now there are dozens of hunters from Turkmenistan to western Siberia to Yakutia, all belonging to Q, C and N.
After MA1, R* seems to disappear from Siberia and Central Asia
Moreover , all R1b-M343 share an ice age bottleneck, which means they were geographically proximate.
@ Jaakko
Having been interested in philosophy, I find that the reasoning of Jaakko is correct, at least about the necessity to be cautious in linking languages and genetics. In fact I found interesting and that merited to be taken into account the hypothesis of Gaska that hg R1b1 and subclades wasn't linked to IE (or its perhaps Nostratic ancestors) but to previous language probably of the Caucasian type of the Alps linked the the Caucasian languages of the Caucasus as (probably) hgs I and J. Of course I said that the vicissitudes of the languages and the genetics are many and human groups may change or mix languages as they mix their genetics.Jaakko is a linguist and we ask him he is a good linguist of the Uralic group, and I think he is. I already noted that the expansion of R-Z2103 probably from Yamnaya is found dispersed in many languages now that we cannot understand which was the language it spoke then. Clearer is the link between hg R1a and IE languages, at least in eastern Europe and Asia, for that I accepted that at some time the IE was linked with hg R1a above all, at least after the separation of Hittite and linked languages. The matter is very complex on both sides and I invite you all to be prudent and open to every hypothesis.
Coming back to the Slavs... If we recognize the Proto-Uralic homeland by Nganasan pus N-L1026, we can consistently recognize the Proto-Slavic homeland by BSD plus CTS1211. And at the time of the first Proto-Slavic innovations (approx. 1500 BCE), such a Proto-Slavic genotype appears in southern Poland, in the Trzciniec culture. So the Proto-Slavic homeland must have been somewhere in this area.
@Jaakko
"Why would a language shift be unlikely?"
Specifically, a language shift without discernable gene-flow is unlikely. The intimate conditions that enable language shift(s) in segmentary societies often entail gene-flow.
"Why should there not be Yakutia ancestry in the Koptyaki population?"
There could be some Yakutia_LNBA in the Koptyaki culture. However, if Koptyaki doesn't have a suitable amount of Yakutia_LNBA admixture, it can not be the source of said ancestry in Uralic speakers. Such a scenario then requires multiple Yakutia_LNBA-rich populations undergoing matrilineally transmitted language shifts, independent of each other, and all with a seeming propensity towards (divaricated) Uralic languages.
"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. "
You've picked a single example (Hungarian), when all other Uralic speakers have elevated levels of Yakutia_LNBA ancestry. We have aDNA from Hungarian conquerors rich in Yakutia_LNBA. The Hungarian language continued to spread in a relatively centralized Medieval kingdom; in no way analogous to BA tribes in the Taiga.
"So, on which method you base your claim that historical linguistics is not an exact science?"
I think many of the linguistic constraints used to 'anchor' Uralic are unreliable. Especially those predicated on the supposed proximity to other language homelands. Strong arguments of this nature, require reconsideration on the basis of a modern understanding of ancient human mobility. That is, layers of IE linguistic influence could have been obtained in Siberia.
@Ebizur
So far, only N-CTS9239 can be directly linked to the early diffusion of Yakutia_LNBA ancestry and N-L1026 is the only surviving subclade. Ymmyakhtakh, kra001, Tatarka Hill, Rostovka and BOO are all downstream. It's possible that other N-L708 branches took part too, since it was present in Trans-Baikal Neolithic and there are xCTS9239 branches found in modern Uralic populations.
There's not enough evidence to say something conclusive about N-P43.
Correct me if I'm wrong;
1-The oldest R1a is in Peschanitsa, Arkhangelsk Oblast, a site belonging to the Veretye culture (approximately 11,000 BC). This culture belongs to the Kunda-Maglemose complex which in turn derives from the Swiderian culture which archaeologically links Poland with the Baltic, southern Scandinavia and northern Russia. The population of the final Palaeolithic Swiderian culture of deer hunters, which had developed in Poland on the sand dunes left behind by retreating glaciers, migrated during the Palaeolithic–Mesolithic transition at the turn of the 11th–10th millennium BC to the north-east following the retreating tundra (Terberger et al. 2018)-Originating from the Swiderian culture, mesolithic hunter-gatherer communities of the Baltic forest zone (Kunda culture) extending eastwards through Latvia into northern Russia.
2-The oldest R1b that we know of is Villabruna (approximately 12,000 BC) in a site belonging to the Epigravettian culture that appears after the Last Glacial Maximum around 19,000 BC-The Mal'ta culture (c. 24,000 BP) in Siberia is considered as belonging to the Gravettian culture, due to its similar characteristics, particularly its Venus figurines, therefore we should not be surprised that the Siberian R* foragers reached the refuges of southern Europe at the beginning of the Epigravettian culture. The Epigravettian WHGs spread from the Balkans to the Italian Alps around 21.000 BC and from there migrated westward, mixing with the western Solutrean (Iberia-MLZ005-20,821 BC) to form the Franco-Iberian Magdalenian culture-To the north, the WHGs reached central Europe (Germany, Oberkassel-OKL001-11,945 BC), where they mixed with the Solutrean-Magdalenian populations that were repopulating that region from the southwest after the LGM. EHG populations in eastern Europe are a mixture of Villabruna-Oberkassel and ANE ancestries-
@ Rob
I didn't know Jaska and if Jakko and Jaska are the same person. I am reading his paper on Uralic group and it seems to me that as a linguist he is reliable, and I have much to learn about that matter. I don't know previous vicissitudes between you, and anyway if I read a linguist I consider him/her for what he/her says about that. I have no idea about the link of Uralic languages and any haplogroup. The link with hg N is comprehensible, and probably likable, but we need many other data for saying more, and as to the origin and the Y links of IE. Anyway we have much to learn about the periodisation of Uralic and IE and the possible introgressions above all of IE into Uralic. As a researcher on literary critics and philosophy and much other I take into consideration all the hypotheses known so far, but of course hypotheses have to be proved. I don't understnd why you and Davidski and many others prefer to offend than to use argomentations. In that I don't agree with you, also because we know from the history of the scientific research that hypotheses that seemed unreliable were after demonstrated true. For that I invited all to be prudent, me above all.
I don't know anything about you, your origin, your Y, your mt, your autosome whereas you know everything about me because I posted all my data and sent, for the invite of Justin Low, my FullGenome (which costed me 1800 dollars, 1350 euro in 2013 or 2014) to the Emory University that asked for that. I think I am a "scientist", even a citizen one, because my field is poetry and literary critics. Of course I am "senile" now being 75 and the next month 76, but I knew thousands of females of pretty much all the countries, very likely also yours.
I began this research and this group started from my results and took me in great consideration. After a Georgian dentist who lives in Germany and thinks to be a Turk asked that I was banned for a joke of mine. I don't know anything about your, but, being an expert of Textkritik, I could understand much from what you write.
R-YP4141 & Subclades
Sabri Kahraman · 1 h ·
We have some exciting developments! A modern tester has matched with the 3,500-year-old I4773 Aktogai Bronze Age sample from Kazakhstan creating a new branch (R-FTF10113) under YP4132. It is estimated that this modern person and Aktogai I4773 shared a direct paternal ancestor who lived around 2700 BCE.
We suspect that a modern Kuweiti sample that appeared on the YTree is the mystery person that matched with the ancient sample.
This new link between a modern person and the ancient sample now proves my hypothesis that haplogroup R-YP4132 arrived to the Middle East and the Indian Sub-Continent from Central Europe with Bronze Age Indo-Iranian speakers like Aktogai I4773 of the Andronovo culture.
Andronovo culture is credited with inventing spoked wheels, and the light two-wheeled war chariots which revolutionised warfare during the Bronze Age. They were the predecessors of later Iranian Steppe nomads such as Scythians, Sarmatians, and Alans. If you would like to learn more about the culture that this ancient YP4132 belonged to you can read about it in the link below.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andronovo_culture
Andronovo culture - Wikipedia
If you are this. I'd say that you seems a Roman more than a Balkan or semething else. But too much weights. OK, the Siberian is fine. Not Siberian but Russian.
Don't say to me that you are R-Z2118 or I-M223, all from Italy or at least the eastern Alps, in fact you seem just a Venetian from your face. Ahhhhh
@ Gio
Jaako is as much of an expert in historical linguistics as a mentally retarded chicken.
The rest of your post is typically unreadable.
@ambron
“Coming back to the Slavs... If we recognize the Proto-Uralic homeland by Nganasan pus N-L1026, we can consistently recognize the Proto-Slavic homeland by BSD plus CTS1211. And at the time of the first Proto-Slavic innovations (approx. 1500 BCE), such a Proto-Slavic genotype appears in southern Poland, in the Trzciniec culture. So the Proto-Slavic homeland must have been somewhere in this area.”
I think that Proto-Slavic homeland was in Mierzanowice/Strzyżów/Iwno. We know that Indo-Iranians came from Indo-Slavic cultures like Fatyanovo and Sintashta which were rich in Indo-Iranian R1a-Z93 and therefore are considered proto-Indo-Iranian. But Fatyanovo and Sintashta were similar genetically to Mierzanowice/Strzyżów/Iwno which were rich in Slavic R1a-Z282 and therefore should be considered proto-Slavic. In this area later from Mierzanowice/Strzyżów/Iwno Slavic Trzciniec culture developed.
@ Gaska
'' Which is the oldest R1b in Asia (Siberia, Mongolia, China, India, Pakistan, Iran etc etc)?''
There is R2 in early Neolithic Zagors - western Iran as the earliest derived R clade.
The earliest R1b is in central Kazakhstan (Botai) and Western Siberia (Omsk), both ~ 3300 BC. They are R1b-M73, under the founder effect of Latvian HGs.
Don't worry about Rich_S. He's a liar and persona non grata. He's resigned to muttering to himself on mademoiselle's 'forum' and pining for a miracle from Ebizur's unsourced data.
@ Ebizur
The problem with Jaako & his troops on GA is collective straw-manning and empty hand-clapping by people who have nothing of relevance to say on the subject at hand. You are one of those people.
However, nobody has suggested that tracking the complex history of language expansions is as simple as looking at Y-DNA or a segment of autosomic ancestry, although sometimes in short hand discussion it might appear so.
Jaako has managed to find a refuge for himelf on LameArchiver because the irrelevent persona who runs that ''forum'' has developed equally nonsensical pet-theory that Germanic developed in far eastern Sweden or Finland. However, because there is no evidence for that position, he too invokes the 'you cant see languages from genes or archaeology' strawman. So it's a convenient unholy Romance between two charletons. This is despite the latter pretending to be proficient in genetic admixture analysis and otherwise selectively enlisting aDNA whenever it doesn't contradict his own pet theory. I know there are some people on there who are more objective, but they are forced to remain quiet because of the abuse of position, manipulation & redaction enacted by Anglesqeuville who is the said charleton and admin of the forum. He can almost be alikned to a peasent-Communist type despot with a group of henchmen enforcing his dictates, if they weren't all so iffeminate & comical.
I read Jaako's recent article, but its poorly informed and has large blocks of text which are unreferenced. He makes vague mentions to case-examples of multilinguality and cultural polythetism without direct relevance or indeed a competent understanding of the matters.
to Ebizuur ctd...
There are going to be some exceptions. But as Davidski said, the Hungarian case is no longer valid because there is direct evidence of early Hungarians aligning closely with the same kind of ancestry seen in proto-Uralic speakers from Siberia, and even present day Samoyedic speakers.
Exceptions tend to occur on the periphery, but such cases attest to the complexity introduced by subsequent neighbourly interactions, they are not an explanation against the very obvious links which occur during the primary expansion of peoples and languages.
The premise is simple
1. language expansions do not occur in a void. They require a significant body of people to enact them
2. these people are going leave genetic signature in both uniparental & genome-wide components
3. They are also going to leave behind relics in the archaeolgical record
That is why a catious integration of linguistics, DNA and archaeology is not only warranted, but the light forward. Jaako lives in a sociopathic bubble, nourished by the happy-clappers on GA, that his misguided linguistics ruminations override that of all other linguists, including the large body of linguists who support a Siberian homeland of FU, as well as the unambiguous archeogenetic evidence. Jaako & his hand full of followers unfortunately use isolated exceptions to general premise - which they have misunderstood in the first place- to nihilistically whitewash the entire process because they are evidently unhappy with what the data shows. His amateurish nonsense has taken up too much airtime.
Im not sure why you got the impression that Samoyeds stand against the findings supported by the sober people commenting here. To begin, you have misrepresented the data and ignored the fact that Nenets bear ~ 50% frequency of Nc-TAT. Just because N-P43 is phylogenetically distinctive, it doesnt mean that it is unrelated. The two haplotypes co-occured in the Baikal 'pre-homeland'' and elements of both evidently co-migrated, but only one carried on further west. You also forgot to mention the prediminance of Y-hg Q in Selkups (Tambets 2004); this represents the admixing of the local 'Kolyma/ Yakutia' component' in the final formation of proto-Uralic gene pool. Both these peoples/cases affirm rather than negate the obvious conclusion that proto-Uralic peoles formed & departed from north-central Siberia.
Your comments about Hungarians are quite ignorant, you should understand that the founder population had a mix of Y-hg N as well as other lineages associated with Khazars and other with Chuvash-type adstrata.
It's clear you have a lot of learning to do and move beyond your robotic incantations of modern Chinese commercial DNA.
Zelto:
“There could be some Yakutia_LNBA in the Koptyaki culture. However, if Koptyaki doesn't have a suitable amount of Yakutia_LNBA admixture, it can not be the source of said ancestry in Uralic speakers.”
1. So far there is no evidence that the Yakutia ancestry spread together with the Uralic language. Partial regional correlation cannot prove the connection, because there can be many other processes, either before or after or by-passing the Uralic expansion. You cannot just decide that the Yakutia ancestry spread with the Uralic language and then support it by pleading to their correlation – that is just circular reasoning.
2. Therefore it is not necessary to require the presence of the Yakutia ancestry in the population assumedly speaking Late Proto-Uralic. In that case the spread of the Yakutia ancestry occurred as a different process, associated originally with some other language family.
However, it is quite probable that we will find the Yakutia ancestry (along with other ancestries) in the samples from the Koptyaki Culture.
Zelto:
“You've picked a single example (Hungarian), when all other Uralic speakers have elevated levels of Yakutia_LNBA ancestry. We have aDNA from Hungarian conquerors rich in Yakutia_LNBA. The Hungarian language continued to spread in a relatively centralized Medieval kingdom; in no way analogous to BA tribes in the Taiga.”
Not elevated levels, but at least some presence of the Yakutia ancestry. ~1 % in the Southern Finnic populations is hardly elevated. As presented earlier, also the EHG and Corded Ware related ancestries are widespread in the Uralic populations, so you cannot just decide to ignore them.
You have a strawman there. As I wrote, we do not need to assume similar situation in the Bronze Age Taiga than we assume in the Medieval Hungary. All we need to know is (1) that language shift is a socially conditioned complex process and (2) therefore also in the Bronze Age Taiga (or in the Ice Age Tundra, for that matter) there were still possibilities for language shift.
Zelto:
“I think many of the linguistic constraints used to 'anchor' Uralic are unreliable. Especially those predicated on the supposed proximity to other language homelands. Strong arguments of this nature, require reconsideration on the basis of a modern understanding of ancient human mobility. That is, layers of IE linguistic influence could have been obtained in Siberia.”
I agree that the further we go into the past, the less there are reliable anchors. Late Proto-Uralic is still quite firmly locatable, if you read my article. Early stages of Indo-Iranian developed in Europe. Assumed Archaic Indo-European loanwords are vaguer and therefore not a valid anchor at the moment.
@ jaaski
'' Late Proto-Uralic is still quite firmly locatable, if you read my article. Early stages of Indo-Iranian developed in Europe''
You have a poor grasp of even your own field of linguistics. Languages develop and evolve over time. Indo-Iranian did not just magically spring out in Europe immediately after their ancestors left the main body of Corded Ware (which within your own 'model' lacks any consistent linguistic ascription), but instead developed with distance away from Europe and due to interaction with central asian groups which imparted notable genetic, cultural and linguistic substrata.
In fact, there was no properly Indo-Iranian people in Europe until the Scythians arrived thousands of years later.
Either way we look at it, your 'model' cannot be salvaged.
Additional linguistic evidence from Peyrot
''Tocharian agglutinative case inflexion as well as its single series of voiceless stops, the two most striking typological deviations from Proto-Indo-European, can be explained through influence from Uralic. A number of other typological features of Tocharian may likewise be interpreted as due to contact with a Uralic language. The supposed contacts are likely to be associated with the Afanas’evo Culture of South Siberia.''
A Fino-Uralic homeland well to the east c. 3000 BC is consistent with
Linguistic evidence ✔
Genetic Evidence ✔
Archaeological evidence ✔
Moreover Jaaski overstates the extent of Iranian loans
“ While the Indo-Iranian borrowings cover all branches of Uralic, their focus is in the on Permian, and to a lesser extent, Mordvinic and Ugric. Completely regular Indo-Iranian etymologies covering many branches of Uralic and indicating very old contacts are surprisingly rare”.
- Saarikivi
Either way one looks at it, Jaski distorts, twists or misinterprets the evidence.
EastPole
Of course, Polish post-CWC cultures had a fundamental contribution to the formation of the Proto-Slavic population, because - next to Lithuanians - Slavs (Poles, Belarusians and Western Ukrainians) have the highest share of CWC genetics (WSH plus Polish GAC). However, it is safer to talk about the Proto-Slavic population from the time of the appearance of Proto-Slavic innovations, i.e. from approximately 1500 BCE.
@Jaakko
"1. So far there is no evidence that the Yakutia ancestry spread together with the Uralic language. Partial regional correlation cannot prove the connection, because there can be many other processes, either before or after or by-passing the Uralic expansion. You cannot just decide that the Yakutia ancestry spread with the Uralic language and then support it by pleading to their correlation – that is just circular reasoning.
2. Therefore it is not necessary to require the presence of the Yakutia ancestry in the population assumedly speaking Late Proto-Uralic. In that case the spread of the Yakutia ancestry occurred as a different process, associated originally with some other language family."
Reread my comment; I think you must have misunderstood. I was describing the consequences of a model where Yakutia_LNBA is NOT associated with 'late' PU. What logically follows (the task of explaining this ancestry in post- 'late' Uralic communities) quickly becomes convoluted.
"Not elevated levels, but at least some presence of the Yakutia ancestry. ~1 % in the Southern Finnic populations is hardly elevated. As presented earlier, also the EHG and Corded Ware related ancestries are widespread in the Uralic populations, so you cannot just decide to ignore them."
The Yakutia_LNBA autosomal component is still generally elevated compared to neighboring populations, even if at low frequencies. The exceptions (e.g. North Russians) absorbed Uralic speaking communities.
"Late Proto-Uralic is still quite firmly locatable, if you read my article. Early stages of Indo-Iranian developed in Europe."
I'm not convinced based on the current linguistic evidence. Relying on the reconstructed homeland of PII is problematic. These groups were highly mobile and spread far beyond their homeland earlier than previously thought. Uralic speakers may have encountered pockets of now extinct Indo-Iranian speakers, who could have spoken any number of dialects (perhaps some more conservative than others). This possibility should be enough to question the notion that 'late' Proto-Uralic can be "firmly" located on these grounds.
@ Zelto
“"Late Proto-Uralic is still quite firmly locatable, if you read my article. Early stages of Indo-Iranian developed in Europe."
I'm not convinced based on the current linguistic evidence. Relying on the reconstructed homeland of PII is problematic. These groups were highly mobile and spread far beyond their homeland earlier than previously thought. Uralic speakers may have encountered pockets of now extinct Indo-Iranian speakers, who could have spoken any number of dialects (perhaps some more conservative than others). This possibility should be enough to question the notion that 'late' Proto-Uralic can be "firmly" located on these grounds”.
Also this is a good observation to take into account.
Zelto:
“Reread my comment; I think you must have misunderstood. I was describing the consequences of a model where Yakutia_LNBA is NOT associated with 'late' PU. What logically follows (the task of explaining this ancestry in post- 'late' Uralic communities) quickly becomes convoluted.”
I answered to that: it is also possible that Yakutia ancestry is not associated with LPU. As I wrote, partial regional correlation is only partial regional correlation – nothing more. It does not automatically mean that this ancestry must have spread together with the Uralic language. You cannot just decide that they spread together, because you cannot see language from the DNA.
Zelto:
“I'm not convinced based on the current linguistic evidence. Relying on the reconstructed homeland of PII is problematic. These groups were highly mobile and spread far beyond their homeland earlier than previously thought. Uralic speakers may have encountered pockets of now extinct Indo-Iranian speakers, who could have spoken any number of dialects (perhaps some more conservative than others). This possibility should be enough to question the notion that 'late' Proto-Uralic can be "firmly" located on these grounds.“
Nothing you said can question the European origin of Indo-Iranian. The shared contact-induced features with Balto-Slavic are not the earliest changes in these branches. And if you read my article, you should know that the location of Late Proto-Uralic is not based solely on Indo-Iranian contacts.
Be smarter than the trolls here: first read and understand the evidence, only after that comment the topic. :)
And Zelto, is there something you cannot understand in the label Late Proto-Uralic?
@ambron
“Of course, Polish post-CWC cultures had a fundamental contribution to the formation of the Proto-Slavic population, because - next to Lithuanians - Slavs (Poles, Belarusians and Western Ukrainians) have the highest share of CWC genetics (WSH plus Polish GAC). However, it is safer to talk about the Proto-Slavic population from the time of the appearance of Proto-Slavic innovations, i.e. from approximately 1500 BCE”
So what language was spoken in Mierzanowice/Strzyżów/Iwno? Proto-Greek? proto-Armenian? proto- Italo-Celto-Germanic? But Y-DNA does not fit.
It was a farming culture, so Proto-Baltic is also out, because, as you know, Balts switched to farming much later than Slavs and lacked Slavic farming vocabulary.
@ Jaakko
"Nothing you said can question the European origin of Indo-Iranian. The shared contact-induced features with Balto-Slavic are not the earliest changes in these branches. And if you read my article, you should know that the location of Late Proto-Uralic is not based solely on Indo-Iranian contacts.
Be smarter than the trolls here: first read and understand the evidence, only after that comment the topic. :)"
Hope that you didn't put me among your trolls, just because I considered, as always, your work of an expert linguist of Uralic (and by necessity IE) and think that every hypothesis merits to be taken into consideration. I just noted, for what I know of Uralic languages, above all Finnic, that its phonology doesn't always permit to discern the introgressions, what you noted too. Of course a full European origin of II languages should be well accepted by us European nationalists and the question is why it isn't accepted by others. Perhaps they are Europeans but think (or desire) to be other? I am one of the few who fought for that against all, above all the "levantinists-kurganists-levantinists" who own Harvard... and pour cause.
@Jaakko
"I answered to that: it is also possible that Yakutia ancestry is not associated with LPU. As I wrote, partial regional correlation is only partial regional correlation – nothing more. It does not automatically mean that this ancestry must have spread together with the Uralic language. You cannot just decide that they spread together, because you cannot see language from the DNA."
Again, you missed the point of my initial comment. The presence of Yakutia_LNBA in Uralic speakers must be explained, regardless of its relationship to 'late' Proto-Uralic. Surely you understand this; I'll be kind and chalk up your confusion to the language barrier.
"Nothing you said can question the European origin of Indo-Iranian. The shared contact-induced features with Balto-Slavic are not the earliest changes in these branches. And if you read my article, you should know that the location of Late Proto-Uralic is not based solely on Indo-Iranian contacts."
I was not questioning the European origin of Indo-Iranian. Where a language originated, has no bearing on how far or quickly it subsequently spread. It just so happens that Indo-Iranians were particularly mobile and that mobility was initially directed east. They were also far from the first IE speakers in Siberia.
An uncertain term for 'elm' is left doing a lot of heavy lifting.
EastPole
It would be most reasonable to assume that the populations of Polish post-CWC cultures used late PIE dialects. This explains well why the oldest layer of Polish hydronymy comes from the late PIE. It also explains why Slavic is the most archaic branch of IE.
Gio:
“Hope that you didn't put me among your trolls, just because I considered, as always, your work of an expert linguist of Uralic (and by necessity IE) and think that every hypothesis merits to be taken into consideration. I just noted, for what I know of Uralic languages, above all Finnic, that its phonology doesn't always permit to discern the introgressions, what you noted too. Of course a full European origin of II languages should be well accepted by us European nationalists and the question is why it isn't accepted by others. Perhaps they are Europeans but think (or desire) to be other? I am one of the few who fought for that against all, above all the "levantinists-kurganists-levantinists" who own Harvard... and pour cause.”
No, I do not consider you as a troll. :)
Indo-Europeanists have for a long time had a universal agreement on the Indo-Iranian origins in Europe and its later expansion to Asia, so the views of laymen, Indian ultra-nationalists, and misguided true believers of the “language can be seen from the DNA” cult are irrelevant.
Ambron:
“It also explains why Slavic is the most archaic branch of IE.”
Based on which features? At least phonologically it is not particularly archaic branch.
Zelto:
“Again, you missed the point of my initial comment. The presence of Yakutia_LNBA in Uralic speakers must be explained, regardless of its relationship to 'late' Proto-Uralic.”
Of course it must be explained. But how could you do that? You cannot just decide that this ancestry spread together with that language. It is equally possible that the ancestry spread either earlier or later than the Uralic language, so there are actually three temporal possibilities. How could you prove that your belief is correct? How could you reliably exclude the options that the Yakutia ancestry spread either earlier or later than the Uralic language?
Moreover, the largest portion this ancestry possesses in the Tundra Yukaghirs (Zeng et al. 2023), which happen to live near the region where this ancestry was born. Also the more southern Forest Yukaghirs have it considerably. So, why do you not connect this ancestry to the Yukaghiric languages? Is not the correlation even better with it than with the Uralic languages? For some reason you just decide to totally ignore this option.
Zelto:
“I was not questioning the European origin of Indo-Iranian. Where a language originated, has no bearing on how far or quickly it subsequently spread. It just so happens that Indo-Iranians were particularly mobile and that mobility was initially directed east. They were also far from the first IE speakers in Siberia.”
Good, we agree here.
Zelto:
“An uncertain term for 'elm' is left doing a lot of heavy lifting.”
At the moment it is uncertain, because I only recently proposed the Mansi cognate for this word. But also the name for ‘Siberian pine’ causes difficulties for the Uralic expansion from or through Southwestern Siberia. And when we take into account (1) the internal structure of the Uralic language family, (2) the distribution and sound substitutions of loanwords from four successive early Indo-Iranian layers, and (3) the shared sound changes between the Uralic branches, then the whole picture solidly rejects any models which require spread of “Finno-Ugric” from South Siberia, leaving Samoyedic there behind.
@Jaakko
There are always endless possibilities, but very few of these possibilities are plausible.
It's not plausible that the early Indo-Iranians who spread so rapidly from Europe into Siberia and maintained their genetic homogeneity and culture didn't speak early Indo-Iranian.
It's also not plausible that the common genetic thread shared between Baltic Finns and Hungarian conquerors, which is obviously Nganasan-related ancestry, isn't linked to their shared Uralic languages.
There's no other spatiotemporally relevant common thread between Baltic Finns and Hungarian conquerors.
Davidski:
“It's not plausible that the early Indo-Iranians who spread so rapidly from Europe into Siberia and maintained their genetic homogeneity and culture didn't speak early Indo-Iranian.”
Their Indo-Iranianness is a linguistic label, so of course they spoke Indo-Iranian. We can also scientifically see which was the genetic composition of the Sintashta people speaking Late Proto-Indo-Iranian. But it does not mean that the same genetic composition everywhere at any time was also associated with the Indo-Iranian language.
Davidski:
“It's also not plausible that the common genetic thread shared between Baltic Finns and Hungarian conquerors, which is obviously Nganasan-related ancestry, isn't linked to their shared Uralic languages.”
1. There are several ancestry components widespread in the Uralic populations. You cannot just choose one of them and ignore others.
2. All these ancestry components are of course “linked” to the Uralic languages, if you mean that they are found in the Uralic speaking populations. This does not mean that these ancestry components spread together with the Uralic language: they could have spread also either before or after the Uralic language. You cannot just decide that some of them spread with the Uralic languages. How can you prove it?
Davidski:
“There's no other spatiotemporally relevant common thread between Baltic Finns and Hungarian conquerors.”
3. How can you say so? They both have also European Farmer ancestry and Corded Ware related ancestry.
4. There is no requirement that language expansion can only be associated with an ancestry component which have been preserved everywhere. It is of course probable, but not obligatory.
You still only decide to believe what you want to believe, and you ignore all the other possibilities.
@ Jaaki
I know it's beyond you, but I'm just reflecting back on you for sport.
1. '' There are several ancestry components widespread in the Uralic populations. You cannot just choose one of them and ignore others.''
We are choosing the only one which is shared across all Uralic populations - Nganasan/ Yakutia-LN'; from Samoyeds to Hungarians.
2. '' It is equally possible that the ancestry spread either earlier or later than the Uralic language, so there are actually three temporal possibilities. How could you prove that your belief is correct?''
The other possibilities are Ice Age Siberian migrations or later Scythians & Huns, neither of which have anything to do with Uralic. So you're not correct there, either.
3. '' We can also scientifically see which was the genetic composition of the Sintashta people speaking Late Proto-Indo-Iranian. But it does not mean that the same genetic composition everywhere at any time was also associated with the Indo-Iranian language.''
Ancient DNA shows that the same component Sintashta-Andronovo component is common across Scythians, Sarmatians, north Indian and modern Iranian groups, despite their diversity, nothing else is shared across them. Same with Uralic, they share no other component apart from north Siberian ancestry
4. ''then the whole picture solidly rejects any models which require spread of “Finno-Ugric” from South Siberia, leaving Samoyedic there behind.''
You haven been keeping up (as usual). They spread from northern Siberia, which is where we find Samoyedic speakers todday.
5. ''so the views of laymen''
But you're not a scientist, so why are you pretending you are?
You fail even in lnguistis, because Uralic proto-lexicon suggests a sub-taiga homeland, not advanced Iranian metallurgists LOL
6 '' because you cannot see language from the DNA.''
We can see it & we can also hear it, and it's saying you're full of shit.
@Jaakko
"How could you reliably exclude the options that the Yakutia ancestry spread either earlier or later than the Uralic language?"
Based on your own reconstructed chronology, Yakutia_LNBA ancestry almost certainly did not spread earlier than Uralic. If it spread later, we would be forced to accept a bizarre scenario where "multiple Yakutia_LNBA-rich populations underwent matrilineally transmitted language shifts, independent of each other, and all with a seeming propensity towards (divaricated) Uralic languages."
"Moreover, the largest portion this ancestry possesses in the Tundra Yukaghirs (Zeng et al. 2023), which happen to live near the region where this ancestry was born."
I know you are familiar with the Proto-Uralic -looking linguistic borrowings in Yukaghir. Some have even proposed a Uralo-Yukaghir language family.
"But also the name for ‘Siberian pine’ causes difficulties for the Uralic expansion from or through Southwestern Siberia. And when we take into account (1) the internal structure of the Uralic language family, (2) the distribution and sound substitutions of loanwords from four successive early Indo-Iranian layers, and (3) the shared sound changes between the Uralic branches, then the whole picture solidly rejects any models which require spread of “Finno-Ugric” from South Siberia, leaving Samoyedic there behind."
No one here said that Proto-Uralic came from "the southern half of western Siberia". You'll have to be more specific with your other points. Are you referring to the late PII loans with sound substitutions/sibilant changes in Samoyedic? Proto-Khanty was probably spoken in Siberia (East Khanty is most archaic according to Saarikivi) and could have maintained contact with Proto-Samoyedic farther east. Alternatively, one can not rule out now extinct intermediary languages.
@ Ethan
You might have half a clue about genetics, but you’re profoundly ignorant about geopolitics
Start learning about your benevolent USA and it’s master
https://www.youtube.com/live/U_yN_zE_FCo?si=8dp4AO-YtZrxfDTI
Part 1 : Biden’s masters engineering the Ukraine war
2. CIA history of illegal foreign interventions & take down of popular Imran Khan in Pakistan
3. The impending erasure of Israel
Jaakko
In fact, Baltic is more archaic than Slavic in terms of phonological features, but Slavic is more archaic in terms of other linguistic features.
@Rob
Part 1 : Biden’s masters engineering the Ukraine war
2. CIA history of illegal foreign interventions & take down of popular Imran Khan in Pakistan
3. The impending erasure of Israel
People who don't suffer from paranoia or schizophrenia don't believe in this Russian propaganda.
EastPole
Zbigniew Gołąb: "...dialekt prasłowiański (w rzeczywistości wczesno-prasłowiański) reprezentował bardzo zachowawczy dialekt IE z fonologią jeszcze bałtosłowiańską w jej cechach podstawowych".
Zelto:
“Based on your own reconstructed chronology, Yakutia_LNBA ancestry almost certainly did not spread earlier than Uralic. If it spread later, we would be forced to accept a bizarre scenario where ‘multiple Yakutia_LNBA-rich populations underwent matrilineally transmitted language shifts, independent of each other, and all with a seeming propensity towards (divaricated) Uralic languages.’”
You keep repeating that, but what do you mean by it? Why matrilineally transmitted?
Multiple events are normal, when population spreads widely. Take the Romani in Europe: there are as many “independent” language shift events as there are language communities in different countries into which the Romani get assimilated. There is nothing bizarre in such a process; it is totally normal and expected. As a result, also Romani DNA traces can be found in many language communities in different countries (usually in the individual level, because their number has always been so low and they have arrived so recently).
Zelto:
“I know you are familiar with the Proto-Uralic -looking linguistic borrowings in Yukaghir. Some have even proposed a Uralo-Yukaghir language family.”
Irrespective of the speculative distant relatedness, in the relevant time scale Uralic and Yukaghiric were totally separate language families. So, how do you explain that the Tundra Yukaghirs are the population richest of the Yakutia ancestry? How is this weaker correlation than with the Uralic languages? How do you justify your own ignoring of the Yukaghiric languages concerning the association with the Yakutia ancestry?
Zelto:
“No one here said that Proto-Uralic came from "the southern half of western Siberia". You'll have to be more specific with your other points. Are you referring to the late PII loans with sound substitutions/sibilant changes in Samoyedic? Proto-Khanty was probably spoken in Siberia (East Khanty is most archaic according to Saarikivi) and could have maintained contact with Proto-Samoyedic farther east. Alternatively, one can not rule out now extinct intermediary languages.”
From or through Southwestern Siberia, say Grünthal et al. 2022 vaguely, without pinpointing the exact homeland anywhere (because the authors are known to disagree on the exact location).
I’m referring to the arguments in my article, which I assumed that you have read and understood before commenting:
https://journal.fi/fuf/article/view/120910
Location of Proto-Khanty is irrelevant (and in any case, archaicness cannot prove the homeland), and so is the speculative intermediary language, because it is a matter of a chain of changes shared by Hungarian, Mansi, Khanty and Samoyedic; together with Late Proto-Indo-Iranian loanwords shared by some or all of these eastern branches together with more western branches, with the same sound substitutions in every branch. Read the article, please – there is no point for me to write it all again here.
@ Davidski - I don’t think it’s likely these American men are Russian bots. Self-evaluation is good for everyone.
@Rob
Yes, they're Americans who fell for Russian propaganda because they suffer from paranoia or schizophrenia.
@ Jaakko
"Multiple events are normal, when population spreads widely. Take the Romani in Europe: there are as many “independent” language shift events as there are language communities in different countries into which the Romani get assimilated. There is nothing bizarre in such a process; it is totally normal and expected. As a result, also Romani DNA traces can be found in many language communities in different countries (usually in the individual level, because their number has always been so low and they have arrived so recently)".
Many years ago a person contacted me just for his 23andMe data. The mother was English, the father seemed of Romani descent. At the autosomic level he had only 4 very little segments linked to Indian population, about 1% in total, but his Y was H1a, clearly a witness of Romani origin. The same happened for many other populations, also for some Longobard Y even in my ancestry, but 23andMe gives me as 99.5% Italian, in spite of what Rob wrote.
Those R1b-M343 “basal” samples that appear in modern men in both China (FTE1) and India (FTB1) are actually very recent branches that may have arrived in those countries two thousand years ago. Nothing to do with the origin of R1b.
On the other hand it is true that there is R2 in Iran, but there is no R1, so this marker must be located further north considering that its two sons R1a and R1b are in European territory and that there is no trace of them in Iran, India, Asia Minor or Levant.
When these two markers appear (around 20000-19000 BC) the Gravettian culture no longer existed but the Epigravettian (Italy, Balkans etc) and the Solutrean (Spain and France) and also the foragers were beginning to colonize territories previously covered by the ice sheet of the LGM.
R1a & R1b shared mesolithic cultures in northern Europe (Veretye, Butovo) which descended from the Kunda culture, the Swiderian culture and ultimately from the Epigravetian culture. It is in the territory of this culture that we must look for R1b-M343 and R1a-M420, not in China, Iran or India.
Obviously, sharing culture means sharing language ergo there is no reason to think that R1a and R1b spoke different languages during the late paleolithic and early mesolithic when theoretically Indo-European did not even exist.
@Jaakko
Do I understand correctly that you place the Late-Proto-Uralic homeland this side of the Urals on the basis that parallel borrowings in Samoyedic and the rest point to both having been in contact with proto-II speaking groups, after or during their split?
You state:
All the stages leading to Late Proto-Indo-Iranian developed on the European side of the Urals (E. Kuz’mina 2007: 305). There are no serious challenging views for the original European homeland of the Indo-Irani-ans, which is significant considering the location of the Uralic stages.
Because the finding of a Shintashta looking sample in Rostovka site of the Seimo-Turbino phenomenon may point that while the cultural center may not have been in close contact to Siberia, individuals or small groups may have been. Considering the multi-ethnic nature of ST and the fact that a genetically Proto-II looking sample is found near Omsk probably opens up the possibility that language contact could have happened far more east that we could imagine before.
ROT003
Y-DNA: R-M417 (R1a)
Mtdna: R1a
Date: 4150-3800 BP (stratigraphic context)
Burial description:
Grave 8, in which RO003 was buried, is particularly rich. It contains two lanceheads of the types KD-10 and KD-14, a socket ax of type K-20, a dagger blade of the type NK-6, several small flint arrowheads, two rectangular flint blades, and a bone handle.
Autosomal profile:
ROT003 was modelled as fully Sintashta-like.
@ Gaska
"Obviously, sharing culture means sharing language ergo there is no reason to think that R1a and R1b spoke different languages during the late paleolithic and early mesolithic when theoretically Indo-European did not even exist".
I was pretty much convinced by you that R1b in western and Northern Europe didn't spoke IE but probably accepted the probable Caucasian languages of western Europe from the Alps to the Franco-Cantabrian refugium and linked with hg I2a (above all, but clearly also I1 found in Iberia at least 10000 years ago), and the Caucasian languages of the Caucasus could be linked with the close haplogroup J, but the previous hypothesis that R1b was linked with the centum IE languages and R1a with the satem ones isn't easy demonstratable through linguistics. Anyway the true challenge is to find, in history and archaeology, the historical events that acted as the case of Latin of Rome we know very well, because before the expansion we need to find an unification among many different and at least not understandable dialects. For that to link genetics and linguistics is fundamental, but not easy.
@ Davidski
You’re a funny individual. You incessantly mope about one dimension, but fail to see the other 3.
@Rob
There's just one dimension that can turn Poland into the same sort of dump that Russia has become.
Everything else is debatable.
Epoch:
“Do I understand correctly that you place the Late-Proto-Uralic homeland this side of the Urals on the basis that parallel borrowings in Samoyedic and the rest point to both having been in contact with proto-II speaking groups, after or during their split?”
I locate Late Proto-Uralic in the Central Ural Region. One part of the argumentation is that which you mention.
Epoch:
“Because the finding of a Shintashta looking sample in Rostovka site of the Seimo-Turbino phenomenon may point that while the cultural center may not have been in close contact to Siberia, individuals or small groups may have been. Considering the multi-ethnic nature of ST and the fact that a genetically Proto-II looking sample is found near Omsk probably opens up the possibility that language contact could have happened far more east that we could imagine before.”
Language contact requires actual contact zone or strong enough contact. Random individuals rarely can leave permanent mark in the local language – otherwise we would have in every language also loanwords from more distant languages. But we do not have that: there are no Celtic, Italic/Romance, Albanian, Greek, or Armenian loanwords in Finnic, although it is very probable that random wanderers must have at some point visited in the north. There are only loanwords from nearby branches: Germanic, Baltic, and Slavic loanwords, and earlier Indo-Iranian loanwords.
Also the fact that there are four successive layers of regular Indo-Iranian loanwords is best explained so that this temporal continuum of borrowing occurred close to the Indo-Iranian core region, where the innovations happened and reconstruction stages followed each other. I could only find two “irregular” loanwords, possibly borrowed from some lost Indo-Iranian dialect (or for some unknown reason just showing unexpected sound substitution).
To conclude: random wanderers in the east ca. 100 years before Late Proto-Indo-Iranian language actually spread there are not enough to explain the IIr loanword layers in Uralic.
@epoch Yes exactly. If Anatolian is treated as a daughter of PIE (instead of the Indo-Anatolian classification), too many agricultural terms are reconstructed in PIE (here taking the place of PIA) and would put it in the Fertile Crescent, at a date which it obviously did not exist yet.
This is one of the reasons PIA is favored now (instead of the older PIE-with-Anatolian-as-a-daughter-language).
Not that this guarantees that PIA doesn't end up agriculture-heavy, but any kind of placing of PIE/PIA in ~9000 bce or whatever isn't viable, obviously.
@Gio
If we listen to linguists (which is a great IF, because linguistics seems to me the most inaccurate of all sciences, in case it can be considered a science), IE has only 5.500 years of existence, then it is impossible that WHG or EHG spoke IE.
In my opinion R1a or R1b before M417 or L51 did not speak IE but the primitive European language of hunter gatherers. Nobody knows what that language was, but I think it survived until the Iron Age in Aquitaine, Iberia, Sardinia and Tuscany and until today in Vasconia.
Perhaps some branch of R1b like yours (Z2103) spoke Indo-European in the steppes and perhaps spread this language throughout Europe and Asia but to prove that, we need much more convincing evidence than we have.
Z2103 is not an exclusive Yamnaya issue, what we are seeing is a massive founder effect of this marker in the steppes after 3000 BC, but I think it is a lineage of Balkan origin (not Italian, sorry), and that the appearance of that marker in Latin and southern Italian samples during the early Iron Age means that the Indo-European languages in Italy is not related to the BB culture nor to the urnfielders but to population movements from the Balkans.
I love Tuscany, may be one day we will see each other there, and we will talk about genetics, (not politics), and maybe you can explain to me why many Italians feel admiration for Russians ..... for us Spaniards, it is surprising.
By the way, Rob sometimes seems rude but he's a good guy, don't take into account some of his comments.
@ Davidski
''There's just one dimension that can turn Poland into the same sort of dump that Russia has become.''
I wasnt talking about that, Poland wont become a dump if it doesnt 'donate' its money to Biden & friends or commit economic suicide by being coerced into unjust CIA policy.
What I was actually referring to is - the West is losing its way. You can see that from the degradation & ''decolonialization'' of academia, but fail to see it is the tip of the iceberg and propaganda arm of what has been insidiously occurring in the ast 40 years.
@ Jaako
You dislike aDNA because it has rendered your thesis obselete.
Alone, linguistics is a shell, incapable of giving us the complete answers. Despite your lies, linguistics isn't a hard science and offers no tangible answers.
Without aDNA, you could carry on pretending that proto-Uralic developed in the Volga region or even London, or your boyfriend Anglesqueville could pretend that Germanics are language-switching Fins.
But it's now clear that neither of those are true. You blaspheme against your own discipline of linguistcs by misrepresenting what it can and cannot demonstrate.
@Jaakko Häkkinen
Maybe I should have elaborated that it wasn't just an individual. There was clear evidence several individuals have Indo-Iranian ancestry. Some even fully.
Mind you, here I assume one can connect language to genomes, with all caveats. But so do you in your paper - and rightly so - so we can agree at least that to some extent DNA and language are related.
I don't think you can reason away those recent papers by calling these samples mere individuals. They were interred in a fashion that was distinct and unique. This was clearly an indigenous development, even if apparently multi-ethnic.
@Jaakko
"Also the fact that there are four successive layers of regular Indo-Iranian loanwords is best explained so that this temporal continuum of borrowing occurred close to the Indo-Iranian core region, where the innovations happened and reconstruction stages followed each other."
So if we left out Proto-II loans we still could make the case, only slightly less sure?
I don't think so.
Would you be so kind as to give it a try?
@ Gaska
'Those R1b-M343 “basal” samples that appear in modern men in both China (FTE1) and India (FTB1) are actually very recent branches that may have arrived in those countries two thousand years ago. Nothing to do with the origin of R1b.''
Probably from the northern barbarians like Xiongnu which ruled northern parts of China at various centuries in fairly recent times.
''Rob sometimes seems rude but he's a good guy ''
Some people pretend polite, but they are rotten at their core & smiling snakes like some politicans, or the clowns which run FraudArchiver.
My comments are bold but always accurate & justified. I am selective on who I respect, based on merit. And I judge every case on its merit and possess no common narrative.
I do not agree with Gio. His views come from his irrational belief that everything comes from Italy, including haplogroup J, or Uralic languages. The closer to Italy the better ! That's why he is prostrating himself to Jaska like a weasel.
Gaska:
“If we listen to linguists (which is a great IF, because linguistics seems to me the most inaccurate of all sciences, in case it can be considered a science)”
Unfortunately these kind of comments only show that you know nothing about the methods of historical linguistics. There are a variety of different methods available, just like in other disciplines. We could equally well claim – based solely on the diverse and contradicting qpAdm results in different studies – that genetics is not an exact science but lottery. This illustrates why you cannot make such generalized claims based on your limited knowledge.
Epoch:
“Maybe I should have elaborated that it wasn't just an individual. There was clear evidence several individuals have Indo-Iranian ancestry. Some even fully.”
One with full Srubnaya ancestry, two with majority of Srubnaya ancestry, three with minority of Srubnaya ancestry, others with no Srubnaya ancestry.
If we had a full colony of people carrying 100 % Sintashta ancestry, it would be a strong indication that this community spoke Indo-Iranian (compare for the Afanasyevo people, generally associated with Pre-Proto-Tocharian). Then it could explain one layer of Indo-Iranian loanwords in Uralic, if Uralic was spoken in South Siberia (although the other layers would still pull Uralic to the Ural Region).
However, that is not at all the situation we see in the Seima-Turbino network. We see a network of individuals from different populations and regions. We cannot even guess which was their common language: there must have existed several since extinct Paleo-Siberian languages in the region, so Indo-Iranian, which was spoken very far from there, is not the strongest candidate.
Epoch:
“Mind you, here I assume one can connect language to genomes, with all caveats. But so do you in your paper - and rightly so - so we can agree at least that to some extent DNA and language are related.”
Of course these levels can be connected, but it must be done scientifically: one cannot just ignore the results of linguistics and claim to have better knowledge about language based on the DNA. That would be utterly unscientific.
Epoch:
“So if we left out Proto-II loans we still could make the case, only slightly less sure?
I don't think so.
Would you be so kind as to give it a try?”
I suggest you read and try to understand the article – it is all there, written as comprehensible and thorough as possible. There is no point for me to copy-paste the whole article here, and from shorter explanations you just cannot grasp the whole picture.
Rob wrote,
"Im not sure why you got the impression that Samoyeds stand against the findings supported by the sober people commenting here. To begin, you have misrepresented the data and ignored the fact that Nenets bear ~ 50% frequency of Nc-TAT. Just because N-P43 is phylogenetically distinctive, it doesnt mean that it is unrelated."
You must be thinking of the Forest Nenets sample of Karafet et alii (n=82 from Tarko-Sale, Vengapur, Halesavey, Harampur, and Purovsk). 53.7% (44/82) of that sample has been found to belong to N-P301=N-L1034, but all these individuals share nearly identical Y-STR haplotypes. An individual who shares the same haplotype has been found among their Tundra Nenets sample as well, and three Dolgans (a peripheral group of Sakha/Yakuts who are also known as "Haka," which is a variant pronunciation of "Sakha", both from *Jaqa) from the same study also belong to a one-off haplotype (with DYS392=14 instead of DYS392=15). N-L1034 has been found among Turkic speakers (including Dolgans, Kazakhs, Turkey Turks, Tatars [both from Tatarstan and from Tyumen Oblast], Bashkirs), Uralic speakers (including Khanty, Mansi, Hungarians, and a Komi besides the aforementioned Nentsi folk), Greece, Poland, and random people from Russia (Lipetsk Oblast, Samara Oblast). Among ancient specimens, N-L1034 > N-PH573 (the typical subclade everywhere besides Khantia-Mansia and Kazakhstan) has been found in the Uyelgi 2 specimen (Uyelgi site, Chelyabinsk region, Russia, 900 - 1100 CE, Medieval, Kushnarenkovo-Karayakupovo cultural group) and N-L1034 > N-PH573 > N-Y24222 > N-FTF7237 > N-FTB76077 has been found in the Püspökladány 95 specimen (Eperjesvölgy site, Püspökladány, Hungary, 1000 - 1050 CE, Medieval period, Arpadian cultural group) according to FTDNA. FTDNA also has three (presumably present-day) Hungarians who belong to N-FTB76077. FTDNA currently estimates the TMRCA of N-L1034 to be 3,456 (99% CI 4,667 - 2,487) ybp and the TMRCA of its N-PH573 subclade to be 2,618 (99% CI 3,643 - 1,817) ybp. It would be nice to know whether the (mostly Forest) Nenets members of N-L1034 belong to the N-PH573 subclade, like some Hungarians and other present-day European males, or to the N-FGC41337 subclade, like some present-day Khanty, Mansi, and Kazakh males. A priori I suppose that these Nenets more likely should belong to N-FGC41337, but I do not have any relevant evidence on hand.
Anyway, the Forest Nenets number approximately 1,500 souls, and represent a small minority of even the Nenets, let alone the Samoyedic peoples in general. Other samples of Nenets do not exhibit such a large proportion of N-L1034 or N-M46/N-Tat in general:
Tundra Nenets (Karafet et al. 2018)
1/47 N-L708(xL392)
1/47 N-L392(xL550,P89,Z1936)
11/47 N-P301=L1034
3/47 N-Z1936(xP301)
16/47 = 34.0% N-M46 total
Nenets (Ilumäe et al. 2016)
6/42 N-VL29
4/42 N-Z1936
10/42 = 23.8% N-M46 total
Nenets (Wells et al. 2001)
16/54 = 29.6% N-M46
For comparison, these are some other figures from Wells et al. (2001):
Pomors (circum-White Sea Russians) 12/28 = 42.9% N-M46
Saami from Russia 9/23 = 39.1% N-M46
Tuvinian 9/42 = 21.4% N-M46
Russian/North 10/49 = 20.4% N-M46
Russian/Tashkent 12/89 = 13.5% N-M46
Kazan Tatar 5/38 = 13.2% N-M46
Dungan (Chinese-speaking Muslim) from Kyrgyzstan 1/40 = 2.5% N-M46
Uighur from Kazakhstan 1/41 = 2.4% N-M46
Karakalpak 1/44 = 2.3% N-M46
Armenian 1/47 = 2.1% N-M46
Kyrgyz 1/52 = 1.9% N-M46
Kazakh 1/54 = 1.9% N-M46
Uzbek 5/366 = 1.4% N-M46
So, the percentage of present-day Nenets who belong to N-M46/N-Tat should be approximately 30%, much less than the 50% that you have claimed, and they actually exhibit an approximately equal or lesser proportion of this haplogroup than other inhabitants of the Arctic Ocean coast, including the Permic-speaking Komi, Slavic-speaking Russians, and Finnic-speaking Saami to their west.
I leave it to other readers to judge which of us has misrepresented the data.
@Jaakko
To conclude: random wanderers in the east ca. 100 years before Late Proto-Indo-Iranian language actually spread there are not enough to explain the IIr loanword layers in Uralic.
Playing dumb again.
Ancient DNA clearly shows rapid and significant migrations of Sintashta-related groups from Europe to Siberia starting at around 2,000 BCE.
There's no getting away from this, like there's no getting away from the fact that Hungarian conquerors came from Siberia.
@Gio
I don't have time to read through your long comments to make sure no racist or some other offensive content gets through.
Keep things short and on point, and leave out all references to Jews, or I'll start deleting all of your comments.
Also, do not ever post the full names of the other people commenting here.
@ Davidski
OK, I don't post then also my answer to Rob. I'll post them in my mail list and on my fb page. This is my fight, and you have the right to do yours in your blog. Thank you anyway. Of course I write for the future, and for the truth above all.
Rob wrote,
"Given your comments on Jaako's Sore-Loser thread on GeneArchiver; your guesses and opinions are worthless. Moreover, just as with the 4 other happy-clappers which parrot Jaako's misrepresentations, you are dishonest: 30, 40 , 50% doesn't matter, the issue is you originally completely ommitted the presence of 'Nc-TAT' in Nenets."
That is a barefaced lie. I have written that the proportion of N-Tat among Samoyeds (including the Nenets) is not particularly great (i.e. neither greater than the proportion of N-Tat among other ethnic groups in their vicinity nor especially high when viewed from a global perspective), which is a factually correct statement, and it is a fact that deserves an explanation from someone who has insisted very rudely that N-Tat has been spread by speakers of the Proto-Uralic language and that those speakers of the Proto-Uralic language are in essence genetically identical to modern Samoyeds (or, more precisely, Nganasans, according to some of you).
You are the one who has been dishonest and misrepresented the data here. You are the one who never contributes anything substantial, constantly parroting the statements of the blog owner. You need to learn to consciously inhibit your sociopathic tendencies.
@Ebizur
You can plainly see the parallels between the Uralic expansion and the Indo-European expansion in just what you said.
How much R1b-L51 is there now on the Eastern European steppe? Obviously it peaks in Western Europe today.
And yet by and large we use L51 as a marker of steppe expansions.
Ebizur
''So, the percentage of present-day Nenets who belong to N-M46/N-Tat should be approximately 30%, much less than the 50%'
Your opinion isn’t worth much, but let’s say 30, 40 , 50% doesn't matter, the issue is you originally completely omitted the presence of 'Nc-TAT' in Nenets.
One has to wonder what kind of dreary existence Jaako & his Dark Side clowns exist in to come up with a slogan "you cant see language from Genes" and feel that you are saying something profoundly insightful and pause for applause.
Aside from it being horrible grammar from a ''linguist'', it's a gross misrepresentation of how genetic data is actually used. Jaako lecturing people like you Genetics on his Failure to Cope thread on GA is sheer comedy.
Davidski wrote,
"You can plainly see the parallels between the Uralic expansion and the Indo-European expansion in just what you said."
Yes, one can easily draw an analogy between the two: N-P43 among speakers of present-day Uralic languages is to R1a-M17 among speakers of present-day Indo-European languages as N-Tat among speakers of present-day Uralic languages is to R1b-M343 among speakers of present-day Indo-European languages.
Likewise, no matter how far back we look in the archaeogenetic record, there does not seem to be any easy explanation for the differences despite several geneticists' appeal to autosomal analysis (which I find to be meaningless because it allows too many degrees of freedom in interpretation) to claim that e.g. the bearers of the Yamnaya culture are essentially identical to the bearers of the Corded Ware culture.
@Ebizur
The earliest samples associated with the Corded Ware culture are indeed essentially identical to Yamnaya samples in terms of genome-wide ancestry.
You understand this, right?
@ Ebizur
I have contributed in 1 minute more than you have in your entire existence
Learn some basics & instead of projecting your hysterical Kruger Dunning from FraudArchiver
@Jaako
You are right my knowledge of the working methods of linguistic science is very limited, I just smile when I read learned linguists discuss about the temporal origin of a certain language as if it could suddenly emerge in a kind of birth.
Nevertheless I am interested in knowing your opinion as a linguist about the fact that Iberians & Etruscans spoke a non-EI language being overwhelmingly R1b-P312 and about the fact that Mycenaeans spoke an IE language being R1b-M269 a tiny minority. And please note that we are talking about the first European languages reliably documented in written text, we are not speculating on matters that are scientifically unprovable (i.e. the language spoken by cultures that did not know writing).
@Jaakko
"Of course these levels can be connected, but it must be done scientifically: one cannot just ignore the results of linguistics and claim to have better knowledge about language based on the DNA. That would be utterly unscientific."
O, you make a very valid point there. I agree fully with that. That is why I asked how you would reassess the data if Shintashta penetrated east so early.
It's just that you can't claim these people to be random wanderers. They are archaeologically clearly distinguishable, hence they aren't. They are clearly part of the genetic landscape of S/T, it's not just one outlier. Siberian ancestry is found there too, so genetically we are 100% sure Shintashta related ancestry met Siberian ancestry in a network that spread over the area.
@Jaakko
"You keep repeating that, but what do you mean by it? Why matrilineally transmitted?"
Siberian ancestry in Uralic populations was, for the most part, mediated agnatically.
"Multiple events are normal, when population spreads widely. Take the Romani in Europe: there are as many “independent” language shift events as there are language communities in different countries into which the Romani get assimilated. There is nothing bizarre in such a process; it is totally normal and expected. As a result, also Romani DNA traces can be found in many language communities in different countries (usually in the individual level, because their number has always been so low and they have arrived so recently)."
The scenario I described would hardly be "normal", there's nuance here you seem to be missing. Ironically, you referred to "Romani DNA" precisely because of the conspicuous South Asian component that accompanied the Romani language to Europe. A more apt comparison to Romani in Europe, would be North Swedes with recent Saami/Uralic ancestry (i.e. Yakutia_LNBA).
Evidently, we are taking about population genetics, not genetic genealogy.
"Irrespective of the speculative distant relatedness, in the relevant time scale Uralic and Yukaghiric were totally separate language families. So, how do you explain that the Tundra Yukaghirs are the population richest of the Yakutia ancestry? How is this weaker correlation than with the Uralic languages? How do you justify your own ignoring of the Yukaghiric languages concerning the association with the Yakutia ancestry?"
I don't know who you are arguing with. Yakutia_LNBA ancestry might have spread with both Yukaghir and Uralic. Those aren't mutually exclusive possibilities, especially if they were in close contact at the pre-Proto stage.
"Location of Proto-Khanty is irrelevant (and in any case, archaicness cannot prove the homeland), and so is the speculative intermediary language, because it is a matter of a chain of changes shared by Hungarian, Mansi, Khanty and Samoyedic; together with Late Proto-Indo-Iranian loanwords shared by some or all of these eastern branches together with more western branches, with the same sound substitutions in every branch. Read the article, please – there is no point for me to write it all again here."
You claim Samoyedic must have been spoken in the vicinity of Ugric due to the "Uralic bundle effect". It's not self evident that proto-Ugric language(s) were spoken in the Central Ural microregion. The same "bundle effect" could be used to pull Uralic languages towards the east, where successive waves of contact with Indo-Iranian could have occurred. Remember, PII loanwards are not a reliable anchor because of its manifold expansion from west to east.
Davidski:
“Ancient DNA clearly shows rapid and significant migrations of Sintashta-related groups from Europe to Siberia starting at around 2,000 BCE.”
Of course, and that is connected to the spread of Indo-Iranian language. We were not talking about that – we were talking about earlier random wanderers. Please try to keep up in the discussion.
Davidski:
“There's no getting away from this, like there's no getting away from the fact that Hungarian conquerors came from Siberia.”
Of course, nobody has denied that. So tell us, why do you build these strawmen?
Epoch:
“It's just that you can't claim these people to be random wanderers. They are archaeologically clearly distinguishable, hence they aren't. They are clearly part of the genetic landscape of S/T, it's not just one outlier. Siberian ancestry is found there too, so genetically we are 100% sure Shintashta related ancestry met Siberian ancestry in a network that spread over the area.”
All others except the only “pure” Sintashta/Srubnaya ancestry carrier are admixed, representing second or third generation immigrants. We have no reason to believe that these people spoke Indo-Iranian. So, all we have is this one unadmixed individual who probably arrived from a community where his first language was Indo-Iranian. If that is not a random wanderer, then what is?
David, have you already thought about the promised article on the genetics of the Trzciniec culture?
Zelto:
“Siberian ancestry in Uralic populations was, for the most part, mediated agnatically.”
Based on what evidence? There are also eastern maternal lineages in the Uralic populations. And how about the Balts, showing high frequency of N but no Siberian ancestry? How about populations with high N and Siberian ancestry but speaking non-Uralic languages? You should not make oversimplified generalizations.
Zelto:
“The scenario I described would hardly be "normal", there's nuance here you seem to be missing.”
Please tell me what nuance I am missing? How is your example different from the normal cases of ancestry spreading wide with its carriers becoming assimilated?
Zelto:
“I don't know who you are arguing with. Yakutia_LNBA ancestry might have spread with both Yukaghir and Uralic. Those aren't mutually exclusive possibilities, especially if they were in close contact at the pre-Proto stage.”
Good that you think so. Hopefully also those people stop to think, who unscientifically believe that the Yakutia ancestry automatically proves a Uralic language.
Zelto:
“You claim Samoyedic must have been spoken in the vicinity of Ugric due to the "Uralic bundle effect". It's not self evident that proto-Ugric language(s) were spoken in the Central Ural microregion. The same "bundle effect" could be used to pull Uralic languages towards the east, where successive waves of contact with Indo-Iranian could have occurred. Remember, PII loanwards are not a reliable anchor because of its manifold expansion from west to east.”
- First, the four successive Indo-Iranian loanword layers were much more likely adopted close to the nuclear region than somewhere far from it.
- Second, we have no evidence whatsoever that the earliest Indo-Iranian stages ever even spread from Europe to Siberia.
- Third, placename evidence shows that Hungarian and Mansi were present in Europe, although we do not know how early.
- Fourth, the Finno-Permic branches were never spoken to the east from the Urals (before Komi in the recent centuries), so the bundle effect cannot move the whole Uralic community to Siberia: the Central Ural Region is the easternmost possible location.
Horse and wheel archeology-vocabulary. For example we have;
The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World is a 2007 book by the anthropologist David W. Anthony.
Is there any language/genetic theory explaining how the vocabulary for horse and wheel evolved in Balto-Slavic, Latin(Roman) and are connected to Hittite and Tocharian?
Jaaski's speculative toponymology is what he claims to constitute 'indisputable ''scientific'' evidence'.
''Good that you think ''Yakutia_LNBA ancestry might have spread with both Yukaghir and Uralic.
Hopefully also those people stop to think, who unscientifically believe that the Yakutia ancestry automatically proves a Uralic language.''
Except that's Not true.
Yukhagir have additional eastern ancestry which is lacking in proto-Uralics; mirrored by significant levels of Y-haplogroup C (~ 30%), which is wholly lacking in Uralic speakers
Yakatia_LN ancestry is the only viable demographic (& therefore cultural & linguistic) link amongst Uralic speakers.
As usual, Jaako is straw-manning and/or punching way beyond caoacity.
Even funnier, he claims that BOO spoke Eskimo, based on his characteristic complete lack of understanding of the populations he pretends to analyse.
In reality they were a fusion of local Comb Ceramic type people (the hypothetical paleo-Lapplandic) and the earliest form of Uralic in Feno-Scandia, even if it it became locally extinct or remained a drop in the ocean at that time.
@Gaska
Do you claim that R1 formed in the ancestors of WHG as opposed to coming from ANE?
I don't think it has any connection with WHG let alone Magdalenians. I think it must have come from the east as Mal'ta is R* thus R1 must have ultimately been from ANe.
Also I don't think there's much of a connection between Basque and Magdalenians either so I don't know what you're getting at with a Mesolithic language surviving there somehow to this day.
Davidski wrote,
"The earliest samples associated with the Corded Ware culture are indeed essentially identical to Yamnaya samples in terms of genome-wide ancestry.
You understand this, right?"
You understand that Population A, of whom approximately ≈100% of individuals belong to haplogroup α, cannot by any standard sense of the word be described as "identical" to Population B, of whom approximately ≈100% of individuals belong to haplogroup β, when you are measuring population affinity at 0 years before present or at 5,000 years before present and the TMRCA of {haplogroup α + haplogroup β} is approximately 20,000 years before present, right?
Autosomal DNA analyses can be rigged to produce almost any result a person may wish to produce, so they should not be considered valid as proof. They may indicate relative genomic similarity between or among individuals or populations, but they are not evidence of common origin at a particular point in time as should be required of evidence for absolute claims regarding ethnogenesis.
''Jaako is as much of an expert in historical linguistics as a mentally retarded chicken.''
Sorry, but I spat out my morning coffee
Rob on Beserker Mode is funny.
@ Ebizur
''Autosomal DNA analyses can be rigged to produce almost any result a person may wish to produce, so they should not be considered valid as proof.''
Sounds like Ebizur has been tuning into Jaako’s lectures on FraudArchiver, as his comments aren’t true.
There are multiple ways of checking GW-analysis such as PCA and unsupervised ADMIXTURE, and this can in turn be correlated with uniparental data. qpADM can sometimes produce vague results, such as when some authors use intentionally 'distal' set-ups, but such imitations are self-evident, and when set-up is similar, people who know what they're doing obtain similar results, in turn further checkable with G25.
Everything Ebizur is saying just sounds like a dishonest cop out against the obvious, where the case of Uralic is unambiguous.
Jaako conjures up strawman arguements such as Heggarty's problematic link between IE & Iranian_Neo in his crusade of “you cant See Language from Genes”, but fails to mention that Heggarty is a linguist like him :)
@Ebizur
Your take is extremely naive and reveals a poor understanding of basic population genetics.
The main problem is that you're conflating Y-haplogroup phylogeny with genome-wide genetic similarity and also with ethnic origins.
Human populations, including even closely knit ethnic groups, usually carry several different Y-haplogroups that are phylogenetically very distant. And sometimes these different Y-haplogroups become fixated in different sub-populations of these ethnic groups due to demographic processes.
For instance, Slavs mostly belong to R1a and I2, but with some Slavic groups rich in R1a and others rich in I2.
However, all Slavs derive in large part from the same early Slavic gene pool that existed less than 2,000 years ago. We know this because Slavs are very similar genetically and they share a lot of Identity-by-Descent (IBD) segments.
The Corded Ware and Yamnaya peoples are even more similar than Slavs.
Early Corded Ware and Yamnaya samples are indeed almost identical in terms of genome-wide genetic structure, and obviously this isn't just a coincidental similarity because many Corded Ware and Yamnaya samples share so much IBD that they're close genetic cousins.
Davidski wrote,
"Human populations, including even closely knit ethnic groups, usually carry several different Y-haplogroups that are phylogenetically very distant. And sometimes these different Y-haplogrpups become fixated in different sub-popoulations of these ethnic groups due to demographic processes."
There are basically two hypotheses that could explain the observed patterns (among Yamnaya and Corded Ware specimens as well as modern Indo-European and Uralic populations): a "centripetal" admixture hypothesis, according to which the original core population has been diluted while growing in size through fusion with an originally distinct population (or populations), and a "centrifugal" genetic drift hypothesis, according to which an originally more genetically diverse population has split into two or more subsets, with each subset subsequently undergoing genetic drift that has resulted in fixation (or near fixation) of different genetic loci in each of the now distinct subsets. You favor the "centrifugal" genetic drift hypothesis, which would allow both R1a and R1b to be equally responsible for the development and dispersal of the Proto-Indo-European language (or N-Tat and N-P43 in the Uralic case). To support that hypothesis, you should try to present evidence of an ancient population that could reasonably (i.e. from a plausible era and region) be considered to be speakers of Proto-Indo-European and in which phylogenetically appropriate branches of both R1a and R1b are present. Appealing to easily "adjustable" output of autosomal analyses "just sounds like a dishonest cop out," to borrow the words of a certain dyslexic megalomaniac.
@Ebizur
It should be obvious to any objective observer who has a basic understanding of ancient population genetics that the Corded Ware and Yamnaya populations derive from the same immediate parent population.
It's impossible to "rig" the results of the several different autosomal and genealogical analyses that show this to be absolutely true.
You must really have a very poor understanding of population genetics not to be aware of this, and you probably also suffer from some mental problems like paranoia, because there's no way that a completely sane person would suggest that autosomal results are being rigged to create such a solid academic consensus that the Corded Ware and Yamnaya peoples are closely related.
In all likelihood, both Corded Ware and Yamnaya peoples drive from the same post-Sredny Stog group, because soon to be published Sredny Stog samples are very similar to early Corded Ware and Yamnaya samples, and they carry R1a.
At some point we'll probably see Sredny Stog samples with R1a-M417 and R1b-M269.
Davidski wrote,
"At some point we'll probably see Sredny Stog samples with R1a-M417 and R1b-M269."
I will believe it when I see it.
The problem with ethnogenetic claims of this sort based on autosomal analyses is that autosomal data do not lend themselves easily to discerning when and how two populations (e.g. Corded Ware and Yamnaya) have come to be "nearly identical" as you and others like to claim. I know that there are methods that theoretically should be able to elucidate aspects of when (e.g. IBD analysis) and how (e.g. X-chromosome:autosome admixture ratio analysis) the autosomal affinities of populations have been established, but the record of these methods in practice has been quite poor as far as I have seen.
Ebizur has misunderstood the theory of CWC. The theory is that CW doesn't derive from Yamnaya because it derives from a slightly earlier steppe Eneolithic population. But he/ she has taken that to mean we're pushing for two completely different populations converging toward similarity.
I don't thing he's adept at conceptualising, only at robotically rote-learning figures from Chinese websites.
@Ebizur
The Corded Ware and Yamnaya populations are very similar in terms of culture and genetic structure, they share a lot of recent IBD, and they both came from the Pontic-Caspian steppe.
So the conclusion that they are closely and recently related, and that they derive from the same parent population is natural and logical.
You don't have any strong counter arguments to this conclusion.
Your faulty reasoning is based on your dislike and misunderstanding of autosomal analyses, and your bias towards Y-haplogroup data, which you aren't able to interpret correctly anyway.
@Jaakko
“Based on what evidence?”
Siberian maternal lineages are uncommon in West Uralic speakers. Their frequency only increases with Permic-Ugric-Samoyedic groups, in conjunction with increasing Siberian auDNA. For a direct comparison with Y-DNA, see Tambets et al. 2018.
Outside of the area where it formed in East Siberia, Yakutia_LNBA ancestry is found in Uralic speakers and populations that had historically close contacts with them. Proto-Uralic spreading with this ancestry, does not require that ‘every population with Y-haplo N or Yakutia_LNBA admixture, spoke Uralic, without exception’.
“Please tell me what nuance I am missing? How is your example different from the normal cases of ancestry spreading wide with its carriers becoming assimilated?”
The expansion of Yakutia_LNBA coincides temporally with Uralic and occurred within the same ecological zone. All Uralic populations carry Yakutia_LNBA admixture (including ancient Hungarians). As others have pointed out, no contrasting ancestry component is shared by all Uralic speakers, this is only an illusion caused by tunnel vision on deep ancestry analyses. The power dynamics hinted at by genetics (i.e. a novel & successful population in West Siberia/Europe; male biased admixture).
“- First, the four successive Indo-Iranian loanword layers were much more likely adopted close to the nuclear region than somewhere far from it.
- Second, we have no evidence whatsoever that the earliest Indo-Iranian stages ever even spread from Europe to Siberia.
- Third, placename evidence shows that Hungarian and Mansi were present in Europe, although we do not know how early.
- Fourth, the Finno-Permic branches were never spoken to the east from the Urals (before Komi in the recent centuries), so the bundle effect cannot move the whole Uralic community to Siberia: the Central Ural Region is the easternmost possible location.”
1) "More likely" is arbitrary. The mere possibility that these loanword layers were acquired in Siberia, obfuscates your previous propositions.
2) Genetic evidence that people from PII associated cultures were living in Siberia, prior to Andronovo. Alternatively, loanwords from later conservative dialects could be mistaken for early-PII.
3) Placenames have no bearing on where a language originated.
4) Aren't you making assumptions about the taxonomic structure of Uralic? What about the immediate linguistic forebears of Finno-Permic branches?
@Norfern-Ostrobothnian
I said that unlike R2 (Iran etc), R1 has to be further north because otherwise it would have appeared in central Asia, south Asia or Asia Minor. And I have also said that we cannot study uniparentals without analyzing and understanding the cultures where they have appeared. In this sense Mal'ta is a site related to the Gravettian culture (Venus figurines), curiously R1b-L754 has appeared in an epigravettian site and R1a in a site of the Veretye culture that also derives from the epigravettians. Samples from Peschanitsa (Veretye culture) and Minino (Butovo culture) show extra affinity to the Villabruna-Oberkassel ancestry compared to other Sidelkino cluster populations-So my conclusion is that if we want to find both R1b-M343 and R1a-M420 between 20-000-13.000 BC, we have to look in the Epigravettian domain west of the Urals (Italy, central Europe, Balkans, Ukraine…).
Regarding the ANE component, it is evident that it is present in greater or lesser proportion in all late paleolitic-mesolithic R1b & R1a we have, which is normal because the origin is common for both markers. Your mistake is to think that WHG is the opposite of ANE when it is certainly a descendant of it, ANE and WHG came from the same regions with the obvious difference that ANE has also east eurasian ancestry that lacks in WHG.
Regarding language, do you know the percentages of Magdalenian mitochondrial markers that have survived in the Spanish population (not only Basque) until today? Why do you think it is impossible that a language of mesolithic or paleolithic origin has survived in Iberia? Didn't all the languages we speak originate in the mesolithic period or even earlier? Do you think that IE magically appeared in 3500 BC? What language did the Indo-Europeans speak before they spoke that language? Were they mute or they spoke the language of the European foragers WHG & EHG?
@Davidski
Today was published a new paper by D. Reich's team:
http://tinyurl.com/3paa78yc
"Here we report genome-wide data from 39 individuals who lived between ~650 and 1750 ce at six locations across the island and document strong genetic connections between Soqotra and the similarly isolated Hadramawt region of coastal South Arabia that likely refects a source for the peopling of Soqotra. Medieval Soqotri can be modelled as deriving ~86% of their ancestry from a population such as that found in the Hadramawt today, with the remaining ~14% best proxied by an Iranian-related source with up to 2% ancestry from the Indian sub-continent, possibly refecting genetic exchanges that occurred along with archaeologically documented trade from these regions. In contrast to all other genotyped populations of the Arabian Peninsula, genome-level analysis of the medieval Soqotri is consistent with no sub-Saharan African admixture dating to the Holocene."
@ Carlos Aramayo
What did Harvardians want to demonstrate with these Y J and the autosome above all from the Natufian hunter-gatherers? That hg J was old in the Levant? The Y entered as we knew through the migration from around the Caucasus or eastern Mesopotamia around 4200 years ago and supplanted all the oldest Y.
@Gio
"What did Harvardians want to demonstrate with these Y J and the autosome above all from the Natufian hunter-gatherers? That hg J was old in the Levant?..."
Well, they differentiate two branches, J1 in all Arabian peninsula, and J2 exclusive to Soqotra. The latter produced from a bottle neck's effect. And they also say Soqotri people have affinity with Late Pleistocene Natufian Hunter Gatherers, very ancient provenance indeed. Maybe two separate migrations, as J2-M172 would be exclusive to Soqotra island.
Zelto:
“Siberian maternal lineages are uncommon in West Uralic speakers. Their frequency only increases with Permic-Ugric-Samoyedic groups, in conjunction with increasing Siberian auDNA. For a direct comparison with Y-DNA, see Tambets et al. 2018.”
The Mari and the Saami have more Yakutia ancestry than the Komi, so is there any correlation with the Siberian maternal lineages? Correlation is only a starting point for research, it is not the result. Tambets et al. 2018:
“For mtDNA and chrY distances, correlation was not significant after correcting for geography. Thus, our findings indicate a clear relationship between autosomal genetic distances and lexical distances among Uralic-speaking populations, even when the effect of geographical distance is taken into account. The non-significant finding with respect to mtDNA and chrY data may reflect greater noise in these haploid loci. It is also worth noting that geographical distances significantly predict autosomal and chrY distances (but do not predict mtDNA distances) when keeping the lexical distance constant (Additional file 16: Table S15). This indicates that while lexical distance accounts for some of the variation in autosomal genetic distances between populations independent
of geography, there remains genetic variation between groups that is attributable to geography independent of lexical distance—i.e. genetic variation is explained by a combination of lexical distance and geographic distance.”
Zelto:
“Outside of the area where it formed in East Siberia, Yakutia_LNBA ancestry is found in Uralic speakers and populations that had historically close contacts with them. Proto-Uralic spreading with this ancestry, does not require that ‘every population with Y-haplo N or Yakutia_LNBA admixture, spoke Uralic, without exception’.”
This ancestry is also present in Central and South Siberia east from Yenisei and even in Kazakhstan – in the regions where Uralic languages were never spoken. Just like Uralic languages were never spoken in Yakutia, where this ancestry was born. Therefore, one must accept the possibility that this ancestry was first spread by speakers of some other language familie(s), until it reached the Central Ural Region and spread westwards to Europe, possibly with the Uralic speakers (although with or without that, it could have spread also earlier and/or later than the Uralic languages).
Zelto:
“The expansion of Yakutia_LNBA coincides temporally with Uralic and occurred within the same ecological zone. All Uralic populations carry Yakutia_LNBA admixture (including ancient Hungarians). As others have pointed out, no contrasting ancestry component is shared by all Uralic speakers, this is only an illusion caused by tunnel vision on deep ancestry analyses. The power dynamics hinted at by genetics (i.e. a novel & successful population in West Siberia/Europe; male biased admixture).“
Do we have samples and absolute dating for the spread of the Yakutia ancestry to the Volga-Ural Region and to the Pechora Region? If not, then you cannot claim that it is simultaneous with the Uralic expansion and that it spread with the same ecological zone. You are only guessing here, without any evidence.
It is true that the Yakutia ancestry is found in all studied Uralic populations or their local predecessors (ancient Hungarian). But you know well that there are also widespread European ancestries in the Uralic populations. Even the Nganasans have European (Srubnaya) ancestry according to Zeng et al. 2023.
So, how do you justify that you ignore this widespread European ancestry and only look at the Yakutia ancestry? How do you prove that “this is only an illusion caused by tunnel vision” in the case of the Srubnaya ancestry but not in the case of the Yakutia ancestry? You have a double standard here.
Zelto:
“1) "More likely" is arbitrary. The mere possibility that these loanword layers were acquired in Siberia, obfuscates your previous propositions.”
No, you are wrong. It is much more probable that these four language stages were met in the region where they developed than in some distant region far away. The latter option would require four successive linguistic expansions to that distant region – expansions of which we have zero linguistic evidence.
Zelto:
“2) Genetic evidence that people from PII associated cultures were living in Siberia, prior to Andronovo. Alternatively, loanwords from later conservative dialects could be mistaken for early-PII.”
Genetic evidence of random wanderers, instantly admixed with different local populations. Zero evidence for the spread of Indo-Iranian language there at that point.
It is true that in theory there could have been conservative dialects, parallel to Late Proto-Indo-Iranian. But making up languages/dialects from nothing is not particularly credible method. The most credible solution is that the loanwords which look like Early Proto-Indo-Iranian are borrowed from Early Proto-Indo-Iranian - at least we know that this language existed.
Zelto:
“3) Placenames have no bearing on where a language originated.”
You are wrong: it depends on the age of the placenames. But in this case we have no certain Proto-Mansi or Proto-Hungarian placenames, so they may reflect only later expansion. Still, both of these branches were spoken also in Europe, and to there the languages cannot have been spread from afar.
Zelto:
“4) Aren't you making assumptions about the taxonomic structure of Uralic? What about the immediate linguistic forebears of Finno-Permic branches?”
I used Finno-Permic as a distributional unit, not a taxonomic unit; sorry that I did not mention that. But these branches have not earlier been spoken in Siberia.
I do not understand your last question.
@Gaska
"Regarding the ANE component, it is evident that it is present in greater or lesser proportion in all late paleolitic-mesolithic R1b & R1a we have, which is normal because the origin is common for both markers. Your mistake is to think that WHG is the opposite of ANE when it is certainly a descendant of it, ANE and WHG came from the same regions with the obvious difference that ANE has also east eurasian ancestry that lacks in WHG."
https://www.dropbox.com/s/o0sxqiu0pf9ebrd/sfig_structure_16_admixgraph_deep.png?e=1&dl=0
yes, about 30 percent of the admixture associated with the northern Eurasians was already present in the Mesolithic whg, but much more of this admixture was, of course, in the ehg, which is where r1b comes from in Europe in whg, but here we do not agree with this opinion
@Jaakko Häkkinen
don’t worry bro, in fact, proto-European languages arose when Caucasians and Finno-Ugrians tried to find a common language with each other)
joke
@ Carlos Aramayo
Yesterday evening I gave only a glance to the Supplements data, and after I sleeped, what usually I don't do. I wrote that onbly as to my previous positions of at least ten years, because we debated so long about J2b, and I supported the theory that they arrived independently from around the Caucasus to the Levant and to Europe and not as the levantinists pretended from the Levant to Europe and anyway the oldest samples are in Sardinia even more than in the Balkans. Anyway I saw only one J1 and two oldest samples of J and even KIJ, which doesn't demonstrate a very old origin up there but could have come recently from east (Iran or India) also in base of the fact that it seems that the paper found a 12% from up there at the autosomic level. The old sample in the Levant are above all one only and we cannot date its presence without at least other samples up there linked to it. Anyway I should read the paper, of course, and deeply study that, but I know the Harvardians and the levantinists for so long.
@ Arsen
"@Jaakko Häkkinen
don’t worry bro, in fact, proto-European languages arose when Caucasians and Finno-Ugrians tried to find a common language with each other)
joke"
But these languages are different just in the origin, in fact who compares the great groups speaks of Nostratic and Caucasian-SinoTibetan-NaDenè. SinoTibetan developed in an one sillable language (in fact developed the tones) but if you look at the Ladakhi the oldest phase was of an incorporated language, for that I wrote that Sumerian belonged to this family, perhaps derived from the Caucasus and not from Himalaya, and for that Alfredo Trombetti said that Etruscan was intermediate between Caucasian and IE languages.
I understand that genotype files from the preprint have been published
Bronze Age Northern Eurasian Genetics in the Context of Development of Metallurgy and Siberian Ancestry
https://edmond.mpg.de/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.17617/3.NPAC3S
That's obviously not genetic data. It's some sort of code for modeling stuff, like human expansions or something.
A new ENA upload from Wegmann/Excoffier group
https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB47916
Project: PRJEB47916 Ancient DNA analysis of samples from Neolithic and Mesolithic contexts from Europe and Anatolia.
Secondary Study Accession: ERP132236
Study Title: Local Complexity of Neolithisation
Center Name: University of Fribourg
Many samples, but I don't know how many (if any) are actually new never previously published dna. (I recognise various IDs like Bla for Blatterhohle and Min for Minino EHG).
This group likes to use methods that are not based on f-statistics, more based on demographic inference, so maybe this is leading to some paper where they apply these methods to more populations (but may not have new data).
Is this a genotype sample from Nalchik?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sra?LinkName=biosample_sra&from_uid=39854872
@Davidski
Any chance to get & publish the new “Soqotra Medieval” samples coordinates of the Sirak K, et al.2024 study, not sure about the genotype data availability?! but it’s been mentioned that it could be found through “David Reich Data Set”
https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/publications
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-024-02322-x
@Владимир
Wow, I hope Mr. Davidsky will once again show us magic, and will turn this file incomprehensible to a person into a more or less representative 25 measuring vector
@Davidski The samples have been posted for Sirak et al
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/7khbmfs0e4qv07deaylhh/genotype_data_Soqotra.zip?rlkey=3yxi9wbdlfl928g2i8z3utjoo&dl=0
Hi
A new article:
100 ancient genomes show repeated population turnovers in Neolithic Denmark. Nature, 2024; 625 (7994): 329 DOI: 10.1038/s41586-023-06862-3, Morten E. Allentoft, et al.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06862-3
An abstract clip:
" We observe that Danish Mesolithic individuals of the Maglemose, Kongemose and Ertebølle cultures form a distinct genetic cluster related to other Western European hunter-gatherers. Despite shifts in material culture they displayed genetic homogeneity from around 10,500 to 5,900 calibrated years before present, when Neolithic farmers with Anatolian-derived ancestry arrived. Although the Neolithic transition was delayed by more than a millennium relative to Central Europe, it was very abrupt and resulted in a population turnover with limited genetic contribution from local hunter-gatherers. The succeeding Neolithic population, associated with the Funnel Beaker culture, persisted for only about 1,000 years before immigrants with eastern Steppe-derived ancestry arrived. This second and equally rapid population replacement gave rise to the Single Grave culture with an ancestry profile more similar to present-day Danes."
@All
The G25 coords for the Sirak 2024 samples are here.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Dub132AfhqsV43bHS2WUYYHv6lxeAcjL/view?usp=sharing
No idea what the labels should be exactly, so they're all just labeled Soqotra.
"but the record of these methods in practice has been quite poor as far as I have seen."
Um, what? IBD is by far the best tool in determining close kinship and not just archaic autosomal similarity.
And not only are Yamnaya and CW high in IBD sharing, but Yamnaya shares IBD all the way to Scandinavia, which is mindblowing even to me that subscribes to the Yamnaya -> CW theory by Reich/Lazaridis.
I’ll be very keen to take a look at Nalchik
Btw I’ve recently found that much of the “CHG/ Iran shift” seen in chalcolithic Anatolia can statistically soundly (& historically plausibly) be explained as emanating from the east Turkish PPN samples; thus mostly (but no only) an inter-Anatolian reshuffling phenomenon
@Rob
In your opinion, the shift towards chg in Western Anatolia - Greece in the Chalcolithic and Bronze Age is associated with shuffling from eastern Anatolia and is not directly related to chg?
@ Arsen- yea I think at least for much of the earlier samples, but there were probably movements from Caucasus associated with Kura-Araxes intrusions . I haven’t finished the analyses yet
Jaakko
"The Mari and the Saami have more Yakutia ancestry than the Komi, so is there any correlation with the Siberian maternal lineages?"
What's your point? Siberian mtDNA is rare in the west because Yakutia_LNBA admixture was primarily male mediated. Tambets et al. rather explicitly support this conclusion. I trust you can find the relevant passages.
"This ancestry is also present in Central and South Siberia east from Yenisei and even in Kazakhstan"
How do you suppose this occurred? Yakutia_LNBA rich populations in Central/West Siberia were assimilated, or adopted a Steppe/nomadic way of life, à la Hungarians, Kamassians, Mators and probably other extinct Ugric/Samoyedic languages. A similar process eventuated farther east, with Yakutia_LNBA groups who initially remained in East Siberia.
"Do we have samples and absolute dating for the spread of the Yakutia ancestry to the Volga-Ural Region and to the Pechora Region?"
Relevant samples from Europe are coming. Right now, we know Yakutia_LNBA expanded across Siberia, at roughly the same time as 'late' Proto-Uralic (late 3rd millennium BC). Both also occupied the Taiga- ecological zone.
"So, how do you justify that you ignore this widespread European ancestry and only look at the Yakutia ancestry? How do you prove that “this is only an illusion caused by tunnel vision” in the case of the Srubnaya ancestry but not in the case of the Yakutia ancestry?"
For most Uralic communities, 'East Eurasian' ancestry is exclusively Yakutia_LNBA. In contrast, Uralic speakers have received 'West Eurasian' ancestry from multiple different streams. You need to pay close attention to the 'West Eurasian' sources used in the analyses you're referencing, especially when dealing with post-CW components, which tend to confound when acting as proxies. A fine-scale analysis is required, deep ancestry components are not helpful here.
@Jaakko
"It is much more probable that these four language stages were met in the region where they developed than in some distant region far away."
We have genetic evidence of close familial relationships over vast distances, within archeological horizons. People regularly traversed these expanses, even within the span of a single generation. This "much more probable", is based only on your own intuition. Also, do we know for a fact that these late- PII linguistic innovations originated from a single (narrowly defined) region? Why not different areas, from across a continuum (e.g. Andronovo).
"Genetic evidence of random wanderers, instantly admixed with different local populations. Zero evidence for the spread of Indo-Iranian language there at that point."
A very small percentage of Bronze Age interments have left osteological material and been discovered; even fewer have been tested for aDNA. The presence of a few Steppe_MLBA -rich samples on record, supports a non-negligible movement. Moreover, the total number of Proto-Uralic speakers must have been relatively small. In this case, "Random wanderers" could have had an outsized influence.
"But making up languages/dialects from nothing is not particularly credible method."
Your model is flawed if there are variables like this, that that are not being controlled for.
"You are wrong: it depends on the age of the placenames"
Placenames are only evidence that a language was once spoken in a particular region. There can be some chronological constraints, depending on the age, like you mentioned. However, there is no linguistic method to determine provenance based on placenames alone.
"I used Finno-Permic as a distributional unit, not a taxonomic unit"
So you are just referring to the areal distribution of Finno-Permic languages? What evidence prevents their linguistic predecessor(s) from being located somewhere else?
The disinformation continues
*NP548 (5.000 BCE)-Niederpöring, EF-LBK, Germany-HapY-R1b1a/2a1a-M269
*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
NP548 does not have C14 calBC dating in the table provided by the da Silva et al. 2023 preprint. It is also noted as being an outlier and not used for HLA frequencies. Haplogroup R is missing from figure S7 in the Supplementary file meaning they consider NP548 to not be a Neolithic Farmer. They also do not state which version of yhaplo they used for the SNPs. R1b1a2a1a, P311, a subclade of R-M269, has not been used by ISOGG since January 2016. It's now R1b1a1b1a1 and has been since 2018. The BAM or fastq files for NP548 have not been published on the European Nucleotide Archive so there is no way to determine if it has Steppe autosomal DNA or not.
I2181 has Steppe autosomal DNA. Another detail that I had overlooked previously is that it is negative for M760/Y506. So a better sample is needed to verify that downstream SNPs are not false positives and that M760/Y506 is a false negative. FTDNA was right. The Y-DNA results are not reliable.
ATP3 does not have a reliable positive SNP that is equivalent to R1b-M269. Calling it that without definitive proof is just disinformation.
AF023 has Steppe autosomal DNA per Figure 24 of the thesis by Fichera. The raw file of this sample has not published so there information about it's DNA is limited by what is in the thesis.
correction on my previous post. yhaplo did use isogg.2016.01.04 at one time and the version of yhaplo used by Da Silva was likely a version of yhaplo that used isogg.2016.01.04
@Dospaises
"AF023 has Steppe autosomal DNA per Figure 24 of the thesis by Fichera. The raw file of this sample has not published so there information about it's DNA is limited by what is in the thesis."
It also is less then 100 km from the nearest Dutch SGC site alongside exactly the same river in Swalmen. The site where where AF023 is from is assigned to the Seine-Oise-Marne culture, which distributed the famous Grand Pressigny flint daggers. These are found in a fair number of Dutch SGC sites.
Apparently Nalchik man was R1b-V3616. Sounds like EHG moving south rather than the Caucasian migration invented by some academics
Lazaridis will just claim that R1b-V3616 came from the Caucasus or Iran based on this.
Haha.
@Davidski and @Rob
What do you guys make of some people on forums like Genarchivist claiming that Proto-Germanic has both genetic and linguistic Finnic substrates? This was stipulated on the basis of some isotopic analysis/qpadm model of Falköping_N by the poster Angelsqueville, which some others took issue with.
Early Germanic speakers weren't part Finnish or Uralic in any way.
Finns became part Germanic from the Late Iron Age onward, and then there was a lot of Finnish immigration into Scandinavia.
@ Davidski
R-V1636... but don't forget what I wrote: the 5 known samples in Italy, elsewhere only one, and the oldest survived sample (6600 years ago as to the separation) in Italy, and in Iberia 600 years later.
@ Simon
Someone else asked that exact question earlier on, and I think its a very interesting topic.
There are some issues with the presented reasoning.
Firstly, the linguistic evidence isnt convincing, although proposed by a Schriver, who is a solid linguist. However, in the very same book, Hickey and Roberge present a more convincing explanation: Finnic adopted some Germanic phonological developments due to the obvious flow of loans from Nordic people to Finnic, and it was the Germanic colonists of Finland who switched to Finnic. So one must not cherry pick evidence when discussing a topic.
Secondly, the qpAdm analysis is not in fact of Falköping_N, but of of a Roman era (dating to ~ 300 AD) individual from the Falköping sight. It's interesting if he has ~ 8% admixture from the direction of Finland, but rather irrelevant to the question of proto-Germanic.
The issue of proto-Germanic is straightforward, it was the language of the Nordic Bronze Age with a 'population core' centred around Denmark. Yes, at some point during the LBA, 'towns' in eastern Sweden became important trade hubs with the forests of the East Baltic & Russia (like a Bronze Age 'pre-Rus'), but again, that doesnt mean proto-Germanic developed in that township.
@Rob
"Apparently Nalchik man was R1b-V3616. Sounds like EHG moving south rather than the Caucasian migration invented by some academics"
so this is the earliest discovered v3616?
I don’t think that R1b-V3616 is directly related to EHG, people with this mutation could have lived in the Caucasus for a long time, and be a product of the merger of ANE people and chg-iran from the territory of the eastern Caucasus
Apparently, Khvalynsk chg may also be associated with Nalchik
No, the R1b-V3616 in Nalchik is associated with an EHG-rich population similar to Khvalynsk that moved south.
@Davidski
I won’t argue, I asked you in the last post about the origin of V3616, you didn’t answer
Nalchik has EHG ancestry, and there are samples coming from the steppe that are basically all EHG and they have V3616.
So it's not really a mystery.
Related to the comment of Rob vs. the samples used by Anglesqueville in the analysis: according to Anglesqueville the samples are:
Falköping group (between 2000 BC and 1700 BC)
NEO221_A U Sweden_N_Falköping.imputed_Allentoft
NEO223_A U Sweden_N_Falköping.imputed_Allentoft
NEO224_A U Sweden_N_Falköping.imputed_Allentoft
NEO225_A U Sweden_N_Falköping.imputed_Allentoft
NEO226_A U Sweden_N_Falköping.imputed_Allentoft
NEO227_A U Sweden_N_Falköping.imputed_Allentoft
NEO228_A U Sweden_N_Falköping.imputed_Allentoft
NEO259_A U Sweden_N_Falköping.imputed_Allentoft
So, in terms of genetics the case seems to be solid, see https://i.imgur.com/hbZppQo.jpeg and there indeed probably was Uralic speaking immigration into Sweden already in the Bronze Age. This probably also explains quite nicely the early paternal N's in that area, including those related to Rurikids.
@Queequeg
A solid case in what sense?
The Sweden N Falköping samples don't show any Uralic (Nganassan-related) ancestry, except a couple of them at noise level (<1%).
In PCA they show a WHG-related shift.
@Twocountries aka “Mr steppe autosomal”
Try to deal with it you have neolithic farmers M269 in the Gumelnita-Karanovo, SOM, LBK and western megalithic cultures. You should talk to Lazaridis, Reich, Da Silva, Gerber, Carvalho & Villalba-Mouco and explain to them what mistakes they have made, I am sure the international scientific community will thank you for it.
I already told you few days ago, 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.
@ Arsen
“I don’t think that R1b-V3616 is directly related to EHG, people with this mutation could have lived in the Caucasus for a long time, and be a product of the merger of ANE people and chg-iran from the territory of the eastern Caucasus“
Perhaps you wish that were the case, but it’s been known for years that (in general terms)
EHG= ANE + WHG
Some EHG moved toward the Caucasus, perhaps as early as 6000 BC (Satanay man preprint)
These R1b-V1636 were evidently the clan that did so.
In other words, if we don't assume that Sweden_IA is some kind of an outlier, the shift from the Falköping group points to an early and actually quite sizeable immigration from the East, possibly in line with the possible origins of the Falköping group itself. In terms of archeology, a group first based on something like Falköping could be behind the origins of Mälar axes in Sweden, probably after being in contact with Akozino-Ananyino groups.
@Queequeg
You're misinterpreting the PCA results for Sweden_IA and Falköping N.
There's nothing to indicate that these samples have eastern, as in Uralic, ancestry.
The subtle differences between them are due to fine scale genetic substructures within Scandinavia.
@ Queequeg
Uralic ancestry did not enter during the proto-Germanic phase.
Finnish & the northeast Baltic have Nordic/Germanic ancestry, perhaps from at least a couple of waves. Up here, it was the Germanics who were linguistically assimilated, and they brought the loans and phonological convergences (if they hold) seen between FU and Germanic. The rest of PGMc features can be explained by its somewhat 'isolated' development.
@Rob
EHG ≠ ANE + WHG, it would be more accurate to say that both whg and ehg have a common origin from a population that lived in the steppe of Eastern Europe (which is associated with the Paleolithic of the North Caucasus), some went to the west, some remaining in the steppe mixed in greater proportion with ANE, scientists not everyone agrees that ehg=whg+ehg
Some linguists have suggested that Balto-Slavic has more FU influences than other IE (eg via Dyakovska culture).
There is a discussion on GA that early South Slavs share Y chromosome haplotypes with Czechs and Poles:
https://genarchivist.com/showthread.php?tid=343&page=19
@Simon
The theory is from Peter Schrijver and is based on the remarkable fact that Verner's Law seems to work in Finnic too. Because he ties that Finnic soundshift to proto-Uralic he states that Germanic languages are spoken by people that previously spoke Finnic.
The eastern archeological influences, such as axes, ceramics, settlement type etc. are, at least since 900 BCE, in the Mälar area so obvious that most probably there were also eastern immigrants living in the area, instead of just cultural influence or something.
Why did Putin’s interview with the corrupt journalist Tucker Carlson cause such a stir and positive emotions among Europeans? Why did Europeans become so susceptible to populist statements? This Tucker didn’t even ask him uncomfortable questions
Carlson's interview was by and large negatively received in Europe, especially in East Central and Eastern European countries, like Poland.
Only MAGA Trump morons and far right European sympathizers claimed it was awesome. But I think even they knew deep down inside that it was crap.
Putin is obviously nuts. We should all be very worried, but also use this time effectively to prepare for the worst.
@Rob said...
“Some linguists have suggested that Balto-Slavic has more FU influences than other IE (e.g. via Dyakovska culture)”.
It is utter nonsense. There are no FU influences in Slavic languages except some Eastern Slavic dialects where the population has substantial N1a Y-DNA. Western Slavs have negligible N1a and no FU influences.
Do you think Putin "the Great" even dreams of attacking Poland, Lithuania, Hungary or Romania?The war will last for years, but I don't think Mr Putin is that crazy.
Now that maybe the United States will desist from helping Ukraine..... "EU leaders have greenlighted the Commission's proposal to provide Ukraine with regular and predictable financial support through the so-called Ukraine Facility. It will make available up to €50 billion in grants and loans until 2027"
The far right has other issues to win seats in the European Parliament (common agricultural policy, uncontrolled immigration, energy prices) and they are wrong if they listen to clowns like Carlson because Russia has been trying for years to destabilize Europe by any means.
Maybe it is time for us Europeans to mind our own business because Trump is closer to Putin than to Von der Leyen.
@Gaska
Putin is very unpredictable and probably increasingly irrational.
So there are many possible scenarios, including one in which Russia tries to draw NATO into a regional conflict to test Article 5.
Russia might do this even before the war in Ukraine finishes, and, indeed, it might pull something desperate like this to save face politically at home when its defeat in Ukraine becomes imminent.
Ukraine won't lose anytime soon, and probably never, even if Trump is elected and the US pulls all aid.
It can bleed the Russians for many years because it's now starting to produce its own weapons and ammo in useful quantities, and support from countries like Poland, Sweden, the UK, etc. will never end.
@Davidski
do not forget that the matter is not only in Putin, but in the regime established in Russia, including Kremlin politicians and local mentors, generals, interior ministers, various Russian special services, and of course, the main criminals and organizers of various crimes are the FSB, including Patrushev, Bortnikov and etc
Putin, as a former FSB officer, in this gangster scheme acts as an intermediary between these groups, and the people
https://genarchivist.com/showthread.php?tid=525
a fresh post about Nalchik , I would like to register there
@Арсен
Yes, Putin represents a large group of Russian elites, and they're all totally nuts.
@All
Here's the Nalchik sample. Looks sort of like Piedmont Eneolithic with about 25% Anatolian farmer admixture.
First thought I had was that the dating is way off, because he's also very similar to the Ozera Yamnaya outlier.
Hmmm...
NL122_scaled,0.104717,0.107646,-0.00528,0.043928,-0.028005,0.022311,0.007755,0.002308,-0.051131,-0.044101,0.002761,-0.001798,-0.009812,-0.005092,0.008958,-0.004641,-0.004433,0.000633,-0.004274,0.000375,0.007736,0.001113,0.011462,-0.000602,-0.002395
NL122,0.0092,0.0106,-0.0014,0.0136,-0.0091,0.008,0.0033,0.001,-0.025,-0.0242,0.0017,-0.0012,-0.0066,-0.0037,0.0066,-0.0035,-0.0034,0.0005,-0.0034,0.0003,0.0062,0.0009,0.0093,-0.0005,-0.002
Distance to: NL122_scaled
0.04348076 Akhvakh
0.04488117 Kaitag
0.04622335 Darginian
0.04661324 Avar
0.04724999 Kubachinian
0.04728166 Andian_B
0.04908579 Chamalin
0.04923306 Ratlub
0.04937329 Lak
0.05148390 Tindal
0.05156905 Tabasaran
0.05261695 Bagvalin
0.05459465 Tsez_B
0.05469660 Lezgin
0.06148447 Hunzib
0.06801622 Chechen
0.06876101 Tat_Dagestan_Dzhalgan
0.07031177 Kumyk
0.07158903 Karata
0.07287153 Tsez_A
0.07408813 Tajik_Yaghnobi
0.07527668 Ingushian
0.07668292 Bagvalin_o
0.07779274 Hinukh
0.07829586 Cherkes
I didn't think this sample would be so Dagestani
The similarity is coincidental because modern Dagestanis are something like a mix between Caucasus LBA and Catacomb. Not much to do with Nalchik.
@Davidski
if you remember, I wrote that he would be similar to the Dagestanis, and emphasized that “the similarity will not be accidental”
Rob didn't agree with me)
in short, this sample is also complete nonsense, a mixture of a bulldog and a rhinoceros, we need pure Caucasian samples from the northern Caucasus. More informative will be from Chokh, if, of course, sub-archaeologists find it
@Gaska
Okay first I think that even if you have WHG descending from ANE partially (but this also necessitates the East Eurasian part of ANE too because WHG shares more with later ANE than Yana or Mal'ta so they must have East Eurasian too) it is ultimately from the ANE ancestry that WHG would have gotten R1 anyways. My point is that if ANE heavy populations show the most R1 subclades, they show multiple descending subclades and also are predominantly ANE which is the origin of R* then it is not unusual to assume that most R1a and R1b are actually EHG and have nothing to do with WHG. The alternative is that R1 migrated west once and ALL subsequent R1a and R1b in EHG is somehow from WHG and not ANE which makes no sense in my opinion. Also Veretye being a Kunda culture subgroup is dubious, I think all EHG cultures are more connected to eachother especially later on with CCC which ironically has more WHG than the earlier EHG cultures do.
As for Magdalenians, I don't think the problem is that the culture is too old for Basque, it's just that they were annihilated by EEF and left no discernible impact on modern populations of the area. It would be more likely that Basque descends from Atlantic Megalitich builders than anything Magdalenian, heck even WHG would make more sense as Basque actually have elevated WHG from the local Neolithic populations.
With a quick Vahaduo model and allowing the choice between - Georgia_Kotias; Russia_Caucasus_Eneo; Russia_Khavlynsk_Eneo; Russia_Samara_HG; Russia_Steppe_Eneo; Turkey_N - then the modelled proportions are:
Russia_Steppe_Eneo: 59.6; Turkey_N: 20.6; Russia_Caucasus_Eneo: 16.2; Kotias: 2; Samara_HG: 1.6.
Unusual that the ratios of CHG:Turkey_N in addition to the Steppe_Eneo ancestry would seem to be unalike to Eneolithic Caucasus.
Western-shifted compared to a position intermediate Darkveti-Meshoko and Steppe_Eneo. Yamnaya could sit in between this sample and Khvalynsk cline (https://imgur.com/a/sDjZKGl), but that may be mere coincidence (also Yamnaya may still be a bit too WHG shifted).
it is clear that this sample from Nalchik has nothing to do with subsequent cultures like progress and other steppe cultures, there is too much “Anatolia” and South Caucasian influence in it,
Apparently, through the Ossetian corridor, these Georgianized Anatolians penetrated into the North Caucasus and mixed with local North Caucasian hunters
I think so
Nobody here found in interesting that the Borreby men were R-L21-L513? The source of L21+ in Sweden and western Norway instead of "Celtic" slaves as was previously proposed by hardline I1/R1a-Nordicists?
Perhaps this could explain the excess ANF seen in Nalchik?
Nalchik: Steppe_en + X
Meshoko: Late CHG + X
Not sure if there is a common population between the two that could fit as X from a genetic perspective, but fits in archaeology as Darkveti-Meshoko horizon is a ~ 4500 bc thing and seems to be the synthesis of a local population and agricultural newcomers from the south.
Alternatively there could be minor EEF input from eastern Europe In addition to Transcaucasian ancestry but the date of 4800 bc would make it a bit extraordinary...
I don't think the south caucasian source population looked identical to Meshoko. If we are to assume that something like Progress is a good proxy for the northern ancestry then the southern ancestry looks more ANF rich than Meshoko. It might not have any PPN levant ancestry either.
Also, unsurprisingly the Areni cave samples seem to like Nalchik a fair bit.
@Norfern-Ostrobothnian said-“then it is not unusual to assume that most R1a and R1b are actually EHG and have nothing to do with WHG”
Most R1a are qualified as EHG and in fact, this lineage has not been found in WHGs, BUT most R1b belong to the Villabruna-WHG cluster, (Iron Gates HGs, Baltic, Scandinavian HGs). R1b in both Veretye and Butovo cultures have strong affinities with Villabruna-Oberkassel and R1b in Ukraine (overwhelmingly V88 but also L754) have strong affinities with Balkan HGs.
@Norfern-Ostrobothnian said-“The alternative is that R1 migrated west once and ALL subsequent R1a and R1b in EHG is somehow from WHG and not ANE which makes no sense”
I don't think that R1 migrated and that both R1a and R1b are westerners either, I think that at the beginning of the epigravettian culture (19.000-15.000 BC) R1b migrated to mainland europe and there it differentiated itself for millennia from its brother R1a. Then as the ice receded it repopulated northern europe from the south mixing with the R1a-EHGs and joining eastern cultures-This is why different groups of EHGs have different percentages of Villabruna-Oberkassel (more in Butovo, less in Sidelkino).
BTW;
You know that the Magdalenians have a good percentage of Villabruna blood, right?
and that the Iberian hunter gatherers were far from being annihilated by the EEF, right?
In any case, I think you should pay more attention to the uniparental and relativize the importance of autosomal components when talking about language transmission.
@ east pole
“ There are no FU influences in Slavic languages except some Eastern Slavic dialects where the population has substantial N1a Y-DNA. Western Slavs have negligible N1a and no FU influences”
Wasn’t talking about hg N, just some phonological strata
@ arsen
“ EHG ≠ ANE + WHG, it would be more accurate to say that both whg a common origin”
Not true.
EHG= WHG + ANE
Keep thing simple, especially for yourself
“ scientists not everyone agrees that ehg=whg+ehg”
That makes no sense.
@ Norfern
“ but this also necessitates the East Eurasian part of ANE too because WHG shares more with later ANE than Yana or Mal'ta so they must have East Eurasian too) ”
That’s unlikely. Afontova Gora is west shifted compared to MA1 (has ~ 20% Dzudzuana admixture on top)
This implies that even hg Q* is central rather than east Eurasian
@All
I'm working on a blog post about the Nalchik sample. But I can't even remember what the C14 date was.
Does anyone recall the link to the abstract about the forthcoming Nalchik paper?
@Davidski
here I threw the link above , there is a little information about it
https://genarchivist.com/showthread.php?tid=525
They don't seem to have left much of an impact.
Target: Spain_MLN
Distance: 4.6273% / 0.04627316
79.4 Turkey_Barcin_LN.SG
20.6 Italy_Mesolithic.SG
0.0 Belgium_UP_Magdalenian_udg
0.0 Georgia_Kotias.SG
0.0 Israel_Natufian
0.0 Morocco_Iberomaurusian
0.0 Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya
Target: Portugal_MN.SG
Distance: 4.3445% / 0.04344521
79.2 Turkey_Barcin_LN.SG
20.8 Italy_Mesolithic.SG
0.0 Belgium_UP_Magdalenian_udg
0.0 Georgia_Kotias.SG
0.0 Israel_Natufian
0.0 Morocco_Iberomaurusian
0.0 Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya
@Rob
It maybe that Kotias shares more with Mal'Ta than Yana but there's also a possibility of Kotias UP having ANE ancestry instead. At the very least other West Eurasians don't seem to prefer Mal'ta over Yana that much
Chimp.REF Georgia_Kotias_UP Russia_MA1_HG.SG Russia_Yana_UP.SG -0.00111 0.000650 -1.71 0.0874
Chimp.REF Georgia_Kotias_UP Russia_AfontovaGora3 Russia_Yana_UP.SG -0.00252 0.000849 -2.96 0.00303
Chimp.REF Russia_Kostenki14 Russia_MA1_HG.SG Russia_Yana_UP.SG -0.000159 0.000636 -0.250 0.802
Chimp.REF Belgium_UP_GoyetQ116_1 Russia_MA1_HG.SG Russia_Yana_UP.SG -0.000112 0.000746 -0.150 0.881
Chimp.REF Romania_PesteraMuierii_EUP Russia_MA1_HG.SG Russia_Yana_UP.SG -0.000533 0.000641 -0.832 0.406
Chimp.REF Czech_Vestonice16 Russia_MA1_HG.SG Russia_Yana_UP.SG -0.000476 0.000693 -0.687 0.492
WHG does prefer Mal'Ta over Yana
Chimp.REF Italy_Mesolithic.SG Russia_MA1_HG.SG Russia_Yana_UP.SG -0.00177 0.000625 -2.83 0.00461
@Davidski
I’ve been playing a little in the calculator with this Nalchik, it may in fact be accidentally similar to the Dagestanis, like the Yamnaya woman from Ozera, it’s just that both Nalchik and the Dagestanis have many common ancestors, such as hunter-gatherers of the southern Caucasus, northern Caucasus, EHGs ', and Anatolia, but if in Nalchik Anatolia is represented as European farmers, then in Dagestanis it is Leila Tepe and Mentesh Tepe.
Oh wait you said Afontova Gora has Dzudzuana my bad. Perhaps it does, but it doesn't seem to have strong affinities toward or away from West Eurasians as opposed to Mal'Ta. In fact Tianyuan shows no preference. EEF does seem to prefer AG3. Strangely Vestonice16 prefers MA1 over AG3 when it didn't do so for Yana, maybe Mal'Ta does have some connections to Gravettian after all but that would also imply Yana should have it too.
Chimp.REF China_Tianyuan Russia_MA1_HG.SG Russia_AfontovaGora3 -0.0000825 0.000875 -0.0943 0.925
Chimp.REF Italy_Mesolithic.SG Russia_MA1_HG.SG Russia_AfontovaGora3 0.000894 0.000773 1.16 0.248
Chimp.REF Georgia_Kotias_UP Russia_MA1_HG.SG Russia_AfontovaGora3 0.00140 0.000913 1.54 0.124
Chimp.REF Russia_Kostenki14 Russia_MA1_HG.SG Russia_AfontovaGora3 -0.000849 0.000850 -0.998 0.318
Chimp.REF Bulgaria_BachoKiro_MiddlePaleolithic Russia_MA1_HG.SG Russia_AfontovaGora3 -0.000211 0.000829 -0.254 0.799
Chimp.REF Czech_Vestonice16 Russia_MA1_HG.SG Russia_AfontovaGora3 -0.00180 0.000909 -1.98 0.0481
Chimp.REF Turkey_Epipaleolithic Russia_MA1_HG.SG Russia_AfontovaGora3 0.000945 0.000786 1.20 0.229
Chimp.REF Turkey_N Russia_MA1_HG.SG Russia_AfontovaGora3 0.00164 0.000631 2.60 0.00922
INF, CHG and EHG in comparison
Chimp.REF Iran_GanjDareh_N Russia_Yana_UP.SG Russia_AfontovaGora3 0.00595 0.000630 9.46 3.17e-21
Chimp.REF Georgia_Kotias.SG Russia_Yana_UP.SG Russia_AfontovaGora3 0.00504 0.000741 6.80 1.08e-11
Chimp.REF Russia_Karelia_HG Russia_Yana_UP.SG Russia_AfontovaGora3 0.0141 0.000818 17.2 4.27e-66
Chimp.REF Iran_GanjDareh_N Russia_MA1_HG.SG Russia_AfontovaGora3 0.00231 0.000661 3.50 0.000469
Chimp.REF Georgia_Kotias.SG Russia_MA1_HG.SG Russia_AfontovaGora3 0.00218 0.000800 2.72 0.00653
Chimp.REF Russia_Karelia_HG Russia_MA1_HG.SG Russia_AfontovaGora3 0.00521 0.000848 6.14 8.06e-10
@All
What are the most reliable C14 dates for the Nalchik site/cemetery?
@ Dave
Would need to see the direct data from the study and if there is RE
Just in case it hasn't been noticed an error has crept in with regards his haplotype
It's V1636, not V3616
Best reference for the date is probably
https://pcr.news/novosti/md-2023-paleogenomika/?fbclid=IwAR3d94L6xLh1tqZiskoUo2a9Jn9HSF8pSAj1XI3avIG3DnzZOZRIj_xDtZk
Which I think was posted earlier and agrees with David Anthony's paper
@jdean
"It's V1636, not V3616"
It was Rob who confused us all.
LOL)
@ Norfern
I couldnt see Neo283 or Dzdz in your tests, but a modest 20% (see below) might not be strong enough to show up in D-stats, which is why I dont view them as definitive
with qpAdm, AFG-3 can be modeleld as MA1 80% + Dzudzuana 20%
Models with WHG, CHG or anything East Eurasian as second admixing source - fail
Let me know if you want to see full output
BTW FTDNA appear to have reclassified this sample R-BY15337 together with a bunch of other SNPs above R-V1636, which looks extraordinarily exact for aDNA to me.
NEO283 is Georgia_Kotias_UP. It shows some affinity to ANE
But sure I would like to see them. Maybe try if EEF works better than Dzudzuana if you put Dzudzuana in the right pops too?
Oh and also I recommend trying to model AG3 with MA1 and TTK1 as I have found that model to work really well actually
I don’t understand what you’re arguing about, because Mr. Allentoft has already decided everything and showed, together with 20,000 scientists, how Paleolithic mixtures are related to the Mesolithic, everything is clear with lines, dashes, graphs, who comes from whom and how much of the mixture is in it
https://www.dropbox.com/s/o0sxqiu0pf9ebrd/sfig_structure_16_admixgraph_deep.png?e=1&dl=0
@ norfern
TTK is 10000 years younger than AFG, and derives ~ 90% of its ancestry from him
So why would you model AFG from TTK ?
Your result is pointing to the Dzudzuana ancestry coming though via the Iran N jn TTK
@ Arsen
''I don’t understand what you’re arguing about, because Mr. Allentoft has already decided everything and showed, together with 20,000 scientists, how Paleolithic mixtures are related to the Mesolithic, everything is clear with lines, dashes, graphs, who comes from whom and how much of the mixture is in it''
You not understanding is an understatement. Norfern & I are having a discussion.
For one, AFG is not in your picture
Second - a half-constructed gpGraph by Mr. Allentoft isn't the final word on such complex matters.
TTK1 is strange. While it shows affinity to Iran Neolithic especially, it doesn't seem to exhibit any behavior that Iran Neolithic does namely the Basal Eurasian or the lack of relation to other Eurasians. For example when comparing MA1 and TTK1 there's no discernible difference in their East or West Eurasian proportions. Yana also shows zero preference to MA1 or TTK1
Chimp.REF Russia_Yana_UP.SG Russia_MA1_HG.SG Tajikistan_Tutkaul_N -0.000767 0.000790 -0.971 0.332
Chimp.REF Russia_Sunghir3.SG Russia_MA1_HG.SG Tajikistan_Tutkaul_N -0.000509 0.000849 -0.600 0.548
Chimp.REF China_Tianyuan Russia_MA1_HG.SG Tajikistan_Tutkaul_N -0.000528 0.000880 -0.600 0.549
Now this would mean that the affinity to Iran Neolithic is actually TTK1 being closer to the ANE in Iran Neolithic and not that TTK1 has Iran Neolithic ancestry. EEF also prefers TTK1 over MA1 but AHG and NEO283 do not.
Chimp.REF Iran_Wezmeh_N.SG Russia_MA1_HG.SG Tajikistan_Tutkaul_N 0.00376 0.000846 4.44 0.00000881
Chimp.REF Turkey_N Russia_MA1_HG.SG Tajikistan_Tutkaul_N 0.00259 0.000658 3.94 0.0000812
Chimp.REF Turkey_Epipaleolithic Russia_MA1_HG.SG Tajikistan_Tutkaul_N 0.000716 0.000871 0.822 0.411
Chimp.REF Georgia_Kotias_UP Russia_MA1_HG.SG Tajikistan_Tutkaul_N 0.00152 0.000949 1.60 0.109
MA1 prefers AG3 over TTK1 and TTK1 also prefers AG3 over MA1, but AG3 has no preference, lending to the idea that it is a mixture of these two populations.
Chimp.REF Russia_MA1_HG.SG Russia_AfontovaGora3 Tajikistan_Tutkaul_N -0.00521 0.00106 -4.91 0.000000910
Chimp.REF Tajikistan_Tutkaul_N Russia_AfontovaGora3 Russia_MA1_HG.SG -0.00719 0.00115 -6.27 3.61e-10
Chimp.REF Russia_AfontovaGora3 Russia_MA1_HG.SG Tajikistan_Tutkaul_N 0.00199 0.00119 1.66 0.0962
Feel free to put any thoughts on theses stats
How many people saying goofy things like, "[M]ost R1b belong to the Villabruna-WHG cluster" have bothered to examine R1b-BY14355, the sole brother clade (thus far) to R1b-L754 under R1b-M343. Take a look at the ancient samples in FTDNA Discover's Ancient Connections and in its Time Tree.
@ jdean
"Just in case it hasn't been noticed an error has crept in with regards his haplotype"
Gio said...
@ Davidski
R-V1636... but don't forget what I wrote: the 5 known samples [haplotypes] in Italy, elsewhere only one, and the oldest survived sample (6600 years ago as to the separation) in Italy, and in Iberia 600 years later.
February 10, 2024 at 7:23 PM
@Norfern-Ostrobothnian
what kind of Tajikistan_Tutkaul_N is this? Do you have her G25 coordinates?
@ RichS
''How many people saying goofy things like, "[M]ost R1b belong to the Villabruna-WHG cluster" have bothered to examine R1b-BY14355, the sole brother clade (thus far) to R1b-L754 under R1b-M343. Take a look at the ancient samples in FTDNA Discover's Ancient Connections and in its Time Tree.'
It's about as goofy as saying it is East Eurasian.
Being a one trick pony which only utilises ftDNA apps & ignores all the Mesolithic data from Central Asia, the Baikal & Siberia, doesn't make for a thorough analysis.
So you have a conundrum to solve.
@Rob
I don't believe I ever said it was "East Eurasian".
@ Norfern
TTK fails as two way mix of Afontova + Dzudzuana &/or MA-1 + Dzudzuana
It passes as Afontova + Iran_N (with Dzudzuana & MA_1 in pRight)
https://www.dropbox.com/t/3W7rnErFyjF65tTJ
Conclusion: TTK is not of the same antiquity as Afontova, and its West Asian affinities can be appropriately be linked to an Iran_N like population & ANE affinities derivative from Afontova
Lol, made this comment just at the start of this thread
"For Anatolians and ancient core Greeks (Athenians/Myceneans), we should speak more of them as "Indo-Europeanized" rather than Indo-European. It was some Indo-Europeanized group of people with little steppe, that migrated into Anatolia and imposed their language.
My money is on some eastern cousins of the Yamnaya like Khvalynsk who spoke a more archaic steppe dialect, and Indo-Europeanized some Caucasus group, which became Proto-Anatolian (Kura Axes?). That R1b tomb in Arslanteppe is literally the only piece of genetic evidence we have tying the steppe to Anatolia, and it's clearly the remnant of a steppe migrant descendant with an elite background."
I've been suspecting for a while that Proto-Anatolians were simply an Indo-Europeanized people somewhere around the Caucasus. And they got Indo-Europeanized by some eastern cousin branch of the Yamnaya.
@ Rich_S
Sure, well if you're serious, you need to delve into the aDNA record in a more meaningful manner. That means reading literature & data first hand, and analysing the g-w ancestry of all Mesolithic Siberians, not just the Tarim group.
Ill get you started:
- Wang 2023
- Posth 2023
- Allentoft 2024
@ Davidski and all (x Rich S)
All the oldest samples that were found in aDNA from Samara to Gjerrid (from 7000 to 4300 years ago) aren't the ancestors of the survived R-V1636, but a first dispersal from the Alpine Villabruna R1b. All the survived samples descend from R-Y83069 and R-V1274 of a second dispersion from around the Alps and the oldest survived samples are just in Italy and later in Iberia from the Zilhao migration of 7500 years ago.
Norfern- said-“They don't seem to have left much of an impact”
I don't know if you are referring to the impact of Villabruna on the Magdalenian or the impact of the WHGs on the Iberian Neolithic and Chalcolithic, in any case, the impact is considerable even to this day.
Unlike Italy or the Balkans, all Iberian HGs have Aurignacian blood from the Goyet Q2 (or Fournol) cluster providing direct evidence for genetic continuity throughout the LGM in western Europe + Epigravetian blood from the Villabruna cluster-You can view Goyet Q2 contribution using qpAdm, the Magdalenian blood also reached the Chalcolithic ergo they were NOT annihilated by EEF. In any case if Basque is a paleolithic or mesolithic language it can come from any cluster related to the WHGs including the Magdalenians or the Villabruna-Oberkassel.
*Iberia_N:I11599
Cabezo de Arruda (3.100BC)
0.715-Anatolia_Neolithic
0.179-Villabruna_HG
0.107-GoyetQ2_HG
Pvalue 0.561441
*Iberia_ChL:I15429
Perdigoes (2948 BC)
0.717-Anatolia_Neolithic
0.157-Villabruna_HG
0.126-GoyetQ2_HG
Pvalue 0.349009
*Iberia_ChL:I8199
Sima del Angel (2700 BC)
0.743-Anatolia_Neolithic
0.154-Villabruna_HG
0.103-GoyetQ2_HG
Pvalue 0.477131
I think Villabruna has its origin in the Epigravettian-Balkans (where there are tons of R1b-mesolithic), but evidently it has to have additional components that have made WHGs different from EHGs-Geneticists always talk about Near Eastern related affinity, I guess they mean Anatolia-Caucasus. On the other hand the Villabruna cluster has uniparental markers of Gravettian, Balkan and even Caucasian origin.
Don't know if anyone has mentioned this here yet, but apparently what that new Nalchik sample actually does is splits a new branch off of L389 characterized by R1b-BY15337, with V1636 underneath it, as seen in this screenshot Göran Runström posted at the FTDNA R1b Project Facebook group (see the link below). So now, instead of P297 and V1636 as the two sibling branches under L389, they are P297 and BY15337.
https://postimg.cc/zL2xpZYk
One thing that some might not have realised is that the Xaiohe group have < 15% East Asian ancestry
Botai in central Kazakhstan has the same or more NEA (although it also has some western stuff)
Due north of Dzhungar the Bazaika individual had 50% NEA
@ Hermit
what’s changed ? Can you elaborate how the sacrificed boy from Arslanteppe IE’ize Anatolia ?
I also noticed that this guy from Nalchik has some trail towards Iraq_PPNA, maybe the authors stated this, meaning its ceramic roots?
@ Davidski and all (x Rich S)
"Don't know if anyone has mentioned this here yet, but apparently what that new Nalchik sample actually does is splits a new branch off of L389 characterized by R1b-BY15337, with V1636 underneath it, as seen in this screenshot Göran Runström posted at the FTDNA R1b Project Facebook group (see the link below). So now, instead of P297 and V1636 as the two sibling branches under L389, they are P297 and BY15337.
https://postimg.cc/zL2xpZYk"
This fact, as I said above, i.e. R-BY15337+/V1636- just demonstrates what I said above, that these samples from eastern Europe and around the Caucasus aren't the ancestors of the survived subclades and demonstrate an old dispersal probably from the Baltic and before from the Alpine region where the Villabrunas lived.
@DragonHermit
"I've been suspecting for a while that Proto-Anatolians were simply an Indo-Europeanized people somewhere around the Caucasus. And they got Indo-Europeanized by some eastern cousin branch of the Yamnaya."
I think the same, but over the Balkans because we see a very clear exchange of culture with West-Anatolia there, back and forth, and we see Steppe cultural influence popping up early enough. The area saw a collapse at the end of the Chalcolithic and a resurrection where there is clear Steppe ancestry popping up as well places which form part of the resurrection horizon with no Steppen ancestry. Troas and NW Anatolia also collapsed and resurrected in the same time.
There also is a good vector for the spread inland: The Great Caravan Route as suggested by Turan Efe.
It all fits. The timeline for the disintegration of proto-Anatolian made by Alwin Kloekhorst fits as well.
Nalchik sample is irrelevant, same age as ANI163 the R1b-M269 from Bulgaira.
A Caucasus route is generally not favoured by recent subject matter experts (Alvise Matessi's chapter on this is a worthwhile read). It does not provide a harmonious explanation for the historic distribution of either indo-european or non-indo-european languages found in Anatolian or West-Asia at large. Anatolian (the language family) has noticeably greater diversity further west.
Probably the only real data point in favour of the east is the mention of "Armi" in the Ebla tablets, which is plausibly referring to Cilicia ~2400BC, which in any case is consistent enough with the what the other data tells us is more realistic (a Balkan route).
There is one relevant sample from Isparta ~2450BC which doesn't have any especially strong Balkan signal. Unfortunately our sampling of Anatolia is very concentrated in the SE cities.
I seem to get ~ 30% Vinca signal (proximal) and 3% EHG (distal) for Isparta.
Barcin C has ~ 15% steppe eneolithic ancestry
Ilipinar has Yhg H2 nestesnwithin EEF
Yassitepe has I2a-M223
Etc
Post a Comment