A new
preprint at
bioRxiv by Kerdoncuff et al. makes the following, somewhat surprising, claim:
One of the individuals, referred to Sarazm_EN_1 (I4290) described above that was discovered with shell bangles showing affiliation with South Asia, has significant amount AHG-related ancestry, while a model without AHG-related ancestry provides the best fit for Sarazm_EN_2 (I4210) (Table S4.5).
First of all, the authors are actually referring to sample ID I4910 not I4210.
The aforementioned table, based on qpAdm output, shows that I4290 has 15.9% AHG-related ancestry and basically no Anatolian farmer-related ancestry. It also shows that I4910 has no AHG-related ancestry but 17.9% Anatolian farmer-related ancestry.
AHG stands for Andaman hunter-gatherer. The authors are using it as a proxy for South Asian hunter-gatherer ancestry.
However, I've looked at I4290 and I4910 in great detail over the years using ADMIXTURE, Principal Component Analysis (PCA), and qpAdm. And I'm quite certain that they do not show any obvious, above noise level South Asian ancestry. Indeed, I'd say that if they do have some minor South Asian ancestry, then I4910 probably has more of it than I4290.
Kerdoncuff et al. used the following "right pops" or outgroups: Ethiopia_4500BP.SG, WEHG, EEHG, ESHG, Dai.DG, Russia_Ust_Ishim_HG.DG, Iran_Mesolithic_BeltCave and Israel_Natufian.
This means they mixed data that were generated in very different ways (DG, SG and capture) and included some poor quality samples. For instance, the highest coverage version of Iran_Mesolithic_BeltCave offers just ~50K SNPs.
Mixing different types of data and relying on low coverage samples, even in part, often has negative consequences when using qpAdm. So I suspect that the above mentioned mixture results for I4290 are skewed by a poor choice of outgroups.
When I run qpAdm I try to stick to one type of data and avoid low quality singletons in the outgroups. This is the best qpAdm model that I can find for Sarazm_EN:
right pops:
Cameroon_SMA
Morocco_Iberomaurusian
Israel_Natufian
Levant_N
Iran_GanjDareh_N
Turkey_N
Russia_Karelia_HG
Russia_WestSiberia_HG
Mongolia_North_N
Brazil_LapaDoSanto_9600BP
Sarazm_EN
Kazakhstan_Botai_Eneolithic 0.113±0.017
Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur_subset 0.887±0.017
P-value 0.06392
Sarazm_EN_1 (I4290)
Kazakhstan_Botai_Eneolithic 0.129±0.021
Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur_subset 0.871±0.021
P-value 0.11019
Sarazm_EN_2 (I4910)
Kazakhstan_Botai_Eneolithic 0.104±0.021
Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur_subset 0.896±0.021
P-value 0.07427
Also...
Sarazm_EN
Andaman_hunter-gatherer -0.018±0.020
Kazakhstan_Botai_Eneolithic 0.123±0.019
Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur_subset 0.895±0.020
P-value 0.0298403
(Infeasible model)
Please note that Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur_subset is made up of just three relatively high quality individuals: I8504, I12483 and I12487. That's because it's not possible to model the ancestry of Sarazm_EN using the full Geoksyur set, probably due to subtle genetic substructures within the latter.
Below is a PCA plot that, more or less, reflects my qpAdm model. I4290 and I4910 are sitting right next to each other in a cluster of ancient Central and Western Asians, and it's actually I4910 that is shifted slightly towards the South Asian pole of the PCA. Indeed, I can confidently say that there's no way to design a PCA in which I4290 is shifted significantly towards South Asia relative to I4910.
Citation...
Kerdoncuff et al.,
50,000 years of Evolutionary History of India: Insights from ∼2,700 Whole Genome Sequences,
bioRxiv, posted February 20, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.02.15.580575
See also...
The Nalchik surprise
A comedy of errors
561 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 561 Newer› Newest»EthanR
I don't really understand what you're talking about, but I'm afraid you're not confident in the range of knowledge we're using in this discussion.
The Slavic branch is not the ancestor of the Baltic branch, so where the oldest Baltic hydronyms are, there were no Slavs before the Balts.
The greatest diversity of R1a occurs in the Polish population.
A mutation in the Y chromosome is a random event that is more likely to occur in a larger than a smaller population. Thus, the probability occurrence of mutations in ten male offspring is many times greater than in one. Similarly, ten rolls of the dice give many times greater probability of hitting a given number than one roll of the dice. It is enough to compare the huge R1b diversity in densely populated Western Europe with the relatively very low R1a diversity in sparsely populated Eastern Europe.
The parallel appearance of specific Slavic and Baltic innovations in distant dialectal areas of late PIE, considered by some linguists to be the Balto-Slavic stage, has no direct connection with each other.
Арсен
Target: Baltic_EST_BA
Distance: 0.4693% / 0.00469294
52.2 Balto-Slavic_HG
25.6 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
15.2 TUR_Barcin_N
6.0 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
0.4 BRA_LapaDoSanto_9600BP
0.2 LAO_Hoabinhian
0.2 MAR_Taforalt
0.2 WHG
Target: Ukrainian_Donetsk
Distance: 2.2232% / 0.02223195
32.6 Balto-Slavic_HG
29.8 TUR_Barcin_N
27.6 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
7.4 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
1.6 CHN_Yellow_River_LN
0.6 RUS_Yakutia_Ymyiakhtakh_LN
0.4 BRA_LapaDoSanto_9600BP
Target: Russian_Smolensk
Distance: 1.9732% / 0.01973244
34.8 Balto-Slavic_HG
29.2 TUR_Barcin_N
28.6 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
6.2 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
1.2 CHN_Yellow_River_LN
Target: Belarusian
Distance: 1.8459% / 0.01845942
35.0 Balto-Slavic_HG
31.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
30.0 TUR_Barcin_N
2.8 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
1.2 CHN_Yellow_River_LN
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_KeHrFghOo
I have been saying for so long that the closest language I found to Sumerian was Ladakhi as to the structure, i.e. a Sino-Tibetan language of Himalaya. This video that I see only now seems to give reason to me.
which article describes the sample from Romania I6184, the information I found indicates the age is 6-5 thousand years BC, it seems like an erroneous dating, otherwise I can’t explain it
I6184 6000-5300 BCE ROU_Trestiana_BA Trestiana Romania R-M417 R1a1a1 H15a1a1
Target: Romania_Mesolithic_Neolithic:I6184
Distance: 3.8059% / 0.03805936
55.2 Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic
22.2 Scandinavian_Hunter-Gatherer
15.4 Early_European_Farmer
7.2 Eastern_Hunter-Gatherer
Target: GEO_Kotias_Klde_Meso:KK1
Distance: 6.7356% / 0.06735645
66.2 GEO_Satsurblia_HG
17.2 IRN_Tepe_Abdul_Hosein_N
11.6 TUR_Pinarbasi_HG
5.0 RUS_Sidelkino_HG
Target: GEO_Kotias_Klde_Meso:NEO281
Distance: 5.2365% / 0.05236523
63.4 GEO_Satsurblia_HG
23.6 IRN_Tepe_Abdul_Hosein_N
9.8 TUR_Pinarbasi_HG
3.2 RUS_Sidelkino_HG
@Ambron if your take is that communities deep into Poland are the literal and direct ancestors of Slavs circa 1750-1500bc, and you fail to understand how that may (almost certainly)have implications as to the origin of the Balts, then I think it is you who needs to put some effort in to familiarize yourself with the topic.
Even if you completely ignore the Baltic part of the equation, the idea that there is unbroken continuity from Polish Trzciniec to modern Poles wouod be problematic for the reasons several people here have mentioned.
The data as a whole necessitates a more complicated picture than what you have proposed.
It looks like this is actually an erroneously dated sample, it’s a miracle that with the help of a population genetics tool it is possible to determine whether a sample is reliably dated, thank you again for your contribution to population genetics Davidski
Target: Romania_Mesolithic_Neolithic:I6184__BC_5650__Cov_19.62%
Distance: 1.7065% / 0.01706462 | R5P
38.8 Russia_Afanasievo
26.8 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
18.2 Czech_EBA_Unetice
14.0 UKR_N_Mamaj_Gora
2.2 Vanuatu_150BP
@Gabru
I don’t know, it seems to me that these are erroneous coordinates for Satsurblia, on many PCA graphs of different articles, Kotias and Satsurblia are located very close to each other, and on the ADMIXTURE graphs
plus I have Satsurblia with coordinates very similar to Kotias, I don’t know which of these coordinates is correct
@PCA_010
this guy reviewed PES001 today, various mixtures on different calculators, disease phenotype, etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PArHu0Ney14&ab_channel=AndreiDNA
@Davidski I haven't seen coordinates for these ancient Mongolia samples
published last month. Can you please run them? Samples are already in EIGENSTRAT format
https://edmond.mpg.de/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.17617/3.DDZCWN
Ambron:
“The Slavic branch is not the ancestor of the Baltic branch, so where the oldest Baltic hydronyms are, there were no Slavs before the Balts.”
It depends on how old the Baltic placenames actually are. There were apparently several Baltic expansions, because there is an Old Latgallian loanword layer even in Mordvin, but also some older Baltic loanwords. The so-called Baltic placenames should be reconsidered on the basis of modern view: a more complex history of Balto-Slavic expansions than was thought earlier (extinct easternmost Baltic, Para-Slavic, and archaic Balto-Slavic loanwords in the West Uralic branches).
Ambron:
“A mutation in the Y chromosome is a random event that is more likely to occur in a larger than a smaller population. Thus, the probability occurrence of mutations in ten male offspring is many times greater than in one.”
Absolutely true.
Ambron:
“The parallel appearance of specific Slavic and Baltic innovations in distant dialectal areas of late PIE, considered by some linguists to be the Balto-Slavic stage, has no direct connection with each other.”
What do you mean by this? Balto-Slavic stage (as an intermediary proto-language) is generally accepted. Even though some innovations have spread areally (the Ruki-rule, satemization), they cannot disprove the ancient shared innovations in phonology, accentuation, morphology, syntax and lexicon; see Pronk 2022: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/indoeuropean-language-family/baltoslavic/5BF5813373849DD7D99E7D65BC40B943
Jeong 2024...
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zCVXV-NXpjsv97KG4wF8KpCXhHliUmhH/view?usp=sharing
@Davidski What is this ? Are these samples somehow related to the early nomadic Avars?
RE placenames. These have to be interpreted very cautiously. Theyre not a simple mirror into the past, even if we assume their etymology is correct. As Botolv Helleland summarises - ''New names may be coined at any time, as old names sometimes fall out of use and become obsolete. And over time the places to which the names refer may change''
Distance to: GD1-1:GD1-1
0.02822404 HUN_Avar_Early:CSPF-114__AD_593
0.03071557 MNG_Dornod_Late_Medieval:TSA005__AD_1250
0.03112034 MNG_Slab_Grave_EIA_1:I6365__BC_794
0.03161966 RUS_Buryatia_Xiongnu:IMA001__BC_50
0.03394807 HUN_Avar_Early_Danube-Tisza:A1816__AD_650
0.03492658 HUN_Avar_Early_Danube-Tisza:A1821__AD_650
0.03555491 RUS_Late_Xiongnu:IMA002__BC_50
0.03688919 HUN_Avar_Early_Danube-Tisza:A1819__AD_650
0.03757411 MNG_Sukhbaatar_Late_Medieval:SHG002__AD_1250
0.03891080 MNG_Slab_Grave_EIA_1:I13963__BC_879
0.04058388 HUN_Avar_Early:KFP-31__AD_650
0.04112821 HUN_Avar_Early_Danube-Tisza:I18743__AD_637
0.04141860 HUN_Avar_Early_Danube-Tisza:A1802__AD_650
0.04155324 KAZ_Hun-Sarmatian:DA20__BC_274
@Арсен
Yes, I6184 is a sample most likely dating from 2700 to 1700 BC. It is not the only misdated sample; there are others as well.
@Stefano
"they have finally published the samples from the Seminario Vescovile (SV, Verona, North Italy 3rd-1st c. BCE), belonging to Cenomani Gauls.
https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB63352?show=related-records
Can we please have the g25 coordinates for them?
They are the first proper Cisalpine Gaul samples."
Would be interesting indeed. But these are BAM files which Davidski AFAIK doesn't process. Someone would have to create genotype data files from them first.
From https://www.biostars.org/p/9499276/
"You must use a genotype caller in order to obtain genotypes from a .bam file. It's not possible to 'convert' .bam to genotypes.
There's a lot of options, but maybe using bcftools is the most simple."
Another manual:
https://gaworkshop.readthedocs.io/en/latest/contents/04_genotyping/genotyping.html
EthanR
What I am saying is that the Polish population of Trzciniec is most likely the literal and direct source of the ancestors of modern Poles. The only consequences of this fact for the origin of the Balts are that the Suvalkia population of the Trzciniec culture (Turlojiskie) was the probable source of their ancestors.
sample: Sarazm En:Median
distance: 2.7793776919999997
Parkhai_En • Average: 74.2
TTK: 12.8
Georgia_KotiasSG: 7.4
Tarim_EMBA1 • Average: 5.6
@Ambron
I find it doubtful that a culture beginning ~1800BC already represents the dissolution of balto-slavic, when most estimates fall within the range of 1500-800BC (Thorsø, Kortlandt, Blažek, Bouckaert among others).
Spiginas 2 itself dates to ~1900BC.
@ Davidski
Have you caught hint of any upcoming Bronze Age Y-haplogroup I1 specimens ?
@ Rob
how do the theories of toponyms & paleolinguistics gel with archaeology, DNA and Saamiland ?
EthanR
The Trzciniec culture dates back to 1900-1000 BC. The Polish Trzciniec samples we are talking about here are dated to 1600-1300 BC.
Jaakko
After the separation of other linguistic branches, only the Balto-Slavic branch remained in the Indo-European dialectal area. Therefore, late PIE can be identified with the stage of the Balto-Slavic linguistic community, as suggested by many linguists, including Pronk you quoted. Whereas, the late PIE dialects are attributed to the CWC population.
Therefore, Balto-Slavic loanwords in Uralic may originate from the CWC. Baltic loanwords are not surprising, since the Baltic linguistic homeland was located on the upper Dnieper and upper Volga. However, Proto-Slavic loanwords come from the Imienkovo population, which came from the Chernyakhov culture, i.e. originally the Wielbark culture.
OT: https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB73566
"Evidence for dynastic succession among early Celtic elites" - "The early Iron Age in France, Germany, and Switzerland, known as the West-Hallstattkreis, stands out as featuring the earliest evidence for supra-regional organisation north of the Alps. Often referred to as ‘early Celtic‘, suggesting tentative connections to later cultural phenomena, its societal and population structure remain enigmatic. Here, we present genomic and isotope data from 31 individuals from this context. We identify three biologically related groups spanning multiple elite burials as far as 100 km apart, supported by transregional individual mobility inferred from isotope data. These include a close biological relationship between two of the richest burial mounds of the Hallstatt culture. Bayesian modelling points to an avuncular relationship between the two individuals, which may suggest a practice of matrilineal dynastic succession in early Celtic elites. We show that their ancestry is shared on a broad geographic scale from Iberia throughout Central-Eastern Europe, undergoing decline after the late Iron Age."
@Davidski Do the samples have the same genetic profile as the BMAC ones? After all, both BMAC and Sarazm_EN have combined genetic influences of Iran_N, WSHG and Anatolian Neolithic Farmers.
@ Jaerl
'how do the theories of toponyms & paleolinguistics gel with archaeology, DNA and Saamiland''
Toponyms can't be dated with certainty and theyre not as steaedy as some people like to think.
Fino-Uralic was already at the door of Fenno-Scandia by 1500 BC, in Kola peninsula, there's no doubt about that. They are a mix of 'local' hunter-gatherers and Uralic-speaking Siberians, so they either spoke an early form of west Uralic, or the HG-linked "paleo'' languages, but probably both (which is what happens which different people meet and form a settlement). The claims that these people spoke Evenks or Inuit are simply moronic.
So if Uralic speakers were in Kola already by 1500 BC, why would they stop dead in their tracks and not move on further west into Finland & Scandinavia ? I think its certainly a possibility, even if the group from Bolshoi Oleni itself became locally extinct and/or were not directly ancestral to Sámi. Carpelan, amongst others, made a proposal that eastern Finland vegane to be settled by Uralic speakers during the MLBA, associated with this or that groups associated with the netted-ware koine. Probably, but only archaeogenetics will give us specifics of time & direction. Certainly, the presence of I1 and R1a in Saami betray long and profound contacts with Nordic groups, and even that many Nordic individuals became subsumed within Saami society as they joined their lifestyle. However, many earlier studies are irrelevant as they talk about Ice Age spreads mtDNA U and HV, now obselete concepts which have nothing directly to do with Sami.
However, some linguists (e.g. Ante Aikio) have proposed a much later expansion of Saami, i.e Scandinavian Iron Age, followed by an even later Finnish one. This is largely based on the analysis of proto-Scandinavian loans in Saami, which diffussed during an already fragmenting Saami language community. The problem is his dating is far too young, as he simply assumes that 'proto-Norse' dates to 300 AD. He also apparently finds it inconceivable for them to have occurred in the MLBA as he believes that there is no evidence for a Germanic presence in northern FennoScandia so early. However, once again, the data from BOO resoundly disproves this (where some individuals bear Nordic artefacts in their grave), and there are Nordic Bronze Age sites in central-northern Sweden. So there is a nuanced difference between presence of Germanic contacts (which is what we need) and actual Germanic people. And if proto-Germanic had formed by c. 1800 bc, then Norse is probably considerably older than the 0-500 AD figure he quotes. Moreover, his model of Saami expansion during a period of 'archaeological invisibility' is an uncompelling model. Arguements ex silensio are the lowest rung of the ladder. He is also apparently not very familiar with the archaeology of FInland, as he makes proposterous claims that there is 'archaeological continuity' between the Ice Age and Bronze Age. Like other FInnish linguists, the entire framework is outdated, skewed and unfamiliar with current data.
Finally, some some naive linguists subscribe to the 'nihilistic school' which has very poor understanding of anthropology, under which historical linguistics is subsumed. They simply parrotted now irrelevant cliches garnared from a certain group of western Anglophone historians who made proclamations that ancient peoples were incapable of sharing a sense of identity and there was no correlation between culture, language & genes, citing some bullshit and now disproven examples. Their entire premise was unscientific and perhced on an arrogant philosophical pedestal of decolonizalization and nihilism, as useful idiots for the atomization of traditional society and creation of new world order led by globalist Banker reptilians.
One of the new German Unetice samples appears to be R-Z93
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-Z2123/tree
He clusters among the others.
haplo of the Kazikumukh and Tarkov shamkhals, as expected, they are of autochthonous origin and not “alien” (Arab Syrian Turkic, etc.) as many authors are trying to impose on us
https://www.yfull.com/live/tree/J-Y164549/
Ambron:
“After the separation of other linguistic branches, only the Balto-Slavic branch remained in the Indo-European dialectal area. Therefore, late PIE can be identified with the stage of the Balto-Slavic linguistic community, as suggested by many linguists, including Pronk you quoted. Whereas, the late PIE dialects are attributed to the CWC population.”
What do you try to say here? Nobody identifies LPIE with Proto-Balto-Slavic, because the latter is a descendant of the former. Pronk: “All linguistic evidence points to a Balto-Slavic proto-language that must have existed for a significant period after the disintegration of Proto-Indo-European.”
Ambron:
“Therefore, Balto-Slavic loanwords in Uralic may originate from the CWC. Baltic loanwords are not surprising, since the Baltic linguistic homeland was located on the upper Dnieper and upper Volga. However, Proto-Slavic loanwords come from the Imienkovo population, which came from the Chernyakhov culture, i.e. originally the Wielbark culture.”
Proto-Balto-Slavic is much later than CWC, so the Balto-Slavic loanwords naturally cannot originate from the CWC.
Jaerl:
“@ Rob how do the theories of toponyms & paleolinguistics gel with archaeology, DNA and Saamiland ?”
Rob has no competence to reply to that question, because he cannot understand the evidentiary value and independence of different disciplines. He erroneously believes that he can see language from the DNA, which we all know is impossible, because language is not inherited in the DNA.
Any theory concerning language must always take the linguistic results as the starting point. Only after that we can try to find matches for them from the genetic or archaeological data. Here are some relevant linguistic results:
1. Northernmost Fennoscandia became Saami-speaking only less than 2000 years ago. We know this, because Late Proto-Saami is dated ca. 200 CE based on Germanic/Scandinavian loanword layers.
2. Before that, unknown Paleo-European languages were spoken there. There are hundreds of loanwords and placenames in the Saami languages borrowed from these lost languages. These contain non-Uralic phonotactic features, and because many of them show secondary vowel combinations which cannot derive from any vowel combination before Late Proto-Saami, we know how late these borrowings are.
3. Ca. 2000 BCE, when the Siberian migration to the Kola Peninsula occurred, there were no Uralic speakers anywhere near North Siberia.
Therefore, it is impossible to claim that the BOO people spoke a Uralic language. The only ignorants, who still keep saying this, live in a fantasy world where language is inherited in the DNA. But we all know that there are similar ancestries in people speaking different languages, and different ancestries in people speaking related languages.
I am not saying that there could not be a genetic continuum from the BOO people to the modern Saami – that is of course possible, if genetic methods can confirm that. But even this could not mean that the Saami language was also inherited from the BOO people, because we already know that it was not.
The ignorant troll here cannot even understand the difference between distant Pre-Proto-Germanic ca. 1800 BCE and Late Proto-Germanic in the last centuries BCE. Moreover, that troll claims to know that when there were contacts between BOO and Scandinavian culture, they must represent the contacts between Saami and Germanic/Nordic languages. Ridiculous claims which ignore all the linguistic results and replace them with the unreliable method of dice-rolling. Do not feed the troll.
Just one favor @davidski
Can you check if this works in qpadm
Target: Burusho
Distance: 1.7000% / 0.01700030
40.8 Kyrgyzstan_TianShan_Hun.SG
40.4 Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2
18.8 Uzbekistan_Dzharkutan_BA_1
I really don't see how anyone takes archaeogenetics seriously as a science these days. We've got Reich and co who are the definition of "big fish in a small pond" and a complete dependence on (sequencing) technology driven by lucrative medical applications.
Sports statisticians are more reliable than any of the peer reviewers for archaeogenetics papers and this blog is one of the only sober accounts while Nature will publish rigorously sequenced genomes attached to fanfic quality analysis.
Is there any defense of the discipline as a whole? I'm truly trying not to be negative but this is supposed to be a scientific discipline.
Target: Burusho
Distance: 1.7474% / 0.01747378
59.8 Pakistan_Katelai_IA
40.2 Kyrgyzstan_TianShan_Hun.SG
Basically non-steppe swat_IA (<5% steppe_mlba) + Hun profile for Burusho....
Target: Pakistan_Katelai_IA:I12446
Distance: 2.0734% / 0.02073433
64.8 Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2
15.4 Turkmenistan_Gonur_BA_1
14.4 Tajikistan_C_Sarazm
4.6 Kazakhstan_MLBA_Dali
0.8 Mongolia_EIA_SlabGrave_1
Target: Pakistan_Katelai_IA:I12460
Distance: 2.3092% / 0.02309213
73.2 Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2
19.4 Turkmenistan_Gonur_BA_1
5.8 Kazakhstan_MLBA_Dali
1.6 Mongolia_EIA_SlabGrave_1
Target: Pakistan_Katelai_IA:I5399
Distance: 2.7931% / 0.02793105
75.4 Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2
19.6 Turkmenistan_Gonur_BA_1
3.0 Mongolia_EIA_SlabGrave_1
2.0 Kazakhstan_MLBA_Dali
Target: Burusho
Distance: 1.7474% / 0.01747378
59.8 Pakistan_Katelai_IA
40.2 Kyrgyzstan_TianShan_Hun.SG
Jaakko
Pronk:
"If we take away the innovations that characterize Baltic and Slavic as individual branches, we are left with a language that is both phonologically and morphologically still quite close to reconstructed Proto-Indo-European. If the Balto-Slavic proto-language is associated with the (earlier phases of the) Middle Dnieper culture, which seems reasonable, the split between Baltic and Slavic can be dated no later than the beginning of the second millennium BCE. The period of shared innovations would then have been up to 1,500 years, which does not seem to be too short or too long for the number of innovations that must have taken place."
Wikipedia:
"The Middle Dnieper culture (Russian: Среднеднепро́вская культу́ра, romanized: Sriedniednieprovskaya kul'tura) is a formative early expression of the Corded Ware culture,[1] ca. 3200—2300 BC, of northern Ukraine and Belarus."
Thus, Balto-Slavic loanwords into Uralic undoubtedly originate from the CWC.
@ Tea
''I really don't see how anyone takes archaeogenetics seriously as a science these days. We've got Reich and co who are the definition of "big fish in a small pond" and a complete dependence on (sequencing) technology driven by lucrative medical applications.''
The biostats designed by Patterson are genius. The shortfalls are errors of synthesis - running before they can walk. Ie not spending decades to first learn history, archaeology, linguistics and then adapting DNA.
That makes them reliant on being 'informed' by archaeologists and linguists who have their own pony to shine. That's why there are people whove made the effort to learn enough about all of those components, so they can critique and break it down.
Without DNA, there'd be theoreticians still claiming that Corded Ware was a 'fashion', being Gothic was a 'state of mind', or that Uralic comes from the western regions (as one moron here is still doing).
@Tea
"Is there any defense of the discipline as a whole? I'm truly trying not to be negative but this is supposed to be a scientific discipline."
I could not agree more with your comment here, my viewpoint over the last few years have developed into the same direction. Hell my own blog is a testament to this because most of my posts nowadays are just ragging on poorly written DNA articles related to topics I know a thing or two about....
Tea: "I really don't see how anyone takes archaeogenetics seriously as a science these days. We've got Reich and co who are the definition of "big fish in a small pond" and a complete dependence on (sequencing) technology driven by lucrative medical applications."
I think archaeogenetics/paleogenomics is actually quite good; people contrasting amateurs and professionals, with some kind of general paranoia about "experts" and the quality of the universities, are not really thinking about the degree to which amateurs are simply using methods like f-statistics or PCA projection that exist fundamentally because of Reich Lab and other pioneers.
But there is a problem with peer review process at the moment does not exist to cross check individual models that are only a small part of a given paper.
You do get large papers like Mair et al 2022 ("On the limits of fitting complex models of population history to f-statistics") or Harnet et al 2021 ("Assessing the performance of qpAdm: a statistical tool for studying population admixture") that call into question how robust the methods are in a general sense. But there is no layer of real cross-checking of particular population models at the peer review stage as far as I know.
This peer review would in theory come from counter-publishing that contradicts the published papers - but this happens relatively rarely in this field. For example when Goldberg published her paper on sex-bias in Central European Bronze Age, Lazaridis published "Failure to replicate a genetic signal for sex bias in the steppe migration into central Europe" which identified some methodological problems with that paper.
But most such problems hit the issue that they are "Too big for peer review" but also "Too small for a new paper".
@ Jasko
Let's see- you fudged a theory of a western origin of Uralic due to your own percievd inferiority complex, got resoundly disproven (including by other linguists) and now spend your days crying like a bitch on the internet.
To top your own stupidy, you're taunting someone has far greater understanding of reality than you ever can cope for.
We're accustomed to your perseverating strawmen (''you cant see language from the DNA"), which is a woefully agrammatical construct for a 'linguist'.
But herein I had predicated your linguistic cliches:
1. Aikio's proto-Norse dating is an absolute terminus post quem. The idea that Germanic languages only began to split into regional dialects in 200 AD is horseshit.
2. I stated that BOO could be a dead end, but undoubtedly comes from a body of Uralic speakers at least in part.
3. Your claims that you can precisely date language by loan words and toponyms is also horseshit, as no serious linguist pretends to do so and you cannot carbon date when the paleo-lapplandic toponyms were replaced by Sami by your exclusively ''special linguistic methods'.
'The only ignorants, who still keep saying this, live in a fantasy world where language is inherited in the DNA. ''
What you fail and/or don't want to realise, is that language is special cultural feature one learns from parents, family, clan, tribe, who also impart their DNA.
I get that you're an incel, but you should learn about the Birds & the Bees
No dice rolling, the only common denominator amongst the Uralic family is north Siberian ancestry. Virtually everybody in the world gets that apart from you, Troll.
@Matt
No, unfortunately, the problem is that the professionals don't really know how to use tools like formal stats, PCA projection and IBD to get accurate results in many cases, especially when looking at fine scale ancestry.
Another problem is that they often don't know how to interpret their results correctly even when they get things right.
Yet another problem is that they don't know much about archeology.
See that's why we've got people like David Reich peddling some nonsense that the kurgan burial tradition came from West Asia and that the Yamnaya population/culture was founded by these West Asian kurgan culture bearers.
What paper or talk did Reich say that one in? I find it hard to imagine he'd say that without a citation from the archaeological literature given his general style in the papers I've read.
@Matt
It's in his book. And unfortunately I've seen his book cited in peer reviewed work.
Apart from that, the aforementioned problems that these professionals are still grappling with have led to a body of peer reviewed work spanning a decade arguing that there were waves after waves of human migrations from West Asia into Eastern Europe across the Caucasus.
But of course, there is sill no direct evidence of these migrations in ancient DNA.
That seems accurate now I check, and a reasonable question mark.
David Reich: "The profound transformation in culture that began with the Yamnaya is obvious to many archaeologists of the steppe. The increase in the intensity of the human use of the steppe lands coincided wiTha nearly complete disappearance of permanent settlements—almost all the structures that the Yamnaya left behind were graves, huge mounds of earth called kurgans. Sometimes people were buried in kurgans with wagons and horses, highlighting the importance of horses to their lifestyle. The wheel and horse so profoundly altered the economy that they led to the abandonment of village life. People lived on the move, in ancient versions of mobile homes."
"Prior to the explosion of ancient DNA data in 2015, most archaeologists found it inconceivable that the genetic changes associated with the spread of the Yamnaya culture could be as dramatic as the archaeological changes. Even the archaeologist David Anthony, a leading proponent of the idea that the spread of Yamnaya culture was transformative in the history of Eurasia, could not bring himself to suggest that its spread was driven by mass migration. Instead, he proposed that most aspects of Yamnaya culture spread through imitation and proselytization."
"But the genetics showed otherwise. Our analysis of DNA from the Yamnaya—led by Iosif Lazaridis in my laboratory—showed that they harbored a combination of ancestries that did not previously exist in central Europe. The Yamnaya were the missing ingredient, carrying exactly the type of ancestry that needed to be added to early European farmers and hunter-gatherers to produce populations with the mixture of ancestries observed in Europe today."
"Our ancient DNA data also allowed us to learn how the Yamnaya themselves had formed from earlier populations. From seven thousand until five thousand years ago" (5000 BCE to 3000 BCE) ", we observed a steady influx into the steppe of a population whose ancestors traced their origin to the south—as it bore genetic affinity to ancient and present-day people of Armenia and Iran—eventually crystallizing in the Yamnaya, who were about a one-to-one ratio of ancestry from these two sources."
"A good guess is that the migration proceeded via the Caucasus isthmus between the Black and Caspian seas. Ancient DNA data produced by Wolfgang Haak, Johannes Krause, and their colleagues have shown that the populations of the northern Caucasus had ancestry of this type continuing up until the time of the Maikop culture, which just preceded the Yamnaya."
"The evidence that people of the Maikop culture or the people who proceeded them in the Caucasus made a genetic contribution to the Yamnaya is not surprising in light of the cultural influence the Maikop had on the Yamnaya. Not only did the Maikop pass on to the Yamnaya their technology of carts, but they were also the first to build the kurgans that characterized the steppe cultures for thousands of years afterward. The penetration of Maikop lands by Iranian-and Armenian-related ancestry from the south is also plausible in light of studies showing that Maikop goods were heavily influenced by elements of the Uruk civilization of Mesopotamia to the south, which was poor in metal resources and engaged in trade and exchange with the north as reflected in Uruk goods found in settlements of the northern Caucasus.
Whatever cultural process allowed the people from the south to have such a demographic impact, once the Yamnaya formed, their descendants expanded in all directions."
Whereas David Anthony argued (in "The Horse, The Wheel..." that):
"Early Sredni Stog probably began around 4400 BCE; late Sredni Stog probably lasted until 3400 BCE in some places on the Dnieper.
The origin of the Sredni Stog culture is poorly understood, but people from the east, perhaps from the Volga steppes, apparently played a role. Round- bottomed Sredni Stog shell- tempered pots were quite diff erent from DDII pots of the Early Eneolithic, which were sand- tempered and fl at- based (see fi gure 9.5). ...
Sredni Stog funeral rituals also were new. The new Sredni Stog burial posture (on the back wiThthe knees raised) and standard orientation (head to the east- northeast) copied that of the Khvalynsk culture on the Volga (fi gure 11.8). The communal collective grave pits of DDII were abandoned. Individual single graves took their place. Cemeteries also became much smaller. The DDII cemetery near Dereivka had contained 173 individuals, most of them in large communal grave pits. The Sredni Stog cemetery near Dereivka contained only 12 graves, all single burials. Sredni Stog communities probably were smaller and more mobile. Graves had no surface marker, as at Dereivka, or exhibited a new surface treatment: some were surrounded by a small circle of stones and covered by a low stone or earth mound—a very modest kurgan—as at Kvityana or Maiorka. These probably were the earliest kurgans in the steppes. Stone circles and mounds were features that isolated and emphasized individuals. The shift from a communal funeral ritual to an individual ritual probably was a symptom of broader changes toward more openly self- aggrandizing social values, which were also reflected in a series of rich graves of the Suvorovo- Novodanilovka type discussed separately below.
Sredni Stog skull types also exhibited new traits. The DDII population had been a single homogeneous type, with a very broad, thick- boned face of the Proto- Europoid configuration.
Sredni Stog populations included people with a more gracile bone structure and medium- width faces that showed the strongest statistical similarity to the Khvalynsk population.
Immigrants from the Volga seem to have arrived in the Dnieper- Azov steppes at the beginning of the shift from DDII to Sredni Stog, instigating changes in both funeral customs and pottery making. Perhaps they arrived on horse back."
David Reich has since put his name on this paper that correctly puts the earliest kurgans in Eastern Europe (Suvorovo culture).
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/pz-2022-2034/html?lang=en
But that's not really a correction.
Is this model any good?
Target: Ror
Distance: 1.0128% / 0.01012791
47.0 Pakistan_Katelai_IA
33.6 Tajikistan_BA_DashtiKozy
19.4 Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2
Target: Tajikistan_BA_DashtiKozy:I4258
Distance: 0.9802% / 0.00980247
94.8 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
5.2 Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2
Target: Tajikistan_BA_DashtiKozy:I4257
Distance: 1.5798% / 0.01579814
90.6 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
9.4 Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2
Target: Tajikistan_BA_DashtiKozy:I4160
Distance: 1.9265% / 0.01926474
83.4 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
16.6 Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2
Target: Ukraine_EBA_Yamnaya
Distance: 3.2340% / 0.03233971 | R4P
53.6 Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic
35.2 UKR_Cernavodă_I_En
5.6 RUS_Meso
5.6 RUS_N_MiddleDon_Golubaya_Krinitsa
Target: Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya
Distance: 2.2724% / 0.02272443 | R4P
48.2 Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic
34.4 UKR_Cernavodă_I_En
10.4 RUS_N_MiddleDon_Golubaya_Krinitsa
7.0 RUS_N_Pogostishche_I
Target: Russia_Kalmykia_EBA_Yamnaya.SG
Distance: 2.3739% / 0.02373936 | R4P
50.0 Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic
35.4 UKR_Cernavodă_I_En
14.6 RUS_N_Pogostishche_I
Target: Russia_EBA_Yamnaya_o
Distance: 2.6934% / 0.02693387 | R4P
75.4 Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic
13.6 UKR_Cernavodă_I_En
6.6 Russia_AfontovaGora3
4.4 Iran_N
Target: Russia_Caucasus_EBA_Yamnaya
Distance: 1.8423% / 0.01842254 | R4P
70.4 Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic
18.2 UKR_Cernavodă_I_En
8.6 RUS_N_Volosovo_Sakhtish_II
2.8 RUS_Nalchik_En
Target: Kazakhstan_EBA_Yamnaya.SG
Distance: 3.2356% / 0.03235560 | R4P
47.4 Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic
36.4 UKR_Cernavodă_I_En
10.8 RUS_N_Pogostishche_I
5.4 RUS_Meso
Target: Russia_Afanasievo.SG
Distance: 2.5588% / 0.02558773 | R4P
53.2 Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic
34.0 UKR_Cernavodă_I_En
12.8 RUS_N_Pogostishche_I
Target: Russia_Afanasievo
Distance: 2.5582% / 0.02558151 | R4P
61.0 Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic
32.4 UKR_Cernavodă_I_En
4.4 RUS_N_Volosovo_Sakhtish_II
2.2 RUS_N_Pogostishche_I
https://youtu.be/ceS_jkKjIgo?si=E_2zn24XqWXX2tEg
I don’t know, it’s impossible to create a Yamnaya people with the help of two ghostly populations, like chg and ehg, many different groups of the same pastoralists of the Russian plain took part in their ethnogenesis, the Yamnaya people themselves differ too much from each other in terms of distances, I don’t know how in some In articles, the authors beautifully display Yamnaya in admixture as mixtures of two populations in a 50/50 ratio
Ambron quoting Pronk 2022:
"If we take away the innovations that characterize Baltic and Slavic as individual branches, we are left with a language that is both phonologically and morphologically still quite close to reconstructed Proto-Indo-European. If the Balto-Slavic proto-language is associated with the (earlier phases of the) Middle Dnieper culture, which seems reasonable, the split between Baltic and Slavic can be dated no later than the beginning of the second millennium BCE. The period of shared innovations would then have been up to 1,500 years, which does not seem to be too short or too long for the number of innovations that must have taken place."
Here it is important to understand the long continuum of Proto-Balto-Slavic. As Pronk writes, it began soon after the dispersal and disintegration of Late Proto-Indo-European (before or around 3000 BCE, we could call this Early Proto-Balto-Slavic), and it ended only after 2000 BCE (we could call this Late Proto-Balto-Slavic).
Ambron:
“Wikipedia: ‘The Middle Dnieper culture (Russian: Среднеднепро́вская культу́ра, romanized: Sriedniednieprovskaya kul'tura) is a formative early expression of the Corded Ware culture,[1] ca. 3200—2300 BC, of northern Ukraine and Belarus.’
Thus, Balto-Slavic loanwords into Uralic undoubtedly originate from the CWC.”
Only if you mean that Balto-Slavic originally stems from the Corded Ware Cultures. But the contacts with West Uralic occurred only during the second millennium BCE: loanwords were borrowed from Late Proto-Balto-Slavic. At that time there were no longer Corded Ware Cultures, so you cannot claim that Uralic borrowed its BS loanwords from the CWC.
If some loanwords were borrowed from Early Proto-Balto-Slavic, we could not distinguish them from other Archaic Indo-European loanwords. So soon after the disintegration of Late Proto-Indo-European there are no phonological criteria telling us from which IE branch the loanwords were borrowed.
Rob, if only you could understand text written in your own native language, someone might actually reply to you. But your misunderstood strawmen just ridicule themselves.
@Арсен
"many different groups of the same pastoralists of the Russian plain took part in their ethnogenesis, the Yamnaya people themselves differ too much from each other in terms of distances"
Couldnt that just be due to the Steppe Herders' own bottlenecking and genetic drift?
Pakistan_Katelai_IA 1200-800bce
Uzbekistan_Kashkarchi_BA 1200-1000bce
Excess steppe source in Ror most likely. On PCA they cluster close to Pakistan_IA with minor shift towards sintashta.
Target: Ror
Distance: 0.9929% / 0.00992857
66.8 Pakistan_Katelai_IA
33.2 Uzbekistan_Kashkarchi_BA
@ Jaako
I know it hurts. You have a choice – be quiet & learn; & the deconstruction of your model will be gentle.
But if it’s brainless sicophants you’re after, you’ve got mademoiselle’s forum and old man Gio for that
@ Assuwatama
Target: Burusho
P-Value: 0.0628
52.9 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA_2:I11459_enhanced
43.3 KGZ_Tian_Shan_Hun
3.8 UZB_Dzharkutan_BA_1
https://pastebin.com/BjYjkqA1
@ Davidski
"But if it’s brainless sicophants you’re after, you’ve got mademoiselle’s forum and old man Gio for that"
What should the blog owner think of someone who first offends, secondly uses ad hominem arguments and thirdly reduces all his arguments to non-compliance with some fundamental rules, that is, being against the female sex and the age of the interlocutor. I have always respected Jaakko's positions while waiting to be able to judge them from a linguistic point of view, which is not easy because it would require me years of study in a field that is not mine. That's all. And it doesn't seem to me that this interlocutor has linguistic knowledge that would allow him to make judgements.
Yuri Rassamakin has written an article on Eneolithic burials in the Black Sea Steppe and in it he states that the earliest burials were "with natural hills as burial marker". I have been thinking about that for a while because we might miss something in the development of barrows as tradition. One could even speculate the first artificial burial mounds were merely an attempt to rebuild a natural hill or outcrop.
The point I'm trying to make is that the first visible Kurgan may not tell us all that much.
Also have a look at Figure 8, inventory of an Eneolithic burial of Vyshnevyi Sad. It has similar small abstract figurines as the Besiktas burials.
https://www.persee.fr/doc/mom_2259-4884_2012_act_58_1_3470
Archaeogenomics of humans from the layer of the Upper Volga Culture revealed their greatest genetic similarity with Eastern European hunter-gatherers and ancient representatives of Mesolithic/Neolithic Europe
"The genetic structure of the population of Northern Europe of the Mesolithic-Neolithic period currently remains poorly investigated due to the small number of materials available for research. For the first time, the complete genome of an individual from the multilayer Meso-Neolithic site Ivanovskoe VII, located in the Upper Volga region in Yaroslavl Oblast, was studied. According to stratigraphic data, an isolated skull of an adult male without a lower jaw was found in layer II containing ceramics of the Upper Volga Early Neolithic Culture. AMS date obtained from the scull bone. The calibrated age of the collagen sample was determined with a probability of 1σ (68 %) in the interval 6588–6498 cal.y.b. (UGAMS-67431 OxCal v4.4), wich corresponds to the Late Mesolithic.
It is shown that the genetic profile of the studied individual (DM5) fully coincides with the genetic diversity profile of the Eastern Hunter-Gatherers (EHG). Haplogroups of mitochondrial DNA (U5a2+16294) and Y-chromosome (R1b1a1) testify to its genetic connection with ancient Mesolithic populations of Europe."
....
"Y chromosome DM5 belongs to haplogroup R1b1a1, which belongs to the most common R1b clade in modern Europe. The Y-chromosomal clade R1b1a1 and its daughter branches were widespread among European hunter-gatherers, including men from Mesolithic and Neolithic populations, as well as the typical Eastern hunter-gatherer from the Mayak site, p. Sidelkino, Samara region [Posth et al., 2023, Mathieson et al., 2018]. Several skeletons of Mesolithic people were discovered at the Mayak site (Sidelkino) [Vasiliev et al., 2021]; a sample from a male skeleton (burial 2), included in the genetic analysis, was dated and confirmed the Early Mesolithic age of the site (11170–11310 BPCal. RICH-25916.1.1)."
This is interesting. This sample is not included in the appendix to the article by Posth et al., 2023, but it is in the Harvard database.
http://ipdn.ru/_private/a64/113-125.pdf
Museibli N.A. Late Eneolithic burial mound near the village. Soyug Bulag in Azerbaijan // Russian Archeology. 2012. No. 1. pp. 16-25
https://raelrulez.livejournal.com/618916.html
Jaakko
The CWC lasts until 1900/1800 BC. The eastern area of the CWC includes only two Indo-European branches - Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian. So there are no miracles - Balto-Slavic loanwords must come from the CWC.
From Vlad’s article
“The genetic structure of the population of Northern Europe of the Mesolithic-Neolithic period currently remains poorly investigated due to the small number of materials available for research”
I presume they mean Eastern rather than classical Northern Europe
anyway, it is actually very well studies now for the Mesolithic & “Neolithic”
The big elephant in the room is the complete turnover between Kostenki/Sunghir/ Buran Kaya & EHG
NB Buran Kaya is not the origin of Gravettians
@Davidski
"David Reich has since put his name on this paper that correctly puts the earliest kurgans in Eastern Europe (Suvorovo culture)."
He and Nick Patterson even put their name on a paper that claims that Sredni Stog gave birth to Yamnaya...
"Serednii Stih is the main Proto-Yamna group of the Eneolithic North Pontic steppe and has been hypothesized to be ancestral to Yamna based on archaeological analysis"
and
"While the bone fragment of the KYT individual was found in Trypillia culture context, the individual was not genetically associated with the ancestral pool of European Neolithic farmers from which Trypillian ancestry is derived. The KYT individual, genetically a female, is a representative of a Proto-Yamna population of Eneolithic forager-pastoralists of the North Pontic area, such as Serednii Stih. "
https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/sites/reich.hms.harvard.edu/files/inline-files/2023_journal.pone_.0285449.pdf
Ambron:
"The CWC lasts until 1900/1800 BC. The eastern area of the CWC includes only two Indo-European branches - Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian. So there are no miracles - Balto-Slavic loanwords must come from the CWC."
1. Which culture and where lasted to that late a date? And it would still be too early for the West Uralic contacts with Balto-Slavic.
2. You cannot claim for certain that the two extant IE branches covered the whole of the eastern CWC, when there could have been several other ancient IE dialects, which later became extinct. An examples of proposed extinct IE branch:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordwestblock
I repeat: only if you mean that Balto-Slavic originated from the CWC. Certainly the contacts occurred in a region in which the CWCs earlier prevailed. But the actual CWC era best matches the archaic IE loanwords in Uralic - these are earlier than the Balto-Slavic loanwords in West Uralic.
@Carlos “Their genetic ancestry can be modeled as a mixture of sources from ancient Anatolia, Levant, and Iran/Caucasus, with variation between individuals suggesting population heterogeneity in Bahrain before the onset of Islam. ”
Is that the same composition of modern age contemporary Bahrainian populations?
@Simon and @Matt “I'm curious about these samples. But in the abstract they have forgotten the Celtic intermezzo in the Padanian plain. Seems strange to model Imperial samples just with unadmixed IA Etruscans and Near Easterners only. But as it seems to work, this seems to suggest the nonrelevance of the Celtic groups, as I suspected before. But then, some of the "Etruscan" IA ancestry may be rather Republican Roman and other Italic.”
How profound was the Longobardic input on Northern Italy?
@Matt “ Moreover, we reveal that the Iron Age individuals have contributed little to the gene pool of today's North-Eastern Italians.”
What is the genetic affinity or make up of modern North-Eastern Italian?
I hate generalizing but is the R = ANE and I = WHG theory still valid?
Did the Epigravettian samples have traces of ANE/EHG?
@Assuwatama “ If Burushaski is really an old language then I think a slight possibility exists that Dali_mlba groups rather spoke proto-Burushaski and not the language of Sintashta...
Considering Burushaski largely derive from Swat_IA like population”
Would you regard the language spoken by IVC as Proto-Burushaski? Do you consider it related to BMAC?
If so, wouldn’t Dravidian languages be derived from the AHU part of the AASI?
@ Davidski
Back to the PIE debate- I suspect that the creators of the southern Arc theory view the J2b male in Suvorovo as the ‘Ace up their sleeve”, but this is a misunderstanding of what he represents
@Rob May I ask how many gigabytes of your hard drive are occupied by files that you run in qpAdm? I mean genetic database files
@Andrzejewski
"Is that the same composition of modern age contemporary Bahrainian populations?"
Regarding Y-haplogroups, here's an explanation:
"Lying at the crossroads of Europe, Asia and Africa, the genetic landscape of Bahrain has been shaped by migrants from many other regions. Prior to the opening in 1986 of a 25-km causeway to Saudi Arabia [...] all international contact had been via maritime routes through the Arabian Gulf. Unlike its immediate neighbors Saudi Arabia and Qatar, where haplogroup J1 predominates (71% and 58%, respectively (Cadenas et al. 2008; Iacovacci et al. 2017), the frequency of this haplogroup in Bahrain is just 23%, being highest in the largely desert Southern Governorate where ethnic Arabs are most common and declining in the more urban areas where the Persian Ajam and indigenous Baharna are most numerous. The diverse haplogroup composition hints at the variety of peoples who have left their mark on Bahrain with B2, E1b1a and E2 originating in Africa and H, L and R2 indicative of migration from South Asia, while the R1b haplotypes may result from the period of Portuguese rule from 1521 to 1602. We observed haplotypes predicted to belong to both primary branches of R1b, namely R1b1a-L754 (n = 10) and R1b1b-PH155 (n = 5): while R1b1a is by far the commonest worldwide and likely reflects European contact, the five examples predicted to belong to the very scarce basal haplogroup R1b1b-PH155 all carried a distinctive 25.1 intermediate allele at DYS481, showing that distinctive globally rare variants can locally reach high frequencies and emphasizing the relevance of appropriate regional databases."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7524810/
The more recent paper on Bahrain shows only two male samples: J2a2a1a∼, and H2
http://tinyurl.com/2u9ue65k
@ Arsen
It all runs via admixtools. Im not sure what requirements are, Im not much of a tech guy, but any decent new-ish computer will suffice
@Rob
Could you elaborate on the J2b in Suvorovo? Is that published or a rumor?
Jaakko
The eastern local variant of the CWC - FBC - lasts until 1900 BCE. However, by then the Western Urals area is already further to the west, bordering the TCC horizon. Therefore, an alternative scenario can be proposed: earlier Balto-Slavic and later Baltic loanwords come from the TCC, while Proto-Slavic loanwords are a matter of early Slavs migrating north, according to Udolph's findings:
"- The centre of Old Slavic names is situated on the northern slope of the Carpathian Mountains, approximately between Bukovina and Krakow; it is based on a substrate of older, Indo-European hydronyms. - The expansion of the East Slavic tribes bypasses the Pripyat Marshes and extends further through Central Russia and especially to the North and the East."
Ambron:
"The eastern local variant of the CWC - FBC - lasts until 1900 BCE. However, by then the Western Urals area is already further to the west, bordering the TCC horizon."
The Seima-Turbino Network reached from Mongolia to Finland, but Uralic language did not spread so quickly. Once again, we cannot see language from culture or DNA. Around 2000 BCE the Common Uralic community was still very narrow in the Central Ural Region, and only towards 1500 BCE the westernmost Uralic-speaking frontier reached the Upper Volga Region. There they established contacts with Late Proto-Balto-Slavic and its descendants.
Ambron:
"Therefore, an alternative scenario can be proposed: earlier Balto-Slavic and later Baltic loanwords come from the TCC, while Proto-Slavic loanwords are a matter of early Slavs migrating north, according to Udolph's findings:"
Yes, I can agree with this. But how do you explain the northward expansion of (Central-)East Balts? Even the southernmost possible Finnic trajectory, the Daugava route, is far from the TCC.
Contacts of Uralic speakers with Slavic proper are late, but with Para-Slavic apparently more ancient and more eastern, including Mordvin. The extant Baltic and Slavic branches seem to be only a portion (even bottlenecks) of ancient Balto-Slavic diversity and extension.
https://www.academia.edu/75917854/Recurring_irregularities_in_West_Uralic_1_Para_Slavic_loanwords
@Jaakko Häkkinen
Since there is no ancient DNA from the period 2000-1000 BC, nothing can be said with confidence now. But judging by archeology, the situation in the forest zone of western Russia was approximately the following. The Fatyanovo culture in the forest zone ended around 2200 BC. Its eastern branch, the Balanovo culture, existed until about 2000 BC. Around 2200 BC, the Abashevo culture arose in the forest-steppe zone. Around 2100 BC, the Seimo-Turbino tradition penetrates from Siberia/Urals. Around 2100, the Chirkovo culture (Fatyanoid, Abashoid) appeared in the forest belt. The Chirkovo culture is a mixture of Balanovo, Volsk-Lbishchevo, Volosovo and Seymo-Turbino. Chirkovo extends far to the north (northwest and northeast). Around 1600 BC Chirkovo transforms into the Textile Pottery culture. Around 1700-1500 BC, the population of textile ceramics mixed with the population of the Poznyakovo culture that arrived from the forest-steppe. At this time, around 1500 BC, the Atabaevo culture was formed in the Volga region, apparently under the influence of the Cherkaskul culture from the Urals. Around 1200 BC, the culture of textile ceramics penetrates the Volga region and as a result the Maklasheyevo culture is formed there. Around the same time, the Srubnaya culture disintegrated in the steppe and the Bondarikha culture was formed in the forest-steppe zone of eastern Ukraine. It is formed as a mixture of Lebedovskaya culture (descendant of Sosnitskaya culture), Maklasheyevo culture and Belozerskaya culture (descendant of Srubnaya culture). Around 1000 BC, the tribes of the Bondarikha culture transformed into the Yukhnovo culture and moved north into the forest zone approximately to the sources of the Oka River. At the same time, tribes of the Maklasheyevo culture moved from the east along the Volga River to approximately the middle reaches of the Oka River. It should be noted that at this time there were already tribes of Textile ceramics on the Oka River, already mixed with the tribes of the Pozdnyakovo culture. Thus, around 1000 BC there was a mixing of three tribes of the Bondarikha culture, the Textile Ceramics culture and the Maklasheyevo culture. As a result, to the west of the Oka, the “Baltic” culture of Yukhnovo is preserved, and to the north-west of the culture of Hatched ceramics, further east of Yukhnovo there is a very narrow strip of the culture of Textile ceramics, which a little later transforms into the Dyakovo culture, further to the east the Akozino culture, which arose from the mixing of Bondarikh culture, Textile Ceramics culture and Maklasheyevo culture. Further east is the post-Maklashevo culture, also a mixed culture, but with a predominance of Maklashevo, further to the east is the Ananino culture and further to the east is the Late Kargopol culture, this is already on the Volga in the Vologda region. What's important here? What kind of population was the Chirkovo culture? I think it's a Z93. Apparently they spoke archaic Indo-European but close to Indo-Iranian. After. What kind of population was the Bondarikha culture? I think it's something between para-proto-Balto-Slavic and Thracian. The next places the future Western Finns met were Oka, where they met Yukhnovo and Hatched Ceramics. This is already para-balts, apparently.
Continuation. As for genetics and language. I think that the N-VL29 population penetrated west of the Urals very early along with Seimo-Turbino, but these were men and the effect of the founder of this group occurred in the culture of Textile ceramics. But I think that this group did not bring the Uralic language, because in the Chirkovo culture, ceramics are local European, which means that women were local. I think the Uralic language was brought by the Z1934 group with the Atabaevo cultures/Maklasheevo. The part of this population that did not mix with textile ceramics is the Sami, they entered Finland from the east. The other part mixed with the culture of textile ceramics and then with other cultures of Eastern Europe and this part became the West Uralics ( Finns)
@All
Does anyone have any experience with any non-Admixtools or non-F/stats based programs? I'm curious mainly about modeling deep ancestry and I'm wondering if the amateur genetics community might be over-reliant on qpAdm and qpGraph, if there are some underlying issues with the overall f-stats methodology (which Matt alluded to above) that might be obscuring things in certain scenarios with those programs. Before Anthrogenica went under I remember reading a post from Ryukendo speaking highly about site-frequency spectrum methods in direct comparison to f-stat based tools but I don't know of any specific SFS based programs or how user-friendly they are compared to the Admixtools suite.
A J2b in a Suvorovo would be interesting because it would provide a Y-DNA link between the Mycenaean Greeks and the Steppe groups ancestral to the Corded Ware migrations.
for those interested, a review of a sample on the topic of the previous post from Nalchik
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_Gb0Hf1UPI&ab_channel=AndreiDNA
@ epoch
“ Could you elaborate on the J2b in Suvorovo? ”
In an article Niktin wrote, no raw data yet for public.
@ Romulus
“ A J2b in a Suvorovo would be interesting because it would provide a Y-DNA link between the Mycenaean Greeks and the Steppe groups ancestral to the Corded Ware migrations.”
The present J2b samples in southern Greece appear too late for protoGreeks, but seem to be links between the western Balkans and Mycenaeans during the heyday of their civilisation.
And I don’t see any direct links to CWC
@ Vlad
“ But I think that this group did not bring the Uralic language, because in the Chirkovo culture ceramics are local European, which means that women were local.“
It is just an assumption that women make pottery whilst males are “warriors” & traders, often from observations of modern day “tribes” in Africa or PNG . This cannot be extrapolating to forest groups of Europe/ Siberia. The origins of Chrikovo pottery isn’t even entirely consensual in old writings.
Jaakko
Daugava is the Sośnica culture, and therefore the TCC horizon.
There is rather a consensus in linguistics regarding the Baltic homeland on the upper Dnieper and upper Volga, due to the greatest density of old Baltic hydronymy. This area is the Baltic innovation center, from which the isoglosses of Baltic innovations spread quite widely.
As I have already said, the first Slavic migrations came from Central Europe to the northeast along with the Imenkovo culture. Here, the linguistic data (Udolph) agree perfectly with the genetic data (Vyazov), because Iminkovo individuals share IBD segments with the ancient and early medieval population of Central Europe. Note, however, that the oldest Slav found in Imienkovo dates back to around 200 AD, so he must have used the Proto-Slavic language.
ethnic mixture of the population of Greece and the islands from the Neolithic to the Iron Age, tried to arrange them in chronological order
some islands remained untouched by steppe populations while the rest of Greece was under steppe herders
https://postimg.cc/yJQL1D3Z
& Tolliver
“Before Anthrogenica went under I remember reading a post from Ryukendo speaking highly about site-frequency spectrum methods…””
I don’t really agree with his claims, especially given that the example about the deep history of Eastern Asia he used was erroneous
He has a habit of getting over excited with bells and whistles. Due diligence is more appropriate
Recently, allentoft made some hyperbolic claims using IBD which were directly & unambiguously contravened by his own data
@Davidski
In one of your posts, you provided a link to a map where one could navigate through time and follow the chronology of archaeological cultures. While exploring the eneolithic period, I came across a similar quote, but I couldn't find any information about the author or anything related to this data. Where can I learn more about it?
https://postimg.cc/D4vLYXTN
Ambron:
“Daugava is the Sośnica culture, and therefore the TCC horizon.”
I did not find any map showing the Sośnica culture reaching so far to the north.
https://www.academia.edu/1737580/Trzciniec_Komarow_Sosnica_A_culture_cycle_from_the_Early_and_Middle_Brozne_Age_By_Jan_Dabrowski
Ambron:
“There is rather a consensus in linguistics regarding the Baltic homeland on the upper Dnieper and upper Volga, due to the greatest density of old Baltic hydronymy.”
Actually quantity/density often favors the youngest layers in loanwords and placenames, because the older layers have had more time to become replaced by younger layers. The only reliable method would be to compare if there are earlier placenames in some region, within the framework of historical phonology. But here the problem is that within the region of the language community, the placenames evolve along with the language, so the archaicity could only be seen in a region which became occupied by some other language, which then preserved the Baltic placenames (although they would have participated in the changes of that language, they did no longer participate in the Baltic evolution).
In practice, then, the Baltic placenames would indeed look older in the Upper Volga Region than in Latvia and Lithuania, because the former ceased being Baltic-speaking while in the latter the evolution has continued until the present day. Naturally this situation cannot prove that there actually appeared Baltic speakers earlier in the Upper Volga Region – it can only prove that they disappeared earlier.
Ambron:
“As I have already said, the first Slavic migrations came from Central Europe to the northeast along with the Imenkovo culture. Here, the linguistic data (Udolph) agree perfectly with the genetic data (Vyazov), because Iminkovo individuals share IBD segments with the ancient and early medieval population of Central Europe. Note, however, that the oldest Slav found in Imienkovo dates back to around 200 AD, so he must have used the Proto-Slavic language.”
Yes, I have no disagreement with that. I only remind that there were still more than 1500 years for Para-Slavic languages to branch off (since the separation of Baltic and Slavic lineages and before the actual Late Proto-Slavic).
Further about segment sharing, we can see HUman tree inferred using Denisovan introgression
https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(19)30218-1.pdf
Fig 4b
But that Tree is a stick insect compared to a detailed qpGraph. To claim that'll replace it is laughable. RK quotes some Twitter post by Flegentrov, and was also quoting a paper on the issues with reconstruction with Admixtools2, which isnt commonly used for gpGrpah from what Ive seen around. Moreover, RK has never used it, and thus not in a position to arm wave its pros & cons.
Moreover, the Tree offered in Jacobs is inconsistent with reality. Papuans are not an early branching of humans, just a minor branch of dipersing modern humans. The out of SEA view has propounded by some anthrofora individuals due to their chauvanisms against northern origins of the East Asian clade (perceived Japanese supremacy and northern origin, or something like that).
As for Alentoft, he & Kristiansen seem to be always making trumped up claims of population turnovers because theyre narrative led. Their recent suggestion that CWC receives *all* their ancestry from GAC doesnt make sense. Firstly, CWC expanded to areas where GAC didnt even exist, like Scandinavia, western Germany & the Netherlands. The very individual they used to propound their 'complete turnover in Denmark' was a 2400 BC man who male lineage descends from preceding TRB, 4000 years later than the first CWC migration.
Im not sure how they manage to ignore data so incompetently.
So IBD isn't substituting anything. Its just another useful quiver with its own potential set of problems.
^ 400 years, not 4000
Rob:
“As for Alentoft, he & Kristiansen seem to be always making trumped up claims of population turnovers because theyre narrative led. Their recent suggestion that CWC receives *all* their ancestry from GAC doesnt make sense.”
Sad, but once again Rob could not read English text. They never claimed anything like that. They wrote:
“Steppe-related ancestry accompanies and spreads with the formation of the CWC across Europe, and our results provide new evidence on the foundational admixture event. Individuals associated with the CWC carry a mix of steppe-related and Neolithic farmer-related ancestry; we show that the _LATTER_ [emphasis mine] can be modelled as deriving exclusively from a genetic cluster associated with the Late Neolithic Globular Amphora culture (GAC) (Poland_5000BP_4700BP), and that this ancestry co-occurred with steppe-related ancestry across all sampled European regions.”
What they actually say is:
1. CWC people carry steppe-related ancestry and farmer-related ancestry.
2. Farmer-related ancestry can be modelled as deriving from GAC.
@ jaako
No its obviously you who can't understand West Eurasian, and you continue to demonstrate your below amateur level of understanding in population history.
''What they actually say is:
1. CWC people carry steppe-related ancestry and farmer-related ancestry.
2. Farmer-related ancestry can be modelled as deriving from GAC.
''
The Single Grave individual derives from TRB men. So Allentofts claim about exclusive GACd-erved ancestry is WRONG
Moreover, they claim an immediate replacement of TRB by CWC indivduals in 2800 BC. Also WRONG
Here is the phylogenetic location of Naes 792, the poster boy of Allentoft et al's claims of steppe & GAC ancestry & complete replacement of local FBC/ TRB ancestry
His lineage is embedded within local Danish FBC men.
Also qpAdm models for Scandinavian early CWC/SGC fail with GAC if local FBC are in pRight.
This isnt a reply to Jaasko, who's a halfwit ("academic linguist"), but others who actually understand these things.
Rob:
"No its obviously you who can't understand West Eurasian, and you continue to demonstrate your below amateur level of understanding in population history."
Keep on embarrassing yourself by moving the goal. :D The crowd wants more.
Jaakko
I used this map:
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kultura_trzciniecka#/media/Plik:Balto-Slavic_lng.png
The Balts from the upper Volga region were simply Slavized.
So I see the issue of loanwords in the Western Uralic languages as follows: Indo-European loanwords - CWC, Balto-Slavic and Baltic loanwords - TCC, Proto-Slavic loanwords - Imenkovo.
The originally Balto-Slavic horizon of the TCC was divided by isoglosses into the Baltic and Slavic branches due to the fact that a Baltic innovation center was established in its northern part and a Slavic innovation center in the southern part.
Ambron:
"So I see the issue of loanwords in the Western Uralic languages as follows: Indo-European loanwords - CWC, Balto-Slavic and Baltic loanwords - TCC, Proto-Slavic loanwords - Imenkovo."
Imenkovo on the Sura river? Isn't that quite eastern location for Proto-Slavic?
Otherwise it looks possible.
From this huge paper on Germanic today: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.03.13.584607v1
This is interesting:
https://i.imgur.com/3sps6ho.png
Seems like they're implying Germanic has its origins in people with Narva admixture, similar to the Trzciniec.
@Romulus the I2a L233+ Proto Balto-Slav, layer of Corded Ware Women
you are ahead of me)
excellent article, a lot of additional information, it’s immediately clear that Morten E. Allentoft himself and his 200 scientists had a hand in the work
I'll blog about the new McColl Germanic preprint after I read it properly.
That might take a bit of time.
@ Davidski
"I'll blog about the new McColl Germanic preprint after I read it properly.
That might take a bit of time"
Well. The presence among the mt of U5b3 (two samples), but I didn't study other samples, demonstrates a migration from Italy because U5b3 is undoubtedly from Italy after the paper of Francalacci et al, but he thought, wrongly, to an origin from Southern France.
There are also 2 U5b3e of the Early Roman time.
interesting quote from the paper "Further east, populations of present-day Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Öland and
Finland are primarily mixtures of Eastern Scandinavian and Baltic Bronze Age ancestries. "
@ Romulus
''Seems like they're implying Germanic has its origins in people with Narva admixture, similar to the Trzciniec.''
There's no serious way to claim that the least convincing wave brought PGMc rather than the other 2 or indeed the accretion of 3.
This contrasts with other cases where no other tenable langaue vectors exist, such as in the case of Ob-Irtysh migrations for Uralic or Danube BA migrations for Italic.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.03.13.584607v1.full.pdf
Davidski please make a thread
Despite the fact the East Scandinavian ancestry became dominant later on, it's next to impossible that I1 was the vector, or anything SHG related could have been responsible for the spread of Germanic languages. There were two steppe groups that could have introduced it, the earlier Battle Axe rich in R1a, and the slightly later R1b which was in southern Scandinavia with the SGC. I1 is seemingly that north European paleo group that existed somewhere in Sweden/Finland/north Baltic and were likely replaced by the Uralic speakers. Perhaps that's what triggered a movement from east to west around that time.
@Арсен
Send me the file.
eurogenesblog at gmail.com
Although I certainly wouldnt have a problem with the reality of PIE emerging due to a pivotal role of the I men of Europe :)
@ AWood
“I1 is seemingly that north European paleo group that existed somewhere in Sweden/Finland/north Baltic and were likely replaced by the Uralic speakers. Perhaps that's what triggered a movement from east to west around that time.”
That’s an interesting idea. Although Uralics arrived a couple of hundred years later than 2000 bc. And there’s still the issue of I1 missing in Pitted Ware, Narva etc
@AWood
"I1 is seemingly that north European paleo group that existed somewhere in Sweden/Finland/north Baltic and were likely replaced by the Uralic speakers."
The oldest forerunners of I1 come from Spain, associated with the Azzilian culture, and unlike the Swiss Azillian sample genetically comparable to Magdalenian samples.
@ Rob
"Although I certainly wouldnt have a problem with the reality of PIE emerging due to a pivotal role of the I men of Europe"
It would have happened the other way aropund as to what Gaska (and possibly me) thought before: not that the R1b1 of Villabruna from the Siberian corridor adopted a Caucasia language but IE or PIE (or P-P-etc) in the Alps but the other way around, that they adopted IE and diffused that, but no sign of IE in the descendants of R-Z2103 from Yamnaya... but it remains difficult to link DNA and languages, and which language did speak the I-M223 certainly expanded from Mesolithic Italy?
Jaakko
Imenkovo is an early migration of Slavs (then still Proto-Slavs) from their original homeland located between the Vistula and the Dniester (Udolph).
@Awood
Founder effect
I-M253 TMRCA 2600 BC
I-DF29 TMRCA (≈98.4% of I1) 2450 BC
So this is younger than R-Z284, R-U106, R-P312 et cetera
"Later in the Iron Age around 1700 BP, we find a southward push of admixed Eastern and Southern Scandinavians into areas including Germany and the Netherlands, previously associated with Celtic speakers, mixing with local populations from the Eastern North Sea coast."
Rob:
“There's no serious way to claim that the least convincing wave brought PGMc rather than the other 2 or indeed the accretion of 3.”
It all depends on the linguistic evidence, which for Germanic is thus far non-conclusive. There is no reliable method to assess the “convincingness” of migration waves purely on the genetic basis when considering language, because language does not always follow the majority genetic root. It is a fatal mistake to believe that it does.
Rob:
“This contrasts with other cases where no other tenable langaue vectors exist, such as in the case of Ob-Irtysh migrations for Uralic or Danube BA migrations for Italic.”
Of course there exist several possible candidate languages for those migrations – you just have decided to ignore all the dozens of extinguished language families and only choose between the extant language families. That is a severe flaw in your methodology.
@ Jaako
'' There is no reliable method to assess the “convincingness” of migration waves purely on the genetic basis when considering language, because language does not always follow the majority genetic root. It is a fatal mistake to believe that it does.''
But nobody who knows what theyre saying is arguing that language is only associated with the majority genetic ancestry component. That is your misunderstanding.
We talk about common threads which fit with the other lines of evidence. That should be easy enough to understand.
'' you just have decided to ignore all the dozens of extinguished language families and only choose between the extant language families.''
In the case of north Siberian BA there are no 'dozens' of alternatives unless one is popping mushrooms and seeing things which are not there.
Rather - (a) originally FU groups which shifted into other groups (e.g. Y-NcTat in Turkic, Mongol & Avar groups), (b) early, extinct, converged branches of FU, and (c) extant branches of FU.
I'm not sure how convincing a relatively late introduction of both R-Z284 and I1 is. The former's immediate predecessor is already found in B-Axe and the latter already found richly in ~2000bc Danes (I'll have to check again what their profiles look like). Neither seem to have stuck around in the baltic region besides the one Komarow guy who is moderately downstream. It could be the case that their modern distribution and diversity is due to the spread of this BA "east Scandinavian" (basically Swedish) ancestry but that's a different claim than both HGs coming late from the Baltic.
I also don't know if this Baltic ancestry is supposed to be baltic_MN-like or baltic BA-like (as in, is there balto-slavic drift?). Some of the samples we already have are consistent with the latter.
I wish they spent more time on the Goths - how proto-germanic can be located if Goths are primarily east Scandinavian, whereas NW Germanics wholly south Scandinavian (in particular north german) when they also seem to suggest the contribution of the former into the latter happened largely during the bronze age.
Rob:
“But nobody who knows what theyre saying is arguing that language is only associated with the majority genetic ancestry component. That is your misunderstanding.
We talk about common threads which fit with the other lines of evidence. That should be easy enough to understand.”
You are yourself only accepting the majority ancestry for the Uralic language carriers, right? You are fixed in the Yakutia ancestry and ignore all the other options. Moreover, you erroneously believe that you can see language from the DNA. Evidence: you ignore the linguistic results.
Rob:
“In the case of north Siberian BA there are no 'dozens' of alternatives unless one is popping mushrooms and seeing things which are not there.
Rather - (a) originally FU groups which shifted into other groups (e.g. Y-NcTat in Turkic, Mongol & Avar groups), (b) early, extinct, converged branches of FU, and (c) extant branches of FU.”
You just confirmed what I wrote, thank you.
Uralic languages spread to Northern Siberia only less than 2000 years ago. Before that, other languages spoken there, and most or all of them went extinct. You still cannot claim that you can see language from the DNA, that is just unscientific.
@epoch
Well sure, but we know the living descendants don't originate in Spain. One of the I1's must have lived in NNE Europe and re-expanded southwards much later.
@Rob
Still need that smoking gun, but according to a couple papers now it's further east, so that least somewhere like central-east Sweden, Finland, or the Baltic. I wasn't quite sure why Baltic was specifically called out.
@Dmitry
That's an interesting quote because in a different part of the paper they argue that the migration of the Anglo-Saxons and Danes fell squarely in the southern Scandinavian group, rather than the Eastern ones who were associated with the Goths and Wielbark culture.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.03.13.584607v1
Is their time frame for the Out Of Scandinavia migration little too late? They say 1700 BP but 2500 BP is more believable?
Late bronze age or early iron age fits better. There is no y haplogroup I1 or east scandinavian ancestry in any of the samples from Germany, Netherlands, Poland in the bronze age but it's everywhere in the iron age Germanics from those countries. That fits better with 500 BCE?
@ Robban and re:"Rather - (a) originally FU groups which shifted into other groups (e.g. Y-NcTat in Turkic, Mongol & Avar groups)..."
Now that you apparently connect, sort of on average, Uralic with paternal N and Yakutia_LNBA, how do you know that Avars, or at least some of them, did not speak anything related to Uralic, even in modern Hungary?
Preprint of Willerslev's team on Germanics.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.03.13.584607v1.full.pdf
From McColl, What we’re seeing is a south, west and east Scandinavian clusters merging by 1500 BC .
A pivotal pulse comes from the east Scand. Cluster
The issue might however be that unlike the other 2 clusters, there is no clear link between I1 and “Latvian HGs”. I1 isn’t found in Narva, Kunda or Bronze Age baltics . Instead, the East Scand cluster probably emerged via social networks formed between post-Battle Axe Swedes and the Baltic. In fact I1 might be linked with a late Beaker group (?)
This shows that by 1500 early PGMc speech group had formed and by 500 bc they’d be already diverging into historic dialect groups. Needless to say, the wish that PGMc are language shifting Finns espoused on petite Macron’s thread has been resolutely disproven.
The primordial R1b-U106 link is Unetice/ central Europe linked rather than Beaker. So the Y-hg pattern doesn't quite corresponds to the IBD clusters proposed by the Copenhagen group
@ Rob
I think it depends on the subclade, no? Some stray U106s have been found in Etruscans, La Tene, Iron Age Britons under odd branches like R-A10645. The latest Uneticeans from Central Germany are mainly R-U152 and I2. R-L48 was probably in the Unetice culture but lacks ancient distribution in East and North Germanics. It was probably in the Unetice culture. Maybe more of a substrate in West Germanics? It might be better to look at the Z18 subclade of U106 which has a Pan-Germanic ancient distribution like I1 even though it is less common. Z18 looks more like Danish Beaker.
@ AWood
''Still need that smoking gun, but according to a couple papers now it's further east''
It's the same team saying the same thing over & over, for some reason ignroing the Y-hg find spots
@ Jaako
''You are yourself only accepting the majority ancestry for the Uralic language carriers, right? You are fixed in the Yakutia ancestry and ignore all the other options. ''
No, its the only ancestry which Uralic speakers share. There are no other options.
Your recent suggestion that proto-Uralic expanded from an Iranian-associated, metallurgically developed, culture is fairly comical, and displays your scientific illiteracy.
Even the the hens on Petite Macron's 'forum' are trying to spell it out for you.
@ Heyer
''I think it depends on the subclade, no? Some stray U106s have been found in Etruscans''
Yes that's true. Only specific subclades are associated with proto-Germanic, whilst others look more NW Block associated and MBA Netherlands which seems to lay outside the formative proto-Germanic sphere.
The point I was making is that U106 doesn't seem to be a Beaker lineage, but something more central, and it had to first get to Scandinavia before certain sublineages expanded back out
@Rob
There's no serious way to claim that the least convincing wave brought PGMc rather than the other 2 or indeed the accretion of 3.
This contrasts with other cases where no other tenable langaue vectors exist, such as in the case of Ob-Irtysh migrations for Uralic or Danube BA migrations for Italic.
They're saying the East Scandinavian wave is not the most convincing because it replaced the others at a rate >50%.
With representatives of each of the additional northern European Bronze Age source clusters,
we resolve in more detail the extent of a previously documented expansion of Eastern
Scandinavian ancestry. By the Iron Age in Scandinavia, almost all individuals are
modelled with >50% Eastern Scandinavian ancestry. The impact of this expansion is most
apparent on the Danish Islands, followed by Norway (Supplementary Note S6.9.4) and
finally the Danish peninsula of Jutland (Figure 5).
In their 2800 YBP clustering almost all individuals in the East Scandinavian cluster are I1 and the converse is also true for R1b and the South Scandinavian group:
https://i.imgur.com/mPqB3f3.png
I messed up my wording there I meant to write
**They're saying the East Scandinavian wave IS the most convincing
The BA East Scandinavian cluster becoming dominant in scandinavia by the iron age does not require that the baltic HG signal that contributed to this BA East Scandinavian cluster is responsible for any linguistic change, directly or indirectly. A more comprehensive understanding of how this ancestry arrived in the region is needed to say much more about that.
Here is what the 2000BC I1 Dane looked like
Distance to: NEO875:NEO875
0.03821802 Czech_EBA_Unetice
0.03929655 Germany_EBA_Unetice
0.03954824 Switzerland_EBA_2
0.04131760 England_BellBeaker_mediumEEF
0.04159120 Czech_EBA
Meanwhile the contemporaneous Swedish I1 samples seem to already contain some of this Baltic HG ancestry, making them cluster closer to later Scandinavians.
@Matt
MattI think archaeogenetics/paleogenomics is actually quite good; people contrasting amateurs and professionals, with some kind of general paranoia about "experts" and the quality of the universities, are not really thinking about the degree to which amateurs are simply using methods like f-statistics or PCA projection that exist fundamentally because of Reich Lab and other pioneers.
You first jump to using the logical fallacy known as appeal to authority rather than offer up anything to defend archaeogenetics. Principle component analysis was created by Karl Pearson in 1901 and Sewall Wright introduced “F-statistics” in 1951. ADMIXTOOLS was created by Nick Patterson (and contributors) at the Broad Institute but that is hardly what you said.
The people involved don't matter as far as the scientific method is concerned in the first place, but I wanted to properly attribute those methods for the sake of clarity.
If anything I understated the problem. No matter your contributions it only matters what you prove. Marija Gimbutas made contributions which are obvious to all of us reading this blog. Does that mean the narrative she added about a "mother earth goddess" whose followers were subjected to the terror of the coming of the followers of the "sky father" is true?
It doesn't matter how good your sequencing coverage or quality control is when you're making wild claims involving linguistics and archeology rather than your carefully collected data. Standards must be equal across the board and I don't believe Reich would be willing to make similar claims about his own genetic group based upon the same amount of data he has.
@Andrzejewski
As of now I don't think Burushaski originated from core IVC or BMAC regions...
There are many candidates in central asia who despite R1a and high steppe ancestry probably picked up the native language and migrated south. Possibility of a native language co-existing with an elite language can't be underlooked...
For example Pakistan_IA + China_Xinjiang_G218_IA_Scythian_Yuezhi_Wusun_possible also gives good model for Burusho....
Target: China_Xinjiang_G218_IA_Scythian_Yuezhi_Wusun_possible:C3337
Distance: 1.5534% / 0.01553439
49.8 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
36.8 Russia_Siberia_Lena_EBA
13.4 Turkmenistan_Gonur_BA_1
Target: China_Xinjiang_G218_IA_Scythian_Yuezhi_Wusun_possible:C3333
Distance: 2.3868% / 0.02386777
55.2 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
28.0 Russia_Siberia_Lena_EBA
9.4 Turkmenistan_Gonur_BA_1
7.4 Pakistan_Katelai_IA
Target: China_Xinjiang_G218_IA_Scythian_Yuezhi_Wusun_possible:C3332
Distance: 3.3351% / 0.03335126
49.0 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
25.8 Russia_Siberia_Lena_EBA
19.2 Turkmenistan_Gonur_BA_1
6.0 Pakistan_Katelai_IA
Target: China_Xinjiang_G218_IA_Scythian_Yuezhi_Wusun_possible:C3325
Distance: 1.8834% / 0.01883378
52.2 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
27.6 Russia_Siberia_Lena_EBA
14.2 Pakistan_Katelai_IA
6.0 Turkmenistan_Gonur_BA_1
Target: China_Xinjiang_G218_IA_Scythian_Yuezhi_Wusun_possible:C3324
Distance: 2.0814% / 0.02081433
52.2 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
24.4 Russia_Siberia_Lena_EBA
16.2 Turkmenistan_Gonur_BA_1
7.2 Pakistan_Katelai_IA
Burusho
Target: Burusho
Distance: 1.2708% / 0.01270810
72.6 Pakistan_Katelai_IA
27.4 China_Xinjiang_G218_IA_Scythian_Yuezhi_Wusun_possible
Rob:
“No, its the only ancestry which Uralic speakers share. There are no other options.”
Of course there are: the CWC-related ancestry is lacking only in the Nganasans, and they are highly drifted population different from even other Samoyedic speakers. You should already know by now that similar populations can have different languages and that different populations can have similar languages. You just cannot predict language from the DNA.
Rob:
“Your recent suggestion that proto-Uralic expanded from an Iranian-associated, metallurgically developed, culture is fairly comical, and displays your scientific illiteracy.”
Your comments are full of ridiculous strawmen like this, only because you cannot read even English texts. All literate people know that I have never claimed anything even close to what you have misunderstood.
@ Queequeg
''Now that you apparently connect, sort of on average, Uralic with paternal N and Yakutia_LNBA, how do you know that Avars, or at least some of them, did not speak anything related to Uralic, even in modern Hungary?''
It's not 'sort of on average'. I connect Uralics with Ob-Irtysh ancestry and N-L706 because there are no other links to be had. Even if it is a minority component in modern Finns at an autosomic level, the level of corresponding Y-hg N is ~ 40%. We know that Finns have Germanic admixture, making them very European.
Every other form of admixture in Uralic speakers is fragmented local admixture which does not unite them. All the European -rleated admixture in Uralics is heterogeneous, from already differentiated sources, incl. Germanic in Finns, Baltic-BA in the west (Fins & Estonians), Sarmatians & late Andronovo in central groups Uralic speakers, and a bit of EHG thrown in here & there west of the Urals. There was no corded waren nor Koptyaki Culture migration to Samoyedia. The only western admixture Samoyeds possess is an occasional colonial Russian/ Slav admixture. This is all old news and should be clear to even the most cautious of people.
Splinters of Y-N-B197 are found in modern Mongol, esp Buryat, groups and we know they speak Mongolic languages. But this lineage was absent in the well sampled bronze & iron age periods in Mongolia, whilst being present in contemporaneous individuals in north-Siberia. By the Hunnic era, it appears in central Asian "Huno-Sarmatians'. All this points to a later assimilation into Huns-related groups and at some point they moved into Mongolia itself.
So what we see is that 'Uralic N' binds all Uralic speakers, an all other components in Uralic speakers are non-universal. By contrast, when 'Uralic N' is found in other ethnolinguistic groups is not the common thread, but a recently admixed component.
So its not averging out, or rolling a dice, but basic data rationalisation which is delineated in the aDNA record by time & place, and will become increasingly clearer.
As for Avars, we don't really know what they spoke for sure, but all the terms transmitted to us from Turk & Byzantine sources speak of a Turkic type language infused with Sogdian loans from their merchants. Their real names were Varchionites (= red Huns, ? 'northern Huns').
@ Romulus
''I messed up my wording there I meant to write
**They're saying the East Scandinavian wave IS the most convincing''
They're saying that the lion's share of proto-Nordic ancestry comes from the eastern Scando cluster. They even push for ''In contrast with these older hypotheses, an East Scandinavian population, which is not detected for another 400-800 years, is revealed here as an alternative vector for the introduction of Germanic, allowing for the proposition of a revised model.''
Firstly, we will have to evaluate if this signal is genuine, this team tends to make bold claims based on IBD, which certainly is promising, but can lose granularity and fine detail. Certainly, when theyre talking about Beaker & Corded Ware clusters for Migration Age individuals, it raises skepticism about sensitivity.
Secondly, even if true, it's mostly internal dynamics within the Nordic Bronze Age sphere. There is no evidence for an exogenous migration from the East Baltic (again, Y-DNA is the clearest tracer dye), but could be something more subtle like reforging of links between post-battle Axe 'Swedes' and East Baltics. Remember that the Battle Axe migration came via Eastern Baltics in the first place.
@EthanR
The BA East Scandinavian cluster becoming dominant in scandinavia by the iron age does not require that the baltic HG signal that contributed to this BA East Scandinavian cluster is responsible for any linguistic change, directly or indirectly.
I'm certainly not saying that. Who is suggesting that?
The authors have this bit about Y-DNA and Germanic Languages from the Supp:
Downstream of R1b1a1b1a (R1b-L11), haplogroup R1b1a1b1a1a1 (R1b-U106) have been
previously argued to be related to the expansion of the Germanic languages, due to its high
frequency in places where those languages are spoken today (Figure S6). We found most of
the individuals of the dataset positive for R1b-U106 to belong to two different downstream
sublineages, which have starkly distinct distributions, particularly in the early Iron Age.
R1b1a1b1a1a1c (R1b-Z19) is found almost exclusively in Northern Europe (with the only
exception being a Langobard from Hungary), and likely represents a local variant of R1b-U106
(Figure S7).
Instead, its sister lineage, R1b1a1b1a1a1b (R1b-S263), is absent in Scandinavia before the Iron
Age (Figure S8), where it spreads, likely through an Eastern North Sea source, and becomes
dominant in South Scandinavia during the Iron Age, before spreading through Northern
Europe. This pattern strongly matches the one seen using autosomes, that detect gene flow back
into Scandinavia related to the spread of Germanic languages. Another potential signal of this
migration is the increase in frequency of R1b-U106 sister lineage, R1b1a1b1a1a2 (R1b-P312),
that has a more continental distribution. and is almost absent in Scandinavia before 2,000 BP.
@Davidski
So what's your new theory on BBC culture origin? Can't still cling to Danish SGC after all this data, doesn't work, no P312 there. Has to be the Northern Alps area near the origin of the Danube. They must have traveled along the Danube riverbank into Bohemia and Switzerland, then eventually up the Rhine. SGC broke off before the Rhine and headed up the Elbe instead.
Marija Gimbutas made retarded feminist and communist propaganda. It's nonsense.
Target: IND_Rakhigarhi_BA_low_res:I6113
Distance: 2.4488% / 0.02448836
36.6 AASI
32.2 IRN_Tepe_Abdul_Hosein_N
21.0 RUS_Tyumen_HG
10.2 TUR_Barcin_N
Macedonia_IA ancestry in dardic groups....is it really there or just noise?
@Romulus
I never claimed that the BBC came from Denmark.
I said that it was derived from the Dutch (Lower Rhine) Single Grave/Corded Ware culture.
Can you share AASI coordinates 🙏
@ Jaako
''Of course there are: the CWC-related ancestry is lacking only in the Nganasans, and they are highly drifted population different from even other Samoyedic speakers. You should already know by now that similar populations can have different''
Wrong. We know you're incapable of performing analyses yourself or understanding facts that everyone from Davidksi, to Zelto has infromed you of. Intead, you cower with halfwits on GimpArchivist forum.
You wish to throw away Samoyeds using some garbage arguement that Kristiina used to make. She suffers from the same hysterical acopia that you, queequeg and a couple of others do.
I loved when Ante Aikio critiqued your claims as "unproven and unaccepted"
''Your comments are full of ridiculous strawmen like this, only because you cannot read even English texts.''
Yeah nice deflection. I'm a fluent English speaker and understand every dimension of anthropology.
I even endured your mediocre articles. I understood them, they're just wrong. Maybe you're better at squirrel catching, good luck next life.
@ Robban and re:"It's not 'sort of on average'. I connect Uralics with Ob-Irtysh ancestry and N-L706 because there are no other links to be had...
As for Avars, we don't really know what they spoke for sure, but all the terms transmitted to us from Turk & Byzantine sources speak of a Turkic type language infused with Sogdian loans from their merchants. Their real names were Varchionites (= red Huns, ? 'northern Huns')."
O.K., so you emphasize the genetic connection until you don't. "Ob Irtysh ancestry" BTW is not a very good term if you're referring to Yakutia_LNBA, based on neolithic Trans Baikal and Yakutia_MN. According to Zeng et al, if I recall it right, Yakutia_LNBA is rather similar to fex Xianbei, i.e. it is very very eastern.
@Assuwatama
It turns out interesting that the Eastern Scythians are a mixture of Aryans, BMAC and Siberian tribes of the Lena River
@Assuwatama
SAHG:AASI_North,0.00963832,-0.22142592,-0.25101047,0.20700565,-0.07321572,0.10921577,0.00789175,0.03891915,0.147141,0.12174285,-0.01706456,0.0138743,-0.02416641,0.03534626,-0.01860874,-0.04485596,0.03348487,0.00330606,-0.01193263,0.02780748,0.00906849,0.00048198,-0.00107838,0.01959068,-0.03209499
SAHG:AASI_South,0.00275558,-0.21172637,-0.20507535,0.16364539,-0.03427554,0.06580224,-0.00790216,0.02927104,0.1315089,0.09542652,-0.00310936,0.00015816,-0.00532962,0.02403386,-0.04474331,-0.04010254,0.02371038,0.00205242,-0.00052311,0.04382888,0.00736782,0.02477185,-0.00992594,0.01865775,-0.01669652
@Арсен
BMAC is the "Aryan" in question, no need to mention it twice
@ queequeg
''O.K., so you emphasize the genetic connection until you don't. ''
That's an inacurate, misguided & dishonest summary. Read again
''According to Zeng et al, if I recall it right, Yakutia_LNBA is rather similar to fex Xianbei, i.e. it is very very eastern.''
Unfortunately, that's not recalling accurately, perhaps because you didnt register in the first place.
Scythio-Siberians
Target: Mongolia_EIA_Pazyryk_6:I6263
Distance: 2.0908% / 0.02090797
60.0 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
33.4 Mongolia_EIA_SlabGrave_1
6.0 Russia_Siberia_Lena_EBA
0.6 Turkmenistan_Gonur_BA_1
Target: Kazakhstan_Berel_Pazyryk:I0563
Distance: 1.8088% / 0.01808833
45.6 Mongolia_EIA_SlabGrave_1
28.8 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
21.8 Russia_Siberia_Lena_EBA
3.8 Turkmenistan_Gonur_BA_1
Target: Kazakhstan_Berel_Pazyryk:I0562
Distance: 1.6689% / 0.01668940
35.2 Russia_Siberia_Lena_EBA
34.4 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
24.2 Mongolia_EIA_SlabGrave_1
6.2 Turkmenistan_Gonur_BA_1
Target: China_Xinjiang_Tuwaxingcun_IA_Pazyryk_possible:C1709
Distance: 2.0397% / 0.02039669
78.6 Mongolia_EIA_SlabGrave_1
11.8 Russia_Siberia_Lena_EBA
9.4 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
0.2 Turkmenistan_Gonur_BA_1
@Gabru Thanks 😊
check this from McColl
- depopulation in Scandinavia during late phase of Roman Iron Age
- complete population turnover in Denmark (Jutland & Islands) from continental Germania
- also impacting southern Sweden
So extant Norse languages do in fact have a continental Germanic origin, as outlined by Udolph & Osten Dahl, and some of us thought.
- also modest arrival of Slavic ancestry
So we'd be cautiously confident in Udolph's suggestion about proto-Slavic protohistory, given his proven credentials.
For awhile now I have held the opinion that the ancestor of Italo-Celtic-Germanic must lie in the Unetice culture. I don't think that is a particularly controversial idea. In line with that theory I have thought that Germanic must have spread into Scandinavia at the dawn of the Nordic Bronze Age due to influence and migration from Unetice. According to the authors of this paper I was at least right about the timing. This East Scandinavian cluster is a new dynamic to consider.
I'm thinking about how Unetice fits into this new data so I went back to Papac 2021 and it's very interesting. To summarize:
-(The shift from Bell Beaker to EBA Unetice in Bohemia involves a population turnover, analyses of which are) ... suggesting a northeastern contribution to Bohemia_Únětice_preClassical
-Y-chromosomal data suggest an even larger turnover. A decrease of Y-lineage R1b-P312 from 100% (in late BB) to 20% (in preclassical Únětice) implies a minimum 80% influx of new Y-lineages at the onset of the EBA.
-we explored alternative models for preclassical Únětice individuals. All model fits improve when Latvia_BA is included in the sources, resulting in two additional supported models (table S33). A three-way mixture of Bohemia_BB_Late, Bohemia_CW_Early, and Latvia_BA (P value of 0.086) not only supports a more conservative estimate of 47.7% population replacement but also accounts for the Y-chromosomal diversity found in preclassical Únětice, with R1b-P312 from Bohemia_BB_Late, R1b-U106 and I2 from Bohemia_CW_Early, and R1a-Z645 from Latvia_BA (Fig. 4A).
During the same time period that Scandinavia enters the Bronze age and this East Scandinavian genetic cluster becomes dominant, a similar replacement is occurring in Bohemia leading to the development of Unetice. Both of these invading populations are originating in a Northeastern source associated with Baltic ancestry.
Looking at the picture as a whole, it seems Trzciniec, Unetice, and this East Scandinavian group all must have a common ancestor somewhere in Eastern Europe. Unetice seems like it may only be a candidate for the ancestor of Italo-Celtic and perhaps only Celtic.
@Gbaru
I apologize, I am not well informed on this issue, I thought the Aryans were Sintashta, and BMAC was the Bronze Age of Turkmenistan, outwardly they did not look like the blond, light-eyed Aryans, who are usually portrayed by different authors
Indo-Iranian does indeed derive from the Sintashta-related chain of cultures and populations.
It's impossible for BMAC to have been Indo-Iranian because it had no discernible impact on India.
Linguistically it's also difficult to claim that BMAC was Indo-Iranian.
https://brill.com/display/book/9789004438200/BP000002.xml?language=en
If we apply this method to the Indo-Iranian vocabulary, we come to the undeniable conclusion that the Aryans were nomadic pastoralists. They had dozens of words related to horses, harness, chariots, all sorts of cattle, and very limited agricultural terminology. Besides, there were practically no terms in their language relating to permanent houses, let alone words like ‘palace’ or ‘temple’. The only conclusion we can draw is that the Aryans were simply unable to build a city like Gonur. Moreover, they as nomads did not even need such a city.
Specifically I think Indo-Iranian developed east of the Urals as Sintashta derived groups began to interact with local central Asians.
That is historically / linguistically plausible and avoids overly Eurocentric Models
When people say there’s no BMAC in proto-Indic, there is Shane-I-Shokta admixture, and they were broadly part of the bmac network
My point is that BMAC wasn't Indo-Iranian.
There were no Indo-Iranians or Indo-Europeans in South Central Asia until Sintashta-related groups got there.
I think this time that what Rob says merits to be considered. People went and came, and above all every culture is formed (as Massimo Pallottino said about Etruscans and before Mommsen said). Sanskrit language is of course an Indo-European language but formed in India. I agree with Davidski that hgs R1a and R1b are originally European, but some subclades migrated to Asia very early, at least 7000 years ago (as R-V88 to Africa) and they belonged to the cultures they entered in.
@ Davidski
I get what you were saying. Just adding that at the Fatyanovo, Abashevo stage (Ie European segment of their treck), they were still at ‘late dialectical IE stage’, merely couple hundred years since separating from the main CWC.
Similar for all major branches of IE.
Rob:
“- depopulation in Scandinavia during late phase of Roman Iron Age
- complete population turnover in Denmark (Jutland & Islands) from continental Germania
- also impacting southern Sweden
So extant Norse languages do in fact have a continental Germanic origin, as outlined by Udolph & Osten Dahl, and some of us thought.”
Once again you prove that you cannot read even English text:
“The population in southern Scandinavia after 1200 BP shows hitherto unknown changes compared with the situation in the same areas before 1600 BP. Our results demonstrate the arrival of a strong component of North German IA ancestry, in combination with a series of ancestries previously associated with Celtic-speaking groups and populations carrying European Farmer (in addition to GAC) ancestry from north-western Europe. In the Danish islands, the shift amounts to a virtually complete population replacement.”
= Only in the Danish islands, not in Jutland.
And once again you erroneously believe that you can see language from the DNA:
1. At the time of this migration from Germany to the north (ca. 400 CE), several Germanic branches were already clearly distinguishable from each other; Gothic was even written already during the 4th century CE. Therefore, if there was a language replacement Proto-Scandinavian --> Continental West Germanic, there should not exist any extant Scandinavian languages but northern dialects of Continental West Germanic in Scandinavia. And that is not the case in this reality.
2. Moreover, we know from the Runic inscriptions since ca. 100 CE that there was a gradual change from Northwest Germanic to Proto-Scandinavian to Transitional Scandinavian to Old Scandinavian. There are no signs of replacing the Scandinavian lineage with the Continental West Germanic lineage.
To conclude for everyone with normal intelligence: undeniable linguistic evidence shows that no language replacement occurred in Southern Scandinavia following the migration from Germany ca. 400 CE.
EthanR:
“The BA East Scandinavian cluster becoming dominant in scandinavia by the iron age does not require that the baltic HG signal that contributed to this BA East Scandinavian cluster is responsible for any linguistic change, directly or indirectly.”
That is true. Language cannot be seen from the DNA, so it all comes to the linguistic evidence. Concerning Germanic lineage, it is notoriously difficult to trace.
1. No conclusive linguistic evidence exists concerning the earliest Pre-Proto-Germanic stages: different studies put Germanic closest (taxonomically or contactwise) to different IE branches: Balto-Slavic, Italo-Celtic, Albanian, Tocharian…
2. Contacts with Celtic occur only ca. 1200 BCE in Southern Scandinavia, according to John Koch.
3. Contacts with West Uralic are more difficult to date precisely. Paleo-Germanic loanwords in Finnic and Saami could be just slightly earlier than Late Proto-Germanic, but they could also be clearly earlier (fork ca. 1000–500 BCE). The proposed older Pre-Proto-Germanic loanwords in West Uralic are still rather uncertain, as competing explanations have been proposed at least for some of such loanwords.
What we can establish is that the Scandinavian Bronze Age Culture, beginning ca. 1500 BCE, is already related to the Germanic lineage. But still we cannot say, when the language lineage arrived in Scandinavia: only slightly earlier (1a) from the east or (1b) from the south, or more than a millennium earlier (2a) from the east or (2b) from the south, or at some point between these two ends.
Archaeological and genetic results are potentially illuminating in the case of Germanic lineage, yet they are only hints: we still cannot predict/postdict language from the archaeological or genetic data.
- Languages might spread with a major migration, but they might also spread without a major migration.
- Major migration might bring a new language to the region, but it might also bring only loanwords into the local language, or no afterwards visible linguistic material at all.
Therefore, we cannot just decide that some major migration was responsible for spreading certain language – that would be utterly unscientific. I know many people here can already understand this, but some still cannot.
@ Robban: Yes indeed, according to Childebayeva et al, i.e. not Zeng et al, you can create a F3-model for ROT002 of Rostovka by using AR_Xianbei_IA (and modern Ulchi). That being said, Yakutia_LNBA is apparently more northern than Xianbei_IA , but still surprisingly similar to that.
@tea, no I don't think it is a logical fallacy of such kind. the argument here was specifically about whether archaeogenetics was a healthy field ("I really don't see how anyone takes archaeogenetics seriously as a science these days.") and where you specifically asked ("Is there any defense of the discipline as a whole?").
To this I responded that yes, I think you can make a good argument for the field based on their contributions to understanding and on their productivity in innovating new techniques, which if we contrasted them to any amateurs in an honest way, would severely be in their favour.
This is not arguing that they are correct about every single thing because they are authority figures or anything like this. "Argument from authority fallacy" is not something you can simply throw at anyone defending any scientist in any circumstance.
Should have been: (and modern Ulchi etc.). Nganasan are BTW according to the analysis somewhat more distant (i.e. apparently more biased towards Arctic ANE, because of greater Yakutia_MN mixture?) than AR_Xianbei_IA vs. ROT002 of Rostovka in the analysis.
@ Queequeg
'' Yes indeed, according to Childebayeva et al, i.e. not Zeng et al, you can create a F3-model for ROT002 of Rostovka by using AR_Xianbei_IA (and modern Ulchi). That being said, Yakutia_LNBA is apparently more northern than Xianbei_IA , but still surprisingly similar to that.''
To build quasi-historical models, as in admixture, if thats what you mean, you use qpADM or G25 based calculators. F3 tests broad adffinities, and it has less utility beyond Stone Age test samples because the preceding histories become too convoluted, there is a bias toward more drifted samples, etc
To me, the model which remains for Yakutia LN_BA is the one I tested earlier - a mix of Baikal_N and Kolyma_Meso. This is the place, time & population where the proto-Uralic people emerged. I wouldnt compare them to Xianbei because of the obvious time discrepency between them.
@ Jaako
''Once again you prove that you cannot read even English text:''
Sigh, you really need help Jaako. You should not cherry pick the quotations, and also look at the data (which we know you'reincapable of understanding).
That's why you missed this :
The subsequent period (1600 - 1200 BP) was one of great turbulence, including the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, the Barbarian migrations, the Justinian plague and the Late Antique Little Ice Age resulting from volcanic eruptions (Figure 7). In the archaeological and historical literature this is considered a period of genetic continuity in Scandinavia despite a reduction in population sizethe genetic record now negates this assumption of pervasive genetic continuity from the Iron Age on the Danish Isles, Northern Jutland and Southern Sweden.
- so not just the Danish Isles, liar liar pants on fire !
and also:
Runic inscriptions from across Scandinavia testify to a North Germanic language that remained relatively similar to Proto-Germanic during 2000 - 1500 BP. However, during the Migration period (1575 - 1200 BP) the language underwent farreaching changes resulting in the formation of Old Norse. The glottogenesis of Old Norse thus coincides with a period of social and demographic instability
Population drop, novel migrations into southern Scandinavia, emergence of a new form of Germanic = proto=Norse, and that is why Norweigan and Danish, slightly less so Swedish, are mutually intelligible.
Jaasko: ''Moreover, we know from the Runic inscriptions since ca. 100 CE that there was a gradual change from Northwest Germanic to Proto-Scandinavian to Transitional Scandinavian to Old Scandinavian. There are no signs of replacing the Scandinavian lineage with the Continental West Germanic lineage.''
Reality: This is incorrect, as per quote from McColl above, co-written by linguists.
The earliest Runic inscriptions are single words on tools such as combs. The truly Norse inscriptions begin c. 500 CE.
How did you not know this, yet prance around telling everybody to follow lingusitic evidence ?
And thanks to aDNA, we have fine scaled detail as to why & how this happened, it was not quite so gradual, but entailed a jolt! and population movement picked up by aDNA. So, we see language shifts from aDNA, you silly heathen
Yup
Target: Brahmin_Gujarat:GBR-11
Distance: 1.4242% / 0.01424154
48.4 Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur
32.8 SAHG
18.8 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
Target: Kashmiri_Pandit:KP002
Distance: 2.0158% / 0.02015768
50.2 Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur
31.0 SAHG
18.8 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
Target: Brahmin_Punjab:PB016
Distance: 1.6255% / 0.01625469
49.2 Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur
30.0 SAHG
20.8 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
Fire cult central to Brahmin practices also originated in Turkmenistan_C cultures. They have about the same level of AASI ancestry as observed in IVCp samples.
I am of the same opinion....
BMAC including Afghanistan was the Aryan horizon, possibly around Herat-Helmand-Kabul rivers.
Rig Veda also mentions Aryans in one verse on the banks of Saryu but ppl identify that saryu with the eastern one.
PCA plot for Gujarat Brahmin samples
https://freeimage.host/i/JXfQ6yF
@Assuwatama
I wonder how the SAHG coordinates were obtained? some kind of mathematical manipulation and they were simply adjusted to Kashmiri and Brahmin? Or are these actually the found remains of Mesolithic Indian hunter-gatherers?
Rob:
“To me, the model which remains for Yakutia LN_BA is the one I tested earlier - a mix of Baikal_N and Kolyma_Meso. This is the place, time & population where the proto-Uralic people emerged.”
Unbelievable, how you still believe that you can see language from the DNA! You should go public with your extraordinary method; I am certain you will get the Nobel prize.
Rob:
“That's why you missed this”
Of course I did not miss it. These are two different things, but of course you cannot understand the difference:
1. Population reduction in Southern Scandinavia.
2. Virtually complete population replacement in the Danish islands.
If you cannot understand the text even in your own quoting, nothing can make you understand the text.
Rob:
“Population drop, novel migrations into southern Scandinavia, emergence of a new form of Germanic = proto=Norse, and that is why Norweigan and Danish, slightly less so Swedish, are mutually intelligible.”
As I already told you, there was no language replacement in Scandinavia due to the migration from Germany ca. 400 CE. The extant Scandinavian languages represent the Scandinavian lineage, not the Continental West Germanic lineage. How you cannot understand even this?
Rob:
“The earliest Runic inscriptions are single words on tools such as combs. The truly Norse inscriptions begin c. 500 CE.”
The length of the text is totally irrelevant. Relevant is only the phonological shape of the words, which we can compare to the known Germanic and Scandinavian sound changes. Only this way we can determine, which language lineage the Runic inscriptions represent. In Scandinavia they do not represent Continental West Germanic.
Rob:
“So, we see language shifts from aDNA, you silly heathen”
Only if it agrees with the linguistic results. If not (like in this case), then we do not see language shift. I repeat, although I know that your mental capacity can never process this:
- Languages might spread with a major migration, but they might also spread without a major migration.
- Major migration might bring a new language to the region, but it might also bring only loanwords into the local language, or no afterwards visible linguistic material at all.
These facts make your unscientific beliefs utterly impossible: you cannot predict language from the DNA. Fortunately I know that all the other readers of this blog have higher intelligence than you.
@ Davidski
Why don't you open a thread about this video and ask who funded it? It may be disproved both from genetics and linguistics, where Albanian words introgressed from Greek (don't forget that Albanian language has 40% of Latin words and 20 % Greek etc) are thought as original IE words, and remember that there is people who translates Etruscan and even Italian through Albanian. We have the great work of Orel (Oryol) about Albanian etimology. This is another way to disprove the "Southern arc theory".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHKQfIzePM8
On the McColl 2024 preprint, I think what they find seems reasonably compelling and sensible in light of what we know about the Migration Period and y-dna (replacement at the subclade level).
Couple of critical thoughts on it though:
1) Figure 4 b which implies "Celtic" speaking "BellBeaker" derived cultures in Southern and Central Poland, Hungary and Croatia at approximately 100CE seems pretty questionable? What do the folks on here who are expert on the early common era situation in Eastern Europe thing of this proposal?
https://i.imgur.com/BUwnpuC.png
My recollection is that many here would've said that Celts and Beaker descendants were long gone, if they were ever much present, in these regions, beyond some elite networking phenomena.
2) Their shift in figure Corded Ware derived steppe ancestry vs Bell Beaker derived ancestry shift post 400 CE seems misleading in a couple of respects:
https://i.imgur.com/6j5RFEP.png
a) Langobards and other Germanic groups made very little impact in SE-Central Europe at all, and that enduring impact was Slavic related. (As we know from other recent papers).
b) In England, their sample ends with Viking samples, and does not incorporate any of the Late Medieval Black Death samples.
We know from these samples that they represent a substantial and sudden fall in Steppe ancestry:
https://i.imgur.com/Mx1yADX.png
We also known from Gretzinger's 2022 paper probably a shift towards France_Iron_Age ancestry, which we'd expect to be "Bell Beaker" descended
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05247-2/figures/5
...
So overall, this paper probably overrates a bit enduring Germanic genetic population expansion to the present day. Much of this in Central-Eastern Europe made little impact, and in England, although substantial, I think much of this genetic impact was overwritten by the Normans and Medieval Northern French.
I think it complicates a mental model of R1a Corded Ware and R1b Bell Beaker, since it implies that the Corded Ware descendant cultures in Northern Europe were largely or significantly R1b, with some specific subclades diverging at ~4500 BP and that this is the marker of expansion as much as I1. (Probably an idea well known to R1b phylogeny experts).
Going on further about my point 2b in my previous post, a figure from Gretzinger 2022 with an annotation: https://i.imgur.com/anGsYDK.png
(Under the assumptions in McColl 2024, total ancestry from Bell Beaker is probably still slightly greater in all England regions than from Saxons/"Corded Ware". Although the proportion of steppe ancestry specifically may slightly go above that from Bell Beaker).
@Jaakko/Rob
What the authors might be implying is that the development from Proto-Norse to Old Norse AD 500-800 was spurred by the migration of new people to Denmark/Scania (imperfect learning of Proto-Norse).
If I'm not mistaken, the best evidence we have for the ultimate origins of I1 is still OST003 from northern Germany, which is temporally and phylogenetically closer to Scandinavian I1 than other pre-I1 so far.
The presence of Baltic HG ancestry in the Eastern Scandinavian cluster doesn't prove that it stems from a new, post-BAC migration from the East Baltic, since this could just be a sign of some minor gene flow across the Baltic.
@ Erik
I don’t think that’s what they’re saying, as their sentence is fairly explicit.
I’d say that Scandinavia had dialects of protoGermanic and groups which contributed to proto-East -Germanic, before they deleted from the various islands and parts of Scania from 300 onwards to eventually coalesce into Goths in Poland / Ukraine
The new group of Danes were central to Norse development. So it’s an overlaying/ superatratum and partial replacement scenario
@ Jaako
“Fortunately I know that all the other readers of this blog have higher intelligence than you. ”
Yes Jaako, that’s why I’m teaching you how to do your job. Although what you do isn’t really work, it’s mostly hot air and disinformation.
You don’t bring much to the looks table either. Probably can’t throw a ball with those weedy arms of yours :)
@Matt
"1) Figure 4 b which implies "Celtic" speaking "BellBeaker" derived cultures in Southern and Central Poland, Hungary and Croatia at approximately 100CE seems pretty questionable? What do the folks on here who are expert on the early common era situation in Eastern Europe thing of this proposal?"
Yeah, talking about Beakers and CWC during the Roman period is nonsensical. They also seem to severely underrate Yamnaya-related ancestry in eastern Europe and the Balkans. It could be something "para-Yamnaya" rather than Yamnaya-proper but it's still not CWC and it's not BB. There's a distinct cluster of high-EEF, "Thracian-like" individuals in eastern Europe that endured until the period of Slavic migrations and contributed ancestry to pretty much all populations that lived in eastern Europe during that period, including Scythians, Goths and Slavs.
Erik Andersson:
"What the authors might be implying is that the development from Proto-Norse to Old Norse AD 500-800 was spurred by the migration of new people to Denmark/Scania (imperfect learning of Proto-Norse)."
That is indeed one possible interpretation. They write:
"Linguistically, this period is one of central importance to Northern Europe. Runic inscriptions from across Scandinavia testify to a North Germanic language that remained relatively similar to Proto-Germanic during 2000 - 1500 BP. However, during the Migration period (1575 - 1200 BP) the language underwent far-reaching changes resulting in the formation of Old Norse. The glottogenesis of Old Norse thus coincides with a period of social and demographic instability. Following this transition, the originally common Germanic script known as the Elder Futhark was likewise fundamentally remodelled, giving rise to the Younger Futhark that was tailored specifically to Old Norse, and was taken into use all across Scandinavia."
They do not say that new language arrived from Germany, or even that any linguistic influence came from there (like loanwords). They imply that the migration from Germany led to a "demographic instability", but even without that, intense contacts with the newcomers alone would be enough to cause rapid changes in the local language.
In this case, when there was an undisputed mass migration, eventually there was a language shift from Continental West Germanic to Scandinavian, which naturally could have lead to imperfect learning of the local language. However, to my knowledge, no clear Germanisms are visible at so early date, but only during the Medieval Hanseatic League (Middle Low German influence on Swedish).
@David
From that article:
"In the situation of an economic and political crisis, it is only to be expected that in their movement, the Indo-Aryans were joined by a sizable group of the BMAC people, who would bring their culture and the agricultural lifestyle with them. "
That is an interesting thought. There are swat samples with E1b1b1b2.
Don't know...probably simulated. Not from mesolithic though...Haven't heard of any such sample.
Has anyone gone through the paper 'Burushaski and unique Slavic isoglosses'?
Dravidian
Target: Gond:GD_01_20
Distance: 1.6873% / 0.01687288
63.6 SAHG
16.6 Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur
10.4 Laos_Hoabinhian.SG
09.4 Laos_LN_BA.SG
Austro-Asiatic
Target: Birhor:BIR_31
Distance: 1.8796% / 0.01879596
55.6 SAHG
19.6 Laos_LN_BA.SG
17.6 Laos_Hoabinhian.SG
07.2 Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur
@Matt
So overall, this paper probably overrates a bit enduring Germanic genetic population expansion to the present day. Much of this in Central-Eastern Europe made little impact, and in England, although substantial, I think much of this genetic impact was overwritten by the Normans and Medieval Northern French.
That depends on why early Slavs are shifted west of Balts.
If the reason is eastern Germanic admixture, as has been postulated, then the impact is not little.
The Gothic outlier from Poland is basically 50/50 Gothic/Baltic, and yet she clusters with Russians from Smolensk.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2023/11/wielbark-goths-were-overwhelmingly-of.html
Before this sample was available I would've never considered that Russians from Smolensk can be anywhere near 50% Gothic, or at least Gothic-like.
@Davidski, I think if you were to use Balts and the Goths from Poland as a model, then you'd need additional input from an EEF-rich population.
In my quick model, the modern Polish samples feel as being modelled by about 50% Lithuania_Roman_Period (in terms of dates; a Lithuanian Roman period is of course anachronistic), 40% Goth and then 11% extra Turkey_N - https://imgur.com/a/dKIjpmr (with some visual indicators on the PCA of the southward shift of Poles compared to a mix of Balts and Goths).
An exact mix of Balt+Goth would be too steppe rich to characterise the present day Polish population, I think.
The actual source would probably have to be higher from a source that was not pure EEF, and I think that would likely eat more into the Goth than Baltic proportion (perhaps by 10-15%).
But the point is well-made.
*edit: could eat less into the "Goth" proportion; it depends on how we define our populations.
Very interesting uniparental markers from Hallstatt and La Tene cultures in Austria and France (someone should talk about the presence of G2a2b in Celtic elites and the importance and abundance of several I2a subclades in many Central European cultures).
Regarding the new linguistic debate, this is more and more fun, now it seems that the Danes have chosen to exclude BAC and SGC from the Palaeo-Germanic dispersal and also BBC which is otherwise almost irrelevant in Scandinavia. The new Germanic markers are I1a-DF29, R1a1a1a1b1a3a (R1a-Z284) and R1b1a1b1a1a1a1 (R1b-U106), which means that according to Kurganist orthodoxy, L51>L151 can only be related to Italo-Celtic.
And as you all know the male uniparental composition of Unetice, Tumulus & Urnfielders who supposedly spoke proto-Celtic (or proto-italo-Celtic or proto-Italic or whatever you want to call it) is increasingly heterogeneous, to the point that in some regions R1b-P312 is a minority (I am thinking about the Unstrut culture)
I have written a lot about haplogroup R-V1636 for at least 15 years and also recently after the discovery of ancient DNA with specimens found in eastern Europe up to the Caucasus and also the Middle East. The oldest specimens are in eastern and central Europe, so an origin south of the Caucasus that would interest supporters of the Southern Arc theory does not seem possible. In favor of an origin from the Alpine area of Villabruna I brought the 5 different haplotypes found in Italy not only in the few people tested (only three) but in the data of published studies. At the beginning I also carried the hypothesis that the specimens from Western Europe had YCAII=18-23, while the then known specimens from the Caucasus had YCAII=23-23, due, I thought, to RechLOH which made the Western specimens the oldest. Then a specimen from Iraq seemed to break this hypothesis and other light was shed by the ancient DNA specimens.
However, from YFull's tree it seemed that the Italian specimen, Mangino [YF015798], was the oldest of the survivors (6600 years ago and then 6500 years old) with the Iberian peninsula specimens being more recent by around 500 or 600 years.
Now a new specimen has appeared in YFull's tree (YF127318) which is on the same level as Mangino, and it seems that they have 23 SNPs in common, so the age of their separation is much more recent than 6500 years. This specimen is tested by Nebula and did not indicate its origin. Their subclade will be on YFull R-Y159844. Its mt is J2a1a1e6 and it has a common ancestor with JQ702605 around 3000 ybp, which, being among the specimens donated as clones by FTDNA to Doron Behar for his tree rearrangement, it is not possible to know its origin, and now also Phylotree it makes things difficult because the result of the FASTA file cannot be downloaded. However this mt, which also has recent Jewish specimens, recent and probably entered Europe, is above and below in the tree full of Italian specimens, so it is not impossible that this Y belongs to an Italian connected with Mangino, and we had Buono DiBello was among the people tested and both come from Salerno, while with Demao they had a very different haplotype. I spoke at length about the trick used by FTDNA to make people believe that a Jewish specimen was among the most ancient, but not only was this contradicted by its haplotype being very close to the other very recent Jewish specimens, but the trick of the SNP PH4354, tested in a partial by National Geographic, is clearly indicated by YFull as being at the level of R-BY90731 of the Jewish subclade. It should be noted that FTDNA gives Mangino positive for the SNP BY15391 while YFull does not.
So the discussion is updated, waiting for more ancient DNA and above all for the specimens belonging to the 5 different haplotypes that I had found in Italy to come to light sooner or later.
Jaako misunderstands and simplifies the Norse character of early Runic
This was demonstrated by linguist Östen Dahl - The origin of the Scandinavian languages
''In contradistinction to most -languages, which are merely reconstructions, the
common ancestor of the Scandinavian languages is usually claimed to be attested,
mainly through runic inscriptions using the 24-symbol Older Futhark, dated from the
2nd to the 7th century. Accordingly, the language used in these inscriptions is simply
referred to as “Proto-Nordic” (urnordisk(a)). Since one of the aims of this paper is to
question the status of “Proto-Nordic”, I cannot very well use that name but shall call it
by the more non-committal name Early Runic instead. The identification of Early
Runic with the assumed Scandinavian proto-language has a central role in the
Common Nordic hypothesis. However, the specific Scandinavian character of Early
Runic was actually questioned in the fifties by the German scholar Hans Kuhn, who
noted that the early runic inscriptions contain very little that show that they are
Scandinavian rather than early West Germanic. Accordingly, Kuhn postulated a
“North-West Germanic” unity that would''
Notably, he & Udolph have been consistently derided and defamed by an admin on GeneArchiver for reasons I dont get. Unethical conduct & a breach of their role.
@ Gaska
'Very interesting uniparental markers from Hallstatt and La Tene cultures in Austria and France (someone should talk about the presence of G2a2b in Celtic elites and the importance and abundance of several I2a subclades in many Central European cultures).''
That is why I had issues with R1b-P312 (Beaker) being PIE and entertained the notion of linguistic diversity on the steppe. PIE has a closer correlation with R1a and middle Neolithic central European lineages like certain I2a and even G2
good people, can anyone explain to me what the Globular Amphora signal in the Andronovo culture is connected to? I have Sintashta Anatolia Afanasyevo Bronze Age of Turkmenistan as a source, but this Globular Amphora is present in every Andronovo sample, how did it get there? I even tried Corded ware as a source but it doesn’t help
@Gio
Yes, I recently learned that in the Balkans (Romania Serbia) R1b was present in the Mesolithic, this was a surprise for me, and these samples are the best proxies for EHG, I still have a lot to learn about Europe)
There are no EHG proxies in the Balkans.
The hunter gatherers there (Iron Gates) have some EHG-related ancestry, but they're mostly WHG.
yes, Mesolithic iron gates, they are older than all Rus EHG, except PES001 and Sidelkino https://homeland.ku.dk/
Avar admixture in Hazara people of Afghanistan?
Target: Hazara:Hazara6_27Af
Distance: 0.8372% / 0.00837220
53.4Pakistan_Katelai_IA
45.4Hungary_EarlyAvar
1.2Kyrgyzstan_Saka_IA
Target: Hazara:HGDP00104
Distance: 1.7086% / 0.01708595
45.0Hungary_EarlyAvar
35.0Pakistan_Katelai_IA
20.0Kyrgyzstan_Saka_IA_o
"In particular, almost all Burushaski agricultural vocabulary appears to be borrowed from Dardic, Tibeto-Burman, and North Caucasian languages."
Target: Burusho:HGDP00388
Distance: 1.2933% / 0.01293286
78.8 Pakistan_Katelai_IA
8.8 Hungary_EarlyAvar
7.2 Kyrgyzstan_TianShan_Hun.SG
5.2 Kazakhstan_Central_Saka.SG
Avar ancestry if there in burusho probably came via the Hazara?
Target: Burusho:HGDP00351
Distance: 1.7234% / 0.01723436
79.4 Pakistan_Katelai_IA
20.6 Hungary_EarlyAvar
Better model
Target: Hazara:Hazara6_27Af
Distance: 0.6035% / 0.00603528
53.4 Pakistan_Katelai_IA
25.8 Hungary_EarlyAvar
10.8 Mongolia_Arkhangai_LateMedieval
5.6 Mongolia_Arkhangai_EarlyMedieval_o
4.0 Kyrgyzstan_TianShan_Hun.SG
0.4 Mongolia_Arkhangai_EarlyMedieval
Target: Hazara:HGDP00104
Distance: 0.6663% / 0.00666254
26.4 Mongolia_Arkhangai_EarlyMedieval_o
25.4 Pakistan_Katelai_IA
17.4 Mongolia_Arkhangai_EarlyMedieval
17.2 Kyrgyzstan_TianShan_Hun.SG
13.6 Hungary_EarlyAvar
@Арсен
Iron Gates Mesolithic is not EHG.
@David
I didn’t write that, I wrote that they are better than other Western HGs as a source that, when mixed with ANE, give EHG
https://postimg.cc/Fk7J29Cs
but these "Serbia Iron Gates" relative to the Italian HGs are already mixed with northern Eurasians
https://postimg.cc/qtNSt67x
but again the iron gate could be a mixture of Villabruna and EHG like Arkhangelsk PES001, I removed the latter from the source
Joel:
“Jaako misunderstands and simplifies the Norse character of early Runic
This was demonstrated by linguist Östen Dahl - The origin of the Scandinavian languages”
You misspelled my name, Joel. ;)
And you misunderstood what I wrote. I have written that we can follow the development Northwest Germanic > Proto-Scandinavian > Transitional Scandinavian > Old Scandinavian from the Runic inscriptions. That is well in line what Dahl writes in your quoting.
Jar:
“Notably, he & Udolph have been consistently derided and defamed by an admin on GeneArchiver for reasons I dont get. Unethical conduct & a breach of their role.”
Critique against Udolph stems from his ignorance concerning linguistic results (contacts between Germanic and Celtic in the west, Finnic and Saami in the east) and over-interpreting placenames.
@Romulus said-Unetice seems like it may only be a candidate for the ancestor of Italo-Celtic and perhaps only Celtic
& Rob said-PIE has a closer correlation with R1a and middle neolithic central European lineages like certain I2a and even G2-
If we consider that the Italo-Celtic is linked to R1b-P312, the only Central European lineage that could have participated in its dispersal is U152 because there is no trace of L21 and DF27 in Central Europe during the chalcolithic and Bronze Age ergo we will have to look for a culture where this lineage is the majority.
Thus we must exclude the Mierzanowice, Iwno, Strzyżów & Trzciniec cultures dominated by some subclades of I2a including I2a1a-L233 (Romulus) and where P312 is non-existent (even R1a is a minority).
In the western domain of the Unetice culture (Germany) with samples from Leubingen, Eulau, Esperstedt, U152 is a minority to R1a and several subclades of I2a whereas in the eastern Unetice domain (Bohemia...), with 65 male markers analyzed, U152 represents 30% of the cases while I2a-M438 (different clades) is a majority with 40% (R1a reaches 20%).
Then it is evident that this culture both in its uniparental and autosomal markers is a mixture of 1)-Bell Beakers, 2)-CWC, 3)-Local neolithic cultures-In the few samples we have from the Tumulus culture, in addition to U152, we have I2a1b-L1229 and R1a-Z645
With the data we have we have to rule out a direct migration from Unetice or Tumulus culture to France, Iberia or Italy because R1a and the various I2a subclades mentioned do not appear in those regions.
Post a Comment