Ancient MtDna from Europe-Single Dispersal from Africa and Population Turnover

[Kristiina]

Thank you Fire Haired14!

Sintashta is often considered the point of departure of Indo-Iranian languages, and Uralic languages contain a high amount of so called Indo-Iranian loanwords. Now that I see how close to Sintashta an Eastern Finnish male with a typical Finnish N1c haplogroup is (let alone if we compare Sintashta to Indians!), I really call into question this eternal talk of loanwords into Finnish. Why should they be loanwords if there is a genetic continuity?

 

[arvistro]

Thank you Fire Haired14!

Sintashta is often considered the point of departure of Indo-Iranian languages, and Uralic languages contain a high amount of so called Indo-Iranian loanwords. Now that I see how close to Sintashta an Eastern Finnish male with a typical Finnish N1c haplogroup is (let alone if we compare Sintashta to Indians!), I really call into question this eternal talk of loanwords into Finnish. Why should they be loanwords if there is a genetic continuity?

Whether something is loanword or not is not defined by genetic continuity...
If North or North West Latvians are genetically same as extinct Liivi folk, it does not make Latvian "puika" (boy) a native Indo European, Baltic word. That would be absurdeus statement. It is properly recognized as a loanword of Baltic Finnic origin.
What could be argued is that Finnish folk besides loanwords borrowed also some Indo Iranian blood.

As to Indo-Iranic loanwords into FU there is so much academical reasearch, that only true question is when to date those borrowings and what kind of Indo Iranic was the source language. In this light Napolskich's arguments of Indo-ish character for earliest loanwords seems the most attractive to me.

 

[Kristiina]

“borrowed also some Indo Iranian blood”

It is very funny indeed that Indians or Sardinians who are genetically very far from Sintashta are considered Indo-Europeans and an Eastern Finn who is closer to Sintashta than any German or Swedish person is considered a person who has borrowed his genes and language/words. I do not believe in this any more.

The whole idea that you can borrow your own genes and blood is absurd and stupid.

 

[MOESAN]

Not sure about Mordovia but Western Finland and Estonia were parts of the Indo-European speaking Corded Ware culture. And the dispersal of Finno-Ugric languages towards the Baltic Sea took place after that of Indo-European languages - exactly as it was later the case in Hungary, where an Ugric language also replaced IE. So linguistic ancestors of both Estonians, Finns and Hungarians assimilated Indo-European substrates.

Studies such as Tömöry 2007, Csányi 2008 and Szécsényi-Nagy 2015 seem to indicate that there is surprisingly little genetic continuity between original Hungarians and modern Hungarians, though maybe this is due to unrepresentative conquest era or modern samples:

Tömöry 2007 (apparently lack of mtDNA continuity: "high-status individuals, presumably conquering Hungarians, show a more heterogeneous haplogroup distribution, with mtDNA haplogroups - N1a, X - which are present at very low frequencies in modern worldwide populations and are absent in recent Hungarian-speaking populations. Our findings demonstrate that significant genetic differences exist between 27 ancient Magyars and 177 modern Hungarian-speakers, and no genetic continuity is seen"):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17632797

http://doktori.bibl.u-szeged.hu/1088/3/Tömöry_tézisek-angol.pdf

Csányi 2008 (Y-DNA) - it indicates that among Magyars haplogroup N1c was common, but it is almost absent from modern Hungary (two 10th century elite status Hungarians had Y hg N1c and mtDNA Tat C, but in a modern sample of 197 Hungarian-speakers just 1 had Tat C):

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-1809.2008.00440.x/abstract

http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/medievaldna.shtml

2015 study (mtDNA: see Table 8. on page 137 - it shows total lack of continuity of informative mtDNA haplotypes between a sample of 25 conquest era original Hungarians and a sample of 284 modern Hungarians; even continuity with Cumanians is greater):

http://ubm.opus.hbz-nrw.de/volltexte/2015/4075/pdf/doc.pdf

Also such a study on Cumanians: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16596944

================================================== ===

Possible explanations is that Magyars (original Hungarian-speakers) imposed their language on much more numerous locals. It is also possible that the original Magyar stock eventually got extinct, maybe due to being overrepresented compared to local subject stock among warriors and thus suffering high casualties in wars such as against the HRE, against Mongols, or against Turks. For example, after the battle of Lechfeld in 955, most of retreating Magyars were ambushed and slaughtered by local peasants (according to Bachrach's "Warfare in Tenth-Century Germany"):

According to Bachrach, the battle itself was inconclusive (they were halted, not defeated), only the withdrawal was disastrous:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7722/j.ctt1x7355

Magyars fought so far and wide in Europe (map), that probably they decimated themselves while trying to conquer Europe:

often, a striking phenomenon has cumulative causes; what you say here can be one of them; but in front of the amazing constat of a so foreign language in Central Europe almost without any apparent support in DNA I'm tempted to think GENUINE EARLIERLIKE Magyars were only a warriors elite when they reached Europe; texts seem confirming it; as very often in these warlike periods among barbaric tribes, the buryings we find are the elites ones. I 've hard work to imagine these nomads of the 900's without any linguistic support around them could have "teached" magyaric to vainquished population of Central Europe; so I imagine a progressive acculturation on their road from East towards Europe, and among the incorporated sets of tribes taken by them, an heavy Slavic element, among others (Turkic more than Iranic, I bet).
Sorry for a topic a bit outside the very thread

 

[MOESAN]

- concerning language, the tempting link between Finnic-Ugric and Indo-European doesn't tell us when possible community brake off; a lot of genetic crossings and internal evolution could have taken place since;
- Finns of Finland are - if I rely upon what I red -very north-east-european concerning mt DNA and autosomes; only Y DNA is an exception (and other European Finns are very less "asiatic";
- even if physical types can mistake us about real genetic links, it seems the Post LGM times saw new types coming into Central and Western Europe from East (far? close? I don't know) - at least if their features were only the result of mesologic selection, what I don't think, these types had passed a while in other regions than where they arrived. The question is: where they came from at first? Ukraina? Caucasus? farther? their links to archeologic artefacts are unkown to me helas; But from what I know (little!) Balkans were not the denser occupied region during LGM in Europe.

 

[MOESAN]

concerning types (slipping track?) La Brana1 showed very more links to old 'cromagnoid' types than to 'brünnoid-capelloid" ones I consider as come later in Europe. the recent other HGs seems closer to 'brünnoid' type, at least for the skull; but at their time crossings between the two ligneages were surely already at work, when I look at Loschbour's face and at diverse regional metric features and indexes of Late Mesolithic. The fact La Brana was Y-C1 when almost all the others are Y-I(2) could be hazard (ridiculously "small" sample for La Brana = 1; laughings) but it could also point to a difference of proportion in diverse HGs ligneages betwen Atlantic Europe and other places. I think more than a move took place after LGM as archeology seems showing, a recolonization from the Franco-Cantabrics region towards North-East, and other ones from other directions, towards West among others directions.
I think the North Caucasus and South Caucasus regions could have send people northwards after LGM, population which where separated so different in some degree before meeting later in Steppes (more than a "caucasus" type of DNA in fact)
after climatic improvement we can suppose more than a move occurred on more than a direction

 

[gyms]

Lack of I in Saami who indeed largely lack IE admixture (despite mixing with Finns they are quite distant to Finns, more distant than IE folks to Finns if I recall things right) actually helps my point, does not it?

Finns, more so Estonians are pretty much same genetically as Balts / Belorussians AND they have I.
Saami are quite distant from Balts/Belorussians and Finns AND have 0 of I.

Btw, Finns themselves most likely arrived into Finland from Estonia after AD. So, it does not even matter if Fatyanovo was deep into Finland.

Textile ceramics culture (alledged fathers of Baltic Finns) formed around modern Pskov before early iron age partially on ruins of post -Fatyanovo groups.

The second most common haplogroup is I, which is found almost exclusively among those of European ancestry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_genetics_of_the_Sami

I is not IE!

http://www.nature.com/articles/srep19998#f4

The Uyghur samples exhibited one primary haplogroup M429 containing 84 samples (out of 95 Uyghur samples used for the analysis) mixed with samples from mainly Eastern Asia and Europe, with the rest of the samples distributed in haplogroups M89 and M2.

IJ= M429

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6451-Ancient-Finno-Ugric-DNA

https://kalmistopiiri.wordpress.com...i-tutkii-suomalais-ugrilaista-muinaisgenomia/

 

[arvistro]

“borrowed also some Indo Iranian blood”

It is very funny indeed that Indians or Sardinians who are genetically very far from Sintashta are considered Indo-Europeans and an Eastern Finn who is closer to Sintashta than any German or Swedish person is considered a person who has borrowed his genes and language/words. I do not believe in this any more.

The whole idea that you can borrow your own genes and blood is absurd and stupid.

Indo-European is linguistic concept not a genetic. So, you cant consider Finns or Basques or Jews or Georgians or Turks as Indo-Europeans.
Michael Jordan is an Indo-European.

As to borrowing own genes. ~50% of my genes are borrowed from my dad and another 50 from mom. If my dad was Lithuanian and I considered myself Latvian, I could argue that I am Latvian who has borrowed genes from Lithuanians

 

[gyms]

http://www.sarks.fi/fa/PDF/FA14_23.pdf

Finnic traits in Russian

http://www.languagesoftheworld.info/russia-ukraine-and-the-caucasus/finnic-traits-in-russian.html

Bibliography of Slavic-Finno-Ugric language contacts


http://homepage.univie.ac.at/Johanna.Laakso/slfubib.html

Interpretations and misinterpretations of Finno-Ugric language relatedness

http://www.academia.edu/1896628/Int...retations_of_Finno-Ugric_language_relatedness

Review of Early Contacts between Uralic and Indo-European: Linguistic and Archaeological Considerations

http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?SubID=10710

Slavicization was not always a function of genetic replacement, but in part one of assimilative absorption of local substratum.

http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2008/01/09/from-where-came-the-slavs/







Toponymy and linguistics




http://unstats.un.org/UNSD/geoinfo/..._Documents/D09/documents/D09-01_Tichelaar.pdf

 

[Kristiina]

However, in this case, there is an archaeological link (Corded Ware, Fatyanovo), linguistic link (similar structure with loads of so called loanwords) and genetic link (e.g. Finns are genetically closer to Corded Ware/ Sintashta than most IE groups and most Uralic groups have loads of R1a). It is just too much. N1c probably has a similar relationship to IE as I2 to Slavics, and its origin is still unresolved.

If my mother were Saami, which is not true, I would not say that I have borrowed half of my genes from Saamis but I would say that I am of admixed ancestry. It is obvious that Uralic groups have in any case heavily mixed with IE groups.

 

[Angela]

Indo-European is linguistic concept not a genetic. So, you cant consider Finns or Basques or Jews or Georgians or Turks as Indo-Europeans.
Michael Jordan is an Indo-European.

As to borrowing own genes. ~50% of my genes are borrowed from my dad and another 50 from mom. If my dad was Lithuanian and I considered myself Latvian, I could argue that I am Latvian who has borrowed genes from Lithuanians

I agree in large part. If, as does David Anthony, you think that the "Indo-Europeans" are the people on the Pontic Caspian steppe from approximately 4200-3000 BC who put together both the Indo-European cultural package and the language, then they were, at least according to the current thinking, a mixed group ethnically, with approximately 40-50% of their genetic data resembling that of the CHG.

Now, as their cultural package (and language) spread, perhaps both with gene flow and without, and reached people who very much resembled one or the other part of their genetic ancestry, does it make the "recipient" people "Indo-Europeans"? Yes, in a sense in does, so long as you don't claim they're the "original" Indo-Europeans.

However, if you call people who were largely only genetically related to part of the "original" group of "Indo-Europeans", but received the package late, and either abandoned or never adopted the language at all, "Indo-Europeans", doesn't the term lose all significance?

As for Sintashta, that's a later group with a somewhat different ethnogenesis. I'd also be cautious with some of the formal stats that have been done with them, although some of Kurd's work is interesting. I'll wait for the Reich Lab and groups of equal stature to opine before making up my mind.

Anyway, that's how it seems to me.

 

[arvistro]

Now, as their cultural package (and language) spread, perhaps both with gene flow and without, and reached people who very much resembled one or the other part of their genetic ancestry, does it make the "recipient" people "Indo-Europeans"? Yes, in a sense in does, so long as you don't claim they're the "original" Indo-Europeans.

IE is a linguistic term like Slavs, Celts, Germans, Iranians.
If a population speaks IE derived language does not matter how, they are IEs per definition. We accept that Hindu monk in India is IE and Sweddish atheist Marketing Manager is IE, despite their "cultural packages" or their genetic differences.

"Original IEs" would be a tribe that spoke original IE that is ProtoIE (PIE) many 1000s years ago. No modern folk is original IE.
But of course that does not forbid arguments as to how similar modern pops are to that tribe linguistically, culturally or genetically OR as in your case whether genetical similarity is causual or just by having same ingredients.

However, if you call people who were largely only genetically related to part of the "original" group of "Indo-Europeans", but received the package late, and either abandoned or never adopted the language at all, "Indo-Europeans", doesn't the term lose all significance?

Of course. You must speak IE to be IE.

 

[Tomenable]

Any archaeological "cultural packages" are only of secondary importance to the study on Proto-Indo-European origins. This field of science is about the spread of a language family and of people who spoke it. The beginning of Indo-European studies can be traced back to 1653 when Marcus Zuerius van Boxhorn published a proposal for a common ancestral proto-language of Germanic, Romance, Greek, Baltic, Slavic, Celtic and Iranian language families. He initially suggested to call that proto-language "Scythian". In 1786 William Jones added Sanskrit to the list, providing the basis for the name "Proto-Indo-European". Later more languages were also found to be related. The only reason why investigating archaeological cultures is helpful in Indo-European studies, is because it helps in tracing ancestors of modern Indo-European peoples. For example an Indo-Aryan ritual described in Rig Veda, was discovered in one of graves of the Potapovka archaeological culture, which - alongside other evidence - means that we can perhaps link Potapovka with Proto-Indo-Aryans:

https://sites.google.com/a/sudiptodas.com/www/thearyantrail

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2015/11/the-aryan-trail-3500-1500-bc.html

"Excavations conducted from 1985-1988 in Potapovka exposed four burial mounds, or kurgans, dated between 2200-2000 BC. Beneath kurgan 3 the central grave pit had remains of a man buried with at least two horse heads and the head of a sheep, in addition to pottery vessels and weapons. After the grave pit was filled, a human male was decapitated, his head was replaced with the head of a horse, and he was laid down over the filled grave shaft. This unique ritual provides a convincing antecedent for the Rig Vedic myth of Dadhyac Atharvan who knows the secret of making Soma juice, the nectar of immortality. The Asvins insist that Dadhyac tell them the secret. He refuses. They cut off his head and replace it with the head of a horse, through which he becomes an oracle and tells them the secret."

Rig Veda was written in the 2nd millennium BC.

This grave, showing evidence of an identical ritual as that described later in Rig Veda, dates back to the 4th millennium BC.

 

[Kristiina]

Currently, (but I may change my mind when we get ancient DNA from the relevant areas,) I think that Uralic languages arose when the modernity reached Northeastern European forest area. In my thinking, Uralic languages are not an IE daughter language but a sibling language (cf. 'Indo-Uralic'). However, there must have been continuous interactions for thousands of years, and a Corded Ware language was surely spoken In Estonia and Finland during the Corded Ware period and it has in any case greatly influenced all Finnic languages.

 

[bicicleur 2]

Currently, (but I may change my mind when we get ancient DNA from the relevant areas,) I think that Uralic languages arose when the modernity reached Northeastern European forest area. In my thinking, Uralic languages are not an IE daughter language but a sibling language (cf. 'Indo-Uralic'). However, there must have been continuous interactions for thousands of years, and a Corded Ware language was surely spoken In Estonia and Finland during the Corded Ware period and it has in any case greatly influenced all Finnic languages.

what do you mean by modernity?
could there be a link between Uralic and Seima-Turbino?

• 
  [*=left]N1c (L729)
  • 
    [*=left]N1c1 (M46/Page70/Tat)
    • 
      [*=left]N1c1a (M178): found in Siberia (Khakass-Daurs)
      • 
        [*=left]N1c1a1 (L708): found in Siberia (Anayins)
        • 
          [*=left]N1c1a1a (P298): found in Siberia (Yakuts)
          • 
            [*=left]N1c1a1a1 (L392, L1026): Finno-Ugric branch; found throughout north-east Europe
            • 
              [*=left]N1c1a1a1a (CTS2929/VL29): Baltic-Finnic branch
              • 
                [*=left]N1c1a1a1a1 (L550): West Finnic branch; found around the Baltic Sea and in places settled by the Vikings
                • 
                  [*=left]N1c1a1a1a1a (L1025)
                  • 
                    [*=left]N1c1a1a1a1a1 (M2783): found especially in Balto-Slavic countries, with a peak in Lithuania and Latvia
                    [*=left]N1c1a1a1a1a2 (Y4706): found mostly in Finland and Scandinavia
                
                [*=left]N1c1a1a1a2 (CTS9976): East Finnic branch; found among the Chudes (Karelia, Estonia)
                [*=left]N1c1a1a1a2a (L1022)
              
              [*=left]N1c1a1a1a2a1 (Z1936): Finno-Permic branch; found in the Volga-Ural region and among the Karelians and Savonians
              • 
                [*=left]N1c1a1a1a2a1a (Z1925): found in Finland, Lapland, Scandinavia, the Volga-Ural and the Altai
                • 
                  [*=left]N1c1a1a1a2a1a1 (Z1933)
                  • 
                    [*=left]N1c1a1a1a2a1a1a (Z1927): found among the Karelians
                    [*=left]N1c1a1a1a2a1a1b (CTS8565): found among the Savonians
                
                [*=left]N1c1a1a2b (L1034): Ugric branch; found in and around Hungary and in Central Asia (Kazakhstan)

• Haplogroup N1c1 is strongly associated with Uralic peoples, whis is divided in the following families.
  • 
    [*=left]Samoyedic (Nganasans, Enets, Nenets and Selkups)
    [*=left]Finno-Ugric
    • 
      [*=left]Finno-Permic
      • 
        [*=left]Baltic Finnic (Finnish, Karelian, Estonia, etc.)
        [*=left]Permic (Komi, Udmurt)
        [*=left]Saamic (Saami)
        [*=left]Volgaic (Mari, Mordvin)
      
      [*=left]Ugric
      • 
        [*=left]Hungarian
        [*=left]Ob-Ugric (Khanty, Masi)
  The Samoyedic branch on northern Siberia split the earliest and correspond to the N1c1* and N1c1a* subclades.Permic and Volgaic speakers have a wide diversity of N1c subclades, including N1c1a1 (L708), N1c1a1a (L1026), N1c1a1a1 (VL29), N1c1a1a2a (Z1935), and N1c2b (P43).
  
  What do you think about the Yakuts?
  They speak Turkic now.
  But are they original Turkic or where they Uralic who switched language in Siberia?

[/LEFT]

 

[Kristiina]

With modernity I mean the Bronze Age upheavals.

That Wikipedia tree is not the only phylogenetic tree available. These phylogenetic trees from the paper “A recent bottleneck of Y chromosome diversity coincides with a global change in culture” are better: http://genome.cshlp.org/content/suppl/2015/02/18/gr.186684.114.DC1/Supplemental_Figures.pdf





According to the trees above, Ananyin branch (L708) is not Siberian as it is found in Volga (Udmurts and Maris) and in Altai.

This tree is even more detailed and more recent but the geographic references are missing so it is probably less informative: https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/n-russia-dna-project/about/background

Samoyeds have mostly N1b, and their N1c is not the earliest split but falls into the West Siberian branch Z1936 and more specifically to the Ugric branch which is shared with Hungarians. The whole Z1936 is shared between Estonians, Finns, Kazakhs and the above mentioned Ugrics.

With so little ancient yDNA we have, I do not know about Yakuts. Everything is possible. The oldest split is that of Shors and Khakass, and IMO they have never been Uralic speakers, and they geographic area is South Siberia.