Unetice culture was clearly multi-ethnic

[Tomenable]

^ As for Kyjatice culture, it seems that it had some demographic links with Lusatian culture.

I have read that Kyjatice culture developed from a mixture of Lusatian and Gava groups:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gáva_culture

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lusatian_culture

^ Too bad, that we don't have any good-quality autosomal samples from Lusatian culture.

 

[MarkoZ]

The Insular Celtic scenario is wrong. To cite Matasovic² (a Croatian celtologist), Insular Celtic is a language area. All of the 'old' Celtic languages (Primitive Irish, Common Brythonic, Gaulish, Galatian, Lepontic, Celtiberian, Gallaecian) were all fairly similar to each other.

I did not imply whether I thought the relationship between Brythonic and Gaelic was areal or genetic. Matasovic still contraposes insular and continental Celtic in his newer publications, so I'm not sure what your point is if it's not entirely about semantics. He's also much more cautious in his pronouncements. You'll have to explain where you derive your confidence from.

Pictish was a P-Celtic language, similar to Brythonic and Gaulish. See Forsyth³ for reference.

Forsyth is a historian, not a linguist. For reference, Eric P. Hamp and Isaac Graham still classify Pictish as non-Indo-European - both of them certainly authorities in their respective fields. Matasovic refers to Pictish as possibly Indo-European, so there doesn't seem to be a clear consensus.

 

[MarkoZ]

This doesn't necessarily correlate to when the languages were spoken e.g. proto-Italo-Celtic was almost certainly spoken before Indic based on the archaism that it shares with Hittite.

A single archaism retained in several Indo-European languages is hardly conclusive. Your pet theory around a branch generally rejected by historical linguists needs more precise evidence to be considered anything but 'dubious'.

 

[Taranis]

I did not imply whether I thought the relationship between Brythonic and Gaelic was areal or genetic. Matasovic still contraposes insular and continental Celtic in his newer publications, so I'm not sure what your point is if it's not entirely about semantics. He's also much more cautious in his pronouncements. You'll have to explain where you derive your confidence from.

If you look at the modern Insular Celtic languages (e.g Irish, Breton and Welsh) and compare them with the better-known extinct Continental Celtic languages (Celtiberian and Gaulish), that concept is useful. My point is that the earliest attestations of Goidelic and Brythonic were essentially "Continental Celtic" in their character, meaning that the "Insularity" was a later innovation, which is exactly what Matasovic argues in the paper I cited. Matasovic makes a comparison with the medieval Balkans: "the absence of a sharp sociolinguistic division between high and low va- rieties of the languages in contact. In medieval Balkans, the languages of the lowlands Slavic agriculturalists, and those of the highland pastoralists speaking various forms of Balkan Romance and Proto-Albanian were of roughly equal status. Similar social patterns exist in other regions where areal phenomena have spread, e.g. in the Arnhem Land of Australia." Matasovic points out that there is no independent evidence for the existence of such a "substrate language" (commonly thought to be Afroasiatic), which is supposed to have influenced the Insular Celtic languages.

Forsyth is a historian, not a linguist. For reference, Eric P. Hamp and Isaac Graham still classify Pictish as non-Indo-European - both of them certainly authorities in their respective fields. Matasovic refers to Pictish as possibly Indo-European, so there doesn't seem to be a clear consensus.

That doesn't prevent Forsyth from being very accurate in her analysis. She dubbs the language of northern Britain during the Roman period 'Pritenic', and uses that term to distinguish it from the later Pictish language spoken during the early Middle Ages. To quote her (p26): "Rivet and Smith have remarked on the essential unity of place names throughout Britain in the Roman period. We have the same roots and formations recurring north and south, sometimes even the same names (Ituna, Alauna, Dumnonii), a cohesion which extends to the Celtic-speaking areas of the continent, too."

If you distrust Forsyth because she's a historian, I recommend that you read the original sources (Tacitus' Agricola and Ptolemy's Geography). If Britain was seemingly entirely Celtic throughout by 100 AD, where are the non-Indo-Europeans by 400 AD supposed to come from?

 

[Sloven-Vened]

Unetice culture

where did Unetice originate? was it Bohemia?

English wikipedia: Czech Únětická kultura, is an archaeological culture at the start of the Central European Bronze Age, dated roughly to about 2300–1600 BC. The eponymous site for this culture, the village of Únětice, is located in the central Czech Republic, northwest of Prague. Today, this archaeological culture is known from Czech Republic and Slovakia from about 1,400 sites, from Poland (550 sites) and Germany (about 500 sites and loose finds locations).

In Czech language wikipedia about Unetice culture: The eastern border of occupied territory in its largest heyday accounted Slovak river Zittau.

The largest number archeological objects of Unetice culture is in Slovakia.

 

[Tomenable]

Samples of ancient DNA from the following will be published soon:

- South Baltic Mesolithic
- Kunda & Narva cultures
- South Baltic Corded Ware
- Trzciniec culture

 

[Armoricain]

Samples of ancient DNA from the following will be published soon:

- South Baltic Mesolithic
- Kunda & Narva cultures
- South Baltic Corded Ware
- Trzciniec culture

I am in a hurry to see whether I-M253 will be present in all these new samples;
especially among the mesolithic ones.

 

[Tomenable]

Here are my results for Copper-Bronze Age and younger samples (I added cultures):

Bronze Age BR2 comes first again (1/5 - 1/4 of shared ancestry):

BR2 - 22,36% - Kyjatice, Hungary
(...)

And here is what Shaikorth wrote on Anthrogenica:

looks like BR2 descendants contributed to modern Poles pretty much more than to anyone else in Europe, similarly to how Rathlin Bronze Age's closest genealogical descendants were Irish and Welsh. This was verified in Cassidy et al. (...)

BR2 population's direct descendants survived better in Poland than anywhere else, but that population likely isn't the only ancestor of modern Poles. (...)

Michał added:

it is modern Poland where the closest relatives of BR2 have somehow managed to survive, although they were strongly admixed with an unknown (but genetically distinct) population

Here is a map from Cassidy et al. which was mentioned by Shaikorth:

http://s22.postimg.org/5y9hc69ip/br2.jpg

Here a broader picture:

 

[Tomenable]

^ Kyjatice people - such as BR2 - were partially descended from people of the Lusatian culture.

It is possible, that similarity of Poles and BR2 is due to shared ancestry from Lusatian population.

Unfortunately, we don't have any good-quality ancient DNA samples from the Lusatian culture.

If we had such a sample, then probably I would share even more with that sample than with BR2.

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

Another theory is that people of Trzciniec culture were partially descended from BR2-like populations.

And Trzciniec seems to be the direct ancestors of Slavs and Balts (but let's wait for official publication).

 

[LeBrok]

And here is what Shaikorth wrote on Anthrogenica:



Michał added:



Here is a map from Cassidy et al. which was mentioned by Shaikorth:

http://s22.postimg.org/5y9hc69ip/br2.jpg

Here a broader picture:

Always surprised me we a strong connection to Welsh population and Italians, and this is without any Y DNA connection, almost. It drops quicker for Germanics than for Balkans.
From all the ancient samples I have strongest connection to Hungarian BR2. It makes sense for me.

 

[Sloven-Vened]

^ Kyjatice people - such as BR2 - were partially descended from people of the Lusatian culture.
It is possible, that similarity of Poles and BR2 is due to shared ancestry from Lusatian population.
Unfortunately, we don't have any good-quality ancient DNA samples from the Lusatian culture.
If we had such a sample, then probably I would share even more with that sample than with BR2.

People from Lusatian culture are R1a haplogrup. R1a is the most typical Slavic haplogrup

You ca see this interesting link
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=539586
http://s23.postimg.org/ejjquv6d7/Lusatian_Culture.png

 

[Tomenable]

From all the ancient samples I have strongest connection to Hungarian BR2. It makes sense for me.

You too, Brutus?

Yeah it seems that most of Poles have a strong connection to this BR2.

Always surprised me we a strong connection to Welsh population and Italians

Here is what Shaikorth supposes:

BR2 could plausibly have been on the migration route from steppe to Britain, and that explains Welsh (...). Sicilians probably share a lot with the non-steppe part of BR2, considering their very high Hungarian Neolithic contribution.

 

[LeBrok]

Yeah it seems that most of Poles have a strong connection to this BR2.

It doesn't look like it was really related to CW expansion. More like something local before CW, Or strong selection for Balto/Slavic, East Germanic or East Celtic, or whatever proto was for these before the split 2,000 BC?

Here is what Shaikorth supposes:


BR2 could plausibly have been on the migration route from steppe to Britain, and that explains Welsh (...). Sicilians probably share a lot with the non-steppe part of BR2, considering their very high Hungarian Neolithic contribution.

Makes sense, my second higher was one of the Hungarian Neolithic guys, NE1, IIRC.


BR2 could plausibly have been on the migration route from steppe to Britain, and that explains Welsh (...). Sicilians probably share a lot with the non-steppe part of BR2, considering their very high Hungarian Neolithic contribution.

 

[Tomenable]

my second higher was one of the Hungarian Neolithic guys, NE1, IIRC.

Same here. I got 22,36% with BR2 and 20,49% with NE1.

 

[MOESAN]

Forsyth is a historian, not a linguist. For reference, Eric P. Hamp and Isaac Graham still classify Pictish as non-Indo-European - both of them certainly authorities in their respective fields. Matasovic refers to Pictish as possibly Indo-European, so there doesn't seem to be a clear consensus.

Which Pictish? It seems there are traces of 2 languages (I have not too much details) in the same areas: one is not too well understood; but what is sure is that the most illustrated one in toponymy is clearly a Brittonic Celtic language.

 

[Sile]

People from Lusatian culture are R1a haplogrup. R1a is the most typical Slavic haplogrup

You ca see this interesting link
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=539586
http://s23.postimg.org/ejjquv6d7/Lusatian_Culture.png

IIRC in the last 2 years of genetic papers, that town/area was dominated by ydna of G2a and H2 ( ydna) in the early neolithic period .

 

[Volat]

People from Lusatian culture are R1a haplogrup. R1a is the most typical Slavic haplogrup

You ca see this interesting link
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=539586
http://s23.postimg.org/ejjquv6d7/Lusatian_Culture.png

Earliest R1a in Europe are found in Karelia (Mesolithic) and late Neolithic (border of Russian and Belarus). R1a came in Poland, Slovakia, Czechia, eastern Germany from the east. We need more evidence to support the claim. It will be coming soon.

 

[MOESAN]

All that is following is brain sudation. Only to put more knowledged people to react (old trick!)
I don't know if anyone can make sound conclusions to date concerning Y-haplos.
I'm not too well knowledged but the Lusacian question is a bit complicated; it's post Unetice, and followed in W-Poland a Tumuli culture came there from Bohemia through Moravia with something evocating Celts or Italics. The burying aspect does not provide easy conclusion because the alternance inhumation/cremation was very common at those times; based upon urns, one could evocate one of close "Hungarian" cultures which could have penetrated the new Tumuli area; The Urnfileds culture which show some proximity to Lusacian culture could have resulted of these contacts + maybe fusions? The subsequent rather Italic cultures which reached Italy could have had strong contacts with this POSSIBLE fusion/osmosis, I think here firstly in Veneti, the Osco-Umbrians could have been influenced later by the Veneti. It's based upon archeology, always discutable; at these times the Celts and Italics or their immediate "fathers" were close enough concerning things, as clothes; Italics were not already trying to sunbathe. I did not red anything about languages in Lusacian territories. In fact linguistically proto-Italics or even Italics seem having been in contact with Germanics, even Slavs at some stage and after cutting off from proto-Celts, and archeologically they show links with Hungary/Pannonia later cultures, roughly said. I remember the so called 'Illyrian' toponymy in Lusacian territories without traces in the Illyricum. Could it have been in fact a proto-Dalmatian/Venetic which was at the center of the Lusacian culture??? I recall too B. Sergent thinks the North-West I-Ean pre-celtic pre-germanic had meta-italic traits for the little which can be analysed: the true first Urnfields people could have spoken some dialect of proto/or eraly-Italic before to influence culturally (religion?) other people (principally Celts)? concerning Y-haplos, we have very few for Unetice (I forgot, have to go to look at) I guess some Y-I2a2 lignages from Hungary could have been envolved in the process of Lusacian creation - who knows to date? Unstrut culture had strong Y-I2a2 in Liechstenstein cave but the track could have been different - and all that is later than Unetice, sorry for the very thread.

 

[Tomenable]

Lavanttal seems to be located in a region where the Slovene minority lives. Are you sure this "Austrian" is not one of them?

You were right, he is Slovenian.

His ethnicity is given as Koroških, which means Carinthian Slovene, but his results look also very Austrian:
(even when "using 3 populations approximation", he is still getting only Austrian + Austrian + Austrian)

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/sh...our-results!&p=3927768&viewfull=1#post3927768

This calculator looks impressingly good!

# Population Percent
1 NE_European 55.91
2 Mediterranean 27.17
3 Caucasian 9.92
4 SW_Asian 4.9
5 S_Indian 0.8
6 Omo_River 0.43
7 Siberian 0.42
8 Oceanian 0.39
9 Amerindian 0.05
10 S_African 0.01

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Austrian 1.05
2 Slovenian 2.3
3 Hungarian 2.58
4 Irish 3.47
5 Orcadian 3.55
6 Croatian 4.13
7 North_German 4.19
8 English 4.36
9 Scottish 4.94
10 Norwegian 5.33
11 Utahn_White 5.99
12 South_German 6.41
13 Swedish 6.85
14 Serbian 9.01
15 Polish 9.32
16 French 9.65
17 Bosnian 13.08
18 Macedonian 14.86
19 Mordovian 15.12
20 Belarusian 15.32

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 99.6% Austrian + 0.4% AriBlackSmith @ 0.97
2 99.6% Austrian + 0.4% Nganassan @ 0.97
3 99.6% Austrian + 0.4% Bedouin_B @ 0.99
4 99.6% Austrian + 0.4% Dolgan @ 1
5 99.5% Austrian + 0.5% Selkup @ 1.01
6 99% Austrian + 1% Basque @ 1.01
7 98.8% Austrian + 1.2% Spaniard @ 1.02
8 99.7% Austrian + 0.3% AriCultivator @ 1.02
9 99.5% Austrian + 0.5% Sardinian @ 1.02
10 99.8% Austrian + 0.2% Papuan @ 1.02
11 99.7% Austrian + 0.3% Saudi @ 1.03
12 99.2% Austrian + 0.8% Brazilian @ 1.03
13 98.9% Austrian + 1.1% Mordovian @ 1.03
14 99.7% Austrian + 0.3% Moroccan @ 1.04
15 99.9% Austrian + 0.1% Melanesian @ 1.04
16 99.7% Austrian + 0.3% Mozabite_Berber @ 1.04
17 99.6% Austrian + 0.4% Puerto_Rican @ 1.04
18 99.7% Austrian + 0.3% Colombian_B @ 1.04
19 95.9% Austrian + 4.1% Orcadian @ 1.04
20 96.7% Austrian + 3.3% English @ 1.04

Least-squares method.

Using 1 population approximation:
1 Austrian @ 1.834648
2 Slovenian @ 3.012423
3 Orcadian @ 3.551322
4 Irish @ 3.586220
5 Hungarian @ 3.795977
6 North_German @ 4.162593
7 English @ 4.431090
8 Scottish @ 4.825833
9 Norwegian @ 5.409451
10 Croatian @ 5.463852
11 Utahn_White @ 6.694263
12 Swedish @ 6.971464
13 South_German @ 7.336555
14 Polish @ 9.704070
15 Serbian @ 10.781292
16 French @ 10.989354
17 Bosnian @ 15.515591
18 Mordovian @ 16.320127
19 Belarusian @ 16.479029
20 Russian @ 16.577738

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Austrian +50% Austrian @ 1.834648

Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% Austrian +25% Austrian +25% Austrian @ 1.834648

Using 4 populations approximation:
1 Scottish + Austrian + Austrian + Austrian @ 1.641198
2 Orcadian + Austrian + Austrian + Austrian @ 1.679857
3 Lithuanian + Scottish + Austrian + Montenegrin @ 1.713121
4 English + Austrian + Austrian + Austrian @ 1.768368
5 North_German + Austrian + Austrian + Austrian @ 1.788517
6 Lithuanian + English + Austrian + Romanian @ 1.794720
7 Lithuanian + English + Austrian + Montenegrin @ 1.830812
8 Norwegian + Austrian + Austrian + Austrian @ 1.833493
9 Austrian + Austrian + Austrian + Austrian @ 1.834648
10 Lithuanian + Orcadian + Austrian + Montenegrin @ 1.836085
11 Lithuanian + Polish + Scottish + Albanian @ 1.859073
12 Lithuanian + Polish + English + Albanian @ 1.860137
13 Lithuanian + Polish + Scottish + Tuscan @ 1.863095
14 Lithuanian + Orcadian + Austrian + Romanian @ 1.864231
15 Lithuanian + Scottish + Austrian + Romanian @ 1.864766
16 Irish + Austrian + Austrian + Austrian @ 1.869636
17 Orcadian + Slovenian + Austrian + Austrian @ 1.878144
18 Lithuanian + Polish + Orcadian + Albanian @ 1.889300
19 Scottish + Slovenian + Austrian + Austrian @ 1.895475
20 Polish + Polish + Austrian + Romanian @ 1.925544

 

[Tomenable]

By the way:

There is this 70-year-long dispute whether the Führer was Austrian or German... :grin:

We need his DNA sample, and we need to run it through PuntDNAL K15 calculator.