Steppe Ancestry in western Eurasia and the spread of the Germanic Languages

[Anfänger]

Steppe Ancestry in western Eurasia and the spread of the Germanic Languages

Abstract​

Germanic-speaking populations historically form an integral component of the North and Northwest European cultural configuration. According to linguistic consensus, the common ancestor of the Germanic languages, which include German, English, Frisian, Dutch as well as the Nordic languages, was spoken in Northern Europe during the Pre-Roman Iron Age. However, important questions remain concerning the earlier Bronze Age distribution of this Indo-European language branch in Scandinavia as well as the driving factors behind its Late Iron Age diversification and expansion across the European continent. A key difficulty in addressing these questions are the existence of striking differences in the interpretation of the archaeological record, leading to various hypotheses of correlations with linguistic dispersals and changes in material culture. Moreover, these interpretations have been difficult to assess using genomics due to limited ancient genomes and the difficulty in differentiating closely related populations. Here we integrate multidisciplinary evidence from population genomics, historical sources, archaeology and linguistics to offer a fully revised model for the origins and spread of Germanic languages and for the formation of the genomic ancestry of Germanic-speaking northern European populations, while acknowledging that coordinating archaeology, linguistics and genetics is complex and potentially controversial. We sequenced 710 ancient human genomes from western Eurasia and analysed them together with 3,940 published genomes suitable for imputing diploid genotypes. We find evidence of a previously unknown, large-scale Bronze Age migration within Scandinavia, originating in the east and becoming widespread to the west and south, thus providing a new potential driving factor for the expansion of the Germanic speech community. This East Scandinavian genetic cluster is first seen 800 years after the arrival of the Corded Ware Culture, the first Steppe-related population to emerge in Northern Europe, opening a new scenario implying a Late rather than an Middle Neolithic arrival of the Germanic language group in Scandinavia. Moreover, the non-local Hunter-Gatherer ancestry of this East Scandinavian cluster is indicative of a cross-Baltic maritime rather than a southern Scandinavian land-based entry. 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. During the Migration Period (1575-1200 BP), we find evidence of this structured, admixed Southern Scandinavian population representing the Western Germanic Anglo-Saxon migrations into Britain and Langobards into southern Europe. During the Migration Period, we detect a previously unknown northward migration back into Southern Scandinavia, partly replacing earlier inhabitants and forming the North Germanic-speaking Viking-Age populations of Denmark and southern Sweden, corresponding with historically attested Danes. However, the origin and character of these major changes in Scandinavia before the Viking Age remain contested. In contrast to these Western and Northern Germanic-speaking populations, we find the Wielbark population from Poland to be primarily of Eastern Scandinavian ancestry, supporting a Swedish origin for East Germanic groups. In contrast, the later cultural descendants, the Ostrogoths and Visigoths are predominantly of Southern European ancestry implying the adoption of Gothic culture. Together, these results highlight the use of archaeology, linguistics and genetics as distinct but complementary lines of evidence.

Link: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.03.13.584607v1

 

[Johane Derite]

"Almost all R1a1a1b1a1 (R1a-M458) and1046 R1a1a1b1a2 (R1a-Z280) individuals belong to the 0_1_1 Baltic cluster, which together with the presence of E1b1b1a1b1 (E1b-L618) individuals, represent a Central and Eastern European affinity of this cluster not seen in the remaining Corded Ware North subgroups."

 

[Pax Augusta]

In contrast, the later cultural descendants, the Ostrogoths and Visigoths are predominantly of Southern European ancestry implying the adoption of Gothic culture.

These conclusions make one smile a lot.

))))

 

[HereToLearn]

What does it say about R1b-U106? As a southern European R1b-U106 myself I would be interested to know about those "downstream sublineages".

 

[Vitruvius]

The PCA in this write up displays a supposed Levantine - S. Euro cline when there has never been such a thing. Only an anatolian/southern european cline which started in the aegean. It amazes me that in 2024 such authors seem to fail to grasp this.

 

[HereToLearn]

It amazes me that in 2024 such authors seem to fail to grasp this.

Do they though? Or do they deliberately manipulate language again and again?

 

[Pax Augusta]

The PCA in this write up displays a supposed Levantine - S. Euro cline when there has never been such a thing. Only an anatolian/southern european cline which started in the aegean. It amazes me that in 2024 such authors seem to fail to grasp this.

This study is done by a gang of Nordic Indo-Europeanists (Danish scholars who are disciples of Kristian Kristiansen, and the Dutch University of Leiden, the den of Nordic Indo-European linguists, which continue to infòuence to this day all debate not only on Indo-European languages but also on non-Indo-European languages), and it is no accident in my opinion. These are still today the heirs of the nineteenth-century Indo-Germanists.

As we know, Southern Europeans are caught between two fires, precisely these northern Indo-Europeanists and the MENA globalist/fetishist Orientalists (well entrenched in large American universities such as Stanford, Harvard...).

 

[Moja]

Of the East Germanic-speaking groups, the Goths were prominent actors in Late Antiquity. They settled in South-East Europe by 1850 BP 33 . Following the Hunnic invasion, some Goths entered the territories of the Roman Empire, contributing to its fall, and established two kingdoms, one in Italy and another in France and Iberia. However, the pre-Migration Period origin of the Goths is contested. Their own oral history records an exodus from Scandinavia across the Baltic Sea 34–37. Combined with toponymical evidence 38 , this resulted in theories of Sweden as the homeland for the Goths 35,36,39 . Modern scholarship, especially from the field of history, have questioned these lines of evidence, and challenged the idea of a Scandinavian origin 40,41 . In addition, archaeologists have questioned traditional interpretations of the East European Wielbark culture as a vector for the Goths 42.

So where was the homeland of Goths?

 

[MOESAN]

I find it a bit too soon to give birds names to these poor northern scholars. I would like to read the complete paper. ATW it's a preprint, and on another side,I think every school of thinking tries always to influence the debates. It's life.

 

[MOESAN]

That said, I doubt Germanic language came into Scandinavia from East across Baltic Sea and then through Sweden. I keep on believing in Y-R1b U106 or akin, come through South (N. Bohemia > N6 Germany > Denmark?) the substrata and superstrata having had only an input on phonetic.

 

[Vitruvius]

This study is done by a gang of Nordic Indo-Europeanists (Danish scholars who are disciples of Kristian Kristiansen, and the Dutch University of Leiden, the den of Nordic Indo-European linguists, which continue to infòuence to this day all debate not only on Indo-European languages but also on non-Indo-European languages), and it is no accident in my opinion. These are still today the heirs of the nineteenth-century Indo-Germanists.

As we know, Southern Europeans are caught between two fires, precisely these northern Indo-Europeanists and the MENA globalist/fetishist Orientalists (well entrenched in large American universities such as Stanford, Harvard...).

That explains it. Yes, Nordicists and Multicultural Globalists are the only two groups that seem to absolutely fetishize the fantasy of Levantine colonization of Southern Europe to a militant degree. For whatever reason I guess these types would prefer believing that all of their pure Nordic ubermensch in their Gallic and Germanic countries were conquered and colonized for hundreds of years by a horde of middle eastern Syrians, Phonecians, and Jews instead of various types of Italians of Northern Mediterranean background. It really makes you think about what they're trying to imply. If I were derranged enough to share that kind of an ideology I certainly wouldn't want to be pushing that kind of a narrative.

I've never had any broad issue with regular Northern Europeans, and I've always respected their background so long as they've been willing to pay the same type of respect to my own, but Nordicist/WASP types are a different breed of clueless fanatics. Some seem totally oblivious to the fact that the more they push their nonsense, the more enemies they are making who are associating their proclivity to slander with Northern European countries on the whole. In my humble opinion an increase in Nordicist drivel is going to functionally create more nationalistically driven Southern Europeans whose predictable reaction will be taking further interest and dignity in the ancestral populations they come from. They are in effect accelerating a process of cultural balkanization which will bring them no benefit.

 

[torzio]

So where was the homeland of Goths?

pre 300BC the goths where in Scania and Gotland Sweden.

then they where settling and made their home in coastal Poland.

Moved to southern Ukraine by 150BC

moved through the balkans from about 450AD and became known as the Ostogoths ( eastern Goths ) ...................Visigoths ( western goths went to Spain )

stayed in Italy until the Lombards conquered them and annexed them into Lombard society. Ravenna Italy was the capital of the Ostrogoths.

The Ostrogoths were the eastern branch of the Goths. They settled and established a powerful state in Dacia, but during the late 4th century,

Conquest of Italy by the Goths (488–493)​

An agreement was reached between Zeno and Theodoric, stipulating that Theodoric, if victorious, was to rule in Italy as the emperor's representative.[11] Theodoric with his people set out from Moesia in the autumn of 488, passed through Dalmatia and crossed the Julian Alps into Italy in late August 489.

 

[Moja]

pre 300BC the goths where in Scania and Gotland Sweden.

then they where settling and made their home in coastal Poland.

Moved to southern Ukraine by 150BC

moved through the balkans from about 450AD and became known as the Ostogoths ( eastern Goths ) ...................Visigoths ( western goths went to Spain )

stayed in Italy until the Lombards conquered them and annexed them into Lombard society. Ravenna Italy was the capital of the Ostrogoths.

The Ostrogoths were the eastern branch of the Goths. They settled and established a powerful state in Dacia, but during the late 4th century,

Conquest of Italy by the Goths (488–493)​

An agreement was reached between Zeno and Theodoric, stipulating that Theodoric, if victorious, was to rule in Italy as the emperor's representative.[11] Theodoric with his people set out from Moesia in the autumn of 488, passed through Dalmatia and crossed the Julian Alps into Italy in late August 489.

I think you didn't read the article, it says modern scholarship have questioned these lines of evidence, both the first homeland in Scandinavia and the second one in Poland (Wielbark culture).

 

[MOESAN]

From the abstract I read, this survey sends us new insights and facts, only their interpretation may be debated (maybe too on the linguistic side by example? But here I saw little) - I'm not sure they say Goths didn't came from Sweden. > ("In contrast to these Western and Northern Germanic-speaking populations, we find the Wielbark population from Poland to be primarily of Eastern Scandinavian ancestry, supporting a Swedish origin for East Germanic groups"). If I understood well, they speak of an East-Baltic demic input into Eastern Scandinavia, this is not the same thing. I haven't details at hand, helas.
Concerning "nordicism", I see nothing todate in this abstract nor in other "northern" works (a mix of diverse countries scientists) whocould allow us to speak of "nordicists" IMO... And to deny some (slight) Near-Eastern input in ancient Italy isn't safe, I think. The question are: were they truly integrated and have they left visible remnants in the today Italy pop?

 

[Vallicanus]

I think you didn't read the article, it says modern scholarship have questioned these lines of evidence, both the first homeland in Scandinavia and the second one in Poland (Wielbark culture).

What does modern scholarship suggest differently? Were the Goths not originally from what is now Sweden?

 

[Vallicanus]

pre 300BC the goths where in Scania and Gotland Sweden.

then they where settling and made their home in coastal Poland.

Moved to southern Ukraine by 150BC

moved through the balkans from about 450AD and became known as the Ostogoths ( eastern Goths ) ...................Visigoths ( western goths went to Spain )

stayed in Italy until the Lombards conquered them and annexed them into Lombard society. Ravenna Italy was the capital of the Ostrogoths.

The Ostrogoths were the eastern branch of the Goths. They settled and established a powerful state in Dacia, but during the late 4th century,

Conquest of Italy by the Goths (488–493)​

An agreement was reached between Zeno and Theodoric, stipulating that Theodoric, if victorious, was to rule in Italy as the emperor's representative.[11] Theodoric with his people set out from Moesia in the autumn of 488, passed through Dalmatia and crossed the Julian Alps into Italy in late August 489.

The Ostrogoths were not conquered by Longobards but by Justinian's East Roman (Byzantine) generals Belisarius and Narses.

Gothic names survived for centuries in the Byzantine Exarchate of Ravenna.

The Longobards were politically very divided and no match for the Franks, becoming first their vassals and later their subjects (post-774).

Longobards in the South (based at Benevento) remained largely autonomous but split into 3 principalities which were a prey to any strong Byzantine Emperor and to Muslim pirates.
They were finally subsumed by Norman mercenaries in the 11th century.

 

[kingjohn]

would be interesting if the e1b1b1b( x e-v13) cases
are real
pretty surprising to be honest
i guess when the paper will be published pribislav or some other expert will need to look at the y calls
to confirm those cases location

P.s
I looked at the e3b project
It look like there are some testers of sweedish and danish direct paternal line who fall under e-m84
downstream branches:
e-pf6751 and e-y5435

 

[Vitruvius]

From the abstract I read, this survey sends us new insights and facts, only their interpretation may be debated (maybe too on the linguistic side by example? But here I saw little) - I'm not sure they say Goths didn't came from Sweden. > ("In contrast to these Western and Northern Germanic-speaking populations, we find the Wielbark population from Poland to be primarily of Eastern Scandinavian ancestry, supporting a Swedish origin for East Germanic groups"). If I understood well, they speak of an East-Baltic demic input into Eastern Scandinavia, this is not the same thing. I haven't details at hand, helas.
Concerning "nordicism", I see nothing todate in this abstract nor in other "northern" works (a mix of diverse countries scientists) whocould allow us to speak of "nordicists" IMO... And to deny some (slight) Near-Eastern input in ancient Italy isn't safe, I think. The question are: were they truly integrated and have they left visible remnants in the today Italy pop?

They specified a Levantine cline, not a "near eastern", on their PCA. You should look a bit more closely because that is not what this conversation is about. I don't debate that there were populations in the eastern Mediterranean that contributed to Italy's genetic makeup at some point or another, but they were coming from the Aegean, not the Levant and it's important to specify this and understand the phenomenon if you are going to take the time to write a paper that touches upon Southern European genetic makeup.

I tire of people seemingly using these terms as if they're interchangeable when we are de facto talking about quite different populations genetically.

 

[Moja]

What does modern scholarship suggest differently? Were the Goths not originally from what is now Sweden?

It probably relates to new studies which talk about the PIE homeland in the south of Caucasus and northwest of Iran where ancient Guti people lived.

 

[Angela]

Posted in a response to Lazaridis on twitter apropos of a discussion about an "eastern" shift in Italy and then a "northern" shift.:

"If the new paper on the spread of the Germanics is correct, the Ostrogoths and Visigoths were primarily Southern Europeans, leaving any genetic input from Germanics down to the Langobards, a very small group according to their own accounts* (the Saxons, if my memory serves, returning north). Other than perhaps in the eastern Veneto I have my doubts that they had any significant impact even on the rest of the Northern Italians. The yDna, or lack of it, would support that interpretation.** All those other castles may very well have been for, "again", people who adopted the culture, but didn't have the same genetics."

This would seem to validate the old Ralph and Coop IBD analysis of Spain and France showing no appreciable input of "Germanic" dna during the Migration period.

I include the Franks in that analysis. A few overlords coming in are not going to significantly alter the dna of the locals.

I wish I had a dollar for every poster on dna forums and here who insisted to me that the Italians were totally decimated by the invasions, and the Germanic Ostrogoths and Visigoths made them more northern.

However wrong they may be about most things, at least they're looking at yDna. I suggest the Reich group do the same.

*Paul the Deacon
** There is by no means enough Germanic yDna to turn the Italians back to being more "European". Yes, they use that term.