PDA

View Full Version : Another view of "steppe" ancestry-Pagani et al



Angela
13-04-17, 16:02
The long knives are out and the paper isn't even available yet. These aren't light weights we're talking about here. How can you "deconstruct" an analysis when you haven't even read their "proofs" yet?

Oh well, fun and games.

"A Pre-Existing Isolation by Distance Gradient in West Eurasia May Partly Account for the Observed “Steppe” Component in Europe

Luca Pagani, Lehti Saag, Anto Aasa, Flora Jay, Mait Metspalu

Estonian Biocentre, Riia 23b, 51010 Tartu,
Department of
Geography, University of Tartu, 51010 Tartu, Estonia;
LRI, Paris-Sud University, CNRS UMR 8623, Orsay, France

It has been proposed that modern European populations can be modelled, by and large, as a three-way mixture of Hunter-Gatherer, Anatolian Neolithic and Steppe components that took place after 6kya (Haak et al. 2015, Allentoft et al. 2015). Particularly the pre-existing Hunter-Gatherer are thought to have admixed with incoming Early Neolithic people from Anatolian and, subsequently, with people carrying a “Steppe” component from the East. These people were likely bearing the so called Yamnaya and/or Corded-Ware cultures, and their initial impact of the European gene pool was estimated to be as high as 75% (Haak et al. 2015).

However ancient DNA samples from East European and Caucasian Hunter-Gatherers as well as from Early Iranian Neolithic, dating from before the Yamnaya expansion, already show signs of this so called “Steppe” component (Lazaridis et al. 2016). Such an observation is compatible with the presence of a pre-existing genetic gradient ranging from Caucasus/Iran all the way to Europe, which likely formed through isolation by distance over thousands of years.

Here we show that such a gradient, defined as decrease of “steppe” component with distance from Iran, can be inferred from ancient samples pre-dating the Yamnaya expansion (r^2 = 0.93).

When analysed in the light of this gradient, later ancient and modern samples from Europe still display an excess of Steppe component, however this excess is less pronounced than previously estimated. Additionally we found that, of the analysed samples, modern South Asians show the highest excess of “steppe” component, pointing to the documented, recent links between the Caucasus/Iran populations and the South Asian peninsula."


I don't know if what they're labeling as the "steppe" component is CHG. If it is, couldn't some of this excess CHG have been pre-existing in South Asia? Or perhaps they know something about South Asian ancient dna which hasn't been published.

I also wonder if they have some new "steppe" samples which have been analyzed.

They seem to also be linking this "steppe" component with Iran, which may be part of the reason that it has aroused such ire already.

LeBrok
13-04-17, 17:57
Perhaps a new interpretation of old numbers.

bicicleur
13-04-17, 18:01
they seem to be formulating in a very strange way :
modern European populations can be modelled, by and large, as a three-way mixture of Hunter-Gatherer, Anatolian Neolithic and Steppe components that took place after 6kya
this means 'steppe' = WHG or ANE, no ?
but in the next part 'steppe' seems to mean something slightly different
it's best to just await the paper to be published

LeBrok
13-04-17, 18:22
To analyze Steppe impact on Middle East one has to find how much WHG and EHG is in Middle East today, or better at the end of Bronze Age. There was no WHG and EHG there beforehand. Then increase it by half to compensate for CHG/Iranian Neolithic which Steppe ancestry carried in about 1/3rd of their DNA.

By my estimation, impact of Steppe on Iran was at 13% of new population, but genetically (due to local DNA coming back) was about 10%, of new DNA.

berun
13-04-17, 18:25
There was a J "Caucasian" HG in Karelia about 6000 BC, and there are some slight signals of CHG component in some EHG, so that I suspected that there was a mesolithic migration northwards, but if this paper exposes that there is a simple geographic gradient it must be read.

I figure out that radical Yamnayists are angry with this possibility as the steppe exclusivity would fade out even more...

MarkoZ
13-04-17, 20:49
There was a J "Caucasian" HG in Karelia about 6000 BC, and there are some slight signals of CHG component in some EHG, so that I suspected that there was a mesolithic migration northwards, but if this paper exposes that there is a simple geographic gradient it must be read.

I figure out that radical Yamnayists are angry with this possibility as the steppe exclusivity would fade out even more...

That gradient however must be the result of migrations post-dating the glacial maximum. The Eastern European Epigravettian of the plains seems to have been completely terminated by adverse climate or something akin. During the Epigravettian the plains seem to have been seasonal hunting grounds. I'd think everything we find there in the Mesolithic must have arrived rather recently from Cetral & Western Asia and Europe.

The point that Mesolithic Eastern European material cultures generally have Iranian & Anatolian associations (when they aren't derived from Western Europe as is the case in Kunda and others) was already made by Sulimirski and more recently Semenov & Bulat (2016).

holderlin
15-04-17, 19:03
There was a J "Caucasian" HG in Karelia about 6000 BC, and there are some slight signals of CHG component in some EHG, so that I suspected that there was a mesolithic migration northwards, but if this paper exposes that there is a simple geographic gradient it must be read.

I figure out that radical Yamnayists are angry with this possibility as the steppe exclusivity would fade out even more...

The J wasn't Caucasian, it was autosomally EHG.

Radical Yamnayism. I like that. That's a punk band.

holderlin
15-04-17, 19:09
Yeah, these authors clearly have better weed than me.

holderlin
15-04-17, 19:50
If I had to guess, they must be taking Baloch or some permutation of Iranian Neolithic to be "steppe".

Perhaps they already know what the Indus River genomes look like and they're Iranian Neolithic as well with the same "steppe" admixure.

This is really the only way they could fit such a model.

Angela
17-04-17, 19:00
A very informative post from over at anthrogenica:
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?2573-New-DNA-Papers-General-Discussion-Thread/page196

Tomenable
17-04-17, 19:10
However ancient DNA samples from East European and Caucasian Hunter-Gatherers as well as from Early Iranian Neolithic, dating from before the Yamnaya expansion, already show signs of this so called “Steppe” component (Lazaridis et al. 2016).

Because the Yamnaya people were descended from East European and Caucasian Hunter-Gatherers.

Also what is located between North-East Europe and Caucasus? How is this region called? Ste... ???

What they basically say is that the "Steppe" component was in the Steppe already before Yamnaya.

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

Davidski's comments: http://eurogenes.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/population-geneticists-often-not-very.html


(...) In any case, whether the authors relied on ADMIXTURE or not is immaterial to the fact that all of their main points are clearly wrong. Before I go through these points, and explain why they're wrong, I need to explain exactly what the Steppe component really is and isn't.

The Steppe component is the genetic structure of Early and Middle Bronze Age (EMBA) steppe pastoralist groups Afanasievo, Poltavka and Yamnaya. And it's a very specific thing. It isn't a component inferred from a random run of ADMIXTURE that peaks in Afanasievo, Poltavka and/or Yamnaya, or any other ancient populations.

So, Steppe component = Afanasievo, Poltavka and Yamnaya, or Steppe_EMBA. Nothing more, nothing less. Certainly nothing from outside of the steppe predating Afanasievo and Yamnaya.

Keep in mind also that Steppe_EMBA is a very specific mixture of older and contemporaneous populations. Using the formal-statistics-based qpAdm method (https://github.com/DReichLab/AdmixTools), which models ancestry directly based on f4-statistics, Steppe_EMBA is probably best modeled as a mixture of Eastern European Hunter-Gatherers (EHG), Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers (CHG), and Anatolia Chalcolithic (Anatolia_ChL), with ancestry proportions of around 0.453, 0.453 and 0.094, respectively. See here (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8XSV9HEoqpFa2ozTHJnYk1UNlU/view?usp=sharing).

I believe that in this model Anatolia_ChL represents some type of minor western admixture amongst the close relatives of CHG still living in the Caucasus during the Eneolithic/Early Bronze Age, and/or minor gene flow from the Balkans onto the steppe. But that's a topic for another day, perhaps after the release of the Bell Beaker behemoth (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2016/12/bell-beaker-behemoth-coming-real-soon.html)?

Below is a visual representation of the model, using a typical Principal Component Analysis (PCA) of Western Eurasian population structure. Note the tight cluster formed by the Steppe_EMBA groups and individuals, which is easily differentiated from all ancient populations outside of the steppe, except, importantly, Corded Ware.

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/--_ATkEG-vA8/WPApo-or_BI/AAAAAAAAFgY/LRHcu_cNpxc3epl_Qfu98nrIZPDzy8AcQCLcB/s1600/Steppe_EMBA_visual_model.png

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/--_ATkEG-vA8/WPApo-or_BI/AAAAAAAAFgY/LRHcu_cNpxc3epl_Qfu98nrIZPDzy8AcQCLcB/s1600/Steppe_EMBA_visual_model.png

Thus, considering that I know what the Steppe component is and isn't exactly, then I can try to test for admixture from it and its ancestral components as best I can using qpAdm. Below are results for a few pertinent ancient populations (no idea how to model the farmers from Early Neolithic Iran at this stage, but I've already underlined their unique genetic character here (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2016/08/on-enigmatic-early-neolithic-farmers.html) and have no reason to believe that they're responsible for any part of the Steppe_EMBA signal in Europe or South Asia). If you're wondering why I chose Hungary_HG as the potential Western Hunter-Gatherer source, it's because it provided the best statistical fits overall. Also note that Ukraine_HG/N is based on samples from the Pontic Steppe. (...)

From the Comments section:


If the gradient is from Iran (modern day?) then it sounds like they are relabeling steppe to be Iranian bronze age/CHG.

That makes no sense. The "Steppe" component is literally a designation for the people living on the steppe between the neolithic and bronze age. We have not found this component, (.5)EHG/(.5)CHG, anywhere prior to its existence on the steppe. This component has never been prominent in Iran so Iran cannot be a source for this "steppe" component. There is good indication that the "steppe" component developed locally since the steppe gradually went from EHG to (.75)EHG/(.25)EHG to (.5)EHG/(.5)CHG or "steppe" for shorthand. It makes sense that the "steppe" component would develop on the steppe since the steppe was at the border of EHG and CHG.

Now, it would not surprise me if the "steppe" component developed in other places like Romania or Belarus but it pretty much needs to be outside of the middle east and india since neither of these places have ever had sufficient EHG.

So the paper is misusing the term for the "steppe" component. I dont think laz' conclusion, which is that north europeans harber about 50% "steppe" which came directly from the steppe or near to it. What this paper might try to do is claim that there is a deeper source of population movements which started in Iran and that this population truly ties the indo europeans together. If that is what the authors are trying to prove then they should rewrite their abstract since it sounds like they are disputing laz' claim that north europeans have about half of their heritage come from bronze age steppe groups or close to them and south europeans have around a quarter of their ancestry from such groups.

MarkoZ
17-04-17, 19:21
Because the Yamnaya people were descended from East European and Caucasian Hunter-Gatherers.

Also what is located between North-East Europe and Caucasus? How is this region called? Ste... ???

What they basically say is that the "Steppe" component was in the Steppe already before Yamnaya.

It looks like what they call 'steppe' is Yamnaya purged of West Eurasian HG ancestry, hence the gradient with regard to proximity to Iran.

It's kind of confusing that terminology with clear geographic connotations comes to mean something else in every other paper, imho.

berun
17-04-17, 21:13
The J wasn't Caucasian, it was autosomally EHG.

Radical Yamnayism. I like that. That's a punk band.

J's originated in the Caucasus, so no matter if he was much or less CHG. Do you expect that J's apeared somewhere in the north?

Apsurdistan
18-04-17, 00:36
And the R originated in India hence Indo-European language, the Rs brought the Indo to it.
Seems fairly logical

LeBrok
18-04-17, 00:42
And the R originated in India hence Indo-European language, the Rs brought the Indo to it.
Seems fairly logicalYou are ignorant beyond belief. Please go educate yourself in the subject before you open your mouth. And it goes equally for all the subjects you took part in. What you call logic is your crude assumption and beliefs.

Apsurdistan
18-04-17, 01:05
Gypsies always believed they came from India even before the DNA research. Turns out they were actually right. Beliefs should not always get underestimated.

LeBrok
18-04-17, 03:40
Gypsies always believed they came from India even before the DNA research. Turns out they were actually right. Beliefs should not always get underestimated.What the heck migration of Gypsies in Middle Ages from India has to do with spread of IE over two continents during Bronze Age?!!!

holderlin
18-04-17, 08:35
Yeah this paper basically re-invented what "steppe" means, then published all these awesome conclusions about it.

This is actually pretty hilarious. I'm going to define Natufian as "European", then drop the bombshell paper. Watch out yo.

holderlin
18-04-17, 08:38
J's originated in the Caucasus, so no matter if he was much or less CHG. Do you expect that J's apeared somewhere in the north?

I think it's for the most part a CHG male line, but this line must have been in North Eurasia for a long time.

berun
18-04-17, 09:10
It would be a good study to see what CHG have different Js. By the way there was a north Eurasian refugium other than the Altai area?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J_(Y-DNA)#/media/File%3AHaplogroup_J_(Y-DNA).svg

holderlin
18-04-17, 17:18
It would be a good study to see what CHG have different Js. By the way there was a north Eurasian refugium other than the Altai area?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J_(Y-DNA)#/media/File%3AHaplogroup_J_(Y-DNA).svg

Relatively speaking of course. We find EHG very far North and on the steppe. EHG appears to be a Holocene population so I don't think we need to talk about refugium.

Apsurdistan
18-04-17, 18:53
No you missed my point as usual. But it doesn't matter I was just trying to amuse myself and you're trying to take it seriously and create some unprovoked argument and pretend like I'm stupid and don't know anyithing. Stop it.

LeBrok
19-04-17, 05:55
No you missed my point as usual. But it doesn't matter I was just trying to amuse myself and you're trying to take it seriously and create some unprovoked argument and pretend like I'm stupid and don't know anyithing. Stop it.
Once we are at it, try also learning how to use "Reply With Quote" button, or nobody knows who you are talking too. We are not sitting in your head, you know. If you are joking or being sarcastic, make sure you communicate this too.
Communication!

Apsurdistan
19-04-17, 07:11
Hey I got a question
How come south slavs speak a Slavic language which is part of IE group but south slavs have pretty small amount of R1a-R1b less than 30%... How does that happen? In those ancient times people didn't even read or write, there was no school.... How do 3 people teach 7 people a new language and their kids too?
Obviously I'm no expert at this stuff so I'm wondering does anyone have expert explanations that make sense for questions like this? You seem to think of yourself as "educated" so I thought maybe you could share something I might not know about.

LeBrok
19-04-17, 16:03
Hey I got a question
How come south slavs speak a Slavic language which is part of IE group but south slavs have pretty small amount of R1a-R1b less than 30%... How does that happen? In those ancient times people didn't even read or write, there was no school.... How do 3 people teach 7 people a new language and their kids too?
Obviously I'm no expert at this stuff so I'm wondering does anyone have expert explanations that make sense for questions like this? You seem to think of yourself as "educated" so I thought maybe you could share something I might not know about.Could be the same way like Turkey speak Turkish language although only 10% of genetic pool comes from Central Asia, the Turkish lands. Or like Hungarians speak hungarian in Central Europe, although genetically they are almost exactly like their neighbours who speak Slavic. It seems that sometimes it doesn't take many invaders to change the language.

Apsurdistan
20-04-17, 01:00
Yeah I know about Hungary and Turkey, still doesn't explain how that happens. And I also know many other tribes have invaded and ruled territories but didn't change the language only melted into the society. Ottoman turks invaded and ruled the balkans for nearly 500 years, Bosnians especially adopted a lot of culture from them, fought in their Jannisarry army, yet no language change for Bosnians or any society in the Balkans. This subject is very mysterious to me and no one seems to have tangible answers for it.

LeBrok
20-04-17, 03:33
Yeah I know about Hungary and Turkey, still doesn't explain how that happens. And I also know many other tribes have invaded and ruled territories but didn't change the language only melted into the society. Ottoman turks invaded and ruled the balkans for nearly 500 years, Bosnians especially adopted a lot of culture from them, fought in their Jannisarry army, yet no language change for Bosnians or any society in the Balkans. This subject is very mysterious to me and no one seems to have tangible answers for it.
First of all there were strong enclaves speaking Turkish language in Europe after Ottoman empire collapsed. Many migrated to Turkey afterwards, some are still present in Bulgaria for example. Many more people spoke two languages during Ottoman empire, one of them Turkish as the official language of empire. Also for the reason of convenience and privileges many changed religion from christian to muslim during this time, all around Balkans. If Ottoman empire had its priority about one language and one religion, all Balkans would have spoken Turkish and be Muslim by now. 500 years is long enough time. Seems like Ottomans didn't care much about this.
Looks at some of Latin American countries. In some of them Spanish were small percentage of population, after 4 or 5 centuries all speak Spanish now. There are still people speaking indigenous languages but not more than small minorities. We have no idea if exactly same process happened in Turkey or Hungary, but we can suspect it was similar.

Secondly, just because we don't understand all the processes exactly, it doesn't mean they or changes they cause are not real. For example, copernicus didn't understand gravity but he understood and mathematically explained that Earth goes around the Sun. He didn't know how, but he know it was real. Likewise, we know languages evolve or change completely but we don't know all the processes yet. Though we know enough to be sure that the change and evolution of languages are real.

Apsurdistan
20-04-17, 08:22
You're comparing Spanish and Portugese imposing their religion and language on the indigenous South American population to Slavs bringing a new language to the Balkan population? Not a good comparison.
There are some linguists and even genetic researchers who don't agree with the idea that the Slavic language came from Northeast of Europe to Southeast Europe but rather other way around. Just like the Cyrillic alphabet.
For example in Old Russian the name for squirrel was the same as south Slavic "veverica or vjeverica", in modern Russian it's "belka"
Why would that be? Up north the squirrels have more of a white coat. Belka means white, belo, bjelo is white.

LeBrok
20-04-17, 16:33
You're comparing Spanish and Portugese imposing their religion and language on the indigenous South American population to Slavs bringing a new language to the Balkan population? Not a good comparison. I gave you an example of one of processes which points to possibility that minority can change language and traditions on conquered majority. Why is it not a good example, when Slavs imposed their language and religion over Balkans, in many cases not being majority? One needs to have an agenda and looking only for confirmation bias, to claim that these two are totally different things.


There are some linguists and even genetic researchers who don't agree with the idea that the Slavic language came from Northeast of Europe to Southeast Europe but rather other way around. Just like the Cyrillic alphabet. And here is your agenda. You as Bosnian, don't want to hear that Slavic language and culture was not indigenous to Balkan. Tell us where Slavs were hiding in Balkans during Greek and Roman Empires if their historians, travelers and governors didn't even mention such group or describe slavic language being in Balkans. Where they blind for many long centuries?!!! On contrary, Slavs are mentioned first time during 5th century when they are starting to attack Byzantium. There is also archeological evidence of new culture entering Balkans at the same time.


For example in Old Russian the name for squirrel was the same as south Slavic "veverica or vjeverica", in modern Russian it's "belka"It is still vieviurka in Polish. As for the Russian - languages evolve, you know.


Why would that be? Up north the squirrels have more of a white coat. Belka means white, belo, bjelo is white.Are you basing your proof for slavic continuity in Balkans on one of few Russian words? Get real.

MarkoZ
20-04-17, 17:30
I gave you an example of one of processes which points to possibility that minority can change language and traditions on conquered majority. Why is it not a good example, when Slavs imposed their language and religion over Balkans, in many cases not being majority? One needs to have an agenda and looking only for confirmation bias, to claim that these two are totally different things.

There's also the prestige that Slavic had after it became a liturgical language. I don't outright conquest is always needed for language change to occur.


And here is your agenda. You as Bosnian, don't want to hear that Slavic language and culture was not indigenous to Balkan. Tell us where Slavs were hiding in Balkans during Greek and Roman Empires if their historians, travelers and governors didn't even mention such group or describe slavic language being in Balkans. Where they blind for many long centuries?!!! On contrary, Slavs are mentioned first time during 5th century when they are starting to attack Byzantium. There is also archeological evidence of new culture entering Balkans at the same time.
It is still vieviurka in Polish. As for the Russian - languages evolve, you know.

I don't believe that early Slavs lived in the Balkans, but ancient historians didn't notice the Albanians either, so I think they aren't too reliable in that sense. Perhaps the Albanian weren't there either at the time, but I consider it a distinct possibility that some isolate populations were simply too unremarkable for historians to take notice. That same argument has been used against a Danubian homeland - the mythic homeland of the primary chronicles - that Curta and others attempted to revive. The principal argument for a Central Ukrainian homeland is that it bypasses these issues.

Milan.M
20-04-17, 19:56
There's also the prestige that Slavic had after it became a liturgical language. I don't outright conquest is always needed for language change to occur.




Slavic become liturgical language thanks to south slavs not Russians or Polish.

Milan.M
20-04-17, 20:05
I gave you an example of one of processes which points to possibility that minority can change language and traditions on conquered majority. Why is it not a good example, when Slavs imposed their language and religion over Balkans, in many cases not being majority? One needs to have an agenda and looking only for confirmation bias, to claim that these two are totally different things.
real.

Your example with "Turkish" language and comparison is totally out of context,the administrative Ottoman that is was from 80% to 90% in it's peak Persian and Arabic words including Greek and so on,most borrowings we have from Ottoman empire time are Persian words by majority,Arabic then also Greek,so we could end up speaking this language by your conclusion and not modern Turkish. Turk was at times also a slur for Ottomans,they identified as Ottomans,modern Turkey is created bit later by Atatürk,you cant just jump that they came and imposed language just like that it was much longer and different process,take the dinasties that took over Persia and other countries with "Turkic" origin,completely Persianised Gaznavids or the Mongol Ilkhanates for example even some of them adopting Christianity,examples are many yet house of Osman(Ottomans) and then modern Turkey is another topic.

LeBrok
21-04-17, 02:47
There's also the prestige that Slavic had after it became a liturgical language. I don't outright conquest is always needed for language change to occur.Religion is a powerful force indeed.




I don't believe that early Slavs lived in the Balkans, but ancient historians didn't notice the Albanians either, so I think they aren't too reliable in that sense. Perhaps the Albanian weren't there either at the time, but I consider it a distinct possibility that some isolate populations were simply too unremarkable for historians to take notice. That same argument has been used against a Danubian homeland - the mythic homeland of the primary chronicles - that Curta and others attempted to revive. The principal argument for a Central Ukrainian homeland is that it bypasses these issues.Very good point. It might be the case that linguistic Albanians conquerors also moved to Balkans at about same time beside Slavs. Or judging by size of Albanian homeland, Albanian tribe started rather small and could have been missed, or known by a different name. It is hard to say the same judging by big slavic armies fighting Byzantium. Starting from North of Balkans and moving South. On top of it Slavic countries are genetically shifted North compared to Albanians, pointing to rather substantial genetic flow from North, therefore Slavic invasion from North.

Apsurdistan
21-04-17, 03:11
Yeah you'd rather take somebodies stories they wrote down thousands of years ago, who I'm sure were totally objective as human beings always are, than a clear example of linguistic difference.
I believe the original Slavic languages were formed in the Danube area and spread from there. This 19th century narrative of Slavs coming into central Europe and balkans in the middle ages is German/western propaganda. Just like the "Albanians are the true descendents of Ilyrians" nonsense is.

MOESAN
22-04-17, 00:05
laguage transmission depends on a lot of things, and the balancing between these things so...? number, often but not always, cultural and economical level, commercial network, political organization (centralism, administration), diversity of languages in some place allowing to the best organized ones to impose their own as a lingua franca ... a survey about language shifts "rules" needs a lot of parameters; I would be glad to read something reliable about it, me too.

MOESAN
22-04-17, 00:14
You're comparing Spanish and Portugese imposing their religion and language on the indigenous South American population to Slavs bringing a new language to the Balkan population? Not a good comparison.
There are some linguists and even genetic researchers who don't agree with the idea that the Slavic language came from Northeast of Europe to Southeast Europe but rather other way around. Just like the Cyrillic alphabet.
For example in Old Russian the name for squirrel was the same as south Slavic "veverica or vjeverica", in modern Russian it's "belka"
Why would that be? Up north the squirrels have more of a white coat. Belka means white, belo, bjelo is white.

some seldom examples are not enough to base a theory - the replacement of previous words by new words in a language is not something new, and it occrus in a lot of tongues - it depends on frequence of use, very often for animals, birds, fishes, plants there is a big variety of dialectal terms for the same reason: term forgotten, creation of a new one, or "pictural" new term without need - it doesn't depend on difference of origin of the speakers everytime - someones speak of taboos too for some replacements -

MOESAN
22-04-17, 00:15
not all parts of the lexic evolve at the same speed in languages -

MOESAN
22-04-17, 00:29
For Balkans I hno serious knowledge so I only think at loud voice: I wonder if it's not the "compartmentation" of this region in mountains which eased the Slavic language victory: billingual spotted pops (Illyrian, Venetic and other tongues speaking, weakened by partial Latin use), after loosing the Latin supported by the Empire, took on the Slavic, because I think Slavs at first occupied the big rivers network which eased communications, and the "meeting" language began the slavic? Only a try!

Valerius
23-04-17, 11:18
Hey I got a question
How come south slavs speak a Slavic language which is part of IE group but south slavs have pretty small amount of R1a-R1b less than 30%... How does that happen? In those ancient times people didn't even read or write, there was no school.... How do 3 people teach 7 people a new language and their kids too?
Obviously I'm no expert at this stuff so I'm wondering does anyone have expert explanations that make sense for questions like this? You seem to think of yourself as "educated" so I thought maybe you could share something I might not know about.

Are we even sure what were the proto Slavic levels of R1a? We need some confirmation about that and sadly there's no bone material. I also find it very strange the Balkans don't have a lot of R1a considering the migrations of Slavs and steppe people but it seems that the levels of R1a could have been lowered when the Slavs mixed with the local people. When the Ottomans came many people sought refuge in the mountains and that produced founder effects according to some people, boosting E-V13 and I2a-Din for some reason, especially in Bosnia and Monte Negro. Here in Bulgaria many people think that we are just some Thracians with a Slavic language but that's too simplistic explanation considering the info about Slavic migrations. I think we are a good 40/40 mixture between Slavs and locals + some other peoples that ended up in the Balkans. From what I've seen in the Bulgarian results most of the people have between 30 and 55% Eastern European admixture (info from FTDNA, Geno 2.0, Ancestry) and that could signify some higher amounts of R1a in the past or maybe is something else. I wonder about the results of Serbs, Croats and other Balkans people, I would like to see some averages from them.

Milan.M
23-04-17, 14:06
It is hard to say the same judging by big slavic armies fighting Byzantium. Starting from North of Balkans and moving South. On top of it Slavic countries are genetically shifted North compared to Albanians, pointing to rather substantial genetic flow from North, therefore Slavic invasion from North.

Romanians are shifted more north than Slavic speaking Macedonians or Bulgarians not to mention Romance speaking Moldavians,just as shown by geography moving from south to north or opposite,take a brake.

Tomenable
23-04-17, 15:45
Romanians are shifted more north than Slavic speaking Macedonians or Bulgarians not to mention Romance speaking Moldavians,just as shown by geography moving from south to north or opposite,take a brake.

^^ But Romanians are very Slavic-admixed, Hungarians even more.

Not speaking Slavic doesn't mean that you don't have Slavic ancestry.

I have seen East Germans and Austrians with very Slavic results too.


Are we even sure what were the proto Slavic levels of R1a?

There are rumours that there is no R1a and no I2a-Din in ancient DNA from Iron Age (i.e. Pre-Slavic) Poland, which is about to be published within few months from now. So it seems that all of R1a and all of I2a-Din is from Slavic immigration. At least in case of Poland (but so far there is also no any R1a and no any I2a-Din from Iron Age Balkan samples).

It seems that before the Migration Period, Poland was dominated by R1b and I1.

Worth mentioning is R1b-U106 found in a Wielbark culture burial from Drozdowo:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drozdowo,_Płońsk_County

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

http://i.imgur.com/rrP1SAd.pnghttp://i.imgur.com/nF5Ny9Q.png

Note that R1a had been in Bronze Age Poland, but apparently got replaced during the Iron Age.

So it seems that there was no R1a in Iron Age Poland and it was re-inroduced by Slavs later on.


and that could signify some higher amounts of R1a in the past

I think that Slavs who migrated to the Balkans were mostly I2a-Din (followed by R1a) to begin with.

Ancient DNA will prove this, in my opinion.

Tomenable
23-04-17, 16:15
From an interview with a Polish scientist who is researching ancient DNA from Iron Age (Pre-Slavic) Poland:

http://naukawpolsce.pap.pl/aktualnosci/news,413826,powstaje-genetyczny-portret-dawnych-mieszkancow-terenow-polski.html

Translated to English:

"(...) They conducted a preliminary analysis of around 100 genomes of people, whose remains are from burial sites in Wielkopolska (Greater Poland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Poland)). Data from their analyses was compared with genetic results concerning the ancient inhabitants of Western Europe. Everything indicates, that DNA of people who lived 2000 years ago in the area of present-day Poland did not differ from the genetic material of populations living at that time for example in the areas of present-day Germany, France, or Denmark. (...)"

So it seems that the impact of the Migration Period (Völkerwanderung) was huge, at least in the area of Poland.

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

Let me remind you, that Bronze & Iron Age Balkan samples generally plot with modern Spain and South France.

So it seems, that Slavic migration after the Iron Age also had a huge impact on the Balkans (shifting them east).

Yetos
23-04-17, 16:20
For Balkans I hno serious knowledge so I only think at loud voice: I wonder if it's not the "compartmentation" of this region in mountains which eased the Slavic language victory: billingual spotted pops (Illyrian, Venetic and other tongues speaking, weakened by partial Latin use), after loosing the Latin supported by the Empire, took on the Slavic, because I think Slavs at first occupied the big rivers network which eased communications, and the "meeting" language began the slavic? Only a try!


a 3rd, non Greek, non Latin language,
and the most common in Balkans before G-R-Empire, was Thracian,
it has to do with them.

Tomenable
23-04-17, 16:22
Funny how archaeogenetics is gradually but mercilessly deconstructing all of the nationalistic myths, both the ones of North-Western Europeans, South-Western Europeans, North-Eastern Europeans and South-Eastern Europeans. Greeks will probably also learn that they are far from being "pure Hellenics", when the right time comes.

The English learned that they are no more than 30% Anglo-Saxon, Italians and Iberians learned that they have recent (Post-Neolithic) MENA and African admixures. Genetiker was proven wrong with his idea that R1b is an Upper Paleolithic Western European marker and already admitted it. I'm waiting until Dienekes is proven wrong.

Davidski and Maciamo also have had to swallow some bitter pills (although generally their IE theories were true).

Not to mention Goga and other Iranic and Indo-Aryan autochthonists.

MarkoZ will stop denying that Gimbutas was right, when the Bell Beaker Behemoth is published.

Facts are ruthless and don't spare any biased agendas. :grin: :good_job:

Valerius
23-04-17, 16:38
I think that Slavs who migrated to the Balkans were mostly I2a-Din (followed by R1a) to begin with.

Ancient DNA will prove this, in my opinion.

It seems like a very plausible explanation to me. AFAIK, I2a-Din-S is younger than I2a-Din-N, so it would make sense if it is Slavic and with northern origin. On the other hand, Northern Slavs most likely have absorbed some R1a people like the Sarmatians, Scythians and some Balts (which also gave them hg N) and I think that gave them boost of their R1a, in the Balkan the Slavs absorbed some southern hg and so on. Hope some new paper will shed light on the matter.

MarkoZ
23-04-17, 22:48
Funny how archaeogenetics is gradually but mercilessly deconstructing all of the nationalistic myths, both the ones of North-Western Europeans, South-Western Europeans, North-Eastern Europeans and South-Eastern Europeans. Greeks will probably also learn that they are far from being "pure Hellenics", when the right time comes.

The English learned that they are no more than 30% Anglo-Saxon, Italians and Iberians learned that they have recent (Post-Neolithic) MENA and African admixures. Genetiker was proven wrong with his idea that R1b is an Upper Paleolithic Western European marker and already admitted it. I'm waiting until Dienekes is proven wrong.

Davidski and Maciamo also have had to swallow some bitter pills (although generally their IE theories were true).

Not to mention Goga and other Iranic and Indo-Aryan autochthonists.

MarkoZ will stop denying that Gimbutas was right, when the Bell Beaker Behemoth is published.

Facts are ruthless and don't spare any biased agendas. :grin: :good_job:


No offense, but I really doubt your abilities as an arbiter of 'facts'.

LeBrok
23-04-17, 23:12
Romanians are shifted more north than Slavic speaking Macedonians or Bulgarians not to mention Romance speaking Moldavians,just as shown by geography moving from south to north or opposite,take a brake.Romanians are not less mixed with Slavs than other Slavic nations of Balkans.

LeBrok
23-04-17, 23:30
^^ But Romanians are very Slavic-admixed, Hungarians even more.

Not speaking Slavic doesn't mean that you don't have Slavic ancestry.

I have seen East Germans and Austrians with very Slavic results too.



There are rumours that there is no R1a and no I2a-Din in ancient DNA from Iron Age (i.e. Pre-Slavic) Poland, which is about to be published within few months from now. So it seems that all of R1a and all of I2a-Din is from Slavic immigration. At least in case of Poland (but so far there is also no any R1a and no any I2a-Din from Iron Age Balkan samples).

It seems that before the Migration Period, Poland was dominated by R1b and I1.

Worth mentioning is R1b-U106 found in a Wielbark culture burial from Drozdowo:
Now, we see the scale of population replacements going on in Central Europe through Bronze/Iron age till Slavic Expansion! It didn't expect this to be so profound, but there it is.

So, Germanic tribes in Poland in Iron Age, or still someone else like whoever Veneti were?




Note that R1a had been in Bronze Age Poland, but apparently got replaced during the Iron Age.

So it seems that there was no R1a in Iron Age Poland and it was re-inroduced by Slavs later on.
. Reading Harappa Admixtures of Unetice dudes, I knew they didn't have much in common with modern Polish population! I'm on a record here:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/33603-MDLP-K11-Result-Unetice-Tumulus-Urnfield-into-Northwestern-Europe?p=502221&viewfull=1#post502221

LeBrok
23-04-17, 23:35
Funny how archaeogenetics is gradually but mercilessly deconstructing all of the nationalistic myths, both the ones of North-Western Europeans, South-Western Europeans, North-Eastern Europeans and South-Eastern Europeans. Greeks will probably also learn that they are far from being "pure Hellenics", when the right time comes.

The English learned that they are no more than 30% Anglo-Saxon, Italians and Iberians learned that they have recent (Post-Neolithic) MENA and African admixures. Genetiker was proven wrong with his idea that R1b is an Upper Paleolithic Western European marker and already admitted it. I'm waiting until Dienekes is proven wrong.

Davidski and Maciamo also have had to swallow some bitter pills (although generally their IE theories were true).

Not to mention Goga and other Iranic and Indo-Aryan autochthonists.

MarkoZ will stop denying that Gimbutas was right, when the Bell Beaker Behemoth is published.

Facts are ruthless and don't spare any biased agendas. :grin: :good_job:How come I don't need to swallow anything? Where my predictions and "beliefs" right?

MarkoZ
23-04-17, 23:48
Now, we see the scale of population replacements going on in Central Europe through Bronze/Iron age till Slavic Expansion! It didn't expect this to be so profound, but there it is.

So, Germanic tribes in Poland in Iron Age, or still someone else like whoever Veleti were?

Wielbark culture is generally held to be Gothic. Not sure how much merit this has, but there appear to be some similarities to contemporaneous Scandinavian sites.

MarkoZ
24-04-17, 00:38
To Tomenable :
The native people of Europe were very primitive and cannibals. but later they got civilized by 'Aryan' geneflow from the Iranian Plateau.

It seems they didn't do such a great job then, considering how prevalent human sacrifice and other barbarous practices were well into historic times.

LeBrok
24-04-17, 01:25
Wielbark culture is generally held to be Gothic. Not sure how much merit this has, but there appear to be some similarities to contemporaneous Scandinavian sites.Yes, this was always thought as a "corridor" Goths used to go down to the Black Sea region. Supposedly they've marched for 200 years through.

Sile
24-04-17, 02:24
So, Germanic tribes in Poland in Iron Age, or still someone else like whoever Veleti were?






Veleti ( ~ 600 AD ) where one of the first slavic tribe that entered the "central/eastern Europe " to be based in upper vistual lands they had arrived via modern Slovakia, they are the first and only people the Germans called Wends.
The Veleti migrated from Upper-Vistula to modern Mecklenburg and where later dispersed in the Wendish crusades ( ~1200AD )

LeBrok
24-04-17, 04:22
Veleti ( ~ 600 AD ) where one of the first slavic tribe that entered the "central/eastern Europe " to be based in upper vistual lands they had arrived via modern Slovakia, they are the first and only people the Germans called Wends.
The Veleti migrated from Upper-Vistula to modern Mecklenburg and where later dispersed in the Wendish crusades ( ~1200AD )Sorry, I ment Veneti around Vistula around year 0.

Sile
24-04-17, 05:42
Sorry, I ment Veneti around Vistula around year 0.

The Veneti/VENEDI of the lower vistula where absorbed into gothic society as per historical scripbes and as per Polish archaeologists ....they have mapped gothic "migration" in Poland

http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m153/vicpret/ug1_zps07e5f74a.jpg (http://s103.photobucket.com/user/vicpret/media/ug1_zps07e5f74a.jpg.html)

orange = 1st part of Gothic lands

Blue , next

then yellow

and lastly the absorbing of the Venedi ( green )

Milan.M
24-04-17, 08:00
^^ But Romanians are very Slavic-admixed, Hungarians even more.

Not speaking Slavic doesn't mean that you don't have Slavic ancestry.

I have seen East Germans and Austrians with very Slavic results too.



Romanians are not less mixed with Slavs than other Slavic nations of Balkans.
You base your admixture on what?

How are they more "Slavic admixed" than Macedonians or Bulgarians but speak Romance,weren't assimilated or their neighbors the Gagauz Turkic? all being almost identical genetically.

How are Hungarians more "Slavic admixed" but speaking Finno-Ugric language while the Balts that speak Baltic responsibe Balto-Slavic have more "Uralic" like haplogroups and even the Poles?
Also in Hungarians genetics we are chasing ghosts,labeling a almost non existent N haplogroup to have imposed a language in the Pannonian plain on numerous Slavs,Vlachs and so on.

By this conclusion we have non Slavic speaking people but genetically more Slavs vs Slavic speaking people but genetically much less Slavs.

While we can see some haplogroups and certain subclades to correlate to degree with Slavonic speaking people a language that most Eastern Europe speak,it must correlate!geography on other hand correlate much better with distribution of haplogroups if we disregard languages.


On the other hand culture,social economic factor,centralized government or empire at certain period of times can cause a language shift and perhaps many more factors,sometimes even the conquerors adopt to new language not only the conquered because it supposed to ease our lifes and every day dealings and we use it to communicate regardless of the haplogroups we carry.
That's all together historic and linguistic issue from IE (If we speak for a group that belong here to present).While genetics supposed to give us more results and help us here so far we lack data to be conclusive.Merely talking about hypothesis.

Bollox79
25-04-17, 01:11
^^

It seems that before the Migration Period, Poland was dominated by R1b and I1.

Worth mentioning is R1b-U106 found in a Wielbark culture burial from Drozdowo:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drozdowo,_Płońsk_County

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

http://i.imgur.com/rrP1SAd.pnghttp://i.imgur.com/nF5Ny9Q.png

Note that R1a had been in Bronze Age Poland, but apparently got replaced during the Iron Age.

So it seems that there was no R1a in Iron Age Poland and it was re-inroduced by Slavs later on.



I think that Slavs who migrated to the Balkans were mostly I2a-Din (followed by R1a) to begin with.

Ancient DNA will prove this, in my opinion.

Tomenable... where did you see the U106+ Wielbark result? Is there a link to a paper?

Cheers!

Apsurdistan
25-04-17, 01:40
Are we even sure what were the proto Slavic levels of R1a? We need some confirmation about that and sadly there's no bone material. I also find it very strange the Balkans don't have a lot of R1a considering the migrations of Slavs and steppe people but it seems that the levels of R1a could have been lowered when the Slavs mixed with the local people. When the Ottomans came many people sought refuge in the mountains and that produced founder effects according to some people, boosting E-V13 and I2a-Din for some reason, especially in Bosnia and Monte Negro. Here in Bulgaria many people think that we are just some Thracians with a Slavic language but that's too simplistic explanation considering the info about Slavic migrations. I think we are a good 40/40 mixture between Slavs and locals + some other peoples that ended up in the Balkans. From what I've seen in the Bulgarian results most of the people have between 30 and 55% Eastern European admixture (info from FTDNA, Geno 2.0, Ancestry) and that could signify some higher amounts of R1a in the past or maybe is something else. I wonder about the results of Serbs, Croats and other Balkans people, I would like to see some averages from them.
Geno2.0 says I have 54% east european. Ancestry DNA results 67% east european. Eastern Europe is a pretty vast area so I'm not sure what part of eastern Europe more specifically they're talking about... south east, northeast, central east.... southeast (balkans) should be significantly different than northeast. Balkans are the most mixed part of Europe.

LeBrok
25-04-17, 02:07
You base your admixture on what?

How are they more "Slavic admixed" than Macedonians or Bulgarians but speak Romance,weren't assimilated or their neighbors the Gagauz Turkic? all being almost identical genetically.

How are Hungarians more "Slavic admixed" but speaking Finno-Ugric language while the Balts that speak Baltic responsibe Balto-Slavic have more "Uralic" like haplogroups and even the Poles?
Also in Hungarians genetics we are chasing ghosts,labeling a almost non existent N haplogroup to have imposed a language in the Pannonian plain on numerous Slavs,Vlachs and so on.

By this conclusion we have non Slavic speaking people but genetically more Slavs vs Slavic speaking people but genetically much less Slavs.

While we can see some haplogroups and certain subclades to correlate to degree with Slavonic speaking people a language that most Eastern Europe speak,it must correlate!geography on other hand correlate much better with distribution of haplogroups if we disregard languages.


On the other hand culture,social economic factor,centralized government or empire at certain period of times can cause a language shift and perhaps many more factors,sometimes even the conquerors adopt to new language not only the conquered because it supposed to ease our lifes and every day dealings and we use it to communicate regardless of the haplogroups we carry.
That's all together historic and linguistic issue from IE (If we speak for a group that belong here to present).While genetics supposed to give us more results and help us here so far we lack data to be conclusive.Merely talking about hypothesis.Days of your fantasies are numbered.

LeBrok
25-04-17, 02:08
Tomenable... where did you see the U106+ Wielbark result? Is there a link to a paper?

Cheers!Not yet, but there are leaks of some info.

Apsurdistan
25-04-17, 05:51
Like the fantasy that cattle herders from "the steppes" wheeled into Europe with their carts being pulled by donkeys and taught the people in the Balkans of Vinca culture where the earliest form of writing and metallurgy has been discovered, to speak some kind of Indian related language? Or some half mongoloids on horseback enlightened them with a superior language.

Another thing to scratch your head over, West Slavic and East Slavic languages are both more similar to South Slavic than they are to each other... even though genetically Poles and Russians are closer to each other. Shouldn't it be the other way around if it originated from Russia/Poland and spread to the Balkans.

Milan.M
30-04-17, 16:08
Days of your fantasies are numbered.
Please grow up at least in your behavior and give some decent answer if you can.

JajarBingan
04-05-17, 15:19
You base your admixture on what?

How are they more "Slavic admixed" than Macedonians or Bulgarians but speak Romance,weren't assimilated or their neighbors the Gagauz Turkic? all being almost identical genetically.

How are Hungarians more "Slavic admixed" but speaking Finno-Ugric language while the Balts that speak Baltic responsibe Balto-Slavic have more "Uralic" like haplogroups and even the Poles?
Also in Hungarians genetics we are chasing ghosts,labeling a almost non existent N haplogroup to have imposed a language in the Pannonian plain on numerous Slavs,Vlachs and so on.

By this conclusion we have non Slavic speaking people but genetically more Slavs vs Slavic speaking people but genetically much less Slavs.

While we can see some haplogroups and certain subclades to correlate to degree with Slavonic speaking people a language that most Eastern Europe speak,it must correlate!geography on other hand correlate much better with distribution of haplogroups if we disregard languages.


On the other hand culture,social economic factor,centralized government or empire at certain period of times can cause a language shift and perhaps many more factors,sometimes even the conquerors adopt to new language not only the conquered because it supposed to ease our lifes and every day dealings and we use it to communicate regardless of the haplogroups we carry.
That's all together historic and linguistic issue from IE (If we speak for a group that belong here to present).While genetics supposed to give us more results and help us here so far we lack data to be conclusive.Merely talking about hypothesis.

So ~50% of probably Slavic-like Y-DNA lineages is not enough now? If Romanians weren't mixed with Slavs, they'd probably plot with other proto-Balkanic people who were relatively shielded from the Slavic migrations in the Balkans, like Greeks and Albanians. Instead, they form a cluster with the South Slavs (who obviously mixed with Balkan locals).

MOESAN
06-05-17, 19:14
the slavic vocabulary is heavy enough in Romanian basic language.