101 Ancient Eurasian Genomes Available Online

[MOESAN]

RISE486 Italy Remedello I2a1a1a-L672/S327
RISE487 Italy Remedello I2a1a
RISE489 Italy Remedello I2a1a1a-L672/S327

a good answer to me when I was speculating it could have been an other kind of Y-I2: I lost and I didn't loose in the same time because I did not bet;
interesting in the way it could be the proof some male population could have received bronze technology without being overflowed by new elite!
It invites me to prudence! Or were they Adriatic coastal newcome people?

 

[LeBrok]

Etimologically comes from different roots.
It is protoslavic *vorta.
So, there is not missing "d".

In english it would be gate.

OK correct, 2 roots: it's not the very thread, but I think 'vrata' contains a I-Ean root akin to latine 'vert-', 'versus' see 'to revert': notion of circular move, rotation?

That's right, it could be a name for a hinged door. Before invention of hinges wooden door was just placed in the opening and locked with some pegs and cross boards.

 

[MOESAN]

RISE247 Hungary Vatya I2a2a-L368
RISE254 Hungary Vatya I2a2a-L59
RISE479 Hungary Vatya I2a2a1a2a2-SK1247/Y4915

is that the Y-I2a2 M223?

 

[Jason Neuharth]

is that the Y-I2a2 M223?

no it would be P216

 

[Johannes]

@ Johannes

there is a strange connection among in Balkans and Crimea with Gothic, some say that Thracian Getae were simmilar with Goths, land of Ostrogoths (Auster-Getae) VisiGoths (Besii-Getae) Crimean Gothic until after 1900 I admit that somehow I believe, I can not certify, neither is attested that gothic and Getae have a connection among them, I believe Thracian was not Satem, but split to satem and centum much after 500BC and satem Thracian with Scythian created Slavic, all the above is a feeling, nothing serious, that many wonder why and how, but we found strange Gothic/germanic vocabulary in Slavic, Albanian, even in Greek, and that is not expected, neither explained, for example how you can explaine the Albanian Dera (door) that is a germanic aspiration with Greek Θυρα and celtic Port and S Slavic Vrata, south of Danube? if Goths did not cross south of Danube?

The Goths were allowed to cross the Danube by the Romans after the Huns put pressure on them but eventually were very badly treated. That is why they revolted and destroyed four Roman legions. The Goths then pillaged and plundered all throughout the Balkans for several years. If I recall correctly the Goths only stayed in the Balkans for 25-30 years. Then the Roman Emperor wanted to get rid of them and gave them lands in what is now Croatia. But later the emperor changed his mind and asked the Goths to move into Italy and eventually France. Thus there was very little time for the Goths to settle and mix with the locals. Plus the locals treated the Goths very badly and considered them weird and strange people (barbarians). In fact the Goths were persecuted throughout their journey into Western Europe. So I doubt the Greeks or any other people adopted any Gothic words. Like everyone has said, they are from Indo-European roots. The Getae were not Goths. They were probably Thracian/Dacian or Skythian who happened to have a name similar to Goths. The word "goth" means to pour (as a libation) in adoration of a god. It probably has simlarity to "give forth." Besides the Getae were mentioned by the Greeks around 700 BCE!! This is way before the Goths ever set foot in SE Europe. Probably the reason why many sources confused the Getae with the Goths is that they looked very similar (both had red to blonde hair).

 

[Alan]

The Goths were allowed to cross the Danube by the Romans after the Huns put pressure on them but eventually were very badly treated. That is why they revolted and destroyed four Roman legions. The Goths then pillaged and plundered all throughout the Balkans for several years. If I recall correctly the Goths only stayed in the Balkans for 25-30 years. Then The Roman Emperor gave them lands in what is now Croatia. But later the emperor changed his mind and asked the Goths to move into Italy (and eventually France). Thus there was very little time for the Goths to settle and mix with the locals. Plus the locals treated the Goths badly and considered them weird and strange people (inferior barbarians). In fact the Goths were persecuted throughout their journey into Western Europe. So I doubt the Greeks or any other people adopted any Gothic words. Like everyone has said, they are from Indo-European roots. The Getae were not Goths. They were probably Thracian/Dacian or Skythian who happened to have a name similar to Goths. The word "goth" means to pour (as a libation) in adoration of a god. It probably has simlarity to "give forth." Besides the Getae were mentioned by the Greeks around 700 BCE!! This is way before the Goths ever set foot in SE Europe. Probably the reason why many sources confused the Getae with the Goths is that they looked very similar (both had red to blonde hair).

The Getae were a small tribal group among Thracians with most likely Iranic origin. Like 1/3 of all Thracian tribes were originaly Iranic.

The Getae most likely descend from the Massagetae (what basically means "big/great/massive Getae")

 

[Alan]

Thracians in general seem to have a connection to Iranic speakers. No wonder were they neighbors of the Cimmerians who were Iranic but withconnections to Thracians.

Also a comment I found about late Bronze AGe Thracian samples. Some were contaminated/noisy (showing some noisy australic and Sub Saharan admixture) some other were very stable.

V2 from a late Bronze Age flat grave: He's perhaps the most complete of the lot and he had about 44% West_Asian in Eurogenes K15, which is almost at Caucasus-level.
T2G2 from an early Iron Age kurgan, very noisy.
K8 from a late Iron Age kurgan, came out rather Russian-like, Dave suggested he might be contaminated.

 

[Johannes]

The Getae were a small tribal group among Thracians with most likely Iranic origin. Like 1/3 of all Thracian tribes were originaly Iranic.

The Getae most likely descend from the Massagetae (what basically means "big/great/massive Getae")

Thats correct. Jordanes was the one who caused all the confusion because he thought the Massagetae were the original Goths. But were the Getae originally Iranic-speakers??? How do you know? Is there any linguistic evidence?

 

[Sile]

The Goths were allowed to cross the Danube by the Romans after the Huns put pressure on them but eventually were very badly treated. That is why they revolted and destroyed four Roman legions. The Goths then pillaged and plundered all throughout the Balkans for several years. If I recall correctly the Goths only stayed in the Balkans for 25-30 years. Then The Roman Emperor gave them lands in what is now Croatia. But later the emperor changed his mind and asked the Goths to move into Italy (and eventually France). Thus there was very little time for the Goths to settle and mix with the locals. Plus the locals treated the Goths badly and considered them weird and strange people (inferior barbarians). In fact the Goths were persecuted throughout their journey into Western Europe. So I doubt the Greeks or any other people adopted any Gothic words. Like everyone has said, they are from Indo-European roots. The Getae were not Goths. They were probably Thracian/Dacian or Skythian who happened to have a name similar to Goths. The word "goth" means to pour (as a libation) in adoration of a god. It probably has simlarity to "give forth." Besides the Getae were mentioned by the Greeks around 700 BCE!! This is way before the Goths ever set foot in SE Europe. Probably the reason why many sources confused the Getae with the Goths is that they looked very similar (both had red to blonde hair).

The goths where only allowed to enter Roman empire if they gave up 1 child as a slave and then where fed dog meat to survive in the Roman empire

The thracians composed of 4 main tribes ,
Dacians , next to them on the black sea the Getae
Triballi and next to them on the black sea Odrysian ( the true pure thracians as noted by some )

 

[Alan]

Thats correct. Jordanes was the one who caused all the confusion because he thought the Massagetae were the original Goths. But were the Getae originally Iranic-speakers??? How do you know? Is there any linguistic evidence?

The Massagetae are definitely Iranic speakers related to Sakas(Scythians) historically evident by records from Heredotus. They lived in what is modern day Uzbekistan and South Kazakhstan. Massa is an old Iranic term and basically means "massive/big/great" . As comparison modern Kurdish "Masin" what has the same meaning. It is related to modern English "massive" and Greek "Mega" . And Getae =Getae.

Now the aDNA of some ancient Thracians show evidence of Eastern origin. It is also known that among the Thracians was all large number of Scythic tribes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ancient_tribes_in_Thrace_and_Dacia#Tribes
Also Heredotus saw a connection between the Getae(Thracians) and Massagetae.

Therefore I have the hypothesis that the Getae originated or were very closely related to the Massagetae.

As I said in the past, I believe if the Thracians were still alive, they would be the next closest relatives to Iranic speakers (Even before Balto_Slaves, Armenians or Greeks). Many things on Thracians are identical to ancient Iranic tribes.

But thats just all my hypothesis.

 

[Johannes]

The Massagetae are definitely Iranic speakers related to Sakas(Scythians) historically evident by records from Heredotus. Massa is an old Iranic term and basically means "massive/big/great". Now the aDNA of some ancient Thracians show evidence of Eastern origin. It is also known that among the Thracians was all large number of Scythic tribes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ancient_tribes_in_Thrace_and_Dacia#Tribes Also Heredotus saw a connection between the Getae(Thracians) and Massagetae.QUOTE]

Herodotus never mentioned anything about how the Massagetae spoke or what the language of the Skythians used to be. The DNA of some Thracians might be of "eastern origin" but this does not prove they were Saka. The Thracians lived at the "edge" of Europe so its obvious they would have some Euro-Asian DNA.

 

[Alan]

Herodotus never mentioned anything about how the Massagetae spoke or what the language of the Skythians used to be. The DNA of some Thracians might be of "eastern origin" but this does not prove they were Saka. The Thracians lived at the "edge" of Europe so its obvious they would have some Euro-Asian DNA.

Heredotus called the Massagetae a "Scythic people" (Iranic speakers). Those people lived in Central Asia next to Sakas , their costumes, rituals and everything else is evident. They are generally accepted in the scientific world as Iranic group.

Some is good they had ~45% Caucasus_Gedrosia type DNA which is typical for modern people of Western Asia.

 

[Johannes]

Heredotus called the Massagetae a "Scythic people" (Iranic speakers). Those people lived in Central Asia next to Sakas , their costumes, rituals and everything else is evident. They are generally accepted in the scientific world as Iranic group.

Some is good they had ~45% Caucasus_Gedrosia type DNA which is typical for modern people of Western Asia.

I know what you mean but we should be wary of Herodotus -- he called them "Scythic people" -- OK: but this does not mean he went over to them and made a linguistic study of them! Herodotus was guessing! We will never know what the Massagetae spoke! As far as I remember Herodotus only studied the Skythians of eastern Europe or southern Russia not Central Asia.

 

[Alan]

I know what you mean but we should be wary of Herodotus -- he called them "Scythic people" -- OK: but this does not mean he went over to them and made a linguistic study of them! Herodotus was guessing! We will never know what the Massagetae spoke! As far as I remember Herodotus only studied the Skythians of eastern Europe or southern Russia not Central Asia.

True but we have actually Saka inscriptions from Khotan in Central Asia and they have been identified as Iranic. Also Heredotus wrote Sogdians were descend of Scythians and he also saw a relationship with Sarmatians. Linguistic have confirmed that Sogdian is most likely a middle Iranic descend of Saka. Also Sarmatian being related to Scythic has been confirmed. Also Heredotus saw a clear resemblence of Massagetae to Scythians.

Also linguists have identified the name of the Massagetae Queen and her son as Iranic.


So in large majority of cases Heredotus was correct. Therefore I find it very likely that Heredotus was correct about Massegetae too especially since they were surrounded by other Iranic speakers and linguists identifiying Massagetae names as Iranic.

 

[Johannes]

True but we have actually Saka inscriptions from Khotan in Central Asia and they have been identified as Iranic. Also Heredotus wrote Sogdians were descend of Scythians and he also saw a relationship with Sarmatians. Linguistic have confirmed that Sogdian is most likely a middle Iranic descend of Saka. Also Sarmatian being related to Scythic has been confirmed. Also Heredotus saw a clear resemblence of Massagetae to Scythians.

Also linguists have identified the name of the Massagetae Queen and her son as Iranic.


So in large majority of cases Heredotus was correct. Therefore I find it very likely that Heredotus was correct about Massegetae too especially since they were surrounded by other Iranic speakers and linguists identifiying Massagetae names as Iranic.

Yes, Herodotus is to be respected. He is a valuable authority of ancient peoples. He is the father of history. Whats interesting is that the Persians were also descended from "Scythian" or "Iranic speakers." In fact Iran derives from "Aryanland."

There were two kinds of Scythians: European Scythians and "Saka" or Asian Scythians. They both spoke the same or similar language and used Satem. However, a study was made of remains in Kazakhstan and some interesting results came out. For example, by the time Herodotus was writing about the Scythians most of the Saka were alredy a hybrid people (part white part Asian). However, the culture of the Saka seems to have been identical to the European Scythians. Just imagine Mountain Men in USA and Native Americans who had mixed with whites but had the same culture. Here is the study:

Figure 2. Spatial frequency distribution maps of East Eurasian lineages.
A- Pre-Iron Age period; B- Iron Age period. Frequency values and detailed information for populations 1–8 are shown in table 3. 1- Mongolia (Altai), 2- Gorny Altai, 3- West Kazakhstan, 4- Central Kazakhstan, 5- South Kazakhstan, 6- East Kazakhstan, 7- SW Siberia, 8- Mongolia (Egyin Gol).
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0048904.g002

"Tracing the Origin of the East-West Population Admixture in the Altai Region (Central Asia)"

This clearly shows that by the Iron Age most of the Sakas in Central Asia had become "hybrids". During the Bronze Age the Saka had reached all the way into W China and the Altai region. They then mixed with Mongoloid women (and probably men) and the Mongoloid DNA had spread with the Saka and other possible Turkish-speaking tribes into Russia. So we can conclude that during by the start of the Iron Age two types of Indo-Iranians lived in the steppes: 1) the European Skythians and Sarmatians and the hybrids possibly of Turkish speaking descendants of the Saka. The Saka had clearly mixed with Mongoloid people throughout the time they roamed Kazakhstan. And this predates the time of the Huns and other Turkish speakers.

 

[MOESAN]

Some points after Reich and Allentoft:
Some discrepancies between both works even if the samples of cultures were not exactly the same ones, and if, and I regret it, the breaking down into autosomes subgroups are not the same ones; let’s be cautious then. First result: I’m obliged to use proxi’s. the brown part in graphics seems sort of ‘steppic’ (ANE in it?) +’WHG’+’EHG’, so I’ ll do with it. I suppose it the ‘yamnaya’ element?
The ‘west-asian’ (absent in Samara HG) seems light, as the East-Asia diverse components. The question is in the interpretation of this kind of ‘WHG’: new introduced by Steppes tribes or stayed in place after Neolithic? The first hypothesis magnifies the role of Steppes people in Western Europe when the second diminishes it for a part. Personally I would think the first interpretation is closer to reality but who knows?
What remains of the two surveys is the vicinity of Corded to Unetice and BBs people, with a bit more of Western Europe (‘atlantic’ , ‘west-med’) among BBs Quickly said Unetice seems between Corded and BB what is not disproved by archeology and physical anthropology. The proximity to Yamnaya population (not only the component) is less evident in Allentoft than in Reich; Yamnaya people had almost 0% of ‘west-med’ or EEF or whatever ‘sardinian’ but in Allentoft this southwestern component appears in Corded, what troubles me! Not the same Corded sites or onlythhe differences in breaking down?
What strikes me in Allentoft is the greater vicinity of Sintashta C. to Corded and other Central Europe Bronze Populations than to Yamnaya, spite it is further East and well separated from Corded on a map. Sintashta people had a little bit of EEF or a ‘mediter’ or pseudo ‘sardinian’ (?) as Corded when Yamnaya has not; Sintashta had less ‘caucasus’ or ‘west-asian’ than Yamnaya, and also less of diverse North-East Asia DNA. At the opposite, Afanasyevo, older than Sintashta, is very close to Yamnaya. Not so stupid was Konintsev affirmation saying a lot of Russian-Siberian Steppes cultures were in debt to Center-Western Europe, according to his metric surveys. Not in accord with Grigoryev affirmations that Sintashta people were for the most southerners, finding cultural sources in Anatolia, South Caucasus, Syria and Palestina. I red in some forums that Afanasyevo would have been of Western Europe origin, but it does not appear in the Allentoft’s DNA survey; As Yamnaya and Afanasyevo are older, I think the first impulse was from Steppes. Is it hazard if Sintashta and Andronovo more recent cultures seem linked to Corded? I don’t think it!
The Grigoryev’s error is thinking similar artefacts are the mark of similar population: old problem of archeology. Artefacts prove contacts, not fusion. And contacts between steppic tribes and southern more civilized folks were already old enough.The Corded tribes had stone axes which were inspired by Anatolia and Iran copper axes (even imitating the mould marks!), spite their rather northern affinities. Contacts have been, sure. When? Where? When looking at burying traditions in some cultures and places like Unetice or South Siberian ones we see different traditions surely linked to different origins: some scholars imagined metallurgists elites, with great cultural influences and light demic influences…

&: concerning Armenia supposed without admixture since the 1500 BC, the bronze Age people, spite being far enough from Steppes tribes, showed less EEF or ‘mediter’ component, less ‘west-asian’ and more ‘steppe’ (+HG) and some North-East Asia components quasi absent in today population: so either Armenians received imput from Near-Eastern after Bronze or at the contrary the Bronze population contained addition of Steppes people and was a partly foreign elite whose rarest components almost disappeared by time. a third solution could be: more Catacomb A proximity, these last ones more southernlike?

&: the first 'mongoloids' in eastern Steppes appeared about the iron Age, depending on places (Tarim Bassin: only about 1000 BC) - but in Northern parts of Okunevo culture, pre-Iron, 'amerindian-like' people weighted for more than 50% versus 'europoids'

 

[MOESAN]

Thanks Johannes. It seems confirming Kazakhstans surveys about the progressive replacement of 'europoids' in this part of Steppes by 'east-asian' people.
in Kazakhstan the process of replacement perdured until late enough historical times, according to their scholars.

 

[Alan]

Yes, Herodotus is to be respected. He is a valuable authority of ancient peoples. He is the father of history. Whats interesting is that the Persians were also descended from "Scythian" or "Iranic speakers." In fact Iran derives from "Aryanland."

There were two kinds of Scythians: European Scythians and "Saka" or Asian Scythians. They both spoke the same or similar language and used Satem. However, a study was made of remains in Kazakhstan and some interesting results came out. For example, by the time Herodotus was writing about the Scythians most of the Saka were alredy a hybrid people (part white part Asian). However, the culture of the Saka seems to have been identical to the European Scythians. Just imagine Mountain Men in USA and Native Americans who had mixed with whites but had the same culture. Here is the study:

Figure 2. Spatial frequency distribution maps of East Eurasian lineages.
A- Pre-Iron Age period; B- Iron Age period. Frequency values and detailed information for populations 1–8 are shown in table 3. 1- Mongolia (Altai), 2- Gorny Altai, 3- West Kazakhstan, 4- Central Kazakhstan, 5- South Kazakhstan, 6- East Kazakhstan, 7- SW Siberia, 8- Mongolia (Egyin Gol).
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0048904.g002

"Tracing the Origin of the East-West Population Admixture in the Altai Region (Central Asia)"

This clearly shows that by the Iron Age most of the Sakas in Central Asia had become "hybrids". During the Bronze Age the Saka had reached all the way into W China and the Altai region. They then mixed with Mongoloid women (and probably men) and the Mongoloid DNA had spread with the Saka and other possible Turkish-speaking tribes into Russia. So we can conclude that during by the start of the Iron Age two types of Indo-Iranians lived in the steppes: 1) the European Skythians and Sarmatians and the hybrids possibly of Turkish speaking descendants of the Saka. The Saka had clearly mixed with Mongoloid people throughout the time they roamed Kazakhstan. And this predates the time of the Huns and other Turkish speakers.

Yes I know the Steppes were slowly getting mixed with East Eurasian admixture but I think we were speaking about a people ethnic origin and not there genetic make up.

Yet this is still incorrect. What we clearly see here is that Early Saka were predominantly West Eurasian (+90% ) and slowly when they expanded towards East they absorbed East Eurasian dna within time. But how does that play a role in the ethnic origin of Sakas?

Obviously all Iranic speakers mixed with other respective people of their region. Or are Punjabis not Indo_Iranians because they obviously mixed with tribal Indian groups? I kinda don't see the logic behind this and don't understand how this is important to our discussion that Saka were an Iranic tribe confirmed by linguistics and archeologists. It doesn't matter much how much of non Scythian genes they absorbed in some places in that case.

Just because a, let's say my brother marries a woman from a near by tribe and brings her to ours and she becomes part of our tribe, does that make their children anything else but Kurds? I think you have a different view because you are not used to tribal thinking as much as I (not meant in a disrespectful manner) . People who incooperate into a society (mostly females) become part of it. And in the case of Sakas we see that geneticwise there was a change but culturalwise not. Therefore we can speak of genetic absorbation but not an "ethnical change".

Also as I pointed out before the Bronze and early Iron Age Saka from all of Kazakhstan were almost fully West Eurasian. Only when they expanded further towards east into the Altais they absorbed genes from local people what is very normal, as Indo_Iranians did when they reached India, Pakistan or Afghanistan. But that doesn't make them any less Iranic, because Iranic is a ethno_cultural designation to which more than just genetics belong (Culture, Religion, Language, political motives and genetics). All Iron Age Iranic tribes differed significantly from their Proto Indo_Iranian forefathers at least slightly and Sakas from Altais were not an exception to that.

pazyryk culture was the furthest the Scythians expanded.The primary homeland of the Saka (from where they expanded) was Kazkahstan

as seen on this map

 

[Johannes]

Yes I know the Steppes were slowly getting mixed with East Eurasian admixture but I think we were speaking about a people ethnic origin and not there genetic make up.

Yet this is still incorrect. What we clearly see here is that Early Saka were predominantly West Eurasian (+90% ) and slowly when they expanded towards East they absorbed East Eurasian dna within time. But how does that play a role in the ethnic origin of Sakas?

Obviously all Iranic speakers mixed with other respective people of their region. Or are Punjabis not Indo_Iranians because they obviously mixed with tribal Indian groups? I kinda don't see the logic behind this and don't understand how this is important to our discussion that Saka were an Iranic tribe confirmed by linguistics and archeologists. It doesn't matter much how much of non Scythian genes they absorbed in some places in that case.

Just because a, let's say my brother marries a woman from a near by tribe and brings her to ours and she becomes part of our tribe, does that make their children anything else but Kurds? I think you have a different view because you are not used to tribal thinking as much as I (not meant in a disrespectful manner) . People who incooperate into a society (mostly females) become part of it. And in the case of Sakas we see that geneticwise there was a change but culturalwise not. Therefore we can speak of genetic absorbation but not an "ethnical change".

Also as I pointed out before the Bronze and early Iron Age Saka from all of Kazakhstan were almost fully West Eurasian. Only when they expanded further towards east into the Altais they absorbed genes from local people what is very normal, as Indo_Iranians did when they reached India, Pakistan or Afghanistan. But that doesn't make them any less Iranic, because Iranic is a ethno_cultural designation to which more than just genetics belong (Culture, Religion, Language, political motives and genetics). All Iron Age Iranic tribes differed significantly from their Proto Indo_Iranian forefathers at least slightly and Sakas from Altais were not an exception to that.

pazyryk culture was the furthest the Scythians expanded.The primary homeland of the Saka (from where they expanded) was Kazkahstan

as seen on this map

The Saka did not mix "slightly." They mixed a lot. As it is clear from this study during the Bronze Age the Saka were 100% West Eurasian and by the Iron Age they were 50% West Eurasian-50% East Eurasian. I know the study uses confusing terminology. They claim to have studied remains of persons in Mongolia and Altai region (#1 and #8). But what they should have stated is that East Eurasians were actually East Asian, or at least most of them.

I never said the Saka lost their culture. I stated before that the Saka and Tocharians had a tremendous influence on the Turks and Mongols on the development of the steppe culture. The Turks and Mongols completely copied or adopted the Saka culture that at the time. If we encountered Saka during the Bronze Age it would have been hard to tell them apart from the Skythians. However, this study clearly shows how the Saka and Tocharians became progressively more Mongol/Turkish as time went on. This study also points to how the Huns and later Turkish tribes who conquered all of Central Asia and Eastern Europe must have carried all the R1a of the Sakas and mixed with the Slavic and Balkanic peoples. Therefore not all of the R1a in eastern Europe is of Slavic origin.

 

[Johannes]

Thanks Johannes. It seems confirming Kazakhstans surveys about the progressive replacement of 'europoids' in this part of Steppes by 'east-asian' people.
in Kazakhstan the process of replacement perdured until late enough historical times, according to their scholars.

And the Hybrids later on became or evolved into Turkish speakers and carried a lot of R1a back into Eastern Europe.