The Genetic Prehistory of the Baltic Sea Region

I still have a certain feeling that N1c in Baltics arrived just before 0AD. Perhaps related or coincided to downfall of Kivutkalns (R1a - Baltic clades) bronze working center. That is also about when iron working started, but perhaps unrelated events.. khm..

Edit: honestly, I did not expect Kivutkalns to belong to modern Baltic clades, thought those were extinct R1a groups and Balts arrived there later. Now I am not sure, so just sitting there and observing things :)
 
Sile, you just never give up do you? I know that you're a Balto-Germanic supremacist already lol. But please keep your fantasies to yourself. Balts and Slavs are closer to each other than Balts and Germanics are. Unless of course, you're referring to such prominent figures as Balto-Germanic Alfred Rosenberg. So many years on this forum, yet you're still clueless.

Btw. Great work as usual Tomenable.
 
Last edited:
Sile, you just never give up do you? I know that you're a Balto-Germanic supremacist already lol. But please keep your fantasies to yourself. Balts and Slavs are closer to each other than Balts and Germanics are. Unless of course, you're referring to such prominent figures as Balto-Germanic Alfred Rosenberg. So many years on this forum, yet you're still clueless.
Btw. Great work as usual Tomenable.
No I am not, I just detest the untruths of the germans and slavs saying that balts never existed and also trying to eliminate them wherever they are........who do you think was in the middle between the germanics moving east from north germany and denmark and the slavs of the ukraine moving west ...........do you think the area was empty of people !
do you think the Aestii where slavs or germans? , what about the galindians ..............the old methods of slavs and germans of eliminating the balts are now proven wrong , gimbatus was the first to recognize the balts following ancient historians.
.
I just hope you are not one of these that think the slavs or germans have been in poland, old prussia or lithaunia since time began
 
Did I ever say that Balts never existed? Every post of mine mentions BALTO-SLAVS. Not Slavs themselves, but Balto-Slavs. Your hardon for Balto-Germanics seems very weird to me, it was mostly Germanics trying to wipe out Balts from the face of the earth, not Slavs. Balts and Slavs are a family. But let's not pollute this thread even further, great Germanic minds polluted "science" enough already. No need to dig in the past.
 
Did I ever say that Balts never existed? Every post of mine mentions BALTO-SLAVS. Not Slavs themselves, but Balto-Slavs. Your hardon for Balto-Germanics seems very weird to me, it was mostly Germanics trying to wipe out Balts from the face of the earth, not Slavs. Balts and Slavs are a family. But let's not pollute this thread even further, great Germanic minds polluted "science" enough already. No need to dig in the past.

Balto-slav is not an ethnicity is a linguistic group and we know language and ethnicity never never match
 
The oldest known sample of R1b-U106 is actually from Corded Ware context in Sweden (or am I wrong)? But the 2nd oldest sample is from Bell Beaker context in the Netherlands:

pg2bEQX.png

Yes but two trees don't make a forest. We lack more U106 before to be sure. It's the good aspect of the question; we can still make bets and tries to guess! Today we have too few ancient Y-haplo's of Unetice or of other cultures; the ones we have for Unetice are rather Y-I2 of some sort (I2a2 among them). ATW I think Unetice was a bit heterogenous within it's center, and diverse from site to site (sites labelled as "Unetician").
These "first" bearers of U106 you cited were already there before Unetice times. Were they the subclades of the core of future Germanics? I don't know; SNP's are not the property of a culture or language or ethny; U106 were found too in Liechtenstein Cave (around 1000 BC) labelled Unstrut or less precisely Urnfield. This region of Germany comprised between Low-Saxony and Thuringen, in a region of contacts (metals ores) had surely seen some overlaps between clannic Y-haplos spite it was rather seldom. I prefer to think the well formed Germanics developped a bit later around the core of the U106 subclades (maybe the same), in a region where Y-I1a and some R1a lineages were not too far and could be integrated later. But CWC as proto-Germanics, to date, I dont believe, but I can be wrong (not the first time).



I don't put any penny in the affair, I just say what could be possible in my mind.
 
We lack more U106 before to be sure.

But isn't RISE98 almost as old as the estimated TMRCA of U106 itself?

RISE98 is 2275-2032 BC, YFull estimates TMRCA of U106 as 2700 BC:

https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-U106/

U106 were found too in Liechtenstein Cave (around 1000 BC)

I have not seen any evidence that this R1b sample was U106.

What is your source? It was some R1b, but not necessarily U106.

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

Do you happen to know what subclades of R1b did they belong to?:

http://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.com/2017/06/samborzec-beakers-from-maopolska-poland.html

http://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.com/p/blog-page_25.html

Bell Beaker Poland Samborzec [I4253 / RISE1124 / grave no. 13], M, 2571-2208 BCE 452974 SNPs, R1b1a1a2
Bell Beaker Poland Samborzec [I4251 / RISE1122/ grave no. 7], M, 2400-2200 BCE 80714 SNPs, R1b1a1a2

Autosomally they were 46% Steppe + 38% Neolithic + 16% HG (see Table S4. in Supplement):

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2017/05/09/135962.DC1/135962-1.pdf

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2017/05/09/135962.full.pdf
 
@ Tomenable:
you wrote:
But isn't RISE98 almost as old as the estimated TMRCA of U106 itself?
RISE98 is 2275-2032 BC, YFull estimates TMRCA of U106 as 2700 BC:

I wrote "we lack more U106 before to be sure": maybe my syntax is not good: I would not say "we lack older U106" but "before we can be sure we lack more ancient U106"
you wrote:
I have not seen any evidence that this R1b sample was U106.
What is your source? It was some R1b, but not necessarily U106
.
You 're right : it had been supposed it was U106 but it has not been confirmed, surely by lack of good DNA

you wrote:
Bell Beaker Poland Samborzec [I4253 / RISE1124 / grave no. 13], M, 2571-2208 BCE 452974 SNPs, R1b1a1a2
Bell Beaker Poland Samborzec [I4251 / RISE1122/ grave no. 7], M, 2400-2200 BCE 80714 SNPs,
R1b1a1a2
I knew that, OK; but what relevance for what I wrote concerning U106?
 
sorry Tomenable: "before we can be sure because we lack more ancient U106"
 
Balto-slav is not an ethnicity is a linguistic group and we know language and ethnicity never never match

Ethnicity and language have nothing to do one with another ?
Ethnicity is a mix of genetic aspects and culture and SELFAPPRECIATION OF IDENTITY -
a human group, to keep some consistance and to pass some centuries before to die, needs some stability ; from this stability and warrant of this stability is language – genetic aspect is also consequence of this stability but not an evident cause of it – genetic aspect found importance recently in a post-colonial context with phenotypes very different and a population density very bigger than in ancient times.

languages COLLECTIVE shifts need tight contacts and exchanges OR a very strong network of administrative organisation, but this last aspect was not already the case among the most of ancient ethnic groups -
- as a result of this (contacts and exchanges, balanced or not), members of the new mixed group with new language are pushed to feel themselves as of the same group as the ones which possessed this language before mixing or imposing this languages along with other things. They adopt the ethnicity of the dominant. Vanquished Gauls feeled themselves Romans some generations after the defeat. Some exceptions exist, like the Franks/Français question, but even here, we see a final fusion of ethnic sentiment, language and in a big part, genetics. So an « elastic » link between these notions, and not a « nothing common ».

So, Balto-Slavic stage is surely not only a linguistic abstract reconstruction only but also an ancient stage of a pop with flesh, blood and bones. After, things evolved, of course...
 
Ethnicity and language have nothing to do one with another ?
Ethnicity is a mix of genetic aspects and culture and SELFAPPRECIATION OF IDENTITY -
a human group, to keep some consistance and to pass some centuries before to die, needs some stability ; from this stability and warrant of this stability is language – genetic aspect is also consequence of this stability but not an evident cause of it – genetic aspect found importance recently in a post-colonial context with phenotypes very different and a population density very bigger than in ancient times.

languages COLLECTIVE shifts need tight contacts and exchanges OR a very strong network of administrative organisation, but this last aspect was not already the case among the most of ancient ethnic groups -
- as a result of this (contacts and exchanges, balanced or not), members of the new mixed group with new language are pushed to feel themselves as of the same group as the ones which possessed this language before mixing or imposing this languages along with other things. They adopt the ethnicity of the dominant. Vanquished Gauls feeled themselves Romans some generations after the defeat. Some exceptions exist, like the Franks/Français question, but even here, we see a final fusion of ethnic sentiment, language and in a big part, genetics. So an « elastic » link between these notions, and not a « nothing common ».

So, Balto-Slavic stage is surely not only a linguistic abstract reconstruction only but also an ancient stage of a pop with flesh, blood and bones. After, things evolved, of course...

Do you feel yourself as an Englishman because you speak English now..........and because you speak English has your ethnicity taken an english ethnicity !?

How many different ethnicities spoke latin after the Romans took over their lands, how many declared themselves Roman and if so and if you accept this ethnicity then does that not make searching for Roman ethnicity impossible to find?
 
Sile, i think what you meant to say was that ethnicity and language don't always match, is this what you were implying?
 
Sile, i think what you meant to say was that ethnicity and language don't always match, is this what you were implying?

I am saying a very high percentage do not match ...........as an example we have a recent linguistic study that states that Illyrian, Dacian and Thracian languages came from Italo-Celtic linguistic branch of central Europe .........

And with this , does the linguistic term Italo-Celtic mean all Italian ethnicity has celtic in them!

.
.
I never match any ethnicity with language before the medieval period , and with this start period , it would begin minimally
 
Balto-slav is not an ethnicity is a linguistic group and we know language and ethnicity never never match
I was asked to keep it civil, but you force my hand. How is a Balto-Germanic more of a thing than Balto-Slavic? Ffs, Slavs and Balts share paternal lines, unlike Balts and Germanics. Slavs and Balts share: genetics, language, culture, religion and rituals with each other, unlike Germanics and Balts. Like what's your problem? This seems very personal to you.
 
I was asked to keep it civil, but you force my hand. How is a Balto-Germanic more of a thing than Balto-Slavic? Ffs, Slavs and Balts share paternal lines, unlike Balts and Germanics. Slavs and Balts share: genetics, language, culture, religion and rituals with each other, unlike Germanics and Balts. Like what's your problem? This seems very personal to you.
i never heard of a balto-germanic group...........what are you fabricating ............
 
I knew that, OK; but what relevance for what I wrote concerning U106?

No relevance, I'm just curious if those Polish Bell Beakers were DF27, U152, U106, etc.
 
I feel that those genetic datas are going too fast, than the archeological datas, between when there was a Baltic Bronze Age ? Is it culturally link with central europe Unetice, R1b people ? Or is it a local developpement from R1a corded people ? Because in my mind, bronze age is still a cultural developpement from a central european R1b tribe.
 

This thread has been viewed 93851 times.

Back
Top