The Genetic Prehistory of the Baltic Sea Region

Thinking about thinking

My earliest path has found me reading and adding this article to Tracing Celtic Genetics: expanding towards the Baltic Seas. I recently started working with OSF as my main base of operations. thanks for your heads up.
 
Did I ever say that Balts never existed? Every post of mine mentions BALTO-SLAVS. Not Slavs themselves, but Balto-Slavs. Balts and Slavs are a family.

I am not so sure about Balto-Slavs being a family. At least from 2000BC they split. This is what Encyclopaedia Britanica says on the topic:
"It is possible to conclude that there was close contact between the Baltic and Slavic protolanguages at the time when they began to develop as independent groups (i.e.,from about the 2nd millennium BC) and that the Proto-Slavic area might have been a part of peripheral Proto-Baltic, although a specific part. That is, Proto-Slavic at that time was in direct contact with both the corresponding dialects of the peripheral Proto-Baltic area (e.g., with Proto-Prussian) and the corresponding dialects of the central Proto-Baltic area. All this shows that the Proto-Slavic area of that time (south of the Pripyat River) was much smaller than the Proto-Baltic area. Proto-Slavic began to develop as a separate linguistic entity in the 2nd millennium BC and was to remain quite unified for a long time to come. Proto-Baltic, however, besides developing into an independent linguistic unit in the 2nd millennium BC, also began gradually to split. "

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Baltic-languages

 
So what I wanted to point out in relation to this Study is that all the DNA of the metallurgists of the Late Bronze Age in the Eastern Baltic (approximately 1300 to 500 BCE) are rather Proto Baltic but not proto Balto-Slavic, as the languages have separated earlier and the Proto Slavic where likely somewhere else southwards and developing in their own ways.
 
I am not so sure about Balto-Slavs being a family. At least from 2000BC they split. This is what Encyclopaedia Britanica says on the topic:
"It is possible to conclude that there was close contact between the Baltic and Slavic protolanguages at the time when they began to develop as independent groups (i.e.,from about the 2nd millennium BC) and that the Proto-Slavic area might have been a part of peripheral Proto-Baltic, although a specific part. That is, Proto-Slavic at that time was in direct contact with both the corresponding dialects of the peripheral Proto-Baltic area (e.g., with Proto-Prussian) and the corresponding dialects of the central Proto-Baltic area. All this shows that the Proto-Slavic area of that time (south of the Pripyat River) was much smaller than the Proto-Baltic area. Proto-Slavic began to develop as a separate linguistic entity in the 2nd millennium BC and was to remain quite unified for a long time to come. Proto-Baltic, however, besides developing into an independent linguistic unit in the 2nd millennium BC, also began gradually to split. "

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Baltic-languages


So even though they split from common Balto-Slavic source and Proto Balto-Slavic source before that, perhaps even Central European Corded Ware, Slavs and Balts aren't a family? The only reason for my anger was trying to claim that Balts and Germanics are closer to each other than Slavs and Balts, which is simply ridiculous.
 
It is all three - Baltic, Slavic and Germanic developed from the same CWC, only Germanic had mixed with agriculturalists more, while Baltic mixed more with HG, when Slavic had their own way - stayed "hidden" up until 600-800 AD and expanded afterwards. Well, it would be interesting to compare all three cultures at some time in point - 0AD, for instance. But we just don't know the answers. Comparing cultures based on the language similarity or genetic autosomal similarity is not very reliable, is it? For instance, even though Lithuanians autosomally have more HG than EEF, they have still turned into farmers.

In this respect, influence Western CWC (proto-Germanic) might be very important in turning Baltic nations into what they are now. Before CWC Baltic inhabitants were just pure Hunter Gatherers, and the formation of the Baltic ethnicity as such starts only at the time of the arrival of CWC. However, without the EEF farmer input, the Baltic people could not have turned into Baltic. In this sense, the current theory that EEF part in the Baltic people came through the contacts with the more western CWC (Bell Beaker rich CWC, most probably proto-Germanic) is very important in the formation of the Baltic ethnicity. I am not sure how the formation of the Slavic nations is explained, and where their EEF part was picked up.

Quite funny, the word for Slavic neighbours in the Lithuanian language is denoted by the word "Gudai" originally meaning Goths, lat. Gotones and only later with the great movement of nations when the Goths were gone and the Slavic arrived in the area, the word picked up the current meaning of Slavic people (Belorussians). Polish people are called "Lenkai" after the Lech.
 
Last edited:
Germanic principally from CWC? Proof??? If I believe what I red (Dagne) proto-Salvic was separated from (Proto-)Baltic since 2000 BC, so I suppose long enough before proto-Germanics (with U106) emerged.
 
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

sincerely, I have huge doubts about the validity of some new studies in linguistic; "scoops" promotors?
I think Thracians and Dacians have very little in common with Italic-Celtic... and the Y lineages seems confirm the cut off.
 
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?

Please, let's separate the stage of fresh incorporation in a bigger structure and the bilinguism corresponding to it, or the use of a second "international" language like medieval latin or today english for either commercial or scientific or religious purposes. But at the end, when a group of ethnies finishes speaking only the dominant language, the most often it results after some generations in a common ethnic sentiment having as reference the winners original ethny.
 
Perhaps proto-Baltic was proto-Balto-Slavic at the same time, if we propose Slavic was born by bifurcation after mixings with an other element in the East-Northeast Carpathian zone; some linguists affirm Baltic is more archaic than Slavic; it could go back until their separation in these conditions. I know archaism is not a proof a language has not been learned, often, the center of propagation of a language is the more innovative. BTW, someones said ancient Baltic languages were rather more fragmented than first Slavic ones, spite their so called archaism; it seems to me it confirms Slavic, innovative or not, branched off late enough, concerning a small pop at first, before "baby boom" at a certain point of their history. the innovztions could be the result of the crossing with other pops with other languages-
 
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

I doubt if Rise98 is "hardcore" CW.

JM on anthrogenica:

Lilla Bedinge in southern Scania comprises the largest known cemetery associated with the Swedish Battle Axe Culture. The site, extending over an area of about 240×30 m, is located only about 1 km from the present day coast line. The majority of the at least 14 identified and excavated flat earth inhumations graves are located on a NE–SW oriented moraine embankment, whereas four of the graves are found on the flatter grounds to the SE. The site also includes a number of Late Bronze Age cremation graves, and two other find spots for BAC inhumation graves are known in the nearby region....

Grave 49 was excavated by Hansen 1934. It constitutes a N–S oriented subsurface oval stone construction with pointed edges, measuring about 4.5×2 m, where flat stone slabs form a roof over a chamber with an original height estimated to about 0.6–0.7 m. Fragments of wood indicate the presence of planks in the chamber. On the stone paved floor of the chamber three adult individuals had been placed in a line in sitting crouched positions facing southwest. Between the northern and middle skeleton fragmented remains of three children (initially only two were identified), representing two infants and a juvenile, were recovered. Further, some very brittle diaphyses of a fourth adult have been identified. The only recovered find is a bone needle deposited next to the northern skeleton (Hansen 1934; Malmer 1962:162p ; During unpublished notes). According to Malmer (2002:141) the grave can be dated to Period 4, and an unpublished radiocarbon date from the northern skeleton falls within the interval 2580–1980 cal. BC (2σ, 3850±105 BP, Ua-2758, During unpublished notes).


http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:439410/FULLTEXT01.pdf
When we look at the information about Rise 98 than it's southwest Sweden and it's dated 2580–1980 cal. BC. At that time the Barbed Wire Culture was dominant in Sweden. This is mostly seen at the latest phase of the Bell Beaker culture or piece de resistance. Wiki: 'In east central Sweden and western Sweden, barbed wire decoration characterised the period 2460–1990 BC, linked to another Beaker derivation of northwestern Europe.'


When we take a look at archeological findings than this correspondences with the work of Vandkilde (2005):
"The argument can be carried further into a discussion about the presentation of cultural and social identity through materi- al means. Firstly, the boundary between ordinary Late Neolithic Culture and Beaker-enriched Late Neolithic Culture in Jutland coincidences roughly with an older cultural boundary between Single Grave Culture and Funnel-necked Beaker Culture (Glob 1944, fig. 113) in addition to a similar boundary centuries later, c. 1600 BC, between the Valsømagle and the Sögel-Wohlde metalwork styles (Vandkilde 1996, fig. 273, B; 1999 b). All three cases relate to con- texts of general social change. Secondly, it is especially the frequent occurrence of Beaker pottery in settlements that makes the early Late Neolithic boundary distinct (see fig. 9). This tallies with an interpretation of Beaker pottery as first and foremost signalling a large-scaled form of social identity, which we may call cultural identity, or perhaps ethnic identity."
....

"Late Neolithic pottery is lacking in ornamentation, variability and sophistication (e.g. Schiellerup 1991, 48 ff. with references), notabky excepting northern Jutland. The plain pottery known from burials and settlement sites does not exhibit creative efforts and must have held connotations entirely different from, for instance, flint daggers and metal objects. The ware often has a rough texture, the pot wall is often thick, pot shapes are simple, and decoration, if any, consists of incised or impressed 'barbed wire' patterns, horizontal grooves or ridges in addition to an applied thick horizon- tal band below the rim. The subject is difficult due to the fact that Late Neolithic pottery is insufficiently studied, and so far chronological groupings are not distinguishable.
In east central Sweden and western Sweden, barbed wire decoration characterises the period 2460–1990 BC, whereas pots with a thickly applied clay band – so-called vulst in Danish – date to the period 1950–1780 BC (Holm et al. 1997, 220). Whether the ceramic sequence in central and eastern Denmark holds similar traits remains to be examined."

That brings us too the the role of Unetice in the paper of this topic:
Other substantial changes in the mtDNA haplogroup frequency were found in the population associated with the Unetice Culture (UC) that appeared in Central Europe during the EBA; thus, right a er the LN. e UC replaced the BBC and CWC; however, its population did not seem to be a direct genetic continuity of the population associated with the two former cultures. e analysis of mtDNA indicated closer similarity of the UC to CWC rather than to BBC

And finally this brings us to Quiles:
Úněticean genetic melting pot strengthens its origin as the vector of cultural diffusion of North-West Indo-European languages, essentially connecting Barbed Wire Beaker cultures from the Low Countries and the Northern Lowlands (and late Nordic Neolithic) – probably speaking languages ancestral to Germanic – with peoples of Southern German cultures, as predecessors of core regions of the Tumulus culture – possibly speaking West Indo-European, i.e. Pre-Italo-Celtic[Mallory 2013].
This suggests that Únětice connected these with eastern cultures like south-eastern European cultures – heirs of Bell Beaker and Carpathian groups – and the eastern Mierzanowice/Nitra culture – heir of Bell Beaker and Corded Ware groups. Therefore, the language ancestral to Balto-Slavic was probably spoken either by the Únětice population, or by eastern cultures that were connected to western Indo-European languages through Únětice.
Bell Beakers and early Únětice represented the first prospectors and metallurgists, travelling and sharing their skills, with Adlerberg and Straubing groups of the Southern German cultures being small local centres[Kristiansen 1987].
https://indo-european.info/ie/Únětice_culture

I'm (as more often) pretty associative, but I hope this all makes sense ;) The core thing is: R1b U106/ Rise 98 is not hardcore Corded Ware but can be seen in some (early) Unetice/ post Bell Beaker context. Shortly: LN/EBA. IMO this makes a connection between R1b U106 Lilla Beddinge (Scania) and R1b U106 Oostwoud (North Dutch) more probable/reasonable.....
 
Kivutkalns153, Latvia, Bronze Age, 800–545 BC, R1a1a1b1a3-YP1370 (a subclade of R1a-Z284).

I guess this Z284 from Bronze Age Latvia proves that some R1a came to Scandinavia from East Baltic area.

These are the oldest R1a samples from Scandinavia:

Sweden RISE94, Viby, Götaland, 2621-2472 BC
Denmark RISE61, Kyndeløse, Zealand, 2650-2300 BC
Sweden LNBA, Ölsund, Hälsingland, 2573-2140 BC
Denmark RISE42, Marbjerg, Zealand, 2191-1972 BC

As you can see 3 of them are from Southern Scandinavia, but one (Olsund) is from Northern Sweden.

Olsund individual is discussed in this paper:

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2017/03/03/113241.full.pdfhttps://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2017/03/03/113241.DC1/113241-1.pdf

About the origins of Corded Ware culture:

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/12/corded-ware-as-offshoot-of-hungarian.html

R1a migrated to Scandinavia either from Latvia-Lithuania-Poland by boats across the Baltic Sea, or from Germany (both routes are possible). N1c migrated to Scandinavia much later and probably from Finland-Estonia (ultimately from North-Western Russia).

Possible routes of R1a migration to Scandinavia with Corded Ware culture (red arrows):

https://i.imgur.com/GfE3Abm.png

GfE3Abm.png


This paper claims that the Olsund sample was most autosomally most similar to Baltic Bronze Age samples:

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2017/03/03/113241.full.pdf

CTRL + F type Olsund and find this info.

Also rock art of native Scandinavians (Non-R1) depicts the arrival of some R1-men by boats.

Native, Non-IE Scandinavians used to create rock carvings already ca. 6500 years ago.

They were documenting scenes from everyday life, such as hunting:

http://www.rockartscandinavia.com/frontpage.phphttp://fri.info.pl/rysunki-naskalne-alta/

Norgev228.jpg


a3.jpg


a5.jpg
a12.jpg


At the beginning of the Metal Ages, completely new motifs appear in Scandinavian rock art. These new carvings depict the arrival - by sea - of large fleets of immigrants, who had the knowledge of metal-working, were armed in battle axes (see: Battle Axe culture) and worshipped foreign deities:

https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rysunki_naskalne_w_Tanum

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ld6Dt-Lce6MVideo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDXQCUpjAyk

_343312_orig.jpg


800px-Tanumshede_2005_rock_carvings_5.jpg


EipYPeg.png


a11.jpg


Carvings.png


Tanumshede_2005_rock_carvings_3.jpg


This artwork most likely depicts an Indo-European high priest, an archetype of god Thor:

torvitl.jpg


^^^ This is consistent with Oslund R1a man being possibly descended from Baltic Bronze Age immigrants.

A nice exemplfication Tomenable!

Besides my remark yesterday about R1b (U106) in combination with this info about R1a it's together a illustration of what David from Eurogenes has stated about the genetics of the Nordic Bronze age or LN/EBA:
http://eurogenes.blogspot.nl/2015/06/genetic-substructures-among-late.html
 
Last edited:
BTW, someones said ancient Baltic languages were rather more fragmented than first Slavic ones, spite their so called archaism;


That was the Encyclopedia Britannica that said this. Here's the quote again,



"Proto-Slavic began to develop as a separate linguistic entity in the 2nd millennium BC and was to remain quite unified for a long time to come. Proto-Baltic, however, besides developing into an independent linguistic unit in the 2nd millennium BC, also began gradually to split."



The fact that the Slavic remained more unified seems to indicate that it was more conservative and resistant to change. Thus, it may have preserved the old tradition better.



What we have c. 5th century AD, when things become more clear, is that the Slavic languages are found both in North Europe (east and west) and in South Europe (east and west) – a very large area. The Baltic languages OTOH are just in a very small northern area. These are the facts. So, superficially, it looks like the Balts split off the Slavs, and not the other way around.
 
@Northerner

your post #72 is interesting: it points to first principal diffusion center of Y-R1b-U106 being northern enough at those times and maybe a in a contacts zone between the ancient CWC, BB and Unetice areas, so not so far from East Germany?
I had thought into Austria as second possible guess for U106 first core but it seems Austria was rather close to the Southern Tumuli zone than to the Northern one ("rich tumuli") rather close to Northwest Bohemia, Southern part of East-Germany; I abandon this Austrian bet to date; but it's uncertain to base our thoughts upon geography only because it seems more and more that males clans could infiltrate diverse regions even without mixing with other male clans (what doesn't dispense them to take foreign females on their way) we see that with GAC and CWC males lineages; so in absence of ancient DNA archeology helps but I'm a bit feeble on archeology.
 
That was the Encyclopedia Britannica that said this. Here's the quote again,



"Proto-Slavic began to develop as a separate linguistic entity in the 2nd millennium BCand was to remain quite unified for a long time to come. Proto-Baltic, however, besides developing into an independent linguistic unit in the 2nd millennium BC, also began gradually to split."



The fact that the Slavic remained more unified seems to indicate that it was more conservative and resistant to change. Thus, it may have preserved the old tradition better.



What we have c. 5th century AD, when things become more clear, is that the Slavic languages are found both in North Europe (east and west) and in South Europe (east and west) – a very large area. The Baltic languages OTOH are just in a very small northern area. These are the facts. So, superficially, it looks like the Balts split off the Slavs, and not the other way around.



Thanks for post.
archeolinguistic is always a tricky matter - language evolution doesn't obey to pure mathematic rules, it depends on people - but as a whole, as a pop increase in number its dialects are pushed to differentiate more and more with time - I don't know the ancient stages of baltic languages and here I only took the affirmation of an other - my today impression is that currently, spite they are spoken in a VERY smallER area, the Baltic dialects are comparatively more diverse than the Slavic ones are - and that push me to believe the Slavic ones are the result of a firstable small pop with huge baby boom short enough in time to avoid a too strong puzzling - I don't say Baltic gives Slavic, but that proto-Slavic was at first spoken by a little part of proto-Baltic speakers (it"s only a guess of mine) -
I's true the speed of evolution of language depends also on the distance between two languages when one of them is adopted... I don't know what language spoke the pop which provided Y-N1 in Baltic regions. Uneasy to be sure of anything here.
 
Thanks for your reply, MOESAN,
I'm more familiar with linguistics and archaeology than with genetics, but surely all these disciplines should agree sooner or later. :)

"... the Baltic dialects are comparatively more diverse than the Slavic"

Well, actually they are _languages_ and, true, the divergence among them is much greater than among the Slavic languages. Let's take Latvian and Lithuanian; they are far more different than the divergence of any of the Slavic languages among each other. From this it should follow that the Slavic languages are generally more conservative.

There are lots of big debates in linguistics, and lots of unsettled matters. But I'm looking at the comparisons with Sanskrit. It's very clear that Slavic shows a lot more similarities with Sanskrit, than the Baltic. This is the primary proof that the Slavic are more conservative

The Baltic languages are about half way between Germanic and Slavic. And the Germanic is even further removed from Sanskrit. These are purely linguistic arguments, and pretty strong ones IMHO, but they are often disregarded by mainstream linguists.

Also, archaeology seems to show a rather late arrival of the Balts to their current home area.

BTW, are you familiar with the linguistic evidence that the Germanic peoples were living in northern China before their arrival to Europe? I know it may sound strange, but the evidence is available.

All the best.
 

these were the first people along the Norvegian coasts :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komsa_culture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fosna–Hensbacka_culture

12 ka, the North Sea didn't exist yet, it was Doggerland
but the Fennoscandinavian icecap was receding and the ice on the Norvegian Trench was gone

these fishermen and seal hunters originated from the Ahrensburg culture reindeer hunters
the Ahrensburg reindeerhunters had bow and arrow, they were Villabrunan I2 clade
they outcompeted the Magdalenian and Hamburg culture El Miron cluster, who were hunting reindeer with atlatl


Recent archeological finds from Finnish Lapland were originally thought to represent an inland aspect of the Komsa culture equally old as the earliest finds from the Norwegian coast. However, this material is now considered to be affiliated with the contemporary Post-Swiderian culture of North Central Russia and the eastern Baltic and thus represents a separate early incursion into northernmost Scandinavia[3][4]

Finnish Lapland may have been the contact zone where these WHG fishermen and seal hunters admixed with EHG from Karelia
 
these were the first people along the Norvegian coasts :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komsa_culture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fosna–Hensbacka_culture

12 ka, the North Sea didn't exist yet, it was Doggerland
but the Fennoscandinavian icecap was receding and the ice on the Norvegian Trench was gone

these fishermen and seal hunters originated from the Ahrensburg culture reindeer hunters
the Ahrensburg reindeerhunters had bow and arrow, they were Villabrunan I2 clade
they outcompeted the Magdalenian and Hamburg culture El Miron cluster, who were hunting reindeer with atlatl


Recent archeological finds from Finnish Lapland were originally thought to represent an inland aspect of the Komsa culture equally old as the earliest finds from the Norwegian coast. However, this material is now considered to be affiliated with the contemporary Post-Swiderian culture of North Central Russia and the eastern Baltic and thus represents a separate early incursion into northernmost Scandinavia[3][4]

Finnish Lapland may have been the contact zone where these WHG fishermen and seal hunters admixed with EHG from Karelia

Yes, that all makes sense to me.
 

This thread has been viewed 94427 times.

Back
Top