The cradle of Russians, an obvious Finno-Volgaic genetic hotspot

First look of an accepted manuscript (behind paywall), Genome-wide sequence analyses of ethnic populations across Russia, by Zhernakova et al. Genomics (2019).

Interesting excerpts:

There remain ongoing discussions about the origins of the ethnic Russian population. The ancestors of ethnic Russians were among the Slavic tribes that separated from the early Indo-European Group, which included ancestors of modern Slavic, Germanic and Baltic speakers, who appeared in the northeastern part of Europe ca. 1,500 years ago. Slavs were found in the central part of Eastern Europe, where they came in direct contact with (and likely assimilation of) the populations speaking Uralic (Volga-Finnish and Baltic- Finnish), and also Baltic languages [11–13]. In the following centuries, Slavs interacted with the Iranian-Persian, Turkic and Scandinavian peoples, all of which in succession may have contributed to the current pattern of genome diversity across the different parts of Russia. At the end of the Middle Ages and in the early modern period, there occurred a division of the East Slavic unity into Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians. It was the Russians who drove the colonization movement to the East, although other Slavic, Turkic and Finnish peoples took part in this movement, as the eastward migrations brought them to the Ural Mountains and further into Siberia, the Far East, and Alaska. During that interval, the Russians encountered the Finns, Ugrians, and Samoyeds speakers in the Urals, but also the Turkic, Mongolian and Tungus speakers of Siberia. Finally, in the great expanse between the Altai Mountains on the border with Mongolia, and the Bering Strait, they encountered paleo-Asiatic groups that may be genetically closest to the ancestors of the Native Americans. Today’s complex patchwork of human diversity in Russia has continued to be augmented by modern migrations from the Caucasus, and from Central Asia, as modern economic migrations take shape.

pskov-novgorod-pca-eurasia-yakut
Sample relatedness based on genotype data. Eurasia: Principal Component plot of 574 modern Russian genomes. Colors reflect geographical regions of collection; shapes reflect the sample source. Red circles show the location of Genome Russia samples.

In the current study, we annotated whole genome sequences of individuals currently living on the territory of Russia and identifying themselves as ethnic Russian or as members of a named ethnic minority (Fig. 1). We analyzed genetic variation in three modern populations of Russia (ethnic Russians from Pskov and Novgorod regions and ethnic Yakut from the Sakha Republic), and compared them to the recently released genome sequences collected from 52 indigenous Russian populations. The incidence of function-altering mutations was explored by identifying known variants and novel variants and their allele frequencies relative to variation in adjacent European, East Asian and South Asian populations. Genomic variation was further used to estimate genetic distance and relationships, historic gene flow and barriers to gene flow, the extent of population admixture, historic population contractions, and linkage disequilibrium patterns. Lastly, we present demographic models estimating historic founder events within Russia, and a preliminary HapMap of ethnic Russians from the European part of Russia and Yakuts from eastern Siberia.

pskov-novgorod-pca-finno-permic
Sample relatedness based on genotype data. Western Russia and neighboring countries: Principal Component plot of 574 modern Russian genomes. Colors reflect geographical regions of collection; shapes reflect the sample source. Red circles show the location of Genome Russia samples.

The collection of identified SNPs was used to inspect quantitative distinctions among 264 individuals from across Eurasia (Fig. 1) using Principal Component Analysis (PCA) (Fig. 2). The first and the second eigenvectors of the PCA plot are associated with longitude and latitude, respectively, of the sample locations and accurately separate Eurasian populations according to geographic origin. East European samples cluster near Pskov and Novgorod samples, which fall between northern Russians, Finno-Ugric peoples (Karelian, Finns, Veps etc.), and other Northeastern European peoples (Swedes, Central Russians, Estonian, Latvians, Lithuanians, and Ukrainians) (Fig. 2b). Yakut individuals map into the Siberian sample cluster as expected (Fig. 2a). To obtain an extended view of population relationships, we performed a maximum likelihood-based estimation of ancestry and population structure using ADMIXTURE [46](Fig. 2c). The Novgorod and Pskov populations show similar profiles with their Northeastern European ancestors while the Yakut ethnic group showed mixed ancestry similar to the Buryat and Mongolian groups.

pskov-novgorod-yakut-admixture
Population structure across samples in 178 populations from five major geographic regions (k=5). Samples are pooled across three different studies that covered the territory of Russian Federation (Mallick et al. 2016 [36], Pagani et al. 2016 [37], this study). The optimal k-value was selected by value of cross validation error. Russian samples from all studies (highlighted in bold dark blue) show a slight gradient from Eastern European (Ukrainian, Belorussian, Polish) to North European (Estonian Karelian, Finnish) structures, reflecting population history of northward expansion. Yakut samples from different studies (highlighted in bold red) also show a slight gradient from Mongolian to Siberian people (Evens), as expected from their original admixture and northward expansions. The samples originated from this study are highlighted, and plotted in separated boxes below.

Possible admixture sources of the Genome Russia populations were addressed more formally by calculating F3 statistics, which is an allele frequency-based measure, allowing to test if a target population can be modeled as a mixture of two source populations [48]. Results showed that Yakut individuals are best modeled as an admixture of Evens or Evenks with various European populations (Supplemental Table S4). Pskov and Novgorod showed admixture of European with Siberian or Finno-Ugric populations, with Lithuanian and Latvian populations being the dominant European sources for Pskov samples.

direction-expansion-russians
The heatmaps of gene flow barriers show for each point at the geographical map the interpolated differences in allele frequencies (AF) between the estimated AF at the point with AFs in the vicinity of this point. The direction of the maximal difference in allele frequencies is coded by colors and arrows.

So, Russians expanding in the Middle Ages as acculturaded Finno-Volgaic peoples.

Or maybe the true Germano-Slavonic™-speaking area was in north-eastern Europe, until the recent arrival of Finno-Permians with the totally believable Nganasan-Saami horde, whereas Yamna -> Bell Beaker represented Vasconic-Caucasian expanding all over Europe in the Bronze Age. Because steppe ancestry in Fennoscandia and Modern Basques in Iberia.

A really hard choice between equally plausible models.

Related

59 thoughts on “The cradle of Russians, an obvious Finno-Volgaic genetic hotspot

  1. “Or maybe the true Germano-Slavonic™-speaking area was in north-eastern Europe, until the recent arrival of Finno-Permians with the totally believable Nganasan-Saami horde, whereas Yamna -> Bell Beaker represented Vasconic-Caucasian expanding all over Europe in the Bronze Age. Because steppe ancestry in Fennoscandia and Modern Basques in Iberia.”

    Come on man, hyperbole and all but this is just a strawman. No one serious arguing for a mostly post-Corded eastern root of Balto-Slavic argues anything like this nonsense or misunderstands why modern northern Russians are more ANE than other northern Slavic speakers.

    Same with the people who believe Beaker might have included or picked up non-IE languages at some point too. Their argument is that secondary expansions might have caused definitive IEzation of certain areas, nothing like that. It’s something I partially agree with as well – the part that Beaker doesn’t seem to have caused long-term IEzation throughout its range and you likely needed secondary expansions for that. It’s something that you would agree with as well, considering your stance on Celtic or the fact that Basque persisted despite Y-DNA replacement. And let’s be honest, even though I agree with your basic point here, the way that Basques ended up with some 70-80% of non-V88 R1b but still speak non-IE is in need of a good explanation because every explanation right now is at best “seems plausible”.

    It’s also worth keeping in mind that the Yamnaya autosomal argument probably works for both Finns and Basques, they seem to show less Yamnaya-related ancestry than IE-speaking Europeans when you use appropriate distal sources to model them, though that’s also the result of the medieval migrations (ancient Italy and the Balkans less steppe and more EEF than modern). Even non-Basque Iberians seem to show somewhat more steppe-related ancestry than Basques, just much less WHG-related ancestry due to their later Eastern Med and North African admixture.

    1. Come on man, hyperbole and all but this is just a strawman. No one serious arguing for a mostly post-Corded eastern root of Balto-Slavic argues anything like this nonsense or misunderstands why modern northern Russians are more ANE than other northern Slavic speakers.

      I think a strawman would require that A) this was a simple 2-position discussion (say, Kristiansen vs. Heyd), where we both had our basic tenets clear, and B) that the position I criticized were misrepresented.

      A) Unfortunately, there is no simple position for “R1a/steppe ancestry = Indo-European”, because the only valid tenet I can see is to follow whatever wherever that can lead for the own (or ethnic) haplogroup / ancestry / region to be Indo-European forever, with most theories changing on the go, and most of them relying on some mythical concepts, likely based on simplistic maps of the 2000s. I guess that, depending on the education system and its interest in molding prehistory according to modern nation-building, these ‘continuity’ ideas have turned among some peoples into something like a myth replacing religion (best example, Hindu nationalists, now also apparently East European populists):

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/16263399cf9611e3dc14689aa9eec0a0d114fbf819a9f58234c0ce5814f2524a.png

      B) I don’t know why you assume I cherry-pick these arguments to misrepresent anything. I hope you don’t assume I refer to your opinion (whichever it is at this moment, exactly); or that your position represents everyone else’s with a CWC=IE theory; or even that nobody in the CWC=IE camp holds such theories about Fennoscandia and Russia. Because they do.

      – A single visit to Molgen is enough to see threads where R1b/Vasconic-Caucasian (or even Vasconic-Kartvelian?!) connections are suggested, and have been for a very long time. Some users prefer to use the term “Samoyedo-Finnic”, because “Uralic” sounds too western. Talks about the evident “Uralic-Altaic-Palaeo-Siberian linguistic connection” around Lake Baikal which (surprise!) coincides with hg. N are common, but western N1c lineages – frequent among Russians, for reasons outlined in the paper above – must not be included in that group, because they are obviously Balto-Slavic, since they were found in Serteya with Comb Ware and must then be from Corded Ware, too… So Slavic was always spoken in Russia, by R1a and N lineages, as in the map above.

      – A single visit to Anthrogenica will show you how the main conversation has shifted from a reasonable Steppegenica vs. pet theories in the mid-2010s (viz. OIT, or Anatolian hypothesis, or autochthonous West European R1b, etc.) to the domination of a weird Nordgenica now whose arguments are at best incoherent, at its worst plain nativism. I’ve seen some users often criticize Eupedia, but, really, the level of recent discussions there is disheartening, including Italo-Celtic from Dutch SGC expanding to the east, while Germanic SGC expands to the north, and Basque-Iberian expands to the west and south, or something like that, and everything and everybody else is just ‘stupid’ or ‘crazy’ (tf?); and this just from minor posts I can catch here and there, buried among more and more frequent “where does my mamma fit in this Northern European PCA”, and “what is her CWC/SGC/steppe percentage in this calculator”…

      – A simple look at discussions in popular blogs and forums will show you that, today, the idea of steppe peoples expanding non-Indo-European languages is officially not ‘crazy’ anymore outside Molgen. It is still for R1a and Uralic, though, of course it is, but not for anything else, because the dogma “R1a were always IE” is apparently not ‘crazy’ at all. For a rational blogger, see Razib Khan’s proposal of non-Indo-European-speakers expanding with Yamna in https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2019/03/20/the-population-turnover-in-westernmost-europe-over-the-last-8000-years/ . For irrational nativist bloggers… well, you know how to find them. It’s also not very difficult to find everywhere discussions trying to connect Fennoscandia BA peoples of hg. R1a-Z283 to the ‘true’ Balto-Slavs and Germanics, while historically attested Early Slavs from Central Europe are considered “diluted”…like Early Hungarians, btw.

      I don’t know where you see the strawman or hyperbole, but the idea of Fennoscandia and northern Russia representing pure Germano-Slavonic (and Unetice representing Italo-Celtic) was the past, is the present, and will be the future of genetics for a lot of people, “because R1a”, “because Northern Europe”, or both. Just like West European nativists still look for autochthonous R1b-Vasconic, and North-East European nativists are convinced of autochthonous N1c-Uralic, and the three positions can reinforce themselves (like European populist groups support each other) in an opportunistic way, disguising the real aim with the use of ancestral components or cultures, with free PDFs or YouTube videos, or lengthy gibberish and diatribes in forums or blogs.

      I started this blog again because of that reticence of common people to change preconceived ideas: https://indo-european.eu/2017/07/germanic-balto-slavic-and-satem-indo-slavonic-dialect-revisionism-by-amateur-geneticists-or-why-r1a-lineages-must-have-spoken-proto-indo-european/ And I only see this problem worsening with farther-fetched theories developed as new genomic data contradicts previous beliefs about haplogroups, instead of just following cultures and languages.

      [I mean trends online, of course, and popular ideas in forums or blogs have a relevance close to 0 for academia. Academics like Heyd, Mallory, Kortlandt, Koch, Bomhard, or Kristiansen have remained anchored in the reality of population movements as they understand them, trying to fit them – with better or worse results – to their previous theories.]

      1. “A single visit to Molgen is enough to see threads where R1b/Vasconic-Caucasian (or even Vasconic-Kartvelian?!) connections are suggested, and have been for a very long time”

        That’s fair, I’ve seen other people suggest that wild theories come out from that site but I haven’t visited much myself. Though the basic point is that this sort of thing doesn’t seem to represent most of the internet discourse on the issue.

        “A single visit to Anthrogenica will show you how the main conversation has shifted from a reasonable Steppegenica vs. pet theories in the mid-2010s (viz. OIT, or Anatolian hypothesis, or autochthonous West European R1b, etc.) to the domination of a weird Nordgenica”

        The “steppegenica” had the same problem of often handwaving away some issues that can’t or couldn’t be well explained just yet. It happens to all of us when we focus more on a specific theory we find more likely. That’s why argumentation is important. Either way, I did find weird how quickly _a few_ people almost changed their minds from an Eastern Beaker to a Rhenish Beaker scenario, especially since the autosomal data had been around for a while and they just had to have them presented in a convincing way. Nonetheless, I still note that the main reaction was skepticism and uncertainty over the issue.

        “For a rational blogger, see Razib Khan’s proposal of non-Indo-European-speakers expanding with Yamna”

        Right, but the way he frames it is a bit different: “It may be that the Basque language actually derives from the steppe as non-Indo-European peoples expanded along with the Indo-Europeans, adopting similar cultural habits and characteristics.” Not exactly that Yamnaya was originally non-IE or anything (“Yamna -> Bell Beaker represented Vasconic-Caucasian expanding all over Europe in the Bronze Age”), just that this sort of phenomenon, like later steppe confederacies, became more multilingual during its expansion. I have some doubts about that, compared to a “local” pre-IE survival despite Y-DNA turnover, but it isn’t exactly how you framed many of those views in the OP. One site like the one you mentioned in your first point can’t speak for all.

        “It is still for R1a and Uralic, though, of course it is, but not for anything else”

        I can agree with that, that theory of yours has faced a lot of backlash and not always in very respectful terms to put it mildly. I don’t find it a “crazy” idea but the fact that no one seems to have considered it much in the recent literature obviously influences our priors. It also has some big stumbling blocks since, right now, you need an essentially invisible migration to explain at least Baltic, more invisible than the Celtic one to Ireland and that one has some problems already. Also it’s one reason I wouldn’t expect you to make arguments, even if they’re obviously _meant_ to be hyperbolic, like the ones at the end of article since you know how your more “fringe” position has been treated.

        “was the past, is the present, and will be the future of genetics for a lot of people, “because R1a”, “because Northern Europe”, or both”

        Sure, I don’t doubt there might be some truth to that. When you try to to debunk all arguments that might consider e.g. your Y-DNA to have less relevance to the expansion of your ultimate _linguistic_ ancestors but are quite eager to present views that make other Y-DNA irrelevant to the question or to present the view of a Northern Europe “united by Indo-Europeans”, there might be other things going on as well. But I’m sure we all have some underlying biases so these ultimately should die on argument.

        Since you mentioned “Fennoscandia”, well, considering I’m not sure about the equation of CW with Uralic, I wouldn’t necessarily doubt that Estonia and southern Finland might have been IE-speaking before they became Finnic-speaking. It’s a view that’s not confined to internet bloggers.

        As for my own view, I think the only areas where we have answers are broader ones with the specifics still somewhat unclear. Some IE-related questions we probably have genetic answers to:

        – The “original” IE homeland is on the steppe. More specifically, everything right now points to the eastern part of the Pontic-Caspian steppe, not Dnieper-Donets or Central Asia or various other areas that have been put forth. A view that was common among people who put forth a steppe scenario (Gimbutas, Mallory, Anthony later on)

        – Yamnaya as the result of the homogenization of the steppe with a bias towards the south, where wagons were first utilized extensively. That was an argument e.g. Anthony made and we see evidence of that now: Yamnayan groups draw the majority of their ancestry from the Caucasus piedmont steppe groups.

        – Italic, Celtic and the related extinct branches must emerge in post-Beaker areas. Balto-Slavic seems related to Corded Ware with early Baltic groups looking like populations admixed between Baltic Corded Ware and local HG groups. The early Slavic individuals look like Balts mixed with a more southern population, whether that’s due to simple clinal ancestry or some other process

        – The common view that the Minoans were pre-IE is strengthened. The view that the pre-IE substrate was very important in Greek, even compared to other European branches, is strengthened. Greek probably followed a European, not an Anatolian route though the “exact” source still remains a bit unclear.

        – Indo-Aryan seems to come from Central Asia. IVC was likely not Indo-European-speaking.

        Some questions I’d like to see answers to:

        – How did Basques end up with overwhelming amounts of steppe-related R1b but preserved a non-IE language. “They were matriarchal”, even if correct, is a bit of a handwave.

        – What was the process of Celticization in Western Europe. Right now, any Celtic migrations to Ireland and even Iberia are a bit invisible. A bit inevitable considering the similarity of the Western European groups at the time but we need more data, even if we suppose that Celtic did have an LBA-IA spread.

        – Tocharian. As we’d expect on archaeological grounds, Okunevo is an eastern population that mixes with and probably displaces Afanasievo and partially preserves its Y-DNA. Nonethless, the Tarim mummies are Z93 but they might very well be Indo-Iranians. The path of and process towards Tocharian is still unclear to me on genetic grounds.

        – Anatolian. We have some early outliers both from the Balkans and Anatolia (Kum4) with steppe ancestry that seem to retrace the conventionally considered path of Anatolian. Tested BA Anatolians so far have little if any steppe ancestry though, which isn’t unexpected even for Anatolian speakers. The picture is still not as clear as I’d like it to be personally.

        – The process via which Indo-Aryan (or even Indo-Iranian, considering cultures like Andronovo, it’s just that Iranic speakers don’t seem to have a similar Z93 founder effect and often show a good amount of R1b-Z2103 as well, one wonders if via western sources…), which seems more related to branches like Greek than Balto-Slavic (though also sharing a lot of features with Balto-Slavic, especially possibly late areal ones like satem and ruki as we know) ends up with Z93. You’ve offered interesting explanations here, even if one disagrees that CW was Uralic-speaking, but things are still a bit more unclear to me than I’d like.

        – Following from above, the early steppe-admixed IA populations from the general area of South Asia we have so far show a dearth of Z93 and instead the steppe bias seems more on the female than the male side. What exactly happened there in the long run? Are these early populations Indo-European speaking at all despite having (possibly female) steppe ancestry?

        – The origins of Germanic. Germanic always has a weird position on constructed trees and seems to be situated between Italo-Celtic and Balto-Slavic both on geographical and linguistic grounds. If we assume CW to be Indo-European rather than Uralic, did a Beaker language influence a Corded language to produce it, considering both its linguistic position and its related lineages (both significant Germanic-related R1b and R1a, unlike Italo-Celtic and Balto-Slavic where the Y-DNA division at least is more clear-cut)?

        I’m sure I could think of some more. It’s possible that the answers to at least some of these questions seem clearer to you but I’m still skeptical.

        1. Agreed, these are very good points to focus on in the future. I would probably be more interested in the most likely Italic-Venetic (at least North & Central Italy), Proto-Greek (to the north of Greece), and Indo-Iranian territories (Poltavka, Potapovka, Filatovka), because recently attested branches may be very difficult to connect with ancient populations. Apparently, Celtic may be another branch older than we thought, based on the link of Celtiberian (and Iberian Celts in general) with Urnfield and not with later movements. The Dagger Period may offer a great perspective of what happened in Southern Scandinavia. And we already have an ‘outlier’ hint of how East Baltic arrived in the Baltic area.

          I don’t think Modern Basques are that relevant for the discussion on whether NWIE spread with BBC vs. CWC, though, or even for ancient Vasconic speakers, like Modern Finns aren’t the best example of Finno-Ugrians, or Modern Slavs or Balts aren’t the best example for ancient ones. And whether some BBC groups were non-IE-speaking before or after entering Iberia (if any at all) shouldn’t really be essential for the language of East Bell Beakers, I don’t see what the fuss is about except for those interested in creating it, since we’ve had this information on huge genetic replacement with necessary language continuity for a long time.

          I planned to write a post on the known topo-hydronymy of Europe and Iberia studied by Villar, which I mentioned recently, but I preferred to wait for people to write as many incoherent opinions as possible on Olalde et al. 2019 based on Wikipedia or YouTube and the like, and then show what has been already known (that is, for those who really wanted to know about this) on the distribution of ancient languages in Western Europe for 20+ years…. Don’t know if waiting is a good strategy, but seems to me more interesting than trying to cut the bs. right away, because then other new incoherent ideas would pop up to replace these, as if nothing had happened. Not that Villar’s work it’s The Truth, but his studies are more thorough and reliable IMHO than older ones from Vennemann or Basque researchers.

          Btw (not exactly related to this conversation), assessing Hungarian Beakers to investigate the origin of East Bell Beakers made no sense whatsoever, because they are later offshoots from a group likely appearing much earlier from Yamna + local groups around the Upper Danube, so the comparison of Dutch BA vs. Hungarian Beakers for the origin of Beakers seems quite absurd. Like comparing Sintashta with Mycenaeans…where’s the cultural connection? where’s the threshold for whatever ancestral population(s) being tested? where’s the hypothesis?? Those targeted paired comparisons are even worse than multiple random ones, because they are mere biases waiting to be confirmed.

          I don’t disagree with you in that Razib Khan’s proposal of a multilingual culture is possible, just like Carpelan/Parpola’s similar and much earlier proposals of CWC being multilingual (Uralic in certain eastern groups) is also possible; btw. these models are akin to Anthony’s original one (2007). However, I don’t think Neolithic groups would easily lend themselves to that organization, especially with the suspected cultural and genetic (patrilineal) homogeneity of Yamna and Bell Beakers, and even CWC. The fact is, some people prefer to see a multilingual or ‘Vasconic-Caucasian’ BBC and Yamna as possible (even likely) now that it’s turning out as an R1b/I2 community (instead of the expected R1b-R1a), but a multilingual or Uralic CWC as ‘crazy’, when in fact the variability of haplogroups and cultural expressions between different ancestral groups and their evolution would rather suggest the opposite. That is, if there is any culture prone to showing different ethnolinguistic groups it would be CWC vs. late East CW groups. But even that ‘soft’ CWC-Uralic version is not accepted because basically eastern CWC groups related to Finno-Ugric represent lineages ancestral to many modern Balto-Slavs and Indo-Iranians, so that’s a big no-no for those identifying themselves with IE purity.

          Anyway, despite appearances, I don’t think the question is much clearer now than two years ago. We already had enough data then to question that simplistic concept of “Yamnaya ancestry = Indo-European”, and even if everything that I criticized had turned out to be true, it wouldn’t mean I was wrong in my criticism. I think I wrote in a recent comment to you that it’s the correct reasoning that matters, not the final answer. If it’s CWC the true IE culture, and Yamna-BBC the true Vasconic-Caucasian, that doesn’t validate all the R1a/IE-supremacist bs that we have seen, are seeing, and will see in the future. I am happy that recent research supports what I proposed, but not because I really care who spoke what 5-4k years ago; I mean, beyond the confirmation that NWIE was spoken by some community from some small region (be it Yamna Hungary or Single Grave, who tf cares), and that Fernando and I were right in supporting that dialect as spoken by a real group of people. If I write sarcastic comments it’s not because I am confident that I am right; it’s with a sort of ‘political’ aim, to call bs on the true reasons behind so many nativist pet theories.

          1. >I don’t think Modern Basques are that relevant for the discussion on whether NWIE spread with BBC vs. CWC, though, or even for ancient Vasconic speakers, like Modern Finns aren’t the best example of Finno-Ugrians, or Modern Slavs or Balts aren’t the best example for ancient ones. And whether some BBC groups were non-IE-speaking before or after entering Iberia (if any at all) shouldn’t really be essential for the language of East Bell Beakers, I don’t see what the fuss is about except for those interested in creating it, since we’ve had this information on huge genetic replacement with necessary language continuity for a long time.

            If that’s not essential then what is? We now have R1b-M269 overwhelmingly associated with non-IE speakers, while non of the early IE speakers (Hittites/Greeks) have it.

            I don’t have a clue where IE came from, but what evidence would convince you that it didn’t come from M269 Beakers?

            1. “We now have R1b-M269 overwhelmingly associated with non-IE speakers, while non of the early IE speakers (Hittites/Greeks) have it.”

              You probably mean overwhelmingly associated with IE speakers, since Germanic, Celtic, Lusitanian, Italic, Ligurian peoples show it or are clearly going to show it. The arrival of East Balts in the Baltic is marked by a western shift in the PCA during the BA, i.e. from regions previously associated with the BBC expansion. Also, Ancient Dorians have R1b. Thracians also have it. So most likely peoples from northern Greece during the Mycenaean period, including some Mycenaeans, will show it. Common Anatolians may show Khvalynsk lineages (whether R1b or R1ax417 or Q is irrelevant for Late PIE). The difference between attested Hittites and Proto-Anatolians (ca. 3,000 years) is precisely like comparing Iron Age Celtic-speaking peoples (sampled from the modern Basque Country) to Modern Basques. I don’t know how else to explain this difference at this point, really. I understand the confusion, based on people constantly comparing themselves to ancestral populations, but at some point people have to realize that this is not a thing.

              [Another example: It’s like comparing Crusaders of the 13th century to “Basques or Northern Spaniards”, as in the recent study, where some readers are hilariously interpreting that Crusaders were “Basques”. I mean, come on. Modern Basques have been isolated with strong founder effects for centuries since the Middle Ages; many Medieval Northern Spaniards expanded south and admixed. This study shows Medieval Northern Iberian/Southern French peoples from Christian kingdoms (most of them likely Romance speakers) taking part in the Crusades, which was expected, it’s not that difficult to interpret. Taking Modern Basques as a model of “13th c. Basques”? Circular reasoning at its worst. Taking Modern Basques as a model of “Iron Age Basques”? Absurd. Taking Modern Basques as a model of “Bell Beaker Basque-Iberians”? Oh com’on!].

              “I don’t have a clue where IE came from, but what evidence would convince you that it didn’t come from M269 Beakers?”

              Based on the linguistic and cultural attribution of Late PIE to different cultures like Yamna vs. Anatolia (vs. Armenia vs. India vs. Baltic vs. …), the former hypothesis has been confirmed with the expansion of haplogroups and ancestry, so I don’t think anyone can really challenge the link of PIE with R1b-M269 at this point. At least I don’t find that useful, because if it’s not accepted with the data we have now, it won’t be with any more data (whether Anatolians or Greeks or any other group show R1b, there will always be some data to question it). The real question to move forward is whether R1a-M417 lineages took part in that process (the hypothesized “R1a-R1b Yamna” community), or they were actually part of a neighbouring community, likely of a different language.

              My preferred model (in sociopolitical terms, for a stable Europe) would be Yamna expanding exclusively with R1b-Z2103, whereas NWIE and R1b-L51 expanded from the Pannonian Basin after a process of admixture and acculturation in the Hungarian Puszta, wherever and whenever L51 expanded from (maybe Cernavoda-related groups?). That would be consistent with the linguistic substrate found in NWIE (similar to the evolution found in PGk and in Indo-Iranian, due to their respective admixtures+contacts), and it would leave everyone without any stupid idea of ‘IE purity’. Admittedly, we would still have to deal with a lot of Nordicist bs from some R1a-fans (maybe even more so), but at least we wouldn’t have to deal with a strong West European nativism. Seeing the deeply rooted myths developed in the 2000s in Eastern Europe, I fear these chauvinist and racist ideas are bound to happen if R1b-L51 accompanies Yamna settlers since Repin, as it seems right now. Lots of Trumplings ready to exploit this in the next 20-30 years…

              1. “The arrival of East Balts in the Baltic is marked by a western shift in the PCA during the BA, i.e. from regions previously associated with the BBC expansion”

                Can you actually expand on this a bit? As far as I can see, the CW Spiginas2 outlier already looks like Baltic_BA and both can be modelled as mainstream Baltic Corded Ware + WHG (or perhaps Narva more appropriately even if stricto sensu WHG seemed to work somewhat better in the Mittnik et al. paper IIRC).

                Where do you see this Beaker shift? If anything, a greater shift towards the “southwest” appears between Baltic_BA/IA (which I assume you’d agree are Baltic speakers?) and modern Balts. That’s pretty much why I called this supposition kinda invisible in the samples we have so far.

                1. I meant the outlier from Turlojiškė (ca. 1230-920 BC), tentatively assigned to Late Trzciniec, hence representing a BA eastward population movement, which has already been mentioned elsewhere (in yet another obvious circular reasoning) as “very Slavic-like”… That’s before further expansions of Baltic cultures to the east: https://indo-european.info/indo-europeans-uralians/index.htm#t=VIII_8_Eastern_EEBA_province-.htm%23viii_8_Balto_Slavs

                  https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a196bca32f7ee4ae11a605f1b44cbb5dc7d10eb4c27ec5dd5479690357697868.jpg

                  If you assume (as I do) that the Eastern Baltic BA groups continuing the Battle Axe tradition represent Uralic (most likely Finno-Samic), then this is the first sign of the population movements we are most likely going to see to the east during actual Baltic-speaking expansions. This one could represent the first clear sign of Proto-East Baltic expanding east.

                  For those who assume the Baltic was always Baltic-speaking since CWC, then I don’t know what these shifts that we are certainly going to see in LBA – Iron Age will represent, if anything at all. Balts over Balts over Balts…? Sounds like Basques over Basques over Basques… or Finns over Finns over Finns…

                2. I meant the outlier from Turlojiškė (ca. 1230-920 BC), tentatively assigned to Late Trzciniec, hence representing a BA eastward population movement which has already been mentioned elsewhere (in yet another obvious circular reasoning) as “very Slavic-like”, potentially associated with late Trzciniec-related expansions… And that’s before further expansions of Baltic cultures to the east: https://indo-european.info/indo-europeans-uralians/index.htm#t=VIII_8_Eastern_EEBA_province-.htm%23viii_8_Balto_Slavs

                  https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a196bca32f7ee4ae11a605f1b44cbb5dc7d10eb4c27ec5dd5479690357697868.jpg

                  If you assumed (as I do) that the Eastern Baltic BA groups continuing the Battle Axe tradition represent Uralic speakers (most likely of the Finno-Samic group), then this is the first sign of the population movements we are most likely going to see to the east during actual Baltic-speaking expansions. This one could represent the first clear sign of Proto-East Baltic expanding east, in line with the known BSl. split into East Baltic, West Baltic, and Slavic after ca. 1500 BC.

                  However, for those who assume the Baltic was always Baltic-speaking since CWC, then I don’t know what these shifts that we are certainly going to see in LBA – Iron Age will represent, if anything at all. Balts over Balts over Balts…? Sounds like Basques over Basques over Basques… or Finns over Finns over Finns… Not much to discuss then, apart from modern haplogroup distribution maps available in the 2000s.

                3. Also it’s worth adding that the subtle BA Latvian-Lithuanian cline might very well be solely due to greater HG admixture further north rather than necessarily diminishing input from the (south)west. Indeed, some of the Latvian samples are even more southern than some of the Lithuanian one even if the trend is as it is and it’s overall quite subtle. Hard to say on these grounds.

                4. Is that the Turlojiske1932 woman, then? Not much individual analysis in the Mittnik et al. paper from a quick glance at it again. It’s a bit hard to say whether we aren’t dealing with a more EEF admixed individual, not unlike some of the even more extreme outliers we see in CWC (let alone Beaker), rather than Beaker influence from the west based on this one sample, even if it’s chronologically later and that might make the former scenario less likely. I notice it’s also one of the most low coverage samples in that paper which might affect its position on your PCA quite a bit on its own (it has affected the position of some low coverage samples in the Eurogenes Global25 before, they can jump around a decent bit if re-analyzed).

                  The one Lithuanian IA sample which postdates this possible outlier is also within Baltic_BA variation, on the other hand…

                  Even if your supposition turns out to be right with more data, this feels a bit flimsy on its own.

                  Here’s another general view which unfortunately doesn’t include this specific sample:

                  https://i.imgur.com/NFTd3l7.png

                5. Also it’s worth adding that the subtle BA Latvian-Lithuanian cline might very well be solely due to greater HG admixture further north rather than necessarily diminishing input from the (south)west. Indeed, some of the Latvian samples are even more southern than some of the Lithuanian one even if the trend is as it is and it’s overall quite subtle. Hard to say on these grounds.

                6. The sample is Turlojiske1932, I think. I have it listed in my spreadsheet as male but without Y-DNA hg., would need to check if it’s female though. The point is, this sample to the east (in the easternmost boundary of the latest Trzciniec groups) shows a western genetic influence in common with the 1,000-year-older Iwno or Proto-Trzciniec sample in its westernmost border, which puts both in the same context of cultural expansion from west to east.

                  Interpretations of BA and IA movements are as flimsy (or not) as, for example, the coeval Celtic expansion into Iberia and the British Isles with Urnfield and La Tène, that will show little influx from Central Europe, without much change in the haplogroup/ancestry distribution in most Celtic-speaking Iberian and British territories. If we were expecting this sort of movement and we found it, even though clearly different from previous Neolithic or Chalcolithic population replacements, we have to assume – based on modern populations – that further language replacement west (in Iberia and the British Isles) show more and more admixed populations with locals, to the point where only fine-scale population structure or precise subclades or cultural replacements might show further ethnolinguistic movements from region to region. Same with ancient Lithuanian and Latvian populations. Assuming R1b-L23 from Yamna Hungary expanded NWIE all over Europe, no one could reasonably expect continuity of that population until Modern Balts, so multiple connections had to be found somewhere.

                  I was expecting this kind of eastward movements – not as early as Trzciniec – and apparently they are going to happen. I understand that you can give many interpretations to this and many other samples; say, simple “contacts”, female exogamy, and whatnot. Same with the Central European ancestry appearing with Urnfield, if you are Koch and want to support Celtic continuity in the west. Same with the French Bell Beaker outlier (maybe from Alsace) that will show more Yamnaya-related ancestry than any CWC individual, if you prefer to associate Indo-European to EEF-related ancestry: you may adduce e.g. that it’s the majority of Bell Beakers and their Anatolia N. admixture that matters in Iberia or Italy, similar to Greece and Anatolia, and not their tiny steppe admixture. And so on and on. But, since these data are what I was expecting, I’d rather take these outliers as a provisional confirmation of my hypothesis, understanding that there are many alternative reasons for this, and that more data is needed to connect all dots.

                7. The sample is Turlojiske1932, I think. I have it listed in my spreadsheet as male but without Y-DNA hg., would need to check if it’s female though. The point is, this sample to the east (in the easternmost boundary of the latest Trzciniec groups) shows a western genetic influence in common with the 1,000-year-older Iwno or Proto-Trzciniec sample in its westernmost border, which puts both in the same context of cultural expansion from west to east.

                  Interpretations of BA and IA movements are as flimsy (or not) as, for example, the coeval Celtic expansion into Iberia and the British Isles with Urnfield and La Tène, that will show little influx from Central Europe, without much change in the haplogroup/ancestry distribution in most Celtic-speaking Iberian and British territories. If we were expecting this sort of movement and we found it, even though clearly different from previous Neolithic or Chalcolithic population replacements, we have to assume – based on modern populations – that further language replacement west (in Iberia and the British Isles) show more and more admixed populations with locals, to the point where only fine-scale population structure or precise subclades or cultural replacements might show further ethnolinguistic movements from region to region. Same with ancient Lithuanian and Latvian populations. Assuming R1b-L23 from Yamna Hungary expanded NWIE all over Europe, no one could reasonably expect continuity of that population until Modern Balts, so multiple connections had to be found somewhere.

                  I was expecting this kind of eastward movements – not as early as Trzciniec – and apparently they are going to happen. I understand that you can give many interpretations to these and many other samples, assuming overall continuity; say, simple “contacts”, female exogamy, and whatnot. Same with the Central European ancestry appearing with Urnfield, if you are Koch and want to support Celtic continuity in the west. Same with the French Bell Beaker outlier (maybe from Alsace) that will show more Yamnaya-related ancestry than any CWC individual, if you prefer to associate Indo-European to CWC, or maybe to EEF-related ancestry: you may adduce e.g. that it’s the majority of Bell Beakers and their Anatolia N. admixture that matters in Iberia or Italy, similar to Greece and Anatolia, and not their tiny steppe admixture, so IE expanded through the Mediterranean. And so on and on. But, since these data are what I was expecting, I’d rather take these outliers as a provisional confirmation of my hypothesis, understanding that there are many alternative reasons for this, and that more data is needed to unequivocally connect all dots.

          2. “I don’t think Modern Basques are that relevant for the discussion on whether NWIE spread with BBC vs. CWC, though, or even for ancient Vasconic speakers”

            I don’t think they’re the most important point in the discussion but it’s still something I’d like to see explained perhaps a bit better. It’s always possible any answers in this area will be a bit unclear or unsatisfying of course even in the future. I personally don’t think Beaker spread non-IE languages, or at least _solely_ non-IE languages, but the process is still interesting and I’m looking forward to data from other non-IE speaking cultures like the whole Rhaeto-Etrusco-Camunic group which seems to have occupied a decently big area. It’s an area where some contrary viewpoints haven’t been adequately fully answered yet from _my_ perspective. Unlike, as I wrote above, the PIE homeland which seems very hard to deny is the Chalcolithic eastern PC steppe, again from my perspective.

            “I planned to write a post on the known topo-hydronymy of Europe and Iberia studied by Villar, which I mentioned recently, but I preferred to wait for people to write as many incoherent opinions as possible on Olalde et al. 2019 based on Wikipedia or YouTube and the like, and then show what has been already known (that is, for those who really wanted to know about this) on the distribution of ancient languages in Western Europe for 20+ years…. Don’t know if waiting is a good strategy, but seems to me more interesting than trying to cut the bs. right away, because then other new incoherent ideas would pop up to replace these, as if nothing had happened. Not that Villar’s work it’s The Truth, but his studies are more thorough and reliable IMHO than older ones from Vennemann or Basque researchers.”

            You should, just so we can see his view on this. Because all sorts of theories being espoused is never going to stop anyway. I’m always a bit wary of toponymical studies but they’re interesting nonetheless. Toponymical and substrate studies have also furnished us with the possibility of various extinct IE branches in various areas of Western (and even Eastern, in areas where the Greek and Roman records didn’t exactly describe the inhabitants well, like the area between Hungary and Poland, an area that has been claimed for all sorts of IE groups) Europe before the spread of Celtic (and Germanic), even apart from more attested branches like Lusitanian, though that has always been a bit controversial and idiosyncratic.

            “Btw (not exactly related to this conversation), assessing Hungarian Beakers to investigate the origin of East Bell Beakers made no sense whatsoever, because they are later offshoots from a group likely appearing much earlier from Yamna + local groups around the Upper Danube, so the comparison of Dutch BA vs. Hungarian Beakers for the origin of Beakers seems quite absurd.”

            No disagreement there, I think in that case, points against one’s own theory were disregarded too quickly. An eastern Beaker origin does seem more plausible to me right now all things considered, despite the autosomal argument, but that one’s not something ridiculous either.

            “Like comparing Sintashta with Mycenaeans…where’s the cultural connection?”

            To be fair, I think this was also more about the model not being rejected, i.e. that Minoan + a steppe source worked well for the Mycenaeans. Some people did go a bit too far in arguing that it might also be the actual case though, based on the links of Greek with Indo-Iranian. But this ignores a whole lot of “Balkan” Indo-European languages from northeastern Greece to the Ukraine, some of which had obvious closer ties with Indo-Iranian in at least sharing satem, so it was a bit of a red herring in a way. It’s not an area where I can fault anyone for positing all sorts of reasonable scenarios for a pre 17th century BC arrival though, considering the archaeologists involved in the area have had very differing views, even though my preference is for the Early Helladic II. There have been archaeologists who focused on the appearance of the chariot (and a more certain appearance of the horse) during the MH, though of course it’d be more likely that the western Multiroller than Sintashta was responsible if we stick to that line of thinking.

            “I think I wrote in a recent comment to you that it’s the correct reasoning that matters, not the final answer”

            I agree with that but I think various theories right now have points both for and against them, that’s the problem. Even if you base your arguments on the literature, various viewpoints have been expressed…some seem more plausible than others (e.g. to stick to something I see as more adequately answered, I never really bought the Anatolian Neolithic spread model for various reasons and even the Transcaucasian model seemed less likely) but in some cases we have competing theories that both seem relatively plausible.

            @Marko, a future Greek study had an individual that was likely Z2103, though it remains to see what he looks like autosomally (i.e. if he’s actually from the Balkans). I’m personally expecting to see Z2103 throughout the Balkans and it’s the one clade that’s the most securely IE-associated, all things considered, in my view. We probably won’t have the overwhelming representation of R1b we see in Western Europe of course. “Local” lineages seem to have persisted much better in the area and I wonder if something like Anthony’s patron-client model works for the Balkans. Another interesting, sorta tangential point in this case is that the mixed Visigothic group (autosomally it looks like Scandinavian-Balkan-steppe with varying amounts of Iberian, with some of the more outlying individuals being able to model quite well with no Iberian in them) in the recent Olalde et al. study seems to have carried some J2a and EV13 to Iberia and it’ll be interesting to see this possible relationship of EV13 and (some) early Slavs that Carlos wrote about clarified more. Perhaps much of the spread of these lineages outside the Balkans (and Italy?) throughout mainland Europe is Roman and Migration period and sometimes carried by other groups, Germans and Slavs.

            Even though I disagree with the disassociation of M2269 and IE that we’ve talked about before, I’ll agree per above that we need some clarification in certain areas.

            1. I believe the Greek was R1b-PH155 if we’re talking about the same study.

              I still think there’s a decent chance Z2103 will be overrepresented in the Mycenean shaft graves. Or it might be R1a or J2/G2 like the purported Hittites, difficult to tell. I just think that with the paucity of samples from the relevant graves there isn’t really a solid haplogroup connection yet – almost no data from chiefly Mycenean and Hallstatt burials or West Anatolia.

              1. If you refer to this study https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGKZKoH4yv0&t=15m56s , I think it refers to R1b-P297 based on previous ISOGG standards (2008 to 2011), hence likely a M269 sample, hence also likely Z2103. See e.g. this standard at play here:
                https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2861676/

                Based on Modern Greeks, this Dorian sample may show many haplogroups within the R1b tree, from V88 (Balkan Mesolithic) to V1636
                (maybe associated with the Suvorovo expansion), but PH155 is not likely at all.

                Since it’s apparently within the P297 tree, Z2103 is the most reasonable assumption for the Balkans.

              2. If you refer to this study https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGKZKoH4yv0&t=15m56s , I think it refers to R1b-P297 based on previous ISOGG standards (2008 to 2011), hence likely a M269 sample, hence also likely Z2103. See e.g. this standard at play here:
                https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2861676/

                Based on Modern Greeks, this Dorian sample may show many haplogroups within the R1b tree, from V88 (Balkan Mesolithic) to V1636
                (maybe associated with the Suvorovo expansion), but PH155 is not likely at all.

                Since it’s apparently within the P297 tree, Z2103 is the most reasonable assumption for the Balkans.

              3. If you refer to this study https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGKZKoH4yv0&t=15m56s , I think it refers to R1b-P297 based on previous ISOGG standards (2008 to 2011), hence likely a M269 sample, hence also likely Z2103. See e.g. this standard at play here:
                https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2861676/

                Based on Modern Greeks, this Dorian sample may show many haplogroups within the R1b tree, from V88 (Balkan Mesolithic) to V1636
                (maybe associated with the Suvorovo expansion), but PH155 is not likely at all.

                Since it’s apparently within the P297 tree, Z2103 is the most reasonable assumption for the Balkans.

                1. Could be true, but I think a recent Gepid sample also had PH155 so that remains to be seen. The shaft graves are the most important sites for LPIE.

                2. I agree that Myceaneans and Ancient Greeks in general are key for Late PIE, like Anatolians are key to Middle PIE. They show the earliest written IE testimonies.

                  But which Gepid sample? The only one I have is VIM_2, and haven’t seen any SNP call. I can only find this, from the paper:

                  The Sarmatian individual PR_10 and Serbian Gepid VIM_2 also carry the derived SLC24A5 haplotype and are amongst our individuals with the highest amount of DNA matching to East Asia.

                  Which is in line with the most likely region where PH155 split, and where it is going to be found until IA nomadic expansions: https://indo-european.info/indo-europeans-uralians/index.htm#t=VIII_20_Trans-Urals_forest-.htm%23viii_20_3_Turkic_peoples

                3. I agree that Myceaneans and Ancient Greeks in general are key for Late PIE, like Anatolians are key to Middle PIE. They show the earliest written IE testimonies.

                  But which Gepid sample? The only one I have is VIM_2, and haven’t seen any SNP call. I can only find this, from the paper:

                  The Sarmatian individual PR_10 and Serbian Gepid VIM_2 also carry the derived SLC24A5 haplotype and are amongst our individuals with the highest amount of DNA matching to East Asia.

                  Which is in line with the most likely region where PH155 split, and where it is going to be found until IA nomadic expansions: https://indo-european.info/indo-europeans-uralians/index.htm#t=VIII_20_Trans-Urals_forest-.htm%23viii_20_3_Turkic_peoples

                4. It’s Vim2 – Vadim Verenich took a look at the sample. Might be from the East Eurasian side, but I believe there’s a Middle Eastern branch as well.

                  To the Mycenean sites I’d also add the early Hallstatt chiefly graves, and maybe Jastorf to see whether they show some kind of differentiation from typically western Y-DNA patterns. What if the Austrian Hallstatt chiefs turned out to be predominantly R1a or G2a, for instance? That would open up the possibility that the ultimate Indo-Europeanization of Iberia, Britain, France etc. might have had a relatively small demographic impact.

                  Germanic groups, too, seem to have a relatively disjointed Y-DNA pattern, but that will be even more difficult to make sense of.

                5. Thank you, I have added that info to my spreadsheet although the sample’s genetic sex is listed as undetermined, so we have to be wary of that, especially under R1b (will appear as R1b-PH155? in the Y-DNA maps).

                  Yep, about Hallstatt I would stress the word predominantly R1a or G2a. However, if they are predominantly G2a it would mean IE are Anatolians? I think you are asking the right question, “What would you need to change your mind?”, but to the wrong guy. Because we have seen many things people didn’t expect about haplogroups, and still the same arguments. I have changed my mind with every single paper, just take a look at my writings since 2007…

                  About Mycenaeans, to add to this Ancient Dorian R1b sample, there is the Philistine discussion: https://indo-european.info/indo-europeans-uralians/VIII_12_The_Aegean-.htm#viii_12_Greeks_and

                  The R1b-M269 sample from Tel Shaddud (ca. 1250 BC), autosomically a local, if confirmed (and probably also a Z2103), reinforces the ideas of a) the presence of R1b among Ancient Greeks, hence b) the nature of Sea Peoples as Achaeans/Dorians, hence c) the likely expansion of Tyrsenian from the Aegean to Italy, and not the other way around.

                  That, coupled with the expansion of East Mediterranean ancestry found in the LBA in Italy, may point to the actual origin of Etruscan and Rhaetic peoples, more than the survival of local EEF-related populations around the Alps or Northern Italy, which is not very likely. Or, even less likely IMO, the assumption of a complex multilingual confederation (“Vasconic+Tyrsenian”) of Bell Beakers under such a unitary culture and patrilineal expansion…

                6. Anatolia of course reminds one of the classic farmer model of IE, but I think that if early Anatolian speakers fail to produce a convincing signal of steppe intrusion my favored model would be one wherein West Anatolian and Balkan-Carpathian farmers spread Indo-European languages quite late into the metal ages. This would require fewer assumptions and convoluted language transfers than the CHG hypothesis as it was proposed by Reich I think.

                  That’s a big if however, and West Anatolia is still DNA terra incognita more or less. If one considers only Europe, a CW/BB of course work equally well and I’m undecided between the two. Surviving CWC groups in the northern Caparthian area sound equally as plausible as Hungarian Yamnaya if we were to look for potential candidates for ‘late Indo-Europeanizers’.

                  I would agree with your general point that it is unlikely that both BB and CW were IE, and I find the CWC-Uralic connection you proposed convincing in the sense that if R1a can be shown to be absent from key sites that’s probably what it was.

                7. I already explained why the case of Vasconic (north of the Pyrenees) and Proto-Iberian (likely from south-eastern Iberia) are IMO similar to the Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian cases, and I don’t think ancestry has been my main argument, but haplogroups + culture: https://indo-european.eu/2019/03/aquitanians-and-iberians-of-haplogroup-r1b-are-exactly-like-indo-iranians-and-balto-slavs-of-haplogroup-r1a/

                  However you look at it, since 2015, you need exceptions: either R1b-rich communities were acculturated, or it was R1a-rich communities. Since the predictions of R1a-rich Yamna (me included) changed for “R1-rich” (i.e. R1a-R1b) Yamna, and this has been proven until now wrong, this comeback of the R1a-rich community (i.e. CWC) representing IE seems not very strong to me. More like a desire of many than a true model.

                  And I will say that again: I dont know what the fuss about Modern Basques is about, because we knew that they were an isolated group, and that their main haplogroup had an origin in the steppes since 2015: Seems to me that these “arguments” based on Olalde (btw, which are the non-IE Bell Beakers there, exactly?) are a desperate attempt to return to the 2000s, and a very bad one at that.

                  If I were obsessed with linking R1a or northern Europe to Indo-Europeans, and needed to review my whole worldview as people felt the need some months ago, I would have chosen the Carpathian Basin with its potential link to CW sites to the north as the origin of both, CWC and BBC. Like Anthony did: https://indo-european.eu/2017/12/the-new-indo-european-corded-ware-theory-of-david-anthony/ That way you would need many many samples very close to that place and age to disprove the link with ancestry. R1a-fans have done the opposite, they have shut that door in a very stupid way, IMHO.

                  So I am all in for this R1a/Sredni Stog/CWC vs. R1b/Repin/Yamna discussion; much easier to clearly dismiss one of them. You can see how wary I was of people selecting Anthony’s model from my change in the maps: since apparently Yamna Hungary is absolutely not possible as a NWIE homeland today for CWC-fans, I have added info on Yamna vanguard groups into CWC territory (or even CW findings near the Tisza), which would have otherwise served to trigger the imagination of many…

                  And agreed about Greeks. And Italic peoples should be added, too. Now, if they are – as expected – R1b-L23, something tells me people will want to roll back to (or invent) whatever is necessary, maybe a suggestion here and there that Yamna peoples were Vasconic-speakers in the west, Tyrsenian-speakers around the Danube, and Minoan-speakers in the Balkans, and Caucasian or Kartvelian speakers in the steppes, and whatnot, until some R1a people taught everyone in southern Europe Indo-European at some point. True story.

                8. However your explanation isn’t supported by evidence. The suggestion that Basques are an exception is simply disingenuous in light of the data: the represent a modern relict; but one of several non -IE groups in Western Europe who were archaeologically and DNA linked to L51. There’s no point disputing that like the amateurs on AtlantoGenica are desperately trying to .
                  BB represents a rapid and violent expansion of patriarchal L51 groups. They would be linguistically singular; and their most direct ancestors & most ancient attested languages are non-IE.
                  That *modern* Celts are solidly linked to L51 is due to later language shift during the Bronze Age

                9. Another issue might be in assuming that Yamnaya was even PIE; or that *all * groups in the steppe spoke IE. There were several expansions from or near the steppe; thus several potential language families expanding From the steppe, Central Europe & parts of the Balkans

                10. Please be careful when using Disqus with a registered account from mobile devices or external apps, because it becomes a mess.

                  It works better either from a PC, or with unregistered accounts.

      2. @Carlos, I”m one of the active Anthrogenica member and I disagree (mostly) with your observations about Anthrogenica especially about the “weird Nordgenica”.

        First of all I disagree with the supposed 1:1 relationship between genetics, language and culture. That’s an old Romantic heritage that has derailed fully in the twentieth century. Now some follow that paradigm although DNA research makes fully clear that there is no Germanic or Celtic genetic nucleus…..

        And I’m neither a Nordicist. I have a deep interest in my (genetic) roots without judging or dedain for the roots of other people. But it happens that my roots lay in the North. I’m aware of of the misuse of my roots in the past, but I don’t want to be hijacked by that….

        I’m lately into the auDNA of my mother she is fully rooted in an old TRB pocket. And of course she has a NW European kind of admixture, but the TRB admixture (high HG and some elevated EEF) shimmers through. But still uncertain if this can have such a long lasting effect! Still a quest.

        That’s a part of the discussion on Anthrogenica and follows a quite civilized way. Of course there is some kind of ‘tribalism’ (about Y-DNA for example) in certain threads but on other fora this is way worse…..

        1. I have been member for a short time, since 2017, and even though I don’t participate much, I agree it’s the best (most civilized, least tribalist) forum. I didn’t know much about genetic genealogy, but it seemed to me it was a fine place to start, and I still think so. The discussion was mainly steppe vs. OIT back then, so it was acceptable, and information posted there is invaluable to me.

          Other sites seemed a little off, like a Finnish and a Spanish group I follow (with the expected nativist leaning each); or Molgen with its pro-Russian thing (which may be my impression, but seems like it has also worsened, from Mesolithic Eastern European PIE and Nostratic, to a purely R1a-IE / R1b-Vasconic-Caucasian / N-Uralic-Altaic model); or Eupedia, which seems too focused on Italy and the Balkans (and maybe some Anatolia/CHG homeland obsession), although what really strikes me about Eupedia is how much inter-Balkan hatred and ad hominems there is. And, obviously, some forums are just batshit crazy, like “how Indo-European do I look like?”.

          I understand moderation is difficult, and by selecting certain people for the task you are essentially condemning the site to a certain leaning, and relying on some individuals is a must in big sites.

          The weird Nordgenica trend I mentioned, as Egg understood, is the quick dismissal of a reality that had been clearer and clearer in 2017 and 2018, i.e. that Bell Beakers expanded from Yamna. The main question has been, since 2015, where CWC peoples expanded from, and their relationship to Yamna. Suddenly the great idea of comparing Dutch BA with Hungary BBC to ascertain the origin of Bell Beakers pops up, comparing them with Iberian Beakers, and with Germany Beakers, etc., and the only thing I could see was people cheering that “discovery” by re-asserting their old theories from years ago, or by comparing how close their mother was to Dutch Single Grave peoples, the origin of IEs. I didn’t see users criticizing that proposal, or questioning the actual theoretical model (if any at all) proposed to test it, or any threshold to achieve, or alternative interpretations…nothing. Just plain acceptance and talks about some free PDFs of French or Dutch archaeologists.

          Reminded me of the “Yamnaya ancestry” concept of the 2015, but much worse, because we know how this worked out. Even if you prefer ancestry over haplogroups, the evidence about Beakers is overwhelming (may be reversed, of course, but not with simplistic ancestry comparisons at this point). Now suddenly some guy posts some paired comparisons, and everyone is on board again for CWC and Northern Europe being the origin of everything. Didn’t expect that. Especially not from what seemed like the reasonable part of the community. I don’t know if Jean Manco would have called bs on this, or if other moderators could have stopped that wave, but it was just sad to see some members reveal themselves as part of a northern European fandom. It was obvious that this new pet theory wouldn’t last, and it didn’t: http://disq.us/p/20ez5qw . But it shows which kind of ideas are going to pop up in the future in Anthrogenica about the true NWIE homeland: CWC from the Rhine, CWC from Bavaria, CWC from Moravia, Unetice… Northern Europe forever.

          [BTW I didn’t invent the term “Nordgenica”. It was posted here a while ago precisely because of this issue. And since some users in Anthrogenica like to use nicknames for Eupedia, it seems fitting to use it]

          My impression is a personal one. Since I have seen my own name used often after the word “crazy” or any other ad hominem, without any consequence whatsoever for any user, even some moderators, I find it a clear example of this bias how some users would rush to call for a ban of Spanish nativists (like Maju/Gasca), or Anatolian or Caucasus homeland proponents, but not Nordicist nativists. How the rules of not insulting people or keeping a reasonable discussion are enforced in some cases, but not in others. I’ve seen some ugly posts by some contributors who always get a pass, because their absence could probably drive other users interested in ancestry percentages away. This duality in the application of rules doesn’t really invite civilized conversation; not with me, anyway. Seems like a clear red line to me, and a difficult one to tackle without risking disrupting the whole site at this point.

          Also weird, not my thing at all, how it is more relevant the “where is my mother” in a “northern calculator” (whatever that is) than real anthropological discussions. Relevant for this is what I wrote above: if modern “Basques or Norther Spaniards” are a proxy for crusaders of the 13th century, does that mean that if I cluster close to them I am close to these crusaders? NO. The findings of the paper mean that medieval Christian kingdoms from northern Iberia and southern France participated in the Crusades. If I cluster close to them it probably means that my most recent family is from northern Spain or Basques. If I don’t, and I cluster close to southern Spaniards, it would probably mean that my recent family is from southern Spain. The fact that people suggest a connection of modern populations to these crusaders based on ancestry in 2019 is difficult to comprehend. The fact that this same flawed reasoning is used when people compare themselves or their family members with Corded Ware or any other ancestral populations is just painful to see. For me, at least.

          This “calculator” obsession is probably the main reason for that whole bias, when those making “calculators” and PCAs become the most valuable contributors to the site, and the most important thing is to see the PCA position of your father, or your mother’s relation to whatever sample from wherever cultural site, or how much “Balto-Slavic” or “Germanic” percentage you have. That’s why it has evolved to where it is right now, and that’s what users are looking for, and how rules are applied more leniently to the best contributors in that aspect. If the main aim were anthropology, archaelogy, or linguistics, some creators of calculators and PCAs (among them some with clear Nordicist trends and a questionable attitude) would have been banned already, and discussion would not be centered on that.

          Anyway, that’s where we are, for better or worse. So let’s wait for the next -genica trend, if it’s more interesting than this one, or if it falls deeper and deeper into the Nordicist hole.

          In the meantime, we have a safe harbour in Facebook’s Proto-Indo-European group https://www.facebook.com/groups/126696954194312/ . For the moment…

          1. Thanks for the reply! I don’t want to get into fitties, the whole DNA thing for me is pure out of interest and curiosity. I personally think that Davidski has a strong case at least for the Dutch Beakers in the transformation from SGC to BB (no on has refuted his plots). An evolvement out of it is quite possible, Sandra Beckerman (2015) for example:

            “In different Corded Ware regions there are differences in the economic base as well as in social organisation and, presumably, ideology. However, in all regions, the importance of being part of the supra-regional exchange network is shared and expressed in daily life as well as in funerary and other rituals. The Corded Ware period is neither the first nor the last period in which such supra-regional exchange networks figured prominently. The emergence and (rapid) spread of new (pottery) types such as the Maritime Bell Beaker reflects this continuous tradition.”

            See:
            https://www.rug.nl/research/portal/files/19700272/Complete_thesis.pdf

            She is by no means Nordicist…..or ‘Nordgenica wierdo’. More archeologist have stated that SGC> BB is a real possibility.

            1. More archeologist have stated that SGC> BB is a real possibility.

              Yes. The origin and nature of BBC and potential Bell Beaker population movements was unknown, and a popular subject among archaeologists. Dutch believing it came from the Lower Rhine, French believing it came from France, Spaniards believing it came from Spain, Swiss believing it came from Switzerland, Germans believing it came from Southern Germany, or Czechs believing it came from Moravia, some linking it to CWC, some to other West European Chalcolithic cultures, some to Yamna. Until 2017. Then it seemed quite clear that Heyd was right, and the studies from 2018 and 2019 confirm it.

              But now suddenly Nordgenica does not agree with that. These comebacks are called reactionary views; they are common among archaeologists and linguists, in whatever it is they supported before some proof came out. Then people adapt to the new proof, dismiss it partly or fully, and retake their old ideas. Apparently, doing this in Anthrogenica is acceptable for the “BBC from CWC” idea. Doing this for the Franco-Cantabrian origin of R1b, for the OIT, for the Anatolian hypothesis, etc. is not.

              a strong case at least for the Dutch Beakers in the transformation from SGC to BB (no on has refuted his plots)

              I could have understood this no refutation statement, maybe, some months ago. Not that anyone should trust three or four targeted paired comparisons posted on the web, though, because you wouldn’t trust that from someone supporting an Anatolian homeland for IE, or a Basque homeland for hg. R1b, for example. But today we have to disagree in what strong case means. From Olalde et al. (2019):

              Only one 2-way model fits the ancestry in Iberia_CA_Stp with P-value>0.05: Germany_Beaker + Iberia_CA (Table S11). Finding a Bell Beaker-related group as a plausible source for the introduction of steppe ancestry into Iberia is consistent with the fact that some of the individuals in the Iberia_CA_Stp group were excavated in Bell Beaker associated contexts (9). Models with Iberia_CA and other Bell Beaker groups such as France_Beaker (P-value=7.31E-06), Netherlands_Beaker (P-value=1.03E-03) and England_Beaker (P-value=4.86E-02) failed, probably because they have slightly higher proportions of steppe ancestry than the true source population.

              For Iberia_BA, we added Iberia_CA_Stp to the outgroup set as a possible source. The same Germany_Beaker + Iberia_CA model shows a good fit, but with less ancestry attributed to Germany_Beaker (Table S11). Another working model is Iberia_CA+Iberia_CA_Stp, suggesting that Iberia_BA is a mixture between the local Iberia_CA population and the earliest individuals with steppe ancestry in Iberia.

              Anyway, just so you know, the guy doesn’t want his name to be mentioned in this blog, has said so here with his known good manners. He can rant, and insult, and harass whoever he wants, wherever he wants, including external sites like Anthrogenica, where people will cheer that, but please never ever do anything he dislikes, or risk whiny complaints everywhere. Also, he and Nordgenica friends don’t want you to read or participate here, so you better evaluate that or risk a ban everywhere.

            2. More archeologist have stated that SGC> BB is a real possibility.

              Yes. The origin and nature of BBC and potential Bell Beaker population movements was unknown, and a popular subject among archaeologists. Dutch believing it came from the Lower Rhine, French believing it came from France, Spaniards believing it came from Spain, Swiss believing it came from Switzerland, Germans believing it came from Southern Germany, or Czechs believing it came from Moravia, some linking it to CWC, some to other West European Chalcolithic cultures, some to Yamna. Until 2017. Then it seemed quite clear that Heyd was right, and the studies from 2018 and 2019 confirm it.

              But now suddenly Nordgenica does not agree with that. These comebacks are called reactionary views; they are common among archaeologists and linguists, in whatever it is they supported before some proof came out. They adapt to the new proof, dismiss it partly or fully, and retake their old ideas. Apparently, doing this in Anthrogenica is acceptable for the “BBC from CWC” idea. Doing this for the Franco-Cantabrian origin of R1b, for the OIT, for the Anatolian hypothesis, etc. is not. Hence the bias.

              a strong case at least for the Dutch Beakers in the transformation from SGC to BB (no on has refuted his plots)

              I could have understood this no refutation statement, maybe, some months ago. Not that anyone should trust three or four targeted paired comparisons posted on the web, though, because you wouldn’t trust that from someone supporting an Anatolian homeland for PIE, or a Caucasus homeland for PIE, for example. But today we have to disagree in what strong case means. From Olalde et al. (2019):

              Only one 2-way model fits the ancestry in Iberia_CA_Stp with P-value>0.05: Germany_Beaker + Iberia_CA (Table S11). Finding a Bell Beaker-related group as a plausible source for the introduction of steppe ancestry into Iberia is consistent with the fact that some of the individuals in the Iberia_CA_Stp group were excavated in Bell Beaker associated contexts (9). Models with Iberia_CA and other Bell Beaker groups such as France_Beaker (P-value=7.31E-06), Netherlands_Beaker (P-value=1.03E-03) and England_Beaker (P-value=4.86E-02) failed, probably because they have slightly higher proportions of steppe ancestry than the true source population.

              For Iberia_BA, we added Iberia_CA_Stp to the outgroup set as a possible source. The same Germany_Beaker + Iberia_CA model shows a good fit, but with less ancestry attributed to Germany_Beaker (Table S11). Another working model is Iberia_CA+Iberia_CA_Stp, suggesting that Iberia_BA is a mixture between the local Iberia_CA population and the earliest individuals with steppe ancestry in Iberia.

              Anyway, just so you know, the guy doesn’t want his name to be mentioned in this blog, has said so here with his known good manners. He can rant, and insult, and harass whoever he wants, wherever he wants, including external sites like Anthrogenica, where people will cheer that, but please never ever do anything he dislikes, or risk whiny complaints everywhere. Also, he and Nordgenica friends don’t want you to read or participate here, prefer to give abridged comments taken from here and there, so you better evaluate the risk to get banned there.

              1. @Carlos, I can’t judge the ‘fact and figures’ but I guess that this is not one size fits all BB.
                In the Dutch case the evolution out of SGC is pretty strong, no signs of incoming people (contrary to the TRB/CW break), and Beckerrman shows an evolvement not because of her nationality but because she studied (as archeologist) the cases in North-Holland. So I see no arguments against in the Dutch case…..
                So the figures of SGC>BB in genetic sense is no surprise. Archeology and genetics seems to get together in the Dutch case. What would in the Dutch case be the alternative?
                Introduction of steppe ancestry into Iberia is simply another case!
                Although this has less effect on me, be aware that I notice in your postings an emotional and also framing kind of style. Of course your cup of tea. But when you meet likewise others this could be fueled soon….

                1. I pointed out how descriptive archaeologists seem to prefer the “native culture”- and “no incomers”-kind of reasoning. That is repeated everywhere for most cultures, it doesn’t concern only the BBC. Another example, Ukrainian archaeologists consider that the transition of Ukrainian groups to Yamna was not driven by migrations, it was a “common effort” or something.

                  As for SGC>BB not being a surprise, I guess you can find people arguing the same about this kind of CWC>BB findings around the Danube, or in Moravia, or (on the opposite camp) about how it’s no surprise that BBC around the Mediterranean is local in genetics given the huge EEF contribution, ergo it’s a local development of IE cultures expanding earlier from Anatolia, because Mycenaeans, and Old Hittites, Lusitanians, Italics… I already wrote my opinion, following Heyd, don’t have much else to say, because nothing has changed: https://indo-european.info/indo-europeans-uralians/VII_7_Bell_Beaker_culture-.htm

                  Introduction of steppe ancestry into BBC Iberia has been interpreted as from Dutch SGC in Anthrogenica and repeated and accepted without any criticism whatsoever. That’s the problem with these models posted online: when a part of them gets rebutted, then it’s not important, or it’s not what one said, and nobody is responsible for that. Like the proposed Khvalynsk-Yamna R1a-R1b community, that is now being replaced by the Sredni Stog-CWC R1a-R1b community for Late PIE, and will be replaced eventually by the Sredni Stog-CWC R1a community that acculturated western Europeans of R1b, who in turn expanded Vasconic-Caucasian. It doesn’t matter, no one is responsible for these ideas, ever; the game just goes on and on.

                  I don’t know if by framing you mean selecting my battlegrounds, but what can I do then. I have a preferred model (one at any given time) and I have to defend it. Then thousands of users have a different model each (many of them consist solely on following R1a or Northern Europe, or both, or R1b and CHG, or whatever), so I pick the argument that must be rejected with this or that paper I write about. As in the case of this post on Northern Russians, I think it’s appropriate to use its findings to reject some fairly common Molgen-like bs.

                  As I wrote earlier in this thread, there is never a real opponent, no single opposing model, but infinite varying proposals which supposedly reject certain aspects of my preferred model. Some aspects are even dogmatically unacceptable, like R1a/CWC-Uralic. You have the right to say that the rejection of Iberian Beakers doesn’t mean anything for the SGC>BBC case. Fine. I have the right to say that there is one great inconsistency in the model proposed by the recent Nordgenica trend and elsewhere, that no one wanted to consider. Now I guess the preferred model will be something like SGC>BBC Central Europe>BBC Iberia. But that was not the model before Olalde et al. (2019). It was a wrong assessment. Period.

                  Same if and when Yamnaya ancestry will be shown to be behind Bell Beaker “steppe ancestry”, while CWC will show Sredni Stog as its proxy for “steppe ancestry”. Lots of people will say that doesn’t mean anything for the SGC>BBC model in cultural (or even genetic) terms, or maybe for any other CWC group>BBC model, or maybe for CWC as Late PIE, with CW-derived groups expanding later with Unetice, with Urnfield, etc. because northern groups will show R1a and CWC-related ancestry, and R1b-BBC will then still be non-IE.

                  I reckon it is very easy for any of you to attack my writings from infinite angles and with infinite arguments, but somehow everyone who reads this blog feels I am misrepresenting their views, or framing them, or trolling them personally whenever I criticize any of those arguments.

                2. I recognize that archeologist, partly because of the Kossina type of abuse, are more into pots than into people (and migration).
                  But regarding the Dutch/ NW German Beakers. There are no signs of a sharp break between SGC and BB North Dutch/NW German Beakers. I guess you can recognize that (or not and why not?) you only connect it to the steppe influence in Iberia. Question marks about that doesn’t make the Dutch/NW German case (SGC>BB) obsolete…
                  And with framing I mean labeling. Besides that ‘I reckon it is very easy for any of you to attack my writings.’ Arguing or sharping my mind is for me very different from attacks… Or am I too sober? 😉

        2. “The sample is Turlojiske1932, I think. I have it listed in my spreadsheet as male but without Y-DNA hg., would need to check if it’s female though”

          Looking at the paper, it was assumed to be male based on its remains but its genetic sex is determined as XX so it’s a woman I guess. I had a few more comments about our discussion and the one with Marko but since it’s a bit older at this point and my answer would retread ground we’ve discussed before, I’ll just stick to one point: yeah, that was what I meant that it’s likely Z2103 and not PH155, the probable use of older nomenclature in the presentation as Carlos said.

          Though if you have other methods of analyzing Turlojiske1932 on your rig, it’d be interesting to see your further results. It’s honestly hard to say much about it based on what I see in the paper (there’s barely any individual analysis on it past some not particularly informative ADMIXTURE but I suppose that might be due to its very low quality)

          Leon Boer said: “I personally think that Davidski has a strong case at least for the Dutch Beakers in the transformation from SGC to BB (no on has refuted his plots)”

          The problem is that at this point you can’t somehow conclusively refute something like that anyway. Autosomally, you can illustrate a cline from the later Corded groups all the way to the more northern Beaker ones (though it has to be pointed out that a few eastern Beaker individuals are almost as steppe-heavy as the most-steppe heavy Corded ones and I don’t think _all_ of them have plausibly Yamna-related Y-DNA like Z2103 and I2a, and so possibly recent extra late Yamna admixture) but if you’re dealing with very similar steppe-EEF/HG hybrid populations in the first place, you won’t necessarily see a difference. The most obvious current refutation is that the Y-DNA is very inconsistent so far, so unless we see an R1b-rich CW regional population, there’s no reason to _agree_ with it either. Some specifics are a bit up in the air since the relevant R1b is still a bit invisible so far on the steppe as well of course.

          But I agree that this scenario is consistent with proposals in the literature while, for example, I haven’t seen anyone make a more explicit connection between Uralic and Corded Ware outside some more vague theories about a Uralic substratum in northern Europe (though Carlos has outlined a scenario that has some decent arguments in its favor in this case, even though I disagree with it in its totality and, per above, find it has a lot of trouble explaining Balto-Slavic at the very least with current evidene), which does influence my/our presumptions to an extent.

  2. Finally one whom is on the right track, thanks.

    Some things first, since you have nailed it with the Finns/Sami, what I find peculiare and also is lacking in this works, is the water ways, the big rivers, the highways of ancient times since time immemorial.
    There have been found, I maybe wrong on location but its in Karelian an 6000 year old boat, frame build since we call it, spant build, 7000 year old fishing nets, we have 10 000 year old ruins in the North of Norway, etc, etc to rock carwings nobody knows but is estimated to be from 4000 to 6000 with sea faring ships, aka sail.
    Megalits, so wast and massive its jaw dropping.
    And the list is an mile long.

    Second, in this AGW hysterical times, one wounders, if you want to find iron age artifacts you have to elevate the sea level with 11 to 13 m, older is higher, the world map just 3000 years ago dont loook like it is to day, and somewhere around 2000 years ago, the Global Temp dropped with wooping 2 deg (this goes to the entire artic circle region, the world was much hotter then than now, so its not entirly impossible for traffic along the entire Russian atric coast line, witch I consider to be more credible than by foot), and that must have had an devestating effect on the nations surounding the sea witch to day is what we define as the Artic sea, Novaja Semlija was covered with trees, and that is as close you get to the North pole.
    So it may be the explanation on why so far north, the older the people gets, when its to day just tundra and 6 months with real, hehe, winter.

    There was an costal expansion thru europa much earlier than what they want to admit.
    Do you understand.
    Third, two things, regarding trade, witch we “cave dwellers” up here in the north, was big on and its not debated is Cod(dry) and Skin, the reason for half domesticated rain deers, there never was an raindeer people that is just nonsense, its not even proved in any way or form.
    But fishery and fure/skin was done thru the costal europa, the reason for Basque and Skolt-“sami” as I am have an connection is due to thousands of years with trade, the same for the rivers in europa and not to forget Russia.

    Some of the rivers goes deep into the central caucasian steps and mountain regions (volga/caspian sea, etc), if any conection from ancient times, I talk about 5000 and older, it comes that way, not from land, this have comed much later.
    Somehow we never talk boats, why, when they are an invention much older than admitted, like the stupid cave man we suposedly to have been.
    Some few points, and its not meant to be critical, I have had an ball reading.
    You have my respect.

    Yup, I could drive for 20 min, walk for an hour, 4 miles ourside Oslo, and walk straight into two old vilage “castles”, one is aprox. 2000-2500 years old and the other older, and they reside in steep terain, an mountain side by the Dramens fjord, yeah, and somehow there should not be so much people up here, we where suposedlly humping around in the levante, fresh from Africa, and only icebears up here.
    Again, thanks.

    peace

  3. Slavs hate it when someone points out that they aren’t the pure lineal descendants of the Indo-European homeland, thinking that the people who remained in the Indo-European homeland became the Slavs. That’s what they’re proud of. I have no problem thinking my male-line ancestor wasn’t speaking an ancestral version of my language, because he wasn’t. The first of my male line to speak my mother tongue was my great-great-great grandfather when he came to Chicago from Germany in 1862. I used to be against you, mostly because I was skeptical Uralic languages were spoken as far west as Corded Ware expanded, but the languages spoken in Germany 5500 years ago are all extinct, so there is no evidence for or against. German came from the north. The Russians like to think that Slavs expanded from their western hinterlands, but the earliest recorded mention of Slavic peoples are in the lower Danube area around the year 550 and then in the year 621 when King Dagobert of the Franks set up the Duchy of Thuringia in Germany as a response to the invasion of Slavic people in the area between the Elbe and Saale Rivers. Slavic is obviously a very young, relatively, language family that has a strong Iranic influence that differentiated it from the Baltic dialects surrounding it. I would place its first homeland near the central Carpathians and southeast Poland.

    1. Yes, the idea of ancestors speaking the same language 5,000 years ago is absurd. In places with historical accounts, that is obviously not the case. There are regions like the Basque Country (viz. the romantic idea of Palaeolithic continuity), or Celtic-speaking areas (viz. Koch with his Celtic from the West), or Scandinavia (with the known romantic ideas of pure Nordic peoples), where many liked to think that in the past, and it has been proven wrong.

      But even in places where we know IE has been spoken for a long time, with a great degree of continuity, like Greece, there is no real continuity e.g. of Mycenaean language with Ancient Greek and with Modern Greek, or from Mycenaeans to Ancient Greeks to Byzantines to Modern Greeks.

      To assume that kind of continuity when we didn’t have much data was a simplistic, naive filling of historical gaps. To assume that when there is contradictory data is simply absurd. I understand the implications for certain deeply embedded myths: you just have to look at the despair of Hindu nationalists over the non-IE nature of the Harappan culture, to understand that it must feel like people are stealing something from them, like a personal or social attack. It’s like how blasphemy must be felt in certain cultures.

      The problem is, even if some respect to these ideas is normally expected in their cultures, the rest of us don’t have to respect those ideas. In fact, it is unacceptable that we do.

      I still remember a funny comment from some time ago, when a Slav was pissed off about some of my writings of potential R1a-Uralic connections, and he wrote “well, then R1b comes from Africa”, and “Spaniards are Africans” or something like that. So what? I’m from southern Spain, so it might very well be true that I have North African ancestry. “Having African ancestry is bad”? And “being Uralian is as bad as being African”? There is so much wrong with that reaction, and with many current views of genetic genealogy in general…

      Another funny story is a Serb who stalks Razib Khan’s blog, and everything and everyone Razib writes about is Serbian. I think he is the same one who wrote me a long email saying how “it’s not necessary for you to keep investigating PIE: we the true descendants are still living and speaking the language here in eastern Europe”. tf is this in the 21st century?

    2. As a Slav and R1b-Z2013 bearer living in Slovakia am I not “pure lineal descendant of the Indo-Europeans”? BTW back then our king Samo kicked ass to Dagobert Frankish royal army near Wogastisburg.

      1. As a Slav and R1b-Z2013 bearer living in Slovakia am I not “pure lineal descendant of the Indo-Europeans”?

        I don’t know. Can you prove that? Were all your paternal ancestors IE speakers? From where exactly were each one of them, and what exactly did they speak?

      2. As a Slav and R1b-Z2013 bearer living in Slovakia am I not “pure lineal descendant of the Indo-Europeans”?

        I don’t know. Can you prove that? Were all your patrilineal ancestors IE speakers? From where exactly were each one of them, and what exactly did they speak?

        Your most likely a priori paternal story? A continuous change of cultures and languages (IE and non-IE), happening after a different number of generations each time, until it ended up forming part of Slovaks. Even if your paternal line emerged in Khvalynsk/Repin/Yamna.

        Would there be a problem if you found out that your paternal line formed part of a branch not related to the Yamna expansion (say, Trypillian settlers or Cernavoda), then formed part of Vucedol (assuming Vucedol was non-IE), then part of some Balkan cultures without known language, and then part of the Hungarian conquerors? Or maybe it was an Early Iranian line, then acculturated into an Altaic-speaking community in Central Asia, then expanding with Huns and then incorporated into the Hungarian community? What if your line became only recently an acculturated Slav?

        If you would find that complex patrilineal history interesting, that’s what genetic genealogy is for. If you would have a problem with any of that, and would fight it, that’s what I am talking about.

  4. This is honestly weak, you presented way too few evidence for the assertion you made at the end. You say acculturated and yet you present evidence for ample Slavic input into the acculturate population, this is not simply acculturation, is colonization and mixing.

    Were the non-White Mexicans simply acculturated natives too?

  5. Has anyone ever thought that Basque might not actually be related to ancient Iberian?
    Where’s the evidence that Basque “is” related ancient Iberian? There’s none, only assumptions and speculations with no actual evidence.
    I’m starting to believe Basque is related to ancient Yamnayan not ancient Iberian.
    How convenient that a pack of men just galloped into Iberia and took up the locals language, absurd.
    doesn’t make any sense at all.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.