Balto-Slavic accentual mobility: an innovation in contact with Balto-Finnic


Some very specific prosodic innovations affected the Balto-Slavic community, probably at a time when it already showed internal dialectal differences. Whether those innovations were related to archaic remnants stemming from the parent Proto-Indo-European language, and whether that disintegrating community included different dialects, is unclear.

“Archaic” Balto-Slavic?

The main question about Balto-Slavic is whether this concept represents a single community, or it was rather a continuum formed by two (Baltic and Slavic) or possibly three (East Baltic, West Baltic, Slavic) communities neighbouring each other, speaking closely related Northern European dialects, which just happened to evolve very close to each other, i.e. in cultures that were more close to each other than they were to Germanic or Balto-Finnic.

In my opinion, their similarities warrant the reconstruction of a single original central-east European community since the dissolution of Bell Beakers, speaking a North-West Indo-European dialect, and most internal differences between Baltic and Slavic may be explained as innovations. The precise identification of a Proto-Balto-Slavic community remains elusive, although the Unetice-Iwno-Mierzanowice triangle remains the best bet, with Trzciniec showing what seems like an Early Slavic-like population reaching up to the East Baltic.

Bell Beaker expansion in eastern Europe and around the Baltic.

The reconstruction of a common Balto-Slavic proto-language is known to range from difficult to impossible, depending on who you ask, not the least because of the differences that are discussed in this post, and which have been the own battlefield created by Balticists and Slavicists for decades. The old tenet that Balto-Slavic had inherited some traits directly from PIE is – in contrast with e.g. the Italo-Celtic concept – surprisingly vivid still today.

Take, for example, these internal differences and supposedly archaic traits:

  • The ruKi rule, where Baltic shows mostly *is, *us, and Slavic shows *, *; or the different output of Satemization in Baltic compared to Slavic (and both compared to Indo-Iranian). Nevertheless, the Satemization trends in Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian are usually explained together and taken as a sign of a traditional three-velar system for PIE.
    • If you consider Satemization as a late trend in Balto-Slavic, affecting each dialect in a different way, and thus Balto-Slavic phonetic evolution clearly distinct from the Indo-Iranian trend, this problem is solved. This would also solve the impossible Indo-Slavonic problem, and the paradox of Balto-Slavic sharing features with Germanic and Italo-Celtic.
    • If you, however, conflate these differences and North-West Indo-European features with an ad hoc explanation of a hypothetic Centum dialect called Temematic, which intends to solve all (in Holzer’s words) unlösbaren inconsistencies, you essentially add a whole new inconsistency. For a full rebuttal of Holzer‘s Temematic etymologies, see Matasović (2014).
  • Kortlandt’s reconstruction of a PIE 3rd singular *-e (Baltic from *-et, Slavic from *-eti) and 3rd plural *-o, which would have been replaced independently in other Indo-European dialects by *-onti, is reminiscent of his own reconstruction of laryngeals almost up to the attestation of all Indo-European dialects, including Baltic. If you consider these traits an innovation, this artificially created problem is immediately solved.
  • Genitive plural Pre-Baltic *-ōm vs. Pre-Slavic *-ŏm is another commonly cited example. However, I would place this difference among other similar differences found within other related IE dialects, hence a common phonetic innovation (see e.g. below for the classicist view of unstable obliques).
  • Kortlandt’s reconstruction of oblique cases in *-m-, shared with Germanic, as stemming from a common Middle PIE *-mus (based essentially on Old Lithuanian *-mus and on a non-existent equivalent Anatolian formation), hence different from those in *-bh-. While you can argue for infinite more reasonable alternatives, the most often cited one is the ins.-dat. pl. *-bh- as a common NWIE innovation, and forms in *-m- as a more recent phonetic innovation. The simplest explanation I’ve read to date (I think by Rémy Viredaz) is the similar bilabial change of Giacobo/Giacomo in Italian…(see more on Northern European isoglosses).

As you can see, some Balto-Slavicists could have written whole books about how their object of study holds the key to solve problems on common Proto-Indo-European paradigms, some of which wouldn’t need solving if they hadn’t been started by Balto-Slavicists themselves…

While all of these “archaic” traits are easily dismissed without further ado (except for some understandable damaged pride among academics), there is one especially pervasive idea among those willing to find the white whale of laryngeal remnants in Indo-European languages.

The prophecy before the battle, Józef Ryszkiewicz, 1890. Or, how to conjure laryngeal remnants in Balto-Slavic.

Accentual development in contact

Whichever position one prefers, the general argument is that the Balto-Slavic accentual system is non-trivial for the classification of both dialects into a common branch. However, that would only be completely true if it were a common innovation, but not so much if it were a natural laryngeal evolution.

In fact, the broken tone preserving a PIE laryngeal, as proposed by Kortlandt – continuing Meillet’s idea of synchronous PIE-PBS developments – was always very difficult to accept. Even the rising pronunciation is not original, and represents a shift of the accent on the initial syllable in Latvian…

In my opinion, the derivation of a modern phenomenon from a PIE laryngeal must always raise a red flag (see below on archaisms vs. innovations in IE languages). As you can see from my take of the fable in Balto-Slavic, which uses Kortlandt’s reconstruction, I preferred not to take into account the reconstructed accents. The fable remains thus a model of what could have been a common Proto-Balto-Slavic, unlike other reconstructions, which are much less tentative.

NOTE. You could argue that accents may be reconstructed in spite of the wrong theory behind them, but this is not true; at least not of all reconstructed accents, because some of them have to be inferred. Think about it this way: I wouldn’t take into account a reconstruction of Germanic accent which used Danish glottalized tone for a hypothetical Proto-Germanic laryngeal, even if most accents seemed correct at first sight. The truth is, I didn’t want to dedicate time to go through each reconstructed word and its explanation, so it was easier to delete them all. You will find the same doubts in the description of Balto-Slavic evolution in my old Modern Indo-European grammar. The introduction to IE dialects was partially copied from Wikipedia (which, in the case of Balto-Slavic, essentially summarized data from Kortlandt), but in the grammar I just tried to keep the basics, and not very successfully, because you need a comprehensive and coherent description of a language’s evolution. That’s how messed up the question was, and how it still is, even though 15 years of research have passed…

Despite the generalized idea of Balto-Slavic showing archaic traits surviving to these days, the current trend is to consider Balto-Slavic prosodic changes as a natural innovation, even among those who would artificially reconstruct all three laryngeals unchanged up to late Balto-Slavic stages.

NOTE. You can read more about the Proto-Indo-European laryngeal loss and vocalism. While the presence of certain laryngeals up to Late PIE is certain, the loss in many environments is also generally agreed upon. This is especially true of a hypothetical Indo-Slavonic branch, like that supported by Kortlandt: even those supporting multiple laryngeal loss events must admit that Indo-Iranian showed no laryngeals before its disintegration, whether they put this loss as an internal Proto-Indo-Iranian evolution, or they place it earlier. Tocharian attests to an evolution similar to the rest of Late PIE dialects (hence to a quite early laryngeal loss trend), and Balkan dialects (supposedly splitting before Indo-Slavonic) also lost laryngeals in a similar way, except for initial ones. So, where does a three-laryngeal Proto-Balto-Slavic fit in this “Indo-Slavonic” scheme, exactly? Before the Tocharian split? Before the Balkan split? No idea. Because one thing is to reconstruct Proto-Greek, or Proto-Celtic, or Proto-Italic forms and put them in relation with a purely theoretical three-laryngeal PIE, and a different one is to reconstruct laryngeals for Proto-Baltic and Proto-Slavic…

Indo-European dialectal relationships, from Mallory and Adams (2006).

Thomas Olander offered a summary of the current positions regarding the Balto-Slavic accentual system recently in Indo-European heritage in the Balto-Slavic accentuation system (2013), which also contains a summary of his Mobility Law, to explain this phenomenon as a common Pre-Baltic and Pre-Slavic innovation.

Andersen, an advocate of different Baltic and Slavic dialects developing in contact with Satem dialects, suggested in The Satem Languages of the Indo-European Northwest. First Contacts? (2009), partially based on Olander’s initial proposal, that Baltic and Slavic accentual mobility arose as a result of contact with (unattested) languages with fixed word-initial ictus: the accent was lost in the word-final mora in pre-Proto-Baltic and, independently, in pre-Proto-Slavic. Hence, the central innovation, the accent loss

technically is not a shared Slavic and Baltic innovation. On the contrary. It shows that the speakers of the Pre-Slavic and Pre-Baltic dialects formed bilingual communities with speakers of contact dialects that were of the same prosodic type, viz. had fixed initial ictus but no free accent.

In the meantime, Olander (2019) has found out about more real-world examples of this same phenomenon:

Prosodic features are known to be susceptible to contact influence (Salmons 1992:1 and passim). While it does not directly influence the evaluation of the Mobility Law as a non-trivial innovation, it is interesting that most of the alleged parallels are indeed considered to be contact-induced changes due to influence from languages with an ictus on the word-initial syllable (Andersen 2009: 11-14; Rinkevičius 2013): Balto-Fennic in the case of the Karelian and (perhaps through Latvian as an intermediary) Žemaitian dialects, and Hungarian in the case of the Slavonian dialects (for Karelian see Jakobson 1938/2002: 239; Veenker 1967: 74; Thomason & Kaufman 1988: 122, 241; Salmons 1992: 41- 42; for Žemaitian see Zinkevičius 1966: 45- 46; for Slavonian see Ivić 1958: 287).

I am not aware of any hypotheses on a contact-induced origin for Greek prosodic innovations, but it is at least worth noting that there is agreement on significant substrate influence on Greek. While we may speculate that these substrate language(s) had word-initial ictus like Balto-Fennic and Hungarian, we do not have any actual information about the prosodic system(s) (thus even Beekes 2014: 9, who in other respects provides a fairly detailed picture of the substrate).

The parallels from other speech varieties show that an accent loss of the type suggested for a pre-stage of Baltic and Slavic is a type of prosodic change that has occurred several times in different various systems. In the context of the present paper this means that the sound law itself cannot be classified as a non-trivial innovation; it may have taken place in already differentiated dialects or languages. Also, the parallels suggest that a loss of the accent may be the result of influence from languages with fixed word-initial ictus.

In this time when even linguists agree that substrate/contact influences have to be related to specific ethnolinguistic groups (see here for Germanic), the fact that Olander stops short of naming this substrate/contact influence on Pre-Baltic and Pre-Slavic as being Late Uralic in general, or Balto-Finnic in particular, is surprising.

NOTE. Not the least because Olander is part of the Homeland Timeline map project of the Copenhagen group (their website is not working right now), and they placed Volosovo as Uralians expanding with Netted Ware in contact with the Baltic during the Bronze Age…So what’s to doubt about Balto-Slavic – Balto-Finnic contacts, exactly?

Still image from the Copenhagen Timeline Map (accessed one year ago), showing in green Volosovo hunter-gatherers who, according to the map, later expand to the north-east with Netted Ware…

Archaism vs. Innovation

If we tried to describe these trends of explaining peculiar traits in recent Indo-European dialects as archaism vs. innovation from a purely theoretical point of view, we could roughly distinguish two different positions (with infinite variants, of course) among academics – just like we could find people more inclined to leftist or rightist trends when speaking about economy. When it comes to linguistics, which is the least messed-up field where one can describe Indo-European and Indo-Europeans, I think we can find two alternative basic tenets:

  • One idea would hold that the oldest attested dialects – and those with an older guesstimated proto-language – are the gold standard as to what the original situation may have been, and about what could be described as an archaism. For example, Ancient Greek and Mycenaean or Vedic Sanskrit for old dialects; Tocharian, or Italic dialects for those with quite old guesstimates, each for different reasons; and Anatolian for both, old dialect and attested early.
  • NOTE. Nevertheless, the phonology of Anatolian inscriptions is often difficult to ascertain, and its ancient dialectal nature stemming from a Middle PIE stage may still be disputed by some. The archaic nature of Tocharian seems to be maybe less generally accepted than that of Anatolian, but I would say there is general consensus on the matter today.

  • The other general idea would support that the most isolated dialects are those which may hold the key to the oldest Indo-European traits, somehow hidden from external influences and areal contacts, and thus from generalized innovative trends that have affected the best known ancient dialects. In that sense, languages like Slavic, Baltic, Albanian, or Armenian – as well as some Balkan fragmentary dialects – are quite common aims of study to reveal exceptional PIE traits.

I think the education system in Southern Europe and South Asia is that of formal classicists. In eastern Europe, I’d reckon the education system – especially in regions that were never connected to the Graeco-Roman tradition – favours linguistics as a study of the own and related proto-languages. For northern Europe, I would say it’s 50/50, especially in Scandinavia, depending on whether classicists or linguists dominate over the departments of Indo-European. For example, while Germany or Austria would maybe lean more toward the classics, Copenhagen’s obsession with Germanic as the most archaic IE branch is well known…

A 17th-century birch bark manuscript of Pāṇini’s grammar treatise from Kashmir. Image from Wikipedia.

Both positions, when blindly accepted, are bound to fail at some point or another:

  • If you take Classical Sanskrit, Classical Greek, or Classical Latin as an example of Proto-Indo-European, you are bound to make radical mistakes when reconstructing the parent language, more so if you disregard the oldest attested layers of the languages. An interesting view of the so-called Adradists at the Complutense University of Madrid – apart from their famous 9-laryngeal reconstruction – is that Middle PIE had only 5 cases, with a general (unstable) oblique one in Late PIE that later evolved into the attested 5 to 8 cases in the different dialects. That is, in my opinion, a fairly typical classicist error, which would be easily addressed by taking into account the oldest layers like those attested in Mycenaean and in Old Latin, instead of focusing on classical grammar. The 8-case system is, in fact, one of the few true Balto-Slavic archaisms, supported by external comparanda.
  • On the other hand, if you take Albanian, Armenian, Baltic or Slavic, or even phonetically dubious data like those from some Anatolian inscriptions, you can eventually argue for anything. And I really mean anything; you are leaving the logic door wide open for any crazy-ass opinion about Proto-Indo-European based on traits found in modern languages: From how many velars evolved (if at all, because you may find all of them in Luwian, or still living in Albanian or in Armenian…) and their nature as ejective consonants in Late PIE (based on Armenian or Germanic); to how many laryngeals and when these laryngeals disappeared (if they actually did disappear, because some may even find them in Modern Lithuanian, in Armenian, or in Danish…); etc. Once you believe your own romantic view of some modern language(s) retaining traits from five thousand years ago, there is no stopping that; not for you, but not for anyone else, either.

NOTE. One of the funniest consequences of this type of ‘worldview’, where one assumes that new dialects are as reliable (or even more so than) ancient ones, and that Indo-European dialects somehow split at the same time from the parent language (so there was one common “full laryngeal” language, and then all attested dialects evolved from it) are some of the theories that you can easily find posted on Facebook’s group on Proto-Indo-European. Let’s just say, for the sake of simplicity, that you can compare English ‘Sun’ with Spanish ‘sonrisa’ “smile” all you want, and assert that both reveal a common origin in PIE *sup- hence from the Sun and the smile going “up” or something, but any explanation as to how you reached that conclusion doesn’t make for the why this comparison shouldn’t have even started at all. Now replace English and Spanish with Greek, Armenian, Slavic, and/or Albanian, invent some new IE sound law, and somehow this might get a pass among certain linguists…

The Celebration of Svetovid on Rügen, Alphonse Mucha, The Slav Epic. Image from Wikipedia. Were Early Slavs some among few to keep the “true” Indo-European language and traditions? Of course not.

While no one can deny the value of different Indo-European branches for the reconstruction of the parent language, no matter how recently they were attested, the only reasonable solution whenever a difficult case arises is to trust ancient dialects more than recent ones. Using data from recent dialects to build a Proto-Indo-European paradigm, especially when there is contradictory data from ancient IE dialects, is flawed for two reasons:

  1. Languages attested later – especially after periods of population movements and contacts – would show, in general, a greater degree of change. Preferring Old Slavic or Classical Armenian to reconstruct Indo-European over ancient dialects like Ancient Greek, Vedic Sanskrit, or ancient Italic dialects is, in a way, like taking Byzantine Greek, Pali, or Old French as models, respectively.
  2. Classical languages are indeed modified due to the action of grammarians, but once standardized these “languages behind a state” (or religion) are less prone to change, due to the transmission of oral (and written) literature, education, commerce, etc. Languages left to unorganized tribes are less constrained in their evolution, and their internal and external influences are greater and (what’s worse) unknown.

Baltic and Slavic, like Albanian or Armenian, are very recent dialects, which may have undergone complex internal and external influences we may never fully understand. Confronted with controversial or inexplicable traits compared to ancient branches like Greek, Indo-Iranian, or Italo-Celtic (especially if they fit with other Indo-European dialects), the conservative solution that will be right most of the time (and I mean 99.9999% of cases) is to assume they represent an innovation over Late PIE.

The fact that some researchers still use these recent dialects as a blank canvas instead, in order to propose unending new ideas about how to reconstruct IE proto-languages, or even older common PIE stages, is shocking. Not “R1a/Steppe” vs. “N1c/Siberian” haplogroup+ancestry bullshit-level shocking, but still unacceptable in a serious academic environment.

The only reason why Balto-Slavicists have failed so many times in this “unsolvable” question that seems to be Proto-Balto-Slavic reconstruction, apart from the known differences between Baltic and Slavic, is precisely the fixation of many with their object of study as a model for other IE languages (and thus for PIE), instead of taking the rest as a model for the reconstruction of Balto-Slavic (or of Proto-Baltic and Proto-Slavic).

Repeating ad nauseam the popular concept of Balto-Slavic (or Baltic and Slavic) being among the most archaic IE dialects, or the slowest evolving IE dialects, and cheap nationalist slogans of the sort, does not help this aim, and just reading or hearing that should make anyone cringe instantly. Not less than reading or hearing about Sanskrit being essentially equal to PIE, or spoken in the Indus Valley 10,000 years ago. Because we are not living in the 19th century, mind you.


“Dinaric I2a” and the expansion of Common Slavs from East-Central Europe


A recently published abstract for an upcoming chapter about Early Slavs shows the generalized view among modern researchers that Common Slavs did not spread explosively from the east, an idea proper of 19th-century Romantic views about ancestral tribes of pure peoples showing continuity since time immemorial.

Migrations and language shifts as components of the Slavic spread, by Lindstedt and Salmela, In: Language contact and the early Slavs, Eds. Tomáš Klír, Vít Boček, Universitätsverlag Winter (2019):

The rapid spread of the Proto-Slavic language in the second half of the first millennium CE was long explained by the migration of its speakers out of their small primary habitat in all directions. Starting from the 1980s, alternative theories have been proposed that present language shift as the main scenario of the Slavic spread, emphasizing the presumed role of Slavic as the lingua franca of the Avar Khaganate. Both the migration and the language shift scenarios in their extreme forms suffer from factual and chronological inaccuracy. On the basis of some key facts about human population genetics (the relatively recent common ancestry of the East European populations), palaeoclimatology (the Late Antique Little Ice Age from 536 to around 660 CE), and historical epidemiology (the Justinianic Plague), we propose a scenario that includes a primary rapid demographic spread of the Slavs followed by population mixing and language shifts to and from Slavic in different regions of Europe. There was no single reason for the Slavic spread that would apply to all of the area that became Slavic-speaking. The northern West Slavic area, the East Slavic area, and the Avar sphere and South-Eastern Europe exhibit different kinds of spread: mainly migration to a sparsely populated area in the northwest, migration and language shift in the east, and a more complicated scenario in the southeast. The remarkable homogeneity of Slavic up to the jer shift was not attributable to a lingua-franca function in a great area, as is often surmised. It was a founder effect: Proto-Slavic was originally a small Baltic dialect with little internal variation, and it took time for the individual Slavic languages to develop in different directions.

While I would need to read the whole chapter, in principle it seems easier to agree with this summary than with Curta’s (sort of diffuse) Danubian origin of Common Slavic, based on the likely origin of the Balto-Slavic expansion with the Trzciniec and/or Lusatian culture, close to the Baltic.

A multi-ethnic Chernyakhov culture

In a sneak peek to the expected Järve et al. (2019) paper in review, there are three Chernyakhov samples (ca. calAD 350-550) with different ancestry probably corresponding to the different regions where they stem from (see image below), which supports the idea that Iron Age eastern Europe was a true melting pot where the eventual language of the different cultures depended on many different factors:

Map of the samples from Järve et al. (2019).

From the paper:

The Chernyakhiv culture was likely an ethnically heterogeneous mix based on Goths (Germanic tribes) but also including Sarmatians, Alans, Slavs, late Scythians and Dacians – the entire ancient population of the northern coast of the Black Sea.

Contacts with neighbouring regions were active, and the Chernyakhiv culture is associated with a number of historical events that took place in Europe at that time. In particular, during the Scythian or Gothic wars of the 230s and 270s, barbarians living in the territory of the Chernyakhiv culture (Goths, Ferules, Carps, Bastarns, etc.) carried out regular raids across the Danube Limes of the Roman Empire. However, from the end of the 3rd century the relations of the barbarians with the Roman Empire gained a certain stability. From the reign of Constantine I the Goths, who were part of the Chernyakhiv culture, became federates (military allies) of the Empire.

The Goths also interacted with the inhabitants of the East European forest zone. The Roman historian Jordanes described the military campaigns of the Gothic king Ermanaric against northern peoples (the ancestors of Vends, Slavs, etc., and the inhabitants of the northern Volga region).

NOTE. As it has become traditional in writings about eastern Europe, ‘Slavs’ are assumed – for no particular reason – to be part of the ‘northern peoples of the forest’ since who knows when exactly, and thus appear mentioned in this very text simultaneously as part of Chernyakhov, but also part of peoples to the north of Chernyakhov warring against them…

Proportions of Eastern Hunter-Gatherer (EHG, blue), Natufian (red) and Altaian (green) ancestries in Scythian/Sarmatian groups and groups pre- and postdating them inferred using the a) qpAdm and b) ChromoPainter/NNLS method. c–e Correlation of qpAdm and CP/NNLS proportions for the three putative sources evaluated. Steppe populations predating the Scythians: Yamnaya_Ukraine [26], Yamnaya_Kalmykia [15], Ukr_BA (this study). Scythians and Sarmatians: Nomad_IA [15], Scythian_East and Sarmatian_SU [3], Hungarian Scythian, Sarmatian, Central Saka, Tian Shan Saka and Tagar [1], Scy_Ukr, ScySar_SU and Scy_Kaz (this study). Population postdating the Scythians: Chern (this study). See also Table S3.

Genetic variation

(…) the Chernyakhiv samples overlapped with modern Europeans, representing the most ‘western’ range of variation among the groups of this study.

After the end of the Scythian period in the western Eurasian Steppe, the Chernyakhiv culture samples have higher Near Eastern affinity compared to the Scythians preceding them, agreeing with the Gothic component in the multi-ethnic mix of the Chernyakhiv culture.

The higher proportion Near Eastern and (according to CP/NNLS) lower proportion of eastern ancestry in the Chernyakhiv culture samples were mirrored by f4 analyses where Chern showed lower affinity to Han (Z score –3.097) and EHG (Z score –3.643) than Ukrainian Scythian and Bronze Age samples, respectively, as well as higher Near Eastern (Levant_N and Anatolia_N) affinity than Ukrainian Scythians (Z scores 4.696 and 3.933, respectively). It is plausible to assume that this excess Near Eastern ancestry in Chern is related to European populations whose Near Eastern proportion has exceeded that in the steppe populations since the Neolithic expansion of early farmers. While the Chernyakhiv culture was likely ethnically heterogeneous, the three samples in our Chern group appear to represent its Gothic component.

PCA obtained by projecting the ancient samples of this study together with published Scythian/Sarmatian and related samples onto a plot based on 537,802 autosomal SNPs in 1,422 modern Eurasians. To improve readability, the modern populations have been plotted as population medians (after outlier removal). Image modified from the paper, including Sredni Stog, Corded Ware/Uralic (with Srubna outliers) and Chernyakhov clusters.Notice the two new Late Yamna and Catacomb samples from Ukraine clustering with other published samples, despite being from the same region as Sredni Stog individuals.

Early Slavs of hg. I2-L621

A post in Anthrogenica shows some subclades of the varied haplogroups that are expected from medieval Poland:

KO_55, Kowalewko (100-300 AD), I1a3a1a1-Y6626
KO_45, Kowalewko (100-300 AD), I2a2a1b2a-L801
KO_22, Kowalewko (100-300 AD), G2a2b-L30
KO_57, Kowalewko (100-300 AD), G2a2b-L30

ME_7, Markowice (1000-1200 AD), I1a2a2a5-Y5384
NA_13, Niemcza, (900-1000 AD), I2a1b2-L621
NA_18, Niemcza, (900-1000 AD), J2a1a-L26

Just because of these samples among Early Slavs, and looking again more carefully at the modern distribution of I2a-L621 subclades, I think now I was wrong in assuming that I2a-L621 in early Hungarian Conquerors would mean they would appear around the Urals as a lineage integrated in Eastern Corded Ware groups. It seems rather a haplogroup with an origin in Central Europe. Whether it was part of a Baltic community that expanded south, or was incorporated during the expansions to the south is unclear. Like hg. E-V13, it doesn’t seem to have been incorporated precisely along the Danube, but closer to the north-east Carpathians.

Especially interesting is the finding of I2a-L621 among Early Slavs from Silesia, a zone of close interaction among early West Slavs. From Curta (2019):

On Common Slavs

In Poland, settlement discontinuity was postulated, to make room for the new, Prague culture introduced gradually from the southeast (from neighboring Ukraine). However, there is increasing evidence of 6th-century settlements in Lower Silesia (western Poland and the lands along the Middle Oder) that have nothing to do with the Prague culture. Nor is it clear how and when did the Prague culture spread over the entire territory of Poland.

On Great Moravia

Svatopluk’s remarkably strong position was immediately recognized by Pope John VIII, who ordered the immediate release of Methodius from his monastic prison in order to place him in 873 under Svatopluk’s protection. One year later (874), Louis the German himself was forced to recognize Svatopluk’s independence through the peace of Forchheim. By that time, the power of Svatopluk had extended into the upper Vistula Basin, over Bohemia, the lands between the Saale and the Elbe rivers, as well as the northern and northeastern parts of the Carpathian Basin.* The Czech prince Bořivoj, a member of the Přemyslid family which would unify and rule Bohemia in the following century, is believed to have been baptized in 874 by Methodius in Moravia together with his wife Ludmila (St. Wenceslas’s grandmother).

*Brather, Archäologie, p. 71. The expansion into the region of the Upper Vistula (Little Poland) results from one of St. Methodius’ prophecies, for which see the Life of Methodius 11, p. 72; Poleski, “Contacts between the Great Moravian empire and the tribes”; Poleski, “Contacts between the tribes in the basins.” Despite an early recognition of the Moravian influences on the material culture in 9th-century southern Poland and Silesia (e.g., Dostál, “Das Vordringen”), the question of Svatopluk’s expansion has triggered in the 1990s a fierce debate among Polish archaeologists. See Wachowski, “Problem”; Abłamowicz, “Górny Śląsk”; Wachowski, “Północny zasięg ekspansji”; Szydłowski, “Czy ślad”; Jaworski, “Elemente.”

On Piast Poland

Mieszko agreed to marry Oda, the daughter of the margrave of the North March, for his first wife had died in 977. The marriage signaled a change in the relations with the Empire, for Mieszko sent troops to help Otto II against the Slavic rebels of 983. He also attacked Bohemia and incorporated Silesia and Lesser Poland into the Piast realm, which prompted Bohemians to ally themselves with the Slavic rebels against whom Emperor Otto was now fighting. By 980, therefore, Mieszko was part of a broader configuration of power, and his political stature was recognized in Scandinavia as well. His daughter, Swietoslawa married first Erik Segersäll of Sweden (ca. 970–ca. 995) and then Sweyn Forkbeard of Denmark (986–1014).26 In the early 990s, together with his wife and children, Mieszko offered his state (called “civitas Schinesghe,” the state of Gniezno) to the pope as a fief, as attested by a unique document known as Dagome iudex and preserved in a late 11th-century summary. The document describes the inner boundaries of the state and peripheral provinces, as if Gniezno were a civitas (city) in Italy, with its surrounding territory. Regional centers, however, did indeed come into being shortly before AD 1000 in Lesser Poland (Cracow, Sandomierz), Pomerania (Gdańsk), and Silesia (Wrocław). Such regional centers came to be distinguished from other strongholds by virtue of the presence within their walls of some of the earliest churches built in stone. Mieszko got his own, probably missionary bishop.

In light of this recent find, which complements the Early Slav of the High Middle Ages from Sunghir (ca. AD 1100-1200), probably from the Vladimir-Suzdalian Rus’, we can assume now less speculatively that I2a-CTS10228 most likely expanded with Common Slavs, because alternative explanations for its emergence in the Carpathian Basin, among Early West Slavs, and among Early East Slavs within this short period of time requires too many unacceptable assumptions.

Modern distribution of “Dinaric” I2a. Modified from Balanovsky et al. (2008)

Hungarian Conquerors

Knowing that R1a-Z280 was an Eastern Corded Ware lineage, found from Baltic Finns to Finno-Ugric populations of the Trans-Urals, we can probably assign expanding Magyars to at least R1a-Z280, R1a-Z93, and N1c-L392 (xB197) lineages.

From Curta (2019):

Earlier Latin sources, especially those of the first half of the 10th century, refer to Magyars as Huns or Avars. They most likely called themselves Magyars, a word indicating that the language they spoke was not Turkic, but Finno-Ugrian, related to a number of languages spoken in Western Siberia and the southern Ural region. The modern word—Hungarian—derives from the Slavic word for those people, U(n)gri, which is another indication of Ugric roots. This has encouraged the search for the origin of the Hungarian people in the lands to the east from the Ural Mountains, in western Siberia, where the Hungarian language is believed to have emerged between 1000 and 500 BC.

In looking for the Magyar primordial homeland, they draw comparisons with the assemblages found in Hungary that have been dated to the 10th century and attributed to the Magyars. Some of those comparisons had extraordinary results. For example, the excavation of the burial mound cemetery recently discovered near Lake Uelgi, in the Cheliabinsk region of Russia, has produced rosette-shaped harness mounts and silver objects ornamented with palmette and floral designs arranged in reticulated patterns, which are very similar to those of Hungary. But Uelgi is not dated to prehistory, and many finds from that site coincided in time with those found in burial assemblages in Hungary. In other words, although there can be no doubt about the relations between Uelgi and the sites in Hungary attributed to the first generations of Magyars, those relations indicate a migration directly from the Trans-Ural lands, and not gradually, with several other stops in the forest-steppe and steppe zones of Eastern Europe. In the lands west of the Ural Mountains, the Magyars are now associated with the Kushnarenkovo (6th to 8th century) and Karaiakupovo (8th to 10th century) cultures, and with such burial sites as Sterlitamak (near Ufa, Bashkortostan) and Bol’shie Tigany (near Chistopol, Tatarstan).14 However, the same problem with chronology makes it difficult to draw the model of a migration from the lands along the Middle Volga. Many parallels for the so typically Magyar sabretache plates found in Hungary are from that region. They have traditionally been dated to the 9th century, but more recent studies point to the coincidence in time between specimens found in Eastern Europe and those from Hungary.

Adding J2a and I1a samples to the Early Slavic stock, based on medieval samples from Poland – with G2a and E-V13 lineages probably shared with Goths from Wielbark/Chernyakhov, or becoming acculturated in the Carpathian Basin – one is left to wonder which of these lineages actually took part in Common Slavic migrations/acculturation events, whenever and wherever those actually happened.

I have tentatively re-assigned lineages of Hungarian conquerors according to their likely origins in a simplistic way – similar to how the paper classifies them – , now (I think) less speculatively, assuming that Early Slavs likely formed eventually part of them:

Image modified from the paper, with drawn red square around lineages of likely East Slavic origin, and blue squares around R1a-Z93, R1a-Z283, N1a-Z1936, and N1a-M2004 samples, of likely Ugric origin Y-Hg-s determined from 46 males grouped according to sample age, cemetery and Hg. Hg designations are given according to ISOGG Tree 2019. Grey shading designate distinguished individuals with rich grave goods, color shadings denote geographic origin of Hg-s according to Fig. 1. For samples K3/1 and K3/3 the innermost Hg defining marker U106* was not covered, but had been determined previously.

NOTE. The ancestral origin of lineages is meaningless for an ethnolinguistic identification. The only reasonable assumption is that all the individuals sampled formed part of the Magyar polity, shared Magyar culture, and likely spoke Hungarian, unless there is a clear reason to deny this: which I guess should include at least a clearly ‘foreign’ ancestry (showing a distant cluster compared to the group formed by all other samples), ‘foreign’ isotopic data (showing that he was born and/or raised outside of the Carpathian Basin), and particularly ‘foreign’ cultural assemblage of the burial, if one really wants to risk assuming that the individual didn’t speak Hungarian as his mother tongue.

“Dinaric” or Slavic I2a?

I don’t like the use of “Dinaric I2a”, because it is reminiscent of the use of “Iberian R1b-DF27”, or “Germanic R1b-U106”, when ancient DNA has shown that this terminology is most often wrong, and turns out to be misleading. As misleading as “Slavic R1a”. Recently, a Spanish reader wrote me emails wondering how could I possibly say that R1b-DF27 came from Central Europe, because modern distribution maps (see below) made it evident that the haplogroup expanded from Iberia…

Contour maps of the derived allele frequencies of the SNPs analyzed in Solé-Morata et al. (2017).

The obvious answer is, these maps show modern distributions, not ancient ones. In the case of R1b-DF27, different Iberian lineages are not even related to the same expansion. At least R1b-M167/SRY2627 lineages seem to have expanded from Central Europe into Iberia much more recently than other DF27 subclades associated with Bell Beakers. What’s more, if R1b-M167/SRY2627 appear densest in north-east Spain it is not because of the impact of Celts or Iberians before the arrival of Romans, but because of the impact of medieval expansions during the Reconquista from northern kingdoms expanding south in the Middle Ages:

Genetic differentiation and the footprints of historical migrations in the Iberian Peninsula. Image modified from Bycroft et al. (2018).

Similarly, the term “Dinaric I2a”, based on the higher density in the Western Balkans, is misleading because it is probably the result of later bottlenecks. Just like the density of different R1a subclades among Modern Slavs is most likely the result of acculturation of different groups, especially to the east and north-east, where language shift is known to have happened in historical times, with the cradle of Russians in particular being a Finno-Volgaic hotspot, later expanding with hg. R1a-Z280 and N1c-L392 lineages.

Now, one may think that maybe Slavs expanded with ALL of these different lineages. Since we are talking about late Iron Age / medieval expansions, there might be confederations of different peoples expanding with a single lingua franca… But no, not really. Not likely in linguistics, not likely in archaeology, and apparently not in population genomics, either.

How many ancient peoples from the Iron Age and Early Middle Ages expanded with so many different lineages? We see bottlenecks in expansions even in recent times: say, in Visigoths under E-V13 (probably recently incorporated during their migrations); in Moors (mostly Berbers) with E-M81 and J; in medieval Iberians under different DF27 bottlenecks during the Reconquista (including huge bottlenecks among Basques); similarly, huge bottlenecks are found in Finnic expansions under N1c…How likely is it that Proto-Slavs (and Common Slavs) expanded with all those attested lineages to date among Early Slavs (E-V13, I2a-L621, R1a-M458, I1, J2a) AND also with other R1a subclades prevalent today, but almost absent in sampled Early Slavs?

To sum up, I am not so sure anymore about the possibility of simplistically assigning R1a-M458 to expanding Common Slavs. R1a-M458 may well have been the prevalent R1a subclade in Central Europe among early Balto-Slavic – and possibly also neighbouring Northern Indo-European-speaking – peoples (let’s see what subclades Tollense and Unetice samples bring), but it is more and more likely that most of the density we see in modern R1a-M458 distribution maps is actually the effect of medieval bottlenecks of West Slavs, similar to the case of Iberia.

Modern distribution of R1a-M458, after Underhill et al. (2015).


Fulani from Cameroon show ancestry similar to Afroasiatic speakers from East Africa


Open access African evolutionary history inferred from whole genome sequence data of 44 indigenous African populations, by Fan et al. Genome Biology (2019) 20:82.

Interesting excerpts (emphasis mine):


To extend our knowledge of patterns of genomic diversity in Africa, we generated high coverage (> 30×) genome sequencing data from 43 geographically diverse Africans originating from 22 ethnic groups, representing a broad array of ethnic, linguistic, cultural, and geographic diversity (Additional file 1: Table S1). These include a number of populations of anthropological interest that have never previously been characterized for high-coverage genome sequence diversity such as Afroasiatic-speaking El Molo fishermen and Nilo-Saharan-speaking Ogiek hunter-gatherers (Kenya); Afroasiatic-speaking Aari, Agaw, and Amhara agro-pastoralists (Ethiopia); Niger-Congo-speaking Fulani pastoralists (Cameroon); Nilo-Saharan-speaking Kaba (Central African Republic, CAR); and Laka and Bulala (Chad) among others. We integrated this data with 49 whole genome sequences generated as part of the Simons Genome Diversity Project (SGDP) [14] (…)

Locations of samples included in this study. Each dot is an individual and the color indicates the language classification

Results and discussion

We found that the CRHG populations from central Africa, including the Mbuti from the Demographic Republic of Congo (DRC), Biaka from the CAR, and Baka, Bakola, and Bedzan from Cameroon, also form a basal lineage in the phylogeny. The other two hunter-gatherer populations, Hadza and Sandawe, living in Tanzania, group with populations from eastern Africa (Fig. 2). The two Nilo-Saharan-speaking populations, the Mursi from southern Ethiopia and the Dinka from southern Sudan, group into a single cluster, which is consistent with archeological data indicating that the migration of Nilo-Saharan populations to eastern Africa originated from a source population in southern Sudan in the last 3000 years [4, 23, 24, 25].

Phylogenetic relationship of 44 African and 32 west Eurasian populations determined by a neighbor joining analysis assuming no admixture. Here, the dots of each node represent bootstrap values and the color of each branch indicates language usage of each population. Human_AA human ancestral alleles

The Fulani people are traditionally nomadic pastoralists living across a broad geographic range spanning Sudan, the Sahel, Central, and Western Africa. The Fulani in our study, sampled from Cameroon, clustered with the Afroasiatic-speaking populations in East Africa in the phylogenetic analysis, indicating a potential language replacement from Afroasiatic to Niger-Congo in this population (Fig. 2). Prior studies suggest a complex history of the Fulani; analyses of Y chromosome variation suggest a shared ancestry with Nilo-Saharan and Afroasiatic populations [24], whereas mtDNA indicates a West African origin [26]. An analysis based on autosomal markers found traces of West Eurasian-related ancestry in this population [4], which suggests a North African or East African origin (as North and East Africans also have such ancestry likely related to expansions of farmers and herders from the Near East) and is consistent with the presence at moderate frequency of the −13,910T variant associated with lactose tolerance in European populations [15, 16].

Phylogenetic reconstruction of the relationship of African individuals under a model allowing for migration using TREEMIX [27] largely recapitulates the NJ phylogeny with the exception of the Fulani who cluster near neighboring Niger-Congo-speaking populations with whom they have admixed (Additional file 2: Figure S1). Interestingly, TREEMIX analysis indicates evidence for gene flow between the Hadza and the ancestors of the Ju|‘hoan and Khomani San, supporting genetic, linguistic, and archeological evidence that Khoesan-speaking populations may have originated in Eastern Africa [28, 29, 30].

ADMIXTURE analysis of 92 African and 62 West Eurasian individuals. Each bar is an individual and colors represent the proportion of inferred ancestry from K ancestral populations. The bottom bar shows the language classification of each individual. With the increasing of K, the populations are largely grouped by their current language usage

About the Fulani, this is what the referenced study of Y‐chromosome variation among 15 Sudanese populations by Hassan et al. (2008), had to say:

  • Haplogroups A-M13 and B-M60 are present at high frequencies in Nilo-Saharan groups except Nubians, with low frequencies in Afro-Asiatic groups although notable frequencies of B-M60 were found in Hausa (15.6%) and Copts (15.2%).
  • Haplogroup E (four different haplotypes) accounts for the majority (34.4%) of the chromosome and is widespread in the Sudan. E-M78 represents 74.5% of haplogroup E, the highest frequencies observed in Masalit and Fur populations. E-M33 (5.2%) is largely confined to Fulani and Hausa, whereas E-M2 is restricted to Hausa. E-M215 was found to occur more in Nilo-Saharan rather than Afro-Asiatic speaking groups.
  • In contrast, haplogroups F-M89, I-M170, J-12f2, and JM172 were found to be more frequent in the Afro-Asiatic speaking groups. J-12f2 and J-M172 represents 94% and 6%, respectively, of haplogroup J with high frequencies among Nubians, Copts, and Arabs.
  • Haplogroup K-M9 is restricted to Hausa and Gaalien with low frequencies and is absent in Nilo-Saharan and Niger-Congo.
  • Haplogroup R-M173 appears to be the most frequent haplogroup in Fulani, and haplogroup R-P25 has the highest frequency in Hausa and Copts and is present at lower frequencies in north, east, and western Sudan.
  • Haplogroups A-M51, A-M23, D-M174, H-M52, L-M11, OM175, and P-M74 were completely absent from the populations analyzed.
Image modified from “Fulfulde Language Family Report” Author: Annette Harrison; Cartographer: Irene Tucker; SIL International 2003.

This is what David Reich will talk about in the seminar Insights into language expansions from ancient DNA:

In this talk, I will describe how the new science of genome-wide ancient DNA can provide insights into past spreads of language and culture. I will discuss five examples: (1) the spread of Indo-European languages to Europe and South Asia in association with Steppe pastoralist ancestry, (2) the spread of Austronesian languages to the open Pacific islands in association with Taiwanese aboriginal-associated ancestry, (3) the spread of Austroasiatic languages through southeast Asia in association with the characteristic ancestry type that is also represented in western Indonesia suggesting that these languages were once widespread there, (4) the spread of Afroasiastic languages through in East Africa as part of the Pastoral Neolithic farming expansion, and (5) the spread of Na-Dene languages in North America in association with Proto-Paleoeskimo ancestry. I will highlight the ways that ancient DNA can meaningfully contribute to our understanding of language expansions—increasing the plausibility of some scenarios while decreasing the plausibility of others—while emphasizing that with genetic data by itself we can never definitively determine what languages ancient people spoke.

EDIT (3 MAY 2019): Apparently, there was not much to take from the talk:

Pastoralist Neolithic in Africa, through a pale-green Sahelo-Sudanian steppe corridor. See full map.

This seminar (and maybe some new paper on the Neolithic expansion in Africa) could shed light on population movements that may be related to the spread of Afroasiatic dialects. Until now, it seems that Bantu peoples have been more interesting for linguistics and archaeology, and South and East Africans for anthropology.

Archaeology in Africa appears to be in its infancy, as is population genomics. From the latest publication by Carina Schlebusch, Population migration and adaptation during the African Holocene: A genetic perspective, a chapter from Modern Human Origins and Dispersal (2019):

The process behind the introduction and development of farming in Africa is still unclear. It is not known how many independent invention events there were in the continent and to which extent the various first instances of farming in northern Africa are linked. Based on the archeological record, it was proposed that at least three regions in Africa may have developed agriculture independently: the Sahara/Sahel (around 7 ka), the Ethiopian highlands (7-4 ka), and western Africa (5-3 ka). In addition to these developments, the Nile River Valley is thought to have adopted agriculture (around 7.2 ka), from the Neolithic Revolution in the Middle East (Chapter 12 – Jobling et al. 2014; Chapter 35, 37 – Mitchell and Lane 2013). From these diverse centers of origin, farmers or farming practices spread to the rest of Africa, with domesticate animals reaching the southern tip of Africa ~2 ka and crop farming ~1,8 ka (Mitchell 2002; Huffman 2007)

Schematic representation of possible migration routes related to the expansion of herders and crop farmers during Holocene times. Arrow color indicate source populations; Brown-Eurasian, Green-western African, Blue-eastern African.

Similar to the case in Europe and the 1990s-2000s wrong haplogroup history based on the modern distribution of R1b, R1a, N, or I2, it is possible that neither of the most often mentioned haplogroups linked to the Afroasiatic expansion, E and J, were responsible for its early spread within Africa, despite their widespread distribution in certain modern Afroasiatic-speaking areas. The fact that such assessments include implausible glottochronological dates spanning up to 20,000 years for the parent language, combined with regional language continuities despite archaeological changes, makes them even more suspicious.

Similar to the case with Indo-Europeans and the “steppe ancestry” concept of the 2010s, it may be that the often-looked-for West Eurasian ancestry among Africans is the effect of recent migrations, unrelated to the Afroasiatic expansion. The results of this paper could be offering another sign of how this ancestry may have expanded only quite recently westwards from East Africa through the Sahel, after the Semitic expansion to the south:

1. From approximately 1000 BC, accompanying Nilo-Saharan peoples.

2. From approximately AD 1500, with the different population movements related to the nomadic Fulani:

Image from Sahel in West African History – Oxford Research Encyclopedia of African History.
  • Arguably, since the Fulani caste system wasn’t as elaborate in northern Nigeria, eastern Niger, and Cameroon, these specific groups would be a good example of the admixture with eastern populations, based on the (proportionally) huge amount of slaves they dealt with.
  • Similarly, it could be argued that the castes-based social stratification in most other territories (including Sudan) would have helped them keep a genetic make-up similar to their region of origin in terms of ancient lineages, hence similar to Chadic populations from west to east.

Reich’s assertion of the association of the language expansion with the spread of Pastoral Neolithic is still too vague, but – based on previous publications of ancient DNA in Africa and the Levant – I don’t have high hopes for a revolutionary paper in the near future. Without many samples and proper temporal transects, we are stuck with speculations based on modern distributions and scarce historical data.

A distribution map of Fula people. Dark green: a major ethnic group; Medium: significant; Light: minor. Modified from image by Sarah Welch at Wikipedia.

About the potential genetic make-up of Cameroon before the arrival of the Neolithic, from the recent SAA 84th Annual Meeting (Abstracts in PDF):

Lipson, Mark (Harvard Medical School), Mary Prendergast (Harvard University), Isabelle Ribot (Université de Montréal), Carles Lalueza-Fox (Institute of Evolutionary Biology CSIC-UPF) and David Reich (Harvard Medical School)

[253] Ancient Human DNA from Shum Laka (Cameroon) in the Context of African Population History We generated genome-wide DNA data from four people buried at the site of Shum Laka in Cameroon between 8000–3000 years ago. One individual carried the deeply divergent Y chromosome haplogroup A00 found at low frequencies among some present-day Niger-Congo speakers, but the genome-wide ancestry profiles for all four individuals are very different from the majority of West Africans today and instead are more similar to West-Central African hunter-gatherers. Thus, despite the geographic proximity of Shum Laka to the hypothesized birthplace of Bantu languages and the temporal range of our samples bookending the initial Bantu expansion, these individuals are not representative of a Bantu source population. We present a phylogenetic model including Shum Laka that features three major radiations within Africa: one phase early in the history of modern humans, one close to the time of the migration giving rise to non-Africans, and one in the past several thousand years. Present-day West Africans and some East Africans, in addition to Central and Southern African hunter-gatherers, retain ancestry from the first phase, which is therefore still represented throughout the majority of human diversity in Africa today.


Palaeolithic Caucasus samples reveal the most important component of West Eurasians


Preprint Paleolithic DNA from the Caucasus reveals core of West Eurasian ancestry, by Lazaridis et al. bioRxiv (2018).

Interesting excerpts:

We analyzed teeth from two individuals 63 recovered from Dzudzuana Cave, Southern Caucasus, from an archaeological layer previously dated to ~27-24kya (…). Both individuals had mitochondrial DNA sequences (U6 and N) that are consistent with deriving from lineages that are rare in the Caucasus or Europe today. The two individuals were genetically similar to each other, consistent with belonging to the same population and we thus analyze them jointly.

(…) our results prove that the European affinity of Neolithic Anatolians does not necessarily reflect any admixture into the Near East from Europe, as an Anatolian Neolithic-like population already existed in parts of the Near East by ~26kya. Furthermore, Dzudzuana shares more alleles with Villabruna-cluster groups than with other ESHG (Extended Data Fig. 5b), suggesting that this European affinity was specifically related to the Villabruna cluster, and indicating that the Villabruna affinity of PGNE populations from Anatolia and the Levant is not the result of a migration into the Near East from Europe. Rather, ancestry deeply related to the Villabruna cluster was present not only in Gravettian and Magdalenian-era Europeans but also in the populations of the Caucasus, by ~26kya. Neolithic Anatolians, while forming a clade with Dzudzuana with respect to ESHG, share more alleles with all other PGNE (Extended Data Fig. 5d), suggesting that PGNE share at least partially common descent to the exclusion of the much older samples from Dzudzuana.

Ancient West Eurasian population structure. PCA of key ancient West Eurasians, including additional populations (shown with grey shells), in the space of outgroup f4-statistics (Methods).

Our co-modeling of Epipaleolithic Natufians and Ibero-Maurusians from Taforalt confirms that the Taforalt population was mixed, but instead of specifying gene flow from the ancestors of Natufians into the ancestors of Taforalt as originally reported, we infer gene flow in the reverse direction (into Natufians). The Neolithic population from Morocco, closely related to Taforalt is also consistent with being descended from the source of this gene flow, and appears to have no admixture from the Levantine Neolithic (Supplementary Information 166 section 3). If our model is correct, Epipaleolithic Natufians trace part of their ancestry to North Africa, consistent with morphological and archaeological studies that indicate a spread of morphological features and artifacts from North Africa into the Near East. Such a scenario would also explain the presence of Y-chromosome haplogroup E in the Natufians and Levantine farmers, a common link between the Levant and Africa.

(…) we cannot reject the hypothesis that Dzudzuana and the much later Neolithic Anatolians form a clade with respect to ESHG (P=0.286), consistent with the latter being a population largely descended from Dzudzuana-like pre-Neolithic populations whose geographical extent spanned both Anatolia and the Caucasus. Dzudzuana itself can be modeled as a 2-way mixture of Villabruna-related ancestry and a Basal Eurasian lineage.

In qpAdm modeling, a deeply divergent hunter-gatherer lineage that contributed in relatively unmixed form to the much later hunter-gatherers of the Villabruna cluster is specified as contributing to earlier hunter-gatherer groups (Gravettian Vestonice16: 35.7±11.3% and Magdalenian ElMiron: 60.6±11.3%) and to populations of the Caucasus (Dzudzuana: 199 72.5±3.7%, virtually identical to that inferred using ADMIXTUREGRAPH). In Europe, descendants of this lineage admixed with pre-existing hunter-gatherers related to Sunghir3 from Russia for the Gravettians and GoyetQ116-1 from Belgium for the Magdalenians, while in the Near East it did so with Basal Eurasians. Later Europeans prior to the arrival of agriculture were the product of re-settlement of this lineage after ~15kya in mainland Europe, while in eastern Europe they admixed with Siberian hunter-gatherers forming the WHG-ANE cline of ancestry [See PCA above]. In the Near East, the Dzudzuana-related population admixed with North African-related ancestry in the Levant and with Siberian hunter-gatherer and eastern non-African-related ancestry in Iran and the Caucasus. Thus, the highly differentiated populations at the dawn of the Neolithic were primarily descended from Villabruna Cluster and Dzudzuana-related ancestors, with varying degrees of additional input related to both North Africa and Ancient North/East Eurasia whose proximate sources may be clarified by future sampling of geographically and temporally intermediate populations.

An admixture graph model of Paleolithic West Eurasians. An automatically generated admixture graph models fits populations (worst Z-score of the difference between estimated and fitted f-statistics is 2.7) or populations (also including South_Africa_HG, worst Z-score is 3.5). This is a simplified model assuming binary admixture events and is not a unique solution (Supplementary Information section 2). Sampled populations are shown with ovals and select labeled internal nodes with rectangles.

Interesting excerpts from the supplementary materials:

From our analysis of Supplementary Information section 3, we showed that these sources are indeed complex, and only one of these (WHG, represented by Villabruna) appears to be a contributor to all the remaining sources. This should not be understood as showing that hunter-gatherers from mainland Europe migrated to the rest of West Eurasia, but rather that the fairly homogeneous post-15kya population of mainland Europe labeled WHG appear to represent a deep strain of ancestry that seems to have contributed to West Eurasians from the Gravettian era down to the Neolithic period.

Villabruna is representative of the WHG group. We also include ElMiron, the best sample from the Magdalenian era as we noticed that within the WHG group there were individuals that could not be modeled as a simple clade with Villabruna but also had some ElMiron-related ancestry. Ddudzuana is representative of the Ice Age Caucasus population, differentiated from Villabruna by Basal Eurasian ancestry. AG3 represents ANE/Upper Paleolithic Siberian ancestry, sampled from the vicinity of Lake Baikal, while Russia_Baikal_EN related to eastern Eurasians and represents a later layer of ancestry from the same region of Siberia as AG3 Finally, Mbuti are a deeply diverged African population that is used here to represent deep strains of ancestry (including Basal Eurasian) prior to the differentiation between West Eurasians and eastern non-Africans that are otherwise not accounted for by the remaining five sources. Collectively, we refer to this as ‘Basal’ or ‘Deep’ ancestry, which should be understood as referring potentially to both Basal Eurasian and African ancestry.

It has been suggested that there is an Anatolia Neolithic-related affinity in hunter-gatherers from the Iron Gates. Our analysis confirms this by showing that this population has Dzudzuana-related ancestry as do many hunter-gatherer populations from southeastern Europe, eastern Europe and Scandinavia. These populations cannot be modeled as a simple mixture of Villabruna and AG3 but require extra Dzudzuana-related ancestry even in the conservative estimates, with a positive admixture proportion inferred for several more in the speculative ones. Thus, the distinction between European hunter-gatherers and Near Eastern populations may have been gradual in pre-Neolithic times; samples from the Aegean (intermediate between those from the Balkans and Anatolia) may reveal how gradual the transition between Dzudzuana-like Neolithic Anatolians and mostly Villabruna-like hunter-gatherers was in southeastern Europe.

Modified image (cut, with important samples marked). Modeling present-day and ancient West-Eurasians. Mixture proportions computed with qpAdm (Supplementary Information section 4). The proportion of ‘Mbuti’ ancestry represents the total of ‘Deep’ ancestry from lineages that split prior to the 365 split of Ust’Ishim, Tianyuan, and West Eurasians and can include both ‘Basal Eurasian’ and other (e.g., Sub-Saharan African) ancestry. (a) ‘Conservative’ estimates. Each population 367 cannot be modeled with fewer admixture events than shown.

Villabruna: This type of ancestry differentiates between present-day Europeans and non-Europeans within West Eurasia, attaining a maximum of ~20% in the Baltic in accordance with previous observations and with the finding of a later persistence of significant hunter-gatherer ancestry in the region. Its proportion drops to ~0% throughout the Near East. Interestingly, a hint of such ancestry is also inferred in all North African populations west of Libya in the speculative proportions, consistent with an archaeogenetic inference of gene flow from Iberia to North Africa during the Late Neolithic.

ElMiron: This type of ancestry is absent in present-day West Eurasians. This may be because most of the Villabruna-related ancestry in Europeans traces to WHG populations that lacked it (since ElMiron-related ancestry is quite variable within European hunter-gatherers). However, ElMiron ancestry makes up only a minority component of all WHG populations sampled to date and WHG-related ancestry is a minority component of present-day Europeans. Thus, our failure to detect it in present day people may be simply be too little of it to detect with our methods.

Dzudzuana: Our analysis identifies Dzudzuana-related ancestry as the most important component of West Eurasians and the one that is found across West Eurasian-North African populations at ~46-88% levels. Thus, Dzudzuana-related ancestry can be viewed as the common core of the ancestry of West Eurasian-North African populations. Its distribution reaches its minima in northern Europe and appears to be complementary to that of Villabruna, being most strongly represented in North Africa, the Near East (including the Caucasus) and Mediterranean Europe. Our results here are expected from those of Supplementary Information section 3 in which we modeled ancient Near Eastern/North African populations (the principal ancestors of present-day people from the same regions) as deriving much of their ancestry from a Dzudzuana-related source. Migrations from the Near East/Caucasus associated with the spread of the Neolithic, but also the formation of steppe population introduced most of the Dzudzuana-related ancestry present in Europe, although (as we have seen above) some such ancestry was already present in some pre-agricultural hunter-gatherers in Europe.

AG3: Ancestry related to the AG3 sample from Siberia has a northern distribution, being strongly represented in both central-northern Europe and the north Caucasus.

Russia_Baikal_EN: Ancestry related to hunter-gatherers from Lake Baikal in Siberia (postdating AG3) appears to have affected primarily northeastern European populations which have been previously identified as having East Eurasian ancestry; some such ancestry is also identified for a Turkish population from Balıkesir, likely reflecting the Central Asian ancestry of Turkic speakers which has been recently confirmed directly in an Ottoman sample from Anatolia.

Some comments

So, to try and sum up:

  • Dzudzuana shares ancestry with ‘Common West Eurasian’ (CWE). the ancestor cluster of Villabruna.
  • Dzudzuana diverges from CWE because of a Basal Eurasian ancestry contribution [which supports that Basal Eurasian ancestry was a deep Middle Eastern lineage].
  • Dzudzuana is closest to Anatolia Neolithic, and close to Gravettian.
Palaeolithic migrations and clusters in Europe. See more maps.


  1. Aurignacian: First West Eurasians arrive ca. 36,000 BP, Goyet cluster expands probably with C1a2 lineages.
  2. After that, the early or ‘unmixed’ Villabruna cluster (‘hidden’ somewhere probably east of Europe, either North Eurasia or South Eurasia), lineages unknown (possibly IJ), contributes to:
    1. Gravettian (ca. 30,000 BP): Věstonice cluster expands, probably with IJ lineages.
    2. A (hidden) ‘Common West Eurasian’ population.
    3. In turn:

      • Dzudzuana ca. 26,000 BP derived from Common West Eurasian (curiously, haplogroup G seems to split in today’s subclades ca. 26,000 BP).
      • During the Gravettian (ca. 26,000 BP), an Anatolian Neolithic-like population exists already in the Near East. Both Věstonice and this Anatolian HG are close to Dzudzuana; in turn, Dzudzuana from CWE.

    4. Magdalenian (ca. 20,000 BP): El Mirón cluster expands, probably with more specific I lineages.
  3. Bølling-Allerød warming period (ca. 14,000 BP): ‘late’ Villabruna cluster or WHG (=CWE with greater affinity to Near Eastern populations) expands, probably spreading with R1b in mainland Europe and to the east (admixing with Siberian HG), creating the WHG — ANE ancestry cline, as reflected in Iron Gates HG, Baltic HG, etc.

[Here we have the possible “bidirectional gene flow between populations ancestral to Southeastern Europeans of the early Holocene and Anatolians of the late glacial or a dispersal of Southeastern Europeans into the Near East” inferred from Anatolian hunter-gatherers]

The Gravettian (30,000 to 20,000 years) is drawn in black and white; the subsequent Magdalenian (17,000 to 10,000 years) and Hamburgian (13,000-11,750 years) are in light blue and red. It is not known whether the spread of the Gravettian was a result of diffusion of people or cultures. This figure illustrates the possible monocentric origins of the Gravettian, in which the Gravettian is hypothesized to have its origin in the Middle Danube Basin, first spreading west (solid lines) and later spreading east and southeast (dashed lines). This scenario is largely based on the chronology of sites. Thus far, genome-wide data has been collected from only three of the ten< Gravettian regions indicated on the map. These regions are northern Austria (1 sample), the Czech Republic (6), southern Italy (3) and Belgium (3), indicating that they all share a genomic ancestry. However, it is unknown whether samples from the remaining regions also share a close genomic ancestry. Some skeletal remains associated with the Gravettian that could be investigated paleogenomically are from Sungir (Russia); Laghar Velho (central Portugal); Cussac Cave; Les Garennes, near Vilhonneur; and Level 2 at Abri Pataud116 (western France). Light blue and light red regions represent the approximate distributions of the Magdalenian Culture and the Hamburgian Culture (13,000-11,750 years). Figure adapted from Kozłowski. Image from Harris (2017)

The paper talks about possibilities for Common West Eurasian:

  1. Migration from mainland Europe to Near East or vice versa (not very likely);
  2. Migration from a geographically intermediate Ice Age refugium in southeast Europe, Anatolia, or the circum-Pontic region that explain post-glacial affinity of post-glacial Levantine and Anatolian populations.

It also re-states what was known:

  • EHG (ca. 8,000 BP) = between WHG — ANE (ca. 24,000 BP).
  • CHG (ca. 10,000 BP) = between EHG — Iran N.

I would say that the distinct CHG vs. Dzudzuana ancestry puts CHG probably to the south, within the Iranian Plateau, during the Gravettian, expanding probably later.

Also important, Ancestral North African probably accompanied by haplogroup E. Early expansion of North Africans into the Near East further confirms the impossibility of Afroasiatic (much younger) to be associated with these expansions, and confirms that the still unclear Green Sahara migrations are the key.


Sahara’s rather pale-green and discontinuous Sahelo-Sudanian steppe corridor, and the R1b – Afroasiatic connection


Interesting new paper (behind paywall) Megalakes in the Sahara? A Review, by Quade et al. (2018).

Abstract (emphasis mine):

The Sahara was wetter and greener during multiple interglacial periods of the Quaternary, when some have suggested it featured very large (mega) lakes, ranging in surface area from 30,000 to 350,000 km2. In this paper, we review the physical and biological evidence for these large lakes, especially during the African Humid Period (AHP) 11–5 ka. Megalake systems from around the world provide a checklist of diagnostic features, such as multiple well-defined shoreline benches, wave-rounded beach gravels where coarse material is present, landscape smoothing by lacustrine sediment, large-scale deltaic deposits, and in places, tufas encrusting shorelines. Our survey reveals no clear evidence of these features in the Sahara, except in the Chad basin. Hydrologic modeling of the proposed megalakes requires mean annual rainfall ≥1.2 m/yr and a northward displacement of tropical rainfall belts by ≥1000 km. Such a profound displacement is not supported by other paleo-climate proxies and comprehensive climate models, challenging the existence of megalakes in the Sahara. Rather than megalakes, isolated wetlands and small lakes are more consistent with the Sahelo-Sudanian paleoenvironment that prevailed in the Sahara during the AHP. A pale-green and discontinuously wet Sahara is the likelier context for human migrations out of Africa during the late Quaternary.

The whole review is an interesting read, but here are some relevant excerpts:

Various researchers have suggested that megalakes coevally covered portions of the Sahara during the AHP and previous periods, such as paleolakes Chad, Darfur, Fezzan, Ahnet-Mouydir, and Chotts (Fig. 2, Table 2). These proposed paleolakes range in size by an order of magnitude in surface area from the Caspian Sea–scale paleo-Lake Chad at 350,000 km2 to Lake Chotts at 30,000 km2. At their maximum, megalakes would have covered ~ 10% of the central and western Sahara, similar to the coverage by megalakes Victoria, Malawi, and Tanganyika in the equatorial tropics of the African Rift today. This observation alone should raise questions of the existence of megalakes in the Sahara, and especially if they developed coevally. Megalakes, because of their significant depth and area, generate large waves that become powerful modifiers of the land surface and leave conspicuous and extensive traces in the geologic record.

ETOPO1 digital elevation model (1 arc-minute; Amante and Eakins, 2009) of proposed megalakes in the Sahara Desert during the late Quaternary. Colors denote Köppen-Geiger climate zones: blue, Aw, Af, Am (tropical); light tan, Bwk, BSh, BSk, Csa, Csb, Cwb, Cfa, Cfb (temperate); red-brown, Bwh (arid, hot desert and steppe climate). Lake area at proposed megalake high stands and present Lake Victoria are in blue, and contributing catchment areas are shown as thin solid black lines. The main tributaries of Lake Chad are denoted by blue lines (from west to east: the Komadougou-Yobe, Logone, and Chari Rivers; source: Global Runoff Data Center, Koblenz, Germany). Rainfall isohyets (50, 200, 800, 1200, and 1600) are marked in dashed gray-scale lines. Physical parameters of each basin are shown in white boxes: Abt, total basin area; AW, lake area; Vw, lake volume; and aW= AW/Abt. Black dots mark the location of the paleohydrological records from Lezine et al. (2011), also compiled in Supplementary Table S5.

Lakes, megalakes, and wetlands

Active ground-water discharge systems abound in the Sahara today, although they were much more widespread in the AHP. They range from isolated springs and wet ground in many oases scattered across the Sahara (e.g., Haynes et al., 1989) to wetlands and small lakes (Kröpelin et al., 2008). Ground water feeding these systems is dominated by fossil AHP-age and older water (e.g., Edmunds and Wright 1979; Sonntag et al., 1980), although recently recharged water (<50 yr) has been locally identified in Saharan ground water (e.g., Sultan et al., 2000; Maduapuchi et al., 2006).

Megalake Chad

In our view, Lake Chad is the only former megalake in the Sahara firmly documented by sedimentologic and geomorphic evidence. Mega-Lake Chad is thought to have covered ~ 345,000 km2, stretching for nearly 8° (10–18°N) of latitude (Ghienne et al., 2002) (Fig. 2). The presence of paleo- Lake Chad was at one point challenged, but several—and in our view very robust—lines of evidence have been presented to support its development during the AHP. These include: (1) clear paleo-shorelines at various elevations, visible on the ground (Abafoni et al., 2014) and in radar and satellite images (Schuster et al., 2005; Drake and Bristow, 2006; Bouchette et al., 2010); (2) sand spits and shoreline berms (Thiemeyer, 2000; Abafoni et al., 2014); and (3) evaporites and aquatic fauna such as fresh-water mollusks and diatoms in basin deposits (e.g., Servant, 1973; Servant and Servant, 1983). Age determinations for all but the Holocene history of mega- Lake Chad are sparse, but there is evidence for Mio-Pliocene lake (s) (Lebatard et al., 2010) and major expansion of paleo- Lake Chad during the AHP (LeBlanc et al., 2006; Schuster et al., 2005; Abafoni et al., 2014; summarized in Armitage et al., 2015) up to the basin overflow level at ~ 329m asl.

Insights from hydrologic mass balance of megalakes

Graph of mean annual rainfall (mm/yr) versus aw (area lake/area basin, AW/AL); their modeled relationship using our Sahelo-Sudanian hydrologic model for the different lake basins are shown as solid colored lines. Superimposed on this (dashed lines) are the aw values for individual megalake basins and the mean annual rainfall required to sustain them. Mean annual paleo-rainfall estimates of 200– 400 mm/yr during the AHP from fossil pollen and mollusk evidence is shown as a tan box. The intersection of this box with the solid colored lines describes the resulting aw for Saharan paleolakes on the y-axis. The low predicted values for aw suggest that very large lakes would not form under Sahelo-Sudanian conditions where sustained by purely local rainfall and runoff. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Using these conservative conditions (i.e., erring in the direction that will support megalake formation), our hydrologic models for the two biggest central Saharan megalakes (Darfur and Fezzan) require minimum annual average rainfall amounts of ~ 1.1 m/yr to balance moisture losses from their respective basins (Supplementary Table S1). Lake Chad required a similar amount (~1 m/yr; Supplementary Table S1) during the AHP according to our calculations, but this is plausible, because even today the southern third of the Chad basin receives ≥1.2 m/yr (Fig. 2) and experiences a climate similar to Lake Victoria. A modest 5° shift in the rainfall belt would bring this moist zone northward to cover a much larger portion of the Chad basin, which spans N13° ±7°. Estimated rainfall rates for Darfur and Fezzan are slightly less than the average of ~ 1.3 m/yr for the Lake Victoria basin, because of the lower aw values, that is, smaller areas of Saharan megalakes compared with their respective drainage basins (Fig. 15).

Estimates of paleo-rainfall during the AHP

Here major contradictions develop between the model outcomes and paleo-vegetation evidence, because our Sahelo-Sudanian hydrologic model predicts wetter conditions and therefore more tropical vegetation assemblages than found around Lake Victoria today. In fact, none of the very wet rainfall scenarios required by all our model runs can be reconciled with the relatively dry conditions implied by the fossil plant and animal evidence. In short, megalakes cannot be produced in Sahelo-Sudanian conditions past or present; to form, they require a tropical or subtropical setting, and major displacements of the African monsoon or extra-desert moisture sources.

Change in mean annual precipitation over northern Africa between mid-Holocene (6 ka) and pre-industrial conditions in PMIP3 models (affiliations are provided in Supplementary Table S4). Lakes Victoria and Chad outlined in blue. (a) Ensemble mean change in mean annual precipitation and positions of the African summer (July–September) ensemble mean ITCZ during mid-Holocene (solid red line) and pre-industrial conditions (solid blue line). (b) Zonal average of change in mean annual precipitation over land (20°W–30°E) for the ensemble mean (thick black) and individual models are listed on right). The range of minimal estimated change in mean annual precipitation required to sustain steppe is shown in shaded green (Jolly et al., 1998).


If not megalakes, what size lakes, marshes, discharging springs, and flowing rivers in the Sahara were sustainable in Sahelo-Sudanian climatic conditions? For lakes and perennial rivers to be created and sustained, net rainfall in the basin has to exceed loss to evapotranspiration, evaporation, and infiltration, yielding runoff that then supplies a local lake or river. Our hydrologic models (see Supplementary Material) and empirical observations (Gash et al., 1991; Monteith, 1991) for the Sahel suggest that this limit is in the 200–300 mm/yr range, meaning that most of the Sahara during the AHP was probably too dry to support very large lakes or perennial rivers by means of local runoff. This does not preclude creation of local wetlands supplied by ground-water recharge focused from a very large recharge area or forced to the surface by hydrologic barriers such as faults, nor megalakes like Chad supplied by moisture from the subtropics and tropics outside the Sahel. But it does raise a key question concerning the size of paleolakes, if not megalakes, in the Sahara during the AHP. Our analysis suggests that Sahelo-Sudanian climate could perhaps support a paleolake approximately ≤5000 km2 in area in the Darfur basin and ≤10,000–20,000 km2 in the Fezzan basin. These are more than an order of magnitude smaller than the megalakes envisioned for these basins, but they are still sizable, and if enclosed in a single body of water, should have been large enough to generate clear shorelines (Enzel et al., 2015, 2017). On the other hand, if surface water was dispersed across a series of shallow and extensive but partly disconnected wetlands, as also implied by previous research (e.g., Pachur and Hoelzmann, 1991), then shorelines may not have developed.

One of the underdeveloped ideas of my Indo-European demic diffusion model was that R1b-V88 had migrated through South Italy to Northern Africa, and from it using the Sahara Green Corridor to the south, from where the “upside-down” view of Bender (2007) could have occurred, i.e. Afroasiatic expanding westwards within the Green Sahara, precisely at this time, and from a homeland near the Megalake Chad region (see here).

Whether or not R1b-V88 brought the ‘original’ lineage that expanded Afroasiatic languages may be contended, but after D’Atanasio et al. (2018) it seems that only two lineages, E-M2 and R1b-V88, fit the ‘star-like’ structure suggesting an appropriate haplogroup expansion and necessary regional distribution that could explain the spread of Afroasiatic languages within a reasonable time frame.

Palaeolithic migrations

This review shows that the hypothesized Green Sahara corridor full of megalakes that some proposed had fully connected Africa from west to east was actually a strip of Sahelo-Sudanian steppe spread to the north of its current distribution, including the Chad megalake, East Africa and Arabia, apart from other discontinuous local wetlands further to the north in Africa. This greenish belt would have probably allowed for the initial spread of early Afroasiatic proto-languages only through the southern part of the current Sahara Desert. This and the R1b-V88 haplogroup distribution in Central and North Africa (with a prevalence among Chadic speakers probably due to later bottlenecks), and the Near East, leaves still fewer possibilities for an expansion of Afroasiatic from anywhere else.

If my proposal turns out to be correct, this Afroasiatic-like language would be the one suggested by some in the vocabulary of Old European and North European local groups (viz. Kroonen for the Agricultural Substrate Hypothesis), and not Anatolian farmer ancestry or haplogroup G2, which would have been rather confined to Southern Europe, mainly south of the Loess line, where incoming Middle East farmers encountered the main difficulties spreading agriculture and herding, and where they eventually admixed with local hunter-gatherers.

NOTE. If related to attested languages before the Roman expansion, Tyrsenian would be a good candidate for a descendant of the language of Anatolian farmers, given the more recent expansion of Anatolian ancestry to the Tuscan region (even if already influenced by Iran farmer ancestry), which reinforces its direct connection to the Aegean.

The fiercest opposition to this R1b-V88 – Afroasiatic connection may come from:

  • Traditional Hamito-Semitic scholars, who try to look for any parent language almost invariably in or around the Near East – the typical “here it was first attested, ergo here must be the origin, too”-assumption (coupled with the cradle of civilization memes) akin to the original reasons behind Anatolian or Out-of-India hypotheses; and of course
  • autochthonous continuity theories based on modern subclades, of (mainly Semitic) peoples of haplogroup E or J, who will root for either one or the other as the Afroasiatic source no matter what. As we have seen with the R1a – Indo-European hypothesis (see here for its history), this is never the right way to look at prehistoric migrations, though.

I proposed that it was R1a-M417 the lineage marking an expansion of Indo-Uralic from the east near Lake Baikal, then obviously connected to Yukaghir and Altaic languages marked by R1a-M17, and that haplogroup R could then be the source of a hypothetic Nostratic expansion (where R2 could mark the Dravidian expansion), with upper clades being maybe responsible for Borean.

Simple Nostratic tree by Bomhard (2008)

However, recent studies have shown early expansions of R1b-297 to East Europe (Mathieson et al. 2017 & 2018), and of R1b-M73 to East Eurasia probably up to Siberia, and possibly reaching the Pacific (Jeong et al. 2018). Also, the Steppe Eneolithic and Caucasus Eneolithic clusters seen in Wang et al. (2018) would be able to explain the WHG – EHG – ANE ancestry cline seen in Mesolithic and Neolithic Eurasia without a need for westward migrations.

Dravidian is now after Narasimhan et al. (2018) and Damgaard et al. (Science 2018) more and more likely to be linked to the expansion of the Indus Valley civilization and haplogroup J, in turn strongly linked to Iranian farmer ancestry, thus giving support to an Elamo-Dravidian group stemming from Iran Neolithic.

NOTE. This Dravidian-IVC and Iran connection has been supported for years by knowledgeable bloggers and commenters alike, see e.g. one of Razib Khan’s posts on the subject. This rather early support for what is obvious today is probably behind the reactionary views by some nationalist Hindus, who probably saw in this a potential reason for a strengthened Indo-Aryan/Dravidian divide adding to the religious patchwork that is modern India.

I am not in a good position to judge Nostratic, and I don’t think Glottochronology, Swadesh lists, or any statistical methods applied to a bunch of words are of any use, here or anywhere. The work of pioneers like Illich-Svitych or Starostin, on the other hand, seem to me solid attempts to obtain a faithful reconstruction, if rather outdated today.

NOTE. I am still struggling to learn more about Uralic and Indo-Uralic; not because it is more difficult than Indo-European, but because – in comparison to PIE comparative grammar – material about them is scarce, and the few available sources are sometimes contradictory. My knowledge of Afroasiatic is limited to Semitic (Arabic and Akkadian), and the field is not much more developed here than for Uralic…

Spread of Y-haplogroup R1b(xM269) in Eurasia, according to Jeong et al. (2018).

If one wanted to support a Nostratic proto-language, though, and not being able to take into account genome-wide autosomal admixture, the only haplogroup right now which can connect the expansion of all its branches is R1b-M343:

  • R1b-L278 expanded from Asia to Europe through the Iranian Plateau, since early subclades are found in Iran and the Caucasus region, thus supporting the separation of Elamo-Dravidian and Kartvelian branches;
  • From the Danube or another European region ‘near’ the Villabruna 1 sample (of haplogroup R1b-L754):
    • R1b-V88 expanding everywhere in Europe, and especially the branch expanding to the south into Africa, may be linked to the initial Afroasiatic expansion through the Pale-Green Sahara corridor (and even a hypothetic expansion with E-M2 subclades and/or from the Middle East would also leave open the influence of V88 and previous R1b subclades from the Middle East in the emergence of the language);
    • R1b-297 subclades expanding to the east may be linked to Eurasiatic, giving rise to both Indo-Uralic (M269) and Macro- or Micro-Altaic (M73) expansions.

This is shameless, simplistic speculation, of course, but not more than the Nostratic hypothesis, and it has the main advantage of offering ‘small and late’ language expansions relative to other proposals spanning thousands (or even tens of thousands) of years more of language separation. On the other hand, that would leave Borean out of the question, unless the initial expansion of R1b subclades happened from a community close to lake Baikal (and Mal’ta) that was also at the origin of the other supposedly related Borean branches, whether linked to haplogroup R or to any other…

NOTE. If Afroasiatic and Indo-Uralic (or Eurasiatic) are not genetically related, my previous simplistic model, R1b-Afroasiatic vs. R1a-Eurasiatic, may still be supported, with R1a-M17 potentially marking the latest meaningful westward population expansion from which EHG ancestry might have developed (see here). Without detailed works on Nostratic comparative grammar and dialectalization, and especially without a lot more Palaeolithic and Mesolithic samples, all this will remain highly speculative, like proposals of the 2000s about Y-DNA-haplogroup – language relationships.


The Indo-European demic diffusion model, and the “R1b – Indo-European” association


Beginning with the new year, I wanted to commit myself to some predictions, as I did last year, even though they constantly change with new data.

I recently read Proto-Indo-European homelands – ancient genetic clues at last?, by Edward Pegler, which is a good summary of the current state of the art in the Indo-European question for many geneticists – and thus a great example of how well Genetics can influence Indo-European studies, and how badly it can be used to interpret actual cultural events – although more time is necessary for some to realize it. Notice for example the distribution of ‘Yamnaya’ in 3000 BC, all the way to Latvia (based on the initial findings of Mathieson et al. 2017), and the map of 2000 BC with ‘Corded Ware’, both suggesting communities linked by admixture and unrelated to actual cultures.

Some people – especially those interested in keeping a simplistic picture of Europe, either divided into admixture groups or simplistic R1b-Vasconic / R1a-Indo-European / N1c-Uralic (or any combination thereof) – want (others) to believe that I am linking ‘Indo-Europeans’ with haplogroup R1b. That is simply not true. In fact, my model dismisses such simplistic identifications of the reconstructible proto-languages with any modern peoples, admixtures, or haplogroups.

Simplistic Vasconic/R1b-Uralic/N1c distribution, and intruding Indo-European/R1a, according to Wiik.

The beauty of the model lies, therefore, precisely in that if you take any modern group speaking Indo-European languages, none can trace back their combination of language, admixture, and/or haplogroup to a common Indo-European-speaking people. All our ancestral lines have no doubt changed language families (and indeed cultures), they have admixed, and our European regions’ paternal lines have changed, so that any dreams of ‘purity’ or linguistic/cultural/regional continuity become absurd.

That conclusion, which should be obvious to all, has been denied for a long time in blogs and forums alike, and is behind the effort of many of those involved in amateur genetics.

Main linguistic aim

The main consequence of the model, as the title of the paper suggests, is that reconstructible Indo-European proto-languages expanded with people, i.e. with actual communities, which is what we can assert with the help of Genomics. From a personal (or ethnic, or political) point of view genomics is useless, but from an anthropological (and thus linguistic) point of view, genomics can be a very useful tool to decide between alternative models of language diffusion, which has given lots of headaches to those of us involved in Indo-European studies.

The demic diffusion theory for the three main stages of the proto-language expansion was originally, therefore, a dismissal of impossible-to-prove cultural diffusion models for the proto-language – e.g. the adoption of Late Proto-Indo-European by Corded Ware groups due to a patron-client relationship (as proposed by Anthony), or a long-lasting connection between cultures (as proposed by Kristiansen, and favoured by “constellation analogy” proponents like Clackson, who negated the existence of common proto-languages). It also means the acceptance of the easiest anthropological model for language change: migration and – consequently – replacement.

By the time of the famous 2015 papers, I had been dealing for some time with the idea that the shared features between Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic may have been due to a common substrate, and must have therefore had some reflection in genomic finds. The data on these papers, and the addition of a weak connection between Pre-Germanic and Balto-Slavic communities, together with their clearest genetic link – R1a-M417 subclades (especially European Z283) – made it still easier to propose a Corded Ware substrate, partially common to the three.

Allentoft Corded Ware
Allentoft et al. “Arrows indicate migrations — those from the Corded Ware reflect the evidence that people of this archaeological culture (or their relatives) were responsible for the spreading of Indo-European languages. All coloured boundaries are approximate.”

Before the famous 2015 papers (and even after them, if we followed their interpretation), we were left to wonder why the supposed vector of expansion of Indo-European languages, Corded Ware migrants – represented by R1a-Z645 subclades, and supposedly continued unchanged into modern populations in its ‘original’ ancestral territories, Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian – , were precisely the (phonetically) most divergent Indo-European languages – relative to the parent Late Indo-European proto-language.

My paper implied therefore the dismissal of an unlikely Indo-Slavonic group, as proposed by Kortlandt, and of a still less factible Germano-Slavonic, or Germano-Indo-Slavonic (?) group, as loosely implied by some in the past, and maybe supported in certain archaeological models (viz. Kristiansen or partially Anthony), and presently by some geneticists since their simplistic 2015 papers on “massive migrations from the steppe“, and amateur genetic fans with infinite pet theories, indeed.

A common Corded Ware substrate to Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian, and common also partially between Balto-Slavic and Germanic (as supported by Kortlandt, too, albeit with different linguistic connotations), would explain their common features. The Corded Ware culture (and Uralic, tentatively proposed by me as the group’s main language family) is a strong potential connection between them, further supported by phylogeography, too.

Other consequences

Interpretations in my paper help thus dismiss the simplistic Yamna -> Corded Ware -> Bell Beaker migration model implied with phylogeography in the 2000s, and revived again by geneticists and Kristiansen’s workgroup based on the famous 2015 papers, whereby – due to the “Yamnaya ancestral component” – the Yamna culture would have been composed of communities of R1a-M417 and R1b-M269 lineages which remained against all odds ‘related but separated’ for more than two thousand years, sharing a common unitary language (why? and how?), and which expanded from Yamna (mainly R1b-L23) into Corded Ware (mainly R1a-M417) and then into Bell Beaker (mainly R1b-L51), in imaginary migration waves whose traces Archaeology has not found, or Anthropology described, before.

While phylogeography (especially the distribution of ancient samples of certain R1b and R1a subclades) was the main genetic aspect I used in combination with Archaeology and Anthropology to challenge the reliability of the “Yamnaya ancestral component” in assessing migrations – and thus Kristiansen’s now-popular-again modified Kurgan model – , my main aim was to prove a recent expansion of Late Proto-Indo-European from the steppe, and a still more recent expansion of a common group of speakers of North-West Indo-European, the language ancestral to Italo-Celtic, Germanic, and probably Balto-Slavic (or ‘Temematic’, the NWIE substrate of Balto-Slavic, according to some linguists).

My arguments serve for this purpose, and modern distributions of haplogroups or admixture are fully irrelevant: I am ready to change my view at any time, regarding the role of any haplogroup, or ancestral component, archaeological data, or anthropological migration model, to the extent that it supports the soundest linguistic model.

Stages of Proto-Indo-European evolution. IU: Indo-Uralic; PU: Proto-Uralic; PAn: Pre-Anatolian; PToch: Pre-Tocharian; Fin-Ugr: Finno-Ugric. The period between Balkan IE and Proto-Greek could be divided in two periods: an older one, called Proto-Greek (close to the time when NWIE was spoken), probably including Macedonian, and spoken somewhere in the Balkans; and a more recent one, called Mello-Greek, coinciding with the classically reconstructed Proto-Greek, already spoken in the Greek peninsula (West 2007). Similarly, the period between Northern Indo-European and North-West Indo-European could be divided, after the split of Pre-Tocharian, into a North-West Indo-European proper, during the expansion of Yamna to the west, and an Old European period, coinciding with the formation and expansion of the East Bell Beaker group.

Gimbutas’ old theory of sudden and recent expansion served well to support a real community of Proto-Indo-European speakers, as did later the Yamna -> Corded Ware -> Bell Beaker theory that circulated in the 2000s based on modern phylogeography, and as did later partially Anthony’s updated steppe theory (2007). On the other hand, Kristiansen’s long-lasting connections among north-west Pontic steppe cultures and Globular Amphorae and Trypillian cultures, did not fit well with a close community expanding rapidly – although recent genetic data on Trypillia and Globular Amphorae might be compelling him to improve his migration theory.

So, if data turns out to be not as I expect now, I will reflect that in future versions of the paper. I have no problem saying I am wrong. I have been wrong many times before, and something I am certain is that I am wrong now in many details, and I am going to be in the future.

If, for example, R1b-L23(xZ2105) is demonstrated to come from Hungary and not the steppe (as supported by Balanovsky) or R1a-M417 samples are proved to have expanded with West Yamna settlers (as recently proposed by Anthony, see below the Balto-Slavic question), I would support the same model from a linguistic point of view, but modified to reflect these facts. Or if a direct migration link is found in Archaeology from Yamna to Corded Ware, and from Corded Ware to Bell Beaker (as proposed in the 2015 papers), I will revise that too (again, see the image below). Or, if – as Lazaridis et al. (2017) paper on Minoans and Mycenaeans suggested – the Anatolian hypothesis (that is, one of the multiple ones proposed) turns out to be somehow right, I will support it.

My map of Late Proto-Indo-European expansion (A Grammar of Modern Indo-European, 2006), following Gimbutas and Mallory.

Haplogroups are the least important aspect of the whole model, they are just another data that has to be taken into account for a throrough explanation of migrations. It has become essential today because of the apparent lack of vision on the part of geneticists, who failed to use them to adjust their findings of admixture with findings of haplogroup expansions, favouring thus a marginal theory of long-lasting steppe expansion instead of the mainstream anthropological models.

Since many of these alternative scenarios seem less and less likely with each new paper, it is probably more efficient to talk about which developments are most likely to challenge my model.

Main points

My main predictions – based mostly on language guesstimates, archaeological cultures, and anthropological models of migration -, even with the scarce genomic data we had, have been proven right until know with new samples from Mathieson et al. (2017) and Olalde et al. (2017), among other papers of this past year. These were my original assumptions:

(1) A Middle Proto-Indo-European expansion defined by the appearance of steppe ancestry + reduction in haplogroup diversity and expansion of (mainly) R1b-M269 and R1b-L23 lineages;

(2) A Late Proto-Indo-European expansion defined by steppe ancestry + reduction in haplogroup diversity and expansion of (mainly) R1b-L23 subclades; and

(3) A North-West Indo-European expansion defined by steppe ancestry + reduction in haplogroup diversity and expansion of (mainly) R1b-L51 subclades.

The expansion of Corded Ware peoples, associated with steppe ancestry + reduction in haplogroup diversity and expansion of (mainly) R1a-Z645 subclades, represents thus a different migration, which is compatible with the different nature of the Corded Ware culture, unrelated to Yamna and without migration waves from one to the other (although there were certainly contacts in neighbouring regions).

As you can see, neither of the 3+1 expansion models imply that no other haplogroup can be found in the culture or regions involved (others have in fact been found, and still the models remain valid): these migrations imply a reduction of haplogroup diversity, and the expansion of certain subclades as is common in population expansions throughout history. While we all accept this general idea, some people have difficulties accepting just those cases not compatible with their dreams of autochthonous continuity.

Nevertheless, there are still voids in genetic investigation.

Controversial aspects

In my humble opinion, these are potential conflict periods and the most likely areas of change for the future of the theory:

1. When and how did R1b-M269 lineages become “chiefs” in the steppe?

Based on scarce data from Khvalynsk, it seems that during the Neolithic there were many haplogroups in the North Pontic and North Caspian steppes. A reduction to R1b-M269 subclades must have happened either just before or (as I support) during (the migrations that caused) the Suvorovo-Novodanilovka expansion among Sredni Stog, probably coinciding also with the expansion (or one of the expansions) of CHG ancestry (and thus the appearance of ‘Steppe component’ in the steppe). My theory was based initially on Anthony’s account and TMRCA of haplogroups of modern populations (both ca. 4200-4000 BC), but recent samples of the Balkans (R1b-M269 and steppe ancestry) seem to trace the population expansion some centuries back.

If my assessment is correct, then modern populations of haplogroup R1b-M269* and R1b-L23* in the Balkans probably reflect that ancient expansion, and samples related to Proto-Anatolian cultures in the Balkans will most likely be of R1b-M269 subclades and R1b-L23*. After admixture in the Balkans, posterior migrations of Anatolian languages into Anatolia might be associated with a different admixture component and haplogroups, we don’t have enough data yet.

If the haplogroup reduction and expansion in Khvalynsk happened later than the Suvorovo-Novodanilovka expansion, then we might find the expansion of Pre- or Proto-Anatolian associated with many different haplogroups, such as R1b (xM269), R1a, I, J, or G2, and more or less associated with steppe ancestry in the Balkans.

Another reason for finding such variety of haplogroups in ancient samples from the Balkans would be that this Khvalynsk group of “chiefs” traversed – and mixed with – the Sredni Stog population. Nevertheless, if we suppose homogeneity in haplogroups in Khvalynsk during the expansion, a high proportion of different haplogroups explained by admixture with the local population of Sredni Stog would challenge the whole “chief domination” explanation by Anthony, and we would have to return to the “different culture” theory by Rassamakin and potentially an older migration from Khvalynsk. In any case, both researchers show clear links of the Suvorovo-Novodanilovka phenomenon to Khvalynsk, and a differentiation with the surrounding Sredni Stog culture.

A less likely model would support the identification of the whole Eneolithic Pontic-Caspian steppe as a loose Indo-Hittite-speaking community, which would be in my opinion too big a territory and too loose a cultural bond to justify such a long-lasting close linguistic connection. This will probably be the refuge of certain people looking desperately for R1a-IE connections. However, the nature of the western steppe will remain distinct from Late Proto-Indo-European, which must have developed in the Yamna culture, so autochthonous continuity is not on the table anymore, in any case…

Coexistence of the Varna-Gumelniţa culture and the Suvorovo phase of the sceptre-bearer communities. 1 — Fălciu; 2 — Fundeni-Lungoţi; 3 — Novoselskaja; 4 — Suvorovo; 5 — Casimcea; 6 — Kjulevča; 7 — Reka Devnja; 8 — Drama; 9 — Gonova mogila; 10 — Reževo; 11 — geographically separate Decea variant of the sceptre bearer group (after Govedarica, Manzura 2011: Abb. 5, adapted).

2. How did R1a-M417 (and especially R1a-Z645) haplogroups came to dominate over the Corded Ware cultures?

If I am right (again, based on TMRCA of modern populations), then it is precisely at the time of the potential expansion of Proto-Corded Ware from the Dnieper-Dniester forest, forest-steppe, and steppe regions, ca 3300-3000. Furholt’s recent radiocarbon analysis and suggestions of a Lesser Poland origin of the third or A-horizon, on which disparate archaeologists such as Anthony or Klejn rely now, seem to suggest also that Corded Ware was a cultural complex rather than a compact culture reflecting a migration of peoples – similar thus to the Bell Beaker complex.

This cultural complex interpretation of Corded Ware contrasts with the quite homogeneous late samples we have, suggesting clear migration waves in northern Europe, at least at some point in time, so Genomics will be a great tool to ascertain when and from where approximately did Corded Ware peoples expand. Right now, it seems that Eneolithic Ukraine populations are the closest to its origin, so the traditional interpretation of its regional origin by Kristiansen or Anthony remains valid.

3. How was Indo-Iranian adopted by Corded Ware invaders?

This is rather an anthropological question. We need reasonable models of founder effect/cultural diffusion necessary for that to happen – similar to the ones necessary to explain the arrival of N1c subclades into north-east Europe, or the arrival of R1b subclades in Basque/Iberian-speaking regions in south-west Europe. My description of potential events in the eastern steppe – based partially on Anthony – is merely a short sketch. Genomic data is unlikely to offer more than it does today (replacement of haplogroups, and gradually of some steppe component, by late Corded Ware groups in the steppe), but let’s see what new samples can contribute.

As for what some Indians – and other people willing to confront them – are looking for, regarding R1a-M417 and/or Indo-European origins in India, I don’t see the point, we already know a) that the origin of the expansion is in the steppe and b) that Hindu nationalist biggots will not accept results from research that oppose their views. I don’t expect huge surprises there, just more fruitless discussions (fomented by those who live from trolling or conspiracies)…

4. Yamna settlers from Hungary

Anthony’s new theory – and the nature of Balto-Slavic – hinges on the presence of R1a-M417 subclades (associated with later Corded Ware samples) in Yamna settlers of Hungary, potentially originally from the North Pontic area, where the oldest sample has been found.

My ‘modified’ version of Anthony’s new model (the only I deem just remotely factible) includes the expansion of a Proto-Corded Ware from Lesser Poland, but (given the overwhelming R1b found in East Bell Beaker), with R1a-M417 being associated with the region. How to explain this language change with objective data? Well, we have Bell Beaker expanding to these areas at a later time, so we would need to find R1b-L23 settlers in Lesser Poland, and then a resurge of R1a-M417 haplogroup. If not, resorting yet again to cultural diffusion Yamna “patrons” to Corded Ware “clients” of Lesser Poland would bring us to square one, now with the ‘steppe ancestry’ controversy included…

Since some Eastern Europeans are (for no obvious reason whatsoever) putting their hopes on that IE-R1a-CWC association, let’s hope some samples of R1a-M417 in Yamna or Hungary give them a break, so that they can begin accepting something closer to mainstream anthropological models. We could then work from there a Yamna-> Bell Beaker / North-West Indo-European association truce, and from there keep accepting that no single haplogroup from Yamna settlers is linked with modern languages, cultures or ethnic groups.

localization of Central-European funerary monuments with elements of the Pit Grave culture (after Bátora 2006);

5. How and when was Balto-Slavic associated with haplogroup R1a?

If we accept the Southern or Graeco-Aryan nature of Balto-Slavic with influence from an absorbed North-West Indo-European dialect, “Temematic” (as Kortlandt does), then Indo-Slavonic adopted in the steppe from Potapovka by Sintashta and Poltavka populations divided ca. 2000 BC into Indo-Iranian (migrating to the east with Andronovo), and Balto-Slavic (migrating westward with the Srubna culture). History from there is not straightforward, and it should follow Srubna, Thraco-Cimmerian, or other late expansions from cultures of the steppe.

On the other hand, if it is a Northern dialect related closely to Germanic and Italo-Celtic (in a North-West Indo-European group), then its origin has to be found in the initial expansion of East Bell Beakers, and its development into either the Únětice culture (of Balkan and thus potentially “Southern IE” influence), or the Mierzanowice-Nitra culture (of Corded Ware and thus potentially Uralic influence), or maybe from both, given the intermediate substrate found in Germanic and Balto-Slavic.

It is my opinion that the association of Balto-Slavic with haplogroup R1a is quite early after the East Bell Beaker expansion, probably initially with the subclade typically associated with West Slavic, R1a-M458. I have not much data to support this (apart from the most common linguistic model), just modern haplogroup distribution maps and common TMRCA, and highly hypothetical archaeological-anthropological models. Genetics will hopefully bring more data.

Let’s see also what information on ancient haplogroups we can obtain from the Tollense valley (already showing a close cluster with modern West Slavic populations) and steppe regions.

6. How did Germanic, Celtic, and Italic expand?

Germanic is probably the most interesting one. Following the expansion of R1b-L51 subclades (especially R1b-U106) and steppe ancestry (a confounding factor, with the previous expansion of R1a-Z284 subclades) in Scandinavia is going to be fascinating. Anthropological models already point to a linguistic and archaeological expansion of Pre-Germanic with Bell Beaker peoples.

The expansion of Celtic seems to be associated with chiefdoms, untraceable today in terms of haplogroups, and it seems thus different from previous expansions. New studies might tell how that happened, if it was actually in successive ways, as proposed, or maybe we don’t have enough data yet to reach conclusions.

We don’t know either how Italic expanded into the Italian Peninsula, or whether Latin expanded with peoples from Italy, if at all, or it was mostly a cultural diffusion event, as it seems.

Regarding Etruscan, while I think it is a controversy initiated based on fantastic accounts, and ignited with few finds of Middle Eastern ancestry (that seem logical from the point of view of regional contacts), it will be important for Italian linguists and archaeologists, also to accept the most likely scenario.

As for Palaeo-Hispanic languages, while steppe ancestry is found quite reduced in R1b-L51 subclades (after so many different expansions and admixture events since the departure from the steppe), their distribution from the Chalcolithic onwards and the resurgence of native haplogroups may serve to ascertain which Pre-Roman tribes were associated with the oldest regions where these subclades dominated. For that aim, a closer look at the developments in Aquitania and other pre-Roman Vasconic- and Iberian-speaking regions may shed some light on how founder effects might develop to leave the native language intact (in a case similar to the adoption of Indo-Iranian by post-Corded Ware Sinthastha and Potapovka in the eastern Pontic-Caspian steppe).

NOTE: Although mostly unrelated, linguistic questions may also be somehow altered with a change of migration models. For example, our current Corded Ware Substrate Hypothesis – strongly contested by Kortlandt and others – implies that Uralic was potentially the language spoken by Eneolithic Ukraine / Proto-Corded Ware peoples, therefore early Uralic languages were spoken by Corded Ware peoples, as a substrate for Germanic and Balto-Slavic, and Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian. If an Indo-Hittite branch different from Late PIE is accepted for Eneolithic Ukraine (thus suggesting a millennia-long cultural-historical community in the steppe), then the model still stands (e.g. Ger. and BSl. *-mos/-mus, as stated by Kortlandt, would correspond to the oldest morphological IE layer). As you can read in the different versions of our model, the different possibilities for the common substrate are stated, and the most likely one selected. But the most likely a priori option sometimes turns out to be wrong…

NOTE 2: You can comment whatever you want here, but I opened a specific thread in our forum if you want serious comments on the model to stuck and be further discussed.

Featured images: from the book Interactions, changes and meanings. Essays in honour of Igor Manzura on the occasion of his 60th birthday. Țerna S., Govedarica B. (eds.). 2016. Kishinev: Stratum Plus.

See also:

Modern Hungarian mtDNA more similar to ancient Europeans than to Hungarian conquerors


New preprint at BioRxiv, MITOMIX, an Algorithm to Reconstruct Population Admixture Histories Indicates Ancient European Ancestry of Modern Hungarians, by Maroti et al. (2018).

The estimated age distribution of the shared mt Hgs between Hungarians (Hun), the best hypothetical admix (mixFreq) and the populations contributing to this admix: Belgian/Dutch (BeN), Danish (Dan), Basque (Bsq), Croatian/Serbian (CrS), Baltic Late Bronze Age culture (BalBA), Bell Beaker culture (BellB), Slovakian (Slo). The numbers in parentheses indicate the contributions to the best hypothetical admix.

Abstract (emphasis mine)

By making use of the increasing number of available mitogenomes we propose a novel population genetic distance metric, named Shared Haplogroup Distance (SHD). Unlike FST, SHD is a true mathematical distance that complies with all metric axioms, which enables our new algorithm (MITOMIX) to detect population-level admixture based on SHD minimum optimization. In order to demonstrate the effectiveness of our methodology we analyzed the relation of 62 modern and 25 ancient Eurasian human populations, and compared our results with the most widely used FST calculation. We also sequenced and performed an in-depth analysis of 272 modern Hungarian mtDNA genomes to shed light on the genetic composition of modern Hungarians. MITOMIX analysis showed that in general admixture occurred between neighboring populations, but in some cases it also indicated admixture with migrating populations. SHD and MITOMIX analysis comply with known genetic data and shows that in case of closely related and/or admixing populations, SHD gives more realistic results and provides better resolution than FST. Our results suggest that the majority of modern Hungarian maternal lineages have Late Neolith/Bronze Age European origins (partially shared also with modern Danish, Belgian/Dutch and Basque populations), and a smaller fraction originates from surrounding (Serbian, Croatian, Slovakian, Romanian) populations. However only a minor genetic contribution (<3%) was identified from the IXth Hungarian Conquerors whom are deemed to have brought Hungarians to the Carpathian Basin. Our analysis shows that SHD and MITOMIX can augment previous methods by providing novel insights into past population processes.

Unrooted hierarchic cluster of modern and archaic populations based on the SHD matrix.

It is interesting to keep receiving data as to how language does not correlate well with Genomics, whether admixture or haplogroups, even though it is already known to happen in regions such as Anatolia, the Baltic, South-Eastern or Northern Europe.

Thorough anthropological models of migration or cultural diffusion are necessary for a proper interpretation of genetic data. There is no shortcut to that.

Co-occurrence of Hungarian Bronze Age mt Hgs Distribution of mt Hgs found in Hungarian Bronze Age archaic samples in the analyzed populations. The fixation dates are based on Behar et al [6].

Images made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.
See also:

New monograph on The Tale of Igor’s Campaign (in Russian)


Sergej Nikolaev has published a new monograph on The Tale of Igor’s Campaign (you should download and open it in a PDF viewer to view some special characters correctly):

Слово о полку Игореве»: реконструкция стихотворного текста, by С.Л. Николаев (2018).

Abstract (in Russian).

Текст «Слова о полку Игореве» (далее «Слово») дошел до нас в двух неточных (отредактированных) копиях со списка нач. XVI в. и нескольких выписках из него. Наслоения, привнесенные переписчиком нач. XVI в. (или несколькими переписчиками) – редактура в русле 2 го южнославянского влияния и поздние диалектизмы – непоследовательны (§9.3.1) и не настолько исказили стихотворный текст рубежа XII–XIII вв., чтобы сделать невозможной его реконструкцию. «Слово» по своему жанру (светская поэзия) не принадлежит к текстам, которые по многу раз переписывались в монастырских скрипториях. Поэтому не исключено, что рукопись нач. XVI в. является хотя и небрежной, но первой по счету копией древнерусского оригинала.

«Слово» могло звучать приблизительно так, как я предлагаю в своей реконструкции, морфология и акцентология языка его автора могли быть устроены так, как я предполагаю, и оно могло быть создано в реконструируемой мною системе стихосложения. Однако в действительности многое могло быть устроено иначе. Реконструкция акцентологической системы и две другие гипотезы (о неравносложной силлаботонике и об опциональном прояснении слабых редуцированных) замкнуты друг на друге и образуют circulus in probando. Реконструируемая для «Слова» акцентологическая система выводится из праславянской реконструкции и подтверждается данными современных диалектов, однако она не засвидетельствована в древнерусских памятниках. Слабым местом моей реконструкции является прояснение слабых редуцированных в позициях, где оно нужно исключительно из метрических соображений. В работе, подобной этой, невозможно избежать домыслов и рискованных допущений, ряд выдвинутых гипотез находится «на грани фола», однако в целом моя реконструкция построена на фактах и их интерпретациях, являясь таким образом научным исследованием. В работе используютмя результаты смежных наук ‒ в первую очередь стиховедения. Представленная в настоящей книге реконструкция «Слова» является первым опытом системного моделирования стихотворного текста на гипотетическом древнерусском диалекте XII‒XIII в., существование которого весьма вероятно. Мне хотелось бы надеяться, что моя работа внесет свою скромную лепту в изучение великого памятника древнерусской литературы.

The Tale of Igor’s Campaign is probably the oldest Slavic epic available, recorded later than what oral tradition and linguistic details reflect, like the oldest Indo-Iranian texts. It contains many details interesting for Proto-Slavic (and North-West Indo-European) language and culture reconstruction.

For those confusing recent attestation of languages with their relevance for comparative grammar, I would suggest Martin Joachim Kümmel‘s article Is ancient old and modern new? Fallacies of attestation and reconstruction (with special focus on Indo-Iranian).

Featured image: Viktor Vasnetsov. After Igor Svyatoslavich’s fighting with the Polovtsy (Photographer, referenced in Wikipedia).