PDA

View Full Version : N1c in the Balts



Pages : 1 [2] 3 4

Shaikorth
09-21-2016, 06:30 AM
Based on moderns WB have their own subclade under M2783.
Highest diversity of M2783 is in LT.
Hotspot (as in frequency, not sure if also diversity ) is in NE LT, which according to Lang's article picture 1 is also hotspot of first fortified hillforts.

The best match for the birth of M2783 seems to be the timeframe when fortified sites appear further in Latvia and Lithuania during early 1st millennium BC.

@Gravetto-Danubian
It's usually early Indo-Iranian loans that are used to root Uralic expansion, as it happened later than PIE. Loans from PIE itself could have gone to even pre-PU, dating is more vague there.

Kristiina
09-21-2016, 06:30 AM
Neolithic in Finland I am afraid will neither explain Baltic nor Baltic Finnic ethnogenesys...

How do you know that considering the total abscence of ancient DNA from the relevant areas...

In any case, there was an important metallurgical centre in the Uralic area (Garino-Bor). We could even suggest that the high frequency of N1c in Balts, including their rulers, is due to their skills in metallurgy which was brought from the east.

Shaikorth
09-21-2016, 06:37 AM
How do you know that considering the total abscence of ancient DNA from the relevant areas...


Because linguistics do not support the idea and this is a linguistic issue no matter how much DNA stone age people have left in moderns.

Gravetto-Danubian
09-21-2016, 08:13 AM
@Gravetto-Danubian
It's usually early Indo-Iranian loans that are used to root Uralic expansion, as it happened later than PIE. Loans from PIE itself could have gone to even pre-PU, dating is more vague there.

I agree Shaik, about the IA loans- thats uncontroversial

But the loans at the actual PIE level are more questionable, are they not ? They could even have been transmitted via Indo Aryans still, just as a genetic group of people migrating carry some old (relict) haplogroups along with their predominant newer ones

Kristiina, what are your thoughts ?

I am excited for you guys, soon the Baltic and Finns will have some hard & very interesting data

parastais
09-21-2016, 08:51 AM
In any case, there was an important metallurgical centre in the Uralic area (Garino-Bor). We could even suggest that the high frequency of N1c in Balts, including their rulers, is due to their skills in metallurgy which was brought from the east.
Yeap. That sounds credible. And Valter Lang article provides some archeological insights as to the process. Just ignore the etimologies proposed, he is historian not linguist.

But - Finnish Neolithic - no, no...

Kristiina
09-21-2016, 08:58 AM
It need not be Finnic. It can be para-Uralic. You are omitting the para-linguistic dimension. It may well be that the proto-Uralic expanded to Finland c. 1500 BC as suggested, but we cannot exclude that similar languages were already spoken in the area. In any case, Pauli Rahkonen in his Academic dissertation, concludes the following:

"The opaque hydronyms are substrate names originating from some unknown language(s). They may originate from extinct Uralic languages or from some Paleo-European language(s). If the language was Uralic, it would be possible to compare the words behind the names with modern languages or with Uralic protolanguages."

"In Central and Northern Russia the number of substrate names is very high. According to Matveev, there exist in Arkhangelsk and Vologda oblasts more than 100 000 substrate names originating from Finno-Ugric languages (see Saarikivi 2000: 405). For the most part, the languages behind those names are now extinct."

In general, I find this statement by Rahkonen very convincing:

"The south-west limit of the Finno-Ugrian substrate toponyms observes the boundary of the Volosovo and Textile Ceramics cultures pretty accurately. For this reason, it can be supposed that the boundary of these ceramic cultures has been a linguistic boundary demarcating tribes speaking Finno-Ugrian languages from various Indo-European groups for a long period. It should be noted that Finno-Ugrian toponyms are not to be found on the other side of the cultural border between the Volosovo and Textile Ceramics, that is, in the Smolensk oblasť, except on its very northern and eastern borders. On the other hand, Indo-European groups have apparently migrated to areas considered to be Finno-Ugrian. Seemingly these were represented by members of the Fatjanovo and Abaševo cultures.

Source: Pauli Rahkonen, 2013, South-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics
Academic dissertation to be publicly discussed, by due permission of the Faculty of Arts at the University of Helsinki

Gravetto-Danubian
09-21-2016, 09:28 AM
IMO FU reached far north-eastern Europe with Seima Turbino, and reached the Baltic coast from Finland

Shaikorth
09-21-2016, 09:42 AM
IMO FU reached far north-eastern Europe with Seima Turbino, and reached the Baltic coast from Finland

There are studies about that linked earlier in the thread. IMO the most likely scenario Estonia and the Baltic was where Finnic came first, from Russia, and from there spread to Finland during the Iron Age. Karelians and Vepsians are an even later expansion. These areas were beforehand populated by Saamic speakers who got there during late Bronze Age.

Kristiina
09-21-2016, 09:44 AM
IMO FU reached far north-eastern Europe with Seima Turbino, and reached the Baltic coast from Finland

The last part could be true, but I disagree with the first part. :-)

IMO, Seima Turbino does not fit, if it orginated in Altai, as explained on Wikipedia. Metal working in Altai is Karasuk and it is not a good fit autosomally or haplogroup-wise with Uralic groups. I presume that Garino Bor will be a better fit if we ever get ancient DNA.

Toponyms are in any case "hard linguistic data", and I do not find it plausible that a few recent horse-back riders from Altai would have left 100 000 substrate names in Arkhangelsk and Vologda oblasts.

However, I do not have a fixed mindset/theory and I can change my views if needed.

Gravetto-Danubian
09-21-2016, 09:51 AM
Thanks
If we look back at der Sarkissians mtDNA study, "eastern" mtDNA only arrives 1500 BC in Bolshoi Oleni Ostrov
Maybe it's the same for Estonia & Latvia ?
Yet, mtDNA C is found in Ukrainian Neolithic
So maybe FU had a lengthy "lay-over" in the Volga-Kama region ?



----------
When Michal was explaining that Balts have a specific sub-sub-lineage of Fenno-Scandian Y hg N1c, did this exclude Estonians ?

Shaikorth
09-21-2016, 10:04 AM
Thanks
If we look back at der Sarkissians mtDNA study, "eastern" mtDNA only arrives 1500 BC in Bolshoi Oleni Ostrov
Maybe it's the same for Estonia & Latvia ?
Yet, mtDNA C is found in Ukrainian Neolithic
So maybe FU had a lengthy "lay-over" in the Volga-Kama region ?



----------
When Michal was explaining that Balts have a specific sub-sub-lineage of Fenno-Scandian Y hg N1c, did this exclude Estonians ?

The ancient MtDNA C sites almost certainly reflect very different population movements. Besides Ukraine it's in Mesolithic Karelian EHG's too, but Bolshoy Oleni Ostrov is in a distinct Arctic cultural sphere that isn't linked to Samara/Karelia HG cultures of the Mesolithic, or to Corded Ware or Seima-Turbino.

Kristiina
09-21-2016, 10:11 AM
If we look back at der Sarkissians mtDNA study, "eastern" mtDNA only arrives 1500 BC in Bolshoi Oleni Ostrov

So you appear to think that Bolshoy Oleni ostrov people spoke proto-Uralic and came from somewhere in the Minusinsk Basin. However, that is even more in disagreement with the current linguistic views than what I proposed above.

parastais
09-21-2016, 10:55 AM
Estonians have very diverse N, but 1 in 3/4 Est Ns is under M2783.
LT has >95 of 100
LV has ~90 of 100

Volat
09-21-2016, 11:06 AM
There are studies about that linked earlier in the thread. IMO the most likely scenario Estonia and the Baltic was where Finnic came first, from Russia, and from there spread to Finland during the Iron Age. Karelians and Vepsians are an even later expansion. These areas were beforehand populated by Saamic speakers who got there during late Bronze Age.

According to archaeologist Valter Lang migration into Finland were from two directions : Estonia and Karelia. http://www.oulu.fi/sites/default/files/content/CIFU12-PlenaryPapers.pdf


Formation of Proto-Finnic – an archaeological scenario from the Bronze Age / Early Iron Age by Valter Lang, University of Tartu, Estonia. International Finno-Ugric congress , 2015.



Conclusions On the basis of what was claimed previously one could make the following conclusions (Figure, see appendix).


1. A common horizon for both Pre-Proto-Saami and Pre-Proto-Finnic (if it indeed existed) can only be found in the Volga–Oka region in the Bronze Age;

2. From there two branches of cultural influences spread westwards, one through the North-Western and another through the South-Western Passage of Contacts. The former can be connected with Pre-Proto-Saami and the latter with Pre-Proto-Finnic.

3. Both movements took place in several waves lasting over many centuries. The first Pre-Proto-Saami movements perhaps started already within the Textile Ware networks, but they certainly continued in the later Bronze Age / Early Iron Age (Anan’ino influences). The Pre-Proto-Finnic speakers started to shift westwards at the end of the second millennium BC.

4. After a few centuries, these two branches of western Finno-Ugrians met again somewhere in Finland; they spoke similar languages, but those who came from the South-Western Passage had already obtained a rather strong Proto-Baltic ‘accent’.

5. On the shores of the Baltic, the Pre-Proto-Finnic newcomers met a mixed population speaking (several?) aboriginal and Proto-Germanic languages, the latter being in the dominant position.

6. In the following processes the biggest role was played by new waves of immigrants from the east; a particularly important wave was the one that brought along fortified settlements, bronze axes of the Akozino-Mälar type and early tarand-graves in the 9th–8th centuries BC. This wave also reached the western shores of the Baltic establishing in this way an axis of contacts between the bronze work centres in the Volga–Kama region and Scandinavia.

7. As a result of these processes and language contacts with Proto-Baltic, Proto-Germanic, and some Palaeo-European, Proto-Finnic emerged and it also achieved the dominant position at least in what are today coastal Estonia, SW Finland, and the Daugava valley in Latvia. However, as more intensive and developing processes concentrated next on the coastal areas further north, it is easy to imagine the mechanisms of the separation of one portion of Proto-Finnic-population – the one that was later called South Estonian.


https://s12.postimg.io/m49gshl71/image.png

Shaikorth
09-21-2016, 11:17 AM
According to archaeologist Valter Lang migration into Finland were from two directions : Estonia and Karelia. http://www.oulu.fi/sites/default/files/content/CIFU12-PlenaryPapers.pdf


Formation of Proto-Finnic – an archaeological scenario from the Bronze Age / Early Iron Age by Valter Lang, University of Tartu, Estonia. International Finno-Ugric congress , 2015.


The idea of northern passage group being pre-proto-Saami is also supported by other papers. That model could easily lead to this schematic:

http://oi63.tinypic.com/15g80nq.jpg

edit.
The "proto-Baltic" perhaps should be "proto-West Baltic" or something more distinct.

Kristiina
09-21-2016, 11:30 AM
The idea that proto-Uralic was spoken in Lapland is against existing substrate theories. Petri Kallio points out in his article "The language contact situation in prehistoric Northeastern Europe" that:

"While we can say at least something about Uralic substrates in North-eastern Europe, non-Uralic substrates cannot at all easily be identified, because of multiple language shifts, viz. first from non-Uralic to Uralic and then from Uralic to Russian. Yet the Soviet Uralicist Boris Serebrennikov (1956, 1959) argued that there are some non-Uralic substrate toponyms in the Volga-Oka region, but his idea was never taken seriously in the west (cf. Sauvageot 1958), and it pretty soon also sank into oblivion in Russia, even though it can still occasionally pop up there in non-onomastic circles (cf. Napolskikh 1995: 18–19). However, not all the hypotheses on non-Uralic substrates in Northeastern Europe should be rejected (see e.g. Helimski 2001b). No doubt the most convincing substrate theory has recently been put forward by the Saami Uralicist Ante Aikio (2004), who has not only re-habilitated but also improved the old idea of a non-Uralic substrate in Saami. His study shows that there were still non-Uralic languages spoken in Northern Fennoscandia as recently as the first millennium. Most of all, they were not only genetically non-Uralic but also typo logically non-Uralic-looking, bearing a closer resemblance to the so-called Palaeo-European substrates (for which see e.g. Schrijver 2001; Vennemann 2003)."

"In comparison, the case of Finnic is much more difficult. The fact that Proto-Uralic was not spoken in the East Baltic region means that this area must originally have been non-Uralic-speaking, but so far the evidence for a non-Uralic substrate in Finnic has consisted of appellatives and proper names with no etymology (cf. Ariste 1971; Saarikivi 2004a). Contrary to the proposed substrate words in Saami, THOSE IN FINNIC SHOW NO STRUCTURAL NON-URALISMS, AS IF THEY HAD INDEED BEEN BORROWED FROM SOME GENETICALLY RELATED OR AT LEAST TYPOLOGICALLY SIMILAR LANGUAGES, AS I SUGGESTED ABOVE. Also none of them is more recent than the Middle Proto-Finnic stage, which makes them at least two millennia old. All this agrees with archaeological evidence discussed earlier that the Uralicization of the East Baltic region occurred during the Bronze Age (ca. 1900–500 BC). Of course, such a time depth makes it hard to find non-Uralic substrate features, but it is not the only reason for their limited number, because it is most likely that many substrate features have so far erroneously been interpreted as superstrate features, namely those from Indo-European."

Petri Kallio"The Language Contact Situation in Prehistoric Northeastern Europe"
(http://www.academia.edu/20252178/The_Language_Contact_Situation_in_Prehistoric_Nort heastern_Europe)

parastais
09-21-2016, 11:41 AM
Shaikorth, what is dating for that figure?

Gravetto-Danubian
09-21-2016, 11:47 AM
I have no definite theory about the origin of FU, nor even PIE yet. Maybe I'm a bit slow. But I do like Ante & Kallios theories for FU.

I think the history of N is very layered, and I wouldnt be surprised if N appears very early in Europe, obviously not too commonly. There are some very early, incl. the earliest sub-clade in the Near East & Balkans, the point is early drifting of N west.

NB: You should read Nichol's new theory on FU, when it comes out.

Shaikorth
09-21-2016, 12:02 PM
Shaikorth, what is dating for that figure?

I'm not 100% sure, it's from the "A Linguistic Map of Prehistoric Northern Europe" collection

parastais
09-21-2016, 06:16 PM
All this agrees with archaeological evidence discussed earlier that the Uralicization of the East Baltic region occurred during the Bronze Age (ca. 1900–500 BC).
I see no issues agreeing with Kallio. He is one of my favorite Finnish linguists.

Kristiina
09-21-2016, 07:09 PM
Have you read the excerpt chapters from Anthony's new "Samara Valley Project & evolution of pastoral economies in Eurasian steppe"?

Another good read re: archaeology is "Formation of the Indo-European and Uralic (Finno-Ugric) language families in the light of archaeology: Revised and integrated ‘total’ correlations" which may have been linked here before.

No, I haven't! However, today I saved those articles on my computer, and printed out the first one. I will read them whenever I have time. I recently read another article by Parpola and I may just as well read also this one. Thanks for the tips!

lgmayka
09-21-2016, 10:24 PM
Also from what I remember, Y4706 has been found at low frequencies South of the Baltic Sea.
In the Polish Project, kits 172478 and N9209 have tested Y4706+ .

172478 - No Y-DNA matches beyond the 25-marker level
N9209 - No Y-DNA matches at any marker level

Thus, modern-era migration is ruled out, especially since Finland is extremely well-tested in FTDNA's database.

Unfortunately, neither has ordered the Big Y.

MikkaK
09-22-2016, 02:28 AM
In the Polish Project, kits 172478 and N9209 have tested Y4706+ .

172478 - No Y-DNA matches beyond the 25-marker level
N9209 - No Y-DNA matches at any marker level

Thus, modern-era migration is ruled out, especially since Finland is extremely well-tested in FTDNA's database.

Unfortunately, neither has ordered the Big Y.

Yes, these are two of the kits I was thinking of. I believe Y4706 has been found around Kursk as well. This is interesting because L1025 is fairly common in the region, including two of the few known kits that are L1025+ Y4706- M2783-.

In my opinion, L1025 represents a migration that happened after the main Balto-Finnic CTS9976+ arrival into Finland and (L1025) should be considered a Proto-Baltic SNP.

CTS9976 on the other hand would represent the the Balto-Finnic migration North from Estonia into Finland.

Z1933 would then represent an entrance from the Ladoga region into Finland from Northwestern Russia. They likely weren't Balto-Finnic speakers but I have my doubts about them being Proto-Saami.

Shaikorth
09-22-2016, 07:12 AM
The problem with L1025 is that the timeframe between it and L550 is short, and L550 is even more likely to come from Estonia or thereabouts based on diversity. M2783 is the only one that we could confidently call Baltic for now.

https://www.yfull.com/tree/N/
Also tree here
https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/dunkel-y-dna/about/news

Z1933 is even younger than M2783, to be honest it looks like a founder effect in Northern Finnic and not a separate migration.

Volat
09-22-2016, 07:41 AM
M2783 is the only one that we could confidently call Baltic for now.

It's not just Baltic. It's also Slavic. In absolute numbers

Russia 145*0.07 = 10.15
Belarus 9.5*0.1 = 0.950
Ukraine 45 * 0.05 = 2.25
Poland 38 * 0.05 = 1.9

In total 15.25 mln/ Or if male to female ratio is equal, then 7.63 mln Slavic males have M2783 marker, which is larger than entire populations of Lithuania and Latvia.

parastais
09-22-2016, 09:14 AM
It's not just Baltic. It's also Slavic. In absolute numbers

Russia 145*0.07 = 10.15
Belarus 9.5*0.1 = 0.950
Ukraine 45 * 0.05 = 2.25
Poland 38 * 0.05 = 1.9

In total 15.25 mln/ Or if male to female ratio is equal, then 7.63 mln Slavic males have M2783 marker, which is larger than entire populations of Lithuania and Latvia.
There are more Slavified Balts than Baltic Balts. It makes sense looking at how big territory Balts had and how big it is now.

Volat
09-22-2016, 09:23 AM
There are more Slavified Balts than Baltic Balts. It makes sense looking at how big territory Balts had and how big it is now.

Original Lithuanians and Latgalians baltified some Slavs (Krivichi) too. Sedov stated that both Polotsk Krivichi and Latgalians were Balto-Slavic communities. Slavic language prevailed among Polotsk Krivichi, while Baltic language among Latgalians. Some scholars argued that Krivichi slavicised Balts first. Cultural and linguistic occurred on numeroous occasions. What we know for a fact, modern day Slavs have more M2783 carriers than Balts. It's probably more diverse among Russians and Belarusians than Lithuanians and Latvians too. Balts settled on vast territories of eastern Europe. But those Balts were our ancestors.

The same can be said about the Z92 marker

parastais
09-22-2016, 09:37 AM
I think in absolute numbers also Germans have more 2783 than Latvians. It was like 1% of N in Germany.

parastais
09-22-2016, 10:07 AM
Sedov stated that both Polotsk Krivichi and Latgalians were Balto-Slavic communities. Slavic language prevailed among Polotsk Krivichi, while Baltic language among Latgalians. er
Balto-Slavic would mean they were of other BS branch (not East B, not West B, not Slavs).
But they were probably mix of Balts and Slavs?
Do you have link to that Sedov work?

Volat
09-22-2016, 10:44 AM
Balto-Slavic would mean they were of other BS branch (not East B, not West B, not Slavs).
But they were probably mix of Balts and Slavs?
Do you have link to that Sedov work?

I think Sedov meant the communities consisted of Balts and Slavs , rather than people speaking a transitional Balto-Slavic dialect.

Litva and Krivichi , Sedov : http://talpykla.istorija.lt/bitstream/handle/99999/1597/LA_21_81-88.pdf
Latgalians and Krivichi, Sedov : https://app.box.com/s/k2qvzc5htfh2aalsrrpv

Kristiina
09-22-2016, 11:57 AM
Because linguistics do not support the idea and this is a linguistic issue no matter how much DNA stone age people have left in moderns.

It occurred to me only now that in the Yamnaya case it is in fact autosomal DNA and the autosomal similarity that is used as evidence for linguistic relationship. From the archaeological point of view Corded Ware and Bell Beaker are not direct descendants of the Yamnaya Culture and they do not share the same yDNA. So, if we find R1a1 in Baltic Corded Ware but people are autosomally as close to Finns as Yamnaya are e.g. to Germans, we could argue that Baltic Corded Ware spoke Uralic. Udmurts are autosomally the closest population to Yamnaya and they live near the Samara Yamnaya just as modern Balts live near the Baltic Corded Ware and will probably be the closest population to Baltic Corded Ware, but nobody is suggesting that Yamnaya spoke Uralic.

I am not claiming that the Baltic Corded Ware or Yamnaya spoke proto-Uralic but I wanted to add this because there are things that are taken for granted and my impression is that Uralists often apply more rigorous standards than many Indo-Europeanists.

Volat
09-22-2016, 12:18 PM
Kristina!

Recently, it has been held by scholars that Uralic languages are younger than IE languages in the Baltic region. There have been many rigorous studies on IE linguistics and IE origins published. I don't think any linguistic branch and culture attracted as much attention as IE for obvious reasons. We are awaiting for ancient DNA from the Baltics. I am willing to bet R1a1 was the dominant haplogroup in the region, while N1c1 was absent. N1c1 appeared in east Baltic in the last 2,500 years only.

parastais
09-22-2016, 12:46 PM
Some N in/near Baltics was before that. We know it from Chekunova.
That of course does not make Uralic Battle axe idea any less absurd :)

P.s. Baltic battle axe was hardly linguistic Baltic or Balto-Slavic either. Balts came later

Volat
09-22-2016, 12:55 PM
P.s. Baltic battle axe was hardly linguistic Baltic or Balto-Slavic either. Balts came later

Where do you think our ancestors (ancestors of Balts and Slavs, let's call them Balts) lived 3,000 years ago?

MikkaK
09-22-2016, 01:08 PM
The problem with L1025 is that the timeframe between it and L550 is short, and L550 is even more likely to come from Estonia or thereabouts based on diversity. M2783 is the only one that we could confidently call Baltic for now.

https://www.yfull.com/tree/N/
Also tree here
https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/dunkel-y-dna/about/news

Z1933 is even younger than M2783, to be honest it looks like a founder effect in Northern Finnic and not a separate migration.


According to Stanislaw Plewako of the Baltic Sea project at FtDNA both L550 and L1025 are Russian in origin. L1025 then left the Upper Oka region around 2500ybp, migrating towards the Balts.

About Z1933, it is usually seen as the splitting point between Savo and Karelians. Any Z1936 branch could be from the original Ladoga people.

parastais
09-22-2016, 01:11 PM
Where do you think our ancestors (ancestors of Balts and Slavs, let's call them Balts) lived 3,000 years ago?
Balts or part of them lived in ~North Belarus around 1000 bce where they had interactions with incoming to be Baltic Finns.
Everything else is moreuncertain

Shaikorth
09-22-2016, 01:38 PM
According to Stanislaw Plewako of the Baltic Sea project at FtDNA both L550 and L1025 are Russian in origin. L1025 then left the Upper Oka region around 2500ybp, migrating towards the Balts.

About Z1933, it is usually seen as the splitting point between Savo and Karelians. Any Z1936 branch could be from the original Ladoga people.

The Baltic sea project's description of L1025 (https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/balticsea/about/news) looks old, there's not even a mention of M2783 which has been found to define Balts and those Slavs who took over their range. VL29 and Z1936 are too old to have anything to do with Ladoga or the Baltic, the latter for instance has branches that can clearly be linked to Magna Hungarians and are totally absent in the north. The well known genetic bottleneck in Finland coincides with Z1933 mutation and its expansion explaining how it became the most common Finnish N1c type. In Dunkels's tree one sub-branch is named Karelian and other Savonian but they're in fact all over the country. As per Yfull, branches closely preceding Z1933 are rare, and found in South Finland and Sweden as would be expected if it came from a southern migration like L550 and CTS9976.


Russian L550+ L1025- in Yfull is related to the Rurikid branch, and nested within L550+ diversity of various places Vikings visited with MRCA around 1000 years ago.

Volat
09-22-2016, 01:39 PM
Balts or part of them lived in ~North Belarus around 1000 bce where they had interactions with incoming to be Baltic Finns.
Everything else is moreuncertain
Being a northern Belarusian by descent I am flattered to know ancestors of Balts and Slavs may have lived in the region of my ancestry. :)

parastais
09-22-2016, 02:42 PM
But then I have a lot of issues on West Balts. Or who lived in Lithuania then. Oir

Volat
09-22-2016, 02:49 PM
But then I have a lot of issues on West Balts. Or who lived in Lithuania then. Oir
What issues do you have with western Balts? I also know who lived on territories of present day Lithuania - eastern Balts, western Balts, Slavs in southern areas. I can describe in details the Balts and Slavs settled Lithuania if you want.

parastais
09-22-2016, 04:04 PM
What issues do you have with western Balts? I also know who lived on territories of present day Lithuania - eastern Balts, western Balts, Slavs in southern areas. I can describe in details the Balts and Slavs settled Lithuania if you want.

1000 Bce?

Volat
09-22-2016, 04:10 PM
1000 Bce?

I can discuss the Balts living on territories of present day Lithuania in reference to literature published by archaeologists, historians, linguists, ethnographers, anthropologists.

parastais
09-22-2016, 04:52 PM
I can discuss the Balts living on territories of present day Lithuania in reference to literature published by archaeologists, historians, linguists, ethnographers, anthropologists.
So, who lived in East Prussia, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia 1000 bce?

Volat
09-22-2016, 05:13 PM
So, who lived in East Prussia, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia 1000 bce?

Do you want to know who lived on these territories? Or do you want to test my knowledge about the Balts ? A single western Baltic tribe Yotvingians was diverse divided among 4 groups at least. Was their language really western or eastern Baltic? After looking at the dictionary of Yotvingian language consisting of 215 words (with many Slavic and Germanic loan-words) Zinkevicius stated Yotvingians were western Balts, while other linguists stated their language was similar to Lithuanian (eastern Baltic). Did Curonians speak western or eastern Baltic? Scholars continue to argue. Who were Selonians? They eastern Balts. But were they similar to Latgalians, Semigalians or Samogitians? What about Galindians and Dniepr Balts. There's little known about them. Although, we know they existed.

There's plenty to talk about the Balts that I don't know where to begin.

If you want to know about the Balts of 1000BC, then we will be discussing archaeological cultures and hydronyms. That's what is known about the Balts from that period. I can reference scholars who studied archaeological cultures of that period.

parastais
09-22-2016, 05:28 PM
Russian L550+ L1025- in Yfull is related to the Rurikid branch, and nested within L550+ diversity of various places Vikings visited with MRCA around 1000 years ago.
All Russian L550+ L1025- are Rurik's children??

Shaikorth
09-22-2016, 05:51 PM
All Russian L550+ L1025- are Rurik's children??

Probably not, but those in Yfull and SNP-tested FTdna projects appear to be in the same subclade of L550 as them.

Kristiina
09-22-2016, 06:17 PM
Volat, you are probably right and I do not disagree with you, but that was not my point. The point is the question to what extent we can use ancient DNA to resolve linguistic issues or should linguistic issues be resolved with linguistic means.

I support the use of ancient DNA, in particular yDNA, for identifying the language(s) spoken by a certain culture, because I think that tribes and languages were often related to certain yDNAs while wifes usually adopted their husband’s language. Of course, the result is not 100% sure. By contrast, mtDNA is a better indicator of the autosomal structure of a population.

Volat
09-22-2016, 06:25 PM
Volat, you are probably right and I do not disagree with you, but that was not my point. The point is the question to what extent we can use ancient DNA to resolve linguistic issues or should linguistic issues be resolved with linguistic means..

Kristina! Unlikely, we can solve linguistic issues using DNA evidence. A group of people hasnumerous ancestors who spoke different languages. A language has only a single linguistic ancestor. In our , Slavic case, it's Baltic or Balto-Slavic and Proto-Indo-European. We have different genetic ancestors who spoke IE , FU, Paleo-European languages.

parastais
09-22-2016, 07:41 PM
If you want to know about the Balts of 1000BC, then we will be discussing archaeological cultures and hydronyms. That's what is known about the Balts from that period. I can reference scholars who studied archaeological cultures of that period.
One of my interests and unclarity is West Balts. Where were their linguistic direct ancestors 1000 BCE? Were they already on place or did they arrive after 600 BCE?

Huck Finn
09-22-2016, 09:25 PM
In Dunkels's tree one sub-branch is named Karelian and other Savonian but they're in fact all over the country. As per Yfull, branches closely preceding Z1933 are rare, and found in South Finland and Sweden as would be expected if it came from a southern migration like L550 and CTS9976.

Not really, there's a rather clear geographical pattern and those nowadays known prior-Z1933 samples you mentioned are rather few, if I'm right. These lineages could very well represent both Saami speaking expansion and those Pre Proto Finnic groups (speakers of Rahkonen's X?), which did not take part in the later Finnic Proper related sound shifts etc., having been active in the Lang's Northern Passage and areas next to that.

Kristiina
09-22-2016, 09:25 PM
By the way, are you aware of anybody having done toponymic research in Yamnaya Samara area or in southern Yamnaya? Yamnaya culture is so old that most toponyms are surely much too recent, but such research would however be interesting.

Shaikorth
09-22-2016, 09:42 PM
Not really, there's a rather clear geographical pattern and those nowadays known prior-Z1933 samples you mentioned are rather few, if I'm right. These lineages could very well represent both Saami speaking expansion and those Pre Proto Finnic groups (speakers of Rahkonen's X?), which did not take part in the later Finnic Proper related sound shifts etc., having been active in the Lang's Northern Passage and areas next to that.

They are all over the country, just go check FTDNA's databases, but of course there are concentrations. Since Z1933 was in all likelihood born north of the Gulf of Finland, pre-Z1933's should be looked for and those are found in South Finland, West Finland and Sweden - and this is consistent with the southern passage unlike Karelia or East Finland would be. They are rare, which means before the Z1933 founder effect Z1936 frequency was likely low as it is in Estonia.

MikkaK
09-22-2016, 10:00 PM
The Baltic sea project's description of L1025 (https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/balticsea/about/news) looks old, there's not even a mention of M2783 which has been found to define Balts and those Slavs who took over their range. VL29 and Z1936 are too old to have anything to do with Ladoga or the Baltic, the latter for instance has branches that can clearly be linked to Magna Hungarians and are totally absent in the north. The well known genetic bottleneck in Finland coincides with Z1933 mutation and its expansion explaining how it became the most common Finnish N1c type. In Dunkels's tree one sub-branch is named Karelian and other Savonian but they're in fact all over the country. As per Yfull, branches closely preceding Z1933 are rare, and found in South Finland and Sweden as would be expected if it came from a southern migration like L550 and CTS9976.


Russian L550+ L1025- in Yfull is related to the Rurikid branch, and nested within L550+ diversity of various places Vikings visited with MRCA around 1000 years ago.

I was not refering to the Baltic Sea projects description of L1025 but a comment Mr. Plewako made in April,

"New results for Mr. Ryabov #473565. He is, like Shekhovtsov, L1025+ M2783- Y4706- and come form region of Kursk-Voronez-Oka river where are known ancient Baltic language dialects (suffixes -eja, -ejka in names of rivers on this territory ), map from the book of Antoniewicz.

In addition all Balts (Western and "Eastern"= Latvian-Lithuanian tribes are M2783+ and all Finnish/Swedish branch of L1025 is Y4706+

So my conclusion is that those tribes we should call "Proto-balts" because it is a starting population for two branches: Balts (M2783) and Transbothnians (Fennoscandians) L1025 Y4706 (Finnish/Swedish population) ".

As far as I know, L550* is most common in Russia. I have never heard of an Estonian theory of origin for L550 but I will keep an open mind, although it seems unlikley if L1025 was born in the Upper Oka region. But again Estonian DNA is very lacking so it is hard to say for certain.

Shaikorth
09-22-2016, 10:14 PM
I was not refering to the Baltic Sea projects description of L1025 but a comment Mr. Plewako made in April,

"New results for Mr. Ryabov #473565. He is, like Shekhovtsov, L1025+ M2783- Y4706- and come form region of Kursk-Voronez-Oka river where are known ancient Baltic language dialects (suffixes -eja, -ejka in names of rivers on this territory ), map from the book of Antoniewicz.

In addition all Balts (Western and "Eastern"= Latvian-Lithuanian tribes are M2783+ and all Finnish/Swedish branch of L1025 is Y4706+

So my conclusion is that those tribes we should call "Proto-balts" because it is a starting population for two branches: Balts (M2783) and Transbothnians (Fennoscandians) L1025 Y4706 (Finnish/Swedish population) ".

As far as I know, L550* is most common in Russia. I have never heard of an Estonian theory of origin for L550 but I will keep an open mind, although it seems unlikley if L1025 was born in the Upper Oka region. But again Estonian DNA is very lacking so it is hard to say for certain.

L1025 had to be born where L550 was because the mutations are not far apart at all - all modern individuals are over 2500 years away from the root while between L550 and L1025 there's a few centuries at best. The greatest L550 diversity is around Finland and Sweden, but IMO Estonia is much more likely origin for the clade.

Look at where snp-tested L550+ L1025- clades are located - around Gulf of Finland and Sweden, and my guess is that Estonia a more likely birthplace than Sweden or Finland.

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/N%20Russia%20%20DNA%20Project?iframe=ymap

MikkaK
09-22-2016, 11:57 PM
L1025 had to be born where L550 was because the mutations are not far apart at all - all modern individuals are over 2500 years away from the root while between L550 and L1025 there's a few centuries at best. The greatest L550 diversity is around Finland and Sweden, but IMO Estonia is much more likely origin for the clade.

Look at where snp-tested L550+ L1025- clades are located - around Gulf of Finland and Sweden, and my guess is that Estonia a more likely birthplace than Sweden or Finland.

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/N%20Russia%20%20DNA%20Project?iframe=ymap

The kits you mentioned are not L550*. They are negative only for L1025 but judging by their STR results they are likely Y7795 or Y9454. They where probably tested before YDNA offered tests for these SNPs.

parastais
09-23-2016, 05:08 AM
I was not refering to the Baltic Sea projects description of L1025 but a comment Mr. Plewako made in April,

"New results for Mr. Ryabov #473565. He is, like Shekhovtsov, L1025+ M2783- Y4706- and come form region of Kursk-Voronez-Oka river where are known ancient Baltic language dialects (suffixes -eja, -ejka in names of rivers on this territory ), map from the book of Antoniewicz.

In addition all Balts (Western and "Eastern"= Latvian-Lithuanian tribes are M2783+ and all Finnish/Swedish branch of L1025 is Y4706+

So my conclusion is that those tribes we should call "Proto-balts" because it is a starting population for two branches: Balts (M2783) and Transbothnians (Fennoscandians) L1025 Y4706 (Finnish/Swedish population) ".

As far as I know, L550* is most common in Russia. I have never heard of an Estonian theory of origin for L550 but I will keep an open mind, although it seems unlikley if L1025 was born in the Upper Oka region. But again Estonian DNA is very lacking so it is hard to say for certain.
So, Kursk have their own L1025 that is not found outside of it.
1) Do they have their own L550 L1025-
2) do they have their own M2783 subclade

Probably not yet.
Anyway interesting. I would use instead of proto-Balts however - proto-NE-European smiths :)

Shaikorth
09-23-2016, 05:24 AM
The kits you mentioned are not L550*. They are negative only for L1025 but judging by their STR results they are likely Y7795 or Y9454. They where probably tested before YDNA offered tests for these SNPs.

The point isn't that they aren't L550* - no one is. The point is that the greatest diversity of subclades (Y20911, FGC14542, Y7795, Y9454 is around the northern Baltic, not in southern Russia. The guy in Kursk isn't ancestral to M2783 and Y4706 either, he's got his own branch. It's similar to how there's one "I1-L573*" (1000 years older than N-L1025) in Scotland and then subclades with additional known SNP's in Scandinavia and elsewhere. This doesn't mean that the clade comes from Bronze Age Scotland rather than from continental Europe like I1 generally does, it means that a descendant of a so far undefined subclade was in Scotland but he probably got there later than during the Bronze Age.

Edit. there's also L1025+ Y4706- M2783- in Finland and Arkhangelsk Oblast, experimentally going with M9062.

Volat
09-23-2016, 06:13 AM
The upper Oka river region is definitely an ancient Baltic settlement of late bronze and iron age.

The Yuknovskaya archaeological culture (5BC-2AD) is a good representation of ancient Baltic culture located in what is present day borders of western Russia, south-eastern Belarus and north-eastern Ukraine.

North-eastern Ukrainians living the basin of Desna river are anthropologically, genetically, culturally, linguistically similar to Slavs settled in former Baltic regions – Belarus and western Russian (Smolensk and Briansk). Among Ukrainians, N1c1 marker peaks in north-eastern Ukraine – present day Chernihiv region.
R1a-Z92+ may have spread from the region. The Yuknovskaya archaeological culture.
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AE%D1%85%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D 1%8F_%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80%D0 %B0

Huck Finn
09-23-2016, 06:34 AM
They are all over the country...They are rare, which means before the Z1933 founder effect Z1936 frequency was likely low as it is in Estonia.
Yes, there are just few of those and I don't personally believe that Z1933 was born north of Gulf of Finland, for instance because of Z1941 distribution, also in Estonia. Remains to be seen. Regarding the later developments, I'd look at Textile Ceramic groups such as Sarsa, Tomitsa and Kalmistonmäki-Volkhov. The last group is not visible in the map, being located mainly in the surroundings of later Novgorod.

http://www.helsinki.fi/hum/arla/keram/st.html#Levintakartta

P.S. In terms of timing vs. Textile Ceramic groups, I mixed Z1933 with the earlier Pre-Finn type of SNP's, sorry for that. Still, IMO the birthplace of Z1933 is somewhere next to Ladoga.

Shaikorth
09-23-2016, 07:01 AM
Yes, there are just few of those and I don't personally believe that Z1933 was born north of Gulf of Finland, for instance because of Z1941 distribution, also in Estonia. Remains to be seen. Regarding the later developments, I'd look at Textile Ceramic groups such as Sarsa, Tomitsa and Kalmistonmäki-Volkhov. The last group is not visible in the map, being located mainly in the surroundings of later Novgorod.

http://www.helsinki.fi/hum/arla/keram/st.html#Levintakartta

Isn't the Estonian Z1941 likely recent as it in Sweden? The immediate predecessors of Z1933 are in (South & West) Finland, and its immediate subclades are in Finland. We've seen Y-DNA founder effects following a population movement like this (expansion of Finnic) with other haplos.

Huck Finn
09-23-2016, 07:24 AM
Isn't the Estonian Z1941 likely recent as it in Sweden? The immediate predecessors of Z1933 are in (South & West) Finland, and its immediate subclades are in Finland. We've seen Y-DNA founder effects following a population movement like this (expansion of Finnic) with other haplos.

Possibly, but we don't know. Take N1c1 - 0761 Karelian Branch DYS607 = 16 - N-VL62+ experimental T16537440C+ 453779 Serov in Murom, for instance. If there's no need for any statistical proof, one might think that it is not coincindental that Serov was found in Murom, as there is a archeologically visible connetion between that place and both SE Ladoga area and Ingrian Plain. So, it is either first VL62 coming to Ladoga area/Ingria from SW Finland or it happened to born somewhere there. I'd guess it was the later, too early for any Finnic expansion but we don't know.

Shaikorth
09-23-2016, 07:40 AM
Possibly, but we don't know. Take N1c1 - 0761 Karelian Branch DYS607 = 16 - N-VL62+ experimental T16537440C+ 453779 Serov in Murom, for instance. If there's no need for any statistical proof, one might think that it is not coincindental that Serov was found in Murom, as there is a archeologically visible connetion between that place and both SE Ladoga area and Ingrian Plain. So, it is either first VL62 coming to Ladoga area/Ingria from SW Finland or it happened to born somewhere there. I'd guess it was the later, too early for any Finnic expansion but we don't know.

Z1933 has a 2200 bp. MRCA, VL62 is more recent, so it's not too early. Consider also that there is no Y9022, plentiful and old in the Volga region and Komis, in the Baltic states or Finland. If there were noteworthy Iron Age migrations from there to northwest, there probably should be.

Huck Finn
09-23-2016, 11:42 AM
Re VL62, IMO it is as there are VL62's in Karelian Isthmus, but none so far in SW Finland, if I'm right. If it was related to Finnic expansion from SW Finland, we should have found those guys already there. It may very well be connected to Pre Proto Finnic developments, even to Proto and Middle PF stage, but most probably then related to Ingria, possibly through East Proto Finnic.

parastais
09-23-2016, 11:51 AM
So, what about L550 in Finland?
this would be main candidate for South passage.

Shaikorth
09-23-2016, 12:00 PM
Re VL62, IMO it is as there are VL62's in Karelian Isthmus, but none so far in SW Finland, if I'm right. If it was related to Finnic expansion from SW Finland, we should have found those guys already there. It may very well be connected to Pre Proto Finnic developments, even to Proto and Middle PF stage, but most probably then related to Ingria, possibly through East Proto Finnic.

VL62+ Z1939- Z1941- clades are rare but found in South and West Finland in Yfull. But even their absence would likely be irrelevant because the immediate predecessors of Z1933 are there and VL62 is just one of Z1933's descendants. VL62 is too young to be pre-proto-Finnic in any case.

MikkaK
09-23-2016, 01:24 PM
The point isn't that they aren't L550* - no one is. The point is that the greatest diversity of subclades (Y20911, FGC14542, Y7795, Y9454 is around the northern Baltic, not in southern Russia. The guy in Kursk isn't ancestral to M2783 and Y4706 either, he's got his own branch. It's similar to how there's one "I1-L573*" (1000 years older than N-L1025) in Scotland and then subclades with additional known SNP's in Scandinavia and elsewhere. This doesn't mean that the clade comes from Bronze Age Scotland rather than from continental Europe like I1 generally does, it means that a descendant of a so far undefined subclade was in Scotland but he probably got there later than during the Bronze Age.

Edit. there's also L1025+ Y4706- M2783- in Finland and Arkhangelsk Oblast, experimentally going with M9062.

I have no doubt that L550+ branches lived in and possibly expanded out of Estonia, even though I think a West Russian origin is more academically accepted despite great diversity around the Baltic Sea. L550 was originally thought to have been born in West Siberia, although I doubt this theory even more.

My main point is that I don't think L1025 was present in Estonia at this time. It may have split off from L550 before it got to Estonia but this does not make sense if L550 was born in Estonia. Linguistic, archaeological and genetic evidence points to L1025 migrating out of the Upper Oka region with the Proto-Balts. The earliest L1025 could have entered Finland is 800BC and even that isn't very probable. M2783 are the Proto-Balts who became Balto-Slavic while Y4706 are Proto Balts who where assimilated by Swedes and Finns. Look at areas with Baltic loan words in Finland/Ukraine and Russia, then look at a Map of L1025 clades.

Shaikorth
09-23-2016, 01:58 PM
Academic studies aren't as up to date as hobbyists when it comes to many Y-DNA lines, not just N1c. Y4706 and M2783 are specific and recent enough that they haven't been really discussed in any academic study so far. Loanwords don't require population movements, just contacts, and the Y-DNA the first Balts spread could have just as well been R1a. Baltic hydronyms have been used to effectively define the range of Balts, and that doesn't extend to Sweden, Northern Russia, Finland or even Estonia with confidence. Ancient DNA from northeastern Ukraine and thereabouts will hopefully put this issue to rest for good.

Huck Finn
09-24-2016, 07:28 AM
@Shaik: There apparently were Non Finnic West Uralic groups in the areas of later Novgorod. So, Pre Proto Uralic might, actually, refer in practical terms to West Uralic. For instance Merya was apparently very archaic and contemporary with even Finnic Proper. Finnic was both Baltified and Germanized. This linguistic issue is not time restrained in the way you seem to think.

parastais
09-24-2016, 08:56 AM
Academic studies aren't as up to date as hobbyists when it comes to many Y-DNA lines, not just N1c. Y4706 and M2783 are specific and recent enough that they haven't been really discussed in any academic study so far. Loanwords don't require population movements, just contacts, and the Y-DNA the first Balts spread could have just as well been R1a. Baltic hydronyms have been used to effectively define the range of Balts, and that doesn't extend to Sweden, Northern Russia, Finland or even Estonia with confidence. Ancient DNA from northeastern Ukraine and thereabouts will hopefully put this issue to rest for good.
I wonder in which cultures attributed to Balts M2783 was already significant.
Modern distribution seems to correlate well with Baltic toponyms in general. Hotspot in modern Baltic states, present in NE Poland, Belarus. Probably have been in place since at least 1000 AD.

parastais
11-08-2016, 10:31 AM
Some interesting observations, that may perhaps be or not be relevant to this topic too.

From Tomenable, posted on other topic.

GEDmatch kit M483824 - RISE598 Lithuania LBA [908-485 BC]

Eurogenes K36:

Kit Number: M483824 Elapsed Time: 4.13 seconds

Population
Central_Euro 15.76
East_African 0.50
East_Central_Euro 48.96
Eastern_Euro 18.24
Fennoscandian 4.02
North_Sea 8.20
Volga-Ural 2.17
West_Med 2.15

If compare to modern Balts (Lithuanian data below, for Latvians it is even higher differences):
Central_Euro is down by 8%
East_Central_Euro down by 14%
FennoScandian up by 13%
North Atlantic up by 6%

So, instead of Central and East-Central Europeanness (which btw, still peaks in Baltics), we got extra FennoScandian + some extra North Atlantic. After 500 BCE.

We also most likely got our N after 500 BCE (which is ~ TMRCA for Baltic N subbranch).

So, I imagine two flows. One is FennoScandian N guys coming. And second is Germanic expansions bringing North Atlantic with them. North Atlantic is two times higher in Lithuania than Latvia (!), and even higher in West Ukraine, so it is some ancient Germanic thing, Goth-ish perhaps.

edit:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/5egbkjevo9l0g20/ClustersK36.xlsx
That is from user Volat, link with modern averages for K36

Gravetto-Danubian
11-08-2016, 10:41 AM
Some interesting observations, that may perhaps be or not be relevant to this topic too.

From Tomenable, posted on other topic.

GEDmatch kit M483824 - RISE598 Lithuania LBA [908-485 BC]

Eurogenes K36:

Kit Number: M483824 Elapsed Time: 4.13 seconds

Population
Central_Euro 15.76
East_African 0.50
East_Central_Euro 48.96
Eastern_Euro 18.24
Fennoscandian 4.02
North_Sea 8.20
Volga-Ural 2.17
West_Med 2.15

If compare to modern Balts (Lithuanian data below, for Latvians it is even higher differences):
Central_Euro is down by 8%
East_Central_Euro down by 14%
FennoScandian up by 13%
North Atlantic up by 6%

So, instead of Central and East-Central Europeanness (which btw, still peaks in Baltics), we got extra FennoScandian + some extra North Atlantic. After 500 BCE.

We also most likely got our N after 500 BCE (which is ~ TMRCA for Baltic N subbranch).

So, I imagine two flows. One is FennoScandian N guys coming. And second is Germanic expansions bringing North Atlantic with them. North Atlantic is two times higher in Lithuania than Latvia (!), and even higher in West Ukraine, so it is some ancient Germanic thing, Goth-ish perhaps.

edit:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/5egbkjevo9l0g20/ClustersK36.xlsx
That is from user Volat, link with modern averages for K36

Yes I agree, although this is a modern calculator (eg what do we make of the high ECE over "EE" in ancient Balts?), the late "Fenoscandian" appearance is an interesting piece of collateral evidence that hg N, and whatever language it brought, arrived to the Baltic rather late.
(#Epoch...)

parastais
03-03-2017, 07:35 PM
Some interesting stuff
"As we do not see Y-haplogroup N in any of the male samples from Lithuania and Latvia dated as late as 230 calBCE we propose that this element was brought into the genepool of the more southern region of the Baltic coast after the Late Bronze Age."
http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/e...13241.full.pdf
The Genetic History of Northern Europe
A.Mittnik et al.

parastais
03-03-2017, 07:43 PM
Oh my! I was ready to bet that Kivutkalns bronze working and trade center was (one of) the intrusion moment of N clans into Balts.
8 samples, 4 males, all R1a...

Michał
03-04-2017, 04:13 PM
Oh my! I was ready to bet that Kivutkalns bronze working and trade center was (one of) the intrusion moment of N clans into Balts.
8 samples, 4 males, all R1a...
In my case, this is exactly what I expected. ;)
So now I'm waiting for some aDNA data from Grobin and other Early Medieval "Scandinavian" sites in Baltic countries. As I mentioned before, I don't expect to find any significant amounts of N1c-M1783 among the Balts before the 6th-7th century AD.

parastais
03-05-2017, 07:43 AM
I read about Kivutkalns more.
In his last centuries (1-2 BCE) couple of things happened:
A) iron works appeared, that were modeled based on previous bronze works
B) Ananino object was found.
So, perhaps Kivutkalns was Baltic bronze center that diminished with beginnings of iron brought by N Ananino folk.
Other things on Kivutkalns- it had Brushed Pottery (Baltic culture), BUT its phenotype was believed to provide basis for Liivi (coastal Liivi). That is of course old anthropology..

Anyway its forum so I can speculate. Arrival of Ananino related folk meant slow decrease and Finnification of old Kivutkalns.

Tomenable
03-05-2017, 12:32 PM
Some interesting observations, that may perhaps be or not be relevant to this topic too.

From Tomenable, posted on other topic.

GEDmatch kit M483824 - RISE598 Lithuania LBA [908-485 BC]

Eurogenes K36:

Kit Number: M483824 Elapsed Time: 4.13 seconds

Population
Central_Euro 15.76
East_African 0.50
East_Central_Euro 48.96
Eastern_Euro 18.24
Fennoscandian 4.02
North_Sea 8.20
Volga-Ural 2.17
West_Med 2.15

If compare to modern Balts (Lithuanian data below, for Latvians it is even higher differences):
Central_Euro is down by 8%
East_Central_Euro down by 14%
FennoScandian up by 13%
North Atlantic up by 6%

So, instead of Central and East-Central Europeanness (which btw, still peaks in Baltics), we got extra FennoScandian + some extra North Atlantic. After 500 BCE.

We also most likely got our N after 500 BCE (which is ~ TMRCA for Baltic N subbranch).

So, I imagine two flows. One is FennoScandian N guys coming. And second is Germanic expansions bringing North Atlantic with them. North Atlantic is two times higher in Lithuania than Latvia (!), and even higher in West Ukraine, so it is some ancient Germanic thing, Goth-ish perhaps.

edit:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/5egbkjevo9l0g20/ClustersK36.xlsx
That is from user Volat, link with modern averages for K36

One Latvian woman posted a You Tube video with her DNA results and GEDmatch kit:

GEDmatch kit - A643022

Ancestry DNA results:

100% European
97% Europe East
3% Finland/Northwest Russia

More Lithuanian and Latvian GEDmatch kit numbers (published on another forum):

Lithuanians:

A356923
T840974
T582487
M120733
T854368
T209019
M367216
M609171
M437221
M085016
M639900
E580356
M002117
T589878
T847858
T786575
M349569
M830538
M661238

Latvians or Lithuanians:

A371761
T303486
M591047
A432031
M617488
A146377
M154695
M916856

Finns:

T004622
T455630
T947685
T804101

parastais
03-05-2017, 01:30 PM
I wonder what were FennoScandian levels in Kivutkalns samples.
Could it be that it increased in time or was it static?

parastais
03-05-2017, 03:19 PM
Now we have 3 Baltic studies released
The genetic history of Northern Europe,
Extensive farming in Estonia started through a sex-biased migration from the Steppe,
The Neolithic Transition in the Baltic Was Not Driven by Admixture with Early European Farmers.

Will try to do some Y-dna summary.
ESTONIAN PAPER
10 individuals. (5 CWC, 4 CCC, 1 Narva)
5 CWC were R1a Z645 (2,000–2,800 yr BCE)
1 CCC was R1a YP1272 (3,900–1,800 yr BCE)

LATVIAN PAPER
6 individuals from Latvia
Kunda, Narva, Late Neolithics - all three were R1b (5700-3900 BCE). Rest were women.

NORTH EUROPE
Narva (Lithuania) - 2 I2a samples (5,550 - 2,900 BCE), of different I2a subsamples
Baltic LN (Lithuania 2, Estonia 1) - 3 R1a samples (2,620 - 1,750 BCE).
Baltic BA (Lithuania 1, Latvia Kivutkalns 5) - 6 R1a samples. Lithuania 1000 - 800 BCE. Kivutkalns - from 730 to 230 BCE.

Crazy uniformity of Corded Ware/ post Corded Ware - from 2,800 BCE to 230 BCE, there were 14 samples from all three Baltic states covering all region, all R1a...

Tomenable
03-09-2017, 03:42 PM
Extremely "Baltic" results (are there people who score even more "Baltic"?):

Eurogenes K13:

Kit M344515

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Baltic 57.73
2 North_Atlantic 25.58
3 West_Med 7.82
4 West_Asian 2.71
5 East_Med 2.56
6 South_Asian 1.08
7 Northeast_African 0.82
8 Oceanian 0.64
9 Siberian 0.57
10 Amerindian 0.49

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Lithuanian 4.81
2 Estonian_Polish 8.39
3 Belorussian 8.58
4 Russian_Smolensk 9.2
5 Estonian 9.77
6 Southwest_Russian 10.63
7 Kargopol_Russian 10.92
8 Ukrainian_Belgorod 11.01
9 Erzya 11.12
10 Polish 12.22
11 East_Finnish 12.5
12 Finnish 13.61
13 Ukrainian 13.91
14 Ukrainian_Lviv 15.44
15 South_Polish 15.61
16 Southwest_Finnish 17.58
17 La_Brana-1 21.43
18 Croatian 21.51
19 Moldavian 24.22
20 North_Swedish 25.3

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 96% Lithuanian + 4% Erzya @ 4.79
2 100% Lithuanian + 0% Abhkasian @ 4.81
3 100% Lithuanian + 0% Adygei @ 4.81
4 100% Lithuanian + 0% Afghan_Pashtun @ 4.81
5 100% Lithuanian + 0% Afghan_Tadjik @ 4.81
6 100% Lithuanian + 0% Afghan_Turkmen @ 4.81
7 100% Lithuanian + 0% Aghan_Hazara @ 4.81
8 100% Lithuanian + 0% Algerian @ 4.81
9 100% Lithuanian + 0% Algerian_Jewish @ 4.81
10 100% Lithuanian + 0% Altaian @ 4.81
11 100% Lithuanian + 0% Armenian @ 4.81
12 100% Lithuanian + 0% Ashkenazi @ 4.81
13 100% Lithuanian + 0% Assyrian @ 4.81
14 100% Lithuanian + 0% Austrian @ 4.81
15 100% Lithuanian + 0% Austroasiatic_Ho @ 4.81
16 100% Lithuanian + 0% Azeri @ 4.81
17 100% Lithuanian + 0% Balkar @ 4.81
18 100% Lithuanian + 0% Balochi @ 4.81
19 100% Lithuanian + 0% Bangladeshi @ 4.81
20 100% Lithuanian + 0% Bantu_N.E. @ 4.81

Eurogenes K15:

Kit M344515

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Baltic 41.5
2 Eastern_Euro 20.42
3 North_Sea 17.97
4 Atlantic 16.06
5 West_Med 2.01
6 West_Asian 0.9
7 Northeast_African 0.55
8 South_Asian 0.31
9 Oceanian 0.27

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Lithuanian 5.08
2 Belorussian 8.92
3 Estonian_Polish 9.73
4 Russian_Smolensk 11.13
5 Southwest_Russian 11.42
6 Ukrainian_Belgorod 11.88
7 Estonian 12.52
8 Polish 13.06
9 South_Polish 14.57
10 Ukrainian 14.66
11 Ukrainian_Lviv 15.08
12 Kargopol_Russian 16.23
13 Erzya 16.36
14 Croatian 20.02
15 East_Finnish 20.06
16 La_Brana-1 20.62
17 Finnish 20.66
18 Southwest_Finnish 21.88
19 Moldavian 22.23
20 Hungarian 22.95

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 100% Lithuanian + 0% Abhkasian @ 5.08
2 100% Lithuanian + 0% Adygei @ 5.08
3 100% Lithuanian + 0% Afghan_Hazara @ 5.08
4 100% Lithuanian + 0% Afghan_Pashtun @ 5.08
5 100% Lithuanian + 0% Afghan_Tadjik @ 5.08
6 100% Lithuanian + 0% Afghan_Turkmen @ 5.08
7 100% Lithuanian + 0% Afghan_Uzbeki @ 5.08
8 100% Lithuanian + 0% Algerian @ 5.08
9 100% Lithuanian + 0% Algerian_Jewish @ 5.08
10 100% Lithuanian + 0% Altaian @ 5.08
11 100% Lithuanian + 0% Anzick-1 @ 5.08
12 100% Lithuanian + 0% Armenian @ 5.08
13 100% Lithuanian + 0% Ashkenazi @ 5.08
14 100% Lithuanian + 0% Assyrian @ 5.08
15 100% Lithuanian + 0% Austrian @ 5.08
16 100% Lithuanian + 0% Austroasiatic_Ho @ 5.08
17 100% Lithuanian + 0% Azeri @ 5.08
18 100% Lithuanian + 0% Balkar @ 5.08
19 100% Lithuanian + 0% Balochi @ 5.08
20 100% Lithuanian + 0% Bangladeshi @ 5.08

Michał
03-09-2017, 08:53 PM
Extremely "Baltic" results (are there people who score even more "Baltic"?):

#215487 (F215487 at GEDmatch) shows slightly more Baltic at K13, and slightly less at K15.
He is R1a, and more specifically he belongs to a relatively old Baltic subclade YP420 under YP237.

Volat
03-10-2017, 12:38 AM
Extremely "Baltic" results (are there people who score even more "Baltic"?):

Eurogenes K13:

Kit M344515

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Baltic 57.73
2 North_Atlantic 25.58
3 West_Med 7.82
4 West_Asian 2.71
5 East_Med 2.56
6 South_Asian 1.08
7 Northeast_African 0.82
8 Oceanian 0.64
9 Siberian 0.57
10 Amerindian 0.49



I knew a someone who has fractionally higher Baltic at K13 run but less at k15. She's 3/4 Samogitian, 1/4 Russian. The sample presented by Michal has even higher.



# Population Percent
1 Baltic 57.85
2 North_Atlantic 22.94
3 West_Med 8.13
4 West_Asian 6.64
5 Siberian 1.71
6 Amerindian 1.07
7 Northeast_African 0.67
8 Oceanian 0.61
9 South_Asian 0.28
10 Sub-Saharan 0.09

http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/41731-New-Gedmatch-results-for-Eurogenes-K13-and-K15?p=1125785&viewfull=1#post1125785

Tomenable
03-10-2017, 11:07 AM
I found kit M344515 among relatives of Linda Steinbach (using "One-to-many" tool):

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?9919-Prussian-German-results&p=218693&viewfull=1#post218693

I don't think that M344515 is Lithuanian. More likely ethnic Polish from East Prussia.

Warmiak or Mazurian perhaps?

Michał
03-10-2017, 12:39 PM
I don't think that M344515 is Lithuanian. More likely ethnic Polish from East Prussia.

So here are five Lithuanians who have higher levels of that Baltic component at K13:

59.04 T940605
58.42 T751932
58.30 T589878
58.14 M333034
57.94 F215487

parastais
03-10-2017, 01:42 PM
Her name is Milda - Lithuanian name origin is from Goddess of Love.

Volat
03-10-2017, 02:01 PM
The admixture Baltic peaks in Lithuanian population at K13. So it's the highest among Lithuanians and the neighbouring populations.

famatus
03-10-2017, 05:33 PM
M434508 Baltic 60.31

Volat
03-10-2017, 10:41 PM
M434508 Baltic 60.31

I was under impression the Baltic admixture at K13 in Lithuanians and Latvians is around 54-55% on average. Southern Lithuanians have 50-51% only. 60% is very high. :)

Tomenable
03-21-2017, 10:09 PM
Another over 60% "Baltic" result in Eurogenes K13:

Kit A146377

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Baltic 60.18
2 North_Atlantic 25.86
3 West_Med 5.87
4 West_Asian 3.75
5 Amerindian 1.6
6 Oceanian 0.85
7 Sub-Saharan 0.76
8 Red_Sea 0.42
9 South_Asian 0.35
10 Siberian 0.3
11 East_Med 0.05
12 Northeast_African 0.01

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Lithuanian 6.6
2 Estonian 11.14
3 Estonian_Polish 11.22
4 Belorussian 11.24
(...)

Michał
03-22-2017, 10:28 AM
Another over 60% "Baltic" result in Eurogenes K13:

Kit A146377

It seems that he is of Latvian ancestry.

parastais
03-22-2017, 11:25 AM
Can't wait for those ancient Baltic BA Kivutkalns samples to be analyzed from all sides...

famatus
03-22-2017, 08:21 PM
Can't wait for those ancient Baltic BA Kivutkalns samples to be analyzed from all sides...

Gaidot ir pietiekams laiks pašam parbaudities :)

parastais
03-22-2017, 08:29 PM
Gaidot ir pietiekams laiks pašam parbaudities :)
English forum, so I will use English :)
Where and how did you do this and how much it cost? (If you did)?

famatus
03-24-2017, 10:18 PM
English forum, so I will use English :)
Where and how did you do this and how much it cost? (If you did)?
I tried both Family Tree DNA and 23&Me. My advice would be the first one. Costs depends on what you would like to know. Autosomal Family Finder now is very cheap just $79. Y-DNA67 usually $268, but joining project will be about $20 less and during sales you can afford it for $199.

parastais
03-25-2017, 11:41 AM
I tried both Family Tree DNA and 23&Me. My advice would be the first one. Costs depends on what you would like to know. Autosomal Family Finder now is very cheap just $79. Y-DNA67 usually $268, but joining project will be about $20 less and during sales you can afford it for $199.
How deep goes Y-DNA67?
Like do they just tell I am N1c or R1a or would it go deeper than that?
Like how deep was your result? I guess it should not be much of a secret :)

parastais
03-25-2017, 12:29 PM
On other ideas. Shaikorth's question on possible ethnic attribution of Kivutkalns still bothers my mind. The very quick answer of them being Balts or Baltoids might be too quick. Despite it being very straight forward answer and perhaps possible, I now have some doubts.

Another possibility that is emerging in my intuition is that those guys were Centum speakers.

Some very muddy reasoning lays below:
1) unclarity with sea terms, such as laiva (where proto-Germanic (Centum) -> proto-Finnic -> proto-Baltic is suggested among other options), amber has also no clear Baltic (Balto-Slavic) etymology
2) some unclear Centum incidences in Baltic, or even looking at Baltic as Centum language Satemized
3) Liivi as anthropologically derived from narrow faced CW Kivutkalns population and incoming Balts as broad faced massive folk

Shaikorth
03-25-2017, 10:14 PM
On other ideas. Shaikorth's question on possible ethnic attribution of Kivutkalns still bothers my mind. The very quick answer of them being Balts or Baltoids might be too quick. Despite it being very straight forward answer and perhaps possible, I now have some doubts.

Another possibility that is emerging in my intuition is that those guys were Centum speakers.

Some very muddy reasoning lays below:
1) unclarity with sea terms, such as laiva (where proto-Germanic (Centum) -> proto-Finnic -> proto-Baltic is suggested among other options), amber has also no clear Baltic (Balto-Slavic) etymology
2) some unclear Centum incidences in Baltic, or even looking at Baltic as Centum language Satemized
3) Liivi as anthropologically derived from narrow faced CW Kivutkalns population and incoming Balts as broad faced massive folk

There should be a centuries- long gap between Kivutkalns and Gulf of Riga Finnic (Livonian) arrival to the mouth of Daugava. Determining continuity between them and Kivutkalns would require ancient DNA, though it's possible Livonians are basically the same as modern northwestern Latvians.

MikkaK
04-11-2018, 03:17 AM
I haven't seen any discussion on this especially since the Bolshoy N-L1026 sample came out around the same time but it seems the Tarand graves of Iron age Estonia did in fact belong to N1c.

I belive this was mentioned by Huck Finn but it didn't recive much attention.

https://opetajateseminar.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/eestlaste-kujunemine-2018-tekst.pdf

Unfortunately it is only in Estonian.

parastais
04-11-2018, 09:43 AM
I haven't seen any discussion on this especially since the Bolshoy N-L1026 sample came out around the same time but it seems the Tarand graves of Iron age Estonia did in fact belong to N1c.

I belive this was mentioned by Huck Finn but it didn't recive much attention.

https://opetajateseminar.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/eestlaste-kujunemine-2018-tekst.pdf

Unfortunately it is only in Estonian.
I googled around but could not find an information on how far South did Tarand graves get into Baltics.
Definitely into (Northern) Latvia.

N1c in Tarand was expected. Interesting which subclades those were.

MikkaK
04-11-2018, 02:37 PM
I googled around but could not find an information on how far South did Tarand graves get into Baltics.
Definitely into (Northern) Latvia.

N1c in Tarand was expected. Interesting which subclades those were.

Almost certainly Vl29+.

I belive North Latvia is as far south as the Tarand graves got. The Early Tarand graves were mainly a coastal phenomenon while typical Tarand graves later moved in land.

parastais
04-11-2018, 05:33 PM
Almost certainly Vl29+.

I belive North Latvia is as far south as the Tarand graves got. The Early Tarand graves were mainly a coastal phenomenon while typical Tarand graves later moved in land.
Do you have some good work you recommend on Tarand graves phenomenon? Like when it started, how it ended, where it expanded, etc.

MikkaK
04-11-2018, 10:16 PM
Do you have some good work you recommend on Tarand graves phenomenon? Like when it started, how it ended, where it expanded, etc.

A good place to start is Valter Lang's work who has been a leading archeologists.

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://briai.ku.lt/downloads/AB/19/19_104-117_Ciglis.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwixr6XRn7PaAhVION8KHY-HD7oQFjAOegQIABAB&usg=AOvVaw18OyGSCSvRlDy6rZaSuJS3

parastais
05-22-2018, 08:07 PM
So, the mystery starts to fade away.
Thanks to Waldemar, stolen from his post:

Northern Lithuania - DA171 (Gedmatch: Z713550)

Eurogenes EUtest V2 K15 4-Ancestors Oracle

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Baltic 39.35
2 Eastern_Euro 25.88
3 North_Sea 22.79
4 Atlantic 5.96
5 Sub-Saharan 2.93
6 South_Asian 1.86
7 Red_Sea 1.14

Using 1 population approximation:
1 Lithuanian @ 12.377703
2 Estonian @ 15.894914

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Lithuanian +50% Lithuanian @ 12.377703

Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% Lithuanian +25% Lithuanian +25% Lithuanian @ 12.377703

Using 4 populations approximation:
1 Erzya + Lithuanian + Lithuanian + Lithuanian @ 11.844902

https://s7.postimg.cc/w7ld9txvd/Screen_Hunter_2400_May._22_15.25.jpg

Golden Horde European - DA29 (Gedmatch: Z933098)

Eurogenes EUtest V2 K15 4-Ancestors Oracle

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Baltic 36.10
2 Atlantic 20.84
3 North_Sea 19.97
4 Eastern_Euro 18.73
5 West_Med 4.36

Using 1 population approximation:
1 Lithuanian @ 6.272637
2 Belorussian @ 6.713972

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Belorussian +50% Lithuanian @ 5.958579

Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% Lithuanian +25% Lithuanian +25% Polish @ 5.820896

Using 4 populations approximation:
1 Lithuanian + Lithuanian + Lithuanian + Polish @ 5.820896

https://s7.postimg.cc/4x021xptl/Screen_Hunter_2401_May._22_15.36.jpg

parastais
05-22-2018, 08:12 PM
So, we got IV-V century N-L1025 Baltic person from Northern Lithuania, who looks pretty much like modern Lithuanian/Latvian.
Unfortunately could not find exact info on which culture it was from. Just mention of inhumation.

parastais
05-23-2018, 09:55 AM
Northern Lithuania - IV-V century. Not really sure that far back, but later 7-10th century those would be Semigallian (middle) or Selonian (East) lands. Maybe Curonian (West).

Selonians in this respect are interesting. They are considered Baltic tribe during Baltic crusades. But their name is Finnic (Saali means uplanders or so..), compare to Augstaitis (uplander) for modern Lithuanians.

Either way notable find and sets at least upper boundary for N1c -L1025 appearance in Balts. Not later than 3rd century AD.

Generalissimo
05-23-2018, 01:50 PM
So, we got IV-V century N-L1025 Baltic person from Northern Lithuania, who looks pretty much like modern Lithuanian/Latvian.
Unfortunately could not find exact info on which culture it was from. Just mention of inhumation.

Not exactly. Baltic_IA...

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-mhuf8gJwefU/WvrA3E8rXeI/AAAAAAAAGxg/H9QelVF1TPAWkPn9sS5r9IPf4aL9ACfSQCLcBGAs/s1100/North_Europe_genetic-linguistic_landscape_15052018.png

Shaikorth
05-23-2018, 02:45 PM
So, we got IV-V century N-L1025 Baltic person from Northern Lithuania, who looks pretty much like modern Lithuanian/Latvian.
Unfortunately could not find exact info on which culture it was from. Just mention of inhumation.

I don't know whether he has some NE-european specific drift too but this is basically how he differs from modern Latvians in Global25, a bit shifted towards EHG:

NLithuania: DA171

Latvian,96.2
Latvia_MN,3.8

Nordic_IA, Mari, Sintashta_o3, Khvalynsk_EN, Nganasan, Evenk, Barcin_N all 0%

parastais
05-23-2018, 03:12 PM
Based on PCA.

He is like extreme Finno-Balt. Product of Baltic BA mix with what is in PCA a Finno Ugric folk. I think he still would fit in some Latvians, those having recent Livonian ancestry.

So, if he was from Selonia then case is about to be closed. I wonder if this constant shift in burial patterns could reflect Finnic and Baltic tribes intensively mixing with each other around Latvia and Lithuania border before V AD.

Then they received a bit more Baltic input from South and went up as future Latvians.

Or something like that.

parastais
05-23-2018, 03:16 PM
I don't know whether he has some NE-european specific drift too but this is basically how he differs from modern Latvians in Global25, a bit shifted towards EHG:

NLithuania: DA171

Latvian,96.2
Latvia_MN,3.8

Nordic_IA, Mari, Sintashta_o3, Khvalynsk_EN, Nganasan, Evenk, Barcin_N all 0%
What about Estonians?

teftelis
05-23-2018, 03:28 PM
According to supplementary table from Eurasian genomes study, sample is from Berčiūnai, 6km west of Panevė˛ys. So not quite from Selonia.

Shaikorth
05-23-2018, 03:51 PM
What about Estonians?

I tested a bit and it's complicated. Some Estonians like Est393 and Est380 don't work, the result is the same as above. Same with Finns, probably because of Saami (also provides the same result as above) and Nordic IA ancestry.

However, some Estonians do work:

NLithuania: DA171

Latvian,53.4
Est377,43.6
Latvia_MN,3

Livonians or Võros (EBC has them well sampled but the data is not public yet) could well work better than Estonians.

parastais
05-23-2018, 04:40 PM
I don't know whether he has some NE-european specific drift too but this is basically how he differs from modern Latvians in Global25, a bit shifted towards EHG:

NLithuania: DA171

Latvian,96.2
Latvia_MN,3.8

Nordic_IA, Mari, Sintashta_o3, Khvalynsk_EN, Nganasan, Evenk, Barcin_N all 0%

Thanks for Estonians!
So the guy is pretty much Livo... Latvian with some exotic EHG-ish addition.

Can you do some of these please:
1) Latvian - would they prefer Baltic BA (Kivutkalns) or DA171? And in general how Latvians could be modeled with those two ancient folks included?
2) Estonian - same question
3) DA171 - would it be possible to model him with Baltic BA (Kivutkalns, or maybe Turlojiske)? If Latvian is removed? If Latvian is included?

So that it works out chronologically.

----
Given that much Latvian in this guy (btw not Lithuanian?, not a surprise since Balts moved North), I believe this N1c1 line was quite long enough there and mixed with locals. So must have some Baltic BA in it.

teftelis
05-23-2018, 05:01 PM
Did a further digging Berčiūnai is a site of barrows dated to 2-5 centuries AD. This sample likely belonged North Lithuanian Barrow culture. This culture saw it's decline by pressure from upcoming Central Lithuanian Barrow grave culture from the south who were supposedly Aukštaitians. By 5th century they were already restricted to very small corner of North East Lithuania. Can't post images here, but you can google "Tucas R EVOLUTION OF POPULATION OF LITHUANIA TERRITORY IN THE 1 12 CENTURIES AD" to find relevant information and images.

parastais
05-23-2018, 05:14 PM
Did a further digging Berčiūnai is a site of barrows dated to 2-5 centuries AD. This sample likely belonged North Lithuanian Barrow culture. This culture saw it's decline by pressure from upcoming Central Lithuanian Barrow grave culture from the south who were supposedly Aukštaitians. By 5th century they were already restricted to very small corner of North East Lithuania. Can't post images here, but you can google "Tucas R EVOLUTION OF POPULATION OF LITHUANIA TERRITORY IN THE 1 12 CENTURIES AD" to find relevant information and images.
Thanks!

Not sure if it is relevant, but NE Lithuania IS the hotspot of N1c1 in Balts and Baltics in general. With some 45%.
Also Aukstaitians and Selonians share ethnonyms... both means Upers (Uplanders). Interesting.

Gonna read that thing.

Volat
05-23-2018, 05:28 PM
Did a further digging Berčiūnai is a site of barrows dated to 2-5 centuries AD. This sample likely belonged North Lithuanian Barrow culture. This culture saw it's decline by pressure from upcoming Central Lithuanian Barrow grave culture from the south who were supposedly Aukštaitians. By 5th century they were already restricted to very small corner of North East Lithuania. Can't post images here, but you can google "Tucas R EVOLUTION OF POPULATION OF LITHUANIA TERRITORY IN THE 1 12 CENTURIES AD" to find relevant information and images.

I know only four Baltic cultures on the territory of Lithuania

Stroked-pottery culture 7BC-5AD - central, north-eastern, eastern and south-east Lithuania. Adjacent Latvia . That's settlement of ancestors of Selonians , Aukstatians, Latgalians.
Eastern Lithuanian barrow culture 5AD-12AD in south-eastern Lithuania . Settlement of original Lithuanians
Stone barrow culture 4AD-13AD - south-western Lithuania . Settlement of Sudovians
Western Baltic Barrow culture . Prussia and adjacent areas in north-western Lithuania.

They were all Barrow cultures.

The relevant culture in question is stroked-pottery 7BC-5AD.

Volat
05-23-2018, 05:37 PM
Lithuania occupies a small area. It's difficult to imagine two separate cultures in central and north-eastern Lithuania in the same period of time.

parastais
05-23-2018, 05:44 PM
Lithuania occupies a small area. It's difficult to imagine two separate cultures in central and north-eastern Lithuania in the same period of time.
I suggest you to read on teftelis material

teftelis
05-23-2018, 05:54 PM
NLBC were ancestors of Samogitians/Selonians/Semigallians they're "middle balts".

Volat
05-23-2018, 05:55 PM
I suggest you to read on teftelis material

I've read enough material on the subject. There are no two separate archaeological cultures in central and north-eastern Lithuania at that time. Is the author of the paper even archaeologist who has done some excavations? Find decent papers on the subject.

Volat
05-23-2018, 05:58 PM
The author is not. : http://vu-lt.academia.edu/RolandasTu%C4%8Das

teftelis
05-23-2018, 06:02 PM
I've read enough material on the subject. There are no two separate archaeological cultures in central and north-eastern Lithuania at that time. Is the author of the paper even archaeologist who has done some excavations? Find decent papers on the subject.

He's a docent of Vilnius University.. And yes his fields of interest include archeology. And this paper was collaborated with leading Lithuanian archaeologists like Girinikas.

Volat
05-23-2018, 06:11 PM
He's a docent of Vilnius University.. And yes his fields of interest include archeology. And this paper was collaborated with leading Lithuanian archaeologists like Girinikas.

Mate! The distance between centre of Lithuania (Kėdainiai) and north-eastern Lithuania (Birzai) in direct line is 120km. 60 km in mid-point between those locations. You don't have to be an archaeologist to see there's something wrong here.

parastais
05-23-2018, 06:11 PM
I've read enough material on the subject. There are no two separate archaeological cultures in central and north-eastern Lithuania at that time. Is the author of the paper even archaeologist who has done some excavations? Find decent papers on the subject.
Ok, the question is what do you call a culture and what subculture.
You would agree that within a bigger culture one can distinguish different subentities?

Volat
05-23-2018, 06:21 PM
The fact that he is lecturer in Vilnius University doesn't make him right about archaeology. I looked at the paper. He's not referencing archaeologists.

From the paper




The results obtained by other researchers who have investigated the
structural homogeneity of cultural areas and distinguished their kernel areas, peripheries,
unpopulated tribal and intertribal, and peripheral areas of mixed cultural possession.
Much attention is paid to the boundaries of cultural areas and their changes. The
territorial unevenness of the spread of innovations is pointed out and their seed-beds and
centres of old tradition distinguished (the most interesting among them is the
conservative centre of Samogitian and North Lithuanian barrow culture (NLBC) of the
5th–6th century AD in the Raginėnai–Bačiūnai environs).
3⁄4
The system differences of the structure and development of population
systems of East Lithuania (East Lithuanian region of barrow culture (ELBC)) and the
rest part of Lithuania are highlighted. For their explanation, two alternative hypotheses
with a common denominator or causality (different forms of land use predetermined by
natural environment) were distinguished. This issue has been discussed in the works of
Lithuanian researchers only fragmentarily.

teftelis
05-23-2018, 06:21 PM
Mate! The distance between centre of Lithuania (Kėdainiai) and north-eastern Lithuania (Birzai) in direct line is 120km. 60 km in mid-point between those locations. You don't have to be an archaeologist to see there's something wrong here.


Mate! You seem to think that whole cultural horizon would have indistinguishable and there were no regional differences? Even though all of these cultures have fallen under umbrella term of Barrow cultures there were clear cultural differences, that you could differentiate. And this study only concerns about territory of Lithuania hence the name North Lithuanian barrow culture. You could go and to page 24 and read abbreviation NLBC stands for Burrow culture of Samogitia, Northern Lithuania and Southern Latvia. The same Burrow culture that you seem to go ballistic about, but they used NLBC abbreviation because this study is only about territory of Lithuania.

Shaikorth
05-23-2018, 06:23 PM
Thanks for Estonians!
So the guy is pretty much Livo... Latvian with some exotic EHG-ish addition.

Can you do some of these please:
1) Latvian - would they prefer Baltic BA (Kivutkalns) or DA171? And in general how Latvians could be modeled with those two ancient folks included?
2) Estonian - same question
3) DA171 - would it be possible to model him with Baltic BA (Kivutkalns, or maybe Turlojiske)? If Latvian is removed? If Latvian is included?

So that it works out chronologically.

----
Given that much Latvian in this guy (btw not Lithuanian?, not a surprise since Balts moved North), I believe this N1c1 line was quite long enough there and mixed with locals. So must have some Baltic BA in it.
It was surprisingly difficult to model Baltic_IA with very similar ancients accurately since it has low SNP count, the best models with Baltic_CWC and BA all involved some sort of noise, especially Natufian but also Iberomaurusian, Atayal etc. It's definitely noise though, when I fitted it as WHG+EHG+CHG+ENF+those noise components they didn't appear.

Basically it differs from Baltic_BA by having at least a bit less WHG, but hard to say much more with so little SNP's. Very similar to Baltic_BA in any case, that differs from modern Latvians by having not just more Latvia_MN but WHG too. Modern Latvians and Lithuanians have shortest Global25 distance to Turlojiske, then Baltic_IA, then Kivutkalns, and the shortest distances to these in absolute terms. Estonians have this order too, so do Finns, Swedes, Poles and circum-Baltic populations in general.

Volat
05-23-2018, 06:27 PM
Ok, the question is what do you call a culture and what subculture.
You would agree that within a bigger culture one can distinguish different subentities?

I'd agree. But I'v never come across about different archaeological cultures in the centre, east and north of Lithuania at that time. If he can find a reliable source of information substantiating the statement this author (Ronald Tucas), that'd be great.

Volat
05-23-2018, 06:32 PM
Mate! You seem to think that whole cultural horizon would have indistinguishable and there were no regional differences? Even though all of these cultures have fallen under umbrella term of Barrow cultures there were clear cultural differences, that you could differentiate. And this study only concerns about territory of Lithuania hence the name North Lithuanian barrow culture. You could go and to page 24 and read abbreviation NLBC stands for Burrow culture of Samogitia, Northern Lithuania and Southern Latvia. The same Burrow culture that you seem to go ballistic about, but they used NLBC abbreviation because this study is only about territory of Lithuania.

Cultural horizon within 120 km? Find a reliable source of information (archaeology papeprs) substantiating this or the geographer Ronald Tucas makes distinctions between the regions using other elements rather than material cultures.

parastais
05-23-2018, 06:37 PM
Formation of the Barrow Culture of Smogitia, Northern Lithuania and Southern Latvia (NLBC) is related with the migration, which started in the 1st century AD from the WBBC region southward to the scarcely populated Samogitian, North and Middle Lithuanian and South Latvian regions, and mixing with the scarce inhabitants of these region, presumably the descendants of the BPC. Archaeologist V. Šimėnas pointed outthe mixed origin of NLBC and applied the term Middle Balts to it and the descendant other archaeological cultures. The tradition of burying in barrows existed in the NLBCregion a short while (except in Sela). Already at the beginning of the 5th century AD, the NLBC split into three genetically related ethnic groups: Samogitians, Semigallians and Selonians.
From Tucas article on the culture this sample is from.
If we believe it then either bit more EHG-ish N1C1 sample was either from West Baltic Barrows or from "scarcely populated Samogitian, North and Middle Lithuanian and South Latvian regions".. or was already in both at time of mixtures.

parastais
05-23-2018, 06:38 PM
Cultural horizon within 120 km? Find a reliable source of information (archaeology papeprs) substantiating this or the geographer Ronald Tucas makes distinctions between the regions using other elements rather than material cultures.
Ehm, km distance is nothing. There were Livonian and Lettigalian cultures in territory of modern Vidzeme not even that far from each other.

edit: if Lettigals were distinguishable from Semigalls around XII-XIII century as cultures, why could not there be other local differences dated V or VI century?

Volat
05-23-2018, 06:47 PM
That's east Lithuanian barrow culture. The map is based on burial sites. But it's dated to 5AD-13AD.


https://pp.vk.me/c407522/v407522071/5b9c/R1Gkixp4y_4.jpg

Volat
05-23-2018, 06:50 PM
Ehm, km distance is nothing. There were Livonian and Lettigalian cultures in territory of modern Vidzeme not even that far from each other.

edit: if Lettigals were distinguishable from Semigalls around XII-XIII century as cultures, why could not there be other local differences dated V or VI century?


When it comes to archaeological cultures often there are a handful number of excavation sites . Okay! Give another example of a cultural horizon that stretches for 120km only. I am telling you again there're no such archaeological cultures in those regions mentioned by Tucas. :) He's not even citing archaeologists who has done excavation and differentiated the cultures in his dissertation. But kind of dissertation is this?

Volat
05-23-2018, 07:17 PM
@teftelis

Anyway, east Lithuanian barrow culture is in the basin of Neris river (5AD-13AD). Stroked-pottery culture (don't know the Lithuanian term) covers a much wider area dated approx. 7BC-5AD. Check other sources from archaeological research done in Lithuania.

parastais
05-23-2018, 07:19 PM
I have a strong feeling we are arguing semantics there... Cultural horizon, culture.

For example here is how various archaeologists express their opinions on Semigallian tribe(s):
http://senas.istorija.lt/la/vaskeviciute2000en1.html

Of course they were part of broader "cultural horizon", but distinct enough. SO we are going into more detail here, not just saying Brushed Pottery and that is it.

teftelis
05-23-2018, 07:41 PM
I have plenty of sources available in Lithuanian. For starters there was Central Lithuanian flat grave culture dated 1-5 centuries AD around area of Kaunas with clear distinct burials rites from their neighbors and findings showing they had direct contact with Bogaczewo culture. Archeologist like E.Jovaisa considers them straight out West Balts. But you're inclined to believe everyone was the same and there was no differences.

Volat
05-23-2018, 08:16 PM
A scholarly book on Semigallians in 5th-12th centuries by Ilona Vaškevičiūtė. The study is published in Lithuanian. But there is a good summary of the study in English pp 102-122.

http://www.biblioteka.vpu.lt/elvpu/42564.pdf


page 108 (On period prior to Semigalians)


The Bronze Age and Early Iron Age
Semigallia is poor in sites and finds of the
Bronze Age as well. Neither settlements, nor
burial sites of this period have been found.
Individual finds are also scarce. The greater
part of them consists of axes, namely flan-
ged of Eastern Baltics type, socketed. A trea-
sure has been found, which contained a
bronze axe with a head of Halichen type, a
socketed axe of Mälar type and a miniature
dagger (Fig. 3:1–3).
At this period two Baltic cultures existed
in the territories of Lithuania and Latvia – on
the westernmost edge the Barrows Culture
and in the eastern part of the territory in qu-
estion the Culture of Brushed Pottery. In the
would-be southern part of Semigallia neit-
her barrows of Western Balts, nor monu-
ments characteristic to Culture of Brushed
Pottery of Eastern Lithuania have been found.
Actually a few individual fragments of brus-
hed pottery have been found.
J. Šliavas has
found a cup of brushed pottery near Žeime-
lis (Fig. 6) and A. Vaskas in the central part
of Latvia have found even 12 sites of brus-
hed pottery.

Little is known of monuments or single
articles dated to the Early Iron Age. Sites da-
ted back to this period have not been found
in the Northern Lithuania. Thus, the Early
Iron Age in the Northern Lithuania remains
absolutely undisclosed. In Latvian territory
in some of the mounds dated back to that
period Brushed Pottery form about 96.6 per109
ŽIEMGALIAI V–XII AMŽIUJE
Semigallian Culture of the 5th–12th Centures
Formation of Semigallians
Archaeologists have determined that in
the territory of barrows with stone circles that
existed in the 5th–6th centuries three tribes
have split – namely Samogitians, who inha-
bited in the western part of the area, to the
north from them – Semigallians and to north-
west of Semigallians – Lettigallians. Semi-
gallians, located as if in between the other
two, have become a kind of bridge between
Samogitians and Lettigallians, some of its cul-
tural traits were closer to Samogitians, ot-
hers to Lettigallians. At the period when bar-
rows with stone circles were completely re-
placed by flat burial grounds archaeologists
document Semigallians.
Data of investigation of ample and rich
burial grounds serve as the main source for
reconstruction of Semigallian culture.
Burial Practices
It is known that spiritual culture and life
style of all Baltic tribes was the same, whe-
reas the material culture in each of the Bal-
tic tribes was somewhat different.
In Semigallian settlements the life style
and customs were identical both in northern
and southern parts. It will not serve our pur-
pose to search differences between them, be-
cause it was a homogeneous tribe only arti-
cent of all ceramics.The only thing obvious
is that this territory most probably had to be-
long to the western edge of Culture of Brus-
hed Pottery.
The Roman Iron Age (1st–4th A.D.)
In the Northern Lithuania and Southern
Latvia in the Roman Iron Age the deceased
used to be buried in barrows with stone circ-
les. Nowadays we know that there were
around 30 barrows in Semigallia and burials
took place there not later than from the 1nd
century A.D. In Latvia (would-be territory of
Semigallia) such barrows are counted up to
12. The barrows are of 8–18 metres in diametre, 0.75–1.10 metres in height, surroun-
ded by a stone circle and unburned dead
used to be buried in them (Fig. 7,8). From 2
to 28 graves are found in them, but mostly
4–8 individuals are buried. The dead were
buried supine with arms folded over the bre-
ast, legs outstretched and heads mostly orien-
ted to the west. It is quite possible that they
were buried in coffins, with spears, knives,
socketed axes and ornaments (Fig. 9).
Barrows cultural area is actually attribu-
ted to Samogitian and Semigallian tribes,
which in the opinion of archaeologists be-
gan diverging only in about 350, 450 A.D


Vaškevičiūtė uses the term Brushed pottery culture to what I referred as stroked-pottery culture. So Brushed pottery (stroked-pottery) culture was also in
northern Lithuania and southern Latvia during Bronze and early Iron age as per Vaškevičiūtė. I stated the culture was dated to 7BC-5AD. This period is prior to Semigalians. Northern Lithuania, southern Latvia, north-eastern Lithuania adjacent Latvia , in fact a wide area of what is today Lithuania and Latvia were part of the Brushed pottery (Stroked-pottery) culture in 7BC-5AD.

It's an excellent study from archaeological point of view which I recommend. :)

parastais
05-23-2018, 08:34 PM
"The Bronze Age and Early Iron Age
Semigallia is poor in sites and finds of the
Bronze Age as well. Neither settlements, nor
burial sites of this period have been found.
Individual finds are also scarce. The greater
part of them consists of axes, namely flan-
ged of Eastern Baltics type, socketed. A trea-
sure has been found, which contained a
bronze axe with a head of Halichen type, a
socketed axe of Mälar type and a miniature
dagger"
Reading on Vaškevičiūte :)
Would not be much surprised if owner of that axe was N1c1 guy.

parastais
05-23-2018, 08:38 PM
It was surprisingly difficult to model Baltic_IA with very similar ancients accurately since it has low SNP count, the best models with Baltic_CWC and BA all involved some sort of noise, especially Natufian but also Iberomaurusian, Atayal etc. It's definitely noise though, when I fitted it as WHG+EHG+CHG+ENF+those noise components they didn't appear.

Basically it differs from Baltic_BA by having at least a bit less WHG, but hard to say much more with so little SNP's. Very similar to Baltic_BA in any case, that differs from modern Latvians by having not just more Latvia_MN but WHG too. Modern Latvians and Lithuanians have shortest Global25 distance to Turlojiske, then Baltic_IA, then Kivutkalns, and the shortest distances to these in absolute terms. Estonians have this order too, so do Finns, Swedes, Poles and circum-Baltic populations in general.
Interesting.. indeed interesting.
Why would a sample from Turlojiske, which is both earlier and further away from Latvia than both Kivutkalns and Iron Age, be preferred?

Volat
05-24-2018, 04:59 AM
I have plenty of sources available in Lithuanian. For starters there was Central Lithuanian flat grave culture dated 1-5 centuries AD around area of Kaunas with clear distinct burials rites from their neighbors and findings showing they had direct contact with Bogaczewo culture. Archeologist like E.Jovaisa considers them straight out West Balts. But you're inclined to believe everyone was the same and there was no differences.
Kaunas is not really in central Lithuania. I'd believe there're burial cites around Kaunas that are similar to west Baltic barrow culture. Show the burial site you are referring to on the map In my first post I stated West Baltic barrow culture existed in Prussia and adjacent regions of north-western Lithuania : https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1712-N1c-in-the-Balts&p=400600&viewfull=1#post400600

But we were discussing central, eastern and northern regions of Lithuania having separate cultures in early Iron age around 2AD as per Tucas. In all due respect Tucas was writing nonsense about separate archaeological cultures in northern, central and eastern Lithuania dated to around 2AD. Tucas is not an archaeologist and he was not citing archaeologists. Those regions were part of a single Brushed-pottery (Stroked-pottery) in Bronze and early Iron age (approx. 7BC-5AD). See the study of Vaškevičiūtė I referenced above.

Edit: I am asking you again to reference archaeological research showing central, northern and eastern Lithuania had separate archaeological cultures around 2AD to substantiate Tucas claim.

Volat
05-24-2018, 05:17 AM
@teftilis

I am not inclined to believe the cultures were uniform . I will remind you what I wrote earlier



I know only four Baltic cultures on the territory of Lithuania

Stroked-pottery culture 7BC-5AD - central, north-eastern, eastern and south-east Lithuania. Adjacent Latvia . That's settlement of ancestors of Selonians , Aukstatians, Latgalians.
Eastern Lithuanian barrow culture 5AD-12AD in south-eastern Lithuania . Settlement of original Lithuanians
Stone barrow culture 4AD-13AD - south-western Lithuania . Settlement of Sudovians
Western Baltic Barrow culture . Prussia and adjacent areas in north-western Lithuania.

They were all Barrow cultures.

The relevant culture in question is stroked-pottery 7BC-5AD.

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1712-N1c-in-the-Balts&p=400600&viewfull=1#post400600

parastais
05-24-2018, 07:10 AM
So...
What do we have from genes in Baltics?

1. Pretty uniform Baltic BA R1a-CTS-1211 until some ~ 200 BCE

2. North Lithuanian sample 300-500 AD, having N1c1 and some extra EHG

3. Modern Lithuanians, Latvians with that extra EHG diluted but 40% of N1c1.

I think from 1 one needed extra farmer to get modern Latvian, and extra Syberian-ish to get modern Estonian.

From 2 one still needs extra farmer and less EHG to get modern Latvian.

Linguistically though I am considering idea of Finnic language in North Lithuania around AD... gonna read some on that subject

teftelis
05-24-2018, 11:07 AM
My god you're telling me as a Lithuanian that I don't know what central Lithuania is? Geographical center of Lithuania is 59 km away from Kaunas. Also I can't post links or images since I haven't made many posts. G

I suggest getting your hands on. Ankstyvųjų baltų kultūros” (Lietuva iki Mindaugo) ..... 24 Jovaiša E. Ankstyvųjų baltų kultūros// Lietuva iki Mindaugo. – V., 2003 or even newer book E. Jovaisa Aesti Origins which should be available to buy in English.

I know you're Belarussian, but stop acting like you know it all you don't understand Lithuanian and basically have scraps of information from authors who bothered to translate their work and much of it is already old.

I can send you a pm with map from the book I've mentioned earlier if you like, which shows 150-300AD territory of Lithuania had 4 separate archaeological cultures.

Volat
05-24-2018, 11:19 AM
double post.

Volat
05-24-2018, 11:22 AM
My god you're telling me as a Lithuanian that I don't know what central Lithuania is? Geographical center of Lithuania is 59 km away from Kaunas. Also I can't post links or images since I haven't made many posts. G

I suggest getting your hands on. Ankstyvųjų baltų kultūros” (Lietuva iki Mindaugo) ..... 24 Jovaiša E. Ankstyvųjų baltų kultūros// Lietuva iki Mindaugo. – V., 2003 or even newer book E. Jovaisa Aesti Origins which should be available to buy in English.

I know you're Belarussian, but stop acting like you know it all you don't understand Lithuanian and basically have scraps of information from authors who bothered to translate their work and much of it is already old.

I can send you a pm with map from the book I've mentioned earlier if you like, which shows 150-300AD territory of Lithuania had 4 separate archaeological cultures.

What does my or your ethnicity have to do with anything? It's not about my or your ethnicity, or languages we can understand . Stay on topic . You referenced a geographer who stated that central , northern and eastern Lithuania had separate archaeological cultures around 2AD. Put relevant excerpts of text from archaeological research in any language here to substantiate this claim. There's no need to send me private messages.

teftelis
05-24-2018, 11:24 AM
Note: Until your post count is 15 you will be able to send PMs to Staff only.


Trying to think a way I can post these maps. Any suggestions link/image posting isn't allowed yet.

Volat
05-24-2018, 11:57 AM
Note: Until your post count is 15 you will be able to send PMs to Staff only.


Trying to think a way I can post these maps. Any suggestions link/image posting isn't allowed yet.

There is no need send me private messages. Put them here or anywhere on the web and provide the URL link to it.
---
I don't know about everything but I know few things about archaeological cultures in the region. Significant archaeological research was done in the last century published in the language other scholars could understand. It was not in Lithuanian, that if the language means to you much discussing archaeology.

If Brushed-pottery (Stroked-pottery) (7BC-5AD) culture was found in certain regions of Lithuania and Latvia, then it was also in northern & central Belarus. If East Lithuanian Barrow culture (5AD-12AD) was in the basin of Neris river, then it was also in Belarus - the basin of Vilia river (Neris river is known as Vilia in Belarus). If Stone Barrow culture (4AD-13AD) was found in south-western Lithuania, then it was also found near Grodno city and further south - the settlements of Sudovians in Lithuania, Yotvingians in Belarus. Different terms but the same tribe.

That's how I know about these cultures. This forum is to share knowledge. If you have something to share, then share this information. Put relevant excerpts of text from archaeological research. Even if it's in Swahili, so long as it's credible.

parastais
05-24-2018, 12:23 PM
Volat, on other topic. Do you have a link to Yatwing pagan speeches of Narew?

Volat
05-24-2018, 12:40 PM
Volat, on other topic. Do you have a link to Yatwing pagan speeches of Narew?

If memory serves me correctly there're about 240 words in the list. Certain words are Slavisms and Germanisms. Zigmas Zinkevičius - respected old school Lithuanian linguist - published an article on the subject . His article in collection of Balto-Salvic studies hosted on the site of the Russian Academy of Sciences. I remember reading it. It's in Russian, though. I will post it when I find it.

Volat
05-24-2018, 12:54 PM
@parastais

Page number 3 : http://inslav.ru/images/stories/books/BSI1983%281984%29.pdf

I also remember certain people stated many words are quite similar to Lithuanian. I don't know if it's influence of Lithuanian on Yotvingian of the late period. If it's Zinkevičius's influence or similarity between Lithuanian and west Baltic of Yotvingians.

parastais
05-24-2018, 01:15 PM
Thanks!
This time was interested if my memory serves me right and it does.
Mushroom - sēne (just like Latvian language, but word itself is a loan from FU, either Livonian or even Estonian).
Must - Wa... (not finished) - vajag (Latvian). Also loan from FU. Also not present in Lithuanian.

When I noticed that first I thought either the whole list is fake or something is wrong there. What would obvious FU loan do there?
But there were number other Latvian like words and correspondences, so - not sure.

Aha
05-24-2018, 01:19 PM
Note: Until your post count is 15 you will be able to send PMs to Staff only.


Trying to think a way I can post these maps. Any suggestions link/image posting isn't allowed yet.

You could put them on imgur.com and then provide a link as a text here. Would love to see those maps

teftelis
05-24-2018, 01:31 PM
Here's some maps. Delete the spaces in link, otherwise I can't post it.

imgur . com /a/ ooZ0CVc

Volat
05-24-2018, 02:02 PM
Thanks!
This time was interested if my memory serves me right and it does.
Mushroom - sēne (just like Latvian language, but word itself is a loan from FU, either Livonian or even Estonian).

When I noticed that first I thought either the whole list is fake or something is wrong there. What would obvious FU loan do there?
But there were number other Latvian like words and correspondences, so - not sure.

Perhaps, you are right. I am not native Baltic speaker. But Zinkevičius was a respected linguist specialising in Baltic languages. Maybe his article on reconstructed Yotvingian was a "publication bias"? To show he was making a break-through discovery?

I may comment on Belarusian/Russian languages. On English to some extent. I can recognise cognates in Slavic and Baltic. There was a time I analysed every single word in "Saule Daugava Perkons". A beautiful song.

parastais
05-24-2018, 02:32 PM
Hard to say if it is fake, but it has FU influenced Latvian-ish words in it.
Zinkevicius himself analyzed them and in brackets said (Finnism!).
So, all is ok with him.

The guy who brought those words however might be fraud... or alternatively indeed Yatwingians had some Latvian (perhaps Curonian) adstrate.

....Or those are older loans from times when N1c1 puikas got assimilated into Balts.

...Or later Latvian colonists..

teftelis
05-24-2018, 02:39 PM
Curonian is itself classified differently some consider it East Baltic some West Baltic, it might be common West Baltic substrate. But either way that "vocabulary" is a bit shady, no original manuscript survived, only notes apparently and it could very well be a forgery.

Volat
05-24-2018, 02:44 PM
Hard to say if it is fake, but it has FU influenced Latvian-ish words in it.
Zinkevicius himself analyzed them and in brackets said (Finnism!).
So, all is ok with him.

The guy who brought those words however might be fraud... or alternatively indeed Yatwingians had some Latvian (perhaps Curonian) adstrate.

....Or those are older loans from times when N1c1 puikas got assimilated into Balts.

...Or later Latvian colonists..

The guy had a hobby collecting old things. Keep in mind that was late 70s and early 80s. I doubt he knew about the genetics and Balts at large. Although, he knew about Lithuanians. He brought his findings to people in Vilnius University.

Volat
05-24-2018, 02:49 PM
Curonian is itself classified differently some consider it East Baltic some West Baltic, it might be common West Baltic substrate. But either way that "vocabulary" is a bit shady, no original manuscript survived, only notes apparently and it could very well be a forgery.

Most Balts will not disagree with you. I am not a Balt, but I will also not disagree about Kurshi/Kurshai with you too. How your comment is relevant to the discussion?

teftelis
05-24-2018, 02:54 PM
Most Balts will not disagree with you. I am not a Balt, but I will also not disagree about Kurshi/Kursha with you tooi. How your comment is relevant to the discussion?

It was a reply to parastais possible suggestion of Curonian adstrate in Yotvingian. Also have you looked at those maps already and counted archaeological cultures on Lithuania territory? :)

Volat
05-24-2018, 02:56 PM
For several years I asked people having Curonian Kings' ancestry to have a genetic test. I will pay for the test.

Volat
05-24-2018, 02:59 PM
It was a reply to parastais possible suggestion of Curonian adstrate in Yotvingian. Also have you looked at those maps already and counted archaeological cultures on Lithuania territory? :)

Kurshai and Yotvingians? Yotvingians are us - western Belarusians. Kurshai are living on the cost the Baltic sea. Do you want to see how a certain Yotvingian man and woman looked? We know everything about them. I mean about the Yotvingians.

teftelis
05-24-2018, 03:01 PM
Kurshai and Yotvingians? Yotvingians are us - western Belarusians. Kurshai are living on the cost the Baltic sea. Do you want to see how a certain Yotvingian man and woman looked? We know everything about them. I mean about the Yotvingians.


Good for you, but that's not what I asked.

Volat
05-24-2018, 03:12 PM
Good for you, but that's not what I asked.

What did you ask me? I was trying to be polite. I recommend you to read the leading Lithuanian anthropologist: https://www.delfi.lt/news/daily/lithuania/lietuviu-proteviai-skandinavai-o-pusbroliai-baltarusiai.d?id=20646059

I like to troll Liths. Sorry.

teftelis
05-24-2018, 03:19 PM
What did you ask me? I was trying to be polite. I recommend you to read the leading Lithuanian anthropologist: https://www.delfi.lt/news/daily/lithuania/lietuviu-proteviai-skandinavai-o-pusbroliai-baltarusiai.d?id=20646059

I like to troll Liths. Sorry.

You asked to provide some information, about different archeological cultures in North/Central/East Lithuania.

I've posted maps showing that there were at least 4 different archaeological cultures. By the time frame you've asked.

There was in barrow culture in north Lithuania, central Lithuanian flat graves culture in central Lithuania, little bit west of it, lower Neman flat grave culture and on west coast, west Lithuanian flat grave culture and in the east, stroked/brushed pottery pottery culture.

Excuse me if I've translated these names wrong in English.

Volat
05-24-2018, 03:44 PM
You asked to provide some information, about different archeological cultures in North/Central/East Lithuania.

I've posted maps showing that there were at least 4 different archaeological cultures. By the time frame you've asked.

There was in barrow culture in north Lithuania, central Lithuanian flat graves culture in central Lithuania, little bit west of it, lower Neman flat grave culture and on west coast, west Lithuanian flat grave culture and in the east, stroked/brushed pottery pottery culture.

Excuse me if I've translated these names wrong in English.

Any Baltic archaeological culture is barrow. I like Lithuanians. I played with Dzukai around Braslau lakes. It's difficult to comment, how annoying they can get. :)

teftelis
05-24-2018, 03:49 PM
Any Baltic archaeological culture is barrow. I like Lithuanians. I played with Dzukai around Braslau lakes. It's difficult to comment, how annoying they can get. :)

You really are champion of moving goalposts. First you've claimed there it's a nonsense there were different archaeological cultures in Central/Northern/Eastern, in 2nd century when presented with data you move on about blabbering about playing with Dzūkai.

Seems it's hard for you to admit that you're were wrong.

Volat
05-24-2018, 03:56 PM
You really are champion of moving goalposts. First you've claimed there it's a nonsense there were different archaeological cultures in Central/Northern/Eastern, in 2nd century when presented with data you move on about blabbering about playing with Dzūkai.

Seems it's hard for you to admit that you're were wrong.

Take a look at the number of messages I posted on this forum. Certain people know me from another from where I posted many messages. Who are you with 14 messages? If you want me to make things difficult for you on this forum, then I will . You will be out of this forum before you know. You don't believe me? :)

teftelis
05-24-2018, 04:00 PM
Take a look at the number of messages I posted on this forum. Certain people know me from another from where I posted many messages. Who are you with 14 messages? If you want me to make things difficult for you on this forum, then I will . You will be out of this forum before you know. You don't believe me? :)

Oh wow moving onto threatening, did I hurt your feelings because I showed data that you weren't aware of?

parastais
05-24-2018, 04:06 PM
Kurshai and Yotvingians? Yotvingians are us - western Belarusians. Kurshai are living on the cost the Baltic sea. Do you want to see how a certain Yotvingian man and woman looked? We know everything about them. I mean about the Yotvingians.
According to Gimbutas and other archeologists Curonians took the leading role in Balts area somewhere between 800-1000 AD, taking active part in creating and administering trade route that went via Nemunas then.
Since Yatwings also were a result of this route they got a link to Curonians and could absorb some words.

Volat
05-24-2018, 04:08 PM
Oh wow moving onto threatening, did I hurt your feelings because I showed data that you weren't aware of?

Of course, not. I was not threatening you. Bye!

teftelis
05-24-2018, 04:11 PM
Of course, not. I was not threatening you. Bye!

With all due respect, you're acting pathetic. :)

Anyway end of my discussion with you, since you're not able to hold a proper discussion.

Volat
05-24-2018, 04:21 PM
According to Gimbutas and other archeologists Curonians took the leading role in Balts area somewhere between 800-1000 AD, taking active part in creating and administering trade route that went via Nemunas then.
Since Yatwings also were a result of this route they got a link to Curonians and could absorb some words.

To me Kurshi are seafarers, who lived near Baltic sea coast. They encountered attacks from Danes and Swedes ( I won't know their ethnic terms 1,100 years ago). On several forums I asked who have ancestry of Curonian Kings. I will pay for their DNA tests.

Volat
05-24-2018, 04:23 PM
double post.

parastais
05-24-2018, 04:49 PM
Volat. Gimbutas “Balts”:
“The Baltic tribes, except for the Prussians, abandoned cremation at about the
time of the birth of Christ and began to inhume their dead. Separate tribes
developed their own distinctive burial rites: some — for instance, Sembians,
Semigallians, Letigallians, Lithuanians, and other eastern Baltic tribes — built
earth barrows above single or family graves and surrounded them with stone
circles. Sudovians built stone barrows; Curonians placed their dead in stone circles
or rectangular walls; their neighbours in central Lithuania used flat graves,
supporting the tree-trunk coffins with stones. The differentiation of local burial
rites as from the second century A.D. enables us to follow the borders between the
various Baltic tribes, which remained unchanged in this area up till the beginning
of history.”
From the second century A.D. enables us to follow the borders between various Baltic tribes... said Gimbutas.
I am afraid the geograph was not sucking this division out of his non-archeologist’s finger.

Volat
05-24-2018, 06:50 PM
==============

Volat
05-24-2018, 07:14 PM
Volat. Gimbutas “Balts”:
“The Baltic tribes, except for the Prussians, abandoned cremation at about the
time of the birth of Christ and began to inhume their dead. Separate tribes
developed their own distinctive burial rites: some — for instance, Sembians,
Semigallians, Letigallians, Lithuanians, and other eastern Baltic tribes — built
earth barrows above single or family graves and surrounded them with stone
circles. Sudovians built stone barrows; Curonians placed their dead in stone circles
or rectangular walls; their neighbours in central Lithuania used flat graves,
supporting the tree-trunk coffins with stones. The differentiation of local burial
rites as from the second century A.D. enables us to follow the borders between the
various Baltic tribes, which remained unchanged in this area up till the beginning
of history.”
From the second century A.D. enables us to follow the borders between various Baltic tribes... said Gimbutas.
I am afraid the geograph was not sucking this division out of his non-archeologist’s finger.

Gimbutas study is relevant to these days. She was right 50-60 years ago.

parastais
05-24-2018, 08:21 PM
Are you just trolling?
You can’t be serious...
In 50 years flat Central Lithuanian graves of 2nd Century had not turned oval or rectangle :D

Volat
05-24-2018, 09:34 PM
Are you just trolling?
You can’t be serious...
In 50 years flat Central Lithuanian graves of 2nd Century had not turned oval or rectangle :D

We've known each other discussing different topics for a couple of years. I am not serious and trolling? Okay!

Moderator
05-25-2018, 02:10 AM
All members are reminded to stay on topic and refrain from personal attacks. Threats of any sort are prohibited and will lead to severe sanctions. This thread is being monitored.

parastais
05-25-2018, 05:58 AM
We've known each other discussing different topics for a couple of years. I am not serious and trolling? Okay!
Yes!
I know you for long and I respect you.

But it is hard to believe that in 50 years since Gimbutas those different burial traditions of 2nd century have turned unified. No! Up to today they ARE different.

Your only point would be that different burial traditions don’t mean different cultures, which is fair enough. But then this whole argument is whether to call them - cultural horizon, culture, cultural group, tribe, whatever. For me it is simpler to say North Lithuanian Barrows Culture (NLBC short).

But different burial traditions in Baltics 2nd century is a well established fact. And No! this fact has not changed since Gimbutas. And I can’t understand why you keep denying it.


—-
For me much more interesting is where this 40% Balts forefather came from. The time period for his arrival in Baltics and assimilation seems to be limited - (-200 BCE ; 300 ad).
NLBC to the best of my knowledge is described as West Baltic folk that mixed with “sparsely populated locals”.
Either West Balts those days were already L1025 or locals or both populations.

parastais
05-25-2018, 07:20 AM
From Tucas R:
"The formation of NLBC isrelated with the migration processes which began in the 1st century AD. The migration took place from the WBBC to the scarcely populated Samogitia, Middle and North Lithuania and South Latvia where the WBBC representatives mixed with the scanty local residents (most likely, the descendants of the East Baltic BPC). The first WBBC barrows that appeared in the Žemaičiai Upland are dated to B1b (40–70 y.e. of the firstcentury AD) and the latest (Daugyvenė River basin and other territories in the southern part of Mūša Plain and northern part of Nevėžis Plain) to the 5th–6th century AD."

So, West Baltic Barrows Culture guys arrived into scanty populated (by apparently East Baltic Brushed Pottery guys) lands and started this culture(? or cultural group) that gives us our very first found N1c1-L1025 (now up to 40% of male lines in Latvia and Lithuania) in Baltics. A guy who is quite similar to modern Latvians with couple of percents extra EHG-ishness (Syberian?).

Perhaps at those days N1c1 was already in BPC, or in WBBC or in both?

Volat
05-25-2018, 09:07 AM
Yes!
I know you for long and I respect you.

But it is hard to believe that in 50 years since Gimbutas those different burial traditions of 2nd century have turned unified. No! Up to today they ARE different.

Your only point would be that different burial traditions don’t mean different cultures, which is fair enough. But then this whole argument is whether to call them - cultural horizon, culture, cultural group, tribe, whatever. For me it is simpler to say North Lithuanian Barrows Culture (NLBC short).

But different burial traditions in Baltics 2nd century is a well established fact. And No! this fact has not changed since Gimbutas. And I can’t understand why you keep denying it.


—-
For me much more interesting is where this 40% Balts forefather came from. The time period for his arrival in Baltics and assimilation seems to be limited - (-200 BCE ; 300 ad).
NLBC to the best of my knowledge is described as West Baltic folk that mixed with “sparsely populated locals”.
Either West Balts those days were already L1025 or locals or both populations.

I was born in the region my parents could travel to Latgale - the most southern part of Latvia in 20 minutes? Latgale is such a beautiful place that reminds me of our homeland. I don't know if you know, but my male line ancestry has Z92. Many Latvians (Latgalians) friends I have. :) Sorry! I could not pass this topic about archaeology between you and a certain Lithuanian who was making inaccurate comments about us. I can talk about our archaeology, folklore forever. This would be , off-topic.

teftelis
05-25-2018, 10:46 AM
From Tucas R:
"The formation of NLBC isrelated with the migration processes which began in the 1st century AD. The migration took place from the WBBC to the scarcely populated Samogitia, Middle and North Lithuania and South Latvia where the WBBC representatives mixed with the scanty local residents (most likely, the descendants of the East Baltic BPC). The first WBBC barrows that appeared in the Žemaičiai Upland are dated to B1b (40–70 y.e. of the firstcentury AD) and the latest (Daugyvenė River basin and other territories in the southern part of Mūša Plain and northern part of Nevėžis Plain) to the 5th–6th century AD."

So, West Baltic Barrows Culture guys arrived into scanty populated (by apparently East Baltic Brushed Pottery guys) lands and started this culture(? or cultural group) that gives us our very first found N1c1-L1025 (now up to 40% of male lines in Latvia and Lithuania) in Baltics. A guy who is quite similar to modern Latvians with couple of percents extra EHG-ishness (Syberian?).

Perhaps at those days N1c1 was already in BPC, or in WBBC or in both?


About origins of Barrow cultures of North Lithuania and South Latvia, in this book that I've posted maps from E. Jovaisa seems to be holding same position.


Direct quote from book.

"Iš Sembos ir Lietuvos pajūrio migruojantys aisčiai sukūrė centrinę aisčių šaką, kurios skiriamuoju bruožu visoms trims šios šakos kultūroms, tapo plokštiniai kapai, būdingi Vakarų ir Centrinei Lietuvai bei Nemuno žemupiui. Šiaurinė aisčių migracija, tikėtina sukūrė iš Lietuvos ir Latvijos pajūryjė buvusios Vakaru baltų pilkapių kultūros šiaurinę vakarų baltų šaką - Pilkapių kultūra, kuri nusidriekė iki Gaujos šiaurėje, Dauguvos vidurupio ir Šventosios rytuose, kur ši susitiko su Brūkšniuotosios keramikos kultūros žmonėmis.


Approximate translation, He thinks that NLBC(Barrow culture) or whatever term you'd prefer, was started by migrating West Balts living on Lithuanian and Latvian Baltic coast and in the east they ran into Brushed/Stroked pottery culture who were East Balts.

But I'm still more inclined to believe that it was East Balts who were more N1c heavy compared to West Balts.

parastais
05-25-2018, 01:24 PM
If I recall it right.

Modern Baltic N seem to be radiating out of Lithuania to Latvia (one line) and to Prussia (other line). Lithuania having them all. And NE Lithuania having higher N1c1 frequency.

Now - does the NE Lithuania have any FU toponymy or hydronymy?

I did some googling and found Jaska's old note:
"Jaska
2012-01-09, 15:39
There are apparently more than just one. Other limnonym (with very close proximity to Ilmėdas) is Luodis (=Luoto/Lood). These are both located near the Ausktaitis national park. There are other examples as well, pond named Lambis, river named Kirgas etc.

These examples are from "Etymological Dictionary of Lithuanian Hydronyms/Lietuvių hidronimų etimologinis žodynas" by Aleksandras Vanagas (http://lt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandras_Vanagas). That work seems to be cited pretty much but its not available online, atleast I couldnt find it. There should be roughly 35 hydronyms of Finno-Ugric origin at Lithuania.
Interesting. I try to find out if there has occurred critique or other explanations for such names. See that "luoto" itself is a young word, restricted to Finnic.


Hmmm.. There seem to be Uralicisms even at Poland (mainly the former East Prussia / Warmia /Suwalkia ). "

Do you guys have this:
"Etymological Dictionary of Lithuanian Hydronyms/Lietuvių hidronimų etimologinis žodynas" by Aleksandras Vanagas
?

teftelis
05-25-2018, 02:02 PM
Sadly I don't have that etymological dictionary of Lithuanian hydronyms, but after some Googling I found the supposed list of Finnic hydronyms. There is about 30 of them. Vast majority of them seem to concentrated in Northern Lithuania along Latvian border and in NE Lithuania. There's also one in Belarussian territory around Gervyaty(Lithuanian speaker enclave). And one near Nemenčinė(close to Vilnius) and in Riešė also close to Vilnius region too.

Edit: after checking more thoroughly there seems to be quite a few more around Vilnius region too, didn't notice before since the territorial divisions on that list are communist times they not necessarily correspond to nowadays locations.

After checking approximate locations of these hydronyms, which some are hard to locate since there's neither wiki articles or google maps find those rivers/lakes. Just general municipalities they're supposedly were located in. All these areas where these hydronyms are found fall under pretty much all cultures discussed earlier, Barrow culture, Central Lithuanian flat graves, Brushed pottery culture and Lower Neman flat grave culture. But there's none in SW Lithuania and along Baltic coast. Only a bit further east from Baltic coast in NW Lithuania (around Mažeikiai/Joniškis)

Volat
05-25-2018, 04:15 PM
Sadly I don't have that etymological dictionary of Lithuanian hydronyms, but after some Googling I found the supposed list of Finnic hydronyms. There is about 30 of them. Vast majority of them seem to concentrated in Northern Lithuania along Latvian border and in NE Lithuania. There's also one in Belarussian territory around Gervyaty(Lithuanian speaker enclave). And one near Nemenčinė(close to Vilnius) and in Riešė also close to Vilnius region too.

Edit: after checking more thoroughly there seems to be quite a few more around Vilnius region too, didn't notice before since the territorial divisions on that list are communist times they not necessarily correspond to nowadays locations.

After checking approximate locations of these hydronyms, which some are hard to locate since there's neither wiki articles or google maps find those rivers/lakes. Just general municipalities they're supposedly were located in. All these areas where these hydronyms are found fall under pretty much all cultures discussed earlier, Barrow culture, Central Lithuanian flat graves, Brushed pottery culture and Lower Neman flat grave culture. But there's none in SW Lithuania and along Baltic coast. Only a bit further east from Baltic coast in NW Lithuania (around Mažeikiai/Joniškis)

We have Finnic hydronyms in eastern Belarus too. But they are debatable. The location is too far west and south for Finnic people. However, Latvia has lots of hydronyms. Not only hydronyms but a native speaking Livonian was around not long ago. She died in Canada, if I am not mistaken?

teftelis
05-25-2018, 04:50 PM
Mapped out these hydronyms as best as I could, might've missed one or two, also keep in mind some of them might be few/several kilometers away as I couldn't find any info at all on them only the general municipality they were supposed to be located in.

23443

Volat
05-25-2018, 05:06 PM
@teftelis

Off-topic! Do you think there is a connection between toponym Vilnius (Vilnya in Belarusian and Lithuanian of Belarus) and hydronym river Вілія (Vilia) (Lithuanian Neris river). A number of Lithuanians stated Belarusians reatained the old name of the river. Such instances are not uncommon . For example, Polotsk derives its name from the river Polota. Vitebsk from the river Vit'ba. Moskva (Moscow) from Moskva river etc.

teftelis
05-25-2018, 05:41 PM
Don't know much about only as much as Lithuanian wiki says. Vilnius name stems from Vilnelė/Vilnia river, which is associated with Lit. Vilnis which stands for wave/surge and Neris is associated with Nerti which means to dive/submerge and is associated with other hydronyms like in forme Baltic lands like Narew, Nurzec, Nur, Narasa, Nara etc. Others says Slavic Vilia/Velya means big/great, there were also attempts to explain it using Baltic etymology like Velė(spirit), Velnias(devil), but that's doubtful. So to me it seems Slavs and Balts had separate name for this river. Who retained original names is not for me to decide, I don't have such information.

Volat
05-25-2018, 06:38 PM
Don't know much about only as much as Lithuanian wiki says. Vilnius name stems from Vilnelė/Vilnia river, which is associated with Lit. Vilnis which stands for wave/surge and Neris is associated with Nerti which means to dive/submerge and is associated with other hydronyms like in forme Baltic lands like Narew, Nurzec, Nur, Narasa, Nara etc. Others says Slavic Vilia/Velya means big/great, there were also attempts to explain it using Baltic etymology like Velė(spirit), Velnias(devil), but that's doubtful. So to me it seems Slavs and Balts had separate name for this river. Who retained original names is not for me to decide, I don't have such information.

I can read wiki too. About 85% of all hydronyms found on the territory of Belarus are Baltic. I thought there's a connection between Vilnius (Vilnya) and Vilia (Neris). Certain Lithuanians think so.

We can discuss it and this would be off-topic. I knew a young Lithuanian woman living in Kaunas. Unfortunately, she's not coming to forums anymore. She's beyond our discussions. I hope she returns and comments on the subject of Balts one day.

parastais
05-26-2018, 05:25 AM
Mapped out these hydronyms as best as I could, might've missed one or two, also keep in mind some of them might be few/several kilometers away as I couldn't find any info at all on them only the general municipality they were supposed to be located in.

23443
Interesting if BPC had any Finnic connections...
Anyway that NLBC guy autosomally looked quite BaltoFinnic (Estonian maybe minus Scandinavian).

Volat
05-26-2018, 06:11 AM
@parastais

The article about Yotvingian words looks fishy. I have questions. I am not a linguist to question Zinkevicius. Also, I can recognise certain words from the list, such as the word Gudi. Lithuanians of Belarus call us Gudai - Belarusians. Gudas in singular. That's traditional term of south-eastern Lithuanians in reference to Belarusians.

parastais
05-26-2018, 09:39 AM
@parastais

The article about Yotvingian words looks fishy. I have questions. I am not a linguist to question Zinkevicius. Also, I can recognise certain words from the list, such as the word Gudi. Lithuanians of Belarus call us Gudai - Belarusians. Gudas in singular. That's traditional term of south-eastern Lithuanians in reference to Belarusians.
Yeah, but it most likely started as name for Gotlanders who had some active trade business in Belarus, before they got shut down by competitors from Roslagen (Rus).

Later Lithuanians used it for anyone whose language they could not understand, but, if we believe that list, Yatwings for Germanic speaking crusaders.

Volat
05-26-2018, 10:16 AM
Yeah, but it most likely started as name for Gotlanders who had some active trade business in Belarus, before they got shut down by competitors from Roslagen (Rus).

Later Lithuanians used it for anyone whose language they could not understand, but, if we believe that list, Yatwings for Germanic speaking crusaders.

This is what I read in various sources about the term. The tern was used in reference to groups of people Balts (on the territory of Lithuania) could not understand. Also, the term was used by Balts in reference other Balts, if their language was different and difficult to understand.

To these days the term Gudai is synonymous with Baltarusiai among Lithuanians of Grodno and Vilnius regions.

parastais
06-04-2018, 07:31 AM
http://www.academia.edu/24412838/Proto-Finnic_loanwords_in_the_Baltic_languages
I like Finnish linguists. Objectivity is strong with them.

But this poses a problem.
1) no loanwords from Proto-Finnic into Proto-Baltic
2) Southern Finnic loanwords mediated to Lithuania vķa Latvia (and Samogitians?)
BUT
3) 40% N1c1 in both Lithuania and Latvia. The relevant “Baltic” sub branch is a strong (East) Baltic marker.
4) extra EHG-ish Easternish (perhaps Erzya like or Erzya shifted) N1c1 L-1025 in Northern Lithuania 300-500 AD in culture that is considered Baltic.

If it was genetic drift (success of N1c1 is random) then why this extra EHG man? If he represents NLBC average person then I got strong feeling those were Finnic speakers.... but then - why don’t Lithuanians have Finnic loans?

Maybe some several layers theory?
1) Kivutkalners (para Balto Slavic or Northern Balto Slavic or North Baltic)
2) Finnic folk Finnifies Kivutkalners and occupies as far South as North Lithuania
3) West Balts go East and Baltify North Lithuania
4) East Balts (Latvian linguistic ancestors) go North-West and East Baltify North Lithuania creating “Proto-Latvians”
5) East Balts (Lithuanian ancestors) continue pushing North, part of “Proto Latvians” moves up to later become Latvians proper. Other part becomes Lithuanians. And of course Lithuanian Finnic loanwords get picked up via “Latvian” residual population.

Hope studies of Finnic loan words in Baltic languages continue.
Some questions I would like to get answers;
1) ok, no Finnic loans at stage of Proto-Baltic. What about proto-East Baltic (common ancestor of Letto-Lithuanian)? According to my layers theory they should not have them. Letts got them first and Lithuanians followed.But I very well could be wrong.
2) Which loans in Latvian come after 1000AD from Livonians and which loans in Latvian and Samogitian (maybe even Lithuanian?) come from more archaic form of Southern Finnish?

teftelis
06-04-2018, 08:28 AM
Yeah, there's still much to be explained what I'm hoping for is for more samples from North-East Lithuania and South-East Latvia starting from around 1st century, I'm very interested in seeing what Brushed Pottery was like. Also another question is when did Prussians get their N1c1 and did other West Balts like Yotvingians/Sudovians also had it or did they got it from mixing with other Balts.

Aha
06-04-2018, 10:05 AM
For me much more interesting is where this 40% Balts forefather came from. The time period for his arrival in Baltics and assimilation seems to be limited - (-200 BCE ; 300 ad).
NLBC to the best of my knowledge is described as West Baltic folk that mixed with “sparsely populated locals”.
Either West Balts those days were already L1025 or locals or both populations.

We can't really limit it to -200BCE. The fact that they weren't found yet doesn't mean they are not going to be found.

We already know that N1a(N1c) was in Baltics since 2500BC from Serteya 2 site on the border of Belarus and Smolensk region, just a hundred kilometers from NorthEast Lithuania and Latgalia, where we have nowadays the biggest concentration

Aha
06-04-2018, 10:15 AM
Yeah, there's still much to be explained what I'm hoping for is for more samples from North-East Lithuania and South-East Latvia starting from around 1st century, I'm very interested in seeing what Brushed Pottery was like. Also another question is when did Prussians get their N1c1 and did other West Balts like Yotvingians/Sudovians also had it or did they got it from mixing with other Balts.

Prussians and Yotwingians are a curious case when it comes to Y-DNA. Absolute majority of their N1c belongs to a FGC13372 subbranch

FGC13372 is also very common in most regions of Lithuania. But Lithuania is considerably more diverse in N1c M2783 branches/clades than both west Balts and Latvians

According to statistics provided on this forum by certain users, N1c share of the population of Baltic Prussians and Yotwingians was about the same as in Lithuanians/Latvians

https://i.imgur.com/Rv7fzDd.png

Aha
06-04-2018, 10:33 AM
What's more perplexing is the fact that Baltic N1c is more closely related with Kven's and/or other Fennoscandian groups between Sweden and Finland than with those that are more common in Estonia/Finland. Lack of anyone with such Y-DNA anywhere else aside from these two regions points as well as locations of the biggest diversity of the branches, we could speculate that L1025, at least, was born somewhere between Baltics (in it's wide sense) and Fennoscandia.
The bigger question is where VL29 originated and where it's predecessor was born.

Aha
06-04-2018, 10:45 AM
Another thing people must keep in mind is the ages of branches:

VL29 was formed 4100 ybp, TMRCA 3700 ybp.
It is found elusively among Baltic and Finnic populations (plus those they were assimilated to). Which means those N1c were all around Baltic sea at least since 2 millennia BC.

Where it was before is much more muddy as the kids of N-L1026 are spread through whole Northern Eurasia. Balto-Fiinnic VL29 and the Finno-Uralic Z1936 are two branches among more

parastais
06-04-2018, 10:47 AM
Prussians and Yotwingians are a curious case when it comes to Y-DNA. Absolute majority of their N1c belongs to a FGC13372 subbranch

FGC13372 is also very common in most regions of Lithuania. But Lithuania is considerably more diverse in N1c branches/clades than both west Balts and Latvians

According to statistics provided on this forum by certain users, N1c share of the population of Baltic Prussians and Yotwingians was about the same as in Lithuanians/Latvians

https://i.imgur.com/Rv7fzDd.png
Do u have similar maps for other L-1025 - M2783 subclases?
I imagine there would be “Latvian” one with Samogitia and West/Central Latvia (and some around Tartu) - Semigall/Samogitian ones.
And one Lithuanian one with East Latvia in it.
And then some other Lithuanian ones.

Geborgenheit
06-04-2018, 11:03 AM
Prussians and Yotwingians are a curious case when it comes to Y-DNA. Absolute majority of their N1c belongs to a FGC13372 subbranch

FGC13372 is also very common in most regions of Lithuania. But Lithuania is considerably more diverse in N1c M2783 branches/clades than both west Balts and Latvians


Baltic subclades of N1C can be found in Ukraine as well ? :)

parastais
06-04-2018, 11:38 AM
L1025 (the South Baltic branch of N-L550) is not nearly as concentrated in the Baltic countries as some people may think. Take a look at this map of its spread (http://www.semargl.me/en/dna/ydna/map-snp/1221/). Its secondary concentrations near northeast Ukraine and the Carpathian mountains are noteworthy.

Again: I look forward to what Big Y results will tell us.
Pity, that map is gone now :(

But apparently there is L1025 in Ukraine.

And if memory serves me right then in absolute numbers there are more Baltic subclade sons outside Baltics then inside.

Aha
06-04-2018, 11:50 AM
Do u have similar maps for other L-1025 - M2783 subclases?
I imagine there would be “Latvian” one with Samogitia and West/Central Latvia (and some around Tartu) - Semigall/Samogitian ones.
And one Lithuanian one with East Latvia in it.
And then some other Lithuanian ones.

I didn't do the map for other branches yet. I am correctly working on global distribution of all N. Maybe later will zoom in on Balto-Finnic branches.

Z16981 is the closest thing you would find to "Latvian" N1c. Certain subbranches of it are most common in Latvians, Lithuanians and central Estonians. But it also includes subbranches that migrated to South Poland, Czechia and Finland, which makes it very diverse and travelling.
http://www.kolumbus.fi/geodun/YDNA/Ancestral-Origins-Z16981-2017.pdf
Z16981 and FGC13372/Z16975 are pretty randomly distributed over Lithuania, just as the other major branches L551, L591 and L1027.

Even if those branches belonged to various tribes, the borders today are pretty obscure and it seems that population mobility within Lithuania and Latvia was very high

Aha
06-04-2018, 11:54 AM
Baltic subclades of N1C can be found in Ukraine as well ? :)

Yes, M2783 and L550 L1025- can be found in Ukraine. Biggest concentration is in the central forest zone in the north around Kyiv and along the Dnipro river.

Aha
06-04-2018, 12:04 PM
Pity, that map is gone now :(

But apparently there is L1025 in Ukraine.

And if memory serves me right then in absolute numbers there are more Baltic subclade sons outside Baltics then inside.

Most common clades in NorthEastern Europe:

https://i.imgur.com/SkyFzIY.jpg

parastais
06-04-2018, 12:12 PM
Which brings us back to:
Thomas Eriksson Kärl och social gestik i Mälardalen 1500 BC–400 AD. Part 3.

Rough translation:

"Some of the Middle Swedish Mälar axes have been confirmed as being made of bronze from Ural, which differentiates them from other articles made of Central European bronze. The moulding forms for axes of Mälar type are to be found in Finland and in Lithuania, as well as ceramic ware, which resembles that of eastern parts of Middle Sweden, different from the more decorated ceramic type of Volga Kama area..."
...and in Lithuania... eastern parts of Middle Sweden...
Think this might be right direction to look for introgression.
Teftelis, this is quote from earlier in thread, when you were not there.
Do you know where and what dates in Lithuania were found moulding forms for Malar type axes? And in which cultures context?

parastais
06-04-2018, 12:17 PM
Thanks Aha, lot of useful information to chew.

teftelis
06-04-2018, 10:38 PM
Teftelis, this is quote from earlier in thread, when you were not there.
Do you know where and what dates in Lithuania were found moulding forms for Malar type axes? And in which cultures context?

Moulding forms where found in Narkūnai/Garniai/Vosgėliai. All in North-East Lithuania, area is ascribed to Brushed/Stroked Pottery culture. Narkūnai moulds are dated to IV-V Montelius periods. So between 1100-700BC. Couldn't find any dates for those in Garniai and Vosgėliai. Also Narkūnai was the largest metal working site in Lithuania.

http://www.piliakalniukrastas.if.vu.lt/sites/default/files/tekstai/Meliaro_kirviai.pdf

https://www.academia.edu/30685088/Pod%C4%97nas_V._%C4%8Civilyt%C4%97_A._Bagdzevi%C4% 8Dien%C4%97_J._Luchtanas_A._2016._Technologiniai_i r_diagnostiniai_Nark%C5%ABn%C5%B3_Did%C5%BEiojo_pi liakalnio_technin%C4%97s_keramikos_tyrimai._Lietuv os_Archeologija_42_p._151-189

MikkaK
06-05-2018, 12:00 AM
I believe Vl29 originated somwhere in North-West Russia and spread with Tarand graves/Akozino-Malar axes.

Going by Yfull...
L550- Looks to have originated in eastern Sweden which makes sense if the Akozino-Malar axe connection is correct.

L1022- Likley originated in Southwest Finland or Northern Estonia. Again, this fits well with Tarand graves/axes.

L1025 is complicated and can be broken into three subclades....

M2783- Basal has been found in SW Finland although it was clearly spread throughout eastern Europe with Baltic tribes and is most likely Baltic in origin.

Y4706- Fennoscandian found in Scandanavia and Western Finland.

My own BY21880- (Currently not on Yfull) Is found in Western Finland, Sweden and Russia.

L1025+ M2783- Y4706- Is also found in western Russia which may or may not be BY21880.

Volat
06-05-2018, 04:35 AM
Yeah, there's still much to be explained what I'm hoping for is for more samples from North-East Lithuania and South-East Latvia starting from around 1st century, I'm very interested in seeing what Brushed Pottery was like. Also another question is when did Prussians get their N1c1 and did other West Balts like Yotvingians/Sudovians also had it or did they got it from mixing with other Balts.

Yotvingians likely had N1c1 too. Probably, they received it from other Balts. Maybe N1c1 was already present in proto-Balts. The dominant Y-dna marker in Yotviangian population was likely R1a1. In modern southern Lithuanians living on the territory settled by Sudovians the frequency of R1a1 is around 65%. That's higher than anywhere in eastern Europe.

parastais
06-05-2018, 06:21 AM
Moulding forms where found in Narkūnai/Garniai/Vosgėliai. All in North-East Lithuania, area is ascribed to Brushed/Stroked Pottery culture. Narkūnai moulds are dated to IV-V Montelius periods. So between 1100-700BC. Couldn't find any dates for those in Garniai and Vosgėliai. Also Narkūnai was the largest metal working site in Lithuania.

http://www.piliakalniukrastas.if.vu.lt/sites/default/files/tekstai/Meliaro_kirviai.pdf

https://www.academia.edu/30685088/Pod%C4%97nas_V._%C4%8Civilyt%C4%97_A._Bagdzevi%C4% 8Dien%C4%97_J._Luchtanas_A._2016._Technologiniai_i r_diagnostiniai_Nark%C5%ABn%C5%B3_Did%C5%BEiojo_pi liakalnio_technin%C4%97s_keramikos_tyrimai._Lietuv os_Archeologija_42_p._151-189
Hmmmmmm...

Working Scenario:
So, M2783 is born in NE Lithuania metal smith’s (L1025) family between 1100-700 BCE. Probably Narkunai.

Fits:
1) TMRCA of M2783 is around 1100-700 BCE;
2) Axes came from East. Perhaps early smiths could be even seen as mostly Erzya like, but diluted till times of NLBC;
3) Some linguistic things - FU toponyms in the region, maybe some link to Selonians (must find info but I recall even Daugava used to be called Urbis Selonium) - high landers.
4) hotspot of N1c1 M2783 is in NE Lithuania

Does not fit:
1) Kivutkalns is also mentioned as such a place but genetically is fully R1a with no Eastern admixture at least up until -200 BCE. Could be fixed if we assume that Malar moulding form appeared late, just before downfall of Kivutkalns (which actually according to my memory was the case);
2) non-existent admixture From Central Sweden? Does it even matter?
3) very early? But then why not? Perhaps two or more different cultural and genetic entities co-existed these days - one defined by R1a “local” Kivutkalns, other by N1c1 “Eastern admixture” Narkunai.

Soooooo, some samples of Narkunai smiths could either solve this once and for all (in case of Easternish N) or make it even more complex (in case of localish R1a).

parastais
06-05-2018, 06:48 AM
To add to discussion - Livonians were not M2783. Or to put otherwise - they of course had Latvian subclade of M2783 but mostly had same Ydna picture as Estonians and are not source of M2783.

This statement is based on Latvian geographic data, where NW Latvians (descendants of Livonians) have similar y as Estonians with lower N % than other Latvians.

Volat
06-05-2018, 07:07 AM
4) hotspot of N1c1 M2783 is in NE Lithuania.

In the past migrations occurred along rivers and major waterways. Since NE Lithuania is not far from Daugava river could it be that M2783 spread from upper Daugava (western Dvina) in western Russia? If I am not mistaken the earliest N1c1 is found in that region - border of western Russia and north-eastern Belarus.

Aha
06-05-2018, 07:41 AM
Hmmmmmm...

Working Scenario:
So, M2783 is born in NE Lithuania metal smith’s (L1025) family between 1100-700 BCE. Probably Narkunai.

Fits:
1) TMRCA of M2783 is around 1100-700 BCE;
2) Axes came from East. Perhaps early smiths could be even seen as mostly Erzya like, but diluted till times of NLBC;
3) Some linguistic things - FU toponyms in the region, maybe some link to Selonians (must find info but I recall even Daugava used to be called Urbis Selonium) - high landers.
4) hotspot of N1c1 M2783 is in NE Lithuania

Does not fit:
1) Kivutkalns is also mentioned as such a place but genetically is fully R1a with no Eastern admixture at least up until -200 BCE. Could be fixed if we assume that Malar moulding form appeared late, just before downfall of Kivutkalns (which actually according to my memory was the case);
2) non-existent admixture From Central Sweden? Does it even matter?
3) very early? But then why not? Perhaps two or more different cultural and genetic entities co-existed these days - one defined by R1a “local” Kivutkalns, other by N1c1 “Eastern admixture” Narkunai.

Soooooo, some samples of Narkunai smiths could either solve this once and for all (in case of Easternish N) or make it even more complex (in case of localish R1a).

M2783 is a kid of L1025, which is in turn a kid of L550, which is a kid of VL29. Neither of these appear anywhere (amass) outside the Baltic Sea area.
Erzya don't have it. Their N is in a minority (around 10%) and are of different clades that separated much earlier. See L708 branch on the map I posted earlier (shown in grey color).

I think we could safely assume that VL29 was born somewhere in the Eastern Baltic area around 2100BC with all the major branches of it spread through east and north Baltic Sea coast areas. To find sensible answers we first really need to find the source population/culture of the VL29

teftelis
06-05-2018, 10:37 AM
Hmmmmmm...

Working Scenario:
So, M2783 is born in NE Lithuania metal smith’s (L1025) family between 1100-700 BCE. Probably Narkunai.

Fits:
1) TMRCA of M2783 is around 1100-700 BCE;
2) Axes came from East. Perhaps early smiths could be even seen as mostly Erzya like, but diluted till times of NLBC;
3) Some linguistic things - FU toponyms in the region, maybe some link to Selonians (must find info but I recall even Daugava used to be called Urbis Selonium) - high landers.
4) hotspot of N1c1 M2783 is in NE Lithuania

Does not fit:
1) Kivutkalns is also mentioned as such a place but genetically is fully R1a with no Eastern admixture at least up until -200 BCE. Could be fixed if we assume that Malar moulding form appeared late, just before downfall of Kivutkalns (which actually according to my memory was the case);
2) non-existent admixture From Central Sweden? Does it even matter?
3) very early? But then why not? Perhaps two or more different cultural and genetic entities co-existed these days - one defined by R1a “local” Kivutkalns, other by N1c1 “Eastern admixture” Narkunai.

Soooooo, some samples of Narkunai smiths could either solve this once and for all (in case of Easternish N) or make it even more complex (in case of localish R1a).


They very well could've had came from West seeing that Baltic N1c1 is downstream from L550 which seems to be more concentrated around Sweden/Norway/SW Finland, but then again modern distributions might not tell the whole story.

Quote from.

http://talpykla.istorija.lt/bitstream/handle/99999/2993/151-189.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

"Possible contacts with Central Europe (see
Podėnas et al. 2016) are indicated by the bronze pin,
which is the only <nd of this ornament type in the
East Baltic region. Other contact directions could
be traced to Scandinavia or the East via the Mälartype
socketed axes (Čivilytė, 2014, p.179–183). £e
use of double casting moulds for axes clearly shows
that the metalworking technology was specialised
and required experience in using instruments like
plugs and stencils. £ere is no indication of any
experimental metalworking phase in Narkūnai and
so Late Bronze Age metalworkers are considered to
have travelled throughout the region. £e hypothesis
of itinerant metalworkers visiting Narkūnai requires
a future regional study of the technical ceramics."


Also there's probably much still to be discovered, Lithuania has over 900-1000 Hillforts and only 10% were somewhat studied..

parastais
06-05-2018, 11:44 AM
From West they would need to pick up some Nordic BA or something. But NLBC guy has only little extra EHG-ishness, which was neither present in Kivutkalns nor other Baltic BA samples.

Aha
06-05-2018, 12:55 PM
From West they would need to pick up some Nordic BA or something. But NLBC guy has only little extra EHG-ishness, which was neither present in Kivutkalns nor other Baltic BA samples.

You can get that 1% extra EHG in one generation without even admixing with someone who has more EHG. Look at results of people in this forum. Some people have more EHG or African or whatnot component than either of the parents or even both of them combined. So far we have only one ancient person's genome on Gedmatch and he is extremely similar to the modern Lithuanian average. More similar to the average than most individual persons are to each other.

As for migration from west - it is also possible. But I think most likely source of the spread of all VL29 branches was somewhere around and between Finnish gulf and modern Lithuania, including adjacent Pskov and Smolensk regions. From there, I would wager radiated L550, which shortly after branched off into few different tribes which went into somewhat different directions.

parastais
06-05-2018, 01:58 PM
Speaking of general N, quote from eupedia:
“Lamnidis et al. 2018 tested six 3500 year-old individuals from the Kola Peninsula in northwest Russia and identified the two male samples as members of N1c-L392. They were all autosomally close to modern Uralic people from the Volga-Ural region and possessed typically Uralic mtDNA lineages (C4b, D4e4, T2d1b1, U4a1, U5a1d, Z1a1a).”

Modern Uralic people from Volga-Ural region... it says.
Must read that research.

MikkaK
06-05-2018, 02:08 PM
Speaking of general N, quote from eupedia:
“Lamnidis et al. 2018 tested six 3500 year-old individuals from the Kola Peninsula in northwest Russia and identified the two male samples as members of N1c-L392. They were all autosomally close to modern Uralic people from the Volga-Ural region and possessed typically Uralic mtDNA lineages (C4b, D4e4, T2d1b1, U4a1, U5a1d, Z1a1a).”

Modern Uralic people from Volga-Ural region... it says.
Must read that research.

The BOO samples were autosomally half EHG half Nganasan like. Their branch of L1026 is likley dead considering there are no branches in modern Finns ehich look to be spread from the Kola peninsula 3500ybp.

Some people have suggested BOO N could be from Krotov peoples linked with Seima-Turbino who migrated to Northern Finland around this time or possibly related to Yukaghir speakers although if L1026 came from east Siberia it could not be related to PU.

MikkaK
06-05-2018, 02:11 PM
I wouldn't place too much weight modern distrabution, you should instead look at subclade diversity

parastais
06-05-2018, 02:21 PM
Interesting if that NLBC sample could be modeled as x% of Lithuanian/Latvian + y% of Bolshoi N.

Volat
06-05-2018, 08:24 PM
----------------Edit:

Something I wrote I wish I didn't. :)

Kristiina
06-06-2018, 05:45 AM
That East Siberian connection is only with one individual from aBOO site. According to Sarkissian et al.:

A later migration from the East was associated with the spread of the Imiyakhtakhskaya culture from Yakutia (East Siberia) through northwestern Siberia to the Kola Peninsula during the Early Metal Age (3,000–4,000 yBP). Interestingly, one individual of the aBOO site (grave 10, not sampled for aDNA here) was archaeologically associated with this culture, but its cultural relationships to other individuals of the same site remain unclear.

More information on the burial site is found in this paper: https://www.academia.edu/31826165/Kola_Oleneostrovskiy_Grave_Field_A_Unique_Burial_S ite_in_the_European_Arctic

There is this text that seems to call into question that northeast Siberian connection:
In discussing the cultural connections of the population buried in the KOG, it is necessary to mention the ‘waffle’-stamp-decorated vessel from burial X. Already N. Gurina noted the similarity of this vessel and the Neolithic pottery of Yakutia and Chukotka (Gurina 1953: 377). V. Shumkin suggested that the appearance of ‘Waffle’ Ware on the Kola Peninsula may indicate the infiltration of Ymyyakhtakh culture from Siberia (Shumkin 1984: 112; 1991: 142–143). However, according to C. Carpelan, the ‘Waffle’ Ware of the Kola Peninsula belongs together with Vardųy Ware, which was distributed over northern Norway and northern Finland. He also points out that such pottery decoration is not known in the area between northern Fennoscandia and the Taimyr Peninsula.

There are some interesting features in these burials that could be highligted:
Most of the bodies had been buried in wooden, boat-shaped, lidded caskets, which looked like small boats or traditional Sįmi sledges (Ru. kerezhka).


A few fragments of a crucible with drops of bronze on the inner surface were recovered from the destroyed part of the gravefield.

Three cremations have been recorded during excavations of the grave field. Particular attention should be paid to the burial investigated by Shmidt (burial X), as everything in it contradicts the typical traits of the local burial rite. The burial consists of an incomplete, charred skeleton – like a failed attempt to burn the body – whose orientation to the west deviates from all other burials.

This is just the burial connected with East Siberia on the basis of Waffle pottery.

MikkaK
06-06-2018, 02:20 PM
Surely the presence of the Siberian component represents some kind of east to west migration even if not from east Siberia with the Imiyakhitakhskaya culture.

From how far east and if L1026 is indigenous to that population is yet to be determined. As we know if L1026 was spread by Uralics it came to the Baltic region from the Volga-Kama not through the Kola peninsula.

The EHG in BOO may or may not be local but the Siberian certainly isn't.

Kristiina
06-06-2018, 04:56 PM
QpAdm model used four reference populations: WHG, Karelia HG, LBK EN, Yamnaya and Nganasan. In Bolshoy the percentage of WHG varies from c. 1% to 14% and this can be related to Scandinavian I2 bearing men and mtDNA U5a1d which was found in Late Mesolithic Steigen in Northern Norway and in BA Bolshoy. In Bolshoy the percentage of Karelia HG varies between c. 18-55%. Half of the individuals show negative values for LBK EN, but two individuals show this kind of ancestry, i.e. 6.4 and 12.8 % respectively. It is interesting that 3 individuals show significant amount of Yamnaya ancestry, ranging between c. 7-50%. The highest Yamnaya is in a female carrying mtDNA T2d1b1. Nganasan ancestry is fairly evenly distributed ranging between c. 38-54%.

T2d1b1 is particularly interesting as among modern populations, T2d1b is found in Haryana Brahmins from East Punjab and T2d1b2 in Iran while T2d1b1 seems to be specific to some Uralic populations as it is found in modern Khanties, Komis and there is one modern T2d1b1 in the Familytree Ryazan project.

parastais
06-06-2018, 08:29 PM
So, it is an indirect clue that we are dealing with Uralic speakers there. Proto-Uralic had a layer of II loanwords and these guys had an II mtdna.

Kristiina
06-07-2018, 05:01 AM
On the basis of the Yamnaya connection, it is possible that the language is somehow related to Uralic languages. Bolshoy yDNA N could for example come from Garino Bor culture: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-extent-of-Typical-Comb-Ware-TCW-Asbestos-and-Organic-tempered-Wares-AOW-and_fig1_266226931

However, there is probably no direct link between Bolshoy and Saami and Finnish languages as these languages took a different southeastern route to Fennoscandia. There is no Bolshoy mtDNA in Saamis or Finns except for Z1a which could indeed have been introduced from northern Fennoscandia.

Moreover, Bolshoy people resembled morphologically Ugric-speaking Khanties, and Ugric languages are said to have originated west of the Ural Mountains and the Garino Bor culture was just there where Ugric languages should have developed.

MikkaK
06-08-2018, 12:38 AM
In the original thread both Megalophias and Ryukendo agreed the qpAdm is poor and inflated Yamnaya admixture.

Megalophias-
There's a qpAdm but it's pretty bad. BOO is modelled as about 6 to 9% WHG, 22 to 42% EHG, -13 to 4% LBK EN, 3 to 40% Yamnaya, and 42 to 45% Nganasan. So yeah, I expect the negative LBK means the Yamnaya is inflated (making them too Basal), but I have no idea what the real proportion of Yamnaya-like ancestry (if any) would be.

Ryukendo-
If you look at the ADMIXTURE analysis (the qpAdm is very bad, I agree, the number of right populations is too low and the confidence intervals are gigantic, Yamnaya +-30%, EHG+-20% etc.) only the Iron Age Saami have EEF. The BOO are just HG+Nganassan.

MikkaK
06-08-2018, 12:57 AM
European Uralic speakers are the result of a modern European like group mixing with a Nganassan like group not EHG mixing with a Nganassan like group (BOO). Therefore BOO is not ancestrial to modern Uralic speakers in Europe.

Kristiina
06-08-2018, 05:03 AM
We need more samples and references from the Uralic area to know what happened in that area. At the moment we have nothing.

However, mtDNA T2d1b1 in ABOO connected with high Yamnaya is a very tangible indication that something was going on with more southern flows of people.

parastais
06-08-2018, 06:09 AM
European Uralic speakers are the result of a modern European like group mixing with a Nganassan like group not EHG mixing with a Nganassan like group (BOO). Therefore BOO is not ancestrial to modern Uralic speakers in Europe.
What about
1) Proto-II like group mixing with EHG/Nganassan group for Proto-Uralic (L1026?)
2) “modern Balt like” group (substrate) mixing with Proto-Uralic like group somewhere West of Volga for Proto-Finnic (most under L1026, VL29)
3) “modern Scandinavian like” group mixing with Proto-Finnic somewhere coastal East Baltics as final serious adstrate for Estonians and Finns

wiencug
06-08-2018, 09:01 AM
As for the deep origin of N1c, a user from the Russian forum has recently made a series of posts covering his search of N1c origins basing on archaeological, anthropological, linguistic materials from Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Mongolian, Russian and Western scientific articles linking their findings to the current research of haplogroups and autosomal DNA of eastern populations, such as Yukaghirs, Yakuts, Nivkhs etc as well as studies of ancient DNA.

He concluded that:

1. the spread of N3a2'6(xN3a2;xN3a3'6) (according to Illumae et al therminology; the age of separation between 8395 and 7113 years ago), which is found in Yukaghirs and Nganasans may actually be linked to the spread of the Xinglongwa culture, because, as appears, though Yukaghirs originated according to the ethnography in the Ymyyakhtakh culture, this culture arose from the intrusion from the south and there, in the most eastern part of Mongolia Tsydenova placed the Tamsagbulag culture and linked it to the Xinglongwa culture. According to the Chinese archaeologists, the starting age of the Xinglongwa culture is 8200 years ago which fits almost perfectly to the separation within Yukaghir and Nganasan N3a2'6(xN3a2;xN3a3'6) between 8395 and 7113 years ago. This Xinglongwa culture possessed the so called ancient Chinese northeastern anthropological type, and very recently Chinese researchers indeed concluded that there are skulls of this anthropological type in the Eastern Mongolian Neolithic. Furthermore, as appears the last remaining Yukaghir-speaking Yukaghirs from the research of Sardana Fedorova harbour the largest amount of autosomal ancestry which is linked not with Paleosiberians but with Yakuts and Evenks who have documented southern origin. While it is impossible to say that those Yukaghirs who have been losing their ethnic territory for the last several centuries could have assimilated some Yakuts and Evenks, the only option left is to conclude that this Yakut-like and Evenk-like ancestry in them is indeed their own southern ancestry from Mongolia and Manchuria.

2. the separation of N3a2 and N3a3'6 from the Illumae's article, which occured 7113 years ago can very likely be linked to the spread of the improtant Manchurian Xinle culture with the age of 7200 years ago (!). According to the Chinese sources, the calibrated radiocarbon dates of the Xinle culture are 7245+-165 years ago and 7340+-100 years ago. This culture created the Manchurian Zuojiashan culture, Lower Liao version of Xinle culture, Lower Xiaozhushan culture and influenced Lower Houwa culture. Its territory spread from Lower Liao and northern part of Liaodong till the Upper Sungari river. The important thing is that the Xinle culture originated from the Xinglongwa culture previously linked to the spread of N3a2'6(xN3a2;xN3a3'6). The Xinle culture participated in the creation of the Hongshan culture. The Hongshan culture arose from the mixture of Zhaobaogou descendants of the Luanhe river valley and of Hougan I immigrants and Xinle autochtonous population from the Dalinghe river valley. The anthropological type of Hongshan's elite from the Niuheliang temple burials is linked by Chinese researchers to the ancient northeastern type, which also the Xinglongwa culture inhabitants bore, so there was no change of anthropological type in spite of the influx of immigrants. Actually, the Jiangjialiang's N1c reported in 2016 should belong to the Hongshan culture, not to Yangshao, as according to the Chinese sources Jiangjialiang settlement arose from the spread and expansion of the Hongshan culture but got later influenced by the Yangshao culture.

The most important thing is that the Hongshan culture used large amounts of jade artifacts for its burials. The tradition of jade making of the early Hongshan culture arose from the Xinglongwa-like and Xinle-like tradition of jade making and was under the influence of descendants of the Xinle culture, mainly the Zuojiashan culture. The descendants of the Xinle culture also most likely controlled the territory where the Xiuyan jade was collected. At that time there was no mining, there was collection of jade pebbles from banks of rivers. Chinese researchers report that alongside with dark yellow green Xiuyan jade the Hongshan culture later came to use of some other white and light green jade. The Chinese researchers cannot find a source of such a kind of jade in the territory of Manchuria, so they think that it came from the Sayan mountains and the Vitim river basin of Siberia where there is such a kind of jade. The most interestengly, between 6000 years ago and 5000 years ago the Upper Hake jade processing culture arose in Hulunbuir. Its oldest so far Tuanjie settlement is linked by the Chinese researchers to the Zuojiashan culture settlements which earlier arose from the Xinle culture and to the Hongshan's Xishuiquan setlement. It used both white and light green Sayan-like and Vitim-like jade, and the bearers of this culture can be said to be the source of Sayan-like and Vitim-like jade in the Hongshan culture. Later somtime between 5000 and 4000 years ago in Cis-Baikal area and in Transbaikal area there appears an advanced method of making jade rings. Earlier such advanced jade rings appeared in the Hongshan culture and in the Hake culture. So it is possible to say that bearers of this culture reached Transbaikalia and Cis-Baikalia in search of jade. So European N3a3 and N3a4 may be linked to this Hake culture originating from the Xinle culture via the Honghsan and Zuojiashan cultures.

If somebody is interested, they can read more posts on forum.molgen.org in Russian:
forum.
molgen.
org/
index.php/
topic,9955.msg422474.html
#msg422474

The topic on forum.molgen.org is called "Прародина уральцев".

MikkaK
06-08-2018, 03:13 PM
What about
1) Proto-II like group mixing with EHG/Nganassan group for Proto-Uralic (L1026?)
2) “modern Balt like” group (substrate) mixing with Proto-Uralic like group somewhere West of Volga for Proto-Finnic (most under L1026, VL29)
3) “modern Scandinavian like” group mixing with Proto-Finnic somewhere coastal East Baltics as final serious adstrate for Estonians and Finns


According to Ryukendo's nMonte runs the European portion of Uralics is very Mezehovskaya like which makes up the majority of their ancestry. They may have some extra EHG/ENA or that could have been picked up it Finland for NW Russia from the ancestors of BOO.

Samoyedics of course have extra ANE/ENA they picked up as they went Northeast.

MikkaK
06-08-2018, 03:44 PM
The N found in BHG belonged to subclade L666 and the LN Ust-Ida N1c belonged to B187. Neither of these branches are ancestrial to the majority of European N1c.

https://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/13/216

Hongshang and Xiajiadian had only N1(xN1a,xN1c) making them likely F2905+.

The Dashaqian site did have 3x N1c however it is only dated 1000-600BC.

https://www.nature.com/jhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/jhg2016107a.html

Jiangjialiang 3600-2900BC all 17 samples are N1c1 easily placing them under N-Y23747 TMRCA 6600ybp according to YFull which has only been found in China and Japan.

parastais
06-09-2018, 07:52 AM
Stolen from Ryukendo:

General thoughts:

Very surprised at the levels of specificity demonstrated here! E.g.
Mezhovskaya: Very Finnic and Volga Uralic
Scythian AldyBel: Very Uralic and Iranic and tendency to increase to the West and at the edges of the steppe.
Scythian_Samara and Sarmatian_Pokrovka: Very Iranic.
Scythian Pazyryk: Very Turkic.
Mongola: Very Turkic.
Altai_IA: Equally related to Turkics and Iranics
Karasuk_Outlier: Found in Central and Northeast Siberia
Comb Ceramic, Narva Lithuania, Narva Estonia: Found in European Siberia and Finnic-Baltic region.

I'd wager that the Iron Age Finnish genomes, when released, will look like Mezhovskaya (mostly Andronovo/Sintashta plus small fraction local EHG-ENA type thing) + a minority fraction of Comb Ceramic/Narva + maybe a little bit more of Karasuk_outlier type ancestry.

It seems to me that a part of the forest-Steppe was "Uralicised" after Andronovo and Sintashta, and this "Mezhovskaya" gene pool forms the core of the Uralics, from Saami to the Volga region, and further that this steppic population spread East before the whole horizon started pushing north into the Taiga in Siberia like parallel teeth on a comb (we know from linguistics that this is the case). Among the Eastern Uralics, i.e. Mansi-Khanty and Samoyed-like and Samoyed Uralics in Central and Northeastern Siberia, this "Mezhovskaya" population was diluted by some AG3-EHG-ENA mix, akin to the Nganasans today, for which we still have no ancient representative. Later waves of Iranic Scythians, like AldyBel, no doubt further ENA-ised the gene pool.

If
a) Mezhovskaya is Andronovo/Sintashta + small fraction EHG ENA, and
b) Andronovo genes are from Indo-Iranian (attested by II loanwords in all post-Proto-Uralic languages), and
c) Mezhovskaya is Uralic
then
Uralic-ness comes from this EHG-ENA folk.

Could this EHG-ENA portion of Mezhovskaya match the L1026 Bolshoi folk? Simply Bolshoi coming from Northern end of Indo-Iranian Uralic interactions (So more Uralic) and Mezhovskaya, mother of Volga Finns and Finns, from Southern end (So more Indo-Iranian).

wiencug
06-09-2018, 08:31 AM
It is not so simple.

According to Illumae et al the unique Nanai braanch of N-L1026, namely N3a6 diversified 4217 years ago. The Nanai is a migrant Tungusic people in the Lower Amur region originating most likely from the Naifeld type culture, which in turn may be connected to the earlier Poltse culture and the earlier Fenglin culture (this one came from the Guntulin culture), and both Poltse and Fenglin/Guntulin originated from the Uril culture, which in turn originated from the Baijinbao. The Nanai are a Southern Tungusic people, while the Northern Tungus such as the Evenki most likely originated directly from the Uril culture. The Uril culture is placed in the Lower Amur region as well, but other Tungusic people do not have N3a6, their core haplogroup is C3c. The Nanai abandoned Tungusic ways and became fisherman just like the preceding local Neolithic populations. The Nanai harbour both the large amount of autosomal ancestry of the Devil's Gate type and it is obvious from their language that most words connected to fishery are loanwords from some unknown, other the the Nivkh, language. So it is quite obvious that this Nana's N3a6 comes from the local neolithic substratum.
It is important to note that there was no influx of population from Siberia to the Lower Amur region before 4217 years ago, but the date of separation of the N3a6-branch fits almost perfectly with the rise of the so-called Voznesenovka culture 4300 years ago in the Lower Amur region, which is linked by Russian archaeologists to the influx of the new population from Manchuria and to the spread of the Hongshan-like tradition in pottery decoration. It is obvious that the Hongshan culture was already dead 4300 years ago and it is supposed that this Hongshan-like tradition tradition spread was mediated by some other southern people. Between the Hongshan and the Voznesenovka culture of the Lower Amur there is the Zuojiashan culture originating from the Xinle culture and the subsequent Yaohongzi culture, so the spread of N3a6 which is the branch of N-L1026 may be quite safely connected to the spread of the population from the Xinle/Zuojiashan realm.

The spread of the Chukotko-Kamchatkan languages is linked by Michael Fortescue to the Tokarev culture of 8-5 centuries BC, but the pottery of this Tokarev culture originated in the Lower Amur region as well and is related to the Nabil' pottery of Sakhalin, so the spread of the Chukotko-Kamchatkan branch of N-L1026 (N-B202) occured from the Lower Amur region, making it likely that previously the bearers of the "Chukotian" N-B202 also came to the Lower Amur region together with the bearers of the "Nanai" N3a6, who in turn may be linked to the Xinle/Zuojiashan area.

Most importantly, the cousin of "Chukotian" N-N202, the N-F4205 in all Siberian populations (e.g. Buryats who are mongolicized former Turkic-speakers) is linked to the spread of Mongolians. But according to Juha Janhunen the homeland of the Proto-Mongolic language was located in Southern Manchuria. The findings of the Chinese geneticists who link the Donghu to the Jinggouzi type with the haplogroup C3*-F3918 seem to support Janhunen's version. So it may be assumed tha N-F4205 which according to Ilumae et al has the age of separation of 2774 years ago became part of the Donghu somewhere in Manchuria.

So we can see that all main Asian branches of N-L1026 originated somewhere in Manchuria, and for the Nanai N3a6 branch and also possibly for the Chukotko-Kamchatkan N-B202 branches it is quite safe to assume that they originated somewhere in the Zuojiashan culture which in turn originated from the Xinle culture.

__________________________________________________ ________________________________

The Upper Xiajiadian culture where N1c was found is not "Proto-Mongolian". According to the Chinese researches it is linked craniologically to the culture of Gaotaishan. The Gaotaishan culture evolved from the Pianpu/Santang culture which in turn evoleved as a result of the imposition of the traditions of the Beixin and Dawenkou cultures of Jiadong on the local Lower Liao Xinle and Lower Xiaozhushan (originating from the Xinle culture). It is safe to assume the Upper Xiajiadian culture's N1c, if not from the Lower Xiajiadian substratum, came from Lower Liao Xinle and Lower Xiaozhushan while The Upper Xiajiadian's O-M117 came from the Beixin and Dawenkou cultures of Jiadong.

__________________________________________________ _______________________________

Recently N1c was found in the Kitoi culture. This Kitoi culture originated from the Fofanov culture of Transbaikalia, and this Fofanov site by means of craniology is linked to the Banpo site. It is impossible to assume that arhaeologically the Fofanov site has anything in common with Banpo, so it has to be assumed that there was some kind of Kitoi/Fofanov-like anthropological substratum in Banpo. As Banpo is located in Central China where a subbranch of N-L666, namely N-M128 is found it may be assumed that Kitoi's N-L666 came from the in times immemorial. As for the Kitoi's N1c, the Kitoi culture possessed a fairly advanced jade working tradition and before the Kitoi there was no developed neolithic jade making in Mongolia and even in the northern part of Central China bordering Mongolia. But the Xinglongwa culture had this advanced jade making tradition. So it can be supposed that Kitoi's N1c unlike N-L666 came from Manchuria as well.
__________________________________________________ ________________________________

Recently N1c was found in the Isakovo culture. Russian and western achaeologists suppose that this Isakovo culture came to Cisbaikalia somehere from the basin of Yenisei river. It is supported by the fact that aautosomally the Isakovo samples seem to harbour an additional Malta-like ancestry which Kitoi samples lack. Strangely enough, the Yenisei river basin neolithic is influenced by the Neolithic of Manchuria as well. The so-called "shouldered point" artifact are haracteristic of the Yenisei's Maina type, and they are found in the Zuojiashan culture of Manchuria. Interestingly, they are not found in Zuojiashan progenitor Xinle culture, so they maybe linked to a more ancient than Xinle and Zuojiashan substratum. Indeed, according to the Chinese researches ancient Manchurian Houtaomuga I site displays the same ancient Northeast Chinese type as the Xinglongwa culture, the progenitor of the Xinle and subsequently the Zuojiashan culture, if we assume that the Xinglongwa/Xinle/Zuojiashan was N3a2'6 and N3a2 and N3a'6, it apperas that this substratum indeed maybe N3a'b and the Isakovo sample may indeed be N-B187.

__________________________________________________ ____________________________
In the Chinese paper it is stated that the Jiangjialiang's N1c is highly diversified and indeed it can be observed from the means of Jiangjialiang DYS markers. So even though this Jiangjialiang N1c most likely comes from the Hongshan culture as Chinese archaeologists imply, it would be oversimplification to think that all that different N1c of Jiangjialiang belongs just to the Chinese N-Y23747, as there may be other haplotypes not detected so far. Also it is unnecessary to look for N-L1026 samples in this Jiangjialiang, because judging by Nanai's N3a6 and Chukotian N-B202, the N-L1026 haplogroup seems to be concentrated northe of the Hongshan's Nantaidi settlement from which the Xueshan I tradition of Jiangjialiang started. Rather, it would be better to assume that Jiangjialiang's N1c just notifies the richness and high level of diversification of N1c in Hongshan and Manchuria.

__________________________________________________ ___________________________
The above information may show that Manchuria is indeed likely to be the homeland of, possibly, all N1c known branches so far, though European branches diverisified already west of Manchuria. Most importantly, cousins of European N-L1026 branches, namely N-F4205, N-B202, and Nanai's N3a6 can also be shown to be linked to Manchuria, and in the case fo N-B202 and Nanai's N3a6 a homeland in the Zuojiashan culture originating from the Xinle culture is very likely.
__________________________________________________ _______________________________

P.S. The following will be not from the research paper but on the Russian Forum forum.molgen.org from the topic "Прародина уральцев" a Russian user ran a Davidski K27 based calculator onto Kitoi and Isakovo samples and they INDEED to the addition of Nganasan-like component have shown the appearance of the so-called "Ancestral Yayoi" component which is high in Manchurian populations so Manchuria indeed seems to deliver its ancestry further to the West. And another user from the same topic "Прародина уральцев" ran a haplogroup predictor onto the Isakovo N1c sample and it INDEED appeared to be the closest to the modern Shors population who abide in N-B187. So in addiciton to archaeological and anthropological information the above can indeed boost the confidence that Manchuria was the homeland of N1c.

__________________________________________________ ____________
P.P.S. In the study on the genomic ancestry of Ket it can be found in one of the tables that the Saami have 4% of the Ulchi-like component, and that Ulchi-like component in that table excludes Nganasan-like component and Chukchi like component. We see from the paper on Devil's Gate individuals that the composition of Ulchi is almost the same as that of Devil's Gate individuals. This Devil's Gate is the Rudninskaya-Xinkailiu culture originating on the basis of local early neolithic tradition with the influx of a people who bore the Xinglongwa-like jade making tradition and the Beifudi-like mask cult. So these Saami imply that once there was Ulchi/Devil's Gate-like ancestry in Europe but it got diluted through time and mixture events.

Shaikorth
06-09-2018, 09:27 AM
Nanai N is just a subclade of N-Y6058 (Ilumäe's fig S1 clearly shows this although they didn't mention it in the text). The Chukchi/Eskimo/Mongolian Y16323 is all from a 3200 years old founder effect as the most recent Yfull datings (https://www.yfull.com/tree/N-Y16323/) reveal, it doesn't have an old presence and likely Nanai branch is from a recent founder effect as well.

wiencug
06-09-2018, 10:12 AM
Nanai's N3a6 cannot be a recent founder effect. If you look carefully in the Supplementary Materials of Illumae at el you will see that the age of diversifiacation of Nanai's N3a6 is 4217 ago (!) and ALL samples of N3a6 are indeed Nanais. As the Voznesenovka culture appeared in Lower Amur 4300 years ago and Nanais are partially assimilated local neolithic dwellers from whom Nanais got part of their autosomal DNA related to Devil's Gate, their fishery, ethnographic traditions having quite obvious roots in the Voznesenovka neolithic, fishery terms from unknown substratum language unrelated to Nivkh, so it is quite confident that N3a6 is the haplogroup of the local Voznesenovka people, while this Voznesenovka originated from the bearers of a Hongshan-like pottery decoration tradition which can only be brought to Lower Amur by the Zuojiashan/Yaohongzi people, who in turn earlier originated from the Xinle culture. I would like to reiterate once more that during the formation of the Voznesenovka culture 4300 years ago there were no intrusions to the Lower Amur region from Siberia.

So, if N3a6 is "just" part of Y6058, it would mean that Y6058 also originated somewhere there in Zoujiashan/Xinle horizons as there where no influx from Siberia at that time.

Mongolians never dwelt in the Arctic. So as for the Chukchi I would like to write one more time, that as the spread of their language is linked by Michael Fortescue to the spread of the Tokarev culture from Lower Amur, and the pottery of this TOkarev culture also originated from Lower Amur, it would mean that the first man who had their N-B202 whose age of diversification is calculated by Ilumae at all to be around 2400 years ago which coincides with the begining of the Tokarev culture 2800-2500 years ago, also came from the Lower Amur region to Chukotka. As there is no archaeological reasons to assume that there where two migration events from Manchuria during the formation of Voznesenovka culture in the Lower Amur region, that it may be assumed that ancestors of this N-B202 man came to lower Amur together with N3a6 of the future Nanais from the culture of Zuojiashan/Yaohongzi which in turn originated from the culture of Manchuria.

As for Mongolian N-F4205, I would like to write one more time, that as Janhunen thinks the homeland of Proto-Mongolian was in Souther Manchurian, as Chinese geneticists linked the Jinggouzi type of Manchuria with the Donghu/Mongolians so it must be assumed that in order to enter the Mongolian Y-chromosome pool N-F4205 also had to dwell in Southern Manchuria, as it is the lineage confined mostly to Mongolians and its age is 2774 years which is not fare from the age of the Jinggouzi type. It is very important to know that the most ancient individual of N-F4205 from Illumae et al paper whose ancestors separeted 2774 years ago, is also a Mongolian, so this N-F4205 got to become Mongolian long time ago, when these "Proto-Mongolians" according to Janhunen lived in Southern Manchuria.

As three branches of N-L1026 can be connected to Manchuria so other branches can be connected as well, especially in the light of what I wrote in my previous posts about the fact that all branches N1c's can be linked to Manchuria.

Shaikorth
06-09-2018, 10:25 AM
Nanai's N3a6 cannot be a recent founder effect. If you look carefully in the Supplementary Materials of Illumae at el you will see that the age of diversifiacation of Nanai's N3a6 is 4217 ago (!) and ALL samples of N3a6 are indeed Nanais. As the Voznesenovka culture appeared in Lower Amur 4300 years ago and Nanais are partially assimilated local neolithic dwellers from whom Nanais got part of their autosomal DNA related to Devil's Gate, their fishery, traditions having quite obvious roots in the Voznesenovka neolithic, fishery terms from unknown substratum language unrelated to Nivkh, so it is quite confident that N3a6 is the haplogroup of the local Voznesenovka people, while this Voznesenovka originated from a Hongshan-like pottery decoration tradition which can only be brought to Lower Amur by the Zuojiashan/Yaohongzi people, who in turn earlier originated from the Xinle culture.

So, if N3a6 is "just" part of Y6058, it would mean that Y6058 also originated somewhere there in Zoujiashan/Xinle horizons as there where no influx from Siberia at that time.

Mongolians never dwelt in the Arctic. So as for the Chukchi I would like to write one more time, that as the spread of their language is linked by Michael Fortescue to the spread of the Tokarev culture from Lower Amur, and the pottery of this TOkarev culture also originated from Lower Amur, it would mean that the first man who had their N-B202 whose age of diversification is calculated by Ilumae at all to be around 2400 years ago which coincides with the begining of the Tokarev culture 2800-2500 years ago, also came from the Lower Amur region to Chukotka. As there is no archaeological reasons to assume that there where two migration events during the formation of Voznesenovka culture, that it may be assumed that ancestors of this N-B202 man came to lower Amur together with N3a6 of the future Nanais from the culture of Zuojiashan/Yaohongzi which in turn originated from the culture of Manchuria.

As for Mongolian N-F4205, I would like to write one more time, that as Janhunen thinks the homeland of Proto-Mongolian was in Souther Manchurian, as Chinese geneticists linked the Jinggouzi type of Manchuria with the Donghu/Mongolians so it must be assumed that in order to enter the Mongolian Y-chromosome pool N-F4205 also had to dwell in Southern Manchuria, as it is the lineage confined mostly to Mongolians and its age is 2774 years which is not fare from the age of the Jinggouzi type. It is very important to know that the most ancient individual of N-F4205 from Illumae et al paper whose ancestors separeted 2774 years ago, is also a Mongolian, so this N-F4205 got to become Mongolian long time ago, when these "Proto-Mongolians" according to Janhunen lived in Southern Manchuria.

As three branches of N-L1026 can be connected to Manchuria so other branches can be connected as well, especially in the light of what I wrote in my previous posts about the fact that all branches N1c's can be linked to Manchuria.

Nanai N probably is from a recent founder effect, Ilumäe's estimate for it isn't older than for the Chukchi-Eskimo Mongolian branch, which Y-full showed to be young. N-Tat might have been in Upper Paleolithic Manchuria for all we know but the Y6058's are newcomers and have more recent MRCA's than the western L1026 branches to show for it.

wiencug
06-09-2018, 10:33 AM
"Nanai N probably is from a recent founder effect, Ilumäe's estimate for it isn't older than for the Chukchi-Eskimo Mongolian branch"

The actual age of separation of N3a6 within Nanai is labeled in the Illumae's work as No 23 with the age of 4217 years ago. Separations No 24, 25,26 with shallow ages are actually separations WITHIN this old separation aged 4217 years ago and ALL N3a6 samples are Nanais. So far N3a6 aged 4217 years ago which is by no means recent is confined ONLY to Nanais. 4217 years ago is by no means a "recent" founder effect.

I think it is quite obvious.

wiencug
06-09-2018, 10:48 AM
Shaikroth,
" N-Tat might have been in Upper Paleolithic Manchuria for all we know but the Y6058's are newcomers and have more recent MRCA's than the western L1026 branches to show for it."

So with which archaeological culture N3a5 with the age of separation of 4580 years ago (Ilumae, separation No 27) and N3a6 with the age of separation 4217 (Ilumae, separation No 23) would have come to Manchuria :)?

No matter how you would try you would not have found any western archaeological culture which would enter Manchuria at the time of these separations :).
There are only "Chinese" cultures (actually, sinoxenic) entering from Jiadong and south of Yanshan mountains there :).

Ebizur
06-09-2018, 10:56 AM
What do you think about N-Y23747, which is within N-Tat but basal to the major N-F1419 subclade?

YFull recently has added the Y-DNA of id:ELT50017, who is reportedly from Hebei Province of the PRC, to its phylogenetic tree. It estimates the TMRCA in N-Y125664 of id:ELT50017 and id:ERR1025646, who is an Oroqen (Northern Tungusic speaker) from the upper basin of the Amur River, to be approximately 3,600 [95% CI 2,700 <-> 4,800] ybp.

N-Y125664 has a sister clade, N-Y23749, which is also within N-Y23747. N-Y23749 is currently represented on YFull by the Y-DNA of two individuals from Japan who are estimated to share a MRCA approximately 1,950 [95% CI 1,300 <-> 2,900] ybp.

The TMRCA in N-Y23747 of the Japanese N-Y23749 and the North Chinese & Tungusic N-Y125664 is estimated to be 6,600 [95% CI 5,400 <-> 7,800] ybp.
That TMRCA estimate would make Japanese/North Chinese/Tungusic N-Y23747 older than N-Y6058 (TMRCA 4,700 [95% CI 4,000 <-> 5,500] ybp); the latter clade, N-Y6058, subsumes N-VL29, which is found mainly in Finnic peoples, and N-Y16323, one branch of which is found among indigenous peoples in Chukotka and another branch of which is found among Turks and Mongols.

Shaikorth
06-09-2018, 10:56 AM
"Nanai N probably is from a recent founder effect, Ilumäe's estimate for it isn't older than for the Chukchi-Eskimo Mongolian branch"

The actual age of separation of N3a6 within Nanai is labeled in the Illumae's work as No 23 with the age of 4217 years ago. Separations No 24, 25,26 with shallow ages are actually separations WITHIN this old separation aged 4217 years ago and ALL N3a6 samples are Nanais. So far N3a6 aged 4217 years ago which is by no means recent is confined ONLY to Nanais. 4217 years ago is by no means a "recent" founder effect.

I think it is quite obvious.

They also estimated age 4,580 for Y16323/N3a5 but this isn't actually the MRCA age as noticed by Yfull, MRCA is considerably more recent. We don't have a proper MRCA estimate for N3a6 but it probably isn't older than for N3a5. The conclusive evidence will be ancient DNA which will be out soon, if there are over 4000 years old samples with L1026 in places like Western Siberia or the Arctic but not in Manchuria it's definitely a newcomer there.

wiencug
06-09-2018, 11:19 AM
What do you think about N-Y23747, which is within N-Tat but basal to the major N-F1419 subclade?

YFull recently has added the Y-DNA of id:ELT50017, who is reportedly from Hebei Province of the PRC, to its phylogenetic tree. It estimates the TMRCA in N-Y125664 of id:ELT50017 and id:ERR1025646, who is an Oroqen (Northern Tungusic speaker) from the upper basin of the Amur River, to be approximately 3,600 [95% CI 2,700 <-> 4,800] ybp.

N-Y125664 has a sister clade, N-Y23749, which is also within N-Y23747. N-Y23749 is currently represented on YFull by the Y-DNA of two individuals from Japan who are estimated to share a MRCA approximately 1,950 [95% CI 1,300 <-> 2,900] ybp.

The TMRCA in N-Y23747 of the Japanese N-Y23749 and the North Chinese & Tungusic N-Y125664 is estimated to be 6,600 [95% CI 5,400 <-> 7,800] ybp.
That TMRCA estimate would make Japanese/North Chinese/Tungusic N-Y23747 older than N-Y6058 (TMRCA 4,700 [95% CI 4,000 <-> 5,500] ybp); the latter clade, N-Y6058, subsumes N-VL29, which is found mainly in Finnic peoples, and N-Y16323, one branch of which is found among indigenous peoples in Chukotka and another branch of which is found among Turks and Mongols.
Actually the Proto-Tungus according to Janhunen and archaeology came from Manchuria, but this N-Y125664 is not found reported in other Tungusic peoples so far, the "ancestral" haplogroup of their language group being most likely C3c. The age of separation of N-Y125664 (3600 years ago) is older than the origin of the "Proto-Tungusic" Uril culture (about 3200 years old) so I think that those Oroqens acquired N-Y125664 when they back migrated to Manchuria from the North.

As for Japanese lineages they could originate from any Bronze Age culture of Manchuria bordering the Korean Peninsula because different lineages of Mumun people came to Korea from Manchuria and the Songungni culture from which the Yayoi culture originated formed on the substratum of Mumun though Songungni rice farmers were a later migrant than the bulk of Mumun people.

I do not see any obstacle for N-L1026 presence in Manchuria coming from a deeper TMRCA of N-Y23747. Actually there may be plenty of other lineages of N-M178 which did not survived or has not been detected yet. For me the original Manchruian presense of N3a5 and N3a6 which are the lineages of N-L1026 seems likely on the basis of what I wrote previously.

And as I have written previously it is quite unique and does not seem to be a coincedence that the Hongshan culture valued jade, and it also used
jade from Sayan mountains and Vitim river basin and there appeared a daughter Hongshan/Zuojiashan culture of Upper Hake in Hulunbuir and later Hongshan and Hake technology of jade ring making appeared in Cisbaikalia and Transbaikalia. As branches of N-L1026, namely N3a6 of Nanais and N-B202 of Chukchis can also be shown to be linked to this Zuojiashan horizon, I think that these branches remained in Manchuria while founders of European branches left in search of jade to the Vitim basin and Sayan mountains and later got mixed with other peoples and got to Europe:).

MikkaK
06-09-2018, 03:21 PM
Stolen from Ryukendo:

If
a) Mezhovskaya is Andronovo/Sintashta + small fraction EHG ENA, and
b) Andronovo genes are from Indo-Iranian (attested by II loanwords in all post-Proto-Uralic languages), and
c) Mezhovskaya is Uralic
then
Uralic-ness comes from this EHG-ENA folk.

Could this EHG-ENA portion of Mezhovskaya match the L1026 Bolshoi folk? Simply Bolshoi coming from Northern end of Indo-Iranian Uralic interactions (So more Uralic) and Mezhovskaya, mother of Volga Finns and Finns, from Southern end (So more Indo-Iranian).

Ryukendo is saying this Mezhovskaya component is the core of Uralics. If all Uralics have this component it was present at the Poto-Uralic stage.

Possibly N1c and EHG/ENA are linked but this would have to be before Proto-Uralic.

MikkaK
06-09-2018, 03:49 PM
Another Ryu quote from Eurogenes...


One final point: the Nganasan population here admixed with an EHG population approx 5000 years ago, but it imposed the Y-DNA on the wrong population (EHG) in the wrong context (among Hunter-gatherers) and at the wrong time. The Uralic populations here under ALDER have Nganasan admixing with a different population (Lithuanian and Icelandic-like) in the right context (presumably among already agropastoral peoples, which is what the Lithuanian and Icelandic-likes represent) at a later time, probably analogously to how Turkics and Tungusics took up pastoralism from already pastoral peoples in the metal ages and historical period respectively (with the requisite admixture), leading specific haplogroups and autosomal signatures to expand. So Uralic ethnogenesis as indicated by autosomal gene pools was clearly the result of a separate process that could have introduced multiple clades of N1c onto an autosomal and cultural background suited for expansion that was different and distinct from the event that brought Bolshoi. The Nganasan-EHG admixture did not even produce modern-Uralic-looking autosomes.

parastais
06-10-2018, 07:47 AM
Ryukendo is saying this Mezhovskaya component is the core of Uralics. If all Uralics have this component it was present at the Poto-Uralic stage.

Possibly N1c and EHG/ENA are linked but this would have to be before Proto-Uralic.
Well - the most mainstream is that Indo-Iranian loanwords were acquired at the Proto-Uralic state.
Also Andronovo genes were acquired at Mezhovskaya stage which is apparently also present at all Uralic populations. So, must be Proto-Uralic.

Seems like linguistics and genetics are in agreement here.

Shaikorth
06-10-2018, 09:19 AM
Ryukendo had that Mezhovskaya idea before the most recent ancient DNA papers and we can now say (for the record I think he'd agree) that it is quite likely wrong. Mezhovskaya-like populations didn't exist at the proper time for PU. I compared that Baltic_IA sample to modern Lithuanians and Latvians and in both cases it just had a Comb Ceramic shift, no Mezhovskaya etc:

"distance%=4.2876"
With scaled Global25
NLithuania: DA171

Lithuanian,89.4
Comb_Ceramic,10.6

Modern Komi, Mezhovskaya and Sidelkino all 0.

parastais
06-10-2018, 09:57 AM
Ryukendo had that Mezhovskaya idea before the most recent ancient DNA papers and we can now say (for the record I think he'd agree) that it is quite likely wrong. Mezhovskaya-like populations didn't exist at the proper time for PU. I compared that Baltic_IA sample to modern Lithuanians and Latvians and in both cases it just had a Comb Ceramic shift, no Mezhovskaya etc:

"distance%=4.2876"
With scaled Global25
NLithuania: DA171

Lithuanian,89.4
Comb_Ceramic,10.6

Modern Komi, Mezhovskaya and Sidelkino all 0.
Is there some link I could check on different queries?
How Mezhovskaya looks like if modern Lithuanians are included?

Kristiina
06-10-2018, 12:54 PM
@Ebizur
It does not make much sense to compare N-Y6058 with N-Y23747, as N-Y6058 is much more downstream and between N-Y6058 and N-F1419 there are many nodes and subclades that are mostly found in Russia and clearly more western compared to N-Y23747. N-Y23747 is on the same level with N-F1419 (South Siberian Khakass, Andra Pradesh, Bashkortostan, Volga Ural) and TMRCA of F1419, 10800 years, is clearly older that TMRCA of Y23747, 6600 years.

However, first of all, we need ancient yDNA from the relevant areas.

It is a pity that we do not have autosomal data of Neolithic Chinese N samples. Modern populations in the same area are not the same, because y DNA N carrying farmers were mostly overrun and replaced from two directions: by Jinggouzi-type populations from the north and Han-like populations from the south.

I agree with Shaikorth that N-Tat might have been in Upper Paleolithic Manchuria, and/or elsewhere. The LGM refuges of yDNA N are yet to be discovered.

MikkaK
06-10-2018, 04:16 PM
Ryukendo had that Mezhovskaya idea before the most recent ancient DNA papers and we can now say (for the record I think he'd agree) that it is quite likely wrong. Mezhovskaya-like populations didn't exist at the proper time for PU. I compared that Baltic_IA sample to modern Lithuanians and Latvians and in both cases it just had a Comb Ceramic shift, no Mezhovskaya etc:

"distance%=4.2876"
With scaled Global25
NLithuania: DA171

Lithuanian,89.4
Comb_Ceramic,10.6

Modern Komi, Mezhovskaya and Sidelkino all 0.

So then what do you think caused the Mezhovskaya shift in modern Uralics?

Also if the Estonian article is correct we can expect N1c from 8-5th century BCE in Tarand graves. This is not too far from North Lithuania however 1000 years older. They will likely represent the actuall proto-Finnics.