PDA

View Full Version : N1c in the Balts



Pages : 1 2 [3] 4

Shaikorth
06-10-2018, 05:23 PM
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.

That Mezhovskaya shift was possibly not real, it vanished when using references from the newest papers. Khantys for example now look like a mix of ShamankaEN (BHG) and something that may have been a bit like Corded Ware but more ANE since regular Sintashta and Baltic CWC were 0 in this fit like Mezhovskaya.

"distance%=9.7704"

Khanty

ShamankaEN,46
West_Siberia_N,33
Sintashta_MLBA_o3,11
Barcin_N,10

famatus
06-13-2018, 11:28 PM
False thinking. Geographical center of Lithuanian Republic is 59 km away from Kaunas. Not of Lithuania.

Ebizur
06-17-2018, 02:37 AM
@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.How does it not make sense?

The point is that N-Y23747 represents a branch of N-Tat (what is more, a basal one) that has been found only in eastern Asia (Japan, the Upper Amur, and North China) and whose TMRCA is most likely greater than the TMRCA of N-L1026, this latter clade subsuming the bulk of extant members of N-Tat and having some branches found in eastern Asia and other branches found in Europe. (However, YFull's 95% CIs for the two clades do overlap just a bit: N-Y23747 TMRCA 6,600 [95% CI 5,400 <-> 7,800] ybp, N-L1026 TMRCA 4,700 [95% CI 4,000 <-> 5,500] ybp. I'm not claiming that the finding of N-Y23747 only in eastern Asia so far is incontrovertibly strong evidence for an origin of N-Tat in eastern Asia, only that it is one piece of evidence that should be interpreted to support the eastern Asian origin hypothesis.)

In support of the European origin hypothesis, one might mention N-Y9022, all current representatives of which on YFull have origins in the Volga-Ural region: Bashkortostan, Komi Republic, Tatarstan, Mordovia, Penza Oblast. However, the TMRCA of N-Y9022 is estimated to be 3,900 [95% CI 3,100 <-> 4,700] ybp, indicating that it is significantly younger than eastern Asian N-Y23747 at least on the basis of these members from the Volga-Ural region. Furthermore, data from FTDNA suggest that at least one branch of N-Y9022 has been present in southern Siberia (Novokuznetsk and Tobolsk) since the 17th century CE at the latest. I suppose higher-resolution data should clarify eventually whether members of this clade have migrated from the Volga-Ural region to southern Siberia during the eastward expansion of the Russian Empire or whether they have migrated from southern Siberia to eastern Europe in some earlier era; of course, they could have done both (i.e. migrated from southern Siberia to eastern Europe, with some descendants later migrating back to southern Siberia).

MikkaK
06-17-2018, 04:38 AM
N-Y23747 and N-F1419 are both on the same level of the tree.

N-Y23747 has a TMRCA of 6600ybp and is only found in East Asia.

N-F1419 has a TMRCA of 10800ybp, its two son branches are...

N-Y24317 with a TMRCA of 10800ybp found in an Indian and two South Siberians on Yfull it was also found in the Ust-Ida BHG and Okunevo aDNA samples.

N-L708 with a TMRCA of 7500ybp has its greatest diversity around the Urals according to Yfull but it is found across Eurasia.

I would argue this supports a Siberian origin for N-Tat however Northern China isnt out of the question.

Ebizur
06-17-2018, 06:45 AM
N-F1419 has a TMRCA of 10800ybp, its two son branches are...

N-Y24317 with a TMRCA of 10800ybp found in an Indian and two South Siberians on Yfull it was also found in the Ust-Ida BHG and Okunevo aDNA samples.The Indian member has an Islamic name and appears to be a Hyderabad or Andhra Muslim. Who knows where his patrilineal ancestor might have lived even five hundred years ago?

In any case, his TMRCA with two Khakassians on YFull is estimated to be approximately the same as the TMRCA of the parent clade, N-F1419. This suggests that the N-Y24317 node may be phylogenetically quite insignificant; the Indian and the Khakassians may share as few as four SNPs in common vis-à-vis members of N-L708.


N-L708 with a TMRCA of 7500ybp has its greatest diversity around the Urals according to Yfull but it is found across Eurasia.One branch from the N-L708 node is the N-Y9022 clade (TMRCA 3,900 [95% CI 3,100 <-> 4,700] ybp on the basis of some members from the Volga-Ural region of Russia) that I have mentioned in my previous comment in this thread. The other branch is N-M2126 (TMRCA 6,400 [95% CI 5,500 <-> 7,400] ybp).

N-M2126 has two primary subclades: N-M2019 (TMRCA 3,800 [95% CI 3,000 <-> 4,600] ybp) and N-L1026 (TMRCA 4,700 [95% CI 4,000 <-> 5,500] ybp). N-M2019 has been found mainly among Turkic peoples (including a certain subclade, N-M1993, whose TMRCA is estimated to be 1,600 [95% CI 1,050 <-> 2,200] ybp, that is known for its high frequency in Yakutia), but it also has been found in some individuals on the western periphery of the Turkic world, e.g. Hungary, Croatia. There is also an interesting basal N-M2019* from Estonia.

N-L1026 subsumes N-Y16323 (TMRCA 3,200 [95% CI 2,500 <-> 4,000] ybp), N-Y28526 (TMRCA 1,700 [95% CI 1,100 <-> 2,400] ybp calculated on the basis of the Y-DNA of only three members), N-VL29 (TMRCA 3,700 [95% CI 3,100 <-> 4,400] ybp), N-Y13850 (TMRCA 4,200 [95% CI 3,500 <-> 5,100] ybp), N-Z1934 (TMRCA 4,400 [95% CI 3,600 <-> 5,200] ybp), and N-B479 (TMRCA 4,217 [95% CI 3,185 <-> 5,174] ybp according to Ilumäe et al. 2016, whose TMRCA estimates tend to be a bit greater/older than those of YFull).

As for the geographical distributions of these subclades of N-L1026, N-Z1934 appears to be distinctly Finnic. N-Y13850 looks like it might have been originally Ugric, but it also seems to be quite common among northwestern Turkic peoples. N-VL29 appears to have been originally Finnic, but some branches have prospered among Scandinavians, Balts, and Slavs. N-Y16323 has one branch, N-B202, among Northeast Siberians (Koryak, Chukchi, Eskimo) and another branch, N-F4205, among Turko-Mongols. N-Y28526 is rare and the extent of its distribution is not clear yet, but it has been found in European Russia, including the Komi Republic. N-B479 has been found among the Nanais of southeastern Siberia.

Kristiina
06-17-2018, 07:04 AM
I have never promoted the European origin for yDNA N, and the arguments to support that theory have never been very strong.

However, the arguments for a Siberian origin are many:
Ust Ishim is K2a
K2a and K2b share the same node and both Q and N are frequent in northern Eurasia.

According to Chinese researchers themselves N is older in Siberia/Altai than in China, even without the western N-P189.2 branch.
N-M231 mainly Han and Mongol 9.8 kya, linearly calibrated 15.8 kya
N1-F2130 mainly Han and Mongol 8.4 kya, linearly calibrated 13.5 kya
N2-F2930 Mainly Han 6.7 kya, linearly calibrated 10.8 kya.
(http://arxiv.org/abs/1504.06463)

The Balcanic line, derived from the oldest split, has been detected in one Iron Age burial from Hungary and possibly in Iron Age Altai but, to my knowledge, not in Chinese Neolithic.

In the recent paper on ancient Southeast Asian DNA, southeast Asian hunters were C and D, southeast Asian farmers were O and the first N haplos appeared in the metal age.

In any case, the ancient yDNA will hopefully resolve this issue in the future. I will modify my ideas accordingly.

On a more general note, I am however against the idea that a yline must start from one end of its distribution range and migrate to the other end. I think that it is more probable that the centre of expansion is in the middle and there are repeated pulses of expansion from there to the surroundings. Of course, during the Ice Age there may have been several refuges for different N branches so that they need not have expanded from the same place.

Ebizur
06-24-2018, 02:33 AM
Ling-Xiang Wang, Yan Lu, Chao Zhang, et al. (2018) have found a member of N1a1a3-F4065/B496 in Shigatse, Tibet. This is the basal branch of N1a1a-M178 that heretofore has been found in three individuals in Japan, one Oroqen in the upper Amur River basin, and one individual in Hebei Province of China.

cf. Wang, LX., Lu, Y., Zhang, C., et al., "Reconstruction of Y-chromosome phylogeny reveals two neolithic expansions of Tibeto-Burman populations." Mol Genet Genomics (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00438-018-1461-2

lgmayka
06-24-2018, 10:14 PM
Ling-Xiang Wang, Yan Lu, Chao Zhang, et al. (2018) have found a member of N1a1a3-F4065/B496 in Shigatse, Tibet. This is the basal branch of N1a1a-M178 that heretofore has been found in three individuals in Japan, one Oroqen in the upper Amur River basin, and one individual in Hebei Province of China.
N-Y23747 (https://yfull.com/tree/N-Y23747/)

BroderTuck
06-25-2018, 07:50 AM
There was also a person from Korea in one of the FTDNA N projects whose Genographic test showed him to be F4065, but no BigY test planned for him as of now.

Ebizur
06-25-2018, 08:38 AM
There was also a person from Korea in one of the FTDNA N projects whose Genographic test showed him to be F4065, but no BigY test planned for him as of now.Can you give me a link or any more detailed information about this Korean case?

The only instance of N-F4065 in an FTDNA project of which I am aware is N114445 Terasawa Seikuro Watanabe,b.Middle19th C,Kanai Sado Japan Japan N-F4065 in the N North Eurasian Y-DNA Project, who also appears as N114445 Terasawa Japan N-F4065 [N1a1a3 (旧N1c1a) - M231+ L735+ L729+ Tat+ M178+ F4063+] in the Japan DNA Project. According to his entry in the N North Eurasian Y-DNA Project, his ancestor was born in Kanai, Sado in the mid-19th century CE. Kanai (金井町 Kanai-machi "Goldwell Town") was a landlocked town located in the very center of the island of Sado. Kanai was merged with all other municipalities located on Sado Island in the Sea of Japan to form 佐渡市 Sado-shi ("Sado City (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sado,_Niigata)") on March 1, 2004. In fact, Kanai-machi did not exist as such in the mid-19th century; Kanai was created as a municipality on November 3, 1954 through the merger of Kanazawa Village (金沢村 Kanazawa-mura "Goldbrook/Goldmarsh Village") and most of Yoshii Village (吉井村 Yosiwi-mura > Yoshii-mura "Goodwell Village"). I presume that this Mr. Terasawa has intended to indicate that his ancestor (Mr. Watanabe) is recorded to have been born in the mid-19th century somewhere within the area in the interior of Sado Island that would eventually become Kanai Town. As for the change of surname, that is not too unusual for a Japanese lineage; on average, something like five percent of Japanese men take their wife's surname upon marriage.

BroderTuck
06-25-2018, 10:32 AM
As I wrote, he had transferred Geno to FTDNA, and they had given him the very european CTS7227. This of course led to an interesting discussion about how this could be, for a Korean.
After investigating a bit further, I happened to spot F4065+ among his SNPs, and no sign of L708. He was later able to confirm that he was ancient for F1419 and L708 according to geno.

FTDNA still erroneously designates him as CTS7227, seen for example in the NNE project.
(It's a C/G change, and you therefore need to be absolutely sure which strand you're reading, something that apparently gets lost in the geno->ftdna transfer)

Edit: Förgot to add, he's been placed in the N1c - 03 China Branch in the NNE project.
In fact, Terasawa should be there as well, the other 03 branch should be for those who are F1419+.

Ebizur
06-25-2018, 11:07 AM
As I wrote, he had transferred Geno to FTDNA, and they had given him the very european CTS7227. This of course led to an interesting discussion about how this could be, for a Korean.
After investigating a bit further, I happened to spot F4065+ among his SNPs, and no sign of L708. He was later able to confirm that he was ancient for F1419 and L708 according to geno.

FTDNA still erroneously designates him as CTS7227, seen for example in the NNE project.
(It's a C/G change, and you therefore need to be absolutely sure which strand you're reading, something that apparently gets lost in the geno->ftdna transfer)What is this individual's kit number or registered name?

BroderTuck
06-25-2018, 11:17 AM
N219686, Alex Choe

Ebizur
06-25-2018, 11:32 AM
N219686, Alex ChoeThank you.

I do not see an entry for him in the N North Eurasian YDNA Project or the N Y-DNA Project at FTDNA. Where have you found his data?

BroderTuck
06-25-2018, 11:39 AM
In NNE, but he (like many others) have set himself as only visible to other project members.

Ebizur
06-25-2018, 11:46 AM
In NNE, but he (like many others) have set himself as only visible to other project members.You should have mentioned that first. If the data is not publicly viewable, then it is not citable.

MikkaK
06-29-2018, 02:24 AM
@Ebizur

Do you have any information on from where in China the basal N-L729 is from on Yfull? id:ELT50035CHN

Ebizur
06-29-2018, 02:49 PM
@Ebizur

Do you have any information on from where in China the basal N-L729 is from on Yfull? id:ELT50035CHNI do not have any information regarding the geographical or ethnic origin of that particular sample (id:ELT50035) besides its being from the PRC. However, according to a data table I have seen on a Chinese forum, people whose Y-DNA has such a phylogenetic position have been found in several different regions of China, though in fewer than 1% of tested individuals. Such Y-DNA may be about as common among Chinese as N-Y23747.

cf. N1a3~ F1228, F1774, F1921, F1993, F2729, F3145, F4089 on the ISOGG Haplogroup N tree (https://isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpN.html). YCH205 (N M231+, LLY22g+, M128-, P43-, Tat-) Han (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_Chinese) Shandong (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shandong) from the data set of Yan S, Wang C-C, Zheng H-X, Wang W, Qin Z-D, et al. (2014) "Y Chromosomes of 40% Chinese Descend from Three Neolithic Super-Grandfathers" (doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0105691) should belong to this particular clade: F832+ F944+ F949+ F961+ F4089+ F4094+ F1228+ F1269+ F1274+ F1364+ F1395+ F1425+ F1434+ F1463+ F1474+ F1703+ F1708+ F1774+ F1785+ F1846+ F1853+ F1921+ F1962+ F4187+ F1993+ F2040+ F2072+ F2165+ F2167+ F2337+ F2341+ F2348+ F2352+ F2387+ F4227+ F2471+ F2525+ F2584+ F2723+ F2729+ F2768+ F2809+ F4263+ F2898+ F2971+ F2989+ F3015+ F3027+ F3091+ F3145+ F3241+ F3413+ F4327+ F3449+ F3457+ F3549+ F3578+ F3659+ F2930- F1172- F2466- F2626- F2905-. This is the only example of this clade that I have found in a heretofore formally published paper.

MikkaK
06-29-2018, 04:11 PM
I do not have any information regarding the geographical or ethnic origin of that particular sample (id:ELT50035) besides its being from the PRC. However, according to a data table I have seen on a Chinese forum, people whose Y-DNA has such a phylogenetic position have been found in several different regions of China, though in fewer than 1% of tested individuals. Such Y-DNA may be about as common among Chinese as N-Y23747.

cf. N1a3~ F1228, F1774, F1921, F1993, F2729, F3145, F4089 on the ISOGG Haplogroup N tree (https://isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpN.html). YCH205 (N M231+, LLY22g+, M128-, P43-, Tat-) Han (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_Chinese) Shandong (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shandong) from the data set of Yan S, Wang C-C, Zheng H-X, Wang W, Qin Z-D, et al. (2014) "Y Chromosomes of 40% Chinese Descend from Three Neolithic Super-Grandfathers" (doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0105691) should belong to this particular clade: F832+ F944+ F949+ F961+ F4089+ F4094+ F1228+ F1269+ F1274+ F1364+ F1395+ F1425+ F1434+ F1463+ F1474+ F1703+ F1708+ F1774+ F1785+ F1846+ F1853+ F1921+ F1962+ F4187+ F1993+ F2040+ F2072+ F2165+ F2167+ F2337+ F2341+ F2348+ F2352+ F2387+ F4227+ F2471+ F2525+ F2584+ F2723+ F2729+ F2768+ F2809+ F4263+ F2898+ F2971+ F2989+ F3015+ F3027+ F3091+ F3145+ F3241+ F3413+ F4327+ F3449+ F3457+ F3549+ F3578+ F3659+ F2930- F1172- F2466- F2626- F2905-. This is the only example of this clade that I have found in a heretofore formally published paper.

That study uses LLY22g as a marker for N1 thought which has been found unreliable due to multiple back mutations and as far as I'm aware many of the other basal N1s found in China also used LLY22g.

I was more specifically interested in id:ELT50035CHN as he is on Yfull which doesnt use LLY22g, although I suppose as a new sample his position could change?

Ebizur
06-29-2018, 04:44 PM
That study uses LLY22g as a marker for N1 thought which has been found unreliable due to multiple back mutations and as far as I'm aware many of the other basal N1s found in China also used LLY22g.The phylogenetic reliability of the LLY22g mutation or the allelic status of YCH205 in regard to that mutation is irrelevant. YCH205 is negative for N1a1-M46/Page70/Tat, N1a2-F4309, and various mutations that mark the N1b clade (F2930, F1172, F2466, F2626, F2905, etc.). At the same time, he is positive for F1206, F2130, F3094, F3312, and F3361, all of which define the N1a clade. It is clear that he belongs to N1a (and, thus, cannot belong to N2 or N1b), but he does not belong to N1a1 or N1a2. YCH205 is positive for F1228, F1774, F1921, F1993, F2729, F3145, and F4089, all of which ISOGG has provisionally accepted as defining a new N1a3 clade.


I was more specifically interested in id:ELT50035CHN as he is on Yfull which doesnt use LLY22g, although I suppose as a new sample his position could change?He will probably be added to a new N-F1228 clade on YFull once the phylogenetic position of N-F1228 relative to N-L666/N-F4309 and N-Tat has been determined.

MikkaK
06-29-2018, 06:35 PM
The phylogenetic reliability of the LLY22g mutation or the allelic status of YCH205 in regard to that mutation is irrelevant. YCH205 is negative for N1a1-M46/Page70/Tat, N1a2-F4309, and various mutations that mark the N1b clade (F2930, F1172, F2466, F2626, F2905, etc.). At the same time, he is positive for F1206, F2130, F3094, F3312, and F3361, all of which define the N1a clade. It is clear that he belongs to N1a (and, thus, cannot belong to N2 or N1b), but he does not belong to N1a1 or N1a2. YCH205 is positive for F1228, F1774, F1921, F1993, F2729, F3145, and F4089, all of which ISOGG has provisionally accepted as defining a new N1a3 clade.

He will probably be added to a new N-F1228 clade on YFull once the phylogenetic position of N-F1228 relative to N-L666/N-F4309 and N-Tat has been determined.

Thanks I wasn’t aware of a new N1a3 branch. Is N1a3 the ISOGG equivalent of N-F1228 on YFull?

I am just wary of N-LLY22g being used all together as it seems some Chinese researchers are still using it as the main marker of N1. It’s back mutations have led to old studies claiming truly basal N1* being found in South East China which of course is impossible.

Ebizur
06-30-2018, 08:27 AM
I should add that the data of Yan et al. 2014, if accepted at face value, actually indicate a split among the SNPs that ISOGG currently takes to define the N1a clade:

F1206+ (Positive in YCH205, positive in YCH40 [N1a2a-M128], positive in YCH141 [N1a2a-M128]; unclear reading in YCH394 [N1a1a1a1a3a-F4205]; negative in YCH142 [N1b], negative in YCH3 [N1b])
F2130+ (Positive in YCH205, YCH40, YCH141, YCH394; negative in YCH142 and YCH3)
F3094+ (Positive in YCH205, YCH40, YCH141, YCH394; negative in YCH142 and YCH3)
F3312+ (Positive in YCH205, YCH40, YCH141, YCH394; negative in YCH142 and YCH3)
F3361+ (Positive in YCH205, YCH40, YCH141; negative in YCH394, YCH142, and YCH3)

F2130, F3094, and F3312 agree in grouping YCH205, YCH40, YCH141, and YCH394 together vis-à-vis YCH142 and YCH3, and thus support the N1a clade.

F3361 groups YCH205, YCH40, and YCH141 together vis-à-vis YCH394, YCH142, and YCH3. If correct, this would indicate that N1a2-F1008/L666 and N1a3-F1228 form a clade opposed to N1a1-M46/Page70/Tat; therefore, N1a2-F1008/L666 should be renamed to N1a2a-F1008/L666, and N1a3-F1228 should be renamed to N1a2b-F1228. In other words, YCH205 and other members of N1a3-F1228 should belong to a branch slightly basal to a clade to which western Siberian (Samoyed, etc.) N1a2b-B523/FGC10846/Y3184 and East/Central Asian (Chinese, Tibetan, Manchu, Kalmyk, Vietnamese, Korean, Japanese, Kazakh, etc.) N1a2a-M128 both belong. It should eventually be moved to a position as a sister clade of N-L666 on YFull assuming that the data regarding F3361 in Yan et al. 2014 have been recorded correctly and it is a reliable SNP. Note the large gap between the TMRCA of N1a-L729 (15600 ybp) and the TMRCA of N1a2-L666 (8900 ybp) on the current version of the YFull tree; that is much greater than the gap between the TMRCA of N1a-L729 and the TMRCA of N1a1-Tat (14300 ybp).

Yan et al. 2014 have not reported a clear reading on F1206 for YCH394, which is the Y-DNA of another Han Chinese from Shandong Province who belongs to haplogroup N1a1a1a1a3a-F4205. Therefore, I cannot tell whether F1206 will end up on the same level of the phylogenetic tree as F2130, F3094, and F3312, or rather on the same level of the phylogenetic tree as F3361.

There is only one SNP (F3361) in the data set of Yan et al. 2014 that points to a more recent common ancestor of N-F1228 and N-F1008/L666 vis-à-vis N-M46/Page70/Tat, so this is not a very strong result, but the circumstantial evidence of the TMRCA estimate gaps on the YFull tree also tends to point in this direction.

By the way, N1a1a1a1a3a-F4205, the clade to which YCH394 from Shandong belongs, is a very young clade that otherwise has been found mainly among Turko-Mongols of the Eurasian steppe. It is closely related (TMRCA 3300 [95% CI 2600 <-> 4000] ybp) to the N1a1a1a1a3b-B202 clade found among indigenous peoples in northeastern Siberia (Chukchis, Koryaks, Eskimos, etc.). YCH394 is also positive for the F2288 SNP according to Yan et al. 2014, but this SNP appears to be unreliable. Yan et al. found F2288 to be positive in YCH40 N1a M128+ Han Jiangsu, negative in YCH141 N1a M128+ Han Henan, and positive in YCH394 N1c1 M178+ Han Shandong. YFull currently has F2288 listed as a marker of the N-Y16312 clade.

Ebizur
06-30-2018, 08:40 AM
Thanks I wasn’t aware of a new N1a3 branch.As I have indicated above, ISOGG's provisional "N1a3~ F1228, F1774, F1921, F1993, F2729, F3145, F4089" will probably end up being named "N1a2b-F1228," a sister clade of "N1a2a-F1008/L666."


Is N1a3 the ISOGG equivalent of N-F1228 on YFull?N-F1228 has not been recognized by YFull. However, it is quite likely that id:ELT50035 CHN will eventually be assigned to N-F1228 once YFull has added that clade to their phylogenetic tree.

BroderTuck
06-30-2018, 05:12 PM
That F3361- för YCH394 seems odd, and I wonder if it's perhaps a false negative.

YCH394 is supposed to be Tat+, right?

According to yfull, my own result (Tat+, VL29+ among others) shows 15 positive and 5 negative reads for F3361, and the LivingDNA chip also gave me a positive result for it.

Ebizur
07-03-2018, 11:59 AM
YCH394 is supposed to be Tat+, right?YCH394 is supposed to belong to haplogroup N-M178 according to Table S1 of Yan et al. (2014), "Y Chromosomes of 40% Chinese Descend from Three Neolithic Super-Grandfathers": YCH394 N1c1 M178+ E TAGCT Han Shandong HiSeq2000 paired-end Moderate 8.89.

The data in Table S6 indicate that YCH394 should belong more precisely to haplogroup N-F4205/N-F3271/N-F4284, which is downstream of N-M178. However, there is one unexpected negative call (F2584-), and there are two ambiguous calls (F2996?, F3354?):

F1419 + (N1a1a1~)
F4325 + (N1a1a1a)
F2584 - [!] (N1a1a1a1a)
F2667 + (N1a1a1a1a)
F2996 ? [!] (N1a1a1a1a)
F3331 + (N1a1a1a1a)
F3354 ? [!] (N1a1a1a1a)
F3573 + (N1a1a1a1a)
F4115 + (N1a1a1a1a)
F4155 + (N1a1a1a1a)
F4218 + (N1a1a1a1a)
F4342 + (N1a1a1a1a)
F4205 + (N1a1a1a1a3a)
F4284 + (N1a1a1a1a3a)
F3271 + (N1a1a1a1a3a)
F2288 + (N1a1a1a1a3a2b~) (F2288 appears to be an unreliable SNP. Yan et al. found F2288 to be positive in YCH40 N1a M128+ Han Jiangsu, negative in YCH141 N1a M128+ Han Henan, and positive in YCH394 N1c1 M178+ Han Shandong.)

rock
07-04-2018, 09:44 AM
F949 clade is parallel to TAT, (P105+, TAT- etc.) the sample ELT50035 will spilt the Yfull N-TAT node

YCH205: F949>F1228>F1921

Ebizur
07-04-2018, 04:46 PM
F949 clade is parallel to TAT, (P105+, TAT- etc.) the sample ELT50035 will spilt the Yfull N-TAT node

YCH205: F949>F1228>F1921According to Yan et al. (2014), F949 is positive in YCH205 and negative in YCH142 (N1b), YCH3 (N1b), YCH40 (N1a2a), YCH141 (N1a2a), and YCH394 (N1a1a1a1a3a).

Where have you obtained data that indicate that F949 is not phylogenetically equivalent to F1228, F1774, F1921, F1993, F2729, F3145, and F4089?

parastais
07-06-2018, 01:06 AM
Can’t wait for this article:
“Demographic processes in Estonia from Bronze Age through Iron Age to Medieval times

Metspalu et al.

N3 and R1a are the two most common Y chromosome haplogroups among modern Estonians. R1a appears with Corded Ware culture but the arrival of hg N has not been determined. To this end we have extracted and studied aDNA from teeth of 18 individuals bracketing the changes in the material culture in the end of the Bronze and early Iron Age. We find N3 in Iron Age but not in Bronze Age. Due to the small sample size we cannot refute the existence of hg N in the latter. In genome wide analyses the Bronze Age and especially Iron Age samples appear very similar to modern Estonians implying population continuity. Christianization (13 cc AD) established a new elite of West European origin, which presumably had an impact on the genetic structure of the local population. To investigate this we extracted DNA from teeth of 35 individuals, who have been uncovered from both rural (considered local Estonian population) and town (likely of West European origin) cemeteries of Estonia. We compared the low coverage genomes with each other and with relevant modern and ancient Estonian and other European populations. We find that there is a clear discontinuity between the elite and common people, where the former group genetically with modern German samples and the latter with modern Estonians. We do find three individuals of mixed genetic ancestry. But importantly we do not see a steady shift of either local population strata, which suggests limited contact between the elite and the common people.“

MikkaK
07-06-2018, 03:36 AM
There is also this study


Genome-Wide Ancient DNA Portrays the Forming of the Finnish Population Along a 1400-Year Transect

Majander et al.

The Finnish population has long been a subject of interest for the fields of medical and population genetics, due to its isolation-affected genetic structure and the associated unique set of inherited diseases. Recent advances in ancient DNA techniques now enable the in-depth investigation of Finland's demographic past: the impact of migrations, trade and altering livelihood practices. Here we analyse genome-wide data from over 30 individuals, representing ten archaeological burial sites from southern Finland, that span from the 5th to 19th century. We find the historical individuals to differ genetically from Finns today. Comparing them with surrounding ancient and modern populations, we detect a transition from genotypes generally connected with prehistoric hunter-gatherers, and specifically resembling those of the contemporary Saami people, into a more East-Central European composition, associated with the established agricultural lifestyle. Starting from the Iron Age and continuing through the Early Medieval period, this transition dates remarkably late compared to the respective changes in most regions of Europe. Our results suggest a population shift, presumably related to Baltic and Slavic influences, also manifested in the archaeological record of the local artefacts from the late Iron Age. Our observations also agree with the archaeological models of relatively recent and gradual adoption of farming in Finland.

Seems to me that genetically Saami like people lived in south Finland extremely late (at least 5th century or later) before becoming genetically more like modern Finns.

IMO the IA Estonians were Balto-Finnic speakers supported by Parpola's archealogical and linguistic model.

If they are autosomally Estonian like I wonder if they are responsible for the genetic and agricultural shift in Finland mentioned above.

This of course means a very late entrance of Balto-Finnic into Finland.

Kristiina
07-06-2018, 01:10 PM
Yes, Finns were farmers and the Finnish language spread in Finland with farming.

However, the first true farmers in Finland belonged to the Kiukainen Culture that flourished in southwest Finland in 2350–1800 BC. They did not have metal tools and were not able to produce metal objects, so it is considered a Late Neolithic and not a Bronze Age culture.

MikkaK
07-07-2018, 04:00 AM
@Kristiina

I just didn't expect their entrance into Finland to be so late but the fact that even southern Finland was Saami like in the 5th century is pretty good evidence for this being the case.

Do you have any idea what "archealogical artifacts" of the late iron age they may be refering to?

This along with the Central/Eastern European genetic shift is surly to do with incoming Proto-Finns from Estonia and not actually Baltic or Slavic related like the paper says?

Perhaps that was just poor wording....

Kristiina
07-07-2018, 03:50 PM
Not sure what they refer to, but according to the Finnish Wikipedia ”the first iron objects appear c. 800-400 BC. They arrive from two directions: to the coastal areas from Scandinavia and from the Baltic Sea area in general, and to the inland areas and North Finland from the area of influence of Ananjino Culture. The first iron objects were for the most part axes, knifes, sickles and, later on, scythes and different ornaments.”

I am also wandering the purpose of such wording, but the abstract of the Estonian paper tells us that there was yDNA N in Iron Age Estonia and the Iron Age Estonians are like modern Estonians. The linguistic analysis shows that Estonian and Finnish are very close while Saami languages stand apart and contain a proto-Fennoscandian substrate which is absent in Finnish. However, Finnish contains a Saami substrate.

It does not make any sense to argue that the people who arrived during the Iron Age were Baltic or Slavic speakers and previous inhabitants were Saami speakers, because that model would not explain the arrival of Finns and the close relationship between Estonians and Finns.

BroderTuck
07-08-2018, 08:16 AM
F949 clade is parallel to TAT, (P105+, TAT- etc.) the sample ELT50035 will spilt the Yfull N-TAT node

YCH205: F949>F1228>F1921

Like Ebizur, I'm interested in what proof you have of this statement, although my question would be where you got the info that this branch is P105+. Hopefully not the LivingDNA chip, which is known to falsely show P105 as positive for everybody.

MikkaK
07-09-2018, 05:19 PM
Here is Kristiina Tambets on the new Estonian study.

https://www.linnaleht.ee/885967/kes-me-eestlased-oleme-ja-kust-me-parineme

She breaks down Estonian ancestry as 25% ancient hunter gatherer, 50% or more from BA steppe, 15% farmer and 8% Siberian arriving in the Iron Age with Finns.

MikkaK
08-11-2018, 03:10 PM
More information on the new Estonia study which includes graphs with the ancient samples.
25209

MikkaK
08-11-2018, 03:11 PM
Double post.

MikkaK
08-12-2018, 02:17 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong as google translate is apparently horrible for Estonian translations but the graph seems to show Bronze age Estonians being closer to neolithic Balts while CWC is closer to modern north Europeans. Iron age Estonians split the difference and cluster closest with modern Estonians.
25206


Also N3a/N1c arriving in the iron age and R1a in the bronze age is confirmed again.

Generalissimo
08-12-2018, 02:44 AM
More information on the new Estonia study which includes graphs with the ancient samples.

https: //opetajateseminar.files.wordpres ... -1_dna.pdf



Correct me if I'm wrong as google translate is apparently horrible for Estonian translations but the graph seems to show Bronze age Estonians being closer to neolithic Balts while CWC is closer to modern north Europeans. Iron age Estonians split the difference and cluster closest with modern Estonians.
25206

Also N3a/N1c arriving in the iron age and R1a in the bronze age is confirmed again.

Your link doesn't work.

Keep in mind also that the PCA plots from most papers suffer from projection bias, so you can'y really compare the positions of the modern and ancient samples.

MikkaK
08-12-2018, 06:20 AM
Your link doesn't work.

Keep in mind also that the PCA plots from most papers suffer from projection bias, so you can'y really compare the positions of the modern and ancient samples.

Link should be working now...

Im just going by what we have. We will have to wait and see until the full study is out.

BroderTuck
09-07-2018, 08:40 AM
It was brought to my attention that Yfull no longer has M178 as a separate branch point, and instead treats it as being on TAT/M46 level.
Not too surprising, since they have no sample that is TAT+ but M178-

BroderTuck
09-09-2018, 05:34 PM
It also seems that rock was correct that ELT50035 would split N-TAT, rather than be where ISoGG has placed the branch.
Rechecking, YCH205 (which is also F1228+) does have listed as positive these SNPs on the former yfull TAT level, now Z1956:
F2584
F2996
F3354
F3823

even if YCH394 was uncertain (or in one case even listed as negative) for them. The yfull "N" group browser shows that those SNPs are indeed positive in all current Z1956+ samples in the yfull "N" group. (The ELT sample is not yet there)

ISoGG has *a lot* of catching up to do in regards to the N tree, not a single change in over 18 months now.

MikkaK
09-11-2018, 06:26 PM
The N-L1025 branch seems to have underwent a pretty major change at YFull. M2783 which was the main Baltic branch no longer exists and all downstream branches are now basel to L1025 itself.

I believe this probably has something to do with the new N-BY30389 branch as the samples under it were previously M2783*.

parastais
09-22-2018, 06:34 AM
Stealing this to here for possible future references:

Genes reveal traces of common recent demographic history for most of the Uralic-speaking populations

https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-018-1522-1

"We show that most Uralic speakers share a distinct ancestry component of likely Siberian origin, which suggests that the spread of Uralic languages involved at least some demic component."

Kristiina
09-22-2018, 08:09 AM
What we need is ancient DNA from the Uralic areas. We still have zero ancient DNA from the forest Volga. These papers based on modern populations are not so useful.

rincewind
09-22-2018, 09:16 AM
There is also this study

.

Seems to me that genetically Saami like people lived in south Finland extremely late (at least 5th century or later) before becoming genetically more like modern Finns.

IMO the IA Estonians were Balto-Finnic speakers supported by Parpola's archealogical and linguistic model.

If they are autosomally Estonian like I wonder if they are responsible for the genetic and agricultural shift in Finland mentioned above.

This of course means a very late entrance of Balto-Finnic into Finland.
I wonder if the myth of Kalevipoeg visiting the Finnish smith has historic basis?

Mr.G
09-28-2018, 10:02 PM
The N-L1025 branch seems to have underwent a pretty major change at YFull. M2783 which was the main Baltic branch no longer exists and all downstream branches are now basel to L1025 itself.

I believe this probably has something to do with the new N-BY30389 branch as the samples under it were previously M2783*.

So, 23andMe recently assigned me M2783. My father's family is all Hungarian for multiple generations. I know N is rare in Hungary so I was surprised by this result. Has M2783 been eliminated, and am I really L1025? Is there a known group of Hungarians with this assignment? Thanks for any input!

parastais
09-29-2018, 08:02 AM
There is a subclade under M2783, most popular in Latvians but present also in Central Europe (Czech, Slovak, Hungarian) etc.

Mr.G
09-29-2018, 02:23 PM
Thank you. I guess I will have to test my Y further to find out where I fall under M2783.

BroderTuck
01-13-2019, 05:02 PM
Do we know anything about the YF16513 kit which shares 81 SNPs with ELT50035?

Tomenable
01-14-2019, 10:26 AM
Based on autosomal comparison of Early Medieval Lithuanian DA171 (N1c) and Bronze Age Balts (R1a), it seems N1c came with extra Finnic admixture:

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?16300-N1c-in-Balts-came-with-Finnic-admixture


Bronze Age Balts published so far were all R1a, but Early Medieval (MA) Balt DA171 (ca. 350-650 AD) had N1c. I tried to model DA171 autosomally as a mixture of Bronze Age (BA) Balts and modern Non-Baltic populations, to check if he had any extra admixture that possibly arrived together with N1c.

Here is a rather good model that I got:

Lithuania-MA (DA171):

Latvia-BA 52.5 %
Poland_Sudovia 20.5 %
Belarus_Vitebsk 18.6 %
Finland_Karelia 8.4 %
Lithuania-BA 0%

Map showing location of DA171 burial:

https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/ancient-human-dna_41837#6/54.453/28.459

=====

Before you ask, I wasn't using Global25 for this model. Is DA171 also available in Global25 spreadsheet?

BroderTuck
03-16-2019, 08:22 PM
I wrote:


Do we know anything about the YF16513 kit which shares 81 SNPs with ELT50035?

YFull age estimation is finally ready for this branch, and they seem to have about 50 SNPs each beyond the shared ones.

YSEQ has (at least) SK1501 testable from this branch, maybe other SNPs as well.

MikkaK
03-19-2019, 03:19 PM
There was a conference about a week ago in Finland on the iron age Luistari cemetery. All men tested were N1c but there is currently little more information.

http://terheninenmaa.blogspot.com/2019/03/iron-age-finns-in-southwestern-finland.html?m=1

parastais
04-27-2019, 06:53 AM
There was a conference about a week ago in Finland on the iron age Luistari cemetery. All men tested were N1c but there is currently little more information.

http://terheninenmaa.blogspot.com/2019/03/iron-age-finns-in-southwestern-finland.html?m=1

According to that old Napolskih’s article SW Finns did arrive later(?) from Estonia. Except I dont remember the dates.

parastais
05-11-2019, 03:02 PM
Just adding this article here as well:
https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(19)30424-5

The Arrival of Siberian Ancestry Connecting the Eastern Baltic to Uralic Speakers further East (Saag et al).

parastais
05-12-2019, 11:09 AM
Stealing it here from Eurogenes:

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-S2NxcYRQ4UM/XNf1q7fUAmI/AAAAAAAAH2A/TQmjf73K_1IOGBH5tSe-WiSD4Re0d88xwCLcBGAs/s1600/G25_East_Baltic_BA-IA_transition_scaled2.png

parastais
05-12-2019, 11:16 AM
LTU_late_ant is so far the earliest N sample found in territory of Lithuania. It is also possibly below N-L1025.
By position on PCA it looks like mix of incoming Estonian_IA (Tarand Grave culture, with its N lines being below N-L550, just like N-L1025 is) and North (or Coastal?) Baltic_BA (LVA/EST BA).
It is perhaps representative sample of the NLBC (North Lithuanian Barrow Culture) - possible ancestors of Semigalls and Zhemaitians.

But I am not sure yet, what role this sample and people represented by it played for Latvian and Lithuanian ethonogenesys. And also it is of low res.

parastais
05-12-2019, 01:07 PM
Finally decided to try out new stuff myself. First wanted to check if Baltic_LTU_Late_Ant could be modeled as a mix of Tarand + local.
"sample": "Test1:Baltic_LTU_Late_Antiquity_low_res",
"fit": 4.876,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 74.17,
"Baltic_EST_IA": 25.83,
"closestDistances": [
"Baltic_LVA_BA:undefined: 5.049149",
"Baltic_EST_IA:undefined: 6.203690"
Interesting that when I used all 3 Baltic_BA, it also picked up all 3 Baltic_BA (LTU, LVA, EST), but LVA/EST were closest to it, so I only kept one. If I understand correct 4.8 is not the best fit :)

edit:
Khm, if I use Latvian it no more needs EST_IA:
"sample": "Test1:Baltic_LTU_Late_Antiquity_low_res",
"fit": 4.7475,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 53.33,
"Latvian": 46.67,
"Baltic_EST_IA": 0,
"closestDistances": [
"Baltic_LVA_BA:undefined: 5.049149",
"Latvian:undefined: 5.150380",
"Baltic_EST_IA:undefined: 6.203690"

And some Baltic Nations test with EST_IA, LTU_BA (Trzciniec?) and LVA_BA (Kivutkalns?)
"sample": "Test1:Latvian",
"fit": 1.811,
"Baltic_EST_IA": 42.5,
"Baltic_LTU_BA": 35.83,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 21.67

"sample": "Test1:Lithuanian",
"fit": 3.1316,
"Baltic_LTU_BA": 51.67,
"Baltic_EST_IA": 38.33,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 10,

"sample": "Test1:Estonian",
"fit": 2.2468,
"Baltic_EST_IA": 70.83,
"Baltic_LTU_BA": 29.17,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 0,

Interesting, not sure how to interpret it all, but interesting :) Estonians totally do not need any excess LVA_BA/EST_BA (double checked - tried also with EST_BA) to what is already in Tarand. However they do need extra LTU_BA?

Both Baltic nations also need more LTU_BA than LVA_BA, but they had preserved some LVA_BA. Quite solid levels of Estonian_IA, which if not my mistake of first trying out new toy, could explain rather well Baltic N proportions.

Coldmountains
05-12-2019, 01:41 PM
Finally decided to try out new stuff myself. First wanted to check if Baltic_LTU_Late_Ant could be modeled as a mix of Tarand + local.
"sample": "Test1:Baltic_LTU_Late_Antiquity_low_res",
"fit": 4.876,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 74.17,
"Baltic_EST_IA": 25.83,
"closestDistances": [
"Baltic_LVA_BA:undefined: 5.049149",
"Baltic_EST_IA:undefined: 6.203690"
Interesting that when I used all 3 Baltic_BA, it also picked up all 3 Baltic_BA (LTU, LVA, EST), but LVA/EST were closest to it, so I only kept one. If I understand correct 4.8 is not the best fit :)

edit:
Khm, if I use Latvian it no more needs EST_IA:
"sample": "Test1:Baltic_LTU_Late_Antiquity_low_res",
"fit": 4.7475,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 53.33,
"Latvian": 46.67,
"Baltic_EST_IA": 0,
"closestDistances": [
"Baltic_LVA_BA:undefined: 5.049149",
"Latvian:undefined: 5.150380",
"Baltic_EST_IA:undefined: 6.203690"

And some Baltic Nations test with EST_IA, LTU_BA (Trzciniec?) and LVA_BA (Kivutkalns?)
"sample": "Test1:Latvian",
"fit": 1.811,
"Baltic_EST_IA": 42.5,
"Baltic_LTU_BA": 35.83,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 21.67

"sample": "Test1:Lithuanian",
"fit": 3.1316,
"Baltic_LTU_BA": 51.67,
"Baltic_EST_IA": 38.33,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 10,

"sample": "Test1:Estonian",
"fit": 2.2468,
"Baltic_EST_IA": 70.83,
"Baltic_LTU_BA": 29.17,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 0,

Interesting, not sure how to interpret it all, but interesting :) Estonians totally do not need any excess LVA_BA/EST_BA (double checked - tried also with EST_BA) to what is already in Tarand. However they do need extra LTU_BA?

Both Baltic nations also need more LTU_BA than LVA_BA, but they had preserved some LVA_BA. Quite solid levels of Estonian_IA, which if not my mistake of first trying out new toy, could explain rather well Baltic N proportions.

I added some reference populations and got this.

"sample": "Test1:Latvian",
"fit": 2.0101,
"Baltic_LTU_BA": 52.5,
"Baltic_EST_IA": 47.5,
"Baltic_EST_Narva": 0,
"Nganassan": 0,
"RUS_Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov": 0,
"SWE_IA": 0,
"UKR_Globular_Amphora": 0,

"sample": "Test2:Lithuanian",
"fit": 2.6464,
"Baltic_LTU_BA": 60,
"Baltic_EST_IA": 30,
"UKR_Globular_Amphora": 6.67,
"SWE_IA": 3.33,
"Baltic_EST_Narva": 0,
"Nganassan": 0,
"RUS_Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov": 0,

Latvians pretty much look like a mix between Est_IA and LTU_BA what makes sense and they don't show much extra EEF. Lithuanians have some extra EEF what we already knew earlier.

Estonians seem to be similar to Latvians but + SWE_IA and more Siberian affinity

"sample": "Test1:Estonian",
"fit": 1.68,
"Baltic_EST_IA": 54.17,
"Baltic_LTU_BA": 30,
"SWE_IA": 11.67,
"UKR_Globular_Amphora": 3.33,
"RUS_Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov": 0.83,
"Baltic_EST_Narva": 0,
"Nganassan": 0,


Adding Avar_Hungary_Szolad_2 (more eastern shifted and East Polish/South Russian-like) improves the fits for all and captures the extra EEF but is of course not very historical accurate here. Also adding too similar populations creates problems and overfit so it is better to use less reference groups.


"sample": "Test2:Lithuanian",
"fit": 2.423,
"HUN_Avar_Szolad": 47.5,
"Baltic_LTU_BA": 40,
"Baltic_EST_IA": 11.67,
"Baltic_EST_Narva": 0.83,
"Nganassan": 0,
"RUS_Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov": 0,
"SWE_IA": 0,

"sample": "Test1:Estonian",
"fit": 1.5441,
"Baltic_EST_IA": 46.67,
"HUN_Avar_Szolad": 20.83,
"Baltic_LTU_BA": 20,
"SWE_IA": 11.67,
"RUS_Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov": 0.83,
"Baltic_EST_Narva": 0,
"Nganassan": 0,

"sample": "Test1:Latvian",
"fit": 1.7758,
"Baltic_LTU_BA": 44.17,
"Baltic_EST_IA": 35,
"HUN_Avar_Szolad": 20.83,
"Baltic_EST_Narva": 0,
"Nganassan": 0,
"RUS_Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov": 0,
"SWE_IA": 0,

parastais
05-12-2019, 02:15 PM
Apparently Latvians should use LVA_BA as well. I added it and fit is wow, overfitted even maybe:
"sample": "Test1:Latvian",
"fit": 1.0545,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 43.33,
"HUN_Avar_Szolad": 28.33,
"Baltic_EST_IA": 18.33,
"Baltic_LTU_BA": 7.5,
"SWE_IA": 2.5,
"Baltic_EST_Narva": 0,
"Nganassan": 0,
"RUS_Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov": 0,

Edit: without HUN, slightly worse and apparently that EEF part is then covered by Sweddish IA. But Hun had a better fit.
"sample": "Test1:Latvian",
"fit": 1.4823,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 49.17,
"Baltic_EST_IA": 22.5,
"SWE_IA": 18.33,
"Baltic_LTU_BA": 10,
"Baltic_EST_Narva": 0,
"Nganassan": 0,
"RUS_Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov": 0,

Interesting that the closest single pop from the used ones is Baltic_LTU_BA, which when others are added goes down to 10% in total mix. Apparently because we still need some extra farmer post EST_IA and LTU_BA, LVA_BA...

p.s.
Lithuanian fit also improved:
"sample": "Test1:Lithuanian",
"fit": 1.5753,
"HUN_Avar_Szolad": 47.5,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 46.67,
"SWE_IA": 5.83,
"Baltic_EST_IA": 0,
"Baltic_EST_Narva": 0,
"Baltic_LTU_BA": 0,
"Nganassan": 0,
"RUS_Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov": 0,

Interesting, when some Slavic like EEF folk is used, then LTU_BA is no more preffered to LVA_BA... whatever that may mean.

parastais
05-12-2019, 02:25 PM
That HUN_AVAR extra farmer was not there at the time of NLBC apparently. North Lithuanian IA sample:
"sample": "Test1:Baltic_LTU_Late_Antiquity_low_res",
"fit": 4.7818,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 78.33,
"Baltic_EST_IA": 11.67,
"SWE_IA": 5.83,
"Baltic_EST_Narva": 2.5,
"HUN_Avar_Szolad": 1.67,
"Baltic_LTU_BA": 0,
"Nganassan": 0,
"RUS_Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov": 0,

edit:
Maybe those are just extra Slavic genes that Baltic populations had acquired, since Polish with same pops look like this:
"sample": "Test1:Polish",
"fit": 1.4487,
"HUN_Avar_Szolad": 81.67,
"SWE_IA": 14.17,
"Baltic_EST_IA": 1.67,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 1.67,
"Baltic_LTU_BA": 0.83,
"Baltic_EST_Narva": 0,
"Nganassan": 0,
"RUS_Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov": 0,

Shaikorth
05-12-2019, 02:31 PM
I added some reference populations and got this.

"sample": "Test1:Latvian",
"fit": 2.0101,
"Baltic_LTU_BA": 52.5,
"Baltic_EST_IA": 47.5,
"Baltic_EST_Narva": 0,
"Nganassan": 0,
"RUS_Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov": 0,
"SWE_IA": 0,
"UKR_Globular_Amphora": 0,

"sample": "Test2:Lithuanian",
"fit": 2.6464,
"Baltic_LTU_BA": 60,
"Baltic_EST_IA": 30,
"UKR_Globular_Amphora": 6.67,
"SWE_IA": 3.33,
"Baltic_EST_Narva": 0,
"Nganassan": 0,
"RUS_Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov": 0,

Latvians pretty much look like a mix between Est_IA and LTU_BA what makes sense and they don't show much extra EEF. Lithuanians have some extra EEF what we already knew earlier.

Estonians seem to be similar to Latvians but + SWE_IA and more Siberian affinity

"sample": "Test1:Estonian",
"fit": 1.68,
"Baltic_EST_IA": 54.17,
"Baltic_LTU_BA": 30,
"SWE_IA": 11.67,
"UKR_Globular_Amphora": 3.33,
"RUS_Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov": 0.83,
"Baltic_EST_Narva": 0,
"Nganassan": 0,


Adding Avar_Hungary_Szolad_2 (more eastern shifted and East Polish/South Russian-like) improves the fits for all and captures the extra EEF but is of course not very historical accurate here. Also adding too similar populations creates problems and overfit so it is better to use less reference groups.


"sample": "Test2:Lithuanian",
"fit": 2.423,
"HUN_Avar_Szolad": 47.5,
"Baltic_LTU_BA": 40,
"Baltic_EST_IA": 11.67,
"Baltic_EST_Narva": 0.83,
"Nganassan": 0,
"RUS_Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov": 0,
"SWE_IA": 0,

"sample": "Test1:Estonian",
"fit": 1.5441,
"Baltic_EST_IA": 46.67,
"HUN_Avar_Szolad": 20.83,
"Baltic_LTU_BA": 20,
"SWE_IA": 11.67,
"RUS_Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov": 0.83,
"Baltic_EST_Narva": 0,
"Nganassan": 0,

"sample": "Test1:Latvian",
"fit": 1.7758,
"Baltic_LTU_BA": 44.17,
"Baltic_EST_IA": 35,
"HUN_Avar_Szolad": 20.83,
"Baltic_EST_Narva": 0,
"Nganassan": 0,
"RUS_Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov": 0,
"SWE_IA": 0,


Modern Estonians have some post-medieval Finnish admixture f. ex.
(scaled, pen=0)
"distance%=1.5679"

Estonian

Baltic_EST_MA,68
Finnish,25.8
German,6.2

Tatar_Lipka,0

Coldmountains
05-12-2019, 02:42 PM
I used EST_IA and LTU_BA to model early Slavs. I chose the less HG shifted samples (V12 for EST_IA and Turlojiske3 for LTU_BA). I think these are not bad fits. The Bronze age ancestors of Proto-Slavs would probably have less HG ancestry than Bronze Age Lithuanians and probably also more EEF so some of the Celtic-like (Halstatt), Balkan-like (BGR_IA) and Germanic-like (Poprad) affinity can be explained by geography (AV1 is also mixed and has extra Central Euro affinity)


"sample": "Test1:HUN_Avar_Szolad_-_Av2",
"fit": 2.3464,
"Baltic_EST_IA": 55.83,
"Baltic_LTU_BA": 22.5,
"CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany": 10.83,
"BGR_IA": 5.83,
"SVK_Poprad_Med": 5,
"Sarmatian_RUS_Urals": 0,


"sample": "Test2:HUN_Avar_Szolad_-_Av1",
"fit": 1.8445,
"Baltic_LTU_BA": 31.67,
"Baltic_EST_IA": 24.17,
"CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany": 19.17,
"BGR_IA": 13.33,
"SVK_Poprad_Med": 11.67,

parastais
05-12-2019, 02:44 PM
And my final Latvian model with only 3 reference populations, behold the fit!
"sample": "Test1:Latvian",
"fit": 1.0799,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 46.67,
"HUN_Avar_Szolad": 31.67,
"Baltic_EST_IA": 21.67

Sorry for too much spam lately, Coldmountains taught me a new toy :)

edit, tried same 3 pops for other Baltics. Solid fits, not as great as Latvian, but still <2.
"sample": "Test1:Lithuanian",
"fit": 1.6436,
"HUN_Avar_Szolad": 55.83,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 44.17,
"Baltic_EST_IA": 0,

"sample": "Test1:Estonian",
"fit": 1.7162,
"Baltic_EST_IA": 54.17,
"HUN_Avar_Szolad": 35.83,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 10,

Coldmountains
05-12-2019, 02:49 PM
That HUN_AVAR extra farmer was not there at the time of NLBC apparently. North Lithuanian IA sample:
"sample": "Test1:Baltic_LTU_Late_Antiquity_low_res",
"fit": 4.7818,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 78.33,
"Baltic_EST_IA": 11.67,
"SWE_IA": 5.83,
"Baltic_EST_Narva": 2.5,
"HUN_Avar_Szolad": 1.67,
"Baltic_LTU_BA": 0,
"Nganassan": 0,
"RUS_Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov": 0,

edit:
Maybe those are just extra Slavic genes that Baltic populations had acquired, since Polish with same pops look like this:
"sample": "Test1:Polish",
"fit": 1.4487,
"HUN_Avar_Szolad": 81.67,
"SWE_IA": 14.17,
"Baltic_EST_IA": 1.67,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 1.67,
"Baltic_LTU_BA": 0.83,
"Baltic_EST_Narva": 0,
"Nganassan": 0,
"RUS_Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov": 0,

The sample is of bad quality so i would not interpret too much into it. I guess that there is something around 15-20% Slavic admixture in Lithuania and in Latvia and Estonia much less. It seems that Lithuanians also have some recent slavic y-dna if i remember correctly

MikkaK
05-12-2019, 03:08 PM
Thanks for posting the fits!

Im pretty sure Estonians take extra Finnish with Est IA which historically makes sense. Possibly extra Scandinavian as well which would have come in historical times. This would explain the extra Siberian and SWE IA in modern Estonians compared to Latvians.

Edit: Didn't realize Shaikorth already posted this.

parastais
05-12-2019, 03:47 PM
And my final Latvian model with only 3 reference populations, behold the fit!
"sample": "Test1:Latvian",
"fit": 1.0799,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 46.67,
"HUN_Avar_Szolad": 31.67,
"Baltic_EST_IA": 21.67

Sorry for too much spam lately, Coldmountains taught me a new toy :)

edit, tried same 3 pops for other Baltics. Solid fits, not as great as Latvian, but still <2.
"sample": "Test1:Lithuanian",
"fit": 1.6436,
"HUN_Avar_Szolad": 55.83,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 44.17,
"Baltic_EST_IA": 0,

"sample": "Test1:Estonian",
"fit": 1.7162,
"Baltic_EST_IA": 54.17,
"HUN_Avar_Szolad": 35.83,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 10,

Best Estonian fit I got is this
"sample": "Test1:Estonian",
"fit": 1.3581,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 29.17,
"HUN_Avar_Szolad": 25,
"Baltic_EST_IA": 24.17,
"SWE_IA": 16.67,
"FIN_Levanluhta_IA": 5,

Re Lithuanian I am a bit out of ideas what to use to improve it unless using modern pops like Belorussians. It is like 2 pops only but works well.

Coldmountains
05-12-2019, 04:31 PM
Best Estonian fit I got is this
"sample": "Test1:Estonian",
"fit": 1.3581,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 29.17,
"HUN_Avar_Szolad": 25,
"Baltic_EST_IA": 24.17,
"SWE_IA": 16.67,
"FIN_Levanluhta_IA": 5,

Re Lithuanian I am a bit out of ideas what to use to improve it unless using modern pops like Belorussians. It is like 2 pops only but works well.

Belarusians have some Baltic-admixture and are rather similar to Lithuanians so Lithuanians get fits which show some mainly Belarusian-like. But using modern pops which live next to each other is problematic because they are a mix of each other often and too similar.


"sample": "Test1:Lithuanian",
"fit": 1.3178,
"Belarusian": 68.33,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 27.5,
"Baltic_EST_IA": 2.5,
"SWE_IA": 1.67,
"Baltic_LTU_BA": 0,
"Nganassan": 0,
"RUS_Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov": 0,
"Sarmatian_RUS_Urals": 0,

"sample": "Test1:Belarusian",
"fit": 1.9497,
"HUN_Avar_Szolad": 74.17,
"Baltic_LTU_BA": 18.33,
"Baltic_EST_IA": 5,
"Sarmatian_RUS_Urals": 2.5,
"MNG_Hovsgol_BA": 0,
"Nganassan": 0,
"RUS_Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov": 0,

parastais
05-12-2019, 09:11 PM
Using LVA_BA instead of LTU_BA gives better fit also for Belarussians, with quite solid 3-way with same pops.
"sample": "Test1:Belarusian",
"fit": 1.5517,
"HUN_Avar_Szolad": 75,
"Baltic_EST_IA": 12.5,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 12.5,

Smolensk has worse fit:
"sample": "Test2:Russian_Smolensk",
"fit": 1.9871,
"HUN_Avar_Szolad": 80,
"Baltic_EST_IA": 10,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 10,
but also below 2.

Finns significantly worse:
"sample": "Test1:Finnish",
"fit": 4.0922,
"Baltic_EST_IA": 65.83,
"HUN_Avar_Szolad": 34.17,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 0,

Edit: decided to check up on this mysterious HUN_Avar_Szolad
"sample": "Test1:HUN_Avar_Szolad",
"fit": 1.7937,
"Scythian_HUN": 40,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 22.5,
"Baltic_LTU_BA": 21.67,
"Scythian_UKR": 15.83,

Alain
05-13-2019, 03:03 AM
Using LVA_BA instead of LTU_BA gives better fit also for Belarussians, with quite solid 3-way with same pops.
"sample": "Test1:Belarusian",
"fit": 1.5517,
"HUN_Avar_Szolad": 75,
"Baltic_EST_IA": 12.5,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 12.5,

Smolensk has worse fit:
"sample": "Test2:Russian_Smolensk",
"fit": 1.9871,
"HUN_Avar_Szolad": 80,
"Baltic_EST_IA": 10,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 10,
but also below 2.

Finns significantly worse:
"sample": "Test1:Finnish",
"fit": 4.0922,
"Baltic_EST_IA": 65.83,
"HUN_Avar_Szolad": 34.17,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 0,

Edit: decided to check up on this mysterious HUN_Avar_Szolad
"sample": "Test1:HUN_Avar_Szolad",
"fit": 1.7937,
"Scythian_HUN": 40,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 22.5,
"Baltic_LTU_BA": 21.67,
"Scythian_UKR": 15.83,

So Hun_Avar Szolad has something to do with Scythian the archaeological it is in Hungary and has nothing to do with Awareness but mainly with Slavs and something to do with Scythian

Alain
05-13-2019, 03:06 AM
Sometimes these names confuse something like Hallstatt Bylany is predominantly Celtic but 2 samples have slight East Asian blending in mind I think of a contact zone between Scythian and Celts we Scythian Hungary one should improve the labels

parastais
05-13-2019, 07:41 AM
So Hun_Avar Szolad has something to do with Scythian the archaeological it is in Hungary and has nothing to do with Awareness but mainly with Slavs and something to do with Scythian
It seems so.
Although I did not test it with any Turkic like pops, but still fit is strong without them. Therefore mainly it is Baltic something + Scythian something.

On other note -
My brain now keeps telling me what if East Balts arrived after 0 or 500 AD to where they currently are AND they brought this Hun_Avar_Szolad type of genes with them!!
Before East Baltic arrival then Baltics would be a realm of West Baltic (LVA_BA) and Baltic Finns (EST_IA) in whatever proportions.

Alain
05-13-2019, 07:54 AM
It seems so.
Although I did not test it with any Turkic like pops, but still fit is strong without them. Therefore mainly it is Baltic something + Scythian something.

On other note -
My brain now keeps telling me what if East Balts arrived after 0 or 500 AD to where they currently are AND they brought this Hun_Avar_Szolad type of genes with them!!
Before East Baltic arrival then Baltics would be a realm of West Baltic (LVA_BA) and Baltic Finns (EST_IA) in whatever proportions.

The Scythians did rise up a bit in the Slavs, they had a large field of work, but most of all in Tatars and Chuvashs

Coldmountains
05-13-2019, 08:41 AM
So Hun_Avar Szolad has something to do with Scythian the archaeological it is in Hungary and has nothing to do with Awareness but mainly with Slavs and something to do with Scythian

Early Slavs had almost zero scythian ancestry. If they would have scythian ancestry they would show traces of BMAC-like ancestry which late Scythians and Sarmatians had. Scythian _Hun was Central-Euro like and not representative for most Scythians. Early Slavs were basically South Baltic-like but more Central-Euro shifted either because of their more southwestern geography or/and a Germanic/Celtic adstrate from Central Euro.

Alain
05-13-2019, 08:46 AM
Early Slavs had almost zero scythian ancestry. If they would have scythian ancestry they would show traces of BMAC-like ancestry which late Scythians and Sarmatians had. Scythian _Hun was Central-Euro like and not representative for most Scythians. Early Slavs were basically South Baltic-like but more Central-Euro shifted either because of their more southwestern geography or/and a Germanic/Celtic adstrate from Central Euro.

ok but the early Slavs picked up some Iranian tribes clearly the Celto-Germanic admixture is stronger only the Scythian really had a strong circulation area as well as the Cimmerian dilutes with time the quilting substrate of course

Alain
05-13-2019, 08:49 AM
an example the Antes fits the contact zone of early Slavs and Scythian?

Alain
05-13-2019, 09:04 AM
Another example is the 2 Celtic Hallstatt Bylany with East Asian Admixture is Iron Age

parastais
05-13-2019, 09:04 AM
Early Slavs had almost zero scythian ancestry. If they would have scythian ancestry they would show traces of BMAC-like ancestry which late Scythians and Sarmatians had. Scythian _Hun was Central-Euro like and not representative for most Scythians. Early Slavs were basically South Baltic-like but more Central-Euro shifted either because of their more southwestern geography or/and a Germanic/Celtic adstrate from Central Euro.
What about Scythian UKR? Also Central-Euro?

Interesting that without Scythian, Monte would prefer even SWE Iron Age to different Baltic genes for that Hun_Avar_Szolad. But Scythian is preferred to SWE IA.

Alain
05-13-2019, 06:57 PM
the Scythian have genetically two faces to Europe they naturally European and you there in part Daker, Thracian (Scythian Moldovia) Getae and early Slavs gone on and maybe in the contact zone (Scythian Hungary) in Celts and to the east of course Asian example pazyryk contact with Uralic (Y-DNA N) and Asian population Ordos culture and have also risen partly in Kyrgyz, Uyghurs ... and also in sedentary Iranian population Bactrians, Sogdians ... the greatest genetic impact you have on the Crimean Tatars, Volga Tatars and Chuvash, which also not far from the origin of the Scythian, reflects the eastern Yamna culture and Srubnaya culture (Late Bronze Age) then the extent to the east of Kazakhstan (7th-3rd century BCE) 6,7 and Pazyryks (5th-3rd century BCE) and in the other direction to Europe (only there the genetic trace of thin settledness and into other population is absorbed and a simulated)

Coldmountains
05-13-2019, 08:42 PM
What about Scythian UKR? Also Central-Euro?

Interesting that without Scythian, Monte would prefer even SWE Iron Age to different Baltic genes for that Hun_Avar_Szolad. But Scythian is preferred to SWE IA.


Scythian Ukraine is also Central Euro like but BMAC shifted. Early Slavs and modern day Slavs lack this kind of BMAC-like ancestry

"sample": "Test1:Scythian_UKR",
"fit": 3.129,
"Corded_Ware_Baltic_early": 44.17,
"Globular_Amphora": 40.83,
"TKM_Namazga_Tepe_En": 10,
"SHG": 3.33,
"MNG_Hovsgol_BA": 0.83,
"RUS_Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov": 0.83,
"Nganassan": 0,


"sample": "Test2:Ukrainian",
"fit": 5.7202,
"Corded_Ware_Baltic_early": 55,
"Globular_Amphora": 40,
"SHG": 5,
"MNG_Hovsgol_BA": 0,
"Nganassan": 0,
"RUS_Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov": 0,
"TKM_Namazga_Tepe_En": 0,


Scythian Ukraine was also mixed and had a lot of Celtic and Balkan-like admixture. He belonged also to some R1b clade most common among modern day West Europeans.


"sample": "Test1:Scythian_UKR",
"fit": 3.0792,
"Sarmatian_RUS_Urals": 34.17,
"CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany": 31.67,
"BGR_IA": 24.17,
"SHG": 10,
"MNG_Hovsgol_BA": 0,
"Nganassan": 0,
"RUS_Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov": 0,



Hun_Avar_Szolad prefers other North Europeans over ancient Baltics because ancient Baltics have a lot of HG ancestry which makes them distant here from other Europeans. Slavs already have much less of it.

parastais
05-13-2019, 10:15 PM
Some Balto-Slavic folk with ancients. Probably a slight off-topic here.

Apparently HRV Early IA and CZE Early Slav are already no more Balto-, but already -Slavic. Perhaps HRV Early IA is some Balkan-ish stuff, and CZE Early Slav some early Slavic stuff. HUN Avar Szolad is shared between Balts and Slavs. Latvian BA is shared with North Slavs, and only trace level CZE/SRB.

Sample Fit Baltic LVA BA CZE Early Slav HRV Early IA HUN Avar Szolad
Test2:Czech 2.0042 1.67 15.83 18.33 64.17
Test1:Lithuanian 1.6194 46.67 0 1.67 51.67
Test2:Belarusian 1.3435 38.33 10.83 10 40.83
Test1:Polish 1.2456 24.17 20.83 15 40
Test2:Ukrainian 1.6004 27.5 22.5 14.17 35.83
Test1:Slovenian 1.3344 12.5 13.33 38.33 35.83
Test1:Latvian 1.218 60 10 0 30
Test2:Serbian 2.646 2.5 34.17 51.67 11.67

parastais
05-14-2019, 05:45 AM
Some Balto-Slavic folk with ancients. Probably a slight off-topic here.

Apparently HRV Early IA and CZE Early Slav are already no more Balto-, but already -Slavic. Perhaps HRV Early IA is some Balkan-ish stuff, and CZE Early Slav some early Slavic stuff. HUN Avar Szolad is shared between Balts and Slavs. Latvian BA is shared with North Slavs, and only trace level CZE/SRB.

Sample Fit Baltic LVA BA CZE Early Slav HRV Early IA HUN Avar Szolad
Test2:Czech 2.0042 1.67 15.83 18.33 64.17
Test1:Lithuanian 1.6194 46.67 0 1.67 51.67
Test2:Belarusian 1.3435 38.33 10.83 10 40.83
Test1:Polish 1.2456 24.17 20.83 15 40
Test2:Ukrainian 1.6004 27.5 22.5 14.17 35.83
Test1:Slovenian 1.3344 12.5 13.33 38.33 35.83
Test1:Latvian 1.218 60 10 0 30
Test2:Serbian 2.646 2.5 34.17 51.67 11.67

Latvian fit improves when CZE Early is replaced by Estonian_IA. So, maybe there is some relation be CZE Early and Estonian_IA. Such as some Easternish EEF perhaps.

Generalissimo
05-14-2019, 07:54 AM
Uh oh...

http://terheninenmaa.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-origin-of-fennoscandinavian-and.html

Kristiina
05-14-2019, 07:56 AM
He posted it just before the publication of the new paper.

Huck Finn
05-14-2019, 12:09 PM
Uh oh...

http://terheninenmaa.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-origin-of-fennoscandinavian-and.html

This post of M.M. is indeed slightly biased, to say the least, from a person who keeps on underlining how "scientific" his personal approach is. I've been literally giggling while waiting for his next post. That being said, he has a point which is the oddish absence of paternal N before late Bronze Ag in the areas next to Baltic Sea (or even further east). I think the answer is obvious, it is the good old Seima Turbino phenomenon and N1c (maybe also some other lineages too) moving westward with that. But, that remains to be seen, even if there are good reasons to believe in the case.

Alain
05-14-2019, 12:58 PM
This post of M.M. is indeed slightly biased, to say the least, from a person who keeps on underlining how "scientific" his personal approach is. I've been literally giggling while waiting for his next post. That being said, he has a point which is the oddish absence of paternal N before late Bronze Ag in the areas next to Baltic Sea (or even further east). I think the answer is obvious, it is the good old Seima Turbino phenomenon and N1c (maybe also some other lineages too) moving westward with that. But, that remains to be seen, even if there are good reasons to believe in the case.
Is that true that the Seima Turbino phenomenon has to do with the early Proto-Greeks?

Alain
05-14-2019, 01:42 PM
Is that true that the Seima Turbino phenomenon has to do with the early Proto-Greeks?
the question is settled have it confused with another culture:wacko:

MikkaK
05-14-2019, 01:50 PM
This post of M.M. is indeed slightly biased, to say the least, from a person who keeps on underlining how "scientific" his personal approach is. I've been literally giggling while waiting for his next post. That being said, he has a point which is the oddish absence of paternal N before late Bronze Ag in the areas next to Baltic Sea (or even further east). I think the answer is obvious, it is the good old Seima Turbino phenomenon and N1c (maybe also some other lineages too) moving westward with that. But, that remains to be seen, even if there are good reasons to believe in the case.

Do we have any samples from Bronze Age Fennoscandia besides BOO? It seems like important areas even east are missing aDNA in times relevant to West-Uralic.

IIRC there are two types of Netted Ware, one was earlier and spread to the Baltic during the BA and the Eastern variant which spread to Fennoscandia through the northern passage a little later.

Pretty sure the eastern Netted Ware is the only one relevent to D'yakovo, Akozino-Akhmylovo, etc....

MikkaK
05-14-2019, 03:29 PM
On the FtDNA N North Eurasia project somone had a look at the Y chromosome data and found that OLS10 may be resolved further to N-Y4706 and IIg to N-Y4707.

Y4706 is downstream of N-L1025, modern day distribution would suggest a Swedish origin but is also common in West Finns.

Y4707 is downstream of Y4706 and is most common in West Finns.

I had another look at the Estonian project and modern YDNA for Estonians is mostly either

Z1925+ Finnish/Savo/Kerelian likely from post medieval migrations from the north.

M2783+ Broadly Baltic, mainly found in Latvians and Lithuanians and too a lesser extent all over East Europe.

L1022+ Which seems most common in Estonians and South Finns but later spread to Scandinavian countries. This is probably the most common N branch among modern Estonians.

L550+ Mainly downstream from Scandinavian branches.

parastais
05-14-2019, 09:56 PM
M2783 is below L550. That is since Taranders were L550.

Generalissimo
05-14-2019, 09:59 PM
Didn't the tarand grave tradition spread as far west as central Sweden at one point?

MikkaK
05-14-2019, 10:19 PM
Didn't the tarand grave tradition spread as far west as central Sweden at one point?

Yes, along with Akozino-Malar celts and Morby ceramics.

I'm not usually a fan of theories on molgen but Palafit's post is actually quality and connects this migration to the Viking N-L550 found in Nunnan, Sweden.
http://forum.molgen.org/index.php/topic,11166.60.html

parastais
05-15-2019, 10:32 AM
And my final Latvian model with only 3 reference populations, behold the fit!
"sample": "Test1:Latvian",
"fit": 1.0799,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 46.67,
"HUN_Avar_Szolad": 31.67,
"Baltic_EST_IA": 21.67

Sorry for too much spam lately, Coldmountains taught me a new toy :)

edit, tried same 3 pops for other Baltics. Solid fits, not as great as Latvian, but still <2.
"sample": "Test1:Lithuanian",
"fit": 1.6436,
"HUN_Avar_Szolad": 55.83,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 44.17,
"Baltic_EST_IA": 0,

"sample": "Test1:Estonian",
"fit": 1.7162,
"Baltic_EST_IA": 54.17,
"HUN_Avar_Szolad": 35.83,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 10,
Basically when returning back on topic. We are back to basics - Lithuanians do not need Estonian_IA (Baltic Finns) to explain their genetics, but they are still 40% N.
Latvians have over 20% Estonian_IA (~Baltic Finn) genetics which more or less fits population estimates pre-Crusades with Livonians estimated from 10-15% of population (can’t find the source now, just these numbers sticked in my head).

Only good news is that L550 was in Tarands, so one way or another M2783 arrived with them.

Generalissimo
05-15-2019, 10:13 PM
Does anyone know of any good maps of the maximum extent of the tarand grave tradition?

But nothing produced by Carlos Quiles, thanks.

parastais
05-16-2019, 05:36 AM
Not exactly what you requested, but found this one and will put here for future reference:
https://www.academia.edu/22302152/R.Banyte-Rowell_A._Bitner-Wroblewska._From_Aestii_to_Esti._Connections_betwe en_the_Western_Lithuanian_Group_and_the_area_of_di stribution_of_tarand-graves_Interarchaeologia_1._BASE_2005_105-120

Edit: adding some more.

Maybe those stone circle barrows that we have in North Lithuania (Western Lithuanian Group as per above, and Kerbed Barrow Culture as below) were already a mix of Baltic - Baltic Finns. And a source of N-M2783 in Balts?

Roman Period Kerbed Barrow Culture (the Culture of Barrows with stone circles)
30468

From https://www.academia.edu/28330637/A._Simni%C5%A1kyt%C4%97._Burial_Traditions_in_Nort heast_Lithuania._In_G._Zabiela_Z._Baubonis_E._Marc inkevi%C4%8Di%C5%ABt%C4%97_ed._A_Hundred_Years_of_ Archaeological_Discoveries_in_Lithuania_Vilnius_20 16_326-337

Huck Finn
05-16-2019, 06:57 AM
Does anyone know of any good maps of the maximum extent of the tarand grave tradition?

But nothing produced by Carlos Quiles, thanks.
There are some good maps in the new book of Valter Lang "Läänemeresoome tulemised" i.e. "Finnic be-comings", p. 169 early tarands, p. 175 typical and single tarands, but they are in book.

parastais
05-19-2019, 07:24 AM
@Shaikorth,
Earlier you mentioned possibility that East Balts arrived from ~Dnieper already rich with N1c.
Do you have any idea how they would look autosomally?

My scenarios now are related to idea of stone encircled Barrows of Lithuania/Latvia being a hybrid of Baltic Finns/pre-Balts. Where for unknown to me reasons Siberian auyosomals (EST_IA related) would wash away but N-M2783 florish. And then East Balts would arrive from South East in several waves with ‘HUN_Avar_Szolad +Baltic_BA’ like genetics. Making Latvian mix at first and then next wave(s) would create Lithuanian mix.

Shaikorth
05-19-2019, 08:08 AM
@Shaikorth,
Earlier you mentioned possibility that East Balts arrived from ~Dnieper already rich with N1c.
Do you have any idea how they would look autosomally?

My scenarios now are related to idea of stone encircled Barrows of Lithuania/Latvia being a hybrid of Baltic Finns/pre-Balts. Where for unknown to me reasons Siberian auyosomals (EST_IA related) would wash away but N-M2783 florish. And then East Balts would arrive from South East in several waves with ‘HUN_Avar_Szolad +Baltic_BA’ like genetics. Making Latvian mix at first and then next wave(s) would create Lithuanian mix.

I was thinking that the Balt N1c could come from Dnieper when I figured out that idea. It's still possible since the N clades common in Balts existed by the time IA Estonians lived. This is what I get for Latvians and Lithuanians with Estonia_IA but the two early tarand immigrants taken out since I don't think Dnieper Balts had that much Sintashta outlier type ancestry.

"distance%=0.8428"

Latvian

Baltic_LVA_BA,39.8
HUN_Avar_Szolad,31.6
Baltic_EST_IA,28.6

"distance%=1.3801"

Lithuanian

HUN_Avar_Szolad,51
Baltic_LVA_BA,42.6
Baltic_EST_IA,6.4

parastais
05-19-2019, 08:44 AM
Hmm, both Lithuanian and Latvian fits have improved from my as per above. Although I feel it is more in line with my scenario, since LT having 0 Baltic Finness was a problem to it. If they got at least some, then we can speculate some more in territory of Lithuania before East Baltic arrival.

——
I am interested re Hun_Avar_Szolad
according to my own intuitive feel - Hun_Avar_Szolad type of genetics arrived into territory of modern Baltic States rather late. Late IA for example. In big numbers that is, in small numbers some Avar_Szolad type probably was there somewhere already in some form.
It could arrive with either
a) East Balts
b) West Balts
c) Slavs
d) ??no idea, yet part of Szolad would eat some SWE_IA farmer??

Wait a sec! I am from my phone - what if instead of EST_IA the more Germanic one EST_IA was used for LT?

etrusco
05-19-2019, 08:55 AM
Here is a fresh new comment.
Not yet made up my mind on the subject BTW

https://adnaera.com/2019/05/19/unravelling-estonias-genetic-history/

parastais
05-19-2019, 03:12 PM
This might hint something (Baltic_EST_IA_X04_1 is the most SWE_IA rich Estonian_IA, as we see both Latvians and Lithuanians have it around 10%, whereas only Latvians have average EST_IA). Latvians and Lithuanians also have same level of Baltic N-M2783.

"sample": "Test1:Latvian",
"fit": 1.0621,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 44.17,
"HUN_Avar_Szolad": 30.83,
"Baltic_EST_IA": 15.83,
"Baltic_EST_IA_X04_1": 9.17,

"sample": "Test2:Lithuanian",
"fit": 1.6162,
"HUN_Avar_Szolad": 50.83,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 38.33,
"Baltic_EST_IA_X04_1": 10.83,
"Baltic_EST_IA": 0,

Shaikorth
05-19-2019, 03:50 PM
This might hint something (Baltic_EST_IA_X04_1 is the most SWE_IA rich Estonian_IA, as we see both Latvians and Lithuanians have it around 10%, whereas only Latvians have average EST_IA). Latvians and Lithuanians also have same level of Baltic N-M2783.

"sample": "Test1:Latvian",
"fit": 1.0621,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 44.17,
"HUN_Avar_Szolad": 30.83,
"Baltic_EST_IA": 15.83,
"Baltic_EST_IA_X04_1": 9.17,

"sample": "Test2:Lithuanian",
"fit": 1.6162,
"HUN_Avar_Szolad": 50.83,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 38.33,
"Baltic_EST_IA_X04_1": 10.83,
"Baltic_EST_IA": 0,

Might be worth trying with the Ingrian_IA samples instead of Estonia_IA too.



Here is a fresh new comment.
Not yet made up my mind on the subject BTW

https://adnaera.com/2019/05/19/unravelling-estonias-genetic-history/

The issue with the idea of Bronze Age arctic movement of N1c is that there probably wasn't a Scotland_CA or Corded Ware-like like population near the Urals in the supposed Uralic homeland but as we see from the Sintashta outliers there likely was a WSHG-rich one around there. In fact the best two-way fit for earliest and easternmost Estonian N1c sample is about 80% Baltic Bronze Age and 20% Sintashta outliers in qpAdm.

The fit is poor due to high population-specific drift in G25 but Khanties and other populations just east of the Urals also take Sintashta outliers on top of Evenk instead of Corded Ware or Scotland, so it may be as simple as something like the Sintashta outliers + Baltic_BA in the west and the same outliers + BHG in the east post expansion.

"distance%=7.6306"

Khanty

Evenk,46.6
RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o3,36
RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o2,17.4
Scotland_CA_EBA,0
Corded_Ware_Baltic,0

"distance%=7.2893"

Nenets

Evenk,64.8
RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o3,30
RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o2,5.2
Corded_Ware_Baltic,0
Scotland_CA_EBA,0

parastais
05-19-2019, 07:43 PM
Might be worth trying with the Ingrian_IA samples instead of Estonia_IA too.

I did that and it works, Lithuanian fit even slightly improved. The "Baltic_EST_IA_X04_1" was Saaremaa one, 400 BCE, so it would be easy to explain its prominence in Balts as a maritime traders/whatever. But how to explain Ingrians, and why would they be more of a Lithuanian thing than Latvian? :)
"sample": "Test1:Latvian",
"fit": 1.0775,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 40,
"HUN_Avar_Szolad": 30,
"Baltic_EST_IA": 20.83,
"RUS_Ingria_IA": 9.17

"sample": "Test2:Lithuanian",
"fit": 1.5536,
"HUN_Avar_Szolad": 47.5,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 28.33,
"RUS_Ingria_IA": 24.17,
"Baltic_EST_IA": 0,

With SWE_IA added, Lithuanians still got "Ingria":
"sample": "Test2:Lithuanian",
"fit": 1.5271,
"HUN_Avar_Szolad": 43.33,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 34.17,
"RUS_Ingria_IA": 16.67,
"SWE_IA": 5.83,

parastais
05-19-2019, 08:14 PM
Hmm. But Ingrian_IA samples have very little of "Finnicness" or Estonian_IA-giness, they are actually R1a.
"sample": "Test1:RUS_Ingria_IA",
"fit": 2.4174,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 70.83,
"SWE_IA": 16.67,
"HUN_Avar_Szolad": 6.67,
"Baltic_EST_IA_0LS10_1": 3.33,
"Baltic_EST_IA": 2.5,

I used both EST_IA normal and EST_IA the original immigrant, and they both together do not exceed 6%.

Edit:
Whereas the Saaremaa puika had even this one "Baltic_EST_IA_0LS10_1":
"sample": "Test1:Baltic_EST_IA_-_X04_1",
"fit": 2.4329,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 49.17,
"SWE_IA": 32.5,
"Baltic_EST_IA_0LS10_1": 18.33,

Shaikorth
05-19-2019, 08:18 PM
I did that and it works, Lithuanian fit even slightly improved. The "Baltic_EST_IA_X04_1" was Saaremaa one, 400 BCE, so it would be easy to explain its prominence in Balts as a maritime traders/whatever. But how to explain Ingrians, and why would they be more of a Lithuanian thing than Latvian? :)
"sample": "Test1:Latvian",
"fit": 1.0775,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 40,
"HUN_Avar_Szolad": 30,
"Baltic_EST_IA": 20.83,
"RUS_Ingria_IA": 9.17

"sample": "Test2:Lithuanian",
"fit": 1.5536,
"HUN_Avar_Szolad": 47.5,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 28.33,
"RUS_Ingria_IA": 24.17,
"Baltic_EST_IA": 0,

With SWE_IA added, Lithuanians still got "Ingria":
"sample": "Test2:Lithuanian",
"fit": 1.5271,
"HUN_Avar_Szolad": 43.33,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 34.17,
"RUS_Ingria_IA": 16.67,
"SWE_IA": 5.83,

Those Ingrians have more Middle Neolithic ancestry (from some ancient Germanics?) so their fitting for Lithuanians might just be a side effect.

I tested some Turkic West Siberians, unlike Samoyedics and Ugrics G25 likes to give them lots of Corded Ware-type stuff but no Sintashta_o3 (the most EHG-like outlier) and their East Siberian looks different too. Tomsk Tatars and Khanty are neighbours.

"distance%=3.1208"
Tatar_Tomsk

Ulchi,43.2
Corded_Ware_Baltic,33.6
RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o2,16.8
Scotland_CA_EBA,6.4
Evenk,0
RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o3,0

"distance%=7.6306"
Khanty

Evenk,46.6
RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o3,36
RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o2,17.4
Corded_Ware_Baltic,0
Scotland_CA_EBA,0
Ulchi,0


Dolgans and Nganassans have similar eastern but different western profiles.

"distance%=3.6852"

Dolgan

Evenk,84.8
Corded_Ware_Baltic,12.2
Ulchi,3
RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o3,0

"distance%=7.2203"

Nganassan

Evenk,95
RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o3,5
Ulchi,0
Corded_Ware_Baltic,0

parastais
05-25-2019, 10:22 PM
"sample": "Test1:RUS_Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov",
"fit": 4.2887,
"RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o3": 56.67,
"Evenk": 34.17,
"RUS_Mezhovskaya": 8.33,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 0.83,
"RUS_Sintashta_MLBA": 0,

"sample": "Test2:Baltic_EST_IA",
"fit": 2.6406,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 68.33,
"RUS_Sintashta_MLBA": 23.33,
"RUS_Mezhovskaya": 7.5,
"Evenk": 0.83,
"RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o3": 0,

"sample": "Test2:Baltic_EST_IA_-_0LS10_1",
"fit": 4.1382,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 67.5,
"RUS_Mezhovskaya": 15,
"RUS_Sintashta_MLBA": 12.5,
"RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o3": 3.33,
"Evenk": 1.67,

Mezhovskaya seems to be the link between BOO and Est_IA. Evenk-ish and Sintashta_o3-ish is largely missing from EST_IA (average, yet first migrant has some trace). Sintashta itself seems to be present for EST_IA (even prefered to SWE_IA for the first migrant).

This is Sintashta_o3:
"sample": "Test1:RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o3",
"fit": 1.9323,
"KAZ_Botai": 39.17,
"RUS_Khvalynsk_En": 35.83,
"RUS_Karelia_HG": 25,
"Baltic_LVA_MN": 0,
"RUS_Sintashta_MLBA": 0,

And Mezhovskaya:
"sample": "Test2:RUS_Mezhovskaya",
"fit": 2.5143,
"RUS_Sintashta_MLBA": 67.5,
"RUS_Khvalynsk_En": 12.5,
"Evenk": 11.67,
"KAZ_Botai": 8.33,
"RUS_Karelia_HG": 0,

Hm, Sintashta_o3 worked well even without Evenks, but without Evenk (alternatively Nganassan) Mezhovskaya is not giving any good fits (better than 6 anyway).

What was the cultural background of Mezhovskaya sample anyway?

Edit: with Locomotiv I could drop Evenks, but suddenly MLBA_o3 is used now:
"sample": "Test2:RUS_Mezhovskaya",
"fit": 2.5952,
"RUS_Sintashta_MLBA": 69.17,
"RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o3": 15.83,
"RUS_Lokomotiv_N": 14.17,
"Baltic_LVA_MN": 0.83,

parastais
05-25-2019, 10:25 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mezhovskaya_culture
"The ancestors of the Mezhovskaya culture's were the people of the Cherkaskul culture with the participation of the people of the Tobol taiga, with traditions and ceramics of the steppe zone of the Ural and Kazakhstan (Andronovo culture), especially the Sargarino-Alexis culture.[3]

The Mezhovskaya culture reflects the further stages of development of the Ugric community in active contact with the Indo-Iranian population of the Ural steppes.[4]"
I guess "with the participation of Tobol Taiga" is why you can't model them without Evenk-ish. And "in active contact with Indo-Iranian" is why their Sintashta is so high.

Generalissimo
05-26-2019, 02:18 AM
Any comments about this?

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5Y6ickAxpTQ/XOjLLEb195I/AAAAAAAAH4Y/u5xj9YWgEMYTrXjREHNJcxvQpTcKbPj4QCLcBGAs/s1600/Post_et_al_2019_Figure_3.jpg

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/05/more-on-association-between-uralic.html

Huck Finn
05-26-2019, 06:35 AM
Both this study and YFull seem to support a model where the N-Z1936 sub lineage N-B535, leading fex to many Finnic speakers, moves from Oka region via Kostroma and Vologda areas towards Gulf of Finland. The intermediary group in the middle is nowadays represented by Vepsians (and nowadays also by generic Central Russians, of course). I'd guess that N-Z1936 followed the Kama-Volga route on it's way from the Ural area, just as VL-29 did.

Some people such as M.M. seem to be fascinated by the apparent map connection of N-B535 and N-B539 via Arctic Ocean. This is anachronistic, as for instance N-B535 represented by Finnic speakers moved to Archangel region from places next to Ladoga and as explained above the phylogenic steps of the lineage can be found in Upper Volga, not in Kola Peninsula.

Generalissimo
05-26-2019, 08:23 AM
Some people such as M.M. seem to be fascinated by the apparent map connection of N-B535 and N-B539 via Arctic Ocean. This is anachronistic, as for instance N-B535 represented by Finnic speakers moved to Archangel region from places next to Ladoga and as explained above the phylogenic steps of the lineage can be found in Upper Volga, not in Kola Peninsula.

The chances that the Arctic Ocean link theory that Carlos and M.M, are pushing will be validated by ancient DNA are nil.

This has more to do with psychology than what the data are really showing. I've learnt over the years that once some people take a very strong position on an issue early on, they'll do everything they can to explain to themselves that they were right, and there's nothing anyone can do to talk sense into them.

Huck Finn
05-26-2019, 11:51 AM
The chances that the Arctic Ocean link theory that Carlos and M.M, are pushing will be validated by ancient DNA are nil.

At least related to N-Z1936 leading to Finnics and Saami it seems almost impossible, as the founder of the relevant sublineage leading to those groups is as said modern Veps/Central Russian. It seems that M.M. is very eager to explain the genetic east of Finnic speakers by paternal N, but it also seems that he's neglecting the original Sintashta_o type of Siberian, most probably indeed related to paternal N and concentrating on later influences, not that much related to paternal N.

parastais
06-02-2019, 08:54 PM
My latest understanding on N-M2783 in Balts.

1) Tarand Graves brings N to Baltics with guys like "Baltic_EST_IA:0LS10" mixing with local BA populations (LVA_BA, EST_BA) and Germanic folk (proxy SWE_IA) to produce Baltic Finns or Estonian IA type population.
"sample": "Test1:Baltic_EST_IA",
"fit": 1.4437,
"Baltic_EST_IA_0LS10_1": 48.33,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 29.17,
"SWE_IA": 22.5,
"Baltic_LTU_BA": 0,

2) In the coasts and islands of Estonia and Latvia a more "Western" variation of Estonian_IA evolves (i.e. Saaremaa 500 BCE - Baltic_EST_IA_-_X04_1) which is richer in both SWE_IA and LVA_BA:
"sample": "Test1:Baltic_EST_IA_-_X04_1",
"fit": 2.256,
"Baltic_EST_IA": 49.17,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 30.83,
"SWE_IA": 20,
"Baltic_EST_IA_0LS10_1": 0,
"Baltic_LTU_BA": 0,

3) This "Oeselian" guy mixes with some local LVA_BA populations to start new burial tradition in the Baltics. Barrows with stone encirclements (edit - West Lithunian stone circle graves), which is fusion of Central Europe and Tarand (somewhere 1st century AD if I am not wrong). This tradition goes East into sparcely populated inlands North Lithuania, South Latvia, etc, North Lithuanian Barrow Culture 300-500(?) AD (Baltic_LTU_Late_Antiquity_low_res) is one of related cultures:
"sample": "Test1:Baltic_LTU_Late_Antiquity_low_res",
"fit": 4.715,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 66.67,
"Baltic_EST_IA_X04_1": 33.33,
"Baltic_EST_IA": 0,
"Baltic_EST_IA_0LS10_1": 0,
"Baltic_LTU_BA": 0,
"SWE_IA": 0,
"HUN_Avar_Szolad": 0,

4) East Balts of East Lithuanian Barrow Culture (influences from Vielbark via Sudovia and NLBC on remains of Brushed Pottery Culture) go West.. and North, bringing tons of HUN_Avar_Szolad type genetics into Baltics and assimilating local cocktail rich in N-M2783:
"sample": "Test2:Lithuanian",
"fit": 1.4859,
"HUN_Avar_Szolad": 54.17,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 30.83,
"Baltic_LTU_Late_Antiquity_low_res": 15,
"Baltic_EST_IA": 0,
"Baltic_EST_IA_0LS10_1": 0,

5) In Latvia they meet Baltic Finns proper and Hun_Avar_Szolad type of genetics washes out a bit:
"sample": "Test1:Latvian",
"fit": 0.9797,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 38.33,
"HUN_Avar_Szolad": 32.5,
"Baltic_EST_IA": 19.17,
"Baltic_LTU_Late_Antiquity_low_res": 10,
"Baltic_EST_IA_0LS10_1": 0,

Please note, Latvians have additional EST_IA from Livonians most likely, but even somewhat less Baltic_LTU_Late_Antiquity_low_res, and also our proportion of N-M2783 is slightly lower than Lithuanian.

...
Does this make any sense? If no, what are the weak points here?

parastais
06-03-2019, 05:57 AM
Few problems:
1) Malaren axes and molds in NE Lithuania - hinting at earlier entrance of N
2) Hun_Avar_Szolad - Baltic bronze and Iron Age seem to largely lack this type of admixture that goes up to 50% in modern Lithuanians (Also ~20% Estonians). Is that even possible that (large part bof genes of) East Balts arrived from further South (East?) after 500 AD? Seems a bit too high for being just Slavic wives mediated.

parastais
06-03-2019, 07:04 AM
Linguistically it could make some sense either even for Lithuanian to have some “post-Germanic contacts” Finnic “boat lords”.

Laiva (Lith, Latv - boat) - ultimately from Germanic ‘flawja’, through Finnic f got dropped and awj<>ajw laiva (Finnish)
Kunigas (Lith - priest, kungs Latv - lord) - ultimately from Germanic ‘kuningaz’ but also Finnish ‘kuningas’

parastais
06-15-2019, 10:27 AM
It seems like Saaremaa Iron Age genes are also favored at some trace level by Polish and Belorussians (both other nations that have some N-M2783 presence. So, perhaps it is somewhat probable that founder of M2783 carried that type of admixture:
http://i63.tinypic.com/2cxhxqt.png

But interesting and curious case is Golden Horde Euro, he stubbornly prefers Estonian IA to Saaremaa, and if Estonian IA is not present and forced to chose between early migrant from Estonian paper or Saaremaa he picks early migrant. So, perhaps that guy indeed is from some archaic Eastern (para)Balto-Slavic population.

parastais
09-03-2019, 02:32 PM
Fun offtopic, apparently there are some Balts positive for L550 and negative for L1025.
Me :D

Now trying to embrace my FennoScandoRusso-iness.

lgmayka
09-03-2019, 07:20 PM
Fun offtopic, apparently there are some Balts positive for L550 and negative for L1025.
YFull shows a Polish entry in N-BY21957 (L550 > S9378 > Y36282 > BY21957). Specifically, Kujawsko-Pomorskie.

parastais
11-01-2019, 03:30 PM
Fun offtopic, apparently there are some Balts positive for L550 and negative for L1025.
Me :D

Now trying to embrace my FennoScandoRusso-iness.
Fake News, according to YSEQ I am true M2783.
Back to Latvian!

BroderTuck
06-16-2020, 10:35 AM
A while back we discussed ELT50035 (aka YF13597), and later YF16513 appeared.
Now YF16513 is given it's own branch with F1228 (which YCH205 was shown positive for) and some other SNPs
Now there's also YF73810, anyone who knows anything about that sample?

parastais
05-12-2021, 05:30 AM
Interesting take:
https://phylogeographer.com/n-l1025-major-diversification-in-600-bc-on-the-periphery-of-the-nordic-bronze-age-in-the-baltic/

Based on this and previously found L1025 in North Lithuanian Barrows with Stone circles, it becomes tempting to link expansion of L1025 in Baltics with early centuries AD (1st/2nd) to whole horizon of Barrows with Stone Circles in Latvia and Lithuania. Either those barrows were already West Baltic or assimilated later is a good question.
Given West (North West) Baltic loanwords in Proto-Finnic (Kallio) it is likely this culture already was Baltic. Perhaps itself a result of Balts assimilating some Fenno-Scandian sea farers on the West Lithuanian coast to create a mix that would later expand.

This burial type itself got as far as East Lithuanian Barrows culture. But their descendants got further. I.e. some “Semigallians” got up into Estonia (L1025-Z16981?).

Zelto
05-12-2021, 08:12 PM
Interesting take:
https://phylogeographer.com/n-l1025-major-diversification-in-600-bc-on-the-periphery-of-the-nordic-bronze-age-in-the-baltic/

Based on this and previously found L1025 in North Lithuanian Barrows with Stone circles, it becomes tempting to link expansion of L1025 in Baltics with early centuries AD (1st/2nd) to whole horizon of Barrows with Stone Circles in Latvia and Lithuania. Either those barrows were already West Baltic or assimilated later is a good question.
Given West (North West) Baltic loanwords in Proto-Finnic (Kallio) it is likely this culture already was Baltic. Perhaps itself a result of Balts assimilating some Fenno-Scandian sea farers on the West Lithuanian coast to create a mix that would later expand.

This burial type itself got as far as East Lithuanian Barrows culture. But their descendants got further. I.e. some “Semigallians” got up into Estonia (L1025-Z16981?).

It's a good tool for viewing subclade diversity in modern samples, however in the write up Provyn suggests N-VL29 originated in the Finnish Kiukainen culture, based on the algorithm. I disagree with this, IMO, N-VL29 and even N-L550 formed in Western Russia, along the Volga. I also think N-L1025 spread at least, a few centuries after the 600BC date he gives.

Here you can play around with an updated version https://phylogeographer.com/mygrations/

N-L550 is still nested around Stockholm, N-L1025 is now pulled slightly farther southeast, in the Gulf of Riga. Not sure this reflects reality though, like I mentioned in the other thread, the Medieval sample in YFull from Saaremaa is some (dead?) branch of N-L550* and the lack of any N in Kivutkalns >200BC.

There easily could have some N-L550 rich population around Lake Mälaren which, spread there with Early-Trands and Morby/Ilmandu ceramics. This area was an important trade/cultural/political center which could have perhaps leant itself to the distribution of "Fennoscandian" subclades. Some branches seem to be fairly old in Finland as well, although centered around areas with heavy Germanic/Swedish influences (Satakunta; Southern Ostrobothnia). I guess its debatable whether they arrived there with early-Tarands or later Germanics.

Obviously the main question here is N-L1025 in the Baltic. The situation seems to have become even more confusing with the abandonment of N-M2783 (IIRC, had multiple back mutations), which was almost entirely "Baltic". N-L1025 on the other hand has early "Fennoscandian" branches like N-Y4706.

I think we can safely say that N-L1025 arrived in Lithuania/Latvia via the coast. Probably not with Akozino-Malar axes/hillforts, which would again conflict with Kivutkalns aDNA and the relatively late TMRCA of "Baltic" subclades. I'm not sure what kind of influence the Barrows with Stone Circles population had, but it must have been quite successful if they were the progenitors of N-L1025 in the Baltic.

parastais
05-12-2021, 08:58 PM
“ I'm not sure what kind of influence the Barrows with Stone Circles population had, but it must have been quite successful if they were the progenitors of N-L1025 in the Baltic.”
Well, they were either THE future Curonians, Semigallians, Selonians, Samogitians and even Augstaitians (East Lithuanian Barrows - the core of Lithuania-to-be also took this burial practice after 3-4 century) and Letts,
Or they were a major substrate for next culture that replaced barrows with Stone circles one way or another across all area - flat graves. Flat graves were already quite undisputed associated with East Baltic tribes.

Phenotypically though (old anthro) their phenotype survived only in Semigallians and Selonians, but Flat Graves arrived with typical “Baltic - Lithuanian” phenotype.

So, can’t wait for aDNA of these two cultures.

My bets:
Stone Rings - mostly N-L1025
Flat Graves - early R1a, later 50/50

Zelto
05-12-2021, 09:45 PM
“ I'm not sure what kind of influence the Barrows with Stone Circles population had, but it must have been quite successful if they were the progenitors of N-L1025 in the Baltic.”
Well, they were either THE future Curonians, Semigallians, Selonians, Samogitians and even Augstaitians (East Lithuanian Barrows - the core of Lithuania-to-be also took this burial practice after 3-4 century) and Letts,
Or they were a major substrate for next culture that replaced barrows with Stone circles one way or another across all area - flat graves. Flat graves were already quite undisputed associated with East Baltic tribes.

Phenotypically though (old anthro) their phenotype survived only in Semigallians and Selonians, but Flat Graves arrived with typical “Baltic - Lithuanian” phenotype.

So, can’t wait for aDNA of these two cultures.

My bets:
Stone Rings - mostly N-L1025
Flat Graves - early R1a, later 50/50

Got it, I'm not super familiar with Baltic archaeology, especially not post-AD. I'm assuming the flat graves are thought to have originated farther east, before replacing the Stone Ring burials?

Anyways, something like this sounds reasonable to me. Although, that would still leave the question of how and from where N-L1025 became prolific in the Stone Ring population, if it indeed spread with them. You mentioning before that their origin is unknown, but may have come from West Lithuania... are you aware of any north-Baltic/Fennoscandian influences there?

I know the Goths are thought to have controlled the Amber trade around this time, however aDNA from Wielbark, etc. hasn't revealed any N-L1025.

Zelto
05-12-2021, 10:46 PM
I was just looking through this thread, https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?23595-New-Samples-from-Migration-Era-and-Early-Medieval-Moravia/page57

Apparently Kowalewko samples 4, 9 and 10 have Finnic admixture. If that's the case, I would agree with Michał, they probably came from Central/Eastern Sweden.

Out of the few Iron Age samples in Scandinavia that have been studied, one from Oland (200-400CE) just so happens to be N-L550. Sample id. VK579 / Oland 1099 1785/67 35, apparently with the same slight Finnic admixture.

This is at least some evidence for a Finnic admixed Germanic population, living around Lake Malaren, presumably descended from the early-Tarands.

Maybe "Goths" from Lake Malaren (Swedes/Svear?), spread N-L1025 to the Stone Circle Balts in West Lithuania?

parastais
05-13-2021, 05:38 AM
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.
Must find that Tucas article and re-read it.

parastais
05-13-2021, 05:58 AM
Tucas article:
https://www.academia.edu/4793201/Tucas_R_EVOLUTION_OF_POPULATION_OF_LITHUANIA_TERRI TORY_IN_THE_1_12_CENTURIES_AD

From text:
"In the first centuries BC, the WBBC in the coastal area developed into the Culture of Laminar Burial Grounds with Stone Coronas of Western Lithuania (WLBGC)."

"Recently, the Culture of the Laminar Burial Grounds of the Lower Nemunas (LNBGC) (Scalovians), the Culture of Laminar Burial Groundsof Central Lithuania (CLBGC) (Austechians) and other variants of local ethnogenosis also have been related to the WBBC. In the 5th–6th century AD, the WLBGC split into two variants: Curonians and Lamatians. 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 MiddleLithuanian and South Latvian regions, and mixing with the scarce inhabitants of theseregion, presumably the descendants of the BPC. Archaeologist V. Šimė nas pointed out the mixed origin of NLBC and applied the term Middle Balts to it and the descendant other archaeological cultures."

"Yet the migration processes that took place in the 1st millennium AD did not bypass East Lithuania. In the 2nd–3rd century AD, brushed pottery abruptly disappeared, the fellow men were buried in barrows and the structure of population system changed."

Huck Finn
05-13-2021, 06:55 AM
Apparently Kowalewko samples 4, 9 and 10 have Finnic admixture. If that's the case, I would agree with Michał, they probably came from Central/Eastern Sweden.

Levänluhta surroundings are, because of the burial's genetic Saami like features, often misunderstood in Baltic context. There are very rich Germanic influenced burials too, but without any aDNA. The area was a link in a greater trading chain, being very much in contact with centres on the Swedish side, over the bay of Bothnia:

"Several rich weapon graves are known in cemeteries neighbouring Levänluhta; like the famous boat burial Pukkila in Isokyrö (AD 500–800) and the cemetery and settlement complex of Gulldynt in Vörå (AD 450–700). These cemeteries contain imported jewellery and weapons decorated with ornaments belonging to Salin’s style I and II. Also objects implying long distance contacts – Roman gold coins, a Vestland -type cauldron, cowries (Cyprae moneta) and numerous glass and amber beads – have been found at Gulldynt (Hackman 1938; Erä-Esko 1965; 1986; Kivikoski 1973).<"

Then, just like on the Swedish side, something happens after Vendel Age:

" A rapid downswing in the economy is also observed in Central Norrland, Sweden during the beginning of Merovingian period (Meinander 1977: 43; Selinge 1977: 288-90; Flink 1990: 199–200). Large settlement sites like Gene in Ångermanland and the Högom cemetery in Medelpad seem to have been abandoned around AD 550–600."

http://www.sarks.fi/fa/PDF/FA26_81.pdf

So, if we're looking for a melting pot, combining both Finnic-Saami like and Swedish genetic features, there we have one.

parastais
05-13-2021, 08:28 AM
Got it, I'm not super familiar with Baltic archaeology, especially not post-AD. I'm assuming the flat graves are thought to have originated farther east, before replacing the Stone Ring burials?
Strangely enough, farther South not East. Southern Lithuania has this tradition contemporary with Stone Rings.




Anyways, something like this sounds reasonable to me. Although, that would still leave the question of how and from where N-L1025 became prolific in the Stone Ring population, if it indeed spread with them. You mentioning before that their origin is unknown, but may have come from West Lithuania... are you aware of any north-Baltic/Fennoscandian influences there?
Digging it up, but can't find anything. They are believed to be originated from WBBC (West Baltic Barrows), but they are different. And when contemporary then both communities were burying their dead distantly to each other. And also after tradition switch different burial grounds were picked.



I know the Goths are thought to have controlled the Amber trade around this time, however aDNA from Wielbark, etc. hasn't revealed any N-L1025.
Early archeologysts of 19 century were interpreting Stone Rings in Baltics as Gothic migration. At the end of 19th century they were not anymore, since differences with Gothic material were found.

Now I believe it was some sort of population that was related to that trade network, but linguistically at the end of the day at some point they must have been West Balts (variants North Balts, Middle Balts). West Balts on Finnic and/or Germanic substrate/superstrate. They sure had contacts with Proto-Finns and left a layer of West (North) Baltic loanwords there.

As to early Germanic influences - East Baltic languages did not have them of such a scale. Same for Finnic. Especially Lithuanian. Latvian is a different story.

Standardized Ape
05-13-2021, 08:48 AM
I was just looking through this thread, https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?23595-New-Samples-from-Migration-Era-and-Early-Medieval-Moravia/page57

Apparently Kowalewko samples 4, 9 and 10 have Finnic admixture. If that's the case, I would agree with Michał, they probably came from Central/Eastern Sweden.

Out of the few Iron Age samples in Scandinavia that have been studied, one from Oland (200-400CE) just so happens to be N-L550. Sample id. VK579 / Oland 1099 1785/67 35, apparently with the same slight Finnic admixture.

This is at least some evidence for a Finnic admixed Germanic population, living around Lake Malaren, presumably descended from the early-Tarands.

Maybe "Goths" from Lake Malaren (Swedes/Svear?), spread N-L1025 to the Stone Circle Balts in West Lithuania?

I hadn't looked into the male Goth samples yet. Many of them can be modeled with low-quality Middle Ages samples from Finland. 10 is still the only female with meaningful eastern pull.

Target: Kowalewko_Local_Female:10
Distance: 3.6878% / 0.03687772 | R5P
73.2 Swedish
16.0 FIN_MA_Turku:CHS119
7.6 Finnish_East
3.2 Naxi

Target: Kowalewko_Goths_Male:8
Distance: 3.8292% / 0.03829203 | R5P
77.6 Icelandic
8.6 FIN_MA_Porvoo:PD28
7.0 Lithuanian_PZ
6.8 Avar

Target: Kowalewko_Goths_Male:9
Distance: 4.0566% / 0.04056580 | R5P
59.0 Icelandic
24.6 FIN_MA_Turku:CHS119
12.8 Cossack_Kuban
2.2 Latvian
1.4 Spanish_Soria

Target: Kowalewko_Goths_Male:12
Distance: 4.0395% / 0.04039468 | R5P
47.4 English
24.8 Swedish
16.6 FIN_MA_Porvoo:PD28
8.0 Lithuanian_VZ
3.2 Esan_Nigeria

CHS119 is a very low quality sample. Still it occupies an extreme position on a PCA in the same direction that these Goths are oriented towards. A modern day individual from Suursaari in the Gulf of Finland is kind of similar to it but beyond that it has little pattern in distances for modern Finns which would be a little bit odd if it represented the local population of SW Finland at the time. I used to think it was because of the quality but maybe there's something else to it.

Huck Finn
05-13-2021, 09:30 AM
I hadn't looked into the male Goth samples yet. Many of them can be modeled with low-quality Middle Ages samples from Finland. 10 is still the only female with meaningful eastern pull.

This Finnish_East/Cossack_Kuban thing is pretty interesting, assumed it's not just something like Levänluhta in disguise.

parastais
05-13-2021, 10:22 AM
I hadn't looked into the male Goth samples yet. Many of them can be modeled with low-quality Middle Ages samples from Finland. 10 is still the only female with meaningful eastern pull.

Target: Kowalewko_Local_Female:10
Distance: 3.6878% / 0.03687772 | R5P
73.2 Swedish
16.0 FIN_MA_Turku:CHS119
7.6 Finnish_East
3.2 Naxi

Target: Kowalewko_Goths_Male:8
Distance: 3.8292% / 0.03829203 | R5P
77.6 Icelandic
8.6 FIN_MA_Porvoo:PD28
7.0 Lithuanian_PZ
6.8 Avar

Target: Kowalewko_Goths_Male:9
Distance: 4.0566% / 0.04056580 | R5P
59.0 Icelandic
24.6 FIN_MA_Turku:CHS119
12.8 Cossack_Kuban
2.2 Latvian
1.4 Spanish_Soria

Target: Kowalewko_Goths_Male:12
Distance: 4.0395% / 0.04039468 | R5P
47.4 English
24.8 Swedish
16.6 FIN_MA_Porvoo:PD28
8.0 Lithuanian_VZ
3.2 Esan_Nigeria

CHS119 is a very low quality sample. Still it occupies an extreme position on a PCA in the same direction that these Goths are oriented towards. A modern day individual from Suursaari in the Gulf of Finland is kind of similar to it but beyond that it has little pattern in distances for modern Finns which would be a little bit odd if it represented the local population of SW Finland at the time. I used to think it was because of the quality but maybe there's something else to it.

Probably that is a bad idea, but what about that Low Quality Lithuania_IA vs CHS119?
Could they share same type of noise?

Also that Lithuanian_IA as far as I remember had nothing Germanic about it...

Standardized Ape
05-13-2021, 11:13 AM
Probably that is a bad idea, but what about that Low Quality Lithuania_IA vs CHS119?
Could they share same type of noise?

Also that Lithuanian_IA as far as I remember had nothing Germanic about it...

It does not work as a source and it is not specifically linked with CHS119 but it does take some Goth.

Target: Baltic_LTU_Late_Antiquity_low_res:DA171
Distance: 4.5153% / 0.04515289 | R5P
60.2 Baltic_LVA_BA
34.6 Lithuanian_PZ
2.8 Kowalewko_Goths_Male:8
1.4 Ami
1.0 Kowalewko_Goths_Male:9

These Goths are also a pretty decent source of Germanic admixture for Finns but for some reason they are picked over Swedes more in eastern than western Finns. Could be because the Germanic admixture in eastern Finns is from a specific older source while western Finns have more varied sources.

Target: Finnish_East
Distance: 1.0384% / 0.01038413 | R5P
33.2 Russian_Pinega
32.6 Estonian
15.8 Saami
7.0 Kowalewko_Goths_Male:2
4.4 Kowalewko_Goths_Male:8
3.8 Kowalewko_Goths_Male:9
3.2 RUS_Volga-Kama_N:MUR009

Target: Finnish
Distance: 0.7277% / 0.00727735 | R5P
37.2 Estonian
35.4 Swedish
19.4 Russian_Pinega
5.2 RUS_Volga-Kama_N:MUR009
2.8 Nganassan

parastais
05-13-2021, 11:23 AM
Maybe without Lithuania_PZ - they are likely partial children of Lith_IA.

Instead Estonian_IA (Saaremaa one?) and some Germanic and some LTU_BA could be used.

Huck Finn
05-13-2021, 11:48 AM
These Goths are also a pretty decent source of Germanic admixture for Finns but for some reason they are picked over Swedes more in eastern than western Finns.

I wonder if there's a third party involved, being visible both in East Finns and Goths, such as some Volgaic Finnic group, maybe related to Oka-Ryazan culture? Rahkonen BTW, if I recall it right, has suggested that they spoke Permic, so maybe we should look at Permic influence, such as loan words, in Baltic? Or, related loans from Iranic sources or smthg?

P.S. oldies but goldies:

https://mariuveren.wordpress.com/2008/12/10/mysterious-ancient-sepulchers-discovered-under-staraya-ryazan/

parastais
05-13-2021, 12:55 PM
I wonder if there's a third party involved, being visible both in East Finns and Goths, such as some Volgaic Finnic group, maybe related to Oka-Ryazan culture? Rahkonen BTW, if I recall it right, has suggested that they spoke Permic, so maybe we should look at Permic influence, such as loan words, in Baltic? Or, related loans from Iranic sources or smthg?

P.S. oldies but goldies:

https://mariuveren.wordpress.com/2008/12/10/mysterious-ancient-sepulchers-discovered-under-staraya-ryazan/
No, there are no Permic loanwords in Baltic. Things perhaps are more prosaic, Goths knew of Volga trade route.
Napolskich's article in Russian:
https://elar.urfu.ru/bitstream/10995/79831/1/vopon_2018_1_003.pdf

"thiudos: in Aunxis Vas, in Abroncas Merens, Mordens in Miscaris, Rogas stadjans at Thual, Nauezo, Bubegenas, Gotthos" = «народы: в Аунксах — вас, в Абронках — меров, мордов в Мискарах, жителей берегов Волги до туалов, навезо, бубегеев, готов». (in English (my rough translation): In Aunxis Veps, in Abroncas Merya, Mordva in Miscaris, Volga citizens up to Tuals, Bubegeys, Goths.
That was the list of nations that were ruled by Ermanarich from Jordan, but Napolskich believed it was rather a geographic description of Volga trade route.

Edit: apparently they were part of early "Gothic" trade network.

Zelto
05-13-2021, 07:17 PM
Out of the sixteen male Kowalewko Goths sampled, eight were I1 (3 I-L237, 1 I-59), four were G2a (G-P15), the rest were I2a2, R1a, R1b1 and E1b1. If N-L1025 came to the Baltic from Scandinavia, it must have had a limited distribution farther North. I would imagine the source from around Lake Mälaren, would have had even higher Finnic ancestry than these Kowalewko samples.

I suppose it depends on how seriously we take modern distribution and YFull's TMRCA dates. Most of the major "Baltic" subclades start diversifying 2200-1700ybp, some maybe earlier.

I can't help but keep bringing up Kivutkalns, as it was large trading center on the Baltic, with no Y-hg N >200BC. I think N-L1025 either spread from West-East (Lithuania-Latvia), or wasn't in the Baltic for as long as the YFull dates suggest.

For what its worth, the earliest of these subclades have samples pulling them towards the East (Russia, Belarus).

https://www.yfull.com/tree/N-Y5580/

https://www.yfull.com/tree/N-Z16981/ The basal sample (YF03832) is Belarusian according to an FtDNA project.


So, if we're looking for a melting pot, combining both Finnic-Saami like and Swedish genetic features, there we have one.

A similar population may have been involved at Levänluhta, I recall there was a Germanic outlier found there. However, Levänluhta (500-800AD) seems a little late to have been in any way directly related to N-L1025 in the Baltic.

This paper is relevant and discusses the same climatic event, focusing on Iron Age Mälaren.

http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2%3A526789/FULLTEXT01.pdf

Edit: Weren't there some samples from Iron Age Eura as well that haven't been officially released? I remember all the male samples being N1c, but I might be confusing that with something else. Either way, Eura certainly had a lot of Germanic influence, some researchers even considered them to be immigrants.

Huck Finn
05-13-2021, 07:48 PM
Edit: Weren't there some samples from Iron Age Eura as well that haven't been officially released? I remember all the male samples being N1c, but I might be confusing that with something else. Either way, Eura certainly had a lot of Germanic influence, some researchers even considered them to be immigrants.

Yes, unluckily no SNP's or basically anything beyond paternal N has leaked out, in terms of males.

parastais
05-13-2021, 09:20 PM
One, more, year...
Wonder how far they are in this research:

PRG243 - Natural selection and migrations in shaping human genetic diversity in East European Plain. An ancient DNA study
01.01.2018 – 31.12.2022
Estonian Research Council (PRG)

Mait Metspalu

Recent developments in the field of ancient DNA are revolutionizing our understanding of the evolutionary and demographic processes that have shaped modern human genetic diversity and relationships between genes and phenotypic traits including disease. However, there is a big gap in aDNA sampling in the vast area of the East European Plain. Here we shall fill this gap by sequencing >400 aDNA samples together with relevant stable isotope analyses. This will enable us to reconstruct the complex population history not only from the genetic ancestry point of view but also shedding light on social structure and mobility, diet and health condition through the Mesolithic to Iron Age. We shall reveal the evolutionary paths of genetic variants associated with increased or decreased disease risk. These results will have direct impact on the theoretical basis of the developing Personalized Medicine in Estonia and the openness of the society as a whole.

parastais
05-15-2021, 12:20 PM
Quoting this here to show that Balts actually have Krasnoyarsk and what is also interesting some Unetice-ish:

Sure. But first let me make it clear that I don't think proto-Slavs or even proto-Balts were identical to Latvia_BA, I thought I made that clear in my last post that I'm only using these samples for their Balto-Slavic drift, as it can't be denied that they harbour some significant amount of Balto-Slavic admixture, they are even more drifted than modern day Balts.


Latvia_BA is still strongly prefered over Lithuania_BA. But when it comes to the non-Baltic_BA source Latvians can actually be modelled successfully with just Unetice and the fit is only slightly worse without Croatia_IA. Some of the Lithuanian averages get decent fit without Croatia_IA aswell but not all.

Target: Latvian
Distance: 1.2732% / 0.01273199
74.8 Baltic_LVA_BA
16.4 CZE_Unetice_EBA
8.0 HRV_IA
0.8 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA
0.0 Baltic_LTU_BA
0.0 CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany
0.0 DNK_Sealand_IA

Target: Lithuanian_PA
Distance: 1.5400% / 0.01539966
65.0 Baltic_LVA_BA
21.8 HRV_IA
12.2 CZE_Unetice_EBA
1.0 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA
0.0 Baltic_LTU_BA
0.0 CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany
0.0 DNK_Sealand_IA

Forcing out Latvia_BA fails like with Belarusians.

Target: Latvian
Distance: 2.7209% / 0.02720863
89.8 Baltic_LTU_BA
9.6 CZE_Unetice_EBA
0.6 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA
0.0 CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany
0.0 DNK_Sealand_IA
0.0 HRV_IA

Target: Lithuanian_PA
Distance: 2.8224% / 0.02822355
76.2 Baltic_LTU_BA
13.8 HRV_IA
9.2 CZE_Unetice_EBA
0.8 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA
0.0 CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany
0.0 DNK_Sealand_IA

Taking out Hallstatt and Croatia_IA actually does not affect the fit that much for Latvians, but more so for Lit_PA

Target: Latvian
Distance: 1.4514% / 0.01451433
68.6 Baltic_LVA_BA
27.6 CZE_Unetice_EBA
3.0 Baltic_LTU_BA
0.8 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA
0.0 DNK_Sealand_IA

Target: Lithuanian_PA
Distance: 2.4503% / 0.02450298
53.8 Baltic_LVA_BA
45.6 CZE_Unetice_EBA
0.6 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA
0.0 Baltic_LTU_BA
0.0 DNK_Sealand_IA

Lit_PZ and Lit_RZ do get acceptable fits without Croatia_IA/Hallstatt.

Target: Lithuanian_PZ
Distance: 1.7454% / 0.01745371
59.8 Baltic_LVA_BA
18.6 CZE_Unetice_EBA
12.4 Baltic_LTU_BA
9.0 DNK_Sealand_IA
0.2 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA

Target: Lithuanian_SZ
Distance: 1.7607% / 0.01760735
69.2 Baltic_LVA_BA
30.2 CZE_Unetice_EBA
0.4 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA
0.2 Baltic_LTU_BA
0.0 DNK_Sealand_IA

Zelto
05-15-2021, 05:08 PM
Quoting this here to show that Balts actually have Krasnoyarsk and what is also interesting some Unetice-ish:

Just playing around with similar samples...

Unetice goes away when HUN_MA_Szolad is used, although Lithuanians still take 1.8-11.6% HRV_IA.

Target: Lithuanian_VZ
Distance: 1.6425% / 0.01642503
69.0 Baltic_LVA_BA
16.2 HUN_MA_Szolad
10.8 HRV_IA
3.6 Baltic_LTU_BA
0.4 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA

Target: Lithuanian_VA
Distance: 1.3264% / 0.01326405
66.6 Baltic_LVA_BA
23.8 HUN_MA_Szolad
8.8 HRV_IA
0.8 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA

Target: Lithuanian_SZ
Distance: 1.1892% / 0.01189204
75.2 Baltic_LVA_BA
19.8 HUN_MA_Szolad
4.4 HRV_IA
0.6 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA

Target: Lithuanian_RA
Distance: 1.6930% / 0.01692973
72.2 Baltic_LVA_BA
16.0 HUN_MA_Szolad
10.8 HRV_IA
1.0 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA

Target: Lithuanian_PZ
Distance: 1.4807% / 0.01480706
64.4 Baltic_LVA_BA
20.8 HUN_MA_Szolad
12.6 Baltic_LTU_BA
1.8 HRV_IA
0.4 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA

Target: Lithuanian_PA
Distance: 1.4208% / 0.01420776
64.2 Baltic_LVA_BA
23.2 HUN_MA_Szolad
11.6 HRV_IA
1.0 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA

Target: Latvian
Distance: 1.1721% / 0.01172134
74.8 Baltic_LVA_BA
23.0 HUN_MA_Szolad
1.2 Baltic_LTU_BA
1.0 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA

When the two oldest Estonian Tarand samples (OLS10 and V10) are introduced, RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA disappears as expected. If HRV_IA isn't used, Lithuanian_PA takes RUS_Krasnoyask_BA, even with OLS10 and V10.

Target: Lithuanian_VZ
Distance: 1.6627% / 0.01662703
67.6 Baltic_LVA_BA
14.8 HUN_MA_Szolad
11.8 HRV_IA
3.6 Baltic_LTU_BA
2.2 Baltic_EST_IA

Target: Lithuanian_VA
Distance: 1.3112% / 0.01311190
59.8 Baltic_LVA_BA
16.4 HUN_MA_Szolad
13.4 HRV_IA
10.4 Baltic_EST_IA

Target: Lithuanian_SZ
Distance: 1.1549% / 0.01154916
70.2 Baltic_LVA_BA
14.0 HUN_MA_Szolad
8.2 HRV_IA
7.6 Baltic_EST_IA

Target: Lithuanian_RA
Distance: 1.7040% / 0.01704034
65.8 Baltic_LVA_BA
15.6 HRV_IA
9.8 Baltic_EST_IA
8.8 HUN_MA_Szolad

Target: Lithuanian_PZ
Distance: 1.4926% / 0.01492562
63.6 Baltic_LVA_BA
20.8 HUN_MA_Szolad
13.8 Baltic_LTU_BA
1.8 HRV_IA

Target: Lithuanian_PA
Distance: 1.4497% / 0.01449730
57.8 Baltic_LVA_BA
16.4 HRV_IA
16.0 HUN_MA_Szolad
9.8 Baltic_EST_IA

Target: Latvian
Distance: 1.2163% / 0.01216304
69.8 Baltic_LVA_BA
20.6 HUN_MA_Szolad
8.0 Baltic_EST_IA
1.6 HRV_IA

Northwest Lithuania (VZ/PZ) looks like it has elevated Germanic ancestry (IIRC from another thread, SWE_IA is actually a Bronze Age sample ~1500BC) and less Estonian_IA.

Target: Lithuanian_VZ
Distance: 1.5281% / 0.01528145
67.4 Baltic_LVA_BA
17.6 SWE_IA
14.0 HRV_IA
1.0 Baltic_EST_IA

Target: Lithuanian_VA
Distance: 1.3112% / 0.01311190
59.8 Baltic_LVA_BA
16.4 HUN_MA_Szolad
13.4 HRV_IA
10.4 Baltic_EST_IA

Target: Lithuanian_SZ
Distance: 1.1549% / 0.01154916
70.2 Baltic_LVA_BA
14.0 HUN_MA_Szolad
8.2 HRV_IA
7.6 Baltic_EST_IA

Target: Lithuanian_RA
Distance: 1.7040% / 0.01704034
65.8 Baltic_LVA_BA
15.6 HRV_IA
9.8 Baltic_EST_IA
8.8 HUN_MA_Szolad

Target: Lithuanian_PZ
Distance: 1.3947% / 0.01394735
68.0 Baltic_LVA_BA
17.8 SWE_IA
6.0 HRV_IA
4.2 HUN_MA_Szolad
4.0 Baltic_LTU_BA

Target: Lithuanian_PA
Distance: 1.4497% / 0.01449730
57.8 Baltic_LVA_BA
16.4 HRV_IA
16.0 HUN_MA_Szolad
9.8 Baltic_EST_IA

Target: Latvian
Distance: 1.2134% / 0.01213352
69.4 Baltic_LVA_BA
18.2 HUN_MA_Szolad
7.8 Baltic_EST_IA
2.6 SWE_IA
2.0 HRV_IA


CZE_Unetice_EBA,0.128051,0.1279565,0.0567565,0.061 8545,0.0324675,0.0158965,0.0022325,0.0040385,0.001 8405,-0.007836,-0.0052775,0.0005995,-0.005352,-0.001032,0.0162185,0.0120655,-0.007497,0.0050675,6.3e-05,0.0088795,0.0081105,0.0050695,0.000986,0.002832 ,-0.0031735
Baltic_LVA_BA,0.1305171,0.1268283,0.1001044,0.1110 769,0.048385,0.0399124,0.0145449,0.0188197,-0.000568,-0.0488596,-0.0003249,-0.0189164,0.0329201,0.0433512,-0.0168293,0.0013113,0.0021294,-0.0014498,-0.0003212,0.0077817,-0.0024957,-0.0051934,0.0092299,-0.0223726,0.0025412
RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA,0.034147,-0.421445,0.150471,-0.002907,-0.14495,-0.082273,0.019741,0.035998,0.02577,0.000364,0.0837 92,-3e-04,0.015758,-0.048994,-0.04343,-0.029833,0.000652,0.005574,0.004902,-0.012381,0.026453,0.003462,0.001725,0.00723,0.0128 13
Baltic_LTU_BA,0.129189,0.1284645,0.091075,0.093993 ,0.040469,0.036395,0.0072855,0.011076,-0.0031705,-0.0483835,-0.0021925,-0.017834,0.0152375,0.026905,-0.009636,-0.00358,-0.008801,0.0025975,-0.004902,0.0006875,-0.0034315,0.0012365,0.000493,-0.0144595,0.0091605
HRV_IA,0.132035,0.151314,0.033941,-0.01615,0.024928,-0.005857,-0.006345,0.007154,0.003681,0.028976,0.001786,0.011 69,-0.02111,-0.001376,-0.005972,-0.008486,-0.006519,0.004941,0.005531,-0.014257,-0.001872,0.00507,0.001479,0.00253,0.003353
HUN_MA_Szolad,0.1268314,0.1386923,0.0474633,0.0296 237,0.0347316,0.0087153,0.0026858,0.0034531,0.0025 492,0.0060333,-0.0043729,0.0041963,-0.0096947,-0.0066944,0.009859,0.0043755,-0.0015227,0.0006923,0.0054185,0.0022109,0.0027452, 0.0040408,0.0003433,0.0085467,-0.0012231
Baltic_EST_IA:s19_0LS10_1,0.127482,0.089367,0.1029 54,0.102391,0.035083,0.03263,0.00799,0.016153,-0.007158,-0.046835,0.011205,-0.019782,0.02884,0.000275,-0.005293,0.008221,0.021513,0.000633,-0.000628,0.006128,-0.000125,0.000247,-0.00456,-0.01687,0.001916
Baltic_EST_IA:s19_V10_2,0.126344,0.102568,0.09692, 0.090763,0.04647,0.02259,0.00799,0.017076,0.020248 ,-0.033349,0.00747,-0.005995,0.030773,0.015827,-0.011401,0.016971,0.016559,0.002027,0.005656,0.016 383,0.007237,-0.001607,-0.00419,-0.013134,-0.001317
SWE_IA,0.122929,0.123895,0.067127,0.058463,0.04123 8,0.02008,0.005875,0.007615,0.002863,-0.009659,0.003735,0.001948,-0.006987,0.003853,0.020358,-0.006762,-0.015385,0.006461,0.009427,0.00025,0.00025,0.00284 4,0.002465,0.011447,0.000359

Helves
05-15-2021, 06:07 PM
Just playing around with similar samples...

Unetice goes away when HUN_MA_Szolad is used, although Lithuanians still take 1.8-11.6% HRV_IA.

Target: Lithuanian_VZ
Distance: 1.6425% / 0.01642503
69.0 Baltic_LVA_BA
16.2 HUN_MA_Szolad
10.8 HRV_IA
3.6 Baltic_LTU_BA
0.4 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA

Target: Lithuanian_VA
Distance: 1.3264% / 0.01326405
66.6 Baltic_LVA_BA
23.8 HUN_MA_Szolad
8.8 HRV_IA
0.8 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA

Target: Lithuanian_SZ
Distance: 1.1892% / 0.01189204
75.2 Baltic_LVA_BA
19.8 HUN_MA_Szolad
4.4 HRV_IA
0.6 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA

Target: Lithuanian_RA
Distance: 1.6930% / 0.01692973
72.2 Baltic_LVA_BA
16.0 HUN_MA_Szolad
10.8 HRV_IA
1.0 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA

Target: Lithuanian_PZ
Distance: 1.4807% / 0.01480706
64.4 Baltic_LVA_BA
20.8 HUN_MA_Szolad
12.6 Baltic_LTU_BA
1.8 HRV_IA
0.4 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA

Target: Lithuanian_PA
Distance: 1.4208% / 0.01420776
64.2 Baltic_LVA_BA
23.2 HUN_MA_Szolad
11.6 HRV_IA
1.0 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA

Target: Latvian
Distance: 1.1721% / 0.01172134
74.8 Baltic_LVA_BA
23.0 HUN_MA_Szolad
1.2 Baltic_LTU_BA
1.0 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA

When the two oldest Estonian Tarand samples (OLS10 and V10) are introduced, RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA disappears as expected. If HRV_IA isn't used, Lithuanian_PA takes RUS_Krasnoyask_BA, even with OLS10 and V10.

Target: Lithuanian_VZ
Distance: 1.6627% / 0.01662703
67.6 Baltic_LVA_BA
14.8 HUN_MA_Szolad
11.8 HRV_IA
3.6 Baltic_LTU_BA
2.2 Baltic_EST_IA

Target: Lithuanian_VA
Distance: 1.3112% / 0.01311190
59.8 Baltic_LVA_BA
16.4 HUN_MA_Szolad
13.4 HRV_IA
10.4 Baltic_EST_IA

Target: Lithuanian_SZ
Distance: 1.1549% / 0.01154916
70.2 Baltic_LVA_BA
14.0 HUN_MA_Szolad
8.2 HRV_IA
7.6 Baltic_EST_IA

Target: Lithuanian_RA
Distance: 1.7040% / 0.01704034
65.8 Baltic_LVA_BA
15.6 HRV_IA
9.8 Baltic_EST_IA
8.8 HUN_MA_Szolad

Target: Lithuanian_PZ
Distance: 1.4926% / 0.01492562
63.6 Baltic_LVA_BA
20.8 HUN_MA_Szolad
13.8 Baltic_LTU_BA
1.8 HRV_IA

Target: Lithuanian_PA
Distance: 1.4497% / 0.01449730
57.8 Baltic_LVA_BA
16.4 HRV_IA
16.0 HUN_MA_Szolad
9.8 Baltic_EST_IA

Target: Latvian
Distance: 1.2163% / 0.01216304
69.8 Baltic_LVA_BA
20.6 HUN_MA_Szolad
8.0 Baltic_EST_IA
1.6 HRV_IA

Northwest Lithuania (VZ/PZ) looks like it has elevated Germanic ancestry (IIRC from another thread, SWE_IA is actually a Bronze Age sample ~1500BC) and less Estonian_IA.

Target: Lithuanian_VZ
Distance: 1.5281% / 0.01528145
67.4 Baltic_LVA_BA
17.6 SWE_IA
14.0 HRV_IA
1.0 Baltic_EST_IA

Target: Lithuanian_VA
Distance: 1.3112% / 0.01311190
59.8 Baltic_LVA_BA
16.4 HUN_MA_Szolad
13.4 HRV_IA
10.4 Baltic_EST_IA

Target: Lithuanian_SZ
Distance: 1.1549% / 0.01154916
70.2 Baltic_LVA_BA
14.0 HUN_MA_Szolad
8.2 HRV_IA
7.6 Baltic_EST_IA

Target: Lithuanian_RA
Distance: 1.7040% / 0.01704034
65.8 Baltic_LVA_BA
15.6 HRV_IA
9.8 Baltic_EST_IA
8.8 HUN_MA_Szolad

Target: Lithuanian_PZ
Distance: 1.3947% / 0.01394735
68.0 Baltic_LVA_BA
17.8 SWE_IA
6.0 HRV_IA
4.2 HUN_MA_Szolad
4.0 Baltic_LTU_BA

Target: Lithuanian_PA
Distance: 1.4497% / 0.01449730
57.8 Baltic_LVA_BA
16.4 HRV_IA
16.0 HUN_MA_Szolad
9.8 Baltic_EST_IA

Target: Latvian
Distance: 1.2134% / 0.01213352
69.4 Baltic_LVA_BA
18.2 HUN_MA_Szolad
7.8 Baltic_EST_IA
2.6 SWE_IA
2.0 HRV_IA


CZE_Unetice_EBA,0.128051,0.1279565,0.0567565,0.061 8545,0.0324675,0.0158965,0.0022325,0.0040385,0.001 8405,-0.007836,-0.0052775,0.0005995,-0.005352,-0.001032,0.0162185,0.0120655,-0.007497,0.0050675,6.3e-05,0.0088795,0.0081105,0.0050695,0.000986,0.002832 ,-0.0031735
Baltic_LVA_BA,0.1305171,0.1268283,0.1001044,0.1110 769,0.048385,0.0399124,0.0145449,0.0188197,-0.000568,-0.0488596,-0.0003249,-0.0189164,0.0329201,0.0433512,-0.0168293,0.0013113,0.0021294,-0.0014498,-0.0003212,0.0077817,-0.0024957,-0.0051934,0.0092299,-0.0223726,0.0025412
RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA,0.034147,-0.421445,0.150471,-0.002907,-0.14495,-0.082273,0.019741,0.035998,0.02577,0.000364,0.0837 92,-3e-04,0.015758,-0.048994,-0.04343,-0.029833,0.000652,0.005574,0.004902,-0.012381,0.026453,0.003462,0.001725,0.00723,0.0128 13
Baltic_LTU_BA,0.129189,0.1284645,0.091075,0.093993 ,0.040469,0.036395,0.0072855,0.011076,-0.0031705,-0.0483835,-0.0021925,-0.017834,0.0152375,0.026905,-0.009636,-0.00358,-0.008801,0.0025975,-0.004902,0.0006875,-0.0034315,0.0012365,0.000493,-0.0144595,0.0091605
HRV_IA,0.132035,0.151314,0.033941,-0.01615,0.024928,-0.005857,-0.006345,0.007154,0.003681,0.028976,0.001786,0.011 69,-0.02111,-0.001376,-0.005972,-0.008486,-0.006519,0.004941,0.005531,-0.014257,-0.001872,0.00507,0.001479,0.00253,0.003353
HUN_MA_Szolad,0.1268314,0.1386923,0.0474633,0.0296 237,0.0347316,0.0087153,0.0026858,0.0034531,0.0025 492,0.0060333,-0.0043729,0.0041963,-0.0096947,-0.0066944,0.009859,0.0043755,-0.0015227,0.0006923,0.0054185,0.0022109,0.0027452, 0.0040408,0.0003433,0.0085467,-0.0012231
Baltic_EST_IA:s19_0LS10_1,0.127482,0.089367,0.1029 54,0.102391,0.035083,0.03263,0.00799,0.016153,-0.007158,-0.046835,0.011205,-0.019782,0.02884,0.000275,-0.005293,0.008221,0.021513,0.000633,-0.000628,0.006128,-0.000125,0.000247,-0.00456,-0.01687,0.001916
Baltic_EST_IA:s19_V10_2,0.126344,0.102568,0.09692, 0.090763,0.04647,0.02259,0.00799,0.017076,0.020248 ,-0.033349,0.00747,-0.005995,0.030773,0.015827,-0.011401,0.016971,0.016559,0.002027,0.005656,0.016 383,0.007237,-0.001607,-0.00419,-0.013134,-0.001317
SWE_IA,0.122929,0.123895,0.067127,0.058463,0.04123 8,0.02008,0.005875,0.007615,0.002863,-0.009659,0.003735,0.001948,-0.006987,0.003853,0.020358,-0.006762,-0.015385,0.006461,0.009427,0.00025,0.00025,0.00284 4,0.002465,0.011447,0.000359

Hun_Szolad_MA is actually a mix of the Germanic(Lombard) newcomers and the natives living there. It's a rather southern average in comparison with Danes, Norwegians even Dutch. That's why it's eating some of the Croatia_IA.

parastais
05-15-2021, 06:20 PM
NW Lithuania used to be part of Germany between wars. Memelland, East Prussia.
So, it could be relatively recent admixture.

Interesting piece about Szolad eating up Unetice.

Also when I did those long time ago, Lithuanians had more Szolad and less Baltic_BA. @Zelto, did you use that Slavicish Szolad sample or average of both Slavicish and mixed with Germanic-ish?

parastais
05-15-2021, 06:23 PM
Hun_Szolad_MA is actually a mix of the Germanic(Lombard) newcomers and the natives living there. It's a rather southern average in comparison with Danes, Norwegians even Dutch. That's why it's eating some of the Croatia_IA.

Hun_Szolad were two samples. Balto-Slavic mom and her R1b Germanic mixed son. Or something like that.

Helves
05-15-2021, 06:24 PM
Hun_Szolad were two samples. Balto-Slavic mom and her R1b Germanic mixed son. Or something like that.

You're thinking about Avar_Szolad.

parastais
05-15-2021, 06:26 PM
Youäre thinking about Avar_Szolad.
Thanks, missed there were several of them.

parastais
05-15-2021, 06:59 PM
You're thinking about Avar_Szolad.
Do you know the timing and context for HRV_IA?
What was that culture?

Zelto
05-15-2021, 07:21 PM
Upon checking, there are actually 30 HUN_MA_Szolad samples.

Here is the same model, but with HUN_Avar_Szolad used instead. Not a huge difference, except for the Unetice now in Latvians.

Target: Lithuanian_VZ
Distance: 1.4223% / 0.01422266
53.6 Baltic_LVA_BA
24.8 HUN_Avar_Szolad
15.0 SWE_IA
6.6 HRV_IA

Target: Lithuanian_VA
Distance: 1.2346% / 0.01234567
42.0 HUN_Avar_Szolad
41.2 Baltic_LVA_BA
10.2 Baltic_EST_IA
6.4 HRV_IA
0.2 CZE_Unetice_EBA

Target: Lithuanian_SZ
Distance: 1.1494% / 0.01149448
57.8 Baltic_LVA_BA
25.6 HUN_Avar_Szolad
7.8 Baltic_EST_IA
5.8 HRV_IA
2.8 SWE_IA
0.2 CZE_Unetice_EBA

Target: Lithuanian_RA
Distance: 1.5290% / 0.01528982
47.2 HUN_Avar_Szolad
43.0 Baltic_LVA_BA
6.8 Baltic_EST_IA
3.0 HRV_IA

Target: Lithuanian_PZ
Distance: 1.3215% / 0.01321494
55.0 Baltic_LVA_BA
23.6 HUN_Avar_Szolad
16.6 SWE_IA
4.8 Baltic_LTU_BA

Target: Lithuanian_PA
Distance: 1.2826% / 0.01282580
48.2 HUN_Avar_Szolad
34.6 Baltic_LVA_BA
7.8 Baltic_EST_IA
6.2 HRV_IA
3.0 SWE_IA
0.2 CZE_Unetice_EBA

Target: Latvian
Distance: 1.0414% / 0.01041363
53.8 Baltic_LVA_BA
30.8 HUN_Avar_Szolad
6.8 Baltic_EST_IA
5.2 CZE_Unetice_EBA
3.4 SWE_IA

Perhaps this is the result of German admixture in Latvia?

HRV_IA is from Croatia, the closest modern population to it in G25 are North Italians.

Edit: Anyways, I only wanted to see how much SWE_IA would be in Balts, after accounting for Estonian_IA in Helves' model.

Helves
05-15-2021, 07:21 PM
Do you know the timing and context for HRV_IA?
What was that culture?

From this study (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6091220/)
Dated: 805-597 calBCE
Site: Jazinka Cave, Croatia

Probably Illyrian?

parastais
05-15-2021, 08:06 PM
“ Not a huge difference, except for the Unetice now in Latvians.”
For Aukstaitians - they are almost 50/50 Avar vs Baltic_BA now. Before they were majority Baltic_BA.

Edit: but interesting difference between Zemaitians and Aukstaitians. Either Slavic admixture in Aukstaitians or preSlavic differences.

Zelto
05-15-2021, 08:30 PM
“ Not a huge difference, except for the Unetice now in Latvians.”
For Aukstaitians - they are almost 50/50 Avar vs Baltic_BA now. Before they were majority Baltic_BA.

Edit: but interesting difference between Zemaitians and Aukstaitians. Either Slavic admixture in Aukstaitians or preSlavic differences.

Its not perfect because both HUN_Avar_Szolad samples are part Baltic_LTA/LTU_BA, so that percentage may be somewhat interchangeable.

There is some pronounced regional variation in Lithuania though. I imagine the same would be true for Latvia if there were more samples.

Balts definitely do have some Estonian_IA ancestry. It's hard to imagine this could be due to anything other than the arrival of N-L1025 to the region.

Zelto
05-18-2021, 08:19 PM
This has already been discussed here, but modern Estonians belong to N subclades downstream from Balts (N-L1025+) and Finns/NW Russians (N-Y5004+, N-Z1936+). Ilumae et al. (2016) only tested to the N-VL29 level however, no early or Estonian specific subclades of N-L550 have been tested at YFull, nor in any of the FTDNA projects I checked.

With that in mind, I noticed something odd when re-reading Saag et al. (2019). The Middle Age Estonian N samples (IIa, IIf and IIg) are all N-L550. This wouldn't be weird if they belonged to "Baltic" subclades, as modern Estonians do. However, that does not seem to be the case unless there are quality issues.

Sample IIa is the highest coverage sample in the entire study and made its way to YFull. Despite this, it currently sits at N-L550* indicating it may be a dead branch. I also found this blog post. http://terheninenmaa.blogspot.com/2019/10/saag-et-al-2019-ydna-aspects.html

Another thing, each of these samples come from a different corner of Estonia. Karja, Saaremaa, Pada, Laane-Viru and Otepaa, Valgamaa. So what does this mean? Obviously there is a lack of samples, although it still seems strange that the subclades found in modern Estonians, weren't present at all in three geographically distant Middle Age Estonians.

Zelto
06-11-2021, 09:25 PM
I don't want to drag the "Baltic R1a" thread off topic, so I'll post this here.


But as to which island Finnic, answer is I don’t know, Saaremaa to Curonian coast to West Lithuania? But I have not found any good literature on it. Only assumed because I think it was the best candidate culture for L-1025 founder effect in Balts, plus this culture had L1025 3rd century AD.

One of the comments on that blog I posted reminded me of something. Apparently in the supplementary, OLS10 and VII4 both tested positive for marker Y4706 (downstream from L1025). IIg was positive for Y4707 (but no reading for Y4706 upstream of it). All of these samples are from Lääne-Viru County. According to the ancient DNA database at Indo-European.eu, Kolgeh assigned VII4 to N-Y4706 as well. However, these results were not substantiated by Myllylä, and the sole sample in YFull (Medieval, from Saaremaa) is N-L550 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/N-L550/).

I'm personally doubtful any of the EST_IA samples are N-L1025+, although it would be nice to have some confirmation. If I'm right, I don't see how N-L1025 could have arrived to Latvia/Lithuania from Estonia (including Saaremaa).

parastais
06-12-2021, 06:17 AM
I don't want to drag the "Baltic R1a" thread off topic, so I'll post this here.



One of the comments on that blog I posted reminded me of something. Apparently in the supplementary, OLS10 and VII4 both tested positive for marker Y4706 (downstream from L1025). IIg was positive for Y4707 (but no reading for Y4706 upstream of it). All of these samples are from Lääne-Viru County. According to the ancient DNA database at Indo-European.eu, Kolgeh assigned VII4 to N-Y4706 as well. However, these results were not substantiated by Myllylä, and the sole sample in YFull (Medieval, from Saaremaa) is N-L550 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/N-L550/).

I'm personally doubtful any of the EST_IA samples are N-L1025+, although it would be nice to have some confirmation. If I'm right, I don't see how N-L1025 could have arrived to Latvia/Lithuania from Estonia (including Saaremaa).
Before its expansion within Balts it was likely a very small clan (L1025) within larger L550 family. So, any place having L550 nearby is as good as any.

But perhaps we should look for some technological innovation allowing that Stone Circles culture to explore previously not very suitable lands. Perhaps fact that bog iron smelting somehow started contemporary to this culture (first centuries AD) might point to something.

Zelto
06-12-2021, 06:27 PM
I reached out to altvred and he was kind enough to resolve the positions of OLS10, VII4 and IIg.


Anyway,

VII14_1 is certainly N-Y4706

https://pastebin.com/1A5nah1D

He's also negative for most of the downstream subclade defining SNPs with the exception of Y4707 and Y183040, where he doesn't have any coverage.

https://i.imgur.com/Kiv6gp5.png


0LS10 is ancestral for CTS27, so that would make him N-CTS6967* along with kra001.. weird.
https://pastebin.com/vbfqJsvY

https://i.imgur.com/GBD4L1v.png

https://pastebin.com/TpqFcqUB

llg I would tentatively place at L550, it's a single read C -> T transition and overall the coverage is very spotty.

He's derived for Y4707, but it's a single read and a C -> T transition, no coverage between it and L550 - so this is more likely a false call as a result of dna damage.

So at least one N-L1025 subclade was present in the earliest Estonian Tarands (760–400 BC). Note that N-Y4706 is not usually associated with modern Balts, it has a fairly broad distribution across Northern Europe. https://www.yfull.com/tree/N-Y4706/

I suppose N-L1025 must have already split in Estonia then. How it reached its current frequency/distribution remains just as mysterious to me though. The Stone Circles culture is a potential explanation, but then how did it arrive there?

parastais
06-12-2021, 08:13 PM
I reached out to altvred and he was kind enough to resolve the positions of OLS10, VII4 and IIg.



So at least one N-L1025 subclade was present in the earliest Estonian Tarands (760–400 BC). Note that N-Y4706 is not usually associated with modern Balts, it has a fairly broad distribution across Northern Europe. https://www.yfull.com/tree/N-Y4706/

I suppose N-L1025 must have already split in Estonia then. How it reached its current frequency/distribution remains just as mysterious to me though. The Stone Circles culture is a potential explanation, but then how did it arrive there?
If L-1025 was already split in Estonia_IA, then it may not be much of a problem. Some maritime fishers or traders got in touch with Northern edge of West Balts. Assimilated into their network - Finnish boats (laiva) or maybe other innovations (if bog iron smelting was known to them) or maybe Baltic Finns Northern maritime connections and West Baltic amber connections and Central Euro learnings likely made a good combo to expand in the region.

parastais
06-12-2021, 08:55 PM
This might hint something (Baltic_EST_IA_X04_1 is the most SWE_IA rich Estonian_IA, as we see both Latvians and Lithuanians have it around 10%, whereas only Latvians have average EST_IA). Latvians and Lithuanians also have same level of Baltic N-M2783.

"sample": "Test1:Latvian",
"fit": 1.0621,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 44.17,
"HUN_Avar_Szolad": 30.83,
"Baltic_EST_IA": 15.83,
"Baltic_EST_IA_X04_1": 9.17,

"sample": "Test2:Lithuanian",
"fit": 1.6162,
"HUN_Avar_Szolad": 50.83,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 38.33,
"Baltic_EST_IA_X04_1": 10.83,
"Baltic_EST_IA": 0,
Just some old stuff, pointing at Saaremaa, maritime Baltic Finns as likely source of N in Balts.

Zelto
06-12-2021, 08:56 PM
I always forget how heterogenous these early-Tarand samples are. Anyways, in the G25 PCAs VII4 is consistently the most "Northwestern" shifted, closest to modern Finns, and more distant to Baltic_BA compared to the others.

VII4 also has an affinity towards Migration_POH: POH36, not seen in the other early-Tarand samples and looks slightly Germanic. Some of the younger early-Tarands (V12, V11) share this Germanic admixture, however VII4 is apparently as old as the more "eastern" V10 and OLS10 (760–400 BC).


If L-1025 was already split in Estonia_IA, then it may not be much of a problem. Some maritime fishers or traders got in touch with Northern edge of West Balts. Assimilated into their network - Finnish boats (laiva) or maybe other innovations (if bog iron smelting was known to them) or maybe Baltic Finns Northern maritime connections and West Baltic amber connections and Central Euro learnings likely made a good combo to expand in the region.

I think its a safe bet to say, N-L550 (including L1025) spread across the north Baltic (NE Courland, SW Finland and Central Sweden), from coastal Estonia with early-Tarands. Any one of these areas may have been the staging ground for secondary expansions, including one into Latvia/Lithuania.

That medieval sample from Saaremaa in Yfull, as well as the diversity of N-L550 in Sweden (and lack thereof in Estonia), still makes me question the role Estonia played, besides being the initial "springboard" into the Baltic. That doubt is also fueled by a lack of archeological evidence one way or another. Did Baltic-Finns in Estonia have any technological advantage over Balts? It seems to me, like they were technologically on par with each other.

parastais
06-12-2021, 09:00 PM
My latest understanding on N-M2783 in Balts.

1) Tarand Graves brings N to Baltics with guys like "Baltic_EST_IA:0LS10" mixing with local BA populations (LVA_BA, EST_BA) and Germanic folk (proxy SWE_IA) to produce Baltic Finns or Estonian IA type population.
"sample": "Test1:Baltic_EST_IA",
"fit": 1.4437,
"Baltic_EST_IA_0LS10_1": 48.33,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 29.17,
"SWE_IA": 22.5,
"Baltic_LTU_BA": 0,

2) In the coasts and islands of Estonia and Latvia a more "Western" variation of Estonian_IA evolves (i.e. Saaremaa 500 BCE - Baltic_EST_IA_-_X04_1) which is richer in both SWE_IA and LVA_BA:
"sample": "Test1:Baltic_EST_IA_-_X04_1",
"fit": 2.256,
"Baltic_EST_IA": 49.17,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 30.83,
"SWE_IA": 20,
"Baltic_EST_IA_0LS10_1": 0,
"Baltic_LTU_BA": 0,

3) This "Oeselian" guy mixes with some local LVA_BA populations to start new burial tradition in the Baltics. Barrows with stone encirclements (edit - West Lithunian stone circle graves), which is fusion of Central Europe and Tarand (somewhere 1st century AD if I am not wrong). This tradition goes East into sparcely populated inlands North Lithuania, South Latvia, etc, North Lithuanian Barrow Culture 300-500(?) AD (Baltic_LTU_Late_Antiquity_low_res) is one of related cultures:
"sample": "Test1:Baltic_LTU_Late_Antiquity_low_res",
"fit": 4.715,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 66.67,
"Baltic_EST_IA_X04_1": 33.33,
"Baltic_EST_IA": 0,
"Baltic_EST_IA_0LS10_1": 0,
"Baltic_LTU_BA": 0,
"SWE_IA": 0,
"HUN_Avar_Szolad": 0,

4) East Balts of East Lithuanian Barrow Culture (influences from Vielbark via Sudovia and NLBC on remains of Brushed Pottery Culture) go West.. and North, bringing tons of HUN_Avar_Szolad type genetics into Baltics and assimilating local cocktail rich in N-M2783:
"sample": "Test2:Lithuanian",
"fit": 1.4859,
"HUN_Avar_Szolad": 54.17,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 30.83,
"Baltic_LTU_Late_Antiquity_low_res": 15,
"Baltic_EST_IA": 0,
"Baltic_EST_IA_0LS10_1": 0,

5) In Latvia they meet Baltic Finns proper and Hun_Avar_Szolad type of genetics washes out a bit:
"sample": "Test1:Latvian",
"fit": 0.9797,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 38.33,
"HUN_Avar_Szolad": 32.5,
"Baltic_EST_IA": 19.17,
"Baltic_LTU_Late_Antiquity_low_res": 10,
"Baltic_EST_IA_0LS10_1": 0,

Please note, Latvians have additional EST_IA from Livonians most likely, but even somewhat less Baltic_LTU_Late_Antiquity_low_res, and also our proportion of N-M2783 is slightly lower than Lithuanian.

...
Does this make any sense? If no, what are the weak points here?

Wrote this two years ago too. Sad, not much has changed since then either confirming or rejecting this...

Huck Finn
06-13-2021, 05:10 AM
That medieval sample from Saaremaa in Yfull, as well as the diversity of N-L550 in Sweden (and lack thereof in Estonia), still makes me question the role Estonia played, besides being the initial "springboard" into the Baltic.

The Baltic N-L1025 might be based on back migration from more southern areas, being first related to Gothic expansion towards south? Maybe first into old East Baltic area, being fex reflected in the similarities between East Baltic Kurgans and Pskov type of Long Barrows?

" In my opinion, the material analyzed verifies the assumption made earlier than in the Migration Period, in the fifth to seventh centuries, some kind of militarized groups of people from the Germanic surroundings of the central Danube, as well as Slavic and Baltic groups penetrated Eastern Europe's forest belt...the Danubean elements in Prussia's and Lithuania's archaeological material are accented in the works of various researchers more than once."

https://www.academia.edu/1930524/M_Kazanski_The_Armement_Horsemen_s_Acccoutrements_ and_Riding_Gear_of_Long_Barrow_Culture_Fifth_to_Se venth_Centuries_Archaeologia_Baltica_8_Klaipeda_20 07_p_238_253

N-L1025 should have had, because of the phylogeny in the Baltic area, some kind of a competitive edge during the early stages of it's expansion. Extensive military know-how based on more southern Migration Era conflicts might have been the silver bullet?

parastais
06-13-2021, 06:46 PM
The Baltic N-L1025 might be based on back migration from more southern areas, being first related to Gothic expansion towards south? Maybe first into old East Baltic area, being fex reflected in the similarities between East Baltic Kurgans and Pskov type of Long Barrows?

" In my opinion, the material analyzed verifies the assumption made earlier than in the Migration Period, in the fifth to seventh centuries, some kind of militarized groups of people from the Germanic surroundings of the central Danube, as well as Slavic and Baltic groups penetrated Eastern Europe's forest belt...the Danubean elements in Prussia's and Lithuania's archaeological material are accented in the works of various researchers more than once."

https://www.academia.edu/1930524/M_Kazanski_The_Armement_Horsemen_s_Acccoutrements_ and_Riding_Gear_of_Long_Barrow_Culture_Fifth_to_Se venth_Centuries_Archaeologia_Baltica_8_Klaipeda_20 07_p_238_253

N-L1025 should have had, because of the phylogeny in the Baltic area, some kind of a competitive edge during the early stages of it's expansion. Extensive military know-how based on more southern Migration Era conflicts might have been the silver bullet?

Very interesting material, likely explaining secondary spread of already Baltified N.

Zelto
06-13-2021, 07:22 PM
The Baltic N-L1025 might be based on back migration from more southern areas, being first related to Gothic expansion towards south? Maybe first into old East Baltic area, being fex reflected in the similarities between East Baltic Kurgans and Pskov type of Long Barrows?

I favor an entry point from Scandinavia, especially if we are assuming the first N-L1025 rich Balts were from Lithuania and not Latvia. Based on Baltic_LTU_Late_Antiquity_low_res: DA171 and the Kivutkalns samples.

Unfortunately there are still a lot of questions I don't think can be answered yet. Like what happened to all the N-L550 in Estonia? The simplest explanation would be that it was replaced during the transition from early-Tarands to typical-Tarands, or with the transition to cremation burials under level ground. Perhaps with new migrants (rich in N-L1022 subclades) from the East. However, there are three medieval Estonian samples with N, all apparently N-L550*. I guess these are dead branches?

Also, if early-Tarands are the supposed progenitors of Finnic, you have a strange scenario where their main lineage (N-L550), is now more common among IE speakers than Finnics themselves.

parastais
06-13-2021, 08:49 PM
I favor an entry point from Scandinavia, especially if we are assuming the first N-L1025 rich Balts were from Lithuania and not Latvia. Based on Baltic_LTU_Late_Antiquity_low_res: DA171 and the Kivutkalns samples.

Unfortunately there are still a lot of questions I don't think can be answered yet. Like what happened to all the N-L550 in Estonia? The simplest explanation would be that it was replaced during the transition from early-Tarands to typical-Tarands, or with the transition to cremation burials under level ground. Perhaps with new migrants (rich in N-L1022 subclades) from the East. However, there are three medieval Estonian samples with N, all apparently N-L550*. I guess these are dead branches?

Also, if early-Tarands are the supposed progenitors of Finnic, you have a strange scenario where their main lineage (N-L550), is now more common among IE speakers than Finnics themselves.
Tons of different L550 branches in Viking age Saaremaa (Yfull). Which gives support to L550 clan being maritime island seafarers.
They definately were Finnics at least at some point, maybe assimilated into Norse later.

Huck Finn
06-13-2021, 09:06 PM
I favor an entry point from Scandinavia, especially if we are assuming the first N-L1025 rich Balts were from Lithuania and not Latvia.

Could you kindly eloborate, for instance in which way an entry point in Scandinavia is related to the first N-L1025 rich Balts in Lithuania?

parastais
06-13-2021, 09:16 PM
L550 from Viking Age:
VK419 - Norway
VK481 - Saaremaa
VK399 - Sweden
VK533 - Sweden
VK406 - Sweden
VK505 - Saaremaa
VK512 - Saaremaa
VK489 - Saaremaa
VK508 - Saaremaa
VK550 - Saaremaa (this one L1025, but the FennoScandian line).

Interesting those Saaremaa ones had Baltic Finnic autosomals or mostly Germanic/Norse?

Edit: no L1022 in Viking Age Saaremaa samples. At least missed them from L1022 Yfull.

Zelto
06-13-2021, 09:45 PM
Tons of different L550 branches in Viking age Saaremaa (Yfull). Which gives support to L550 clan being maritime island seafarers.
They definately were Finnics at least at some point, maybe assimilated into Norse later.

The Salme ship burials are conclusively from Scandinavia, specifically Sweden. That's not only based on grave goods, but also genetic and isotope analysis. Too bad Margaryan et al. 2020 is now under a paywall at Nature.


Could you kindly eloborate, for instance in which way an entry point in Scandinavia is related to the first N-L1025 rich Balts in Lithuania?

Modern N-L550 subclade diversity peaks in Central Sweden, despite the frequency being about the same in Western Finland and significantly higher (when including L1025) in Balts. N-L550 originally came from Estonia with early-Tarands, potentially even formed on the Volga. However, that doesn't mean the MRCA of all modern N-L550 subclades lived in Estonia.

If we assume N-L550 was represented in early-Tarands across the Baltic, there were N-L550 rich groups in SW Finland, NE Courland and Central Sweden. No Tarands have been found in Latvia (besides NE Courland) or Lithuania, nor has N-L550 been found in Kivutkalns, making a direct migration from Estonia during the EIA unlikely. When the diversity of subclades in Sweden is taken into account, as well as the age of the first N sample in the Baltic, I think N-L1025 entered Lithuania with Goths or related Germanic speakers from Svealand.

Modern Estonian N-L550 is either downstream from "Scandinavian" or "Latvian/Lithuanian" branches. The MA samples (and the majority of IA samples) belong to seemingly extinct branches at the L550* level. I'm not sure if that is true for Finland as well.

Zelto
06-13-2021, 09:53 PM
L550 from Viking Age:
VK419 - Norway
VK481 - Saaremaa
VK399 - Sweden
VK533 - Sweden
VK406 - Sweden
VK505 - Saaremaa
VK512 - Saaremaa
VK489 - Saaremaa
VK508 - Saaremaa
VK550 - Saaremaa (this one L1025, but the FennoScandian line).

Interesting those Saaremaa ones had Baltic Finnic autosomals or mostly Germanic/Norse?

Edit: no L1022 in Viking Age Saaremaa samples. At least missed them from L1022 Yfull.

All of the Saaremaa samples are from the Salme ship burials. To my knowledge they all look Germanic/Norse. Some may have been slightly drifted towards Finnics, but I think that was typical of the Malaren region during the IA-Viking Age.

Huck Finn
06-14-2021, 05:44 AM
When the diversity of subclades in Sweden is taken into account, as well as the age of the first N sample in the Baltic, I think N-L1025 entered Lithuania with Goths or related Germanic speakers from Svealand.

While for instance Darsgärde might indeed be one of the entry points of paternal N in Sweden, I'd guess any of the areas later connected to future East Germanic speakers in the Baltic coast might do. However, I personally assume that the lineage entered Baltic circles EDIT in a big way only after something, which took place in the areas next to Danube, like Hunnic invasion. Possibly the entry point was the return of a mixed bag of both West Uralic speaking and Balto-Slavic mercenaries into East Baltic, as the people in Pskov type of Long Barrows and East Baltic kurgans are apparently not (just?) Germanic speakers themselves.

parastais
06-14-2021, 05:50 AM
All of the Saaremaa samples are from the Salme ship burials. To my knowledge they all look Germanic/Norse. Some may have been slightly drifted towards Finnics, but I think that was typical of the Malaren region during the IA-Viking Age.
Do you remember what was the proportion of N is those burials? And where they autosomally different from other samples (R1b, I1) there?

For L-1025 to arrive with Goths or Scandinavians it would need to come from spot with 80-100% of N (if we exclude chance), maybe Malaren (and/or nearby islands) early centuries BCE was such a spot. But Goths definately were not such people, we know from Kowalewko, of many samples there was just one (and Baltic admixed) N late and deep in Poland.

parastais
06-14-2021, 05:52 AM
While for instance Darsgärde might indeed be one of the entry points of paternal N in Sweden, I'd guess any of the areas later connected to future East Germanic speakers in the Baltic coast might do. However, I personally assume that the lineage entered Baltic circles only after something, which took place in the areas next to Danube, like Hunnic invasion. Possibly the entry point was the return of a mixed bag of both West Uralic speaking and Balto-Slavic mercenaries into East Baltic, as the people in Pskov type of Long Barrows and East Baltic kurgans are apparently not (just?) Germanic speakers themselves.
No, we got L1025 in North Lithuanian Barrows Culture 3rd AD (Barrows with Stone Circles).

Danube likely would bring a mix of different haplos, including Slavic ones. And they might "on their way" take with them some already Baltic (post Stone Circles) N, promoting its further spread in the region.

Huck Finn
06-14-2021, 06:31 AM
No, we got L1025 in North Lithuanian Barrows Culture 3rd AD (Barrows with Stone Circles).

Danube likely would bring a mix of different haplos, including Slavic ones. And they might "on their way" take with them some already Baltic (post Stone Circles) N, promoting its further spread in the region.

Maybe you did, especially if North Lithuanian Barrows culture was influenced by East Germanic speakers. However, a fancy burial habit as such is probably not enough to explain the success of N-L1025 in Baltic states, I'd guess.

That being said, there are other possibilties too, such as "South of Long Barrow Culture territory, in the upper reaches of the Dnieper and the Western Dvina/Daugava basin, the very similar Tushemlya-Bantserovshchina Culture appeared at the same time (Lopatin, Furas'ev 1995; Lopatin 2006; Shchukin et al.2006, pp.55-60)."

https://www.academia.edu/1930524/M_Kazanski_The_Armement_Horsemen_s_Acccoutrements_ and_Riding_Gear_of_Long_Barrow_Culture_Fifth_to_Se venth_Centuries_Archaeologia_Baltica_8_Klaipeda_20 07_p_238_253

Huck Finn
06-14-2021, 06:41 AM
One thing related to tarands, again. If I recall it right, even inside Long Barrows there are wooden structures which might be based on House of Dead-tradition. We may have missed most of Houses of Death as they were possibly typically made of wood, just like this later Karelian one:

https://www.vastavalo.net/kalmismaa-hautausmaa-kropnitsa-493256.html

parastais
06-14-2021, 07:24 AM
Maybe you did, especially if North Lithuanian Barrows culture was influenced by East Germanic speakers. However, a fancy burial habit as such is probably not enough to explain the success of N-L1025 in Baltic states, I'd guess.

That being said, there are other possibilties too, such as "South of Long Barrow Culture territory, in the upper reaches of the Dnieper and the Western Dvina/Daugava basin, the very similar Tushemlya-Bantserovshchina Culture appeared at the same time (Lopatin, Furas'ev 1995; Lopatin 2006; Shchukin et al.2006, pp.55-60)."

https://www.academia.edu/1930524/M_Kazanski_The_Armement_Horsemen_s_Acccoutrements_ and_Riding_Gear_of_Long_Barrow_Culture_Fifth_to_Se venth_Centuries_Archaeologia_Baltica_8_Klaipeda_20 07_p_238_253
Come on now :)
Tarand graves is also a fancy burial habbit, but we are Ok to assume they brought new people :)

This was a new habbit not just in burials but also in settlements that spread from West Lithuanian coast into all Southern Latvia (including intrusion to Vidzeme, and perhaps even up to Tartu Estonia) and all Northern Lithuania (including later intrusion in East Lithuanian Barrows Culture - the core for Lithuanians-to-be). If we are looking for successful Founder Effect, then this is it. Before this culture areas in South Latvia and North Lithuania were sparcely populated (excluding NE Lithuanian Brushed Pottery sites who got destroyed or assimilated by this group of people later).

Tushemlja, Long Barrows, etc are episodes of Slavification of Russia. Of course, some N-L1025 picked up near Baltics might have participated. But like I said it was a secondary effect. And they DID NOT make any impact in Baltics itself. Not at a scale of Stone Circles. Besides the vector was from South to North.

parastais
06-14-2021, 06:03 PM
All of the Saaremaa samples are from the Salme ship burials. To my knowledge they all look Germanic/Norse. Some may have been slightly drifted towards Finnics, but I think that was typical of the Malaren region during the IA-Viking Age.
I checked them
15 - I1
6 - N-L550 (different extinct lines)
6 - R1a (at least 3-4 were CTS-1211)

Quite interesting if there is a difference in autosomes between those 3 Y lineages in Salme burials Saaremaa

Zelto
06-14-2021, 06:49 PM
I checked them
15 - I1
6 - N-L550 (different extinct lines)
6 - R1a (at least 3-4 were CTS-1211)

Quite interesting if there is a difference in autosomes between those 3 Y lineages in Salme burials Saaremaa

Not really. Some of the most Finnic samples are N (VK504), however a lot of I1 samples have the same Finnic drift (VK554). One of the most "western" samples (VK505), is also N. All of the Saaremaa samples cluster within modern Scandinavian diversity.

https://vahaduo.github.io/g25views/#NorthEurope

VK2020_EST_Saaremaa_EVA:VK480,0.121791,0.125926,0. 078441,0.065246,0.04647,0.025937,0.001645,0.009923 ,0.006954,-0.00656,-0.001299,0.002398,-0.013379,0.004404,0.020629,0.00411,-0.012778,0.00038,0.006159,0.007379,0.005366,0.0008 66,-0.005053,0.005422,-0.008263 VK2020_EST_Saaremaa_EVA:VK481,0.125205,0.122879,0. 07467,0.07106,0.047086,0.022869,0.011751,0.011999, 0.009817,-0.012939,-0.001786,-0.003447,-0.001487,-0.003303,0.013436,0.004375,-0.007432,-0.000253,0.010056,0.003502,0.014474,0.013231,0.001 849,0.006145,-0.001317 VK2020_EST_Saaremaa_EVA:VK482,0.126344,0.12491,0.0 74293,0.066215,0.040315,0.024263,0.00329,0.007154, 0.005931,-0.006743,0.001299,-0.004796,-0.003122,-0.012111,0.017101,0.020021,0.00678,-0.004814,-0.001508,0.015632,0.000998,-0.007296,0.003697,0.013375,-0.001796 VK2020_EST_Saaremaa_EVA:VK483,0.126344,0.126941,0. 071276,0.060724,0.044316,0.019522,0.00564,0.010615 ,0.005727,-0.012028,-0.009256,0.00015,0.000595,-0.00812,0.027416,0.028374,0.010822,0.005828,0.0012 57,0.012506,0.006239,0.000124,0.00419,0.013375,0.0 06945 VK2020_EST_Saaremaa_EVA:VK484,0.125205,0.125926,0. 075047,0.065246,0.045239,0.025658,0.00188,0.013846 ,0.001023,-0.007836,-0.009419,0.004796,-0.004757,0.001376,0.017372,-0.001061,-0.020992,0.004054,-0.002263,0.001,0.009109,-0.000989,-0.004437,0.011929,0.008981 VK2020_EST_Saaremaa_EVA:VK485,0.134311,0.123895,0. 076555,0.064923,0.039084,0.027889,0.00094,0.017538 ,0.003272,-0.009112,-0.002598,-0.004346,0.001487,-0.006331,0.019544,0.016839,-0.00352,0.004307,0.010936,0.001501,0.007487,0.0029 68,0.005546,0.003856,-0.002275 VK2020_EST_Saaremaa_EVA:VK486,0.124067,0.127957,0. 081835,0.069445,0.044931,0.022869,0.008695,0.01384 6,0.011658,-0.006014,-0.007307,0.002398,-0.005946,0.001514,0.014794,0.006364,-0.005867,-0.001394,0.01257,0.009379,0.010357,0.003586,-0.000493,0.009278,0.005389 VK2020_EST_Saaremaa_EVA:VK487,0.130897,0.129988,0. 076555,0.058786,0.045239,0.021753,0.0094,0.011538, 0.008181,-0.00656,-0.000812,0.00015,-0.004311,0.008395,0.014522,-0.003713,-0.008866,0.00228,0.008422,0.001251,0.017095,-0.005812,0.001356,0.006748,0.002994 VK2020_EST_Saaremaa_EVA:VK488,0.127482,0.120848,0. 068259,0.059432,0.044624,0.0251,0.00799,0.012923,0 .01084,-0.005832,0.001786,0.003897,-0.002527,-0.01101,0.017644,0.007558,-0.011474,0.003421,0.001383,0.001126,0.005615,0.008 408,0.002711,0.01458,0.003952 VK2020_EST_Saaremaa_EVA:VK489,0.127482,0.13405,0.0 72784,0.060401,0.05201,0.020917,0.00846,0.008307,0 .011658,-0.00893,-0.00406,0.005845,-0.007136,-0.002615,0.025244,0.003845,-0.003781,0.009248,-0.002514,0.007379,0.000499,0.005193,0.006532,0.015 665,0.006466 VK2020_EST_Saaremaa_EVA:VK490,0.134311,0.126941,0. 075801,0.066215,0.044316,0.024542,0.007285,0.00346 1,0.002863,-0.005832,-0.001461,0.002548,0.003568,-0.009358,0.016965,0.025988,0.008866,-0.000507,0.000503,0.001126,0.001872,0.000618,-0.00037,0.010845,0.002275 VK2020_EST_Saaremaa_EVA:VK491,0.121791,0.121864,0. 074293,0.068153,0.041854,0.034025,0.010575,0.01061 5,0.002659,-0.015672,-0.004222,0.006894,0.003568,-0.00055,0.020629,0.01127,-0.008605,0.002027,0.001131,0.007504,0.012228,-0.005317,0.000739,0.005181,0.001916 VK2020_EST_Saaremaa_EVA:VK492,0.136588,0.118817,0. 058077,0.055556,0.040931,0.020917,0.011281,0.01153 8,0.00225,-0.005285,0.003735,-0.000899,-0.000892,-0.005092,0.021172,0.02612,0.010431,-0.001014,0.005028,0.009004,0.005989,0.004575,-0.003451,0.008314,0.00012 VK2020_EST_Saaremaa_EVA:VK493,0.129758,0.135065,0. 075424,0.070414,0.050471,0.022032,0.001645,0.01476 9,0.002454,-0.014761,-0.002111,0.001948,0.002527,-0.001376,0.012215,0.01896,0.016428,0.00152,0.00615 9,0.008379,0.002121,-0.002844,-0.006779,0.008676,0.00491 VK2020_EST_Saaremaa_EVA:VK495,0.134311,0.131003,0. 079572,0.069122,0.046778,0.029841,0.003995,0.00807 7,-0.006136,-0.017677,-0.002436,-0.001948,-0.002825,0.008257,0.016965,-0.010209,-0.019166,-0.006081,0.001006,-0.002251,0.006239,0.011005,-0.00037,0.020123,-0.000359 VK2020_EST_Saaremaa_EVA:VK496,0.122929,0.125926,0. 076933,0.062339,0.041854,0.026495,0.001175,0.01338 4,0.002659,-0.006196,-0.004222,0.004046,-0.004906,0.002477,0.016015,0.011933,-0.004172,0.00114,0.004399,0.005878,0.004866,0.0043 28,-0.001356,0.011568,0.004431 VK2020_EST_Saaremaa_EVA:VK497,0.125205,0.121864,0. 076555,0.060078,0.04647,0.024542,0.006345,0.011307 ,0.0045,-0.008018,-0.006658,3e-04,0.003271,-0.011285,0.016422,0.020684,0.008866,0.003547,0.006 662,0.011881,0.00574,-0.000495,-0.00419,0.009158,0.00491 VK2020_EST_Saaremaa_EVA:VK498,0.127482,0.125926,0. 075801,0.067507,0.044931,0.027052,0.0047,0.006461, 0,-0.014943,-0.000974,0.001499,-0.002379,0.004266,0.011672,-0.005436,-0.022817,0.002027,0.004902,0.001376,0.002745,0.006 801,0.002835,0.015906,0.001676 VK2020_EST_Saaremaa_EVA:VK504,0.129758,0.126941,0. 081081,0.07106,0.048009,0.0251,0.012221,0.016615,0 .003681,-0.014579,-0.004384,3e-04,0.003568,0.00234,0.007736,0.001724,-0.015125,0.000507,0.00993,0.001,0.005116,-0.000742,0.001972,0.000361,0.006586 VK2020_EST_Saaremaa_EVA:VK505,0.124067,0.131003,0. 067127,0.054587,0.040931,0.016455,0.004935,0.006,0 .011249,-0.008201,0,0.001649,-0.001041,0.004404,0.021308,-0.008884,-0.019166,-0.000253,0.00088,0.001501,0.007736,0.008532,-0.00037,0.013014,0.001437 VK2020_EST_Saaremaa_EVA:VK506,0.125205,0.120848,0. 079572,0.066215,0.048624,0.026495,0.00047,0.011307 ,-0.000409,-0.011116,-0.010068,0.001948,-0.001189,-0.010184,0.021851,0.012066,-0.013951,0.002027,0.005531,0.013381,0.007612,-0.003586,0.009613,0.013616,0.003353 VK2020_EST_Saaremaa_EVA:VK507,0.133173,0.132019,0. 070522,0.063631,0.048932,0.022311,0.00799,0.008307 ,0.00225,-0.013485,0.002111,-0.008243,-0.006541,-0.00055,0.018458,0.000265,-0.016168,0.003801,0.007793,0.008504,0.010232,-0.003091,0.002465,0.013134,-0.001078 VK2020_EST_Saaremaa_EVA:VK508,0.135449,0.125926,0. 07731,0.064923,0.041238,0.017012,0.007285,0.006,-0.003068,-0.016037,-0.004709,0.001349,-0.002825,0.004954,0.011672,0.005967,-0.001565,0.004307,-0.001383,0.006003,0.004118,0.002597,0.006162,0.011 206,0.001437 VK2020_EST_Saaremaa_EVA:VK509,0.127482,0.132019,0. 073916,0.053295,0.044624,0.015897,0.00799,0.007846 ,0.007363,-0.003827,-0.006983,0.001649,-0.000595,-0.003853,0.008686,0.006762,0.001043,-0.002534,0.003268,0.010005,0.004617,0.005564,0.002 711,0.005904,-0.005269 VK2020_EST_Saaremaa_EVA:VK510,0.127482,0.126941,0. 073161,0.070414,0.052625,0.032909,0.00564,0.010846 ,0.006954,-0.006014,-0.00747,-0.002847,0.002527,-0.000826,0.020901,-0.002254,-0.014081,-0.00114,0.002514,0.009004,0.018467,0.007172,-0.001602,0.017231,0.002036 VK2020_EST_Saaremaa_EVA:VK511,0.12862,0.125926,0.0 69767,0.065892,0.036314,0.017849,0.009635,0.010615 ,-0.003681,-0.010023,-0.008444,0.000749,0.001338,0.004954,0.021715,-0.004641,-0.021905,-0.003674,-0.000628,0.000875,0.009858,-0.002349,0.000863,0.004338,-0.000359 VK2020_EST_Saaremaa_EVA:VK512,0.126344,0.125926,0. 068636,0.066538,0.046162,0.022311,0.004465,0.01061 5,0.006954,-0.013485,-0.003897,0,0.002973,0.000963,0.016694,0.0118,-0.002347,0.003421,-0.008045,0.005503,0.012104,0.001978,-0.00037,0.010363,-0.00467 VK2020_EST_Saaremaa_EVA:VK549,0.127482,0.138112,0. 067127,0.069768,0.049855,0.018965,0.005405,0.01038 4,0.002659,-0.004009,-0.00682,3e-04,-0.008176,-0.002615,0.018322,0.00716,-0.00691,-0.0019,0.007165,0.009505,0.006489,-0.002968,0.003081,0.022413,0.003952 VK2020_EST_Saaremaa_EVA:VK550,0.138864,0.128972,0. 078441,0.06137,0.040623,0.020917,0.008695,0.012461 ,0.001636,-0.006378,-0.001137,0.002098,-0.012339,-0.003578,0.018187,-0.004375,-0.020731,-0.001394,0.01257,-0.001126,0.007487,0.002473,0.000863,0.002771,0.000 718 VK2020_EST_Saaremaa_EVA:VK551,0.125205,0.127957,0. 081081,0.069768,0.047086,0.0251,0.005405,0.011999, 0.005113,-0.008383,-0.005846,-0.002248,-0.006244,-0.006606,0.018187,-0.004508,-0.017732,0.002787,0.008673,0.003377,0.010232,0.002 72,-0.003081,0.015785,-0.003233 VK2020_EST_Saaremaa_EVA:VK552,0.126344,0.133034,0. 074293,0.066215,0.038776,0.028726,-0.000235,0.002308,0.005318,-0.006014,-0.004872,0.004196,-0.008474,-0.006606,0.021444,0.005967,-0.005085,0.007728,0.005908,0.01013,0.017469,0.0046 99,-0.008997,0.018918,-0.000479 VK2020_EST_Saaremaa_EVA:VK553,0.127482,0.131003,0. 073161,0.066861,0.043393,0.027331,0.018096,0.01176 9,0.006545,-0.010752,-0.004709,0.001798,-0.008622,-0.007294,0.020629,0.004641,-0.011474,0.006208,0.001131,0.003502,0.011605,0.005 193,0.005176,0.010122,-0.001317 VK2020_EST_Saaremaa_EVA:VK554,0.137726,0.109677,0. 07731,0.066861,0.050471,0.025937,0.00423,0.007615,-0.004704,-0.007289,-0.008119,-0.00045,0.000297,-0.011973,0.015065,0.016971,0.007041,-0.006968,0.005154,0.004002,0.014225,-0.001113,-0.004067,0.014339,0.00012 VK2020_EST_Saaremaa_EVA:VK555,0.126344,0.127957,0. 07995,0.062016,0.047393,0.019243,0.00705,0.012923, 0.003681,-0.012392,-0.004222,0.001499,0.001338,0.001514,0.018729,0.005 436,-0.02034,0.001647,-0.003771,0.004877,0.00861,0.006306,0.006162,0.0122 91,0.006107

All of the sample IDs, with their Y-calls are listed here (https://dna-explained.com/2020/09/18/442-ancient-viking-skeletons-hold-dna-surprises-does-your-y-or-mitochondrial-dna-match-daily-updates-here/).

BTW, what makes you say that these N-L550 lines are extinct? The ones that made it to Yfull have matches with modern samples, e.g. https://www.yfull.com/tree/N-Y30126*/

parastais
06-14-2021, 06:56 PM
3/4 of 6 were not having any moderns nearby. One had another Viking age on that branch but not modern.

parastais
06-14-2021, 06:59 PM
This is extremely interesting. So, R1a CTS1211 also were Scandinavian like?
I imagine those N and R1a arrived together with Baltic Finns long BCE and then I1 “Germanised” them. Maybe Malaren was R1a and N affair just like Estonians or Finns and then at some point I1 arrived and made them Norse.
Otherwise hard to explain those Scandinavian R1a (one of them has a modern descendant from Ventspils (North Courland, Latvia)).

Zelto
06-14-2021, 07:03 PM
For L-1025 to arrive with Goths or Scandinavians it would need to come from spot with 80-100% of N (if we exclude chance), maybe Malaren (and/or nearby islands) early centuries BCE was such a spot. But Goths definately were not such people, we know from Kowalewko, of many samples there was just one (and Baltic admixed) N late and deep in Poland.

Any Scandinavian influence on the Baltic material culture during the migration period, seems to be referred to colloquially as Gothic. I'm not sure if there is any actually evidence they were Goths though. I agree that the Malaren valley and nearby islands could have been rich in N-L550 during the IA.

The 535-536 AD climatic event apparently had a profound impact on the Baltic, especially farmers in Central Sweden. I posted a link here earlier, to a study showing settlement continuity before and after this event in the Malaren valley. I think this may have led to the reduction of N-L550 in central Sweden, as farmers from Southern Scandinavia filled in the vacuum created after 536 AD.

Zelto
06-14-2021, 07:13 PM
This is extremely interesting. So, R1a CTS1211 also were Scandinavian like?
I imagine those N and R1a arrived together with Baltic Finns long BCE and then I1 “Germanised” them. Maybe Malaren was R1a and N affair just like Estonians or Finns and then at some point I1 arrived and made them Norse.
Otherwise hard to explain those Scandinavian R1a (one of them has a modern descendant from Ventspils (North Courland, Latvia)).

Some may have but its impossible to say. R1a-CTS1211 and R1a-Z92 had been in the Baltic region since the Bronze Age, there's no telling when they could have arrived in Sweden. Also, some of the R1a in Saaremaa is "Scandinavian" R1a-Z284, like VK551.

Edit:
I just checked on YFull, 3/6 R1a samples are downstream from R1a-Z280. Two of them are closely related. https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-FT104609/

parastais
06-15-2021, 05:07 AM
Some may have but its impossible to say. R1a-CTS1211 and R1a-Z92 had been in the Baltic region since the Bronze Age, there's no telling when they could have arrived in Sweden. Also, some of the R1a in Saaremaa is "Scandinavian" R1a-Z284, like VK551.

Edit:
I just checked on YFull, 3/6 R1a samples are downstream from R1a-Z280. Two of them are closely related. https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-FT104609/

Maybe 2/8 CTS1211 (25%) and 6/8 L550 (75%) was somewhat possible for Early Baltic Finn spread that brought them into Malaren.

Zelto
06-15-2021, 06:43 PM
Maybe 2/8 CTS1211 (25%) and 6/8 L550 (75%) was somewhat possible for Early Baltic Finn spread that brought them into Malaren.

Possible, but I wouldn't bet on anything yet without aDNA from Tarands in Sweden. Some areas may have had different frequencies of N1c and R1a, especially as time went on they could have become bottlenecked, or simply didn't absorb the same groups. After all, the two Ingrian Tarand samples were both R1a.

That actually hits on another problem with any kind of migration directly from Estonia to Latvia/Lithuania. We know that Estonia had roughly even percentages of R1a/N1c since the EIA, and that holds true for even the Medieval samples.

The founder effect which occurred in Latvia/Lithuania, looks like a solely N-L1025 affair. As far as I'm aware, no single subclade of R1a (with a TMRCA of ~2500ybp) reaches the same frequency in Balts N-L1025 does. Latvians and Lithuanians instead, belong to a variety of R1a-Z280 (TMRCA 4700ybp) subclades, also common among East Slavs. Even R1a-Z92 and R1a-CTS1211 are much older, with aDNA corroborating a Bronze Age distribution and not an Iron Age founder effect.

Ryukendo
06-15-2021, 09:22 PM
Why couldnt the early Finns have settled heavily in C Sweden before settling in Estonia and the Baltics? Could something like that work?


Do you remember what was the proportion of N is those burials? And where they autosomally different from other samples (R1b, I1) there?

For L-1025 to arrive with Goths or Scandinavians it would need to come from spot with 80-100% of N (if we exclude chance), maybe Malaren (and/or nearby islands) early centuries BCE was such a spot. But Goths definately were not such people, we know from Kowalewko, of many samples there was just one (and Baltic admixed) N late and deep in Poland.

Which sample is this and how much Baltic shift does it show?

Also, aren't all Gothic samples a little bit Eastern-shifted compared to the rest of the Germanics? Is there any evidence of low-level Finnic admix in Saarema and Goths from Kowalewko and from elsewhere compared to other Germanic people?

parastais
06-16-2021, 05:57 AM
Why couldnt the early Finns have settled heavily in C Sweden before settling in Estonia and the Baltics? Could something like that work?



Which sample is this and how much Baltic shift does it show?

Also, aren't all Gothic samples a little bit Eastern-shifted compared to the rest of the Germanics? Is there any evidence of low-level Finnic admix in Saarema and Goths from Kowalewko and from elsewhere compared to other Germanic people?
Before topic turned into “Slavs from Poland” vs “Slavs from Kiev Culture” discussion, those were mentioned in
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?23595-New-Samples-from-Migration-Era-and-Early-Medieval-Moravia

N was a low quality sample from later Maslomecz, Poland. Seemingly Latvian like.

About Finns I got hypothesis it was related to different early Finnic clans taking up different ecological niches:
L550 were similar to later randalist folk, likely sea fishers, coast dwellers
L1022 were agriculturalists

Such a dychitomy was present 1000 years later in Latvia, where Liivi were living on a sea coast in fishermen villages and Latvians doing land. When Soviets closed free fishing in the sea, economic foundation of Liivi disappeared, they left their villages and assimilated into Latvians.

Agriculture gives advantage in population size. Therefore inland L1022 would largely replace L550 in Estonia. However L1025 got assimilated into Balts and what is strange - got into working previously unused land (fertile but unworkable without proper iron tools in say Zemgale). Which let them spread.

These are all of course just my assumptions.

Standardized Ape
06-16-2021, 07:09 AM
Why couldnt the early Finns have settled heavily in C Sweden before settling in Estonia and the Baltics? Could something like that work?


Not really a serious idea IMO. Requires a lot of language shifting across the board and offers little in return.



Also, aren't all Gothic samples a little bit Eastern-shifted compared to the rest of the Germanics? Is there any evidence of low-level Finnic admix in Saarema and Goths from Kowalewko and from elsewhere compared to other Germanic people?

It's very uneven for Goths. Probably linked with recent rather than old admixture. One of the samples from Kowalewko PCA0015 has the Finland-specific(not Finnic) H1f1a. I'm not sure if that's on G25 probably not. It might be a good idea to have a thread for Gothic/Kowalewko genetics without discussion about the Slavic homeland.

Zelto
06-16-2021, 07:11 PM
Agriculture gives advantage in population size. Therefore inland L1022 would largely replace L550 in Estonia. However L1025 got assimilated into Balts and what is strange - got into working previously unused land (fertile but unworkable without proper iron tools in say Zemgale). Which let them spread.

These are all of course just my assumptions.

I was considering something similar. The early-Tarands are thought to represent a very small subset of Iron Age Estonians. The vast majority of whom, were buried in a way that left no trace.

The argument against this being: even the Medieval Estonian samples are only N-L550. A few of them even come from southern/inland areas, like IIf (Otepää, Valga). The early-Tarands were supposedly elite families, who lived in hillforts, and ruled over plots of land used for farming. Despite being coastal, they are thought to be agriculturalists.

I've seen some people speculate that N-L1022 arrived in Estonia from Finland, but that is completely based on modern diversity. I recall something about migrations from Finland to Estonia in historical times, but I can't remember where I read that. N-Z1936 is also found in Estonians, probably recent arrivals from Finland or Russia.

Huck Finn
06-16-2021, 08:13 PM
N-Z1936 is also found in Estonians, probably recent arrivals from Finland or Russia.

If that's the case, why there are deep, apparently well established N-Z1936 lineages in Estonia? Pls, check Fig 2:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-44272-6.pdf

parastais
06-16-2021, 08:26 PM
@Huck,
Semi related:
Do you have any info on R1a statistics in Finland?
I.e. are they Z92, CTS1211, M458, other Euro R1a, Z93? What is the distribution?

Huck Finn
06-16-2021, 08:33 PM
@Huck,
Semi related:
Do you have any info on R1a statistics in Finland?
I.e. are they Z92, CTS1211, M458, other Euro R1a, Z93? What is the distribution?

Unluckily I don't, sorry.

Zelto
06-16-2021, 08:43 PM
If that's the case, why there are deep, apparently well established N-Z1936 lineages in Estonia? Pls, check Fig 2:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-44272-6.pdf

That could be illusory if there was a migration from an area with already greater diversity. That figure is based on only 33 samples, if there was more representation from Finland/Russia in that article, you may see that the Estonian branches are downstream/close matches.

I am open to alternatives, however because there is already aDNA from BA-IA-MA Estonia with zero N-Z1936, I favor a scenario where they came later.

Huck Finn
06-16-2021, 09:43 PM
That could be illusory if there was a migration from an area with already greater diversity.

Good point, maybe you're right. There are fex 17 Finnish samples in the study, but it is not too clear why they are not present in the phylogenic tree. The Estonian samples in Fig 2 seem to be connected to just one Karelian and one Veps, for some reason. They are all still "Karelian" N-VL62's, if I'm right.

Standardized Ape
06-17-2021, 07:43 AM
Do you have any info on R1a statistics in Finland?


Most of the R1a in Finland belongs to typical Slavic/Scandinavian subclades which do not have Finland-specific subclades. There are some notable exceptions to that which make up a large share although I do not think there are reliable statistics.
https://yfull.com/tree/R-YP1147/
Two subclades found in South Ostrobothnia and Karelia respectively. Origin unclear. Remote sibling clade in the British isles is found in central Scotland and near Oxford.
https://yfull.com/tree/R-BY32105/
This one is definitely from somewhere around Ukraine/Belarus about 2000 years ago but it seems to have arrived north quite early and not in the main phase of Slavic contact. It could be linked with the supposed early contacts between Baltic Finnic speakers and Slavic. It's found in eastern and northern Finland and it's the most prominent subclade in Finland.
https://yfull.com/tree/R-CTS5149/
This one is notable not because of frequency so much as it being the one that V10 had. It is found only in SW Finland.

There's one more subclade which may be of some interest although not technically found in Finland.
https://yfull.com/tree/R-Y13467/
Seems to be of eastern origin from Russia but found in Balts, Swedes and Leningrad Oblast Finns(Ingrians). People in the Swedish province it's found in however have strong links to the Forest Finns who moved there in the 17th century.

parastais
06-17-2021, 07:51 AM
Most of the R1a in Finland belongs to typical Slavic/Scandinavian subclades which do not have Finland-specific subclades. There are some notable exceptions to that which make up a large share although I do not think there are reliable statistics.
https://yfull.com/tree/R-YP1147/
Two subclades found in South Ostrobothnia and Karelia respectively. Origin unclear. Remote sibling clade in the British isles is found in central Scotland and near Oxford.
https://yfull.com/tree/R-BY32105/
This one is definitely from somewhere around Ukraine/Belarus about 2000 years ago but it seems to have arrived north quite early and not in the main phase of Slavic contact. It could be linked with the supposed early contacts between Baltic Finnic speakers and Slavic. It's found in eastern and northern Finland and it's the most prominent subclade in Finland.
https://yfull.com/tree/R-CTS5149/
This one is notable not because of frequency so much as it being the one that V10 had. It is found only in SW Finland.

There's one more subclade which may be of some interest although not technically found in Finland.
https://yfull.com/tree/R-Y13467/
Seems to be of eastern origin from Russia but found in Balts, Swedes and Leningrad Oblast Finns(Ingrians). People in the Swedish province it's found in however have strong links to the Forest Finns who moved there in the 17th century.
Wikipedia says there is only 5% R1a in Finns, but I had seen also other numbers.
Is 5% reliable?
But

Standardized Ape
06-17-2021, 07:54 AM
Wikipedia says there is only 5% R1a in Finns, but I had seen also other numbers.
Is 5% reliable?
But

I've seen numbers around 7-8% more often.

Zelto
06-17-2021, 08:08 PM
I just realized that the Iron Age Oland sample was added to G25. For some reason I thought he was too low quality. Looks like a Swede, but definitely pulled towards Finns.

45213

VK2020_SWE_Oland_IA:VK579,0.110408,0.123895,0.0852 29,0.070414,0.035083,0.02259,0.01034,0.005769,-0.003886,-0.012939,-0.006983,0.007343,-0.005054,0.006881,0.010858,0.005967,-0.023078,0.004307,0.00264,-0.001751,0.011605,0.008656,-0.008874,0.014701,-0.002155


Edit:
With Kowalewko Goths
45214

Huck Finn
06-27-2021, 12:11 PM
It's difficult to say whether N1c in Balts is related to Migration Era back migration but apparently some people really moved from the more southern areas into Lithuania:

"Prestigious artefacts could be assumed to have come to Lithuania together with their owners who kept penetrating further into the Northern European forest belt after Attila’s Empire (Attila, c. 406–453) had collapsed after the battle on the Nedao River. Evidently, small multiethnic groups of aliens that could have included Heruls, Gepids, and Ostrogoths, reached east Lithuania and managed to get established there.

...Thus, the migrants who had come to east Lithuania, in the course of three or four generations blended among the local people, just as silver and gold artefacts disappeared."

Audronė Bliujienė, Valdas Steponaitis, Egidijus Šatavičius and Gytis Grižas

CONCENTRATION_OF_AUTHORITY_AND_POWER_IN_EAST_LITHU ANIA_BETWEEN_TAURAGNAS_LAKE_AND_THE_MIDDLE_REACHES _OF_THE_ZEIMENA_RIVER_DURING_THE_MIGRATION_PERIOD

parastais
07-16-2021, 06:58 PM
https://i.imgur.com/T1lqnXp.png
This is some great stats for L1025, showing possible times of growth and bottlenecks. This is for L1025.

parastais
07-16-2021, 07:13 PM
Expansion ~ 500 BCE. Then further expansion around 200 BCE. Then big one 100 BCE and further 50 AD.
Then some (lowish) regular growth until 500 AD. Somewhat bigger regular growth after 500 AD.
Some bottleneck event ca 800 AD. Maybe.
Then return to slow steady growth.
Less growth ca 1200-1300, likely due to Northern Crusades. Then another drop 1500-1600 (not sure?).

parastais
07-16-2021, 07:17 PM
Same for L550.


I don't know what is L1925.

https://i.imgur.com/xKS1VGh.png

parastais
07-16-2021, 07:48 PM
If we compare both of those, we may make following conclusions:
~ 800 BCE: L550 gets popular
~ 500 BCE: second L550 expansion, birth of L1025 among others
~ 100 BCE: third L550 expansion (6 new L1025 clades, 3 new L550 clades)
~ 100 AD: great L1025 expansion (6 new), independent from L550 (0 new). After this point L1025 destiny is no more linked to L550.
100-700: some growth
~ 750 AD: 7 new L1025 clades, no new L550
~ 800 AD: 0 new L1025, 5 new L550
~ 850 AD: 4 new L1025, 0 new L550
~ 900 AD: 4 new L1025, 0 new L550
Interesting 2 centuries, might be just coincidence, but negative correlation is interesting. Might be reading too much since TMRCAs are just estimates.

Zelto
07-17-2021, 07:58 PM
If we compare both of those, we may make following conclusions:
~ 800 BCE: L550 gets popular
~ 500 BCE: second L550 expansion, birth of L1025 among others
~ 100 BCE: third L550 expansion (6 new L1025 clades, 3 new L550 clades)
~ 100 AD: great L1025 expansion (6 new), independent from L550 (0 new). After this point L1025 destiny is no more linked to L550.
100-700: some growth
~ 750 AD: 7 new L1025 clades, no new L550
~ 800 AD: 0 new L1025, 5 new L550
~ 850 AD: 4 new L1025, 0 new L550
~ 900 AD: 4 new L1025, 0 new L550
Interesting 2 centuries, might be just coincidence, but negative correlation is interesting. Might be reading too much since TMRCAs are just estimates.

I tried to connect this to archeological phenomenon.

800BCE: N-L550 initially migrates to coastal Estonia/proliferates with the earliest Tarand builders.

500BCE: N-L550 subclades are in the process of spreading across the North/East Baltic with early-Tarands (Eastern Sweden, SW Finland Courland and Coastal Estonia). Sample VII4 might already be N-L1025+ N-Y4706.

100BCE-100AD: A few interesting things happen... early-Tarands disappear outside of Estonia, where they are replaced by typical-Tarand graves (later appearing in SW Finland). At this point, it seems like close contact and/or a common ethnic identity disappeared from the areas once inhabited by the early-Tarand builders. Typical-Tarands in Estonia are more insular, now inhabiting inland areas.

Around this time, N-L1025 probably experienced its founders effect in ethnic Balts, I can't say exactly from where it arrived, other than an area previously inhabited by early-Tarands.

100AD-Present: N-L1025 was spread across Eastern Europe by Iron-Age-Medieval Baltic tribes and later, the PLC.

N-L550 and some N-L1025 subclades are spread by Iron-Viking age Swedes, some Finnic tribes may have also contributed.

Something happened in Estonia, which wiped out native N-L550/N-L1025 branches. Probably quite recently, the two medieval Estonian samples were N-L550*.

arpatir
07-21-2021, 06:20 AM
Expansion ~ 500 BCE. Then further expansion around 200 BCE. Then big one 100 BCE and further 50 AD.
Then some (lowish) regular growth until 500 AD. Somewhat bigger regular growth after 500 AD.
Some bottleneck event ca 800 AD. Maybe.
Then return to slow steady growth.
Less growth ca 1200-1300, likely due to Northern Crusades. Then another drop 1500-1600 (not sure?).
The last one could be Great Northern War(1700) with Plague outbreak, that completely devastated region

arpatir
07-21-2021, 09:02 AM
I tried to connect this to archeological phenomenon.

800BCE: N-L550 initially migrates to coastal Estonia/proliferates with the earliest Tarand builders.

500BCE: N-L550 subclades are in the process of spreading across the North/East Baltic with early-Tarands (Eastern Sweden, SW Finland Courland and Coastal Estonia). Sample VII4 might already be N-L1025+ N-Y4706.

100BCE-100AD: A few interesting things happen... early-Tarands disappear outside of Estonia, where they are replaced by typical-Tarand graves (later appearing in SW Finland). At this point, it seems like close contact and/or a common ethnic identity disappeared from the areas once inhabited by the early-Tarand builders. Typical-Tarands in Estonia are more insular, now inhabiting inland areas.

Around this time, N-L1025 probably experienced its founders effect in ethnic Balts, I can't say exactly from where it arrived, other than an area previously inhabited by early-Tarands.

100AD-Present: N-L1025 was spread across Eastern Europe by Iron-Age-Medieval Baltic tribes and later, the PLC.

N-L550 and some N-L1025 subclades are spread by Iron-Viking age Swedes, some Finnic tribes may have also contributed.

Something happened in Estonia, which wiped out native N-L550/N-L1025 branches. Probably quite recently, the two medieval Estonian samples were N-L550*.

Most populous and earliest branch of L550 is L1025. There are roughly 5 million people of L1025 people - most of them(by numbers - not by share) are living in Lithuania, followed by... Ukraine, Poland, Belarussia and Russia, Latvia and then Estonia and Scandinavia. Roughly 50% of L1025 nowadays are speaking Slavic language.
There are even more L1025 living in US than in Estonia, so to make it even clearer - Estonia is more like a fringe territory to both L1025 and other branches of L550. And that rules out completely any relation to Tarand graves to L550, which IMO are local phenomenon - most probably it has something to do with final remnants of Kunda culture, than to Uralic people whatsoever, because none of that is relatable to other Finnic people - and certainly not to Latvians or Lithuanians as major carriers of L1025.


Y-dna N share of L1025 in Estonians is ~ 25%, in Latvians it is 70%, and in Lithuanians it reaches highest numbers of all people - more than 90% of y-dna N(only Ukrainian, Polish and Belarussian y-dna N has similarly high shares of L1025 in regards to other N-ydna). With almost 99% certainity Estonian L1025 source is from Latvians.

Other clades of L550 are insignificantly less numerous than L1025 - most of them are speaking Swedish(and not Finnish) and their ancestors were vikings - also not related to Finnic people at all.



So, looking on clades, VL29(N1a1a1a1a1a) seems to stand out as Uralics, that branched off earlier from other Uralic clades by mingling with Baltic speakers and assimilating into them by accepting their farming techniques. It has been very very very long time ago and they have been lost to rest of Uralic speaking people until modern genetics came along and gave this shocking realization, that some of non Uralic speakers have Uralic ancestry from paternal side.

Even if VL29 is present among Finnish, it is sister clade Z1936(N1a1a1a1a2) that is main clade that is present in Finnish and Karelian y-dna N and that is responsible for spreading Finnic languages(also Estonian). So, we are looking at different branches of N-tat migrations and at least one of them was spreading without Uralic identity, that for some reason is so important to some modern people...


Origins of L1025/L550
There is relation of Latvians and Lithuanians through L1025. Both of them arrived from east - first known state with name Lithuania was established in Naugardukas(Navahrudok, Belarus) in Jatwingian(!) lands. So, the earliest records of Lithuanians are about them occupying lands of other Baltic tribes. Latgalian lands at the same time period was spreading east of modern Latvia up the river of Daugava. It might be possible that L1025 origins was on the upper Daugava river around Polatsk in Belarus. And my speculation is that L550 origins might have been in Smolensk area, where y-dna N was present at least 4000 or more years and where during various historical periods that area was populated by Baltic cultures, that originated from Dnieper river basin and the ones that spread to west did not had y-dna N. It appears among other Balts only with arrival of Latvian-Lithuanian tribes.

arpatir
07-21-2021, 09:56 AM
Agriculture gives advantage in population size. Therefore inland L1022 would largely replace L550 in Estonia. However L1025 got assimilated into Balts and what is strange - got into working previously unused land (fertile but unworkable without proper iron tools in say Zemgale). Which let them spread.

This is very discutable statement, when it comes to island nations, that are generating more population migration waves than inlanders(Goths originated on islands, even modern nations that are located on islands are most densely populated). Agriculture has always required very hard work and most of all - it binds inhabitants to one place. Sea dwellers on other side did not only fishing(and some limited farming), but also trading(and sea pirating) which made them more choices what to do. Any big water in the past was motorway, compared to bumpy land roads.

As for Zemgale - it would be great if there was research done in regards to Kreewings(Latvian Votes), that were settled in empty lands of Zemgale and who also spread in sparsely populated(because of forests) regions of Selonia. Somehow I have a feeling that they were not L1025 or even L550. Anyway, I would discard any relations of L1025 to Liivi, as it is hard to link them to Lithuanians and source of L1025 comes from the east - and even today N share in Latvian y-dna reaches higher numbers in east(where Liivi were not observed) and it contradicted belief that Liivi might have been major contributors of L1025 to Latvians(and if that was so, then also Lithuanians?).

Zelto
07-21-2021, 07:53 PM
Most populous and earliest branch of L550 is L1025. There are roughly 5 million people of L1025 people - most of them(by numbers - not by share) are living in Lithuania, followed by... Ukraine, Poland, Belarussia and Russia, Latvia and then Estonia and Scandinavia. Roughly 50% of L1025 nowadays are speaking Slavic language.
There are even more L1025 living in US than in Estonia, so to make it even clearer - Estonia is more like a fringe territory to both L1025 and other branches of L550. And that rules out completely any relation to Tarand graves to L550, which IMO are local phenomenon - most probably it has something to do with final remnants of Kunda culture, than to Uralic people whatsoever, because none of that is relatable to other Finnic people - and certainly not to Latvians or Lithuanians as major carriers of L1025.


Y-dna N share of L1025 in Estonians is ~ 25%, in Latvians it is 70%, and in Lithuanians it reaches highest numbers of all people - more than 90% of y-dna N(only Ukrainian, Polish and Belarussian y-dna N has similarly high shares of L1025 in regards to other N-ydna). With almost 99% certainity Estonian L1025 source is from Latvians.

Other clades of L550 are insignificantly less numerous than L1025 - most of them are speaking Swedish(and not Finnish) and their ancestors were vikings - also not related to Finnic people at all.



So, looking on clades, VL29(N1a1a1a1a1a) seems to stand out as Uralics, that branched off earlier from other Uralic clades by mingling with Baltic speakers and assimilating into them by accepting their farming techniques. It has been very very very long time ago and they have been lost to rest of Uralic speaking people until modern genetics came along and gave this shocking realization, that some of non Uralic speakers have Uralic ancestry from paternal side.

Even if VL29 is present among Finnish, it is sister clade Z1936(N1a1a1a1a2) that is main clade that is present in Finnish and Karelian y-dna N and that is responsible for spreading Finnic languages(also Estonian). So, we are looking at different branches of N-tat migrations and at least one of them was spreading without Uralic identity, that for some reason is so important to some modern people...


Origins of L1025/L550
There is relation of Latvians and Lithuanians through L1025. Both of them arrived from east - first known state with name Lithuania was established in Naugardukas(Navahrudok, Belarus) in Jatwingian(!) lands. So, the earliest records of Lithuanians are about them occupying lands of other Baltic tribes. Latgalian lands at the same time period was spreading east of modern Latvia up the river of Daugava. It might be possible that L1025 origins was on the upper Daugava river around Polatsk in Belarus. And my speculation is that L550 origins might have been in Smolensk area, where y-dna N was present at least 4000 or more years and where during various historical periods that area was populated by Baltic cultures, that originated from Dnieper river basin and the ones that spread to west did not had y-dna N. It appears among other Balts only with arrival of Latvian-Lithuanian tribes.

Most of what I said was not speculation. The regulars of this thread are very knowledgeable and already know the aDNA/archeological research I was basing my conclusions on. In your case, a good starting place might be the previous 70 pages of this thread, you can then see how our understanding of N1c in the Baltic has evolved.

For example, N-L550 was indeed found in early-Tarand graves. I can assure you these Iron Age Tarands have nothing to do with the Mesolithic Kunda culture.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2019.04.026

Two more things:

1) The frequency of subclades in modern populations, mean next to nothing for ancient groups. Even in the same geographic area. ~2500ybp Estonia was indisputably home to a large portion of N-L550 males. On the other hand, Iron Age Kivutkalns samples (Latvia) yielded no N-L550 or N-L1025.

2) DNA extraction has come a long way in a few short years. Many of the earliest aDNA results are dubious due to the possibility of contamination. You don't have to take my word for it, but the current consensus is that the N1c from Smolensk was contaminated (not actually N1c).

parastais
07-21-2021, 09:21 PM
This is very discutable statement, when it comes to island nations, that are generating more population migration waves than inlanders(Goths originated on islands, even modern nations that are located on islands are most densely populated). Agriculture has always required very hard work and most of all - it binds inhabitants to one place. Sea dwellers on other side did not only fishing(and some limited farming), but also trading(and sea pirating) which made them more choices what to do. Any big water in the past was motorway, compared to bumpy land roads.

As for Zemgale - it would be great if there was research done in regards to Kreewings(Latvian Votes), that were settled in empty lands of Zemgale and who also spread in sparsely populated(because of forests) regions of Selonia. Somehow I have a feeling that they were not L1025 or even L550. Anyway, I would discard any relations of L1025 to Liivi, as it is hard to link them to Lithuanians and source of L1025 comes from the east - and even today N share in Latvian y-dna reaches higher numbers in east(where Liivi were not observed) and it contradicted belief that Liivi might have been major contributors of L1025 to Latvians(and if that was so, then also Lithuanians?).
I am with you on Liivi as not the source of L1025. You are absolutely right, Liivi haplos were likely pretty much Estonian like.
Krieviņi are also not source of L1025. Of course.
***
Lithuania has indeed both the highest share of L1025, as well as most diversity of branches under L1025. Whilst Latvians seem largely under my clade N - Z16980 (also it seems Estonian L1025 is mostly under "Latvian" Z16980, and there is a distinct West Slavic cluster under it, with early AD MRCA). Lithuanians have diverse clades. So, (secondary?) expansion could have happened in Lithuania.
***
On other hand Lithuanians have virtually none L550+ L1025-, definately not basal clades. Which points that L550 (not to mention its father VL29) was not born in Baltic speaking population. And having L550 largely present in Tarands agrees with this, it was found in Estonian tarands before L1025 TMRCA. It was spread by Baltic Finns (or some other Para-Finnic group) initially. Even L1025 itself got basal lines that are neither Baltic nor Slavic, but only Fenno-Scandian. Which kinda tells that also first L1025 is unlikely to be born in Baltic population, rather a Fenno-Scandian one.
***
After that you got the point re islands, because I believe L1025 in Balts arrived from Baltic islands, perhaps Saaremaa, and I relate this event to early Barrows with Stone Rings (uzkalniņi ar akmens riņķiem) burials, that spread from West Lithuania accross modern Latvia and Lithuania early centuries AD (related to expansion of L1025 lines at around same time). L1025 was found in subvariant of that culture in Lithuania (North Lithuanian Barrows Culture - the presumed ancestors of Selonians, perhaps also Semigalians and Zhemaitians).

***
Perhaps L1025 spread further East as producers or traders of East Euro barbarian enemals, already with (West) Balts. Early centuries AD, it shows frequency of those finds:
https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/andvari5/78067063/301283/301283_800.jpg

Huck Finn
07-22-2021, 05:58 AM
It was spread by Baltic Finns (or some other Para-Finnic group) initially.

It seems to me that at least also Meryanic speakers, if not also speakers of some Mordvinic looking language, were present in the areas next to the Baltic speaking groups. In other words, many groups descending from the founding West Uralic population. Basically any of these, including of course Baltic Finns, should work as the N-connection. Also, we may still be dealing with a sampling bias, emphasizing the northern Baltic area in terms of upstream mutation levels. More results from Pskov Oblast, both ancient and modern, would and should be most beneficent.

arpatir
07-22-2021, 06:04 AM
I am with you on Liivi as not the source of L1025. You are absolutely right, Liivi haplos were likely pretty much Estonian like.
Krieviņi are also not source of L1025. Of course.
***
Lithuania has indeed both the highest share of L1025, as well as most diversity of branches under L1025. Whilst Latvians seem largely under my clade N - Z16980 (also it seems Estonian L1025 is mostly under "Latvian" Z16980, and there is a distinct West Slavic cluster under it, with early AD MRCA). Lithuanians have diverse clades. So, (secondary?) expansion could have happened in Lithuania.
***
On other hand Lithuanians have virtually none L550+ L1025-, definately not basal clades. Which points that L550 (not to mention its father VL29) was not born in Baltic speaking population. And having L550 largely present in Tarands agrees with this, it was found in Estonian tarands before L1025 TMRCA. It was spread by Baltic Finns (or some other Para-Finnic group) initially. Even L1025 itself got basal lines that are neither Baltic nor Slavic, but only Fenno-Scandian. Which kinda tells that also first L1025 is unlikely to be born in Baltic population, rather a Fenno-Scandian one.
***
After that you got the point re islands, because I believe L1025 in Balts arrived from Baltic islands, perhaps Saaremaa, and I relate this event to early Barrows with Stone Rings (uzkalniņi ar akmens riņķiem) burials, that spread from West Lithuania accross modern Latvia and Lithuania early centuries AD (related to expansion of L1025 lines at around same time). L1025 was found in subvariant of that culture in Lithuania (North Lithuanian Barrows Culture - the presumed ancestors of Selonians, perhaps also Semigalians and Zhemaitians).

***
Perhaps L1025 spread further East as producers or traders of East Euro barbarian enemals, already with (West) Balts. Early centuries AD, it shows frequency of those finds:
https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/andvari5/78067063/301283/301283_800.jpg

>>>Whilst Latvians seem largely under my clade N - Z16980

Well, I am in the process of finding my own clade, which I suspect will be different than that what majority of Latvians has, and if you can point to any sources, that are supporting this claim... I would be happy to change my views on this, but so far I have read that Latvian y-dna N is 60% of that what Lithuanian y-dna N is composed of, and almost all of the rest is similar to Estonians, which is not surprising because of known history.



I have heard about this idea, that L550 originated in Scandinavia and then spread to Baltic people. That, however, is only one version, that leaves out many other issues:

1. It does not explain current spread of L1025. It does not explain why L1025 % share in population of (modern)Baltic people is decreasing to the west - it should be otherwise if L1025 arrived from west, because "purposely" decrease of L1025 and simultaneous increase of more ancient R1a-M558 does not explain timing - unless serious people believe in time travel. I do not believe that time travel is possible but I have found some aspects of it entertaining, but not serious.
2. It does not explain how L550 and L1025 appeared in west in relation to VL29. It does not explain why VL29 is so different from other clades.
3. It does not explain how other clades of N1a appeared where they are now. It does not explain why other clades were not mingling with VL29.

I could go on and on. Most of variations of OTHER L550 branches appeared in Sweden - majority if not almost all of these modern people that are carriers of L550 are speaking Swedish and because their history is linked with history of vikings, for the most of their history they were NOT Uralic speaking people and if any of them are speaking Finnic languages now, then that is secondary side effect of those viking settling among Uralic people and assimilating into them.

So at this point we have L550, that is not Uralic and majority of them - L1025 is associated of Latvians and Lithuanians.

parastais
07-22-2021, 06:36 AM
@arpatir, how do you explain presence of L550 in Tarand graves (deep first millennium BCE) and simultaneous lack of L550 in Brushed Pottery site in Kivutalns (during whole first millennium BCE up to early centuries BCE only R1a there)?

Do you think L550 in Tarand burials were:
a) Norse speakers
b) Baltic speakers
c) West Uralic (group including Finnic, Meryanic, Mordvin) speakers
?

parastais
07-22-2021, 06:45 AM
>>>Whilst Latvians seem largely under my clade N - Z16980

Well, I am in the process of finding my own clade, which I suspect will be different than that what majority of Latvians has, and if you can point to any sources, that are supporting this claim... I would be happy to change my views on this, but so far I have read that Latvian y-dna N is 60% of that what Lithuanian y-dna N is composed of, and almost all of the rest is similar to Estonians, which is not surprising because of known history.



I have heard about this idea, that L550 originated in Scandinavia and then spread to Baltic people. That, however, is only one version, that leaves out many other issues:

1. It does not explain current spread of L1025. It does not explain why L1025 % share in population of (modern)Baltic people is decreasing to the west - it should be otherwise if L1025 arrived from west, because "purposely" decrease of L1025 and simultaneous increase of more ancient R1a-M558 does not explain timing - unless serious people believe in time travel. I do not believe that time travel is possible but I have found some aspects of it entertaining, but not serious.
2. It does not explain how L550 and L1025 appeared in west in relation to VL29. It does not explain why VL29 is so different from other clades.
3. It does not explain how other clades of N1a appeared where they are now. It does not explain why other clades were not mingling with VL29.

I could go on and on. Most of variations of OTHER L550 branches appeared in Sweden - majority if not almost all of these modern people that are carriers of L550 are speaking Swedish and because their history is linked with history of vikings, for the most of their history they were NOT Uralic speaking people and if any of them are speaking Finnic languages now, then that is secondary side effect of those viking settling among Uralic people and assimilating into them.

So at this point we have L550, that is not Uralic and majority of them - L1025 is associated of Latvians and Lithuanians.

1. Good point. One argument comes from anthropology. Current highest rates of L1025 is in NE Lithuania (former Selonians), guys whom anthropologist Raisa Denisova said were East Baltic tribe that kept Burials with Stone Rings phenotype best. Rest were replaced with later Flat Graves classic EB type. Including in South Curonia.
2. Why? L550 migration with Tarand Graves explains why L550 and its son clade L1025 is more spread West than VL29, apparently other VL29 stayed behind
3. Different clans migrating with different patterns or times. It is normal.

Huck Finn
07-22-2021, 06:53 AM
I think it is BTW interesting that we have in YFull on Pre N-L550 level three N-VL29 > N-Y56680 (TMRCA 2900 years) samples: one from Turkey, one from Moskovskaya Oblast and one from Samaraskaya Oblast. Especially the one from Turkey is intriguing and could fex point to some Uralic - Oghur Turkic interaction. Even if there are just two samples based in Russia, gravitation point between Moscow and Samara could point to the Mordvinic speaking area. If I recall it right, some forum members even connected the Turkic looking genetic features of both Erzyans and Mokshans to their ancient, Hunnic looking horse harnesses.

arpatir
07-22-2021, 08:01 AM
@arpatir, how do you explain presence of L550 in Tarand graves (deep first millennium BCE) and simultaneous lack of L550 in Brushed Pottery site in Kivutalns (during whole first millennium BCE up to early centuries BCE only R1a there)?

Do you think L550 in Tarand burials were:
a) Norse speakers
b) Baltic speakers
c) West Uralic (group including Finnic, Meryanic, Mordvin) speakers
?


a) certainly not -they became Norse speakers when they settled in Sweden from where other L550 clades spread
b) probably yes - that would also explain barrow mound burials in Lithuania
Other clades of L550 are not really numerous - this can be explained that their ancestors wandered a lot among other people, before finding place where to multiply
c) there is not much ground to claim that
Besides, Finnic and VL29 represent sister clades, while Komi centric and other related Uralic speakers(Mari, Merya, Moksha, Erzya, Udmurts etc) are from completely different branch. Yes, VL29 can be found as far as Mari people, but VL29 spread at the same time perfectly overlaps IE speaking cultures, that were present in regions that are now associated with Uralic speakers. Fatyanovo-Balanovo culture, from which South Asian IE originated existed at the same spot(where there were no y-dna N found), where now are found Uralic people - probably arriving later and replacing IE speaking cultures - also reassimilating some IE speaking Uralic people, that got there 1000 years before Meryan people got there. That is a huge time span - thousands and thousands of years and plenty of things could have happened over that time span.



I think, we should distinguish migration of L550 and migration of Z1936(that ocured later and brought Uralic languages).

Modern Estonians are not in majority L550. L550 were probably not populous when they arrived in Finnish gulf. Quite possible, that L550 initially arrived mixed and together with some groups of R1a. I can't even understand why this is not seen as possibility. For some reason only very few(possibly family sized group of relatives) of them continued further and arrived in Sweden, where L550 experienced branching and spread in large numbers among Swedish speaking people and then those new clades started to spread with vikings back to the east now in Finnic speaking populated areas.

For the reasons why Estonians are speaking language that is even more similar to Finnish, than Latvian language is to Lithuanian, it could be explained by arrival of clades that quite simply were not L550.

Tarand graves might have been something, that was initiated by L550, but quite frankly I do not see how they differ from rest of the Baltic region burial customs. They contain remains of cremated people(Baltic and IE custom in this region) and some that were not cremated. I have read that they possibly(my memory is not reliable on this) also had urns, that contained cremated remains - just like Prussians. If Estonia(well, to be frank, Tarand graves are also found in Russia, Finland and Sweden and Latvia) was Baltic speaking country, Tarand graves might have been nothing out of ordinary compared to other Baltic burial customs.

arpatir
07-22-2021, 08:35 AM
I think it is BTW interesting that we have in YFull on Pre N-L550 level three N-VL29 > N-Y56680 (TMRCA 2900 years) samples: one from Turkey, one from Moskovskaya Oblast and one from Samaraskaya Oblast. Especially the one from Turkey is intriguing and could fex point to some Uralic - Oghur Turkic interaction. Even if there are just two samples based in Russia, gravitation point between Moscow and Samara could point to the Mordvinic speaking area. If I recall it right, some forum members even connected the Turkic looking genetic features of both Erzyans and Mokshans to their ancient, Hunnic looking horse harnesses.

Or it could be explained by raids of Turkic speaking people on Southern Russian borders that they did for centuries and they took into slavery at least a million people there and selling those inhabitants of Southern Russia in Turkish market as slaves. There is some modern perception, that slavery ends procreation of males, but even in modern days where slavery (unofficially) exists in Muslim world, their masters were arranging wives for their slaves and also lets not forget that slaves in Muslim world could become proper members of Muslim society by simply accepting Islam and some of the status in Islamic society is depending on marriage ties, that is more important than we can think of.

Turkic people are riddled with myths more than Uralic or Slavic people are. They are very heavily mixed people of different origins and the only thing that unites them is language. The only truly Turkic people are Kazakh people - not to mention, that according to Mongols Turks were considered as their tribe and Turkic indeed is linguistically closer to Mongolic languages.

Most of the Turks in modern Turkey have ancestors that either were speaking Greek, Armenian, Kartveli or Aramaic. Same thing that happened with Slavic population in Hungary. Nothing much to see there.
Same thing happened to Chuvash people, who were speaking Uralic language similar to Mari and this is more similar to previous name of Mari, where they for most part of their existence they were known to others under different name than today - Cheremis(or Çirmeş in Tatar).

Even more presence of VL29 in modern Turkey could also be because of Variangian guards in Imperium Romanum(or as we are calling them wrongly today - Byzantine Empire) - they had Variangians, Rus(Scandinavian vikings) and Koulpingoi(Finnic speakers), who also were used as mercenaries elsewhere - probably by Hungarians and also Arabs, because they were also known to Arabs as al-Kilabiyya. Despite what CK2 as game has painted image of army building, that applies only to age of nations, while in ancient times armies of most rulers were made by mercenaries, because proper army generals will always seek a way to depose ruler and take his place. Many of those mercenaries settled eventually in other lands - in some military role. Nothing is more permanent than things that are thought to be done only temporarily...

arpatir
07-22-2021, 09:33 AM
Most of what I said was not speculation. The regulars of this thread are very knowledgeable and already know the aDNA/archeological research I was basing my conclusions on. In your case, a good starting place might be the previous 70 pages of this thread, you can then see how our understanding of N1c in the Baltic has evolved.

For example, N-L550 was indeed found in early-Tarand graves. I can assure you these Iron Age Tarands have nothing to do with the Mesolithic Kunda culture.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2019.04.026

Two more things:

1) The frequency of subclades in modern populations, mean next to nothing for ancient groups. Even in the same geographic area. ~2500ybp Estonia was indisputably home to a large portion of N-L550 males. On the other hand, Iron Age Kivutkalns samples (Latvia) yielded no N-L550 or N-L1025.

2) DNA extraction has come a long way in a few short years. Many of the earliest aDNA results are dubious due to the possibility of contamination. You don't have to take my word for it, but the current consensus is that the N1c from Smolensk was contaminated (not actually N1c).

Well, mentioning Kunda is not my strongest point, but I feel that I have detoured in pleasing deniers of Baltic cultural presence in Estonia before it was replaced by Uralic and it would be easier to just accept, that Estonia and southern Finland was indeed populated by Baltic tribes prior arrival of Uralic speakers.

1) It would not make much sense to have L1025 in Kivutkalns, because Latgalians and Lithuanian tribes at that time were not even close to borders of modern Latvia or Lithuania and I am under impression that they have main role of spreading L1025 and ion both Latvia and Lithuania L1025 % is stronger to the direction from where Latvians and Lithuanians arrived. So,it is baffling, when it is suggested that L1025 arrived from west, north, south, but not from east.

2) How early are we talking about? The one that I can see from ancient samples y-dna map, is from 2014 and is simply labeled as N. Well, if it is not belonging to y-dna N, it makes things easier, as it is really hard to explain that anomaly, as that is basically core land of Baltic culture.


I think at this point it would be healthy to compile list of y-dna N or Uralic people, that belonged to nonUralic cultures or belonged to cultures that did not spoke Uralic languages and place them on some sort of map, according to timelines. I have read some of Russian sources(quite old, tbh) and they placed one culturally and genetically Uralic, but Baltic speaking group quite north from what is considered Baltic area quite near to Finnish bay. Then I have read some Russian chronicles mention Chudes and some people, that were not Slavic, and also not Rus(vikings) and the only choice is Baltic speakers in the same area. All of these are from ~1000AD. I think it would be healthy to take some step back and consider possibility, that area around Finnish bay basically at no time in past was ever only Finnic speaking area and just like today it was quite mixed and had people speaking different languages - even in those cases where they were genetically related. I feel that currently there is a view, that Finnic there was majority language for the past 3000 years(maybe even more) and I can't see that as healthy in explaining other artifacts, that does not fit into this ideological narrative.

Standardized Ape
07-22-2021, 10:13 AM
I really don't see how VL29 can be Indo-European. It's significant constituents as far as the limited sampling on YFull is concerned in addition to L550/pre-L550 are the Vologdan/Meryan CTS3451 and the Estonic L1022. There's nothing Indo-European there. It just seems like an attempt at coping to speculate the existence of Indo-European people with Siberian admixture who switched back and forth between linguistic families conveniently enough to make VL29 Indo-European for a small moment.
Despite that reality for VL29 as a whole, L550 could have been a non-linguistic phenomenon linked with profession instead although probably still a Uralic speaking one in the beginning. That's what I'm leaning towards for now. That would explain why it sought areas with higher population densities but did not practice pioneering in unsettled domain.
If so, that would probably be the end of the southern path of Lang as far as genetic support can be conceived. You can always go the Jaska route and claim the Uralics involved were R1a and 100% Baltic but that will probably not gain much traction.
The Pskovian route for Baltic Finnic might be more viable than previously thought by some. The argument against which being the lack of Finno-Ugric toponyms of any sort directly east of Latvia until around lake Ilmen and Meryan toponyms east of Ilmen. That kind of evidence isn't necessarily final proof if the path in question was narrow and straddling Balts and Proto-Merya.
Back to L550. It would be interesting to see exactly how much effect did these eastern migrants with L550 had on for example Uppsala in the first millenium BC. Viking Age Uppsalans were obviously quite east-shifted, but we can not yet claim that it's due to LBA migrations rather than more recent contacts with Finland and the Baltics.
These samples are a brother and a sister so they may not be representative but they are quite close to many of the Vikings in Saaremaa, who generally are slightly more typically Scandinavian.

Target: VK2020_SWE_Uppsala_VA:VK527
Distance: 2.0335% / 0.02033537 | R3P
62.6 Norwegian
24.8 Lithuanian_SZ
12.6 Finnish_East

Target: VK2020_SWE_Uppsala_VA:VK517
Distance: 2.0441% / 0.02044119 | R3P
54.6 Norwegian
30.8 Estonian
14.6 Cossack_Kuban

Just for fun, I removed 60% Norwegian from them.

Distance to: VK517 -60% Norwegian
0.03465628 Baltic_EST_IA:s19_V10_2
0.04427867 Baltic_EST_MA:s19_IIa_1
0.04480369 Baltic_EST_IA:s19_VII4_1
0.04951813 Baltic_EST_MA:s19_IVLS09KT_1
0.04965143 Corded_Ware_POL:N49
0.05303512 VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK475
0.05375593 Baltic_EST_IA:s19_V12_1
0.05394899 SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna:vik_KAL006
0.05402847 Corded_Ware_Baltic:Spiginas2
0.05577471 POL_EBA:I6579
0.05582517 VK2020_SWE_Skara_VA:VK395
0.05605350 Baltic_EST_IA:s19_V11_1
0.05665022 Corded_Ware_POL:N47
0.05737254 SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna:vik_stg020
0.05834512 VK2020_SWE_Uppsala_VA:VK517
0.05883042 SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna:vik_urm035
0.05934829 VK2020_RUS_Pskov_VA:VK159
0.05936976 VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK60
0.05996241 VK2020_SWE_Oland_VA:VK342
0.06016187 DEU_Krakauer_Berg_MA:KRA003
0.06022961 DEU_Krakauer_Berg_MA:KRA001
0.06087146 Baltic_EST_IA:s19_0LS10_1
0.06130910 VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK458
0.06133421 VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK471
0.06157797 VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK452

Distance to: VK527 - 60% Norwegian
0.05041446 VK2020_SWE_Skara_VA:VK395
0.05099556 SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna:vik_KAL006
0.05188655 Baltic_EST_IA:s19_X04_1
0.05257999 VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK452
0.05282128 Baltic_EST_IA:s19_V10_2
0.05383670 Baltic_EST_IA:s19_VII4_1
0.05402674 VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK475
0.05612737 Baltic_EST_MA:s19_IIa_1
0.05643923 VK2020_SWE_Uppsala_VA:VK527
0.05707104 Baltic_EST_IA:s19_V12_1
0.05739140 VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK461
0.05781441 Baltic_EST_IA:s19_V11_1
0.05809355 Corded_Ware_POL:N47
0.05857621 VK2020_RUS_Ladoga_VA:VK18
0.05912173 Baltic_EST_MA:s19_IVLS09KT_1
0.05995567 VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK51
0.06085411 RUS_Ingria_IA:VIII9_1
0.06146727 Baltic_EST_BA:s19_X10_1
0.06239276 DEU_Krakauer_Berg_MA:KRA001
0.06305672 POL_EBA:I6579
0.06329359 VK2020_RUS_Ladoga_VA:VK17
0.06343951 VK2020_POL_Bodzia_VA:VK154
0.06369491 Corded_Ware_POL:N49
0.06377173 SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna:vik_urm160
0.06396600 Corded_Ware_Baltic:Spiginas2

parastais
07-22-2021, 11:06 AM
There is no linguistic evidence for Balts in Estonia.
The famous area of Baltic hydronyms picture is wide in many directions but in the North it does not exceed Daugava (for frequent and archaic) and does not exceed Estonian and Latvian border (for less frequent or less archaic).
There is also no scientific (linguistic) literature on Baltic toponyms in Estonia.
There is also no scientific (archeological) literature on Baltic affiliation of Tarand Graves. It is a current consensus of scientific community that Tarand Graves were Uralic speakers, with near consensus is they were Proto-Baltic Finns.
There is also no scientific (genetic) literature on Baltic affinity of L550 (see Tambets et al Arrival of Syberian...)

So, you are kinda alone vs Academics on Baltic L550.

It is an interesting alternative history point to entertain though.

arpatir
07-22-2021, 12:31 PM
There is no linguistic evidence for Balts in Estonia.
The famous area of Baltic hydronyms picture is wide in many directions but in the North it does not exceed Daugava (for frequent and archaic) and does not exceed Estonian and Latvian border (for less frequent or less archaic).
There is also no scientific (linguistic) literature on Baltic toponyms in Estonia.
There is also no scientific (archeological) literature on Baltic affiliation of Tarand Graves. It is a current consensus of scientific community that Tarand Graves were Uralic speakers, with near consensus is they were Proto-Baltic Finns.
There is also no scientific (genetic) literature on Baltic affinity of L550 (see Tambets et al Arrival of Syberian...)

So, you are kinda alone vs Academics on Baltic L550.

It is an interesting alternative history point to entertain though.


Let me rephrase - there is no evidence of any Balts in territory of Estonia, that are related to known Baltic tribes that existed in 13th century. What was 4000 years ago in Estonia is shrouded in mist and linguistical evidence won't be found and demanding that is not really serious.

I am very sure that there are scientific sources of Baltic hydronymy in northern Russia close to Estonia in Russian. And if my memory is right, then even Marija Gimbutas had book with picture of Baltic(could be IE, that did not include Germanic) hydronymy, that stretched from Berlin to Urals and from Southern Finland(including Estonia).
Besides, Semigallian settlement predating(very much like thousand or two thousands as IE settlement) arrival of Livonians near Sigulda debunks that theory, that there was no ancient presence of Baltic speakers past the Daugava. I have always been baffled by that myth - it proves absolutely nothing about spread of Baltic speakers - it proves only that most recent Uralic speakers stopped short of Daugava river and gave their very simple and practical names, that means very simply exactly the names that they were giving: river, something in east, west etc. I can assure you, that people outside of Latvia has no idea, what myths are wandering there and what nonsense we are talking about.

It is hard to believe, that something that does not exist is serious argument, that Estonia at some point had non Uralic hydronymy(even Latvia has hydronymy, that is neither Baltic or Uralic). It is a different matter of question, why such hydronymy did not survive till modern day. However, I did not raise this question about hydronymy, because it is not a really strong argument, however ancient R1a presence is and so far R1a existed everywhere, where European Uralic speakers are living nowadays, so what exactly is infuriating about idea, that before Uralic speakers there existed people that spoke language, that was close to still archaic IE Baltic(with some elements that did not came from IE and Uralic languages)? What is there to prove, actually -that ancient IE people of R1a did not spoke Baltic, but spoke Uralic? Even when N1a was not present in Europe?

Well, consensus of scientists is not criteria for truth. With such attitude, we would still be living in the world where Earth is circling Sun, because that was consensus and the only one that opposed that idea was burned at stake. Nowadays few things have changed, of course...

There can be only one source for Proto-Baltic Finnic language. Claiming that L550 also were Proto-Baltic Finns is not really smart and good luck in explaining why there is such consensus...

Like I mentioned before, absence of literature, that has not touched this subject is not a reason not to raise this question. Someone will write about this possibility or will deny it with prejudice as something that can not exist, then maybe it can be concluded as such, but I see no reason not to speculate on this possibility(because current explanation has so many holes, that it can be called cheese), that people of Tarand Graves culture initially did not speak Finnic languages, but they started to speak them as soon as Z1936 arrived with Proto-Baltic Finnic languages and spread from Baltic till Kola peninsula and affected Karelians(very close group to Finnish speakers). I mean, if L550 was Proto-Baltic Finnic, why we are talkinmg about very limited area around Finnish Bay, but not much much eastern regions, where eastern Baltic Finnic speakers lived? Is this some kind of Finnish centered chauvinism in regards to rest of Finnic speakers?

Well, this is very weird viewpoint - I am sure, that Academics that will have different views from others will always be alone vs consensus of rest but they will also be the only ones that will leave something for future, but those who are not alone will be forgotten as a collective.


PS I almost forgot - despite your claim, there is akkkktually no consensus in regards what language was used by people that brought Siberian admixture in Estonia. It is known, that it was from Uralic people, but about language there is nothing defining - and I would think, that it is the same about L550. Do not fool yourself about something that nobody made scientific claims about this. This is still an open frontier and it should be approached with open mind.

Huck Finn
07-22-2021, 01:19 PM
I mean, if L550 was Proto-Baltic Finnic, why we are talkinmg about very limited area around Finnish Bay, but not much much eastern regions, where eastern Baltic Finnic speakers lived? Is this some kind of Finnish centered chauvinism in regards to rest of Finnic speakers?

Even Karelian Isthmus was apparently speaking Non Finnic, but still West Uralic language before switching into (Proto East) Finnic, maybe as late as in the first millenium CE. Based on vocabulary this language seems to have been closely related to Meryanic, possibly with some Finnic type of vibes. It is difficult to say whether N-Z1936 was involved in the original founding (Proto East) Finnic population, but if I would have to guess, I'd now say that it was not.

JoeyP37
07-22-2021, 01:42 PM
From what I can see, it seems like there were two waves of N1c towards the east Baltic. The first one was VL29, the second Z1934. Both spoke Uralic languages, although VL29's was later replaced with the proto-Finnic Z1934 groups. If I had to guess it would be some kind of para-proto-Sami, that being the language first to split from the Finnic core. VL29 was more mobile and spread into Sweden, while Z1934 stayed along the coast/only traversed the Gulf of Finland.

arpatir
07-22-2021, 01:56 PM
I really don't see how VL29 can be Indo-European. It's significant constituents as far as the limited sampling on YFull is concerned in addition to L550/pre-L550 are the Vologdan/Meryan CTS3451 and the Estonic L1022. There's nothing Indo-European there. It just seems like an attempt at coping to speculate the existence of Indo-European people with Siberian admixture who switched back and forth between linguistic families conveniently enough to make VL29 Indo-European for a small moment.
Despite that reality for VL29 as a whole, L550 could have been a non-linguistic phenomenon linked with profession instead although probably still a Uralic speaking one in the beginning. That's what I'm leaning towards for now. That would explain why it sought areas with higher population densities but did not practice pioneering in unsettled domain.
If so, that would probably be the end of the southern path of Lang as far as genetic support can be conceived. You can always go the Jaska route and claim the Uralics involved were R1a and 100% Baltic but that will probably not gain much traction.
The Pskovian route for Baltic Finnic might be more viable than previously thought by some. The argument against which being the lack of Finno-Ugric toponyms of any sort directly east of Latvia until around lake Ilmen and Meryan toponyms east of Ilmen. That kind of evidence isn't necessarily final proof if the path in question was narrow and straddling Balts and Proto-Merya.
Back to L550. It would be interesting to see exactly how much effect did these eastern migrants with L550 had on for example Uppsala in the first millenium BC. Viking Age Uppsalans were obviously quite east-shifted, but we can not yet claim that it's due to LBA migrations rather than more recent contacts with Finland and the Baltics.
These samples are a brother and a sister so they may not be representative but they are quite close to many of the Vikings in Saaremaa, who generally are slightly more typically Scandinavian.

Target: VK2020_SWE_Uppsala_VA:VK527
Distance: 2.0335% / 0.02033537 | R3P
62.6 Norwegian
24.8 Lithuanian_SZ
12.6 Finnish_East

Target: VK2020_SWE_Uppsala_VA:VK517
Distance: 2.0441% / 0.02044119 | R3P
54.6 Norwegian
30.8 Estonian
14.6 Cossack_Kuban

Just for fun, I removed 60% Norwegian from them.

Distance to: VK517 -60% Norwegian
0.03465628 Baltic_EST_IA:s19_V10_2
0.04427867 Baltic_EST_MA:s19_IIa_1
0.04480369 Baltic_EST_IA:s19_VII4_1
0.04951813 Baltic_EST_MA:s19_IVLS09KT_1
0.04965143 Corded_Ware_POL:N49
0.05303512 VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK475
0.05375593 Baltic_EST_IA:s19_V12_1
0.05394899 SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna:vik_KAL006
0.05402847 Corded_Ware_Baltic:Spiginas2
0.05577471 POL_EBA:I6579
0.05582517 VK2020_SWE_Skara_VA:VK395
0.05605350 Baltic_EST_IA:s19_V11_1
0.05665022 Corded_Ware_POL:N47
0.05737254 SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna:vik_stg020
0.05834512 VK2020_SWE_Uppsala_VA:VK517
0.05883042 SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna:vik_urm035
0.05934829 VK2020_RUS_Pskov_VA:VK159
0.05936976 VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK60
0.05996241 VK2020_SWE_Oland_VA:VK342
0.06016187 DEU_Krakauer_Berg_MA:KRA003
0.06022961 DEU_Krakauer_Berg_MA:KRA001
0.06087146 Baltic_EST_IA:s19_0LS10_1
0.06130910 VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK458
0.06133421 VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK471
0.06157797 VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK452

Distance to: VK527 - 60% Norwegian
0.05041446 VK2020_SWE_Skara_VA:VK395
0.05099556 SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna:vik_KAL006
0.05188655 Baltic_EST_IA:s19_X04_1
0.05257999 VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK452
0.05282128 Baltic_EST_IA:s19_V10_2
0.05383670 Baltic_EST_IA:s19_VII4_1
0.05402674 VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK475
0.05612737 Baltic_EST_MA:s19_IIa_1
0.05643923 VK2020_SWE_Uppsala_VA:VK527
0.05707104 Baltic_EST_IA:s19_V12_1
0.05739140 VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK461
0.05781441 Baltic_EST_IA:s19_V11_1
0.05809355 Corded_Ware_POL:N47
0.05857621 VK2020_RUS_Ladoga_VA:VK18
0.05912173 Baltic_EST_MA:s19_IVLS09KT_1
0.05995567 VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK51
0.06085411 RUS_Ingria_IA:VIII9_1
0.06146727 Baltic_EST_BA:s19_X10_1
0.06239276 DEU_Krakauer_Berg_MA:KRA001
0.06305672 POL_EBA:I6579
0.06329359 VK2020_RUS_Ladoga_VA:VK17
0.06343951 VK2020_POL_Bodzia_VA:VK154
0.06369491 Corded_Ware_POL:N49
0.06377173 SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna:vik_urm160
0.06396600 Corded_Ware_Baltic:Spiginas2
I absolutely do not understand how that data is related to linguistic problem and why they are important to languages, that various y-dna N people are speaking?
My only interest in this topic so far was about linguistics - and that looks like something that people find very hard to adjust and have no absolutely idea how it actually looks in reality. Not all of N-tat people are speaking Uralics - is it too hard to understand that? And that has been for a long long time. There are of course some R1a people who speak Uralic, but let's not concentrate on them.

In terms of numbers out of 30- 32 million people with y-dna N that are living in North Asia(includes Europe - excludes China) 2/3 of y-dna N(including N-tat and Samoyeds and N2) people are Slavic speakers - majority of all total N y-dna 50% are Russians, so it is ~ 20 millon Russian speakers and 2-3 million other Slavic speakers(I had to edit this otherwise it would be that 50% Slavic speakers of y-dna N were Russians, but that is significantly larger number). 1/3 are Baltic speakers and only 1/6 of others are speaking Uralic languages - rest of other 1/6 are others - Scandinavians, Turkic, Mongolian, Chukchi, Korjaks, etc.
Yeah, Uralics where minority are speaking Uralic and for centuries... I did some calculations and wasted a lot of time.




Let's make an equation out of this:

"notes of mentioned ethnic groups are mostly where they are defining of y-dna N present in populations - it does not mean, that it is majority in whole population, but only that it is in majority among other y-dna N"


VL29(N1a1a1a1a1)
L1022(N1a1a1a1a1a2) Finnish/Swedish speakers - they seem to follow the same spread as L1026(where L1026 is dominating L1022 2-3 times with one exception in Norway)
L550(N1a1a1a1a1a1a) If L550 were Proto Baltic Finnic, they would follow the same route, but they don't - they cross paths with Proto Baltic Finnic and that is not definition, that L550 also were Finnic speakers. There is only one source of Finnic languages and this is not it. So, my argument is that anyone has to choose - if they claim, that L550 is source for Proto baltic Finnic, that is fine to me - then L1026 is not and we have to make up another branch for Uralic languages. Gooood luck in that!
L1025(N1a1a1a1a1a1a1) - Latvians-Lithuanians(Slavic L1025 source comes from Lithuanians, Estonian L1025 comes from Latvians)
various L550 clades, that originated in Sweden - mostly speaks in Swedish


L1026
Z1936(N1a1a1a1a2) Majority in Finnish, naturally in Estonians as well, Vepsa, Karelians and present in NW Russians

B197(N1a1a1a1a3) present as defining N in various Tatar related ethnic groups and Mongolic speakers, not only defining of N, but also majority in Chukchi, Koryaks, Siberian Yupiks.



(N1a2)
Komis, Udmurts, Chuvash, Mari, Mordva, etc - there is nothing that defines them as VL29, as VL29 presence among y-dna N in them is not significant enough.




So, anyone is ready to draw and explain Proto-Baltic Finnic tree, where L550 are bringing Uralic language in Estonia? And if they are not, what language did they speak? Some nonexisting Finnic language that, just like Baltic speakers have left no traces in hydronymy in Estonia? :))

Huck Finn
07-22-2021, 02:28 PM
If I had to guess it would be some kind of para-proto-Sami, that being the language first to split from the Finnic core.

The first to split from the Finnic core was Gulf of Riga Finnic > Livonian. Saamic and Meryanic, on the other hand, seem to share common features which might point to a different, Non Finnic continuum. All of these however descend from West Uralic, which was spoken somewhere in Volga area.

Standardized Ape
07-22-2021, 02:33 PM
So, anyone is ready to draw and explain Proto-Baltic Finnic tree, where L550 are bringing Uralic language in Estonia? And if they are not, what language did they speak? Some nonexisting Finnic language that, just like Baltic speakers have left no traces in hydronymy in Estonia? :))

You've crafted your argument around something that isn't necessary. L550 does not have to be the "true" Baltic Finnic lineage as L1022 can fill that role just fine. L550 does however need to have crossed paths with Baltic Finns in Estonia as it's presence is attested there in ancient DNA. How it got there is an open question but the available options seem to be either from the east like L1022 probably did or through navigating the river systems of Russia and the Baltics and entering Estonia through Daugava. If we are to speculate about the origin of L550 and decide between an obscure and extinct Uralic language or an obscure and extinct Indo-European language we can make the safe call in favor of the former considering how despite your efforts to prove the contrary VL29 looks very Uralic, not Indo-European.

arpatir
07-22-2021, 02:40 PM
The first to split from the Finnic core was Gulf of Riga Finnic > Livonian. Saamic and Meryanic, on the other hand, seem to share common features which might point to a different, Non Finnic continuum. All of these however descend from West Uralic, which was spoken somewhere in Volga area.

If I remember, then Proto-Saami(Uralic) language in the linguistic tree is younger than Proto-Finnic. Well, actually they are both very young and if Proto-Finnic age is calculated as 1200 years ago, then it doesn't seem, that L550 were able to be Uralic speakers at all, as they arrived in Estonia at least 2800 years ago and difference in 1600 years is too big even if there was a room for acceptable error in computations.

parastais
07-22-2021, 02:44 PM
If I remember, then Proto-Saami(Uralic) language in the linguistic tree is younger than Proto-Finnic. Well, actually they are both very young and if Proto-Finnic age is calculated as 1200 years ago, then it doesn't seem, that L550 were able to be Uralic speakers at all, as they arrived in Estonia at least 2800 years ago and difference in 1600 years is too big even if there was a room for acceptable error in computations.
What did Finns speak before Finnic? :)

arpatir
07-22-2021, 02:53 PM
You've crafted your argument around something that isn't necessary. L550 does not have to be the "true" Baltic Finnic lineage as L1022 can fill that role just fine. L550 does however need to have crossed paths with Baltic Finns in Estonia as it's presence is attested there in ancient DNA. How it got there is an open question but the available options seem to be either from the east like L1022 probably did or through navigating the river systems of Russia and the Baltics and entering Estonia through Daugava. If we are to speculate about the origin of L550 and decide between an obscure and extinct Uralic language or an obscure and extinct Indo-European language we can make the safe call in favor of the former considering how despite your efforts to prove the contrary VL29 looks very Uralic, not Indo-European.

It might be not necessary for you, because you have no answers. I have the same feeling, but unlike you or others I feel no interest in discussing things that we know about. Where is even thrill in that?

Well, I do not claim, that initially ancestors of VL29 were not Uralic(it is clear that at some point they migrated from China, where they possibly were even responsible for symbols of Chinese culture, like jade dragons, ceramic, etc. before modern Chinese advanced, so y-dna N ancestors were not Uralics of course) but I am arguing, that some of the clades of VL29 were created because they diverged from the old ways of Uralic people and mingled with nonUralic people in the process assimilating into them. In my previous reply to you there were plenty of examples where y-dna N people are not Uralic speakers in Far East of Russia. Why you do not contest existence of them, but have an urge to contest that some of y-dna N people are speaking Baltic languages - who lived in core lands of Baltic culture - in relatively close proximity of Uralic speaking people and possibly even thousands of years - not just couple of thousands but maybe even 4000?

arpatir
07-22-2021, 03:07 PM
What did Finns speak before Finnic? :)

They are not my numbers, so you can ask someone else. Finns themselves are very young - their ethnicity developed during occupation of Finland by Swedes by consolidating various Finnic speaking tribes into Finnish, who lived on a shore region of modern Finland, while most of Finland was populated by Saami people(who probably did not even spoke fully Uralic languages at that point) - and even today they can't pass as Finns. So, there probably did not exist ethnicity Finns before ~1000AD and the earliest mentions of Finnish is a SW Finland, so do your math.

If you are asking what language was speaking R1a ancestors of modern Finnish people - quite possibly something that was similar to Baltic, as there are a lots of Baltic related hydronymy in Finland - sometimes they are mostly labeled as unknown source, that predates Uralic. To be fair, I think, that we can thank Swedish occupation of Finland, that those ancient names of places persisted and were not fully replaced by Uralic hydronymy, like it happened in Estonia.

parastais
07-22-2021, 03:16 PM
“ as there are a lots of Baltic related hydronymy in Finland”
Could you forward me to scientific article on that matter?

arpatir
07-22-2021, 03:29 PM
“ as there are a lots of Baltic related hydronymy in Finland”
Could you forward me to scientific article on that matter?

No, but you can search for non Uralic hydronymy in Finland yourself. I assure you, there are plenty of sources on that topic - mostly the debate is about Germanic influences in Finnish(well that Swedish occupation is still trauma to Finnish people). There is not as much of R1a in Finnish, but still it is more archaic even to modern Baltic R1a, so they were there before Finnish people and they have left some linguistical evidence - the most popular is Saimaa lake of course, but there are plenty on Aland islands as well. So, if you are that interested, take a dive with Baltic linguistical perspective as for some reason it is excluded and prefered some other theories - including influence of UFO, apparently.

Standardized Ape
07-22-2021, 03:30 PM
It might be not necessary for you, because you have no answers. I have the same feeling, but unlike you or others I feel no interest in discussing things that we know about. Where is even thrill in that?

Well, I do not claim, that initially ancestors of VL29 were not Uralic(it is clear that at some point they migrated from China, where they possibly were even responsible for symbols of Chinese culture, like jade dragons, ceramic, etc. before modern Chinese advanced, so y-dna N ancestors were not Uralics of course) but I am arguing, that some of the clades of VL29 were created because they diverged from the old ways of Uralic people and mingled with nonUralic people in the process assimilating into them. In my previous reply to you there were plenty of examples where y-dna N people are not Uralic speakers in Far East of Russia. Why you do not contest existence of them, but have an urge to contest that some of y-dna N people are speaking Baltic languages - who lived in core lands of Baltic culture - in relatively close proximity of Uralic speaking people and possibly even thousands of years - not just couple of thousands but maybe even 4000?

N-L708 in Siberia predates the beginning of advanced cultures in China(see brn008). Those non-Uralic haplogroups linked to VL29 predate the dispersal of Uralic languages by half a millenia or more. This language shift nonsense for VL29 is just a personal fantasy for and that's that. If the source area of pre-L550 was Belarus you might have a point, but it's apparently far more eastern, hard to say where exactly without ancient DNA but likely between Moscow, Nizhny Novgorod and Saransk. Maybe even closer to Kazan. That is not a convincing triangle. Maybe if you really wanted to you could fantasize about them switching to Indo-Iranian but I doubt that ever happened either as there was apparently just about no gene flow from Uralics to Indo-Iranians.

parastais
07-22-2021, 03:56 PM
No, but you can search for non Uralic hydronymy in Finland yourself. I assure you, there are plenty of sources on that topic - mostly the debate is about Germanic influences in Finnish(well that Swedish occupation is still trauma to Finnish people). There is not as much of R1a in Finnish, but still it is more archaic even to modern Baltic R1a, so they were there before Finnish people and they have left some linguistical evidence - the most popular is Saimaa lake of course, but there are plenty on Aland islands as well. So, if you are that interested, take a dive with Baltic linguistical perspective as for some reason it is excluded and prefered some other theories - including influence of UFO, apparently.

So, you can’t.

arpatir
07-22-2021, 04:20 PM
N-L708 in Siberia predates the beginning of advanced cultures in China(see brn008). Those non-Uralic haplogroups linked to VL29 predate the dispersal of Uralic languages by half a millenia or more. This language shift nonsense for VL29 is just a personal fantasy for and that's that. If the source area of pre-L550 was Belarus you might have a point, but it's apparently far more eastern, hard to say where exactly without ancient DNA but likely between Moscow, Nizhny Novgorod and Saransk. Maybe even closer to Kazan. That is not a convincing triangle. Maybe if you really wanted to you could fantasize about them switching to Indo-Iranian but I doubt that ever happened either as there was apparently just about no gene flow from Uralics to Indo-Iranians.

What was spread of N-708(I suppose that for a full picture that should include extinct clades as well) outside of Siberia? Under modern terms Siberia is part of Russia, existence of N1a in Nanai people is basically territory of NW China(because they lived on both sides of Amur river. So, if the definition of Siberia for N-708 includes NW of China, I see no reason why it is important to note it. What is the point in mentioning it?

Also, why such chauvinistic attitude excluding Samoyedic (P43) Uralic people, who are clearly not N-L708 and closest common ancestor to N-tat is located in China? Their existence raises questions to the claims, that Uralic languages(which includes Samoyedic) did not form in China.


Ok, let's look on the map of spread of spread of Fatyanovo-Balanovo culture, that correspondents to the spread of VL29(before it advanced into Baltics):
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/Fatyanovo-Balanovo_culture.jpg

So, Fatyanovo-Balanovo is slightly older than VL29, as Fatyanovo-Balanovo existed 4900-4000YBP(and vaned over some time before disappearing completely, because R1a-Z93 can be still found nearby), but it is ok, because most of the people that populated that area were Baltic culturally, but differed from modern Baltic R1a(with exception of eastern parts, where Baltic R1a was taking over):
It includes Smolensk, it definitely includes Moscow, it also includes Nizhny Novgorod, it also includes Saransk. And all that region had no y-dna N1 and also not south of it - maybe some remnants of N2 wandering in steppes of Central Asia, but it already had Baltic R1a, that was more populous in western side of that culture. I am mentioning Baltic people, because Baltic people at that point had no N1a as well. So, we are speaking about something what happened no later than 4000 years before present, during which Uralic people had opportunity to spread in and mingle with Baltic people and some of them lost their Uralic ways by becoming Baltic speaking people. And this is why VL29 is perfect candidate from all the different y-dna N clades, that existed in the Fatyanovo-Balanovo cultural area. No other clades fit this area, as VL29 does. So, unless you have other explanations to why VL29 are mainly speakers of Baltic languages, please don't be rude and provide your point to the problem. Or just ignore it as it clearly does not concern you, and you have no interest and not to mention - even knowledge in this matter.

arpatir
07-22-2021, 04:27 PM
So, you can’t.

I could, but I am not going to spend time searching for you materials in regards hydronymy. Don't be lazy and do your own searching and reading.

Standardized Ape
07-22-2021, 04:40 PM
What was spread of N-708(I suppose that for a full picture that should include extinct clades as well) outside of Siberia? Under modern terms Siberia is part of Russia, existence of N1a in Nanai people is basically territory of NW China(because they lived on both sides of Amur river. So, if the definition of Siberia for N-708 includes NW of China, I see no reason why it is important to note it. What is the point in mentioning it?

Well, you brought up China not me.



Also, why such chauvinistic attitude excluding Samoyedic (P43) Uralic people, who are clearly not N-L708 and closest common ancestor to N-tat is located in China? Their existence raises questions to the claims, that Uralic languages(which includes Samoyedic) did not form in China.


This is a very odd argument to make. L708 and and P43 are far older than the Uralic language family and their common ancestor in China or wherever is irrelevant. I don't see it relevant for the topic at hand what role P43 played in the dispersal of Uralic languages.



Ok, let's look on the map of spread of spread of Fatyanovo-Balanovo culture, that correspondents to the spread of VL29(before it advanced into Baltics):
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/Fatyanovo-Balanovo_culture.jpg

So, Fatyanovo-Balanovo is slightly older than VL29, as Fatyanovo-Balanovo existed 4900-4000YBP(and vaned over some time before disappearing completely, because R1a-Z93 can be still found nearby), but it is ok, because most of the people that populated that area were Baltic culturally, but differed from modern Baltic R1a(with exception of eastern parts, where Baltic R1a was taking over):
It includes Smolensk, it definitely includes Moscow, it also includes Nizhny Novgorod, it also includes Saransk. And all that region had no y-dna N1 and also not south of it - maybe some remnants of N2 wandering in steppes of Central Asia, but it already had Baltic R1a, that was more populous in western side of that culture. I am mentioning Baltic people, because Baltic people at that point had no N1a as well. So, we are speaking about something what happened no later than 4000 years before present, during which Uralic people had opportunity to spread in and mingle with Baltic people and some of them lost their Uralic ways by becoming Baltic speaking people. And this is why VL29 is perfect candidate from all the different y-dna N clades, that existed in the Fatyanovo-Balanovo cultural area. No other clades fit this area, as VL29 does. So, unless you have other explanations to why VL29 are mainly speakers of Baltic languages, please don't be rude and provide your point to the problem. Or just ignore it as it clearly does not concern you, and you have no interest and not to mention - even knowledge in this matter.

Fatyanovo-Balanovo were R1a-Z93 and similar to Sintashta. They were more likely to be Indo-Iranian than anything linked with Balto-Slavic. I don't have all the answers for everything as the ancient DNA available is very limited. However, the number of carriers of downstream subclades under L1025 that speak Baltic and Slavic is not a significant statistic for VL29 as a whole just like the number of Z93 in India is not suggestive of Indo-Iranians originating there. Upstream subclades and especially those found in ancient DNA are the only thing that matters.

arpatir
07-22-2021, 05:16 PM
Well, you brought up China not me.



This is a very odd argument to make. L708 and and P43 are far older than the Uralic language family and their common ancestor in China or wherever is irrelevant. I don't see it relevant for the topic at hand what role P43 played in the dispersal of Uralic languages.



Fatyanovo-Balanovo were R1a-Z93 and similar to Sintashta. They were more likely to be Indo-Iranian than anything linked with Balto-Slavic. I don't have all the answers for everything as the ancient DNA available is very limited. However, the number of carriers of downstream subclades under L1025 that speak Baltic and Slavic is not a significant statistic for VL29 as a whole just like the number of Z93 in India is not suggestive of Indo-Iranians originating there. Upstream subclades and especially those found in ancient DNA are the only thing that matters.

Well, I think that it matters, that N1 created culture in China that currently is associated with Chinese people only and possibly spoke some language that was similar to Uralic and Samoyedic, before it was overtaken by y-dna O population from south. Besides, N1 seems to have populated all the regions in China, that are clasicaly considered origins of Chinese civilization. But yeah, I am forgetting, that there are people that shudder from the thougth that they share exactly the same N-tat, as Chukchi or Buryats, not to mention, that they are more related to slanted eyed Chinese(including y-dna O) - and not beautifully eyed Europen people of preferably Scandinavian origin. In other words - just pure racists.

L708 and P43 did not cross paths until modern ages. P43 only recently reached Arctic Ocean, as for the most of the part, they were living in Southern Siberia(where they are extinct as of couple of hundred years). IMO, it is relevant, that despite their distant common ancestry languages that they are speaking are still regarded as belonging to the same linguistical tree, even if there were doubts of that in the past.

Well, Sintashta really does not interest me in terms of modern Baltic(and Estonian) origins - Sintashta have R1a, that is not observed in Baltic people - in other words that is Iranic(that did not reach Iran, though). They might have N1a, but for the reasons of lacking Baltic R1a, it is just not that interesting. Besides Sintashta culture is located to the south from where Fatyanovo-Balanovo culture was located, so I feel that we are getting off the topic of how significant part of VL29 became Baltic speakers and that happened between 4000 years ago and no later than 3000 years ago, when ancestors of Latvians and Lithuanians can be started to be traced as something that already exist as a culture and somehow VL29 is about that age. So, if a region that VL29 populated, was Baltic speaking before, what are the chances, that significant part of VL29 did not start to speak in Baltic as well? Why it is so important that they are Uralic speakers, if most of N people are not even speaking Uralic. I mean out of ~ 120 million people(together with females) only 5 million are Uralic speakers. How it is important that another 5 million people are not Uralic speakers for thousands of years now? I just can't get around this. Is this another Finnish-centric racism issue, that comes from frail view on the world and is linked with self-identification, that is so important that it allows to dictate other people how they should identify? Just mindboggling...

I forgot to add that there is also presence of R1a-M558 among Uralic speaking population in Fatyanovo-Balanovo region(~20% in Maris). Completely forgot about that, because we are just wasting our time in useless battle to prove, that VL-29 were not Baltic speakers. How about R1a-M558, that are now Uralic speakers? So, they can switch to Uralic, but VL29 just can't switch to Baltic?

Standardized Ape
07-22-2021, 05:43 PM
Well, Sintashta really does not interest me in terms of modern Baltic(and Estonian) origins - Sintashta have R1a, that is not observed in Baltic people - in other words that is Iranic(that did not reach Iran, though). They might have N1a, but for the reasons of lacking Baltic R1a, it is just not that interesting. Besides Sintashta culture is located to the south from where Fatyanovo-Balanovo culture was located

Fatyanovo-Balanovo had Z93 just like Sintashta. There is nothing in particular about them which suggests a relationship to Balts. Balts likely originated much further southwest, maybe eastern Belarus. Someone else might know more about that. Balts(actually just distant relatives to Balts) seem to have migrated to Russia well after the TMRCA of VL29.



so I feel that we are getting off the topic of how significant part of VL29 became Baltic speakers and that happened between 4000 years ago and no later than 3000 years ago, when ancestors of Latvians and Lithuanians can be started to be traced as something that already exist as a culture and somehow VL29 is about that age.


The consensus seems to be that it happened between 2800 and 2500 years ago. Zelto thinks pre-L1025 jumped from Estonia to Sweden, and from Sweden to Lithuania based on modern(and ancient) diversity of L550. That may or may not be the case, but at least it has some quantity of evidence backing it.


So, if a region that VL29 populated, was Baltic speaking before, what are the chances, that significant part of VL29 did not start to speak in Baltic as well? Why it is so important that they are Uralic speakers, if most of N people are not even speaking Uralic. I mean out of ~ 120 million people(together with females) only 5 million are Uralic speakers. How it is important that another 5 million people are not Uralic speakers for thousands of years now? I just can't get around this. Is this another Finnish-centric racism issue, that comes from frail view on the world and is linked with self-identification, that is so important that it allows to dictate other people how they should identify? Just mindboggling...

You're trying to convince me that something like CTS3451 from Vologda(Finland too to some extent due to small-scale Meryan migrations) is Indo-European and Baltic and shifted to West Uralic. Sorry, but that is really mindboggling.

Huck Finn
07-22-2021, 06:12 PM
So, you can’t.

Of course he can't as there are no such articles.

arpatir
07-22-2021, 06:28 PM
Fatyanovo-Balanovo had Z93 just like Sintashta. There is nothing in particular about them which suggests a relationship to Balts. Balts likely originated much further southwest, maybe eastern Belarus. Someone else might know more about that. Balts(actually just distant relatives to Balts) seem to have migrated to Russia well after the TMRCA of VL29.



The consensus seems to be that it happened between 2800 and 2500 years ago. Zelto thinks pre-L1025 jumped from Estonia to Sweden, and from Sweden to Lithuania based on modern(and ancient) diversity of L550. That may or may not be the case, but at least it has some quantity of evidence backing it.



You're trying to convince me that something like CTS3451 from Vologda(Finland too to some extent due to small-scale Meryan migrations) is Indo-European and Baltic and shifted to West Uralic. Sorry, but that is really mindboggling.

Do not make claims, that are not in that paper about Fatyanovo-Balanovo culture. First it is nearly identical culturally to neighboring Baltic cultures to the west - and that is known from archeological evidence(not in paper, but I would assume, that anyone should know about that if they are not hearing about Fatyanovo-Balanovo for the first time). Secondly, Western part of Fatyanovo-Balanovo culture was not Z93 and that is something that anyone should know by just reading that paper.


There are no preL1025 in Sweden and also Zelto does not claim that. My main issue with Zelto, was claim, that L1025 originated in Estonia, while there is no such evidence of that scale movement of people from Estonia and it contradicts known history of the region to fill Lithuania and Latvia with L1025 - absolutely zero evidence of that made up claim, but there is evidence of people moving to the north from Latvia and only arrogant or peple of low intellect can do such research, that will offend nonEstonians.
As for origin of L550, Ytree does not claim that ancient L550 in Estonia to be L550*, but it has problems classifying to which clade it belongs, and it will take some time to classify it so I also thought, that he was too hasty in declaring Estonia as origin of L550. In other words, at this point we know abslolutelly nothing and Zelto was just messing his own head and heads of others, who regarded that information as proven. As a result, my opinion on that information was not really favorable and that is really nice but not precise thing to say what I am thinking what Zelto was trying to do and it is still not, even if you will repost that crap 100x times.

At this point I am just leaving information to someone else, who will find it valuable and is able to process it. I am not trying to convince you of anything, as you are not able to comprehend anything - you might as well just stop buggering me, because I find it that you are basically just harassing me, just like @parastais started to do, regards of what I am writing here.

arpatir
07-22-2021, 06:30 PM
Of course he can't as there are no such articles.

That is news for me that there does not exist hydronymy research in Finland. But then your level of knowledge is not something that can be regarded as achievement, so meh.

Coldmountains
07-22-2021, 06:35 PM
Do not make claims, that are not in that paper about Fatyanovo-Balanovo culture. First it is nearly identical culturally to neighboring Baltic cultures to the west - and that is known from archeological evidence(not in paper, but I would assume, that anyone should know about that if they are not hearing about Fatyanovo-Balanovo for the first time). Secondly, Western part of Fatyanovo-Balanovo culture was not Z93 and that is something that anyone should know by just reading that paper.



Do not make claims, that are not in that paper about Fatyanovo-Balanovo culture. First it is nearly identical culturally to neighboring Baltic cultures to the west - and that is known from archeological evidence(not in paper, but I would assume, that anyone should know about that if they are not hearing about Fatyanovo-Balanovo for the first time). Secondly, Western part of Fatyanovo-Balanovo culture was not Z93 and that is something that anyone should know by just reading that paper.

There are no preL1025 in Sweden and also Zelto does not claim that. My main issue with Zelto, was claim, that L1025 originated in Estonia, while there is no such evidence of that scale movement of people from Estonia and it contradicts known history of the region to fill Lithuania and Latvia with L1025 - absolutely zero evidence of that made up claim, but there is evidence of people moving to the north from Latvia and only arrogant or peple of low intellect can do such research, that will offend nonEstonians.
As for origin of L550, Ytree does not claim that ancient L550 in Estonia to be L550*, but it has problems classifying to which clade it belongs, and it will take some time to classify it so I also thought, that he was too hasty in declaring Estonia as origin of L550. In other words, at this point we know abslolutelly nothing and Zelto was just messing his own head and heads of others, who regarded that information as proven. As a result, my opinion on that information was not really favorable and that is really nice but not precise thing to say what I am thinking what Zelto was trying to do and it is still not, even if you will repost that crap 100x times.

At this point I am just leaving information to someone else, who will find it valuable and is able to process it. I am not trying to convince you of anything, as you are not able to comprehend anything - you might as well just stop buggering me, because I find it that you are basically just harassing me, just like @parastais started to do, regards of what I am writing here.

This was already many times discussed here and please check this new paper which shows Western Fatyanovo with only Z93 so far

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/7/4/eabd6535

There is also a thread here where we are discussing the Fatyanovo results if you want to read more about Fatyanovo.

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?20920-Genetic-ancestry-changes-in-Stone-to-Bronze-Age-transition-in-the-East-European-plain

Huck Finn
07-22-2021, 06:46 PM
You're trying to convince me that something like CTS3451 from Vologda(Finland too to some extent due to small-scale Meryan migrations) is Indo-European and Baltic and shifted to West Uralic.
Kind of side note but I think it remains to be seen what was the scale of Meryanic related migrations into Finland, - and especially into areas nearby.

Standardized Ape
07-22-2021, 07:14 PM
Kind of side note but I think it remains to be seen what was the scale of Meryanic related migrations into Finland, - and especially into areas nearby.

CTS3451 makes up 1/15 of male lineages in eastern Finland but 1/44 in Finland as a whole. It has it's peaks at the western Ladoga on FamilyTreeDNA projects where it may even be a 1/4 in some places. I understand you are not referring to CTS3451 though but rather something under Z1934. I'm not quite sold on that.

Huck Finn
07-22-2021, 07:33 PM
CTS3451 makes up 1/15 of male lineages in eastern Finland but 1/44 in Finland as a whole. It has it's peaks at the western Ladoga on FamilyTreeDNA projects where it may even be a 1/4 in some places. I understand you are not referring to CTS3451 though but rather something under Z1934. I'm not quite sold on that.

I'm not on my side on the other hand too convinced that a linguistic expansion could and should be connected to a single male lineage only, in this case especially to a N-VL29 based male lineage, in the otherwise very much N-Z1934 biased surroundings. That being said, nothing against N-CTS3451 being part of the Meryanic gene pool, of course.

Zelto
07-22-2021, 08:11 PM
There are no preL1025 in Sweden and also Zelto does not claim that. My main issue with Zelto, was claim, that L1025 originated in Estonia, while there is no such evidence of that scale movement of people from Estonia and it contradicts known history of the region to fill Lithuania and Latvia with L1025 - absolutely zero evidence of that made up claim, but there is evidence of people moving to the north from Latvia and only arrogant or peple of low intellect can do such research, that will offend nonEstonians.
As for origin of L550, Ytree does not claim that ancient L550 in Estonia to be L550*, but it has problems classifying to which clade it belongs, and it will take some time to classify it so I also thought, that he was too hasty in declaring Estonia as origin of L550. In other words, at this point we know abslolutelly nothing and Zelto was just messing his own head and heads of others, who regarded that information as proven. As a result, my opinion on that information was not really favorable and that is really nice but not precise thing to say what I am thinking what Zelto was trying to do and it is still not, even if you will repost that crap 100x times.

First of all, there is only one Iron Age sample from Sweden (~400AD Öland N-L550) and the majority of "preL1025" N-L550+ subclades are rooted in Sweden, at least according to the current sampling done by YFull.

The early-Tarands were rich in N-L550 2800-2400ybp, around the estimated TMRCA of N-L550 itself. I never said N-L1025 or N-L550 originated in Estonia, rather my opinion is that they spread from there with early-Tarands. You're claim that there was no scale movement from Estonia is incorrect, the early-Tarand people colonized coastal areas of Sweden, Courland and SW Finland.

The phylogeny of N-L550 disputes the notion that Balts from Belarus/Russia(?) were the progenitors of N-L1025. If they had spread independently from the N-L550 rich early-Tarands, the Latvian/Lithuanian subclades would have to be >2800ybp. However, N-L1025 only has a TMRCA of 2500ybp and even then, some of its earliest subclades are "Fennoscandian". Also, one of the early-Tarands (VII4) may already be N-L1025+.

The Estonian N-L550* in YFull is from the medieval period. Its not ancestral to any living branch, but at least attests to the former diversity of subclades in Estonia.

It's odd you've taken such a strong position on a subject you know very little about. And what's with all this bullying talk now? Just accept that you've got more to learn, no one here was "harassing" you...

CopperAxe
07-22-2021, 08:30 PM
This thread :rofl:

:behindsofa:

Standardized Ape
07-22-2021, 08:40 PM
I'm not on my side on the other hand too convinced that a linguistic expansion could and should be connected to a single male lineage only, in this case especially to a N-VL29 based male lineage, in the otherwise very much N-Z1934 biased surroundings. That being said, nothing against N-CTS3451 being part of the Meryanic gene pool, of course.

The original diversity may have been severely reduced by founder effects. To me it doesn't seem that the branches leading to CTS9976(L1022+CTS3451) and Z1928 originate very far from each other. Maybe one in Tver and the other in Yaroslavl/Kostroma. I think the distinction between them is exaggerated and they did not constitute truly different populations at least initially but rather a single extended population speaking the same language. I'm a bit cautious about these supposed Z1934-biased surroundings. On the N1c1 project, there's whole lot of L1022(either Y5004 or pre-Y5004) from Vologda, way more than Z1934. It could be the result of Votes/Russian-assimilated Votes moving east. From the few Vologdan L1022 on YFull it seems like that might be the case but pre-Y5004 being found in Vologda would be very interesting but not particularly surprising.

Huck Finn
07-22-2021, 09:03 PM
The original diversity may have been severely reduced by founder effects. To me it doesn't seem that the branches leading to CTS9976(L1022+CTS3451) and Z1928 originate very far from each other. Maybe one in Tver and the other in Yaroslavl/Kostroma. I think the distinction between them is exaggerated and they did not constitute truly different populations at least initially but rather a single extended population speaking the same language. I'm a bit cautious about these supposed Z1934-biased surroundings. On the N1c1 project, there's whole lot of L1022(either Y5004 or pre-Y5004) from Vologda, way more than Z1934. It could be the result of Votes/Russian-assimilated Votes moving east. From the few Vologdan L1022 on YFull it seems like that might be the case but pre-Y5004 being found in Vologda would be very interesting but not particularly surprising.

Good points as always, but even if nothing has been proven yet, Meryanic seems to be a part of the linguistic continuum leading to Saamic. If that is true, but Meryanic is just N-CTS3452, where did N-Z1934 then come from?

arpatir
07-22-2021, 09:21 PM
First of all, there is only one Iron Age sample from Sweden (~400AD Öland N-L550) and the majority of "preL1025" N-L550+ subclades are rooted in Sweden, at least according to the current sampling done by YFull.

The early-Tarands were rich in N-L550 2800-2400ybp, around the estimated TMRCA of N-L550 itself. I never said N-L1025 or N-L550 originated in Estonia, rather my opinion is that they spread from there with early-Tarands. You're claim that there was no scale movement from Estonia is incorrect, the early-Tarand people colonized coastal areas of Sweden, Courland and SW Finland.

The phylogeny of N-L550 disputes the notion that Balts from Belarus/Russia(?) were the progenitors of N-L1025. If they had spread independently from the N-L550 rich early-Tarands, the Latvian/Lithuanian subclades would have to be >2800ybp. However, N-L1025 only has a TMRCA of 2500ybp and even then, some of its earliest subclades are "Fennoscandian". Also, one of the early-Tarands (VII4) may already be N-L1025+.

The Estonian N-L550* in YFull is from the medieval period. Its not ancestral to any living branch, but at least attests to the former diversity of subclades in Estonia.

It's odd you've taken such a strong position on a subject you know very little about. And what's with all this bullying talk now? Just accept that you've got more to learn, no one here was "harassing" you...



The so called colonization in coastal areas produces only few Tarand graves, that compared to Estonia is not really a full scale colonization, besides I have to repeat third time, that there is significantly lesser presence of N1a in western Latvia(about 30%) and Lithuania and much larger presence of R1a(70%), to claim that N1a colonized those regions from there. That idea, that coastal regions were infested with N1a has been debunked, because Livonians themselves were not pure N1a, but heavy mix - and possibly they were R1a long before they arrived in Latvia. Besides, their linguistical affinity with Southern Estonian languages comes mostly from interaction and absorbtion of Leivs in Vidzeme - possibly even that their name was corrupted version of Leivs, that was given to Germans. Basically existence of Livonians gives more questions than there are answers and you would have hard time finding some Uralic people, that appeared in Curland, before Livonians, because there were none. Besides, Livonians upon arrival in Courland were praticising burial customs of vikings(they also were affiliated with vikings in Daugava settlements and together with vikings fought against Baltic) and who even knows what language they spoke initially - maybe even Swedish.
So, also you do not have answer to question regarding of source and why there is higher presence(70%) of R1a in Courland - did it existed before N1a, did it arrived later. etc. This is really not a question about L550 anymore, but also R1a, that you are skipping to mention in Estonia. From where did it appeared? Does ancient burials of Old Prussians really produce any N1a, to back your bold claim, that they were N1a? So far there are no such ancient dna. Have you really researched these issues - it seems to me that you are pointing something on a wall randomly and make it as a goal.

Here is another problem, that you are not noticing in regards to Southern Estonian people, that arrived in Estonia earlier than other Finnic people - including Estonian speakers. How they are standing in regards to those Tarand graves? Quite a lot of them are very much in their territory, though it would be harder to link them to L550, so that also is another issue, but hey - it is your problem to find a solution to find connections.


Younger clades are youngest, because they moved to other places and had some genetical changes that distinguished them from more archaical clades. More often. they are also most populous, compared to their older clades. And more ancient sister clades were more often spreading after younger ones - sometimes mixing with younger clade, that had traveled first. This is something that can be observed in spreading pattern of R1a and R1b, also N1 and N2 and also many many others, so that it can be made as a rule, as there are rarely exceptions to this behavior, unless clades went extinct and this pattern can not be observed anymore. So in this regard, it makes more sense to explanation, why more ancient L550 clades spread later than L1025 and why spread of L1025 happened earlier than spread of other L550 clades. That also explains, why neither L550 nor L1025 origins can not be in Estonia, but place of destination to those clades. And you are still insisting in some explanation of how clades spread, that looks like exception, that common behavior.

Asking me questions, and ridiculing them at the same time not giving answers to my questions is not scientifical discussion, but pure harassment. Maybe there is another word for that, but certainly it is not scientific discussion.

Standardized Ape
07-22-2021, 09:29 PM
Good points as always, but even if nothing has been proven yet, Meryanic seems to be a part of the linguistic continuum leading to Saamic. If that is true, but Meryanic is just N-CTS3452, where did N-Z1934 then come from?

I think Z1925 has something to do with the Ananyino influences in Finland at 1000 BC, mediated of course by whatever Kostromans were involved rather than being direct Central Uralic influence. I'm sure you could find also Meryans with Z1934 just not with Z1925, unless they had assimilated some VL62 or what not.

Moderator
07-22-2021, 09:55 PM
A general and final warning: please keep this discussion civil. Ad hominem attacks and personalization of discussion against our Terms of Service and will not be tolerated here. Ignoring this warning will result in more sanctions.

arpatir
07-22-2021, 10:09 PM
This was already many times discussed here and please check this new paper which shows Western Fatyanovo with only Z93 so far

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/7/4/eabd6535

There is also a thread here where we are discussing the Fatyanovo results if you want to read more about Fatyanovo.

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?20920-Genetic-ancestry-changes-in-Stone-to-Bronze-Age-transition-in-the-East-European-plain


This is false claim, than can be proven by reading provided links. They have 4 samples of M558 out of 14 and M558 does not belong to Z93.

parastais
07-23-2021, 05:16 AM
@arpatir,
“ besides I have to repeat third time, that there is significantly lesser presence of N1a in western Latvia(about 30%) and Lithuania and much larger presence of R1a(70%)”
Care to backup your information with actual sources? Level of R1a seems SLIGHTLY exaggerated ;-)

Zelto
07-23-2021, 05:53 PM
The so called colonization in coastal areas produces only few Tarand graves, that compared to Estonia is not really a full scale colonization,

The consensus among actual archaeologists (Marika Magi, Valter Lang, Andres Tvauri, etc.) is that only elite families were buried in early-Tarands. Their presence indicates a much larger population.


besides I have to repeat third time, that there is significantly lesser presence of N1a in western Latvia(about 30%) and Lithuania and much larger presence of R1a(70%), to claim that N1a colonized those regions from there. That idea, that coastal regions were infested with N1a has been debunked, because Livonians themselves were not pure N1a, but heavy mix - and possibly they were R1a long before they arrived in Latvia. Besides, their linguistical affinity with Southern Estonian languages comes mostly from interaction and absorbtion of Leivs in Vidzeme - possibly even that their name was corrupted version of Leivs, that was given to Germans. Basically existence of Livonians gives more questions than there are answers and you would have hard time finding some Uralic people, that appeared in Curland, before Livonians, because there were none. Besides, Livonians upon arrival in Courland were praticising burial customs of vikings(they also were affiliated with vikings in Daugava settlements and together with vikings fought against Baltic) and who even knows what language they spoke initially - maybe even Swedish.
So, also you do not have answer to question regarding of source and why there is higher presence(70%) of R1a in Courland - did it existed before N1a, did it arrived later. etc. This is really not a question about L550 anymore, but also R1a, that you are skipping to mention in Estonia. From where did it appeared? Does ancient burials of Old Prussians really produce any N1a, to back your bold claim, that they were N1a? So far there are no such ancient dna. Have you really researched these issues - it seems to me that you are pointing something on a wall randomly and make it as a goal.

Like Parastais said, these percentages you're throwing around look off. Either way, you're still relying on modern frequencies, which have little bearing on the genetic landscape 2800 years ago. Even if Courland is 70% R1a, as little as a few centuries ago it could have been 70% N1c (not saying it actually was). See the problem? Ancient DNA is king and when there is none, something might be gained by looking at the diversity of subclades, although even that is often inadequate.


Here is another problem, that you are not noticing in regards to Southern Estonian people, that arrived in Estonia earlier than other Finnic people - including Estonian speakers. How they are standing in regards to those Tarand graves? Quite a lot of them are very much in their territory, though it would be harder to link them to L550, so that also is another issue, but hey - it is your problem to find a solution to find connections.

Like I said initially, native Estonian N-L550* branches were replaced by downstream "Baltic" N-L1025 branches and N-L1022. However, we know for a fact Iron Age Estonians were rich in N-L550.


Younger clades are youngest, because they moved to other places and had some genetical changes that distinguished them from more archaical clades. More often. they are also most populous, compared to their older clades. And more ancient sister clades were more often spreading after younger ones - sometimes mixing with younger clade, that had traveled first. This is something that can be observed in spreading pattern of R1a and R1b, also N1 and N2 and also many many others, so that it can be made as a rule, as there are rarely exceptions to this behavior, unless clades went extinct and this pattern can not be observed anymore. So in this regard, it makes more sense to explanation, why more ancient L550 clades spread later than L1025 and why spread of L1025 happened earlier than spread of other L550 clades. That also explains, why neither L550 nor L1025 origins can not be in Estonia, but place of destination to those clades. And you are still insisting in some explanation of how clades spread, that looks like exception, that common behavior.

Did you just come up with this "rule" off the top of your head? Sure, some young subclades are more successful than older branches, but its nonsensical to assume younger subclades must always spread before older ones. The earliest N-L1025 subclades formed 2500ybp, the earliest N-L550 subclades formed 2800ybp... why would you assume N-L1025 began proliferating earlier? And why would you assume it was with a Baltic speaking population, when there are also early Fennoscandian branches?


Asking me questions, and ridiculing them at the same time not giving answers to my questions is not scientifical discussion, but pure harassment. Maybe there is another word for that, but certainly it is not scientific discussion.

You established very early on that you did not want to engage in respectful discussion. Moreover, you've continually made inaccurate and unsubstantiated claims.

Zelto
11-02-2021, 08:30 PM
Thanks to altvred, teapean47, Pribslav et al. for going through these samples!


There's also a single N1a, double-checked and it doesn't look like a mistake.


I20509 N1a1a1a1a1a1a N-CTS8428*




chry 6646423 M1997^ N1a1a1a1a T->C T C 1 100 CD
chry 23189290 CTS11612 N1a1a1a1a C->A C A 1100 A D
chry 19550228 CTS10570 N1a1a1a1a C->A C A 1100 A D
chry 13678272 Z4893 N1a1a1a1a A->T A T 1 100 T D
chry 18179929 CTS8751 N1a1a1a1a G->T G T 1 100 T D
chry 14570424 CTS2929 N1a1a1a1a1a T->C T C 2 100 C D
chry 18021482 CTS8428 N1a1a1a1a1a1a T->C T C 1 100 C D



I could not download all of the files yet but here's a quick list of results using snipsa.

More detailed results with extra SNPS here:

https://controlc.com/a90ae88f


I0231:Result (87.2% 1234 -4 +167): R-Y20993
I0371:Result (86.2% 595 -2 +88): R-M12149
I0418:Result (12.5% 1 -0 +7): H-Z14258
I0438:Result (88.4% 883 -3 +106): R-Y20993
I0440:Result (94.1% 939 -1 +56): R-Y20993
I0525:Result (50.0% 1 -0 +1): J-Y947
I0527:Result (100.0% 1 -0 +0): E-CTS12954
I10342:Result (88.5% 846 -1 +107): R-P312
I10343:Result (-12.5% 2 -1 +6): R-FGC35835
I10344:Result (33.3% 2 -0 +4): J-Z2432
I10345:Result (-42.9% 3 -2 +4): E-CTS12954
I10347:Result (87.5% 753 -6 +87): G-BY27899
I10348:Result (85.0% 666 -4 +103): R-L2
I11033:Result (10.0% 1 -0 +9): N-B187
I11034:Result (11.1% 1 -0 +8): R-YP561
I11142:Result (86.4% 671 -2 +99): R-S1088
I11143:Result (85.7% 691 -2 +108): R-Y85515
I11144:Result (83.7% 709 -1 +134): R-Y19142
I11145:Result (83.7% 691 -2 +127): R-Z251
I11146:Result (90.0% 90 -0 +10): R-S844
I11147:Result (20.0% 2 -0 +8): C-Y28069
I11148:Result (22.2% 2 -0 +7): I-Y199009
I11149:Result (82.4% 696 -4 +134): R-S264
I11150:Result (82.3% 689 -4 +134): R-L21
I11151:Result (84.8% 706 -1 +123): R-DF63
I11152:Result (89.7% 800 -2 +85): G-Z16775
I11153:Result (85.1% 709 -0 +124): R-BY11117
I11154:Result (7.1% 1 -0 +13): J-Y12603
I11156:Result (85.0% 712 -3 +115): R-Y2890
I11158:Result (86.5% 632 -1 +95): R-Z280
I11159:Result (15.4% 2 -0 +11): G-Z17874
I11160:Result (76.9% 646 -6 +171): R-L2
I11631:Result (90.5% 19 -0 +2): R-Y16064
I11683:Result (22.2% 2 -0 +7): E-CTS12954
I11699:Result (12.5% 1 -0 +7): A0-T
I11701:Result (86.8% 780 -1 +115): R-L2
I11708:Result (11.1% 1 -0 +8): R-YP561
I11710:Result (11.1% 2 -0 +16): G-Y82519
I11712:Result (79.1% 646 -4 +156): R-S7402
I11713:Result (82.3% 733 -4 +143): R-S18382
I11715:Result (83.8% 198 -2 +31): R-L2
I11716:Result (16.7% 5 -1 +7): R-FGC51149
I11717:Result (36.4% 4 -0 +7): G-M3146
I11719:Result (20.0% 2 -0 +8): G-M3146
I11721:Result (16.7% 2 -0 +10): R-YP1272
I11722:Result (57.1% 4 -0 +3): G-M3146
I11971:Result (28.6% 2 -0 +5): R2
I11972:Result (82.6% 687 -4 +130): R-S263
I11973:Result (16.7% 1 -0 +5): I-A20033
I11991:Result (86.5% 903 -4 +127): R-DF13
I11992:Result (85.4% 834 -4 +129): R-DF13
I11993:Result (-14.3% 2 -1 +5): R-YP561
I11994:Result (28.6% 2 -0 +5): R-Y20367
I11995:Result (14.3% 1 -0 +6): I-Y199009
I11997:Result (88.5% 746 -0 +97): R-FGC36421
I12081:Result (11.1% 1 -0 +8): R-Y112568
I12082:Result (20.0% 1 -0 +4): A0-T
I12083:Result (15.4% 2 -0 +11): B-M112
I12097:Result (25.0% 2 -0 +6): N-B187
I12098:Result (33.3% 1 -0 +2): G-M3146
I12099:Result (85.2% 705 -6 +101): G-CTS4803
I12103:Result (74.9% 492 -6 +141): R-L2
I12105:Result (30.0% 3 -0 +7): I-BY37418
I12106:Result (-11.1% 2 -1 +7): D-F1031
I12107:Result (9.1% 1 -0 +10): A0-T
I12110:Result (81.2% 576 -2 +126): R-CTS11659
I12171:Result (33.3% 1 -0 +2): R-BY161172
I12312:Result (80.8% 21 -0 +5): I-M436
I12314:Result (25.0% 1 -0 +3): R-BY3616
I12317:Result (79.4% 380 -3 +87): I-A8742
I12411:Result (33.3% 1 -0 +2): A-L602
I12412:Result (33.3% 2 -0 +4): I-Y11539
I12413:Result (89.1% 703 -0 +86): R-P312
I12414:Result (-10.0% 2 -1 +8): H-PH1063
I12415:Result (-12.5% 2 -1 +6): A00
I12608:Result (100.0% 1 -0 +0): BT
I12610:Result (76.2% 32 -0 +10): R-M269
I12624:Result (25.0% 1 -0 +3): J-Y240921
I12770:Result (20.0% 1 -0 +4): E-CTS12954
I12771:Result (87.9% 708 -4 +84): R-Y30754
I12772:Result (85.1% 751 -6 +110): G-Z1823
I12774:Result (85.3% 704 -3 +111): R-BY53783
I12775:Result (87.6% 660 -0 +93): R-DF21
I12776:Result (33.3% 3 -0 +6): J-Y947
I12778:Result (89.9% 728 -0 +82): R-DF5
I12779:Result (0.0% 3 -1 +5): G-Y168959
I12783:Result (82.9% 532 -0 +110): R-BY3301
I12785:Result (85.6% 687 -3 +105): R-DF21
I12786:Result (84.1% 440 -2 +76): R-Y9090
I12787:Result (33.3% 1 -0 +2): E-CTS12954
I12790:Result (36.8% 7 -0 +12): R-YP561
I12791:Result (81.2% 569 -1 +128): I-A12373
I12792:Result (33.3% 2 -0 +4): R-Y17993
I12793:Result (84.0% 581 -4 +96): R-BY23473
I12900:Result (87.0% 47 -0 +7): R-A7031
I12905:Result (100.0% 1 -0 +0): A0-T
I12906:Result (100.0% 1 -0 +0): D-M64.1
I12907:Result (85.7% 183 -1 +27): R-S497
I12926:Result (86.3% 548 -0 +87): R-Z251
I12927:Result (81.4% 704 -4 +146): R-S1088
I12931:Result (84.1% 469 -1 +85): I-Z105
I12932:Result (25.0% 3 -0 +9): R-P297
I12935:Result (83.9% 748 -3 +133): R-A11676
I12936:Result (100.0% 3 -0 +0): CT
I13025:Result (87.6% 679 -1 +93): R-U106
I13026:Result (80.0% 28 -0 +7): R1b
I13027:Result (25.0% 1 -0 +3): J-Y102610
I13028:Result (80.9% 724 -3 +160): R-P312
I13467:Result (87.8% 751 -2 +98): R-Z2108
I13468:Result (84.1% 651 -2 +116): I-S6635
I13469:Result (82.5% 631 -3 +123): I-PF3885
I13470:Result (22.2% 2 -0 +7): E-M98
I13471:Result (84.8% 694 -7 +100): I-PF3885
I13615:Result (74.1% 539 -9 +152): R-DF13
I13616:Result (25.0% 1 -0 +3): J-Y12603
I13617:Result (50.0% 1 -0 +1): BT
I13620:Result (81.9% 125 -1 +24): R-L2
I13621:Result (87.5% 14 -0 +2): R-P297
I13623:Result (81.1% 165 -2 +31): R-L151
I13680:Result (83.5% 268 -0 +53): R-Z16887
I13681:Result (66.7% 2 -0 +1): Q-Y6131
I13682:Result (77.0% 532 -3 +147): R-L165
I13684:Result (42.9% 12 -1 +9): R-M269
I13685:Result (33.3% 2 -0 +4): A0
I13687:Result (20.0% 1 -0 +4): G-Z6035
I13688:Result (-14.3% 2 -1 +5): A-M13
I13689:Result (77.2% 475 -4 +125): R-Z2185
I13690:Result (66.7% 6 -0 +3): P-PF5867
I13710:Result (69.7% 142 -2 +53): R-L2
I13711:Result (79.6% 741 -4 +175): R-L21
I13712:Result (81.5% 722 -2 +156): R-DF13
I13713:Result (84.9% 773 -1 +134): R-L21
I13714:Result (83.6% 724 -3 +131): R-CTS6919
I13716:Result (-12.5% 2 -1 +6): E-CTS12954
I13717:Result (10.0% 1 -0 +9): I-Y199009
I13720:Result (73.7% 14 -0 +5): F
I13726:Result (84.5% 780 -4 +129): R-DF13
I13727:Result (7.1% 1 -0 +13): A0-T
I13728:Result (84.7% 731 -1 +129): R-P312
I13729:Result (14.3% 2 -0 +12): J-FGC19901
I13730:Result (82.9% 690 -3 +131): R-S5668
I13731:Result (85.4% 749 -1 +125): R-DF13
I13732:Result (75.9% 353 -1 +108): R-P312
I13751:Result (-33.3% 2 -1 +1): T-FGC63786
I13752:Result (33.3% 1 -0 +2): BT
I13753:Result (84.0% 615 -3 +106): R-Z251
I13754:Result (86.5% 515 -1 +77): R-P312
I13755:Result (16.7% 1 -0 +5): I-Y199009
I13757:Result (27.3% 3 -0 +8): C
I13758:Result (89.6% 486 -1 +53): R-L2
I13759:Result (84.7% 646 -3 +106): R-L2
I13760:Result (81.8% 441 -2 +91): R-DF13
I13780:Result (78.2% 674 -3 +176): R-YP5267
I13781:Result (11.1% 4 -1 +5): J-Y29702
I13783:Result (18.2% 2 -0 +9): I-Y36693
I13786:Result (83.4% 734 -2 +139): R-L2
I13787:Result (18.2% 2 -0 +9): E-CTS12954
I13788:Result (83.2% 672 -1 +132): R-S497
I13789:Result (-5.6% 2 -1 +16): BT
I13791:Result (14.3% 2 -0 +12): R-YP561
I13792:Result (84.8% 722 -6 +108): R-L2
I13793:Result (87.2% 751 -3 +100): R-L2
I13794:Result (81.9% 678 -3 +139): R-L2
I13795:Result (87.3% 771 -3 +102): R-Z280
I13796:Result (-25.0% 2 -1 +2): G-FT143564
I13798:Result (25.0% 2 -0 +6): G-Z6802
I13799:Result (5.9% 1 -0 +16): BT
I13889:Result (16.7% 2 -0 +10): R-Y17993
I13890:Result (88.0% 671 -1 +88): I-L1193
I13891:Result (78.8% 519 -2 +132): I-Y3709
I13892:Result (83.3% 556 -2 +104): I-Y3709
I13893:Result (88.8% 765 -2 +90): I-Y3709
I13897:Result (81.0% 644 -4 +136): I-L1193
I13898:Result (89.5% 1009 -3 +108): I-Y3709
I13899:Result (89.5% 986 -2 +109): I-Y3712
I1389:Result (72.9% 89 -1 +29): R-L2
I1391:Result (50.0% 1 -0 +1): E-CTS12954
I14096:Result (80.1% 260 -1 +61): R-PF7611
I14097:Result (69.4% 331 -2 +137): R-L2
I14099:Result (33.3% 1 -0 +2): N-B187
I14100:Result (85.7% 591 -3 +88): R-DF13
I14101:Result (100.0% 2 -0 +0): I-Y199009
I14102:Result (83.8% 644 -6 +103): R-DF13
I14103:Result (20.0% 1 -0 +4): G-M3234
I14104:Result (90.4% 688 -1 +70): R-Z251
I14105:Result (85.9% 612 -3 +90): R-BY11969
I14106:Result (25.0% 2 -0 +6): H-M6344
I14107:Result (87.3% 424 -4 +48): R-CTS6919
I14108:Result (14.3% 1 -0 +6): N-Y101945
I14185:Result (80.9% 594 -5 +122): R-L2
I14186:Result (18.8% 3 -0 +13): R-FGC17880
I14188:Result (88.2% 257 -1 +31): R-L2
I14189:Result (84.0% 618 -3 +107): R-Y168450
I14190:Result (84.3% 660 -2 +116): I-Y28224
I14191:Result (78.9% 541 -2 +137): R-L2
I14192:Result (78.4% 500 -8 +107): R-L20
I14193:Result (84.0% 702 -6 +112): R-Z280
I14200:Result (78.8% 96 -1 +22): R-SK2111
I14326:Result (10.0% 1 -0 +9): G-L201
I14327:Result (82.9% 678 -3 +129): R-Y3267
I14347:Result (85.8% 609 -2 +94): R-DF23
I14348:Result (33.3% 1 -0 +2): G-M3146
I14351:Result (-50.0% 2 -1 +0): E-M3950
I14353:Result (88.2% 638 -1 +82): R-L21
I14358:Result (83.1% 591 -0 +120): R-DF13
I14359:Result (85.7% 6 -0 +1): R-L151
I14360:Result (50.0% 1 -0 +1): G-M3146
I14377:Result (23.1% 3 -0 +10): R-FT40486
I14378:Result (9.1% 1 -0 +10): I-L1227
I14379:Result (12.5% 1 -0 +7): G-M3115
I14380:Result (82.4% 719 -3 +143): R-L21
I14381:Result (20.0% 1 -0 +4): R-FT18440
I14464:Result (100.0% 1 -0 +0): N-B187
I14465:Result (75.4% 132 -2 +35): E-V13
I14467:Result (100.0% 1 -0 +0): A0-T
I14468:Result (85.7% 24 -0 +4): R-Y36419
I14481:Result (80.9% 38 -0 +9): I-Z2069
I14543:Result (25.0% 1 -0 +3): E-CTS12954
I14549:Result (20.0% 1 -0 +4): G-M3146
I14550:Result (33.3% 2 -0 +4): F
I14551:Result (44.4% 4 -0 +5): I-Y199009
I14552:Result (86.6% 614 -3 +85): R-A274
I14553:Result (85.4% 602 -3 +92): R-Z251
I14585:Result (-6.2% 2 -1 +14): E-M329
I14742:Result (75.0% 21 -0 +7): R-BY107437
I14743:Result (83.0% 310 -4 +49): R-L151
I14745:Result (100.0% 1 -0 +0): BT
I14747:Result (100.0% 1 -0 +0): A1
I14800:Result (79.2% 551 -2 +137): R-BY7804
I14801:Result (25.0% 1 -0 +3): O-Y148674
I14802:Result (25.0% 1 -0 +3): E-CTS1036
I14803:Result (73.6% 193 -3 +57): R-BY3437
I14804:Result (20.0% 1 -0 +4): J-Y84913
I14806:Result (100.0% 1 -0 +0): N-Y9022
I14807:Result (79.4% 438 -3 +102): R-DF49
I14808:Result (50.0% 3 -0 +3): J-Y28237
I14809:Result (77.5% 380 -3 +99): R-P312
I14837:Result (-33.3% 2 -1 +1): T-Y180921
I14857:Result (100.0% 1 -0 +0): Q-FT182562
I14858:Result (-16.7% 2 -1 +4): R-FT18440
I14859:Result (82.7% 549 -1 +111): R-P312
I14860:Result (-16.7% 2 -1 +4): I-A13207
I14861:Result (82.9% 586 -2 +114): R-P312
I14862:Result (22.2% 2 -0 +7): G-M3146
I14863:Result (37.5% 3 -0 +5): R-L21
I14864:Result (16.7% 1 -0 +5): I-Y199009
I14865:Result (-50.0% 2 -1 +0): I-Y10626
I14866:Result (80.1% 600 -4 +134): I-L1195
I14980:Result (13.3% 2 -0 +13): R-YP561
I14983:Result (83.9% 435 -1 +80): R-Y39302
I14984:Result (80.4% 614 -5 +131): R-FGC22516
I14985:Result (14.3% 2 -0 +12): B-V2342
I14986:Result (84.4% 681 -3 +115): R-L2
I14987:Result (82.3% 369 -2 +72): R-FGC22940
I14988:Result (79.7% 312 -2 +72): R-FGC13703
I15027:Result (82.5% 703 -3 +138): R-P312
I15028:Result (10.0% 1 -0 +9): E-CTS12954
I15029:Result (81.3% 689 -2 +151): I-Y21997
I15030:Result (79.4% 556 -5 +125): I-L160
I15031:Result (-11.1% 2 -1 +7): R-Y881
I15032:Result (81.7% 670 -5 +132): I-Y12072
I15033:Result (86.1% 721 -2 +109): R-P312
I15034:Result (16.7% 1 -0 +5): J-PF5016
I15035:Result (11.1% 2 -0 +16): Q-Y18330
I15039:Result (14.3% 1 -0 +6): H-Z13966
I15040:Result (86.7% 483 -0 +74): I-L699
I15041:Result (79.2% 600 -2 +150): R-L2
I15042:Result (82.3% 730 -5 +139): R-P312
I15043:Result (11.1% 2 -0 +16): R-Y46692
I15044:Result (11.1% 1 -0 +8): R-Y18454
I15045:Result (6.2% 1 -0 +15): A0-T
I15046:Result (20.0% 2 -0 +8): C-F2613
I15047:Result (81.9% 361 -1 +76): R-Z283
I15048:Result (87.5% 641 -1 +88): R-BY32273
I15049:Result (80.6% 311 -0 +75): R-YP561
I15071:Result (76.5% 146 -1 +41): I-S18331
I15642:Result (33.3% 1 -0 +2): I-FT177137
I15643:Result (81.7% 451 -3 +90): I-PF3885
I15644:Result (20.0% 2 -0 +8): O-MF1157
I15646:Result (86.4% 473 -3 +64): I-S6635
I15648:Result (79.7% 354 -3 +79): R-V88
I15650:Result (77.9% 467 -2 +125): R-V88
I15818:Result (33.3% 3 -0 +6): C-B65
I15819:Result (33.3% 1 -0 +2): A-M32
I15821:Result (100.0% 1 -0 +0): D-Z1622
I15823:Result (75.9% 387 -2 +115): J-PF5252
I15824:Result (25.0% 1 -0 +3): E-Y40386
I15825:Result (16.7% 1 -0 +5): G-M3146
I15826:Result (68.0% 117 -0 +55): R-L754
I15950:Result (86.1% 609 -1 +95): R-Y24836
I15951:Result (85.7% 594 -3 +89): R-FGC22516
I15952:Result (50.0% 2 -0 +2): R-A7677
I15953:Result (14.3% 1 -0 +6): E-CTS12954
I15954:Result (87.4% 626 -2 +83): R-L2
I15955:Result (88.1% 599 -4 +67): R-S1161
I15956:Result (33.3% 1 -0 +2): E-BY8198
I15957:Result (28.6% 2 -0 +5): J-Z2432
I15958:Result (-25.0% 2 -1 +2): E-CTS12954
I15959:Result (33.3% 3 -0 +6): R-BY55950
I15960:Result (50.0% 1 -0 +1): R-M269
I15961:Result (33.3% 1 -0 +2): E-CTS12954
I16086:Result (76.5% 13 -0 +4): R1
I16087:Result (60.0% 9 -0 +6): I
I16088:Result (-33.3% 2 -1 +1): J-BY197963
I16089:Result (-14.3% 2 -1 +5): E-CTS12954
I16090:Result (-16.7% 2 -1 +4): J-Y947
I16092:Result (79.3% 525 -3 +126): I-L161
I16099:Result (87.5% 549 -3 +68): I-L1229
I16100:Result (85.6% 489 -0 +82): R-Z645
I16108:Result (-50.0% 2 -1 +0): R-PF6287
I16109:Result (81.3% 437 -4 +86): I-PF3885
I16110:Result (75.4% 113 -2 +29): I-PF3885
I16111:Result (100.0% 1 -0 +0): CT
I16112:Result (50.0% 2 -0 +2): J-Y12603
I16113:Result (25.0% 1 -0 +3): G-BY1124
I16170:Result (82.0% 697 -2 +146): I-Y21970
I16182:Result (81.3% 444 -2 +95): R-L2
I16184:Result (78.8% 26 -0 +7): N-Z4863
I16247:Result (82.6% 289 -0 +61): I-Y3992
I16268:Result (33.3% 1 -0 +2): E-CTS10880
I16269:Result (67.0% 62 -1 +26): R-BY153508
I16270:Result (50.0% 1 -0 +1): E-CTS10880
I16271:Result (33.3% 1 -0 +2): E-CTS12954
I16272:Result (86.9% 529 -0 +80): E-Z1057
I16273:Result (81.7% 291 -0 +65): R-Y30815
I16327:Result (82.6% 401 -1 +81): G-CTS4803
I16329:Result (100.0% 1 -0 +0): E-Y141399
I16380:Result (83.4% 224 -1 +41): R-BY23924
I16386:Result (50.0% 1 -0 +1): R-FT173909
I16387:Result (100.0% 8 -0 +0): R-P312
I16388:Result (100.0% 3 -0 +0): Q-FT182562
I16390:Result (50.0% 1 -0 +1): D-Y34637
I16394:Result (80.0% 16 -0 +4): R-M269
I16395:Result (50.0% 1 -0 +1): CT
I16400:Result (83.5% 311 -1 +58): R-S461
I16403:Result (82.8% 306 -4 +49): R-DF13
I16405:Result (83.4% 734 -3 +135): R-DF13
I16410:Result (100.0% 2 -0 +0): N-Y111068
I16412:Result (88.9% 32 -0 +4): I-CTS616
I16416:Result (84.1% 273 -1 +48): R-Z30597
I16418:Result (84.0% 179 -0 +34): I-L1195
I16422:Result (83.3% 267 -1 +50): R-L2
I16424:Result (28.6% 2 -0 +5): E-CTS12954
I16425:Result (100.0% 3 -0 +0): R-FT169992
I16427:Result (80.0% 24 -0 +6): I-M423
I16429:Result (76.9% 33 -1 +6): I
I16430:Result (28.6% 5 -1 +2): R-YP561
I16435:Result (70.5% 31 -0 +13): F
I16436:Result (75.7% 56 -0 +18): I-L621
I16437:Result (62.5% 5 -0 +3): R-P297
I16438:Result (79.2% 117 -1 +27): I-PH2391
I16439:Result (20.0% 1 -0 +4): I-Y199009
I16440:Result (80.2% 312 -4 +62): R-FGC12384
I16441:Result (-14.3% 2 -1 +5): I-Y199009
I16442:Result (40.0% 4 -0 +6): R-FGC39555
I16444:Result (89.1% 532 -1 +62): I-Y3104
I16448:Result (40.7% 14 -1 +13): IJ
I16450:Result (78.7% 608 -6 +142): R-Y192351
I16453:Result (86.5% 45 -0 +7): I1
I16454:Result (80.1% 392 -2 +90): R-S461
I16455:Result (77.8% 28 -0 +8): R-S461
I16456:Result (100.0% 2 -0 +0): R1b
I16457:Result (50.0% 2 -0 +2): R-Y82989
I16458:Result (81.7% 302 -1 +64): R-BY33481
I16459:Result (67.8% 59 -0 +28): F
I16463:Result (72.4% 303 -5 +95): I-L1195
I16467:Result (77.5% 92 -2 +19): R-M269
I16469:Result (65.8% 232 -15 +52): R-CTS2501
I16471:Result (100.0% 2 -0 +0): R-Y18435
I16475:Result (85.0% 113 -0 +20): R-Z253
I16476:Result (83.3% 5 -0 +1): P-P337
I16479:Result (100.0% 47 -0 +0): R-M269
I16488:Result (92.8% 361 -0 +28): R-Y5305
I16491:Result (75.9% 47 -1 +11): I
I16495:Result (25.0% 2 -0 +6): I-Y199009
I16498:Result (100.0% 1 -0 +0): E-CTS12954
I16499:Result (83.8% 646 -2 +118): R-DF49
I16503:Result (88.1% 678 -1 +88): R-Z30597
I16504:Result (92.4% 489 -1 +37): R-Z251
I16505:Result (100.0% 6 -0 +0): G-Y7538
I16538:Result (66.7% 2 -0 +1): B-M5844
I16549:Result (85.7% 383 -0 +64): I-L1229
I16591:Result (81.1% 123 -1 +25): R-S461
I16592:Result (89.0% 829 -2 +96): R-FGC5494
I16596:Result (100.0% 3 -0 +0): F
I16597:Result (79.8% 389 -2 +91): R-DF49
I16599:Result (81.1% 248 -1 +54): R-BY40744
I16600:Result (81.8% 157 -0 +35): R-A13341
I16601:Result (100.0% 1 -0 +0): E-CTS12954
I16602:Result (100.0% 1 -0 +0): E-CTS12954
I16609:Result (73.3% 11 -0 +4): R-M269
I16611:Result (88.6% 205 -1 +23): R-Y12651
I16612:Result (100.0% 3 -0 +0): R-BY90005
I16613:Result (66.7% 8 -0 +4): R-M269
I16615:Result (50.0% 1 -0 +1): I-Y3259
I16616:Result (100.0% 1 -0 +0): R-YP1272
I16618:Result (-60.0% 3 -2 +2): R-FT287785
I16619:Result (88.5% 46 -0 +6): R-M269
I16620:Result (50.0% 1 -0 +1): I-BY19756
I16782:Result (100.0% 8 -0 +0): R1
I16791:Result (80.4% 40 -1 +6): R-M269
I16792:Result (100.0% 1 -0 +0): J-FGC17137
I17014:Result (86.6% 515 -1 +76): R-DF63
I17015:Result (50.0% 2 -0 +2): F
I17016:Result (86.5% 749 -3 +106): R-Y11273
I17017:Result (16.7% 2 -0 +10): C
I17019:Result (84.6% 286 -0 +52): R-S497
I17139:Result (25.0% 1 -0 +3): E-CTS12954
I17143:Result (82.0% 309 -0 +68): R-P312
I17145:Result (88.0% 608 -3 +73): R-P312
I17146:Result (81.7% 475 -1 +103): R-P312
I17258:Result (25.0% 2 -0 +6): A0
I17259:Result (85.6% 519 -3 +77): I-Y34539
I17260:Result (87.5% 575 -2 +75): R-S1051
I17261:Result (86.0% 571 -4 +79): R-DF63
I17262:Result (20.0% 1 -0 +4): E-Y28103
I17263:Result (12.5% 1 -0 +7): A-L602
I17264:Result (87.0% 737 -4 +96): R-Z2185
I17266:Result (100.0% 1 -0 +0): CT
I17267:Result (-12.5% 2 -1 +6): I-Y128984
I17310:Result (69.8% 257 -4 +94): H-Y19966
I17311:Result (50.0% 1 -0 +1): E-CTS12954
I17312:Result (78.2% 93 -0 +26): R-M12149
I17313:Result (16.7% 1 -0 +5): J-Y173271
I17314:Result (85.1% 413 -4 +58): G-Z1823
I17315:Result (66.7% 2 -0 +1): I-BY67153
I17316:Result (50.0% 1 -0 +1): E-CTS12954
I17317:Result (86.3% 430 -0 +68): G-L42
I17320:Result (81.7% 167 -2 +30): R-L52
I17321:Result (-50.0% 2 -1 +0): J-Y947
I17322:Result (16.7% 1 -0 +5): J-Y16464
I17323:Result (78.1% 274 -1 +73): R-P312
I17324:Result (61.1% 50 -2 +22): R-Y55766
I17325:Result (65.9% 29 -0 +15): I
I17327:Result (76.6% 353 -2 +100): I-S2606
I17607:Result (81.8% 39 -1 +5): R-Y6234
I17611:Result (100.0% 1 -0 +0): E-CTS12954
I17613:Result (90.9% 10 -0 +1): R-M269
I17614:Result (81.0% 17 -0 +4): R1
I17616:Result (86.2% 50 -0 +8): R-FT40455
I17670:Result (100.0% 4 -0 +0): R-M269
I1774:Result (81.0% 47 -0 +11): R-M269
I17750:Result (-50.0% 2 -1 +0): J-Y31775
I18110:Result (75.0% 3 -0 +1): R-L51
I18181:Result (82.6% 82 -2 +10): G-L497
I18182:Result (-20.0% 2 -1 +3): J-Y947
I18183:Result (25.0% 1 -0 +3): I-Y62850
I18211:Result (25.0% 2 -0 +6): C-Y83490
I18213:Result (-14.3% 2 -1 +5): J-Z7308
I18220:Result (33.3% 2 -0 +4): Q-Y45075
I18226:Result (33.3% 2 -0 +4): O-Y206520
I18227:Result (87.3% 799 -4 +102): G-CTS342
I18239:Result (10.0% 1 -0 +9): H-M52
I18241:Result (100.0% 1 -0 +0): A0-T
I18245:Result (20.0% 1 -0 +4): N-B187
I18246:Result (44.4% 4 -0 +5): E-CTS12954
I18259:Result (33.3% 1 -0 +2): J-Y947
I18426:Result (100.0% 1 -0 +0): R-A12417
I18427:Result (100.0% 3 -0 +0): CT
I18428:Result (73.3% 151 -1 +51): I-Y6098
I18488:Result (14.3% 1 -0 +6): J-Y12603
I18489:Result (85.1% 769 -5 +117): R-L2
I18490:Result (85.5% 627 -1 +103): R-DF90
I18491:Result (5.3% 1 -0 +18): E-Z7679
I18492:Result (86.5% 858 -4 +120): R-FGC59581
I18493:Result (37.5% 6 -0 +10): R-BY15227

No idea where/when these are from, but here are all the Y-hg Ns I could find. (Not including I20509)


I11033:Result (10.0% 1 -0 +9): N-B187
I11033:N -> N-Z4762 -> N-L729 -> N-Z1956 -> N-TAT -> N-F1419 -> N-Y24317 -> N-B187 (ISOGG: )
I11033:Extra: Y32001:G S10266:G Y64534:A Y139822:G Y10358/Z22931:T FGC38052/BY1033:G FT59419:T Y197475:A CTS12954:G
I11033-Links:

I12097:Result (25.0% 2 -0 +6): N-B187
I12097:N -> N-Z4762 -> N-L729 -> N-Z1956 -> N-TAT -> N-F1419 -> N-Y24317 -> N-B187 (ISOGG: )
I12097:Extra: BY90688:T FGC38052/BY1033:G A1598:A FGC48627:T FT156914:T CTS12954:G
I12097-Links:

I14099:Result (33.3% 1 -0 +2): N-B187
I14099:N -> N-Z4762 -> N-L729 -> N-Z1956 -> N-TAT -> N-F1419 -> N-Y24317 -> N-B187 (ISOGG: )
I14099:Extra: Z21068:T JFS3021:C
I14099-Links:

I14108:Result (14.3% 1 -0 +6): N-Y101945
I14108:N -> N-Y6503 -> N-Y6542 -> N-P189.2 -> N-Y6467 -> N-Y111068 -> N-Y101945 (ISOGG: )
I14108:Extra: S10266:G Y65550:C Y89740:G Y24279:A FT156914:T CTS12954:G
I14108-Links:

I14464:Result (100.0% 1 -0 +0): N-B187
I14464:N -> N-Z4762 -> N-L729 -> N-Z1956 -> N-TAT -> N-F1419 -> N-Y24317 -> N-B187 (ISOGG: )
I14464:Extra:
I14464-Links:

I14806:Result (100.0% 1 -0 +0): N-Y9022
I14806:N -> N-Z4762 -> N-L729 -> N-Z1956 -> N-TAT -> N-F1419 -> N-L708 -> N-Z4863 -> N-Y9022 (ISOGG: )
I14806:Extra:
I14806-Links: