PDA

View Full Version : N1c in the Balts



Pages : [1] 2 3 4

newtoboard
12-13-2013, 05:10 PM
What is the latest thinking on the origin N1c in the Balts? Is it from a migration during the Mesolithic not associated with Uralic languages or does it indicate Uralic speakers were present in the Baltic region before IE speakers?

Jean M
12-13-2013, 05:51 PM
We have place-name and archaeological evidence suggesting that Uralic speakers were in the Baltic region before IE speakers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit%E2%80%93Comb_Ware_culture

Michał
12-13-2013, 10:12 PM
We have place-name and archaeological evidence suggesting that Uralic speakers were in the Baltic region before IE speakers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit%E2%80%93Comb_Ware_culture
Jean, I don't think you conclusion is fully consistent with the information provided in your link to Wikipedia. Here is a relevant fragment:

Previously, the dominant view was that the spread of the Comb Ware people was correlated with the diffusion of the Uralic languages, and thus an early Uralic language must have been spoken throughout this culture. However, another more recent view is that the Comb Ware people may have spoken a Paleo-European (pre-Uralic) language, as some toponyms and hydronyms also indicate a non-Uralic, non-Indo-European language at work in some areas.[4] Even then, linguists and archaeologists both have also been skeptical of assigning languages based on the borders of cultural complexes, and it's possible that the Pit-Comb Ware Culture was made up of several languages, one of them being Proto-Uralic.

It seems that prefix pre- is very inconsistently used in the English language, as it may mean either a language ancestral to a more recent known language or a language that simply precedes such known language on a given territory (but is not ancestral to it). In Polish, we usually use two different prefixes in such cases (pra- and pre-, respectively).

Jean M
12-13-2013, 10:30 PM
Jean, I don't think you conclusion is fully consistent with the information provided in your link to Wikipedia.

Archaeology does not deal in certainties. That is why I said "suggesting that", rather than "proving that".

Michał
12-13-2013, 10:49 PM
Archaeology does not deal in certainties. That is why I said "suggesting that", rather than "proving that".
I agree with that, but what I meant was rather that your statement did not really reflect the message included in that wikipedia link.
Anyway, here is a link to another wikipedia page that tries to summarize the past and modern views on the "Proto-Uralic homeland" question:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Uralic_homeland_hypotheses

Jean M
12-13-2013, 11:00 PM
the past and modern views on the "Proto-Uralic homeland" question

I don't support the theory of linguistic continuity from the Mesolithic, but neither did I go for the most recent arguments pushing the date of Proto-Uralic later than that of PIE. I discussed the matter with the author of papers leaning to the latter view, who advised me to stick with the tried and tested middle way. :)

Jean M
12-13-2013, 11:09 PM
I agree with that, but what I meant was rather that your statement did not really reflect the message included in that wikipedia link.


Yes I understood you. You were surprised to find that the Wikipedia page did not give a simple story, in which all archaeologists are agreed that Pit–Comb Ware culture = Uralic speakers. But is that likely? The day you find a Wikipedia page conveying the impression that all archaeologists and linguists are absolutely certain that a particular prehistoric culture can be equated with a particular ethnos or linguistic community, you know that page needs editing. :)

Generalissimo
12-13-2013, 11:12 PM
What is the latest thinking on the origin N1c in the Balts? Is it from a migration during the Mesolithic not associated with Uralic languages or does it indicate Uralic speakers were present in the Baltic region before IE speakers?

The Baltic N1c branch looks pre-Uralic, and might actually represent an Indo-European migration, which carried both R1a and N1c to the Baltic.

Michał
12-14-2013, 12:13 AM
Yes I understood you. You were surprised to find that the Wikipedia page did not give a simple story,
No, it was exactly the other way around. I was surprised that you seemed to interpret the well-balanced description provided by wikipedia in such a simplistic way. In other words, your short initial statement has presented only one of several possibilities suggested by wikipedia (and it wasn't a view one could name a modern consensus view). Of course, I find your further explanation fully satisfactory. :)



in which all archaeologists are agreed that Pit–Comb Ware culture = Uralic speakers. But is that likely?
You may not have noticed it, but I have already posted here on this subject and my view on the PCW=Proto-Uralic hypothesis is very critical, so I wasn't really surprised that this is not considered a consensus view any more.

Michał
12-14-2013, 12:22 AM
The Baltic N1c branch looks pre-Uralic, and might actually represent an Indo-European migration, which carried both R1a and N1c to the Baltic.
It seems to me that there is nothing in the structure and age of the N1c-L1025 clade that would suggest your above interpretation, but since this has been already discussed in detail elsewhere, I can only hope that some aDNA data will help us solve this question very soon.

Generalissimo
12-14-2013, 12:32 AM
It seems to me that there is nothing in the structure and age of the N1c-L1025 clade that would suggest your above interpretation, but since this has been already discussed in detail elsewhere, I can only hope that some aDNA data will help us solve this question very soon.

Finnish linguist and hobby genetecist, known as Jaska on various forums, posited that theory a while back. Maybe things have changed since then, I don't know?

Michał
12-14-2013, 12:44 AM
Finnish linguist and hobby genetecist, known as Jaska on various forums, posited that theory a while back. Maybe things have changed since then, I don't know?
Could you please give me a link to his posts or articles on this very subject?

lgmayka
12-14-2013, 03:49 AM
The Baltic N1c branch looks pre-Uralic, and might actually represent an Indo-European migration, which carried both R1a and N1c to the Baltic.
Big Y test results should be very helpful in structuring and dating the branches, and therefore the spread, of the N haplotree. We can then attempt to correlate those dates with other events.

Jean M
12-14-2013, 10:06 AM
No, it was exactly the other way around. I was surprised that you seemed to interpret the well-balanced description provided by wikipedia in such a simplistic way.

I wasn't interpreting Wikipedia. I don't use Wikipedia as a source. But I can't keep citing myself all the time. So I lazily pushed people towards the easy online source for some idea of what I'm talking about, just to get the ball rolling. People are free to argue about it of course.


You may not have noticed it, but I have already posted here on this subject and my view on the PCW=Proto-Uralic hypothesis is very critical, so I wasn't really surprised that this is not considered a consensus view any more.

No. Sorry I hadn't noticed. But certainly there are chronological issues to clear up.

Jean M
12-14-2013, 10:14 AM
Could you please give me a link to his posts or articles on this very subject?

PM on the way.

Jean M
12-14-2013, 11:12 AM
Could you please give me a link to his posts or articles on this very subject?

I have found an online article by J. H. which was updated in January 2012, so I think it may represent his latest thinking.
http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/N1c1.pdf


..it seems that the first split of the haplogroup N1c1 occurred somewhere between the Ural Mountains and the Altai–Sayan Mountains – around the southern part of West Siberia. The eastern group is mainly restricted to Asia, while the western group is mainly restricted to Europe... The first split [in Europe] seems to have occurred between the western Central European group, and the eastern East European group. This split probably occurred somewhere near the Upper Volga basin or in any case east of Baltia.
The spread of Comb Ceramics Culture to the Fenno-Baltia about 6 000 years ago was accompanied by many changes in the material culture and dwellings, which hints to the considerable movement of people. Remarkably, the two westernmost Comb Ceramic areas seem to correlate rather well with the division of the European N1c1: the Comb-Pit Ware (or Typical Combed Ware, 1a) was present in Baltia, Finland and Kare-lia, while the Pit-Comb Ware (1b) was present in Karelia and Northwest Russia up to the Northern Dvina .. and in the Upper Volga area, from Lake Peipus in the west to the Volga–Kama fork in the east and Upper Dnieper in the south.

The Balto-Polish group can be derived from the southwestern most part of the Comb-Pit Ware area, while the Scandinavian group can be derived from the Scandinavian Pitted Ware (4) area; this ceramic style is a bit younger and seem to have possibly received influence from the Comb-Pit Ware of Baltia or Finland. Perhaps it will be found also some Finnish subgroup deriving from the Central European group. The true Rurikids (members of noble Russian families) belong to the Scandinavian group, and their closest relatives are found in the coastal Finland, among the Swedish-speaking Finns. Their brother group (clan of Tawast–Räihä) is found among the Western Finns...

It must be noted that there are no traces of any Uralic language in Northeast Poland, and also the new datings for the expansion of Proto-Uralic (ca. 2000 BC) are about two millennia too late to be connected to the spread of the Comb-Pit Ware. Therefore we must exclude the westernmost area, the Comb-Pit Ware (1a) from the area of the Uralic languages, and even in the Pit-Comb Ware area (1b) the Uralic languages seem to be later newcomers: the original area of Proto-Uralic is on the linguistic basis located on the northern side of the Volga bend and Lower Kama – just in the gap between the central and eastern area of the Comb Ceram-ics (Häkkinen, Jaakko 2009: Kantauralin ajoitus ja paikannus: perustelut puntarissa.)

Only at a later stage can we with slightly greater assurance connect the westernmost Uralic languages to the Finlandian and Ladogan groups: Proto-Finnic to the former, if it is found in Estonia, and Proto-Saami perhaps to certain subgroups of the latter.

It must be emphasized that there is no more reason to connect the Comb Ceramic Culture to the spread of the Uralic languages, but it still can be connected to the spread of N1c1 to the Baltic Sea region. No earlier than one millennium later the Corded Ware Culture spread to Baltia, Southwest Finland and Southern Sweden, supposedly spreading the Northwest Indo-European dialect. Only after this wave the N1c1 men of the area (as well as those of any other haplogroup) could have begun to speak an Indo-European language. Yet it is possible that the North European group of N1c1 participated also in the Corded Ware expansion from Poland to the more northern areas, even though the main bulk of the Corded Ware men seem to have been R1a1.

Jean M
12-14-2013, 01:53 PM
Finnish linguist and hobby geneticist, known as Jaska on various forums, posited that theory a while back.

I do not recall Jaska ever positing the theory that N1c might represent an Indo-European migration to the Baltic before Uralic. I have papers by him going back to 2009, which all suggest that the early expansion of N1 from southern Siberia to north-eastern Europe may be connected with a Pre-Proto-Uralic expansion. He is using the prefix "Pre-" here as linguists do, to indicate a language which developed into Proto-Uralic, not a completely unrelated language which happened to precede Proto-Uralic in the territory.

lgmayka
12-14-2013, 04:42 PM
L1025 (the South Baltic branch of N-L550) is not nearly as concentrated in the Baltic countries as some people may think. Take a look at this map of its spread (http://www.semargl.me/en/dna/ydna/map-snp/1221/). Its secondary concentrations near northeast Ukraine and the Carpathian mountains are noteworthy.

Again: I look forward to what Big Y results will tell us.

newtoboard
12-22-2013, 01:34 PM
Interesting. Baltic languages are said to have been spread much more west ( I have read of the Pomeranian and Lusatian Cultures corresponding to Baltic) which might explain why L1025 is more widespread the the extent of modern Baltic languages.

newtoboard
12-22-2013, 01:34 PM
And spread more east as well obviously.

bicicleur
01-13-2014, 07:17 PM
It seems to me that there is nothing in the structure and age of the N1c-L1025 clade that would suggest your above interpretation, but since this has been already discussed in detail elsewhere.

Hello Michal, I'm new here.
Could you tell me where I can find more on this subject?

Michał
01-14-2014, 01:08 PM
Hello Michal, I'm new here.
Welcome to the forum! :)



Could you tell me where I can find more on this subject?
You can start with the discussion that was once held on the Molgen forum:
http://eng.molgen.org/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=844&start=40

lgmayka
01-14-2014, 08:03 PM
Could you tell me where I can find more on this subject?
I expect Big Y results to bring us much more information. At least 17 men in the N-L1025 clade have ordered that test.

newtoboard
01-15-2014, 08:36 PM
I expect Big Y results to bring us much more information. At least 17 men in the N-L1025 clade have ordered that test.

If it turns out N in the South Baltic, or at least a good portion of it, dates to the Mesolithic what language was most likely spoken by them ? Some sort of brother to Uralic or a Paleo European languages?

Michał
01-16-2014, 10:18 AM
At least 17 men in the N-L1025 clade have ordered that test.
Is there any place where I can find a list of those N1c-L1025 people who ordered Big Y?

lgmayka
01-16-2014, 03:55 PM
Is there any place where I can find a list of those N1c-L1025 people who ordered Big Y?
Take a look at this Molgen post (http://eng.molgen.org/viewtopic.php?p=18828#p18828) and the several that follow. For your convenience, here is a list of N-L1025 kits and surnames that are known to have ordered the Big Y:

174607 Lamborn
113355 Tawast
262236 Keskitalo
102351 Stjerna
N11423 Sakowicz
175141 Dunkel
B2967 Czora
149750 Krenek
N81921 Berkhout
N58382 Dargiel
133144 Chartorisky, L551+
N101084 Radville
N20613 Ehlert
N6569 Leonard
119958 Moszynski, L591+
145475 Melnyk
156758 Stankevičius, L591+

Unfortunately, I don't know of anyone in the N-L1027 subclade who ordered the Big Y.

Volat
06-01-2014, 06:17 PM
Balts have south Baltic branch of N1c1 , which is common among Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians. It also found among Belarusians, Russians, Ukrainians, Poles. The highest frequency of south Baltic branch in Slavic populations is among Belarusians if memory serves me correctly. There is north-south gradient of N1c1 in Belarus. Eastern Ukraine was empty in the last 1000 years populated by Russians, Ukrainians and to lesser extent by Belarusian in the last 200 years . This can explain N1c1 presence in eastern Ukraine.

The clade is absent among Finno-Ugric speakers in significant amounts except for Estonians, who are heavily mixed with Balts and Slavs as per y-chromosome and genome-wide studies.

There are few Finnic typonyms and hydronyms in Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine and Poland. There were few craniums found in Lithuania exhibiting mongoloid features which were attributed to Uralic speakers by anthropologists in the past. Most of them were found close to the border with Latvia.

The haplogroup N1c1 originated in south Siberia and by the time the carriers of N1c1 reached eastern Europe they absorbed genes of various populations switching languages along the way. South Baltic clade of N1c1 isn't very old.

Volat
06-01-2014, 09:23 PM
In the past the spread of Comb ceramic people was correlated with early Uralic languages. A more recent view is that the Comb ceramic people may had spoken a Paleo-European language. If that the case then it may explain genetic similarities between north-eastern Slavs, Balts and Baltic Finns.

Tomenable
11-13-2015, 02:26 PM
The exact origin of that Baltic N1c is a very controversial issue, so I would recommend discussing this in other threads (like this one), even though I strongly suspect that this is associated with a relatively recent (and sex-specific) Nordic/Scandinavian ancestry.

Baltic N1c is much older than the Viking Age, so I don't think that it is of Scandinavian origin:

N1c1a1a1a (L550): found throughout the Baltic and North Slavic (especially East Slavic) countries
N1c1a1a1a1 (L1025): found especially in Balto-Slavic countries, with a peak in Lithuania and Latvia

N-L550 formed 3300 ybp, TMRCA 2700 ybp (according to YFull estimate, which can be 10-20% too young)
N-L1025 formed 2700 ybp, TMRCA 2500 ybp (according to YFull estimate, which can be 10-20% too young)

N1c was found in 2 burials of Zhizhitskaya culture near Serteya (Smolensk Oblast - see the map below), dated to ca. 2500 BC.

Do we know if that N1c from Zhizhitskaya culture was under N-L550 or under N-L1025 ???

Another N1c was found in "Devichi gory" burial - dated to ca. 800-400 BC, located on the banks of Lake Zhizhitskoye:

http://s8.postimg.org/fbb2obo11/map_of_locations.png

That younger N1c comes from Dnieper-Dvina culture, associated with East Balts (ancestors of Lithuanians & Latvians):

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnepr-Dwina-Kultur

Iron Age homeland of East Balts were forest cultures of North-West Russia characterised by hillforts and long barrows.

That network of hillfort-building cultures of the forest zone, included primarily the following cultures:

- Brushed pottery culture
- Stroked-pottery culture
- Dnieper-Dvina culture
- Yukhnov culture
- Upper Oka culture

In another thread Volat also mentioned:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3820-R1a-from-Haak-et-al-2015&p=71110#post71110


Stroked-pottery culture 7BC-5AD
Moshinskaya culture 4AD-6AD related to Dniepr-Dvina culture
Upper-Oka culture of Iron age related to dniepr-Dvina culture
Milograd culture 7BC-1AD
Yukhnovskaya culture 5BC-2BC
Eastern lithuanian barrow culture 5AD-12AD
Bantser archeological culture – 4AD-6AD
Stone barrow culture 4AD-13AD
Possibly Kolichinsk (5AD-7AD)

If that N1c from Dnieper-Dvina culture was of the same type as in modern Balts, we can exclude Scandinavian origin.

We have two samples of Y-DNA from Dnieper-Dvina culture, from the area of Lake Zhizhitskoye (see Chekunova 2014*):

Sample A4 - Anashkino hillfort - dated to ca. 800-400 BC; Y-DNA: R1a1, mtDNA: H
Sample A5 - "Devichi gory" burial - dated to ca. 800-400 BC, Y-DNA: N1c, mtDNA: H2

The same Y-DNA haplogroups which are today found among Latvians and Lithuanians in roughly equal proportion.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Chekunova (2014), "The first results of genetic typing of local population and ancient humans in Upper Dvina region", in Mazurkevich, Polkovnikova and Dolbunova, "Archaeology of lake settlement IV-II mill. BC", pp. 290-294:

https://www.academia.edu/9452168/Archaeology_of_lake_settlements_IV-II_mill._BC_Mazurkevich_A._Polkovnikova_M._Dolbuno va_E._ed

Also Dolukhanov et al., "The East European Plain on the Eve of Agriculture" (info on sites with aDNA from Chekunova - info on sites of Zhizhitskaya culture is on page 185, while on sites of Dnieper-Dvina culture on page 187):

http://www.mas.ncl.ac.uk/~nas13/AS/2009BAR_Int_Ser1964_Dolukhanov_etal.pdf

Michał
11-13-2015, 03:13 PM
Baltic N1c is much older than the Viking Age, so I don't think that it is of Scandinavian origin:

N1c1a1a1a (L550): found throughout the Baltic and North Slavic (especially East Slavic) countries
N1c1a1a1a1 (L1025): found especially in Balto-Slavic countries, with a peak in Lithuania and Latvia
Neither N1c-L550 nor N1c-L1025 are specifically associated with the Balts (or Balto-Slavs). In fact, it is only one of the two major sublcades under L1025 (ie. M2783) that is strongly (and quite specifically!) associated with the Baltic population. Importantly, the only sister clade of M2783 (ie. Y4706) is absent among the Balts while being found in Sweden and Finland. Additionally, all five sister clades of L1025 (under L550) are found in Fennoscandia (mostly among the Swedes and Finns). One of those L550 subclades (known as Y4343 or Y4348) is of special importance, as despite being found among the Swedes and Finns, it also includes a so-called Varangian subclade that seems to be strongly associated with the Early Russian Rurikid dynasty of foreign (Varangian/Viking) origin.

All above suggests that both L550 and and its subclade L1025 are of non-Baltic (and non-Balto-Slavic) origin. Instead, the above data indicate that these clades originated and initially expanded in Fennoscandia, although two of the multiple descending lineages were very successful either among the early Eastern Slavs (the Varengian/Viking subclade under Y4343) or among the SE Baltic people, including Latvians, Lithuanians and Prussians (clade M2783).

If L550 and L1025 were born among the Balts or Balto-Slavs, it would be extremely difficult to explain why only two selected sublineages seem to be associated with the Balts/Balto-Slavs (and at least one of them is strongly suspected of being of Norse Viking origin), while all the remaining independent sublineages seem to originate from Sweden/Finland.

As for the TMRCA ages, I don't think clade M2783 is too old to be associated with the Norse Viking ancestry. For example, the Scottish subclade R1a-YP273 under R1a-CTS4179 (in the Scandinavian branch Z284) with TMRCA of 3100 ybp (according to YFull) seems to be significantly older than N1c-M2783 (2600 ybp), yet its Norse-Viking origin seems to be quite commonly accepted. One needs to remember that the migrations of the Norse Vikings were frequently undertaken by very large clans, especially when a military conquest was involved, and each such clan needed at least a couple of centuries for its population to sufficiently grow in numbers before expanding/migrating into foreign territories.


Do we know if that N1c from Zhizhitskaya culture was under N-L550 or under N-L1025 ???
I doubt it was any subclade under L550. Most likely, it was one of the N1c(xL550) species that are common in North-Eastern Europe (and are quite strongly associated with the Finno-Ugric origin).

Tomenable
11-13-2015, 03:18 PM
^ N1c from "Devichi gory" burial is dated to ca. 800-400 BC, so it could already be under L550.

Especially that this burial is found in an archaeological culture associated with early East Balts.

George
11-13-2015, 03:24 PM
Quick query. With respect to the possibility that the Yfull TMRCA estimate is 10 to 20% too young, does one calculate the difference by reference to its BP figure or the resultant BCE/CE figure? I.e. if the Yfull figure is e.g. 2700 BP (=700 BCE) would the adjusted figure be 3240-2970 BP (= 1240-970 BCE) or 840-770 BCE?

Tomenable
11-13-2015, 03:28 PM
George - by reference to its BP figure, of course.

lgmayka
11-13-2015, 10:02 PM
Importantly, the only sister clade of M2783 (ie. Y4706) is absent among the Balts while being found in Sweden and Finland.
Actually, Y4706+ has been found in two Polish families, kits 172478 and N9209. Neither has taken the Big Y, though--both were found by the N SNP Pack.

Michał
11-14-2015, 08:44 PM
All above suggests that both L550 and and its subclade L1025 are of non-Baltic (and non-Balto-Slavic) origin. Instead, the above data indicate that these clades originated and initially expanded in Fennoscandia
I have first suggested this scenario nearly three years ago, shortly after L550 and L1025 were discovered. Last year, this hypothesis was independently formulated (and further developed) by a Latvian poster nicknamed arvistro who was frequently posting on Eupedia (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30418-N1C-in-South-Baltic-Caused-by-Varyag-elite-of-Baltic-Tribes) and ForumBiodiversity. Importantly, apart from mentioning some well-known facts about the very intensive contacts between the Vikings and the Baltic people, he also pointed to a much less known presence of the pre-Viking Nordic people in the SE Baltic region, which took place in the so-called Vendel Period (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendel_Period). For example, one of the local Baltic expansion centers for those Nordic people could have been a very large Vendel Era settlement in Grobin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grobi%C5%86a) (now Grobiņa) in western Latvia where about 3000 surviving burial mounds have been found. Here is a short description of this site found in Wikipedia:

The settlement at Grobin was excavated by Birger Nerman in 1929 and 1930. Nerman found remains of an earthwork stronghold, which had been protected on three sides by the Ālande River. Three Vendel Age cemeteries may be dated to the period between 650 and 800 AD. One of them was military in character and analogous to similar cemeteries in the Mälaren Valley in Central Sweden, while two others indicate that there was "a community of Gotlanders who were carrying on peaceful pursuits behind the shield of the Swedish military".[2] From Nerman's findings, it appears that Grobin was the site of an early Scandinavian colony from Gotland. Many of the graves in level ground were of women, who could be identified as natives of Gotland by their belt-buckles and brooches. The grave-mounds predominantly housed men, often accompanied by typical Scandinavian weaponry.[3]

In one grave a picture-stone or stele depicting two duck-like birds was found in 1987. Such picture-stones are otherwise unique to Gotland. From its style it can be dated to the second half of 7th century. The weathered surface of one side contains refined carvings - inside the ring of ornaments there are two waterbirds; their beaks meet. Several hundreds of such picture stones (Swedish: bildsten) have been found in Gotland.
All this makes it perfectly possible that the first N1c-M2783 people arrived to Latvia and/or Lithuania in the 6th-7th century. What makes it extremely intriguing is that the source of those people seemed to be Gotland and the Eastern-Central part of continental Sweden, thus exactly where the hypothetical homeland of the Goths is frequently placed. When taking this into account, one should not be surprised when N1c (more specifically N1c-L550(xM2783)) turns out to constitute a significant fraction of Y-DNA in Wielbark. Funny enough, this hypothetical presence of N1c in Wielbark (or among the Goths) was first (and I guess unwillingly) suggested by Generalissimo/Tomatoes (http://eng.molgen.org/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=844&sid=49c02be1e495d85485287fe236148fe4&start=54) who otherwise seems to be strongly convinced that Wielbark was full of R1a-M458.

George
11-14-2015, 09:32 PM
"one should not be surprised when N1c (more specifically N1c-L550(xM2783)) turns out to constitute a significant fraction of Y-DNA in Wielbark. Funny enough, this hypothetical presence of N1c in Wielbark (or among the Goths) was first (and I guess unwillingly) suggested by Generalissimo/Tomatoes who otherwise seems to be strongly convinced that Wielbark was full of R1a-M458." (Michal #35)

Any idea when the first Wielbark results will start coming out?

lgmayka
11-14-2015, 09:57 PM
All this makes it perfectly possible that the first N1c-M2783 people arrived to Latvia and/or Lithuania in the 6th-7th century.
I don't see how to reconcile that hypothesis with the fact that the CTS8173 subclade (http://yfull.com/tree/N-CTS8173/), and only that subclade, is found across most of Central-Eastern Europe, from Estonia to Hungary and from Germany to Russia. (See this web page (http://www.kolumbus.fi/geodun/YDNA/Western-Balts-Grouping-FIN.pdf) which identifies Z16981 with the Western Balts.) The implication is that N-CTS8173, and only that subclade, fully participated in the Slavic expansion. Other subclades of N-M2783 did not, implying that the expansion of M2783 itself must have occurred somewhat earlier.

Gravetto-Danubian
11-14-2015, 11:34 PM
Baltic N1c is much older than the Viking Age, so I don't think that it is of Scandinavian origin:

N1c1a1a1a (L550): found throughout the Baltic and North Slavic (especially East Slavic) countries
N1c1a1a1a1 (L1025): found especially in Balto-Slavic countries, with a peak in Lithuania and Latvia

N-L550 formed 3300 ybp, TMRCA 2700 ybp (according to YFull estimate, which can be 10-20% too young)
N-L1025 formed 2700 ybp, TMRCA 2500 ybp (according to YFull estimate, which can be 10-20% too young)

N1c was found in 2 burials of Zhizhitskaya culture near Serteya (Smolensk Oblast - see the map below), dated to ca. 2500 BC.

Do we know if that N1c from Zhizhitskaya culture was under N-L550 or under N-L1025 ???

Another N1c was found in "Devichi gory" burial - dated to ca. 800-400 BC, located on the banks of Lake Zhizhitskoye:

http://s8.postimg.org/fbb2obo11/map_of_locations.png

That younger N1c comes from Dnieper-Dvina culture, associated with East Balts (ancestors of Lithuanians & Latvians):

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnepr-Dwina-Kultur

Iron Age homeland of East Balts were forest cultures of North-West Russia characterised by hillforts and long barrows.

That network of hillfort-building cultures of the forest zone, included primarily the following cultures:

- Brushed pottery culture
- Stroked-pottery culture
- Dnieper-Dvina culture
- Yukhnov culture
- Upper Oka culture

In another thread Volat also mentioned:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3820-R1a-from-Haak-et-al-2015&p=71110#post71110



If that N1c from Dnieper-Dvina culture was of the same type as in modern Balts, we can exclude Scandinavian origin.

We have two samples of Y-DNA from Dnieper-Dvina culture, from the area of Lake Zhizhitskoye (see Chekunova 2014*):

Sample A4 - Anashkino hillfort - dated to ca. 800-400 BC; Y-DNA: R1a1, mtDNA: H
Sample A5 - "Devichi gory" burial - dated to ca. 800-400 BC, Y-DNA: N1c, mtDNA: H2

The same Y-DNA haplogroups which are today found among Latvians and Lithuanians in roughly equal proportion.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Chekunova (2014), "The first results of genetic typing of local population and ancient humans in Upper Dvina region", in Mazurkevich, Polkovnikova and Dolbunova, "Archaeology of lake settlement IV-II mill. BC", pp. 290-294:

https://www.academia.edu/9452168/Archaeology_of_lake_settlements_IV-II_mill._BC_Mazurkevich_A._Polkovnikova_M._Dolbuno va_E._ed

Also Dolukhanov et al., "The East European Plain on the Eve of Agriculture" (info on sites with aDNA from Chekunova - info on sites of Zhizhitskaya culture is on page 185, while on sites of Dnieper-Dvina culture on page 187):

http://www.mas.ncl.ac.uk/~nas13/AS/2009BAR_Int_Ser1964_Dolukhanov_etal.pdf

Nice list, Tom.
I'd definitely include Milograd - often seen as "proto-Slavic" (and incorrectly IMO)- on that list of 'Iron Age Baltic' (sensu Balto-Slavic) hill fort cultures.

Gravetto-Danubian
11-14-2015, 11:49 PM
I have first suggested this scenario nearly three years ago, shortly after L550 and L1025 were discovered. Last year, this hypothesis was independently formulated (and further developed) by a Latvian poster nicknamed arvistro who was frequently posting on Eupedia (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30418-N1C-in-South-Baltic-Caused-by-Varyag-elite-of-Baltic-Tribes) and ForumBiodiversity. Importantly, apart from mentioning some well-known facts about the very intensive contacts between the Vikings and the Baltic people, he also pointed to a much less known presence of the pre-Viking Nordic people in the SE Baltic region, which took place in the so-called Vendel Period (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendel_Period). For example, one of the local Baltic expansion centers for those Nordic people could have been a very large Vendel Era settlement in Grobin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grobi%C5%86a) (now Grobiņa) in western Latvia where about 3000 surviving burial mounds have been found.

That is certainly correct. It was likely mediated via the island of Aland, and such. The Grobin settlements are covered in The Emergence of Rus by Shephard and Franklin pp 8-10.
Of course, exchange across Scandinavia and the SE Baltic was something that has always occurred, not just in the Vendel period

Gravetto-Danubian
11-14-2015, 11:50 PM
I don't see how to reconcile that hypothesis with the fact that the CTS8173 subclade (http://yfull.com/tree/N-CTS8173/), and only that subclade, is found across most of Central-Eastern Europe, from Estonia to Hungary and from Germany to Russia. (See this web page (http://www.kolumbus.fi/geodun/YDNA/Western-Balts-Grouping-FIN.pdf) which identifies Z16981 with the Western Balts.) The implication is that N-CTS8173, and only that subclade, fully participated in the Slavic expansion. Other subclades of N-M2783 did not, implying that the expansion of M2783 itself must have occurred somewhat earlier.

Wow. Let me get this straight: allN1c in east central Europe likely belongs to that specific subclade ?
And it's frequency is in the general zone of 3- 4% ??

Gravetto-Danubian
11-14-2015, 11:59 PM
"one should not be surprised when N1c (more specifically N1c-L550(xM2783)) turns out to constitute a significant fraction of Y-DNA in Wielbark. Funny enough, this hypothetical presence of N1c in Wielbark (or among the Goths) was first (and I guess unwillingly) suggested by Generalissimo/Tomatoes who otherwise seems to be strongly convinced that Wielbark was full of R1a-M458." (Michal #35)

Any idea when the first Wielbark results will start coming out?

I don't know when but it looks like polish scholars are onto it

http://www.mpov.uw.edu.pl/en/

I know Patrick geary is also doing a large study on Lombards (not really directly related here but shows that people are moving aDNA into iron and migration era periods).

I wouldn't be surprised if M458 is found in Wielbark, but quite obviously the wielbark phase is discontinuous with the predecessors of early Poland (with a hiatus as large as 200 years in some areas) and M458 looks like a recent growth in west Slav lands.

Michał
11-15-2015, 12:36 AM
Any idea when the first Wielbark results will start coming out?
Generalissimo seems to be best informed as to the progress in this particular field, so he will certainly let us know if any results are about to be released.

lgmayka
11-15-2015, 01:32 AM
Wow. Let me get this straight: allN1c in east central Europe likely belongs to that specific subclade ?
This web page (http://www.kolumbus.fi/geodun/YDNA/Western-Balts-Grouping-FIN.pdf) illustrates what I mean. From M2783 down to Z16981, examples are from Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, and Belarus. Then, at the CTS8173 level and below, we see Estonia, Russia, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Germany, Ukraine, and even Finland.


And it's frequency is in the general zone of 3- 4% ??
I think the percentage is lower than that, except in the original core areas.

Tomenable
11-15-2015, 01:33 AM
I wouldn't be surprised if M458 is found in Wielbark, but quite obviously the wielbark phase is discontinuous with the predecessors of early Poland (with a hiatus as large as 200 years in some areas) and M458 looks like a recent growth in west Slav lands.

German archaeologist Sebastian Brather, whose specialization is West Slavic archaeology, wrote:

S. Brather, "The Western Slavs of the Seventh to the Eleventh Century. An Archaeological Perspective":

http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1111%2Fj.1478-0542.2011.00779.x?r3_referer=wol&tracking_action=preview_click&show_checkout=1&purchase_referrer=onlinelibrary.wiley.com&purchase_site_license=LICENSE_DENIED

"(...) How East Central Europe1 became Slavic is still a matter of debate2 and much confusion is caused by an inadequate integration of historical, cultural or archaeological and philological perspectives. For Late Antiquity the archaeological evidence suggests ‘Germanic’ – we know only some names of gentes – settlements, cemeteries become more and more sparse. From the 7th century onwards a different settlement pattern and a new type of material culture can be observed; they are associated with Slavs. ‘Slavs’ is a linguistic term as well as ‘Western Slavs’ for Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, and Elbe Slavs, while archaeology is not able to identify the language of the people who settled in these regions. It is therefore much more plausible to characterize settlement patterns, economy and material culture chronologically – as Early Medieval. Between these two periods there seems to have been a hiatus in the archaeological record, a depopulated East Central Europe. But is that true? The study of pollen samples seems to suggest a widely reduced land-use and population, but there is some evidence of continuing agriculture.3 The indistinctness of simple hand-made pottery, the collapse of long-distance exchange and the lack of imports make it hard to evaluate this transitional period archaeologically. Therefore, there is considerable room left for a traditional debate between supporters of the idea that Late Antique ‘Germanic’ populations did not migrate elsewhere, but stayed (and became or were already? Slavs) – and those who believe in the total abandonment of the region by ‘Germanic’ groups and in the subsequent immigration of ‘Slavic’ peoples from the east. Currently archaeology is unable to give a satisfying answer and probably both aspects played a role. But to play ‘Germanic’ groups off against ‘Slavs’ is definitely wrong, especially in the search for a hypothetical urheimat. The term ‘Germanic’ is a political-geographical construct created by the Romans (following Ceasar). Similarly, ‘the Slavs’ were ‘invented’ by the Byzantines – as a term and category. (...)"

If archaeology is still unable to give a satisfying answer (even after so many years), I hope archaeogenetics will.

=========================

Edit:

By the way - here is Sebastian Brather's book "Archäologie der westlichen Slawen" (in German):

https://pl.scribd.com/doc/67423250/Brather-Archaologie-der-westlichen-Slawen-Siedlung-Wirtschaft-und-Gesellschaft-im-fruh-und-hochmittelalterlichen-Ostmitteleuropa

The main focus of this book is on Slavs who used to live in what is now East Germany, though.

Michał
11-15-2015, 01:37 AM
I don't see how to reconcile that hypothesis with the fact that the CTS8173 subclade (http://yfull.com/tree/N-CTS8173/), and only that subclade, is found across most of Central-Eastern Europe, from Estonia to Hungary and from Germany to Russia. (See this web page (http://www.kolumbus.fi/geodun/YDNA/Western-Balts-Grouping-FIN.pdf) which identifies Z16981 with the Western Balts.) The implication is that N-CTS8173, and only that subclade, fully participated in the Slavic expansion. Other subclades of N-M2783 did not, implying that the expansion of M2783 itself must have occurred somewhat earlier.
Honestly, I really doubt that N1c-CTS8173 as a whole participated in the Slavic expansion. This clade seems to include two known CTS8173* cases, while all remaining members (I mean those who were tested for any crucial markers downstream) can be assigned to three major subclades under CTS8173, ie. to Y11882, Y15922 or Y6075. Let's take a closer look at these groupings:

Paragroup CTS8173* includes one man from Lithuania and one from Netherlands, so nothing that would indicate Slavic origin of CTS8173. There is also one good candidate for CTS8173* from Estonia, but his Y11882 status seems to be not known.

Subclade Y11882 includes two Lithuanians, one Latvian and one Ukrainian. Again, nothing that would suggest Slavic origin of this subclade.

Subclade Y15922 includes two Finns, two Lithuanians, one Latvian and two families from Poland (with non-Slavic surnames Dunkel and Kirks), so its Slavic origin is more than doubtful.

Subclade Y6075 is the only subclade that is indeed associated mostly with Slavs, as it includes lineages originating from Poland (4-5), Czech Republic (4), Slovakia (2), Lithuania (1) and Germany (1). Please note that this subclade is not seen among the Eastern and Southern Slavs, so it probably was absent among the Proto-Slavs. Most likely, N1c-Y6075 corresponds to a West Baltic grouping that migrated southward (in the late 6th or early 7th century) and was assimilated by the Early Slavs expanding from east (Belarus/NW Ukraine) to west (Poland, Slovakia, Bohemia). Another possibility is that the Y6075 lineage came to Poland directly from Sweden, either in the Pre-Slavic or Early Slavic period.

In the Polish project, I found 50 Slavic N1c-M2783 lineages/families with known (or strongly predicted) Y6075 status, and only 8 of them were Y6075+, so when assuming that the remaining ones were of relatively late Baltic origin, one would need to admit that the vast majority of Slavic N1c-M2783 are descendants of Old Prussians, Lithuanians, Latvians and maybe of some smaller Baltic tribes that went extinct in the Middle Ages.

Gravetto-Danubian
11-15-2015, 02:07 AM
German archaeologist Sebastian Brather, whose specialization is West Slavic archaeology, wrote:

S. Brather, "The Western Slavs of the Seventh to the Eleventh Century. An Archaeological Perspective":

http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1111%2Fj.1478-0542.2011.00779.x?r3_referer=wol&tracking_action=preview_click&show_checkout=1&purchase_referrer=onlinelibrary.wiley.com&purchase_site_license=LICENSE_DENIED

"(...) How East Central Europe1 became Slavic is still a matter of debate2 and much confusion is caused by an inadequate integration of historical, cultural or archaeological and philological perspectives. For Late Antiquity the archaeological evidence suggests ‘Germanic’ – we know only some names of gentes – settlements, cemeteries become more and more sparse. From the 7th century onwards a different settlement pattern and a new type of material culture can be observed; they are associated with Slavs. ‘Slavs’ is a linguistic term as well as ‘Western Slavs’ for Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, and Elbe Slavs, while archaeology is not able to identify the language of the people who settled in these regions. It is therefore much more plausible to characterize settlement patterns, economy and material culture chronologically – as Early Medieval. Between these two periods there seems to have been a hiatus in the archaeological record, a depopulated East Central Europe. But is that true? The study of pollen samples seems to suggest a widely reduced land-use and population, but there is some evidence of continuing agriculture.3 The indistinctness of simple hand-made pottery, the collapse of long-distance exchange and the lack of imports make it hard to evaluate this transitional period archaeologically. Therefore, there is considerable room left for a traditional debate between supporters of the idea that Late Antique ‘Germanic’ populations did not migrate elsewhere, but stayed (and became or were already? Slavs) – and those who believe in the total abandonment of the region by ‘Germanic’ groups and in the subsequent immigration of ‘Slavic’ peoples from the east. Currently archaeology is unable to give a satisfying answer and probably both aspects played a role. But to play ‘Germanic’ groups off against ‘Slavs’ is definitely wrong, especially in the search for a hypothetical urheimat. The term ‘Germanic’ is a political-geographical construct created by the Romans (following Ceasar). Similarly, ‘the Slavs’ were ‘invented’ by the Byzantines – as a term and category. (...)"

If archaeology is still unable to give a satisfying answer (even after so many years), I hope archaeogenetics will.

=========================

Edit:

By the way - here is Sebastian Brather's book "Archäologie der westlichen Slawen" (in German):

https://pl.scribd.com/doc/67423250/Brather-Archaologie-der-westlichen-Slawen-Siedlung-Wirtschaft-und-Gesellschaft-im-fruh-und-hochmittelalterlichen-Ostmitteleuropa

The main focus of this book is on Slavs who used to live in what is now East Germany, though.

Yes I agree but you've only partly understood.
It is true - and I've mentioned it numerous times here- "Germani" of the Roman period was a territorial, generic destination. That is to say, people in the Vistula lands in the iron and Roman ages could have spoken Balto - Slavic, vistulan " Venedic", even remnant Celtic, etc.

But, the archaeological situation is rather clear. There was a significant drop in settlements and people inthe vast region from eastern Germnay to southern and western Belarus, and even through to western Ukraine. I'm not sure exactly why- possibly multiple factors. This was not the first time it happened- it had also occured after the lusatian period prior the Pomeranian culture extended from the north to the rest of Poland.

This is not due to a bias or lack of research. I know some scholars in Poland push for continuity, but on dubious basis like "skull shapes". The dating from dendrochronology is clear on this - a large drop in population after 450 АD- apart from the Baltic coast and SW Poland (Silesia) - and the earliest medieval phases ("Slavic") come from late 6th, probably early 7th century. In fact most are from 650s onward- as Brather has shown - as has Sebastian Massall. So it might seem shocking, but we have a ~~ 150 year period of very little human activity in much of Poland.

IMO , the new peoples came from western Ukraine and the middle Danube/ Hungary, incorporating pockets of surviving lingerers and Balts on the coast- eventually.

George
11-15-2015, 02:15 AM
(Re Brather #44)I'm not particularly impressed by this argumentation: (1) "The indistinctness of simple hand-made pottery, the collapse of long-distance exchange and the lack of imports make it hard to evaluate this transitional period archaeologically"== But it is obviously possible to identify settlements if they exist, as well as their density and quantity. Either they are there or they are not. Next: (2) "The term ‘Germanic’ is a political-geographical construct created by the Romans (following Ceasar)" One can't just dismiss the distinguishing linguistic data offered by Tacitus. Next: (3) "Similarly, ‘the Slavs’ were ‘invented’ by the Byzantines – as a term and category." This is a flatus vocis if I ever saw one. There is not a shred of evidence to back it up. Unlike some of the stuff Herodotus came up with. But that's a different story.

Gravetto-Danubian
11-15-2015, 02:30 AM
(Re Brather #44)I'm not particularly impressed by this argumentation: (1) "The indistinctness of simple hand-made pottery, the collapse of long-distance exchange and the lack of imports make it hard to evaluate this transitional period archaeologically"== But it is obviously possible to identify settlements if they exist, as well as their density and quantity. Either they are there or they are not. Next: (2) "The term ‘Germanic’ is a political-geographical construct created by the Romans (following Ceasar)" One can't just dismiss the distinguishing linguistic data offered by Tacitus. Next: (3) "Similarly, ‘the Slavs’ were ‘invented’ by the Byzantines – as a term and category." This is a flatus vocis if I ever saw one. There is not a shred of evidence to back it up. Unlike some of the stuff Herodotus came up with. But that's a different story.

It's actually comical that people are still stuck on Tacitus as if he actually had a clue
Tacitus offered no "linguistic data ". Please show where ??

The idea that Germania was a territorial designation and not a strict ethnic one is actually mainstream; so your dismissal is unfounded and misguided

And again you misunderstand "invention". It doesn't mean false or not real. It means labelling . This is not new and happened all the time. Celts was initially a term used to refer to people around Masala, then extended by the Greeks and Romans to all people in he interior of Gaul. Same with "Illyrians". Same with Slavs - as curta states "Slavs might have been a native term", but then it was extended to all around wallachia and Ukraine. Same with "Germani"- used in early days to distinguish those east of the Rhine from those west of the Rhine; later extended to the (arbitrary border) of the Vistula.

Further by "invention", it means the Byzantines themselves had a role in melding the various Slavic groups into larger collectivity. It is during times of stress and wars that the need for larger identities arises

George
11-15-2015, 02:36 AM
Lol!!! So funny people are still stuck on Tacitus as if he actually had a clue
Tacitus offered no "linguistic data ". Please show where ??

Just reread the Germania. I won't do your homework ;)

Gravetto-Danubian
11-15-2015, 03:02 AM
Just reread the Germania. I won't do your homework ;)

I'll take that as a no :)
Because Tacitus nowhere sites evidence of lexis, morphology or syntax about the peoples of the Vistula.

Whilst not doubting Germanic was spoken toward the Visla and beyond, I very much doubt it was a mono-lingual, coherent "Germanic" block.

As Blazejewski states "we need to avoid using modern norms ("Germanic") to ethnic questions of the antique period". Esp when dealing with areas in deep barbaricum - like the Vistula -Oder lands. (-not that I have a problem with it, at all)

In antiquity, Greeks and Romans often used generic terms like Germanic to refer to swathes of territory from the Rhine to the Visla. To argue that everyone spoke Germanic, - although it does indeed broadly agree - sounds forced, IMO.

A very good summary on "Germani" naming is provided by Wells https://books.google.com.au/books?id=fS4XmwEEsRkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=barbarians+bonfante&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=barbarians%20bonfante&f=false

It explains exactly what the purpose of early Roman writers using Germani was .. not a scientific overview of peoples of the east, but a convenient explanation. "there exists a large critical literature about Caesar's and Tacitus' representation of the Germans. Increasingly, researchers are approaching these works as 'literary artefacts", not as objective statements of fact. ...Rather than being considered an ethnography,..but a representation of Roman ideas".

Essentially, Germania was invented by the Romans (your favourite word) to draw a natural barrier and legitimize the halting of Roman expansion at the Rhine. The "Celts" west of the Rhine were more like Romans, thus worth conquering because they could be "civilised". "Germani" east of it were more primitive - not even worth conquering- although some "Germanic" groups east of the Rhine actually spoke Celtic (like the Cimbri which lack the Germanic shift; or Vannius' clan- whose very name is attested in clealry Celtic contexts throughout Noricum).

Michał
11-15-2015, 04:39 AM
I'll take that as a no :)
Because Tacitus nowhere sites evidence of lexis, morphology or syntax about the peoples of the Vistula.
Come on, is this indeed a reason to consider Tacitus absolutely unreliable when he distinguishes between the Germanic-speaking and non-Germanic speaking tribes/people? I am pretty sure that even if he discussed all those things (like syntax, morphology, etc.) you would still complain that this doesn't tell us whether indeed all people from a given region (or a tribe) spoke such a "well-defined" language.



Whilst not doubting Germanic was spoken toward the Visla and beyond, I very much doubt it was a mono-lingual, coherent "Germanic" block.
Well, in that sense even the today's Germany cannot be treated as a mono-lingual coherent "German" block, yet I wouldn't fight anyone just for saying that modern Germany is generally a country where people are called Germans and speak German language.



Essentially, Germania was invented by the Romans (your favourite word) to draw a natural barrier and legitimize the halting of Roman expansion at the Rhine. The "Celts" west of the Rhine were more like Romans, thus worth conquering because they could be "civilised".
I am sorry to say this but what you wrote above is simply not true. If Tacitus was just a man with strong agenda whose only (or main) intention was to present (or even "invent") Germania as a very strictly defined territory with uniform customs, language, etc., so this would facilitate contrasting them with other people (like the Romans or Celts), he certainly wouldn't bother to "invent" some non-Germanic speaking people (like Cothini, Osi and Aestii) living in his "ideal" Germania, or to place the Germanic-speaking people (like Peucini/Bastarnae) outside "Germania".

Presenting Tacitus as a complete ignorant or an inept manipulator is simply disgusting, especially when in nearly all cases where his information can be verified using other sources, he seems to be right.

Gravetto-Danubian
11-15-2015, 06:20 AM
Come on, is this indeed a reason to consider Tacitus absolutely unreliable when he distinguishes between the Germanic-speaking and non-Germanic speaking tribes/people? I am pretty sure that even if he discussed all those things (like syntax, morphology, etc.) you would still complain that this doesn't tell us whether indeed all people from a given region (or a tribe) spoke such a "well-defined" language.



Well, in that sense even the today's Germany cannot be treated as a mono-lingual coherent "German" block, yet I wouldn't fight anyone just for saying that modern Germany is generally a country where people are called Germans and speak German language.



I am sorry to say this but what you wrote above is simply not true. If Tacitus was just a man with strong agenda whose only (or main) intention was to present (or even "invent") Germania as a very strictly defined territory with uniform customs, language, etc., so this would facilitate contrasting them with other people (like the Romans or Celts), he certainly wouldn't bother to "invent" some non-Germanic speaking people (like Cothini, Osi and Aestii) living in his "ideal" Germania, or to place the Germanic-speaking people (like Peucini/Bastarnae) outside "Germania".

Presenting Tacitus as a complete ignorant or an inept manipulator is simply disgusting, especially when in nearly all cases where his information can be verified using other sources, he seems to be right.

Dear Michal
There is no need for flabbergasting, especially given that the true nature of his work - not a real ethnography- has actually been known for a long time; and I'm somewhat surprised that someone as intelligent as yourself would find this surprising. And, I'm Macedonian, so I have no special personal biases as to the ethnolinguistic ascription of Iron Age peoples of what is now Poland and eastern Germany.

I am not presenting Tacitus as an 'inept manipulator', becuase the purpose of his work was not to fuel future academic (and some not so academic) debate about the nature of ethnicity in the eastern reaches of Germania. Rather, his work acheived exactly what it set out to - create an image of the barbarian "other" for his Roman audiences to reflect back on themselves morally. His intention was not to carefully analyse and dissect the peoples of central Europe according to any strict linguistic, genealogical or cultural background - although it would appear so from a superficial understanding of his work. But I do not claim that we should throw the book; or that it was entirely made up. There were true facts of customs, but these were mish-mashed and often based on heresay.

You say "Germania as a very strictly defined territory with uniform customs, language, etc". This is clearly partly true/ the territoriality, but not customs and languages. At the very least, the Germanic people's were always diverse culturally from the outset; with eastern Germani having wholly different belief systems, myths, sanctuaries, burials etc.

Mattingly - in his recent rendition of Germania - points out that Tacitus is writing within the predetermined topos and traditions of Greco-Roman ethnography, and largely writes what is expected to be said. https://books.google.com.au/books?id=DGOnoYNDEj0C&pg=PT39&dq=germani+agricola&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCcQ6wEwAGoVChMIiMHYjMWRyQIVYq2mCh3oYgQn#v=on epage&q=germani%20agricola&f=false
He states there is a "striking omission of anything we might properly call historical data" and is characterised by a "pervasive influence of stereotypes, misconceptions, and misinterpretations".

Mattingly further points out how mistaken generations of past scholars sought to reconstruct 'objectively' what was written by Tacitus and link it with archaeological cultures and modern -defined language groups.

Peter Wells argues the same thing : "Rather than being considered an ethnography,.. Germania is now largely viewed as a literary work informing us more about the attitudes and values of Romans of Tacitus' time than about the Germans he was describing" https://books.google.com.au/books?id=fS4XmwEEsRkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=bonfante+barbarians&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=bonfante%20barbarians&f=false

The main reason why Romans coined the term Germania was not due to the fact that they were acutely aware of its linguistic landscape. Certainly not Tacitus, who never left the Empire's confines, and received information second and third hand, and molded into a pre-existing G-R framework stating what was already expected to be said.

But since you're so convinced that Tacitus contained 'actual, objective data' of the Vistula area (as an example) ; let's take a closer look. He writes of the Venedi "Yet they are rather reckoned amongst the Germans, for that they have fixed houses, and carry shields, and prefer travelling on foot, and excel in swiftness. "

Is that the extent of "Roman knowledge"? Pretty meagre. And only Germani can have a fixed abode, or indeed walk at a reasonable pace ?

No. Germania was a convenient territorial designator created out of Caesar's political and military aims: "Caesar's remarks on the Germans are to be understood in the context of his political aims. ..Caesar portrayed the Rhine as the boundary between Gauls and Germans, thus a "natural' limit for his campaigns...| The Germans were presented as those groups who lived for the most part east of the Rhine." Wells continues:
"Thus both Caesar's and Tacitus' works are no longer accepted as straightforward descriptive accounts of the peoples east of the Rhine..What they provide are representations of Roman ideas about the peoples that inhabited the extensive and to a large extent still little-understood regions beyond the Rhine and the Danube".

We can;t forget Goffart - Germani" was seldom used, but when done so, it referred 'in a narrow sense western barbarian peoples, such as the Franks, who lived.. by the Roman provinces of Germania". (Pg 187, Barbarian Tides)

You do not have to accept this thinking, and one can fall back to the 'older', prima facie understanding of Roman literary works. But we should all be at least aware of these developments, which IMO are for the much better. Again, this is not to deny that there were expansive langauge groups, and shared cultures, etc. But Rome's Germania only partly and inexactly coincided with the territories of Germanic speaking groups. There were non-Germanic speakers in Germania, and Germanic speakers (eg Goths) outside it, who were *never* called Germani, but were at times called Scythians

This has already been summarised by scholars from Scandinavia to Poland and elsewhere I between - eg. Carl Anderson (formation and Resolution of Ideological Contrast in the Early History of Scandinavia) "It must be emphasised, however, that the modern philological
understanding of Germanic is not necessarily congruent with that of ancient authors, such as Tacitus, who included peoples of diverse linguistic groups under this heading; Tacitus' Germani were effectively peoples who lived in the region which Romans identified as Germania."

Michał
11-15-2015, 12:00 PM
You say "Germania as a very strictly defined territory with uniform customs, language, etc". This is clearly partly true/ the territoriality, but not customs and languages.
Exactly, and one must be blind to not see that this is what Tacitus is showing us when pointing to some linguistic and cultural differences between particular populations living in his Germania. No one is saying he was able to provide a truly ethnographic work (according to modern standards), but he certainly tried to present a correct general view with as many details as he could gather (while carefully separating the data he considered much less reliable).



At the very least, the Germanic people's were always diverse culturally from the outset; with eastern Germani having wholly different belief systems, myths, sanctuaries, burials etc.
And where exactly is Tacitus trying to show us that no such differences between particular Germanic tribes were taking place?



Peter Wells argues the same thing : "Rather than being considered an ethnography,.. Germania is now largely viewed as a literary work informing us more about the attitudes and values of Romans of Tacitus' time than about the Germans he was describing"
This is actually what can be said about every book or paper, especially when these works are seen from a distant perspective of "better informed" people who have access to additional data that wasn't available to the author. Please show me just one ancient book that is free of such limitations and provides a much better (ie. more comprehensive) description of ancient Central Europe. Importantly, the opinion expressed by Wells can be equally well applied to each modern work (including his own!), only that we are sometimes unable to see it from a more distant perspective (though I am sure this will certainly change after a couple of centuries, not to mention the two millennia that separate us from the Tacitus' work). Please see for example the recent work "The making of the Slavs" by Florin Curta that is certainly telling us much more about the author's attitude towards some currently "popular" paradigms used in history, archeology and ethnography than about the origin of the Early Slavs.


He writes of the Venedi "Yet they are rather reckoned amongst the Germans, for that they have fixed houses, and carry shields, and prefer travelling on foot, and excel in swiftness. "
Is that the extent of "Roman knowledge"? Pretty meagre. And only Germani can have a fixed abode, or indeed walk at a reasonable pace ?
This is indeed a good example showing us the limitations Tacitus could not avoid when describing some very poorly known people living in territories that had practically no contact with the Roman empire, yet at the same time this is a perfect example of how well he managed to overcome these difficulties. One needs to be extremely biased to fail to notice that what Tacitus is trying to express is that (1) the Venedi did not speak Germanic, and (2) their style of life resembled more closely that of the just described Germanic-speaking people, as opposed to the neighboring Scythian or "Finnic" people (and he specifies where these important similarities or differences can be found). Even from the today's (or "better informed") perspective there is nothing really controversial (or incorrect) in this message he was trying to send to the reader.



But Rome's Germania only partly and inexactly coincided with the territories of Germanic speaking groups. There were non-Germanic speakers in Germania, and Germanic speakers (eg Goths) outside it, who were *never* called Germani, but were at times called Scythians
Please note that this is exactly where Tacitus got it right, ie. he correctly identified some non-Germanic speaking people living on the territory of Germania while placing the Goths among the Germanic (implicitly Germanic-speaking) people, so this can be only used to strengthen his reputation.

Tomenable
11-15-2015, 02:29 PM
But, the archaeological situation is rather clear. There was a significant drop in settlements and people inthe vast region from eastern Germany to southern and western Belarus, and even through to western Ukraine. I'm not sure exactly why- possibly multiple factors. This was not the first time it happened- it had also occured after the lusatian period prior the Pomeranian culture extended from the north to the rest of Poland.

That drop in settlements also took place in areas closer to the Baltic Sea: Estonia, Latvia, South-East Sweden, Norway, North Germany...

The only exception was Finland:

http://www.kirj.ee/public/Archaeology/2014/issue_1/arch-2014-1-30-56.pdf


Estonian Journal of Archaeology, 2014, 18, 1, 30-56
Andres Tvauri

"The Impact of the Climate Catastrophe of 536-537 AD in Estonia and Neighbouring Areas"

In 536 - 541 AD a short-term and sudden cooling took place in the northern hemisphere. Archaeological and palynological data reveal that this event caused crop failure and demographic catastrophe in what is today Estonia. It took until at least the end of the 9th century to return to the previous population level (...) The impact of the catastrophe of 536 was so substantial that it could be considered an important threshold in the Estonian archaeological chronology. It is then that the greatest cultural upheaval since the major changes between the Early and Late Bronze Age are visible. (...)

In Finland, where hunting and fishing were the main livelihoods and thus land cultivation was of marginal importance, the climate catastrophe does not show in the archaeological record as a decrease of archaeological finds as it does in Estonia or eastern Sweden. (...)

Here also two interesting articles related to ethnicity in archaeological studies:

https://www.academia.edu/17354312/Archaeological_narratives_in_ethnicity_studies


Archeologické rozhledy LXVII–2015

"Archaeological narratives in ethnicity studies"

Archeologické příběhy ve studiu etnicity
Guillermo S. Reher – Manuel Fernández-Götz
In order to study ethnicity through Archaeology, the first challenge is to fully understand what that form of
identity is and how it works. In recent years scholars have started to overcome the ‘introduction to ethnicity’
syndrome —whereby recent anthropological developments are acknowledged and then disregarded
when carrying out the analysis—, shedding light on new perspectives which enlighten our understanding
of ethnic identity. In this paper, we not only revise these new approaches, but offer two novel case-studies:
the Treveri from Late Iron Age Gaul and the Igaeditani from Roman Lusitania.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274738814_Articles_Ethnicity_in_Archaeological_Stu dies_based_on_a_Case_Study_of_East_Pomerania_durin g_the_Late_Bronze_Age_and_Early_Iron_Age_%28110040 0_BC%29


Miscellanea Anthropologica et Sociologica 2014, 15 (4): 139–155
Kamil Niedziółka1

"Ethnicity in Archaeological Studies, based on a Case Study of East Pomerania during the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age (1100–400 BC)"

The study of ethnicity is an exceptionally controversial subject in current archaeological
investigations. This issue has also frequently appeared in polish prehistoric literature
from the very beginning of archaeology till the present. The problem is that archaeology
in Poland is still under strong influence from a conservative, culture-historical paradigm.
This methodological approach leads to the desire to make simple connections between
material remains, discovered by archaeologists, with specific categories of ethnicity. If we
add to this various efforts to use archaeology in the legitimation of modern ethnic and
national claims, we can imagine how complicated these sorts of studies can become.
The main aim of this paper is to show the history of investigations set to define the
ethnic character of the people who inhabited polish lands in prehistory. The author will
focus especially on the area of East Pomerania during the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron
Age due to the live discussions among scholars concerning the ethnic origin of societies
from that area. At the end of this article a new perspective in research into ethnicity will be
outlined with special attention to the need for an interdisciplinary approach to this topic.

George
11-15-2015, 02:43 PM
"That drop in settlements also took place in areas closer to the Baltic Sea: Estonia, Latvia, South-East Sweden, Norway, North Germany..."
(#55) The huge drop in settlement associated with the end of Przeworsk in Poland and Chernyakhiv in Ukraine has nothing to do with the plague of Justinian, and occurred a century earlier.

Tomenable
11-15-2015, 02:48 PM
He states there is a "striking omission of anything we might properly call historical data" and is characterised by a "pervasive influence of stereotypes, misconceptions, and misinterpretations".

Mattingly further points out how mistaken generations of past scholars sought to reconstruct 'objectively' what was written by Tacitus and link it with archaeological cultures and modern -defined language groups.

Peter Wells argues the same thing : "Rather than being considered an ethnography,.. Germania is now largely viewed as a literary work informing us more about the attitudes and values of Romans of Tacitus' time than about the Germans he was describing" https://books.google.com.au/books?id=fS4XmwEEsRkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=bonfante+barbarians&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=bonfante%20barbarians&f=false


"Pervasive influence of stereotypes..." - but were those indeed stereotypes, or the inconvenient truth?

For example these excerpts from Tacitus, "Origin, Location, Manners, and Inhabitants of Germany", published in 98 AD:

"15. Life in times of peace

When not engaged in war they pass much of their time in the chase, and still more in idleness, giving themselves up to sleep and feasting. The bravest and most warlike do no work; they give over the management of the household, of the home, and of the land to the women, the old men, and the weaker members of the family, while they themselves remain in the most sluggish inactivity. It is strange that the same men should be so fond of idleness and yet so averse to peace. It is the custom of the tribes to make their chiefs presents of cattle and grain, and thus to give them the means of support. The chiefs are especially pleased with gifts from neighboring tribes, which are sent not only by individuals, but also by the state, such as choice steeds, heavy armor, trappings, and neck-chains. The Romans have now taught them to accept money also.

16. Lack of cities and towns

It is a well-known fact that the peoples of Germany have no cities, and that they do not even allow buildings to be erected close together. They live scattered about, wherever a spring, or meadow, or a wood has attracted them. Their villages are not arranged in the Roman fashion, with the buildings connected and joined together, but every person surrounds his dwelling with an open space, either as a precaution against the disasters of fire, or because they do not know how to build. They make no use of stone or brick, but employ wood for all purposes. Their buildings are mere rude masses, without ornament or attractiveness, although occasionally they are stained in part with a kind of clay which is so clear and bright that it resembles painting (...)

(...)

23. Their food and drink

A liquor for drinking is made out of barely, or other grain, and fermented so as to be somewhat like wine. The dwellers along the river-bank also buy wine from traders. Their food is of a simple variety, consisting of wild fruit, fresh game, and curdled milk. They satisfy their hunger without making much preparation of cooked dishes, and without the use of any delicacies at all. In quenching their thirst they are not so moderate. If they are supplied with as much as they desire to drink [alcohol], they will be overcome by their own vices as easily as by the arms of an enemy.

24. German amusements

At all their gatherings there is one and the same kind of amusement. This is the dancing of naked youths amid swords and lances that all the time endanger their lives. Experience gives them skill, and skill in turn gives grace. They scorn to receive profit or pay, for, however, reckless their pastime, its reward is only the pleasure of the spectators. Strangely enough, they make games of chance a serious employment, even when sober, and so venturesome are they about winning or losing that, when every other resource has failed, on the final throw of the dice they will stake even their own freedom. He who loses goes into voluntary slavery and, though the younger and stronger of the players, allows himself to be bound and sold. Such is their stubborn persistence in a bad practice, though they themselves call it honor.

(...)

46. Here end the territories of the Suevians (...) the Peucinians, whom some call Basstarnians, speak the same language with the Germans, use the same attire, build like them, and live like them, in that dirtiness and sloth so common to all [Germans] (...).

(...)

6. Iron is not plentiful among them, as may be inferred from the nature of their weapons. Only a few make use of swords or long lances. Ordinarily they carry a spear (which they call a framea), with a short and narrow head, but so sharp and easy to handle that the same weapon serves, according to circumstances, for close or distant conflict. As for the horse-soldier, he is satisfied with a shield and a spear. The foot-soldiers also scatter showers of missiles, each man having several and hurling them to an immense distance, and being naked or lightly clad with a little cloak. They make no display in their equipment. Their shields alone are marked with fancy colors. Only a few have corselets, and just one or two here and there a metal or leather helmet. Their horses are neither beautiful nor swift; nor are they taught various wheeling movements after the Roman fashion, but are driven straight forward so as to make one turn to the right in such a compact body that none may be left behind another."

George
11-15-2015, 02:50 PM
Exactly, and one must be blind to not see that this is what Tacitus is showing us when pointing to some linguistic and cultural differences between particular populations living in his Germania. No one is saying he was able to provide a truly ethnographic work (according to modern standards), but he certainly tried to present a correct general view with as many details as he could gather (while carefully separating the data he considered much less reliable).



And where exactly is Tacitus trying to show us that no such differences between particular Germanic tribes were taking place?



This is actually what can be said about every book or paper, especially when these works are seen from a distant perspective of "better informed" people who have access to additional data that wasn't available to the author. Please show me just one ancient book that is free of such limitations and provides a much better (ie. more comprehensive) description of ancient Central Europe. Importantly, the opinion expressed by Wells can be equally well applied to each modern work (including his own!), only that we are sometimes unable to see it from a more distant perspective (though I am sure this will certainly change after a couple of centuries, not to mention the two millennia that separate us from the Tacitus' work). Please see for example the recent work "The making of the Slavs" by Florin Curta that is certainly telling us much more about the author's attitude towards some currently "popular" paradigms used in history, archeology and ethnography than about the origin of the Early Slavs.


This is indeed a good example showing us the limitations Tacitus could not avoid when describing some very poorly known people living in territories that had practically no contact with the Roman empire, yet at the same time this is a perfect example of how well he managed to overcome these difficulties. One needs to be extremely biased to fail to notice that what Tacitus is trying to express is that (1) the Venedi did not speak Germanic, and (2) their style of life resembled more closely that of the just described Germanic-speaking people, as opposed to the neighboring Scythian or "Finnic" people (and he specifies where these important similarities or differences can be found). Even from the today's (or "better informed") perspective there is nothing really controversial (or incorrect) in this message he was trying to send to the reader.



Please note that this is exactly where Tacitus got it right, ie. he correctly identified some non-Germanic speaking people living on the territory of Germania while placing the Goths among the Germanic (implicitly Germanic-speaking) people, so this can be only used to strengthen his reputation.

Your excellent analysis deserves more than just a "thanks". Let's hope the belly-button gazing postmodern opposition will refrain from another battle of Masada on this :amen: These points on the proper understanding of Tacitus (#51-53) might well be worth moving to another thread (or at least connected somehow) where Tacitus is an important interpretation factor.

Michał
11-15-2015, 06:19 PM
That drop in settlements also took place in areas closer to the Baltic Sea: Estonia, Latvia, South-East Sweden, Norway, North Germany...
The only exception was Finland:
http://www.kirj.ee/public/Archaeology/2014/issue_1/arch-2014-1-30-56.pdf

Let's try to use the data from this very interesting paper to refine my hypothetical scenario regarding the Scandinavia-derived (and N1c-M2783-related) population movement to the SE Baltic region.

Here is what Andres Tvauri writes about the 6th century situation in Sweden:

In Swedish palynological studies, a population loss appears clearly in the 6th century. A rapid contraction of the settlement is observable in the vicinity of Lake Mälaren (Sporrong 1971, 197) and in the province of Östergötland (Widgren 1983). In the province of Hälsingland, pollen diagrams show decreases in human impact around the year 500 (Engelmark & Wallin 1985). In several areas of Norrland, the agricultural landscape reforested around the same time (Engelmark & Wallin 1985). [...]The total number of occupied sites across the Uppland province fell by 75 per cent during the 6th century (Göthberg 2007, 440), whereas the number of new sites founded in new places after that time was substantially smaller. Identical patterns appear at burial grounds. In Västmanland province, adjacent to Uppland, the majority of the grave-fields that had been in continuous use since the Pre-Roman Age (and some began even earlier), were abandoned around the middle of the first millennium (Löwenborg 2010, V; 2012, 12 f.). Over 1300 Iron Age house foundations have been recorded on Öland land, all apparently abandoned in the 6th century, while on Gotland at least 1900 similar deserted structures have been documented (Gräslund & Price 2012 and citations therein).

And here is a contrasting description of the (more or less) contemporary situation in Latvia and Lithuania:

As for Latvia and Lithuania, the archaeological literature does not mention any possible decrease in population around the second half of the 6th century. Nevertheless, both the archaeological sites and the artefact finds show that the area settled by the Baltic peoples witnessed major changes in settlement and culture in the second half of the 6th century and through the 7th century (see Tautavičius 1996; Asaris et al. 2008, 48; Bliujienė et al. 2012, 128).

As documented by the excavations in Grobin (in West Latvia), both above phenomenons are clearly connected to each other, so let me remind the previously cited description of that particular site:

Three Vendel Age cemeteries [in Grobin] may be dated to the period between 650 and 800 AD. One of them was military in character and analogous to similar cemeteries in the Mälaren Valley in Central Sweden, while two others indicate that there was "a community of Gotlanders who were carrying on peaceful pursuits behind the shield of the Swedish military".[2] From Nerman's findings, it appears that Grobin was the site of an early Scandinavian colony from Gotland.

Assuming that the depopulation of Central-Eastern Sweden started about 550 AD while Grobin was founded around 650 AD, we have a gap of about 100 years. This suggests that either Grobin was founded a bit earlier or it was one of the major but secondary (ie. relatively late) Nordic settlements in the SE Baltic region, with both options being consistent with the data reported by Tvauri who mentions the second half of the 6th century as the starting point for the significant changes of settlements and culture in this entire region.

To summarize, it seems that the "conquest" of Latvia and Lithuania by the Scandinavia-derived groups of people started about 550 AD, and the invaders/settlers were fully merged with the local population by about 800 AD (though their patrilineages likely remained very common among the members of the upper/ruling class, which greatly facilitated their further "propagation").

lgmayka
11-15-2015, 06:53 PM
To summarize, it seems that the "conquest" of Latvia and Lithuania by the Scandinavia-derived groups of people started about 550 AD, and the invaders/settlers were fully merged with the local population by about 800 AD (though their patrilineages likely remained very common among the members of the upper/ruling class, which greatly facilitated their further "propagation").
Why would the "conquerors" be entirely N-L550, when that clade is a small minority in modern Scandinavia, which is dominated by R1a, R1b, and I1 ?

Michał
11-15-2015, 07:43 PM
Why would the "conquerors" be entirely N-L550, when that clade is a small minority in modern Scandinavia, which is dominated by R1a, R1b, and I1 ?
The frequencies of both R1a and R1b in modern Eastern Sweden are relatively low (when compared to the remaining parts of Scandinavia) and I would assume they were much lower before the Vendel era (or until the depopulated regions of Eastern Sweden were filled up with some newcomers from west and south-west). This seems to be especially true for R1a-Z284 that likely expanded from Central-Northern Norway only in the pre-Viking (Vendel) or Early Viking era. Thus, I would assume that R1a was practically absent in Eastern Sweden at that very time (ie. about 550 AD), while the frequency of R1b did not exceed 5% (on average, with some significant local differences being of course perfectly possible).

Consequently, I would assume that there were only two major Y-DNA haplogroups in Eastern Sweden, and these were I1 and N1c. It seems perfectly possible that the I1/N1c ratio showed significant fluctuations when comparing particular locations in Eastern Sweden, so it is also possible that N1c was a dominant haplogroup (or a haplogroup common among the local elites) in Central-Eastern Sweden (around Lake Mälaren) and/or in Gotland, from where the majority of Latvian (and Lithuanian?) Norsemen seem to have originated.

Gravetto-Danubian
11-15-2015, 08:12 PM
Exactly, and one must be blind to not see that this is what Tacitus is showing us when pointing to some linguistic and cultural differences between particular populations living in his Germania. No one is saying he was able to provide a truly ethnographic work (according to modern standards), but he certainly tried to present a correct general view with as many details as he could gather (while carefully separating the data he considered much less reliable).



And where exactly is Tacitus trying to show us that no such differences between particular Germanic tribes were taking place?



This is actually what can be said about every book or paper, especially when these works are seen from a distant perspective of "better informed" people who have access to additional data that wasn't available to the author. Please show me just one ancient book that is free of such limitations and provides a much better (ie. more comprehensive) description of ancient Central Europe. Importantly, the opinion expressed by Wells can be equally well applied to each modern work (including his own!), only that we are sometimes unable to see it from a more distant perspective (though I am sure this will certainly change after a couple of centuries, not to mention the two millennia that separate us from the Tacitus' work). Please see for example the recent work "The making of the Slavs" by Florin Curta that is certainly telling us much more about the author's attitude towards some currently "popular" paradigms used in history, archeology and ethnography than about the origin of the Early Slavs.


This is indeed a good example showing us the limitations Tacitus could not avoid when describing some very poorly known people living in territories that had practically no contact with the Roman empire, yet at the same time this is a perfect example of how well he managed to overcome these difficulties. One needs to be extremely biased to fail to notice that what Tacitus is trying to express is that (1) the Venedi did not speak Germanic, and (2) their style of life resembled more closely that of the just described Germanic-speaking people, as opposed to the neighboring Scythian or "Finnic" people (and he specifies where these important similarities or differences can be found). Even from the today's (or "better informed") perspective there is nothing really controversial (or incorrect) in this message he was trying to send to the reader.



Please note that this is exactly where Tacitus got it right, ie. he correctly identified some non-Germanic speaking people living on the territory of Germania while placing the Goths among the Germanic (implicitly Germanic-speaking) people, so this can be only used to strengthen his reputation.

To argue that modern academics are on the same line as ancient "historians" is obviously ludicrous - because their writing belongs to different genres. Tacitus might have been accurate but we really don't know just how accurate. But it appears that you're just deflecting a weighty consensus with no references or cited evidence.

But I guess what language was exactly spoken on the Oder river is redundant if much of the population which dwelt there in the Roman Iron Age no longer existed by the sixth century

Gravetto-Danubian
11-15-2015, 08:23 PM
That drop in settlements also took place in areas closer to the Baltic Sea: Estonia, Latvia, South-East Sweden, Norway, North Germany...

The only exception was Finland:

http://www.kirj.ee/public/Archaeology/2014/issue_1/arch-2014-1-30-56.pdf



Here also two interesting articles related to ethnicity in archaeological studies:

https://www.academia.edu/17354312/Archaeological_narratives_in_ethnicity_studies



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274738814_Articles_Ethnicity_in_Archaeological_Stu dies_based_on_a_Case_Study_of_East_Pomerania_durin g_the_Late_Bronze_Age_and_Early_Iron_Age_%28110040 0_BC%29

Thanks for those other articles I'll have a look. Yes I'm sure there was a drop in settlement in many places after the Roman Empire collapsed, which must have sent shockwaves to existing exchange systems and hierarchies. However the settlement drop in the part of Europe we previously discussed that is between the Elbe-Vistula -Bug appears to have been most marked; followed by an equally marked one in large parts of the interior balkans – thanks to the Byzantines.

The difference in the Baltic literal however is despite a drop in settlements there are settlements or albeit founded in new locations and new styles cemeteries

Gravetto-Danubian
11-15-2015, 08:31 PM
"Pervasive influence of stereotypes..." - but were those indeed stereotypes, or the inconvenient truth?

For example these excerpts from Tacitus, "Origin, Location, Manners, and Inhabitants of Germany", published in 98 AD:

"15. Life in times of peace

When not engaged in war they pass much of their time in the chase, and still more in idleness, giving themselves up to sleep and feasting. The bravest and most warlike do no work; they give over the management of the household, of the home, and of the land to the women, the old men, and the weaker members of the family, while they themselves remain in the most sluggish inactivity. It is strange that the same men should be so fond of idleness and yet so averse to peace. It is the custom of the tribes to make their chiefs presents of cattle and grain, and thus to give them the means of support. The chiefs are especially pleased with gifts from neighboring tribes, which are sent not only by individuals, but also by the state, such as choice steeds, heavy armor, trappings, and neck-chains. The Romans have now taught them to accept money also.

16. Lack of cities and towns

It is a well-known fact that the peoples of Germany have no cities, and that they do not even allow buildings to be erected close together. They live scattered about, wherever a spring, or meadow, or a wood has attracted them. Their villages are not arranged in the Roman fashion, with the buildings connected and joined together, but every person surrounds his dwelling with an open space, either as a precaution against the disasters of fire, or because they do not know how to build. They make no use of stone or brick, but employ wood for all purposes. Their buildings are mere rude masses, without ornament or attractiveness, although occasionally they are stained in part with a kind of clay which is so clear and bright that it resembles painting (...)

(...)

23. Their food and drink

A liquor for drinking is made out of barely, or other grain, and fermented so as to be somewhat like wine. The dwellers along the river-bank also buy wine from traders. Their food is of a simple variety, consisting of wild fruit, fresh game, and curdled milk. They satisfy their hunger without making much preparation of cooked dishes, and without the use of any delicacies at all. In quenching their thirst they are not so moderate. If they are supplied with as much as they desire to drink [alcohol], they will be overcome by their own vices as easily as by the arms of an enemy.

24. German amusements

At all their gatherings there is one and the same kind of amusement. This is the dancing of naked youths amid swords and lances that all the time endanger their lives. Experience gives them skill, and skill in turn gives grace. They scorn to receive profit or pay, for, however, reckless their pastime, its reward is only the pleasure of the spectators. Strangely enough, they make games of chance a serious employment, even when sober, and so venturesome are they about winning or losing that, when every other resource has failed, on the final throw of the dice they will stake even their own freedom. He who loses goes into voluntary slavery and, though the younger and stronger of the players, allows himself to be bound and sold. Such is their stubborn persistence in a bad practice, though they themselves call it honor.

(...)

46. Here end the territories of the Suevians (...) the Peucinians, whom some call Basstarnians, speak the same language with the Germans, use the same attire, build like them, and live like them, in that dirtiness and sloth so common to all [Germans] (...).

(...)

6. Iron is not plentiful among them, as may be inferred from the nature of their weapons. Only a few make use of swords or long lances. Ordinarily they carry a spear (which they call a framea), with a short and narrow head, but so sharp and easy to handle that the same weapon serves, according to circumstances, for close or distant conflict. As for the horse-soldier, he is satisfied with a shield and a spear. The foot-soldiers also scatter showers of missiles, each man having several and hurling them to an immense distance, and being naked or lightly clad with a little cloak. They make no display in their equipment. Their shields alone are marked with fancy colors. Only a few have corselets, and just one or two here and there a metal or leather helmet. Their horses are neither beautiful nor swift; nor are they taught various wheeling movements after the Roman fashion, but are driven straight forward so as to make one turn to the right in such a compact body that none may be left behind another."

"Inconvenient truth"?
Thanks for that Al Gore:)
Are you stating that Anglo-phone and Scandinavian scholars that somehow biased against Tacitus? Do you have any factual or academic counterpoints to what my reference sources say?

what are your proofs that Tacitus is correct ? Do you think a cataloging a series of generally observed "barbarian customs" and stereotypes translates into accurate ethnographic knowledge of individual tribe- especially those further beyond the frontier never directly observed ?
Of course not

Now let's move on, as we're straying and engaging in needless debate over something which is History 101- never reading a source at face value
(Again - this is not to say that the large majority of Tacitus' Germani weren't actual Germanic speakers)

parastais
12-06-2015, 10:29 PM
It seems perfectly possible that the I1/N1c ratio showed significant fluctuations when comparing particular locations in Eastern Sweden, so it is also possible that N1c was a dominant haplogroup (or a haplogroup common among the local elites) in Central-Eastern Sweden (around Lake Mälaren) and/or in Gotland, from where the majority of Latvian (and Lithuanian?) Norsemen seem to have originated.
I used to think the same way. I love those romantic versions over realistic ones :)

But now with regional data being available in Latvia and Lithuania (hotspots of N1c1 in LT being North-East and in LV East), it seems that less romantic history makes more sense - and N1c1 in Baltics is closely related to *Leita folk (titular Lithuanians and Lettigalians).

Of course I dont feel like burying Norse theory just yet, being historical romanticist, if only because *leita does mean scout in Old Norse (it has some mainstream etymology from Baltic though) and leiciai were horse breeders and border guards class in early Lithuania...

But now I look at Malaren axes fenomenon as main possible L550+ expansion in Scandinavia and Baltics, a millenia or so before Vendel age.

lgmayka
12-07-2015, 03:27 AM
But now I look at Malaren axes fenomenon as main possible L550+ expansion in Scandinavia and Baltics, a millenia or so before Vendel age.
I'm having difficulty finding references on the Malardalen axes. Is the paper "Late Bronze Age axe traffic from Volga-Kama to Scandinavia? The riddle of the KAM axes revisited" (file:///C:/Users/Lawrence/Documents/DNA%20Ancestry/Research%20Papers/Late_Bronze_Age_axe_traffic_from_Volga-K.pdf) a reasonable coverage of that topic?
---
The paper addresses the production and exchange of socketed bronze axes as of the late second–early first millennium BCE. The KAM axes occur in two clusters far apart – one radiating from Mälardalen in central Sweden, the other from Tatarstan in Russia.
...
It is argued that a sub type of the KAM axes evolved in Norway in the beginning of the Nordic Late Bronze Age, in a context of production that was inherently Nordic, but also strongly influenced by the Eurasian metallurgical tradition and perhaps transmitted to central Scandinavia via the Fennoscandian region.
---

parastais
12-07-2015, 10:36 AM
Thanks for link.
Here also some info:
https://books.google.lv/books?id=XPLOBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA144&lpg=PA144&dq=ananino+malar&source=bl&ots=1ndAjTdjrM&sig=6pEDYdptEQe2XKkCSh2YKAuXa4U&hl=lv&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjyuaD_vsnJAhUJWSwKHTDhD1MQ6AEICjAA#v=on epage&q=ananino%20malar&f=false

Edit: in general info is scarce, so if you have more info in Russian or English it is much appreciated.

Volat
12-12-2015, 07:36 AM
What is the latest thinking on the origin N1c in the Balts? Is it from a migration during the Mesolithic not associated with Uralic languages or does it indicate Uralic speakers were present in the Baltic region before IE speakers?

My opinion N1c1 among Balts , Estonians, Belarusians and north-western Russians is a legacy of early Indo-Europeans who brought the marker into north-eastern Europe from the east.

parastais
12-12-2015, 09:51 AM
My opinion N1c1 among Balts , Estonians, Belarusians and north-western Russians is a legacy of early Indo-Europeans who brought the marker into north-eastern Europe from the east.
If you follow the tree structure, it is impossible. More possible is the idea of birth of M2782 (not L1025 as per wiki) in South Baltics 1000 bce. That would be the time Malaren type axes appeared in Lithuania.
http://www.lvb.lt/primo_library/libweb/action/dlDisplay.do?vid=LDB&docId=TLITLIJ.04~2006~1367158397012&fromSitemap=1&afterPDS=true

"The article describes the Vaškai hoard found in the 19th century. For the first time it was mentioned by Carlo von Schmith in the 1863 work called Necrolithuanica. Presently the hoard is kept in the State Historical Museum of Stockholm. The hoard consists of three artefacts put in a pot: a Mälar-type axe, a Galich-type shaft-hole axe and a miniature dagger. Since chronologically the artefacts of the hoard are close, they could be used, put together in the pot and appear in Lithuania at the same time. All the artefacts belonged to luxury items of their period. The Mälar-type axe could be locally made as well but shaft-hole axes and miniature daggers most probably were not manufactured in Lithuania at that period. It is most likely that the three artefacts of the Vaškai hoard were brought via the trade route that functioned at the beginning of the 1st millennium BC between Central Sweden, Gotland, the Eastern Baltic region and Northeast Russia. The Mälar-type axe and the dagger were brought from Central Sweden, and the shaft-hole axe – from Northeast Russia. These prestigious rarely used in Lithuania artefacts belonged to an exceptional person and were either hidden in the ground or even sacrificed. "

Shaikorth
12-12-2015, 10:54 AM
If you follow the tree structure, it is impossible. More possible is the idea of birth of M2782 (not L1025 as per wiki) in South Baltics 1000 bce. That would be the time Malaren type axes appeared in Lithuania.

Or a few hundred years later, give or take. There probably were a few L1025's in Lithuania back then, and M2782 is the only surviving lineage. Since it became as common as the much more diverse R1a, it would be interesting to see if it was associated with local nobility. Gediminas belonged to the lineage but might need to go further back.

Early Indo-Europeans are out of the question as the source of European N. They were established 4500 years ago, but back then N1c1 was in L1026 stage, that was the common ancestor of Baltic, Finno-Ugric and Chukotko-Kamchatkan N1c1 clades.

parastais
12-12-2015, 12:42 PM
Or a few hundred years later, give or take. There probably were a few L1025's in Lithuania back then, and M2782 is the only surviving lineage. Since it became as common as the much more diverse R1a, it would be interesting to see if it was associated with local nobility. Gediminas belonged to the lineage but might need to go further back.

Early Indo-Europeans are out of the question as the source of European N. They were established 4500 years ago, but back then N1c1 was in L1026 stage, that was the common ancestor of Baltic, Finno-Ugric and Chukotko-Kamchatkan N1c1 clades.
It was associated with nobility (Gediminas belonged to one branch, Giedroits Princes to other branch, etc).
But the problems with such a continuity are several:
a) Balts did not have monarchy. It was military democracy when crusades arrived.
b) since 1000 bce or 500 bce up to 1200 AD so much had happened in/near Baltics that it is hard to imagine local royal lines surviving through all this.

The option however is smiths. A very valuable position potentially hereditary (so, no need for monarchy to ensure lines success + every hillfort needs a good smith).

I think late Bronze/ early Iron was also when metal working finally arrived into Baltics, according Gimbutas (must re read her Balts).
And it could have been related to Malar axes spread. Since those axes seem to match places where l550 and l1025 are found today.

parastais
12-13-2015, 09:09 AM
Linguistics for or against foreign smiths in Baltics?

Here I will check on smith terminology and check if it is of local Baltic character or loaned from Finnic or other foreign source.

Eng - Lith/Latv - comment
maul/large hammer - Plaktukas/Veseris - Lithuanian word is apparently Baltic, related to plaštaka (palm [of hand])? Latvian word has cognate in Finnish (vasara, of Indo-Iranian etymology) and Estonian (vasar, of Indo-Iranian).
forge - Kalve/Smēde(Kalve) - Smēde is a Latvian loanword from Germanic language. Kalve is derived from main Baltic root for smith activities (kalt - to forge; kalvis/kalējs - smith; kalve - a forge, kalšana - smithing). Could not find etymology, possibly related to Russian "закалять" (to steel, from Proto-Slavic *kaliti).
steel - Plienas/Tērauds - Lithuanian Plienas does sound Baltic. Latvian Tērauds is believed to be Finnic loanword (Finnish, Estonian, Voru - Teras). 'Teras' I can't find etymology anymore, but is believed to be shortened *te?+*rauta (proto-Finnic for iron, itself a loan from IE :) ). Te standing for something like "strengthened"? Kristina, help me!
iron - Geležis/Dzelzs - no similar words in Finnic languages. From Balto-Slavic gelež-.

So, hm, couple of points.
1) Possibly smiths in Baltics became popular with steel (need to check on archeology/metallurgy). If kalt is indeed related to *kaliti.
2) Metal terms before steel have no resemblance to Finnic
3) Steel and maul/hammer in Latvian could be mediated via Finnic speaking smiths (veseris - vasara; tērauds - teras); however in Lithuanian terms are strictly Baltic. This does not fit well. Since N1c1 in both Baltic nations is pretty equally distributed despite being separated for last 800 years.

edit: "kalt" might also be simply from same *kel (raise) PIE words as kalnas (hill), kelti (raise, build), etc

parastais
12-13-2015, 09:38 AM
1) Possibly smiths in Baltics became popular with steel (need to check on archeology/metallurgy). If kalt is indeed related to *kaliti.
Relevant quotes from Gimbutas "Balts", unfortunately it is already after AD(!):
(page 106)
"That iron smelting was done in the villages is shown by iron knives, fishhooks, and sickles, some in unfinished shape or broken, and iron slag and clay ovens. Iron ore was obtained from the local swamps, meadows, lakes, and lake shores which abound in the forested areas of eastern Europe. The ore had to be dug out in the summer, and in the autumn and winter it was washed, dried, heated and reduced to small pieces. After that, the ore was placed in small clay ovens in layers alternating with charcoal, for smelting. Starting somewhere in the middle of the first millennium B.C., iron production gradually increased, but not before the first centuries A.D. did it replace the tools and weapons of stone and bone."

(page 117)
"Iron slag and small vaulted clay ovens for iron smelting were found in many villages, where trained smiths very probably formed a separate class of people, released from farming. Hoards were found to contain smiths” equipment including anvils, hammers, chisels, and files. Iron axes, socketed or perforated (socketed in the western, with shaft-hole in the eastern zone), hammers, chisels, knives, awls, needles, shears, scythes, sickles, hoes, spearheads, shield buckles, bridle-bits, spurs, and other objects show entirely local forms. Any weapons or tools having common prototypes (chiefly Celtic and Germanic) in central Europe before the birth of Christ attained a purely Baltic character around A.D. 200."

(page 117)
"At the end of this period steel came into use; socketed axes of the fifth century were made of this metal, attained through a prolonged heating of iron in contact with charcoal. All the processes of metallurgy were used: casting, hammering, riveting, winding, twisting, engraving, incrustation, oxidation."

___________
Not sure what to make of this yet :)

Shaikorth
12-13-2015, 11:20 AM
If we go with the scenario that the N1c1 comes from smiths related to Malar axes, it's possible that their number was just too small to make an impact on language - entirely possible if the clade's spread was just a chance founder effect 2600 years ago. Latvians could have later metallurgy terms that Lithuanians lack because of their closer contact with Southern Finnic peoples.

parastais
12-13-2015, 07:20 PM
Sample A4 - Anashkino hillfort - dated to ca. 800-400 BC; Y-DNA: R1a1, mtDNA: H
Sample A5 - "Devichi gory" burial - dated to ca. 800-400 BC, Y-DNA: N1c, mtDNA: H2

Devichi Gory sample is dated 400-800 AD.

Sorry - according to this:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQMlJFLUlUb3hkb2M/view
It actually dates VIII-X century AD, so 700-1000 AD.

Now finally will do my homework and read on that culture. I thought it being in Pleskav and long barrow, it was Pskov Long Barrows culture, but need to re-check, maybe it was Dnieper-Dvina. Why do you think it was Dnieper-Dvina?

This is on Pskov Long Barrows:
http://www.helsinki.fi/venaja/nwrussia/eng/sbornik2008/tvauri.pdf

"According to the common Russian point of view, Slavicization of NorthWestern Russia was caused by a mass colonization of Slavic tribes. In Russia, during recent decades Slavicization has been characterized in terms of the hypothesis of ‘two waves’ of Slavic colonization. The ‘first wave’ was associated with the Kriviches, a tribe mentioned in the Chronicles of Old Russia, and the ‘culture of long barrows’. The ‘second wave’ was connected with the Slovenes and the ‘culture of sopkas’. This standpoint has repeatedly met with strong criticism. It has been shown that the emergence of long barrows cannot be associated with migration, and that long barrows were not erected by a specific ethnic group. Opponents of the theory of the early migration of the Slavs usually defend their position by claiming that the long barrows of the Pskov group were burial places of the local Baltic Finns, and not the Slavs, and that the Baltic tribes erected the barrows of the Smolensk group. Thus the Slavicization of North-Western Russia could not begin until the 9th–10th centuries. Long barrows as a new burial type did not spread in North-Western Russia with migrants, but they were adopted as a result of internal factors in the development of the local society."

So, this guy if coming up as Baltic specific N1c1 may add to discussion for Baltic or Slavic character of Kriviches.

Will try to check more on that burial.

edit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Sennitsa
If you put Russian version you find this:
У представителя культуры псковских длинных курганов из кургана с трупосожжением могильника «Девичьи горы» у озера Сенница, жившего 1200±100 лет назад (VIII—X века), была определена Y-хромосомная гаплогруппа N1c и митохондриальная гаплогруппа H2[2].

So, that N1c1 indeed was of Pskov Long Barrows culture, rather than Dnieper-Dvina.

Volat
12-14-2015, 11:34 AM
If you follow the tree structure, it is impossible. More possible is the idea of birth of M2782 (not L1025 as per wiki) in South Baltics 1000 bce. That would be the time Malaren type axes appeared in Lithuania.
http://www.lvb.lt/primo_library/libweb/action/dlDisplay.do?vid=LDB&docId=TLITLIJ.04~2006~1367158397012&fromSitemap=1&afterPDS=true

"The article describes the Vaškai hoard found in the 19th century. For the first time it was mentioned by Carlo von Schmith in the 1863 work called Necrolithuanica. Presently the hoard is kept in the State Historical Museum of Stockholm. The hoard consists of three artefacts put in a pot: a Mälar-type axe, a Galich-type shaft-hole axe and a miniature dagger. Since chronologically the artefacts of the hoard are close, they could be used, put together in the pot and appear in Lithuania at the same time. All the artefacts belonged to luxury items of their period. The Mälar-type axe could be locally made as well but shaft-hole axes and miniature daggers most probably were not manufactured in Lithuania at that period. It is most likely that the three artefacts of the Vaškai hoard were brought via the trade route that functioned at the beginning of the 1st millennium BC between Central Sweden, Gotland, the Eastern Baltic region and Northeast Russia. The Mälar-type axe and the dagger were brought from Central Sweden, and the shaft-hole axe – from Northeast Russia. These prestigious rarely used in Lithuania artefacts belonged to an exceptional person and were either hidden in the ground or even sacrificed. "

Both Indo-Europeans and N1c1 marker originated in the east. There is no reason to assume that PIE had a single marker in their gene pool. So everything is possible.

parastais
12-14-2015, 09:49 PM
This web page (http://www.kolumbus.fi/geodun/YDNA/Western-Balts-Grouping-FIN.pdf) illustrates what I mean. From M2783 down to Z16981, examples are from Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, and Belarus. Then, at the CTS8173 level and below, we see Estonia, Russia, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Germany, Ukraine, and even Finland.

I think the percentage is lower than that, except in the original core areas.
Question - do you have data on where L1025+ M2782- can be found?
I mean regionally country wise?
1) any such samples from Balts?
2) from Estonians?
3) do they peak in Finns or Swedes?
4) I vaguely remember some such samples in/ near Novgorod? And some in Kursk?

Where could I conceniently check on those?

parastais
12-15-2015, 09:59 PM
I don't see how to reconcile that hypothesis with the fact that the CTS8173 subclade (http://yfull.com/tree/N-CTS8173/), and only that subclade, is found across most of Central-Eastern Europe, from Estonia to Hungary and from Germany to Russia. (See this web page (http://www.kolumbus.fi/geodun/YDNA/Western-Balts-Grouping-FIN.pdf) which identifies Z16981 with the Western Balts.) The implication is that N-CTS8173, and only that subclade, fully participated in the Slavic expansion. Other subclades of N-M2783 did not, implying that the expansion of M2783 itself must have occurred somewhat earlier.
I would like to see why it is identified with West Balts.

Nothing personal against it, it is just in
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/N1c1/default.aspx?section=yresults
most of Latvian samples that can be found there is under CTS8173. Basically 7 of Latvian samples are under it, 7 others have message "L1025 check needed" and 1 (2 same surnames, same place, from Latgale) has mostly Lithuanian BY158+.
So, 7 of 8 known Latvians are under it.

True West Balts actually seem to be Z16975+ with many roots going into East Prussia, but also Lithuania.

Keeping on statistics for CTS8173+
whilst most of Latvians are under this, not most of CTS8173+ are Latvians. By far not most.
Latvians - 7
Lithuanians - 7
Poland - 7
Russia - 6
Ukraine - 4
Germany - 4
Czech Republic - 4
Estonia and Finland - 2 + 2 = 4
Belarus, France, Northern Ireland, Slovakia, Ireland = 1+1... = 5
Unknown - 3

As usual, not sure what to make of this.

parastais
12-15-2015, 10:17 PM
To sum up:
L550+ seems Varangian - (Atlantic folk, Rurikids,
- L1025+ Y4706+ seems Finnic with some Swedes
- L1025+ M2782+ is the Baltic one

of Baltic:
- CTS8173+ the widest one. Almost all known Latvians, but only ~25% of known Lithuanians. Widely spread around, international. ~Half of known "Baltic" samples are under this one.
- Z16975+ pretty much localised in East Prussia/Lithuania
- L551+ Grand Lithuanian (incl. Gediminas line)
- BY158+ Grand Lithanian II (seems like East Lithuanian?), but some Poles, Belarus, Ukrainians too

Very interesting, 4 sub-clans. 1 wide, 3 more or less Lithuanian centric. Latvians belonging to the wide one, not to the Lithuanian ones.

Shaikorth
12-15-2015, 11:00 PM
To sum up:
L550+ seems Varangian - (Atlantic folk, Rurikids,
- L1025+ Y4706+ seems Finnic with some Swedes
- L1025+ M2782+ is the Baltic one

of Baltic:
- CTS8173+ the widest one. Almost all known Latvians, but only ~25% of known Lithuanians. Widely spread around, international. ~Half of known "Baltic" samples are under this one.
- Z16975+ pretty much localised in East Prussia/Lithuania
- L551+ Grand Lithuanian (incl. Gediminas line)
- BY158+ Grand Lithanian II (seems like East Lithuanian?), but some Poles, Belarus, Ukrainians too

Very interesting, 4 sub-clans. 1 wide, 3 more or less Lithuanian centric. Latvians belonging to the wide one, not to the Lithuanian ones.

http://www.yfull.com/tree/N-L550/

There are four L550+ L1025- subclades and one basal L550+ that doesn't belong into any of them.

Y4338 is Rurikids
FGC14542 looks Norwegian and Scottish though I don't know where the most basal individual (YF04476) is from
Y7795 and Y9454 are Finnish and Swedish
The only L550 ancestral to all known subclades is Finnish.

lgmayka
12-15-2015, 11:41 PM
of Baltic:
- CTS8173+ the widest one. Almost all known Latvians, but only ~25% of known Lithuanians. Widely spread around, international. ~Half of known "Baltic" samples are under this one.
- Z16975+ pretty much localised in East Prussia/Lithuania
- L551+ Grand Lithuanian (incl. Gediminas line)
- BY158+ Grand Lithanian II (seems like East Lithuanian?), but some Poles, Belarus, Ukrainians too
Don't forget little N-Y13982 (http://yfull.com/tree/N-Y13982/).

parastais
12-16-2015, 05:38 AM
Don't forget little N-Y13982 (http://yfull.com/tree/N-Y13982/).
I could not find it in familytreedna. Is that also mostly Lithuanian or some other geography?

parastais
12-16-2015, 05:45 AM
In general it is confusing.
Especially the difference between Lithuanian and Latvian. It is like Latvian clade expanded around and Lithuanian (+Prussian?) clades (including royal ones) mostly stayed Lithuanian.
That we got different haplotypes could be maybe guessed also from latest Latvian y-dna study.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ahg.12130/abstract

In general it is interesting. Daugava trase route being better than Neman one?

lgmayka
12-16-2015, 10:14 AM
I could not find it in familytreedna. Is that also mostly Lithuanian or some other geography?
Only two confirmed members so far, one Lithuanian (#353043) and one Polish (#169549). But two more men (#384622 and #97451) have tested negative for all the other subclades of M2783, so they are suspected to belong to Y13982 also.

Volat
12-16-2015, 10:32 AM
In general it is confusing.
Especially the difference between Lithuanian and Latvian. It is like Latvian clade expanded around and Lithuanian (+Prussian?) clades (including royal ones) mostly stayed Lithuanian.
That we got different haplotypes could be maybe guessed also from latest Latvian y-dna study.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ahg.12130/abstract

In general it is interesting. Daugava trase route being better than Neman one?

The eastern route explains better. I also remember reading about odontological study in Karen Mark (Estonian anthropologist) article . Lithuanians have central European traits. Latvians and Estonians have northern traits. Eastern Latvians (Latgalians), northern Russians (near Karelia) and Finns have northern gracile type.

parastais
12-16-2015, 10:51 AM
Another way to read those results:
CTS8173 sits in Lithuania. From the East arrive "Grand Lithuanian" tribes and like in snooker 8173+ balls move to all directions.
Part to Latvia (...Estonia, even Finland), part to Prussia (...Germany, Poland), part South (..Czech Rep, Slovakia), part stays in Lithuania.

Some other options?

parastais
12-16-2015, 10:53 AM
The eastern route explains better. I also remember reading about odontological study in Karen Mark (Estonian anthropologist) article . Lithuanians have central European traits. Latvians and Estonians have northern traits. Eastern Latvians (Latgalians), northern Russians (near Karelia) and Finns have northern gracile type.
Yeah, but this CTS clade is the most Central Euro of them all.

Shaikorth
12-18-2015, 09:35 AM
The eastern route explains better. I also remember reading about odontological study in Karen Mark (Estonian anthropologist) article . Lithuanians have central European traits. Latvians and Estonians have northern traits. Eastern Latvians (Latgalians), northern Russians (near Karelia) and Finns have northern gracile type.

Dental traits are likely to be much less effective than DNA at tracking ancient migration routes. About the traits in eastern baltic an Estonian study by Jana Limbo shows there is a cline from Lithuania to Finland with tooth size increasing towards north.


Mesiodistal (MD) and buccolingual (BL) crown diameters of all
observable permanent teeth were measured in four skeleton series from
the Iron End Estonia, total of 254 individuals. Teeth sizes in the End of
the Estonian Iron Age were typical of Northern Caucasoids who are
mesodontic. All the teeth in the observed group were larger than in the
historical skulls from Southern Lithuania and smaller than in historical
skulls from Northern Finland.

Kaczmarek's study about the dental traits of Poles showed they cluster with Russians, Latvians and Lithuanians while Estonians cluster with Ukrainians (!) and Belorussians were apart from others. Further in the past there were studies about the occurrence of Central Euro and Northern Gracile/Relic etc types, but these show that the Northern Gracile type isn't very North Russian trait (they have "relic" mixed in) and instead dominates in Pskov region, Central and Northwestern Latvia, Central Estonia and Finland (http://oi68.tinypic.com/sxov4n.jpg). Lithuania stands apart here.

aarnisotka
12-23-2015, 10:39 AM
I suspect that the modern gracile tooth type is due to quite recent reduction in size. The Iron Age Luistari cemetary, in Eura, Southwest Finland, had very large tooth, quite up to Mesolithic standards. This same tooth type has also been found in medival Estonian Jouga mortuary.

http://ethesis.helsinki.fi/julkaisut/hum/kultt/pg/salo/whatanci.pdf

parastais
12-28-2015, 09:59 PM
We discussed earlier this thread about N1c1 in Czech, Slovak, etc

How about this explanation?

They also settled in Poland, Slovakia, Moravia, Latvia, Estonia - not just in Lithuania and Belarus.

Here is a publication about this - "Emigration of Prussians in 11th-14th centuries" (in Polish):

http://pismo.pruthenia.pl/pruthenia_3/Pruthenia_3_2008_Białuński-G_Emigracja_Prusów.pdf

But "emigration" from 11th-12th centuries was rather settlement of Prussian captives in those lands.

parastais
01-02-2016, 03:37 PM
Btw, if Latvian N is majority under "West Baltic" cluster (current sample size is too small), then a well known troll (as in author of very bold but also somewhat offensive interpretations re Baltic and Slavic relationship) of Baltic linguistics Harvey E Mayer might have been right:
"I state here, as I have stated elsewhere, that I consider only Lithuanian to be East Baltic. Like others, I designate Prussian as West Baltic. Unlike others, I designate Latvian, also, as West Baltic. I consider Prussian South-West Baltic and Latvian North-West Baltic. Lithuanian, I believe, is an East Baltic intrusive element into what used to be West Baltic territory."
http://www.lituanus.org/1994_3/94_3_08.htm

In general this guy seems to have been driven by a strong pro-Baltic and anti-Slavic agenda, so probably not the most reliable.

aarnisotka
01-02-2016, 04:36 PM
Btw, if Latvian N is majority under "West Baltic" cluster (current sample size is too small), then a well known troll (as in author of very bold but also somewhat offensive interpretations re Baltic and Slavic relationship) of Baltic linguistics Harvey E Mayer might have been right:
"I state here, as I have stated elsewhere, that I consider only Lithuanian to be East Baltic. Like others, I designate Prussian as West Baltic. Unlike others, I designate Latvian, also, as West Baltic. I consider Prussian South-West Baltic and Latvian North-West Baltic. Lithuanian, I believe, is an East Baltic intrusive element into what used to be West Baltic territory."
http://www.lituanus.org/1994_3/94_3_08.htm

In general this guy seems to have been driven by a strong pro-Baltic and anti-Slavic agenda, so probably not the most reliable.

I believe Finnish linguists have claimed something similar. Namely that the Old Curonian spoken in coastal Latvia was actually a West Baltic language. If I recall right their reasoning for this had something to do with the Balt loanwords in Finnish being more West than East Balt like. Or something.

parastais
01-02-2016, 05:43 PM
I believe Finnish linguists have claimed something similar. Namely that the Old Curonian spoken in coastal Latvia was actually a West Baltic language. If I recall right their reasoning for this had something to do with the Balt loanwords in Finnish being more West than East Balt like. Or something.
Yeah, they actually argued for "North Baltic" with a hint of it being Curonian as source of loanwords.

Kristiina
01-02-2016, 06:35 PM
I checked the etymological dictionary of Kaisa Häkkinen: teräs (Finnish, Karelian), t’eraz (Lyydi, Vepsa), teräz (Vatja) is derived from Finnic word ”terä”, blade, i.e. terä (Finnish, Inkeri, Karelian, Vatja), t’era (Vepsa), tera (Estonian), tieraa (Livonian). Apart from Finnic languages, this word is found in Saami ”dearri” and in Mari ”tür” with the same meaning. Other Uralic cognate words are Udmurt ”tir”, axe, and Hungarian ”tőr”, dagger. Where do you get this IE etymology *te? and what would its meaning be?

Finnish ”rauta”, iron, is also an interesting word. I once made a detailed analysis of the distribution of this root:
Finnish ”rauta”, Estonian ”raud”, Saame ”ruovdi”, iron
Icelandic ”rauði” limonite, ”raudur”, red
Russian/Slavic languages ”ruda”, Lithuanian/Latvian rūda ore
Latin ”raudŭs”, bronze object
Sumerian ”urudu”, metal
Lithuanian ”raudà” red
Swedish ”röd”, red
German ”rot”, red
Irish ”ruad”, red
Slovenian ”rdèč”, red, Russian ”ryži”, reddish
Lithuanian ”rusvas”, ”rudas”, ”rùdskis”, brown
Finnish ”ruskea”, brown
Sanskrit ”raudra”, heat
Gaulish glossary, roudo- (red, rust); Umbrian glossary, rofu, rufru (red); Oscan glossary, rufru (red, rust); Thracian glossary, rudas (red); Tocharian glossary, ratre (red).

To sumu p:
red: all Celtic languages, all Germanic languages, Lithuanian, Thracian ,Tocharian, (Finnic languages colour of horse)
metallurgical term: all Baltic languages, all Finnic languages, all Saami languages, all Slavic languages.

There is also another possible root with meaning either ”red” or ”iron”:
Georgian ”rk’ina”, iron
Lezgi ”raq’” iron
Sanskrit ”rakta” and ”rohita”, red
Saami ”ruoksat” (?), red

parastais
01-02-2016, 08:28 PM
Thanks Kristiina!


Where do you get this IE etymology *te? and what would its meaning be?
I think I specifically stated that Latvian tēraud-s (pronounced teerauds) was a loanword from Baltic Finnic (Livonian?) not IE etymology.
Raud is Estonian for iron, but 'tee' part is unclear.
Maybe it is 'blade' (tera) + 'iron' (raud). But I hoped for some Finnic 'tee' or 'tie' for hardened or smth.

Also it is strange that Latvian version is apparently a compound of two Finnic terms, but there is not a corresponding compound in Finnic languages. Perhaps there was such a word in Livonian?

George
01-02-2016, 09:42 PM
"Russian/Slavic languages ”ruda”, Lithuanian/Latvian rūda ore" (#93)

I don't know about other Slavic languages, but in Ukrainian "rudyj, ruda, rude" also means "reddish" (and of course we have "ryzhyj" too in the same sense). So "ruda" = both "ore" and "reddish" (fem.)

parastais
03-10-2016, 08:56 PM
Ok, we had some discussion regarding N in Balts in thread about R1a in Balts.

I copy here my speculation re VL29+ origins:
VL29+ most probably expanded with this culture:
http://www.sarks.fi/fa/PDF/FA13_51.pdf
Check figure 1. Area 3. 1500-1000 BCE. Then to Area 2. Somewhere in area 2 M2783+ was born, some early centuries BCE. L550+ dad of L1025 is West Finland, Central Sweden. L1025+ dad of M2783+ is West Finland and Sweddish/Finnish islands.

So, did M2783+ left his parents house before they went to West Finland/Central Sweden (that is if they went there instead of being born there) or after? We will get more info once the Finnish iron age a-dna project is done. Hopefully some results end of this year?

Michał
03-10-2016, 09:08 PM
Not true. The brother of M2783 is Y4706, which is found in Polish kits 172478 and N9209.
Y4706 is found mostly in Finland and Sweden (http://www.yfull.com/tree/N-Y4706/), so what I wrote was true.

parastais
03-11-2016, 08:48 PM
Has anyone discussed this case properly? Somewhat unique L1025*?
And a guy L1025+, but M2782- and Y4706- (!!)
435081 Yakov Bulaveshka (Beloveshkin) b.1786 N-FGC13372. This is interesting case, L1025*. Name surname is Slavic no doubt.

Michał
03-11-2016, 11:22 PM
double post

Michał
03-11-2016, 11:25 PM
Has anyone discussed this case properly? Somewhat unique L1025*?
And a guy L1025+, but M2782- and Y4706- (!!)
435081 Yakov Bulaveshka (Beloveshkin) b.1786 N-FGC13372. This is interesting case, L1025*. Name surname is Slavic no doubt.
If he is indeed FGC13372+, then hes is not L1025* but rather L1025>M2783>Z16975, thus a member of one of the major clades under M2783 (FGC13372 is an equivalent of Z16975). I suspect his negative result for M2782 is a mistake. For example, many no-calls from SNP packs are wrongly reported as negative results on the projects' SNP pages.

parastais
03-12-2016, 07:56 AM
If he is indeed FGC13372+, then hes is not L1025* but rather L1025>M2783>Z16975, thus a member of one of the major clades under M2783 (FGC13372 is an equivalent of Z16975). I suspect his negative result for M2782 is a mistake. For example, many no-calls from SNP packs are wrongly reported as negative results on the projects' SNP pages.
Thanks for sorting it out, and Z1675 is kind of frequent/considered East Prussian.

Tomenable
03-12-2016, 06:16 PM
Aren't already N-L1025* and N-Y4706 also mostly Baltic (not just N-M2783+) ???

Shaikorth
03-12-2016, 06:36 PM
Aren't already N-L1025* and N-Y4706 also mostly Baltic (not just N-M2783+) ???

Finnish and Scandinavian, though would be unsurprising if it turns up in Estonia or some ex-Livonian villages in Northwestern Latvia.

http://www.yfull.com/tree/N-L1025/

Tomenable
03-12-2016, 07:49 PM
So apparently most of this L1025 is in fact M2783, but people have not tested any further downstream than L1025 ???:

N1c haplogroup tree (dates according to YFull: formation time / TMRCA):

http://s10.postimg.org/lnef8v89l/N1c_Tree.png

Map 1 (clade L708):

http://s11.postimg.org/vq5ty9qw3/L708.png

Map 2 (clade L1026):

http://s27.postimg.org/ylk64nrc3/L1026.png

Map 3 (clade L1034):

http://s23.postimg.org/cxc3isf3v/L1034.png

Map 4 (clade VL29):

http://s15.postimg.org/6koggb16z/VL29.png

Map 5 (clade L1022):

http://s11.postimg.org/o7dhy5krn/L1022.png

Map 6 (clade L550 - some of them can be lower in the tree but haven't tested downstream):

http://s10.postimg.org/k8x28lwgp/L550.png

Map 7 (clade L1025 - some of them can be M2783 or Y4706 but haven't tested downstream):

http://s17.postimg.org/z4nots4cv/L1025.png

Map 8 (clade Y4706):

http://s14.postimg.org/42ocq4jj5/Y4706.png

Here typically Baltic clades start (branch M2783):

Map 9 (clade CTS8173):

http://s23.postimg.org/s45kpt4zf/CTS8173.png

Map 10 (clade BY158):

http://s15.postimg.org/boy3nh5u3/BY158.png

Map 11 (clade Z16975):

http://s9.postimg.org/hhsmo9ohr/Z16975.png

Map 12 (clade L551):

http://s24.postimg.org/5q7nebv1h/L551.png

Source of maps:

https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/n-1c-1/dna-results

Tree based on:

http://www.yfull.com/tree/N-TAT/

Shaikorth
03-12-2016, 07:57 PM
So apparently most of this L1025 is in fact M2783, but people have not tested any further downstream than L1025 ???:


In the case of Latvia, Lithuania and more southern regions that's what I'd expect.

parastais
03-12-2016, 09:23 PM
I would be surprised to find even one already tested modern Balt that is L1025, but not M2783. (just because if there is such folk, their numbers are too small to already be tested).

That is why I was so surprised to see that guy from Prussian project who I assumed (wrongly, as per few posts above) to be M2783-.

p.s.
Latvians so far are under so called West Baltic CTS8173+ (under M2783+), with few exceptions from Latgale.
East Prussians are under so called Central Baltic Z16975+ (under M2783+).
Lithuanians are under many subclades of M2783+.

They should switch descriptor for Latvians and East Prussians :) We should be Central Baltic. They should be West Baltic.

lgmayka
03-13-2016, 01:57 AM
I would be surprised to find even one already tested modern Balt that is L1025, but not M2783.
Two Polish kits (N9209 and 172478) have tested Y4706+ .

parastais
03-13-2016, 08:48 AM
Checked further.

Estonians have only 4 samples so far on ftdna project.
1) 1 "West Baltic" - 90%+ of N Latvians are under L1025, M2783 -> West Baltic.
2) 2 L1022 - called West Chudes in N tree
3) 1 Z1941 - called Karelian in N tree

Pskov has only 3 samples - Karelian, West Chudes and one Grand Lithuanian subclade of M2783.
Belarus has I think so called Grand Lithuanian clades.
Finland and Sweden has Y4706+ and L550+, but lack M2783*.

Wherever M2783+ arrived from into Balts, it is no more there.

Shaikorth
03-13-2016, 09:10 AM
Checked further.

Estonians have only 4 samples so far on ftdna project.
1) 1 "West Baltic" - 90%+ of N Latvians are under L1025, M2783 -> West Baltic.
2) 2 L1022 - called West Chudes in N tree
3) 1 Z1941 - called Karelian in N tree

Pskov has only 3 samples - Karelian, West Chudes and one Grand Lithuanian subclade of M2783.
Belarus has I think so called Grand Lithuanian clades.
Finland and Sweden has Y4706+ and L550+, but lack M2783*.

Wherever M2783+ arrived from into Balts, it is no more there.

It's possible that the mutation M2783 happened in the Baltic population and represents founder effect of some small L1025 introgression.

Volat
03-13-2016, 10:20 AM
I remember reading an old discussion in which two Finnish members were pointing to the fact that all Slavic populations carry N1c. Some Slavic populations have it more than other. Back then little was known which branches of N1c different Slavic populations had. If Slavs including (Czechs, Slovaks, Slovenes, Croats and other) have markers from the Baltic branch, then Slavs may well had these markers from the beginning in the proto-Slavic population.

Shaikorth
03-13-2016, 10:50 AM
I remember reading an old discussion in which two Finnish members were pointing to the fact that all Slavic populations carry N1c. Some Slavic populations have it more than other. Back then little was known which branches of N1c different Slavic populations had. If Slavs including (Czechs, Slovaks, Slovenes, Croats and other) have markers from the Baltic branch, then Slavs may well had these markers from the beginning in the proto-Slavic population.

South Slavs and some West Slavs don't have it and the M2783 branch is young. The Slavs who have it in highest amounts are the ones who assimilated Balts (East Slavs and Northeastern Poles), but a proto-Slavic origin is less likely and proto-Balto-Slavic or Corded Ware origin really unlikely.

Volat
03-13-2016, 10:59 AM
South Slavs and some West Slavs don't have it and the M2783 branch is young. The Slavs who have it in highest amounts are the ones who assimilated Balts (East Slavs and Northeastern Poles), but a proto-Slavic origin is less likely and proto-Balto-Slavic or Corded Ware origin really unlikely.

Scholars are still arguing about the time frame of linguistic separation of the Balto-Slavic language. If memory serves me correctly it's between 2,500 to 3,500 years before present by several estimates. N-M2783 (Baltic marker) is 2,600 years old. It is within time frame of Balto-Slavic stage. The problem with the estimates of linguistic split and age of mutation is that methods are used are not perfect.


Slovaks have around 3%. It'd be interesting to know what branch of N1c1 they have.

Shaikorth
03-13-2016, 11:09 AM
Scholars are still arguing about the time frame of linguistic separation of the Balto-Slavic language. If memory serves me correctly it's between 2,500 to 3,500 years before present by several estimates. N-M2783 (Baltic marker) is 2,600 years old. It is within time frame of Balto-Slavic stage. The problem with the estimates of linguistic split and age of mutation is that methods are used are not perfect.


Slovaks have around 3%. It'd be interesting to know what branch of N1c1 they have.

The thing is that if it was in the expanding Slavs, we should be seeing it clearly in Sorbs and South Slavs, not just in rapidly decreasing amounts when moving away from the Balts. Even a few Dutch and Finns have M2783 but their position in Y-full tree suggests this was due to a recent foreign ancestor. The southernmost M2783's will probably turn out like that too, if some order Big-Y.

Tomenable
03-13-2016, 12:50 PM
IIRC, most of West Slavic (and South Slavic too?) N1c is under CTS8173 subclade.

But I may be mistaken here.

parastais
03-13-2016, 12:54 PM
IIRC, most of West Slavic (and South Slavic too?) N1c is under CTS8173 subclade.

But I may be mistaken here.
I will recheck, but n1c project map tells so.
The so called West Baltic that in modern Balts are represented by Latvians (90% of N in Latvia) and some Lithuanian (Zemaitians?).

No idea how so.

Edit: all other Baltic clades outside LV/LT are near/around Lithuania.

P.s.
I mean it. What business they had in Carpathians, Slovakia, Czech Rep, Munich? There were some Prussian captives (thanks Tomenable for link I copied earlier this topic) resettled in Czech/ Slovak, but Prussians themselves seemed to be "Central Balts"...

lgmayka
03-14-2016, 03:01 AM
Slovaks have around 3%. It'd be interesting to know what branch of N1c1 they have.
My Slovak friend (kit 113315) belongs to N-Y6076 (http://yfull.com/tree/N-Y6076/). He has a rather close match (distance 4 at 67 markers) with a Czech man who belongs to N-Y6075.

parastais
03-14-2016, 06:39 AM
It's possible that the mutation M2783 happened in the Baltic population and represents founder effect of some small L1025 introgression.
Which brings us back to:
Thomas Eriksson Kärl och social gestik i Mälardalen 1500 BC–400 AD. Part 3.

Rough translation:

"Some of the Middle Swedish Mälar axes have been confirmed as being made of bronze from Ural, which differentiates them from other articles made of Central European bronze. The moulding forms for axes of Mälar type are to be found in Finland and in Lithuania, as well as ceramic ware, which resembles that of eastern parts of Middle Sweden, different from the more decorated ceramic type of Volga Kama area..."
...and in Lithuania... eastern parts of Middle Sweden...
Think this might be right direction to look for introgression.

parastais
04-30-2016, 06:57 PM
Some offtopic maybe, but I found source of Latvian 'tērauds', it comes from Livonian:
"In Finnic, words denoting ‘steel’ directly hint at the blade. Livonian tierōda
is a shortened form of the former compound tierā/rōda ‘blade iron’ In other lan-
guages, derivatives of the stem *terä ‘blade’ are found."
Page 190, Tiit-Rein Viitso: Early Metallurgy in Language: The History of Metal Names in Finnic

aarnisotka
05-05-2016, 06:25 AM
Tiera is also a character in mythology. I will translate from Finnish wiki:

Tiera, or Iku-Tiera Nieranpoika, is a character in Finnish mythology and Kalevala. Other forms of this name are: Kuura, Tuura, Teura ja Liera. The Iku-prefix refers to eternity (that is ikuisuus), and most likely is meant to notion the most esteemed position of this character. In Kalevala Tiera is a band of brother in war to Lemminkäinen, and most handy with the spear. He is so eager to go to war that he leaves his new-wed wife unsatisfied, so as to not miss the battle.

https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiera

parastais
05-05-2016, 05:52 PM
Blade iron makes the most sense. Of course normal iron could not be used for blades, it had to be special iron (steel) that was used in blades, so it was called "a blade" in Estonian/Finnish and more specifically "blade iron" or "iron for blades" in Livonian.

Here more on Tiera:
Kaleva and his Sons from Kalanti –On the Etymology of Certain Names in Finnic Mythology

http://www.linguistics.fi/julkaisut/...2/Heikkila.pdf

Ebizur
05-06-2016, 09:57 AM
Blade iron makes the most sense. Of course normal iron could not be used for blades, it had to be special iron (steel) that was used in blades, so it was called "a blade" in Estonian/Finnish and more specifically "blade iron" or "iron for blades" in Livonian.Tangentially, I note that Japanese 鋼 hagane "steel" is a transparent compound of 刃 ha "blade" + 金 kane "metal (most often either iron or gold); money." This is either an instance of loan translation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calque) or a coincidentally parallel evolution of verbal formulations used to communicate a new concept (i.e. two or more communities of people have been faced with a novel concept, STEEL, either through independent invention or intercultural exchange, and a collocation of a local word for BLADE plus a local word for METAL has happened to become the most popular or standard way of verbally referring to that once-novel concept in each of the communities).

parastais
05-07-2016, 07:06 AM
Tangentially, I note that Japanese 鋼 hagane "steel" is a transparent compound of 刃 ha "blade" + 金 kane "metal (most often either iron or gold); money." This is either an instance of loan translation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calque) or a coincidentally parallel evolution of verbal formulations used to communicate a new concept (i.e. two or more communities of people have been faced with a novel concept, STEEL, either through independent invention or intercultural exchange, and a collocation of a local word for BLADE plus a local word for METAL has happened to become the most popular or standard way of verbally referring to that once-novel concept in each of the communities).
Hard to imagine a link connecting Livonians and Japanese at or after times of steel (I need yet to find info when steel/hardened iron started to be used in weapons near Baltics, Volga, Urals). I am more inclined to believe it was incidental and pretty much logical. But who knows.

parastais
05-09-2016, 04:26 PM
Ok, the current version is that during/at migration period Baltic Finns learned to work steel and make high quality steel blades, weaponry.
Apparently Northern Balts (such as Latvians or perhaps more specifically Curonians) learned that art from Baltic Finns as evidenced by loanwords (veseris - vasara, heavy hammer; tērauds - tēra rauda, steel or literally blade iron). But these events are already 500 CE, so perhaps irrelevant to Baltic N which was born 500 BCE and does not look to spread from Latvia/Curonia to Lithuania, more like vice versa.

parastais
05-22-2016, 09:03 PM
Very interesting paper.
"Formation of Proto-Finnic – an archaeological scenario from the Bronze Age / Early Iron Age" Valter Lang.
Starts on page 63.
http://www.oulu.fi/sites/default/files/content/CIFU12-PlenaryPapers.pdf

Main ideas of author can be shown with this picture:
http://i67.tinypic.com/1z1sjzm.png

NW Passage is how pre-Saami arrived into Finland.
SW Passage is how pre-Finns arrived into Baltics.

In general SW Passage would explain how proto or North Baltic loanwords entered Finnic languages. The Germanic folk in Curonia, Estonia explains how Germanic loanwords entered Finnic languages.

Volat
05-23-2016, 04:52 AM
The Germanic folk in Curonia, Estonia explains how Germanic loanwords entered Finnic languages.

Does the article discusses Germanic settlements in Curonia? It'd be interesting to know any evidence about early Germanic settlements in that part of Europe.

parastais
05-23-2016, 08:49 AM
Does the article discusses Germanic settlements in Curonia? It'd be interesting to know any evidence about early Germanic settlements in that part of Europe.
It does not in details. My statement was based on map. But I have read in many books information about early Germanic graves on Estonian coast. I guess North Curonian coast was part of it too.

Volat
05-23-2016, 09:20 AM
It does not in details. My statement was based on map. But I have read in many books information about early Germanic graves on Estonian coast. I guess North Curonian coast was part of it too.

I don't doubt migrations from Scandinavia to Curonia before Bronze age. I doubt that those people were Germanic.

parastais
05-23-2016, 09:56 AM
I don't doubt migrations from Scandinavia to Curonia before Bronze age. I doubt that those people were Germanic.
Before iron age. Ca 1000 bce.
Proto-Germanic.

Guys who tought just arrived Finns on Sea matters and more advanced agriculture than previously tought by Balts. Based on loanword evidence.

Volat
05-23-2016, 10:09 AM
Before iron age. Ca 1000 bce.
Proto-Germanic.

Guys who tought just arrived Finns on Sea matters and more advanced agriculture than previously tought by Balts. Based on loanword evidence.


So evidence on proto-Germanic presence in Curonia is based on Germanic loan-words in Finnic languages? It does not sound convincing. If you had linguistic evidence in terms of hydronyms or toponyms, archaelogical evidence, historic records or genetic evidence, then I would be inclined to assume Germanic presence in Curonia. For all I know Germans entered Latvia in 13th century established a ruling elite which did not mix with common folks.

Gravetto-Danubian
05-23-2016, 10:23 AM
Yes I wouldn't think that proto-Germanic even existed in 1000 BC.
Linguists usually date the defining Germanic language shifts to c. 500 BC.

any movement from Scandinavia before 200 BC is unlikely to have been Germanic, because only after then was Scandinavia Germanicized from nth Germany

parastais
05-23-2016, 10:55 AM
OK. Pre-Proto-Germanic then it is:
Kallio:
"For instance, the earliest stratum consists of borrowings
whose vocalism clearly points to a more archaic source than Proto-Germanic,"

parastais
05-23-2016, 11:01 AM
So evidence on proto-Germanic presence in Curonia is based on Germanic loan-words in Finnic languages? It does not sound convincing. If you had linguistic evidence in terms of hydronyms or toponyms, archaelogical evidence, historic records or genetic evidence, then I would be inclined to assume Germanic presence in Curonia. For all I know Germans entered Latvia in 13th century established a ruling elite which did not mix with common folks.
There is also for example Grobiņa - Gotland's colony in Curonia 650 AD - 800 AD.
But yeah that map above shows Germanoid graves in coasts of East Baltics. I would be surprised if it was not based on archeology.

Volat
05-23-2016, 03:52 PM
There is also for example Grobiņa - Gotland's colony in Curonia 650 AD - 800 AD.
But yeah that map above shows Germanoid graves in coasts of East Baltics. I would be surprised if it was not based on archeology.

In short, Latvians are cousins of Lithuanians and Estonians. Also certain Slavs. Germans have little to do with Latvians in terms of linguistic and genetics. Historically, Germans entered Latvia in 13 th century not treating Latvians and Estonians well.

parastais
05-23-2016, 04:39 PM
In short, Latvians are cousins of Lithuanians and Estonians. Also certain Slavs. Germans have little to do with Latvians in terms of linguistic and genetics. Historically, Germans entered Latvia in 13 th century not treating Latvians and Estonians well.
Not sure how that relates to pre-proto-Germanic camps 1000bce on Estonian or North Curonian coast who became substrate and source of Sea and advanced agriculture loanwords for advancing Baltic Finns..

Balts got into North Curonia only after 500 or even 1000 AD. Some parts of North Curonia were Livonian up to XX century...

Then those Germanic-ish folk had long been assimilated by Baltic Finns.

Volat
05-23-2016, 05:20 PM
Not sure how that relates to pre-proto-Germanic camps 1000bce on Estonian or North Curonian coast who became substrate and source of Sea and advanced agriculture loanwords for advancing Baltic Finns..

Balts got into North Curonia only after 500 or even 1000 AD. Some parts of North Curonia were Livonian up to XX century...

Then those Germanic-ish folk had long been assimilated by Baltic Finns.



The earliest Baltic woman in Lithuania is 4,000 years of age according to Lithuanian anthropologist Gintautas Chesnis.


Первой известной женщиной-балтом считается женщина Донкальниса (Жемайтии), которая жила примерно 4000 лет назад.

Читать далее: http://ru.delfi.lt/news/live/predki-litovcev-skandinavy-a-belorusy-bratya.d?id=20648335



These are archaeological cultures on territory of modern day Lithuania including adjacent regions such as Latvia, Belarus and Kalingrad region


Swiderian culture 11K-8.2K BC Paleoeuropeans.
Neman culture. Southern Lithuania. 7K-5KBC. Paleoeuropeans
Kunda culture 8K-5K BC. Paleoeuropeans.
Narva culture 5.3K-1.75K BC. Paleoeuropeans.
Comb ceramic culture 4.2K-2K BC. In the past scholars considered this culture Finno-Ugric. Nowadays many scholars hold an opinion that this culture was also paleoeuropean, as Finnish linguists suggest that proto-Finnic language spread into Baltic shores only 3,000 ybp (1K BC).
Corded ware culture 3.2K-2.3K BC. Earliest Indo-Europeans
Zhutsevskaya culture was a local variant of Corded ware culture. 3K-2K BC. Earlieast Indo-Europeans.
Sambian barrow culture 6BC-1AD. Western Lithuania. Early west Balts
West Baltic barrow culture 5BC-1AD. Western Lithuania . Early west Balts
Stroked-pottery culture 7BC-5AD. Central and eastern Lithuania . Early east Balts
East Lithuanian barrow culture 5AD-12AD . South-eastern Lithuania. East Balts
Stone barrow culture 4AD-13AD . South-west Lithuanians . West Balts (Sudovians)


So earliest accepted Baltic culture is Sambian barrow, West Baltic and Stroked-pottery ceramic cultures dated to t00BC to 500AD. I 'd assume Curonians have been around that time too.

parastais
05-23-2016, 05:36 PM
So earliest accepted Baltic culture is Sambian barrow, West Baltic and Stroked-pottery ceramic cultures dated to t00BC to 500AD. I 'd assume Curonians have been around that time too.
Yes, but not in Northern Curonia. Sambian barrows and West Baltic Barrows hardly touched modern Latvian territory.

Northern Curonia, or actually almost all Curonia is green here (300-400 AD):
9451

Trust me if I say that there were still Livonians in Northern Curonia on XIX/XX century.

Volat
05-23-2016, 05:43 PM
Yes, but not in Northern Curonia. Sambian barrows and West Baltic Barrows hardly touched modern Latvian territory.

Northern Curonia, or actually almost all Curonia is green here (300-400 AD):
9451

Trust me if I say that there were still Livonians in Northern Curonia on XIX/XX century.

I'd agree about northern Curonia. Scholar are still in dispute if Curonian was west or east Baltic language. Southern Curonian were geographically close to west Baltic tribes.

Volat
05-23-2016, 05:53 PM
@parastais

I believe modern day žemaičiai and residents of southern Kurzeme are related to western Balts despite speaking east Baltic languages. They are related to west Baltic Skalvians and Nadrovians who settled left bank of upper lower Neman near the Baltic sea. West Baltic Skalvians and Nadrovians were assimilated by east Baltic western Aukstatians in 14-16th centuries. Later people of the region were known as Lietuvininkai (Prussian Lithuanians).

parastais
05-23-2016, 06:27 PM
I'd agree about northern Curonia. Scholar are still in dispute if Curonian was west or east Baltic language. Southern Curonian were geographically close to west Baltic tribes.
My favorite theory is quite new idea of (I guess it was) Kallio of Curonian as North Baltic language.

Volat
05-23-2016, 06:33 PM
My favorite theory is quite new idea of (I guess it was) Kallio of Curonian as North Baltic language.

My new I idea and I sense many Balts won't like it. The term Balt is a modern day invention by a German from eastern Prussia in the 19th century, while the term Slav is known for around 1,500 years. So Baltic languages should be known as northern Slavic. It makes sense as we already have west, east and south Slavic languages, while northern Slavic is vacant.

parastais
05-25-2016, 08:56 AM
My new I idea and I sense many Balts won't like it. The term Balt is a modern day invention by a German from eastern Prussia in the 19th century, while the term Slav is known for around 1,500 years. So Baltic languages should be known as northern Slavic. It makes sense as we already have west, east and south Slavic languages, while northern Slavic is vacant.
That will not happen. There is a ton of literature calling Slavic languages as ones derived from Proto-Slavic.
Then they would have to change that name into Proto-East-West-South-Slavic :)))
The East Balts would then have Proto-NorthEast-Slavic (proto-East-Baltic) :)

But what I would like to see is a new non-dual name for Balto-Slavic. Because BS community had not only dialects that developed into Baltic and those developed into Slavic, but also extinct speeches that may even show some other development. Third way.

Volat
05-25-2016, 09:30 AM
But what I would like to see is a new non-dual name for Balto-Slavic. Because BS community had not only dialects that developed into Baltic and those developed into Slavic, but also extinct speeches that may even show some other development. Third way.


What do you mean by non-dual name for Balto-Slavic? Separate names for proto-Baltic and proto-Slavic languages? Whatever definition one may use for common languages of Baltic and Slavic ancestors, perception towards the Balts and their language won't be changed from perspective of many Slavs. I believe there were speeches spoken on Baltic and Slavic linguistic continuum. Some were assimilated into Baltic, while other into Slavic speaking communities.

parastais
05-25-2016, 12:14 PM
Like Venetic (IF they were indeed B-S speakers) or Neurian (same IF) speeches instead of Balto-Slavic. Which would then branch into Slavic, W Baltic, E Baltic, Dnieper etc

Captain Nordic
06-25-2016, 11:14 AM
The N1c in balts (L550 and L1025] is different from the N1c found among the Finns and Estonians.
Thus i don't agree with the theory that Uralic N1c speakers mixed with Indo-european R1a speakers, creating modern day Balts.

Volat
06-30-2016, 03:45 AM
The N1c in balts (L550 and L1025] is different from the N1c found among the Finns and Estonians.
Thus i don't agree with the theory that Uralic N1c speakers mixed with Indo-european R1a speakers, creating modern day Balts.

Where did you get the information about N1c1 clades in Estonian population? There're only 3-4 Estonians in FTDNA project. There are no formal studies on N1c1 clades in Estonian population published.

Megalophias
06-30-2016, 05:07 AM
Where did you get the information about N1c1 clades in Estonian population? There're only 3-4 Estonians in FTDNA project. There are no formal studies on N1c1 clades in Estonian population published.
Though not a proper population sampling, Karmin et al did sequence 12 Estonian N1c1 men. 1 of them was L550(xL0125), 1 was L1025(xM2784) and 2 were M2784. There were also 2 Latvians, both M2784 also.

So as you'd expect Estonians are a lot like Finns and Baltic N1c1 is basically a subset of Estonian N1c1.

Volat
06-30-2016, 05:26 AM
Though not a proper population sampling, Karmin et al did sequence 12 Estonian N1c1 men. 1 of them was L550(xL0125), 1 was L1025(xM2784) and 2 were M2784. There were also 2 Latvians, both M2784 also.

So as you'd expect Estonians are a lot like Finns and Baltic N1c1 is basically a subset of Estonian N1c1.

I haven't come across with Karmin et al study. But if Estonians had 1xL550, 1xL1025, 2xM2783. So how are they a lot like Finns? They are more like Balts.



http://i1303.photobucket.com/albums/ag150/Alex_Chartorisky/SNP-N-TREE103_zpsqzvbffmv.jpg

Megalophias
06-30-2016, 05:48 AM
I haven't come across with Karmin et al study. But if Estonians had 1xL550, 1xL1025, 2xM2783. So how are they a lot like Finns? They are more like Balts.
That is only a third of them. The others were under CTS9976 and Z1940. It's only the M2783 that's specifically Baltic.

Volat
06-30-2016, 06:00 AM
That is only a third of them. The others were under CTS9976 and Z1940. It's only the M2783 that's specifically Baltic.

Specific Baltic is L550+, L1025+. Scandinavian L550+., L1025-. Can you point me to the study please?

parastais
06-30-2016, 01:40 PM
Specific Baltic is L550+, L1025+. Scandinavian L550+., L1025-. Can you point me to the study please?
M2783 is Baltic.
L1025 is Baltic M2783 + Fenno Scandinav Y4706. Despite its naming on tree picture, I am not sure we have such known cases of Y4706 in modern Balts. Mostly West Finland/East Sweden. Two cases in Poland however. But not NE of Poland if remember right.

parastais
06-30-2016, 01:42 PM
Though not a proper population sampling, Karmin et al did sequence 12 Estonian N1c1 men. 1 of them was L550(xL0125), 1 was L1025(xM2784) and 2 were M2784. There were also 2 Latvians, both M2784 also.

So as you'd expect Estonians are a lot like Finns and Baltic N1c1 is basically a subset of Estonian N1c1.
I wonder of deeper subclades of Estonian M2783. I know of only one such Estonian case and he was under Latvian subbranch of M2783 (CTS somethubg

Megalophias
06-30-2016, 02:46 PM
Specific Baltic is L550+, L1025+. Scandinavian L550+., L1025-. Can you point me to the study please?

Sure, it is Karmin et al (2015), "A recent bottleneck of Y chromosome diversity coincides with a global change in culture" (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4381518/). The meat is in the supplementary information (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4381518/bin/supp_25_4_459__index.html), especially the Supplemental Figures and Supplemental Table 8.

Volat
06-30-2016, 03:55 PM
M2783 is Baltic.
L1025 is Baltic M2783 + Fenno Scandinav Y4706. Despite its naming on tree picture, I am not sure we have such known cases of Y4706 in modern Balts. Mostly West Finland/East Sweden. Two cases in Poland however. But not NE of Poland if remember right.
There are two SNPs in north Baltic (not Rurikid) cloud below M2783 and L1025. These are N-Y7795 and N-Y9454. The only way to include them is to specify L550+ or list them separately from L1025 and M2783

Volat
06-30-2016, 04:17 PM
Sure, it is Karmin et al (2015), "A recent bottleneck of Y chromosome diversity coincides with a global change in culture" (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4381518/). The meat is in the supplementary information (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4381518/bin/supp_25_4_459__index.html), especially the Supplemental Figures and Supplemental Table 8.

I found some information. Non-ISOGG nomenclature is used on the diagram . There are 7 Estonians. Four Estonians are grouped together with Latvians and a Russian and an Even. And 4 Estonians are grouped with Saami. The first group belongs to so-called 'south Baltic' branch, and the second group to Finnish group?


https://s32.postimg.org/yf1z566ud/image.png

Megalophias
06-30-2016, 04:21 PM
I found some information. Non-ISOGG nomenclature is used on the diagram . There are 7 Estonians. 3 of them are grouped together with Latvians and a Russian. 4 of them are grouped with Saami. The first group belongs to so-called 'south Baltic' branch, and the second group to Finnish group?
Yes, and there are more on the next page. To find the ISOGG and Y-Full equivalent SNPs you have to search the SNP table.

There are also Vepsas and other Uralics.

Volat
06-30-2016, 05:05 PM
If I am not mistaken

Four Estonians belong to N-Z1941 (Karelian cloud)
Four Estonians belong to N-M2783 (Baltic cloud)
Four Estonians belong to N-L1022 (West Chud cloud)

Here's more information on N1c1 subclade in different populations. I think it reflects the information from the aforementioned study : https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BdWtlmtEfiOy_iqNAj_x-3CM1VhJN5quORVFQVd9Q9o/edit

Shaikorth
06-30-2016, 05:38 PM
Yes, and there are more on the next page. To find the ISOGG and Y-Full equivalent SNPs you have to search the SNP table.

There are also Vepsas and other Uralics.

Considering the Balts have clades that are under M2784, it's not really that Estonians have "South Baltic" but "South Baltic" seems to be just a subset of Estonian diversity since they have everything under VL29 and on top of having clades under Z1936. With a large sample of Estonians we should see if the Finnish clades are also just subsets of Estonian variation (would fit with the theory of language spread).

parastais
06-30-2016, 06:04 PM
Is Z4915 under L1025 or under L550?
Same for Z4912?

https://sites.google.com/site/haplogroupnsnps/experimental-n-tree

Here they are under L550.
L1025 is below.

2 Estonians of Baltic M2783 seem to be of Latvian type then? L591 is of Lithuanian variety, B212 is then what Z16981 like thing?

Volat
06-30-2016, 06:05 PM
Considering the Balts have clades that are under M2784, it's not really that Estonians have "South Baltic" but "South Baltic" seems to be just a subset of Estonian diversity since they have everything under VL29 and on top of having clades under Z1936. With a large sample of Estonians we should see if the Finnish clades are also just subsets of Estonian variation (would fit with the theory of language spread).

It has been mentioned in academic literature (by two Estonians I can search for sources) there were migrations from Latvia , Russia, Finland into Estonia after Estonia experienced demographic crises resulted from wars in the past. That could also explain elevated frequency of R1a1 in their population. We also know 'South Baltic' is specific to Balts and Slavs (eastern & western) except Russians, who also have clades commonly found in different Finno-Ugric peoples.


"Edellä mainittujen sotien jäljiltä olivat virolaisalueet ryöstettyjä ja kylät poltettuja tai muuten autioituneita. Manner-Virossa oli 75 % peltoalasta kylvämättä ja Saarenmaallakin yli kolmannes. Ennen Liivinmaan sotaa virolaisalueella oli asukkaita arviolta 250000-300000, mutta sotien ajan loputtua vain 120000-140000."
"Suomalaisia uudisasukkaita Virossa on tarkastellut J. Vasar. Hänen laskelmiensa mukaan oli vuosina 1637-1640 suomalaisten osuus talonpojista Harjumaalla 12 %, Virumaalla 15-18 % ja Läänemaalla sekä Järvamaalla arviolta 3-4 %. Etelä-Virossa eli silloisella Pohjois-Liivinmaalla oli suomalaisia talonpoikia huomattavasti vähemmän, suunnilleen prosentin verran kaikista talonpojista. Pohjois-Liivinmaalla kiinnittää huomiota suomalaistalonpoikien rypäs Poltsamaan lähistöllä, jossa he isännöivät yhteensä 191 taloa."

http://www.genealogia.fi/genos-old/66/66_2.htm

parastais
06-30-2016, 06:22 PM
Though not a proper population sampling, Karmin et al did sequence 12 Estonian N1c1 men. 1 of them was L550(xL0125), 1 was L1025(xM2784) and 2 were M2784. There were also 2 Latvians, both M2784 also.

So as you'd expect Estonians are a lot like Finns and Baltic N1c1 is basically a subset of Estonian N1c1.
Which one was L1025 (xM2784)? How do you know he was L1025, I can't find and decypher his SNPs into ftdna and commonly used ones... :(

Shaikorth
06-30-2016, 06:25 PM
It has been mentioned in academic literature (by two Estonians I can search for sources) there were migrations from Latvia , Russia, Finland into Estonia after Estonia experienced demographic crises resulted from wars in the past. That could also explain elevated frequency of R1a1 in their population. We also know 'South Baltic' is specific to Balts and Slavs (eastern & western) except Russians, who also have clades commonly found in different Finno-Ugric peoples.

The effects those events may have had on patrilineages of ethnic Estonians, if any, remain unknown but this study suggests Estonians have a wider array of L550 clades of which South Baltic is just a subset. That kind of situation hints towards the ancestors of South Baltic moving south from Estonia or thereabouts a couple thousand years ago, not dissimilar to R1a-Z93 moving towards India though in much smaller scale and without the language. If Estonia also has more diverse N1c1 than Finland and Karelia, the source of N1c1 there could also be tracked to Estonia which would be in line with theorized spread of Finnic. Also if there ever were migrations that had large effect from Finland to Estonia we should see a lot of Finnish I1-types there.

Shaikorth
06-30-2016, 06:27 PM
Which one was L1025 (xM2784)? How do you know he was L1025, I can't find and decypher his SNPs into ftdna and commonly used ones... :(


Identifier 15180

parastais
06-30-2016, 06:34 PM
Identifier 15180
It says Z4912 - is that a replacement for L1025?

edit: I am really puzzled, because in ftdna I searched all of their N projects results for SNP Z4912, Z4915, B512, etc, but to no success...
All I found was Z4919 which was quite common for Finland guys, but probably unrelated to Z4912..

edit2: the N tree by Mr Dunkel also do not feature those values. So, how do we know it is not L550 (xL1025)?

Shaikorth
06-30-2016, 06:42 PM
It says Z4912 - is that a replacement for L1025?

No, phylogenetically looks like it's on equal level to M2874 and Y4706 - or it is Y4706.

parastais
06-30-2016, 06:57 PM
No, phylogenetically looks like it's on equal level to M2874 and Y4706 - or it is Y4706.
Ok, found him, he is Estonian subclade of Y4706.
As per
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eVvFP4ewhlHxDyD3e9jBG25_7zuKra6aCYVjy3voWig/edit
Y4706 branches like this:
Y4703 - Finns
Y5743 - Finns
Z4912 - Estonians

Megalophias
06-30-2016, 07:15 PM
Which one was L1025 (xM2784)? How do you know he was L1025, I can't find and decypher his SNPs into ftdna and commonly used ones... :(

B215=L1025. The alternative name is given in Table S8.

Sometimes you have to compare the actual nucleotide positions of the mutations, though, since none of the more recent Y/YP/FGC SNPs are listed. I checked for Y4706 and major SNPs under that in this way and the Estonian L1025* does not have any of them, so I think he is another branch. Z4912 is indented too far in Ray Banks' tree so it looks like it's under Y4706 but the name is ....a3 while M4706 is ....a2, it's a sister branch.

parastais
06-30-2016, 07:20 PM
B215=L1025. The alternative name is given in Table S8.

Sometimes you have to compare the actual nucleotide positions of the mutations, though, since none of the more recent Y/YP/FGC SNPs are listed. I checked for Y4706 and major SNPs under that in this way and the Estonian L1025* does not have any of them, so I think he is another branch.
But he has Z4912. Which as per link in my post above is under Y4706.

edit: hmm, ok, he only visually appears under Y4706. But he is given -
N1c1a1a1a1a1a3
Not
N1c1a1a1a1a1a2 (Y4706)

So, perhaps indeed another branch?

Megalophias
06-30-2016, 07:21 PM
See edit above, it's just a slight error in the layout of Ray Banks' tree that makes it look like a subclade of Y4706.

parastais
06-30-2016, 07:50 PM
Yeah, those blue things in that link adds a lot of new information to existing N tree. (of course should be treated with some caution, otherwise they would be regarded as black not blue):
So,
L1025 consists of
- M2783 (the one we used to call "Baltic" or "South Baltic"), in Balts hotspot
- Y4706 (the West Finnic? one)
- Z4912 (Estonians)

Further the
M2783 - subclade previously known as Baltic - consists of
L551 (in N tree) - under Lithuanian name in N tree
BY158 (in N tree) - under Lithuanian name in N tree
Z16975 (in N tree) - this if I am not mistaken in subclade found in/around East Prussia
Z16981 (in N tree) - this is what was called West Baltic, then South Baltic, I believe in ftdna I found 7 of 9 Latvians were under this clade (?)
Y13982 (blue, not in N tree) - not mentioned location in doc
B188 (blue, not in N tree) - Russians in Pskov in doc
B212 (blue, not in N tree) - further divided into B213 (Latvians in doc) and B189 (Estonians in doc)

So, new independent (apparently small if not found previously) subbranches further to North (Pskov, Letto-Estonian).

Volat
07-01-2016, 02:17 AM
2016 update!







http://i1303.photobucket.com/albums/ag150/Alex_Chartorisky/SNP-N-TREE-FIN_zpsmlnkidrt.jpg

parastais
07-01-2016, 05:48 AM
So, small brother lines around Pskov kind of suggests point of origin for m2783.
Age points at expansion ca mid I Millennium BC.
So, still in line with net Ware.

Shaikorth
07-01-2016, 06:36 AM
Georg Dunkel is one of the admins of this (https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/n-russia-dna-project/about/background)FTDNA project, he'll probably mail the most recent version of his tree if you ask him.

parastais
07-01-2016, 08:07 AM
Georg Dunkel is one of the admins of this (https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/n-russia-dna-project/about/background)FTDNA project, he'll probably mail the most recent version of his tree if you ask him.
Except in DNA results for that project I do not see a Single person tested for those new SNPs, so I am afraid his tree does not contain those new subgroups (Pskov and Estonian-Latvian).

Shaikorth
07-01-2016, 08:24 AM
Except in DNA results for that project I do not see a Single person tested for those new SNPs, so I am afraid his tree does not contain those new subgroups (Pskov and Estonian-Latvian).

Perhaps. Anyway there's an updated version of the tree (but SNP label differences may make comparison with Karmin paper unclear) and an analysis of West Balts in one of the FTDNA projects he runs.

https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/dunkel-y-dna/about/news

parastais
07-01-2016, 09:34 AM
Perhaps. Anyway there's an updated version of the tree (but SNP label differences may make comparison with Karmin paper unclear) and an analysis of West Balts in one of the FTDNA projects he runs.

https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/dunkel-y-dna/about/news
Thanks!
Pskov and Estonian-Latvian not there yet.

The "West" Balts paper I have already discussed. It is too much present in Latvian to be called West Balts:
1) 7 of 9 Ftdna Latvian N samples are West Balts
2) in that doc, almost every subbox besides Central Euro samples, also contains a sample from Latvia.

So, it looks more of something born in Latvia than West Baltic.

Skambesys
07-09-2016, 05:02 PM
Lithuanians have 42% of the N1C:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Psp0FhKUY5k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwE5rb3E25I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=591GfCT-jSM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jl6TCDuSV4I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuA1zwdyOW4

Tomenable
08-05-2016, 11:44 AM
Check also East Prussian R1a subclades here:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?8115-East-Prussian-including-Old-Prussian-(West-Baltic)-R1a-subclades

East Prussian N1c (sample size = 19 people):

Clade Z16975 / FGC13372 = 7 people:

https://www.yfull.com/arch-3.15/tree/N-Z16975/

kit 193848 Jons Maczullatis born in 1745 in Skaisgirren (Skajzgiry), hg. N-Z16975
kit E13080 Johannes Reihs born in 1800 in Bischofstein (Bisztynek), hg. N-Z16975
kit E2482 Martin Ossowski, born in 1729 in Marienburg (Malbork), hg. N-L1025, probably N-FGC13372
kit N61024 Jurgis Lunczyns born in 1715 in Mosteiten (Slawjanskoje), hg. N-L1025, probably N-FGC13372
kit 343953 Pranciškus Lukoševičius, born in Wisztyniec (Vištytis), hg. N-Z16975

Y19113 subclade (one person):

kit B42972 Johann Kuschnereit born in 1800 in Eszerischken, hg. N-Z16975; Y19113+

Y6129 subclade (one person):

kit N58382 Dargil, born ca. 1344 in Gut Dargels (Dargiele) near Migehnen (Mingajny), hg. N-Z16975; Y6129+

Clade L551 = 2 people:

https://www.yfull.com/arch-3.15/tree/N-L551/

kit E8045 Dawid Barteit, born in Kolonie Bismarck near Heydekrug, hg. N-L551
kit 202401 Jan Łozowski born in 1850 in Lötzen (Giżycko), hg. N-L551

Clade L732 = 1 person:

https://www.yfull.com/arch-3.15/tree/N-L732/

kit 217892 Johann Groening born in 1800 in Horsterbusch (Krzewiny), hg. N-L732

Undetermined L1025+ = 8 people:

https://www.yfull.com/arch-3.15/tree/N-L1025/

kit 142919 Wilhelm E. Spangehl born in 1819 in Ragnit (Neman), hg. N1c-L1025
kit E9638 August Darge born in 1870 in Bartenstein (Bartoszyce), hg. N1c-L1025
kit 179556 Michael Bannuscher born in 1729 in Schoenfeld (near Braunsberg), hg. N-L1025
kit N42695 Julius Baltrusch born in 1874 in Campinschken (near Tilsit), hg. N-L1025
kit 147092 Johann Bever born in 1800 in Ryabinowoje (now Kaliningrad Oblast), hg. N-L1025
kit 183188 Andrzej Cholewa, born in 1815 in Bełcząc (near Bialla/Gehlenburg), hg. N-L1025
kit N23762 Andrzej Romanski, born in 1758 in Łapka (Warmia, near Olsztyn), hg. N-L1025
kit 173926 Baltazar Hilinski, born in 1866 in Rakowo (near Tiegenhof), hg. N-L1025

Undetermined N1c1a+ = 1 person:

https://www.yfull.com/arch-3.15/tree/N1c1a/

kit 284236 Wannagat born in 1880 in Göritten (Puszkino) or Stallupönen (Nesterow), hg. N-M178

Tomenable
08-05-2016, 11:53 AM
^^^ Surprisingly no N-CTS8173 showed up in that East Prussian sample:

https://www.yfull.com/tree/N-CTS8173/

http://s23.postimg.org/s45kpt4zf/CTS8173.png

Also no any N-Z17902 (BY158) showed up in that East Prussian sample:

https://www.yfull.com/tree/N-Z17902/

http://s15.postimg.org/boy3nh5u3/BY158.png

Tomenable
08-05-2016, 11:54 AM
Unless some people with "undetermined L1025+" had these subclades.

Tomenable
08-05-2016, 12:15 PM
The "West" Balts paper I have already discussed. It is too much present in Latvian to be called West Balts:
1) 7 of 9 Ftdna Latvian N samples are West Balts
2) in that doc, almost every subbox besides Central Euro samples, also contains a sample from Latvia.

So, it looks more of something born in Latvia than West Baltic.

Indeed, Z16981 looks more Latvian. But it is also widespread outside of Baltic states.

This map shows the distribution of CTS8173 (which is a subclade of Z16981):

http://s23.postimg.org/s45kpt4zf/CTS8173.png

Among those 19 samples of N1c from East Prussia, there is no any confirmed Z16981.

Tomenable
08-05-2016, 12:18 PM
Lithuanians have 42% of the N1C:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Psp0FhKUY5k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwE5rb3E25I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=591GfCT-jSM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jl6TCDuSV4I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuA1zwdyOW4

Depends on sample, but around 40 percent (+/- a few percent):

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?8115-East-Prussian-including-Old-Prussian-(West-Baltic)-R1a-subclades&p=175946&viewfull=1#post175946

Hg - Lithuanians / East Prussians:

N1c - 40.53% (122) / 22.62% (19)
R1a - 42.19% (127) / 45.23% (38)
I2a - 2.33% (7) / 4.76% (4)
R1b - 4.32% (13) / 15.48% (13)
I1 - 4.65% (14) / 7.14% (6)
E1b - 2.66% (8) / 1.19% (1)
J - 1.33% (4) / 1.19% (1)
G - 1.00% (3) / 1.19% (1)
I2b - 0.33% (1) / 0.00% (0)
other - 0.66% (2) / 1.19% (1)

Total sample - 301 / 84

Compared to Lithuanians, in pre-war East Prussia there was:

- 1.8 times less of N1c
- 2.2 times less of E1b
- 1.1 times less of J

- 3.6 times more of R1b
- 2.0 times more of I2a
- 1.5 times more of I1

Around the same percentage of R1a, despite lower of N1c.

Tomenable
08-05-2016, 12:56 PM
What are the most common subclades of N1c among Lithuanians?

Is Z16975 common in Lithuania? If not, then it must be specifically West Baltic.

The main Latvian subclade is Z16981. It is also common in FTDNA Polish Project.

But according to Peter Gwozdz, around 1.9% of Poles have Z16975 subclade:

http://www.gwozdz.org/Results.html

https://s31.postimg.org/oxaxemll7/N1c.png

Tomenable
08-05-2016, 01:04 PM
Is L551 the most common Lithuanian subclade?:

https://s32.postimg.org/pswiisiet/Baltic_N1c.png

Tomenable
08-05-2016, 01:16 PM
^^ BY158 looks Northern Lithuanian - see the map:

http://s15.postimg.org/boy3nh5u3/BY158.png

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Etnoregionai.png

Tomenable
08-05-2016, 01:21 PM
http://s1.postimg.org/85nj3lv0f/0007_mapa1.png

parastais
08-07-2016, 12:04 PM
It is interesting topic if archeologically there was some higher union than tribe (I.e. the differences between tribes were observable, but I am not sure if all to-be-Latvian tribes formed a cluster against all to-be-Lithuanian tribes).
For example, Zemaitian (LT) and Semigallian (LV) seemed to be closer to each other than to other tribes.
Curonians (LV) became (part of) ancestors of both coastal/West LV and coastal/West LT people. And possibly were of Prussian/West Baltic stock themselves.
Lettigalian people and Selonians have some similarities. Selonians became mostly LV, but their Southern lands became LT.

parastais
08-09-2016, 07:46 PM
To illustrate what I am saying about Latvian and Lithuanian (and Prussian) tribes, this is from
https://www.academia.edu/6318979/Problems_of_definitions_of_Dollkeim-Kovrovo_Sambian-Natangian_Culture_Russian_lang._
(unfortunately in Russian).
https://html2-f.scribdassets.com/7f0fwt7gao3ka5c8/images/3-49b5ca352e.jpg
Memel Group is Curonians (Latvian tribe) + Skalvians (Lithuanian/Prussian?).
Culture above is apparently Baltic Finns, they have influences from Memel Group and influence East Latvians.
West Latvians have influences from Central Lithuania and Memel Group.
East Latvians have influences from West Latvians and East Lithuanians.
East Lithuanians have influences from Central Lithuanians.

So, West Baltic circle would then have - Z-16975. All of those inner cultures or some of them? No idea.
Memel group? No idea yet.
West Latvian/Central Lithuanian - probably CTS-8173.
East Lithuanians (perhaps Central Lith and East Latv too??) - BY158, L551.

Those are just my guesses, that I would not be very surprised if so it is found out in the very end.

Edit: this is dated c.a. 0-500 AD.

Volat
08-09-2016, 10:54 PM
^^ Southern Russian influence from direction of Belarus? I don't want to appear paranoid but Russian scholars have been driven by Russian chauvinism calling Ukrainians and Belarusians Russians. Even in genetic studies published by Russian scholars samples from Smolensk (border of Belarus, former Belarusians) and Kursk (border of north-eastern Ukraine) have been selected in many studies to highlight Russian similarities with Belarusians and Ukrainians. On some occasions Russian scholars chose certain samples of Belarusians and Ukrainians to highlight east Slavic unity.

Gravetto-Danubian
08-09-2016, 11:51 PM
^^ Southern Russian influence from direction of Belarus? I don't want to appear paranoid but Russian scholars have been driven by Russian chauvinism calling Ukrainians and Belarusians Russians. Even in genetic studies published by Russian scholars samples from Smolensk (border of Belarus, former Belarusians) and Kursk (border of north-eastern Ukraine) have been selected in many studies to highlight Russian similarities with Belarusians and Ukrainians. On some occasions Russian scholars chose certain samples of Belarusians and Ukrainians to highlight east Slavic unity.

Volat, have any "new age" works come forth from Belarus and Russia about Slavic archaeology, with "scientific " dating such as dendrochronology, that your aware of ?
I know there's been a perpetual debate about the provenance of Pskov barrows- Finns, Balts or Slavs ?

parastais
08-10-2016, 05:36 AM
Volat, have any "new age" works come forth from Belarus and Russia about Slavic archaeology, with "scientific " dating such as dendrochronology, that your aware of ?
I know there's been a perpetual debate about the provenance of Pskov barrows- Finns, Balts or Slavs ?
Speaking of Pskov barrows. We have some genetic evidence they had N1c.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQMlJFLUlUb3hkb2M/view
Pskov Long Barrows culture, Devichi Gori burial dated VIII-X AD had N1c according to Chekunova's study.

Given there are independent small "sub-Baltic" lines of M2783 in Pskov and Estonia-Latvia, it is possible that the N1c could be of M2783 Pskov type (not sure though about probability, since any N1c is possible, perhaps more likely is some Finnic type and Rurikids line probably can't be excluded too).

Volat
08-10-2016, 07:21 AM
Volat, have any "new age" works come forth from Belarus and Russia about Slavic archaeology, with "scientific " dating such as dendrochronology, that your aware of ?
I know there's been a perpetual debate about the provenance of Pskov barrows- Finns, Balts or Slavs ?
Latest articles on archeology in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus you can find here : http://www.archaeology.ru/

Unfortunately, most articles are published in Russian.

parastais
08-10-2016, 12:26 PM
Khm, interesting note from
http://www.archaeology.ru/Download/Egoreichenko/Egoreichenko_2006_Kultury_shtrikhovannoy.pdf
"Beginning of iron age in East European forest zone is dated around VIII-VII BCE."
That more or less corresponds to the TMRCA of M2783.

Will read further from where and how this iron started :)

Gravetto-Danubian
08-10-2016, 12:44 PM
Latest articles on archeology in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus you can find here : http://www.archaeology.ru/

What a treasure. Thanks !


Unfortunately, most articles are published in Russian.
That's ok. Russian alphabet descends from Macedonian :)

Pripyat
08-11-2016, 04:37 AM
That's ok. Russian alphabet descends from Macedonian :)

Umm, there was never a Macedonian alphabet until 1945 when communists created it. The Cyrillic alphabet was developed in the First Bulgarian Empire and recognized as the Bulgarian alphabet since but is called Cyrillic after the progenitor alphabet.

Gravetto-Danubian
08-11-2016, 04:46 AM
Umm, there was never a Macedonian alphabet until 1945 when communists created it. The Cyrillic alphabet was developed in the First Bulgarian Empire and recognized as the Bulgarian alphabet since but is called Cyrillic after the progenitor alphabet.

Well it was a joke for Volat, but the alphabet was developed on the basis of the Slavic dialect spoken in Macedonia, not the Bulgars that's for sure (maybe your are "confusing" again).
But feel free to butt out; and don't detail the thread

Volat
08-11-2016, 04:58 AM
Well it was a joke for Volat, but the alphabet was developed on the basis of the Slavic dialect spoken in Macedonia (maybe your are "confusing" again).
But feel free to butt out; and don't detail the thread

Literary Macedonian is most similar to Old Church Slavonic. Old Church Slavonic influenced all East Slavic languages. Bulgarians and Macedonians replaced their Turkisms with Russian (east Slavic) words. I can read and understand Bulgarian and Macedonian better than Serbo-Croatian. Polish language is an exception. We've had long relations with Poles and their language.

Pripyat
08-11-2016, 05:03 AM
Well it was a joke for Volat, but the alphabet was developed on the basis of the Slavic dialect spoken in Macedonia (maybe your are "confusing" again).

Umm, firstly, those Slavs that you speak of were already Bulgarians at the time Cyrillic was developed. You're thinking of the Glagolitic alphabet. Cyrillic was developed in Preslav and later Ohrid, 100% Bulgarian cities.



But feel free to butt out; and don't detail the thread

I only needed to correct you because Macedonian distortions of history peddled as truths are criminal.

Gravetto-Danubian
08-11-2016, 05:05 AM
Literary Macedonian is most similar to Old Church Slavonic. Old Church Slavonic influenced all East Slavic languages. Bulgarians and Macedonians replaced their Turkisms with Russian (east Slavic) words. I can read and understand Bulgarian and Macedonian better than Serbo-Croatian. Polish language is an exception. We've had long relations with Poles and their language.

Outside south Slavic, I find Ukrainian the most similar, although I can read and get a basic understanding of all (despite my more or less monolingual English upbringing). Speaking is another matter, of course

From what I have read, distinctions existed between the Preslav and Ohrid literary schools ; the latter was more innovative whilst the former more heavily relied on Greek models, as per Alexander Schenker

Pripyat
08-11-2016, 05:22 AM
From what I have read, distinctions existed between the Preslav and Ohrid literary schools ; the latter was more innovative whilst the former more heavily relied on Greek models, as per Alexander Schenker

Irrelevant. The Ohrid school was founded by Saint Naum, who was Bulgarian. Everybody who studied at the Ohrid school was Bulgarian.

Gravetto-Danubian
08-11-2016, 05:27 AM
Irrelevant. The Ohrid school was founded by Saint Naum, who was Bulgarian. Everybody who studied at the Ohrid school was Bulgarian.

True although a Bulgarian in the Middle Ages was somewhat different to modern era. It's the same as saying there were no Ukrainians or Belarussians until 19th century, because they were all called "Rus" in 11 th century .
Anyhow, feel free to open a new thread about your perspectives on medieval ethnicity, this is about Baltic DNA


I only needed to correct you because Macedonian distortions of history peddled as truths are criminal.

You need to correct yourself.
This is not a nationalist- political forum, i suggest you read the rules. But you sound butthurt about something

Volat
08-11-2016, 05:31 AM
Outside south Slavic, I find Ukrainian the most similar, although I can read and get a basic understanding of all (despite my more or less monolingual English upbringing). Speaking is another matter, of course

From what I have read, distinctions existed between the Preslav and Ohrid literary schools ; the latter was more innovative whilst the former more heavily relied on Greek models, as per Alexander Schenker



Among east Slavic languages Ukrainian is most similar to Bulgarian and Serbo-Croatian, while Belarusian is most similar to Polish and Sorbian. Still, Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian languages are most similar to each other. Eastern Slavs can understand each other better than southern or western Slavs.

If we compare Baltic and Slavic languages, then Belarusian is most similar to Baltic languages. Belarusian has lots of Baltic loan-words being influenced by Lithuanian (Baltic).

My translation:

Due to Baltic linguistic substrate [in Belarusian], modern Lithuanian and Belarusian languages have a number of common features in phonetics, morphology and syntax. These include

- positional softness of consonants;
- jotacija[1] at confluence of vowels;
- vocative case;
- comparative degree of adjectives and adverbs with preposition 'for' (за);
- a particular form of imperative for the expression of the joint action;
- fractional numbers;
-structural and semantic proximity of some pronouns;
- common valence of some verbs in a construction such as 'хворому палепшала' (ill person got better)
- preferential use of genitive case in negation using verb 'мець' (to have)
- literal matching of combinations such as 'ставiць хату' (to build a house)
- and other features


Source: The author of the article references the Belarusian Encyclopedia (1994) published by the Belarusian State University referenced in http:///c9g8e9b

Pripyat
08-11-2016, 05:40 AM
True although a Bulgarian in the Middle Ages was somewhat different to modern era.

All Slavs who lived in the core parts of the Bulgarian Empire i.e. Ohrid to Preslav draw their historic-cultural continuity from the empire. Furthermore, all the VMRO revolutionaries had a defined Bulgarian ethnic identity. It was not until the 1930s when the communists began to take over and called for a separate Macedonian nation.


It's the same as saying there were no Ukrainians or Belarussians until 19th century, because they were all called "Rus" in 11 th century.

Not really. There was no Macedonian kingdom or empire in the medieval period, whatsoever. Tsar Samuil was an emperor of Bulgaria attested in every single historical source. The Ukrainians have Kievan Rus to draw their continuity, the Belarusians descend from people who ruled the Principality of Polotsk but overall have lots of influence from Lithuania, Russia, and Ukraine. They mostly speak Russian today, and Belarusian is almost dead, so it's arguable that there is a Belarusian nation today.


Anyhow, feel free to open a new thread about your perspectives on medieval ethnicity, this is about Baltic DNA

Sure, I'll stop here but you are slinging mud at me so the onus is upon you to stop.


You need to correct yourself. You must be butthurt about something, did your favourite goat leave you ?

Butthurt? No, not at all. Just pointed out a distortion you posted that was incorrect. There's no need to rebrand Bulgarian to Macedonian just because of your feelings, describe them as precisely as history described them, that is Bulgarian.

Gravetto-Danubian
08-11-2016, 07:54 AM
Just pointed out a distortion you posted that was incorrect. There's no need to rebrand Bulgarian to Macedonian just because of your feelings, describe them as precisely as history described them, that is Bulgarian.

You appear to be confused regarding the difference between the name of a kingdom/ multiethnic Empire, and operant local identities, and secondly, between etic ethonymic categories used in Medieval times and their modern equivalents. Moreover, your feigned crusading to "correct wrongs" is absolutely absurd, as clearly my comments were used in a light hearted exchange with an online acquaintance, not a deep or serious analysis of what dialectical differences existed in 9th century southeastern Europe, or what it might have actually meant to be "Bulgarian" for someone in the 10th. Your misguided, uninformed, & politically infused with speech (about some 1930s political movement), only confirms the issue here is yours alone.


Belarusian is almost dead, so it's arguable that there is a Belarusian nation today. hhm. Interesting


The Ukrainians have Kievan Rus to draw their continuity
Well, that's rather self-contradictory. The term "Ukrainian" came into use in the 19th century


Sure, I'll stop here
Yes you should, Coz you're a clown

Gray Fox
08-11-2016, 08:53 AM
(Admin)

All members are reminded to remain on topic and to keep interactions/arguments civil. This thread is being monitored.

Volat
08-11-2016, 11:00 AM
the Belarusians descend from people who ruled the Principality of Polotsk but overall have lots of influence from Lithuania, Russia, and Ukraine. They mostly speak Russian today, and Belarusian is almost dead, so it's arguable that there is a Belarusian nation today.


Belarusians have ancestries from Polotchans, Dregoviches, Radimiches, Yotvingians, Lithuanians, Dnepr Balts.The Belarusian language is alive and spoken. Only Chuvanistic Russian idiots consider Belarusian language dead. Belarusian is the smallest east Slavic language. The same Russian chuvanists wanted Ukrainian language to be dead too.

parastais
08-16-2016, 05:33 PM
Eurogenes have a good link to EAA 2016 abstracts that will take place in Vilnius (end of August).

For genetic research this is going to be huge. I am so excited!!
A genetic perspective on population dynamics of the pre-historic Eastern Baltic region
"We present the results of ancient DNA analyses of 81 individuals from the territory of today’s Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia that span from the Mesolithic to Bronze Age. Through study of the uniparentally inherited mtDNA and Y-chromosome as well as positions across the entire genome that are informative about ancient ancestry we reveal the dynamics of prehistoric population continuity and change within this understudied region and how they are reflected in today’s Baltic populations."

Brilliant piece.

Another thing that caught my attention. This abstract seems to indirectly give some support to linking Baltic N to spread of metallurgy. Not only metallurgy appeared then, but also the hillforts:
TH4-02 Abstract 08
Reconsidering early hillforts in the East Baltic: conflicts and metallurgy (Podėnas, Vytenis).
"The basic assumption of this paper is that the emergence of hillforts are a behavioral expression of prehistoric conflicts. A contemporaneous process of appearance of locally executed metallurgy in the East Baltic region concentrates in hillforts as well. Thus making the two practices comparable"
"The historiographical classic route of Daugava river seems to attract most of the early metalworkers. Casting moulds for Mälar-type socketed axes are
an indication of the earliest metallurgical activities in the hillforts."
"However, the Mälar-type bronze axes are not specific to the East Baltic region, on the contrast the axes are mostly found in Scandinavia or in Upper Volga region of the inseparable Akozino-type axes. Furthermore, spatial analysis of Narkūnai hillfort technical ceramics indicate that the Mälar-type bronze axes had been casted on two different occasions, therefore making some ground for the itinerant metalworkers’ hypothesis."

Megalophias
08-16-2016, 05:58 PM
Considering the view of Lang that intense contact between early Finnic and Baltic took place in the eastern Baltic at this time, which means bilingual speakers, and also matching well with the estimated TMRCA of M2783, this seems like an excellent time for this originally Finnic lineage to shift to Baltic, as I believe you've previously suggested.

We may find out soon

parastais
08-16-2016, 06:07 PM
Some other related or semi-related to topic abstracts.

TH4-04 Abstract 05
Between Social Dynamics and Cultural Constancy. Case Study of the Trzciniec Culture.

About Trzciniec Culture in Lithuania as "islands" of culture or Northern expansion of Culture or just influence.

Coastal and northern Lithuania in the Late Bronze Age –communication networks and interactions
About Daugava trade route after 1,200 BCE.

Mid-Pre-Roman military impact on the northern Eastern Baltic
Some weapons similar to Scythians 6-4th Centuries BCE appear in Estonia, North and West Latvia.
OK, this quote is interesting, but hardly likely knowing genetics:
"It seems rather plausible that the fortifications, iron (battle-)axes, and shepherd’s crook pins reflect different aspects of the same process, which most likely involved troubled times and even some military impact. It is likely that some groups of invaders of Indo-Iranian or Balto-Slavic origin may have infiltrated into the Finnic population during this process."

Volat
08-16-2016, 06:07 PM
Considering the view of Lang that intense contact between early Finnic and Baltic took place in the eastern Baltic at this time, which means bilingual speakers, and also matching well with the estimated TMRCA of M2783, this seems like an excellent time for this originally Finnic lineage to shift to Baltic, as I believe you've previously suggested.

We may find out soon


Most common haplogroup among Balts is R1a-Z280. It's reaching to 62% in southern Lithuanians; this is as high as anywhere in eastern Europe. In addition, Lithuania and south-western Latvia (below Daugava river) do not have Finnic hydronyms. Finnic hydronynms are virtually absent in Lithuania in eastern Prussia. Archaeological cultures of Lithuania , Prussia and much of Latvia have been Indo-European for the last 3,500 years.

Megalophias
08-16-2016, 07:48 PM
Most common haplogroup among Balts is R1a-Z280. It's reaching to 62% in southern Lithuanians; this is as high as anywhere in eastern Europe. In addition, Lithuania and south-western Latvia (below Daugava river) do not have Finnic hydronyms. Finnic hydronynms are virtually absent in Lithuania in eastern Prussia. Archaeological cultures of Lithuania , Prussia and much of Latvia have been Indo-European for the last 3,500 years.

Well, Lang is talking about Estonia and parts of Latvia, and obviously people who have shifted to Baltic language are not going to create Finnic hydronyms, so I am not sure what you are getting at here.

parastais
08-16-2016, 08:06 PM
And some other:
TH4-06 Abstract 03
Neolithic Cultural Encounters in the Territory of the South Lithuania (4200-2000 BC)
This quote seems to fit with genetics - "Archaeological material of Dubičiai, Nemunas, Narva and maybe Comb-Ware cultures also pottery of Funnel Beakers, Globular Amphora, Corded Ware cultures was found in this territory"

TH4-11 Abstract 07
DNA analysis of the individuals buried in the Salme boat graves
more of a promise to make tests, than results

TH4-11 Abstract 08
Bringing them to life - A multidisciplinary study of Eura Luistari cemetery (6th-12th c AD), Finland
more of a promise to make tests, than results

TH4-11 Abstract 09
Kivutkalns bronze-working centre in light of archaeology and natural sciences
First, we discuss the cultural connections based on archaeological investigations of the artefacts from Bronze Age cultures of north and south of Gulf of Finland. Second, we present new 14C-based chronologies of the site to shed light on both absolute and relative dating of hillfort and cemetery. Third, we present new data on dietary habits and discuss genetic affiliation of the people based on 13C, 15N isotopic data and ancient DNA measurements on human bones, respectively. Particularly, possible genetic connections between Kivutkalns and ancient and present populations of eastern Fennoscandia are discussed.
I bolded since Kivutkalns is early bronze-working center dated 1st Millenium BCE, when metal working + hill forts arrived into Latvia. Will be very interesting those genetic connections.

Volat
08-17-2016, 05:06 AM
obviously people who have shifted to Baltic language are not going to create Finnic hydronyms, so I am not sure what you are getting at here.

Many Finns shifted to Slavic preserving Finnic hydronyms in northern Russia. Some Balts shifted to Slavic in Belarus and western Russia. Belarus has more Baltic than Slavic hydronyms despite linguistic shift. Ukraine and southern Russia have numerous Iranic hydronyms. Toponyms can change, while hydronyms are often preserved. 84% of all hydronyms on the map (non-Baltic territories in modern day) below are Baltic in origin. The presence or absence of hydronyms is an important piece of evidence of the language people spoke on certain territories. Not only there is little linguistic evidence, there are no archaeological evidence to suggest Finnic settlements in much of Latvia and Lithuania. The dwellers of Pit-Comb ware culture are no longer considered to be Uralic by many scholars, as Baltic Finnic was spread into the Baltic region around 3,000 years ago.

Baltic hydronyms map from Toporov and Trubachev monograph.

http://s14.postimg.org/esxe8mqcx/hydronyms.jpg

Megalophias
08-17-2016, 05:46 AM
Many Finns shifted to Slavic preserving Finnic hydronyms in northern Russia. Some Balts shifted to Slavic in Belarus and western Russia. Belarus has more Baltic than Slavic hydronyms despite linguistic shift. Ukraine and southern Russia have numerous Iranic hydronyms. Toponyms can change, while hydronyms are often preserved. 84% of all hydronyms on the map (non-Baltic territories in modern day) below are Baltic in origin. The presence or absence of hydronyms is an important piece of evidence of the language people spoke on certain territories. Not only there is little linguistic evidence, there are no archaeological evidence to suggest Finnic settlements in much of Latvia and Lithuania. The dwellers of Pit-Comb ware culture are no longer considered to be Uralic by many scholars, as Baltic Finnic was spread into the Baltic region around 3,000 years ago.
The paternal descendants of Finnic people who switched to Baltic in Estonia are not going to give Finnic names to Lithuanian rivers. And we are talking about the Bronze Age, what has Pit Comb Ware to do with it? I don't understand what you are trying to tell me.

Volat
08-17-2016, 06:29 AM
The paternal descendants of Finnic people who switched to Baltic in Estonia are not going to give Finnic names to Lithuanian rivers. And we are talking about the Bronze Age, what has Pit Comb Ware to do with it? I don't understand what you are trying to tell me.

I've given you examples how hydronyms are preserved despite linguistic shifts over time. It's for this reason hydronyms are of interest in historeography. I was not talking about Pit Comb Ware as such. I was telling you there is no archaeological evidence of Finnic presence in much of Latvia and Lithuania. Speaking of Pit Comb Ware it existed during early Bronze age.

Megalophias
08-17-2016, 06:42 AM
I've given you examples how hydronyms are preserved despite linguistic shifts over time. It's for this reason hydronyms are of interest in historeography. I was not talking about Pit Comb Ware as such. I was telling you there is no archaeological evidence of Finnic presence in much of Latvia and Lithuania.
OK. I don't think we are actually disagreeing about anything.

parastais
08-17-2016, 08:10 AM
The paternal descendants of Finnic people who switched to Baltic in Estonia are not going to give Finnic names to Lithuanian rivers. And we are talking about the Bronze Age, what has Pit Comb Ware to do with it? I don't understand what you are trying to tell me.
They did not switch to Baltic in Estonia. This must have happened further East. Somewhere up Daugava river.
I picture it like this
Around 1000 bce Finnic folk expanded with their hillforts and metals from East.
They assimilated some Balts on their way West (Baltic substrate in Baltic Finns).
I assume M2783 has something to do with those processes.

There is one issue though. If m2783 was Finnic superstrate in Balts, there should be some linguistic evidence (I.e. terms for war, rulership, metals, hillforts), but there is none. This is the missing piece in picture..
Even axe (Malaren axes) is kirve in Finnic, which is a Baltic loan.

Shaikorth
08-17-2016, 08:32 AM
They did not switch to Baltic in Estonia. This must have happened further East. Somewhere up Daugava river.
I picture it like this
Around 1000 bce Finnic folk expanded with their hillforts and metals from East.
They assimilated some Balts on their way West (Baltic substrate in Baltic Finns).
I assume M2783 has something to do with those processes.

There is one issue though. If m2783 was Finnic superstrate in Balts, there should be some linguistic evidence (I.e. terms for war, rulership, metals, hillforts), but there is none. This is the missing piece in picture..
Even axe (Malaren axes) is kirve in Finnic, which is a Baltic loan.

Perhaps explained by M2783 being a descendant of a few assimilated L1025 men but the M2783 mutation happening in the Balts, and expanding because a man carrying it became an important figure. By the time that happened the man would have already spoken Baltic and thus left no significant linguistic traces.

There's also this by Lang:

Materialised and non-materialised contacts in Bronze-Age Eastern Baltic

Archaeology as an academic discipline studying material culture can easily follow contacts between people from different regions
if some evidence has been left behind – usually something material which can be studied by scientific means. There are numerous
examples of bronze artefacts found, for instance, in what is today Estonia that demonstrate long-distance contacts with the mid-
Volga region, the Caucasus, Scandinavia, etc. We know about these contacts because of some materialised witnesses. There
is no doubt that each item of foreign origin must be carefully studied in order to avoid the trap of a novice detective – everything
that seems evident at first sight need not be true. The presentation will discuss several artefacts with the purpose of analysing the
probable nature of contacts that yielded those items.

But what about those contacts that did not leave any material evidence behind? Actually, archaeology can sometimes be
quite inefficient in trying to describe the wholeness of contacts between two neighbouring (ethnic) groups. For instance, there
is not much preserved materialised evidence to prove close contacts between Finnic and Baltic communities in the Bronze-Age
Eastern Baltic. Yet, linguistic evidence in the face of numerous so-called unnecessary or luxury Baltic loanwords in Finnic clearly
shows that the contacts between two groups from different language families were really dense and long-lasting, and even mixed
settlement with bilingual everyday communication must have been widespread. This circumstance provides every good reason
to think that material cultures of Finnic and at least one part of the Baltic-speaking populations were not distinguishable from each
other. The presentation is an attempt to search for such a period, region, and material culture that could correspond to linguistic
– that is, non- material – evidence of a mixed bilingual population.

I assume he's going for the ancient Baltic population with most contacts not being the direct ancestor of modern Balts.

parastais
08-17-2016, 01:17 PM
There are 3 Finnic loans in Lithuanian (laiva, bura - boat, sail + kadiķis, a species of tree).
There are 80 Livonian loans in Latvian (wedding was loaned twice, kāzas, laulības). Steel seems to be given to Latvians by Liivi and is visible in relevant loan. Mainly Sea stuff. After 500 AD.

"The main areas on which the Finnics have borrowed words from Baltic are: hunting and fishery, agriculture and cattle-breeding, building and domestic household, social and affinity relations, personal qualities, nature, some particles. " - this goes back to Balto-Slavic. 1000 bce Fatyanovo? Those Fatyanovo groups that did not make it into modern Balts?

Anyway some adna coming in :)

Volat
08-17-2016, 01:23 PM
@parastais


Livs settled around gulf of Riga assimilating IE (Balts). Indo-Europeans predecessors of the Balts were first in east Baltic region. Finnic people arrived later from the east.

parastais
08-17-2016, 01:44 PM
@parastais


Livs settled around gulf of Riga assimilating IE (Balts). Indo-Europeans predecessors of the Balts were first in east Baltic region. Finnic people arrived later from the east.
Balto-Slavic loans are numerous, archaic, friendly and present in all Baltic Finnic branches including Saami.

Nothing to do with Liivi around Rīga.

Also honestly speaking I am not sure if there are Baltic hydronyms in Estonia or (early Baltic) in coastal Latvia.

Volat
08-17-2016, 01:52 PM
Balto-Slavic loans are numerous, archaic, friendly and present in all Baltic Finnic branches including Saami.

Nothing to do with Liivi around Rīga.

Also honestly speaking I am not sure if there are Baltic hydronyms in Estonia or (early Baltic) in coastal Latvia.

I was talking about the Livs because there were no Finnic speaking people living on present day Latvian territories other than the Livs. I don't know if there are Baltic hydronyms in Estonia. Estonia has been of no interest to me. I wouldn't be surprised if there were Baltic hydronyms in Estonia. But we know that Baltic Finns have plenty of Baltic loan-words in their vocabulary. The famous one is Perkele (Baltic Perkons/Perkunas and Slavic Perun).

parastais
08-17-2016, 02:28 PM
Yes, they have plenty.
They got them at proto-Finnic state from Balto-Slavic population that they assimilated.
But it had nothing to do with territories of modern Latvia or Estonia.

In Latvia Balts and Finns met again. But that was a different story.

At least that is my view before new adna :)

Tomenable
08-25-2016, 11:38 AM
On page 18 I counted this East Prussian sample as one of N1c-s, but it is actually N1b:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1712-N1c-in-the-Balts/page18


L732 = 1 person:

https://www.yfull.com/arch-3.15/tree/N-L732/

kit 217892 Johann Groening born in 1800 in Horsterbusch (Krzewiny), hg. N-L732

Waldemar
08-25-2016, 02:05 PM
http://semargl.me/haplogroups/maps/171/

parastais
08-25-2016, 04:59 PM
On page 18 I counted this East Prussian sample as one of N1c-s, but it is actually N1b:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1712-N1c-in-the-Balts/page18
Wow! Would be interesting to see when he branched away from other N1b.
Although distribution by Waldemar is intriguing. Belarus + NE Poland. That is like Slavified Baltic folks.

lgmayka
08-25-2016, 06:24 PM
Wow! Would be interesting to see when he branched away from other N1b.
Although distribution by Waldemar is intriguing. Belarus + NE Poland.
According to YFull (https://yfull.com/tree/N-L732/), the TMRCA of the three Eastern European entries is almost 8000 years ago.

Tomenable
08-25-2016, 07:23 PM
Is id:YF03641 from YFull Johann Groening, Stanley Drozdowski, or yet some other guy ???

parastais
08-25-2016, 07:24 PM
According to YFull (https://yfull.com/tree/N-L732/), the TMRCA of the three Eastern European entries is almost 8000 years ago.
So, to make hastily conclusions, these are descendants of Comb Ceramics child adopted by happy Corded Ware family.
Some strange N* in Balts were also found by this N research, where both Latvians and Lithuanians had some few % of N3a3'6*. So, in upcoming East Baltic research we should not be too surprised if some N shows up with or after Comb Ceramic.

lgmayka
08-26-2016, 02:22 AM
Is id:YF03641 from YFull Johann Groening, Stanley Drozdowski, or yet some other guy ???
YF03641 and YF02093 are definitely Groening and Drozdowski. I don't recall which is which.

Megalophias
08-26-2016, 02:33 AM
So, to make hastily conclusions, these are descendants of Comb Ceramics child adopted by happy Corded Ware family.

There are Chinese samples more closely related to each lineage than they are to each other. I wouldn't bet too much on their being ancient in Europe.

parastais
08-26-2016, 04:56 AM
There are Chinese samples more closely related to each lineage than they are to each other. I wouldn't bet too much on their being ancient in Europe.
More closely = how many 1000s of years apart/close? Chinese from Prussian?

Kristiina
08-26-2016, 05:12 AM
It would be easier to imagine that many deep N lines spread from an area in between Europe and China to both directions than think that they must have spread from either end to the other end.

lgmayka
08-26-2016, 08:07 AM
There are Chinese samples more closely related to each lineage than they are to each other.
Where do you see these Chinese matches? We don't really know where they fall until they appear on YFull's tree. Needless to say, short Y-STR haplotypes can be deceiving.

If you are merely saying that you know of some East Asian examples of L732+ L731- , YFull is in the process of adding such an example to its tree (https://yfull.com/tree/N-L732/). The next iteration of YFull's tree should give us a better picture of the structure.

Tomenable
08-26-2016, 08:15 AM
YF03641 and YF02093 are definitely Groening and Drozdowski. I don't recall which is which.

Do you know who is YF03169 (L732*) - perhaps it is Rostislav Voron from Belarus?:

http://semargl.me/haplogroups/maps/171/

=====================

OK, never mind, I found my answer in your post here: :)

http://www.anthrogenica.com/printthread.php?t=2573&pp=10&page=170

Tomenable
08-26-2016, 08:32 AM
More closely = how many 1000s of years apart/close? Chinese from Prussian?

5000-6000 years apart?:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/printthread.ph...&pp=10&page=170 (http://www.anthrogenica.com/printthread.php?t=2573&pp=10&page=170)


Looks like about a third of the B484 SNPs are shared with L731; allowing for differences in coverage could be a little more in reality. That would imply a split between B484 and L731 very roughly 5 or 6 thousand years ago.

Do you figure L731 is old in Eastern Europe and not just random Huns or Avars or whatever? L732 looks to be as old as L708, maybe L731 and L732* could have spread both east and west in the same way as L1026 and M2118 did, just much less successfully.

parastais
08-26-2016, 08:44 AM
5000-6000 years apart?:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/printthread.ph...&pp=10&page=170 (http://www.anthrogenica.com/printthread.php?t=2573&pp=10&page=170)
So, Comb Ceramics is still good.

Megalophias
08-26-2016, 05:01 PM
I don't know much about the subject, but last I heard the Typical Comb Ware was supposed to have reached Finland around 4000 BC, with earlier versions prior to 5000 BC. This seems rather too early for the dating of the splits within L732, if we are looking for a separation between East Asian and European branches at this time, but the date of 5-6000 years I gave was not much more than a guess, in addition to the large uncertainty involved with even a proper estimate, so who knows. Also, we have only a handful of East Asian samples and no Siberian or Central Asian ones at all - assuming they exist - so much closer Asian cousins could very easily be out there to be found. L732 could still be early in Europe, but it could just as well be Metal Age or even historical period, from what little data we have at present.

I have no information about N-F2905, or other relatively basal N lineages, between Europe and East Asia, even though they probably exist; at any rate there is N(xN1c2a1-M128, N1c2b-P43, N1c1-Tat) reported from Central and Southern Siberia. If anyone could point me to some I'd be grateful.


If you are merely saying that you know of some East Asian examples of L732+ L731- , YFull is in the process of adding such an example to its tree (https://yfull.com/tree/N-L732/). The next iteration of YFull's tree should give us a better picture of the structure.
That's the one (GRC13227636) that has 7 SNPs of the L731 block (but not L731 itself), so is more closely related to YF03641 and YF02093 than YF03169 is. The existence of a Korean and a Chinese who share markers with YF03169 to the exclusion of L731 was mentioned by another member on the other thread, I have not seen those samples myself.

parastais
09-20-2016, 08:27 PM
Perhaps the linguistic part of the article is not the biggest treasure, but it has a lot of interesting archaeological facts and interpretations:
"EARLY FINNIC–BALTIC CONTACTS AS EVIDENCED BY ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND LINGUISTIC DATA", Valter Lang, Institute of History and Archaeology at the University of Tartu (http://jeful2.ut.ee/index.php/JEFUL/article/view/jeful.2016.7.1.01/114)

parastais
09-20-2016, 08:45 PM
Some quotes from article:
"One can conclude that there have been three main stages in the
borrowing of Baltic words:
A – The initial stage in the mid-Volga and Oka regions up to the turn
of the 2nd and 1st millennia BC where the Finno-Ugrian- and Balticspeaking
communities lived side by side. The majority of huntingfishing
(except ‘eel’ and ‘salmon’) and at least some agricultural words
(except ‘pea’) belong to this period.
B – The migration period, which most likely lasted two or three
centuries (with some later waves as well) and brought along fortified
settlements as well as to some extent mixed communities. The main
region of contacts during this migration was most likely the Daugava
River Valley (Figure 1). This was the main period of borrowings,
particularly where the majority of luxury (and perhaps agricultural)
loans are concerned.
C – The period after the Finnic landnam, i.e., the separation and
movement of some of the communities further north from the Daugava
River around 800 BC and later. This movement put an end to the most
intensive contacts with the Proto-Balts and initiated more independent
cultural and linguistic developments in coastal regions of Estonia,
southwestern Finland, and central Sweden. This did not mean the end
of borrowings from the Balts, of course, but from that time onward,
borrowing proceeded at a more steady pace. Beginning in the early 1st
century, the West Baltic population on the southeastern coast of the
Early Finnic–Baltic contacts 19
Baltic Sea became the main partner of the Finnic communities further
north, as evidenced by archaeological material."

Very interesting is the C point. Because indeed Baltic loanwords in Finnic languages are grouped into 2 groups (early - from kind of Balto-Slavic stage; and later - from kind of West Baltic language).

parastais
09-20-2016, 08:51 PM
Or here:
"As already stated above, the fortified settlements were a common
settlement type for both the Proto-Balts and Proto-Finns. The earliest
sites were founded at the end of the 2nd millennium BC in what are
today northwestern Belarus (Egorejčenko 2006) and northeastern
Lithuania. Migrating Finno-Ugrians might have been a very good
reason for the building of fortifications in this region. During the first
quarter of the 1st millennium BC, fortified sites were also established
along the Daugava River (and elsewhere in Latvia; e.g., Graudonis 1989,
Vasks 1994) as well as further east, in the region of the Oka and Moscow
Rivers. Beginning in 800 (or even 850) BC, fortified settlements also
are found in coastal Estonia (Lang 2007), southwestern Finland (Luoto
1984), and eastern Sweden (Eriksson 2009). The sites in question were
hilltop areas usually (but not always) defended with wooden palisades
and ditches; these were the locations of larger communities (at least
30–50 but often considerably more individuals). Those communities
subsisted from stock rearing as well as some amount of agriculture,
hunting, and fishing; bronze casting was also an important activity.
The remains of the latter have been discovered in all Estonian, Finnish,
and Swedish sites in question as well as in many (but not in all) fortified
sites in Latvia and Lithuania. The number and density of the sites
with remains of bronze work decreases rapidly as one moves to the east
from the East Baltic; though some traces of such activities have been
discovered even at the Dyakovo hill fort on the Moscow River (Krenke
2011: fig. 52).
Thus, the sites in question can be characterised by a hill (or simply
a higher place) with restricted access, a smithy for making bronze
artefacts (particularly rings), and a group of people living there and
engaging in bronze casting. For many reasons it can be thought that
these people had obtained at least a different if not higher social position
from the rest of their society living outside the fortified sites in
open farms and hamlets. "
Interesting, interesting. On other hand strange that this bronze working did not come from East(?), because "..number and density of the sites with remains of bronze work decreases rapidly as one moves to the east..".
Quite puzzled.

Kristiina
09-20-2016, 09:21 PM
With reference to metallurgical words, the angle of vision chosen in this article is not the only one available, if one takes into account that on the basis of archaeological findings metallurgy is older in Finland than in Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania: Kerkko Nordqvist, Vesa-Pekka Herva, Janne Ikäheimo and Antti Lahelma, Early copper use in neolithic northeastern Europe: An overview, 2012
http://www.kirj.ee/public/Archaeology/2012/issue_1/arch-2012-1-3-25.pdf

Shaikorth
09-20-2016, 09:23 PM
Have you read the excerpt chapters from Anthony's new "Samara Valley Project & evolution of pastoral economies in Eurasian steppe"? Metal production in the Volga-Ural steppe diminished towards the end of the Bronze Age.

In any case the first hillforts appear inland before the coasts, and there is a link in bronze items between the Baltic and Volga, perhaps Central Russia served mostly as a trade route instead of a population/production centre.
Another good read re: archaeology is "Formation of the Indo-European and Uralic (Finno-Ugric) language families in the light of archaeology: Revised and integrated ‘total’ correlations" which may have been linked here before.

parastais
09-20-2016, 09:36 PM
Neolithic in Finland I am afraid will neither explain Baltic nor Baltic Finnic ethnogenesys...

MikkaK
09-20-2016, 09:54 PM
Could C be responsible for also spreading L1025 into Finland? 800BC is when Yfull estimates L1025's birth.

Shaikorth
09-20-2016, 10:08 PM
Could C be responsible for also spreading L1025 into Finland? 800BC is when Yfull estimates L1025's birth.

The hypothesized West Baltic pop was in Latvia and thereabouts (southeastern Baltic coast). Based on modern DNA this region is M2783 and thus lacks L1025 diversity compared to Estonia/Finland/Sweden, the latter probably came there from elsewhere (north?) unless all Western Balt N has been replaced by Eastern Balt M2783 which seems unlikely.

MikkaK
09-20-2016, 11:44 PM
The hypothesized West Baltic pop was in Latvia and thereabouts (southeastern Baltic coast). Based on modern DNA this region is M2783 and thus lacks L1025 diversity compared to Estonia/Finland/Sweden, the latter probably came there from elsewhere (north?) unless all Western Balt N has been replaced by Eastern Balt M2783 which seems unlikely.

Where in your opinion did L1025 enter Scandinavia from then? It seems to be concentrated in South Western Finland. Also from what I remember, Y4706 has been found at low frequencies South of the Baltic Sea.

Gravetto-Danubian
09-21-2016, 05:42 AM
Have you read the excerpt chapters from Anthony's new "Samara Valley Project & evolution of pastoral economies in Eurasian steppe"? Metal production in the Volga-Ural steppe diminished towards the end of the Bronze Age.

In any case the first hillforts appear inland before the coasts, and there is a link in bronze items between the Baltic and Volga, perhaps Central Russia served mostly as a trade route instead of a population/production centre.
Another good read re: archaeology is "Formation of the Indo-European and Uralic (Finno-Ugric) language families in the light of archaeology: Revised and integrated ‘total’ correlations" which may have been linked here before.

I'll check it out
The problem I find with comparative studies of IE and FU is each uses the other as a rooting
But we don't really know which was where in 3000 BC (sure , we have good and probably more or less accurate hypotheses)
For all we know each could have arrived in the Volga region later than we think

Shaikorth
09-21-2016, 05:44 AM
Where in your opinion did L1025 enter Scandinavia from then? It seems to be concentrated in South Western Finland. Also from what I remember, Y4706 has been found at low frequencies South of the Baltic Sea.

There is no comprehensive studies of Estonian Y-DNA yet, but based on modern diversity the L1025 mutation happened somewhere around the Gulf of Finland. If its carriers crossed the Baltic instead of going around it, they could have done so from Estonian islands or through Åland archipelago.

Gravetto-Danubian
09-21-2016, 05:54 AM
Sigh
Parpola's treatment of IE archaeology in that article is just the same old cliche harping back to mother Gimbutas.
Totally misses the picture in Eurasia

parastais
09-21-2016, 06:09 AM
The hypothesized West Baltic pop was in Latvia and thereabouts (southeastern Baltic coast). Based on modern DNA this region is M2783 and thus lacks L1025 diversity compared to Estonia/Finland/Sweden, the latter probably came there from elsewhere (north?) unless all Western Balt N has been replaced by Eastern Balt M2783 which seems unlikely.
Based on moderns WB have their own subclade under M2783.
Highest diversity of M2783 is in LT.
Hotspot (as in frequency, not sure if also diversity ) is in NE LT, which according to Lang's article picture 1 is also hotspot of first fortified hillforts.