PDA

View Full Version : Baltic R1a - five years later



parastais
06-10-2021, 11:18 AM
Hey everyone,

5 years ago we had pretty interesting discussion based on knowledge of year 2016. It was fun and even educational for me (in 2021) to go through different posts in that topic:
https://anthrogenica.com/archive/index.php/t-6611.html

Couple of Points:
1) When in doubt listen to Michal. I argued with him that Fatyanovo must have been Z280, when he was ahead of the time and stated it was Z93. Arguments were sound and science proved him right. Well done!
2) CTS1211 - within these years we have found that Baltic_BA (Latvia and Lithuania) had this already, maybe long dead lines, but still. Don't know what this adds to our common understanding
3) Z92 - not much else added. Except apparently it is common among Old Prussian heritage Polish nobility and for JR Tolkien (his ancestors came from Tolkkeim, Prussia). If you know of ancient Z92 samples (I think there was one in Early Slavs, the Slavic subclade) let me know.
4) I honestly dont know what the latest info on Baltic R1a. It seems not much progress has been since 5 years. I.e. there was no any research on Latvians, Lithuanians or Estonians on different R1a (Z92, CTS1211, M458, etc).
5) "In my opinion, the homeland of CTS1211 was most likely located in a region encompassing Belarus and some neighboring territories (which was more or less where Z92 expanded as well, although I would certainly agree with you that the Z92 expansion center was likely located slightly east to the CTS1211 expansion center), and thus I would rather associate the demographic and territorial expansion of both CTS1211 and Z92 with a birth and expansion of the "Proto-Balto-Slavic" Trzciniec-Komarov-Sosnica complex. Please note that we have some subclades dirrectly under CTS1211 that are seen in Finland/Karelia or in Eastern Europe only, while I am not aware of any such subclade just under CTS1211 that would be specific for Central-Western Europe only (which is inconsistent with your scenario when taking into account a relatively early TMRCA age for CTS1211)." - Michal 2016. Wonder if any new data has changed this opinion.
6) I already mentioned Barrow Cemeteries with Stone Circles as possible N-M2783 culture in 2016. And in these five years we had a sample Lithuanian_IA_low_quality with L-1025 (father of M2783) detected 3rd AD in North Lithuanian Barrows Culture with Stone Circles.
7) for next 5 years one of puzzles I have is autosomals of Proto-East-Balts. Going by different models - Latvians and Zhemaitians are heavily Latvian_BA-ish derived population, whereas Aukstaitians are more like 50/50 Latvian_BA and Avar_Szolad (Pre-Slavic? Balto-Slavic?). Question is whether East Balts were Avar_Szolad like and Lat/Zhem got heavy pre-East-Balt substrate (WB, FU, something else); or East Balts were pretty much Latvian_BA and it is Slavic(?) admixture in Aukstaitians making them more Avar like.

If you got any other additional information to the topic, please share!

Coldmountains
06-10-2021, 09:36 PM
I am always surprised by how accurate Michal's predictions are. He was also one of the few here especially among the R1a guys who predicted Yamnaya to be R1b. Belarus + encompassing regions looks after 5 years still if not even more likely as the homeland/growth zone of CTS1211 and Z92. Based on Yfull + 10-15% underestimation Z92 and CTS1211 should form around 3000 B.C but it would take several centuries for both lines to grow enough in numbers to spread in a wider area.

We have the earliest CTS1211 now in western Lithuania (Spiginas2) around 2000 B.C with earlier samples from the Baltics being pre-Z284 so Lithuania, Latvia or even Estonia can be almost excluded as the homeland of CTS1211 and Z92. Regions east of the Dnepr can be also excluded. There was some Z283/Z280 super likely in Z93-dominated Fatyanovo (see Srubnaya Z280 and Indo-Iranian Z283) but it quite surely was not Z92 or CTS1211. A homeland of these lines west of the Vistula also looks very unlikely because of the CWC/Post-CWC samples west of the Vistula none had these lines and i think Bell Beaker influences were too strong there too. Recently published CWC samples from southeastern Poland turned out to be R1b (around 2300-2500 B.C) and have no drift shared with Balto-Slavs so the border region between Ukraine and South Poland was likely not the area where the Proto-Z92 and Proto-CTS1211 formed.

All this means in my eyes that Z92 and CTS1211 were around 2500 B.C present somewhere east of the Vistula and west of the Dnjepr but not too close to the Carpathians and East Baltics. Here I also would expect "Balto-Slavic" drift to form.

I am not so well-read about the Trzciniec-Komarov-Sosnica complex. Are there some articles going deeper into the origins of these cultures? How much was it influenced by non-local CWC cultures from the west or even the east? I know it is said at least for Trzciniec that it developed from Polish late CWC cultures like Mierzanowice, Strzyzow and Iwno but N17 seems to be from Iwno and he has no Balto-Slavic Y-DNA or drift shared with Balto-Slavs so i am somehow sceptical about this (Spiginas2 is almost contemporary and already has Balto-Slavic drift). Or did the Trzciniec-Komarov-Sosnica complex included different IE groups of different origin (Balto-Slavic-related and non-Balto-Slavic related)

parastais
06-11-2021, 08:45 AM
Apparently I had ignored Spiginas for too long. I just looked at the map Spiginas (if there is only one Spiginas) is located in West Lithuania. Interesting that Turlojiske (LTU_BA) and Kivutkalns Riga (LVA_BA) are almost equidistant geographically from Spiginas (2h 45 min drive both ways, but Turlojiske is closer as bird flies).
Since nMonte site dissappeared I could not find another way to do those different analysis, so have to ask someone. How is Spiginas compared to LVA_BA and LTU_BA? Is he in between, or somewhat more on LTU_BA side?

So, far I think all post-earlyCW (LVA_BA, EST_BA, LTU_BA, EST_IA) R1a samples were CTS1211, if/when they got Y-dna assigned?
So we can make a statement that CTS1211 guys were roaming Baltic States since at least 2,000 BCE. Of course, it does not mean those had modern Baltic CTS1211 subclades since 2,000 BCE.

However Z92 has not made its appearance in ancient Baltic dna so far? So, apparently they only arrived into Baltics later, maybe even after AD?
M458 likely arrived already with Slavs.

Coldmountains
06-11-2021, 09:00 AM
Apparently I had ignored Spiginas for too long. I just looked at the map Spiginas (if there is only one Spiginas) is located in West Lithuania. Interesting that Turlojiske (LTU_BA) and Kivutkalns Riga (LVA_BA) are almost equidistant geographically from Spiginas (2h 45 min drive both ways, but Turlojiske is closer as bird flies).
Since nMonte site dissappeared I could not find another way to do those different analysis, so have to ask someone. How is Spiginas compared to LVA_BA and LTU_BA? Is he in between, or somewhat more on LTU_BA side?

So, far I think all post-earlyCW (LVA_BA, EST_BA, LTU_BA, EST_IA) R1a samples were CTS1211, if/when they got Y-dna assigned?
So we can make a statement that CTS1211 guys were roaming Baltic States since at least 2,000 BCE. Of course, it does not mean those had modern Baltic CTS1211 subclades since 2,000 BCE.

However Z92 has not made its appearance in ancient Baltic dna so far? So, apparently they only arrived into Baltics later, maybe even after AD?
M458 likely arrived already with Slavs.

LTU_BA had Z92+

Turlojiske3 (1 sample), Lithuania, Bronze Age, 1010–800 BC, R1a-Z92>Y4459>YP617

parastais
06-11-2021, 09:38 AM
LTU_BA had Z92+
Thanks! If there is any other Z92 let me know!

YP617 branch is very interesting
YP1700: formed 3500 ybp, TMRCA 3100 ybp = Czechs & Swedes
Y44407 * Y42866 * Y44689+13 SNPs formed 3500 ybp, TMRCA 1500 ybp = South Slavs
Y30662 * Y29965 formed 3500 ybp, TMRCA 3500 ybp = one branch Scandinavs, other branch West Slavs (TMRCA for both branches 2,200 ybp), kinda Czechs & Swedes again :)

YP573 * YP577 * FGC72821 formed 3500 ybp, TMRCA 3300 ybp = big one, probably must split into subbranches
----R-YP573* = Italian
----Y85137 * Y111948 * FT189777+1 SNPsformed 1950 ybp, TMRCA 550 ybp = Russian
----Y11268 * YP1256formed 1950 ybp, TMRCA 1950 ybp = Russian (Kursk, Ryazan) mostly, but Belarus, Ukraine, Poland and one Lithuanian sample
----FGC85401 * FGC72841(H) * Y5570formed 1950 ybp, TMRCA 1800 ybp = another big branch
----------------Y136486 * Y136471 * Y136527+7 SNPsformed 1800 ybp, TMRCA 375 ybp = Tatarstan (!), just like M2783 samples who had some drive towards Tatars, Kursk, etc, but very early TMRCA
----------------R-YP682YP682(H) * YP683 * YP684(H)formed 1800 ybp, TMRCA 1750 ybp = again must split :D
-----------------------------------7 different Russian subbranches
-----------------------------------Y152139 * Y60295 * BY31021/Y61476formed 1750 ybp, TMRCA 1150 ybp = Lithuanian, but not very big
-----------------------------------BY32094 * Y153989formed 1750 ybp, TMRCA 1300 ybp = Russia, Norway, Lithuania
-----------------------------------Y87093formed 1750 ybp, TMRCA 1250 ybp = Finland, Poland
-----------------------------------Y5571 * YP612 formed 1750 ybp, TMRCA 1150 yb = Ukraine
-----------------------------------Y153185 * Y153215/BY161630 formed 1750 ybp, TMRCA 1750 ybp = Russia, Ukraine, Lithuania
-----------------------------------VK05 formed 1750 ybp, TMRCA 1750 ybp = Russia Pskov + St Peterburg
-----------------------------------YP1698 * YP1699formed 1750 ybp, TMRCA 1750 ybp = Russians, Belorussians, one Tatar sample
-----------------------------------Y178265 * A8998formed 1750 ybp, TMRCA 1500 ybp = Fenno Russians (Finns, Estonian, Ulyanovsk, Smolensk, North Belarus)
-----------------------------------FT80289formed 1750 ybp, TMRCA 1650 ybp = big branch, mostly Russians and Ukrainians, Kazakh and Tatar also

parastais
06-11-2021, 09:50 AM
To sum up on his relatives:
1) one group split very deep long time ago -> one part went Scandinavia (Sweden, Denmark, etc), other part went West Slavs (Czech, Slovak, Polish), two such lines independently split. Interesting what historical events made this split. Goths arrival into mouth of Vistula with part of men going into Scandinavian network, other part finding new life South?
2) some very big modern Russian group, from which some part likely went to Lithuania somewhere 700-800 AD or so, others stayed in Russia and whereabouts (Russia, Ukraine, some Finnic folk next to Russian North). So called Dnieper Balts? Alternative is again early AD spread from South East Baltics to Russia. Because all those numerous Russian branches seem to have TMRCA at early AD.

So, I got two theories. One this Z92 group was West Balts sitting in South East Baltic. With Gothic turbulences part of them joined Scandinavian network, part of them went South to West Slavs, part of them went East to Russia (with some backmigrating to Lithuania 700-800 AD).
Or it was two groups - one sitting in SE Lithuania (LTU_BA) and other somewhere North and East in Russia.

Edit: likely the second because one step higher there are few other sub branches of Y4459, with similar Russian centred geography (one branch Russia, one West Slavs, one Russia/Ukraine/Poland)

Coldmountains
06-11-2021, 11:11 AM
To sum up on his relatives:
1) one group split very deep long time ago -> one part went Scandinavia (Sweden, Denmark, etc), other part went West Slavs (Czech, Slovak, Polish), two such lines independently split. Interesting what historical events made this split. Goths arrival into mouth of Vistula with part of men going into Scandinavian network, other part finding new life South?
2) some very big modern Russian group, from which some part likely went to Lithuania somewhere 700-800 AD or so, others stayed in Russia and whereabouts (Russia, Ukraine, some Finnic folk next to Russian North). So called Dnieper Balts? Alternative is again early AD spread from South East Baltics to Russia. Because all those numerous Russian branches seem to have TMRCA at early AD.

So, I got two theories. One this Z92 group was West Balts sitting in South East Baltic. With Gothic turbulences part of them joined Scandinavian network, part of them went South to West Slavs, part of them went East to Russia (with some backmigrating to Lithuania 700-800 AD).
Or it was two groups - one sitting in SE Lithuania (LTU_BA) and other somewhere North and East in Russia.

Edit: likely the second because one step higher there are few other sub branches of Y4459, with similar Russian centred geography (one branch Russia, one West Slavs, one Russia/Ukraine/Poland)

I could find this Z92 among early Slavs.

POH28 (1474-850 ybp) R-Z92>R-Y4459>R-Y84739>Y88962 https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Y88962/

VK156 (1050-850 ybp) R-Z92>Z685>YP270>YP351 https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-YP351/

parastais
06-11-2021, 11:27 AM
Now on to other Z92... going through the Y-Full and analysing branches.

One unique sample from ... Germany.

And the second biggest group besides "Russian" Z92-Y4459 is Z92-Z685. It has one unique Ukrainian sample at the root, and is split in two big groups again - Z1907 and YP270.

Starting with Z1907 (S3354 * Z1907formed 4300 ybp, TMRCA 4300 ybp):
R-Z1907* = Ukrainian, again Ukraine at the root
R-CTS214S3343 * YP4366 * YP4370+9 SNPsformed 3700 ybp, TMRCA 2400 ybp = Russo Fennic (Finland, Estonia, Irkutsk Ru, Kirov Ru)
YP5611/FGC45976 * YP5612/FGC45989 * YP5615/FGC46006+19 SNPsformed 3700 ybp, TMRCA 2100 ybp = also Russo Fennic but this time more Russian (Russia, Finland, one Latvian family)

And now YP270, R-YP270YP272 * Y3145(H) * S3377+5 SNPsformed 4300 ybp, TMRCA 3100 ybp = this is bigger than previous, with two big lines under it
YP1407 * CTS654 * Y201693+5 SNPsformed 3100 ybp, TMRCA 2300 ybp = big line #1 - the SE Baltic kinda one with unique * Riga sample, then step below unique * Polish sample, then step below unique * 3 samples (Estonia, Montenegro, Italy? 2,300 bp)
----YP1405 * Y190128 * S3382(H)+1 SNPsformed 2300 ybp, TMRCA 2300 ybp = * German and * Belarus samples
----FT88584 * PH4963formed 2300 ybp, TMRCA 2100 ybp = Polish (from Lithuania) and Finn
----YP4485 * Y17699formed 2300 ybp, TMRCA 1850 ybp = Irkutsk, Poland, Lithuania, each one sample
YP351 * Y24031 * YP352+7 SNPsformed 3100 ybp, TMRCA 2400 ybp = also kinda SE Baltics - including few ancient dna vk156 (North Poland) and vk64 (Gotland)
----YP4310 * Y16755 * BY27247+3 SNPsformed 2400 ybp, TMRCA 2000 ybp = Russian
----Y235069 * Y80733 * BY58559+9 SNPsformed 2400 ybp, TMRCA 1900 ybp = Adyghey (Russia), Sweden, aDNA from Gotland
----YP4460formed 2400 ybp, TMRCA 2100 ybp = Russian, Polish
----YP350formed 2400 ybp, TMRCA 2300 ybp = very unclear branch, but has Lithuanian at the root *
-----------FT196931formed 2300 ybp, TMRCA 2300 ybp = Mazuria, Ukraine, Russia, Estonia
-----------FT141242 * Y42738 * FT136470(H)+1 SNPsformed 2300 ybp, TMRCA 1750 ybp = Sweddish, Norwegian, Polish, Belarussian (again this Scando-West Slav connection)

parastais
06-11-2021, 11:38 AM
To sum up again:
Z92 is not productive in East Balts.
It is very productive in Russians (including Northern Russians -> Finnic speakers)
there are some West Slavic specific clades
And it has some flirt with SE Baltic - Scandinavian region

Kinda like there was a massive of Z92 in Russia and some part of it very early BCE migrated to Old Prussia and whereabouts where participated in some circum Baltic affairs early AD. But they did not play any significant role in modern East Baltic ethnogenesys.

parastais
06-11-2021, 12:01 PM
Alternative version is to consider an expansion from SE Baltics to North East somewhere during so called West Baltic Golden Age (amber trade with Rome, lots of trade around Baltics) early AD to semi-empty Russian forests. But I don’t know archeology for this. Although some Belarusian archeologysts were toying with such an idea to explain area of Baltic hydronyms. Gonna look for their works.

Somehow they went around Letto-Lithuanians in this expansion though.

edit: wrote about amber trade and got why there are some distinct root Italian sample(s)...

davit
06-11-2021, 12:51 PM
Somewhat related but do we think Finnish CWC belonged to Balto-Slavic like R1a or Germanic like R1a?

Coldmountains
06-11-2021, 01:04 PM
Somewhat related but do we think Finnish CWC belonged to Balto-Slavic like R1a or Germanic like R1a?

We have no ancient dna from CWC Finnland but CWC Baltic was Pre-Z284 https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Y2395/ so it looks in my eyes likely that CWC Finland was Pre-Z284 too.

Standardized Ape
06-11-2021, 03:09 PM
We have no ancient dna from CWC Finnland but CWC Baltic was Pre-Z284 https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Y2395/ so it looks in my eyes likely that CWC Finland was Pre-Z284 too.

There will never be very old samples from Finland unless some alternative way of extracting ancient DNA is used as the soil eats bones after about 2000 years. There might be some samples from right across the Russian border which has far more suitable conditions for preservation. There is little evidence for any kind of R1a continuity in Finland but by the look of things YP1147 under https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Y10805/ might be old enough to qualify at least hypothetically.

davit
06-11-2021, 05:14 PM
There will never be very old samples from Finland unless some alternative way of extracting ancient DNA is used as the soil eats bones after about 2000 years. There might be some samples from right across the Russian border which has far more suitable conditions for preservation. There is little evidence for any kind of R1a continuity in Finland but by the look of things YP1147 under https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Y10805/ might be old enough to qualify at least hypothetically.


We have no ancient dna from CWC Finnland but CWC Baltic was Pre-Z284 https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Y2395/ so it looks in my eyes likely that CWC Finland was Pre-Z284 too.

Z284, Z280, and M458 are on the same level? And Z92?

parastais
06-11-2021, 06:18 PM
Z284, Z280, and M458 are on the same level? And Z92?
No.
Z284 i am not sure, but Z280 and M458 are about on same-ish level. Z280 got two main kids - CTS1211 and Z92.

parastais
06-11-2021, 07:04 PM
According to Raisa Denisova publication 1995 in Latvian (leading Latvian anthropologist) in the 1st Millenium AD there were two main migration events that shaped population of Latvia and Lithuania:
1) Barrows with Stone Circles 1-4 centuries - her explanation is that those were West Baltic tribes that got pushed away by Goths. <I believe it was syncretic WB and island Finnic (N-L-1025) affair. Where this likely bilingual, L1025 dominated population spread accross Northern Lithuania and Southern Latvia. Don’t know which R1a participated.
2) Flat Graves 5+ centuries - since earliest Flat Graves seem to have appeared in Lithuania last quarter of 4th century (375 Hunns destroy Goths), then she explains it as most Southern Balts escaping Hunns. She also writes - guys buried in Flat Graves were anthropologically different from previous Stone Circles. They had more Baltic type. Previous population was narrow faced.

Also she wrote that all movement in the first millenium into Latvia happened exclusively via Lithuania. But still contradicts herself saying that some Kryviches like folk arrived also into Latgale, therefore Latgale Latgalians differed from Vidzeme Latgalians. <I am Latgalian, wonder if I get more “Slavic”/Avar_Szolad than standard Latvian :)>

Some other interesting notes/events:
1) she is saying 6-5 centuries BCE some Neuri tribes left Upper Southern Bug and moved North to Pripyat because of Scythians.
2) 3 century BCE Sarmatians were destroying Budins’ Middle Dnieper Hillforts and even left traces in Pripyat basin. Still even 2 century BCE Ptolemay mentions Bodin mountains/hills between Tanais (Don) and Borisfen (Dnieper).
3) it seems that even if East Balts left for Lithuania to escape Hunns, still they had to fight them 5/6 century, because some burials contain steppe arrows.

Given all this one can state that Latvian genetics was a result of several major populations:
1) WB (and likely Baltic Finn syncretic?) Barrows with Stone Circles (LVA_BA largely + N-L1015)
2) East Baltic Flat Graves from South (Avar_Szolad-ish? Different types of CTS_1211?)
+ whoever lived there before, in general lands were sparsely populated except East Lithuania where Brushed Pottery tribes served as a substrate to Stone Circle Barrows...
+ perhaps some Kryviches related folk in East Latvia, Latgale
+ some people between Estonians and Mordvins genetically who apparently lived NE Latvia

Zelto
06-11-2021, 07:57 PM
The resolution of subclades in Saag et al. 2019 was pretty low. But according to this blog, the two Iron Age Ingrian samples belonged to R1a-CTS1211+ Y35. VII15 (45 BC-77 AD) and VIII8 (75-200 AD).
https://terheninenmaa.blogspot.com/2019/10/saag-et-al-2019-ydna-aspects.html


1) Barrows with Stone Circles 1-4 centuries - her explanation is that those were West Baltic tribes that got pushed away by Goths. <I believe it was syncretic WB and island Finnic (N-L-1025) affair. Where this likely bilingual, L1025 dominated population spread accross Northern Lithuania and Southern Latvia. Don’t know which R1a participated.

What island Finnics do you think brought N-L1025 to West Balts? My understanding is that most Baltic islands look Germanic by material culture, with the exception of Saaremaa. Especially those farther south, across from Lithuania.

parastais
06-11-2021, 08:27 PM
The resolution of subclades in Saag et al. 2019 was pretty low. But according to this blog, the two Iron Age Ingrian samples belonged to R1a-CTS1211+ Y35. VII15 (45 BC-77 AD) and VIII8 (75-200 AD).
https://terheninenmaa.blogspot.com/2019/10/saag-et-al-2019-ydna-aspects.html



What island Finnics do you think brought N-L1025 to West Balts? My understanding is that most Baltic islands look Germanic by material culture, with the exception of Saaremaa. Especially those farther south, across from Lithuania.
Not really to (all or most) West Balts. Basically in West Lithuanian coast some Northern parts of West Baltic Barrows got replaced by Barrows with Stone Circles and from there it spread around sparsely populated Latvia and Lithuania. Burials were different (but with some similarities), L1025 was present, but I think pottery was West Baltic.
West Baltic cultures in Prussia and South of Lithuania continued their normal ways.

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

Edit:
“ There is no unanimous opinion concerning the cultural transition from the Early Iron Age barrows of the West Balts to the Roman period (or Old Iron Age (1st—4thcenturies)) West Lithuanian cemeteries with stone circles. In the rarely encountered single cemete* ries that have both types of burial sites, the two types are spatially distant from one another, as if the people buryingtheirdeadinthe1stcenturywishedtostress their separation from the pre-Roman barrows’2” (Rasa Banyte-Rowell)
https://etalpykla.lituanistikadb.lt/object/LT-LDB-0001:J.04~2016~1504522564108/J.04~2016~1504522564108.pdf

JoeyP37
06-11-2021, 08:41 PM
I think Coldmountains is really putting it out there saying Baltics were Z284, when modern samples that are Y2395+ Z284- are found almost exclusively in western Europe and Scandinavia. One such clade, YP3896, is found in Lower Saxony, which most likely means Z284 entered Scandinavia from the south and south west through Jutland and any Y2395 in the Baltics were vagrants from Sweden. The Baltics were most likely Z280, the R1a clade that dominates there today.

Coldmountains
06-11-2021, 09:02 PM
I think Coldmountains is really putting it out there saying Baltics were Z284, when modern samples that are Y2395+ Z284- are found almost exclusively in western Europe and Scandinavia. One such clade, YP3896, is found in Lower Saxony, which most likely means Z284 entered Scandinavia from the south and south west through Jutland and any Y2395 in the Baltics were vagrants from Sweden. The Baltics were most likely Z280, the R1a clade that dominates there today.

Two CWC Baltic samples (Gyvakarai1_10bp and Kunila2) dated around 2500 B.C were R-Y2395, which is just upstream of Z284. Both also lacked Balto-Slavic drift so yes there was Pre-Z284 in both CWC Scandinavia and CWC Baltic maybe because of some migrations between these regions or because of Proto-CWC clans with these lines moving independently into Scandinavia and the Baltics but way or another CWC Baltic does not seem to be R1a-Z280. Spiginas2 (Z280), which is labelled as CWC Baltic is already from 2000 B.C so rather Post-CWC and genetically very distinct from earlier CWC samples in the Baltics.

Also if we have learnt one thing in the last years here than that modern-day or even Iron Age distribution of Y-DNA is often entirely different from the distribution of Y-DNA clades in the Bronze Age and Neolithic. Remember how most researches and most here were certain that Yamnaya is R1a-Z93 and Fatyanovo mostly R1a-Z280 based on modern/medieval Y-DNA distribution what both turned out to be very wrong. If there are doubts we should always rather look at ancient than at modern Y-DNA distribution.

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2018/01/31/y-snp-calls-from-ancient-northern-europe/

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2017/03/28/y-snp-calls-from-neolithic-estonia/

Coldmountains
06-11-2021, 09:41 PM
Interestingly, the Y2395 samples from Baltic CWC are genetically quite different actually despite being more or less from the same period (around 2500 B.C). Kunila2 is Late_CWC/Steppe_MLBA-like hence getting the closest distance to Fatyanovo but Gyvakarai1 is much more shifted towards Steppe_EBA. Probably points to GAC-like admixture being very uneven spread among earliest CWC groups what we also have seen among Fatyanovo samples with Z93

Distance to: Corded_Ware_Baltic_early:Gyvakarai1_10bp
0.02436672 Corded_Ware_Baltic_early
0.02929535 RUS_Potapovka_MLBA
0.03934607 KAZ_Georgievsky_LBA
0.04036673 UZB_Kokcha_BA
0.04142600 Corded_Ware_POL_early
0.04232252 BGR_MLBA
0.04277599 RUS_Poltavka
0.04307157 TJK_Dashti_Kozy_BA
0.04402973 Yamnaya_RUS_Kalmykia
0.04436775 KAZ_Mys_MLBA
0.04436928 UKR_Catacomb
0.04472504 Yamnaya_UKR


Distance to: Corded_Ware_Baltic:Kunila2
0.03035088 RUS_Fatyanovo_BA
0.03203480 Corded_Ware_CZE
0.03492296 Corded_Ware_POL
0.03578442 SWE_Battle_Axe
0.03658257 KAZ_Chanchar_LBA
0.03662762 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
0.03684617 POL_Chlopice_Vesele_Culture
0.03836297 KAZ_Maitan_MLBA_Alakul
0.03882129 KAZ_Kairan_MLBA
0.03903944 Bell_Beaker_Rhine-Main
0.03940924 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_contam
0.03956232 KAZ_Aktogai_MLBA
0.03974029 RUS_Srubnaya_MLBA
0.04045651 RUS_Srubnaya_Alakul_MLBA
0.04114211 Corded_Ware_Baltic


Target: Corded_Ware_Baltic_early:Gyvakarai1_10bp
Distance: 3.2553% / 0.03255271
90.6 Corded_Ware_POL_early
9.4 POL_Globular_Amphora

Target: Corded_Ware_Baltic:Kunila2
Distance: 3.8852% / 0.03885178
70.2 Corded_Ware_POL_early
29.8 POL_Globular_Amphora

parastais
06-19-2021, 07:43 AM
Interesting source:
http://blog.vayda.pl/en/haplogroup-r1a-statistic-02-2018-14-new/

Not sure how reliable but it shows rather large M458 in Balts (Lithuanians and Latvians).

Coldmountains
06-19-2021, 08:04 AM
Interesting source:
http://blog.vayda.pl/en/haplogroup-r1a-statistic-02-2018-14-new/

Not sure how reliable but it shows rather large M458 in Balts (Lithuanians and Latvians).

I would say the modern-day frequency of M458 is not so much relevant as the ages of the Baltic-specific M458 clades, which seems to be very low based on YFull and ftdna. As long as we do not find a significant presence of basal M458 clades among modern-day or better ancient Baltics, we should assume a very recent Slavic-related origin (if someone is aware of a significant presence of basal M458 clades among Balts please correct me)

Coldmountains
06-20-2021, 03:43 PM
Another but related topic is ancient Baltic-related mtDNA (It could give hints about the origin of Baltic R1a before the Late Bronze Age). I checked currently published BA samples from Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia (i probably missed some of the samples) and most of the mtDNA is EEF derived and shared with Beall Beakers and other CWC subgroups. The fact that so much mtDNA is shared with Beall Beakers has probably something to do with Bell Beakers being much better than sampled than any other BA group of North Europe. Nonetheless these Baltic BA mtDNA clades are today frequent in East Europe and among modern day Slavs (including South Slavs) but also found often in modern-day West Europe and especially Scandinavia, what probably means that they are of TRB/GAC origin.

CultureIDMtdnaFound in Ancient culturesFrequent TodayAge (Yfull estimate) Origin
BA_LTUTurlojiske3H4a1a1a3H4a1a1a found Bell Beaker, BA Germany, Czech UneticeH4a1a1a in West Europe (Spain, Britain, Sweden)CWC/GAC/TRB
BA_LTUTurlojiske1T2bPan-EEF (Found in ancient Anatolia, West Europe, Balkan)Generic EEF
CW_LTU_OSpiginas2I4aCWC Czechia, Bell BeakersScandinavia, Poland, East EuropeCWC/Steppe
BA_LVAKivutkalns153U5a1a1Yamnaya, Afanasasievo, Bell BeakersPan Europe but especially North Europeformed 10700 ybp, TMRCA 5700 ybpCWC/Steppe
BA_LVAKivutkalns19H10aH10 found in Neolithic Croatia/Germany and Bell Beakers of Central EuropeScandinavia, East Europe, Slavsformed 9200 ybp, TMRCA 5300 ybpCWC/GAC/TRB
BA_LVAKivutkalns25H28afound in Globular Amphora, Viking Age Scandinavia, KowalewkoScandinavia (especially Finnland), East Europe,Central Europeformed 8200 ybp, TMRCA 3700 ybpCWC/GAC/TRB
BA_LVAKivutkalns42H1b1BA Hungary, BA Germany, Bell BeakersEast Europe, Slavs, North Europe, West EuropeCWC/GAC/TRB
BA_LVAKivutkalns194T1a1bAltai IAEast Europe, Central Asia, Iranformed 5100 ybp, TMRCA 3600 ybpCWC/Steppe
BA_LVAKivutkalns207H1b2East Europe, Scandinaviaformed 6100 ybp, TMRCA 2900 ybpCWC/GAC/TRB
BA_LVAKivutkalns209:J1b1a1Bell Beaker, CWC CzechiaScandinavia, East Europe, Slavsformed 4600 ybp, TMRCA 2700 ybpCWC/GAC/TRB
BA_LVAKivutkalns215:H1cBell Beaker, BA GermanyScandinavia, Turkey, East Europe, Balkanformed 9400 ybp, TMRCA 4300 ybpCWC/GAC/TRB
BA_LVAKivutkalns222U5a1c1Mesolithic Balkan, CA HungaryEast Europe, Central Europe, Slavsformed 10800 ybp, TMRCA 4900 ybpWHG
EST_LBAV16H1b2East Europe, Scandinaviaformed 6100 ybp, TMRCA 2900 ybpCWC/GAC/TRB
EST_LBAX17U4a2bU4a2 found in Baltic HG, Yamnaya and Bell BeakerScandinavia, East Europe, Slavsformed 13800 ybp, TMRCA 3900 ybpSteppe/WHG?
EST_LBAX11J1c2kViking Age ScandinaviaCentral Europe, Balkanformed 7700 ybp, TMRCA 3900 ybp
EST_LBAX14H1b2East Europe, Scandinaviaformed 6100 ybp, TMRCA 2900 ybp

parastais
06-20-2021, 05:06 PM
I think we should compare them to previous mtDNA (early BA) and see if there is a difference and if so then in which direction. I imagine all those Scandinavian matches might be in Baltics already EBA.

Coldmountains
06-20-2021, 05:53 PM
I think we should compare them to previous mtDNA (early BA) and see if there is a difference and if so then in which direction. I imagine all those Scandinavian matches might be in Baltics already EBA.

Actually, the mtDNA of CWC_Baltic is quite different much more Steppe (more matches with Sintashta/Srubnaya because of that) and low in mtDNA H, which is typical today for generally all Europeans including Balto-Slavs and Scandinavians. Of course, someone should not interpret too much into mtDNA frequencies because they are much less conclusive about migrations and linguistic replacements. But combined with the evidence of Y-DNA replacement after the arrival of Z92 and cts1211 it does not seem CWC_Baltic contributed much to Balt_BA. Of course, someone would need to check that with other methods and future published studies. It is also possible that the Pre-CWC population in the Baltics was still numerous when Z92 and cts1211 arrived around 2000 B.C so mixing could primarily happen with pre-CWC locals.

CultureIDMtdnaFound in Ancient culturesFrequent TodayAge Origin
CWC_BalticPlinkaigalis242W6aCWC Germany, W6 Yamnaya, FatyanovoEast Europeformed 10500 ybp, TMRCA 7100 ybpCWC/Steppe
CWC_BalticPlinkaigalis241I2Bell Beaker, Andronovo, CWC PolandCaucasus, West Europe, Central Asia, Central Europeformed 11600 ybp, TMRCA 8900 ybpCWC/Steppe
CWC_BalticGyvakarai1K1b2aYamnaya, Srubnaya, Trzciniec, Altai IAEast Europe, Scandinavia,formed 7800 ybp, TMRCA 5300 ybpCWC/Steppe
CWC_Baltickar1H1f1aKowalewkoFinnlandformed 1100 ybp, TMRCA 1100 ybpCWC/GAC/TRB?
CWC_BalticKunila1U5b1bMesolithic France, Mesolithic Poland, Neolithic Central Europe, Baltic HGScandinavia, West Europe, Central Europeformed 13300 ybp, TMRCA 10600 ybpWHG?
CWC_BalticKunila2J1c3Globular Amphora, Neolithic Spain, CA HungaryPan-European EEF lineageformed 11100 ybp, TMRCA 8800 ybpCWC/GAC/TRB
CWC_BalticArdu1T2a1Yamnaya, Beall Beakers, Srubnayaformed 9600 ybp, TMRCA 7700 ybpCWC/Steppe
CWC_BalticArdu2U5b2cFatyanovo, Mesolithic Lithuania,Mesolithic Serbia, Bell BeakersNorth Europeformed 11900 ybp, TMRCA 6400 ybpCWC/Steppe or WHG
CWC_BalticRISE00H5a1Bell Beaker, Corded Ware, SintashtaWest Europe, East Europeformed 4000 ybp, TMRCA 4000 ybpCWC/GAC/TRB

parastais
06-20-2021, 07:42 PM
Yeah, I think we can then be pretty sure that LVA_BA folk arrived from somewhere and replaced whoever was living there before.

So, where from? Rzucewo (Because Narva, GAC, CWC mix)? Hungary (because some HG acc Arza)? Middle Dnieper (because classic)?

Coldmountains
06-20-2021, 07:57 PM
Yeah, I think we can then be pretty sure that LVA_BA folk arrived from somewhere and replaced whoever was living there before.

So, where from? Rzucewo (Because Narva, GAC, CWC mix)? Hungary (because some HG acc Arza)? Middle Dnieper (because classic)?

well Hungary has really lot Neolithic/Bronze Age samples published so far but there is still not much of a mtDNA overlap definetly less than with GAC, Bell Beakers and CWC in Central Europe. LBK and Balkan EEFs were generally low in mtDNA H compared to North Euro EEFs and modern day Europeans.

Baltic BA clades like H28a, H5a1,H1b2 and J1c were already found in GAC. Of couse historical and modern Slavic mtDNA will be a more complicated story because Slavs unlike Balts would pick up some later EEF admix either from Central-West Europe or the Carpathians/Balkan but it is unlikely that this component transmitted Balto-Slavic languages (no Y-DNA among Balto-Slavs linked to BA Hungary or BA Balkan)

altvred
06-20-2021, 08:13 PM
Not an easy thing to concretely sketch out using qpAdm or G25 but from bits and pieces plus the Y-DNA data, I'm not seeing a lot of continuity between the early CW people from the Baltics and later Bronze-Age samples from Kivutkalns, Spiginas, and Turlojiske that were downstream of Z280 - at the very least Baltic_BA don't model well as simply early-CW + some native HG tacked on.

https://i.imgur.com/QeBE30E.png


https://i.imgur.com/EUQ134R.png

https://i.imgur.com/Aop703l.png

The weights/proportions and pop choices are all over the place so take all these numbers with a generous serving of salt (for one the Latvia_HG/Zvejnieki samples are as old as dirt compared to the others, I bet most of the HG admixture came from populations like Narva) but I think this gets the general point across.

Baltic_BA compared to early Baltic Corded-Ware requires extra GAC/TRB/EEF that presumably could have only come from somewhere to the South.

https://i.imgur.com/0ocSRx8.png

f4(outpop, X; Barcin, CW_Baltic_Early) - Bellow the line means the target is more Barcin/EEF shifted.

https://i.imgur.com/ROuwy34.png

Same idea but using GAC instead of Barcin.

parastais
06-20-2021, 08:19 PM
Interesting that I had never found an article trying to locate a “Balto-Slavic” homeland linguistically.
Since I know Baltic (Latvian) and Slavic (Russian) and I got wiktionary for etymologies, will try to come up with something. Or google up some.

Rzucewo culture likely is a pass on linguistic grounds. Sea terminology is neither rich for Slavs, nor Balts. Amber can’t be reconstructed for Proto-Slavic, and lacks satisfactory etymology in Baltic. “Sea” itself is not shared in both language groups (more and jūra).

parastais
06-20-2021, 09:00 PM
Likely Hungary also gets a DQ. No beech trees in Slavic and therefore Balto-Slavic
This is where beech trees grow - https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Fagus_orientalis#/media/File:Fagus_sylvatica_range.svg

But birch and linden tree can be reconstructed for Balto-Slavic. And wolfs.

Ebizur
06-20-2021, 10:23 PM
Interesting that I had never found an article trying to locate a “Balto-Slavic” homeland linguistically.
Since I know Baltic (Latvian) and Slavic (Russian) and I got wiktionary for etymologies, will try to come up with something. Or google up some.

Rzucewo culture likely is a pass on linguistic grounds. Sea terminology is neither rich for Slavs, nor Balts. Amber can’t be reconstructed for Proto-Slavic, and lacks satisfactory etymology in Baltic. “Sea” itself is not shared in both language groups (more and jūra).Baltic jūra resembles some words in Finno-Samic languages (e.g. Sami jaura, jávri, etc. "lake," Finnish järvi "lake," Estonian järv "lake").

Some people have described this Finno-Samic word group as having an origin in Baltic and have assigned the word an Indo-European etymology, but the Indo-European etymology does not seem wholly convincing.

parastais
06-21-2021, 05:59 AM
Baltic jūra resembles some words in Finno-Samic languages (e.g. Sami jaura, jávri, etc. "lake," Finnish järvi "lake," Estonian järv "lake").

Some people have described this Finno-Samic word group as having an origin in Baltic and have assigned the word an Indo-European etymology, but the Indo-European etymology does not seem wholly convincing.
Maybe another case of “unknown NE Euro substrate”.
It is known in Baltic and West Uralic languages, initially meaning bog and lake respectively (jaura, jävrä). Same form can be reconstructed to Proto-Balto-Slavic and Proto-West-Uralic phonetically. But word is lacking in Slavic.

What we can deduct though is that sea terms do not go back to Balto-Slavic. Which is nothing too crazy, also Germanic languages have borrowed lot of their sea terminology from non-IE substrate.

Huck Finn
06-21-2021, 06:17 AM
But word is lacking in Slavic.

Something like ?*eghero "lake etc." could be behind many words such as Meryanic *jäkeri > jäkrä/järi, Saamic jaura, Finnic järvi but also Slavic ozero and Baltic ezeras.

https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aheru_j%C3%A4rv

parastais
06-21-2021, 06:21 AM
Something like ?*eghero "lake etc." could be behind many words such as Meryanic *jäkeri > jäkrä/järi, Saamic jaura, Finnic järvi but also Slavic ozero and Baltic ezeras.

https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aheru_j%C3%A4rv
That goes back in time to pre-Satem.
Giving likely another clue that EST_BA might have spoken non-Satem version of BS.

Huck Finn
06-21-2021, 06:29 AM
Giving likely another clue that EST_BA might have spoken non-Satem version of BS.

What makes me wonder what is a Non-Satem type of BS?

parastais
06-21-2021, 06:41 AM
What makes me wonder what is a Non-Satem type of BS?
Something that branched off (Pre Balto-Slavic) dialects before main area of them underwent Satemization.

Can’t find an article now but there was a linguist explaining Centum-Satem irregularities in Baltic and Slavic by assimilation of “non Satem version of their languages”.

Huck Finn
06-21-2021, 06:54 AM
Something that branched off (Pre Balto-Slavic) dialects before main area of them underwent Satemization.

Can’t find an article now but there was a linguist explaining Centum-Satem irregularities in Baltic and Slavic by assimilation of “non Satem version of their languages”.

Now that there is also Mordvinic *järkä (which BTW looks like Meryanic *jäkra) makes me, in terms of Erzyan-Mokshan surroundings and related to their ethnogenesis, wonder if this Pre Satem B is getting close to ancestral type of NW IE, which was explicitly denied by some Forum members some time ago?

Coldmountains
06-21-2021, 06:58 AM
Now that there is also Mordvinic *järkä (which BTW looks like Meryanic *jäkra) makes me, in terms of Erzyan-Mokshan surroundings and related to their ethnogenesis, wonder if this Pre Satem B is getting close to ancestral type of NW IE, which was explicitly denied by some Forum members some time ago?

There was for sure no Balto-Slavic even Pre-Satem BS in Fatyanovo or anywhere near the Urals when earliest Finno-Ugrians arrived. It likely was not even present in the northeastern Baltics this early (CWC Baltic until 2000 B.C looks non Balto-Slavic). Also Mordvinians could get it from Balts or related people much much later.

parastais
06-21-2021, 07:00 AM
Actually it was a long time ago that it was found Proto-Slavic shared flora and fauna terms known to Belarus and Ukraine but not Flora and fauna terms for Central Europe (beech tree):
“дуб, береза, липа, осина, ясень, клен, орех, ольха, ива, рябина, верба, сосна, ель и т. д.; названия диких животных, птиц и пресноводных рыб - медведь, волк, лиса, заяц, рысь, лось, олень, тур, зубр, вепрь, соболь, куница, ласка, горностай, гусь, утка, лебедь, голубь, стриж, ворон, ворона, соловей, скворец, дятел, сом, окунь, язь, линь, елец, лещ, щука”
Of those most are shared with Balts and go back to Balto-Slavic:
Oak - not shared, both Balts and Slavs replaced taboo name for oak, Slavs with dub (based on hollow), Balts with anzolas (based on knobs)
Birch - shared
Linden - shared
Aspen - shared
Ash tree - kinda shared (ясень and uosis)
Maple tree - kinda shared (*klenъ and kļava)
Hazelnut - kinda, орех and rieksts go back to some ‘arieh’ something, but nah. I say not shared.
Alder - shared (with some questions on regularity)
Willow - Slavic willow goes regularly into Baltic hagberry (ieva)
Rowan - not shared
Pussy Willow - not shared
Pine tree - not shared
Spruce - shared

Huck Finn
06-21-2021, 07:11 AM
Also Mordvinians could get it from Balts or related people much much later.

Maybe they did. I however don't quite understand in which way a Post Satem, Baltic type of a word then could translate into Pre Satem looking ?*jäkrä type of a word, if that's the case. Any ideas related to that?

parastais
06-21-2021, 07:50 AM
There was for sure no Balto-Slavic even Pre-Satem BS in Fatyanovo or anywhere near the Urals when earliest Finno-Ugrians arrived. It likely was not even present in the northeastern Baltics this early (CWC Baltic until 2000 B.C looks non Balto-Slavic). Also Mordvinians could get it from Balts or related people much much later.
Not from Balts. Or any Satem language for that matter.
Satem languages Satemized g in eger-os into z (ezer-s). So järza/jäzrä not jäkra. But I am not that confident in Uralic to say it (letter k) was actually not a later add-on for whatever reason to earlier jawra.

bce
06-21-2021, 09:27 AM
Yeah, I think we can then be pretty sure that LVA_BA folk arrived from somewhere and replaced whoever was living there before.

So, where from? Rzucewo (Because Narva, GAC, CWC mix)? Hungary (because some HG acc Arza)? Middle Dnieper (because classic)?

Hungary BA couldn't have produced Baltic BA, it has too low WHG and Steppe.

It seems that first the GAC admixture dispersed evenly among the entire CWC, even Fatyanovo. Fatyanovo and later Baltic CWC have equal GAC levels as Czech and Polish CWC:

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

https://i.imgur.com/2UiSPeP.png

Then after this the mixing with Narva occured. It's also what works in qpadm for Baltic BA (GAC-admixed CWC + Narva)