>Dynamic changes in genomic and social structures in third millennium BCE central Europe
This 2021 paper claimed that there was 40-50% population replacement in Bohemia just before the Unetice culture developed, with the source being Latvia (or closely related)
>Steppe Ancestry in western Eurasia and the spread of the Germanic Languages
Now this brand new paper claims that there was a population replacement of about 40-50% in Scandinavia must before the nordic bronze age, at the exact same time as the movement into Bohemia, and also from Latvia
to be clear, this is a SECOND huge wave of migration after corded ware has already been in tbose regions for centuries
who are these mysterious baltic people? which archaeological culture is it and where are they from if not latvia directly?
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
all slavs
mmmm Big Baltic wieners
Basque and Sardinian trannies will get the rope?
You are both Indians, hijra dalit homosexuals
who can’t keep their mind on coding
The McColl wave is a Latvia_HG signal.
The Papac one I can't remember but it's in the supplement, I think it is also speaking of a small amount of Latvia_HG, and not necessarily trczineic-related BS drift.
The McColl one is supported by IBD mixture modelling so is probably more reliable than Papac, which is just the best fitting model in qpadm.
Most likely for both it's corded ware baltic populations that brought it over.
Is any of this possibly related to Tollense?
No, not those drifted subhumans. This is a non-drifted Corded Ware source with some BHG on top.
What is a "drifted subhuman" and why were the Tollense people among them?
https://www.youtube.com/live/q0CV0sh7wGQ?si=3p3jVyYyVV6Uy7la
This is quite relevant for CWC
bump
R1a invasion occurred.
R1a had already invaded by this point. The population that replaced Scandinavians gave I1 for example.
no, the first European R1a appeared in unetice, then they exploded, increasing their numbers hundreds of times.
nta but they had swept in from the North many centuries before the Unetice. Battle Axe Culture to the north was overwhelmingly R1a based on everything we've seen so far.
It's likely they already existed in the region before this surge. It could have been any CWC group as they seem to have brought Yamnaya women, save the R1a lads who more appear to have just taken farmer women more westward.
>It could have been any CWC group as they seem to have brought Yamnaya women, save the R1a lads who more appear to have just taken farmer women more westward.
Qrd?
>Bell Beaker ancestors are overwhelmingly R1b-M269
>sail into Iberia, Bell Beaker era begins, they have less Steppe because marrying locals
>some become Basque unironically
>eastern branches of CWC are majority R1a
>advance into Scandinavia, FBK territory and penetrate into some Bell Beaker territory while bringing almost no women with them
>these groups in the more North/East regions became even more R1a-dominant and richer in pre-IE ancestry over time
>Central Europe becomes extremely violent
>U106 and some other clades emerge here, very Steppe rich, many samples among these groups have Steppe mtDNA with move further into Frisia and Scandinavia
>some branch of I2 gains momentum
>Unetice establishes trade networks, emerge as most powerful powerful culture in Europe outside of Greece with I2, R1a and R1b
The tl;dr is that I think this more Steppe rich group likely had R1b.
>>sail into Iberia, Bell Beaker era begins, they have less Steppe because marrying locals
Earliest Bell Beakers were Iberian EEF with no steppe ancestry. EEF brought Bell Beakers into Northern and Central Europe where it was adopted by WSH marrying into EEF.
European Chalcolithic is a lot more complicated than duhh le steppe warriors did everything
I mean I disagree on this. R1b Corded married Original EEF Bell beakers en masse to become larpers of this culture whilst R1a Cordeds kept marrying GAC and dominating them culturally.
That's fine, but I don't think they abandoned aspects of their culture entirely as they were embracing farming. Notably the Koryos as we have traditions of it in so many Bell Beaker descended groups.
Both R1a and R1b adoptd farming. I'm just saying R1a Cordeds kept their forest steppe hatched axe tree uprooter kit whilst R1b cordeds adopted the Bell Beaker kit, bow and arrow + dagger etc
Both were soulful but it's good Unetice emerged and material culture advanced in all regions. That's about when everyone became sword Chads, near the end there at least.
Unetice was more like daggers still imo. I know there was a whole 300+ post debate thread on what is a sword and what is not and don't want to get into that but most were short.
as far as I know early CWC from the Czechia (PNL001 and similar) were 100% R1b and similar to the Yamnaya, had a low EEF, Unetice belongs to a later horizon, it had mainly I2 (possibly Proto-Slavic), R1a (including Balto- Slavic Z280), and R1b.
The first R1a-M417 is from Durankulak, Bulgaria. Then it shows up in Corded Ware, and then B-Axe culture.
Danish I1 NEO875, which is contemporaneous with the first swedish I1, doesn't show the same baltic signal, so I'm not terribly sure about that.
>In contrast with these older hypotheses, an East Scandinavian population, which is not detected for another 400-800 years, is revealed here as an alternative vector for the introduction of Germanic, allowing for the proposition of a revised model. Although all Early Bronze Age populations of Scandinavia derive their Steppe ancestry from people of Corded Ware culture, the earliest Scandinavian individuals carry small proportions of local Western Hunter-Gatherer ancestry, whereas the later Eastern Scandinavians are modelled with Lithuanian/Latvian Hunter-Gatherer ancestry (Extended Data Figure 3, Figure S6.5.1.4, Supplementary Note S6.5.1), indicative of a Late Neolithic cross-Baltic migration into Scandinavia.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.03.13.584607v1
Then it shouldn't show up in LN individuals without baltic ancestry.
I get your point but it was incredibly dilluted in certain Danish regions which is why some danes had I1 but little East Scandinavian.
>incredibly dilluted in certain Danish regions which is why some danes had I1 but little East Scandinavian.
This makes sense for later bronze age samples, and its bronze age/iron age distribution and spread does directly correlate with east scandinavian ancestry.
But it does not make sense for danish samples contemporaneous with the very first east scandinavian samples.
>But it does not make sense for danish samples contemporaneous with the very first east scandinavian samples
It can be an outlier. Some early East Scandinavian male dilluting into Denmark early. It can be considered an outlier. We had some I1 with very little east scandinavian. I just don't think it's enough to ignore the very basic and obviois correlation 99% of other samples.
If anything the reverse situation is more plausible - it's harder to detect a standard SGC movement than a baltic movement that brings with it an stream of ancestry found nowhere else in Europe.
>I just don't think it's enough to ignore the very basic and obviois correlation 99% of other samples.
Half these LN Swedish I1 samples come from the same Falkoping site.
All modern I1 almost certainly expands from LN Sweden. That's what the correlation shows for sure.There's nothing but circumstantial and indirect evidence of how it entered LN Scandinavia to begin with.
Oh no, don't tell me. You're the headcanon Harold who thinks I1 is from the south?
>During the Bronze Age, there are a number of admixed Norwegian and Danish Bronze Age outliers who carry local and Eastern Scandinavian ancestry
Early on there is muttification all over and no doubt some more dilluted than others. It's over, I1 is not from the south. It was not "picked up" from somewhere. It arrived the latest with a unique genetic cluster.
>It was not "picked up" from somewhere. It arrived the latest with a unique genetic cluster.
Nta but from where did the originate before forming this cluster? Assuming they were responsible for this language shift as the paper implies.
How the frick... Out of all three how would it have been I1 that came from the east or.have an "eastern bronze age" cluster if they were FBK? Has the ancestor of I1 been found in the east? Would the western signature just been the 1000 or so years of R1a presence in the region?
I1 being from Funnelbeaker is not attested.
Didn't expect that tbh. Much less that they came from an IE migration from the east of all places.
Only question is where this East Scandinavian group got I1 from now.
Reading more into this paper now anon. That's just still really surprising for the expansion to have happened so rapidly. I thought they were way more well established from farmers.
Interesting to note is that Finland has large presence of I1, but quite small amount of R1a and R1b lines. Maybe this can narrow movements of that I1 group at some point.
Spurdos would never...
Heh, well we do know that all those northern European I1 lines originate from Sweden. But the interesting thing is that it seemingly moved to Finland without any R1b and R1a accompanying it. I think that could narrow the timeline when these people moved to Scandinavia and what lines existed there at any given point. But it's also good to keep in mind that it also might have gone some kind bottleneck effect and all those potential R1a/b made to modern times only in small amounts.
Yes. Ancient Goths also had lots of I1 but R1b or R1a in much less numbers. I1-R1b-R1a homogenization in modern Germanics happened at different times. You had clans of germanics almost fully R1b-U106 and clans almost fully I1a
This is why english have little R1a-Z284. The Anglo-Saxon clans had mostly R1b-U106 with a considerable I1a chunk.
Interestingly, Finnish word for mother, "äiti" is seemingly from Gothic origin. Aithi, and in original spelling: aiþei. So maybe there a chance those people in the Finnish western coasts were Goths, who eventually were assimilated by the Finnic tribes.
Finnish Germanic source is most definitely an East-Scandinavian rich source. Probably not Gothic as Goths were too southern but a Goth-like source which most definitely had more I1a than anything else.
Maybe Proto-Goths were more northern in the past?
Finnish Germanic source was probably near +75% East-Scandinavian. And Proto-Goths were too probably.
Do you know what would best Germanic source for modelling Finns? I'm trying to get best results for combining something like Levänluhta, Baltic and Germanic.
Unfortunately there is no ideal sample because the East Scandinavian rich ones are too old and and the younger ones like actual Goths had already a different drift towards balts (and thus will steal baltic from finns). The various iron age Scandinavia samples (Denmark,Norway,Jutland,Sweden) are the usual ones used but now that we know of East-Scandinavians these are outdated. Sweden Iron Age is probably best bet but probably not 100% accurate.
It's also quite shame that the soil in Finland is what it is, we only have couple aDNA samples and even those are quite recent. Here's for hoping we could uncover couple more in the future.
Yes, very fast and rapid, kickstarting the Nordic Bronze Age a few centuries later. Some anons have suggested that the boat axes found in burials at this time is from this "East Scandinavian" group, denoting some sefaring capabilities? Makes sense as they crossed the baltic supposedly. Who knows, they were very influential. Survive The Jive is not certain the HG source is from Latvia either, claiming that a yet unsampled HG is more likely, because the study mentions EHG affinity in East scandinavians, but Latvia HG is not EHG rich.
We don't know. It was not present in Eastern Corded Ware groups which is what most of East Scandinavian ancestry is from. Some say it's in fact local but the study denies local SHG as source for the HG dna. However STJ as seen in reply above thinks this is a yet unsampled HG source.
If the trajectory of I1 came so late and it's from a hg group that makes it even weirder tbh. I know little of the subject but from what I've read in this paper if I had to make a guess, I would look at whatever herder populations had strong EHG or SHG signals in the middle neolithic in the Baltic. Because you're more looking for a distinct branch that the paper lists, the I1a-DF29.
And if the I1 carriers are responsible for the language shift, maybe you're looking for Bell Beakers that pushed into Scandinavia or Battle Axe in Scandinavia who adopted Bell Beaker language but shifted it, and whichever among them had strong enough EHG signals so late. And again the fact that it's EHG-rich group we'd be looking for instead of FBK or even WHG just lmao.
There is nothing suggesting Bell Beaker or southern route. Absolutely zero. Just forget this, it's outdated. I1 is clearly late and specific from the north east. The paper is clear on geography and genetics when it comes to direction. The ONLY thing not know is how I1 itself got into this Eastern Corded Ware. We know when , how and where I1 entered Scandinavia. Just not how this group got I1.
>There is nothing suggesting Bell Beaker or southern route
Well the language branch is more what I was tying to Bell Beakers in that post. Not necessarily I1, I have no idea about that.
Honestly, even this is pure speculation. Germanic in itself is either East-Scandinavian that got influenced from South and Western Scandinavians (BAC, R1b/I2-bringers) or continental, Jastorf, the most southern of NBA people. The latter is less likely now, but these two are the only real options. We also know Germanics were influenced by celtic speakers as they went south so it might be later additions. I support a East-Scandinavian origin that got influenced first by other scandinavian R1b/R1a carriers and then directly from celtic speakers.
Chalking that up to speculation is rash. This paper changes some things granted. I didn't expect many of these changes. However with these changes we're still operating well within linguistic concepts that have been well established. The paper is just explaining how that shift occured with migrations.
>This East Scandinavian genetic cluster is first seen 800 years after the arrival of the Corded Ware Culture, the first Steppe-related population to emerge in Northern Europe, opening a new scenario implying a Late rather than an Middle Neolithic arrival of the Germanic language group in Scandinavia
So from that I gather from this is the progression
>CWC: likely Satem speakers if they're speaking a PIE language given the R1a majority, it's probably closer to Balto-Slavic
^that is not stated in the paper of course, this is just something one can rightfully expect.
>Middle Neolithic: R1b introduced to Scandinavia in such a way that R1b carriers become common
likely a shift to a Centum language, this being the south Scandinavian cluster
>Late neolithic: I1 founder effect, language further shifted into "Paleo-Germanic" as the paper describes
So nothing fundamentally changed in all of what was established linguistically, it is more the re-ordering of paternal migrations in the early Germanic people. They're more describing that these East and South Germanics merged and from them the paleo-Germanic shifted to proto-Germanic. Nothing in the linguistic phylogeny changes.
And now that you mention it, these East Germanics even had kits one would attribute to Bell Beakers as another anon mentioned itt. Stone daggers rather than axes. Maybe that implies something maybe not.
The fact that East-Scandinavians were the final migration and the fact that at the end of the iron age, most Scandinavians were said to be atleast half East-Scandinavian (with some dilluted outliers), points towards a proto-origin there in my book. But proper Germanic is younger and developed only 500 BC with lots of South Scandinavian and celtic influence no doubt. East Scandinavians are too old to be credited 100% themselves. I think this is why Germanic is a "weird" language.
To clarify this.
West Scandinavian is Battle Axe
South Scandinavian is the Bell Beaker mutts with R1b and some I2 (Unetice derived?)
East Scandinavian is this unique and late Baltic Corded Ware source with little knowledge surrounding origin.
So, can we say that the Proto-Slavs invaded Scandinavia and we see their genetic trace to this day?
Proto slavs? No, this is before even proto-Balto-Slavs. Eastern Baltic Corded Ware is a better term. Balto-Slavs and Germanics both come from it probably.
R1a and increased Baltic HG are literally the most distinguishing things between the Balto-Slavs and other North Europeans.
The East Scandinavian cluster did bring Germanic languages to Scandinavia according to recent studies so it's a tough sell to say these balto-slavs created germanic.
>
>R1a
>=Baltic HG
Dude, you need to cast of the haplo autism. I know we all kind of got into this thing through archaeogenetics and archaeogenetics are still what we are discussing. But for one most of the introductory stuff and the oversimplification R1a=East Euro, R1b=West Euro, I2=Balkan, I1=Scandinavian doesn't make any sense wasn't accurate at the time and our knowledge has progressed massively in the last three years. This doesn't even consider that R1a is older than Yamnaya and R1b is older than Yamnaya. We have various HG groups with those haplos. Doesn't mean that they're related in a relevant way to the IE invasions. And as we see there were multiple, and the people we would given our current understand already call IE because of Yamnaya steppe ancestry still warred upon each other and still replaced each other. Slavs wouldn't exist strictly speaking for thousands of years and a Celt or a Tocharian or a Anatolian IE person... terms say nothing in relation to the modern nations and the modern usage of especially Slavic has changed massively. We cannot identify language or culture through genetics. These people who would become Germans and Slavs and Balts in the future had pretty much the same rituals, beliefs, tools, the same techniques, and probably spoke intelligible dialects. It's an anarchronism to apply nationalism to archaeogenetics. Not because you can't find Germanic and Slavic and Baltic roots here but because they're not exclusive, and especially a tribe consisting of Steppe derived R1a, R1b and even I1s and Qs and so on can't be ruled as Germanic or Slavic, even if you had an unbroken chain of descendants. This doesn't even consider that these peoples' genetics weren't frozen in time the moment they arrived in what is now Sweden or Latvia or Russia. Especially in Russia and Ukraine and Eastern Poland we see massive population movements and influences from unrelated cultures.
no because ethose guys weren't proto slavs. they were proto-[that point of european which developed into, in this case, germanic people]. some kind of northern corded ware
you can hardly call the people who brought the germanic language into scandinavia and replaced all of the people there "proto slavs" when proto slavs wouldn't be a thing for two thousand years and the other people in that region were proto-baltic people, if that. and uralics in the furthest north and east.
if R1a = Baltic, then why was Sintashta not genetically Baltic?