# Population Genetics > Paleogenetics > Bronze Age >  The Genetic Prehistory of the Baltic Sea Region

## Jovialis

_While the series of events that shaped the transition between foraging societies and food producers are well described for Central and Southern Europe, genetic evidence from Northern Europe surrounding the Baltic Sea is still sparse. Here, we report genome-wide DNA data from 38 ancient North Europeans ranging from ~9500 to 2200 years before present. Our analysis provides genetic evidence that hunter-gatherers settled Scandinavia via two routes. We reveal that the first Scandinavian farmers derive their ancestry from Anatolia 1000 years earlier than previously demonstrated. The range of Mesolithic Western hunter-gatherers extended to the east of the Baltic Sea, where these populations persisted without gene-flow from Central European farmers during the Early and Middle Neolithic. The arrival of steppe pastoralists in the Late Neolithic introduced a major shift in economy and mediated the spread of a new ancestry associated with the Corded Ware Complex in Northern Europe._

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-02825-9

----------


## halfalp

But we steel dont know haplogroup I1 ethnogenesis, so looking at auDNA of Scandinavian farmers can we hypothetized if I1 came with some HG or with some Farmers ? Are the Scandinavians Farmers in ancient admixture a mix between SHG and EEF with little EHG or is their a change in the HG admixture between Mesolithic and Neolithic times ? ( Like for exemple SHG decrease and WHG-EHG increase ? ).

----------


## Angela

Incredible. It took a year and a half for the full paper to be published. Anyway, we discussed the abstract here. I'm interested to see the full paper and see how it compares to our musings. 

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...hlight=Mittnik

----------


## Jovialis

> Modern Eastern Baltic populations cluster with Baltic BA on the PCA plot and exhibit among all modern populations the highest shared genetic drift with ancient Baltic populations (Supplementary Fig. 2), but show substantial differences to samples from the Bronze Age. The statistic D(Lithuanian, Baltic BA; X, Mbuti) reveals significantly positive results for many modern Near Eastern and Southern European populations (Supplementary Fig. 6a). Limited gene-flow from more south-western neighbouring regions after the Bronze Age is sufficient to explain this pattern, as nearly all modern populations besides Estonians, especially for Central and Western Europe, have a higher amount of farmer ancestry than Lithuanians.


I thought this part from the results section was particularly interesting. Goes to show that the PCA as a tool alone, does not tell the whole story.

----------


## halfalp

The problem is as always they compare ancient dna with modern, so we dont know if this is the result of farmers linking middle-east and baltic, or prehistoric links with baltic like scythians or iranians that give genetic input to middle-east. I know why they doing that, but i dont understand why they try to interprete the results.

----------


## bicicleur

> I thought this part from the results section was particularly interesting. Goes to show that the PCA as a tool alone, does not tell the whole story.


there is something else
haplogroup N
they arrrived after Baltic BA
the authors don't say how this affected the autosomal of the Baltic people
I guess they (N) didn't come from the neighbouring southwest

----------


## berun

In autosomals Baltic_MN CCC display a EHG-like colours and it was truly a hunther-gatherer culture; thereafter Baltic_LN displays a segmentation similar to other CWC regions (European hunther, EEF, Caucasus), but the supposed source of Yamnaya displays half European hunther, half Caucasian, so where it's supposed that Baltic CWC got such EEF? from Yamnaya no, so the steppe source is not the (unique) source of genes, and so maybe IE languages. Steppe LMBA also displays the EEF component, but coming from...? and such culture was by sure IE. Armenia ChL + Yamnaya could fit quite well as source, but we lack Russian samples yet.

----------


## bicicleur

> In autosomals Baltic_MN CCC display a EHG-like colours and it was truly a hunther-gatherer culture; thereafter Baltic_LN displays a segmentation similar to other CWC regions (European hunther, EEF, Caucasus), but the supposed source of Yamnaya displays half European hunther, half Caucasian, so where it's supposed that Baltic CWC got such EEF? from Yamnaya no, so the steppe source is not the (unique) source of genes, and so maybe IE languages. Steppe LMBA also displays the EEF component, but coming from...? and such culture was by sure IE. Armenia ChL + Yamnaya could fit quite well as source, but we lack Russian samples yet.


the oldest CWC saples had Yamna but no EEF, the later samples have EEF besides Yamna
CWC is not PIE any more, it is probably proto Iranic-Indic, Celtic probably has nothing to do with CWC

----------


## berun

CWC develops German and Balto-Slav, Sintashta Greek and Indo-Iranian... but the source of all it (proto-IE) might have EFF which lacks Yamnaya. Two migrations (with and without EEF are not the best explanation)

----------


## Sile

> CWC develops German and Balto-Slav, Sintashta Greek and Indo-Iranian... but the source of all it (proto-IE) might have EFF which lacks Yamnaya. Two migrations (with and without EEF are not the best explanation)


it says could
*The presence of direct contacts to the steppe could lend support to a linguistic model that sees an early branching of Balto-Slavic from a Proto-Indo-European language*
there is no evidence of slav at that time in CWC........it *could* also be just germanic and baltic

----------


## halfalp

> CWC develops German and Balto-Slav, Sintashta Greek and Indo-Iranian... but the source of all it (proto-IE) might have EFF which lacks Yamnaya. Two migrations (with and without EEF are not the best explanation)


Do you assume German origin in CWC because of the geographic expansion of CWC ? It's pretty sur that the R1b from Scandinavia that develop the centum part of german languages is coming from a central european, unetice related people, i'm thinking more about the Battle of Tollense kind of people coming from Bohemia.

----------


## bicicleur

there should be more subclades in the Y-DNA
we know from Mathieson that CCC were a specific subclade, R1a1-YP1272
this paper learns nothing about Y-DNA
I hope Genetiker will come in

----------


## bicicleur

> CWC develops German and Balto-Slav, Sintashta Greek and Indo-Iranian... but the source of all it (proto-IE) might have EFF which lacks Yamnaya. Two migrations (with and without EEF are not the best explanation)


EEF is a very long shot and to old
the same way you could almost argue for WHG

----------


## Genetiker

I'm posting Y-SNP calls here:

Y-SNP calls from ancient Northern Europe

----------


## berun

@halfalp, I simply follow certain IE branching, with my limited knowledge of Englush, German and Russian is which makes more sense to me, adding to it the archaeological and R1a combo.

@bicicleur, the EEF share is there and clear, some explanation must have.

finding "Caucasian" J1 in mesolithic Russia it's possible that there were migrations from the Caucasian refugium, so that the EHG + CHG combo requested for IE could have popped up in Russia also...

----------


## Tomenable

Still not on GEDmatch, but are already available to download, it seems:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-02825-9

Davidski's comments:

http://polishgenes.blogspot.co.uk/20...e-peoples.html

----------


## bicicleur

> Still not on GEDmatch, but are already available to download, it seems:
> 
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-02825-9
> 
> Davidski's comments:
> 
> http://polishgenes.blogspot.co.uk/20...e-peoples.html


the big elephant in the room is haplgroup N

----------


## ThirdTerm

> None of our male Bronze Age individuals carry Y-haplogroup N, which is found in modern Europeans in highest frequencies in Finland and the Baltic states34. Instead, we observe a high frequency of R1a Y-haplogroups.
> 
> We suggest that the Siberian and East Asian related ancestry in Estonia, and Y-haplogroup N in north-eastern Europe, where it is widespread today, arrived there after the Bronze Age, ca. 500 calBCE, as we detect neither in our Bronze Age samples from Lithuania and Latvia. As Uralic speaking populations of the Volga-Ural region34 show high frequencies of haplogroup N34, a connection was proposed with the spread of Uralic language speakers from the east that contributed to the male gene pool of Eastern Baltic populations and left linguistic descendants in the Finno-Ugric languages Finnish and Estonian44, 45. A potential future direction of research is the identification of the proximate population that contributed to the arrival of this eastern ancestry into Northern Europe.


None of male Bronze Age individuals from this study carry haplogroup N and the authors concluded that haplogroup N in north-eastern Europe arrived there after 500 calBCE. It's interesting to observe that Uralic-speaking populations with haplogroup N arrived from Siberia later than the hunter-gatherer population with R1a and they were non-existent during the Bronze Age in Northern Europe.

----------


## berun

It seems so, it could be that Uralic N were reindeer herders which occupied areas unsuitable for agriculture and other herding animals in a more cold period? the native population in such areas would be reduced and language replacement would be more easy.

----------


## bicicleur

I've always taught haplo N arrived in Finland around 600 BC.
It was a climate shift which marks the end of the Nordic BA abd the end of agriculture that far north.
The Nordic BA people left their farms and moved south, eventualy becoming the Germanic tribes.
Haplo N HG and reindeer herders filled the void.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_Bronze_Age#Climate


The Nordic Bronze Age was initially characterized by a warm climate that began with a climate change around 2700 BC. The climate was comparable to that of present-day central Germany and northern France and permitted a relatively dense population and good opportunities for farming; for example, grapes were grown in Scandinavia at this time. A minor change in climate occurred between 850 BC and 760 BC, introducing a wetter, colder climate and a more radical climate change began around 650 BC.[3]

----------


## Angela

Another point of view, from Razib Khan:
https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2018/...medium=twitter

Of course, sampling is imperfect, and perhaps they’ve missed pockets of ancient Finnic peoples. But the most thorough analysis of Mesolithic hunter-gatherers in Scandinavian does not pick them up either, Population genomics of Mesolithic Scandinavia: Investigating early postglacial migration routes and high-latitude adaptation. Populations, such as the Comb Ceramic Culture, which have been identified as possible ancestors of the modern Finnic culture and ethnicity, lack the distinctive Siberian-like component.

At the SMBE 2017, I saw a poster which had results that were sampled from Finland proper, and distinctive ancestry of Siberian-like peoples was present in an individual who lived after 500 AD. This means that in all likelihood the circumpolar Siberian population which introduced this new element into the East Baltic arrived in the period between 500 BC and 500 AD."

"I will add when I run Treemix Finns get the Siberian gene flow you’d expect. But the Lithuanians get something from the Finns. Since the Lithuanians have appreciable levels of N1c, that is not entirely surprising to me (the basal flow from the Yakut/European region to Belorussians may be more CHG/ANE).
Additionally, I will note that on a f-3 test Lithuanians have nearly as high a z-score (absolute) as Swedes (i.e., Finn; Swede/Lithuanian, Yakut), indicating that the predominant Northern European ancestry isn’t necessarily Scandinavian, as much as something between Lithuanian-like and Swedish-like (on Admixture tests the Finns do seem to have less EEF than Swedes, and Lithuanians probably the least of all among non-Finn peoples)."

----------


## bicicleur

> Another point of view, from Razib Khan:
> https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2018/...medium=twitter
> 
> Of course, sampling is imperfect, and perhaps they’ve missed pockets of ancient Finnic peoples. But the most thorough analysis of Mesolithic hunter-gatherers in Scandinavian does not pick them up either, Population genomics of Mesolithic Scandinavia: Investigating early postglacial migration routes and high-latitude adaptation. Populations, such as the Comb Ceramic Culture, which have been identified as possible ancestors of the modern Finnic culture and ethnicity, lack the distinctive Siberian-like component.
> 
> At the SMBE 2017, I saw a poster which had results that were sampled from Finland proper, and distinctive ancestry of Siberian-like peoples was present in an individual who lived after 500 AD. This means that in all likelihood the circumpolar Siberian population which introduced this new element into the East Baltic arrived in the period between 500 BC and 500 AD."
> 
> "I will add when I run Treemix Finns get the Siberian gene flow you’d expect. But the Lithuanians get something from the Finns. Since the Lithuanians have appreciable levels of N1c, that is not entirely surprising to me (the basal flow from the Yakut/European region to Belorussians may be more CHG/ANE).
> Additionally, I will note that on a f-3 test Lithuanians have nearly as high a z-score (absolute) as Swedes (i.e., Finn; Swede/Lithuanian, Yakut), indicating that the predominant Northern European ancestry isn’t necessarily Scandinavian, as much as something between Lithuanian-like and Swedish-like (on Admixture tests the Finns do seem to have less EEF than Swedes, and Lithuanians probably the least of all among non-Finn peoples)."


If I recall well, Roman writers reported about Finnic HG, who didn't practice farming and had no cattle.
They must have been the Uralic N1c.

----------


## gyms

> None of male Bronze Age individuals from this study carry haplogroup N and the authors concluded that haplogroup N in north-eastern Europe arrived there after 500 calBCE. It's interesting to observe that Uralic-speaking populations with haplogroup N arrived from Siberia later than the hunter-gatherer population with R1a and they were non-existent during the Bronze Age in Northern Europe.


What's the prove that populations with haplogroup N were Uralic-speaking?

----------


## gyms

> If I recall well, Roman writers reported about Finnic HG, who didn't practice farming and had no cattle.
> They must have been the Uralic N1c.


"Perhaps the Siberian-like people did not introduce Finnic languages into the Baltic."
https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2018/...medium=twitter

----------


## Angela

> "Perhaps the Siberian-like people did not introduce Finnic languages into the Baltic."
> https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2018/...medium=twitter



I think you missed the following sentence:

"*Addendum:* I should note here that the genetics is getting clearer, but I have no great insight into the ethno-linguistic aspect. Perhaps the Siberian-like people did not introduce Finnic languages into the Baltic. Perhaps that was someone else. But I doubt it."

I don't mean to imply that he's an expert in that particular aspect of the question, of course.

----------


## Angela

Has this article been posted yet?

See:
https://phys.org/news/2018-01-northe...ealed.html#jCp

"Surprisingly, the results of the current study show that Mesolithic hunter-gatherers from Lithuania appear very similar to their Western neighbors, despite their geographic proximity to Russia. The ancestry of contemporary Scandinavian hunter-gatherers, on the other hand, was comprised from both Western and Eastern Hunter-Gatherers."

"In the Eastern Baltic, the inhabitants relied solely on hunting, gathering and fishing for another 1000 years. Although some have argued that the use of the new subsistence strategy was a local development by foragers, possibly adopting the practices of their farming neighbors, the genetic evidence uncovered in the present study tells a different story.The earliest farmers in Sweden are not descended from Mesolithic Scandinavians, but show a genetic profile similar to that of Central European agriculturalists. Thus it appears that Central Europeans migrated to Scandinavia and brought farming technology with them."

"Similarly, a near-total genetic turnover is seen in the Eastern Baltic with the advent of large-scale agro-pastoralism. While they did not mix genetically with Central European or Scandinavian farmers, beginning around 2,900 BCE the individuals in the Eastern Baltic derive large parts of their ancestry from nomadic pastoralists of the Pontic-Caspian steppe.
"Interestingly, we find an increase of local Eastern Baltic hunter-gatherer ancestry in this population at the onset of the Bronze Age," states Alissa Mittnik of the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, lead author of the study. "The local population was not completely replaced but coexisted and eventually mixed with the newcomers."
Neat map:



Interestingly enough, the Popovo sample is J1. That makes two, as Oleni Ostrov was also J1. Assuming that they have no CHG or Basal Eurasian, does that mean that J1 was originally part of the UHG strand in the Middle East?

----------


## bicicleur

> [/SIZE]Interestingly enough, the Popovo sample is J1. That makes two, as Oleni Ostrov was also J1. Assuming that they have no CHG or Basal Eurasian, does that mean that J1 was originally part of the UHG strand in the Middle East?


The Karelia HG J1 would be J1-Y6304 which split from the Satsurblia branch 14,3 ka and with descendants in Finland and Columbia.
Popovo 2 looks more like pré-J1 (split > 18.5 ka) - as far as the readings are accurate

anyway, both early splits from the J1 branch

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-i0211/
https://www.yfull.com/tree/J1/
https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-sn...-for-popovo-2/

----------


## halfalp

> The Karelia HG J1 would be J1-Y6304 which split from the Satsurblia branch 14,3 ka and with descendants in Finland and Columbia.
> Popovo 2 looks more like pré-J1 (split > 18.5 ka) - as far as the readings are accurate
> anyway, both early splits from the J1 branch
> https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-i0211/
> https://www.yfull.com/tree/J1/
> https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-sn...-for-popovo-2/


So this is really a new J1 not the old one with R1a ? and what do you mean by Columbia ? Now the question is are those J1 came through Caucasus or around the Caspian. Anyway intersting stuff.

----------


## twójstary

> there is no evidence of slav at that time in CWC........it *could* also be just germanic and baltic


Ah yes, anything but Slavic. 
That's just a typical fantasy on your part. CWC couldn't be Germanic for a simple reason, Germanic languages belong to a Centum family. CWC were ancestors of Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian. Deal with it. Unless of course, we're still playing with Indo-Germanic fairy tales.

----------


## Ygorcs

> Ah yes, anything but Slavic. 
> That's just a typical fantasy on your part. CWC couldn't be Germanic for a simple reason, Germanic languages belong to a Centum family. CWC were ancestors of Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian. Deal with it. Unless of course, we're still playing with Indo-Germanic fairy tales.


To be fair CWC couldn't possibly have been Germanic, Slavic or anything. These branches are too late for that. But, yes, probaly CWC spoke the LPIE dialect from which Balto-Slavic, Indo-Iranian and perhaps even also Daco-Thracian came to be many centuries and even milennia later. In my opinion, Germanic is a much trickier thing and it looks related (in isoglosses) both to Balto-Slavic and Italo-Celtic. Considering that genetically the core area of Proto-Germanic has both R1b and R1a in significant percentages, as well as I1, and is very close to the CWC territory, my hypothesis is that Germanic arose from the imposition of a Centum Bell Beaker language onto a former CWC-derived language or maybe just a Centum Bell Beaker language under direct and long influence from neighbnoring CWC languages.

----------


## Tomenable

R1a-CTS1211 is ca. 37% to 38,5% of all Polish R1a, and R1a is ca. half of all Polish Y-DNA.

Two ancient samples of CTS1211 have just been published, and they are from Baltic states:

Lithuania, Spiginas 2, *2130-1750 BC*, Baltic_EBA, R1a-Z280>CTS1211+

Latvia, Kivutkalns 19, *730-400 BC*, Baltic_LBA, R1a-Z280>CTS1211>YP1034>Y13467+

Could ancestors of ca. 1/5 of Polish men originate from Bronze Age Latvia and Lithuania?

----------


## Tomenable

Two estimates of percentages of R1a subgroups in Poland (CTS1211 is >1/3 of Polish R1a):

1. My estimate (I calculated it from FTDNA Projects):

R1a-M459 - 100,00% (sample size 1208), including:

---- M459* - 0,17% (2)
---- M198 - 99,83% (1206)
-------- M198* - 0,17% (2)
-------- L664 - 0,33% (4)

-------- Z645 - 99,34% (1200)
------------ Z93 - 2,73% (33)
------------ Z283 - 96,61% (1167)
---------------- Z283* - 0,91% (11)
---------------- Z284 - 0,41% (5)

*---------------- M458 - 46,03% (556), including:*
-------------------- L260 - 24,83% (300)
-------------------- CTS11962 - 20,45% (247)
-------------------- other M458 - 0,75% (9)

*---------------- Z280 - 49,25% (595), including:*
-------------------- CTS1211 - 38,49% (465)
------------------------ CTS3402 - 30,05% (363)
------------------------ other CTS1211 - 8,44% (102)
-------------------- Z92 - 9,85% (119)
-------------------- other Z280 - 0,91% (11)

2. Estimates of Peter Gwozdz from his website:
(but this includes Polish Jews with R1a-Y2619)

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

R1a-M459 - 100,00% of Polish R1a, including:

Z93 - 5,25%
--- Y2619 - 3,03% - typical for Jews CTS6>Y2619 - https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-CTS6/
--- other Z93 - 2,22%

*M458 - 46,87% of Polish R1a, including:*
---- L260 - 29,70%
-------- YP254 - 19,60%
------------ Y4135 - 3,43%
------------ YP414 - 8,48%
---------------- YP610 - 5,66%
---------------- YP589 - 2,83%
------------ Y2905 - 7,07%
---------------- YP1364 - 3,43%
---------------- other Y2905 - 3,64%
------------ other YP254 - 0,62%
-------- YP654 - 4,85%
-------- other L260 - 5,25%
---- CTS11962 - 16,57%
-------- L1029 - 12,53%
------------ YP593 - 3,84%
------------ YP444 - 2,42%
------------ other L1029 - 6,27%
-------- YP515 - 4,04%
---- other M458 - 0,60%

*Z280 - 46,87% of Polish R1a, including:*
---- CTS1211 - 37,37%
-------- CTS3402 - 32,12%
------------ Y33 - 14,34%
---------------- Y2902 - 6,67%
---------------- S18681 - 5,05%
---------------- L1280 - 2,22%
---------------- other Y33 - 0,40%
------------ YP237 - 13,54%
---------------- YP389 - 4,44%
---------------- YP977 - 3,84%
---------------- L269 - 2,02%
---------------- other YP237 - 3,24%
------------ Y2613 - 4,04%
---------------- Y2608 - 3,64%
---------------- other Y2613 - 0,40%
------------ other CTS3402 - 0,20%
-------- YP343 - 4,04%
------------ YP371 - 2,83%
------------ other YP343 - 1,21%
---- Z92 - 8,48%
-------- Z685 - 5,66%
------------ CTS4648 - 2,83%
------------ YP351 - 2,83%
-------- Z92 type E - 2,42%
-------- other Z92 - 0,40%

All other R1a - 1,01%

----------


## Tomenable

YFull estimates the age of R1a-CTS1211 to be ~4600 years, and TMRCA ~4400 years ago:

https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-CTS1211/

If these estimates are correct, Spiginas2 is not much younger than TMRCA of this subclade.

----------


## Tomenable

Already 5 ancient samples of CTS1211 (M558), 2 from Lithuania and 3 from Latvia:

Spiginas2, *2130-1750 BC*, Baltic_EBA, R1a-Z280>CTS1211+
Spiginas25, *800–545 BC*, Baltic_BA, R1a-Z280>CTS1211+

Kivutkalns222, *805–515 BC*, Baltic_BA, R1a-Z280>CTS1211>YP1034>Y13467+
Kivutkalns19, *730-400 BC*, Baltic_LBA, R1a-Z280>CTS1211>YP1034>Y13467+
Kivutkalns209, *405-230 BC*, Baltic_IA, R1a-Z280>CTS1211>YP1034>Y13467+

In discussion on Anthrogenica, Michał pointed out the frequency of CTS1211 in modern Belarusians and Russians (ca. 1/4 of entire Y-DNA in both cases), and I noticed that CTS1211 was very common among pre-war East Prussias (ca. 1/5 of the entire East Prussian sample of 84 men, so about as common as in Polish people):

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?652...ll=1#post341743

East Prussian carriers of R1a-CTS1211 (16 people from FTDNA Projects):

kit E10339 - surname of the oldest known ancestor not given
kit 85285 - Friedrich *Lichtenstein* b. in 1870 in Königsberg
kit 175710 - Georg *Glass* b. in 1810 in Babanten
kit 200664 - Simon *Netke*, b. in 1686 in Königsberg
kit 165792 - J. M. *Sommerfeld*, b. in 1750 in Tiegenort
kit N7393 - *Reimer* b. in 1720 in Hoppenau
kit 153224 - Leopold *Lau*, b. in 1867 in Kompehnen
kit 275076 - Georg Gottlieb *Gutt*, b. in 1729 in Brodnica
kit 71994 - Franz *Pallaschke*, b. in 1883 in Buddern
kit 330940 - Friedrich *Malesha*, b. in 1800 in Soldahnen
kit 2546 - Johann *Piasetzki*, b. in 1860 in Sensburg
kit E4464 - Karl *Labinsky* b. in 1840 in Trempen
kit E9666 - J. *Pawellek* b. in 1853 in Ortelsburg
kit 426239 - *Kalinowski* b. in 1878 in Riesenwalde
kit 131361 - J. *Jablonowski*, born near Soldau
kit N18451 - Frank J. *Zalewski*, b. in 1858 in Gotschalki

^^^ 
Many of these surnames are purely German rather than Masurian etc., so most likely it is from assimilated Old Prussians. Some of them carry subclades of M558 typical for present-day East Balts.

But I pointed out the fact, that we don't know which subclades were typical for West Balts, because there is no ancient DNA from East Prussia - so maybe subclades of West Balts were more like these typical for present-day Slavs, than like these typical for present-day Lithuanians and Latvians. The map below shows the breakdown of East Prussian R1a into typically Slavic and typically East Baltic, based on modern frequencies:

https://s31.postimg.org/mfwjkq5or/Ol...a_surnames.png

----------


## Tomenable

Turlojiske3, Lithuania, Bronze Age, *1010–800 BC*, R1a1a1b1a2a-YP617 (Genetiker's calls).

This is a subclade of Z92>Y4459:

https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Y4459/

Basal R-Y4459* has been found in North-Eastern Poland - id:YF10363POL [PL-Podlaskie].

All of Z92 is about 8.5% to 10% of Polish R1a (and divide in half for % of Polish Y-DNA).

----------


## Tomenable

*Kivutkalns153, Latvia, Bronze Age, 800–545 BC, R1a1a1b1a3-YP1370 (a subclade of R1a-Z284).

*I guess this Z284 from Bronze Age Latvia proves that some R1a came to Scandinavia from East Baltic area.

These are the oldest R1a samples from Scandinavia:

Sweden RISE94, Viby, Götaland, 2621-2472 BC
Denmark RISE61, Kyndeløse, Zealand, 2650-2300 BC
Sweden LNBA, Ölsund, Hälsingland, 2573-2140 BC
Denmark RISE42, Marbjerg, Zealand, 2191-1972 BC

As you can see 3 of them are from Southern Scandinavia, but one (Olsund) is from Northern Sweden.

Olsund individual is discussed in this paper:

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/bior...13241.full.pdfhttps://www.biorxiv.org/content/bior...1/113241-1.pdf

About the origins of Corded Ware culture:

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/1...hungarian.html

R1a migrated to Scandinavia either from Latvia-Lithuania-Poland by boats across the Baltic Sea, or from Germany (both routes are possible). N1c migrated to Scandinavia much later and probably from Finland-Estonia (ultimately from North-Western Russia).

*Possible routes of R1a migration to Scandinavia with Corded Ware culture (red arrows):

*https://i.imgur.com/GfE3Abm.png



This paper claims that the Olsund sample was most autosomally most similar to Baltic Bronze Age samples:

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/bior...13241.full.pdf

CTRL + F type Olsund and find this info.

*Also rock art of native Scandinavians (Non-R1) depicts the arrival of some R1-men by boats.

*Native, Non-IE Scandinavians used to create rock carvings already ca. 6500 years ago.

They were documenting scenes from everyday life, such as hunting:

http://www.rockartscandinavia.com/frontpage.phphttp://fri.info.pl/rysunki-naskalne-alta/







At the beginning of the Metal Ages, completely new motifs appear in Scandinavian rock art. These new carvings depict the arrival - by sea - of large fleets of immigrants, who had the knowledge of metal-working, were armed in battle axes (see: Battle Axe culture) and worshipped foreign deities:

https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rysunki_naskalne_w_Tanum

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ld6Dt-Lce6MVideo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDXQCUpjAyk













This artwork most likely depicts *an Indo-European high priest*, an archetype of god *Thor*:



*^^^ This is consistent with Oslund R1a man being possibly descended from Baltic Bronze Age immigrants.*

----------


## Tomenable

The oldest known sample of N1c from Europe is dated to ca. 2500 BC, found near Smolensk in Russia. There was no any N1c in Scandinavia at that time, but there was already some in western Russia. Apparently there was also no N1c in Bronze Age Lithuania and Latvia. But despite the lack of ancient samples, some N1c could cross the Ural and enter Europe already ca. 5500 BC (which is the estimated TMRCA for N1c-L708, the most upstream subclade of N1c which exists in Europe - subclades more upstream than L708 can be found only in Asia).

----------


## MOESAN

What is so surprising in the presence of some EEF among LN Baltic?: first CWC were poor of it, but an almost contemporaneous pop, GAC, has a great load of EEF; GAC people didn' t disappear as by a magic trick; and we have a more powerful culture rich in EEF: Tripolye; borrowing of some tehcnics + borrwing of wives?
I agree with the people who don't see a link between Germanics and CWC; I see rather a proto-Baltic or Baltic-Slavic element in CWC. The so called 'danubian med' type common among first EEF seems the dominant element among the southern influences on modern pops of N-E Europe, even among Finns. In Steppes, the slight EEF of MBA/LBA element could have more than a region of origin, helas for us. Late exchanges N > S + S > N across Caucasus?
Unetice was a mixed culture in itself, even if some element dominated, and had spred into local preceding surrounding cultures as well by cultural transmission as by some demic impulse. But the U106 first "babyboomers", I think, were rather in the EastGermany part of the Unetice field (descendants of the famous "Rich Tumuli culture" of the Saale/Thuringen region?

----------


## Sile

> Ah yes, anything but Slavic. 
> That's just a typical fantasy on your part. CWC couldn't be Germanic for a simple reason, Germanic languages belong to a Centum family. CWC were ancestors of Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian. Deal with it. Unless of course, we're still playing with Indo-Germanic fairy tales.


I think you should have said...anything except just Baltic ..............deal with the fact that baltic people where there before germanic and slavic 

Centum and Satem is irrelevant these people lived all over Europe side by side swapping vocabulary, people make too big a deal about it .....especially when they say the ethnicity of people A and ethnicity of people B are the same people and then you throw in , one spoke centum and the other satem,...........they disappear never to be heard of again

----------


## Tomenable

> (...)


The oldest known sample of R1b-U106 is actually from Corded Ware context in Sweden (or am I wrong)? But the 2nd oldest sample is from Bell Beaker context in the Netherlands:

----------


## arvistro

I still have a certain feeling that N1c in Baltics arrived just before 0AD. Perhaps related or coincided to downfall of Kivutkalns (R1a - Baltic clades) bronze working center. That is also about when iron working started, but perhaps unrelated events.. khm..

Edit: honestly, I did not expect Kivutkalns to belong to modern Baltic clades, thought those were extinct R1a groups and Balts arrived there later. Now I am not sure, so just sitting there and observing things :)

----------


## twójstary

Sile, you just never give up do you? I know that you're a Balto-Germanic supremacist already lol. But please keep your fantasies to yourself. Balts and Slavs are closer to each other than Balts and Germanics are. Unless of course, you're referring to such prominent figures as Balto-Germanic Alfred Rosenberg. So many years on this forum, yet you're still clueless. 

Btw. Great work as usual Tomenable.

----------


## Sile

> Sile, you just never give up do you? I know that you're a Balto-Germanic supremacist already lol. But please keep your fantasies to yourself. Balts and Slavs are closer to each other than Balts and Germanics are. Unless of course, you're referring to such prominent figures as Balto-Germanic Alfred Rosenberg. So many years on this forum, yet you're still clueless. 
> Btw. Great work as usual Tomenable.


No I am not, I just detest the untruths of the germans and slavs saying that balts never existed and also trying to eliminate them wherever they are........who do you think was in the middle between the germanics moving east from north germany and denmark and the slavs of the ukraine moving west ...........do you think the area was empty of people !
do you think the Aestii where slavs or germans? , what about the galindians ..............the old methods of slavs and germans of eliminating the balts are now proven wrong , gimbatus was the first to recognize the balts following ancient historians.
.
I just hope you are not one of these that think the slavs or germans have been in poland, old prussia or lithaunia since time began

----------


## twójstary

Did I ever say that Balts never existed? Every post of mine mentions BALTO-SLAVS. Not Slavs themselves, but Balto-Slavs. Your hardon for Balto-Germanics seems very weird to me, it was mostly Germanics trying to wipe out Balts from the face of the earth, not Slavs. Balts and Slavs are a family. But let's not pollute this thread even further, great Germanic minds polluted "science" enough already. No need to dig in the past.

----------


## Jovialis

To everyone, let's keep this discussion civilized.

----------


## Sile

> Did I ever say that Balts never existed? Every post of mine mentions BALTO-SLAVS. Not Slavs themselves, but Balto-Slavs. Your hardon for Balto-Germanics seems very weird to me, it was mostly Germanics trying to wipe out Balts from the face of the earth, not Slavs. Balts and Slavs are a family. But let's not pollute this thread even further, great Germanic minds polluted "science" enough already. No need to dig in the past.


Balto-slav is not an ethnicity is a linguistic group and we know language and ethnicity never never match

----------


## MOESAN

> The oldest known sample of R1b-U106 is actually from Corded Ware context in Sweden (or am I wrong)? But the 2nd oldest sample is from Bell Beaker context in the Netherlands:


Yes but two trees don't make a forest. We lack more U106 before to be sure. It's the good aspect of the question; we can still make bets and tries to guess! Today we have too few ancient *Y*-haplo's of Unetice or of other cultures; the ones we have for Unetice are rather Y-I2 of some sort (I2a2 among them). ATW I think Unetice was a bit heterogenous within it's center, and diverse from site to site (sites labelled as "Unetician"). 
These "first" bearers of U106 you cited were already there before Unetice times. Were they the subclades of the core of future Germanics? I don't know; SNP's are not the property of a culture or language or ethny; U106 were found too in Liechtenstein Cave (around 1000 BC) labelled Unstrut or less precisely Urnfield. This region of Germany comprised between Low-Saxony and Thuringen, in a region of contacts (metals ores) had surely seen some overlaps between clannic Y-haplos spite it was rather seldom. I prefer to think the well formed Germanics developped a bit later around the core of the U106 subclades (maybe the same), in a region where Y-I1a and some R1a lineages were not too far and could be integrated later. But CWC as proto-Germanics, to date, I dont believe, but I can be wrong (not the first time).



I don't put any penny in the affair, I just say what could be possible in my mind.

----------


## Tomenable

> We lack more U106 before to be sure.


But isn't RISE98 almost as old as the estimated TMRCA of U106 itself?

RISE98 is 2275-2032 BC, YFull estimates TMRCA of U106 as 2700 BC:

https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-U106/




> U106 were found too in Liechtenstein Cave (around 1000 BC)


I have not seen any evidence that this R1b sample was U106.

What is your source? It was some R1b, but not necessarily U106.

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

Do you happen to know what subclades of R1b did they belong to?:

http://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.co...ka-poland.html

http://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.co...g-page_25.html

Bell Beaker Poland Samborzec [I4253 / RISE1124 / grave no. 13], M, 2571-2208 BCE 452974 SNPs, *R1b1a1a2*
Bell Beaker Poland Samborzec [I4251 / RISE1122/ grave no. 7], M, 2400-2200 BCE 80714 SNPs, *R1b1a1a2

*Autosomally they were 46% Steppe + 38% Neolithic + 16% HG (see *Table S4.* in Supplement):

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/bior...1/135962-1.pdf

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/bior...35962.full.pdf

----------


## MOESAN

@ Tomenable: 
you wrote:
_But isn't RISE98 almost as old as the estimated TMRCA of U106 itself?
RISE98 is 2275-2032 BC, YFull estimates TMRCA of U106 as 2700 BC:_
I wrote "we lack more U106 before to be sure": maybe my syntax is not good: I would not say "we lack older U106" but "before we can be sure we lack more ancient U106"
you wrote:
_I have not seen any evidence that this R1b sample was U106.
What is your source? It was some R1b, but not necessarily U106_.
You 're right : it had been supposed it was U106 but it has not been confirmed, surely by lack of good DNA

you wrote:
_Bell Beaker Poland Samborzec [I4253 / RISE1124 / grave no. 13], M, 2571-2208 BCE 452974 SNPs, R1b1a1a2
Bell Beaker Poland Samborzec [I4251 / RISE1122/ grave no. 7], M, 2400-2200 BCE 80714 SNPs,_ *R1b1a1a2* 
I knew that, OK; but what relevance for what I wrote concerning U106?

----------


## MOESAN

sorry Tomenable: "before we can be sure because we lack more ancient U106"

----------


## MOESAN

> Balto-slav is not an ethnicity is a linguistic group and we know language and ethnicity never never match


 Ethnicity and language have nothing to do one with another ?
Ethnicity is a mix of genetic aspects and culture and SELFAPPRECIATION OF IDENTITY -
a human group, to keep some consistance and to pass some centuries before to die, needs some stability ; from this stability and warrant of this stability is language – genetic aspect is also consequence of this stability but not an evident cause of it – genetic aspect found importance recently in a post-colonial context with phenotypes very different and a population density very bigger than in ancient times.

languages COLLECTIVE shifts need tight contacts and exchanges OR a very strong network of administrative organisation, but this last aspect was not already the case among the most of ancient ethnic groups -
- as a result of this (contacts and exchanges, balanced or not), members of the new mixed group with new language are pushed to feel themselves as of the same group as the ones which possessed this language before mixing or imposing this languages along with other things. They adopt the ethnicity of the dominant. Vanquished Gauls feeled themselves Romans some generations after the defeat. Some exceptions exist, like the Franks/Français question, but even here, we see a final fusion of ethnic sentiment, language and in a big part, genetics. So an « elastic » link between these notions, and not a « nothing common ».

So, Balto-Slavic stage is surely not only a linguistic abstract reconstruction only but also an ancient stage of a pop with flesh, blood and bones. After, things evolved, of course...

----------


## Sile

> Ethnicity and language have nothing to do one with another ?
> Ethnicity is a mix of genetic aspects and culture and SELFAPPRECIATION OF IDENTITY -
> a human group, to keep some consistance and to pass some centuries before to die, needs some stability ; from this stability and warrant of this stability is language – genetic aspect is also consequence of this stability but not an evident cause of it – genetic aspect found importance recently in a post-colonial context with phenotypes very different and a population density very bigger than in ancient times.
> 
> languages COLLECTIVE shifts need tight contacts and exchanges OR a very strong network of administrative organisation, but this last aspect was not already the case among the most of ancient ethnic groups -
> - as a result of this (contacts and exchanges, balanced or not), members of the new mixed group with new language are pushed to feel themselves as of the same group as the ones which possessed this language before mixing or imposing this languages along with other things. They adopt the ethnicity of the dominant. Vanquished Gauls feeled themselves Romans some generations after the defeat. Some exceptions exist, like the Franks/Français question, but even here, we see a final fusion of ethnic sentiment, language and in a big part, genetics. So an « elastic » link between these notions, and not a « nothing common ».
> 
> So, Balto-Slavic stage is surely not only a linguistic abstract reconstruction only but also an ancient stage of a pop with flesh, blood and bones. After, things evolved, of course...


Do you feel yourself as an Englishman because you speak English now..........and because you speak English has your ethnicity taken an english ethnicity !?

How many different ethnicities spoke latin after the Romans took over their lands, how many declared themselves Roman and if so and if you accept this ethnicity then does that not make searching for Roman ethnicity impossible to find?

----------


## davef

Sile, i think what you meant to say was that ethnicity and language don't always match, is this what you were implying?

----------


## Jovialis

This is beginning to move off-topic. Focus on the content of the paper.

There's already a thread dedicated to this subject, "What is ethnicity":

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...s-an-ethnicity

@Davef, you seem to have a habit of galvanizing conflict. STOP IT

----------


## Sile

> Sile, i think what you meant to say was that ethnicity and language don't always match, is this what you were implying?


I am saying a very high percentage do not match ...........as an example we have a recent linguistic study that states that Illyrian, Dacian and Thracian languages came from Italo-Celtic linguistic branch of central Europe .........

And with this , does the linguistic term Italo-Celtic mean all Italian ethnicity has celtic in them!

.
.
I never match any ethnicity with language before the medieval period , and with this start period , it would begin minimally

----------


## twójstary

> Balto-slav is not an ethnicity is a linguistic group and we know language and ethnicity never never match


I was asked to keep it civil, but you force my hand. How is a Balto-Germanic more of a thing than Balto-Slavic? Ffs, Slavs and Balts share paternal lines, unlike Balts and Germanics. Slavs and Balts share: genetics, language, culture, religion and rituals with each other, unlike Germanics and Balts. Like what's your problem? This seems very personal to you.

----------


## Jovialis

The next person to step out of line with a provocation will receive the appropriate infraction. This is the final warning.

To everyone: If you're going to debate; debate the facts. Do not personalize what you're saying.

----------


## Sile

> I was asked to keep it civil, but you force my hand. How is a Balto-Germanic more of a thing than Balto-Slavic? Ffs, Slavs and Balts share paternal lines, unlike Balts and Germanics. Slavs and Balts share: genetics, language, culture, religion and rituals with each other, unlike Germanics and Balts. Like what's your problem? This seems very personal to you.


i never heard of a balto-germanic group...........what are you fabricating ............

----------


## Tomenable

> I knew that, OK; but what relevance for what I wrote concerning U106?


No relevance, I'm just curious if those Polish Bell Beakers were DF27, U152, U106, etc.

----------


## halfalp

I feel that those genetic datas are going too fast, than the archeological datas, between when there was a Baltic Bronze Age ? Is it culturally link with central europe Unetice, R1b people ? Or is it a local developpement from R1a corded people ? Because in my mind, bronze age is still a cultural developpement from a central european R1b tribe.

----------


## Jovialis

> To everyone: If you're going to debate; debate the facts. Do not personalize what you're saying.





> i never heard of a balto-germanic group...........what are you fabricating ............


This has not gone unpunished.

----------


## FIREYWOTAN

My earliest path has found me reading and adding this article to Tracing Celtic Genetics: expanding towards the Baltic Seas. I recently started working with OSF as my main base of operations. thanks for your heads up.

----------


## Dagne

> Did I ever say that Balts never existed? Every post of mine mentions BALTO-SLAVS. Not Slavs themselves, but Balto-Slavs. Balts and Slavs are a family.


I am not so sure about Balto-Slavs being a family. At least from 2000BC they split. This is what Encyclopaedia Britanica says on the topic:
"It is possible to conclude that there was close contact between the Baltic and Slavic protolanguages at the time when they began to develop as independent groups (_i.e.,_from about the 2nd millennium BC) and that the Proto-Slavic area might have been a part of peripheral Proto-Baltic, although a specific part. That is, Proto-Slavic at that time was in direct contact with both the corresponding dialects of the peripheral Proto-Baltic area (_e.g.,_ with Proto-Prussian) and the corresponding dialects of the central Proto-Baltic area. All this shows that the Proto-Slavic area of that time (south of the Pripyat River) was much smaller than the Proto-Baltic area. Proto-Slavic began to develop as a separate linguistic entity in the 2nd millennium BC and was to remain quite unified for a long time to come. Proto-Baltic, however, besides developing into an independent linguistic unit in the 2nd millennium BC, also began gradually to split. "

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Baltic-languages

----------


## Dagne

So what I wanted to point out in relation to this Study is that all the DNA of the metallurgists of the Late Bronze Age in the Eastern Baltic (approximately 1300 to 500 BCE) are rather Proto Baltic but not proto Balto-Slavic, as the languages have separated earlier and the Proto Slavic where likely somewhere else southwards and developing in their own ways.

----------


## twójstary

> I am not so sure about Balto-Slavs being a family. At least from 2000BC they split. This is what Encyclopaedia Britanica says on the topic:
> "It is possible to conclude that there was close contact between the Baltic and Slavic protolanguages at the time when they began to develop as independent groups (_i.e.,_from about the 2nd millennium BC) and that the Proto-Slavic area might have been a part of peripheral Proto-Baltic, although a specific part. That is, Proto-Slavic at that time was in direct contact with both the corresponding dialects of the peripheral Proto-Baltic area (_e.g.,_ with Proto-Prussian) and the corresponding dialects of the central Proto-Baltic area. All this shows that the Proto-Slavic area of that time (south of the Pripyat River) was much smaller than the Proto-Baltic area. Proto-Slavic began to develop as a separate linguistic entity in the 2nd millennium BC and was to remain quite unified for a long time to come. Proto-Baltic, however, besides developing into an independent linguistic unit in the 2nd millennium BC, also began gradually to split. "
> 
> https://www.britannica.com/topic/Baltic-languages


So even though they split from common Balto-Slavic source and Proto Balto-Slavic source before that, perhaps even Central European Corded Ware, Slavs and Balts aren't a family? The only reason for my anger was trying to claim that Balts and Germanics are closer to each other than Slavs and Balts, which is simply ridiculous.

----------


## Dagne

It is all three - Baltic, Slavic and Germanic developed from the same CWC, only Germanic had mixed with agriculturalists more, while Baltic mixed more with HG, when Slavic had their own way - stayed "hidden" up until 600-800 AD and expanded afterwards. Well, it would be interesting to compare all three cultures at some time in point - 0AD, for instance. But we just don't know the answers. Comparing cultures based on the language similarity or genetic autosomal similarity is not very reliable, is it? For instance, even though Lithuanians autosomally have more HG than EEF, they have still turned into farmers.

In this respect, influence Western CWC (proto-Germanic) might be very important in turning Baltic nations into what they are now. Before CWC Baltic inhabitants were just pure Hunter Gatherers, and the formation of the Baltic ethnicity as such starts only at the time of the arrival of CWC. However, without the EEF farmer input, the Baltic people could not have turned into Baltic. In this sense, the current theory that EEF part in the Baltic people came through the contacts with the more western CWC (Bell Beaker rich CWC, most probably proto-Germanic) is very important in the formation of the Baltic ethnicity. I am not sure how the formation of the Slavic nations is explained, and where their EEF part was picked up. 

Quite funny, the word for Slavic neighbours in the Lithuanian language is denoted by the word "Gudai" originally meaning Goths, lat. Gotones and only later with the great movement of nations when the Goths were gone and the Slavic arrived in the area, the word picked up the current meaning of Slavic people (Belorussians). Polish people are called "Lenkai" after the Lech.

----------


## Tomenable

There is still some Z284 in Lithuania today. Michał posted data from R1a project:

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....l=1#post144601

*Lithuania (n=65)*
Y17491 -1
M458 - 14
Z280>CTS1211 - 24
Z280>Z92 -14
Z284 - 1
Z93 - 11

*Latvia (n=14)*
L664 - 1
M458 - 2
Z280>CTS1211 - 7
Z280>Z92 - 1
Z93 - 3

----------


## MOESAN

Germanic principally from CWC? Proof??? If I believe what I red (Dagne) proto-Salvic was separated from (Proto-)Baltic since 2000 BC, so I suppose long enough before proto-Germanics (with U106) emerged.

----------


## MOESAN

> I am saying a very high percentage do not match ...........as an example we have a recent linguistic study that states that Illyrian, Dacian and Thracian languages came from Italo-Celtic linguistic branch of central Europe .........
> 
> And with this , does the linguistic term Italo-Celtic mean all Italian ethnicity has celtic in them!
> 
> .
> .
> I never match any ethnicity with language before the medieval period , and with this start period , it would begin minimally


sincerely, I have huge doubts about the validity of some new studies in linguistic; "scoops" promotors?
I think Thracians and Dacians have very little in common with Italic-Celtic... and the Y lineages seems confirm the cut off.

----------


## MOESAN

> Do you feel yourself as an Englishman because you speak English now..........and because you speak English has your ethnicity taken an english ethnicity !?
> 
> How many different ethnicities spoke latin after the Romans took over their lands, how many declared themselves Roman and if so and if you accept this ethnicity then does that not make searching for Roman ethnicity impossible to find?


Please, let's separate the stage of fresh incorporation in a bigger structure and the bilinguism corresponding to it, or the use of a second "international" language like medieval latin or today english for either commercial or scientific or religious purposes. But at the end, when a group of ethnies finishes speaking only the dominant language, the most often it results after some generations in a common ethnic sentiment having as reference the winners original ethny.

----------


## MOESAN

Perhaps proto-Baltic was proto-Balto-Slavic at the same time, if we propose Slavic was born by bifurcation after mixings with an other element in the East-Northeast Carpathian zone; some linguists affirm Baltic is more archaic than Slavic; it could go back until their separation in these conditions. I know archaism is not a proof a language has not been learned, often, the center of propagation of a language is the more innovative. BTW, someones said ancient Baltic languages were rather more fragmented than first Slavic ones, spite their so called archaism; it seems to me it confirms Slavic, innovative or not, branched off late enough, concerning a small pop at first, before "baby boom" at a certain point of their history. the innovztions could be the result of the crossing with other pops with other languages-

----------


## Northener

> The oldest known sample of R1b-U106 is actually from Corded Ware context in Sweden (or am I wrong)? But the 2nd oldest sample is from Bell Beaker context in the Netherlands:


I doubt if Rise98 is "hardcore" CW.

JM on anthrogenica:




> Lilla Bedinge in southern Scania comprises the largest known cemetery associated with the Swedish Battle Axe Culture. The site, extending over an area of about 240×30 m, is located only about 1 km from the present day coast line. The majority of the at least 14 identified and excavated flat earth inhumations graves are located on a NE–SW oriented moraine embankment, whereas four of the graves are found on the flatter grounds to the SE. The site also includes a number of Late Bronze Age cremation graves, and two other find spots for BAC inhumation graves are known in the nearby region.... 
> 
> Grave 49 was excavated by Hansen 1934. It constitutes a N–S oriented subsurface oval stone construction with pointed edges, measuring about 4.5×2 m, where flat stone slabs form a roof over a chamber with an original height estimated to about 0.6–0.7 m. Fragments of wood indicate the presence of planks in the chamber. On the stone paved floor of the chamber three adult individuals had been placed in a line in sitting crouched positions facing southwest. Between the northern and middle skeleton fragmented remains of three children (initially only two were identified), representing two infants and a juvenile, were recovered. Further, some very brittle diaphyses of a fourth adult have been identified. The only recovered find is a bone needle deposited next to the northern skeleton (Hansen 1934; Malmer 1962:162p ; During unpublished notes). According to Malmer (2002:141) the grave can be dated to Period 4, and an unpublished radiocarbon date from the northern skeleton falls within the interval 2580–1980 cal. BC (2σ, 3850±105 BP, Ua-2758, During unpublished notes).
> 
> 
> http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get...FULLTEXT01.pdf


When we look at the information about Rise 98 than it's southwest Sweden and it's dated 2580–1980 cal. BC. At that time the Barbed Wire Culture was dominant in Sweden. This is mostly seen at the latest phase of the Bell Beaker culture or piece de resistance. Wiki: 'In east central Sweden and western Sweden, barbed wire decoration characterised the period 2460–1990 BC, linked to another Beaker derivation of northwestern Europe.'


When we take a look at archeological findings than this correspondences with the work of Vandkilde (2005):



> "The argument can be carried further into a discussion about the presentation of cultural and social identity through materi- al means. Firstly, the boundary between ordinary Late Neolithic Culture and Beaker-enriched Late Neolithic Culture in Jutland coincidences roughly with an older cultural boundary between Single Grave Culture and Funnel-necked Beaker Culture (Glob 1944, fig. 113) in addition to a similar boundary centuries later, c. 1600 BC, between the Valsømagle and the Sögel-Wohlde metalwork styles (Vandkilde 1996, fig. 273, B; 1999 b). All three cases relate to con- texts of general social change. Secondly, it is especially the frequent occurrence of Beaker pottery in settlements that makes the early Late Neolithic boundary distinct (see fig. 9). This tallies with an interpretation of Beaker pottery as first and foremost signalling a large-scaled form of social identity, which we may call cultural identity, or perhaps ethnic identity."
> ....
> 
> "Late Neolithic pottery is lacking in ornamentation, variability and sophistication (e.g. Schiellerup 1991, 48 ff. with references), notabky excepting northern Jutland. The plain pottery known from burials and settlement sites does not exhibit creative efforts and must have held connotations entirely different from, for instance, flint daggers and metal objects. The ware often has a rough texture, the pot wall is often thick, pot shapes are simple, and decoration, if any, consists of incised or impressed 'barbed wire' patterns, horizontal grooves or ridges in addition to an applied thick horizon- tal band below the rim. The subject is difficult due to the fact that Late Neolithic pottery is insufficiently studied, and so far chronological groupings are not distinguishable.
> In east central Sweden and western Sweden, barbed wire decoration characterises the period 2460–1990 BC, whereas pots with a thickly applied clay band – so-called vulst in Danish – date to the period 1950–1780 BC (Holm et al. 1997, 220). Whether the ceramic sequence in central and eastern Denmark holds similar traits remains to be examined."


That brings us too the the role of Unetice in the paper of this topic:



> Other substantial changes in the mtDNA haplogroup frequency were found in the population associated with the Unetice Culture (UC) that appeared in Central Europe during the EBA; thus, right a er the LN. e UC replaced the BBC and CWC; however, its population did not seem to be a direct genetic continuity of the population associated with the two former cultures. e analysis of mtDNA indicated closer similarity of the UC to CWC rather than to BBC


And finally this brings us to Quiles: 



> Úněticean genetic melting pot strengthens its origin as the vector of cultural diffusion of North-West Indo-European languages, essentially connecting Barbed Wire Beaker cultures from the Low Countries and the Northern Lowlands (and late Nordic Neolithic) – probably speaking languages ancestral to Germanic – with peoples of Southern German cultures, as predecessors of core regions of the Tumulus culture – possibly speaking West Indo-European, i.e. Pre-Italo-Celtic[Mallory 2013].
> This suggests that Únětice connected these with eastern cultures like south-eastern European cultures – heirs of Bell Beaker and Carpathian groups – and the eastern Mierzanowice/Nitra culture – heir of Bell Beaker and Corded Ware groups. Therefore, the language ancestral to Balto-Slavic was probably spoken either by the Únětice population, or by eastern cultures that were connected to western Indo-European languages through Únětice.
> Bell Beakers and early Únětice represented the first prospectors and metallurgists, travelling and sharing their skills, with Adlerberg and Straubing groups of the Southern German cultures being small local centres[Kristiansen 1987].


https://indo-european.info/ie/Únětice_culture
*
I'm (as more often) pretty associative, but I hope this all makes sense ;) The core thing is: R1b U106/ Rise 98 is not hardcore Corded Ware but can be seen in some (early) Unetice/ post Bell Beaker context. Shortly: LN/EBA. IMO this makes a connection between R1b U106 Lilla Beddinge (Scania) and R1b U106 Oostwoud (North Dutch) more probable/reasonable.....*

----------


## Northener

> *Kivutkalns153, Latvia, Bronze Age, 800–545 BC, R1a1a1b1a3-YP1370 (a subclade of R1a-Z284).
> 
> *I guess this Z284 from Bronze Age Latvia proves that some R1a came to Scandinavia from East Baltic area.
> 
> These are the oldest R1a samples from Scandinavia:
> 
> Sweden RISE94, Viby, Götaland, 2621-2472 BC
> Denmark RISE61, Kyndeløse, Zealand, 2650-2300 BC
> Sweden LNBA, Ölsund, Hälsingland, 2573-2140 BC
> ...


A nice exemplfication Tomenable!

Besides my remark yesterday about R1b (U106) in combination with this info about R1a it's together a illustration of what David from Eurogenes has stated about the genetics of the Nordic Bronze age or LN/EBA:
http://eurogenes.blogspot.nl/2015/06...mong-late.html

----------


## hugo-k

> BTW, someones said ancient Baltic languages were rather more fragmented than first Slavic ones, spite their so called archaism;


 
That was the Encyclopedia Britannica that said this. Here's the quote again,



"Proto-Slavic began to develop as a separate linguistic entity in the 2nd millennium BCand was to remain quite unified for a long time to come. Proto-Baltic, however, besides developing into an independent linguistic unit in the 2nd millennium BC, also began gradually to split."



The fact that the Slavic remained more unified seems to indicate that it was more conservative and resistant to change. Thus, it may have preserved the old tradition better.



What we have c. 5th century AD, when things become more clear, is that the Slavic languages are found both in North Europe (east and west) and in South Europe (east and west) – a very large area. The Baltic languages OTOH are just in a very small northern area. These are the facts. So, superficially, it looks like the Balts split off the Slavs, and not the other way around.

----------


## MOESAN

@Northerner

your post #72 is interesting: it points to first principal diffusion center of Y-R1b-U106 being northern enough at those times and maybe a in a contacts zone between the ancient CWC, BB and Unetice areas, so not so far from East Germany?
I had thought into Austria as second possible guess for U106 first core but it seems Austria was rather close to the Southern Tumuli zone than to the Northern one ("rich tumuli") rather close to Northwest Bohemia, Southern part of East-Germany; I abandon this Austrian bet to date; but it's uncertain to base our thoughts upon geography only because it seems more and more that males clans could infiltrate diverse regions even without mixing with other male clans (what doesn't dispense them to take foreign females on their way) we see that with GAC and CWC males lineages; so in absence of ancient DNA archeology helps but I'm a bit feeble on archeology.

----------


## MOESAN

> That was the Encyclopedia Britannica that said this. Here's the quote again,
> 
> 
> 
> "Proto-Slavic began to develop as a separate linguistic entity in the 2nd millennium BCand was to remain quite unified for a long time to come. Proto-Baltic, however, besides developing into an independent linguistic unit in the 2nd millennium BC, also began gradually to split."
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that the Slavic remained more unified seems to indicate that it was more conservative and resistant to change. Thus, it may have preserved the old tradition better.
> ...




Thanks for post.
archeolinguistic is always a tricky matter - language evolution doesn't obey to pure mathematic rules, it depends on people - but as a whole, as a pop increase in number its dialects are pushed to differentiate more and more with time - I don't know the ancient stages of baltic languages and here I only took the affirmation of an other - my today impression is that currently, spite they are spoken in a VERY smallER area, the Baltic dialects are comparatively more diverse than the Slavic ones are - and that push me to believe the Slavic ones are the result of a firstable small pop with huge baby boom short enough in time to avoid a too strong puzzling - I don't say Baltic gives Slavic, but that proto-Slavic was at first spoken by a little part of proto-Baltic speakers (it"s only a guess of mine) - 
I's true the speed of evolution of language depends also on the distance between two languages when one of them is adopted... I don't know what language spoke the pop which provided Y-N1 in Baltic regions. Uneasy to be sure of anything here.

----------


## hugo-k

Thanks for your reply, MOESAN,
I'm more familiar with linguistics and archaeology than with genetics, but surely all these disciplines should agree sooner or later. :) 

"... the Baltic dialects are comparatively more diverse than the Slavic"

Well, actually they are _languages_ and, true, the divergence among them is much greater than among the Slavic languages. Let's take Latvian and Lithuanian; they are far more different than the divergence of any of the Slavic languages among each other. From this it should follow that the Slavic languages are generally more conservative.

There are lots of big debates in linguistics, and lots of unsettled matters. But I'm looking at the comparisons with Sanskrit. It's very clear that Slavic shows a lot more similarities with Sanskrit, than the Baltic. This is the primary proof that the Slavic are more conservative

The Baltic languages are about half way between Germanic and Slavic. And the Germanic is even further removed from Sanskrit. These are purely linguistic arguments, and pretty strong ones IMHO, but they are often disregarded by mainstream linguists.

Also, archaeology seems to show a rather late arrival of the Balts to their current home area.

BTW, are you familiar with the linguistic evidence that the Germanic peoples were living in northern China before their arrival to Europe? I know it may sound strange, but the evidence is available.

All the best.

----------


## Angela

Pontus Skoglund on the Northwest Passage to Scandinavia:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s415...S0M2Zijg%3D%3D

----------


## bicicleur

> Pontus Skoglund on the Northwest Passage to Scandinavia:
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s415...S0M2Zijg%3D%3D


these were the first people along the Norvegian coasts :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komsa_culture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fosna%...sbacka_culture

12 ka, the North Sea didn't exist yet, it was Doggerland
but the Fennoscandinavian icecap was receding and the ice on the Norvegian Trench was gone

these fishermen and seal hunters originated from the Ahrensburg culture reindeer hunters
the Ahrensburg reindeerhunters had bow and arrow, they were Villabrunan I2 clade
they outcompeted the Magdalenian and Hamburg culture El Miron cluster, who were hunting reindeer with atlatl


Recent archeological finds from Finnish Lapland were originally thought to represent an inland aspect of the Komsa culture equally old as the earliest finds from the Norwegian coast. However, this material is now considered to be affiliated with the contemporary Post-Swiderian culture of North Central Russia and the eastern Baltic and thus represents a separate early incursion into northernmost Scandinavia[3][4]

Finnish Lapland may have been the contact zone where these WHG fishermen and seal hunters admixed with EHG from Karelia

----------


## Angela

> these were the first people along the Norvegian coasts :
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komsa_culture
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fosna%...sbacka_culture
> 
> 12 ka, the North Sea didn't exist yet, it was Doggerland
> but the Fennoscandinavian icecap was receding and the ice on the Norvegian Trench was gone
> 
> these fishermen and seal hunters originated from the Ahrensburg culture reindeer hunters
> the Ahrensburg reindeerhunters had bow and arrow, they were Villabrunan I2 clade
> ...


Yes, that all makes sense to me.

----------


## rincewind

> I feel that those genetic datas are going too fast, than the archeological datas, between when there was a Baltic Bronze Age ? Is it culturally link with central europe Unetice, R1b people ? Or is it a local developpement from R1a corded people ? Because in my mind, bronze age is still a cultural developpement from a central european R1b tribe.


About 1800 to 500 bc, the earliest bronze objects were imported both from Scandinavia and the Urals. Related to Nordic Bronze Age then, but also eastern influences (Seima-Turbino?)

----------


## Ukko

depositphotos_171518570-stock-photo-old-mongolian-man-riding-a.jpg

How about those reindeer riders and their bone arrows.

----------


## bicicleur

this is what Ted Kendall says :
https://www.facebook.com/groups/yful...8200650209778/
detailed SNPs show that these Tarofalt samples are not an extinct bracnh, but they are ancestral to todays subclades of E-M78
there is this sample, probably E-L618
Epicardial	Spain	Avellaner cave, Catalonia [Ave 07]	M	5000 BC	E1b1b1a1b1a	M35.1, V13, Ei in STR table	U5	Lacan 2011b
his ancestors could have gotten from Tarofalt to Iberia and mixed with incoming Cardial Ware people
but there are also these samples :
Impresso pottery	Croatia	Zemunica Cave [I3948]	M	5600-5470 BCE	E1b1b1a1b1 (E-L618) N1a1	Mathieson 2017	769991
Sopot (proto Lengyel)	Hungary	Bicske-Galagonyás [BICS 4] 5000-4800 BC	E1b1b1a1	M78	H39	Szécsényi-Nagy 2015 thesis
how could they have gotten there?

sorry - wrong thread

----------


## bicicleur

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berbers#Origins
Uniparental DNA analysis has established ties between Berbers and other Afroasiatic speakers in Africa. Most of these populations belong to the E1b1b paternal haplogroup, with Berber speakers having among the highest frequencies of this lineage.[54] Additionally, genomic analysis has found that Berber and other Maghreb communities are defined by a shared ancestral component. This Maghrebi element peaks among Tunisian Berbers.[55] *It is related to the Coptic/Ethio-Somali*, having diverged from these and other West Eurasian-affiliated components prior to the Holocene.[56]
about Ethio-Somali :
http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetic...type=printable
Early Back-to-Africa Migration into the Horn of Africa
Genetic studies have identified substantial non-African admixture in the Horn of Africa (HOA). In the most recent genomic
studies, this non-African ancestry has been attributed to admixture with Middle Eastern populations during the last few
thousand years. However, mitochondrial and Y chromosome data are suggestive of earlier episodes of admixture. To
investigate this further, we generated new genome-wide SNP data for a Yemeni population sample and merged these new
data with published genome-wide genetic data from the HOA and a broad selection of surrounding populations. We used
multidimensional scaling and ADMIXTURE methods in an exploratory data analysis to develop hypotheses on admixture
and population structure in HOA populations. These analyses suggested that there might be distinct, differentiated African
and non-African ancestries in the HOA. After partitioning the SNP data into African and non-African origin chromosome
segments, we found support for a distinct African (Ethiopic) ancestry and a distinct non-African (Ethio-Somali) ancestry in
HOA populations. The African Ethiopic ancestry is tightly restricted to HOA populations and likely represents an
autochthonous HOA population. The non-African ancestry in the HOA, which is primarily attributed to a novel Ethio-Somali
inferred ancestry component, is significantly differentiated from all neighboring non-African ancestries in North Africa, the
Levant, and Arabia. The Ethio-Somali ancestry is found in all admixed HOA ethnic groups, shows little inter-individual
variance within these ethnic groups, is estimated to have diverged from all other non-African ancestries by at least 23 ka,
and does not carry the unique Arabian lactase persistence allele that arose about 4 ka. Taking into account published
mitochondrial, Y chromosome, paleoclimate, and archaeological data, we find that the time of the Ethio-Somali back-toAfrica
migration is most likely pre-agricultural.
so there would have been a large late paleolithical dispersal of Natufian-like E1b1b1 all over North Africa of which Berber is a remnant

sorry - wrong thread

----------


## Papajoe

> Turlojiske3, Lithuania, Bronze Age, *1010–800 BC*, R1a1a1b1a2a-YP617 (Genetiker's calls).
> 
> This is a subclade of Z92>Y4459:
> 
> 
> 
> Basal R-Y4459* has been found in North-Eastern Poland - id:YF10363POL [PL-Podlaskie].
> 
> All of Z92 is about 8.5% to 10% of Polish R1a (and divide in half for % of Polish Y-DNA).


Newbie, but I have a quick question since this thread is all about the R's.

My Y-Haplogroup is R-Z92 according to 23&me. I think R1a is R-M420 and R is RM207, so maybe they're sibling branches, but some of the haplogroup websites don't list an R- and others don't list a R1a-

So, my take is that R and R1a are siblings? 

My Dad's R-Z92 parents came from NE Poland, near the village of Charubin, a mere rock throw from the Baltic.

Do y'all have any additional info on the R (R-M207) haplogroup?

Thanks, Joe


LOL as a newbie I had to edit a link out of YOUR post to get this to post.

----------


## Papajoe

> Newbie, but I have a quick question since this thread is all about the R's.
> 
> My Y-Haplogroup is R-Z92 according to 23&me. I think R1a is R-M420 and R is RM207, so maybe they're sibling branches, but some of the haplogroup websites don't list an R- and others don't list a R1a-
> 
> So, my take is that R and R1a are siblings? 
> 
> My Dad's R-Z92 parents came from NE Poland, near the village of Charubin, a mere rock throw from the Baltic.
> 
> Do y'all have any additional info on the R (R-M207) haplogroup?
> ...



Quoting myself, I've learned that R (R-M207) is an ancestor of R1a and also that R-Z92 is an ancestor of R1a-Z92, which makes sense, but I didn't know much when I typed the previous message :)

----------

