search this blog

Friday, September 12, 2014

Spanish-like Celts and Finnish-like Anglo-Saxons


Update 9/10/2014: Analysis of an ancient genome from Hinxton

...

This is arguably one of the most intriguing abstracts from next month's ASHG 2014 conference:

Insights into British and European population history from ancient DNA sequencing of Iron Age and Anglo-Saxon samples from Hinxton, England. S. Schiffels, W. Haak, B. Llamas, E. Popescu, L. Loe, R. Clarke, A. Lyons, P. Paajanen, D. Sayer, R. Mortimer, C. Tyler-Smith, A. Cooper, R. Durbin.

British population history is shaped by a complex series of repeated immigration periods and associated changes in population structure. It is an open question however, to what extent each of these changes is reflected in the genetic ancestry of the current British population. Here we use ancient DNA sequencing to help address that question. We present whole genome sequences generated from five individuals that were found in archaeological excavations at the Wellcome Trust Genome Campus near Cambridge (UK), two of which are dated to around 2,000 years before present (Iron Age), and three to around 1,300 years before present (Anglo-Saxon period). Good preservation status allowed us to generate one high coverage sequence (12x) from an Iron Age individual, and four low coverage sequences (1x-4x) from the other samples. By providing the first ancient whole genome sequences from Britain, we get a unique picture of the ancestral populations in Britain before and after the Anglo-Saxon immigrations. We use modern genetic reference panels such as the 1000 Genomes Project to examine the relationship of these ancient samples with present day population genetic data. Results from principal component analysis suggest that all samples fall consistently within the broader Northern European context, which is also consistent with mtDNA haplogroups. In addition, we obtain a finer structural genetic classification from rare genetic variants and haplotype based methods such as FineStructure. Reflecting more recent genetic ancestry, results from these methods suggest significant differences between the Iron Age and the Anglo-Saxon period samples when compared to other European samples. We find in particular that while the Anglo-Saxon samples resemble more closely the modern British population than the earlier samples, the Iron Age samples share more low frequency variation than the later ones with present day samples from southern Europe, in particular Spain (1000GP IBS). In addition the Anglo-Saxon period samples appear to share a stronger older component with Finnish (1000GP FIN) individuals. Our findings help characterize the ancestral European populations involved in major European migration movements into Britain in the last 2,000 years and thus provide more insights into the genetic history of people in northern Europe.

So in other words, the Iron Age Britons, presumably of Celtic origin, share inflated levels of rare (ie. low frequency) alleles with Spaniards. Assuming these are pre-Roman samples, and it does seem that way, then the results suggest there were direct genetic ties between the British Celts and Mediterranean populations even before the Romans crossed the channel. I wonder if this is the Bell Beaker pimp juice talking?

Conversely, the Anglo-Saxons are more Finnish-like. But I wouldn't read too much into this result, because Finns are the only northern European population from east of England in the 1000 Genomes project, so they're probably just acting as a proxy for gene flow from the far north of what is now Germany.

Interestingly, these signals aren't all that difficult to pick up in present-day English genomes. Below, for instance, are two sets of Eurogenes K15 ancestry proportions for English samples from Cornwall and Kent, respectively.

Note that both groups are typically Northwest European. However, the English from Cornwall are clearly more West Med, while those from Kent slightly more North Sea, Baltic and Eastern Euro. The West Med component peaks in Sardinia, but also occurs at relatively high frequencies in Iberia, while the North Sea, Baltic and Eastern Euro components are well represented among the Finns.

These differences aren't jaw dropping, but they're certainly noticeable. They also make prefect sense in the light of the ancient genomic data, because Cornwall is arguably one of the regions of the UK least affected by the Anglo-Saxon invasions. Kent, on the other hand, was settled by the Jutes during the 5th century. These people weren't Anglo-Saxons, but nonetheless a very similar Germanic tribe from the Jutland Peninsula.

English from Cornwall

North_Sea 35.22
Atlantic 28.94
Baltic 9.69
Eastern_Euro 8.02
West_Med 11.16
West_Asian 3.55
East_Med 1.82
Red_Sea 0.59
South_Asian 0.54
Southeast_Asian 0.05
Siberian 0.03
Amerindian 0.07
Oceanian 0.19
Northeast_African 0.11
Sub-Saharan 0.03

English from Kent

North_Sea 35.52
Atlantic 29.86
Baltic 9.89
Eastern_Euro 8.36
West_Med 8.77
West_Asian 3.35
East_Med 2.5
Red_Sea 0.33
South_Asian 0.58
Southeast_Asian 0.03
Siberian 0.05
Amerindian 0.35
Oceanian 0.31
Northeast_African 0.06
Sub-Saharan 0.03

See also...

Corded Ware Culture linked to the spread of ANE across Europe

109 comments:

M. Myllylä said...

You are right, we can't yet say much about those similarities between ancient British samples, Iberians and Finns. We simply don't know the idea comparing Anglo-Saxons to Finns, because we have a lot genetic data to use in comparison over Europe. We don't know were Finns picked randomly, to see something special or after some preselections. So it is useless to make any conclusions yet. Even in 1000g we have the group named

Utah Residents (CEPH) with Northern and Western European ancestry

bellbeakerblogger said...

There is also this from Nature a few days ago

doi:10.1038/ejhg.2014.175

I don't know if this is limited to Brittany or the whole of Western France.
Aside from being an important Beaker settlement area, Brittany was also the recipient of the British Celtic Aristocracy fleeing the West Saxons.
However I would suspect the similarities between Britanny and (ireland) as their example are deeper than Breton immigration.

andrew said...

I am not at all surprised at a similarity between Celtic people and Spain.

It is been known for many years that there is an affinity between peoples who historically spoke Celtic languages and Spain, and that is where (1) the megalithic culture, (2) the Bell Beaker culture, and (3) Celtic culture expanded from historically and then from there up the Atlantic coast. For that matter, there was also probably a wave of Mesolithic hunter-gatherers of Western Europe that started at the Franco-Cantrabrian refugia near Spain and then expanded up the coast.

Anglo-Saxons (whose Old Norse language is ancestral to all of the Northern Germanic languages of Scandinavia) should have the strongest affinity genetically to Swedes and Norweigen populations, but if neither of those are available, the Finns would be a plausible next closest max since they were part of Sweden or under Swedish control for almost a millenium and still have a Swedish speaking population and they would have admixture with Swedes even if linguistically and ethnically Finnish.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

It's probably dating back to the Megalith culture. There was only one Maritime Beaker (Spain) migration to Britain. It was very insignificant. There were 4 Beaker migrations out of the German, Netherlands, and Austrian groups.

Fanty said...

@Andrew:
"Anglo-Saxons (whose Old Norse language is ancestral to all of the Northern Germanic languages of Scandinavia) "

Anglo-Saxons dont speak "Old Norse" (Northern Germanic). they spoke a WESTERN Germanic language like the Franks or the Alemanii.

After all thats why English is still rated a "Western Germanic language" alongside Dutch and German.

And amoung the western Germanic languages its a "Nethergerman" one.

Nether (or "Lower) German:
Anglo-Saxon, Dutch, North German dialects (almost extinct since like 1960 or so)

My westphalian grandmother used to talk this all the time.
It somewhat reminds of Dutch or English in some words.

Betken water (lower German)
little bit water (English)
Bisschen Wasser (official German)

A piepke schmöken
(lower German)
smoking a pike (English)
Eine Pfeife rauchen (official German)

Gef mi moal a buddel water (lower German)

Gif me a bottle water (English)

Gib mir mal eine Flasche Wasser (official German)



Middle German:
Frankish, Central German dialects (Extinct since 1960 or so)

Upper German:
Allemans, southern German dialects, Swiss German and Austrian German.
(I read here at Davids blog (in the "Goth did never live in Poland nor did they even come from Gotland" kind of thread) that "Gothic" has strange strong ties to Upper German suposedly.

Thats a map of Low German (dont ask me why its called "Low Saxon here dialects:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/49/Low_Saxon_Dialects.svg/500px-Low_Saxon_Dialects.svg.png

Fanty said...

Edit: Pipe of course, not pike :P

barakobama said...

If this common ancestry between British Celts and Spanish(most of whom were Celts, which it seems everyone forgot about) is Megalithic, Bell Beaker, etc. like some are claiming why hasn't it been discovered in modern British Celts(Welsh, Irish, etc.)? We don't even know in detail how serious this relation was or if it means anything. The title is deceiving. There were no Spanish-like Celts in Britain they were Welsh and Irish-like without a doubt.

barakobama said...

Davidski, can you post K 13 results of the Cornish? I'm trying to predict what my results would be and my other half is 25% Cornish, and I know they're Briton not English and so English don't work as a perfect proxy. Why'd you call them English? They speak English for the same reason Irish speak English, so it's like calling Irish English.

Fanty said...

Hm.

BUt there where extremely different phenotypes in Britain, as far as the Romans claim.

Even in Pre-Anglo-Saxon Britain.

I recall that the Romans claimed, Britain has people who look like Spanish at some places, people who look like Gaulish at other places and even people who look like Germans at even other places.

Through I dont recall the tribal names of those, except one:

The Romans claimed the Picts to be one of those tribes on the Isle, that look like Germans.

In constrast, the Romans claimed about Germans to not resemble anyone but themselfs. And because of this may be a genuine people who never recieved blood flow from anywhere else (the start of the myth... with is already disproved by genetics today)

V Robazza said...

Angels, Saxons and Jutes are not celts.
The only celts I recall in England where balgae celts and the y where only in the kentish area.

Does the paper deal with the indigenous people of England or these belgae celts or the later angels, saxons and jutes.

hope they do not have some left behind roman

Davidski said...

Robazza,

At some point you might like to pull your head outta your ass, so that you can appreciate the world around you a little more.

The 2,000 year-old genome they tested was most likely a Celt belonging to the Iceni tribe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceni

Fanty said...

Ah.
I seem to missread it aswell. I thought I read 2000bC but its 2000bP?
Ok, in that case, it might be a good comparation.

Fanty said...

Interesting.

That tribe is the one of THE MOST FAMOUS British Iron Age hero: Boudica

THE stereotype of Celtic warrior women and source of wet dreams... ;-P

http://www.diceni.co.uk/images/boudicca_full.jpg

Will you get those genoms to check further?

Grey said...

I think this makes a lot of sense.

If the Atlantic coast generally wasn't densely settled in the early neolithic because the climate wasn't suited to the neolithic crop package leading to mainly coastal settlements reliant on seafood then that would have left the foragers with most of the interior of the Isles (and imo also the area between the coast and the start of the LBK region).

If someone then came along and discovered a way of farming in that climate zone that could provide a staple food (imo maybe by mixing milk with their low yielding grain crop) then they'd have a large under populated niche they could rapidly expand into.

Seems to me that the most likely source for this is either the megalithic culture originally out of Portugal but probably via Brittany or Bell Beaker - whoever they were - hopping along on the older megalithic settlements.

If correct then this could explain why Bell Beaker seem to be mainly a minority phenomenon elsewhere - because they were a minority elsewhere - and only became a majority in the Isles and along the Atlantic coast because they adapted to a niche that the earlier farmers hadn't yet.

Also if correct a rapid population expansion like that might have bumped up against LBK.

(With the Anglo-Saxons at least partly originating in the far north.)

barakobama said...

Fanty, I think you're mostly referring to one Roman historian, named Tacitus. He's just as reliable as me or you studying Chinese people or whoever. He just went off physical appearance and stero types.

He may have been trying to connect Britons near Spain to Spanish and Britons near Gaul to Gauls, because geographically it made sense. I bet there was some Spanish(that's a modern identity, ethnically they were Iberian and Celtic) and Gaulish admixture though. It'll be interesting to see further investigation on pre-Roman Britons because I bet it was more diverse than some people assume.

Irish and Welsh can come off in multiple ways to people, and today there are similar stero types about their physical appearance as there were in Roman times. Almost all of them have dark hair(over 80%) and they can be tan skinned, so they are sometimes described as looking Spanish. 10-15% of them have red hair so they have oftenly also have been described as being very red haired. That doesn't mean they admixed with certain people(like Tacitus suggested) it's their own native appearance.

In his book "Germania" he said all Germans had red hair, which is ridiculous and in reality probably only 3-5% did. Just like what modern people say about Irish, and makes him an unreliable source.

On the origins on Britons.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/tac/ag01010.htm

"Who were the original inhabitants of Britain, whether they were indigenous or foreign, is, as usual among barbarians, little known. Their physical characteristics are various, and from these conclusions may be drawn. The red hair and large limbs of the inhabitants of Caledonia point clearly to a German origin. The dark complexion of the Silures, their usually curly hair, and the fact that Spain is the opposite shore to them, are an evidence that Iberians of a former date crossed over and occupied these parts. Those who are nearest to the Gauls are also like them, either from the permanent influence of original descent, or, because in countries which run out so far to meet each other, climate has produced similar physical qualities. But a general survey inclines me to believe that the Gauls established themselves in an island so near to them. Their religious belief may be traced in the strongly-marked British superstition. The language differs but little; there is the same boldness in challenging danger, and, when it is near, the same timidity in shrinking from it. The Britons, however, exhibit more spirit, as being a people whom a long peace has not yet enervated. Indeed we have understood that even the Gauls were once renowned in war; but, after a while, sloth following on ease crept over them, and they lost their courage along with their freedom. This too has happened to the long-conquered tribes of Britain; the rest are still what the Gauls once were."

alobrix said...

Are you missing a country? As you can see in K 15 percentages, there are obvious differences between populations inside " spain". The communalities between ancient people of Galicia, Brittany, Ireland, Wales... are well known long time ago. Probably those " spanish genes" are actually Galician in origin. This is not so intriguing in this sense. Http://www.bbc.com/travel/slideshow/20131203-where-is-the-seventh-celtic-nation

Grey said...

"I don't know if this is limited to Brittany or the whole of Western France."

I think it will eventually be shown to be the whole Atlantic coast climate zone.

If you this map of the current zones

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_zones_of_central_Europe#mediaviewer/File:Floristic_regions_in_Europe_(english).png

and then imagine the Boreal zone extending much further south in LBK times then you have a pretty close correlation between the zones and the cultures of various periods: Cardium, LBK, Megalith, Yamnaya, Corded Ware etc.

Average Joe said...

I wonder if this is the Bell Beaker pimp juice talking?

Could you please explain what you mean by this sentence?

alobrix said...

" I think it will eventually be shown to be the whole Atlantic coast climate zone. "

Yes:

http://www.oxbowbooks.com/oxbow/celtic-from-the-west-2.html

Atlantic europe is a geographic concept, but also a populational and cultural one. So, celtic place names in Galicia, northwestern iberia, above Portugal:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_place-names_in_Galicia

bellbeakerblogger said...

Here's the doi I was referring to:

Fine-scale human genetic structure in Western France, 2014

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ejhg2014175a.html

It's pay-per-view

Grey said...

"Fanty, I think you're mostly referring to one Roman historian, named Tacitus. He's just as reliable as me or you studying Chinese people or whoever. He just went off physical appearance and stero types."

I don't think this is entirely true even if it is literally true.

Some of these ancient writers (not necessarily all) clearly wanted to be as accurate as possible. That doesn't mean they were accurate but it does mean imo that they were acting in good faith and hence there will be some useful information in what they say that could be a clue.

If Romans thought the Caledonians at the time looked like Germans at the time then I think that at least one group of Caledonians at the time seen by at least one Roman traveler did look like at least one group of Germans of the time seen by that same Roman traveler.

That doesn't necessarily mean that Germans moved to Scotland.

It might mean that the Caledonians of the time had a similar component in their ancestry to the Germans of the time.

A tall (long-limbed) component apparently.

Cromagnon were particularly tall IIRC.


"In his book "Germania" he said all Germans had red hair, which is ridiculous and in reality probably only 3-5% did."

Or maybe the percentage was much higher back then and the percentage declined since.

Davidski said...

Thanks for the link. The figures and tables are open access.

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/fig_tab/ejhg2014175ft.html

Gui S said...

Damn, that publication is very juicy!

Figure 2b is pretty cheeky, as it attempts to display the artificiality of the Pays-de-la-Loire region in terms of genetic data (coming at the time of national debate about reforming and modifying the outlines of regions).

Otherwise, it's quite impressive how much Britanny stands out, the impact of British Celt influx seems undeniable.

I'll hazard a guess as to the RGB components in figure 1.
Green: British-ish
Blue: Basque-ish?
Red: Central European?
Although they might be a lot more localised than this, considering the strong blue cluster of samples around Cholet and Northeastern Vendee (incidentally where a lot of my ancestors hail from)...

I am not going to hold my breath on this one, but it would fantastic if the samples' genomes are ever released.

M. Myllylä said...

Andrew, from the scientific poin of view you are wrong; the Swedish language resembles Finnish less than pro-pre-Germanic. Here is a study about this issue. At first some examples:

"Morphologically differ Baltic Finnish and Sami notoriously large from
the (modern) Germanic languages​​, but lexical and sound costume wise is
especially Finnish really more Germanic than the modern Germanic
languages, so extensive is the Germanic loan word number and so archaic is
their sound outfit in Finnish. The following example of nominal phrares speaks
clear language and acts as a good starting point for the thesis:

ancient Germanic (ca 1000–600 BC). *Harjawaldaz kuningaz rīkaz, wīsaz jah hurskaz

fin. rikas, viisas ja hurskas Harjavalta-kuningas

swedish. den rike, vise och förståndige kung Harald

German. der reiche, weise und verständige König Herold

eng. the rich, wise and understanding King Herald

(ancient) Islandic. inn ríki, vísi og horski konung(u)r Harald(u)r#"

The connection to ancient German is obvious, not to Sweden. Of course languages can't prove about genes, but definitely languages prove about connections between people.

https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/135714/bidragti.pdf

M. Myllylä said...

My poin was that Sweden and Swedish language has never had any great cultural influence to ordinary Finns, their genes and language. The Swedish influence was mainly administrative, like collecting taxes and making wars. Instead of the Swedish pro-pre and ancient Germanic languages had great impact to Finnish and ancient Finland.

I have tried to correct these misconceptions about the Finnish history. It is quite a miserable work though :)

Tesmos said...

I am convinced that the Anglo-Saxon samples will score higher:
in the North Sea/East Euro/Baltic
component. They probably score higher North Sea scores than modern South East English people.
The Celt will have higher Atlantic/West Med if you will compare them in Eutest V2.

Shaikorth said...

The Brittany sample, besides having an Irish connection, is clearly less related to Spain and Italy than other studied French samples including Normandy. Looks like north-south differentiation is greater in the Atlantic fringe than elsewhere in France today.


http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/fig_tab/ejhg2014175f3.html#figure-title

M. Myllylä said...

I meant to write Proto- or Pre-Germanic, wrote pro-pre-Germanic.

Helgenes50 said...

The green colour seems close to the British/irish of 23andme, I mean that the percentage seems pretty similar.

M. Myllylä said...

I have also to add that the capter in quotation marks in my first message was translated by Google. The original text is in Swedish. There is however an abstract in English included to the PDF presentation.

jackson_montgomery_devoni said...

David,

At the point in time that the Celts inhabited Britain and the Anglo-Saxons invaded did the components from your Eurogenes K15 calculator actually exist? That is by that time were the components from Eurogenes K15 such as the North_Sea, Atlantic, Baltic, West_Med, etc actually around?

M. Myllylä said...

Jackson Montgomery Devoni,

you made a good question. I don't know how all those migrations to England changed their genes, but definitely the change was significant for example in Sweden where the southern migration continued to the present day.

Grey said...

"At the point in time that the Celts inhabited Britain and the Anglo-Saxons invaded did the components from your Eurogenes K15 calculator actually exist?"

That's the key thing I guess - trying to extract the core components from the components that were created by the combination of those components at some point in time and figuring which caused which, when and how.

Shaikorth said...

"That is by that time were the components from Eurogenes K15 such as the North_Sea, Atlantic, Baltic, West_Med, etc actually around?"

In their own way they were. The K15 calculator breaks the WHG component into those four components among others. Look at La Braña's score in population averages.

jackson_montgomery_devoni said...

Well what I am asking is if the components from the Eurogenes K15 calculator such as the North_Sea, Atlantic, etc existed as real distinct ancestral type components based on distinct allele combinations? Did they each originate in a certain area among a certain group of people at a certain point in the past?

truth said...

Considering that genetically modern European populations that we know today were probably established around the Iron Age, that's where I would say these components existed.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

There are a lot of factors that we don't know about here. Remember the Iron Age grave in Kent. It had two remains that were born in Spain, 5 from Scandinavia, and I believe 8 were locals. I wouldn't base anything on just one sample.

Davidski said...

It's very unlikely that the components from the K13 and K15 tests represent pure populations that existed in prehistoric Europe.

But I can imagine that some ancient European genomes from various points across space and time will score unusually high levels of some of these components. For instance, I'm betting that Bell Beakers will show very high proportions of the Atlantic component.

The components from the new ANE K7 test are probably a different story though. ANE is most definitely a pure component, and some of the others might be too.

barakobama said...

"There are a lot of factors that we don't know about here. Remember the Iron Age grave in Kent. It had two remains that were born in Spain, 5 from Scandinavia, and I believe 8 were locals. I wouldn't base anything on just one sample."

That's true but overall Iron age Britain was very uniform and un diverse.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

It's very doubtful that Britain has been uniform since the Neolithic. That's a wild assumption considering that those buried in Iron Age graves aren't that uniform.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

If these remains are Iceni elite, they could be of Belgic ancestry.

barakobama said...

Davidski, I have a questions about your opinion on ENF and the genetic makeup of early Neolithic west Asia. It seems to me people are wrongly assuming that in west Asia like in Europe WHG=hunter gatherer and ENF=farmer. Couldn't the hunter gatherers and farmers of west Asia have both been mostly ENF-like? Just because European's received ENF via the spread of farming doesn't mean west Asians did.

I understand that it's been discovered that there's a such thing as west Asian-specific ancestry(basal Eurasian), but I think people are simplifying it(from south Asia-Ireland) and ignoring the differences between European's west Asian ancestors and west Asian's west Asian ancestors.

Europe's first farmers had very separate maternal lines from modern near easterns. Ultimately their maternal lines came from the same source, but from way before the Neolithic. It's safe to assume that in Neolithic southeast Europe and west Asia there were people with similar mtDNA as Europe's first farmers, but somehow they disappeared from west Asia.

This suggests to me that ENF is a very old type of ancestry that predates farming, and that although Neolithic west Asia was mostly ENF it was still very diverse.

Who knows at some point in ancient west Asian history there could have been a mass migration of people from the east, south, or north who wiped out European farmer's close relatives, but were still mostly ENF.

I imagine that as we learn more about west Asian genetics(it's more open to discover than European genetics) we'll be able to make connection to archaeology, find ancient west Asia was very diverse, and that there were many isolated populations in it's outskirts(Arabia, Iran, Caucasus?) who were originally hunter gatherers, had their own-specific markers and swept across the entire region.

Also, my infant guess is that alot of ANE in west Asia came from the east(Iran-Afghanistan) not the steppes in the north. What influence and contact did steppe people have with Mesopotamia or the Levant that could explain their ANE?

Obviously there is a high amount of native ANE in south-central Asia, and it looks like R2, R1(there's also undefined R*) originated in south-central Asia. ANE could have swept across west Asia from eastern Iran with an unknown pre-historic people or they could also be a known ancient near eastern people, since writing started there so early.


Sorry, for being uninformed and repetitive. It's because I haven't done any of my own research for many months.

barakobama said...

"It's very doubtful that Britain has been uniform since the Neolithic. That's a wild assumption considering that those buried in Iron Age graves aren't that uniform."

That burial is one example, I doubt it was the norm. Writers from Roman times describe Britain as the end of the earth, they saw the Britons as the most isolated people in the world, and Josephus wrote that the Romans were the first people to discover Britain(besides the natives).

The reason I think Britain was mostly uniform during the Iron age, is because modern Irish and Welsh are like Twins, even though they've been mostly free from inter marriage since the Iron age. There's obviously a such thing a Insular Celtic-specific ancestry. I don't know anything about Britain's geography though and I guess it could be a popular destination point for Iberians, Gauls, and Scandinavians(pretty far away though).

Davidski said...

It's difficult to speculate about this until we have some ancient genomes from the Near East.

But anyway, keep in mind that European WHG initially came from the Near East. So the UHG present in the Near East today is probably from an ancestral clade to European WHG. If so, then it seems impossible to me that the early farmers expanding from the northern Fertile Crescent didn't carry any UHG.

Also, my guess is that ENF is a mix of this UHG plus something from the southern Levant and/or Arabia that moved into the Near East after Europe was populated by WHG. This is probably the Basal Eurasian stuff, and maybe it spread with the Natufians?

See, once farming was invented, populations grew and people moved around more. In other words, what happened in Europe during the Neolithic, first took place in the Near East during the very early Neolithic.

And I'm not sure why you think ANE is native to South Central Asia? I doubt it is. I think it arrived there in several waves from the north.

Also, there are no really basal lineages of R in South Central Asia. The instances of R* reported from there in various studies are just the result of poor resolution tests and even lab errors. From memory, Maciamo has some crap at Eupedia about the Kalash carrying basal R*. But I can assure you, this is just crap. It's probably just poorly tested R2 or R1b.

V Robazza said...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paragroup

In human genetics, * is used to denote that someone is a member of a haplogroup and not any of its subclades

Davidski said...

No shit Robazza, but if a mutation is not tested for, then the samples carrying that mutation just get a star.

barakobama said...

"Also, there are no really basal lineages of R in South Central Asia."

I've read studies that sampled R* from west Asia and south-central Asia. It's very rare though. R1a(M417-), undefined forms R1 and R1b also exist in west asia and south-central Asia.

Here are some of the results from those studies in Google spreadsheets. All of them except for Kyrgyzstan tested R1-M173 and R2(R2a)-M124. But, there's no R2b listed on ISOGG, it's likely though most R*'s are unknown R2 clades.

I'll give you a link to the original studies if you'd like.

Kyrgyzstan

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10We2yRuDsIb_Jm98107YQZTeHnD3Rejex44b4ZfN7DI/edit?usp=sharing

South Caucasus

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Z9ei4tau9iWfyskLpfOXgGjHBydINUL2egvQz3ix1rI/edit?usp=sharing

Dravidian from India

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/122LpEx413kxCzn3V3vJuvnG4OUGQIUeyoOn5fubibPc/edit?usp=sharing

Hindi from India

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rO5ffiFJTmvMIbiYTGyu46vuNwWkSQutMZwnrBoS31A/edit?usp=sharing

Iran

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1P0JXsxNUckpe72uyHIeobqAn2HwWPJVtaYHzo0655Os/edit?usp=sharing

Davidski said...

There are lots of studies out there claiming a lot of different things about Y-chromosome haplogroups. Usually they're just wrong.

I've never seen a convincing case of a basal R in any study, apart from the one carried by Mal'ta boy.

V Robazza said...

Mal'ta Boy is R*

70 plus SNP away from R1 and 260 plus SNP away from R2

In human genetics, * is used to denote that someone is a member of a haplogroup and not any of its subclades

Davidski said...

In studies of modern Y-chromosomes to date, * is simply used to denote that someone is a member of a haplogroup that hasn't been tested for, or a lab error.

Nothing more.

M. Myllylä said...

As said here just a few samples don't prove much. They all can be immigrants differing from the locals. But five is more than one. What can we say about Ancient North Asians based on Malta boy? Or West European Hunter gatherers versus farmers in Sweden? We obviously need more regional ancient samples to make comparative studies using ancient samples alone, to see larger regional changes.

Tesmos said...

Davidski,

I wonder which ancient groups had high North Sea scores. I guess the people from the Single grave culture.


It's also interesting that the Finns (especially West-Finns) the only non-Germanic speaking population score high North Sea scores so it's their dominant autosomal component.

jackson_montgomery_devoni said...

Ahhh yes okay thank you David.

Davidski said...

Yes, I think Single Grave people were mostly North Sea and Eastern Euro.

I should be able to test that soon, considering how fast things are moving in ancient genomics.

andrew said...

Re Anglo-Saxon and Finn connection.

I admit that I misspoke in stating that the Anglo-Saxons spoke a North Germanic language, rather than a West Germanic language. But, it was something of a Freudian error.

The early sequence of languages in Britain was roughly speaking:
1. Extinct Paleolithic/Mesolithic languages through ca. 4000 BCE.
2. Extinct early Neolithic and Bronze Age languages through ca. 1000 BCE.
3. Celtic languages through ca. 400 CE - these arrive from somewhere in the Atlantic Coastal region - Celtic originates ca. the Czech Republic ca. 1300 BCE, migrates via South France to Iberia, and then makes its way to Brittany, Britain, Scotland and Ireland in due course.
4. Anglo-Saxon (in part of England), which is most similar to modern Friscian and essentially identical to "Old English" ca. 400 CE.

But, from ca. 880-954 CE, there was mass Viking migration into an area ruled by Scandinavian kings called Danelaw that included almost all of England except SW England (e.g. Wessex). The dialect of English that came to prevail in London and then to become the dominant English dialect arose, and a legitimate linguistic hypothesis associates the appearance of Middle English not with the Norman Conquest of 1066, but with the earlier Danelaw period. Thus, English might really be North Germanic with a strong West Germanic substrate.

Of course, the linguistic classification issue is irrelevant to the genetic point, which is that ancient DNA from an Anglo-Saxon individual ca. 700 CE plus or minus, might have Scandinavian admixture, either due to direct early Viking admixture, or due to earlier Viking admixture with Anglo-Saxons since the Continental Anglo-Saxons were closer to the North Germanic Danes than the British.

Also, I am not arguing that the Finnish language and Swedish are similar. But, there have been Swedish speaking populations of mostly migrant Swedish descent in Finland for roughly 1000 years, and for most of that time period the Swedish were a superstrate population that ruled Finland politically and economically more well off. Thus, any sample of Finnnish population genetics includes Swedish speaking Finns who are probably more Swedish than Finnish genetically, and/or Finnish speaking Finns who have meaningful Swedish admixture due to admixture between Swedish colonists and indigenous Finnish people who were close neighbors for 30+ generations.

The Anglo-Saxon/Finn genetic link could be due to shared Scandinavian admixture, or instead to a shared Mesolithic Atlantic coast maritime hunter-gather heritage, which was probably the pre-Neolithic population of both Finn and Continental Anglo-Saxons. Finns have a fairly high component of this, and this component would probably have been greater in the Anglo-Saxons of 700 CE than in modern populations in the same area.

andrew said...

* "In studies of modern Y-chromosomes to date, * is simply used to denote that someone is a member of a haplogroup that hasn't been tested for, or a lab error.

Nothing more."

I'd disagree. If someone clearly had Y-DNA haplogroup R, but the evidence was insufficient to know which, if any, subhaplogroup it belonged to, you would report R and not R*. R* means "paragroup" which means that it is in haplogroup R, but that it is not in any haplogroup with an existing formal designation. A suspected lab error would have a ? next to it with an explanation in the body text.

R* is not by definition Y-DNA with on mutations not present at the time that the R haplogroup came into being, although that case would be classified a R*. It could instead simply be a haplogroup of R not previously given a formal classification whose lineage deviated from the other haplogroup R sublineages very early on (and could have many other subsequent mutations as well), or it could be derived from an existing formally classified R haplogroup that experienced a second mutation at one of the loci used to define the subhaplogroup of R from which it is derived (although in a clear case, such as an individual without, for example, the P25 SNP that defines R1b, but with all other other mutations that describe R1b1a2a1a (which includes a very large share of all Western European R1b) would probably be classified as R1b1a2a1 with a footnote about an anomalous lack of the P25 SNP, rather than as R1*).

Of course, in the case of the 24,000 years old boy, who died a few thousand years after the best pre-discovery estimate of the split between Y-DNA Q and Y-DNA R, and who died a few thousand years before the best pre-discovery estimate of the Y-DNA R1 and Y-DNA R2 split, the hypothesis that the Y-DNA classified as R* in that boy includes the mutations that define Y-DNA haplogroup R, and few or no mutations that occurred subsequent to the mutations that define Y-DNA haplogroup R, is probably the most likely possibility. Also, the date of the Q and R split is relatively well calibrated compared to other haplogroup ages, because the Native American founder lineages are well defined and the approximate time that they arose is fairly well known from archaeology. So, the best estimates of the date that haplogroup R arose before the discovery was fairly well established due to its fairly close proximity to a good calibration point.

* "If this common ancestry between British Celts and Spanish(most of whom were Celts, which it seems everyone forgot about) is Megalithic, Bell Beaker, etc. like some are claiming why hasn't it been discovered in modern British Celts(Welsh, Irish, etc.)? We don't even know in detail how serious this relation was or if it means anything."

This common ancestry was discovered and widely announced around the time that the first major mtDNA studies of regional European populations were announced around 14 years ago in mtDNA studies dating back to 2000, and have been confirmed by subsequent Y-DNA and autosomal DNA studies. Bryan Sykes and Stephen Oppenheimer each published books in the trade non-fiction market in 2006-2007 arguing that British DNA is heavily derived from Spain.

andrew said...

* "If this common ancestry between British Celts and Spanish(most of whom were Celts, which it seems everyone forgot about) is Megalithic, Bell Beaker, etc. like some are claiming why hasn't it been discovered in modern British Celts(Welsh, Irish, etc.)? We don't even know in detail how serious this relation was or if it means anything."

Also, to be clear, just because there was common DNA between Celtic Britons and Spain does not mean that the genetic commonality arose at the time that the shift to the Celtic languages took place. It could be that the previous population/archaeological culture waves (e.g. Mesolithic Western European Maritime Hunter Gatherers, Megalitic, and Bell Beaker) along the same path could have had the population genetic impact and that the Celts could have just followed the same path as previous ways when they arrived and gave rise to language shift in the late Bronze Age/early Iron Age. Indeed, the Celts themselves probably did only have a minor genetic impact as evidenced by the relatively modest genetic differences in most respects between the Basque people and their Indo-European neighbors who were previously Celts.

Davidski said...

I can tell you that a lot of R2 and R1b in various studies have been reported as R*. I've never seen them listed as R.

barakobama said...

"I can tell you that a lot of R2 and R1b in various studies have been reported as R*."

That's true but still those R* samples are usually R1b(M269-, M73-) or R2(R2a-), which is still a big deal. The R* from Kyrgyzstan is probably legit, because they were positive for R-M207 but negative for R1-M173 and R2-M479. I'm pretty sure there's P* in south-central and west Asia to, but I'll have to check. Why do you think they are lab errors? There's F* in modern Europe and Neolithic Europe, and C1a2-V20 is a pretty strange and rare basal lineage to, so why can't there be R*'s around today.

Fanty said...

"Continental Anglo-Saxons"

There dont exist continental Anglo-Saxons.

I think, not even "Anglo-Saxons" do really exist,the term is an invention by Danish vikings that means: "All the Germanic bunch of people on the isles Angles, Saxons and the like".

So its a term like "towelheads" or something.

Fanty said...

Today, we have a problem finding "continental Saxons" mainly because Charlemagne deported them from where they lived onto Frankish terretory. That means more south.

That means, we do not have a population continuity in northern Germany theoretically.

Fanty said...

atm, I cant even tell, what people actually named themselfs "Saxons" in the 10th century. If they are genetically "Saxons" at all.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/images/holy-roman-empire-1000-map-1.jpg

Remember, after Charlemagne defeated the Saxons (who had been allied to the Danes), Executed 2000 of their warriors by beheading and forcing the warchief Widukind zu convert to Christianity he did what the Romans did to the Jews: He made them leave their terretory and spread all over his empire to make them "get lost" (what didnt work with the Jews after all).

Tesmos said...

Fanty,

Around 10.000 Saxons were deported to Neustria/Austrasia but there were still Saxons around in present day Lower Saxony/West Phalia and the Western part of Saxony-Anhalt.

Helgenes50 said...

Normandy named Neustria before the Normans had several Saxon settlements including these Saxons deported by Charlemagne.

Helgenes50 said...

The Saxons, in Normandy were mostly present in the Bessin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxons#Gaul

Helgenes50 said...

David,

I don't know whether the 10% continental Germanic you found in my tests can fit with these saxons or whether the Saxons are more scandinavian than continental

Robert Wilson Photography said...

Can you explain the lettering on the eurogene test what each one stands for...I'm new to GEDmatch.com Thanks, RFW

M. Myllylä said...

Andrew, you write more than you know. Around 700 years ago many Swedish settlers came to Finland, being fishers and farmers. Little by little they were assimilated into the Finnish population. However, at the same time when those poor people came from Sweden there was also eastern migrations. Those two migrated groups barely mixed. The history of those Swedish comers was also different than you might expect. From the 14th century to the 19th century they received Finnish genes, not conversely. Only during the 20th century the gene flow changed from the shrinking Swedish speaking population to the Finnish speakers, after they already were genetically more Finns than Swedes. Those administrative Swedes had almost no connection to other people in Finlans, although almost everyone in western Finland can show a few Swdish ancwstors, covering perhaps 1-2% of the total ancestry.

So what can we say about your theory? Nothing. There was some Swedish gene flow to Finland from Middle Sweden, but no one can say how much and in any case covering only a few Finns. Furthermore, this can prove nothing about Anglo-Saxon connection between Finns and Brits.

M. Myllylä said...

A few words about the Finnish reality. We have in average 28% men belonging to Hg I1. This proportion increases in the west up to 70% in some old Finnish speaking areas. This purely Finnish clade doesn't descend from any Swedish clade. Nearest ancestral ties are found from Germany, UK, Sweden/Scania and Southern Russia, all connections 2000 years old. The rest of Finnish men belong mainly to N1c1, which consists of Karelian, East Finnish and North Baltic clades. There is no hidden Swedish genes regarding Finnish speaking people.

Davidski said...

Robert,

I'm not sure, but it sounds like you're looking for this...

http://www.worldatlas.com/aatlas/ctycodes.htm

barakobama said...

Does anyone have thoughts on this?

http://oldeuropeanculture.blogspot.ie/2014/09/ojkanje-wolf-singing.html

I doubt there's connection between Sardinian and Irish folk singing, but it's an interesting idea. Many of them reminded me of Arabic, Jewish, Sami, and Hindi singing I've heard. Alot of noe-pagean, feminist, etc. ideology surrounds folk music nowadays and I'm sure some modern publications aren't exactly traditional, but are designed to sound "ancient".

What that guy posted seems to be legit traditional singing though. Who know's there could be some type of large Eurasian singing tradition, that's dying out like many ethnic traditions because of uniform modern culture.

The Sardinian one was the most interesting. It seems those are country-folk in Sardinia who are more isolated culturally. They have been isolated genetically since the Neolithic, and who knows some of their singing traditions could trace back to Stuttgart-like Neolithic west Europeans.

I've heard that Sean Nós Singing is a purely Irish invention, with no European influence. And that it probably traces back to medieval Ireland, and before that to Iron age Irish.

If anyone here knows anything about music I'd like to hear your opinion. Are there significant similarities between all those singing traditions?

Grey said...

"Does anyone have thoughts on this?"

Interesting thought but i don't know enough about music to be able to judge.

Maju said...

@Grey: "If the Atlantic coast generally wasn't densely settled in the early neolithic because the climate wasn't suited to the neolithic crop package leading to mainly coastal settlements reliant on seafood"...

If is wrong. The arrival of Neolithic peoples caused a massive nutritional change from (partial) fish-based protein sources to (total) meat and milk ones. Only with the arrival of the Vikings in the Middle Ages, the British and Irish began to appreciate fish again.

→ http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2014/02/neolithic-peoples-from-britain-and.html

Maju said...

@Andrew:

"Also, to be clear, just because there was common DNA between Celtic Britons and Spain does not mean that the genetic commonality arose at the time that the shift to the Celtic languages took place".

Totally in agreement. Even if the source of Celtic culture is somewhat to the SW of that of Germanic one (Rhine basin vs Nordic region), the Celts don't seem adequate to explain Iberian-like genetics at all. It's almost certainly pre-Celtic affinity what causes those results.

Maju said...

"... who knows some of their singing traditions could trace back to Stuttgart-like Neolithic west Europeans".

Do the Irish have a seven-beats based dance like the Sazpijauzi (look it up in YouTube)? According to Roslyn Frank (search her up at academia.edu or Insula magazine), this is a deep "old European" tradition somehow related to the bear (and half-bear "sons" like Basajaun or Little John) myths, whose best known modern product is Santa Claus. However we disagree on the exact origins of this tradition: she insists it must be Paleolithic, while I consider it can well be Neolithic, particularly because it is also present in Sardinia, whose carnivals and some other traditions of stone age appearance are very similar to those of the Basque Country.

Maju said...

Oh, your question was about specifically Sean Nós singing. I'm not good enough at music to tell but to my eyes it seems very different to all Basque musical traditions except in one thing: the high pitch (look up arin-arin, for example). It is very beautiful in any case.

ryukendo kendow said...

It appears that everywhere, population discontinuities emerge if we look hard enough.

@ Davidski
I find it doubtful that WHG emerged in the near east alongside AME. The closest relative of WHG is ANE, and after that ENA. WHG+ANE+ENA must have come from somewhere further east that Middle East, probably India (with the expansion of YHap IJK?) with WHG+ANE going into C.Asia to the steppe and ENA going via SE.Asia.

A question. You wrote:
"Also, I think the reason why there was no WHG-UHG in Central Asia in the K6 is because that cluster was heavily admixed with EEF, and it's the EEF that Central Asians really lack."

In your new run where the ENF seems more pure, did you uncover WEF in C+S.Asians, or from the pca are they not even in the run?

Davidski said...

Yes, Central and South Asians have some WHG-UHG (the new and improved version of WEF). It's at around 10% in the Hindu Kush, but drops down to almost nothing in South India. You'll find some examples here:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AuXBmvmgdkfVdFMtRHVlZDBuQ3lMcjhxMDE4V3JoYlE&usp=drive_web#gid=18

This is interesting, because, for instance, there are some instances of European R1a-Z282 in Afghanistan, and also nearby Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.

So I doubt WHG-UHG came from India, unless the split in Y-chromosome haplogroup IJ was somewhere around there, or in Central Asia, which I doubt.

There were probably some major genetic turnovers in the Near East since the Ice Age, and one of these very likely involved the spread of Basal Eurasian influence, maybe from Arabia, and mixing with the UHG there.

Grey said...

@Maju

"If is wrong. The arrival of Neolithic peoples caused a massive nutritional change from (partial) fish-based protein sources to (total) meat and milk ones. Only with the arrival of the Vikings in the Middle Ages, the British and Irish began to appreciate fish again.

→ http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2014/02/neolithic-peoples-from-britain-and.html

"

I don't think it's an "if" either - mainly because of that paper you did a blog post on - but I'm not sure the consequences of a potentially dramatic population expansion along the Atlantic coast when - whoever it was - figured out how to farm effectively in that niche has fully sunk in yet so I'm being diplomatic.

spagetiMeatball said...

David, a short question. The ENF component you isolated looks very similar to the "basal eurasian" everyone's been talking about. Dienekes posted a write-up on a paper by Schiffels and Durbin on european-asian genetic divergence being estimated to 45,000 , but there being a part estimated at 10% that pushed that divergence further back.

Here: bioRxiv, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/005348


Dienekes: http://dienekes.blogspot.ae/2014/05/msmc-preprint-schiffels-and-durbin.html


Basically, that 10% looks pretty close to your 10% ENF on average for europeans. But, back to my question, if it's only 10% basal admix in euro's, why are they not plotting much much closer to east asians and other eurasians further down the tree from the african split?

barakobama said...

"Do the Irish have a seven-beats based dance like the Sazpijauzi (look it up in YouTube)? According to Roslyn Frank (search her up at academia.edu or Insula magazine), ... "

I don't know any specifics about Irish music. When I have time I'd like to research folk music. I googled and youtubed Sazijauzi and couldn't find anything.

".... she insists it must be Paleolithic, while I consider it can well be Neolithic, particularly because it is also present in Sardinia, whose carnivals and some other traditions of stone age appearance are very similar to those of the Basque Country."

Similarities between Basque and Sardinian cultures and the bear thing are interesting for obvious reasons. Do you mind giving some specifics, maybe not to off subject, but so I can have something to research online?

Shaikorth said...

spagetimeatball,

they would be closer to each other if one adjusted the visual length of PCA dimensions to match their significance. The West Eurasian vs East Eurasian dimension does not represent as much of the global variation as the SSA vs Eurasian dimension does.

At IBS level where we deal with numbers it becomes apparent that West and East Eurasians are closer to each other than either is to SSA, and on a more fine-scale level we see that the most extreme South Asian and Siberian groups are closer to West Eurasians than the most extreme East Asian or Native American groups.

Fanty said...

So... will we ever see a MDS/PCA of those (or is there one shown in the source?)

Of course, what was already said is, that the Celts will be more "south" in one axis.

After all, most European MDS/PCA have a Sardinia/Finnland axis, wich technially contrasts alleles that can be found in Finland but not in Sardinia versus Alleles that can be found in Sardinia but not in Finland.

So what was said is simply: Celts will be more south in a MDS/PCS than Anglo-Saxons. And thats all.

Davidski said...

spagetiMeatball,

What Shaikorth said.


Fanty,

The full study isn't out yet. All we have is the above abstract from the upcoming ASHG conference. But when the genomes are published, I'll analyze them.


Average Joe,

My reading tells me that Bell Beaker males were the archeological version of the macho male. In other words, they were "pimps".

But when I say that I don't mean they ran prostitution rackets in Copper Age Europe. Well, they might have, I don't know? But in any case, what I mean is that they had a big presence and probably got a lot of chicks.

So it's probably not a stretch to assume that they were very effective in spreading their genes. Hence my comment, because the Bell Beaker phenomenon is considered to be of Iberian origin.

About Time said...

Beakers were used for holding alcohol. For "ritual consumption." Not hard to imagine how that could have mediated uniparental gene flow if those guys were going from village to village.

Maju said...

@BA:
→ https://uiowa.academia.edu/RoslynMFrank (several studies some in English others in Spanish).
→ http://www.sre.urv.es/irmu/alguer/ (Insula Magazine, in issues number 3, 4 and 5)
It's a bit dense, so take your time, but there are a a lot of very interesting observations, regardless of weather one agrees with Dr. Frank or not re. the general theory.

Also I mentioned some otherwise unpublished meditations of her on this matter here: http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2010/11/linguistics-more-on-shared-ie-basque.html

As I said, our main divergence is that, what she sees as something "circumpolar" (similar legends are also found among Native Americans), I suspect can well be something more generically Ancient West Eurasian (with the corresponding migration to America via Siberia). A key piece here may be that what we call Ursa Major (and has been regarded as "mother bear" or similar in all or most of that area, including Jewish traditions) is known to East Asians as some sort of water animal like a prawn. Incidentally among Uralic peoples, whose traditions may partly originate in East Asia, it is also a water animal: the salmon.

But otherwise her observations seem very profound and I strongly recommend a paused reading of her theories.

As for sazpi jauzi (= "seven jumps"), see:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=sazpi+jauzi

Shaikorth said...

Maju, Ursa Major interpretations seem to be too random in Eurasia to deduce much, there's no uniformity in East Asia re. water animal, it's a prawn in Burma but Chinese and Japanese interpretations are unrelated.

For Uralic speakers it seems that the most common interpretation is moose and hunters (and some Native Americans see a bear and hunters, so maybe ending up with a big animal + hunters is a common motif for northern hunter-gatherers, http://www.folklore.ee/folklore/vol31/berezkin.pdf).

The salmon thing is Finnish rather than Uralic and refers to a salmon weir/trap instead of the animal itself.

Maju said...

@The issue is that the bear and hunters motif also exists in the isthmic area around the Pyrenees in dances and such (Ursa Maior as such is now standardized Roman). It's more than something just boreal and is not clearly something universally "circumpolar" either. It's complex anyhow and all I wanted to state is that this lady's theories are worth reading and pondering about if we want to better comprehend widespread cultural patterns, which often seem to transcend ethnic boundaries and may be extremely old.

About Time said...

@Maju, I remember reading something a long time ago about the North Star and the idea of it as the Axis Mundi. Basically a cosmology in which the universe resembles a tipi or yurt, with a central pole and hole in the top (to vent smoke from hearth).

Mircea Eliade might have written about it in "Shamanism" as connecting to the World Tree, which all Amerinds have and Germanics too (Irminsul). Could be Uralic borrowing.

The bear stuff sounds really old. Like actual cave bears, which would be true Paleo. Bears are a big deal for some Amerinds too (survived there).

The connecting factor would be ANE. Which Gui's regression correlates with R1a, N, Q, and L.

ryukendo kendow said...

@ Davidski
WOW thats amazing!

I have to say, your're probably updating everyone's priors (in the words of Razib Khan) at an impressive clip, including those of academic researchers. I won't be surprised if at least one research team decided to change research topic or rewrite their discussion because of you.

Another note: does't this mean that we have to be a bit uncertain about the IE Frankenstein?

I think we have to re-evaluate. There are 3 ways for WHG to have reached S+C. Asia,
1. It spread with Agri from ME. This means that WHG in ME is very old, might have originated there, and it might have been Basal that is intrusive from somewhere in Africa. OR
2. It spread with the IEs to C+S Asia. The IEs might have carried WHG after all, and might have raised WHG in Europe contrary to some of our prior hypotheses. AME is still old in ME. OR
3. Both. In that case little light is shed on anything.

There might be some way out, just 3 questions about the new run:
1. Do we still get that weird pattern where a WHG regional peak occurs in Arabia and Levant at the exclusion of Georgian, and a Basal peak in Georgian instead of Bedouin? I assume not from the PCA.
3. Does WHG distinguish between South Indian Brahmin and other South Indians?
4. Are there any E.African pops with Basal but free of WHG?



@ About Time @ Bear
Michael Witzel, Janhunen and etc have remarked on the large number of mythemes with Circumpolar+Amerindian distribution, e.g. earth-diver, the aforementioned bear. Complex causality re. distribution of bear, multiple origins, cannot be ruled out, but the existence of something like a circumpolar+amerind mytheme complex, with bear prominent in areas where they live, is very commonly postulated.

For that matter, there is also an E.Asian + Amerind mytheme complex, featuring e.g. multiple suns, deprivation+release of sun, ravens assoc with sun, rabbit with moon, four cardinal directions given gods+colors+temperaments. The fact that mythologists identified far prior to any genetic evidence two distinct Eurasian strands in Amerindian mythology, each correlated with where we know their genetic ancestry derives from today, is kinda impressive imo.

Davidski said...

rk,

Check this out...

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1684wMM_ZJFoxcxJXK0jkVgeGGEVl5Nw3-Moc_IFrlOs/edit?usp=sharing

By the way, Laz et al. is finally out...

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v513/n7518/full/nature13673.html

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Still a little too much for me. Basing a whole island on a couple people from something as recent as the Iron Age is pretty ridiculous. As I said before, there were people of Iberian origin found in an Iron Age grave in Kent. More than twice as many Scandinavians were buried in that grave, than Iberians. What if the two they tested were of Scandinavian origin? Would they then say that Celts were more Scandinavian than Saxons? We know nothing about these two samples. The could easily be related and there should be no wild guessing as to the genetic affiliations of the island at all. As for the Iberian Bell Beaker issue, it would be good to note that Maritime Beaker was limited in its sites in Britain. Very few sites, and all South of the Humber. It's the same with the All-over-ornamented type. Corded Beakers dominated Britain and were pretty much the only ones North of the Humber. R1b will not be Iberian in origin, nor will it be migrating out of Iberia after island hopping. Britain has been a designation of many people from different parts of the continent for thousands of years. Let's not get carried away by a couple samples. Show me 200 of the same, and we can talk about Spanish origin.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

David,
Is Stuttgart and Loschbour available now?

barakobama said...

"By the way, Laz et al. is finally out...

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v513/n7518/full/nature13673.html"

Hell has finally frozen over. It's almost been year.

Dr Rob said...

Chad , don't rain on people's apparently unending desire to speculate to the nth degree based on limited and dubious evidence . Your Common sense is unsettling

barakobama said...

I think everyone is exaggerating the Finnishism of Anglo Saxon samples and Spainishism of the Briton samples, and it needs to cool down. Does anyone even know exactly what the abstract meant? My interpretation is the Iron age samples were more southern-like than the Anglo Saxon ones, and could have some type of gemological connection with Spain.

Common sense says it's unlikely there was any close genetic relationship between Anglo-Saxons and Finnish, because how far away they are from each other. The relationship and how they found it is probably very complex.

The authors also mentioned Anglo-Saxon samples were more similar to modern British, meaning anyone who interprets it as saying they were most similar to Finnish are wrong. They need to be more specific on what they mean by modern British, because there are Celtic and Anglo-Saxon ethnic groups. They probably specifically meant English and southern Scottish, who both I think are technically Anglo Saxons and are a similar Briton-Germanic mix.

Did anyone read this part

"Results from principal component analysis suggest that all samples fall consistently within the broader Northern European context, which is also consistent with mtDNA haplogroups."

This includes Iron age and Anglo Saxon samples, both fit with north Europeans.

Dr Rob said...

Not that I'm doubting the results necessarily - they might well be correct . What does amaze me is some contributors talking about ethnographic practices (eg dances) as if they're actually relictual practices which go anything beyond recent (modern) history and shed actual insight into deep prehistory . At this point , some limits to bold speculation and applicability to subject at hand need to be called for (?)

Basil S said...

@Chad

'Britain has been a designation of many people from different parts of the continent for thousands of years.'

A few years ago, analysis was carried out on remains of a man found near Stonehenge, dating from 2300BC. He was dubbed the 'Amesbury Archer'. Oxygen Isotope analysis showed he grew up in the Alps, probably around modern-day Switzerland. And the 'Anglo Saxons as Finnish' thing...obviously that's not a direct link.

Matthew Langley said...

I wonder if this is correlated with the Y DNA U152 haplogroup. Which is seen in in about 5% or less of most English males (very rarely in Scotland and Ireland) but in 10-15% in Southern England and is predominately in Norther Italy and Switzerland... it seems to be correlated with similar migrations to England. My paternal line is likely of English descent and I test for this marker.

Davidski said...

My impression currently is that DF27 is from Iberia or the south of France, while U152 from the Alpine region, probably North Italy.

But yes, both could well be Bell Beaker and Celtic markers.

M. Myllylä said...

Barak, it is quite usual that people who know least about Finnish history speak with a biggest mouth about it. It is TRUE that the Finns form another pole on the autosomal genetic map, the extreme being somewhere in Russia. But the Finns are MIXED people who today consist of four ancient groups, North Russian Finnic people, North Baltic Finnish people Ssamis and likely old Germanic people. I write "likely" about the third group because today almost all Finns speak Finnish. This was not true hundreds an thousands years ago. So getting the historical picture by recently spoken languages fails. The problem is that people do not want to accept that languages have only one root and biologically people have many roots. It is that damned nationalism that prevents many if us making simple brain work.

jaakkeli said...

There is next to no Swedish admixture in Finns and you have to be impressively clueless to suggest it, not to mention ignorant since we now have modern genetics and those amazing haplogroups easily show the lack of Swedish admixture in Finns.

During the Swedish period Finns assimilated to Swedes, not the other way around, and mixed children were raised as Swedes. This is very obvious in Y-haplogroups: Finns completely lack the R1b, Q etc that are found among the Swedish minority and Swedes in Sweden; I1 and R1a in Finns does not match Swedish types though the Swedish minority has the matching types and so on. Meanwhile Swedes in Finland display lots of N1c of the typically Finno-Ugric type.

There is definitely no Swedish admixture in Finns but there is heavy Finnish admixture in the Swedish minority; northern and central Swedes in Sweden also diverge somewhat from other Germanic-speaking nations towards Finns. Finns previously populated some of regions of Sweden and mostly went extinct through assimilation. There has been no assimilation of Swedes to Finns.

It's just plain dumb to suggest Swedish admixture in Finns when Finns were the lower status group and lower status groups assimilate into the higher status groups, not the other way around, unless there's some specific block like mixed white/black Americans not being accepted as whites and therefore having no choice but to identify as black. Nothing like that ever existed here so Swedes picked up Finnish admixture, not the other way around.

Furthermore, this all applies to cities and mostly Finland has been *very* segregated with Finns and strictly coastal Swedes never interacting. Swedes did not migrate into the inland and inland Finland was the poor periphery, migration was *from* inland Finland to cities and to Sweden.

barakobama

"Common sense says it's unlikely there was any close genetic relationship between Anglo-Saxons and Finnish, because how far away they are from each other."

This is further proof of how completely useless common sense is since we definitely know that Finns have some "Anglo-Saxon" connection from about the same time they went to Britain.

Germany is still called Saksa in Finnish after the Saxons and southwestern Finland is full of old "German" place names from the period before the Swedish rule, including lots of places directly named after Saxons ("Saksala" etc) at the sites of presumed trading settlements. We don't know exactly what was happening but there are two very conspicuous patterns: there is no trace of the Norse in Finland which is very conspicuous given the closeness of Scandinavia but there actually are lots and lots of Germanic place names from the same period - it's just that they're traces of people that later became "Germans", not Scandinavians, and in fact traces of the same people that became "Anglo-Saxons".

They don't seem to have left behind their signature haplogroups, though, but we have more proof of Saxons visiting inland Finland than of Swedes. Even Christianity seems to have first spread through Germans as evidenced by the German Christian male names - not Swedish names - and the story of the Swedish crusades seems to be a story of Swedes stealing Finland from a "Saxon" sphere of influence.


M. Myllylä said...

Thanks Jaakkeli, it is really a shame how some people refuse use their brains. I feel shame for them. Finnish haplogroups should prove how weak the connection is between Swedes and Finns, but those who don't want to understand don't understand, even though they can be very well aware of male haplogroups in general. This is something unintelligible.

The I1 most common on Finland can't be connected to Saxons historically, but Finns and obviously people owning Saxon ancestry share common ydna, I1-CTS2208, lacking from Scandinavian I1 groups.

Davidski, the article didn't mention Finnish like Saxons. Read it carefully again.

epoch2013 said...

@Fanty

On the Bremen Schuetting:

"wagen un winnen: buten un binnen."

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/59/SchuettingWahlspruch.jpg

That reads like northern dutch dialect. I heard stories how north-eastern Dutch farmers spoke exactly the same dialect as on the other side of the border.

Queen TwilightSparkle said...

@ jaakkeli
Thank you so much for clearing the information, starting to become confusing.

Although I gotta wonder how a 2,000 year old Cornwall resident go 9 percent Baltic; Assuming that Finns and Balkans are related.

I'm just curious mostly :)

Mikeland said...

Thomas William Shore,"Origin of the Anglo-Saxon Race (1906). Reprint available. Shore argues in this classic book that there were surely Finns among the Scandinavian settlers during the Danelag period. He brings out a lot of evidence starting from old place names to Midsummer customs (only found among the Baltic Finns). One must remember that Finns were often referred as Cwens or Quens those days.

Lt. Mustikka said...

I do not think that it would be too far stretched to see a genetic connection between saxon and Finnish genetics, even if you concider "how far away they are from each other", as barakobama put it.

Now, it is commonly accepted as a fact among historians that there was considerable Germanic immigration to South Western Finland, probably during so called Merovingian Period 400-800 AD and even earlier.

It is also well understood that this immigration was not of Scandinavian origin. this has been deducted from the place names (such as "Hariawald", above), language (many Finnish words are Germanic loan much earlier than Swedish, for example kuningas/kuningaz - "king") and artefacts.

Later, these have been further verified by genetics, like M. Myllylä explained in detail. As he said, it is quite easy to distinguish between Swedish and Finnish, over 50% of South-Western Finnish males carry a haplogroup I1 cluster which is almost exclusively found in Finland.

In my understanding the modern research finds the South Western Finns' closest genetical relatives in the modern day Netherlands and Belgium. When you consider the general area where the Saxons are supposed to have left for England, I think we could come up with a workable hypothesis which the research done now can either confirm or disapprove. After all, it is not that much further from Jutland to Finland than it is to England, ity is just the opposite direction.

Mikeland said...

Reijo Norio (Emeritus Professor in Genetics) demonstrates in his book "Suomi neidon geenit" (Genes of Finnish Maiden) clearly the genetic connection with the modern day Flemish people and Finns. As Lt Mustikka states there are plenty of evidence to be found from the linguistic and archeological fields as well.

Nigel Clark said...

Until we have a lot more samples than this, we cant say anything for certain about the genetic makeup of the majority of the British. The best comment is from Daniel Defoe [ himself the son of French refugees ] in his poem "The True Born Englishman".


The True Born Englishman
BY DANIEL DEFOE
Thus from a mixture of all kinds began,
That het’rogeneous thing, an Englishman:
In eager rapes, and furious lust begot,
Betwixt a painted Britain and a Scot.
Whose gend’ring off-spring quickly learn’d to bow,
And yoke their heifers to the Roman plough:
From whence a mongrel half-bred race there came, With neither name, nor nation, speech nor fame.
In whose hot veins new mixtures quickly ran, Infus’d betwixt a Saxon and a Dane.
While their rank daughters, to their parents just,
Receiv’d all nations with promiscuous lust.
This nauseous brood directly did contain
The well-extracted blood of Englishmen.
Which medly canton’d in a heptarchy,
A rhapsody of nations to supply,
Among themselves maintain’d eternal wars,
And still the ladies lov’d the conquerors.
The western Angles all the rest subdu’d;
A bloody nation, barbarous and rude:
Who by the tenure of the sword possest
One part of Britain, and subdu’d the rest
And as great things denominate the small,
The conqu’ring part gave title to the whole.
The Scot, Pict, Britain, Roman, Dane, submit,
And with the English-Saxon all unite:
And these the mixture have so close pursu’d,
The very name and memory’s subdu’d:
No Roman now, no Britain does remain;
Wales strove to separate, but strove in vain:
The silent nations undistinguish’d fall,
And Englishman’s the common name for all.
Fate jumbled them together, God knows how;
What e’er they were they’re true-born English now.
The wonder which remains is at our pride,
To value that which all wise men deride.
For Englishmen to boast of generation,
Cancels their knowledge, and lampoons the nation.
A true-born Englishman’s a contradiction,
In speech an irony, in fact a fiction.
A banter made to be a test of fools,
Which those that use it justly ridicules.
A metaphor invented to express
A man a-kin to all the universe.
For as the Scots, as learned men ha’ said,
Throughout the world their wand’ring seed ha’ spread; So open-handed England, ’tis believ’d,
Has all the gleanings of the world receiv’d.
Some think of England ’twas our Saviour meant,
The Gospel should to all the world be sent:
Since, when the blessed sound did hither reach,
They to all nations might be said to preach.
’Tis well that virtue gives nobility,
How shall we else the want of birth and blood supply? Since scarce one family is left alive,

Which does not from some foreigner derive.