Allentoft and Iron Age Sweden

[Queequeg]

Queequeg, I've read your comments on Eurogenes. Note that I never claimed that the Falköping_LN group carried a "Uralic" affinity. Apart from the fact that historically I cannot imagine the possibility, I have never published any model targeting Falköping. Everything I say concerns exclusively the handful of individuals reporting to Sweden_IA (see the correction made to their list). Regarding these, if only the PCA were at stake, the conclusion would be uncertain, to say the least. Unlike others, I am never satisfied with a single reading of the first two components of a PCA. It is not by chance that I decided on qpAdm modeling. That qpAdm highlights an oriental influx for this Iron Age micro-group by taking Falköping as the main source seems to me difficult to contest, at least numerically. As for the interpretation of this numerical fact, everyone noted that I offered none.

You're right, the phrasing of mine was not a good one, shouldn't write anything before the morning coffee, apologies for the inconvenience. As I tried to explain in the later comments, something like 900 BCE onwards looks however possible but thats' of course my personal view.

[Anglesqueville]

Queequeg, I've read your comments on Eurogenes. Note that I never claimed that the Falköping_LN group carried a "Uralic" affinity. Apart from the fact that historically I cannot imagine the possibility, I have never published any model targeting Falköping. Everything I say concerns exclusively the handful of individuals reporting to Sweden_IA (see the correction made to their list). Regarding these, if only the PCA were at stake, the conclusion would be uncertain, to say the least. Unlike others, I am never satisfied with a single reading of the first two components of a PCA. It is not by chance that I decided on qpAdm modeling. That qpAdm highlights an oriental influx for this Iron Age micro-group by taking Falköping as the main source seems to me difficult to contest, at least numerically. As for the interpretation of this numerical fact, everyone noted that I offered none.

You're right, the phrasing of mine was not a good one, shouldn't write anything before the morning coffee, apologies for the inconvenience. As I tried to explain in the later comments, something like 900 BCE onwards looks however possible but thats' of course my personal view.

No problem. I lack experience with admixture dating programs to apply them to this case. Given the most likely archaeological models, 900 BCE does not seem impossible for the oldest West-Uralic vs. pre-Germanic contacts.

[MrI1]

@Rodoorn

Battle Axe Culture was my best guess before the discovery of Mr. OST003. Then Single Grave Culture became my best guess prior to the release of this study. Now I’m open to a plethora of possibilities. Interesting to note that there are zero Single Grave Culture and zero Battle Axe Culture ancient samples for I1.

[Codaman]

I have been considering these models that Anglesqueville presented and in all honesty I can not find myself entirely convinced by them yet they raise an idea which seems plausible to me. I speculate that the Textile Ware or Net Ware culture originating around 1700 BC east of Estonia and Latvia was a common ancestral thread between VolgaOka_IA and Finland and was significantly(although not necessarily exclusively) linked with a type Bronze Age Baltic-like ancestry(which was found at an unexpectedly high level in VolgaOka_IA) with it's own drift. This would make Levänluhta an in-situ admixture of local BA ancestry and LBA ancestry from further east similar to NEO538 without any other convoluted migrations(except perhaps from the west and south although this isn't essential to the idea). This would place the Proto-Saamic speaking migration to Finland at around 800-500 BC or at least centuries after Textile Ware arrival. Regarding paternal lines I think only R-CTS9551 correlates with the Textile Ware horizon at least for R1a subclades although the extant Finnish subclades are clearly not from the BA which is not a huge issue considering the general pattern of bottlenecking in Finland.

[Jaska]

I have been considering these models that Anglesqueville presented and in all honesty I can not find myself entirely convinced by them yet they raise an idea which seems plausible to me. I speculate that the Textile Ware or Net Ware culture originating around 1700 BC east of Estonia and Latvia was a common ancestral thread between VolgaOka_IA and Finland and was significantly(although not necessarily exclusively) linked with a type Bronze Age Baltic-like ancestry(which was found at an unexpectedly high level in VolgaOka_IA) with it's own drift. This would make Levänluhta an in-situ admixture of local BA ancestry and LBA ancestry from further east similar to NEO538 without any other convoluted migrations(except perhaps from the west and south although this isn't essential to the idea). This would place the Proto-Saamic speaking migration to Finland at around 800-500 BC or at least centuries after Textile Ware arrival. Regarding paternal lines I think only R-CTS9551 correlates with the Textile Ware horizon at least for R1a subclades although the extant Finnish subclades are clearly not from the BA which is not a huge issue considering the general pattern of bottlenecking in Finland.

May I ask, how did you get Proto-Saami here?

[Codaman]

May I ask, how did you get Proto-Saami here?

Associating (Pre)-Proto-Saami with the general area of NEO538 does not seem very controversial to me and when you consider also the exceptionally strong genetic affiliation involved I'm not really sure why there would be any arguments left against it.
I would associate the arrival of Proto-Saami with a new pulse of eastern, Ananyino-affiliated and largely imported material culture although with significant room for local continuity so the break would not be a clean one to the previous inhabitants.
For example these daggers from Savukoski(although not necessarily a place where Saamic speakers lived at this point) which are the oldest iron objects in Finland might be linked with the new trade routes established by Proto-Saami speakers. They were most likely made very far even beyond the Ananyino culture itself.
https://www.finna.fi/Record/musketti.M012:KM15266:2

[Anglesqueville]

Codaman, do you have sources about the association of Minino_IA/NEO538 to Tapiola ware? I couldn't manage to find one. About what you call "exceptionally strong genetic affiliation" I'm in full agreement, at least for the non-Germanic Levänluhta people. That said I could only test the allelic correlation but failed to confirm it with IBDs (but this adventure is maybe not finished as I intend to try with ancIBD soon).

[Jaska]

May I ask, how did you get Proto-Saami here?

Associating (Pre)-Proto-Saami with the general area of NEO538 does not seem very controversial to me and when you consider also the exceptionally strong genetic affiliation involved I'm not really sure why there would be any arguments left against it.
I would associate the arrival of Proto-Saami with a new pulse of eastern, Ananyino-affiliated and largely imported material culture although with significant room for local continuity so the break would not be a clean one to the previous inhabitants.
For example these daggers from Savukoski(although not necessarily a place where Saamic speakers lived at this point) which are the oldest iron objects in Finland might be linked with the new trade routes established by Proto-Saami speakers. They were most likely made very far even beyond the Ananyino culture itself.
https://www.finna.fi/Record/musketti.M012:KM15266:2

My point is to advice against eagerness to move around these linguistic labels always when there appear new genetic findings. Every population has several genetic roots, and language could have been inherited from any of them; these root populations again have several roots, etc., etc. Finally, there are dozens of possible inheritance paths for certain language, and the probability for every single one of them is very low. Therefore the probability to hit the right path by merely guessing is also equally low. 

NEO538 is found in Minino, Vologda, ca. 300 BCE, and its Y-DNA is N-SK1485. This lineage never made it to the northwest, only its brother N-Z1925 (separated already 1600 BCE) spread to Finland and multiplied there. The problem with locating the Saami lineage in Vologda so late is that it ignores the linguistic results, and therefore it is a very poor match and must be dismissed. 

The linguistic results:
1. Saami had contacts already with Paleo-Germanic and Proto-Germanic. If it was spoken in Vologda, we could not explain these loanword layers. 
2. Saami had contacts with Middle Proto-Finnic. If it was spoken in Vologda, we could not explain these loanwords. 
3. Middle Proto-Finnic and Germanic were in mutual contact in Southwest Finland (based on Proto-Germanic > Northwest Germanic > Proto-Scandinavian placename layers there) and probably also in Coastal Estonia. Because Middle Proto-Saami was in contact with both of these languages, it cannot have been spoken far from Southwestern Finland. 
4. The Saami-originating placenames in Southwestern Finland (borrowed by the Finnish speakers) show Germanic loanwords borrowed before and after the vowel changes leading to Late Proto-Saami. Therefore Saami was spoken there in the beginning of the Common Era. 

To conclude: the Iron Age Vologda homeland is not possible for Saami. Migrations after migrations have arrived from there to Finland already since the Mesolithic, but only one of these migrations brought the Saami language. All the languages of the earlier migrations were replaced by later newcomers (until Saami), and all the languages of the later migrations (like possibly from Vologda during the Early Iron Age) failed to prevail: their speakers became assimilated into the Saami speakers.

So, even if there was a real migration during the Early Iron Age, which could be seen in the DNA of the Saami, it cannot be associated with the arrival of the Saami language - it is too late for that. And if I have understood correctly, qpAdm and similar methods provide acceptable models also for "brother" or "cousin" or "uncle" or "nephew" populations - the modeled population is not necessarily truly ancestral to the target population.

Moreover, "strong genetic affiliation" is not a strong argument concerning language. Language spread and language shift are socially conditioned processes, and we know that it is not always the majority ancestry or bigger population whose language eventually wins. Only if there is no conclusive linguistic evidence we can utilize such arguments (still with caution).

[Anglesqueville]

Jaska: " And if I have understood correctly, qpAdm and similar methods provide acceptable models also for "brother" or "cousin" or "uncle" or "nephew" populations - the modeled population is not necessarily truly ancestral to the target population."

I completely agree with the quoted sentence. The only target of qpAdm is in my opinion even less than that, namely only alleles panels. All the rest is interpretation.

[Codaman]

Codaman, do you have sources about the association of Minino_IA/NEO538 to Tapiola ware? I couldn't manage to find one. About what you call "exceptionally strong genetic affiliation" I'm in full agreement, at least for the non-Germanic Levänluhta people. That said I could only test the allelic correlation but failed to confirm it with IBDs (but this adventure is maybe not finished as I intend to try with ancIBD soon).

Tapiola Ware is a term that is quite new and specific to Lang. I would be surprised if it ever had been used in connection with this sample but I do believe based on the maps provided by Lang that a connection could be made. I am looking forward to the IBD results.

...To conclude: the Iron Age Vologda homeland is not possible for Saami...

I think you have misunderstood me since I did not intend to make this specific claim. This sample is a proxy for older ancestry(hence why I mentioned LBA and not IA in my post) from this region although we can not at this point assess how good of a proxy we are talking about. We can have PP-Saami leaving Vologda at an earlier point and residing in East Karelia for example yet still maintaining some level of contact to the south prior to their spread to Finland which if at 800-500 BC should allow for Paleo-Germanic and Proto-Germanic contacts if such are deemed necessary.

[Codaman]

Regarding IBD. I combed through the Ringbauer papers supplement a while back and the Levänluhta samples have remarkably little sharing with other populations whilst the samples from Estonia tend to have mostly just sharing with Baltic and Germanic populations with a few random hits. The Bolshoy Oleni Ostrov have more distant links but these are not very strong(single segment hits) yet quite consistent across the samples so probably not a total fluke.
https://pastebin.com/PvmdTPcU