Steppe Ancestry in western Eurasia and the spread of the Germanic Languages

[miquirumba]

R1b-L21>Z251 in Bourgogne

CGG023647 Tumulus_de_la_Tête_de_Maisey_S3,_92.586.0 WesternEurope France Bourgogne_Franche_Compt Maisey-le-Duc_tumulus_de_la_Tête_de_Maise Barrow 47.850575 4.669462 750BCE-450BCE NA NA NA NA context 2560 2400 2480 -610 -450 -530 IronAge Hallstatt CGG023647 4.4929 XY H83 1 0.8683 2-1089 1195-4013 4015-4138 4215-4397 4818-5077 5275-5582 5586 5737-5896 6151-6766 6834-7015 7135-7137 7139-7144 7146-7373 7375-7377 7609-7747 7749-7753 7783-8281 8371-8785 8984-9182 9243-9246 9248-9404 9406 9432-9433 9436-9651 9661-16569 0.997577 0.9952426 0.9991255 R1b1a1b1a1a2c1a1e NA NA

[RCO]

Some new J1 but we need to investigate the BAM files for a final resolution.

CGG018559.mccoll_230707_ironage | Gruta_do_Caldeirão | Portugal_Medieval_Visigothic | J1a
CGG023715.mccoll_230707_ironage | Camp_du_Château | France_Medieval_LateAntiquity | J1a
CGG107753.mccoll_230817_ironage | Valkenburg Marktveld | Netherlands_IronAge | J1a | 1850
CGG024700.mccoll_230707_ironage | Oosterbeintum | Netherlands_IronAge_Frisian | J1a
CGG021912.mccoll_230707_ironage | Madaras | Hungary_MigrationPeriod_Sarmatian | J1a
CGG022004.mccoll_230707_ironage | Zaragizh | Russia_MigrationPeriod_Alan | J1a

Wow a J1 visigoth , that is interesting.

Probably a local:

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/...1.full.pdf

"668 "In contrast, we find the (supposed East Germanic-speaking) Polish Wielbark
669 individuals, to be modelled primarily as Eastern Scandinavian. However, most later
670 individuals associated with the originally East Germanic-speaking groups, the Ukrainian
671 Ostrogoths and the Visigoths of Iberia, appear to be locals (Supplementary Note 6.9.6)."

Two 672 exceptions are from Goths from Iberia, who genetically fall on the Northeast-Southeast Baltic 673 cline (one of which carries a Northern European Y haplogroups), suggesting an origin in 674 North East Europe, but not Eastern Scandinavia specifically.

There was archaeological J1 in the steppe and in the Caspian Sea, we need the specific clades to find the matches before they arrived in Portugal. J1 can be a distant Conquistador type in Portugal.

[Kelmendasi]

Some new J1 but we need to investigate the BAM files for a final resolution.

CGG018559.mccoll_230707_ironage | Gruta_do_Caldeirão | Portugal_Medieval_Visigothic | J1a
CGG023715.mccoll_230707_ironage | Camp_du_Château | France_Medieval_LateAntiquity | J1a
CGG107753.mccoll_230817_ironage | Valkenburg Marktveld | Netherlands_IronAge | J1a | 1850
CGG024700.mccoll_230707_ironage | Oosterbeintum | Netherlands_IronAge_Frisian | J1a
CGG021912.mccoll_230707_ironage | Madaras | Hungary_MigrationPeriod_Sarmatian | J1a
CGG022004.mccoll_230707_ironage | Zaragizh | Russia_MigrationPeriod_Alan | J1a

Samples CGG023715, CGG107753, and CGG022004 are in fact J2a from what I can tell. However, the presence of J1 in some of these samples is indeed extremely interesting. It seems as if all three of the confirmed J1 samples are at least P58 (albeit this needs confirming): CGG018559 should be J1-Z1853 (J1a2a1a2d~), CGG024700 should be J1-Z640 (J1a2a1a2d2b2b2c4c~), while CGG021912 appears to only be classified as J1-P58 (J1a2a1a2~).

[RCO]

Yes there are discrepancies and errors in different tables, usually they can't understand the importance of J1 movements, as they don't know about the origins of CHG-IRAN in the steppe in the beginning of the article, I hope the next big articles from Harvard in preparation can find the origin of J1 in the steppe and other movements into Europe.

[Awood]

I didn't look at this closely, but it sounds like they are pushing the I1 + R1a battle ax as the root of proto-Germanic rather than the SW group who was probably either just R1b or R1b + I2-M223 from Single Grave.

EDIT: They also suggest the HG ancestry was non-local suggesting Baltic rather than southern Scandinavia. I wonder if that applies to the origin of I1.

[Hodo Scariti]

A really important paper... but also very disappointing for me and other italians with sure genalogical records that show ancestors who claimed officially to be of the Longobard ethnic group and to follow the Longobard law... many of us are in the R-Z36-A7993 group... but probably we have to take into account a NPE in the centuries, because I can't see any R-Z36-A7993 sample...

Only two Z36 in Halstatt (but one is a Bronze Age sample)... a mistery that U152 subclade... at this point, until some revolutionary Longobard results, R-Z36-A7993 and subclades weren't originally part of a Germanic-speaking group. Records and DNA discord...

[Anglesqueville]

I didn't look at this closely, but it sounds like they are pushing the I1 + R1a battle ax as the root of proto-Germanic rather than the SW group who was probably either just R1b or R1b + I2-M223 from Single Grave.

EDIT: They also suggest the HG ancestry was non-local suggesting Baltic rather than southern Scandinavia. I wonder if that applies to the origin of I1.

For years I have defended the idea that proto-Germanic developed in the Eastern Baltic (4 words to summarize hundreds of pages of debate) from an initial core coming from groups of Baltic CWs ( and not in southern Scandinavia from a Beakers core). For years I have consequently fought the absurd theories of Udolph and Euler who place the cradle of proto-Germanic in Germany. For years I have also defended the idea that the Jastorf culture corresponds to a zone of contact between the last fringes of continental Celtic cultures and the emerging West Germanic cultures. For this, I have been ridiculed here and elsewhere and insulted many times in other places. I hope that the last defenders of the old nonsense will take the time to carefully read this difficult text, which gives them the final blow.

[old europe]

I didn't look at this closely, but it sounds like they are pushing the I1 + R1a battle ax as the root of proto-Germanic rather than the SW group who was probably either just R1b or R1b + I2-M223 from Single Grave.

EDIT: They also suggest the HG ancestry was non-local suggesting Baltic rather than southern Scandinavia. I wonder if that applies to the origin of I1.

For years I have defended the idea that proto-Germanic developed in the Eastern Baltic (4 words to summarize hundreds of pages of debate) from an initial core coming from groups of Baltic CWs ( and not in southern Scandinavia from a Beakers core). For years I have consequently fought the absurd theories of Udolph and Euler who place the cradle of proto-Germanic in Germany. For years I have also defended the idea that the Jastorf culture corresponds to a zone of contact between the last fringes of continental Celtic cultures and the emerging West Germanic cultures. For this, I have been ridiculed here and elsewhere and insulted many times in other places. I hope that the last defenders of the old nonsense will take the time to carefully read this difficult text, which gives them the final blow.

I remember back in 2018 when I joined anthrogenica I was among the first to bring up schrijvers book about protogermanic. I remember the conflicts very well. Credit to you
nevertheless there is something to fix
As per Schrijver thesis he wrote that protogermanic emerged out of balto-finnic speakers imposing their accent ( a kind of Grimm law) to a group of IE speakers. Now we do not see any presence of balto finnic ydna among protogermanic speakers. Protogermanic were   completely R1b U106 and I1. So this means that I1 was in the eastern baltic and spoke uralic? That seems strange. 
R1b did not speak uralic.
R1a did not speak uralic
WHG did not speak uralic
EHG did not speak uralic

We have to posit uralic ydna in a place with IE speakers ( mostly being R1b U106)
We have a long way to go

[Nictus]

A really important paper... but also very disappointing for me and other italians with sure genalogical records that show ancestors who claimed officially to be of the Longobard ethnic group and to follow the Longobard law... many of us are in the R-Z36-A7993 group... but probably we have to take into account a NPE in the centuries, because I can't see any R-Z36-A7993 sample...

Only two Z36 in Halstatt (but one is a Bronze Age sample)... a mistery that U152 subclade... at this point, until some revolutionary Longobard results, R-Z36-A7993 and subclades weren't originally part of a Germanic-speaking group. Records and DNA discord...

In Italy after the fall of the Lombard Kingdom families often switched between roman and longobard law and viceversa along generations mostly to take advantage of the different inheritance laws, for some noble family we still have documentary proof of these changes.
Plus you should consider that also before the fall of that kingdom in its later phase there was some mobility through the law to follow.
Plus Paulus Diaconus tell us of the number of Pannonians (=roman provincials) which followed the Longobards in invading Italy and they, as all the others accompanying the Longobards (except for the Saxons which will abandon Italy also for this reason), will come to follow the longobard law.
Plus you should consider that the pre-invasion longobard history is one of absorption of several other peoples.
So knowing that your ancestor followed in Italy for a period of time the longobard law doesn't mean your ancestors are actually of germanic origins even less so of the original early ancient times Longobard tribe in northern Germany.

[Jaska]

I didn't look at this closely, but it sounds like they are pushing the I1 + R1a battle ax as the root of proto-Germanic rather than the SW group who was probably either just R1b or R1b + I2-M223 from Single Grave.

EDIT: They also suggest the HG ancestry was non-local suggesting Baltic rather than southern Scandinavia. I wonder if that applies to the origin of I1.

For years I have defended the idea that proto-Germanic developed in the Eastern Baltic (4 words to summarize hundreds of pages of debate) from an initial core coming from groups of Baltic CWs ( and not in southern Scandinavia from a Beakers core). For years I have consequently fought the absurd theories of Udolph and Euler who place the cradle of proto-Germanic in Germany. For years I have also defended the idea that the Jastorf culture corresponds to a zone of contact between the last fringes of continental Celtic cultures and the emerging West Germanic cultures. For this, I have been ridiculed here and elsewhere and insulted many times in other places. I hope that the last defenders of the old nonsense will take the time to carefully read this difficult text, which gives them the final blow.

I remember back in 2018 when I joined anthrogenica I was among the first to bring up schrijvers book about protogermanic. I remember the conflicts very well. Credit to you
nevertheless there is something to fix
As per Schrijver thesis he wrote that protogermanic emerged out of balto-finnic speakers imposing their accent ( a kind of Grimm law) to a group of IE speakers. Now we do not see any presence of balto finnic ydna among protogermanic speakers. Protogermanic were   completely R1b U106 and I1. So this means that I1 was in the eastern baltic and spoke uralic? That seems strange. 
R1b did not speak uralic.
R1a did not speak uralic
WHG did not speak uralic
EHG did not speak uralic

We have to posit uralic ydna in a place with IE speakers ( mostly being R1b U106)
We have a long way to go

I1 is common in the Finns, Estonians and Saami. Every linguistic group seems to have several haplogroups, so there is nothing strange. There is no point to label only N1a as Uralic, nor N1a as only Uralic.

[rafc]

Obviously the Hungarian and Slovakian samples in this study say nothing on the BA, since they are CE. The Hungarian V13 is interesting, since it was found in a Sarmatian context. The location is very close to the Roman border, but on the other hand, it seems he belongs to the Scythian like IBD cluster. So still more indicative that he came along with Sarmatians from the east I would say.

[Psynome]

I didn't look at this closely, but it sounds like they are pushing the I1 + R1a battle ax as the root of proto-Germanic rather than the SW group who was probably either just R1b or R1b + I2-M223 from Single Grave.

EDIT: They also suggest the HG ancestry was non-local suggesting Baltic rather than southern Scandinavia. I wonder if that applies to the origin of I1.

For years I have defended the idea that proto-Germanic developed in the Eastern Baltic (4 words to summarize hundreds of pages of debate) from an initial core coming from groups of Baltic CWs ( and not in southern Scandinavia from a Beakers core). For years I have consequently fought the absurd theories of Udolph and Euler who place the cradle of proto-Germanic in Germany. For years I have also defended the idea that the Jastorf culture corresponds to a zone of contact between the last fringes of continental Celtic cultures and the emerging West Germanic cultures. For this, I have been ridiculed here and elsewhere and insulted many times in other places. I hope that the last defenders of the old nonsense will take the time to carefully read this difficult text, which gives them the final blow.

Against the claims of PG from Germany and from Bell Beaker, you should feel rightly vindicated by this study. 

However, if I recall, the case you made for an East Scandinavia/Finland/Baltic origin of PG spread rests upon evidence from Uralic linguistic influence in Germanic from the direction of Finland. But the time of entry for PrePG speakers given in this study would predate the likely presence of Uralic in the Baltic region by a considerable amount of time, plus the lack of evidence for Siberian ancestry in the BA East Scandinavian cluster from this study. The Akozino-Malar axes date to the later half of the 2nd millennium BCE. Instead, the authors see this migration as a Late Neolithic one, perhaps connected to the beginning of bronze networks in the peninsula.

Nevertheless, you did call attention the dynamics of cross Baltic interactions during the Bronze age as worthy of attention and relevant to the expansion of PG. It looks like the evidence agrees with you!

[alexfritz]

A really important paper... but also very disappointing for me and other italians with sure genalogical records that show ancestors who claimed officially to be of the Longobard ethnic group and to follow the Longobard law... many of us are in the R-Z36-A7993 group... but probably we have to take into account a NPE in the centuries, because I can't see any R-Z36-A7993 sample...

Only two Z36 in Halstatt (but one is a Bronze Age sample)... a mistery that U152 subclade... at this point, until some revolutionary Longobard results, R-Z36-A7993 and subclades weren't originally part of a Germanic-speaking group. Records and DNA discord...

there actually are some new Longobard samples (n=6) in the new paper from the czech rep. sites Holubice and Luzice (sites); mostly females except for CGG 021981 from Luzice who checks out as U106 >> Z326; in conjunction with the 'runes of lany' paper (Fig.3) the Longobard period in the Moravian/LowerAustrian area ranged from ~440-550 CE; which could indicate that not all joined the byz.foederati with lands in Pannonia II

they fall into their Scandinavian clusters in Supp Notes 2-7 (p85) south and east as in Szolad and Collegno except for one that lands in the SCEEu cluster which incl CL23, CL94 and CL36 +various samples from Szolad and the new Medieval sample from Italy CGG 019380 ascribed to the Ostrogoth and/or Longobard period (prob local)

[Cascio]

A really important paper... but also very disappointing for me and other italians with sure genalogical records that show ancestors who claimed officially to be of the Longobard ethnic group and to follow the Longobard law... many of us are in the R-Z36-A7993 group... but probably we have to take into account a NPE in the centuries, because I can't see any R-Z36-A7993 sample...

Only two Z36 in Halstatt (but one is a Bronze Age sample)... a mistery that U152 subclade... at this point, until some revolutionary Longobard results, R-Z36-A7993 and subclades weren't originally part of a Germanic-speaking group. Records and DNA discord...

Strangely enough, I am R-Z36-A7967. Does this suggest Longobard antecedents or non-Longobards who were absorbed into the composite Longobard ethnos?

[Webb]

While we have a number of DF27 La Tene samples, we have our first late Hallstatt DF27 sample from Bourgogne, CGG023685 is listed as DF27>Z209>Z295, 750-450BCE.