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

[Rodoorn]

At the risk of "Germanic recalcitrancy"  but what makes the Lithuanian HG so suitable as primal source for an Indo-European language.....Just asking

Very stubborn those northerners  Well, IMO I do agree, in itself, it doesn't mean much. The paper shows it somehow became part of a CWC-derived group, the "Eastern Scandinavian Bronze Age" group, that had quite some genetic influence on all IA Scandinavian groups, including the IA Southern Scandinavians who are responsible for the spread of Western Germanic. But I think we can still, with all these genetic data we have, not infer how the exact linguistic situation before the Nordic Bronze Age was; each of the early migrations before (Battle Axe, the "Baltic-like" East Scandinavians and Southern Scandinavians) may have brought the principal backbone of what would have become Germanic, the Nordic Bronze Age perhaps created a koine, but the genetic borders some of the clusters remained in place while doing so...

Indeed too much Danish IA pirate blood   And thanks! Agree....

[Anglesqueville]

Here is a fresh overview on Germanic by Bjarne Simmelkjær Sandgaard Hansen and Guus Jan Kroonen (2022):

"10.5 The Position of Germanic
As demonstrated in Section 10.4, no branch offers itself as an obvious candidate for sharing a common node with Germanic in the Indo-European cladistic tree.
- -
We could tentatively choose to see [listed several linguistic features] as evidence in favour of a cladistic partnership with Balto-Slavic and Tocharian or with Italic, respectively. However, these pieces of evidence obviously point in different directions, and as for the Balto-Slavic connection, other pieces of evidence show shared innovations with Baltic only, not with Slavic, which indicates a period of contact and joint development between Germanic and Balto-Slavic languages during a relatively late time period and, in any event, after the initial breakup of Balto-Slavic. The same goes for the Germano-Italic innovations that are not also shared with Celtic and thus must postdate the initial breakup of Italo-Celtic. Two linguistic arguments may, however, be presented in favour of a relatively early split of Germanic."

The same text (in Ollander CUP 2022) concludes:

Perhaps then, these are potential indications that Germanic split off from PIE at a relatively early stage, as these features are generally lost in the non-Anatolian branches. Based on this interpretation, we may surmise that Germanic broke off from Proto-Indo-European after Anatolian and just before or after Tocharian.

notice: "these features" are nominal Ablaut and preterit-present.

[JMcB]

^^^ For anyone interested, you can find that chapter here:


10 - Germanic
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 September 2022

By
Bjarne Simmelkjær Sandgaard Hansen and Guus Jan Kroonen

Edited by
Thomas Olander

https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/ind...E#CN-bp-10

or

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/...rmanic.pdf

[Cejo]

„Discussion
 
The Germanic Indo-European language group is frequently assumed to have been introduced
by the first major Steppe cultures to arrive in Scandinavia. The Corded Ware culture,
appearing around 4800 BP, is generally seen as a likely context 3–6, the local Jutlandic Single
Grave culture often taking a central role 16,68,69. A comparable model sees the appearance of
the Bell Beaker culture to Jutland and Norway around 4400 BP as the moment when this
language group was introduced 7 . In contrast with these older hypotheses, an East
Scandinavian population, which is not detected for another 400-800 years, is revealed here as
an alternative vector for the introduction of Germanic, allowing for the proposition of a
revised model. Although all Early Bronze Age populations of Scandinavia derive their Steppe
ancestry from people of Corded Ware culture, the earliest Scandinavian individuals carry
small proportions of local Western Hunter-Gatherer ancestry, whereas the later Eastern
Scandinavians are modelled with Lithuanian/Latvian Hunter-Gatherer ancestry (Extended
Data Figure 3, Figure S6.5.1.4, Supplementary Note S6.5.1), indicative of a Late Neolithic
cross-Baltic migration into Scandinavia. No such migration has to our knowledge been
identified in the archaeological record. However, the timing coincides with the introduction
of a new, Late Neolithic sheep breed to Scandinavia 70“
 
1.
Obviously, the authors lack some archaeological knowledge.
 
Here is stated that based on the pottery the Battle Axe Culture (BAC) did not enter Scandinavia from the south but via Estonia and Southern Finland:
 
https://www.academia.edu/31115865/Holmqv...e_91_77_91
 
Also the dating suggests so with the oldest occurances with CWC at abt. 2800 BCE in Southern Finland and Estonia. It was in Sweden abt. a centuriy or two later. Tellingly, the Danish islands had not yet CWC (it later had in the form of the Single Grave Culture).
 
http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record....dswid=2786
 
For not getting anything wrong I contacted the Swedish archaeologist Åsa M. Larsson (co-author) and she told me in 2021 (translated):
 
„Extremely briefly: More excavations and better C14 show that early BAC in Sweden appears first in central Sweden (Sörmland-Närke) and southwards down to eastern Skåne. It takes at least one generation before it appears in western Skåne and western Sweden. Swedish BAC pottery and battle axes resemble the Finnish-Estonian forms more than the Danish-German ones. For a long time, the single grave culture in Denmark was limited to Jutland; it took a long time before it was established on the Danish islands. Gradually, of course, there are influences from both East and West, but the earliest BAC settlers in Sweden most likely came from the area around the Gulf of Finland.“
 
Just as a sidenote: These finds are also presented not as a theory but as knowledge by the Swedish archaeologist Jonathan Lindström in this Swedish TV production from minute 7 onwards:
 
https://www.svtplay.se/video/21181999/de...425wLGGmKY

Not sure if you got their statement right. They speak about a fist wave of BAC from the east at 2800 BC, a wave of BB from the south around 2400 BC but in addition of a third wave again out of the Baltics at 2000 - 1600 BC (without archaeological evidence) and that this third wave brought the Germanic language group (and eastern scandinavian ancestry, I1). Or do I get their or your statement wrong?
PS: I really dislike the usage of BP dates, I always have to translate it for me in BC/AD

Good questions and I now realise that statements from the paper may be understood differently.

I indeed refer to the arrival of the BAC at abt. 2800 BCE. Because in most presentations in the past it was stated that it (or its predecessors) entered from the south till for some years ago Scandinavian archeologists found evidence that they in fact had come via Estonia and Southern Finland. This new state is not yet commonly known but it should be known to currently up-to-date archaeologists, of course. And I do not see in this paper that there is told that the BAC was coming from the east (which would be an enourmously relevant condition).

This is why I assume that they missed at all that there is archaelogical evidence for that the BAC entered Scandinavia from the east.

Now, you likely refer to this formulation of theirs (emphasis by me):

"We find evidence of a previously unknown, large-scale Bronze Age migration within Scandinavia, originating in the east and
becoming widespread to the west and south, thus providing a new potential driving factor for
the expansion of the Germanic speech community. This East Scandinavian genetic cluster is
first seen 800 years after the arrival of the Corded Ware Culture, the first Steppe-related
population to emerge in Northern Europe,"

This so far is not referred to any immigration to Scandinavia.

But deviating from this it goes on:

"opening a new scenario implying a Late rather than
an Middle Neolithic arrival of the Germanic language group in Scandinavia. Moreover, the
non-local Hunter-Gatherer ancestry of this East Scandinavian cluster is indicative of a cross-
Baltic maritime rather than a southern Scandinavian land-based entry."

While having spoken of a migration within Scandinavia before they now speak of a cross-Baltic maritiime arrival, indicated by only the non-local HG DNA. 

I can now not look into their heads: Do they know that the BAC came exactly this way and do the now state a second arrival that way or do they now for the first time determine a cross-Baltic maritime input in the context of an inner-Scandinavian migration 800 years later? The latter is what I assumed and still do assume now, when I reviewed what they wrote.

But I may be wrong and I'm open for other opinions.

However, what they describe to my perception is casually compatible with a singular arrival (of BAC) from the east because it seems normal and expected that the genetic input by arriving BAC folks is highest where they entered Scandinavia (Scandinavian peninsula) and that will have led to that this "East Scandinavian" population had a higer level of non-local HG also 800 years later.

A second immigration 800 years later is indeed not known by archaeology but I somewhat doubt that such one is now determined by the authors. Does this non-local HG not also show up in BAC individuals?

As for the crucial question from where the (pre) Germanic language came, all aspects that are cons as for the BAC are even stronmger cons for a second immigration from the east at abt. 2000 - 1600 BCE. Because there is a notable language contact with Italic-Celtic languages needed for the evolution of Germanic. And the very minor BBC influence at the Scandinvian peninsula will long have vained at that time. I've not yet heard of a theory according to which there was ever spoken Celtic in the Scandinavian peninsula.

I admit, I am still muddling through this paper, and far from expert on any of this, but I did read it to mean that they detected a second immigration, 800 years later.

"Within Scandinavia, three clusters are apparent (Extended
Data Figure 4): 1) an early Scandinavian cluster, including the oldest Swedish (Battle Axe
Culture) and Danish samples and almost all Norwegians, 2) a later ‘Southern Scandinavian’
cluster restricted to Denmark and the southern tip of Sweden, and 3) a second later ‘Eastern
Scandinavian’ cluster, spread across Sweden and overlapping with that of the Southern
Scandinavia cluster. In all three instances, there is a very close correspondence between Y-
haplogroups and the IBD clusters (Extended Data Figure 4A), largely driven by different
frequencies of haplogroups I1a-DF29, R1a1a1b1a3a (R1a-Z284) and R1b1a1b1a1a1 (R1b-
U106), which are all strongly associated with Scandinavian ancestry (Supplementary Note 6.4.2).

   

[alanarchae]

Rodoorn, recalcitrance does not mean that Germanic is not coherent. Coherence means lack of inner structure – that is not the case with Germanic. It is a very coherent branch: all Germanic languages always group together. 

What they are saying is that the station of Germanic in the family tree is unstable and uncertain, because it shares features with so many other branches. Therefore, they first made a tree without Germanic (page 90), and then put Germanic “in the middle”, so it came next to Albanian. (“…Germanic should be placed in what we are calling the core of the family – the residue after the departure of Anatolian, Tocharian and Italo-Celtic.”)

This seems to be purely arbitrary and based only on principle “not far from any branches it shares features with”, because Germanic actually does not share any features alone with Albanian. So, the family tree is actually quite misleading, as the family tree is usually understood so that the closest branches share the greatest number of features together.

P.S. About reading the tree figure for ‘hand’:
According to Mallory & Adams 2006: 180, Albanian dorë comes from PIE *gˆhés-r- ‘hand’ and is not related to Germanic word *handuz.
https://smerdaleos.files.wordpress.com/2...-adams.pdf
And indeed, the tree figure for ‘hand’ has PIE *gˆhés-r- coded as 1, showing this cognate 1 in Anatolian, Tocharian, Albanian, Armenian, and Greek. Germanic has a different word, coded as 4. They do not put Albanian next to Germanic because it would have the same word for ‘hand’, but irrespective of that it does not have the same word.

You are right with the coherence and recalcitrant are different. Slip of the tongue. Germanic recalcitrancy suits me better anyway

petty well agree with all of that. And I didn’t mean to imply being on an interface made the eastern north sea group backwards. Interfaces are good places to be. Arguably bell beaker and even la Tene culture arose because they were on the edge of a culture where it interfaced with another block (NW edge of CW and northern edge of Hallstatt D respectively). Interfaces can be ideal places to create something new.

[alanarchae]

So if i’m reading this right, U106 was linked to the south Scandinavian cluster centred on Denmark and presumably of single grave origin? R1a was presumably related to the initial battle axe wave that swept east to west across peninsular Scandinavia and I1 is being seen as another wave from the east Baltic CW c. 2000BC.

[alanarchae]

must admit I am slightly struggling to compare this paper with https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06862-3

Alentoft seems to state that Danish beaker era (dagger period) cluster with west and central Europeans, apparently implying a shift from an older higher steppe CW/single grave group into took place c.2300BC. So Alentoft seems to include a kind of beaker/very early post-beaker phase c. 2300-1800BCthat the new paper doesn’t. Or at least it seems to skip over it despite apparently noting both the early CW phase and the post-2000BC wave from the Baltic.

I’d need to check again but didn’t the new paper have a lack of samples from western Jutland? the area geographically closest to the beaker derivatives eastern north sea group. Also, correct me if i’m wrong but we’re a couple of beaker phase burials in Denmark not previously shown to be P312? Maybe Borreby?

As others have pointed out, the new paper seems to miss out some archaeologically relevant facts.

[NewEnglander]

must admit I am slightly struggling to compare this paper with https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06862-3

Alentoft seems to state that Danish beaker era (dagger period) cluster with west and central Europeans, apparently implying a shift from an older higher steppe CW/single grave group into took place c.2300BC. So Alentoft  seems to include a kind of beaker/very early post-beaker phase c. 2300-1800BCthat the new paper doesn’t. Or at least it seems to skip over it despite apparently noting both the early CW phase and the post-2000BC wave from the Baltic.

I’d need to check again but didn’t the new paper have a lack of samples from western Jutland?  the area geographically closest to the beaker derivatives eastern north sea group. Also, correct me if i’m wrong but we’re a couple of beaker phase burials in Denmark not previously shown to be P312? Maybe Borreby?

As others have pointed out, the new paper seems to miss out some archaeologically relevant facts.

I'm having trouble finding it in the paper (maybe it's gone after an update?) but here's a line quoted on Genomic Atlas https://genomicatlas.org/2022/07/15/from...-neolithic

“Interestingly, more fine-scale sub-haplogroup placements of those individuals revealed that Y chromosome lineages distinguished samples from distinct genetic clusters inferred from autosomal IBD sharing (Fig. S3b.6, S3b.7). In particular, individuals associated with the Scandinavian cluster Scandinavia_4200BP_3200BP were all placed within the sub-haplogroup R1b1a1b1a1a1 (R1b-U106), whereas the two Scandinavian males associated with the Western European cluster Europe_4500BP_2000BP were placed within R1b1a1b1a1a2 (R1b-P312) (Fig. 928 S3b.7)”. 

I'm guessing any Beaker influence would be limited to Jutland, the islands seem to be the territory of more northern R-Z18 and I1 until later continental influences.

[Rodoorn]

Here is a fresh overview on Germanic by Bjarne Simmelkjær Sandgaard Hansen and Guus Jan Kroonen (2022):

"10.5 The Position of Germanic
As demonstrated in Section 10.4, no branch offers itself as an obvious candidate for sharing a common node with Germanic in the Indo-European cladistic tree.
- -
We could tentatively choose to see [listed several linguistic features] as evidence in favour of a cladistic partnership with Balto-Slavic and Tocharian or with Italic, respectively. However, these pieces of evidence obviously point in different directions, and as for the Balto-Slavic connection, other pieces of evidence show shared innovations with Baltic only, not with Slavic, which indicates a period of contact and joint development between Germanic and Balto-Slavic languages during a relatively late time period and, in any event, after the initial breakup of Balto-Slavic. The same goes for the Germano-Italic innovations that are not also shared with Celtic and thus must postdate the initial breakup of Italo-Celtic. Two linguistic arguments may, however, be presented in favour of a relatively early split of Germanic."

The same text (in Ollander CUP 2022) concludes:

Perhaps then, these are potential indications that Germanic split off from PIE at a relatively early stage, as these features are generally lost in the non-Anatolian branches. Based on this interpretation, we may surmise that Germanic broke off from Proto-Indo-European after Anatolian and just before or after Tocharian.

notice: "these features" are nominal Ablaut and preterit-present.

This is rather vague. What are the indications? What are these features? And when did it split of? 

And is this only with regard to the Germanic part of the "initial" IE package Germanic-Celtic-Italic?

Looks like statement without much substitution.....

[Rodoorn]

In the end, where is the root of I1, the Eastern Baltic or the Danish Islands?

Indeed I miss in the whole discussion the Ertebølle HG c.q. the TRB (type Ostorf) on the West Baltic Sea side!

When Single Grave (initital based on Jutland) fuzed with TRB- based on the Danish Isles this was TRB "powered by" Ertebølle ancestry! (in red).



https://www.academia.edu/30912826/Was_th...lennium_BC

[Rodoorn]

And how about this wizard of Oz linguistics?

"Afro-Asiatic words in Germanic might reflect the Ertebølle culture."

One private advantage: my E-V22 search is solved: seems to be Ertebølle related

https://www.academia.edu/30698044/LANGUA...haplogroup

[Jaska]

Rodoorn:

This is rather vague. What are the indications? What are these features? And when did it split of?
And is this only with regard to the Germanic part of the "initial" IE package Germanic-Celtic-Italic?
Looks like statement without much substitution.....

The features are mentioned in the article. 
The point is that Germanic has been difficult to set within the IE family tree. It shares features with several branches, but on the other hand shows developments which separate it from the other branches. Germanic-Italic-Celtic is no more valid than Germanic-Baltic-Slavic, and it is possible that all these shared features with all other branches are acquired by contacts after the initial separation of Germanic.

[Pylsteen]

And how about this wizard of Oz linguistics?

"Afro-Asiatic words in Germanic might reflect the Ertebølle culture."

One private advantage: my E-V22 search is solved: seems to be Ertebølle related

https://www.academia.edu/30698044/LANGUA...haplogroup

Looks like bogus to me...

[Vinitharya]

I think Z18 might have come with L664, a western Corded Ware lineage that is found among Germanic people, in the Single Grave Culture. I1 either came with them or the Z284 wave.

[Psynome]

I've been investigating the modelling behind the authors claim that the East Scandinavia 2800bp+ cluster is modelled with only Baltic HG ancestry in the supplements. If you go to Figure 6.3.1.6 in the Supplemental Notes 2-7 file, the violin plot seems to indicate the exact opposite...Only the North and South Scandinavian clusters show any modeled ancestry with the donor labeled Latvia-Lithuania HG (WHG 0_5_1_3_32800+).

This means there is an error somewhere. Either the graph is mislabeled or the authors made an opposite claim to what the analysis shows. And without this evidence, the claim that East Scandinavians result from a cross Baltic migration ~4100bp becomes much weaker considering a number of the other archaeological correlates (gallery graves etc) they find for the ~2100BCE entry seem to have originated to the south, not the east.