Hello guest, if you read this it means you are not registered. Click here to register in a few simple steps, you will enjoy all features of our Forum.

Germanic lineage arrived from the east?
#1
McColl et al. 2024: "Steppe Ancestry in western Eurasia and the spread of the Germanic Languages"
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/...3.584607v1

The genetic part is discussed over here:
https://genarchivist.com/showthread.php?tid=639

...but I think it is clearest to discuss the linguistic part on this linguistic subforum. Here are some interesting quotes from the study:

“Linguistically, the Late Bronze Age is the period during which Palaeo-Germanic donated vocabulary to Finno-Saamic in the east and adopted vocabulary from Celtic in the south, suggesting that it was spoken widely among East Scandinavians distributed between Sweden and Denmark, and possibly also in the Nordic Bronze Age communities in Finland and Estonia.” (Page 34)

“At any rate, the persistent genetic border between Southern and Eastern Scandinavians throughout the Iron Age suggested that the Proto-Germanic speech community united these different populations until its dissolution around 2000 BP.” (Page 35)

“Our results demonstrate the arrival of a strong component of North German IA ancestry, in combination with a series of ancestries previously associated with Celtic-speaking groups and populations carrying European Farmer (in addition to GAC) ancestry from north-western Europe. In the Danish islands, the shift amounts to a virtually complete population replacement.” (Page 36)

“In Denmark and Sweden we show strong genetic evidence suggesting that observed archaeological and linguistic changes are linked to the migration of Iron Age Danes. Based on the genetic heterogeneity of the migrating population and the inability to identify a suitable source population, it appears that between 1500 and 1200 BP was likely the outcome of an amalgamation among several migrating and local groups, comparable to the formation processes among Germanic groups on the continent. In contrast, in Norway, the adoption of Old Norse and similar social changes as seen in South Scandinavia occurred with limited genetic impact from Southern Scandinavian and must have been more cultural in nature. With the exception of a single early Viking sample, the majority of Viking Age Norwegians appear either to carry local ancestry, or to reflect back migrations from Celtic regions of Britain and Ireland. Of note, the border between the East and West Norse languages closely corresponds closely to that of the Southern Scandinavians and Western Scandinavians clusters during the Viking Period (Figure 6).” (Page 37)

“Our results additionally call for a reappraisal of the linguistic evidence concerning the hypothetical migration of Germanic from the Baltic into Scandinavia and its trajectory of this linguistic subgroup from the Indo-European steppe. The formation of East Scandinavians out of Baltic populations finds an evident linguistic analogue in the isoglosses shared between the Germanic and Balto-Slavic branches of the Indo-European language family, which point to prehistoric borrowing, a linguistic subclade, or both. On the other hand, the relatively late, Bronze Age arrival of agriculture in the Baltic vs the presence in Proto-Germanic of agricultural terms inherited from Indo-European raises a question on the suitability of the archaeological context of this area as a linguistic stepping stone during the Late Neolithic.” (Page 39)

“S6.4.2. Y-chromosome analysis
Haplogroup I1a-DF29 first appears in Scandinavia in the Bronze Age, and its vast number of local descendant lineages seem to indicate an in situ diversification and point of origin (Figure S3). Haplogroup I1a2a (I1a-Z59) is most the common variant of I1a-DF29 among both 0_1_2 SouthScan and 0_1_3 EastScan clusters, but when restricting to individuals older to 2,800 BP, all four are in the Eastern Scandinavian cluster (Figure S4). This likely indicates that its presence in the South Scandinavian cluster to be associated with the later mixture from an Eastern Scandinavian source.”
Naudigastir, Andour, JMcB And 6 others like this post
~ Per aspera ad hominem ~
Y-DNA: N-Z1936 >> CTS8565 >> BY22114 (Savonian)
mtDNA: H5a1e (Northern Fennoscandian)
Reply
#2
The arrival time and route of Germanic branch of the Indo-European language family in Scandinavia has for a long time been uncertain and open to different interpretations. Exactly in this kind of case, when linguistic evidence is non-conclusive, it is possible that results from other disciplines could shed light on the question. This thorough population genetic study indeed gives us some hints (see the quotes above).

Especially interesting is the apparent migration from Latvia during the “Latest Northern Neolithic” (my own definition; in centuries around 2000 BCE). Possible linguistic hints for Germanic having come from the east have been:
1. Ancient innovations shared by Germanic and Balto-Slavic.
2. Possible traces of centum substrate beneath East Baltic languages.
3. Early contacts with Finnic and Saami already since Paleo-Germanic stage (still the West Uralic reconstruction stage), and possibly even older Pre-Germanic contacts with West-Central Uralic (proposed loanwords of Finno-Mordvin or even Finno-Permic distribution).

On the other hand, Celtic contacts have been dated only from 1200 BCE onwards by John Koch. As the Nordic Bronze Age Culture began ca. 1500 BCE, the Celtic contacts naturally cannot disprove the possible Germanic arrival from the east before that time. So, we could once again consider, is there now any evidence requiring early Germanic presence in Central Europe? As we all know, partial genetic or archaeological continuity is apparent practically everywhere, and these cannot testify for linguistic continuity. See the thread on that topic: https://genarchivist.com/showthread.php?tid=503
Anglesqueville, JonikW, Andour And 3 others like this post
~ Per aspera ad hominem ~
Y-DNA: N-Z1936 >> CTS8565 >> BY22114 (Savonian)
mtDNA: H5a1e (Northern Fennoscandian)
Reply
#3
The final remark in the preprint is also very important

Quote:
  • Finally, this study highlights fundamental methodological difficulties in establishing correlations – or lack thereof – between genetic, archaeological and linguistic evidence.
  • For instance, the immigration of East Scandinavians, central to our new model, has so far not been recognized in the archaeological record.
  • During the Late Iron Age, Northwest Germanic was spoken by both Southern, Eastern and Northern Scandinavians, as demonstrated by runic inscriptions from across Scandinavia, despite persistent genetic boundaries between these populations.
  • Following the Migration Period, southern European individuals exhibit late Germanic burial identities without showing ancestry from Northern Europe.
  • These findings underline the differences in the mechanisms behind the proliferation of genetic, linguistic and cultural features and call for additional interdisciplinary studies on the integration of these diverse lines of evidence on human prehistory.
Queequeg, Jaska, JonikW And 7 others like this post
Reply
#4
Could this mean that Germanic was originally a R1a and I1 language, and that U106 was picked up later? With a focus in the Netherlands, U106 could be a Nordwestblock language marker.
alanarchae, JonikW, epoch like this post
Reply
#5
"For instance, the immigration of East Scandinavians, central to our new model, has so far not been recognized in the archaeological record."

This is interesting. There is also an opposite case, where Scandinavian Pitted Ware Culture has been archaeologically connected to the Comb and Pitted Ware cultures in the east, but the genetic results do not show immigration from the east: the population continues the Scandinavian Hunter-Gatherer ancestry.

"During the Late Iron Age, Northwest Germanic was spoken by both Southern, Eastern and Northern Scandinavians, as demonstrated by runic inscriptions from across Scandinavia, despite persistent genetic boundaries between these populations."

Here, too, an opposite example is possible. Just like different populations can share a language, similar populations can represent different language branches or even families. Genetically Mordvins (Uralic speakers) are very similar to Central Russians.

It is important not to suspect that there is something wrong in the results of one discipline, if there is no match with the results of another discipline. Even though cultures and languages often spread with visible genetic trace, sometimes they can spread without it; and languages can spread without visible cultural expansion.
Psynome, Queequeg, Naudigastir And 5 others like this post
~ Per aspera ad hominem ~
Y-DNA: N-Z1936 >> CTS8565 >> BY22114 (Savonian)
mtDNA: H5a1e (Northern Fennoscandian)
Reply
#6
Jaska:
Quote:"For instance, the immigration of East Scandinavians, central to our new model, has so far not been recognized in the archaeological record."

This is interesting. There is also an opposite case, where Scandinavian Pitted Ware Culture has been archaeologically connected to the Comb and Pitted Ware cultures in the east, but the genetic results do not show immigration from the east: the population continues the Scandinavian Hunter-Gatherer ancestry.

Hmmm... Could it be theoretically possible that this observed eastern gene flow would actually be connected already to the Pitted Ware Culture? It is curious if we have cultural influence across the Baltic Sea to Scandinavia without genetic traces, and slightly later genetic influence across the Baltic Sea to Scandinavia without cultural traces...

I mean, can anybody assess how reliable are the dating methods used for the admixture events?
At least the ALDER datings for the admixture of the European and Siberian ancestry by Tambets et al. 2018 were very, very young, much younger than the spread of the Uralic languages. In this study McColl et al. use DATES (Supp notes 2-7, page 72). Their absolute dating method seems valid:

"Lastly, we calculated the absolute admixture date using the relative age of the admixture event from DATES (in generations ago), a mean generation time of 25 years, and the midpoint of the mean radiocarbon ages of all dated individuals in the target population (see figures S6.5.1 and S6.5.2)."

But how about the procedure before that? Are there any weak points in the relative dating method? Or something in the IBD clustering method itself, which could distort the admixture dating?

"We carried out DATES (Narasimhan et al., 2019) analyses to estimate the timing of relevant admixture events in this study. For each set of target/source populations listed in tables S6.2.2.1-5, we first subset plink files to relevant individuals and to the 1240k SNP panel. Next, we converted plink files to eigenstrat format using convertf (Patterson, Price and Reich, 2006; Price et al., 2006) and ran DATES using default settings."
JonikW, Queequeg, JMcB like this post
~ Per aspera ad hominem ~
Y-DNA: N-Z1936 >> CTS8565 >> BY22114 (Savonian)
mtDNA: H5a1e (Northern Fennoscandian)
Reply
#7
(03-15-2024, 07:51 AM)Anglesqueville Wrote: 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.

Before you finally delete all your files of Udolph, it might be worth to check some of his observations again ;-) Maybe (some) of his observations were right but his conclusions (esp. the timeline) wrong. 

If I get the publication right, there was a population replacement on the Danish islands after 400 AD: 

"During the Migration Period, we detect a previously unknown northward migration back into Southern Scandinavia, partly replacing earlier inhabitants and forming the North Germanic-speaking Viking-Age populations of Denmark and southern Sweden, corresponding with historically attested Danes. However, the origin and character of these major changes in Scandinavia before the Viking Age remain contested."
"On the Danish Isles we see discontinuity from around 1600 BP (Extended Data Figure 6)."
"The Danish Isles ancestry that was widespread on Zealand from 2200 BP disappears from ~1600 BP. For the few samples between 1600 BP and 1230 BP we find instead a variety of ancestries, Swedish Iron Age, Celtic Iron Age, Norwegian Iron Age, and Jutlandic (check) Iron Age. In Northern Jutland, this additional resolution reveals a transition within the constant proportion Bronze Age Southern Scandinavian ancestry. Prior to 1600 BP it is modelled as North Jutlandic IA ancestry, which gradually shifts to become primarily modelled as North German IA ancestry."

These observations might correlate with and solve the old riddle of the -leben /-lev place names. 
Udolph:  "Die ungewöhnliche Streuung der Namen (vgl. Karte 22) ist oft diskutiert worden, wobei aber das große und umfassendste Buch zu diesen Namen fast keine Berücksichtigung fand (Bathe). Bezieht man dieses ein, spricht mehr für eine Süd-Nord-Wanderbewegung als die umgekehrte Richtung". (The unusual spread of names (see Map 22) has often been discussed, although the large and most comprehensive book on these names received almost no attention (Bathe). If you take this into account, there is more evidence for a south-north migration than the opposite direction.)
Rufus191, Naudigastir, Jaska And 5 others like this post


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
Reply
#8
Figure 4
JonikW, JMcB, Telemachus And 1 others like this post


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
Reply
#9
Language cannot be seen from the DNA, so it all comes to the linguistic evidence. Concerning Germanic lineage, it is notoriously difficult to trace.

1. No conclusive linguistic evidence exists concerning the earliest Pre-Proto-Germanic stages: different studies put Germanic closest (taxonomically or contactwise) to different IE branches: Balto-Slavic, Italo-Celtic, Albanian, Tocharian…

2. Contacts with Celtic occur only ca. 1200 BCE in Southern Scandinavia, according to John Koch.

3. Contacts with West Uralic are more difficult to date precisely. Paleo-Germanic loanwords in Finnic and Saami could be just slightly earlier than Late Proto-Germanic, but they could also be clearly earlier (fork ca. 1000–500 BCE). The proposed older Pre-Proto-Germanic loanwords in West Uralic are still rather uncertain, as competing explanations have been proposed at least for some of such loanwords.

What we can establish is that the Scandinavian Bronze Age Culture, beginning ca. 1500 BCE, is already related to the Germanic lineage. But still we cannot say, when the language lineage arrived in Scandinavia: only slightly earlier (1a) from the east or (1b) from the south, or more than a millennium earlier (2a) from the east or (2b) from the south, or at some point between these two ends.

Archaeological and genetic results are potentially illuminating in the case of Germanic lineage, yet they are only hints: we still cannot predict/postdict language from the archaeological or genetic data.
- Languages might spread with a major migration, but they might also spread without a major migration.
- Major migration might bring a new language to the region, but it might also bring only loanwords into the local language, or no afterwards visible linguistic material at all.

Therefore, we cannot just decide that some major migration was responsible for spreading certain language – that would be utterly unscientific. I know many people here can already understand this, but some still cannot.
Psynome, Anglesqueville, Orentil And 2 others like this post
~ Per aspera ad hominem ~
Y-DNA: N-Z1936 >> CTS8565 >> BY22114 (Savonian)
mtDNA: H5a1e (Northern Fennoscandian)
Reply
#10
Then, what about the migration from Germany to Southern Scandinavia ca. 400 CE?

1. At the time of this migration from Germany to the north (ca. 400 CE), several Germanic branches were already clearly distinguishable from each other; Gothic was even written already during the 4th century CE. Therefore, if there was a language replacement Proto-Scandinavian --> Continental West Germanic, there should not exist any extant Scandinavian languages but northern dialects of Continental West Germanic in Scandinavia. And that is not the case in this reality.

2. Moreover, we know from the Runic inscriptions since ca. 100 CE that there was a gradual change from Northwest Germanic to Proto-Scandinavian to Transitional Scandinavian to Old Scandinavian. There are no signs of replacing the Scandinavian lineage with the Continental West Germanic lineage.

To conclude: undeniable linguistic evidence shows that no language replacement occurred in Southern Scandinavia following the migration from Germany ca. 400 CE.
(See also the end of my previous message concerning migrations and linguistic expansions.)
Anglesqueville, Kaltmeister, Andour And 4 others like this post
~ Per aspera ad hominem ~
Y-DNA: N-Z1936 >> CTS8565 >> BY22114 (Savonian)
mtDNA: H5a1e (Northern Fennoscandian)
Reply
#11
(03-16-2024, 11:30 AM)Orentil Wrote: Figure 4

How about this Orentil?

Angles already figured out that my parents were "pure Danish IA" (according to a qadm).

This is confirmed by the paper.

A BB related Eastern North Sea-cluster- see the paper- in (Northern) Netherlands was overlaid by an incoming influx from Danish IA.

Somehow this reminds me of this from archeologist Johan Nicolay (2007), the Danish realm in late Roman and early migration times:

[Image: Scherm-afbeelding-2024-03-17-om-11-20-04.png]

What do you think?
Orentil likes this post
Reply
#12
(03-17-2024, 06:23 AM)Jaska Wrote: Then, what about the migration from Germany to Southern Scandinavia ca. 400 CE?

1. At the time of this migration from Germany to the north (ca. 400 CE), several Germanic branches were already clearly distinguishable from each other; Gothic was even written already during the 4th century CE. Therefore, if there was a language replacement Proto-Scandinavian --> Continental West Germanic, there should not exist any extant Scandinavian languages but northern dialects of Continental West Germanic in Scandinavia. And that is not the case in this reality.

2. Moreover, we know from the Runic inscriptions since ca. 100 CE that there was a gradual change from Northwest Germanic to Proto-Scandinavian to Transitional Scandinavian to Old Scandinavian. There are no signs of replacing the Scandinavian lineage with the Continental West Germanic lineage.

To conclude: undeniable linguistic evidence shows that no language replacement occurred in Southern Scandinavia following the migration from Germany ca. 400 CE.
(See also the end of my previous message concerning migrations and linguistic expansions.)

Hhm, that‘s not what the paper is saying, therefore it would be interesting to get your detailed comments on their statements
Reply
#13
@ Jaska,

In the (North) Dutch case I'm inclined to this, and this follows quit strictly the paper.

"We further find that the IA Southern Scandinavians that arose from admixture between Bronze Age Southern and Eastern Scandinavians are central to understanding the Germanic dispersal. After the Pre-Roman Iron Age, around 2000 BP, Proto-Germanic diverged into North, East and West Germanic. The spread of West Germanic to Germany, the Netherlands  and Britain, appears to be closely related to populations migrating from the Jutland Peninsula.

In these regions, we see the transition from Bell Beaker-related to the Corded Ware-related  Southern Scandinavian ancestry. For Germany and Britain, where Celtic was known to be  spoken, this period also saw a linguistic transition to Germanic. In the Netherlands, IA Southern Scandinavians’ ancestry became dominant in the place of a distinct Eastern North Sea population. The linguistic affiliation of this population is unknown. According to the linguistic ‘Nordwestblock’ hypothesis, the Netherlands may have harboured a language distinct from both Celtic and Germanic80. Given that ENS is a Bell Beaker subcluster, which is associated with Celtic languages in Britain and France, our results can alternatively be  brought in line with theories of Celtic speakers, perhaps including the Frisii of the Roman Period, inhabiting the Dutch North Sea coast during the Early Iron Age 81.

Although no unadmixed ENS populations are found during the migration period, the incoming Southern Scandinavians carry small proportions of ENS ancestry, indicating the migrations were not a complete replacement. Dutch coastal areas see a habitation hiatus around 1600 BP and subsequent appearance of a new material culture that is often referred to as Anglo-Saxon in nature 82, mirroring the genetics and timing of the Late Iron Age, linguistically West- Germanic Frisians in this dataset. In addition, we find that the Southern Scandinavian  ancestry of these migrating populations is better modelled by individuals near Southern rather than the Northern Jutland, and that the migrating populations often carry varying but minor proportions of ENS ancestry, inherited from the earlier people who previously lived in the region. In contrast to previous studies, which relied on Scandinavian samples postdating the Migration Period 47, we can now reject the Danish Isles and Sweden as a source area for the  Anglo-Saxons in Britain, as these were dominated by Eastern Scandinavian ancestry prior to831 the Viking Age (Figure 6)."

The language shift is from NW Block by Kuhn et al (1962) or as Schrijver has called it North Sea Celtic (2018), see: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/fri...D40129BE3B to Old Frisian (related to Old English).

This is in the time frame congruent with a genetic shift from ENS towards Danish IA related ancestry. I don't think the occurrence of both phenomenons the language shift and an influx of Danish IA related ancestry is total coincidental.
Uintah106 and Orentil like this post
Reply
#14
(03-17-2024, 10:38 AM)Orentil Wrote:
(03-17-2024, 06:23 AM)Jaska Wrote: Then, what about the migration from Germany to Southern Scandinavia ca. 400 CE?

1. At the time of this migration from Germany to the north (ca. 400 CE), several Germanic branches were already clearly distinguishable from each other; Gothic was even written already during the 4th century CE. Therefore, if there was a language replacement Proto-Scandinavian --> Continental West Germanic, there should not exist any extant Scandinavian languages but northern dialects of Continental West Germanic in Scandinavia. And that is not the case in this reality.

2. Moreover, we know from the Runic inscriptions since ca. 100 CE that there was a gradual change from Northwest Germanic to Proto-Scandinavian to Transitional Scandinavian to Old Scandinavian. There are no signs of replacing the Scandinavian lineage with the Continental West Germanic lineage.

To conclude: undeniable linguistic evidence shows that no language replacement occurred in Southern Scandinavia following the migration from Germany ca. 400 CE.
(See also the end of my previous message concerning migrations and linguistic expansions.)

Hhm, that‘s not what the paper is saying, therefore it would be interesting to get your detailed comments  on their statements

What the paper says to you? It certainly does not say that the Scandinavian language lineage derives from these later immigrants from Germany, as you can see. 

"Linguistically, this period is one of central importance to Northern Europe. Runic inscriptions from across Scandinavia testify to a North Germanic language that remained relatively similar to Proto-Germanic during 2000 - 1500 BP. However, during the Migration period (1575 - 1200 BP) the language underwent far-reaching changes resulting in the formation of Old Norse. The glottogenesis of Old Norse thus coincides with a period of social and demographic instability. Following this transition, the originally common Germanic script known as the Elder Futhark was likewise fundamentally remodelled, giving rise to the Younger Futhark that was tailored specifically to Old Norse, and was taken into use all across Scandinavia."

They write what fully agrees with what I wrote:
1. This period is linguistically important.
2. North Germanic = Scandinavian lineage remained archaic 2000-1500 BP.
3. After that began transitional Scandinavian changes, leading to Old Scandinavian stage.
4. Linguistic change coincides with demographic instability. (It is well known that often languages in intense contacts change faster, while isolated languages change slower = remain more archaic.)
5. Futhark alphabet changed, too, to better suit for writing the language (which had developed several different kinds of vowel umlauts, for example).

They do not say that new language arrived from Germany, or even that any linguistic influence came from there (like loanwords). They imply that the migration from Germany led to a "demographic instability", but even without that, intense contacts with the newcomers alone would be enough to cause rapid changes in the local language.
JMcB, Anglesqueville, Orentil And 3 others like this post
~ Per aspera ad hominem ~
Y-DNA: N-Z1936 >> CTS8565 >> BY22114 (Savonian)
mtDNA: H5a1e (Northern Fennoscandian)
Reply
#15
“In Denmark and Sweden we show strong genetic evidence suggesting that observed archaeological and linguistic changes are linked to the migration of Iron Age Danes. Based on the genetic heterogeneity of the migrating population and the inability to identify a suitable source population, it appears that between 1500 and 1200 BP was likely the outcome of an amalgamation among several migrating and local groups, comparable to the formation processes among Germanic groups on the continent. In contrast, in Norway, the adoption of Old Norse and similar social changes as seen in South Scandinavia occurred with limited genetic impact from Southern Scandinavian and must have been more cultural in nature. With the exception of a single early Viking sample, the majority of Viking Age Norwegians appear either to carry local ancestry, or to reflect back migrations from Celtic regions of Britain and Ireland. Of note, the border between the East and West Norse languages closely corresponds closely to that of the Southern Scandinavians and Western Scandinavians clusters during the Viking Period (Figure 6).” (Page 37)

Wouldn't that also need to be the case in the east if this is a South Scandinavian-driven cultural/linguistic expansion? I.e in Eastern/Northern Sweden, where it doesn't seem this South Scandinavian ancestry was very widespread until much later than the actual cultural shift. I see they make no equivalence between this expansion and any genetic source population, but they also clearly state that it's centered in the south and linked to "the migration of Iron Age Danes".

EDIT: Last post from Jaska mostly clarifies my concern.
JonikW, Anglesqueville, JMcB And 1 others like this post
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)