search this blog

Thursday, May 18, 2017

Two early Slavs from Bohemia


Two Bohemian Bell Beaker genomes from Allentoft et al. 2015 - RISE568 and RISE569 - are labeled as early Czech Slavs in the new Mathieson et al. 2017 preprint (see rows 148 and 149 in the spreadsheet here).

Obviously these samples were initially wrongly dated to the Bronze Age and misidentified. They really date to 600-900 CE and 660-770 calCE, respectively. It's an unfortunate mistake, but also an interesting situation, because they've been analyzed in great detail in several papers and on this blog, and no one suspected that anything was wrong.

So the fact that these two Medieval Slavs from East Central Europe passed so convincingly for eastern Bell Beakers is a hint of very strong genetic continuity in the region since the Bronze Age. Indeed, they're very similar to present-day Czechs, western Poles (from Poznan), and eastern Germans, except perhaps with lower excess Western Hunter-Gatherer (WHG) ancestry and higher Yamnaya-related ancestry.

This is where RISE569, the higher coverage of the two genomes, clusters in my Principal Component Analysis (PCA) of West Eurasian populations.


Unfortunately, both are females, so there's no Y-DNA data. But I suspect that if there was, we'd probably know something was wrong, because their Y-chromosome haplogroups may have turned out to be relatively young Slavic-specific subclades of R1a-M548 and/or R1a-Z280.

See also...

Late PIE ground zero now obvious; location of PIE homeland still uncertain, but...

49 comments:

P Piranha said...

No evidence of early Slavs being the product of expansion from WHG-rich populations at the extreme end of the Baltic-Finnic cline.

Rob said...

However, these are probably already admixed with late Germanics residual in Czechia. So they're not Proto- Slavic

Matt said...

First saw this spotted by Azra as well (nice one).

I definitely didn't see anything wrong (as such) with these samples Rise568 and Rise569, but I did notice that there was an effect where the average of Czech Bell Beaker had a tree position much closer to Balto-Slavs in Days of High Adventure PCA trees and dimensions. (Not sure how much mind I paid to the substructure among the samples).

Visually, you can see it quite easily in the dendrograms basedon the PCA:

Days of High Adventure PCA: Smaller: http://i.imgur.com/QSyTqQi.png (based on mainly European moderns), Larger: http://i.imgur.com/IiY8EFm.png (more diverse panel, but only max of 5 per pop).

Based on PCA IRC projecting ancients onto modern a European variation: http://i.imgur.com/69yf7vq.png

RISE568 seems to have a much more Northern / HG character than RISE569. RISE569 is similar to Slovenians/Slovakians, while RISE568 is similar to Lativans/Lithuanians/Potapovka.

There is still RISE566 which is presumably a Czech Beaker still. In DoHA that still looks somewhat central European, but not as clearly sitting on a branch with Slavic populations as the early Slavic samples, rather in an unusual position bridging Northern European (Norwegian+Sweden) and Hungary_BA samples.

It's nice to have a couple of samples who represent early Slavic populations in the way the Iron Age Anglo Saxons and Celts have some representation for early Germanic and Celtic populations (despite being unintentional). You could run outgroup f3 on these and see what the correlations.

Davidski said...

RISE568 has very few markers, so perhaps its results aren't very robust. But RISE569 has enough SNPs to provide solid outcomes.

Obviously, I merged them when testing their ancient components with qpAdm, so the merged composite was mostly RISE569.

Alogo said...

Pretty cool. Did anyone ask for definite confirmation by any chance? I assume they wouldn't have made the change otherwise, anyway...

David, is it possible to highlight Germans, Czechs, Poles, Slovaks, Ukrainians and Polish Corded Ware on that PCA?

zardos said...

Rather BB mixed earlier and more with GAC like populations than CW. GAC was one of those cultures which survived the first expansion waves in many localities and had a significant overlap with and influence on CWC. But probably most of the mixing happened somewhat later in CW territory and the BB expansion coming around from the West had an impact as well.

Also, Slavs themselves expanded over other ethnicities like Germanic, Thracian, Iranian, Finnic and unknown ones. Most of the Poles, but even more so Czechs and Slovaks, should have a lot of non-Slavic, rather Western derived admixture.

Ryan said...

@Rob - However, these are probably already admixed with late Germanics residual in Czechia. So they're not Proto- Slavic

It was also the Celtic heartland before Germans got there. Not that surprising that there's a high degree of similarity with Bell Beakers.

Szkx said...

Here is a PCA based on Eurogenes K15 results with merged northeastern and northwestern components with my 28 Czech samples from GEDMatch plus some Slovaks and Rusyns. Not very scientific, but informative enough. Note RISE577, Czech sample from Unetice culture and RISE569, Czech Slav.
http://jpeg.cz/images/2017/05/19/NPeg5.png

Nick Patterson (Broad) said...

This kind of thing is inevitable. There can be lab mixups of various types
or reburials (so a body winds up in deeper strata). This is a reason that
I am nervous about making heavy inference from samples that are outliers in
a population.
a) Outlier might be of real interest
b) Or the sample has an atypical history
c) Or something is wrong.

Often hard to tell. The Reich lab is carbon dating more and more samples
though this is expensive!

Samuel Andrews said...

It's important to remember than West Eurasia-wide PCA(s) can't determine ethnicity. Modern Czechs don't cluster far away from German Beakers, so it isn't a big deal that early Slavs in Czech cluster close to German Beakers.

Romulus said...

@Nick

When are we getting some Mycenean Greek DNA? IMO that will wrap up the Indo-European question neatly.

Davidski said...

It's important to remember than West Eurasia-wide PCA(s) can't determine ethnicity. Modern Czechs don't cluster far away from German Beakers, so it isn't a big deal that early Slavs in Czech cluster close to German Beakers.

It's even more important to note that plenty of other tests have been run on these two.

Nirjhar007 said...

Romulus,

Its coming buddy , the first direct Indo-European Genome of pre-history ...

MaxT said...

@Nirjhar007
"the first direct Indo-European Genome of pre-history"

What are you talking about? I'm not sure which study you're referring to

postneo said...

@Romulus
"When are we getting some Mycenean Greek DNA? IMO that will wrap up the Indo-European question neatly."

No it will start the process. Whats if Mycenean DNA has little sharing with Steppe or Hittite. What if it only matches Hittite or only Steppe etc?

postneo said...

@Max T
"What are you talking about? I'm not sure which study you're referring to"

Mycenean

EastPole said...

@Rob
“However, these are probably already admixed with late Germanics residual in Czechia. So they're not Proto- Slavic”

Early Slav RISE569 is very similar to present-day Czechs.
Present-day Czechs on PCA are located between Poles and Hungarians, Hungarians between Czechs and Croatians:

http://polishgenes.blogspot.com/2016/06/poles-in-new-human-origins-dataset.html

Are you suggesting that Germanics were similar to Hungarians and Croatians? If so then who were the people living in Holland, Denmark, England?

In my opinion Proto-Slavs were very diverse people, from Unetice to Sintashta autosomaly.
All mixtures of Corded Ware and EEF would fit Proto-Slavs as Corded Ware most likely were Balto-Slavs.

Rob said...

@ EastPole

No that's not what I'm suggesting at all.
What I said was that these early Slavs from C.R. are in all likelihood already mixed with the Germanic communities which remained behind.

Your opinion about a diversity about Proto-Slavs is also likely to be wrong. Because DNA, linguistics and archaeology strongly implies that the expansion occurred in the 6th century from a compact territory somewhere in Ukraine.
So this group wouldn't Harbour Bronze Age depth diversity.

Nirjhar007 said...

How old is the Slavic identity?.

zardos said...

Czechs and Hungarians in particular have a lot of Germanic admixture and thats no conjecture but a fact. Both ancient and recent one. The recent one can be proven by historical facts and surnames for example, with the latter covering just a smaller part though, because of cultural assimilation.

EastPole said...

Nirjhar007

"How old is the Slavic identity?"

When R1a-Z645 Balto-Slavic CWC came from the steppe and mixed with EEF in Vistula region Proto-Slavs originated, it happened around 3000 BC.
Genetics agrees here with linguistics as the same date was estimated by Trubachev and others.
Many words in Vedic Sanskrit resemble more Slavic words than Baltic words, for example numerals four, five, first etc, which proves that when R1a-Z93 separated and migrated to India such words already existed among Proto-Slavs who stayed in Central-Eastern and were separated from Proto-Balts.


@zardos
“The recent one can be proven by historical facts and surnames for example”

This is false. It has been researched. There is no correlation between German names and German admixture among Slavs. There is correlation between Slavic names and Slavic admixture among Germans.
A lot of Jews have German names too but they are not mixed with Germans. German names were given by German administration to Jews and Slavs in Austro-Hungarian empire and in Prussia. This is the reason why German names are popular among Jews and Slavs, not German admixture.

Nirjhar007 said...

EastPole,


Did anything traceable (Archaeology,Cultural Motifs of Slav features) or anybody called 'Slav' (Ethnically) existed before at best 500 BC?. Tell me Truly.

Matt said...

I pulled out that old PCA that Davidski ran, where he projected ancients purely onto a European+Iranian PCA, without Basques or Sardinians, and some more graphs on imgur showing the position of these two early Slavic and the Czech Bell Beaker there - http://imgur.com/a/fFs1O

Images 1-3 show the position in the context of PC1 and PC2 of European variation. PC1 loads heavily on Northern vs Southern European ancestry, while PC2 loads heavily on Eastern vs Western European (i.e. at extremes Slavic vs Celtic and Germanic languages today). PC2 is pretty different to what you get in a West Eurasia wide PCA, where this is much more dominated by the general contrast between the West Med to Caucasus (Anatolia to CHG).

You can see here that the positin of the Anglo Saxon and Iron Age England samples is pretty far from the two Early Slavic samples.

Image 4 is the dendrogram tree based on these dimensions. Image 5 is a reprocessing through PCA; this makes the contrasts between ancients much more dominant again, as they are very distinguished in what are, for Europeans, low dimensions of variation (the main dimensions of differences between Europeans today are not quite the same as the dimensions of differences between ancient samples).

Note that apart from the two early Slavic samples, these are population averages, so likely to undersell the dispersal of populations on these dimensions a little.

There's quite a lot of compression here for ancients, particularly for the ancient Iranian Neolithic, but for recent moderns in Europe, projecting onto PCA formed purely from recent differentiation links up nicely to the expected affinity, and would be a good idea, I think, going forward.

Twasztar said...

@Nirjhar007

How old is the Slavic identity?

Don't know how old exactly, but for sure Slavonic language/culture is at least as old as its equivalent brother branch i.e. Indo-Iranian. This is obvious for everyone who has any actual knowledge about Slavonic languages. The word "Slav" itself is attested in over 3000 years old Sanskrit language.

@Rob

DNA, linguistics and archaeology strongly implies that the expansion occurred in the 6th century from a compact territory somewhere in Ukraine

DNA, linguistics and archeology actually imply nothing that would be even remotely close to what you are suggesting here.

zardos said...

@Eastpole: I spoke more specifically about Czech and Hungarian in particular. In Hungary any estimate based on German surnames must be too low, because many changed their name to the Magyar version. And in Czechs its also a clear cut thing, even though you are right that some Czechs were given German names by the administration. About Poles I'm not as sure.

Szkx said...

Eurogenes K13 PCA with Czech and Slovak samples, west vs. east.
http://jpeg.cz/images/2017/05/20/zknO.png
Czechs definitely have some RISE577-like northwestern ancestry, not only Slavic. I think RISE569 is mixed Slav/Celto-Germanic (more Germanic than Celtic).

EastPole said...

@Twasztar
“Don't know how old exactly, but for sure Slavonic language/culture is at least as old as its equivalent brother branch i.e. Indo-Iranian. This is obvious for everyone who has any actual knowledge about Slavonic languages. The word "Slav" itself is attested in over 3000 years old Sanskrit language”

Your nick which is the name of Rigvedic god Tvaṣṭṛ has Slavic etymology < Sl. ‘tvor-’ “to create”
So you are probably aware of this.

The ancestors of Vedic Aryans had Slavic names:

http://s29.postimg.org/vima48vav/Lakha.jpg

http://www.vedamsbooks.com/no55377/cognate-words-sanskrit-russian-indu-lekha

There is no doubt about it because Slavic ‘l’ is older than Vedic ‘r’:

http://s29.postimg.org/ohu5h3l2v/screenshot_132.png

Sk. ‘r’ < Sl. ‘l’
Sk. ‘Bhurishrava’ < Sl. ‘Boleslav’
In Corded Ware in Poland more likely Slavic version ‘Boleslav’ was used than much later Vedic.
Boleslav is a common name in Poland or Russia now and has always been:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boles%C5%82aw_I_the_Brave

There are many other things, but some people are just not ready for it yet. I hope they will grow up.

Lukasz M said...

@East Pole, I don't want to be silly. But you consider possibility of:
a)Indo-Aryan influnece on proto-Slav (geographic proximity is obvious)
b)Common east PIE roots for both Indo-Aryan and Slav (or Balto-Slav)

Similarity to Slavic languages doesn't mean that always Slavs were first in the chain, not the opposite...

Alogo said...

I'll recommend Gołąb's 'The Origin of the Slavs' again, since he was a Polish linguist after all, for some of the interesting opinions above.

Sam, maybe I misunderstood your point, but we wouldn't be looking at a PCA to determine 'ethnicity' in the first place, no? Even if the two can highly correlate, especially in the past and in more bounded communities, or potentially (dis)confirm some migrations and theories, ultimately genetics can't define 'ethnicity'.

Nirjhar007 said...

EastPole , Yes Shrava and Slav are cognates , Bhurishrava and Boleslav can also be cognates .

But again RV is a North Indian literature of Early to middle 2nd millennium BC mostly and if it depicts ''Slavs'' ( It don''t actually , this is a common inheritance word ) then they actually came from India! :). RV also attests the L as you see in Lohita,Sloka etc .

Lets see what Indian aDNA brings.

There are many other things, but some people are just not ready for it yet. .

I am ready, bring it .

EastPole said...

@Nirjhar007
“But again RV is a North Indian literature of Early to middle 2nd millennium BC”

Yes, RV is a North Indian literature, I know it. Great North Indian religious poetry. A treasure few people can really appreciate.
At the same time it is the oldest religious poetry written in Indo-European language and according to specialists it contains many common IE elements.

There are very old links between Slavs, Hellenes and Vedic Aryans for example in poetry:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?p=210172#post210172

But not only common archaic poetic metres link their poetry, used words, poetic conventions, metaphors, symbols too.

Great Rigvedic poet Dīrghatamas has the name which can be understood by Slavic speakers if you change ‘r’–>’l’ and as you know ‘l’ is older than ‘r’.

http://s22.postimg.org/7rjaf4v75/screenshot_215.png

Sk.‘dīrgha’means “long” and is cognate with Russian ‘dolga’ or Polish ‘dlugo’ which also mean “long”
http://ukdataexplorer.com/european-translator/?word=long

Sk. ‘tamas’ means “darkness, gloom, deprived of the light ” and is cognate with Russian ‘temno’ or Polish ‘ciemno’ meaning the same.
http://ukdataexplorer.com/european-translator/?word=dark

Dīrghatamas would be ‘dolgatemny’in Russian or ‘długociemny’in Polish. This kind of construction is still in use in Polish, for example similar word ‘cichociemny:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cichociemni

Dīrghatamas writes in RV. 1.158.6 that despite his old age he is still able to drive the chariot of waters:

http://s22.postimg.org/86z5lw6i9/screenshot_216.png

What he means we can deduce from Pindars Olimpian Ode 9 where the poet wishes to be able to drive the chariot of Muses:

http://s22.postimg.org/j948kc0kx/screenshot_217.png

In Greek literature the Muses are referred to as water nymphs, associated with the springs of Helicon and with Pieris.
So the chariot of Waters in RV and the chariot of Muses in Pindar denote the same metaphor of inspiration.

I have already written about Muses nurturing Eros in Greek tradition, Waters nurturing Agni in RV and links between Latin Cupid and Slavic Kupala earlier. It is interesting that the Slavic Kupala rites, connecting water and fire, in which young girls dance around living fire signifying fertility and ritual purification, singing moralizing songs, were celebrated in Poland even in XVI century in the analogous way to those described in RV and in archaic Greek poetry.

So you see that Vedic Aryans, Hellenes and Slavs shared common culture, common poetic language, common religion at some time. I would call it Indo-Slavonic culture ( or Indo-Armeno-Balto-Helleno-Slavonic):

http://s22.postimg.org/79sqd0v01/screenshot_219.png

In my opinion Slavs correspond to the oldest layer of this culture i.e. they are the people who stayed in the homeland while Hellenes and Vedic Aryans are the products of migrations and mixtures.

Nirjhar007 said...

My Dear Shrava brother ;),

I understand you are 'Slavo-Centrist' .And let me tell you and others that I will have no problems, if it gets proven that the Ancestors of Aryas , came from where you suggest!. But you see for Slav , the Earliest trustworthy or dependable archaeological and cultural traits comes from Ukraine IINW from ~2000 YBP , and here you are suggesting that CWC people were proto-Slavs which is ~3000 Years earlier the first robust attestation, IMO they can't be related to Slavs . Slavic identity didn't exist then , but it can be argued somewhat, that they were IE speaking with some relation to Slavic language , but proper Slavic emerged thousands of years after .

Anyway , we will see . But since you dwell in linguistics , I have some questions for you .

1. Is the Cognate for the word Arya attested in Slavic?. If you have the suggestion, please let me know as I am searching for it and couldn't find .

2. Why the cognate for Ashva is absent in Slavic?. Is there any cultural Taboo behind the word?.

EastPole said...

@Nirjhar007
‘Slavic identity didn't exist then’

I don’t understand your theory about Slavic identity. Indo-Iranian identity is much, much younger, it was invented in XIX century. Proto-Indo-European identity is also very young and probably a hoax. So what?

Sk. Arya is probably related to Slavic roots “ri-/ori-/ari-“ it can mean “eagle, excellent man, something higher”, or related to “energy,fertility, horse” ‘orzi, jari, chorzi’. ‘Y-aro-slav’ is a common name.
‘Orya’ was the word which survived among our neighbors in Ugro-Finnic languages as the name for the slaves. It fit Slavic ‘eagles, higher man’.

‘Aśva’ is more complex. We are not sure how it was formed.
‘Aruṣa’ in Sanskrit means “red horse”
Maybe ‘aśva’ is related to ‘śiv-’ which in Slavic means “white” then ‘a-śva’ would mean ‘white horse’ or to ‘śib-‘ which means “fast, flying”, then ‘a-śva’ would mean “fast horse” or “flying horse”.

Nirjhar, what is the etymology of RV gods: Indra, Soma, Tvaṣṭṛ, Agni, Mitra.
What is the link between fire and horse in Sanskrit.
I can’t explain it here as it requires longer explanations but believe me these Gods have Slavic etymology i.e. these divine names can be derived from common Slavic words used even today which perfectly fit their functions in RV. In the future I will publish something about it.

There is nothing wrong to be related to somebody else. The links between Slavic and Indo-Iranian languages have been known for long time. And for very long time we were convinced that our ancestors came from Iran or India. Only recently thanks to genetics it was discovered that the direction of migration was the opposite.

Nirjhar007 said...

If we roughly take Arya as the Identity of Indo-Iranians at whole, then it is at least 4000 years old , but its quite likely that this word is of more wider origin and also comprehensive , see here :
http://new-indology.blogspot.in/2017/01/the-term-aryan-and-its-semitic-cognates.html

We don't have that facility in case of Slav brothers .

About Ashva you don't agree with this traditional etymology?.
https://lrc.la.utexas.edu/lex/master/0461

Very well , you are more than welcome in the linked blog to discuss the matter , I suggest to do so as it will be more suited than here .

Only recently thanks to genetics it was discovered that the direction of migration was the opposite.

You very well know we haven't reach definitive data yet . Maybe some definition will be achieved, with more genomes from subcontinent and Iran this year .



EastPole said...

@Nirjhar007

“About Ashva you don't agree with this traditional etymology?.
https://lrc.la.utexas.edu/lex/master/0461”

How can I agree or disagree with traditional etymology of Ashva when no such etymology exists?
What is the etymology of Ashva according to them? What are the roots, affixes and what do they mean?

The main reason why I think PIE is a hoax is because they don’t give etymology i.e. don’t explain words. Just ‘reconstruct’ them. It is BS.
Many 'PIE' words have obvious Slavic etymology, but can’t be explained in PIE.

Arza said...

@ Nick Patterson (Broad)
a) Outlier might be of real interest
b) Or the sample has an atypical history
c) Or something is wrong.

Often hard to tell.


It's not that hard IMHO. We can easily spot if it is the first case. How? We can detect "outlier ancestry" in other samples. Just like Srubnaya Outlier is picked up as ancestral to Proto-Indo-Iranians, the RISE568 is picked up by algorithms in case of Balto-Slavs.

No matter how weirdly RISE568 plots on the PCA, this "weirdly" is consistent, consequent, predictable and in line with all Balto-Slavic samples. And not only Balto-Slavic.

So if one want to say that this sample due to low quality is erroneous or has an atypical history, one must conclude that also Balto-Slavic samples are of low quality or atypical. Every single one in the exact same way.

Simply speaking information about given sample can be stored also in other samples.
Similar concept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parity_bit#RAID
PCA is like a third drive in a RAID5.

That's why you all should know for a long time how ANI/ASI looked like.

capra internetensis said...

@EastPole

There's no reason words in a natural language should have synchronic etymologies.

Arza said...

This is what I'm talking about:

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-aZ4cGCZ1XS0/WSG9BcWZQxI/AAAAAAAAAKE/T6YjY719HNs5sNWJ_-81NQLYlq8YPz0jQCLcB/s1600/ANIASI2.png

ASI was a part of Austroasiatic cline.
Austroasiatic cline and main Indian cline do not cross.
~15% Iran Neolithic admixture is needed to produce ANI from ASI and connect the clines.
Pulliyar is the only population with a significant Paniya admixture.
Paniya should not be used as a proxy for ASI.
Instead a population like Chamar may be used as a proxy for ANI.

In other words despite that ANI and ASI are not present in the spreadsheet, it still contains information about them.

Confirmation:

Infamous Dead Can Dance slide:
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cLOANsm3nb4/V_meb5xfGII/AAAAAAAAE-U/TLcFYlZDwP0y01aWZTgsF3DhtGFyaE2MgCLcB/s712/Krause_IE_map.png

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2016/10/dead-cat-bounce.html?showComment=1476015396554#c560700392588492717
Davidski said...
The North Indian pie chart is around 85% ASI and 15% Iran Neolithic. That's their version of ANI apparently based on ancient Indus Valley samples.

Nirjhar007 said...

They were not based on any samples dude....

Arza said...

They didn't have to... everything is encoded in all other Indian samples. That's the point.

Nirjhar007 said...

Without samples the suggestions are not permanent or of any proper value , their PIE proposal was also a suggestion but it made more sense.

EastPole said...

Nirjhar007
“their PIE proposal was also a suggestion but it made more sense”

I wonder what they mean by PIE in such case.

Original Indo-Slavonic language, culture, religion didn’t originate in Iran. No doubt about it.

For example Indo-Slavonic people didn’t drink wine. It didn’t grow in the north.
Vedic, Slavic and Greek religions were similar, Soma/Agni is similar to Dionysus/Eros and to Chmiel/Miły but Greeks originally used mead and adopted wine later.

Soma/haoma/chmiel didn’t grow in Iran, they drank wine in Iran, wine didn’t grow in Poland, they drank soma/haoma/chmiel in Poland.
Currently reconstructed PIE language and culture was reconstructed mainly on the basis of Indo-Slavonic languages and cultures. This is wrong. This Indo-Slavonic PIE is not Hittite-Germanic PIE.

They should reconstruct Hittite-Germanic PIE from Iran after removing all Indo-Slavonic influences.

http://s22.postimg.org/ovi7yu9kh/Hittite_Germanic.png

Arza said...

@ Nirjhar007
What I'm arguing here is that even if we don't have certain samples, we still have them - encoded in all other samples that share ancestry. That's why those two Slavs are not "errors", nor "Germanics", like some people try to imply.

@ EastPole
There was no Hittite-Germanic.
They can keep improving the algorithms, but if they will feed them with erroneous data, the algorithms will produce false results.

Kristiansen wrote that Germanic is derived from a language of CWC. And you know what? He was right. They just conveniently "forgot" to mention how this CWC language looked like. And now they will try to hijack whole CW Culture. As usual.

Here you can see how they are trying to make Germanic look older (and diverted from Balto-Slavic) by sticking it to Albanian. They think that history and etymologies in Albanian are so obscure, that no one ever will be able to prove that they manipulate with the data. In the reconstructions for the same purpose (to produce "Germanic" PIE roots) they also use Armenian and sometimes Celtic.

EastPole said...

@Arza
“Here you can see how they are trying to make Germanic look older (and diverted from Balto-Slavic) by sticking it to Albanian. They think that history and etymologies in Albanian are so obscure, that no one ever will be able to prove that they manipulate with the data”.


R. Beeks tried to derive Albanian from PIE. Here are comments to his book:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R22QHEBODBP0VG/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_viewpnt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1556195052#R22QHEBODBP0VG

A lot of garbage in IE linguistic. I have Beeks’ “Etymological Dictionary of Greek”. He doesn’t have a clue about Greek and IE religion and he doesn’t understand the origin of Greek words. He doesn’t even know where to look for it. ‘Eros’ for example is Pre-Greek according to him:

http://s22.postimg.org/acfob65td/screenshot_223.png

Eros has Indo-Slavonic etymology

Good article showing links between Agni and Eros:

https://www.academia.edu/8963421/Non-Iranian_origin_of_the_Eastern-Slavonic_god_X%C5%ADrs%C5%AD_Xors_Published_

Alogo said...

They didn't "stick Albanian under Germanic to make Germanic look older". Read the paper if you're interested: https://www.cs.rice.edu/~nakhleh/CPHL/RWT02.pdf

The complaint about Albanian in that review is about the reviewer's dislike of Beekes writing a separate section on deriving Albanian instead of a language that's more useful for the reconstruction of PIE like Classical Greek and Sanskrit, that's all.

The paper you're referring to doesn't seem to say that Corded Ware as a whole was proto-Germanic but that perhaps proto-Germanic arose by interactions between Funnelbeaker and Corded Ware in south Scandinavia.

There's been plenty of Germanocentrism in the past but there's no need to replace it with some Slavocentrism of your own.

EastPole said...

@Alogo
History written by NSDAP-professors of linguistics, archeology and anthropology is being debunked by genetics right now. Just accept it and live with it.

Arza said...

@ Alogo
They did. As I said, they are using languages with obscure history to justify creation of new PIE roots that magically survived only in Germanic and Albanian/Armenian/Celtic. So if you feed the algorithms with data fabricated this way it's not a surprise that Germanic lands in one branch with Albanian.

Don't you find ridiculous that they used several Germanic languages, but Slavic is represented by a liturgical language based on one of the Southern dialects?

And what about words that they arbitrary chose? The article lacks a complete list of words, but they showed some trees not fitting to the model. One with a word "one", that have a root in some mysterious PIE root "sem". Why Slavic is represented by OCS "jedinu" and not by "sam" - alone, sole, one?

There's been plenty of Germanocentrism in the past

In the past? Are you joking? 100-years old lies are still in the handbooks. It's not a past, it's a XXI century reality.

And if someone starts to pointing this out he's a "Slavocentrist", "nationalist", "it happened long time ago, but now linguistic is a SCIENCE" etc.

since he was a Polish linguist after all,

You don't even realize how bad recommendation this is.

@ EastPole
Thank you for the links, it's always good to read what Brave Leo says. ;)
Beekes - tragicomedy for now, in the near future only comedy will be left.
NSDAP - actually it begun much earlier, WWII times were a culmination.

Arza said...

@ Domen/Tomenable

You calculator-maniac. Didn't you still realize how such calculators distort the results and what the algorithms do to achieve a better score?

With an older version of K36 spreadsheet (10.05.), nMonte also shows Celtic admixture:

Population percent

Scotland 43.90
Pl_north 29.35
PL_Sudovia 15.10
GR_Thrace 9.30
Holland 1.10
IT_Sardinia 0.55
Albania_South 0.45
Kosovo 0.15
GR_Central 0.10


Here are your "celts" - 30 closest plotting samples from DoHA spreadsheet:

0,0000 Bell_Beaker_Czech:RISE569
0,0205 Croatian:GSM1841132
0,0211 Croatian:Croatia_Cro312
0,0212 Slovenian:Slovenian299
0,0222 German:GS000016893
0,0250 Slovakian:Slovakia222
0,0251 Croatian:GS000013754
0,0254 Hungarian:hungary16
0,0259 Slovakian:Slovakia233
0,0264 Slovakian:Slovakia411
0,0270 Ukrainian_West:GS000035178
0,0274 Slovenian:Slovenian321
0,0281 Slovenian:Slovenian147
0,0282 Croatian:GS000015871
0,0283 Austria:Austria5
0,0289 Bulgarian:Bulgarian3H
0,0294 Czech:Czech10
0,0294 Croatian:Croatia_Cro432
0,0309 Croatian:GSM1841129
0,0311 Croatian:Croatia_Cro302
0,0312 Polish:Polish12H
0,0313 Croatian:Croatia_Cro141
0,0313 Croatian:Croatia_Cro305
0,0316 Nordic_MN_B:RISE61
0,0318 Slovakian:Slovakia429
0,0320 Croatian:GS000015872
0,0321 Slovenian:Slovenian137
0,0326 Austria:Austria2
0,0327 Serbian:GSM1424665
0,0329 Bosnian:GSM1424659
0,0330 Croatian:GSM1841115

Arza said...

RISE568 and RISE569 in DoHA
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-uVl60nzA2i0/WSQR0AUGHUI/AAAAAAAAAKs/ZEMWOh1cQLgLBZcCIghuyofQvopzOQi_ACLcB/s1600/568569DoHA.png