search this blog

Tuesday, July 20, 2021

On the origin of the Corded Ware people

There's been a lot of talk lately about the finding that the peoples associated with the Corded Ware and Yamnaya archeological cultures were close cousins (for instance, see here). As I've already pointed out, this is an interesting discovery, but, at this stage, it's difficult to know what it means exactly.

It might mean that the Yamnayans were the direct predecessors of the Corded Ware people. Or it might just mean that, at some point, the Corded Ware and Yamnaya populations swapped women regularly (that is, they practiced female exogamy with each other).

In any case, I feel that several important facts aren't being taken into account by most of the interested parties. These facts include, in no particular order:

- despite being closely related, the Corded Ware and Yamnaya peoples were highly adapted to very different ecological zones - temperate forests and arid steppes, respectively - and this is surely not something that happened within a few years and probably not even within a couple of generations

- both the Corded Ware and Yamnaya populations expanded widely and rapidly at around the same time, but never got in each others way, probably because they occupied very different ecological niches

- despite sharing the R1b Y-chromosome haplogroup, their paternal origins were quite different, with Corded Ware males rich in R1a-M417 and R1b-L51 and Yamnaya males rich in R1b-Z2103 and I2a-L699

I suppose it's possible that the Corded Ware people were overwhelmingly and directly derived from the Yamnaya population. But right now my view is that, even if they were, then the Yamnaya population that they came from was quite different from the classic, R1b-Z2103-rich Yamnaya that spread rapidly across the steppes.

Indeed, perhaps what we're dealing with here is a very early (proto?) Yamnaya gene pool located somewhere in the border zone between the forests and the steppes, that then split into two main sub-populations, with one of these groups heading north and the other south?

I do wonder what David Anthony would say if he was made aware of the above mentioned facts? Then again, perhaps he's already aware of them, and simply chose to ignore them when formulating his latest theory about the origin of the Corded Ware people?

See also...


«Oldest   ‹Older   601 – 748 of 748
Slumbery said...


I have to refine my earlier (yet to appear) comment. I looked at the North Eurasia PCA and I think I see what you mean. Although the excess East Asian ancestry in Tarim EMBA (compared to AG3 and even Tyumen HG) is clear, but if I try to visualize Tarim EMBA as a two way mixture of "ANE" and East Asians, then the end endpoint of the line is interesting. If I fix one end at AG3 then the other end is pretty much Eskimos. Something that is not impossible, but does not feel right. And if I fix the other end of the line on Shamanka_N or something similar, then the other end is somewhere behind AG3 on the WHG - AG3 cline. So yes, I can see them being an East Asian shifted "extreme AG3".

Matt said...

Fascinating stuff Davidski. It seems like that has some obvious implications for how we talk and think about the early steppe societies of 3500-3000 BCE were before the expansion to Europe. I.e. were they actually already heavily structured in y-dna and in spatially separated groups *on the steppe/forest-steppe*, or is the expansion of particular clades a consequence of expansion and dynamics and different sampling of socially separated burial traditions of different visibility?

Without me saying it definitely proves any particular arguments anyone has made right or wrong. It's another data point to put in that. Hopefully we can also compare this to the picture in Stog, Usatovo, Khvalynsk (at this time and earlier).

Re; Z2103, I guess whether this actually show that whether or not in any sense Yamnaya was ancestral in any sense to most European steppe ancestry today (and cultures like CWC), it shows that at least some ongoing contact and that if these cultures did speak IE dialects that diverged at Sredny Stog time depth, possibly still ongoing linguistic influence between them.

@Slumbery, I think you could run some stats on f4(Mbuti,Papuan/DevilsGate/etc;Botai,Tarim_EMBA) and there might be something small in this direction, but I don't think that explains entirely because they also peak on other dimensionality. I think it's a combination of that, + continued drift that AG3 lacks (the lack of later specific drift relevant to present day West Eurasia which compresses AG3 and MA1 towards the centre of the graph, while Tarim_EMBA probably has more drift to the east relevant to present day West Eurasia), + Botai possibly having slightly more WHG related ancestry (which makes sense as they're further west). Multiple effects. Formal stats on f4(Mbuti,WHG;Botai,Tarim_EMBA) and f4(Mbuti,AG3;Botai,Tarim_EMBA) would also be interesting stuff. Some of these effects may exist and others not. Most likely the upcoming paper will do this stuff anyway.

Copper Axe said...


Am I not allowed to share those links from researchgate and here? Or is it spam filter?

@Genos Historia

Drop your e-mail and I'll send you a bunch if those articles I tried to post here.

Simon Stevin said...


Are you saying Afontova Gora has East Asian admixture? If so, based on what population and samples? AG3, MA1, and Yana all have Aurignacian-like Paleo-European ancestry, mixed with something Bacho Kiro related, which apparently helped spawn Tianyuan and Salkhit. What exactly defines “East Asian?” I feel this is similar to SSA. A blanket term that doesn’t accurately describe the complex populations involved.

Davidski said...

@Copper Axe

Spam filter. Sometimes I can recover them, and other times I don't know where they go.

It's generally safer to keep things short and without too many links.

vAsiSTha said...

"I think it is mistaken to think Tarim EMBA as some kind of remnant extreme ANE. They are further on that cline simply because they have have more East Asian admixture."

Nah this looks unlikely. really seems to be some old diverged ANE admixed with minor east asian.

Matt said...

@Slumbery, for a quick toy model, here's a comparison of positions on Vahaduo West and North Eurasia PCA, between existing Botai and Karelia_HG, and simulations which are 90:10 X:Mongola_North_N. See:

Basically it doesn't seem like adding 10% East Asian ancestry shifts Botai to the east very much at all, just south, while Karelia_HG shifts east only slightly. That kind of suggests to me that the shift we see is not due to East Asian related ancestry per say. They're extended on the cline, rather than shifted both south and east. While Botai is roughly consistent with WSHG+Mongolia_N, Tarim_EMBA does not appear consistent with Botai+Mongolia_N.

However, I might get something different if I tried Nganasan or Native American or something - I'll give that a shot later when I have time... Formal stats will be key here though.

Matt said...

@Slumbery, don't think either Nganasan / Native American like ancestry would either do the business of shift between Tarim_EMBA and Botai:

Matt said...

Vahaduo South Asian PCA is also another one where the Tarimians look like a further shift along Karelia->WSHG rather than WSHG->Botai :

Slumbery said...

@Simon Stevin

"Are you saying Afontova Gora has East Asian admixture? If so, based on what population and samples? AG3, MA1, and Yana all have Aurignacian-like Paleo-European ancestry, mixed with something Bacho Kiro related, which apparently helped spawn Tianyuan and Salkhit. What exactly defines “East Asian?” I feel this is similar to SSA. A blanket term that doesn’t accurately describe the complex populations involved.

No, I am saying that AG3 _might_ have East Asian admixture (compared to a possible ghost population). But I am agnostic about whether it is the case or not. I started to use the term "excess" East Asian because in the past I was criticized for allegedly assuming that AG3 was not East Asian admixed and I am simply covering that angle now.
(BTW, the ones who criticized me talked about the presence of some specific SNPs in AG3, but I won't be their advocate, it is not necessary for my arguments.)

And I do not need a strict and everything-proof definition of East Asian for what I am using it either. I usually use Neolithic groups from the Amur Basin when determining relative East Asian admixtures in Bronze Age, Neolithic and Mesolithic groups in Central Asia and Siberia. In that time-depth, the deep-Paleolithic background history of the formation is not very relevant. Most of those processes were already over by the time of AG3.

Andrzejewski said...

@Copper Axe Is it plausible to associate the Yuezhi, Wusun, Ordo along with the later Tarim Mummies with the Cimmerians, or most likely with the Scythians, in particular with the Eastern Saka, to be precise?

Eastern Saka and Cimmerians both acquired a significant maternal East Asian admixture over time.

Slumbery said...


I think handling East Asian admixtures is a bit outside of the range of interpretation for the West Eurasia PCA and on the North Eurasia PCA they are clearly pulled toward Eastern Siberia compared to Tyumen_HG and AG3. That is not saying that it is the only thing affecting them of course.
You are right however that the time gap between AG3 and Botai - Tarim_EMBA is huge and the exact position of AG3 on the PCA that is based on much younger populations should not be over-interpreted.

"While Botai is roughly consistent with WSHG+Mongolia_N, Tarim_EMBA does not appear consistent with Botai+Mongolia_N.

Exactly, because Tarim_EMBA is not more East Asian than Botai (in average). It that regards Botai and Tarim_EMBA are pretty much the same, I got that result with nMontes too. The reason why they won't overlap on the PCA is because Botai has some additional Yamnaya (or similar Progress/Khvalinsk) related admixture, possibly even something from South Central Asia.
(I never claimed that they are East Asian compared to Botai, I claimed they are East Asian compared to AG3 and Tyumen.)

Slumbery said...


"...while Karelia_HG shifts east only slightly."

I forgot about this in my last comment.

1. Tyumen HG is about +~10% East Asian compared to AG3
2. Botai and Tarim_EMBA another +~10% East Asian compared to Tyumen.
3. Karelia HG has a lot of WHG admixture.

Based on this I would not expect Karelia_HG to be pulled anywhere near to Botai/Tarim_EMBA by just adding 10% Mongolia_N. You need the very least 20% for that, but even that won't place them very near, because:
On principle they are on two different clines.
1. There is a WHG - ANE ghost (represented best by AG3) cline and Karelia HG is on it.
2. And there is an ANE ghost (AG3) - East Asian cline and Tyumen, Botai and Tarim EMBA are on it. (Not withstanding other minor admixtures.)

You took a population from some mid point of cline 1 (Karelia HG) and added 10% from the end point of cline 2. Of course it won't pull it over to cline 2. Karelia_HG is something like 30% WHG when modelled as Villabruna + AG3, while Tyumen, Botai, and Tarim_EMBA have at least an order of magnitude less of that.

Copper Axe said...


"@Copper Axe Is it plausible to associate the Yuezhi, Wusun, Ordo along with the later Tarim Mummies with the Cimmerians, or most likely with the Scythians, in particular with the Eastern Saka, to be precise?

Eastern Saka and Cimmerians both acquired a significant maternal East Asian admixture over time."

Cimmerians were the early iron age nomads who were recorded with their invasion of the Near East and the Greeks during the era of Homer had some minor knowledge of them, basically the nomads north of the Pontic and Caucasus before the Scythians became the main power.

I'm not sure if I'd agree with the final statement, I'd say most of it was already acquired by their bronze age ancestors in Siberia. The Saka we hear of in history who migrate into Sistan, South Asia and the Pamirs probably related to the Tian Shan Saka, who seem derived from the earlier Tasmola peoples but were admixed with 'sedentary' Iranians of Central asia (Saka Haumavarga?), meaning that they would've had less Siberian ancestry than their predecessors. It wasn't only maternal either I'd say, south Siberian Q is represented at a fair amount, as well as some of the other adjacent Y-dna lineages associated with them.

The only places where you see an increase of asian ancestry is in Siberia, and that is simply due to the populations which lived in their vicinity.

The Ordos culture is quite strongly linked to likes of Pazyryk and Saagly and may be representative of the Loufan tribe. Yuezhi and Wusun archaeology in east Xinjiang/western Gansu is close to non existent, but the fragments that do exist do also link the iron age nomads there to the eastern part of the Scytho-Siberian horizon. Gobi Altai > Ordos > western Gansu, something like that. General consensus regarding both those entities is that they were Iranic speaking, and they were steppe nomads.

Some of the Tarim mummies could be from Saka related steppe nomads, but I wouldn't know exactly which. Keep in mind that aside from nomads you also had severap agropastoral populations of Indo-European descent in the Tarim basin. Yumulak Kum has been described as early Saka by Mair but honestly there isn't anything that indicated that they were actually Iranic steppe nomads. You definitely have proper Saka sites in the Tarim but idk if any of the famous mummies were from those sites. You also have Yingpan man who most likely was a Sogdian.

By the way the princess of Xiaohe and beauty of Loulan are probably Tarim_EMBA peoples. Someone on AG mentioned that the princess of Xiaohe had mtdna C4 but I haven't been able to find the sample ID if that is the case. If so there is a small-to-decent chance that the princess of Xiaohe is one of these Tarim_EMBA samples.

MH_82 said...

You had ancestral WSHG groups along the major rivers - Irtysh, Tobol, Ob, Yenesei, etc, differentiated / drifted from each other
Three clusters which expanded during the Eneolithic-BA: Kumsay-Steppe Majkop; Botai -Tarim and BZK-Okunevo- Kaz MBA; going West-East in their clinal relation

StP said...

Those who read (are there such?) The work of A. Linderholm et al. 2020, they would have easily noticed that in the Czech Republic almost the same happened as in Młopolska in the third millennium BC.

Matt said...

@Slumbery, I wouldn't expect Karelia_HG to be pulled there either, it's just for an illustrative point about how much East Eurasian admixture is likely to affect West Eurasia PCA (not very much, and less so the closer you a population's West Eurasian ancestors are to the east side of the PCA anyway). I think it's perfectly within interpretation, there is no reason that things would not behave linearly.

I don't think Botai has Yamnaya or EHG ancestry in excess of what WSHG has, Botai just like WSHG+some East Eurasian. So it seems to me false to say that Botai is being pulled west by some western related ancestry and therefore a population like WSHG+the same east asian ancestry level Botai has would be much east of it.

Arza said...


Here's Croatian dataset if you want to make temporary coordinates:

Matt said...

@Slumbery, anyway here are some quick Vahaduo models. See -

It's more distance minimizing, anyway, to model Botai and WSHG as a mix of Karelia_HG and Tarim_EMBA, and allow some Mongolia_North_N into Botai, than it is to try and model Tarim_EMBA as WSHG plus Mongolia_North_N. And there is no evidence that I can see that Botai has more of Karelia_HG related ancestry than WSHG.

Tarim_EMBA is also slightly preferred as an ancestor to Botai and WSHG, compared with AG3, in models where Karelia_HG, and Mongolia_North_N are also sources. This makes sense since Tarim_EMBA would represent a more proximate survivor of ANE lineages than the 16000 BCE AG3.

Given the model outputs, I don't think the idea that Botai had EHG relative to WSHG and this offsets East Eurasian hold water at all and therefore Tarim_EMBA's position can be explained by WSHG+East Eurasian ancestry works either.

(The Karelia_HG+ENA model was simply to demonstrate that what East Eurasian ancestry does on the West Eurasian PCA; it has some effect but its not a very strong effect, and declines in relavence the further east the starting point is on the West Eurasian PCA.)

Genos Historia said...

@Copper axe,

Thank you for any help you can give

Nyan said...

@Simon Stevin

MA1/ANE has early East Eurasian ancestry, not necessarily East Asian. AG3 is more drifted than MA1, it could be because AG3 has some additional West Eurasian that MA1 lacks.

Vallini et al. 2021 shows East/West split occurred 45kya, after this split East Eurasian contributes 50% ancestry to MA1.

Simon Stevin said...


Mind me asking, but what SNPs in AG3 were you told were “East Asian.” This is the first I ever heard of such a thing. I have heard of Tianyuan related ancestry in ANS/ANE, but this ancestry is ultimately linked to some kind of Paleolithic, Crown Eurasian population, like Bacho Kiro IUP. It is not directly from Tianyuan itself, which also harbors some kind of IUP-like ancestry.

Ric Hern said...

Or maybe we are not looking at an entire population but just individuals within the population. As far as I can remember there were trade from very far East and South so the linkage to some earlier culture who looks genetically the same could be unnecessary...

rozenblatt said...

@Genos Historia There definitely were humans in Tarim Basin before 2000 BC. I found some articles about pre-Bronze Age archaeology in Xinjiang, but unfortunately there are no mentions of human remains found, mostly about stone artifacts.

You can look for the article "The earliest well-dated archeological site in the hyper-arid Tarim Basin and its implications for prehistoric human migration and climatic change", it is available on academia.

Copper Axe said...

@Genos Historia

Check your inbox :)

Simon Stevin said...


Thanks for the detailed response. Yes I believe that’s probably what he was talking about. Though again, I think the “Early East Eurasian” component here, or rather one of the founding lineages of modern East Asians, is a deep, Bacho Kiro or Ust’-Ishim related line (Crown Eurasian?) hence the K2/P lineages, and the C, N, R mtDNA lineages. Tianyuan if I recall correctly, is not an ancestor of ANE/ANS, rather they both share a common, Paleolithic stream of ancestry, though ANE/ANS retained some kind of Aurignacian/Gravettian, Paleolithic European hunter gatherer ancestry.

MH_82 said...

@ Nyan/ Steve
That’s a nice qpGraph they’ve done
But that’s not an “East-West split”; as it’s actually an IUP divergence at ~42,000 calBP
Organically; East Asian populations developed due to relative isolation over thousands of years subsequent to that

SLMD said...

@Simon @Nyan

No. East Eurasian is not relevant to ANE present in Europeans, there is NO East Eurasian or East Asian in ANE in my view. MA1 and Yana_UP are West Eurasian, as this new study that came out yesterday says.

"In a phylogenetic tree, Tianyuan forms a cluster with Papuan and East Eurasian populations, while MA1 and Yana_UP are genetically close to West Eurasian populations. Although the detailed routes are still contentious, these genomes suggest the following two past migration waves to East Eurasia: the southern wave, which seems to run along the southern coastal region of the Eurasian continent, and the northern wave, which probably runs through the Siberian and Eurasian steppe regions. The southern migration wave seems to have diversified into the local populations in East Asia (defined in this paper as a region including China, Japan, Korea, Mongol, and Taiwan) and Southeast Asia. The northern migration wave mixed with the southern wave, probably in Siberia, and became the origin of the Chukot–Kamchatka (the Chukotka and Kamchatka Peninsula, see fig. 1a) populations and Native Americans (Raghavan et al. 2014). Moreover, subsequent several studies (e.g., Damgaard et al. 2018a; Damgaard et al. 2018b; Jeong et al. 2018; Jeong et al. 2020; Ning et al. 2020) that have analyzed ancient genomes since the Neolithic period and Bronze Age, have revealed the population dynamics after the Neolithic period on the Asian continent." (click on pdf to view the article)

What that means : ANE (West Eurasians) arrived to Siberia, mixed with some East Asians living near Siberia -> creating Siberians and Native Americans. If ANE was mix of West Eurasia and East Eurasians then Native Americans would be fully ANE but they are not lol

MH_82 said...


Tianyuan isn’t a southern dispersal; it’s from the northern route
That paper has oversimplified the genesis of ancient East Asians

Dospaises said...

Not sure if this has been pointed out in this thread. Every single person that has the R1b-Z2103 mutation and corresponding upstream mutations descends from a single person that had the R1b-L23 mutation as well as two other mutations L478/PF6403 and PF6404. Every single person that has the R1b-L51 mutation and corresponding upstream mutations descends from a single person that had the R1b-L23 mutation as well as two other mutations L478/PF6403 and PF6404. Both the person with the first R1b-Z2103 mutation and the person with the first R1b-L51 mutation were born around the same time period which is about 6100 ybp or about 4,100 BC. Both the first person with the R1b-Z2103 mutation and the first person with the R1b-L51 mutation were likely related within about 5 generations or less since new Y-DNA SNP mutations appear about every 3 generations and they share all of the same upstream mutations. They also likely lived close to each or at least their grandparents likely did. When, where and how these two branches of R1b-L23 expanded will likely be hard to discern. However, R1b-L51 and R1b-Z2103 really isn't that different if their sources are pointed out and how they are fairly closely related.
Both R1b-Z2103 and R1b-L51 have other mutations on the same level which means that about 10 to 20 generations after their first appearance their descendants caused the explosion in population of R1b-Z2103 and R1b-L51 around 3,400 BC and 3,700 BC respectively.

The evidence from the Y-DNA phylogeny, the average mutation rate, and Y-DNA SNP results of the ancient specimens coincides with the hypothesis that "Indeed, perhaps what we're dealing with here is a very early (proto?) Yamnaya gene pool located somewhere in the border zone between the forests and the steppes, that then split into two main sub-populations, with one of these groups heading north and the other south?"

Simon Stevin said...


Thanks, this is what I was trying to point out earlier, but I failed. As you pointed out, East Asians formed due to subsequent migrations from further west, isolation, and selection/drift. A Bacho Kiro IUP, Crown Eurasian population split roughly 42k-45k ybp, and traversed northward through the Eurasian steppe, Siberia, North Asia, and East Asia. Later on, some of their Tianyuan-esque descendants would mix with a Aurignacian/Gravettian descended population, producing ANE/ANS, while some would mix with a SEA population, one that traveled a southern, perhaps more costal route. I think Y-DNA and mtDNA support such a conclusion as well. The Northern populations had Y-DNA K2, P, R, and Q, and mtDNA N, R (B and U), and M (C and Z). I wonder then, does that make Ust’-Ishim apart of this IUP population? Or was he simply a genetic dead end, one that branched off from IUP, before the main split?

SLMD said...


Don't care, point was ANE is West Eurasian - It's native Upper Paleolithic Eastern European specific component, moving in and out of steppes and Siberia.

Genomic insights into the differentiated population admixture structure and demographic history of North East Asians (2021)

Paleolithic to Bronze Age Siberians Reveal Connections with First Americans and across Eurasia (2020)

Both new studies proves ANE is Western Eurasian (Eastern European Upper Paleolithic specific) component. None of the WSH have any East Asian or EE affinity despite having high ANE admixture.

MH_82 said...

@ Steve

Correct, the case now being demonstrated is that northern Eurasian dispersed from Europe, across Siberia then into northern China, incl Ust-Ishm . This was replaced in the central regions by Sungir-type people. These mixed with whatever was left in Siberia to form ANE


Those studies don't analyse ANE in any great detail. Yu et al leaves it as a monophylitic group, whilst he et al call it 'East Eurasian''
The problem is you seem too focussed on ascribing geographical/ racial labels. In the IUP & EUP, a more correct distinction would be based on dispersal waves


Anyone who reads that ANE is purely west Eurasian can rest assured that this is definitely false. All qpgraphs that include Tianyuan-related populations (the paper from Mao and Fu from this year increases the sample size of Tianyuan-rrlated to 2) will find a major conttibution from Tianyuan/Paleolithic East Asians to ANE. The qpgraphs in the papers cited by the previous posters don't have enoughwest Eurasians to expose the admixed nature of ANE correctly. If you have only Mexicans and spanisb in a qpgraph, then of course the two will just have a simple split.

The qpAdms of Mao and Fu's Amur River transect also conclusively demonsttate that the source is a Tianyuan-related lineage and not anything more basal like Bacho Kiro, the kind of qpAdm results they got means that the alternative can't be true. The thing that really confirms this is that Yana (and all later ANE grnomes) have denisovan ancestry, about as much as can be expected from their Tianyuan-relatec admixture. Through them West Eurasians today have small amounts too.


Bacho kiro does not tell us anything about where later Eurasians came from. West Eurasians like Kostenki or Yana are more related to Tianyuan people and even Papuans than any of them are to Ust Ishim or Bacho Kiro. If anything it seems like wherever the common ancestor of later Eurasians like Tianyuan, Papuans and Kostenki came from, it can't be the northern latitudes as those areas were occupied by early Eurasians like Bacho Kiro and Ust-ishim at the time. It must be somewhere central though, pretty striking pattern where Bacho Kirk ancestry is best preserved in Goyet and later El miron, and in Eastern Eurasia, but not people in the middle.


Im going to keep asking you this question until you reply: if R1a-y3 is found on the steppes early, how will you respond? Will you switch? Please answer me.

SLMD said...

"The problem is you seem too focussed on ascribing geographical/ racial labels."

Says a guy who thinks EEF are Indo-Europeans. There wouldn't be Non-IE Vasconic and Tyrsenian languages if that was the case. That's why i didn't bother replying to your earlier post about it.

Tarim Mummies prove that ANE looked Europid (an academic term used for Tarim mummies in archaeological studies), it's not "racial" to point out the obvious, now supported by genomic studies.

vAsiSTha said...

"Im going to keep asking you this question until you reply: if R1a-y3 is found on the steppes early, how will you respond? Will you switch? Please answer me."

If the earliest R-Y3 is indeed found in steppe it would indeed make it clear that modern south Asians on the Y3 line do descend from the steppe paternally.

I have answered this many times lol. Please don't ask again. If south asia is sampled and you find R1a pre 2000bce, hope you put the Aryan migration theory into the dustbin where it belongs.

Andrzejewski said...

ANE did not come from Europe. They came from Africa —> Middle East —> Central Asia —> Afghanistan —> Baikal Sayan.

ANS (Yana) —> ANE.

Maybe Kostenki14 —> ANS/Yana —> ANE.

Hap K —> P —> Q and R.

The direction was ultimately North (ANS) to South (Lake Baika).

Andrzejewski said...

@SLMD “ Tarim Mummies prove that ANE looked Europid (an academic term used for Tarim mummies in archaeological studies), it's not "racial" to point out the obvious, now supported by genomic studies.”

Yes, absolutely! The 50% -60% dose of WSH/ANE is what differentiates Europeans from other “Caucasoid” people like Armenians and Georgians, Arabs, Sephardic Jews and other pops who may be considered “White” for the purpose of US Census Bureau but are deeply diverged from Europeans.

WSHG were Europoid, and the only reason that Kett or American Indians aren’t is the heavy admixture into both (Yarmakhlakh/Yukaghir like in the former, other East Asians in the latter).

Rob doesn’t think that PIE was an EEF language but a WHG one.

Speaking of Farmer languages, apropos, I believe that Tyrrhenian languages like Etruscans had affinity to LBK ones (Balkan route) whereas Basque and Cardial Pottery descendants had an affinity to GAC. But that’s just a hunch.

CrM said...

"The 50% -60% dose of WSH/ANE is what differentiates Europeans from other “Caucasoid” people like Armenians and Georgians,"

Flawed logic. A Dagestani or a Pamiri Tajik by definition has more ANE than any European excluding Finnics.

Tom said...

ANE is not fully West Eurasian. It has East Eurasian Tianyuan-related ancestry mediated through Yana with P1*. SLMD needs to read papers more carefully and focus less on his delusions about the physical appearance of ANE.

Matt said...

@Andrzej, I'm genuinely baffled about how you can be reading this stuff for years and then still be saying "50% -60% dose of (Western Steppe Herders)/(Ancient North Eurasians)" as if you equate the two things as being one and the same...

MH_82 said...


What does your profound misunderstanding of PIE; or the 'Europioid' look of Tarim people, have to do with the fact that you don't understand the deep affinities of ANE ?

Genos Historia said...

@Davidski, All,

How possible do you think it is the split between Iranian and Indic, happened in Andronovo?

I have heard you talk about Indic speakers interacting with Uralic speakers on the Steppe.

It also just came to me that it makes the most sense Steppe Iranians come directly from Andronovo. Not from a recent Iron age spread from Tajikstan or whatever.

R1a Z2125=Iranian? it is already common in Sintashta and Andronovo.

Davidski said...

Yes, Iranian split from Indo-Aryan on the steppe, probably even in Eastern Europe.

Copper Axe said...

Is there WHG/EHG ancestry in these Tarim_EMBA samples?

On G25 making a three way model between AG3, Devil's Gate and WHG/EHG samples the latter get 0%. Yet when including either Tyumen or Botai there is a strong preference of that kind of ancestry and distances improve a bit, but its still quite high just under 6%. There is WHG/EHG ancestry in Tyumen and Botai naturally, so this leaves me a little confused.

What do you guys think?

MH_82 said...

@ Andrze

“ Rob doesn’t think that PIE was an EEF language but a WHG one.”

Thanks for clarifying ; but I wouldn’t make such a simplistic equation as that, indeed I have not

old europe said...

A closer look to proto ANE ( Yana or Ancient North Siberians)

left pops:

right pops:

0 Yana 2
1 GoyetQ116-1 1
2 Tianyuan 1
3 Sunghir 4
4 Kostenki14 1
5 Gravettian 3
6 Ami.DG 2
7 Onge.DG 2
8 Papuan.DG 16
9 Ust_Ishim 1
jackknife block size: 0.050
snps: 1150526 indivs: 33
number of blocks for block jackknife: 713
## ncols: 1150526
coverage: Yana 1149918
coverage: GoyetQ116-1 765579
coverage: Tianyuan 885079
coverage: Sunghir 1150221
coverage: Kostenki14 1048972
coverage: Gravettian 809959
coverage: Ami.DG 1121313
coverage: Onge.DG 1120748
coverage: Papuan.DG 1150398
coverage: Ust_Ishim 1147829
dof (jackknife): 619.138
numsnps used: 665047
codimension 1
f4rank: 1 dof: 5 chisq: 3.104 tail: 0.683986092 dofdiff: 7 chisqdiff: -3.104 taildiff: 1
scale 1.000
Kostenki14 -0.081
Gravettian -0.068
Ami.DG 1.473
Onge.DG 1.257
Papuan.DG 1.297
Ust_Ishim 0.745
scale 209.443
GoyetQ116-1 -0.589
Tianyuan 1.286

full rank
f4rank: 2 dof: 0 chisq: 0.000 tail: 1 dofdiff: 5 chisqdiff: 3.104 taildiff: 0.683986092
scale 1.000 1.000
Kostenki14 -0.082 1.715
Gravettian -0.070 -0.221
Ami.DG 1.474 0.773
Onge.DG 1.257 0.565
Papuan.DG 1.298 -0.315
Ust_Ishim 0.744 -1.413
scale 210.870 4174.971
GoyetQ116-1 -0.581 -1.162
Tianyuan 1.289 -0.806

best coefficients: 0.686 0.314
Jackknife mean: 0.685492573 0.314507427
std. errors: 0.025 0.025

CrM said...

@Copper Axe

The ANE in Tarim_EMBA is closer to the ANE that is found in Botai (if compared with AG3), hence the preference.
They don't pick any additional EHG if you subtract said component from Botai.

Slumbery said...


It is not an accident that I used specifically the older WSHG sample - Tyumen - as a reference. When the question is EHG admixture, you cannot lump together Tyumen and Sosonivoy, even tough they are very similar otherwise.
See nMontes:

Not all Botai have significant western admixture, but BOT15 definitely does. But because Sosonivoy has even more, using an averaged WSHG vs an averaged Botai conceals this.
Not surprisingly they other two Botai samples plot very close to Tarim EMBA in some PCA-s.

Davidski said...


Matt said...

@Copper Axe; I think it's something like CrM suggests (to do with drift over time and some compensation in the model) - they're clearly further east on the WHG->EHG->WSHG cline than either Botai or WSHG, and its clearly not due to either an excess of EHG ancestry in Botai relative to WSHG, or a large excess of East Asian related ancestry in Tarim EMBA relative to Botai or WSHG. The paper will likely give us qpGraphs that confirm this.

Matt said...

Re; Croatian preliminary samples, assuming that the IDs ZEM* equate to the IDs POP* in the SI (given that these are samples from Beli Manastir-Popova zemlja, Osijek, Croatia), then the scaled samples would have following population IDs:

Assuming that's correct, the Roman Era Croatian is similar but has more steppe/eastern related ancestry than present day Croatians -

MH_82 said...

“ Assuming that's correct, the Roman Era Croatian is similar but has more steppe/eastern related ancestry than present day Croatians -””

Haha cool. A Horovatian Saramatian

Davidski said...

POP/ZEM23 has a lot of Asian ancestry, Central Asian and West Asian, that modern Croatians practically lack.

That's not really surprising, considering that this guy is R1a-Z93.

Maybe Croatians have some admix from his population, but the similarity between them and ZEM23 looks to me to be mostly coincidental.

Andrzejewski said...

@Matt “ Andrzej, I'm genuinely baffled about how you can be reading this stuff for years and then still be saying "50% -60% dose of (Western Steppe Herders)/(Ancient North Eurasians)" as if you equate the two things as being one and the same...”

I was just using the term Lazaridis was using in 2015 to refer to the IE contribution as the “ANE component”. I wasn’t literally equating the two. It was to emphasize that what separates Europeans from contemporary MENA and Central Asians may boil down to Yamnaya/SSC/CWC/BBC.

Arza said...

@ Davidski


Re: Roman


Target: ZEM23:ZEM23
Distance: 1.1404% / 0.01140386 | R3P
50.2 Serbian
35.0 VK2020_SWE_Skara_VA
14.8 Tajik


Re: Encrusted Pottery


Target: JAG
Distance: 0.4490% / 0.00449029 | R3P
51.4 Polish
16.6 SRB_Iron_Gates_HG


@ Vasistha

Specifically, what if its found in the steppes before 4000BP, but not in India. No examples from India. Will that alone be enough for you to switch? And not just your view of paternal descent of Indo-Aryans from the Steppe, but the origin of the Indo-Aryan languages on the Steppe?

I wanna get a clear reply from you because I'm going to hold you to it.

I'm not optimistic that we will get too many samples from India, but many more from the Steppe should come and I expect, and you can disagree, that we should find them there before 4000 BP. TRMCA for Y3 is only 4200 BP, adding 10% correction is about 4600 BP, any discovery of Y3 on the Steppe before 4000 BP more or less fixes it to outside India.

Copper Axe said...

Overfitting may be playing a role here but idk if this individual is a Sarmatian or of recent Sarmatian ancestry. Maybe he is, or maybe he isn't, would be epic though given the debate regarding the etymology of Croat.

Target: ZEM23:ZEM23
Distance: 2.2405% / 0.02240510
35.2 Scythian_MDA_o
19.8 Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2
18.6 Sarmatian_RUS_Caspian_steppe
15.4 ITA_Rome_Imperial
9.8 Baltic_EST_BA
1.2 IRN_Hasanlu_IA
0.0 HRV_IA
0.0 TKM_IA

This looks somewhat convincing, but I can also get this:

Target: ZEM23:ZEM23
Distance: 2.0948% / 0.02094809
41.4 Scythian_MDA_o
12.0 IRN_Hasanlu_IA
11.4 HRV_IA
11.2 Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2
10.6 Baltic_EST_BA
7.4 ITA_Rome_Imperial
3.0 RUS_Late_Xiongnu
3.0 Sarmatian_RUS_Caspian_steppe
0.0 TKM_IA

Target: ZEM23:ZEM23
Distance: 2.0214% / 0.02021422
41.2 Scythian_MDA_o
15.4 HRV_IA
13.0 IRN_Hasanlu_IA
10.8 Baltic_EST_BA
8.8 Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2
6.4 ITA_Rome_Imperial
4.2 HUN_Hun_elite_Antiquity
0.2 TKM_IA
0.0 Sarmatian_RUS_Caspian_steppe

Davidski said...


Come on, you gotta do better than that if you want to convince most people.

Matt said...

Euclidean G25 distance (a la Vahaduo) for the POP/ZEM23 sample to all the samples in my G25 datafile (compared against present day Croatian):

Fairly similar to SE Europeans today in the grand scheme of the world or even Europe, but not that strongly so compared to Austrians or NE Italians (so I don't think you could make a case for direct ancestry)? Closest to the average of the German Medieval samples with Artificial Cranial Deformation (which may or may not make sense). Compared to present day Croatians, distances appear to be < distance to populations to South and East (Turkey for ex).

DragonHermit said...

That Z93 is groundbreaking. Does this mean what Turkic Bulgars were to Bulgaria is what Iranics are to Croats?

Copy pasted from Wikipedia

"It is generally believed that the Croatian ethnonym - Hrvat, Horvat and Harvat - etymologically is not of Slavic origin, but a borrowing from Iranian languages.[7][8][9][10][11][12] According to the most plausible theory by Max Vasmer, it derives from *(fšu-)haurvatā- (cattle guardian),[13][14][15][16][17] more correctly Proto-Ossetian / Alanian *xurvæt- or *xurvāt-, in the meaning of "one who guards" ("guardian, protector").[18]

It is considered that the ethnonym is first attested in anthroponyms Horoúathos, Horoáthos, and Horóathos on the two Tanais Tablets, found in the Greek colony of Tanais at the shores of Sea of Azov in the late 2nd and early 3rd century AD, at the time when the colony was surrounded by Iranian-speaking Sarmatians."

It's quite clear modern Croats are mostly Slavic that came to the Balkans during the Middle Ages, but this precedes that migration, and coincides with the first attestation of 2nd/3rd Century AD.

MH_82 said...

@ Dragon Hermit

In the Balkans, 'Croat' is attested in the 9th century AD (by way of RFA). There's no clear link with the Tanais tablet.

Arceus said...

East Eurasian admixture in ANE is supported in published genomic studies, this cline is also pretty noticeable in PCA plots too .

Here you can see the cline that runs from Tianyuan to Yana to MA1. I have highlighted their Y-DNA's in second image.

Simon Stevin said...


So what is ANI Excavator talking about then? Bacho Kiro IUP seems to be very relevant here, and it makes sense considering what we have so far. We have Y-DNA K2/P, all in the northern hemisphere 30k-46k ybp. M Hajdinjak et al. 2021, showed that Tianyuan was composed of 39% IUP related ancestry, while 61% of it’s ancestry is something basal to Kostenki and Sunghir (Crown West Eurasian). Kale over on Anthrogenica, has demonstrated that Tianyuan can be modeled simply as Bacho Kiro. With that in mind, you think this IUP, Y-DNA K and mtDNA N/M/R bearing, Tianyuan related group, migrated across the Eurasian steppes from Eastern Europe, possibly tracking the Mammoth herds? Why not a dispersal from Central Asia, northern South Asia, or even eastern West Asia? Denisovan admixture does make sense when one considers the fact that Denisova Cave is right in the middle of Russia/Siberia; this admixture could have come from there or from Denisovan admixed Neanderthals (I personally think the latter is more likely). I recall reading somewhere that early, mainland Southeast Asians lacked Denisovan admixture, populations such as the Andamanese/Onge, and the Malaysian hunter gatherers. All this points to a northern migratory route for K/P, over a southern one. As David has said before, SEA has always been a sink, not a source or a faucet.

Arceus said...

@Simon Stevin

In interview, Hajdinjak mentioned this about Bacho Kiro.

"The oldest individuals from Bacho Kiro and the Zlatý kůň female are not related to later Europeans, ancient or modern, meaning that their lineages must have disappeared from the region. But, to their surprise, Hajdinjak and her colleagues found that the Bacho Kiro people shared a connection with contemporary East Asians and Native Americans. Hajdinjak suggests that the Bacho Kiro remains represent a population that once lived across Eurasia, but vanished from Europe and lived on in Asia."

Vallini et al.2021 study also supports the above claim. Populations like Ust'Ishim, Bacho Kiro etc expanded into Eastern Eurasian the same time they expanded into West but in Europe they died/were replaced by K14-like population. This will also explain the presence of deep rooted K* clads in Australian continent for example, due to star-like expansion.

MA1-Yana do not prefer Bacho Kiro as shown in Vallini et al. graph, but instead they prefer early East Eurasian-related branch like Tianyuan. They need even more eastern source than Bacho Kiro, which arrived later to west.

MH_82 said...

Yes that's right, the IUP dispersal went from Europe to Asia, but then only managed to survived to a significant degree in the far East, plus whatever minor fraction was retained in Goyet-Q116 and Gravettian-BK (and through them, into Vestonice)

In turn, Mal'ta admixed with some population of the UI-> TY enhd of the IUP cline (obviously not directly from BK).

That leaves the question as to where the ''common west Eurasian'', which would lead to Sungir, most other European UPs, and that which contributed to ANE, expanded from. Probably northern Ahmarian & those groups which moved into the Caucasus (incl Dzudzuana) & Zagros

Simon Stevin said...


I am aware of ANE/ANS having a preference for a more recent, drifted population, one it shares in common with Tianyuan, but that was not the point of what I was saying. Moreover, I was asking Rob as to why he thought this movement came from Eastern Europe instead of say South, Central, or eastern West Asia. Either way, K or P originating in SEA is quite unlikely, and it is not supported by ancient DNA. Modern distributions cannot account for ancient Paleolithic dispersals/expansions. Tianyuan can be modeled solely as Bacho Kiro like, or as 39% IUP, with 61% coming from a source basal to Kostenki. There is also the absence of Denisovan related DNA in early Southeast Asian populations, such as the Malaysian hunter gatherers, and the Andamanese/Onge.

Arceus said...

@Simon Stevin

Hajdinjak did not have Zlatý kůň in graph, even then she clearly states that "once lived across Eurasia, but vanished from Europe and lived on in Asia." Vallini confirms this by adding Zlaty Kun, showing that IUP expansion was star-like all over Eurasia and Oceania.

Vallini et al. 2021 explains that with Zlatý kůň (oldest pop) in branching graph along with extra Neanderthal. They are no longer an admixed group but unadmixed groups who did not meet. As they note : "Ust’Ishim, Bacho Kiro and Tianyuan were unadmixed descendants"....we speculate this may be due to the ready presence of Neanderthal at the initial stages of our qpGraph modelling or to the availability of Zlatý Kůň, who may provide a good guidance to the basal OoA genetic landscape.".

Expansion was star-like. Bacho Kiro did not admix into Tianyuan, they did not meet.

Arceus said...

@Simon Stevin

I don't know about that but if you read one of scenarios proposed for Papuan in the study, there is something very ancient there in relation to both Bacho Kiro and Tianyuan, they say they can also be modeled as ": 94% as the ancestor of Bacho Kiro and Tianyuan", which is quiet interesting.

MH_82 said...

@ Simon
Two major reasons . The blade technology seen in Mongolia; for ex; stares features with that in Europe and Siberia ; and not with South Asia
Secondly: dates in Europe and Siberia are very early ; whilst those in Caucasus and Iran only begin 41,000 cal BP.

vAsiSTha said...

Im just curious as to how west or east eurasian nature of very old ANE is relevant to anything.
And more curious as to how the phenotypes of these ANE people matter as some posters seem quite preoccupied with that aspect.

old europe said...

most of yana/ANE dna came from Europe
This is a brand new paper on the subject. It deals with the findings of aurignacian and even uluzzian artifacts in the north eastern part of the european russian plain. Nothing easier that this aurignacian population ventured even further to the east tracking wild animals and reaching all the eway to Yana

relevant quote

Thus, age, distinctive features of stone and bone assemblage and the types of personalornaments unambiguously allow to relate Zaozer’e to the beginning of the Upper Palaeolithic.The complex of the basic characteristics of the site, including spatial organization (for detailssee Svendsen et al. 2010: g.6) and the main features of the site’s assemblage, completely fit within the AMH behavioral “package”. The industry of Zaozer’e has certain similarityto assemblages of the contemporaneous sites of the Kostenki group (Kostenki XVII, layerII and Kostenki XIV, layers IVb-w), but also yielded some implements resembling elementsof the Uluzzian (lunates) and Protoaurignacien (straight bladelets) assemblages of Southernand Southwestern Europe (Moroni et al., 2013; Dinnis et al., 2019). Thus, in my opinion, he materials of Zaozer’e support suggestions of a rapid spreading of the Upper Palaeolithic industries and accordingly of modern humans across the territory of the plain, at least, up to58 ° N, during the chronological interval of 41-38 cal kyr (Hoffecker, 2011).

Simon Stevin said...


And the 2021 paper demonstrated that Tianyuan descends from an IUP-like population (39%), likely one that originated in Western, or Central Asia. Here is one possible scenario. IUP dies out in Europe, but lives on in the rest of Eurasia. A IUP-related population spreads out into East Asia, originating in either eastern West Asia, northwest South Asia, Siberia, or Central Asia. From there, it mixes with something basal to K-14 and CWE, which forms a Tianyuan-like population, one which spawns Tianyuan, and the eastern ancestors of ANE/Yana. There was some kind of prior admixture event with Neanderthal-Denisovan hybrids too. I never said Tianyuan received direct admixture from IUP, only that it was partly descended from an IUP-related group, which is true. We have K in Paleolithic Siberia, Romania, and Northeast China, and none in SEA. SEA being the source of these lineages makes no sense geographically, archeologically, or archaeogenetically. Denisovan ancestry is missing in early mainland Southeast Asians. You can’t base the origins of genetic markers on modern day distributions. Say this were the case, it’s likely then that R1b/R1b-V88 originated in Africa/Middle East, based on modern diversity and basal clades, of course this is nonsense. A migration out of SEA and into Siberia/Southeastern Europe, prior to 45k ybp, instead of one out of the human highway that is Southwest Asia, that seems to be quite unrealistic all things considered.

Draft Dozen said...

Pity, that in the article did not mention about Tuyana (southwestern flank of the Baikal rift zone) with Aurignacoid complexes, one of the human bone was older than 49.7 ka cal BP.

Simon Stevin said...


I apologize this has derailed the thread, if anything, I’m getting the feeling we have all been talking past each other. Thanks again for the information though.

SKRiBHa said...


You conveniently omitted next very important sentences / data from that source, see:

(…) However, acceptance of any non-Slavic etymology is problematic because it implies an ethnogenesis relationship with the specific ethnic group. There is no mention of an Iranian tribe named as Horoat in the historical sources, but it was not uncommon for Slavic tribes to get their tribal names from anthroponyms of their forefathers and chiefs of the tribe, like in the case of Czechs, Dulebes, Radimichs, and Vyatichi. (...)

Better check this data:


(…) The exact origin and meaning of the ethnonym Hr̀vāt (Proto-Slavic *Xъrvátъ, or *Xurwātu) is still subject to scientific disagreement.

The first etymological thesis about the name of the Croats stems from Constantine Porphyrogennetos (tenth century), who connected the different names of the Croats, Βελοχρωβάτοι and Χρωβάτοι (Belokhrobatoi and Khrobatoi), with the Greek word χώρα (khṓra, "land"): "Croats in Slavic language means those who have many lands".

In the 13th century, Thomas the Archdeacon considered that it was connected with the name of inhabitants of the Krk isle, which he gave as Curetes, Curibantes.

In the 17th century, Juraj Ratkaj found a reflexion of the verb hrvati (se) "to wrestle" in the name.

A more contemporary theory believes that it might not be of native Slavic lexical stock, but a borrowing from an Iranian language. Common theories from the 20th and 21st centuries derive it from an Iranian origin, the root word being a third-century Scytho-Sarmatian form attested in the Tanais Tablets as Χοροάθος (Khoroáthos, alternate forms comprise Khoróatos and Khoroúathos).

In the 19th century, many different derivations were proposed for the Croatian ethnonym:

Josef Dobrovský believed it to be linked to the root *hrev "tree", whereas Johann Kaspar Zeuss linked it to *haru "sword"; Sylwiusz Mikucki connected it with Old-Indian šarv- "strike";

Pavel Jozef Šafárik derived it from xrъbъtъ, xribъtъ, xribъ "ridge, highlanders", whereas Franz Miklosich said it derived from hrъv (hrŭv) "dance"; Đuro Daničić considered its root to be *sar- "guard, protect"; Fyodor Braun saw the German Harfada (Harvaða fjöllum from Hervarar saga ok Heiðreks), which would be the German name of the Carpathian Mountains, as the origin of an intermediate form Harvata; Rudolf Much connected it to a Proto-Germanic word hruvat- "horned", or – and Z. Gołąb proposed – "warriors clad with horn-armor", as a self-designation; Henry Hoyle Howorth, J. B. Bury, Henri Grégoire, considered that it derives from the personal name of Kubrat, the leader of the Bulgars and founder of Old Great Bulgaria.


SKRiBHa said...

The 20th century gave rise to many new theories regarding the origin of the name of the Croats:

A. I. Sobolevski derived it from the Iranian words hu- "good", ravah- "space, freedom" and suffix -at-; Grigoriĭ Andreevich Ilʹinskiĭ derived it from *kher- "cut", as seen in the Greek word kárkharos "sharp", kharah "tough, sharp", and xorbrъ "brave"; Hermann Hirt saw a connection with the name of a Germanic tribe Harudes (Χαροῦδες); Leopold Geitler, Josef Perwolf, Aleksander Brückner, Tadeusz Lehr-Spławiński and Heinz Schuster-Šewc linked the root hrv- to Slovak charviti sa "to oppose, defend" or via skъrv-/xъrv- to the Lithuanian šárvas "armor" and šarvúotas "armed, cuirassier", with suffix -at emphasizing the characteristic, giving the meaning of a "well armed man, soldier"; Karel Oštir considered valid a connection with an unspecified Thraco-Illyrian word xъrvata- "hill";

Max Vasmer first considered it as a loanword from Old-Iranian, *(fšu-)haurvatā- "shepherd, cattle guardian" (formed of Avestan pasu- "cattle" and verb haurvaiti "guard"), later also from Old-Iranian hu-urvatha- "friend" (also accepted by N. Zupanič). Niko Zupanič additionally proposed Lezgian origin from Xhurava (community) and plural suffix -th, meaning "municipalities, communities". M. Budimir saw in the name a reflexion of Indo-European *skwos "gray, grayish", which in Lithuanian gives širvas; S. K. Sakač linked it with the Avestan name Harahvaitī, which once signified the southwestern part of modern Afghanistan, the province Arachosia. "Arachosia" is the Latinized form of Ancient Greek Ἀραχωσία (Arachosíā), in Old Persian inscriptions, the region is referred to as Harahuvatiš (harauvatiiša). In Indo-Iranian it actually means "one that pours into ponds", which derives from the name of the Sarasvati River of Rigveda. However, although the somewhat suggestive similarity, the connection to the name of Arachosia is etymologically incorrect; G. Vernadsky considered a connection to the Chorasmí from Khwarezm, while F. Dvornik a link to the Krevatades or Krevatas located in the Caucasus mentioned in the De Ceremoniis (tenth century). V. Miller saw in the Croatian name the Iranian hvar- "sun" and va- "bed", while P. Tedesco had a similar interpretation from Iranian huravant "sunny"; Otto Kronsteiner suggested it might be derived from Tatar-Bashkir *chr "free" and *vata "to fight, to wage war"; Stanisław Rospond derived it from Proto-Slavic *chorb- + suffix -rъ in the meaning of "brave"; Oleg Trubachyov derived it from *xar-va(n)t (feminine, rich in women, ruled by women), which derived from the etymology of Sarmatians name, the Indo-Aryan *sar-ma(n)t "feminine", in both Indo-Iranian adjective suffix -ma(n)t/wa(n)t, and Indo-Aryan and the Indo-Iranian *sar- "woman", which in Iranian gives *har-.


SKRiBHa said...

Among them were most taken into account the Germanic derivation from the Carpathian Mountains which is now considered as obsolete; the Slavic derivation about "well armed man" indicating that they stood out from the other Slavs in terms of weapons and armour, but it is not convincing because no other Slavic tribe is named after the objects of material culture and etymologically was a Lithuanian borrowing from Middle High German sarwes; and the prevailing Iranian derivations, Vasmer's *(fšu-)haurvatā- ("cattle guardian") and Trubachyov's *xar-va(n)t (feminine, rich in women, ruled by women).

While linguists and historians agreed or with Vasmer's or Trubachyov's derivation, according to Tadeusz Lehr-Spławiński and Radoslav Katičić the Iranian theses doesn't entirely fit with the Croatian ethnonym, as according to them, the original plural form was Hrъvate not Hъrvate, and the vowel "a" in the Iranian harvat- is short, while in the Slavic Hrъvate it is long among others. Katičić concluded that of all the etymological considerations the Iranian is the least unlikely. Ranko Matasović also considered it of Iranian origin, but besides confirming original forms as *Xъrvátъ (sl.) and *Xъrvate (pl.), dismissed Trubachyov's derivation because was semantically and historically completely unfounded, and concluded that the only derivation which met the criteria of adaptation of Iranian language forms to Proto-Slavic, as well as historical and semantical plausibility, it is the Vasmer's assumption but with some changes, as the Proto-Slavic *Xъrvat- < *Xurwāt- comes from Proto-Ossetian / Alanian *xurvæt- or *xurvāt-, in the meaning of "one who guards" ("guardian, protector"), which was borrowed before the 7th century, and possibly was preserved as a noun in Old Polish charwat (guard).

The Medieval Latin C(h)roatae and Greek form Khrōbátoi are adaptations of Western South Slavic plural pronunciation *Xərwate from late 8th and early 9th century, and came to Greek via Frankish source.To the Proto-Slavic singular form are closest Old Russian xorvaty (*xъrvaty) and German-Lusatian Curuuadi from 11th and 12th century sources, while the old plural form *Xъrvate is correctly reflected in Old Russian Xrovate, Xrvate, Church Slavonic xarьvate and Old Croatian Hrvate. The form Charvát in Old Czech came from Croatian-Chakavian or Old Polish (Charwaty). The Croatian ethnonym Hr̀vāt (sl.) and Hrváti (pl.) in the Kajkavian dialect also appear in the form Horvat and Horvati, while in the Chakavian dialect in the form Harvat and Harvati. (...)


Góra / Go’Ra > Hora / HoRa
Chrobry / (c)HRoBRy

Andrzejewski said...

Aren’t Kostenki14 ancestral to Gravetian and IE, whereas Sunghir clusters more with current East Asians?

MH_82 said...

@ Draft Dozen

''Pity, that in the article did not mention about Tuyana (southwestern flank of the Baikal rift zone) with Aurignacoid complexes, one of the human bone was older than 49.7 ka cal BP.''

Probably because it is a Denisovan
The aurignacian layers date 41- 31,000 Bp

@ Simon

''And the 2021 paper demonstrated that Tianyuan descends from an IUP-like population (39%), likely one that originated in Western, or Central Asia.''

In their images, Vallini et al appear to have ad hoc placed IUP expanding from Central Asia, perhaps because they did not solicit the radiometric evidence
In fact, there appears to be no 'IUP" in much of inland Asia at all
The only connection is Europe Siberia East Asia

Draft Dozen said...

Yeah, this date looks a little bit isolated, but the other human bone is dated by the period of 31.4–30.7 ka cal BP. Faunal remains in the interval of ~41.9–30 ka cal BP.

Simon Stevin said...


Thank you for the references

Davidski said...


The following samples are now in the Global25 datasheets.

HRV_Pop_RomanP POP23

SKRiBHa said...


(…) This link of Tocharian with Slavic, and Slavic influences in Turkic and Chinese languages, are some of the reasons why I think Andronovo was Indo-Slavic, not Indo-Iranian, i.e. closer to Slavic than to Vedic Sanskrit (…)

I agree with the above but the name ‘Indo-Slavic’ is logically incorrect. ‘Proto-Slavo-Indic’ is the logically correct one. This is evidenced by the typical Slavic etymology for (Z)+Altay from ZL"oTy / Z"o'L" Ty, while there is no Indo-Iranian etymology, see:

(…) It has nothing to do with the Iranian languages, see L>R, Proto-Indo-Iranian *ȷ́ʰr̥Hanyam (“gold”), Proto-Indo-Aryan *źʰárHiṣ, from Proto-Indo-Iranian *ȷ́ʰárHiš, from Proto-Indo-European *ǵʰelh₃- (“to shine”), cognate with Avestan (zairi) Sanskrit हिरण्य (hiraṇya), Avestan (zarańiia, “gold”), etc. (…)

Logically, the formation of the Proto-Indo-Iranic language had to take place in BMAC / Yaz cultures, see e.g. no burials until the time of Alexander the Great, etc.

By the way, as I promised, I described the formation of the PIE and other IE languages, but unfortunately I could not publish it here again, see:

… so I posted it on my blog.

Can you take a look at it and write me what you think, please?

Here you have a quote from its beginning:

@All (except ‘Rob’)

Finally, let’s do something constructive and summarise this thread.

Again I propose to establish a discrepancy protocol.

Can you describe your version of the origin (place, time, etc,) of the IE languages?
Below you will find my version of the formation of the PIE and Anatolian (Hittite), S/Hellenic, Armenian, Celto-Italic, Germanic, Indian (Vedic Sanskrit), Iranian (Avestan), Baltic, Slavic, Tocharian.

Note! I am not saying that there are no logical contradictions there, especially regarding the EEMH, ANE, WHG, EHG, WSH, SHG, CHG, EEF as responsible for a formation of the languages.

The possibilities of the PIE’s origin are as follows:

3 CHG > WSH,
4 EEF.

It looks like ANE is everywhere, see:

WHG = ??%EEMH + ??%EHG/75%ANE
EHG (Haak 2015) = 75%ANE + 25%WHG (??%EEMH + ??%EHG/75%ANE)
EHG (Wang 2018) = 9%ANE + 91%NoWHG???
SHG = ??%WHG + ??%EHG
WSH = ??%EHG + ??%CHG
EEF = ??%WHG-??? + ??%CHG-???
CHG = ??%WHG (??%EEMH + ??%EHG/36% ANE) + 64%Dzudzuana???

EastPole said...

SKRiBHa has a lot of interesting ideas about words at his blog. Some of them are logical and convincing. But you will not understand it, and you are not mentally ready for a change yet.

MH_82 said...

@ East Pole
What ideas do you two clowns have to offer ? Nothing

Davidski said...

Please note that comments by people with the nick "Unknown" are no longer allowed.

Brent said...


Thanks for the clarification regarding the L1029 sample and the Bohemian paper! I'll keep an eye out for any papers coming from the Harvard lab.

It was mentioned previously that this unreleased L1029 sample also showed admixture "most similar to Scandinavians from modern populations". Do you know if there was any baltic admixture?

When the Hallstatt MX265 sample was revealed to be M458+, some pointed to the Baltic admixture to speculate it could have been of Scythian (or eastern) origin. I wonder if this La Tene L1029 sample will also show this, or if it is lacking it.

(I hope you don't mind me brining this up here, I don't want to detract from the main topic of the blog post. Also, I seem to have a hard time figuring out how to post on blogger... gonna try posting it a few different ways, so if you see this comment a few times that why... not trying to spam it I swear! I'd message you on anthrogenica but your inbox is full)

Best regards,

Davidski said...


I'm not sure if MX265 really has Baltic admixture. Rather, I think that this individual is just somewhat more eastern than the earlier samples from the same region.

I don't have any more info about that La Tene sample. We just have to wait until the relevant paper arrives.

EastPole said...

„What ideas do you two clowns have to offer ? Nothing”

The main idea is that you clowns (i.e. You, Anthony, Mallory, Gimbutas, Ivanow@Gamkrelidze, Renfrew etc…) have been wrong. What is needed is a new look at languages based on etymologies and not fake reconstructions:

and new ideas about homeland:

Simon_W said...


The theory that Gata-Wieselburg has to be considered as Proto-Tumulus is new to me. Is it a new recent development in archaeology? At least it's true that they did have tumuli and flat graves. And it's interesting that some of their influence can be noted as far as northeastern Italy and northern Germany.

However, it was a culture centered around western Hungary and eastern Austria, not to the east of the Tisza. Archaeologically its origins are afaik unclear, but anthropologically these people are close to Bell Beakers from Moravia and Germany, and included the planoccipital brachycephalic type. So plausibly they were rather Bell Beaker derived than from Hungarian Yamnaya.

Matt said...

@EastPole, off topic, there is a guy comments on Razib Khan's blog, Milan Todorovic, who has proved via careful study of etymology that all Indo-European languages are derived from Serbian, and even other Slavic languages themselves are just a corrupted form of the Serbian languages, with the idea of proto-Slavic and proto-Indo European both fake reconstructions to disguise the true history of the ancient Serbian homeland of the Vinca Culture and its ancient lost civilization. This is just a heads up as I feel like you and he would potentially have some mutually satisfactory conversations on these topics.

EastPole said...


So you think we should stop looking for better solutions and stick to some old theories. But which ones?

Could you make your own statement and try to prove it. Or are you afraid of something, for example being lauged at?

Genos Historia said...

Forget about ancient DNA.

The Beech Tree! Beech Tree! This is why Proto-Indo European is from Pontic Caspian Steppe!

Man, it is impressive how linguists pieced this together clues many years ago to figure out where IE comes from.

Matt said...

@EastPole I don't really have an objection with you coming up with alternative theories for where the IE urheimat is, just very skeptical of redrawing the linguistic relationships around IE based on an amateur etymological analysis of particular words, and thought I'd point to what seems to me to be an more extreme example of where this goes wrong, to make the point. Respect for remaining civilized in tone in response to my provocative comment @ you though (actually, commitment to a civilized dialogue is a typical trait of Poles in my experience).

(Btw, your map may be missing one proposed homeland - ;) ).


Off topic: - "Genome of a middle Holocene hunter-gatherer from Wallacea" - This paper is one I think Arza or someone else mentioned last month as upcoming and is now released.

Genos Historia said...

I know a lot of you already know the linguistic evidence. I don't want to pretend I have not heard you say similar things. But it is interesting to see how far back PC Steppe homeland goes.

The precise details he says for migrations out of the PC Step are off.

He says Slavs stayed in the homeland and never left. It is kind of true. You guys stayed closest to the homeland geographically but at the same time didn't actually live in it. Iranian speakers did.

This is in part why i'm against the idea equating the Indian perspective with the European, or Slavic perspective on the IE story. Being an IE in Ukraine is different than being an IE in India.

Vladimir said...

Dynamic changes in genomic and social structures in third millennium BCE central Europe

«To explore why two-way proximal models between any Yamnaya and a European Neolithic source are insufficient in explaining Bohemia_CW_Early genetic diversity, we tried adding a third source to obtain better model fits. We find that when either one of Latvia_MN, Ukraine_Neolithic, or PittedWare is added as a source, almost all (280 of 285) model fits (P values) improve and most of them by several orders of magnitude (table S17). While all (n = 95) two-way proximal models lack strong support (P < 0.05; table S17), the addition of either Latvia_MN (57 of 95 supported models), Ukraine_Neolithic (53 of 95 supported models), or PittedWare (32 of 95 supported models) to the sources drastically increases the number of supported models (table S17). These results show the presence of excess Latvia_MN/Ukraine_Neolithic/PittedWare-like ancestry in Bohemia_CW_Early relative to all known Yamnaya and central European Neolithic groups. Our models suggest that this ancestry accounts for ~5 to 15% of the Bohemia_CW_Early gene pool (table S17). Increases in model fits with either of these third sources are also observed when modeling Bohemia_CW_Late and Germany_Corded_Ware, suggesting this ancestry to be present also in later central European CW (tables S18 and S19) and is consistent with allele sharing f4 statistics, which show that CW groups share more alleles with ancient northeast European groups than do Yamnaya (tables S20 and S21).»

« However, aware of the limited resolution of Bohemia_BB_Early (small sample size, low resolution, and large SEs), we explored alternative models for preclassical Únětice individuals. All model fits improve when Latvia_BA is included in the sources, resulting in two additional supported models (table S33). A three-way mixture of Bohemia_BB_Late, Bohemia_CW_Early, and Latvia_BA (P value of 0.086) not only supports a more conservative estimate of 47.7% population replacement but also accounts for the Y-chromosomal diversity found in preclassical Únětice, with R1b-P312 from Bohemia_BB_Late, R1b-U106 and I2 from Bohemia_CW_Early, and R1a-Z645 from Latvia_BA (Fig. 4A).»

« Finding Latvia_MN-like ancestry in early CW, in conjunction with the absence of Y-chromosomal sharing between early CW and Yamnaya males, suggests a limited or indirect role of known Yamnaya in the origin and spread of CW to central Europe. Our results allude to either a northeast European Eneolithic forest steppe contribution to early CW [a region consistent with some interpretations of the archaeological evidence (57)] or a hitherto unsampled steppe population who carried excess Latvia_MN-like ancestry, a scenario that is less likely given the high degree of genetic homogeneity among 3000-BCE steppe groups [e.g., Yamnaya and Afanasievo separated by ~2500 km but genetically almost indistinguishable (4, 61)]. As much of 4000- to 2500-BCE (north)eastern Europe remains unsampled, inferring the precise geographic origin of early CW individuals remains elusive.»

« The onset of the preclassical Únětice was accompanied by a ≥40% nuclear and ≥80% Y-chromosomal contribution ultimately originating from the northeast and breaking down the gender-differentiated mortuary practices and strict patrilineality of late CW and BB. This was neither evident in the burial customs nor in the material culture but could represent the underlying connection to the Baltics, the ultimate source of EBA amber in Bohemia associated with the later emerging Amber Road (75–77). Therefore, our results suggest two main periods (early CW and early Únětice) of genetic influence from the northeast, much of which remains unsampled in the European archaeogenetic record (e.g., Belarus).»

SKRiBHa said...


The main idea is that you clowns (i.e. You, Anthony, Mallory, Gimbutas, Ivanow@Gamkrelidze, Renfrew etc…) have been wrong. What is needed is a new look at languages based on etymologies and not fake reconstructions:

and new ideas about homeland:

Can you describe your version of the origin (place, time, etc,) of the PIE and IE languages?

old europe said...


Europe’s prehistory oversaw dynamic and complex interactions of diverse societies, hitherto unexplored at detailed regional scales. Studying 271 human genomes dated ~4900 to 1600 BCE from the European heartland, Bohemia, we reveal unprecedented genetic changes and social processes. Major migrations preceded the arrival of “steppe” ancestry, and at ~2800 BCE, three genetically and culturally differentiated groups coexisted. Corded Ware appeared by 2900 BCE, were initially genetically diverse, did not derive all steppe ancestry from known Yamnaya, and assimilated females of diverse backgrounds. Both Corded Ware and Bell Beaker groups underwent dynamic changes, involving sharp reductions and complete replacements of Y-chromosomal diversity at ~2600 and ~2400 BCE, respectively, the latter accompanied by increased Neolithic-like ancestry. The Bronze Age saw new social organization emerge amid a ≥40% population turnover....

To better understand these transitions, we analyzed a high-resolution archaeogenetic time transect of 271 (206 newly reported and 65 previously published) individuals (Fig. 1, fig. S1, tables S2 to S4, and the Supplementary Materials) from the northern part of Bohemia.

MH_82 said...

Expanding from central-northern France, La Tene is intuitively going to be R1b-L51 rich. Not sure about these rumours of 'Scandinavian like R1a people''

MH_82 said...

@ East Pole

Well if you or anyone were to say that an interactive approach needs to be considered rather than the simplistic notion 'PIE comes form EHG/CHG", then I would agree. Of course, I was the first to point that out years ago
But you seem to put your homeland over Tripolje culture. That would be a be difficult to maintain, no ? Also, I don't think your view that 'there is no such thing as PIE', and scrapping generations of comparative linguistics, is a really an improvement

Michalis Moriopoulos said...

Something seems to have gone wrong with the G25 coords for the new ME samples from Marc Haber's study. They who high distances and seem shifted left of where they should be:

I doubt anything went wrong on David's end (or Teepeean's end who apparently pre-processed them), so I tweeted this message to Marc Haber asking if he might have any ideas:

1.) Hi, Marc! Enjoyed the study. I've been looking forward to looking at the genotype data but I wonder if something might have gone wrong when uploading them. I am part of an open science pop gen hobbyist community based out of a forum called Anthrogenica.
2.) Over at AG we explore genotype or BAM information ourselves by sending the raw genotypes to David Wesolowski who converts raw genotype data (probably through Smart PCA) into 25 PCA coordinates. I have over 15,000 ancient and modern samples processed this way.. (cont.)
3.) The G25 PCA is very useful for comparing distances and doing basic components runs. Or even making PCAs. Unfortunately, something seems to have gone wrong with the genotypes for your latest study. They are all "off" by quite a bit:
4.) In that PCA they're shifted to the left of where they should be & behave like low res samples (I know they're not). We've processed many genotypes through G25 and have never had this problem. I wonder if you have any idea as to what's up here. Experimental phasing? (cont.)
5.) We've even uploaded some samples to Gedmatch and they seem to show the same noise. It doesn't seem like you had any issues in your study comparing to public genomes, so could there possibly be a problem with the raw genotypes made available? (cont.)
Final.) Might it be possible to have bam files made publicly available as well? It would be a shame not to be able to use these samples (especially the Emiratis). Thanks for any help you might provide and I look forward to more of your excellent work in the future!

John Thomas said...


What's your opinion on that new monster Corded Ware/Bell Beaker eastern/central Europe paper?

Tetris said...


You always say that we have to be open to new and different ideas. But what you seem to mean is that everyone else should be open to accept your ideas, because you yourself haven't moved an inch from your position for years though you've never been able to convince anyone even in part. Don't you think it's about time that YOU open yourself to new ideas from others? Just to not keep repeating the same again and again year after year, you know.

Davidski said...

Where's the genotype data from that Bohemian paper? Available online yet?

Arza said...

@ Davidski

Edmond. SNPs have chr_pos names.

Cy Tolliver said...

@Simon Stevin

Is Bacho-Kiro/IUP essentially another "Crown Eurasian" lineage then, analagous to Ust-Ishim and Oase (but not particularly related to either, rather it's own distinct generic "Eurasian" branch).

Am I understanding you correctly, you think this BK-IUP lineage went east and essentially mixed with some sort of pre-West Eurasian lineage, which led to the formation of Tianyuan?

Romulus said...

Our results suggest that the Y-lineage diversity in early CW males was supplanted by a nonrandom process [selection, social structure, or influx of nonlocal R1a-M417(xZ645) lineages] that drove the collapse in Y-chromosomal diversity. A simultaneous decline of Y-chromosomal diversity dating to the Neolithic has been observed across most extant Y-haplogroups (64), possibly due to increased conflict between male-mediated patrilines (65).

It looks like Anthony got it backwards, R1a-M417 was replacing these early CWC R1b-M269 lineages and it's expansion probably drove them west into Europe in the first place.

Romulus said...

Unetice Y DNA from this paper is a very good match for the Tollense Valley warriors.

Unetice as per the Bohemian Paper
i2a2 14
r1a 9
p312 9
u106 1
g2a 1

SKRiBHa said...

@Genos Historia
(…) He says Slavs stayed in the homeland and never left. It is kind of true. You guys stayed closest to the homeland geographically but at the same time didn't actually live in it. Iranian speakers did. This is in part why i'm against the idea equating the Indian perspective with the European, or Slavic perspective on the IE story. Being an IE in Ukraine is different than being an IE in India. (…)

Can you explain what you mean, please? Who said that? Does this mean, in your opinion, that the CWC was Proto-Indo-Iranic? Where, in your opinion, was the PIE homeland and where did the Proto-Slavs allegedly come from?

SKRiBHa said...

(…) Don't you think it's about time that YOU open yourself to new ideas from others? (…)

Well, does it mean that you have a new idea and are willing to share it? If so, can you describe your version of the origin (place, time, etc,) of the PIE and IE languages?

Robert Hartmann said...

707 is a lot.

For brothers and sisters interested in the broader picture and able (and willing) to read a thoughtful German text on prehistory I recommend Carel van Schaik and Kai Michel, Die Wahrheit über Eva, Hamburg 2020, 619 pp.

In my opinion, the best paleogenomics can deliver are elements for sometimes a first reliable and later on a more precise understanding of hidden human history. It then needs historians to combine and write. Those are van Schaik and Michel.

Dranoel said...

@ Vladimir

So this study, as I understand it, confirms the route Davidski is pointing to. CW spreads from the east to the west and north. Davidski also spoke about Yamnaya itself - that it was not a "base" for CW, BUT you cannot deny the presence of Yamnaya in Central Europe during CW / BB, because we know the Z2103 individuals of Yamnaya origin, who migrated by adopting the CW / BB culture north (samples from Poland and the Czech Republic). Yamnaya was not the main force, but she was present, and we have evidence of that.

By Yamnaya, I mean "THAT" Yamnaya, rich in Z2103.

Simon Stevin said...

@Cy Tolliver

I just read a newer paper published in May, by Leonardo Vallini, entitled “Genetics and material culture support repeated expansions into Paleolithic Eurasia from a population hub out of Africa” (2021). Said paper takes into account the new Zlatý Kůň sample, while M Hajdinjak et al. 2021, didn’t have access to said sample. Bacho Kiro IUP, Oase, Ust’-Ishim, Tianyuan, and Papuans, can all be modeled as un-admixed descendants of the same IUP (Initial Upper Paleolithic) population, according to Vallini. With this in mind, there are a few possibilities. Rob has correctly pointed out that based on archaeological evidence, the oldest IUP-related archaeological sites are in the Levant, followed by Southeast/East/Central Europe, then North Asia/Siberia, and finally, Mongolia/Northwest China. IUP-related sites first appear in the Caucasus 41k ybp; there are practically no IUP sites in South/Central Asia. However, I endorse two possible migration routes. One involves a migration from Eastern Europe, past the Caspian Sea, and into Siberia. From there, this migration branches off, with one group taking a northern route across the Eurasian steppe, and becoming the ancestors of Tianyuan, AR33K, Salkhit, and ANS/ANE, while the other heads south into South and Southeast Asia. The second possible route, involves a star like expansion via Western Asia/Iran, with IUP hunter gatherers migrating north onto the Eurasian steppe (which again forms Tianyuan), and south, into South/Southeast Asia; this group would form the ancestors of populations such as the Onge and Paupuans. It must be noted that ANS/ANE are also partly derived from a clade closely related to Kostenki/Sungir, and other Gravettians. So to summarize. Tianyuan-like populations are formed by IUP hunter gatherers, migration across Northern Eurasia. At some point later on, Gravettian/Kostenki-related groups, also migrate across North Eurasia, where they mix with the remnants of Tianyuan/AR33K-like groups, producing ANE/ANS. Has anyone figured out Salkhit yet? Is it simply a mix of Tianyuan and Yana?

MH_82 said...

Cool study
But I dont know where they get the idea that only females were incorporated into CWC.
Switzerland, Poland, Bohemian data is full of I2a in CWC. Authors should check solid facts before they get too carried away with some powder-puff statistical simulations

Also don;t agree with the idea of a 2600 bce Y-DNA bottleneck. That only occurred in 25/2400 bc with BB

Genos Historia said...


Only Swiss CWC is full of I2a. Bohemia CWC is R1b L151, then a R1a M417 clan moved in in the latter period.

Ric Hern said...

What is interesting for me is the Early Corded Ware Latvia connection and Probably some Belarus connection. So my theory that Indo-European cattle could have been the White Backed Cattle found from Estonia to Ireland is not that ridiculous. And the Salzmünde Tabiano Coloured Horse could be a sign that Indo-Europeans were not far from there at the time. Haha.

Ric Hern said...

And the Northeast to Southwest migration kind of makes sense since GAC was basically split in two by a migration through their territory. Plus the possible link between some Lithuanian folklore and Irish folklore with nothing as similar inbetween. Please Belarus, give us some Ancient Samples, prity please.

Genos Historia said...


Yes I suppose there is a I2a2 guy in CWC Poland too. Along with lots of WHG. He is the ancestor of the Tollense warriors.

Romulus pointed out the I2a2 along with R1 in Unetice is similar to the Tollense warriors. It shows a resurgence of I2a2 in the Bronze age. So I mean you have a point about indigenous Y DNA surviving in some parts of Corded Ware.

I tend to think this resurgence is coming from Corded Ware branch in Poland who was mostly of indigenous origin.

But overall Corded Ware is overwelmingly R1b and R1a. Nothing is going to change this.

MH_82 said...

@ Genos

Yeah they include

I6696 : I2a1a (? Bichon line) Czech CWC (+ steppe admixture) (Narasinham)
I7272 : I2a2a2 (SW Euro line) Czech CWC (no steppe admixture) (Olalde 2018)
N47 : I2a2a1b2 ('GAC line') Poland Kuyavia CWC ( + steppe admixture) (Fernandez et al)
N49 : I2a2a1b2 Poland Kuyavia CWC (+ steppe admixture)

And that's not even listing the Swiss data

''But overall Corded Ware is overwelmingly R1b and R1a. Nothing is going to change this.''

nobody said otherwise, so you don't need to confabulate defensively

its just that this study makes odd claims in this specific respect. On the one hand, they appear to be edging for a multiregional origin of corded ware, but ascribing the entire nonsteppe role to women.
Rather, the more likely scenario is CWC is predominantly a steppe cultural model, but with a diversity of steppe lineages, as well as assimilation of pre-steppe lineages, and the degree of assimilation varyied (which can be examined with individualised analysis)

Then there is a Y-DNA bottleneck during the BB period.
Funnily enough, the Ruckstrum is back East, not into Iberia

Davidski said...


The new Bohemian samples are now in the G25 datasheets under these labels...

I'm starting a thread about the relevant paper tomorrow, so it might be useful if you hold off with any detailed comments about these samples until I get that thread up.

Genos Historia said...

Thanks for your hard work.

We don't care what the experts think of the DNA. We only care what G25 says.

archlingo said...

Genos Historia,

Which "Tollense warriors"? The battle had TWO parties.

Matt said...

Preliminary comment - Quick attempt at outlier detection:

Looks like a couple Unetice are Baltic like and Slavic like (VL051 and VL050) and a few more Unetice are trailing in that direction. So is one of the Bell Beaker samples I4136, which perfectly overlaps I5025 in the PCA I tested (so possibly a duplicate?).

So that could be either intrusive layers or true outliers.

I also notice CZE_EE is I14168 is more like an Atlantic farmer than like CZE_ME_GAC or the other CZE_EE group.

"No steppe" samples need some looking at to check if it is Steppe / HG. Looks like HG to me tho.

Matt said...

Note, the sample that I've labelled Unetice_EBA_Slavic_o (VLI050) in my linked plots above may not actually be that close to present day Slavs and looks more intermediate the HRV_Transdanubian_Encrusted_Pottery_EBA set and Baltic_BA (thus occupying an essentially similar position to present day Czech people but with slightly lower Steppe ancestry).

It's probably likely that she is a continuation of the Early to Late Bronze Age cline of "HG Rich" ancestry that stretched through Central-Eastern Europe between Baltic->Croatia->SRB_Mokrin_EBA (where the cline then starts to touch the low EEF Balkan populations), via HUN_Mako_EBA.

Erik Andersson said...


Distance to: CZE_Unetice_preC:I4139
0.00000000 CZE_Starounetice_EBA:I5035

Copper Axe said...


Just saw this might give you a chuckle:

"No más."

galadhorn said...


Quiles: "In my opinion, the data published in this paper make my ethnolinguistic model no longer valid."

Hemos pasado ;)

Erik Andersson said...

These ones are identical:

Distance to: CZE_Unetice_preC:I7202
0.00000000 CZE_EBA:I7202

Distance to: CZE_Unetice_preC:I7201
0.00000000 CZE_EBA:I7201

Distance to: CZE_Unetice_preC:I7200
0.00000000 CZE_EBA:I7200

Distance to: CZE_Unetice_preC:I7199
0.00000000 CZE_EBA:I7199

Distance to: CZE_Unetice_preC:I7198
0.00000000 CZE_EBA:I7198

Distance to: CZE_Unetice_preC:I7196
0.00000000 CZE_EBA:I7196

Distance to: CZE_Unetice_preC:I7195
0.00000000 CZE_EBA:I7195

Distance to: CZE_Unetice_preC:I4139
0.00000000 CZE_Starounetice_EBA:I5035

Distance to: CZE_Unetice_C:I4892
0.00000000 CZE_EBA:I4892

Distance to: CZE_Unetice_C:I4884
0.00000000 CZE_EBA:I4884

Distance to: CZE_EE:I7272
0.00000000 CZE_En:I7272

Distance to: CZE_EE:I6677
0.00000000 CZE_Bilina_N_Baalberge:I6677

Distance to: Corded_Ware_CZE_late:I7280
0.00000000 Corded_Ware_CZE:I7280

Distance to: Corded_Ware_CZE_late:I7279
0.00000000 Corded_Ware_CZE:I7279

Distance to: Corded_Ware_CZE_late:I7209
0.00000000 Corded_Ware_CZE:I7209

Distance to: Corded_Ware_CZE_late:I7208
0.00000000 Corded_Ware_CZE:I7208

Distance to: Corded_Ware_CZE_late:I7207
0.00000000 Corded_Ware_CZE:I7207

Distance to: Corded_Ware_CZE_late:I6695
0.00000000 Corded_Ware_CZE:I6695

Distance to: Corded_Ware_CZE_early:I6696
0.00000000 Corded_Ware_CZE:I6696

Distance to: Bell_Beaker_CZE_late:I7290
0.00000000 Bell_Beaker_CZE:I7290

Distance to: Bell_Beaker_CZE_late:I7287
0.00000000 Bell_Beaker_CZE:I7287

Distance to: Bell_Beaker_CZE_late:I7286
0.00000000 Bell_Beaker_CZE:I7286

Distance to: Bell_Beaker_CZE_late:I7282
0.00000000 Bell_Beaker_CZE:I7282

Distance to: Bell_Beaker_CZE_late:I7281
0.00000000 Bell_Beaker_CZE:I7281

Distance to: Bell_Beaker_CZE_late:I7278
0.00000000 Bell_Beaker_CZE:I7278

Distance to: Bell_Beaker_CZE_late:I7276
0.00000000 Bell_Beaker_CZE:I7276

Distance to: Bell_Beaker_CZE_late:I7275
0.00000000 Bell_Beaker_CZE:I7275

Distance to: Bell_Beaker_CZE_late:I7269
0.00000000 Bell_Beaker_CZE:I7269

Distance to: Bell_Beaker_CZE_late:I7251
0.00000000 Bell_Beaker_CZE:I7251

Distance to: Bell_Beaker_CZE_late:I7250
0.00000000 Bell_Beaker_CZE:I7250

Distance to: Bell_Beaker_CZE_late:I7249
0.00000000 Bell_Beaker_CZE:I7249

Distance to: Bell_Beaker_CZE_late:I7213
0.00000000 Bell_Beaker_CZE:I7213

Distance to: Bell_Beaker_CZE_late:I7211
0.00000000 Bell_Beaker_CZE:I7211

Distance to: Bell_Beaker_CZE_late:I7210
0.02180762 CZE_EBA:I7196

Distance to: Bell_Beaker_CZE_late:I7205
0.00000000 Bell_Beaker_CZE:I7205

Distance to: Bell_Beaker_CZE_late:I6480
0.00000000 Bell_Beaker_CZE:I6480

Distance to: Bell_Beaker_CZE_late:I5666
0.00000000 Bell_Beaker_CZE:I5666

Distance to: Bell_Beaker_CZE_late:I5514
0.00000000 Bell_Beaker_CZE:I5514

Distance to: Bell_Beaker_CZE_late:I4946
0.00000000 Bell_Beaker_CZE:I4946

Distance to: Bell_Beaker_CZE_late:I4945
0.00000000 Bell_Beaker_CZE:I4945

Distance to: Bell_Beaker_CZE_late:I4896
0.00000000 Bell_Beaker_CZE:I4896

Distance to: Bell_Beaker_CZE_late:I4895
0.00000000 Bell_Beaker_CZE:I4895

Distance to: Bell_Beaker_CZE_late:I4891
0.00000000 Bell_Beaker_CZE:I4891

Distance to: Bell_Beaker_CZE_late:I4889
0.00000000 Bell_Beaker_CZE:I4889

Distance to: Bell_Beaker_CZE_late:I4888
0.00000000 Bell_Beaker_CZE:I4888

Distance to: Bell_Beaker_CZE_late:I4886
0.00000000 Bell_Beaker_CZE:I4886

Distance to: Bell_Beaker_CZE_late:I4885
0.00000000 Bell_Beaker_CZE:I4885

Distance to: Bell_Beaker_CZE_late:I4136
0.00000000 Bell_Beaker_CZE_o:I5025

There are also two 'kol6'.

Simon Stevin said...

At this point, what left does Carl have as far as theories go? These new early Corded Ware samples bearing L-51, have completely destroyed his bizarre, nonsensical, Finno-Ugric, R1a, EHG, CWC hypothesis.

Davidski said...

Well, Quiles being Quiles, there's still a lot of room for him to come up with stupid shit.

And mark my words, he won't disappoint.

ambron said...

The most important lesson from this Czech study for lovers of Slavic history is that the Balto-Slavic drift appeared in the population of Western Slavic lands in the early Bronze Age, not in the early Middle Ages, as the proponents of the Pripyat theory believe.

un said...

These so-called earliest CWC individuals with R1b do not have the appropriate ceramics and battle axes in the graves. How legitimate is it to refer them to Corded Ware culture ?

Davidski said...

Just did a quick search in the supp info PDF...

OBR003, Grave goods: pot, two bone belt clasps, stone battle axe (A-type), chipped industry – blade.

MH_82 said...

Yes apparently altai Scythians were Turkic
Slavic expansion correlates with EV13
Hittites from Khvalysnk

The theories will keep rolling in

Matt said...

If anyone is interested in looking at which haplogroups occur in which samples at which time and their associated level of steppe etc ancestry, I've made this plot using Vahaduo results and the dates of samples and their information:

The maximum steppe ancestry at any point drops in a very neat and predictable linear manner. (Will save any other comments for the main thread!)

EastPole said...

“If anyone is interested in looking at which haplogroups occur in which samples at which time and their associated level of steppe etc ancestry, I've made this plot using Vahaduo results and the dates of samples and their information:”

Any idea how the dots correlate with languages?

Romulus said...

Maybe these early R1b-L151 were displaced by the GAC migration into the Forest Steppe. GAC appears in the Forest Steppe 2950 BCE which is the same time the earliest people with Forest Steppe DNA show up in Central Europe.

Davidski said...


How do the earliest CWC samples from Poland and the Baltic states behave in that graph?

MH_82 said...

This looks like a folk -movement of men & women into sparsely populated parts of north-central Europe

The previous 'middle Neolithic' population having moved north & west (Iberia, Britain, Swedish-TRB), or simply not prospered

The Polish & Czech TRB look fascinating. Look at that Y-hg C1a, R1b-V88, H2. Whilst authors ascribe it to northern infiltration, the Y-DNA isn't consistent with that

Andrzejewski said...

@Matt and @Genos Historia OK, let’s assume that there were pockets of this WHG-rich pops that made it all the way to the Bronze Age in Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Serbia etc.

What happened to it and did it survive in modern populations? Did they all go extinct at the Battle of Tollensee Valley? Please elaborate!

Genos Historia said...

PNL001, 2900 BC calc, R1b U106.
OB003, 2900 BC calc, R1b L151*

Both come out about 100% Kurgan.

Absolutely amazing! These R1b samples can be used to model Bell Beaker for now on.

Genos Historia said...


Check out this modern Polish outlier.....

63% Ukrainian
37% Germany_BA_Tollenseavg

63% Polish (excluding him)
37% Germany_BA_Tollenseavg

So yeah, it looks like this WHG rich Tollense stuff survived somewhere in modern Poland.

We only have 13 DNA samples from Poland in G25. If a study does a serious sampling of all of Poland, we will find a Tollense-rich enclave somewhere. Where there is one, there is many.

This ancestry was universal in Bronze, Iron age Central Europe. All samples from there have some of this WHG Tollense-like stuff. The oldest example is from Corded Ware Poland, sample N49.

It is somehow related to Balto-Slavs. We don't know how. Also, modern Slavs all definitely have some of this ancestry. Especially Western Slavs. But maybe not a lot.

Davidski said...


Those are low coverage samples, and probably useless for such fine scale ancient ancestry analyses.

Andrzejewski said...

@Genos “ This ancestry was universal in Bronze, Iron age Central Europe. All samples from there have some of this WHG Tollense-like stuff. The oldest example is from Corded Ware Poland, sample N49.”

So why did it go down? Was Tollensee responsible for the near extinction of this lineage and of the high percentage of WHG related ancestry?

Genos Historia said...


The Tollense battle was fought between closely related tribes. They all had lots of WHG ancestry. The R1b guys seems to have less than the I2a guys, but both were closely related.

So I mean no, the Tollense battle doesn't represent the extinction of a WHG rich race.

Davidski said...

@Erik Andersson

Right you are. I've made the corrections.

«Oldest ‹Older   601 – 748 of 748   Newer› Newest»