search this blog

Tuesday, August 12, 2025

Tripolje, Dereivka, and the Sredni Stog phenomenon (guest post)


This is another guest post by an anonymous contributor. Again, I don't necessarily agree with the author, but is he wrong? Feel free to let me know in the comments below.

The definition of Sredni Stog phenomenon (SSP) varies and is often a loosely applied term to refer to pretty much any individual in the Dnieper and Don regions between the ‘Neolithic’ and Yamnaya periods.

In order to elucidate the SSP, some brief remarks on the preceding Mariupol phenomenon are warranted. Understanding the Mariupol horizon is fairly straightforward – its development was catalysed by an intrusion of groups from somewhere west of the Dnieper, ~ 5500BC. The ‘proto-Mariupol’ group were genomic and economic ‘hunter-gatherers’, lacking any discernible EEF admixture, and with Y-hg I-L702 uniparental ‘trace-dye’. The Mariupol phenomenon predominantly impacted the lower reaches of the Dnieper and Azov steppe (Lower Dnieper- Azov group, ‘LDA’), but extended toward the Don, Volga and even the Kuban steppe in an attenuated form. The elevated levels of “Ukr N’ in Golubaya Krinitsa and the Y-hg I2a-L702 individual at Berezhnovka attest to this movement. The Mariupol phenomenon is associated with the development of formal cemeteries, linking them with Late Neolithic mixed farmer/HG groups in the northeast Balkans. Individuals were buried in a ‘supine straight-legged’ inhumation, with grave goods such as boar-tusk pendants for select males and adorning shell beads for females. This might signal the emergence of gender-differentiation in burials and the rise of local leaders or ‘chiefs’.

Data sets treat the ‘Neolithic’ in Ukraine as a monolithic phenomenon, however it is important to note that Dereivka stands apart – it is 200km north of other “Ukraine_N” sites such as Volnienski, Igren and Vovnigi, beyond the ‘Dnipro bend’. Moreover, male individuals from Dereivka are overwhelmingly assigned to Y-hg R1b-V88 and the burial pose (N-S) at Dereivka deviates from the more common E-W orientation seen elsewhere. Quite a few of the published ‘Sredni Stog’ individuals are from Dereivka, and often earlier than 4500BC, and N. Kotova assigns them to the Dnieper-Donets culture. Moreover, the recently published middle Don individuals, such as those from Golubaya Krinitsa and Vasilyevsky Cordon -17, are also not Sredni Stog, but can be thought of as ‘partially Mariupolised hunter-gatherers’. In another example, the (undated) ‘Sredni Stog’ individual I27930 from Igren was assigned to Y-hg Q and he can be modelled as a 2-way mix of EHG & WHG. This individual is actually from the Mesolithic.

So what occurred during the Sredni Stog period? In contrast to the Mariupol phase, the population dynamics associated with SSP are complex: at least three external flows can be highlighted (i) the advance of Tripolje communities from the Carpathians to the Dnieper (ii) arrival of South-Caucasian/CHG agro-pastoralists in the north Caucasus, and (iii) arrival of ‘central Asian’ populations in Volga-Caspian region (represented by “TTK individual’); in addition to intra-steppe shifts and flows. Notwithstanding, the ‘ideological background’ of SSP is rooted in the Mariupol horizon. The stereotypical SSP burials features individuals buried on their back, but increasingly with legs up-flexed. And we see the beginnings of kurgan constructions, which vary from stone cairns to soil-thrown barrows. Most are buried in simple pits, however some have more complex ‘catacomb’ pits.

What happened in the Dniester-Dnieper-Don region during the SSP? We can begin by orientating ourselves with a PCA to observe two main clines developing. One cline develops between ‘Ukr_N and EEF and a second cline pulls toward Lower-Volga Caucasus groups. The first cline mostly comprises of ‘Farmers’ from Tipolje and ‘hunter-gatherers’ from Dereivka. The second cline consists of individuals from Dereivka and the lower Dnieper-Azov group pulling toward Lower Volga-Caucasus groups.


Admixture analysis with qpAdm reveals 3 groups within the 2 broad clines. The first group can be thought of as ‘core Sredni Stog’. These individuals are 2-way mixes of ‘Ukr_N’ and ‘Steppe Eneolithic’ (sometimes Progress works, sometimes Remontoye or Berezhnovka). They are both males and females. In our examples, the females are from Kopachiv Yar (4000 BC) and Dereivka (3500BC). The males come from Dereivka (4300BC), Moluykhiv Bugor (4000BC), Vynohrado (4000BC); they are all derived for Y-hg I2a-L703+. These results represent a blending of social networks between the LDA and various lower Volga-Caucasus groups, and the subsequent expansion by LDA further West. The terminus ante quem of 4300 BC matches the corrected dating of the Kuban steppe sites such as Progress & Vojnuchka.


Another subset comprises of individuals from Dereivka and Verteba cave who situated on an ‘Ukr-N’ < - - > EEF cline. Many of the earlier Dereivka individuals are almost 100% Ukr_N. Verteba cave Tripolje can be modelled as 80% EEF + 20% Ukr_N. One individual from Dereikva (I3719) falls outside the Dereivka <-> Tripolje clin, as he plots further ‘south’ with Balkan-LBK farmers. Consistently, he comes out as ~100% EEF with qpAdm. Dating to ~4700BC, he precedes the arrival of Tipolje groups to the region by hundreds of years. FtDNA have assigned him to I2-Z161- FTH81, which is distinctive to the LDA haplotypes and is phylogenetically linked to a Czech LBK individual.


A third group consists of individuals with more complex 3-way ancestries, consisting of EEF, Ukr-N and Steppe_En and/or Maikop. These come from late Dereivka and late Tripolje groups, in archaeological literature often termed as ‘Soldanesti’, ‘Zhivotilovksa-Volchansk’, Cernavoda (Kartal). Once again, the males from Soldanesti and Cernavoda derive from LDA-related Y-hg I2a-L703 in some shape or form.


Conclusions:

1) Firstly, we note that the Dereivka group was subject to early EEF influence, as soon as eastern LBK groups reached Ukraine after 5000BC. However, their main interaction occurred with the younger, Tripolje group, which expanded toward the Dnieper after ~ 4300 BC.

2) In the LDA group we observe patrilineal continuity. These clans created expansive social-networks. They initially mixed with groups from the lower Volga-Caucasus area. Some then moved west, and ‘took over’ the Tripolje region and acquired high levels of EEF.

3) As a third conclusion, we can reject the commonly held notion that Tripolje was ‘conquered by Yamnaya pastoralists’. Our analysis instead highlights that their core structure fragmented as they became intertwined with powerful networks to their west (Trpolje) and east (Sredni Stog). The ‘take-over’ was due to the expansion of LDA/ SS groups. Mixed groups emerged such as Cernavoda and Soldanesti, which retained Tripolje ancestry and some cultural traditions. By the time Yamnaya groups reached the Dniester forest steppe, Tripolje had been long gone.



See also...

‘Proto-Yamnaya’ Eneolithic individuals from Kuban steppe c. 3700 BC ? (guest post)

29 comments:

MAD said...

There is a book published in 2008 that contains a detailed look at the cultural layers, artifacts, burials and also suggests which cultures likely interacted, and where. If the guest post aligns with the actual materials findings in this book, then there is support for the conclusions. Because the book provides more details than the guest post, it would be interesting to see if the post needs modifications to align with the material evidence in the downloadable book: "Early Eneolithic in the Pontic Steppes" by Nadezhda S. Kotova, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, May 2008. It describes: "the process of Early Eneolithic culture formation in the Pontic steppe. The cultural environment, represented mainly by the bearers of Tripolye culture and inhabitants of Northern Caucasus, played an important role in historical destiny of the steppe population. Moreover, with the help of available materials we can examine cultural interactions of steppe population from the Volga to the Danube.
Special attention is devoted to the reconstruction of social and
economical structure of steppe population in the Early Eneolithic. Faunal materials together with imprints of cultural plants on ceramics and palynological data have given the information about the cattle breeding, agriculture and hunting. Burial materials have allowed me to reconstruct social structure in the Early Eneolithic society." There are also comments on possible climactic reasons for population movements. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351748092_Early_Eneolithic_in_the_Pontic_Steppes

Davidski said...

@The Last of the Maharuls

I'm not a boomer you fucking moron.

Rob said...

@ maharul - funny thing is the “out of Caucasus” theory was formulated by dullard Boomers

Rob said...

@ MAD

“ Because the book provides more details than the guest post, it would be interesting to see if the post needs modifications to align with the material evidence in the downloadable book?”

Yes it’s a great book. But in reality, local archaeologists should update their views to the assessment in this post
👍

Shomu said...

@Rob
target left weight se z
1 Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya.AG Ukraine_N.AG 0.191 0.0206 9.29
2 Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya.AG Armenia_Aknashen_N.AG 0.162 0.0242 6.71
3 Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya.AG PB_Group 0.647 0.0371 17.4

$rankdrop
# A tibble: 1 × 7
f4rank dof chisq p dofdiff chisqdiff p_nested

1 2 9 9.20 0.419 11 443. 5.28e-88

East Caucasian capacity 💪

Shomu said...

@Rob
yes

Gioiello said...

You know what I think: I-M223 and R1b from Palaeolithic Italy (above all) and Q from Siberia. Before 20000 ybp R and Q from eastern and western Siberia and I from Europe. Interesting that there wasn't any J and R1a: J olderly linked with I and R1a with R1b. Perhaps we sould think just to the Siberian corridor with R1a in the North and J in the South who were doing other... The same for the Indo-European languages. Nothing to do with the "Southern Ark theory" and Gamkrelidze/Ivanov.

Gioiello said...

To respond to the question of the languages I should get the age of my grandchildren (6 and 2 years) and begin to study now. So far I don't consider the theories of the Basque-Caucasian-Na Dené and Nostratic wrong etc. Of course also these groups interacted. Why in Italian to-day we say: “di-glie-lo” [dic illi illum] = “say-to him-that”? Probably in a Nostratic language we use a Basque-Caucasian-NaDené form.

Rob said...

@ Shomu
Yes Yamnaya have high levels of Caucasian related ancestry, mostly due to complex dynamics within the steppe itself.
In terms of Sredni Stog, some subsidiary contacts were established with communities in the Northwest Caucasus.
As you know, Eneolithic northeast Caucasus sites like Ginchi were instead part of the Sioni complex. Hopefully we get some genomes from there

Rep

Norfern-Ostrobothnian said...

@Rob
Do you think there's any substance in Begazy-Dandybai and Sargari cultures being East Iranian speaking?

Tom said...

What are the implications for the formation of post-3500 BC steppe groups like Yamnaya proper and proto-CWC?

Davidski said...

I think the main implication is that the importance of Caucasus-related ancestry in Yamnaya is overstated in peer reviewed papers and the influence from the west on the steppe is largely ignored.

By the way, I added two maps to the post right at the end of the post.

Shomu said...

@Davidski
https://i.ibb.co/S7mYD6DH/1755293695284.jpg

Rob said...

@ Norfern- ''Do you think there's any substance in Begazy-Dandybai and Sargari cultures being East Iranian speaking?''
Yep seems logical

Shomu said...

https://www1.ru/news/2025/08/15/rossiiskie-arxeologi-bolse-ne-otdaiut-naxodki-dlia-geneticeskix-analizov-inostrannym-kollegam-v-ros.html 🥵

"Russian archaeologists no longer give their finds to foreign colleagues for genetic analysis. Russia has replaced import technology"

quote from the article

"In the summer, the results of the first completely domestic study of the genetics of the Scythians were published"

how these scoundrels, liars, scoundrels and hypocrites love these words, like "completely domestic", "import substitution", "no analogues"

but now let's figure it out in more detail, what completely domestic technologies do they have there?

100 percent of the sequencers of this laboratory are American-made 😁
, namely:
HiSeq 2000 / HiSeq 2500 and NovaSeq 6000, MiSeq FGx / MiSeq FGx Forensic Genomics System, Verogen (also in San Diego, USA). (Otherwise, "FGx" is sometimes understood as Forensic Genomics-variants of Illumina.)

Rob said...

@ Tom , Dave
The map speculates the possible area of Yamnaya - early CW genesis. Not sure if it’ll be proven right or wrong. But somewhere between western (Azov-Dnieper) and southeastern (Kuban) Sredni Stog seems plausible.

Rob said...

Although the focus isn’t Yamnaya here, but to correct the gaslighting / misrepresentation specifically on western Sredni Stog culture by lamestrream academics suffering from an echo-chamber effect & cognitive impotence. Recently even some seasoned commentators here were performing mental gymnastics. So it’s important basic issues are addressed informally before a later, formalised KO :)

Tom said...

@ Davidski

Of course, this post was informative and necessary; I am in agreement with its conclusions. I’m just pondering what exact processes led to the relatively homogeneous autosomal profile that we see a few centuries before the main IE expansion.

@Rob

Is your general idea that wheeled transport technologies becoming widespread on the steppe around 3500 BC facilitated greater mobility among the proto or “majority ancestors” of Yamnaya & CW of the Middle Don, leading to expansion and establishment of kinship networks between them LDA, Derievka, late Tripolye and, in the latest stages, GAC?

And I hope such issues continue to be addressed.

Rob said...

@ Tom - a few things seemed to have happened in the late 4th millenium, just before the big 'Corded-Yamnaya' expansion :
the final fragmentation of Tripolje, expansion of GAC, fragmentation of Majkop, emigration of the Cernavoda/ west Sredni Stog block to the Balkans. So that created certain push & pull factors which led to the emergence of C-Y from comparative obscruity. Perhaps wheel technology helped their expansion
Some authors invoke climate changes, but so far the data on the steppe are too coarse grained

Shomu said...

the populations of the steppe Eneolithic and Berezhnevka are literally NEC, only without the Middle Eastern admixture, sorted by the distance parameter so that it would be clear that, as in the steppe Eneolithic, the selected group of Dagestanis has a "peculiar" CHG, not similar to the Georgian

https://i.ibb.co/VPQLRRv/Screenshot-20250818-211906.jpg

I also presented this in the form of 2 graphs, the dependence of the parameters CHG+Iran_N and Distance on the selected individual of the steppe Eneolithic and Dagestani

https://i.ibb.co/B5NfkvMM/Screenshot-20250818-213109.jpg

CordedSlav said...

@ Shomu

''the populations of the steppe Eneolithic and Berezhnevka are literally NEC''

Sure Jan
And by extension CW, Slavs and Celts are also just Dagestanis deep down


Shomu said...

@CordedSlav
Yes

Shomu said...

https://www.hibiny.ru/murmanskaya-oblast/news/item-uchenye-polnostyu-rasshifrovali-dnk-yakuta-kotoryy-jil-10-tysyach-let-nazad-hatystyrskiy-chelovek-pozvolil-luchshe-ponyat-evol-424735/

Scientists have completely decoded the DNA of a Yakut who lived 10 thousand years ago: Khatystyrsky Man has allowed us to better understand evolutionary processes

"...Researchers have found that the Khatystyrsky man was related to the ancestors of the Uralic-speaking peoples. This means that in ancient times, Yakutia played an important role in the settlement of Northern Eurasia. "

homeland of the finnougrians😄

Tom said...


@ Davidski

Can you stop letting “Shomu” spam the comment sections of your blog with his Dagestani nationalism because he is clearly trolling and detracting from the subject matter.

@ Rob

Which camp do you fall into when it comes to Corded Ware... brother group derived from the same genetic pool of forest-steppe borderland clans as Yamnaya, or an unsampled Yamnaya sub-group not buried in kurgans as per Anthony? I used to reject the latter explanation, but certain archaeological connections between Budzhak and CWC are interesting.

Davidski said...

David Anthony's hypothesis about the origin of Corded Ware is terrible.

It doesn't really match anything we have from genetics and archeology.

I don't understand how someone with his experience can just come up with a story like this based on nothing.

JVTRPLZZ said...

David, how feasible is this theory:

1. Everything starts with Iron Gates HG as being Pre-Proto-IE.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Gates_Mesolithic

2. They bear all the right haplogroups, and they did have contacts with Anatolian HG before the Anatolian Farmer expansions.

3. The Iron Gates HG descendants migrate east and start the PIE story and link with Steppe expansions on what's today Ukraine.
https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/opar-2022-0266/html

4. We know that Anatolian HG and Farmers already had WHG ancestry before even entering Europe. So, two new hypothesis here:
4A. The one most likely to be correct in my view is that there was a cluster os such Anatolians that remained there and which were to become the Anatolian IE Speakers.
4B. There were more Anatolian-IE languages among the farmers who went to Europe - of course, not all of them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatolian_hunter-gatherers

What do you think? Is it worth running some tests? The only doubt remaining would be from which HG (WHG or EHG) Pre-Proto-IE comes from, and I tend to side with EHG, as I believe that, along with the Middle Easterners of the time, WHG spoke Afro-Asiatic - I believe that because I to me, R1b in Africa was carried by them through Italy and Sicily, then onto the Green Sahara.

Davidski said...

Iron Gates HG doesn't really have the right Y-chromosome haplogroups and subclades to be considered pre-proto-IE.

And there's no evidence of Iron Gates HG autosomal admixture in any ancient or preset-day Indo-European speaking population.

Shomu said...

@Tom
no, don't do this 🥺

Gioiello said...

@ JVTRPLZZ 


“Is it worth running some tests? The only doubt remaining would be from which HG (WHG or EHG) Pre-Proto-IE comes from, and I tend to side with EHG, as I believe that, along with the Middle Easterners of the time, WHG spoke Afro-Asiatic - I believe that because I to me, R1b in Africa was carried by them through Italy and Sicily, then onto the Green Sahara”.

I don't know if you know my hypothesis, i.e. that R people belonged to the HG of the Siberian corridor, and R2 expanded Southward, in fact we find it in India/Iran and for what I know not elsewhere. R1 spoke a language of the Siberian corridor. R1a remained easternmost, in fact we find it in eastern Europe in the oldest aDNA. Certainly R1b was in the Alpine region from 14000 but perhaps already 17000 ybp, and after the expansion after the Younger Dryas it was in the Baltic region and central Europe. Probably the IE language developed among R1a group, because we don't know if R1b maintened that language because in the Alpine region the dominant group was I, and certainly I-M223 in Italy from 20000 to 10000 ybp, and they spoke a basco-caucasian language that we find to.day only in old sardinian and basque. It is the linguistic group of the I/J group. Difficult to think that the tiny R1b group imposed its language upon the most numerous hg. I. Which language did speak the R-V88 group? And which all the other tiny old hgs due to the expansion of what I'd call the Villabrunas? And don't forget that all thought R-V88 as becoming from Middle East (or others from the Green Sahara) and I demonstrated wrong that theory just for the prejudice “Ex Oriente lux” as also that hg J were “semitic”, but actually it was around the Caucasus and there were no semitc language up there. To think that hg R-V88 did speak an afro-asitic language is absurd, because all these languages were in Northern Africa, probably of the E-L19 group and they couldn't have been carried by the tiny R-V88. Which language did speak the other tiny R1b languages after the expansion of the Younger Dryas like R-V1636 or R-M73 etc? It is possible that they (both R-L51 and R-Z2103) met the IE languages between central and eastern Europe. There is no doubt that the closest languages to IE were the Uralic ones and that demonstrates their formation in the east and we know now that the expansio of the hg N westward was vey old. The theory that the origin of the Sanskrit was older than many thought is interesting, and we spoke about that already so long ago. But we need a great work between linguistics and genetics now, but the genetic group who brought that is certainly R1a, and we have a proof also from R-YP4141, that I began to study 20 years ago and now is contributed by some friends who belong to that hg. Of course there were exchanges (of genetics and linguistics) between Northern Africa and Southern Europe, but only wanderwörter like names of plants and animals.