A new dataset has appeared online from a yet to be published paper titled
Cosmopolitanism in the depths of Barbaricum evidenced by archaeogenomic data from the Late Iron Age Goth community of the Masłomęcz group.
Most of these Gothic samples are clearly of Scandinavian origin, and very similar to present-day Swedes. Overall, however, they create a somewhat heterogeneous cluster that also overlaps with present-day Poles thanks to the presence of a few Balto-Slavic-related and possibly Roman-related individuals.
The Principal Component Analysis (PCA) plots below were produced with the excellent
Vahaduo G25 Global Views tool using the data
here.
Their Y-haplogroups more or less reflect the PCA results:
PL046 R-YP6228
PL048 I-PH833
PL049 I-A11537
PL052 R-Y48961
PL059 I-PH833
PL062 I-S15301
PL065 I-Y294193
PL066 R-FGC2555
PL067 R-S7759
PL070 I-CTS10028
PL071 I-BY316
PL076 I-S9318
PL082 I-Z2041
PL085 J-Z38241
PL086 I-FT29339
See also...
Early Slavs from Tribal Period Poland
Wielbark Goths were overwhelmingly of Scandinavian origin
High-resolution stuff
776 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 776 Newer› Newest»^ ''have little directions '' should say 'little direct affinity with..''
Even considering what I said about the haplotypes present in Iraq on FTDNA "https://www.familytreedna.com/social/object/5345505", which derive from Yamnaya and were probably in Ukraine/Romania 5,000 years ago, the question of Euphratic and its connections with the Sumerian language needs to be explored again, at least due to the commonality of some roots. I, at the time, many years ago, noted connections not only with Indo-European but specifically with Latin. Therefore, thinking that Indo-European was the language of the Yamnaya R-L23-Z2103 is no longer absurd. Yamnaya explains both the commonality with Finno-Ugric and the predominant Caucasian agglutinative presences in Sumerian, which I have always connected with Himalayan languages such as Ladakhi, but perhaps the origin is more local with these aforementioned influences.
Here the discussion could be expanded and an attempt could be made to explain both my hypothesis of a connection between the number "6" in Indo-European *swek- and in Sino-Tibetan *druk from a reconstructed *dhlVk- that I wrote in my twenties and that was read by a friend of a friend, the Normale Superiore student and professor of glottology at the "Scuola Normale Superiore" in Pisa Prof. Romano Lazzeroni, as well as the known commonalities with Ugric-Finnic, as brought about by the continuous migrations of haplotypes of haplogroup R1 (a and b) from Europe to Asia, possibly also R-PH155, and the subsequent migrations with different phases of what will become the Indo-European of Yamnaya and why not of the Baltic R1a.
Rob: "The evidence for Phrygian is decent and it's fairly clear it has close similarities with Greek. A Greco-Phrygian clade is generally accepted but has received less 'media attention' than Greco-Armenian."
* Sure. To add a sub-addendum (that is also little-known), a Greco-Phrygian (Gr-Phr) linguistic clade is not in any way at odds with the generally-accepted Greco-Armenian clade (Gr-Arm). Because, while the exact historical relationship between the Phrygians and proto-Armenians is a matter of debate, Greco-Armenian in itself makes sense as either a subclade, or late phase of, Greco-Phrygian. That is, it's generally accepted that precursors of modern Armenian had profound contact with and influence from Hittite, non-Indo-European languages (e.g. Hurro-Urartian), and various Iranian languages.
The above can apply regardless of whether:
** a dialect of Phrygian hybridised with Hittite + non-IE language/s to form proto-Armenian, or;
** the reverse: the historical land of Phrygia experienced an ancient westward migration out of what is now Armenia, or;
** neither, i.e. proto-Armenian and proto-Phrygian resulted from historically separate waves of migration from the Balkans into Anatolia.
If only for the sake of parsimony/Occam's razor, it's also a relief that among linguists a consensus came round to the idea that "satemisation" was something like an undercurrent throughout "late (core) PIE", but was quickly stalled/halted and faded in some languages (e.g. Greek and Phrygian) while continuing (or later resurging) in Armenian.
@ Dospaises
Firstly, you're confusing BP with BC
https://imgur.com/a/ypkJ9Rc
'''It's wise to wait until more specimens are published, if they can find some, before blanket statements such as R-M269 is from Villabruna R-L761xP297''
I have not connected M269 specifically to Villabruna. I have clarified several times before what the significance of VB is, so you're either straw-manning or lack the ability to comprehend due to a lack of knowledge about prehistory / archaeology beyond simplistic SNP bean-counting.
There is only a finite set of realistic possibilities, your "SNP mutations'' cannot and won't be found in places which did not possess human beings at the time (northern Russia), or have now been sampled enough for us to exclude (Siberia). This is the advantage of understanding things holistically, you can put together a coherent, common-sense picture.
Feel free to wait until the next ancient R1b sample comes out, but I suspect yourself, RMS2, etc will still be explaining away reality when it does.
There's nothing further to discuss
@Dospaises
In other words, you waited for someone to check the sample before commenting on it in this forum. I'm glad you didn't get carried away by the euphoria of your comrades. I guess you've learned from other Kurganist fiascos. We've been discussing the same thing for 10 years, and the issue is very simple, to prove your theories, you have to demonstrate them conclusively; anything else is wishful thinking.
Please be happy, think that I was RIGHT in predicting that the sample is R1b-PH155.
You might find this advice useful: stay cautious, because more interesting surprises await you.
@ Grant
Linguists have not been able to come to a concensus about Greco-Armenian. For ex Clackson wrote an entire book about it - Clackson concluded that while Greek and Armenian share many lexical (vocabulary) innovations, they lack sufficient shared morphological or phonological evidence to definitively prove they formed a single subgroup after the split of Proto-Indo-European. Im aware Kroonen edited a book which had a chapter in support, but I have little confidence in Kroonen and the Copenhagen gang.
As per your NB #3- Genetics currently suggests that proto-Armenians moved into the southern Caucasus from the Black Sea region (probably near Moldova) c. 1600 BC, whilst Greeks moved into Greece c. 2300 BC from the Balkans. The Phrygians were likely Greek's northern cousins who remained in Macedonia/ the north Aegean hinterland, and they then entered western Anatolia in the wake of the LBA collapse. So, as Clackson suggests, we are left with the view that Armenian & Greco-Phrygian do not share any special 'drift' beyond what is shared by their Yamnaya ancestry, which btw, is not the exclusive source of steppe/ PIE ancestry (pr-Grk also has pre-Yamnaya ancestry, whilst pr-Arm. also has post-Yamnaya/ Srubnaya-related ancestry). But hey, maybe the Yamnaya ancestry which they do share can account for the *almost* cladal relationship evident in linguistics.
@Rob
FTDNA writes: "The R-P297 paternal line was formed when it branched off from the ancestor R-L389 and the rest of humankind around 15.000 BCE". BCE is Before Christian Era", i.e. Before Christ (BC), i.e. about 17000 Years ago (YBP = Years Before Present), but R-P297 is 13000 Years BCE, i.e. 15000 Years ago because the samples tested have the MRCA (Most Recent Common Ancestor) about 15000 Years ago or YBP.
YFull writes: "R-P297 YSC0000269/PF6475/S17 * CTS5577/PF6464 * MF48762/P297/PF6398+26 SNPs formed 15600 ybp, TMRCA 13300 ybp", thus a little changes between FTDNA and YFull. The difference between "formed" and the TMRCA is due just to a bottleneck full of SNPs when only a person (or a familial line) had descendants.
These are the SNPs of the bottleneck until R-L297* was formed and gave life to the descendants. Every samples who lacks even only one of these SNPS is either a new subclade or a dead end line:
R-P297 Y107 • FGC72 PF6524 PF6459 • S3848 PF6091 CTS9018 • PF6484 YSC0000269 • PF6475 • S17 MF48762 • P297 • PF6398 L752 • PF6483 PF6463 PF6440 PF6506 Y105 PF6401 L585 • PF6499 • MF51135 L502 • PF6487 A16336 • CTS8355 • PF6103 CTS11985 • PF6523 PF6498 PF6418 • YSC0000061 CTS3876 • PF6458 CTS10212 • PF6491 CTS7941 • PF6472 CTS7904 • PF6471 L320 • PF6092 • FGC69 Y94 • FGC78 Y97 • FGC46 Y407 • PF6094 • FGC73 CTS5577 • PF6464 Y417
from my good Full genome (I had 2: FGC and Dantelabs): neither one no call.
The question of the ages and of the trees is old and we debated that strongly. I also criticized the YFull tree for that, above alt the mt tree for the question of the heteroplasmies, so that I was banned from their fb page after hundreds or thousands of letters even though I have my account with many persons tested by me. Their ages are now in contrast with the aDNA, that frequently gets SNPs documented long before they were presupposed, but they cannot change the oldest fixed age and play with the most recent ones. The solution would be to build the tree from the beginning. Also the age of each SNP is questionable, thus I say that these trees should be taken with a grain of salt.
Target: Azerbaijan_Caucasus_lowlands_LateC.AG:ALX002.AG__BC_3710__Cov_33.74%
Distance: 2.9293% / 0.02929252 | R3P
70.6 Georgia_Shomutepe-Shulaveri_LN
17.0 Iran_TepeAbdulHosein_N.SG
12.4 Israel_C.AG
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0278416522000861
quote:
"The Late Chalcolithic Leilatepe “phenomenon” in the Southern Caucasus has often been regarded as the product of Mesopotamian incursions into the region for the purpose of acquiring metals and semi-precious stones for trade."
It seems that Iran_TepeAbdulHosein_N.SG+Israel_C are those very same Middle Eastern Mesopotamian migrants.
@Gioiello
I think the Indo-European branch R1b is not from Europe and not even from Eastern Europe, it is from the lower Volga, for example the Kairshak or Seroglazovskaya culture, and they were originally EHG, they were not Baltic HG, or Iron Gate HG, they came to the cattle breeders when they were in the EHG cluster, no question!
The Lower Volga is obviously in Eastern Europe.
definitely
@ Gio
''FTDNA writes:- The R-P297 paternal line was formed when it branched off from the ancestor R-L389 and the rest of humankind around 15.000 BCE". BCE ''
They've obviously made an error in the 'origins story' subsection, because their own calculations and YFull's stipulate that the time of formation of P297 is 15600-15000 BP.
These kinds of errors are common, a whole lot of their samples are mislabelled. E.g. a Mesolithic Norweigan is labelled as "Caucasian Shuvaleri culture" lol
@ Davidski
''The Lower Volga is obviously in Eastern Europe.'
Yes, but no qualifier required. Contrary to Arsen's claims, "Indo European R1b" (whatever that means) isn't from the Kairshak culture, which instead was probably the source of TTK ancestry from Caspian hunters rich in Y-hg Q.
These should be basic understandings by now
@Rob
I wrote: "FTDNA writes: "The R-P297 paternal line was formed when it branched off from the ancestor R-L389 and the rest of humankind around 15.000 BCE". BCE is Before Christian Era", i.e. Before Christ (BC), i.e. about 17000 Years ago (YBP = Years Before Present), but R-P297 is 13000 Years BCE, i.e. 15000 Years ago because the samples tested have the MRCA (Most Recent Common Ancestor) about 15000 Years ago or YBP.
YFull writes: "R-P297 YSC0000269/PF6475/S17 * CTS5577/PF6464 * MF48762/P297/PF6398+26 SNPs formed 15600 ybp, TMRCA 13300 ybp", thus a little changes between FTDNA and YFull. The difference between "formed" and the TMRCA is due just to a bottleneck full of SNPs when only a person (or a familial line) had descendants".
Of course you are right: FTDNA 17.000/15.000 ybp / YFull 15.600/13.300. A difference of about 2.000 Years. They are all buffoons. This difference was due to the hypotheses about the origin of the haplogroup A00, just what was debated at the beginning. Huang Shi not only didn't believed to the "out of Afrca", but thought to another date.
So genetics becomes a mathematical question founded upon arbitrary axioms and the dates after are stretched.
I think it is still difficult to tell the immediate origin of R-M269 as Steppe eneolithic and descending cultures (Suvorovo) seem to show paternal lineages that appear associated with the northern Volga/forest zone, as well as those presumably from the lower Volga (and some from further west, as well).
All we can really say is that by 3700 BC it was already a lineage found in the standard piedmont steppe profile (NV3003). It shows up slightly earlier in KST001 but that has a more mixed profile and is more difficult to evaluate.
Are the formation and tmrca for R1a l657 recently updated on yfull?
L657 2300bce
R-M605 2300bce
R-Y4 2300bce
R-Y6 2300bce
R-Y907, R-M624, R-Y920 2300bce
R-Y928 2300bce
R-Y9 2300bce
R-Y7 1800bce
Unless we find R1a-l657 samples in future Andronovo samples, I think it will be end of linking andronovo to Indo aryans...Perhaps they reached India in middle of the mature harappan phase, 2500-2000bce...Might explain everything we have been pointing out for a decade now, like lack of archeological support and ignorant-biased readings of Rig veda itself.
Or just perhaps the route l657 took was different...came via caucasus, reached NW iranian-North Mesopotamia region and from there migrated to Sindh, Balochistan and Punjab.
Another point would be the star like spread...so various subclades of L657 with tmrca of 2300bce spread rapidly between 2300-2000bce within IVC or further east in the OCP region and then expanded further east towards the fag end of LBA into the eastern gangetic plains...?
And Y3 tmrca is 2500bce and Y3 and Y2 both have 2500bce formation date. The Srubnaya Y3 1800bce and Y2 scythians aren't that relevant from the paternalistic lineage POV but such groups may have contributed autosomal ancestry to South asian both direct and via intermediate groups.
@Ash
Unless we find R1a-l657 samples in future Andronovo samples, I think it will be end of linking andronovo to Indo aryans.
You're mentally retarded.
@ Ethan - its interesting- Cernavoda/ Kartal & Sredni Stog are autosomally very diverse, but almost all I2a-L701-
Usatavo is Y-hg very diverse, but autosomally fairly homogeneous
@ Gio - they just made a simple transcription error. It happens
We already have a Tianshan Saka with basal R-L657
CGG101222
Ancestor whose Y descends from the earliest R-Z2110*
https://www.exploreyourdna.com/sample/austria/cgg101222
The autosomal recessive lineage demonstrates several things:
1) the Northern Anatolian component (Barcin 55.1%), essentially the Mediterranean component common to populations on the northern shore, is very strong, while the Mediterranean component common to the southern Middle Eastern populations is practically nonexistent (Tepecik 1.1%).
2) the presence of WHG (13.1%), which may also derive from various sources, may also be a clue to the Y origin from the most ancient refuge in the Alpine zone.
@ Ethan
Usatavo looks like a stabilized local variant of the preceding 'Cernavoda-Sredni Stog horizon', before the expansion of 'core Yamnaya'.
Diverse Y-DNA, but homogenized genome-wide profile
Armenian R-Z2103 belongs to branches that are almost exclusively found in West Asia and have very old TMRCAs with R-CTS7822 (the branch we see in the Balkans), so it's very unlikely that proto-Armenians formed as a result of a rapid migration from the Balkans or western Ukraine. They probably descend from the North Caucasian variants of Yamnaya and Catacomb.
@Ash
Your IQ is significantly too low for this sort of hobby.
Try picking your nose and eating it to pass the time.
@Rob
I still don't know exactly what to make of each of Kartal A, Kartal B, or Usatovo, beyond vague observations like "they look like the residue of Suvorovo-Novodanilovka migrations, but from different starting points along the PC Steppe".
I still feel like IBD analysis could be really helpful for this type of question. They weren't included in the Nikitin/Lazaridis paper IBD analysis because of the Russia/Ukraine thing, and the Yediay 2024 preprint didn't include those samples in the data set used for IBD mixture modelling (it would be nice if the published paper did).
Y-DNA-wise we have:
I-L699>> I-S12195 in Kartal A which could be from either Ukrainian Sredni Stog or Berezhnovka.
R-V1636 in Kartal B (and possibly Usatovo, but that R1b is very upstream) which seems Piedmont Steppe if not Remontnoye-related.
A basal J1 clade in Usatovo which could have proximate origin in the North Caucasus zone (but could also relate to Mesolithic EHG J1 lineages).
An upstream R1a find in Usatovo which at this point in time seems associated with the more northern areas of the Don/Volga or forest zones.
It's all still very confusing. The Cernavoda thing is particularly weird (why are migrants from presumably very distinct parts of the Steppe (Kartal A and B) sharing the exact same material culture?).
A big challenge with the Armenian from the Balkans thing is that there is no trace of them in Anatolia itself immediately preceding or contemporaneous with Trialeti-Vanadzor.
I'm sympathetic to the idea of them representing some sort of reflux from more western Catacomb regions (i.e. Ukraine), through the caucasus, to help explain the I-L596.
@Rob
Another weird thing, and I really don't know if to believe it, but Usatovo shows an earlier formation date (4500BC) than Cernavoda (Kartal A being 4100BC, Kartal B being 4000BC) when using DATES.
@alex
It is logical that in the migration of R-L23-Z2103-Z2110 westward from Yamnaya before arriving in Italy it passed through the Balkans, but some subclades have more of an orientation towards Central Europe, but the higher percentage of R-Z2110 in Albania than in Italy must be considered in light of the founder effect. A large number of Albanian descendants of R-Z2110 (which is also my haplogroup) descend from R-Z2705, which has an MRCA in the medieval era, and upstream specimens are in Italy and Iberia and there is no evidence that the ancestor, after a bottleneck from 2900 to 1500 ybp, lived in the Balkans or elsewhere.
@Rob
@ Gio - they just made a simple transcription error. It happens
A clerical error? But all the trees are "clerical error" if aDNA demonstrates (and I posted many samples) that supposed SNPs dates are wrong when those SNPs have been found long before in aDNA...
@alex
Yes, you are absolutely right. They arrived in the Armenian Highlands already mixed with representatives of the Kura–Araxes culture, possibly in a proportion of about two-thirds when they came to the Highlands. After arriving there, they mixed further with the local Kura–Araxes population. Later, additional migrations from the Near East and Mesopotamia during the Iron Age of Armenia — including influences from Urartu and the Hittites — almost completely diluted their steppe genetic profile.
As a result, Armenians preserved their male lineage and their language, but they almost entirely lost the steppe genetic component.
However, their language still preserves this ancient Nakh-Dag substrate to this day.
@Alex
What interests me is something else: often in models for proto-armenians (lchashen-metsamor or trialeti-vanadzor), it’s not pure “yamnaya”, but comes with admixtures from globular amphora and corded ware from czechia. why is that? i can’t understand it.
@ Ethan
I think DATES is fine for estimating formation/ admixture times of hunter-gatherers and early Neolithic folks, which might be 2-way scenarios, but when we're dealing with Chalcolithic and beyond, as mixtures of mixtures of mixtures, it get's difficult, so its preferable to rely on 'hard data'. But im certainly not dismissing the DATES off hand
According to traditional established chronology, Usatavo should follow Cernavoda I, beginning to c. 3500 bc , established via C14 dates and pottery similarities to Tripolje C2. But the Majaki En. individuals from Penske date as early as 4200 BC. Niktin & Ivanova wrote that this is likely due to a (fresh-water) high-fish diet R.E.
''The Cernavoda thing is particularly weird (why are migrants from presumably very distinct parts of the Steppe (Kartal A and B) sharing the exact same material culture?).''
Because they were still in the process of mixing, with wide variations in EEF ancestry being the main driver of differentiation. Curiously, the R1b-V1636 from Kartal-5 is from the EEF_high group. Hence Usatavo might indeed be later, because after a few hundred years, they had homogenized.
''I still don't know exactly what to make of each of Kartal A, Kartal B, or Usatovo, beyond vague observations like "they look like the residue of Suvorovo-Novodanilovka migrations, but from different starting points along the PC Steppe".''
I dont think there was a a uniform S-N migration. - it might have been a few different wavelets separated by couple hundred years & people of different cultural origins, For ex. the Csongrad & Suvorovo (Y-hg Q of probable TTK deep affinities) individuals look like to be from the lower Volga, whilst the R1b-M269 individual from Smyadovo is different, incl a very different burial form.
Whatever the case, this early wavelet died off, at least at the extremes of their range (Transylvania & Bulgaria). The main movement is instead associated with Cernavoda I, and despite their autosomic diversity the link seems to be a core group of I2a-L702 males, with the KTL5 R1b-V1636 individual being rel. late (3700BC). After another little while, we observe the arrival of a handful of Majkop / Caucasus related lineages in a corner of the Budzhak steppe (E.g J2b-L283 & J2b -Z1827). We might be getting some more En steppe data c. 2027
@ Alex - Armenian R-Z2103 belongs to branches that are almost exclusively found in West Asia and have very old TMRCAs with R-CTS7822 (the branch we see in the Balkans), so it's very unlikely that proto-Armenians formed as a result of a rapid migration from the Balkans or western Ukraine. They probably descend from the North Caucasian variants of Yamnaya and Catacomb.''
@ Ethan- ''A big challenge with the Armenian from the Balkans thing is that there is no trace of them in Anatolia itself immediately preceding or contemporaneous with Trialeti-Vanadzor.
I'm sympathetic to the idea of them representing some sort of reflux from more western Catacomb regions (i.e. Ukraine), through the caucasus, to help explain the I-L596.''
I agree with Ethan. Just because R1b-Z2103 derives from Yamnaya, it doesn't mean that the Armenian/ south Caucasian sub-groups are a linear , local descandants of 'north Caucasian Catacomb groups'. In fact, contrary to the claims published the Reich & Allentoft Labs, copied by Kroonen & Anthony, (& every internet 'genome blogger'), Catacomb fails as a source of steppe ancestry in early Armenians [the publications got 'pass' because of a weak pRight list]. The best source is KMK culture from Moldova, or a Catacomb groups plus Srubnaya. The abovementioned publications also chose to ignore the I2c-L596 , which is found as frequently or more than the Z2103 branch. No clear smoking gun, but the clearest older link is from Potocani chalcolithic Croatia. So a west Ukraine origin from proto-Armenian seems probable.
Anyone know who runs this account? https://x.com/MiroCyo/status/2025003983597969645?s=20
Been seeing it pop up a lot lately with some solid pushback against mainstream narratives. Noticed a few academics engaging with it too. Also seems like they have access to unpublished samples somehow?
Is it Davidski or someone else from the community?
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-BY44400/tree
The diffusion of the R-BY44400 subclade shows how already at the time of Yamnaya these groups of R-Z2103 were in present-day Ukraine and Romania and spread towards Mesopotamia (R-FT263500 > FT263602; R-BY44399 > BY45541) bringing the Indo-European phase which will be the Euphratic, but also towards central Europe (R-FTG93709; R-BY44399; R-FTB59054) and Italy (R-BY132259) bringing Latin towards the Adriatic, a language connected with the Adriatic pile-dwellers and directed towards Lazio and possibly Sicily with the Siculo, but also towards Scandinavia (R-BY132259 > FT291598) and Iberia (R-BY132259 > BY103532). Naturally, the long bottlenecks could also indicate other intermediate pathways. Therefore, further verification with intermediate haplotypes both present today and in ancient DNA is awaited.
The discovery of the SNP BY132259 at Kam'yana Mohyla 20975 and the SNP BY103532 at Smeeni 12823 and Smeeni 12825 demonstrate that the tree calculation is incorrect and the migration in various directions occurred at the same time.
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-FGC24444/tree
Probably not by chance the migration happened in 4200 ybp, like the supposed migration of hg J to the Levant, and this screenshot could answer the Rob's question too: the presence of two separated subclades in Armenia and Greece at the level of R-SK2097 (even thought the dates are younger here) could mean that the expansion happened from the same places (Ukraine/Romania) and that also reinforce my hypothesis that my ancestor R-FGC24444 was with the Latins to Italy.
We have discussed a lot about the origin of the Y of Napoleon Bonaparte (Napoleone Buonaparte) E-PH3893, largely present in Lunigana, Italy, and tested by my friend Marco Grassi. We thought to an Armenian origin 2800 Years ago or even a Longobard one in the Middle Ages, but this hg E is present in Europe for thousands of Years and it might have had the same vicissitudes of our hg R1 (a and b).
It's even the case that North Cauc. Catacomb groups are a dead end due to the local population collapse c. 1700 BC, the setttlement dynamics of whic were outlined in Ghaliachi, Reinhold et al supplement.
Moreover, the N.C. Catb. admixed with post-Majkop groups to form the so-called North Caucasus MBA group. They lie on a different cline to the MBA Armenians.
So proto-Armenians were very European, not only due to their Yamnaya ancestry, but another layer on top (EEF, I2c). Pretty much conquered most of the southern Caucasus and parts of eastern Turkey.
Alex's point abut different Z2013 clades further highlightes that Gr & Arm. dont share any specific forms of ancestry. In fact, proto-Greeks are associated with R1b-Pf7562 (and the single I2a-L702), which are probably pre-Yamnaya. The Balkan Z2103,- R-CTS7822- R-CTS7556 looks to be the proto-Illyrian marker.
As for somethign differrent, it is clear that western Ukraine & moldova are the PIE homeland. 99.9% of normies won;t understand this 'because steppe En. ancestry = big"
On a side note, wouldn't it be possible to convert to G25 these samples of 18th century France ?
https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB65913
YRDNA_Ancestry_YRGD5JC6FN_Recent%20(1).pdf
Mi sa che Davidski
farà i soldi,
donne e whisky,
e noi
seghe e gazzose.
Has anything post 2020 been published about the pre-Greek substrate? Is it a valid theory still?
Usatovo's material culture should be younger than Cernavoda, although I actually have more confidence that it's a simple admixture of something resembling Piedmont Steppe and Trypillia. I would be curious about a proposal involving Usatovo's genetic profile forming a fair bit earlier than its material manifestation (but still around the same time as Cernavoda).
I think more sampling of SuNo is still needed. I am expecting there to be more diversity than has previously been suggested from just the Giuergliesti and Csongrad samples.
Rob
Omitting Poland in the context of the PIE homeland is risky, because the core of the first certain Indo-European population, i.e. the CWC, was the Polish GAC.
@ambron Come on man. Nobody doubts that late PIE was spoken by corded ware in Poland but clearly you can't explain Anatolian branch by any Polish subpops. Better to look at steppe movements through the Balkans into Anatolia and follow I-L699 and maybe R-V1636
@rozbójnik
I'm not familiar with anything in depth.
Substrate languages in Greek are a valid theory still yes.
If you mean an Anatolian substrate in Greek, there is no real evidence for that, although I've seen support for Greek and Anatolian sharing the same substrate to explain why certain toponyms have similar suffixes (ss-/-ssa-/-ssos etc).
@rozbójnik:
Probably multiple substrata. There's 2 articles in the "Sub-Indoeuropean Europe" volume, available here:
https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783111337920/html
''Has anything post 2020 been published about the pre-Greek substrate? Is it a valid theory still?''
Genetically, mainland Greece c. 2400bc was basically split into 2- the southern/southeast littoral with surviving original Greek N. mixing in with some chalcolithic Anatolians, which formed the Minoan and Cycladic civilizations.
In theory, this southern group might have spoken "Pelasgian' (as in 'pre-Greek'), however there is nothing to say that they only spoke one language, they could have spoken 2 or more (going on basic components). The entire "Pelasgian' premise relies on historians believing Herodotus & Thucydides who were writing almost 2,000 years after the fact, so they were an early historic group being back-projected by the imaginations of modern scholars in the days before propper arcahaeology and DNA, so they have to let their imagination run wild a bit from scarps of historical text.
Linguists can't even agree on whether some toponyms are pre-IE, or have a Luwian influence, etc. Much of the most recent linguistics work is from 1990s and early 2000s (Finkelberg, Coleman, Woudhuizen, Chadwick, Drews); some recent PhD on recent historic Pelasgian 'identity'.
In the north came the proto-Greeks, with different mix of steppe + Balkan F. In fact, just before steppe admixture came, archaeologists (e.g. Coleman) have proposed some kind of Baden-Cotofeni migration ~ 3000bc, but Im not seeing it as yet in aDNA.
The proto-Greeks then moved further south and mixed, thus two main groups then formed - coastal Arcado-Cypriot (Mycenean) and inland northwest Greek (less admixed). The Myceneans then require additional 'CHG-rich Anatolian' over what was present in the early Helladic SE Mainland, Anatolia and Minoans are an appropriate source.
@Rob
I found very interesting what you wrote about the Greek ancestry, in fact I was surprised by the MTA answer to my ancestry: very close links with the Minoan Lasithi (mt hgs: H2c1, U5a1, H5, H1bm; Y J2a1a1a2b1b/M319) and no link with the Minoan Moni Odigitria (mt L3'4, X2h; Y G2a2b2a (P303/PF3340/S135/Z765)). It is by chance but they could belong to two different groups. The oldest genetic component is predominantly Greco-Illyrian, as the supposed tracking from Yamnaya would suggest. However, with the Y lineage, one could go much further.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZ3qUqsRk44
I think you've correctly and comprehensively illustrated the possible origins of the Napoleonic Y. The Lombard hypothesis retains all its plausibility, both due to the presence in Lunigiana of other undoubtedly Lombard haplogroups, and due to the family traditions and even the names they bore. However, as *blasonariocremonese also rightly observed, precisely because of his own personal history, this does not mean that the Y was in the original Lombard group, since they incorporated many along the way of their migration, especially in Italy, where their journey ended and lasted the longest, so much so that the autosomal recessive pattern of their descendants is now uniform with the populations to which they belong.
Another possibility now opens up, but it is made more difficult by the history of other haplogroups such as our R1b-L23*, before the bifurcation between Z2103 (mine) or L51 (yours), because haplogroup E is so ancient that, although predominantly African, it has been widespread throughout the world since ancient times. Interestingly, this E-M34 subclade is proving to be purely European after a 2,800-year bottleneck between 5,400 and 2,600 years ago, according to YFull, but according to the FTDNA tree, it was already purely European after E-Y4970 and also from E-K257. These are the recent Levantine subclades that derive from Europe, like those of R-Z2103 from Yamnaya. In between, this haplogroup E experienced the same fate as other European haplogroups like I and R. Regarding their possible presence among the Armenians 2,600 years ago, their European origin from the Ukraine-Romania area should not be ruled out, as is also the case with a recent exchange between Rob and me on the "Eurogenes blog" with some good arguments.
In short, a possible migration from the Caucasus could date back to E-Y4971 around 5,500 years ago, but the upstream subclades also have had a predominantly European distribution since at least the Mesolithic. The widespread Jewish subclade appears to be a post-exilic introgression from E-Y6923, and the presence in Italy of the upstream E-Y6936 could refer to Imperial Rome. We therefore await the emergence of ancient DNA from around 5,500 years ago. Furthermore, I believe an ancient Italian origin for the Napoleonid haplogroup cannot be ruled out, but more data is needed, both in ancient DNA and on modern distribution. Napoleon's ancestors in the 13th century were likely, and considered themselves, Lombards, like the ancestors of *blasonariocremnese, although with a likely very ancient Y in Pannonia or perhaps even in Italy.
This is the meaning of every ethnic origin.
@ Ambron
I guess in a deep deep way, Hittites might have Polish origins ;)
@ Gio
Have you noted any other Balkan -specific lineages of Z2103?
Rob
Generally, I was referring to Allentoft's words, that the steppe ancestry spread across Europe as a mixture with the Polish GAC. And since we don't know of any Indo-European language from before this spread, WSH plus GAC, i.e. CWC, should be considered the first certain Indo-European population.
@Rob
The presence of R-Z2103* in Viminacium 15515 may have various origins, but multiple presences in Bulgaria.
R-M12149 in Ravna 15551, but they are always part of an early starlike expansion. Ravna 15552 is also present, but we are at RZ2110-CTS699-FTA27460, but Castel di Decima 1016 is older, and my friend Emanuele Infantino from Sicily has a separate haplotype from 4,600 years ago.
I would say that the most notable specimens in ancient DNA are those of Mokrin 19A, 22, but the problem remains, as I have raised on other occasions, in letters from over 10 years ago, that Mokrin seemed archaeologically linked to the Eastern Alps also due to the presence of R-Z2118.
The confirmed presence in the Balkans is with R-CTS7556 (Dimov Grob 7231, Ostoijicevo 23209, Mokrin 23297, and also R-FT139559 from Mokrin 27, Mokrin 24A), then R-CTS9219, older specimens in the Iron Age, and they seem to come from Central Europe rather than directly from the East.
Regarding R-Y2705, I mentioned that there is no evidence that its ancestor was ancient in the Balkans. At most, perhaps he too was Iron Age. You know that I consider Illyrian nationalism very dangerous, and especially the claim that those who are there today are the true descendants of the Illyrians. Given my linguistic knowledge, I highly appreciate the Albanian language among the Indo-European languages, but I also know that it is composed of 40% Latin, 20% Greek, Slavic and much more, and perhaps the Indo-European heritage does not go beyond 10%.
To summarize Michał Golubiński's work, evidence for the biological continuity of the Polish population can be seen in:
in the cladistic results of the f3 statistic, in which medieval Poles share the closest common ancestors with the population inhabiting Polish lands during the Bronze Age
in the f4 statistic, in which the population of the Masłomęcz group, located exactly in the middle of the Bronze Age-modern times timeline, shares exactly the same amount of origin with the population inhabiting Polish lands during the Bronze Age as with contemporary Poles
in the MOBEST geostatistics results, showing the origins of most Masłomęcz individuals, including those genetically Slavic, as local to Polish lands during the Roman period
@ambron
Well the earliest attestations of IE languages are thousands of years after their dispersal. At the very least Anatolian and Tocharian seem to predate this mixture, although I suppose those would be Indo-Anatolian if you only count extant branches and Indo-European in the strictest sense.
@Rob
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-CTS699/tree
The subclade R-Z2110-CTS699 has descendants in Armenia: YF082241 and R-FTA27460 separated 5100 yer ago, and that is in line with the first migration from Yamnaya.
This last one has two aDNA at Castel di Decima 1016 and Ravna 15552 with no surviving samples so far, but they could demonstrate the path through the Balkans to Italy.
Another subclade has two descendants in Sardinia from the Francalacci et al. paper of 2103/2015 with a MRCA at the SNP R-Z29827. Another subclade has descendants in Middle East / Asia with the recent SNP R-B7. Another subclade R-Y36455 has one sample in Italy and one in Colombia and demonstrates the direction of the first wave to Italy and later to Iberia. That separated at the SNP R-Y86387: one to England but the other, present only in YFull, is my friend Emanuele Infantino from Sicily tested through Dantelabs and separated as to YFull 4600 Years ago, and I should understand if he has some SNP in common with this Englishman, but unfortunately he isn't in any project. Other two samples (one in Apulia and the other is Bosnia and Herzegovina), separated at the level of the SNP R-BY106492 about 1400 ybp. Usually many would think that the Apulian did come from the Balkans, but with this data don't you think that probably the other way around happened? I remember you that Alberto Stasi, from an Apulian father, of the Garlasco case, is, through 23 markers I checked from the acts of this case, a J2b present in caves of Apulia and Abruzzi 5000 Years ago and, being he linked to the apical SNPs, even 7000 or 9000 Years ago.
I think that perhaps Emanuele Infantino might have come from the Siculi people linked probably with the Latins of Latium as to the Language and migrated to Sicily later.
Aryans are from India saaar
It turns out we have more than 11 Mesolithic-era skeletons from Azerbaijan — from the Gobustan Mesolithic culture. I’m wondering why their aDNA hasn’t been studied?
Norfern
The proto-language common to Hittite and Tocharian may simply have been one of the PIE dialects.
Returning to Michał Golubiński's study... Contrary to the expectations of proponents of the Dnieper theory, each subsequent genetic study demonstrates the continuity of the Polish population at least since the Bronze Age. This was also the case with Gretzinger's study, which found that medieval Poles shared 80% of relative value common ancestors with the population inhabiting Polish lands during the Bronze Age and over 70% with the population inhabiting those lands during the Roman period.
@ Arsen- apparently they are
@Rob
Why might this be interesting? Because these monuments are located right at the southeasternmost point of the main Caucasus ridge, which directly borders the Caspian Sea. These people were hunters and fishermen.
https://i.ibb.co/KrPhqj6/2.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/rf25zVKh/1771846801119.jpg
On the first map, the area marked with the Roman numeral I indicates the distribution of the Gobustan culture — it extended as far north.
A very interesting culture.
Hai inviato
Even said that, it seems to me that your "canaanite" ancestry is too high for what I know about European Jews, and 23andMe (there was Poznic at the autosome tests, a great geneticists, and he is a "Jew") puts the Ashkenazim in an European cluster, easily identifiable because due to a mix of pretty much 2000 years and I think they came from the Imperial Rome, with many intakes, but 70% of the Erfurt Jews 1350 AD and 68% from the last paper of Lerca-Jaso were "Italians". About the Phioenician ancestry all the last papers deny that there is Phoenician ancestry in the Mediterranean coasts, as I have been saying for 20 years.
Ig
Yeah iyeah i remember you told me
Ig
There is also a research about it
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12226237/
Punic people were genetically diverse with almost no Levantine ancestors
The maritime Phoenician civilization from the Levant transformed the entire Mediterranean during the first millennium BCE1–3. However, the extent of human movement between the Levantine Phoenician homeland and Phoenician-Punic settlements in the ...
Ig
Waste of money ): you know what they say : the curiosity killed the cat (and i am the cat)
Ig
I knew you are the right friend to show him . Graci
Hai inviato
Thus it is a fraud if they use the supposed Phoenician ancestry for true levantine origin. This is the Marco Grassi's test...
Through an examination of the Napoleonid haplotype on YHRD, it seems that the solution to the origin is becoming clearer. Y9 is present in five specimens: three in Eurasia and two in East Asia, later specified in China. The European specimens are in Kosovo and North Macedonia and the other in Altaic Eurasia (Kazakhstan). At this point, we therefore have two possibilities: since from the previous analysis I concluded that this haplogroup has been present in Europe for at least 10,000 years, either it too migrated to East Asia like other subclades of the R1 haplogroup and returned recently with the Turkish migration, or it was present in Asia since very ancient times. Since the specimens found have DYS385=16,16 and none have the values 14,14 of Arrighi, I think at this point that an attempt on an upstream SNP of Arrighi should be made, because it could be a haplotype distant from the others and give us further indications.
@ Arsen
Indeed, samples from 'Gobustan' will be phenomenal if succesfully analysed & published. Firstly, the C14 dating would help clarify local chronologies. Then one should conduct diet isotope analysis, to confirm if they were hunter-fisherman.
The Genetic interest will be huge - how do they fit in within the broader CHG-Zagros-ANE cline; what is their role in forming Shuvaleri-Shomu & steppe groups.
@Rob It is quite possible
With DYS385=15.16, we find one specimen in Germany and one in Iran.
It's conceivable that DYS385=16.16 of the Napoleonids and DYS385=14.14 of Arrighi, who tested positive for the SNP PH3893 at Yseq, could presuppose a DYS385=14.16 with two different RechLOHs, but there are no matches with DYS385=14.16 or even 15.15, but there is a specimen with 16.17 in Italy. We need to see if it belongs to the Napoleonids haplogroup. Let's see.
Total 13: Admixed 1; East Asian 2: Chinese 2; Afro-Asiatic 2; Eurasian 7, Western Europe 3: Italy 1.
DYS438=10 are 9
DYS438=9 are 4
H4=12 are 7
DYS439=12 are 5
DYS635=22 are 0
DYS635=21 are 3
DYS456=15 are 2
DYS458=15 are 0, =16 are 0, =17 is 1 Worldwide, =18 are 0, =19 are 0, =14 the Italian one, and of course all the other haplotypes have DYS458 fractioned and don't belong to the E haplogroup but to J. Perhaps DYS458=17 belongs to this haplogroup.
The haplotype with DYS458=17 belongs to an Australian Aboriginal and is very likely introgressed from Europe.
2 new samples sequenced from Lothal (IVC site), dates are being worked at. Following are the key points.
• PCA: Lothal individuals fall within the South Asian genetic cline, closest to present-day Gujarati and Indo-Aryan populations, and clearly separated from West Eurasian groups.
• f3-statistics: Subtle intra-site variation—LT1 shows slightly higher affinity to Iran-related ancestry, while LT3 aligns more with southern and eastern South Asian populations.
• f4-statistics: Both individuals cluster firmly with South Asians and show strong genetic proximity to present-day Gujaratis, with no significant West Eurasian affinity.
• qpAdm (LT3): Admixture patterns are typical of Bronze Age South Asia, dominated by AASI- and Iran-related ancestry with limited group-specific variation.
Source: Dr Niraj Rai IITGN presentation.
Engraved signs on the Adorant and other Stone Age artifacts constitute a 40,000-year-old writing system predating the Mesopotamian one
https://www.labrujulaverde.com/en/2026/02/engraved-signs-on-the-adorant-and-other-stone-age-artifacts-constitute-a-40000-year-old-writing-system-predating-the-mesopotamian-one/
@Ash
Present-day Gujarati and Indo-Aryan populations obviously have a lot of R1a and Sintashta ancestry (even though they're clearly separated from West Eurasian groups) you fucking moron.
Some wonderful "continuity" in Poland:
https://gyazo.com/9ef3c3ff4833d9cffebcb46b90803d3e
The difference becomes even more stark using a Baltic source:
https://i.gyazo.com/bce4352e9b63736939145baf9d1d7f27.png
Apparently the 12k snp Sanauli sample is modeled similar to central_steppe_EMBA (kumsay) like by the lead researcher. If in future they are able to extract higher quality DNA and confirm it, would have interesting implications.
Basically would show an independent pastrolist population with horse culture migrating into Western_UP by 2000bce.
@Ash
SAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR
12k is quite low, especially when dealing with distinguishing populations that on the broader scale share a lot of common components
Anyways here's some samples from The Genetic Origin of the Indo-Europeans paper that hadn't received coordinates.
https://www.mediafire.com/file/5e46k21vg5hfuf6/Lazaridis_2025.zip/file
EthanR
Niemcza was built by the Czechs in the 9th century and conquered by the Poles in the 10th century. It's no wonder, then, that the Czechs (Knoviz) were replaced by Poles (Trzciniec).
🤗Take it easy, man
Napoleon's haplogroup E-PH3893>Y58796>BY36877>E-BY36878
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/E-BY36878/tree
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y58897/
Copium about AIT is irrelevant against the broader problem that many adna publications still read like Grift jobs. Then, a legion of low IQ attention-seekers disseminate this nonsense as fact , often due to petty bribes (notorious offenders- the creatures @ GeneArchivist, Rizdib khan, etc)
@Mr Shomu-Tepe
"Napoleon's haplogroup E-PH3893>Y58796>BY36877>E-BY36878
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/E-BY36878/tree
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y58897/"
We (Marco Grassi and me) have been studying these persons, both genealogically and genetically, for more than 20 years and the persons were tested by Marco Grassi in his region. I paid for the SNP PH3893 on Arrighi, who was thought out of this haplotype but he was through a Yseq test. Unfortunately we hadn't the money to test him at least for a Big Y, but I wrote also about the hypothesis of the recent and old origin (10000 years ago) of this haplogroup.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZ3qUqsRk44&t=4s
@Norfern
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zcHEPBdVWZMrU3ST3SoAl5CmiYqayX9f/view?usp=sharing
@Davidski
Thanks!
The Shatrovo-1 sample seems pretty interesting, the archaeological attribution of the site seems to be LBA to EIA. The genome leans on the EIA side, might be Sargat or might be something slightly earlier too.
@Gioiello
New DNA from a cave in Italy (not Villarbuna), two female individuals, probably mother and daughter, 12,000 years old
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/02/260217005754.htm?utm_source=chatgpt.com
“ Probably multiple substrata. There's 2 articles in the "Sub-Indoeuropean Europe" volume, available here:
https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783111337920/html”
Kroonens compendiums are very hit & miss. According to him & the Copenhagen dorks, the third millennium BC migrations into Anatolia were “Phrygians”, a group known to have migrated in only after 1200 BC
So I’d say their knowledge of Balkan, Aegean, Anatolian history is poor as Reichl’s Lab
@ Mr Shomu-tepe
I thank you, but I did know the news through a newspaper article. The most important news was this. "Alfredo Coppa of Sapienza University of Rome, who also co-led the study, says: "We believe her survival would have required sustained support from her group, including help with food and mobility in a challenging environment".
Unfortunately I didn't find any uniparental marker, and they hadn't the Y of course. If I remember well, they lived in Sicily.
That’s why I love Australia
https://x.com/eurorabbit/status/2028621981013160177?s=20
@ Norfern
''The Shatrovo-1 sample seems pretty interesting, the archaeological attribution of the site seems to be LBA to EIA. The genome leans on the EIA side, might be Sargat or might be something slightly earlier too.''
Are these Sargat individuals mcuh different to those published in Gnecchi-Ruscone ?
🤔
Some of them
Distance to: Russia_EIA_Sargatka_IA.AG:SMV001.AG__BC_345__Cov_79.08%
0.03249187 Russia_Omsk_Sargatka_EIA2:I30387__BC_50__Cov_94.47%
0.03379738 Russia_Omsk_LSargatka:I10117__BC_282__Cov_71.36%
0.03456166 Russia_EIA_Sargatka_IA.AG:BIY009.AG__BC_200__Cov_52.97%
0.03508971 Russia_EIA_Sargatka_IA.AG:BIY008.AG__BC_200__Cov_55.16%
0.03992555 Russia_EIA_Sargatka_IA.AG:BIY002.AG__BC_200__Cov_44.06%
0.04406379 Russia_EIA_Sargatka_IA.AG:BIY003.AG__BC_280__Cov_50.29%
0.04736103 Russia_EIA_Sargatka_IA.AG:SMV002.AG__BC_300__Cov_82.09%
0.04737557 Russia_Omsk_LSargatka:I10118__BC_285__Cov_70.56%
0.04923656 Russia_Omsk_LSargatka:I6826__AD_374__Cov_66.84%
0.05246630 Russia_EIA_Sargatka_IA.AG:SHD001.AG__BC_350__Cov_86.38%
0.05915050 Russia_Omsk_Sargatka_EIA2:I30386__BC_50__Cov_84.45%
0.05943757 Russia_Tyumen_Tobol_LSargatka:I32779__AD_150__Cov_91.75%
0.06491242 Russia_EIA_Sargatka_IA.AG:BIY007.AG__BC_200__Cov_26.76%
0.06744677 Russia_EIA_Sargatka_IA.AG:BGD001.AG__BC_101__Cov_11.91%
0.07808545 Russia_EIA_Sargatka_IA.AG:BIY001.AG__BC_357__Cov_10.27%
0.07898806 Russia_Tyumen_Tobol_LSargatka:I33844__AD_350__Cov_73.54%
0.08866663 Kazakhstan_Sargat_IA.AG:BRV001.AG__BC_50__Cov_75.44%
0.11566521 Russia_EIA_Sargatka_IA.AG:BGD002.AG__BC_101__Cov_26.84%
Distance to: Russia_Chelyabinsk_N_BA_possible:I10632_d__BC_3400__Cov_36.90%
0.03795203 Russia_EIA_Sargatka_IA.AG:SMV001.AG__BC_345__Cov_79.08%
0.04067308 Russia_Omsk_LSargatka:I10117__BC_282__Cov_71.36%
0.04118873 Russia_EIA_Sargatka_IA.AG:BIY002.AG__BC_200__Cov_44.06%
0.04397818 Russia_Omsk_Sargatka_EIA2:I30387__BC_50__Cov_94.47%
0.04416390 Russia_EIA_Sargatka_IA.AG:BIY008.AG__BC_200__Cov_55.16%
0.04657773 Russia_EIA_Sargatka_IA.AG:BIY003.AG__BC_280__Cov_50.29%
0.04838585 Russia_EIA_Sargatka_IA.AG:BIY009.AG__BC_200__Cov_52.97%
0.05218815 Russia_EIA_Sargatka_IA.AG:SHD001.AG__BC_350__Cov_86.38%
0.05393821 Russia_Tyumen_Tobol_LSargatka:I32779__AD_150__Cov_91.75%
0.05418950 Russia_Omsk_LSargatka:I10118__BC_285__Cov_70.56%
0.05584950 Russia_EIA_Sargatka_IA.AG:SMV002.AG__BC_300__Cov_82.09%
0.05603313 Russia_Omsk_LSargatka:I6826__AD_374__Cov_66.84%
0.06483001 Russia_Omsk_Sargatka_EIA2:I30386__BC_50__Cov_84.45%
0.07506603 Russia_EIA_Sargatka_IA.AG:BIY007.AG__BC_200__Cov_26.76%
0.07784953 Russia_Tyumen_Tobol_LSargatka:I33844__AD_350__Cov_73.54%
0.08024154 Russia_EIA_Sargatka_IA.AG:BGD001.AG__BC_101__Cov_11.91%
0.08127286 Russia_EIA_Sargatka_IA.AG:BIY001.AG__BC_357__Cov_10.27%
0.09672392 Kazakhstan_Sargat_IA.AG:BRV001.AG__BC_50__Cov_75.44%
0.12073043 Russia_EIA_Sargatka_IA.AG:BGD002.AG__BC_101__Cov_26.84%
@Davidski
You have a lot of work ahead of you.
Aligned sequencing data from 10,016 ancient individuals generated as part of Akbari et al. 2026 are provided here. These include 367 newly reported shotgun ancient genomes and capture data from 9,649 individuals, derived from 18,397 ancient DNA libraries. The capture data primarily represent 9,426 previously unreported individuals, with additional libraries improving coverage for 223 individuals. Laboratory work was performed using established ancient DNA protocols, with sequencing carried out on Illumina NextSeq500, HiSeq X10, and NovaSeq X platforms.
https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB106907
Why are posts here updated only once or twice a day? And as far as I understand, the update time is somehow related to the Australian time zone.
You need a moderator.
Are you able to process Plink 2.0 binary files or do they have to be 1.9?
https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/7RVV9N
@Mr Shomu-tepe
It's a comment section of a blogspot, there's not that much traffic here.
A thread on genarchivist dedicated to this major work
https://genarchivist.net/showthread.php?tid=2424
@Norfern
I can process any Plink files, but if there are a lot of samples it'd be better if the dataset was reduced to the usual 1240K markers.
Rob, I've heard there's a study on Balkan HGs with some ancient and interesting R1b. I guess you're aware of the rumours. Is it worth mentioning?
I32636 is pretty interesting. I tried modeling it in qpAdm and it seemed like some kind of Steppe MLBA Central Asia Eneolithic mix but I struggled to get a passing model. WGSExtract gave me R1b-Z2125 and U5b2b IIRC.
@ Gaska
''Rob, I've heard there's a study on Balkan HGs with some ancient and interesting R1b. I guess you're aware of the rumours. Is it worth mentioning?''
I have no direct awareness, but there are several incoming samples from this part of the world: a Gravettian sample from Serbia (Y-hg C1, Vestonice-like) . Then an Epigravettian individual from Romania (Climente, Iron Gates, 3000 years older than current Iron Gates batch), & even a couple of Mesolithic individuals from Greece & the Aegean.
The Climente individual might be interesting for some of the above discussions. Whilst some of the autosomal profiles have been outlined, no uniparentals have been mentioned for the post-Gravettian individuals and I wouldn;t care to speculate further as we've all been caught out before by 'unpublished abstracts', & 'rumours'. So we might have to wait a few months at least.
🤔
sample I12248.AG
y_haplogroup J-Z1841
y_score 373
y_flag ...
mt_haplogroup U5a1
mt_quality 0,9289
@Norfern-Ostrobothnian
I32636.TW
R-YP3920
R-YP3920,R-M207>M173>M420>M459>CTS5437>M515>M198>M417>PF6162>Z93>Z94>Z2124>Z2125>Z2123>FGCLR2075>YP3920,615,...,U5b2b,0.9496
@Norfern-Ostrobothnian
Could you check the following samples in qpAdm?
I12248.AG, I39841.TW, I40597.TW, I6735.SG
One sample with a central Anatolian profile and I-L699>>I-S12195. Seems to be from antiquity.
Distance to: I41587_preQC.TW_g25_sim
0.02542198 Serbia_Roman_Empire-Late_Antiquity_Viminacium_Vise_Grobalja_(Central_Anatolian_Greek_Profile)_(n=2)
0.02591300 India_Uttarakhand_Late_Modern_Roopkund_(Central_Anatolian_Greek_Profile)_(n=1)
0.02600795 Anatolia_IA_Gordion_(East_Med-Anatolian_Profile)_(n=1)
0.02617281 Anatolia_Early-High_Medieval_Stratonikeia_(East_Med-Anatolian_Profile)_(n=8)
0.02622680 Italy_Lazio_Roman_Empire-Late_Antiquity_Isola_Sacra_(East_Med-Anatolian_Profile)_(n=2)
0.02652484 Anatolia_Roman_Empire-Late_Antiquity_Bogazkoy_(East_Med-Anatolian_Profile)_(n=2)
0.02784960
I initially thought I41587 was a Roman era sample but after looking through more of the samples, I41586 has a very similar profile, and there is an mtdna match for both connecting both to the exact same time and place (late bronze age Balkans/near east). If accurate, that would mean the sample is almost assuredly from a LBA Anatolian speaker.
If anyone is wondering what I'm referring to, we have data for ~8000 new ancients, but no official metadata aside from the Akbari 2024 preprint which contains a sheet with Mtdna, broad geographic region, and time period for the new samples.
What does .TW mean in the index name?
@ Ethan - sounds like we won't know where/ when these samples are from until they are published ? But obviously another solid link in the migration of IE to Anatolia somehow
@All
Here's the first attempt at G25 coords for the new samples from the Akbari paper.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10-BEmKWAEPdaxYA7n3Oyeya_VjtZP92K/view?usp=sharing
@Rob some of them can be narrowed down in time/space but the big picture is that there are a solid number of I-L699 samples rich in Anatolian BA-type ancestry (to go along with the soon to be published actual Anatolian BA samples).
I checked the new R-V1636 samples and there are also a few that seem to belong, broadly, to the Roman imperial clines, but it's a much weaker signal.
🙏🤲
sample I12248.AG
y_haplogroup J-Z1841
y_score 373
y_flag ...
mt_haplogroup U5a1
mt_quality 0,9289
Target: Akbari2026:I12248.AG
Distance: 1.8074% / 0.01807366 | R3P
71.6 Russia_Saratov_Khvalynsk_Eneolithic
23.2 Russia_Saratov_Khvalynsk_Eneolithic_brother.I6739
5.2 Bulgaria_N.AG
I knew it was Khvalyn
the first purely "Yamnaya" M269?
I20099.AG,R-M269,R-M269,R-M207>M173>M343>L754>L761>L389>P297>M269,152,score_tie;most_recent_common_parent,U5a1g2,0.9594
Target: Akbari2026:I20099.AG
Distance: 2.8228% / 0.02822815 | R3P
95.0 Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya
2.6 Russia_AltaiSayan.SG
2.4 Hungary_EN_Starcevo_1.AG
M269 with 0 steppe profile
I2062.SG,R-M269,R-M269,R-M207>M173>M343>L754>L761>L389>P297>M269,191,step_rule;unstable_downstream,H+16129,0.6594
Target: Akbari2026:I2062.SG
Distance: 1.9833% / 0.01983283 | R3P
49.4 Azerbaijan_Caucasus_lowlands_LN.AG
46.8 Israel_C.AG
3.8 Russia_AltaiSayan.SG
Any info on this North Indian like sample?
Target: Akbari2026:I47044.TW
Distance: 1.9720% / 0.01972037
34.2 Turkey_Marmara_Barcin_N
22.6 AASI
20.0 Iran_GanjDareh_N
9.6 Russia_Samara_HG
7.2 Georgia_Kotias_Mesolithic
3.2 Israel_Natufian
2.2 China_YR_LN
1.0 Tajikistan_Mesolithic
Surprisingly not picking Tutkaul.
Na! Seems to be Roma like and not Indian.
Distance to: Akbari2026:I47044.TW
0.03901401 Roma_Balkans:GS000014352
0.03976882 Roma_Balkans:GS000014325
Marco
Also from Explore Your DNA
You should do it too
You sent
It all seems credible to me. But what is it? Davidski? In any case, he would be the best. Unfortunately, I'm reading about a massacre of women and children 2,800 years ago in what is now Serbia, and the males were all from my haplogroup R-L23-Z2103, precisely the supposed migration from Yamnaya through the Balkans to the Adriatic coast. Luckily my ancestors survived, and then came the Romans.
The usual tree bullshit. Y19423 is dated 950 years ago by YFull, and it existed in Gomolava at least 2,800 years ago.
Interesting sample
Target: Akbari2026:I26244.AG
Distance: 1.4057% / 0.01405706
54.6 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
39.4 Uzbekistan_SappaliTepe_BA
6.0 Mongolia_LBA_Khovsgol_6
Appears to be a new sample. What is the Y haplo?
Another BMAC+Steppe with minor Khovs
Target: Akbari2026:I7063.AG
Distance: 2.0840% / 0.02084049
52.8 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
41.8 Uzbekistan_SappaliTepe_BA
5.4 Mongolia_LBA_Khovsgol_6
Another
Target: Akbari2026:I4793.AG
Distance: 1.7388% / 0.01738775
51.2 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
44.0 Uzbekistan_SappaliTepe_BA
4.8 Mongolia_LBA_Khovsgol_6
Hardly any east Asian in these 3 samples.
Target: Akbari2026:I6148.AG
Distance: 2.0722% / 0.02072247
48.0 Uzbekistan_SappaliTepe_BA
47.8 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
4.2 Mongolia_LBA_Khovsgol_6
Wonder where they are from. Very Turkmenistan_IA like profile.
Another
Target: Akbari2026:I25914.AG
Distance: 1.8746% / 0.01874634
48.0 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
46.0 Uzbekistan_SappaliTepe_BA
6.0 Mongolia_LBA_Khovsgol_6
Another
Target: Akbari2026:I25913.AG
Distance: 1.2703% / 0.01270294
47.6 Uzbekistan_SappaliTepe_BA
44.6 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
7.8 Mongolia_LBA_Khovsgol_6
All these guys are similar to previously released TianShan_Saka outlier sample.
Target: Kyrgyzstan_TianShan_Saka_o2:DA53__BC_422__Cov_25.86%
Distance: 3.1074% / 0.03107386
53.8 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
41.0 Uzbekistan_SappaliTepe_BA
5.2 Mongolia_LBA_Khovsgol_6
These samples on PCA
https://ibb.co/hwp9649
There is a clear cline going between these guys/TianShan_Saka outlier and Tasmola. TianShan_Saka and TianShan_Hun being on this cline. I was right all along...@rob
https://ibb.co/hRXJycfG
Target: Kyrgyzstan_TianShan_Saka
Distance: 1.0567% / 0.01056731
57.8 Kazakhstan_Tasmola_EIA
42.2 Akbari2026
Non-Iranic Huns
Target: Kyrgyzstan_TianShan_Hun
Distance: 0.6729% / 0.00672852
82.0 Kazakhstan_Tasmola_EIA
18.0 Akbari2026
Iranic Huns
Target: Kyrgyzstan_TianShan_Hun_o
Distance: 1.1097% / 0.01109658
51.4 Akbari2026
48.6 Kazakhstan_Tasmola_EIA
Y and mtdna data of these samples
I7063 - no Y-dna data | MT DNA - H2a
I4793 - R-Z93 | MT - H2b
I6148 - T-FTC71595. | U5A1d2b
I25914 - R-Z93 | W3a1
I25913 -J-FTG27149 | Hv18
I12122 - no data | U2e2a1
Credits: mytwitterfriend
This one is extremely interesting
Target: Akbari2026:I4317.AG
Distance: 1.6743% / 0.01674265
65.0 Uzbekistan_SappaliTepe_BA
35.0 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
Target: Akbari2026:I4292.AG
Distance: 1.7855% / 0.01785458
42.0 Uzbekistan_SappaliTepe_BA
31.2 Iran_DinkhaTepe_BA_IA_1
26.8 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
This one is very Iranian...
Does anybody know where is this sample from?
Target: Akbari2026:I13265.AG
Distance: 1.7089% / 0.01708927
85.8 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
14.2 Kazakhstan_Kumsay_EBA
This andronovo like sample is Y2?
@ Ethan
“ the soon to be published actual Anatolian BA samples”
From this Reich Lab data ?
I’m not expecting competent or honest conclusions, but the raw data will certainly be useful
@Rob
The Kulluoba and Kaman-Kalehoyuk samples from the Yediay paper which has sat in preprint since December 2024 for some reason.
Distance to: Lebanon_IAIII_Beirut_o_(Egyptian_Profile)_(n=1)
0.02099540 Akbari2026:SFI-43.SG
0.02945294 Akbari2026:I40330.TW
0.03538045 Akbari2026:I3437.AG
Distance to: Lebanon_IAIII_Beirut_o_(3/4-Egyptian_Profile)_(n=1)
0.01488909 Akbari2026:SFI-44.SG
0.03343251 Akbari2026:I36124.TW
0.03359421 Akbari2026:I15853.AG.TW
Number 43 & 44, in order. Those are the Egyptians outliers from Lebanon. Many samples are repeated.
@Gestr
I assume that this sample comes from the middle Volga and most likely culturally belongs to the Khvalynsk culture or some related culture. Probably aged ~5100-4900 BC.
R1a Z94 sample?
https://x.com/PGi_2001/status/2031519751759888559?s=20
Target: Akbari2026:I46816.TW
Distance: 1.8273% / 0.01827275
83.6 Israel_MLBA
13.6 Armenia_Tavshut_MBA
2.8 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
On PCA though this sample shows shift towards catacomb Tavshut just like those R1a Israel 1500bce outlier.
https://ibb.co/nstZjB1R
Akbari2026:I46813.TW is another similar sample with Z94 (R-YP1709) with similar ancestry.
Target: Akbari2026:I46813.TW
Distance: 1.7527% / 0.01752704
75.0 Israel_MLBA
25.0 Armenia_Tavshut_MBA
YDNA R-Z94 (R-YP1709) / mtDNA R0a2.
Same twitter source
That's how Jews ended up with Iranian Z94. Nothing really new.
There are plenty of Afghan Paki and Kurd samples under (R-YP1709) but there doesn't seem to be any autosomal signal related to these groups in these 2 samples. Quite dominant in Afghans and Paki Afghan related groups. Wonder if this was a direct migration or autosomal ancestry is totally lost in both cases.
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-YP1709/
@Ash
Purebred steppe mlba "South Asian" R1aZ94
I33352.TW,R-FT129490,R-FT129490,R-M207>M173>M420>M459>CTS5437>M515>M198>M417>PF6162>Z93>Z94>FT197453>Y40>FT129490,...,
HV6
Distance to: Akbari2026:I33352.TW__BC_?__Cov_81.18%
0.02542693 Russia_Voronezh_Srubnaya:DS16__BC_1250__Cov_78.82%
0.02603661 Poland_Strzyżów_EBA:poz787__BC_1838__Cov_80.88%
0.02662918 Russia_Voronezh_Srubnaya:DS77__BC_1762__Cov_97.23%
0.02677046 Czechia_EBA_Unetice_father.or.son.PDA002.AG:PDA005.AG__BC_2214__Cov_58.14%
0.02682581 Russia_MLBA_Krasnoyarsk:I3392__BC_1650__Cov_88.64%
0.02711311 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta.AG:I1011.AG__BC_1875__Cov_75.67%
0.02712644 Czechia_EBA_Unetice.AG:CHL003.AG__BC_1987__Cov_53.11%
0.02789304 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta.AG:I1089.AG__BC_1875__Cov_73.34%
0.02806826 Czechia_EBA_Unetice.AG:I13468.AG__BC_2000__Cov_71.69%
0.02820920 Kazakhstan_MLBA_Karagash.AG:I4262.AG__BC_1793__Cov_67.35%
Target: Akbari2026:I46550.TW
Distance: 1.5335% / 0.01533495
52.8 Turkey_Central_CamlibelTarlasi_Chalcolithic
19.6 Armenia_Berkaber_KuraAraxes_EBA
19.4 Turkmenistan_Gonur_BA_1
8.2 Russia_Steppe_Catacomb
Target: Akbari2026:I24070.AG
Distance: 2.0590% / 0.02058965
55.2 Turkey_Central_CamlibelTarlasi_Chalcolithic
23.0 Turkmenistan_Gonur_BA_1
11.8 Russia_Steppe_Catacomb
10.0 Armenia_Berkaber_KuraAraxes_EBA
Target: Akbari2026:I23604.AG
Distance: 1.5271% / 0.01527058
47.8 Turkey_Central_CamlibelTarlasi_Chalcolithic
29.2 Armenia_Berkaber_KuraAraxes_EBA
14.0 Turkmenistan_Gonur_BA_1
9.0 Russia_Steppe_Catacomb
Target: Akbari2026:I46694.TW
Distance: 1.4687% / 0.01468684
53.0 Turkey_Central_CamlibelTarlasi_Chalcolithic
22.2 Armenia_Berkaber_KuraAraxes_EBA
16.2 Turkmenistan_Gonur_BA_1
8.6 Russia_Steppe_Catacomb
Check these samples. I doubt they have BMAC.
They have steppe and appear Turkey related.
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-FT129490/
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-FT129490/tree
Probably a secondary wave male mediated sample via Iron age central asian groups but could be from lba as well.
@ Ethan
“ The Kulluoba and Kaman-Kalehoyuk samples from the Yediay paper which has sat in preprint since December 2024 for some reason.”
Yes we knew about those samples, overall the paper is pretty average, it reads as if it were written by a Muppet from GeneArchivist
And you mentioned there’s a new possible relevant MLBA sample from this “technique” paper ?
@shomu
Previous samples under Y40>FT129490
Target: China_Xinjiang_Wuzan_IA:C847__BC_571__Cov_87.35%
Distance: 1.7380% / 0.01737972
34.2 Mongolia_LBA_Khovsgol_6
33.8 I33352
18.8 Uzbekistan_SappaliTepe_BA
13.2 Kazakhstan_Kumsay_EBA
Target: Kazakhstan_Turk:DA89__AD_719__Cov_20.27%
Distance: 1.7654% / 0.01765408
40.8 Mongolia_LBA_Khovsgol_6
31.6 Uzbekistan_SappaliTepe_BA
27.6 I33352
There is one sarmatian sample but models weirdly with affinity of Latvia_BA.
@shomu
There is already R-Y40>R-FT306053 at SaiduSharif_H 300bce some 330kms from my home.
Without over fitting with BMAC.
Target: Pakistan_SaiduSharif_H:I6891__BC_292__Cov_73.94%
Distance: 2.5922% / 0.02592204
78.6 Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2
16.6 I3352
4.8 TibetanPlateau_Zongri
@Rob
The more I play around with the samples, the more I think the interesting ones are all either Roman Imperial or Central Anatolia IA/antiquity samples. But there's like 4 or 5 I-L703 with that kind of profile, and about four R-V1636 samples that look more "Roman" (with their ancestry probably being moreso from SE Anatolia).
@🏺Mr Shomu-tepe🏺
Thank you for explaining! I assume from his haplogroup that this individual is a brother of I6735, the only one in Khvalynsk with J1. From the context of the conversation, I’ve thought for a moment that this sample was from Caucasus or even Anatolia, and almost imagined a Great Proto-Indo-European Empire from Csongrad, Varna and Anatolia to Urals, with a center in Khvalynsk :). Now, it seems, the southern “flank” of Proto-Indo-European world (Proto-Anatolians movement to Asia Minor) remains a mystery.
Turns out I32636 might be a Sarmatian
Distance to: Akbari2026:I32636.TW
0.03100273 Kazakhstan_Sarmatian.SG
0.03643095 Kazakhstan_LBA_o3
0.03680358 Kazakhstan_Kangju.SG
0.03736971 Kazakhstan_Sarmatian_IA
0.03744429 Mongolia_Arkhangai_XiongnuEarlyMedieval_1
0.03770959 China_Xinjiang_Jirentaigoukou_LBA_Andronovo_Karasuk_possible
0.03912109 Russia_LateSarmatian.SG
0.03937234 Russia_Sarmatian.SG
0.04199151 Russia_Ural_EarlySarmatian
0.04212782 Kazakhstan_CentralSaka_o2.SG
0.04235624 Turkey_Roman_1
0.04286614 Kazakhstann_OtrarCulture_LIA
0.04445661 Kazakhstan_Taldysay_MLBA2
0.04503884 Kazakhstan_Sarmatian_IA_o1
0.04605345 Russia_MiddleSarmatian_SouthernUrals.SG
0.04634206 Russia_EarlySarmatian_SouthernUrals.SG
0.04740077 China_Xinjiang_Songshugou_LBA
0.04744822 Kazakhstan_Turk_Kangju_possibe.SG
0.04862955 Russia_Samara_Sarmatian_possible
0.04903806 Kazakhstan_LateSarmatian
0.04932075 Kazakhstan_EarlySarmatian
0.05341531 Turkmenistan_IA.SG
0.05454544 China_Xinjiang_Tielieketesai_IA_1
0.05456611 Kazakhstan_Wusun.SG
0.05510790 Kyrgyzstan_TianShan_Saka_o2.SG
@Gestr
He is too EHG-like for Anatolia, or even the Caucasus, although in my opinion this man's ancestors are from the northeastern Caucasus - that would explain a lot.
@ Ethan
''The more I play around with the samples, the more I think the interesting ones are all either Roman Imperial or Central Anatolia IA/antiquity samples. But there's like 4 or 5 I-L703 with that kind of profile, and about four R-V1636 samples that look more "Roman" (with their ancestry probably being moreso from SE Anatolia).''
Yes the 'Closest' To' tests apparently show 'links' to Roman Late Imperial/ LA samples, obviously an artefact of their SE Anatolian profile.
R1b-V1636 appears to have moved toward SE Anatolia as part of Kura-Araxes, along with J1-Z1841 moving along the south (Arslantepe-> Isparta); vs I2a-L699 a more northern trajectory entering from an opposite direction; each on top of a 'native Anatolian Chalcolithic' substrate.
Thank you, I understand that he is a-typical for Caucasus or Anatolia, but I thought for a moment that he was an example of long-range mobility of Khvalynsk people, like Csongrad “Rider” from Hungary. I agree that significant part of his ancestry comes from CHG foragers (perhaps from Dagestan or Azerbaijan). But we still need to explain the geneflow from the Volga basin to the Middle East. I think it is undeniable from the current data that some real people from Volga area settled in Transcaucasia and Anatolia sometime in the 5th millennium BC. It is especially obvious on Y-dna level (steppe haplogroup R-V1636 in the Middle East). I think the presence of R-V1274 in Kuro-Araxes is especially telling: with formation date around 4600 BC, it is found at Syezzhee, Samara culture, around that time. It is difficult for me to imagine that this obvious geneflow is unrelated to the spread of Indo-European Anatolian languages. But how it happened – in terms of geography and archeology – is unclear.
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/J-Z1841/tree
@ Shomu & Jester
'It is especially obvious on Y-dna level (steppe haplogroup R-V1636 in the Middle East). I think the presence of R-V1274 in Kuro-Araxes is especially telling: with formation date around 4600 BC, it is found at Syezzhee, Samara culture, around that time. It is difficult for me to imagine that this obvious geneflow is unrelated to the spread of Indo-European Anatolian languages.''
from Caucasus or even Anatolia, and almost imagined a Great Proto-Indo-European Empire from Csongrad, Varna and Anatolia to Urals, with a center in Khvalynsk :).''
Well, everybody except you two, or the one same, clown/ Jester understands that the Khvalynsk group were essentially a dead end.
R1b-V1636 appears in c. 3000 BC with Kura-Araxes, which were obviuosly a non-IE group. Your claim that they entered Anatolia in the 5th millennium BC is not supported by data.
@Rob
"R1b-V1636 appears in c. 3000 BC with Kura-Araxes, which were obviuosly a non-IE group. Your claim that they entered Anatolia in the 5th millennium BC is not supported by data".
Don't forget that R-V1636 was born about 10000 Years ago, its oldest presence in Ekaterinovskiy-Mys 6064 and 8740 (R-BY15339) about 10400 Years ago, thus nothing different from all the other subclades of the hg R1b1 (I think the descendants of the Villabruna of 14000 Years ago), and I demonstrated at least 15 or 20 Years ago that Italy gets all the 5 different haplotypes known so far of these surviving samples.
If R-L23-Z2103 of Yamnaya were the ancestors of the Euphratic in Mesopotamia and my line of the Latins/Romans in Italy and the R-Z2110-CTS699 of Emanuele Infantino of the Siculi in Sicily, the Indo-European languages were the languages of hgs R1b (centum) and R1a (satem).
@ Gio
'Don't forget that R-V1636 was born about 10000 Years ago, its its oldest presence in Ekaterinovskiy-Mys 6064 and 8740 (R-BY15339) about 10400 Years ago,''
Ok. And it appears in E Anatolia only c 3200 BC, and has no correlation with the spread of IE languages
Then who does?
@Rob
"Ok. And it appears in E Anatolia only c 3200 BC, and has no correlation with the spread of IE languages".
But we don't know anything about that, and we haven't to think that only one subclade of R1b was among this people. Probably many subclades were together. 5200 Years ago we may suppose that groups from Yamnaya migrated to west (Ukraine-Romania), probably those who migrated to Mesopotamia bringing the Euphratic up there, and they very likely had to pass through East Anatolia. That we find now some haplogroup and not another is due to the genetic drift, thus those R-V1636 in East Anatolia 5200 Years ago could be the "Euphratic" speakings, thus an Indo-European Language I thought closer to Latin than each other IE Language. We need more data of course to say more.
@ Shomu
''Then who does?''
Who does what?
@Rob
Oh, Rob, I recognize your unique style. From the first words: “Clowns! Low IQ jesters! Lazaridis’s minions!”. Honestly, I don’t understand this Volga-Caucasus denialism of yours! Look: I have no personal agenda, political and emotional, in the difficult question of Indo-European homeland. Obviously, I personally think, along with Gimbutas, Gordon Childe, and almost anybody else now except the small circle of your adepts, that Indo-European languages came from Volga pastoralist communities in early 5th millennium BC. But if IE homeland be somewhere in Transcaucasia – in line of Ivanov, Gamkrelidze and Lazaridis’s Southern Arc theory – let it be so, but I would like to hear the arguments. If it is Dnepr-Donetsk-Sredny Stog continuum (Mallory) – fine, but let’s prove it! So, instead of spewing insults and ad hominem claims, let’s discuss the facts! I see from your better posts, that you are well read in archeology and archaeogenetics. If you want to be a leader of a ridiculous microscopic sect, having turned old Mallory’s Dnepr-Donetsk hypothesis into a quasi-religious dogma – good! I – and I think nobody else – won’t bother myself with further discussion. But if you want to express rational coherent arguments – I will gladly listen to them and change my views if I see you are right.
The 1st fact is that there was an obvious and undeniable migration from Volga basin to the Middle East around the 5th millennium BCE. It can be seen on A-DNA level, but it is the most obvious in Y-DNA haplogroups. R-V1636, and, especially, R-V1274, are clearly derived from Volga pastoralists. R-V1274 formed, not TMARCA! but formed around 4600 BCE, and at that time it is found in Syezzheye, Samara oblast. So, the Kura-Araxes individual from Kalavan is a direct patrilineal descendant of Samara culture pastoralist from Syezzheye, or his very close kin. The first middle eastern R-V1636 is not even Kura-Araxes, it is Arslantepe individual around 3400 BCE. Because steppe A-DNA ancestry “dissipated” in this individual, the migration itself probably happened before at least 3500 BCE, if not 3700 BCE. But let’s say it was no later than 3500 BCE for now.
The 2nd fact is, of course, while we don’t know for sure what languages Khvalynsk and Samara pastoralists were speaking (perhaps many), we know that they were in many ways very similar to later Yamnaya-Corded Ware network. They are similar on a-dna level: the first examples of “steppe ancestry” (CHG+EHG) are in Samara culture’s sites and Khlopkov Bugor. On the cultural level, they have common, so-called Indo-European burial position, on the back with legs bent, similar pottery styles etc. Even in terms of economy, both are similar, they even exploited similar “eastern” breeds of domestic sheep, unlike European farmers, who used a different, Anatolian sheep breeds (Daly et al, 2025: Ancient genomics and the origin, dispersal, and development of domestic sheep). Add to these early “experiments” with horse taming/domestication in Volga chalcolithic cultures and their further development in Yamnaya. It would require several pages to describe all the similarities.
So, we have Yamnaya-Corded Ware network, from which all existing Indo-European languages are probably derived, and we have a migration of a group, related to future Yamnaya, to the Middle East but at an earlier date. Later, when we have written sources, in Europe we see Indo-European languages, derived presumably from Yamnaya and Corded Ware, and in Anatolia we see … deeply divergent, but also Indo-European group of languages. And you say those things are not connected. Simply: why?
There's zero overlap with any R-V1636 sample and historical attestation or implied presence of Anatolian languages.
Hittites arrive in Arslantepe in the LBA. Luwians arrive in Cilicia in the MLBA (not necessarily even overlapping with Tilbes Hoyuk which is literally on the Euphrates).
There are controversially identified Anatolian personal names apparently at Armi (likely somewhere in Cilicia) from 2400-2500. But the most prolific modern Anatolianist (Kloekhorst) disagrees with that identification.
Then when you look at the residue of these older R-V1636, reflected in what appear to be internal migrants within the Roman Empire, almost all their middle eastern Ancestry appears derived from Upper Mesopotamia, as opposed to Central or Western Anatolia.
So yes, no correlation can be identified.
If you try to approximate where Anatolian languages branched off based off space in time (based on basal Palaic, Lydian, Luwic, Hittite nodes), you'd conveniently have mark Northwest Anatolia as the most likely point of the key branching events.
If you look at the historical attestations. There's zero attestation of any non-indo-european language in Western Anatolia. In Central Anatolia, attestation is evidenced of a Hattic and Indo-European presence in the MBA, with the latter evidently overwhelming the former over time. And in Eastern Anatolia/Upper Mesopotamia/Hatay there is zero evidence for Indo-European languages until Hittite and Kizuwattna expansion as mentioned above, with the possible exception of the Armi references from Ebla.
There's also, in Cilicia, arguably a Hurrian substrate in Kizuwattnan Luwian (according to Yakubovich) although I personally think the evidence is slightly less than certain on that one.
So all in all - a pretty clear West toward East pattern.
@ Jester
You're out of your depth. Even David Anthony, who prolifically advocated the case of the Volga homeland, has accepted its non-viability. It’s 2026 and you’re citing Gimbutas & Childe as if appealing to authors who wrote before even C14 technology was around means something.
You’re also making very vague geographic claims about the “Middle East” without knowing -anything about the historical landscape of Anatolia.
You're obviously high on your own smug.
@ Ethan
''There are controversially identified Anatolian personal names apparently at Armi (likely somewhere in Cilicia) from 2400-2500''
Worth pointing out that this claim was made by Guus Kroonen, who is clown, so his etymology probably unreliable
''Hittites arrive in Arslantepe in the LBA. Luwians arrive in Cilicia in the MLBA (not necessarily even overlapping with Tilbes Hoyuk which is literally on the Euphrates).''
Yep, Arslantepe was conquered by the Hittites c. 1600 BC
Moreover, we've discussed this before, but the Arslantepe individual (who actually dates to 3200 BC instead of Jester's trumped up claim of 3500 BC), is from a sacrifical slave burial. Same with the second R1b-V1636 near Gaziantepe. What are the chances ?
The Uruk sphere was known to perform human sacrifice, something that early IE did not do.
So for some reason, Kura Araxes were trading Volga-derived slaves to the Uruks. Hence the presence of R1b-V1636 in Mesopotamia, which has nothing to do with the arrival of IE in central Anatolia. Given the presence of Sredni Stog lineages, in central & western Anatolia, including the Hittite city of Kalehoyuk, Jester's kvetching is irrelevant.
@ Jester
''Oh, Rob, I recognize your unique style''
You recognised the person writing as Rob is Rob ?
Clap clap clever man
It's a shame that Lazaridis, Reich, Patterson, etc. made such fools of themselves with the Indo-European homeland question.
But they were told, none too subtly on this blog, to change course soon after Reich published his book. They failed to do that due to their arrogance.
@Gestr
For some reason, it seems to me that the R-V1274 branch could have arrived in the South Caucasus around 4400 BC, and they brought steppe origins to the Copper Age population of Armenia - like Areni and other cultures
OK. As I expected, zero arguments from Rob. “Smug, Jester” – blah, blah, blah. Just the same the same vague references to non-existing facts, the same sectarian rhetoric. Each sentence is saying: “Everybody understands that I AM RIGHT, except you, stupid!”. Gimbutas and Childe died before “C14 technology was around”? Thank you for this valuable information! But did I say otherwise? I thought I’d just said that the similarities between Volga Chalcolithic and Yamnaya were always really obvious, and people had noticed them long before the advent of DNA testing. When DNA analysis was invented, it simply confirmed much earlier theories. D. Anthony “has accepted Volga homeland’s non-viability”? Interesting! Where and when? And why does his research group even describe Volga homeland in their press-release? https://hms.harvard.edu/news/ancient-dna-study-identifies-originators-indo-european-language-family Oh, I understand: Anthony was “politically motivated”!!! But how? Did Putin’s agents torture him in the basement of his New York State home? I understand, of course, that political interests can affect Academy in many subtle ways. I just don’t understand how, within the current political climate in the West, Volga homeland can be symbolically profitable for anybody. But I can give you an example of a clearly politically motivated statement in the same press-release. “Ukrainian origin” of Yamnaya (right bank of Dnieper, Kherson oblast) is completely unsupported by their own data. I would say this statement is at least overhasty, or even directly contradicts the most recent data: the earliest samples of R-M269 in Stavropol Krai, which were discussed here.
@Rob
Here go completely the outlandish theories of “trade in Volga slaves”. Where did you get that? This means you completely misunderstand DNA-analysis. In terms of A-DNA, Arslantepe individual is very different from Volga pastoralists. He is in fact similar to local Anatolian population. So, he himself was hardly from Volga. But his remote ancestors were. That is why I say that the actual migration happened much earlier then the lifespan of this individual. But the genetic signal, going from Volga to the Middle East, is undeniable. And I don’t claim to know Arslantepe’s individual life story. He could well be a captive, sacrificed by enemies. What is important, is that in 4th millennium BC Anatolia there were groups, whose y-dna (and some measure of a-dna) was derived from Volga pastoralists. Everything else is your “theories”, “opinions” (=sectarian dogmas) and unsupported claims.
"Using this approach, we infer that the Steppe Pastoralist-related admixture in SPGT occurred 26 ± 3 generations before the average sampling time of our SPGT individuals (919 BCE, range: 1263 - 808 BCE), corresponding to a 95% confidence interval of 1815 - 1479 BCE."
I wonder what the dates will be for the 1600bce Bustan outlier. Since ANI-Tibetian admix dates for 1500CE samples of Niraj Rai paper game 300bce date while David's lab ran for samples from 500CE which gave 800bce.
@Ethan
I have heard these kinds of arguments many times.
1st, I don’t say, HOW Volga pastoralists arrived to the Middle East. I just say it is a fact, that some people from Volga area sometime before 3500 BC came to Anatolia. I mean we can say whatever we want, but Kuro-Araxes individual from Kalavan is really a direct male line great-great…(2000 years)-grandson of Samara pastoralist from Syezzheye. How Kalavan’s great-great…granddad and his kin came to Anatolia, is a different matter. Of course, right now “the Eastern route” through the Caucasus looks much more probable. But I am not completely happy with it either. There is too little archeological support for it. The same Volga people could well use “the Western route”. Suvorovo, Cernavoda, Usatove are all off-shoots of the same Volga-Caucasus pastoralists. They are similar in culture, in a-dna. They participate in the same Khvalynsk trade network of copper exchange. They have the same y-dna as Khvalynsk and Berezhnovka: Q1a-M25, Q1b-Y6802, I-L699, R1a etc. They probably had R1b-V1636 as well, maybe it is hidden in poorly read R1b-M343 from one Cernavoda sample. In general, it would be useful to discuss it not in terms of Eastern/Western route, but in terms of archeological cultures/trade networks/economic incentives. Why they came to Anatolia? In search of grazing lands? Precious copper artifacts? Because of drought? The future research will show.
@Ethan
2nd, you base your argument upon the putative absence of Indo-European languages in Transcaucasia/Eastern Anatalia during the Bronze Age. You probably understand yourself how weak this argument is. First of all, we don’t have any direct written record of the languages of Kuro-Araxes and earlier cultures. They mostly predate writing in any developed form. For Transcaucasia we lack substantial linguistic evidence until the Iron Age – only speculations. But we have indirect evidence of very ancient presence of Indo-European languages in Transcaucasia: so called Indo-European substrate in Proto-Kartvelian. Even the self-designation of Georgians (Kartli) is probably derived from proto-Indo-European “gard” (from here Russian gorod etc.)– “fortified enclosure”, ie “the people, who live in fortified settlements”. There are many other PE borrowings to Proto-Kartvelian. You may speculate about alternative theories, but some form of linguistic contact of proto-Kartvelians with a very early form of Proto-Indo-European (or a deeply divergent branch) is undeniable. So the Indo-European presence in Transcaucasia in 3rd, 4th and, obviously, 5th millenniums BC is quite probable.
“But they were told, none too subtly on this blog, to change course soon after Reich”
That’s because they’ve already determined their story, although they can’t even get their lies straight. Kristiansen & Copenhagen are disappointing, I’d expect better from Europeans
@🏺Mr Shomu-tepe🏺
I agree with you. And I am sure those people brought Anatolian Indo-European languages to Asia Minor. But it is still very unclear how and why this migration happened. I was actually hoping to have a productive discussion about it here, but, apparently, it is not possible because of trolling and sectarian "opinions".
@Gestr
Kura-Araxes spread across a massive range where Indo-European languages weren't later attested, except for Indo-Iranian. So it's very unlikely that Kura-Araxes was an Indo-European speaking culture by and large.
Khvalynsk was indeed distantly related to highly likely Indo-European speaking Corded Ware, Yamnaya etc. cultures. But, based on Y-haplogroup data, it seems like those Indo-Europeans were derived from a Khvalynsk-related population. That is, a parallel Khvalynsk-like group.
If that's true, then it's not necessary to simply assume that Khvalynsk was Indo-European speaking, because we should expect that groups near and far related to Indo-Europeans also lived in Eastern Europe. That is, Khvalynsk may have been Indo-European, but it may just as well have been associated with a language near or far related to Indo-European.
In any case, it appears that we need to find a steppe group rich in I2-L699 to find the homeland of the proto-Anatolian speakers.
Even though we don't have data and most likely we won't because our organization is plain incompetent but it is quite likely that immediate ancestor of l657 gave birth to l657 in the vicinity of BMAC or South asia itself between 2500-2200bce. One of its line Y28 went starburst giving birth to many children leading to faster mutations while the second major line Y9 expanded post collapse of IVC and its breakdown into later harappan groups in NW and OCP further east.
Abashievo samples are Z93>Z94 and many upstream of l657 like Y3 and Y2 are there among the Northern steppe groups but rare to non existent in south asia means a small group of the Y3 family moved further south. Again Y3>Y2 is pretty rare in SC asia and south asia. Which means they stayed further north and much later moved into ME as we see groups under Y3 non l657 with younger tmrca there.
There are 4 new samples under Y3 > R-SK2040 Karayakupovo horizon cultural group from 900CE and scythian-hun and non scythian groups in the upstream of l657.
And I doubt that l657 formed later given at 95% CI the range is 2605 - 1436 BCE. Or other option plain and simple, Y tree have got it terrible wrong for l657 and it only came into existence at 1400bce.
@Davidski
I mostly agree with the first part of your post. And I am not saying that Yamnaya is directly derived from Khvalynsk. Even though Khvalynsk elites probably deeply influenced, linguistically and culturally, Yamnaya and other later Indo-European groups. I would put it this way: the Don-Volga-Caucasus triangle was inhabited by many closely related early Indo-European groups. Some of them lead to Yamnaya/Corded Ware and later “Core” Indo-European languages. Some – to Anatolian branch. And some – to unknown extinct groups. Who lead where, is difficult to say right now, and we shouldn’t be overhasty with it. For example, everything was supporting the idea that Anatolian languages are derived from southernmost, Caucasus Piedmont Indo-Europeans. But Syezzheye-Kalavan connection for me indicates that, instead, some northen, Middle Volga Samara culture groups may have participated in Proto-Anatolian movement.
A Caucasus route looks plausible if you ignore every data point we have about the language family, sure. Some of us choose to not do that.
@Davidski
As for Kuro-Araxes. Intuitively, I agree that it was mostly (!) non-Indo-European. But I can only repeat that we have no direct information about languages, spoken by its creators. I would say that “the Eastern route” is often connected to earlier, Leila-Tepe culture and the first kurgan builders in Transcaucasia. But for me the archeological picture of this supposed Indo-European migration is very unclear. “The western route”, though, is even worse – early steppe influences go as far as Bulgaria at best. The sea routes, through Black Sea and Caspian, look promising in words, but have absolutely no factual support. That is why, I think, understanding Proto-Anatolian migration will require a lot of further research. Right now, it is far from clear.
@Gestr
There's some archeological evidence now suggesting that an Usatovo-related kurgan group moved into western Anatolia via the Balkans. If this turns out to be true, then it's the best explanation for Anatolian.
By the way, how does I2-L699 fit into your claim that Anatolian languages are derived from southernmost, Caucasus Piedmont Indo-Europeans?
It should be noted that the archeology of the final chalcolithic in Western Anatolia is close to non-existent (as in, limited work has been done). The EBA for the same broad region was also pitiful, but progress has been made in the past 25 years or so.
So the chance of finding some clear typological connection in this time period between NW Anatolia and Suvorovo or Usatovo or Cernavoda or whatever you want to propose is pretty slim. aDNA, especially things like uniparental markers which are more resilient over time, is going to be more helpful (that being said, there is enough EBA/MBA material to say things about the internal movements within Anatolia).
Ironically, Barcin_C (I1584) is one of our best time and place samples, and happens to have the most Steppe ancestry.
This barcin seems to have a steppe origin linked to the Copper Age in Armenia. In any case, it's more Caucasian than steppe. Perhaps its ancestors didn't come through the Balkans? Maybe someone has a better model for it?
Target: Akbari2026:I1584_enhanced.AG
Distance: 1.3471% / 0.01347138 | R4P
36.2 Turkey_Antalya_BademağacıHöyüğü_N
29.0 Armenia_Areni1_Chalcolithic.AG
24.0 Russia_Adygea_Maykop_Unakozovskaya_LateNeolithic
10.8 Armenia_Aknashen_N
3 R1b Abashievo males, are they autosomally Catacomb like, cordedware like or a mix of these two? And is there any IBD sharing of these R1b males with the R1b at Hasanlu or are these R1b at Hasanlu a separate group?
@Davidski
@Ethan
I am not sure the steppe group that came to Anatolia was necessarily I-L699 rich. It is possible: there is I-L699 in Khvalynsk, Berezhnovka and Cernavoda. But the earliest Anatolian I-L699 samples are rather late, around 2000 BCE, I think. By that time, they could represent some other Indo-European groups. Proto-Armenians, for example. Eastern Catacomb culture, from which Proto-Armenian, presumably, is derived, is especially I-L699 rich. So, it remains to be seen if we find I-L699 samples in Anatolia at least as old as the first R-V1636 there. For now, it seems that the pastoralist group that came to Anatolia before 3500 BC was primarily R-V1636 rich, and maybe had also some haplogroups, non-specific for the Steppes: J1, J2a, J2b.
Barcin sample is interesting, thank you. Pity it is a female, no Y-dna.
Semiluk sample DS32 from scythian paper is placed under R1a-Y2. But on the I button this is given R-Y2 R-Y27 R-L657 R-BY101830. Tmrca of R-BY101830* is 900BCE and one from Qatar is under it.
So is this sample Y2 or a sub clade under L657 with 900bce tmrca?
"Target: Akbari2026:I13265.AG
Distance: 1.7089% / 0.01708927
85.8 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
14.2 Kazakhstan_Kumsay_EBA
This andronovo like sample is Y2?"
This sample is labeled R-AM00479 as per https://casperhub.dev/Akbari2026/
2 R-M634 samples in Akbari2026
Target: Akbari2026:I8395_repull.AG
Distance: 2.1721% / 0.02172099
68.2 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
14.4 Russia_Siberia_Lena_EBA
11.0 Kazakhstan_Kumsay_EBA
6.4 Mongolia_LBA_Khovsgol_6
Target: Akbari2026:I20330.AG
Distance: 0.8066% / 0.00806634
77.6 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
10.0 Mongolia_LBA_Khovsgol_6
9.4 Russia_Siberia_Lena_EBA
3.0 Kazakhstan_Kumsay_EBA
Closest samples are Russia Tagar with 0.26 and 0.38 g25 Distance. This BTW is R-Y27 branch of R-Y2 with 6 Tatar samples, 1 ancient Kyrgyz and 1 Xinjiang modern sample.
2 samples under R-SK2040 which is sub clade of R1a-Y3. Both seems to be scythian.
Target: Akbari2026:I26241.AG
Distance: 1.7561% / 0.01756054
70.2 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
14.2 Uzbekistan_SappaliTepe_BA
8.4 Kazakhstan_Kumsay_EBA
7.2 Mongolia_LBA_Khovsgol_6
Target: Akbari2026:I10517.AG
Distance: 1.4161% / 0.01416086
56.2 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
21.6 Kazakhstan_Kumsay_EBA
11.8 Uzbekistan_SappaliTepe_BA
10.4 Mongolia_LBA_Khovsgol_6
Closest population are Sarmatian.
@Ethan
“A Caucasus route looks plausible if you ignore every data point we have about the language family”
Why? What is so terribly wrong with Caucasus route? For the record, I’ve said, that I am not completely satisfied with this route. But that is because the picture is incomplete. But I think Eastern, Western, Black Sea, Caspian routes theoretically are perfectly possible. So, what’s special about the Caucasus?
The issues with a caucasus route: Kloekhorst's chapter in the following summarizes it well, but could also be expanded upon: Clackson, J.. (2025). The Indo-European Puzzle Revisited, ed. by KRISTIAN KRISTIANSEN, GUUS KROONEN & ESKE WILLERSLEV.
The clade of I-L703/I-L699 that ends up with Anatolia is I-S12195. I-L704 is what appears in Don Yamnaya/Catacomb samples.
I-S12195 shows up at Berezhnovka, Cernavoda I, A single Kalmykian Yamnaya sample, and a few other EBA Balkan samples. That's essentially it. There is no later group with high representation of the clade. Probably the only thing that comes close to being an I-S12195-rich culture is Cernavoda I and what looks to be its residue.
The residue EBA samples (I14119, I2165, Bul4) all want a substantial proportion of Cernavoda I ancestry relative to Yamnaya (if not outright prefer it), last time I looked at them, but I don't think that's the strongest argument, necessarily.
@ jester
“ For the record, I’ve said, that I am not completely satisfied with this route”
No, you came here saying it’s all definite, and obvious, that PIE came from the Khvalynsk region and entered Anatolia by the fifth millennium. None of which is correct. I’m not sure where you got that nonsense from, perhaps from dagestani telegram, ancestral whispers, or whatever. Khavkysnk seems to be a fascination for you lot, a sort of dagestani OIT de facto by Munchausen.
You came here to enforce your propaganda
You’re now backtracking and lying.
“ Why? What is so terribly wrong with Caucasus route? “
Have you not understood the proceeding half a page?
See- you are a low IQ Lazaroglu fanboy fan. You were finally write about one thing.
@Gestr
It should be obvious that Armenian is associated with R1b-M269.
I2-L699 was in Anatolia by ~2,000 BCE, but obviously the split between Anatolian and PIE did not happen in Anatolia. It happened in or close to the Indo-Anatolian homeland during the Copper Age.
It looks like Proto-Anatolians were associated with Cernavoda or a related group.
@ Arsen / Shomu / jester
“ This barcin seems to have a steppe origin linked to the Copper Age in Armenia. “
Really? Is that according to your G25 models. So why is there no other steppe answer ancestry further east in Anatolia?
Again, what kind of a coincidence is it that the earliest individual with steppe ancestry found all the way near Thrace ?
Why did Lazaroglu have to lie about its existence, and and a publish false results about it?
@Shomu
Minoans have Caucasus-related ancestry. They obviously got this admixture from Anatolia before it became Indo-European speaking.
Hattians and Hurrians were both probably from the Caucasus.
So I1584 doesn't provide any evidence that steppe ancestry entered Anatolia along with Caucasus ancestry.
Barcin_C can't derive its Steppe ancestry from Areni, because nothing remotely close to that amount of ancestry ever appears along the way in East or Central Anatolia.
Areni and Barcin_C behave differently in terms of their Steppe source, anyway:
https://i.imgur.com/vlUuSNt.png
https://i.imgur.com/dhSjT3z.png
More questions to ponder about
- why did Laz & the Reich squad also need to omit the relevance of the Yassitepe, in western Anatolia, whose Y-DNA lineage also links to Sredni Stog? Surely one person in that 700-author list has an ounce of knowledge about uniparentals. What about that little runt Ryukendo who used to bullshit here . Or was it because it did not sit well with their claims that 'there is no evidence of gene flow from Europe (to the west) into Anatolia ?
- further in the Yedieay et al, Kristiansen, Allentoft & the Copenhagen gang blatantly mis-represent the context of their samples. They claim the I2a from Kulluoboa and Kalehoyuk are "Hattic' ? ROFL
They also claim that there were Phrygians in Anatolia ''Phrygian state during the late 4th millennium'', citing a chapter by Bryan Hanks (ref 48). But Hanks actually wrote that Phrygians entered after 1200 BC. Is Kristiansen illiterate, or a liar ?
Fucking Loons
Post a Comment