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
646 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 600 of 646 Newer› Newest»@Norfern-Ostrobothnian
Target: Akbari2026:I32636.TW
Distance: 1.1432% / 0.01143247
64.4 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
24.2 Uzbekistan_SappaliTepe_BA
11.4 Mongolia_LBA_Khovsgol_6
Samples is Z2123 > R-YP3920
@Rob
I didn't claim that the steppe origin was from Armenia, I just meant that the best source for the steppe origin was from Armenia, and they also have an additional Caucasian admixture, from Maikop, so some influence from the North Caucasus is visible. I mean, does anyone have a more reliable model for this Bartsin? I just haven't seen any other models.
Why the hell did they remove the Khvalynsk Z1841 from the tree? It was in its place just yesterday
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/J-Z1841/tree
I just don't know how Usatovo/Chernovoda can produce similar mixtures as Maykop + Armenia. If we assume that the migration route was bypassing the Black Sea, then this would be noticeable in extra whg compared to what if the route was through eastern Anatolia. Doesn't that work?
@ Shomu
''I didn't claim that the steppe origin was from Armenia, I just meant that the best source for the steppe origin was from Armenia, and they also have an additional Caucasian admixture, from Maikop, so some influence from the North Caucasus is visible. I mean, does anyone have a more reliable model for this Bartsin? I just haven't seen any other models.'
Actually I was not necessarily doubting your model. Maybe Ethan did :)
Tbh, I looked at her with qpAdm, and found that either Areni or something like Cernavoda or Suvorovo could pass. So based on modelling , alone we cannot tell
So I was just asking about how you obtained your models, and pointing to the geographic/ historical questions that arise..
Under this is R-FGCLR2106, which is present in a late sarmatian sample from 200CE. There are 2 modern samples who share ancestor with this sarmatian, 1 in Turkey and 1 in India.
This is a 2nd Sarmatian sample that shares ancestor with an Indian. The other being under Y3>R-M634.
'' If we assume that the migration route was bypassing the Black Sea, then this would be noticeable in extra whg compared to what if the route was through eastern Anatolia. Doesn't that work?''
No, why do they need to have extra WHG if they go via the Balkans ? WHG aren;t really found in the Balkans.
Jester
“ Here go completely the outlandish theories of “trade in Volga slaves”. Where did you get that? This means you completely misunderstand DNA-analysis. ”
I understand archaeogenetics just fine. But at a more simple level, you should try reading the supplements, and do additional archaeological research.
ART 018 was a boy slave burial, sacrificed next to the chiefly kurgan at Arslantepe.
The other V1636 in southeast Turkey comes from a decapitated head. This is called the context of the samples and has been explained several times. What is difficult to understand?
“ Just the same the same vague references to non-existing facts, the same sectarian rhetoric.“
This has nothing to do with Putin and Zelensky, you muppet. It’s about the manner in which research was conducted
@Rob
That is getting funny. First, horror fantasy about “trade in Volga slaves for human sacrifices”, and now “Dagestani telegram”. Your addiction to pseudo-historical trolling makes you delusional. Your problem is, that is, instead of trying to understand what other people are saying, you invent some stupid (as you say, “low IQ”) narrative, ascribe it to them, and then make fun of those imaginary people. Hah-hah-hah. So I will try to explain my position especially for you in the simplest words, to make it more difficult to distort it.
1st. I did say, that proto-Indo-European community was formed by Volga pastoralists. It was a rather large ethnic group with at least some feeling of cultural identity, and in the first half of the 5th millennium BC it inhabited roughly a triangle, made by Don, Volga and Caucasus.
2nd. Now, to say that, is not the same as to say that “Indo-European languages come from Khvalynsk (or Berezhnovka, or any other particular place)”. This narrative is of course stupid and over-simplistic. I will put it the simplest way. Early Indo-European society was a complex network of many local groups, social strata and sub-strata. Khvalynsk was probably a super-important, super-elite PART of this society. I mean Khvalynsk-II graveyard was something similar (especially for Rob – it is a metaphor that should be understood in a proper historical context) to a closed corporate burial ground for top-managers of a large multi-national trading corporation, with operative network covering many thousand miles. People, buried there, run exchange operation and political alliances within the borders of several modern countries. Their graves are full of copper, imported from Bulgaria (!!!) – and you can imagine, what it took to organize such a massive import in absence of not just cars and trains, but even wheeled transport! Other groups in south-eastern Europe were also integrated in the exchange networks and power structures, controlled by early Indo-European elites. For example, Rob’s favorite Sredny Stog culture probably consisted mainly of Dnepr-Donetsk foraging clans, who were culturally assimilated and politically subjugated by Indo-European Suvorovo-Novodanilovka chiefs. Sredny Stog groups may be supplying high quality Donetsk flint to PIE exchange networks (not my idea, but of a Ukrainian archeologist D. Teligin), centered around Khvalynsk. So, to say that all Indo-European society comes from Khvalynsk, is the same thing as to say that modern Romance languages come from emperor Augustus and his elite circle of Roman officials and poets. Of course, it would be wrong and stupid! Nevertheless, Khvalynsk chiefs probably sponsored poets and prophets, new rites, new political concepts, new forms of authority were created around them. All those Indo-European poetic tropes about “undying fame”, “immortal heroes” could be invented in Khvalynsk elite circles. When these early networks disintegrated, new elites and new ethnic assemblages emerged. Which exactly PIE groups lead to Yamnaya, which to proto-Anatolians (Sredny Stog, Remontnoe, Stavropol Eneolithic? etc.) is difficult to say right now.
3rd. To the question of so called Eastern and Western Route for Proto-Anatolians. For me, it is an important, but secondary question. It should be resolved based purely upon available data. But some people here for a reason unknown ascribe to it huge, dogmatic significance. I have no problems with the Western Route. I will say more: in terms of Khvalynsk exchange networks “the western route” would be much more logical. The main economic interests of Khvalynsk chiefs were not in Caucasus, but in “Balkan-Dunai metallurgical province”. Its center was in Ayn-Bunar copper mines in Bulgaria. Khvalynsk copper is from there, steppe genetic influence can be seen in Varna culture since 4700 BCE. Sovorovo-Novodanilovka was simply a part of Khvalynsk elite network. Cernavoda and Usatove probably represent slightly different sub-sets of the same PIE society. So, could people, who travelled several thousand miles on the back their semi-wild (“tamed”) horses from Volga to Hungary and Bulgaria, travel a hundred miles more, cross Bosporus and come to Anatolia in search of “undying fame” and precious metals? Of course, they could! But “they could” doesn’t mean “they did”. There could be some obstacles which we don’t see right now. So, if, as Davidski is saying, we get some proofs that Usatove (or Cernavoda, or Suvorovo) groups came to Anatolia, it will settle the argument in favor of the western route. If the study of the first Transcaucasian kurgan builders shows that Anatolian movement is connected to them, that would mean, that different, less elite groups participated in proto-Anatolian movement, and that its economic mechanism was different. I do not exclude even that proto-Anatolians could use several routes.
@Gestr
As you understand, the nickname Gestr sounds similar to the word "jester" in English, and for Rob it's just a gift, and he can't help but take advantage of it.
@Gestr
Regarding the cattle-breeding triangle that included Khvalynsk, Kavkaz, and Dnipro Donetsk , you're absolutely right. I posted similar photos here two years ago.
These were Middle Eastern sheep breeds associated with the Shomutepe culture
https://i.ibb.co/vXQqpWR/Screenshot-86.png
When I try to model Barcin_C (and many Anatolia BA samples) I see a preference for Csongrad over either of Cernavoda or Yamnaya or Piedmont sources.
In the IBD mixture modelling there seems to be a persistent preference for "Corded Ware" in Anatolia, which is obviously ahistorical, and suggests that the true Steppe source was unavailable at the time (so either Suvorovo or Cernavoda or Usatovo).
I don't think Barcin_C necessarily needs to be definitive because there are scenarios where the NW tip of Anatolia receives older Suvorovo admixture, but then Cernavoda migrants actually spread the language somewhat later.
It's tricky though because Demircihoyuk and Kulluoba begin closer to 3200 BC, have a short chalcolithic phase prior to that, and also both share typological similarities with Ilipinar and Barcin_C. So the entry probably can't be too late unless Demircihoyuk/Kulluoba fail to represent a continued cultural complex (but everything I read suggests there was continuity throughout all phases of those settlements).
@Shomu
They've temporarily removed certain samples from the tree if there was a new version made available in the Akbari data.
I don't think it's necessarily definitive
@Gestr
The big problem with positing that Khvalynsk is Indo-European is that it's not ancestral to any extant or extinct Indo-European speaking populations.
It may have been Indo-European but there's actually no way to prove that. So your hypothesis about some sort of Indo-European triangle between the Don, Volga and Caucasus is just an interesting idea without any solid grounding.
No one in their right mind would claim that Corded Ware was not Indo-European, because it's obviously ancestral to many Indo-European groups all the way from Europe to South Asia. But Khvalynsk, in comparison, looks like a dead end, and should be treated as such until we see evidence to the contrary.
@ Jester
''Rob’s favorite Sredny Stog culture probably consisted mainly of Dnepr-Donetsk foraging clans, who were culturally assimilated and politically subjugated by Indo-European Suvorovo-Novodanilovka chiefs''
''Khvalynsk chiefs probably sponsored poets and prophets, new rites, ''
There is no evidence of ''Volga chiefs subordinating groups in the lower Dnieper'. There is to date no C14 dated and/or contextually specific individuals belong to these oriental Y-hg lineages such as Q1 or V1636 in the Dnieper-Azov region. The 2 in the Carpatho-Balkan region appear to have been used for transporting things, as menial labour. As in the case of Anatolia, you are just dreaming scenarios without understanding the evidence
On the other hand, there is evidence of western elites bringing in new cultural norms at the Volga, namely Berezhnovka.
Your claims therefore sound like Bolshevik propaganda. In the west, these theories were propounded by goofballs like David Anthony & Carlos Quilles, but have now become extinct.
''super-important, super-elite PART of this society''
like thuper thuper. Ok gopnik
'''So I will try to explain my position especially for you in the simplest words,''''
There's nothing for you to explain. You're an amateur singing the party manfiesto from 1923.
@Rob
Why R-V1636 would be "oriental"? No R1b is "oriental", neither so far the most probably old in Asia R-PH155. If R-V1636 migrated to Asia earlier than other R1 hgs, it brought the Tokharian language, Always of the Indo-European branch.
@ GIo
''Why R-V1636 would be "oriental"? No R1b is "oriental", ''
as in V1636 is an eastern sub-group of L754, but obviously, L754 "formed', refuged and 'expanded' from Europe
@Rob
I have been writing to you already in the past about that:
1) "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", thus either Italy was the sink of other places or it is the witness of an older origin here.
2) "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".
Ekaterinovk is west of Samara, thus if it is "Asia" it is "Asia" also for my R-L23-Z2103, but that R-V1636 was up there already 10400 years ago sheds some light also about the origin of the R-L754 subclades, which might be not in the Villabruna of the Alps but in to-day Russia. It is a possibility. Anyway the language they spoke is very likely the Indo-European of those times, and of course in the "centum" form. The "satem" ones were an innovation of the central group close to the R1a haplogroup, and later than the Yamnaya phase, if it will be demonstrated that the Euphratic, Latin etc descend from the Yamnaya people of about 5000 years ago. Of course all to be demonstrated.
Unfortunately I am not able to post the spreadsheet about my friend Marco Grassi's autosome made by the Davidski's group which clearly demonstrates the path from Yamnaya > Ukraine/Romania > Northern Balkans > Tuscany/Liguria that I presupposed for my Y. Also the R-L23-L51-U152-L2-L20 of Marco Grassi is separated from the closer samples in the British Isles of about 4000 Years and he hasn't found so far none close to him in the meanwhile. Thus his ancestors could have come not from the Indo-Europeans of Central Europe as other Italic peoples, but through the Adriatic and before like the Latins, Siculi, and why not Ligurs or other peoples? Unfortunately also the Piceni's aDNA was tested only until R-M269-L23, but not Z2103 or L51 and in the Marche we have the Stele of Novilara with its Language that someone interpreted as a very old form of Celt, and there were in Italy many Indo-European languages now extinct and with no documentation.
@ Gio
To me the evidence shows that R1b-V1636 was a, the, prominent lineage along the Volga tribuatary which split from its M269 cousins shortly after the Ice Age. By the Eneolithic, the V1636 groups had mixed in heavily with 'central Asia' Q1-rich groups assoc. with WSHG - TTK ancestry.
Culturally, they look quasi Native American, with Shamans and feathers in their head. They were also buried in local style mesolithic burials, not kurgans. These are in no way the God-Ancestors of Perun, Thor & Zeus.
The sub-group of V1636 men who moved down to the North Caucasus steppe might be a different matter. They adopted a different form of elite display which was completely foreign to Khvalynsk - such as kurgan burials, which are a steppe manifestation of a broader European Late Neolithic ideology. Maybe some then established alliances with Areni cave-type groups, but then each were locally replaced by Majkop & KAx, respectively. It is possible that their presence in SE Turkey/ Mesopotamia might account for 'Euphratic', but for this to move into probability we would require (i) more lingusitic evidence for an 'Euphratic IE" and (ii) some V1636 individuals in the region who weren't dismembered.
@Rob
You call V1636 a dead end, like the entire Khvalynsk culture, but at the same time you claim that European L754 is the ancestor of all PIE cultures, but no, it's just as dead end. The true M269 descended from some local Volga L754, who never visited Europe (except for Eastern Europe).
There's no need to be so biased.
@Rob
Probably you are right. You have deeply studied this matter. By chance I found the Y37 of a person from Iraq (Mesopotamia) who asked about his Y [Probably this is the subclade: 30460. Z2103>M12149>Z2106>BY44400>BY44399>BY45541>554992 Kashani (IQ Project) Karbala, Khafaji Iraq R-BY45541] and I arrived to these conclusions. Everything to verify of course.
https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/r-z2103/activity-feed
@ Arsen
“
You call V1636 a dead end, like the entire Khvalynsk culture, but at the same time you claim that European L754 is the ancestor of all PIE cultures,
No I have not said that L754, or any other macro-lineage, “is the ancestor of all PIE cultures”.
That doesn’t even make sense, and you might have confused it with my view that L754 expanded (or most of it) as part of the eastern epigravettian.
Two very different topics separated by 15,000 years
Facial Reconstruction of a 4,000-Year-Old couple from Gatyn-Kale
https://x.com/Sulkalmakh/status/2032489209433346276?s=20
@🏺Mr Shomu-tepe🏺
Thank you, I understand that my nickname gives some additional pretext for Rob’s trolling. No problem! It means “guest” in Old Norse, by the way :)
I agree with you that it is the most likely scenario that Volga pastoralists’ domestic animals were received from Shumu-Tepe culture around 5000 BCE. I would only also consider an alternative scenario that they were from Central Asia. It was a preferred by Soviet archeologists (Petrenko and others). The latest genetic studies (Haly et al) do not exclude it. Apparently Central Asian and Caucasian sheep were genetically very close. So, it is clear that Yamnaya/Khvalynsk/Samara sheep were received not from European farmers, but from some “oriental” source. It is unclear, though, if it is Caucasus or Central Asia. In Central Asia there are proven samples of domestic sheep in Kyrgyzstan around 6200 BCE (genetically tested) and in Turkmenia around 6500 BCE (Jeitun, genetically untested but clearly domestic, wild species is not present there). So technically some Central Asian pastoralist groups had enough time to reach Volga by 5000 BCE. Add to this Central Asian (Hissar culture, Tutkaul) DNA admixture in Volga pastoralists. I think this scenario is at least worth considering.
@Rob
So now you call me a Bolshevik :) Probably, soon we will hear about horrible Indo-European hordes, invading Europe under red banner, at the orders of the evil Khvalynsk chiefs :)
I will not comment on that political nonsense. I will comment on your persistent references to Arslantepe’s R-V1636 individual’s particular life story. They mean that you either completely lack comprehension ability or don’t understand the basics of population genetics, or both.
I think I told several times that the particulars of Arslantepe individual’s life were completely irrelevant for the question of Anatolian origins. From his a-DNA it is clear that he was local, similar to other local individuals. It is enough for me. I know that he fell victim of some inter-community warfare, I have read the archeological supplementary. To explain this fact, there is no need in crazy stories about “Volga slave trade”.
Genetic signal from Volga to the Middle East that we are discussing, is a statistical phenomenon. In the same way, as Davidski says, no sane person now would deny that Indo-European languages in Europe are derived from Yamnaya/Corded Ware groups, with a lot of steppe ancestry, and rich in R1b-M269 and R1a-M417 Y-DNA.
But it doesn’t mean that EVERY particular individual with R1b-M269 or R1a-M417, or with steppe ancestry, is a steppe pastoralist or even Indo-European speaker. If it were so, we wouldn’t have non-Indo-European Basques with a lot of R1b-M269 and steppe a-DNA, Finns, Estonians (one of the highest scores of R1a-M417), Hungarians, Volga Finns in Russia (highest in steppe aDNA) etc. Over the millennia, steppe y-dna and a-dna dispersed among various ethnic groups, and it is meaningless now to ask, why we see Finns with R1b-M269 or Estonians with R1a-M417.
In the same way, I don’t know, if Arslantepe individual (3400-3200 BCE) was an Indo-European speaker. He could be Hattian or belong to one of dozens unknown isolated Middle Eastern ethnic groups. But his remote Volga ancestors – perhaps 1000 or more years earlier – surely were Indo-European.
Let’s try to think rationally. We have 2 phenomena: Indo-European languages, that are present in Anatolia, and that are, at least in their “Core”, Yamnaya-Corded Ware branch, clearly derived from the steppe groups in south-eastern corner of Europe. And we have a clear genetic signal from the same place, from Volga pastoralist groups, rich in R-V1636 – and maybe also in I-L699, but it remains to be seen, going towards Anatolia. Isn’t it clear that those processes are connected? What kind of proof do you need to go from denial, rage, bargaining to acceptance?
@Gestr
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/388528513_Ancient_genomics_and_the_origin_dispersal_and_development_of_domestic_sheep
@Davidski
I agree that we should be cautious in our conclusions. That is why I wouldn’t be overhasty with characterizing any cultures as dead-ends. About Khvalynsk, for me it is clear, it was a small elite community and the analogy with Roman Senate is, I think, a proper one. Their genetic heritage may be small (and difficult to evaluate), but political, linguistic and cultural influence probably was huge.
About the Volga-Don-Caucasus triangle. I think here we should apply the same logic that was earlier applied to “Core” Indo-European languages and Yamnaya-Corded Ware network. The genetic signal from that network to Europe, India and other places where we later see Indo-European languages, is undeniable, and it correlates with the spread of Indo-European cultural traits. So, we can make a conclusion that the spread of IE languages was due to spread of this Yamnaya-Corded Ware ancestry.
Now let’s make one step back. Where does Yamnaya-Corded Ware network come from? Clearly, from the same Triangle. They took about 80% of their a-DNA from Volga-Caucasus mixed groups. All their Y-DNA is from that area. The earliest R1b-M269 are from Stavropol Krai. There are R1a in Khvalynsk, Steppe Maykop, Golubaya Krinitsa, even Satanaj Mesolithic etc. Their domestic animals, burial position, kurgan graves – everything is from there.
Now let’s discuss another, Anatolian branch. It is clearly also linked to a population movement from the same area. If we talk about “the western route”, it can be Suvorovo, identical to Khvalynsk/Berezhnovka. Or Usatove and Cernavoda, with the same a-dna and the same, less frequent, but present in Volga Chalcolithic, Y-dna. Early Indo-Europeans were organized in patrilineal clans, so Y-dna composition can vary greatly even in closely related groups, as in Yamnaya and Corded Ware.
Again, all cultural traits of those cultures are derived from the same Triangle.
If we talk about “the Eastern route”, it is probably some Volga pastoralist group, not necessarily from Caucasus Piedmont, but, judging from R1b-1274, it could be from middle Volga Samara culture.
I think the same logic that helped us to identify Yamnaya as a source of Core IE languages, should help us here.
@🏺Mr Shomu-tepe🏺
Yes, exatly, I was referring to that paper. Its conclusions are very important for our discussions.
156 samples has been sequenced dated to the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages from Azerbaijan, Chovdar.
https://x.com/nrken19/status/2033664216125648949?s=20
@Gestr
Yamnaya is probably derived from Sredny Stog in Ukraine.
That is, it's a parallel development to what we see in the Volga/Caucasus region at the time.
@ Jester
'We have 2 phenomena: Indo-European languages, that are present in Anatolia, and that are, at least in their “Core”, Yamnaya-Corded Ware branch, clearly derived from the steppe groups in south-eastern corner of Europe. And we have a clear genetic signal from the same place, from Volga pastoralist groups, rich in R-V1636 – and maybe also in I-L699, but it remains to be seen, going towards Anatolia. ''
What planet are you living on ? There are now multiple individuals associated with I-L702 in Bronze Age central & western Anatolia, where IE languages are attested. By contrast, there are no Bronze Age findings of R1b-V1636 in the IE-speaking regions of Bronze Age Anatolia, with one slave burial in Arslantepe which has no obvious correlation with IE groups.
Moreover, the 'Yamnaya-CW' complex did not originate in he Volga-Caucasus region, but somewhat to the west. The genomic profile of Yamnaya -CW is quite distinctive to Volga-Eneolithic groups, which coupled with the significant presence of I2a-L702 in Yamnaya & Catacomb are strong clues as to where pre-R1b-M269 'originated'. Yamnaya then conquered the Volga-Caucasus region and displaced the local tribes.
Everything I have stated is old news to everybody here (perhaps apart from Arsen-Shomu), and several people have explained it to you. Your inability to assimilate basic concepts is symptomatic of (i) your low IQ and/or (ii) your cognitive dissonance. You can keep crying about 'ad hominens', but I wont apologise for pointing out the obvious.
I think you;ve wasted enough time here, you may return to Molgen , Dagestani-Titktok, or wherever you usually hang out
I'm receptive to some form of Volga-centric PIE origin but it seems like to the answer the key questions we either need the (what I assume will be revised) Yediay paper to be released, or have someone be brave enough to play around with ancIBD.
1. What is the proper Steppe source in CGG022159 (Our "prince who was promised" I-L703 individual from Kulluoba with ~10% Steppe ancestry)?
2. If the Steppe source at Kulluoba happens to look more like Cernavoda I than Suvorovo (in my view, the two most plausible candidates), what is the proper Steppe source/ethnogenesis of Cernavoda I?
Answering those two questions in succession should get use closest to understanding where archaic PIE was spoken ~4400 BC.
@ Arseb-Shomu
''Yes, exatly, I was referring to that paper. Its conclusions are very important for our discussions.'
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/388528513_Ancient_genomics_and_the_origin_dispersal_and_development_of_domestic_sheep
IE did not learn to speak from their sheep. The paper simply suggests that sheep breeds were introduced via the Caucasus, via a chain of transmission - Mesopotamia - Shuvaleri- Meshoko - Eneolithic steppe - Yamnaya.
All these groups were linguistically distinctive, so there was no language transmission in humans, and it does not mean that PIE emerged in Khvalynsk, nor that Anatolian is associated with R1b-V1636.
Yamnaya pastoralists acquired 'eastern sheep' breeds as they conquered the Volga-Caucasus tribes, and kept the sheep because they are well suited for the colder, more arid parts of the steppe east of the Don. Their cattle breeds on the other hand were probably 'European'.
We heard these scientifically illeterate misinterpretations of 'sheep evidence' aplenty from the OIT guys, now on rinse-repeat from the chyrkas
@Rob
Where did you find "ad hominens"?
If we use some Latin, we should use it correctly.
We may say "ad hominem" for the singular: "ad" + accusative of homo, hominis, homini, hominem, homo, homine
If you use the plural: homines, hominum, hominibus, homines, homines, hominibus, thus "ad homines", but we should use the singular in the meaning "against the man", i.e. against someone and not around the argument. It is a typical wrong argumentation.
Strangely the form "*hominens" is supposed for the arcaic form, not documented in classical Latin.
@Rob
"And mind you, early PIA is from Dnieper- Don
Late phase PIE expanded from even further west - Moldova - Ukraine."
In fact the autosome of Marco Grassi (R-L23-L51) made by Davidski (the best I know so far) starts from Moldova and not from Yamnaya as I supposed for my Y (R-L23-Z2103). Of course one thing is the autosome and another the uniparental marker, but there could be a link.
@ Gio
''"And mind you, early PIA is from Dnieper- Don
Late phase PIE expanded from even further west - Moldova - Ukraine."
In fact the autosome of Marco Grassi (R-L23-L51) made by Davidski (the best I know so far) starts from Moldova''
I was referring to the final break-up of LPIE, but won;t go into it as it;ll confuse the 'tards.
Yep, it could be that L51 emerged west of the Don.
Target: Akbari2026Published_Russia_Rostov_Remontnoye_EBA_Yamnaya:I28682.AG__BC_3682__Cov_76.67%
Distance: 2.1627% / 0.02162741 | R4P
47.6 Russia_Volgograd_Berezhnovka_N
25.2 Armenia_C
14.0 Georgia_Kotias_Mesolithic.SG
13.2 Armenia_Aknashen_N
Exactly the same way in qpAdm, Armenia_C can be modeled as a mixture of Masis Blur and Remontnoye. This produces a clearly expressed cline:
Remontnoye <> Armenia Copper Age <> Masis Blur {basically Shomutepe}>.
I wouldn’t be surprised if in the end Armenia_C turn out to be those very Anatolians. 😨
I forgot Berezhnevka /steppe Chalcolithic at the beginning of the gradient
@Davidski
Have you noticed that the comment discussions always loop back to the same general topic about the origin of Indo-Europeans, no matter what the original topic was?
It's because the comment section is frequented by the same loons over and over again.
We can never move on to something new and productive when these people care about nothing other than reinforcing their preconceived fixations/obsessions.
@ Arsen_Shomu
''I wouldn’t be surprised if in the end Armenia_C turn out to be those very Anatolians. 😨''
We know Areni have Steppe EN admixture, But their Areni-C males were Y-hg L. Missing in Anatolia.
@ Ethan
'I'm receptive to some form of Volga-centric PIE origin but it seem'''
Only cold hard facts are required.
Yamnaya can be modelled as Lower Don 60-80% (admitedly only single Krivjanski genome) + Khvalynsk-Golubaya cline 20-40% . This is the most eastern population
There's no getting around the fact that S/ S & Cernavoda are centred on the Dnieper.
The rest is unsubstantiated fairytales & Psy-Ops
@ Radiosource
I'm somewhat culpable but I feel like we need to defend the Truth against the Dark Side (which seems to be Ameri-Boomers 'genealogists' preoccupied with larping about Yamnaya & Bell Beaker; and their spice belt comrades).
Of course, there is the customary, R1a-Z93 is not from EE also and AI news hits by Arsen :) Each to their own
There should be some cool CEE samples soonish
@Davidski
1. I agree that Sredny Stog groups participated in Yamnaya formation. But Yamanaya as such is not reducible to Sredny Stog at all. It is a new ethnic assemblage, probably emerging after Volga(Khvalynsk)-centered networks of power and exchange collapsed. I will not go to lengthy arguments and just refer to the most obvious one: Y-DNA. Neither R1b-M269, nor R1a-M417 are found in Sredny Stog. They are clearly not from there. R1b-M269 is probably from Caucasus Piedmont, there are the earliest samples there (Ghalichi, Ayshin, et al. "The rise and transformation of Bronze Age pastoralists in the Caucasus." Nature 635.8040 (2024)). R1a-M417 is probably from the same area, but there is no proof just yet (R1a-M459 is found in Khvalynsk and in a Steppe Maykop outlier). Wherever it is, it is certainly not from Sredny Stog. So, the ruling clans in Yamnaya assemblage were from different pastoralist groups.
2. Sredny Stog itself is explainable only as an offshoot of Volga pastoralist world. I can refer you to old Mallory’s book you probably know (J. P. Mallory, In Search of the Indo-Europeans/Language, Archaeology and Myth. Thames and Hudson, London 1989). It has an excellent summary of discussions in late Soviet (including Ukrainian) archeology about the origins of Sredny Stog (or Khvalynsk-Sredny Stog) culture. The conclusion of Ukrainian archeologists was unambiguous: the main cultural features of Sredny Stog (burial position etc.) have no local basis, and can be explained only as barrowings from Khvalynsk and other Volga cultures. It is especially important, because it comes from Mallory, who was the first to propose Dnepr-Donetsk-Sredny-Stog theory of Indo-European origins.
Modern genetic studies give the same picture of Sredny Stog as heavily Volga-influenced culture. The current models describe Sredny Stog individuals as deriving 30-80% a-dna from Dnepr-Donetsk foragers, and 20-70% from Volga-Caucasus pastoralists (Remontnoe: Nikitin, Alexey G., et al. "A genomic history of the North Pontic Region from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age." Nature 639.8053 (2025)).
My own interpretation is that Sredny Stog consists of mostly Dnepr-Donetsk clans, culturally and linguistically assimilated (and subjugated) by Indo-European elites from Caucasus-Don-Volga triangle. Their Y-DNA is probably mostly local. There is though an alternative explanation that their Y-DNA was derived from some especially I-L699 rich group of Volga pastoralists. Technically, Berezhnovka, as a paradigmatic example of Volga ancestry, has 33% of I-L699 Y-DNA. Other, more I-L699-rich groups could exist in the same triangle. Obviously, the Don basin, which is now poorly understood and sampled, was important for Sredny Stog formation.
@Rob
To understand your stories, I probably need some expertise in psychiatry. So, Yamnaya ruling R1b-M269 clans (coming from Stavropol Krai - Ghalichi et al., 2024) “conquered Volga-Caucasus pastoralists”, namely … themselves, and stole (from themselves) their own “Caucasian” sheep. Apparently before this self-conquest and self-defeat, they had some other, tropical (???) breed of sheep, who mysteriously and without any trace died out in the harsh climate of subtropical climatic resorts of Pyatigorsk and Kislovodsk? Is it so? Or was it Yamnaya talking sheep who “conquered the Volga-Caucasus pastoralists”? I am perplexed. In any case, you need professional help, ASAP.
You should understand one thing: the whole “Dnepr-Donetsk-Sredny-Stog as PIE homeland” case, that you are so fanatically advocating, is dead, and no trolling will save or revive it. By today you have no arguments, only misinformation, insults and Lovecraftian prehistoric horrors in your support. You may play this game for a while, but time is ticking, and it is working against you. With each new published sample there remains less and less blank spots on the map of prehistoric world, which you may fill with your fantasy narratives. Each new publication deals a new blow to a feeble construction you build. Now you have to “explain” the sheep, then the goats, then Y-DNA, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Soon the earliest R1a-M417 samples will be published, and I have a very good guess, from what area! At one point the whole narrative about the “fearless Dnepr-Donetsk warriors” who “conquered Volga pastoralists” and took their sheep, goats, burial traditions, symbols of power, pottery styles, Y-dna, A-dna and, having done that, committed collective suicide, erasing themselves from history and DNA, will collapse under the weight of its own absurdity.
Your rude insults, your racists comments and neo-Nazy hate speech about the whole ethnic groups mean that you are on the right track. By the way, no need to apologize for calling me a Bolshevik. It is not an insult, it’s an honor, especially from a clear Nazy sympathizer. Your hysterical rage means that you are nearing a tipping point. Soon you’ll start bargaining. My prognosis is that in about 1 year you’ll start saying: “Yes, some Indo-European languages ARE derived from Volga-Caucasus-Don triangle, I have been ALWAYS SAYING SO!”. You may even invent some Heggarty style “multiple origins theory”. If you were smarter, you would probably make up something from Nadezhda Kotova’s (famous Ukrainian archeologist) idea that early Volga tribes were culturally|/linguistically assimilated by Dnepr-Donetsk migrants in the late Neolithic. Then you’d say: “Yes, all known IE languages come from Don-Volga-Caucasus triangle, I have been ALWAYS SAYING THAT! But before that IE speech was brought there by Dnepr-Donetsk migrants, I-L699 in Berezhnovka is a proof!” At least, this narrative is really difficult to falsify, and it is based upon some real cultural parallels and genetic data. But I think you’ll prefer some Heggartish nonsense. It will keep you afloat for a while. Then the inevitable comes: Depression and then, if you retain some degree of sanity, Acceptance.
Before that stage I advise you to take some break from “prehistoric” trolling. It is an intellectually demanding hobby, and requires s calmer mindset. You may explore some other forms: for example, try political Neo-Nazy trolling, there are good Neo-Nazy political forums for your interests. Or are you already there? You need some diversion until you understand: your case here is lost.
Someone did put in the work and created a big sheet with updated IBD results. I've only reviewed them manually but:
- Nothing too significant in Anatolia, but that isn't surprising. The Kalehoyuk bunch (ironically not MA2203) have always shown some EMBA Steppe connections but each low cm.
- The main Cernavoda/Usatovo bunch show decent IBD hits between each other and other nearby samples like Moldova Trypillia (which has I-L703), decent hits with the entire Volga network, just one match between Cernavoda and Sredni Stog.
- There seems to be some sort of network somewhat weakly connecting Cernavoda/Usatovo to a bunch of unpublished samples that show autosomal affinity with I10494 (Cernavoda II culture?). The Theopetra sample also shows some matches. These unpublished samples share the Theopetra I-L702 clade.
- KTL001, the youngest Cernavoda I sample (which is I-L703 and the most steppe-rich one). Shows an enormous amount of high IBD hits with Yamnaya/Afanasievo samples. I wonder if this sample is a relative newcomer from the area the Yamnaya profile was finalizing itself.
@Gestr
There's no direct evidence in the Ghalichi paper that M269 is from the Caucasus Piedmont, nor that the origins of Yamnaya can be traced back to the Caucasus Piedmont.
This idea that M269 is from the Caucasus Piedmont is just an inference from the ancient DNA data currently available. It's not a fact.
And even if that Caucasus Piedmont M269 line is native to the Caucasus Piedmont, it's not actually ancestral to the M269 typical of Yamnaya. Indeed, Yamnaya shows significant western ancestry that suggests it formed further west and that its M269 also comes from further west.
Neither Yamnaya nor Corded Ware are derived from Khvalynsk nor can their development be traced back to the Caucasus Piedmont. They are populations that formed probably in Ukraine, and so that's where we should look for the Indo-Anatolian homeland.
I think one can make just as plausible of a case that Yamnaya formed along the Don, interacting with populations like I12490, as one can that it instead happened in Ukraine.
It's unfortunate that we don't have more information about KST001. It seems like that sample almost has to have migrated from proto-Yamnaya.
@EthanR
What do we know exactly about KST001, in particular in regard to IBD and archeology?
@David
The sample is too low coverage to be subjected to IBD analysis, I think the Ghalichi 2024 paper tries to run it against all the other samples published alongside it but found nothing.
This is all we have from the archeological supplement:
"Site information: Group of burial mounds on the Konstantinov plateau east of the town Inosemcevo. Several mounds have been excavated during rescue excavation. In mound 4 a destroyed Maykop(?) grave was found, followed by several graves of the Middle Bronze Age. The archaeological material is
unpublished.
▪ KST001, BZNK-1044/1, kurgan 4, grave 17. Context information: Single inhumation in north-south orientation with a wooden covering in a rectangular grave-pit. The grave was robbed and destroyed in antiquity. but a ceramic vessel was documented. Cultural affiliation & dating: Maykop/Late Steppe Eneolithic steppe, MAMS-42351: 5012±19 BP (cal. BC 3907-3714, cal.
BC 3939-3709)
@ Ethan
“There seems to be some sort of network somewhat weakly connecting Cernavoda/Usatovo to a bunch of unpublished samples that show autosomal affinity with I10494 (Cernavoda II culture?). The Theopetra sample also shows some matches. These unpublished samples share the Theopetra I-L702 clade.”
Fascinating
Again goes to show that the claim “Yamnaya = nuclear IE” is simplistic, and that pre-Yamnaya groups like Cernavoda contributed to nuclear IE in the Balkans as well as Anatolian IE
In other words, the language tree needs to be redrawn with the help of aDNA.
@ Gestr
I don't know who you are. Gestr? I used my true name and surname (Gioiello Tognoni) since I began to write in Rootsweb in 2007, but after having published books of poetry and critics. I was banned from everywhere, even though I wrote at least 20000 letters. That R1b was in Italy in the Palaeolithic was theorized by me long before they found it in Villabruna. The link at the autosome level with I2a of Tagliente2 is demonstrated. That I-M223 was in Italy, and only in Italy, between 20000 and 10000 Years ago is demonstrated, and that they expanded during the Younger Dryas all over Europe is an interesting hypothesis. That hg J is older (so far) in the Caucasus is demonstrated, but I wrote that it was very likely in western Europe with the brother hg I. Now we have the oldest sample in France [CGG023692FRA]. I don't enter the linguistic hypothesis because this is my field and I was a scholar of the theory of the monogenesis of the language of Alfredo Trombetti.
Both Rob and Davidski gave you the answers you needed.
About the fact that you called Rob a nazi (and of course you'd call so me too) I have the clearest explanations, because I taught history in the high school for 40 years.
@ Jester
'' So, Yamnaya ruling R1b-M269 clans (coming from Stavropol Krai - Ghalichi et al., 2024) “conquered Volga-Caucasus pastoralists”, namely … themselves, and stole (from themselves) their own “Caucasian” sheep''
What the combined data from the Caucasus shows that R1b-M269 is absent in Mesolithic, Neolithic and early Chalcolithic samples, and only appears after 4000 BC, but only significantly after 3000 BC, then what do you think it means?
@Rob
No one is saying that M269 comes from the Mesolithic or Neolithic in the Caucasus. It appeared together with ehg V1636 from the Volga region—whether Lower or Middle Volga doesn’t really matter; the key point is that they belonged to the ehg cluster. Both V1636 and M269 originally derive from the same autosomal population—they were essentially one and the same. M269 did not originate from Ukraine or the baltic (at least, that’s my view); it came from the Volga, without any additional admixture like ukr_n, latvia_mn, or even ighg/whg.
maybe this is our main point of disagreement?
@ Gio
“About the fact that you called Rob a nazi (and of course you'd call so me too) I have the clearest explanations,”
It’s fine, it’s what internet femboys go to when they have no argument. Both my grandparents were Partisans
@Rob
@ Gio
“About the fact that you called Rob a nazi (and of course you'd call so me too) I have the clearest explanations,”
It’s fine, it’s what internet femboys go to when they no argument. Both my grandparents were Partisans".
And I think to know who made Hitler attack the URSS and not the English soldiers defeated along the Channel, and that brought Mussolini to enter the war. A Great mistake, also for what happened later in the Balkans. But don't forget that the same people made the NATO attack the Serbia, and we are seeing to-day the last rants...
@Rob
Personally, I think M269 was a very, very successful pastoralist clan, and also a very enterprising one. Its genes were strong, and it produced many children in a short period of time. As we can see, this area—the triangle of Mariupol, Khvalynsk, and the Caucasus (as Gestr rightly pointed out) - showed features of a proto-state, with all its attributes: cultural exchange, trade, and livestock breeding. You could say that the Eneolithic in the steppe was like the Khazar Khaganate five thousand years before the actual Khazar Khaganate. And this M269 man clearly laid the foundation for something completely new and displaced all the other clans.
We now have a good enough understanding of the genetics of the Pontic steppes and the Caucasus to stop speculating. The Yamnaya culture was a genetically hybrid culture that, compared to other European cultures of the third millennium BCE, exhibited certain distinctive features stemming from its geographical location. The following cultures participated in the ethnogenesis of the Yamnaya culture: the Sredni Stog culture located between the Dnieper and Don rivers, the Khvalynsk culture on the Volga River, the Cucuteni-Trypillia culture in the region bordering the Ukrainian Neolithic, and the southern Caucasus cultures that reached the Pontic steppes—namely the Maykop culture and the Darkveti-Meshoko culture—since the Yamnaya culture was a mixture of WHG (Sredni Stog), EHG (Khvalynsk), EEF (Trypillia), and CHG (South Caucasus) lineages in varying proportions. The male uniparental markers documented to date have a dual origin: on the one hand, we have the Eastern & Siberian HGs represented by R1b-V1636, Q1a2-M25, Q1b2-L56>Y2659, Q1b2a-Y2659>Y6774, Q1b2a -FT380500 & Q1b2b-L940; on the other, the Western-Balkan HGs (R1b-L754>L761), R1b-M269>PF7562, R1b-M269>L23>Z2103, I2a-CTS10057, I2a1b-L699, I2a-M423>V6473 & Scandinavian-Baltic hunter-gatherers-R1b-Y13200. As for the numbers, Z2103 is clearly the “king” of the steppes thanks to a massive founder effect, with the pleasant surprise of I2a-L699 in the western steppes and the virtually negligible presence of the other male lineages. The mtDNA markers descend from the WHG (western Europe)-U4b1a, U4b1b1, U5a2c3, U5a2d, U5b1b1+16192, U5b2c1… Balkan HGs-U5a1+16192, U5a1c, U5a2+16362, U5b2c…, Scandinavia HGs-U5a2, U5a2b, U5a2c….Ukraine & Russia-EHGs-U2e1, U4a1, U4a2, U5a1b, U5a1d, U5b2……Southern Caucasus markers (Levant, Iran etc..)-N1a1a1a, N1b1a2, R0a, I1a, I1b, I2, W, W1c, W3a1, W6, J2a2, T2a1, T2a1b1a1, T2c1, T2c1a1, T2d1, T2e, U3a2, U3c, H13a1a2, H13a2b, H15a1, H15b……Old Europe-CT, Gumelnita markers-I4, J1b1a1, J1c5, J2b1a1, K1a19, H+16311, H5, H26.
While autosomal markers are more or less balanced (50-50) between the northern and southern Caucasus, Yamnaya does not have South Caucasian male markers (Darkveti-Meshoko & Maykop), these are exclusively European (WHGs & EHGs) and it is also difficult to explain the complete absence of R1a-M417 given the region of origin of this marker. As for mtDNA, the most common haplogroups are the Anatolian ones, whether they arrived with Majkop or from the west (CT-Gumelnita etc); however, there are also Iranian and even Levantine haplogroups. Among those derived from the HGs, the western haplogroups are more numerous than the eastern ones.
If (and this is a big “if”) we follow universally accepted linguistic criteria, the Yamnaya culture—which was clearly patrilineal—spoke a language derived from the European HGs regardless of its linguistic family. We must rule out the possibility that the widespread exogamy and the technological superiority of Majkop altered the language of the steppes. Since autosomal markers always co-occur with uniparental markers, given the data we currently have, who can still argue that the Yamnaya people Indo-Europeanized all of Europe, Anatolia, Iran, and south Asia? Have you lost your minds? The only exception might be Armenia & the Balkans, thanks to Z2103 and I2a-L699 (although Z2103 is currently a minority among the Mycenaeans, and L699 has not been documented in Greece or Armenia). You've been debating absurd and unprovable things for years, because, in the absence of written records, no one will ever be able to prove anything conclusively.
At the very least, the CWC shows markers that may be linked to certain Indo-European branches; Yamnaya has always been overrated because of Gimbutas and her followers.
@Gaska
Of course I proposed another explanation, just for R-L23-Z2103 through the Euphratic to Mesopotamia and Latin through my haplogroup R-L23-Z2103-Z2110 and the Siculi through Emanuele Infantino with R-L23-Z2110-CTS669.
Rob of course asks for more data about Euphratic. I gave them 15 years ago in the "Dienekes' Anthropology blog", but I'll give more next. R1a expanded the "satem" languages, and "satem" was an innovation among the "centum", which were the "aree laterali" (Italo-Celtic / Tokharian).
@ Gaska
We haven't only my analyses about the uniparental markers. We also have the autosome of Davidski, the best I know so far, that seems to confirm all that. I cannot post here the autosome of Marco Grassi, whose R-L23-L51 seems to start from South-East Balkans to the Adriatic to Tuskany, and that should explain why his Y has no link after that with some people of the British Islands of about 4000 years ago. If we'll find someone close to him in the path of his autosome, it could be a proof. There is a link also with Iberia and even South Libya, probably Tuareg, always in his autosome, and the link could be many of course... The autosome isn't only an Y, but it is formed with so many Y that could demonstrate a link in the time.
I was running various G25 models for Burusho and the one with best distance is this.
Target: Burusho
Distance: 0.7575% / 0.00757524
80.0 Pakistan_Katelai_IA
10.4 Russia_Afanasievo
9.6 China_YR_LN
In recent ladakh paper they had samples 600CE that were China_YR_LN/Tibetian like + Russia_Afanasievo. Here I am getting half and half. Wonder if those samples will pass. If someone has those samples, they can try qpadm to model Burusho as Swat_IA + those Tibetian-Afanasievo samples and see if they pass for Burusho.
Target: Balti
Distance: 1.0482% / 0.01048152
70.4 Pakistan_Katelai_IA
22.4 China_YR_LN
7.2 Russia_Afanasievo
Wonder if those Tibetian + Afanasievo samples are ancestors of Modern Balti speakers.
The PIE question is now redundant and will become increasingly irrelevant over the next decade. Harvard successfully completed their objective of “muddying the waters” by acknowledging the Steppe homeland through gritted teeth whilst simultaneously making any definite answer to the topic impossible with their Southern Arc + adjacent theories and selective omission and presentation of data.
And this state of affairs will not change so long as we exist in Pax Americana, because it is inherently anti-European and hostile to world history and its cancerous acolytes will simply deem the actual homeland to be the work of “neo-Nazis” and so on.
So unless someone has information about an upcoming study that will answer all linguistic, archaeological and genetic questions relevant to PIE (extremely improbable by the Ukraine-Russia war) then it’s just going to be another “each to their own” situation.
Could this be an ancestral Burushaski speaking population?
Target: Kyrgyzstan_Aygirdjal_BA
Distance: 1.0489% / 0.01048852
45.6 Kazakhstan_Kumsay_EBA
42.8 Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur
11.6 Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2
Controversial yes but possible.
Target: Burusho
Distance: 1.4050% / 0.01404976
54.0 Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2
19.8 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
14.2 Kyrgyzstan_Aygirdjal_BA
12.0 China_YR_LN
Distance isn't that great on this one but perhaps mixing with Swat_IA/Dardic speakers and Balti people around them caused this Aygirdjal_BA ancestry to washout over time.
On PCA
On Steppe_En to Turkey_Marmara_Barcin_N cline is Ukraine_CernavodaI_Kartal_C.
On Steppe_En to Tarim/WSHG cline we have Kumsay.
On Steppe_En to Turkey_Central_CamlibelTarlasi_Chalcolithic cline we have Areni_C.
It so happens that Kumsay and Areni are not considered Indo european because we don't have European males at these sites. One has central asian Q and other has Caucasian L. Cernavoda has European I hence indo european and that is the crux of Indo european theory, my friends.
@Gaska
You generally got everything right, of course, but like everyone else, you aren't immune to bias. You are shifting the homeland too far to the West and exaggerating the influence of western hunter gatherers. You mentioned the influence of the south caucasus—specifically Shomutepe—in passing, but you completely left out the north caucasus hunter gatherers. Along with the Shomutepe culture, they played a key role in shaping this steppe world. Literally, sheep breeding, horse breeding, and cattle breeding came from the foothills of the North caucasus and the lowlands of the south caucasus. And once the caucasians provided that impulse, everything in the steppes just took off on its own
the steppe can be represented as:
ehg from the samara and volga regions along with related populations (ekaterinovka, the samara hunter, etc.);
the north caucasus hunter-gatherer culture, primarily from the mesolithic/neolithic of the dagestan region (chokh, gobustan);
the hissar culture with populations like tutkaul;
various ukrainian neolithic societies;
and shulaveri-shomu tepe, which influenced the steppe region more culturally than genetically.
@ Arsen-SHomu
'No one is saying that M269 comes from the Mesolithic or Neolithic in the Caucasus. It appeared together with ehg V1636 from the Volga region—whether Lower or Middle Volga doesn’t really matter; the key point is that they belonged to the ehg cluster. Both V1636 and M269 originally derive from the same autosomal population—they were essentially one and the same. M269 did not originate from Ukraine or the baltic (at least, that’s my view); it came from the Volga, without any additional admixture like ukr_n, latvia_mn, or even ighg/whg.
maybe this is our main point of disagreement?''
You seem to consistently misunderstand or misrepresent things, Can you link or quote me where I wrote that M269 originated 'in the Baltic or Ukraine" ? How can M269 originate in the Baltic, when the first time it turns up there is due to some German dude in 1254 AD.
''Both V1636 and M269 originally derive from the same autosomal population—they were essentially one and the same''
Do you think I am not aware of that R1b-V1636 and R1b-P297-M269 are both 'EHG lineages", whilst you have just made this great discovery ?
However, they have different histroies and migration routes. V1636 was a lineage dominant across the Volga-Caspian-Cauacasus corridor, whilst P297 spans a northern route between Latvia & Volga-Kama. That's why it is missing in early samples from the north Caucasus region. The pre-M269 of P297 might then have moved down the Don, probably assoc. with the appearance of some Comb-type ceramics which might be linked to Repin. Check out the distribution of Repin
''but like everyone else, you aren't immune to bias'
Nor are you, indeed you're full of it.. Not really sure why you're trying to gaslight so hard, given that you're not even IE. I also think you should entertain the possibilty that there are people here that know a shit ton more than whoever your 'sources' are.
Also, the genomic profiles of the core gorup of R1b-V1636 in the fore-Caucasus and the early R1b-M269 duo are in fact distinctive. It make no sense talking about "identical EHG" when that is totally not the case for the time period being discussed.
Repin Map , Repin is thought to be a precursor of Yamnaya, in some way
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HDyDhTMWIAAzCeR.jpg
What is Repin exactly? Is it a Copper Age culture and population, or just some shared artifacts in burials?
And how does Repin relate to Sredny Stog?
@Gio
According to Kurganist orthodoxy, Italy became Indo-Europeanized with the arrival of P312>U152 with the BBs (c. 2220 BC), but this conflicts with the reality of the Etruscan attested in the Iron Age. There is another possibility, which is Indo-Europeanization via the Balkans through Z2103, Z2118, and J2b-L283. The Adriatic was never a border.
@Mr Shomu
Unlike so many experts who waste their time on absurd and unprovable theories, I admit that I have NO IDEA where or when Proto-Indo-European originated; my only certainty is that if this language did not appear by magic, then descended from the language of the European Hgs. In my view, the genetic difference between WHGs and EHGs is minimal, both genetically and culturally.
As you can imagine, I’m most interested in tracing the origins of my R1b-M269>P312>DF27 lineage, and although we’re getting closer to figuring it out, there are still many details that need to be clarified. In this regard, your theory that M269 is Caucasian strikes me as a joke and remember that only a fraction of its descendants have been documented in the Yamnaya culture.
@Rob
What do you say about this?
https://x.com/iosif_lazaridis/status/2034719788786721248?s=20
The so-called 'Repin culture' refers to a pottery style (shell-tempered ceramics with cord- and comb-impressed decoration) which has been on a series of pre-Yamnaya settlements, pred. east of the Don, all of which had been abandoned by the Yamnaya period. Dates c. 3500-3100 BC.
They overlap and partially succeed with pottery of late Sredni Stog type (border lower Don). Hence the theory was born that Repin 'succeeded' or 'replaced' Sredni Stog athte lower Don and as far west as Mihkailovka II.
However, IMO, Repin is a pottery fashion that was not entirely homogeneous in design that existed just before Yamnaya propper developed. All these cultures need to be re-classified based on more objective scientific data (C14 dating, aDNA)
The PCA of Paolo Prato, my former best friend, I tested with FamilyFinder to determine if there was any truth to a possible Jewish origin, given that the surname is common among Italian Jews, and to have a Jewish Y to study. Once I briefly traced his ancestry, about which he knew almost nothing, and identified the family's origins in Vecchiano, near Pisa, and no connection to the Jewish community of Prato in Livorno in the 1841 census, and after finding an ancestor of his in the 1700s named Ideltrude Prato, I had opted for a possible Lombard origin for the family, and the initial test results seemed to support it. I don't yet know the Y, but the PCA, uploaded to MyTrueAncestry, yielded astonishing results. He is very close to me and my mother due to our shared origins in the same area, but while even in my son, whose mother is Sicilian, the Roman component is unique and dominant, Paolo Prato demonstrates a very limited Roman presence and, in addition to a Lombard component, I would also say a Sephardic Jewish one. This is undoubtedly due to the different loci tested between 23andMe and FamilyFinder, which selected these loci specifically to ascertain the "Jewish" component, but this demonstrates once again that not only Ashkenazi Jews, but also Sephardic Jews, and the Italkim themselves, were genetically European. It was ridiculous when some seductive geneticists claimed that Christopher Columbus was a Sephardic precisely because his (supposed) autosomal ancestor was oriented toward the western Mediterranean. If this ideology hadn't led, and is leading, to unimagined, and unimaginable, tragedies, it would be laughable, not weepy.
The Repin culture goes back directly to the monuments of the late Sredniy Stog, located between the Seversky Donets and the Don. The dispute is only about a specific location. Spitsyna calls this place on the Seversky Donets, Sinyuk - on the middle Don. Stavitsky calls this the entire territory between the Seversky Donets and the Don. At the same time, Sinyuk and Stavitsky distinguish the "proto-Repin" stage, or the 1st stage, when Repin ceramics are practically indistinguishable from ceramics of the late Sredniy Stog. At the second stage, or within the framework of the Repin culture proper, ceramics change. Burial mounds are also found in the second stage. Sinyuk connects this transformation with the arrival of the population from Berezhnovka to the middle Don.
Thus, I would look for the homeland of R1b-m269 in the area between the Berezhnovka and tributaries of the Lower Don, such as the Kaisug, Manych and other rivers, and the homeland of r1a-m417 - between the Seversky Don and the Middle Don, in the area of samples of the Golubaya Krinitsa, as one of the options. Apparently, somewhere in the Berezhnovka area, R1b-L23 broke up and R1b-L51 went to the Middle Don area, where they met R1a-M417. And from this area they headed west. While R1b-Z2103 remained in the Berezhnovka area and transformed into Yamnaya culture.
@ Gaska
Of course, but many linguists doubted that the Italic peoples came to Italy together. Between Latin and Osco-Umbrian there are mani deeply differences and the similarities could be due to contacts in Italy (like the Balkan languages) and not to a common origin if not far, just when they separated somewhere in the Balkans: someone went to central Europe and others directly to Italy, firstly to the eastern coast and later to the Tyrrhenian one. I think that Albanian language could say much about that, even though its IE percentage is a few, but also the loanwords may say much about their ages.
https://ibb.co/pvcNZNrs
F3 analysis of Lothal (IVC samples but dates are yet to be finalized) with respect to modern population.
@ Vlad
Hi mate. Could be the case
@ Shomu
“What do you say about this?
https://x.com/iosif_lazaridis/status/2034719788786721248?s=20”
Yes Tom & Laz love their debates. Why are you asking me, ask Tom.
@Gio
In Spain, there is a lively debate about Lusitanian, an archaic Indo-European language. Unlike the Celtic languages (such as Celtiberian), it retains the /p/ sound at the beginning of words, just like Latin. In fact, although there are few inscriptions, there are many place, personal, and divine names that can be compared to the Italic languages. Lusitano (porcom), Latin-porcus (Spanish-puerco), Lusitano (taurom), Latin-taurum (Spanish toro), Lusitano (oila, derived from owilā), Latin-ovis (Spanish oveja). There are also words similar to the Osco-Umbrian language.
Are Italian linguists able to determine the age of the various Italic languages? This would help determine the age of the Lusitanian language in Iberia, as it could be linked to the Roman conquest of Lusitania and Vetonia in 139 BC.
Regarding the various origins of the Italic languages, it is clear that the Apulian language is related to Illyrian (there is also evidence of Daunians: J2b-L283 and R1b-Z2103)
@Vladimir
So R1b-M269 originated in Berezhnovka and around the Don River and according to your theory, L51 had to migrate north, there he encountered R1a-M417, and then both migrated westward together, but WHEN did that first migration take place? It certainly had to be before the formation of Yamnaya, because those markers aren't found in the steppes. Don_Yamnaya is overwhelmingly I2a-L699 with just a few Z2103s? Yamnaya_Ukraine & Yamnaya_Samara_Kalmikia are absolutely Z2103
-If R1b-L51 or his father R1b-L23 left the Don River before the Yamnaya culture emerged (say, between 4500 and 3300 BCE), where was it? Certainly NOT on the Volga or Sredni Stog, because there are no traces of that marker in those regions or cultures. Further north?
And yet we have L151 in Bohemia around 3000 BC. Since it’s clear that it didn’t come from Yamnaya, where was hiding R1b-L23>L51>L151 between 4500-3000 BC? Do you have any thoughts on this?
You also have to consider that this marker appeared in Bohemia 250 years before R1a-M417 and R1b-Z2103, so the migration wasn’t a joint one.
Came across this March 5 bioRxiv preprint "Gothic Identity as Cultural Practice: Paleogenomic Evidence for Multi - Ethnic Assemblages Under Gothic Material Culture in Late Antique Bulgaria" (4th - 6th centuries CE) | https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.03.03.709317v1.full
"4. Conclusions
This paleogenomic study of 38 individuals from Aquae Calidae and the Aul of Khan Omurtag provides molecular evidence that populations archaeologically identified as “Gothic” in Late Antique Bulgaria were profoundly multi - ethnic assemblages rather than biologically coherent populations. Three principal findings emerge":
"First, extreme genetic heterogeneity exists within and between sites sharing identical Gothic material culture and Arian Christian burial practices. Individual ancestry profiles range from nearly 100% Chernyakhov to over 80% Anatolian - related, with no single qpAdm model fitting the full assemblage. This heterogeneity is consistent with historical accounts of Gothic ethnogenesis as a process of progressive accretion - from the Wielbark culture through the Chernyakhov synthesis to the Balkan settlement phases ((Heather and Matthews, 1991) - during which culturally identified “Goths” incorporated individuals of diverse biological."
"Second, the two sites form genetically distinct clusters corresponding to different phases and pathways of incorporation. AKO preserves a predominantly northern European/Pontic genetic profile (Wielbark/Chernyakhov - derived, 60 - 78%), with progressive dilution of this ancestry across ∼150 years of occupation. Aquae Calidae shows a predominantly Anatolian - shifted profile (50 - 85%), with intra - site substructure distinguishing Central Anatolian and Byzantine Marmara source preferences. The Anatolian ancestry is robustly documented through extensive source rotation testing, and qpAdm models without Anatolian sources fail (p < 10⁻¹⁴⁹)."
"Third, DATES admixture dating places the north - south mixture at ∼12 generations before burial (point estimate ∼50 CE; 95% CI: 85 BCE - 183 CE), with the signal specifically associated with Polish Wielbark - like ancestry. Control tests on non - Gothic Roman - period Balkan populations - including the published Serbia_Viminacium_Roman_Rit and additional unpublished Bulgarian Roman - period groups - fail to replicate this signal, indicating that the ∼12 - generation Wielbark - Balkan/Anatolian admixture clock is specific to Gothic - associated targets rather than a generic feature of Late Antique Balkan populations. However, the temporal constraint - placing admixture before the earliest documented Gothic - Roman contacts (∼170 CE) - indicates that the event itself likely began outside the Balkans proper, most plausibly in the trans - Danubian frontier zone created by the Roman colonization of Dacia (post - 106 CE), where documented Anatolian and Balkan provincial settlers mixed with indigenous “barbarian” and early Germanic populations. Balkan and Anatolian southern sources yield indistinguishable timing, consistent with admixture involving a substrate already blended prior to its encounter with Wielbark - related populations. These findings are consistent with Gothic identity in the Late Antique Balkans functioning as a permeable cultural - political category sustained by Arian Christianity, Gothic language, material culture, and foederati political status - incorporating diverse ancestries around an initially northern European core that progressively diluted through local admixture."
(Continued) "The scenario most consistent with the DATES temporal constraint involves trans - Danubian frontier mixing in the territory of Roman Dacia. In 106 CE, Trajan’s conquest of the Dacian Kingdom created a Roman province north of the Danube, extending deep into the Carpathian basin. The new province received a documented influx of settlers from Anatolia and the central Balkans - a colonization process attested epigraphically and archaeologically (Oltean, 2007) - creating precisely the kind of Balkan - Anatolian blended substrate that DATES detects as the southern component in Gothic - associated targets. This mixed provincial population coexisted in a long frontier zone with indigenous “barbarian” groups: Dacians (a Thracian - related people), Sarmatians, Carpi (whose ethnic classification remains debated), and Bastarnae, some of whom may have included early Germanic - speaking elements. The Wielbark expansion into the northern Pontic region during the 2nd century CE, culminating in the formation of the Chernyakhov culture, brought populations carrying specifically Wielbark - related ancestry into proximity with these trans - Danubian frontier communities. The DATES point estimate of ∼50 CE (95% CI: 85 BCE - 183 CE) is compatible with admixture occurring near this window - after the establishment of Roman Dacia and its associated population transfers, but before the major Gothic - Roman conflicts of the mid - 3rd century. When Romans abandoned Dacia under Aurelian (∼271 - 275 CE), much of the provincial population was relocated south of the Danube into what became the province of Dacia Mediterranea (roughly corresponding to modern northern Bulgaria)."
My thoughts - this appears to be a somewhat unique admixed group -- the one that was relocated south of the Danube into the province of Dacia. -- Was wondering if the act of being displaced and relocated to the same general area had a visible impact on Slavic language evolution in those earlier centuries...
Would appreciate any insights on this paper, its data, and conclusions.
I think the cultural split of R-L51, R-Z2103 and R-PF752 groups was relatively late in time. I don't think the linguistic picture fits anything else but that. So if Repin is relevant, I suspect that there was still unity during that stage.
Seems like we have to account for at least three kinds of post-Repin groups to explain PIE. Afanasievo, proto-CWC, and Budjak Yamnaya (what we have from Moldova Yamnaya seems to be sufficient to account for Greek, Armenian, Albanian). There's not much evidence anything else is necessary.
So R-M269 probably must already have been relevant by the late Sredni Stog period, which is what KST001 suggests. NV3003 suggests that at some point it may have been involved in the earlier Volga-North Caucasus mating networks, too.
R-M417 seems most likely to have become involved later amidst contacts with upriver Don populations.
@ Gaska
I have always thought and written that, although scholars always spoke of a Franco-Cantabrian refuge, and never of an Italian refuge (but now they do), the settlement of Iberia was due to migrations from Italy or the Alpine region, also because the migrations from the East passed through Italy first, just as they passed through the Balkans before Italy. The migration of Zilhao (7,500 years ago) brought R-V88, perhaps born first in the east, if he too is descended from the Villabruna refuge. Then came other migrations, of Ligurians and others. We also know today that the Etruscan migration from the eastern Alps left a mark, more than in Tuscany (I have little Etruscan and a lot Roman), in western Italy, southern France, and Iberia. I also associate Basque (like Ancient Sardinian) with I-M26, which in Sardinia reaches 40%, so I'm not surprised that Lusitanian could be linked to the Italic languages, and perhaps not recently, but very ancient. Naturally, I don't claim Iberia as Roman, as the Arabs claim Sicily (there's almost nothing Arabic about it, except for various place names, but a lot of Norman or Gallo-Italic), or the supposed Illyrians claim Italy. We know well where these absurd and untimely claims lead. Even the peoples of Puglia, with languages close to Illyrian, arrived millennia ago, and perhaps not even across the Adriatic, but along the Adriatic coast from the eastern Alps. I'm still full of "Illyrian" and even Minoan DNA. So what? We should be proud of our European origins, which many truly envy and seek to take away from us. Too bad for them. I'm glad Iberia spread the Roman language (seeing Lerca-Jaso on Latin America, there are as many Italians as Iberians), and I was pleased to hear a champion like Sinner (bilingual, rightly so, thanks to wise postwar Italian politics) speak Castilian, and, knowing Italian, he probably learned it with great ease. I don't follow any sports anymore, but a champion, be it Sinner, Alcaraz, or anyone else, deserves respect and sympathy.
Dr. RAI has confirmed in recent talk show that there is R1b at Burzahom but I can't confirm if it was present in 1900bce sample or 500CE one. Any idea which of these two samples was male?
A fun one:
There's a decently strong IBD hit connecting a Mycenaean at Pylos and IA Gordion.
Very hard to find anything overly helpful in Anatolia aside from that, but we'll have more data soon.
@Gaska
The area of the territory in question roughly corresponds to the territory of Spain, while for the period of 1,500 years you mentioned, there are 4 samples from this territory (2 Berezhnovka, 2 Remontnoe). There are 49 samples from Spain during this period in the G25 database alone. So, studying at least 50 samples from the territory I named, I think, will give an answer to your question.
@Vladimir
Yeah, yeah, I get it, the old excuse about the lack of analyzed samples.
So we have M269, L51, and even L151 in Berezhnovka between 4500 and 3000 BCE, and then L151 migrates north, meets M417, and they head to Bohemia.
Congratulations, you’ve solved one of the greatest genetic mysteries in a simple way—let us know when you’re able to prove what you’re saying. In the meantime, just another fairy tale.
@Gaska
The L51 sample from Bohemia looks like a migrant from the Pontic-Caspian steppe based on genome-wide DNA.
It's basically Yamnaya with some extra Ukraine hunter-gatherer ancestry (not Baltic ancestry).
So that obviously narrows things down in regard to where the L51 might have come from.
@Gaska
You write your fairy tales here, in the absence of evidence, and it doesn't bother you.
@Davidski
I think a little differently. At the time when the R1b-L51, and most likely it was already the R1b-L52, were moving west, the Ukrainian HG was no longer there. The population of the late Sredniy Stog moved westward, which did not receive an additional component from the Remontnoe type population. Only the group that later became Yamnaya received this additional component.
@ Vladimir
I don't understand why someone speaks of Bolsheviks. My Y 5300 ago was at Yamnaya, and I have no difficulty feeling myself a "Russian", but then there weren't any Russian at Yamnaya. Russians and the languages did come between Ukraine and Poland in very recent times. Who were the inhabitants of Yamnaya? They were the fathers of all Indo-Europeans... and of course I believe in the R1b1 and I-M223 in Palaeolithic Italy, but there weren't Italians then, only some of the ancestors of the Europeans.
@ Ethan
“ I think the cultural split of R-L51, R-Z2103 and R-PF752 group”
Has PF7562 shown up yet in Yamnaya, catacomb, etc ?
@David
Did you mean to type R-L151 for the Bohemian samples? Actually, one of them is R-U106. The others are R-L151xP312,U106
@Vladimir
R-L52 is phylogenetically equivalent to R-P310 and SHT001 3320-2918 calBCE is derived for R-P310. When do you think R-L52 moved west.
@ MAD
“ Was wondering if the act of being displaced and relocated to the same general area had a visible impact on Slavic language evolution in those earlier centuries...”
Which specific group are you referring to?
another sample that is interesting to me is i3035 from the late neolithic of england. it is labeled as an english outlier and has a strongly pronounced steppe profile.
Target: England_N_o.AG:I3035.AG__BC_3750__Cov_59.33%
Distance: 2.8023% / 0.02802270 | R5P
25.6 Russia_Volgograd_Berezhnovka_N
24.8 Austria_N_LBK_sister.I25332.AG
21.0 England_N.AG
19.6 Ukraine_Dnieper_N_Mariupol.SG
9.0 Russia_Minino_Meso
if it was dated correctly, it may have been the first “conquistador” western europe saw, long before the mass intrusion of such people 700 years later.
it seems to fit best as a western source for early yamnaya samples, at least in g25 modeling.
Although judging by his profile, he was already mixed with local "Englishmen." The Eneolithic steppe state was expanding.😊
@Mr Shomu
That's a controversial sample that must be misdated because it's U106 (20 markers downstream) and there's no way that lineage could be that old. If it were true, that would be funny.
I guess none of you agree with Papac, but I think what he says makes sense: R1b-L151 in Bohemia doesn't originate from the Yamnaya culture.
"Modelling Bohemia_CW_Early as a two-way and three-way mixture using proximal sources-Interpretation: known Yamnaya groups are an unsatisfactory source for "steppe" ancestry in Bohemia-CW-Early. Modelling Bohemia_CW_Early using proximal sources. Interpretation: the addition of Latvia_MN, Ukraine_Neolithic, or PittedWare as a source improves almost all model fits (column O, column X, and column AG) and increases the number of working models (p>=0.05, row 106). Bohemia_CW_Early carries some ancestry related to Latvia_MN/Ukraine_Neolithic/PittedWare that is not present in known Yamnaya and European Neolithic/Middle Neolithic farmers
@Mr Shomu
Try this one,
I3019 (3200 BCE)-Cheddar, Totty Pot, England-R1b-M269
Or this one, its well dated "All of the burials identified above are expected to date from the Early Bronze Age, so the Late Neolithic radiocarbon date of 4370±35 BP (3090–2906 cal BCE; Poz-83500) on sample I2611 is much earlier than expected.
I2611 (2998 BCE)-Tyne and Wear, England-R1b-L21>DF13>Z253>A11001
@ Shomu tepe
"another sample that is interesting to me is i3035 from the late neolithic of england. it is labeled as an english outlier and has a strongly pronounced steppe profile.
Target: England_N_o.AG:I3035.AG__BC_3750__Cov_59.33%
Distance: 2.8023% / 0.02802270 | R5P
25.6 Russia_Volgograd_Berezhnovka_N
24.8 Austria_N_LBK_sister.I25332.AG
21.0 England_N.AG
19.6 Ukraine_Dnieper_N_Mariupol.SG
9.0 Russia_Minino_Meso
if it was dated correctly, it may have been the first “conquistador” western europe saw, long before the mass intrusion of such people 700 years later.
it seems to fit best as a western source for early yamnaya samples, at least in g25 modeling".
Great catch, Shomu tepe. It is just what I had been demonstrating in these last 20 Years, perhaps not lived in vain.
@Rob
why are you studying some V1636 from arslantepe, building theories that he was a captured slave (even though, as gestr correctly noted, he has no steppe profile at all),
but at the same time you are not interested in samples like I3035 from england, which in my opinion had about 50% european farmer ancestry and 50% ancestry from steppe populations of ukraine (sredny stog?),
how did he end up in england? isn’t that interesting? maybe he was part of an elite, or наоборот a descendant of slaves from ukraine — is there any information about him (or her)?
The elevated “HG” component in CWC over Yamnaya is from GAC rather than a “mystery HG” from Latvia or Ukraine. But even Yamnaya has as much as 10% GAC.
@Gaska
How is it that you always miss the fact that Papac mentions Ukraine_Neolithic in that quote?
Obviously, the idea that Corded Ware entered Bohemia from the North Pontic steppe in Ukraine makes the most sense.
@Gaska
ok thanks, i didn't know that
Unfortunately, I can't find it in the list.
The possibility of applying for American citizenship has opened up in Italy. I have no intention of doing so, even though I have perhaps 100 million relatives there, given that I've been writing for years: "Raze Israel and England to the ground and deal a mortal blow to the United States." Instead, I will apply for citizenship of the Росси́йская Федера́ция, and I hope they grant it to me.
@ Gaska
"That's a controversial sample that must be misdated because it's U106 (20 markers downstream) and there's no way that lineage could be that old. If it were true, that would be funny".
It is largely demonstrted that the trees (both YFull and FTDNA) are wrong un understimated as to the ages. This sample is certified also by Davidski's company.
@David
The thing is, Ukrainian Neolithic is anything but R1b-M269>L51>L151 and yet we have found some R1a samples (Golubaya & Vasilievskiy Kordon). That’s why I asked Vlad when that migration from Berezhnovka to the north took place.
The key is an extra WHG component (non-GAC part) absent in Yamnaya and Afanasievo. If we consider early CWC to be L151-rich, then the L151 clan should spend time in a network with some HG-rich groups (Baltic_LTU_Narva). If this Narva, PWC, UKR_N like admixture was present in the forest steppe before the migration then shouldn't we see it in Fatyanovo or Baltic CWC? Seems specific to this R1b-L151 group.
@Gioiello
Gaska wrote that it was dated incorrectly, perhaps this is true.
@Rob
There was a wrong call in a Romanian Yamnaya sample. There is an unpublished Yamnaya sample from Thrace that is supposed to have it.
@Rob
@Davidski
You are obviously entitled to your own theory of PIE homeland, which right I sincerely and respectfully recognize.
But, I think, to have a productive discussion, we shouldn’t mix the facts with our own preconceived theories and narratives. Otherwise, our arguments go in endless vicious circles: “Yamnaya R1b-M269 cannot be from Stavropol Krai because Yamnaya is from Ukraine, that means that Yamnaya R1b-M269 is also from Ukraine, that means PIE is from Ukraine, that means Yamnaya is from Ukraine etc etc etc”.
For example, if we apply data-based approach to the R1b-M269 origins, we have to recognize one important, however sad for proponents of Dnepr-Donetsk theory of PIE, fact: there is only one R1b-M269-rich pre-Yamnaya population, and that is Caucasus Piedmont pastoralists (Stavropol Krai).
Sredny Stog and Dnepro-Donetsk are not just R1b-M269-poor. They are R1b-M269-sterile. Not just R1b-M269, but R1b-P297 or even R1b-L389 are totally absent from Sredny Stog and Dnepr-Donetsk, despite extensive sampling. R1a-M459 is also absent there.
So, the only logical, data-based solution would be that at least ruling clans of Yamnaya have origins in Stavropol Krai Eneolithic or similar group. And by that I don’t mean their origins in some deep, Mesolithic or Neolithic past. Otherwise, if R1b-M269 migrated to Pontic steppes in Mesolithic and Neolithic, they probably would have been found there. So R1b-M269 clans migrated to Yamnaya formation place (wherever it was) shortly before the beginning of Yamnaya expansion (4500-3500 BCE). At the same time, I do not say that “Yamnaya” as such is from Stavropol Krai. But the elite segment of Yamnaya ethnic assemblage was probably from there, if we base our views upon facts.
@Rob
@Davidski
@Ethan
I think we should perhaps wait until emotions calm down to have a more productive discussion. Right now, it is full of unnecessary ad hominem claims (for our classically educated friends – I am using Latin accusative correctly :) ) and political accusations. Probably all of us need some time to digest the huge amount of new data, appearing in the recent years. And only then we will be able to approach the PIE question impartially, again, as classics would say, sine ira et studio.
Now I may only humbly sum up what I take from the discussion. I am sure that other people, namely @Rob and @Davidski, will probably disagree.
1. First of all, what, from my point of view, is clear:
A. PIE Origins
• Proto-Indo-European languages were spoken in a triangle, roughly formed by Volga, Don (and their basins) and Caucasus. Volga face of that triangle is the most important.
• Genetic analysis shows, that all important steppe cultures descend from this area. Suvorovo, Cernavoda, Usatove, Sredny Stog, Yamnaya-Corded Ware derive their genetic ancestry (or most part of it) from this triangle. For me it was very telling, that even @Rob models Yamnaya as 60% of Don foragers from Golubaya Krinitsa and 40% of CHG rich pastoralists from lower Don (Krivyansky). I am not going to discuss the details of his model, I am sure, it is not the only one possible, and the exclusion of Volga groups is probably unwarranted. But even such an, let say mildly, impartial towards Volga-Caucasus PIE homeland blogger has to recognize that Yamnaya derived basically all its genetic ancestry from various Don groups. And we should keep in mind, that @Rob is modelling Yamnaya, a Proto-Indo-European group with some real, undeniable western, Dnepr-Donetsk (Pontic, “Ukrainian”) admixture. For me it means that the riddle of genetic origins of Eneolithic steppe cultures, and, simultaneously, of PIE language, is basically resolved. And even the most ardent proponents of other theories tacitly recognize Volg-Don-Caucasus homeland, and, as I predicted, are quietly entering into the bargaining stage, trying to draw PIE homeland as far to the west as possible (Don vs Volga etc.).
• All features of later steppe cultures are derived from Volga-Caucasus area: “Yamnaya” burial position on the back with raised knees, kurgan graves, zoomorphic chief’s scepters of polished stone. “Oriental” breeds of sheep, used by all steppe pastoralists, is not a comical argument at all. Sheep are obviously hugely important for pastoralists; it is a part of their cultural and economic heritage. And the fact that all steppe cultures, including Yamnaya, were using the same, “oriental” breed of sheep, and not a European-derived type, as would be logical in Dnepr-Donetsk case, for example, is an important indicator of their common, Volga-Caucasus origins.
• Linguistic reconstructions (Dumezil etc) describe PIE as a complex stratified society. There are ethnographic analogies to it in cultures on similar stage of technological development, e.g. Hawaiians. Archeology supports this picture. PIE had groups of professional warriors (Khvalynsk-II), priests, there were chiefs and commoners. PIE political alliances covered the distance of thousands of miles. They mastered long-distance travel, probably with the help of “tamed” horses: some of the Suvorovo individuals, buried in Hungary and Moldavia, were born on Volga. The high degree of interconnectedness and mobility of Proto-Indo-Europeans makes it difficult to pinpoint the exact subset of Proto-Indo-European society from which Yamnaya, for example, descends.
B. Yamnaya origins
Yamnaya-Corded Ware Network was an ethnic assemblage of several earlier PIE-speaking groups. Some of them were heavily Dnepr-Donetsk admixed (like Sredny Stog), and, probably, I-L699 rich. Others were mostly “pure” Volga-Caucasus pastoralists, R1b-M269-rich (and perhaps had some R1a-M417). The elite clans of Yamnaya society were from the second group.
2. What is unclear and requires further research?
A. Anatolian origins.
• The most obvious question is clearly, how Anatolians ended up in Minor Asia, through the Caucasus or Balkans?
• Are west Turkey I-L699 samples really so important for Anatolian origins? Or it is an information bubble, created by non-professional western genetic bloggers, among whom “Ukrainian” theory of PIE origins is still very popular, perhaps, for political reasons. And they see “the western route” as a way to save it. A propos: apart from absurd politization of ancient prehistory, this attempt is absolutely futile, as “western route” Cernavoda, Suvorovo and Usatove are derived from the same Volga-Caucasus area.
• If I-L699 western Turkey samples are important and ancient enough, do they represent the same migration as R-V1636 samples from further east? Or did Indo-Europeans reach Anatolia in several chronologically and geographically distinct waves (similar to proto-Greeks’ movement to Greece)?
• Did all those waves contribute to historical Anatolian group, or some of them were assimilated without linguistic traces?
B. Yamnaya origins
• The main question, is, of course, where Yamnaya assemblage was formed? I think here I can mention a very interesting info from @Ethan, about Cernavoda-I and Proto-Yamnaya. So, perhaps, Lazaridis et al are correct, and it is not simply politically biased statement, that Yamnaya was forming somewhere in right-bank of Dnieper area, close to Cernavoda?
I don't think Corded Ware getting its additional HG ancestry from GAC is that convincing because the extremely Steppe-rich samples like PNL001 already have it, and CW essentially forms a cline between those samples and GAC.
I guess instead of Ukraine_N it could be the Don riverine source of R1a that contributed to that profile.
So this is what the IBD data says about the Eneolithic Steppe: More or less a massive migration event from Berezhnovka or nearabout, in every single direction:
- Piedmont Steppe unsurprisingly is just a straight migration from the Lower Volga. Areni is the same thing.
- Khvalynsk/Khlopkov Bugor unsurprisingly shows significant connection with the Lower Volga.
- Interestingly, the samples with Sredni Stog lithics in eneolithic Voronezh also show a contribution from Berezhnovka or nearabout.
- Sredni Stog shows significant contribution from Berezhnovka/Piedmont. Surprisingly the connections with Ukraine_N are weak, which is notable because we have a fuck ton of them.
- Cernavoda I shows a good amount of Berezhnovka/Piedmont, but also a decently sized hit with Sredni Stog. I still wonder if Cernavoda I is derived from pre-Sredni Stog? (something further east and more Steppe-rich than even the Igren bunch)
- KTL001 shows significant hits with Yamnaya/Afanasievo (to the extent where it can only be separated by a few hundred years from them, as if derived from proto-Yamna or something similar).
- Bodrogkeresztúr shows some decent hits with Berezhnovka/Piedmont.
- Usatovo shows some hits with Berezhnovka/Piedmont, but also stronger hits with Cernavoda I, which seems consistent with it being partly derived from the latter.
- Yamnaya shows significant connections with Berezhnovka/Piedmont. Connection with Sredni Stog is lacking. My thought is that the Ukrainian Sredni Stog samples we have are not too directly relevant, but that we should be looking at Sredni Stog groups further east.
@Gioiello
This isn't the best idea, because everyone is fleeing from here to Israel, England, and the USA.
Everything is bad here.
The dates from the samples with Context: Archaeological for the Method for Determining Date can't be proven to be from the time period associated with the samples.
Additionally, all of the samples with less than 100000 SNP count have low resolution which prevents subclades to be determined. Even at a higher SNP count the subclade can be hard to determine. So specimens such as I3019 have limited reads. For example out of all of the M269 equivalents it only has hit on one of them. It's a waste of time to be looking at those specimens.
@ Rob
The chapter of "Digging Politics: The Ancient Past and Contested Present in East-Central Europe
edited by James Koranyi, Emily Hanscam
with an essay by Emily starting on p. 307, of which fig. 2 and fig. 4 are particularly helpful in pinpointing the general groups, and historical context, of peoples in Dacia that later migrated out (even if some may have stayed behind), captures what I understand is the geographic area referenced in the 2026 paper.
https://books.google.bj/books?hl=en&lr=&id=1LifEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA307&dq=DNA+Oltean,+I.+A.+(2007).+Dacia:+Landscape,+Colonisation+and+Romanisation.+Routledge.&ots=bgZRHyQgUt&sig=ypRNyirdUJzJfh_y8-W1BbAr5FY&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
@ Ethan
Just odd that PF7562 is so far missing in the steppe but present in Balkans
@ Gaska
Yeah the claim that m269 is from bererzhnovka is just a guess.
The location is kinda a new hope/ focus of attention for the “ choir”. Some were even trying to claim that I2a-L699 expanded from Berezhn. as well, of course without any empirical or phylogenetic logic
@ Arsen_Shomu
''why are you studying some V1636 from arslantepe, building theories that he was a captured slave (even though, as gestr correctly noted, he has no steppe profile at all),''
The degree of steppe ancestry the individual had left has nothing to do with the status & contact of his burial. You lack even the most menial comprehension/ deductive skills. It’s all in the paper-
ART038 - 'lying on top of stone slabs closing the Royal tomb. Probably sacrificed. Dating of human bone: 3361-3105 cal BCE (4534 ± 27 BP, MAMS-34112);;
''To a period in between the end of VI B1 and the beginning of VI B2 belongs the so-called ‘royal tomb’ (Frangipane et al., 2001), an imposing cist grave built at the bottom of a large pit, which was very atypical for the local culture. It was an extremely rich tomb containing an adult man with plenty of funerary gifts among which 65 metal objects, and with a complex funerary practice including the possible sacrifice of 4 adolescents (almost all female) on the stone slabs covering the cist (Palumbi, 2011; Frangipane et al., 2001). '
It was initially thought that ART038 was a girl, but of course he is a boy because the individual has Y-DNA (R1b-V1636)
''but at the same time you are not interested in samples like I3035 from england, which in my opinion had about 50% european farmer ancestry and 50% ancestry from steppe populations of ukraine (sredny stog?),
how did he end up in england? isn’t that interesting? maybe he was part of an elite, or наоборот a descendant of slaves from ukraine — is there any information about him (or her)?''
There is no individual with steppe ancestry in England 3500 BC. I3035 is not C14 dated, just misrepresened in Patterson et al as "England_N", so it is most likely a Bronze Age burial. The earliest apperance of steppe ancestry in Britain in just after 2500 BC, with Bell Beaker.
Everybody else in the adna world understands this
@Ethan
So, Yamnaya is Rostov oblast (Don) Sredny Stog + R1b-M269-rich group from Caucasus Piedmont? And the contact zone could be somewhere around Manych Depression (or Don basin itself)? It is what I would expect, though it is far from Dniepr, which, according to Lazaridis, is Yamnaya homeland.
@Rob
Your abusive comments about my supposed ethnicity are really annoying. I understand that trolling is your form of comminication, but could you at least limit it to personal insults, without insulting the whole ethnic groups?
@Ethan
Also an interesting comment about Sredny Stog. If it lacks connections with Ukrainian Neolithic, Does it mean it is also derived from some similiar group within Russia (i.e. Golubaya Krinitsa or Krivyansky)+Berezhnovka?
@Gestr
The Yamnaya-related populations in the Caucasus Piedmont are intrusive to the Caucasus Piedmont.
They arrived there from the north.
@Davidski
Namely, from Lower Volga?
Maybe from the Lower Volga.
But, in any case, Yamnaya is not the result of a migration from the North Caucasus. It formed as a result of increasing mobility within the Pontic-Caspian steppe.
@Rob
"Just odd that PF7562 is so far missing in the steppe but present in Balkans"
There seems to be more diversity in whatever Yamnaya group spread there. R-PF7589, the rare R-P310 clade that shows up in Serbia Yamnaya too.
@Gestr
"So, Yamnaya is Rostov oblast (Don) Sredny Stog + R1b-M269-rich group from Caucasus Piedmont? And the contact zone could be somewhere around Manych Depression (or Don basin itself)? It is what I would expect, though it is far from Dniepr, which, according to Lazaridis, is Yamnaya homeland."
I suspect that Yamnaya is from the eastern most range of the Sredni Stog sphere, was subject to more or less the same mating networks, and it just happened that R-M269 was the lucky lineage when Repin/whatever expanded after 3500BC.
Lazaridis' sensationalism about the Mikhailovka sample is because it was the earliest sample cladal with core Yamnaya. But now KST001 exists. Via the same logic he'd (wrongly) be advocating for a Piedmont Steppe origin.
"Also an interesting comment about Sredny Stog. If it lacks connections with Ukrainian Neolithic, Does it mean it is also derived from some similiar group within Russia (i.e. Golubaya Krinitsa or Krivyansky)+Berezhnovka? "
I suspect Sredni Stog has ancestry from both GK and Ukraine_N, the latter not appearing in IBD analysis due to coverage issues with the most Ukraine_N-rich Sredni Stog samples. If Yamnaya originates wholly from the Don, then perhaps it has GK ancestry and not Ukraine_N, or at least more of it, but who knows.
@Ethan
@Davidski
Ok. I agree and now understand that probably I shouldn't have talked about "double origins" of Yamnaya. In reality Yamnaya was hust an eastern most group within Sredny Stog mating netowrk (with the least Dnepr-Donetsk admixture). R-M269 is just a lucky clan, it is absent in Ukrainian Sredny Stog, but could be present in Yamnaya origin area (Don or Don-Volga confluence).
@Gestr
Don't pay attention to him, he's a sick man with mental problems.
It explains a lot
@ MAD
''The chapter of "Digging Politics: The Ancient Past and Contested Present in East-Central Europe
edited by James Koranyi, Emily Hanscam''
Ill check it out. However, we can form a critical ovverview about Dacians
1. Their origins: c. 150BC, the previous Celtic horizon ends, and there is a new migration from northwqestern Bulgaria with typical votive & sacrificial offerings, sanctuaries, hilltop sites.
2. After the Roman conquest, the Romans seemed ot have been brutal with the Dacians. There is almost no Dacian epigraphy in the province. This wuood mean that the Roman colonists came from variuos other provinces
However some rural sites just beyond the border of Dacia and in the east Carpathian region might have been created by surviving refugees.
3. Romans seem to have settled a large number of Getae in Moesia, from one side of the Danube to the other
4. After the collapse of Roman Dacia, there is no continuity with the successing 'barbarian' settlements, Sarmatians, Vandals, GOths.
The claim of some Daco-Roman continuity extending back as far as the Late Bronze Age 'Thracian Hallstatt' is therefore problematic. However, the development of proto-Romanians is still tbd
@ Shomu tepe
"@Gioiello
This isn't the best idea, because everyone is fleeing from here to Israel, England, and the USA.
Everything is bad here".
I was born when that was the world. It looked me better than this.
@ Rob
If this is the question, tell Davidski to correct his data.
https://www.exploreyourdna.com/sample/united-kingdom/i3035
@ Gestr
I don't know who you are, but I thank you for your Latin: "I am using Latin accusative correctly", "sine ira et studio". As I exercited me in unveiling the nicknames, already from the time of Ken Nordtvedt (DNAForums perhaps), I'd ask you if yours is pronounced in the Anglo-Saxon or in the Norman pronunciation, i.e. are you hg. J or G? Thus anyway Caucasus oriented? Are you noting that both hgs I-M223 and R1b1, for what we know so far, are oldest in Italy than elsewhere?
@Gioiello
I3035 was not radiocarbon dated. They even say so in the Patterson 2021 spreadsheet at https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04287-4#Sec20 that says Context: Archaeological - Period under Method for Determining Date. Also under Full Date: One of two formats. it does not have a lab number for the sample meaning it wasn't radiocarbon dated
@ Jester
right, so you arrived here to proclaim your pseudo-historical fallacies, call us a Sect (apparently of Mallory), proceed to be proven wrong on pretty much each of your points (whilst doubling down & lying) then pretending to take the moral high-ground (invoking anti-Fa cliches from 2003). To complete your embarrassement, you seek validation from Arsen-Shomu. Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrell.
For all those who believe that KST001 and NV3003 have resolved the issue regarding the origin of R1b-M269, it is important to remind them that:
1-We have older samples
I2181 (4500 BCE)-Smyadovo, Gumelnita-Karanovo culture, Bulgaria-R1b-M269-HARVARD
PIE064 (4499 BCE)-Pietrele, Gumelnita, Romania-R1b1a1b-PF6517-M269-Penske, 2023
2-KST001 and NV3003 come from Maykop sites. Since M269 did not originate south of the Caucasus, its case is similar to other northern markers documented in Khvalinsk and Sredni Stog that were later documented in Maykop, such as
KUG005 (3496 BCE)-Kurganniy, Maykop culture, Russia-R1a-M459-Ghalichi, 2024
SA6013 (3218 BCE)-Sharakhalsun, kurgan2, grave11, Maykop, Russia-R1a1-M459>YP1272
3-It could be that M269 came from the north, but the problem is that this lineage is not found in Sredni Stog, Khvalinsk or eneolithic steppe. May be further north (North eastern techno-complex) like R1b-P297 & R1b-M73?
4-It may have appeared in the Suvorovo culture, which is closely related to Gumelnita-Karanovo, and later in Majkop, since these cultures share other common markers.
I20072 (4194 BCE)-Giurgiulești, Suvorovo, Moldova-Q1b2b1b2b-L939
KUG003 (3236 BCE)-Kurganniy, Maykop culture, Russia-Q1b2-L940>L939>L936-Ghalichi, 2024
KUG004 (3233 BCE)-Kurganniy, Maykop culture, Russia-Q1b2-L940>L939>L936-Ghalichi, 2024
SA6004 (3220 BCE)-Sharakhalsun, kurgan2, Maykop, Russia-Q1b2b-M436>L939-Wang, 2019
@Gioiello
Is this his website? I'm not sure it's his website) He has official lists on the Vahaduo site, where anyone can download them, but they don’t include any quality/coverage information or dating, so there are no questions/claims against Davidski.
I downloaded other lists from a user with the nickname Ajeje Brazorf — from the GenArchivist site on his page, he interactively updates all these data — with every newly published article he adds the sample coordinates in scaled format, and also for each sample, based on the article itself, he adds its dating, coverage, etc. He writes it exactly as it is in the papers — this is not Ajeje Brazorf’s mistake, this is the mistake of the authors of the articles.
It's important to keep in mind that, immediately before Yamnaya:
- The "native" population of the Lower Don must have been I-L704-rich with UKR_N-rich profiles similar to UKR104
- The Dnieper is home to increasingly UKR_N-rich Sredni Stog profiles
- The North Caucasus is populated by Maikop
- Stavropolye is populated by "Steppe Maikop"
None of these seem like likely candidates for the immediate predecessor of Yamnaya. It basically leave as options the middle Don (Repin), Manych depression (?) and lower Volga (? there was thought to be some sort of settlement gap here, not sure if the current literature upholds that).
@Ethan
@Davidski
At least for me Yamnaya origins after our conversation are more or less clear. R1b-M269 could be a minor Lower Volga clade, along with much more initially successful R1b-V1636. I think now we can easily explain the difference between 2 earliest R1b-M269 samples, which is often mentioned here (from Pyatigorsk and Nevinnomyssk). Sredny Stog mating network formed a cline of diminishing Dnepr-Donetsk ancestry. Proto-Yamnaya was on the easternmost end of this cline, and some groups further east were not reached by D-D genetic signal at all. R1b-M269 individuals were both in groups (clans) with some D-D ancestry (KST001, Pyatigorsk) and in groups where this ancestry was reduced to zero (NV3003, Nevinnomyssk). The rest is social/economic/reproductive success of a specific Yamnaya clan and its explosive growth, similar to what happened to R1b-V1636 earlier, and R1a-M417 later. I think the Volga-Don confluence (Repin) or Manych Depression slightly to the south are the good candidates for Yamnaya homeland. Lower Volga (perhaps, Astrakhan oblast, even Volga Delta?) is an interesting hypothesis, but it is basically unsampled.
@Ethan
I wonder if we can do something with Anatolian problem, using the current DNA data?
So, based on your information, now we have:
1. A migration wave from Berezhnovka directly to Areni (around 4400 BCE). Apparently, this wave was through the Caucasus and left sporadic Transcaucasian R1b-V1636 samples.
2. Another wave basically from the same Berezhnovka, through Suvorovo and Cernavoda sites at the mouth of Danube, then perhaps partially by sea routes, without much genetic contacts with Ukrainian Neolithic and European Farmers, reaching Western Anatolia by 3900 BCE (Barcin). Apparently this group was more I-L699 rich.
Can we be sure they a really two different migrations?
Can we somehow distinguish them in the samples which were definitely Anatolian speakers, especially if the source of both migration waves is basically identical?
@Gioiello
https://www.exploreyourdna.com/Contact You can ask them to remove I3035 and all samples without direct radiocarbon dating.
@Gestr Any persisting Steppe autosomal ancestry in Anatolia cannot come from the East, because otherwise it would show up in places along the way like Arslantepe or Devret Hoyuk or Camlibel Tarlasi. It doesn't show up in those places. Kura-Araxes ancestry does show up there, but there's more Steppe ancestry in parts of Anatolia (Barcin_C, Kulluoba, MA2203) than ever shows up in pure Kura-Araxes samples.
See: https://imgur.com/a/anatolia-ibd-mixture-modelling-gETwRmf
I also do not think it was precisely Berezhnovka/Progress ancestry that ended up in Anatolia or Cernavoda. Just that, for the latter, it shared IBD with it.
I suspect that, in the Yediay preprint IBD mixture modelling, the "CWC" ancestry that tends to show up in Anatolian samples is because, with the samples they had (No Suvorovo, Cernavoda or Usatovo), they had trouble accurately depicting the proper Steppe source. But it's clearly different than what appears in Areni and Kura Araxes.
@Mr Shomu tepe
It is the fault of everyone that did not read the headers of the spreadsheets by the authors and assumed that later people didn't reuse burial sites and must be from the date of the older radiocarbon dated material. We should all be more thorough and methodical.
Rob
@ EthanR
''I also do not think it was precisely Berezhnovka/Progress ancestry that ended up in Anatolia or Cernavoda. ''
I think you're wasting your time with Jester, who has asked the same question 55 times. Obviously there is a cognitive-psychological disconnect there; as the idea of a PIA homeland on the European side of the steppe invokes visceral hypersensitivity for these people. The questioning is not genuine, more like pleading as they leach onto any person giving them attention and pleasantaries.
Anyhow, there is no point ignoring I2a-P78 (x699), which is obviously not from a high 'steppe En'* variant, which also migrated toward the Aegean and Anatolia. This means that PIA was centred at the Dnieper-Azov region, and the L699 subgoup mixed in / assimilated with the proto-Yamnaya-CW group/ Proto-Anatolians are associated with a non-homogeneous autosomal profile
* 'steppe_En' is a cherry-picked term invented by the Reichl Lab to refer to the lower Volga En- Caucasus arc, in order to bias analysis
@ Gaska
''For all those who believe that KST001 and NV3003 have resolved the issue regarding the origin of R1b-M269, it is important to remind them that:''
For me their significance is the other way around - it shows that there was a population turnover at the lower-Volga-Caucasus region after 4000bc. If new groups associated with Y-hg J2 and G2 moved in all the way from Mesopotamia, the M269 could also have from afar. Some are favouring the lower Volga and Manych depression, but it is not really based on anything (some 'archaeological culture' from a map made in 1963? or alleged isotopic signatures..)
@Davidski @Rob @EthanR
https://ibb.co/Y4GJG6xq
This still accurate? If maybe removing Khvalynsk but keeping Sredny Stog
@rozbójnik
Corded Ware doesn't derive from the Middle Dnieper Culture, which is younger than 3200BC.
It's not clear that Germanic derives from BAC as opposed to SGC, if that's what's implied.
Trzciniec cultural circle has some relation to Balto-Slavic but probably only the most eastern groups.
Armenian does not necessarily form a clade with Greek exclusive from Albanian. This order is ambiguous.
The rest is more or less accurate enough, but could probably be more detailed, especially downstream.
I'd have quite a different linguistic phylogeny based on the observable population admixtures, something like this https://imgur.com/a/FK5ZWnK
Far more complex than the simple singular branch-language models we generally see. Obviously a 'rough n ready' job, not to scale, Ive mistyped Berezhnovka, etc.
I've left out Thracian for now because it's curently hard to form a strong opinion
@rozbójnik
Great catch. I'd say that the migration to Italy through the Adriatic of the Latins/Siculians could be different and before the other Italic peoples who probavly came from North through the Eastern Alps, and I'd add the Minoans before the Myceneans, because I have sure links 4000 years ago with them.
@EthanR Ok thanks. I believe that its implying contribution from both battle ax and single gravers but its not as visually clear as in Rob's tree
@Rob Thanks !!
the first text in Indo-European?
https://x.com/catagelastos/status/2036279053359989126
politics
https://x.com/frontlinekit/status/2036452728625373289
This is interesting.
The Power of Tradition against Time and Space on the Edge of the Steppe World: A View from the West on the Origin of the Afanasievo Archaeological Culture (Faifert & Solodovnikov 2025)
”The article presents the results of a search for a possible region from which representatives of the Afanasievo culture of the Early Bronze Age of Southern Siberia and Central Asia migrated. The work is based on the analysis of archaeological sources. The structure is built according to the logic of the transition from the most extensive coverage of the geographical boundaries of the Late Eneolithic and Early Bronze Cultures to narrowing the search area in different regions of southeastern Europe based on key features. These include: a stone cromlech made of dug-in slabs, pots with a round bottom with an average height of a straight top, large cauldron vessels, incense burners on a thick base or small legs. An auxiliary source of localization is the absence in the Afanasievo culture of elements characteristic of some areas of the Yamnaya community, which is generally considered as the basis for migration to the east. By comparing the materials, it was determined that the most likely migration region of the Afanasievo population is the Lower Dnieper and the adjacent region of the Ingul and Southern Bug River basins. Confirmation of the hypothesis about the source of migration to Southern Siberia and Central Asia will make it possible to use the typology of Afanasievo ceramics to expand the typology of ceramics of the Yamnaya community.”
Someone on genarchivist provided proper sample labels for the recent IBD run, so I've dug back into it and found a few more interesting things:
- There's basically zero detectable connection between Trypillia and Yamnaya
- There's persistent hits between Maikop and Moldova Yamnaya. This should still be the frontrunning explanation for the emergence of J-L283.
@Tom
Yeah, I believe now that both Afanasievo and Yamnaya are from what is now west-central Ukraine, and that's also where the Indo-Anatolian homeland is located.
But obviously the populations involved were highly mobile and somewhat variable, so in theory it's probably possible to extend the Indo-Anatolian homeland all the way from Moldova to the North Caucasus.
@EthanR
Yep, as per above, I think there was a lot of movement along the steppe all the way from Moldova to the North Caucasus, so J-L283 being from Maykop or a Maykop-related group is possible.
It actually seems like the populations involved in this process (the formation of Indo-Anatolian) were somewhat variable. So how does this square with Indo-Anatolian not being a creole?
@Davidski
I think para-IE languages were spoken to some extent all the way from the middle Volga to the Danube and to the Piedmont Steppe, and everything in between. But Indo-Anatolian and core proto-Indo-European also only need to emerge in very specific parts of the Steppe, so we do not necessarily need to overweigh the intensity of contacts with Caucasian groups in the Piedmont Steppe, or the intensity of contact with hunter-gatherers are Khvalynsk and so on. For Indo-Anatolian and Core-PIE, we could really just be dealing with, for instance, the area of the middle Don that extends toward the lower Volga. With Core-PIE just having more extensive contact with the North Caucasus mating networks, which need not be direct (i.e. Remontnoye profiles moving between the Manych region and the Don). Honestly looking at the Cernavoda "A" cluster and Yamnaya, I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case.
So perhaps we have parts of the Steppe that are distinctively Caucasian speaking, parts distinctively PIE speaking, and other parts that that harbour creole languages?
Alternatively we could make the determination that every group that appears to participate in Suvorovo-related migrations were indo-europeanized already, regardless of genetic profile. Same can be extended to the Maikop groups that made their way to the NW Pontic closer to the EBA.
But the Cernavoda "A" and "B" clusters both appearing to derive from very different parts of the Steppe, yet sharing the same material culture (I checked the archeological descriptions a while ago and noticed nothing) is very strange.
Creoles are fairly rare, it is more economical for one group to learn the language of another. For Ex, the J2b Majkopians would have eventually learned the IE languages spoken locally as they mixed into the local groups in Moldova and Balkans, whilst initially they would have had a handful of bilinguials who served as translators.
''But the Cernavoda "A" and "B" clusters both appearing to derive from very different parts of the Steppe, yet sharing the same material culture '
yes & no. These are autosomic clausters, and there members who belong to both clusters, including I2a-L699 males. Also in 'Sredni Stog'.
This is the result of differential admixutre and social exogamy patterns and incomplete homogenization arodun a core group of males from the Azov-Dnieper region.
That is why the theory that I2a-L699 is from Berezhnovka, or some place similar, doesn't work . In fact, it's a pretty dumb proposal
''- There's basically zero detectable connection between Trypillia and Yamnaya''
Somewhat expectedly,
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2025/08/tripolje-dereivka-and-sredni-stog.html
@Rob
"That is why the theory that I2a-L699 is from Berezhnovka, or some place similar, doesn't work . In fact, it's a pretty dumb proposal".
Thus we have to think that the other way around happened: not tha R1b1 Villabruna learned the Basco-Caucasian Language of hg. I2a, but that I2a learned the Indo-European Language of R1b1, and both brought it in their expansion all over Europe...
In fact, the really 'low -steppe' Cernavoda include a female and an R1b-V88 individual, we can describe these as 'high-HG Carpathian farmers'.
Further to above, the GW- affinities of 'steppe-related' I2a-(CTS10057-L702) are very complex.
There is the 'steppe low' I-P78 group, which however only moved west after 4500 BC
Then there are I2-S22311-Y92973 which are mostly steppe low, these also start moving toward the lower Danube c. 4500 BC, but Theopetra is steppe high (young in series)
Then there is the most expansive L703 group, which features many high steppe individuals, but others are low steppe (e.g. the Soldanesti/ late Tripolje one), and others of 'Sredni Stog' in between.
The pattern shows an expansion c. 5000-4500 BC, with some moving west, others east toward the Volga. From the latter subset, some moved back west with high-steppe groups.
Cool website to run qpadm even on potato pc like mine.
https://madailabs.de
qpAdm Model
Target: Turkey_Hatay_Alalakh_MLBA_o.AG
Sources:
• Uzbekistan_SappaliTepe_BA — 92.4%
• China_Xinjiang_Xiaohe_BA — 7.6%
Fit:
p = 0.653
ChiSq = 5.95
DOF = 0
SE:
• Xiaohe_BA — 0.0239 (Z = 3.20)
• SappaliTepe_BA — 0.0239 (Z = 38.7)
qpAdm Model
Target: Iran_Hasanlu_IA_o.AG
Uzbekistan_SappaliTepe_BA.AG — 62.4%
SE: 0.0963 | Z: 6.48
Armenia_Tavshut_MBA.AG — 37.6%
SE: 0.0963 | Z: 3.91
Fit: p = 0.938 | ChiSq = 2.94 | DOF = 0
SE on higher side, looking for better models.
@Rob
The R1b individual at Kartal is under R-V1636.
How do you read this model?
qpAdm Model
Target: Turkey_Hatay_Alalakh_MLBA_o.AG
Uzbekistan_SappaliTepe_BA.AG — 87.2%
SE: 0.0380 | Z: 22.9
Kazakhstan_Kumsay_EBA.AG — 12.8%
SE: 0.0380 | Z: 3.36
Pvalue: 0.826
Target: Turkey_Hatay_Alalakh_MLBA_o.AG
Uzbekistan_SappaliTepe_BA.AG — 80.6%
SE: 0.0594 | Z: 13.6
Kazakhstan_Kumsay_EBA.AG — 11.2%
SE: 0.0449 | Z: 2.49
Russia_MLBA_Sintashta.AG — 8.21%
SE: 0.0705 | Z: 1.16
Pvalue: 0.871
Kumsay appears as better fit than Tarim. Though sintashta is getting 8.21% with 0.07 SE and 1.16 Z.
It is barely there. @Rob what do you think.
This sample weirdly showing more affinity for EEF than what is normal in Sintashta.
Target: Iran_Hasanlu_IA_o.AG
Uzbekistan_SappaliTepe_BA.AG — 78.1%
SE: 0.0665 | Z: 11.7
Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya.AG — 13.0%
SE: 0.0665 | Z: 1.95
Poland_GlobularAmphora.AG — 8.88%
SE: 0.0416 | Z: 2.13
Iranians are so hard to model lol
Kyrgyzstan_TianShan_Saka — 17.7%
SE: 0.0239 | Z: 7.43
Iran_ShahTepe_BA — 39.1%
SE: 0.0325 | Z: 12.0
Lebanon_ERoman — 43.2%
SE: 0.0254 | Z: 17.0
Pvalue: 0.121
Iran_ShahTepe_BA — 48.8%
SE: 0.0318 | Z: 15.3
Lebanon_ERoman — 41.7%
SE: 0.0394 | Z: 10.6
Russia_MLBA_Sintashta — 9.46%
SE: 0.0374 | Z: 2.53
Pvalue: 0.00000000114
Iran_ShahTepe_BA — 45.3%
SE: 0.0294 | Z: 15.4
Lebanon_ERoman — 44.2%
SE: 0.0360 | Z: 12.3
Russia_MLBA_Sintashta — 4.58%
SE: 0.0375 | Z: 1.22
Mongolia_LBA_Khovsgol_6 — 5.91%
SE: 0.00951 | Z: 6.22
Pvalue: 0.0547
Wonder what is missing...
Target: Iran_Zoroastrian.HO
Lebanon_ERoman — 39.3%
SE: 0.0388 | Z: 10.1
Iran_ShahTepe_BA — 43.5%
SE: 0.0343 | Z: 12.7
Russia_MLBA_Sintashta — 13.6%
SE: 0.0410 | Z: 3.32
Mongolia_LBA_Khovsgol_6 — 3.69%
SE: 0.0107 | Z: 3.44
Pvalue: 0.290
Target: Iran_Zoroastrian.HO
Lebanon_ERoman — 44.1%
SE: 0.0316 | Z: 13.9
Iran_ShahTepe_BA — 39.6%
SE: 0.0404 | Z: 9.81
Kyrgyzstan_TianShan_Saka — 16.3%
SE: 0.0285 | Z: 5.73
Pvalue: 0.285
Target: Iran_Fars.HO
Iran_ShahTepe_BA — 35.0%
SE: 0.0370 | Z: 9.47
Lebanon_ERoman — 44.8%
SE: 0.0276 | Z: 16.2
Kyrgyzstan_TianShan_Saka — 20.2%
SE: 0.0273 | Z: 7.41
Pvalue: 0.347
Target: Iran_Fars.HO
Iran_ShahTepe_BA — 44.9%
SE: 0.0330 | Z: 13.6
Lebanon_ERoman — 39.8%
SE: 0.0391 | Z: 10.2
Russia_MLBA_Sintashta — 15.3%
SE: 0.0387 | Z: 3.95
Pvalue: 0.000000158
All these modern Iranian samples have good chunk of east asian. Begs the question was it from Saka like groups or Turks.
Fucking hilarious that Nazis call Indians shit for being brown skinned but simp over fair skinned Iranians yet it is Indians who have much higher ancestry from Bronzeage steppe pastrolists, greater R1a percentages and probably linguistically and culturally closest to them.
Does anyone here still believe in the celtic from the west theory?
This 1600-1500bce sample is probably in line with this...
qpAdm Model
Target: Uzbekistan_Bustan_BA_o2.AG
Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2.AG — 67.7%
SE: 0.0784 | Z: 8.64
Uzbekistan_Kokcha_BA.AG — 26.3%
SE: 0.0613 | Z: 4.29
TibetanPlateau_Zongri.AG — 6.0%
SE: 0.0267 | Z: 2.25
Pvalue: 0.408
"The new dates change the perspective of the process that used to be considered the result of the Andronovo culture influence of the Bronze Age livestock-farming and crop-farming cultures in Central Asia. Cremated burials in the Sapalli culture necropolises in Central Asia (Bustan VI, Djarkutan 4a) should not be directly associated with the impact or contribution of the Andronovo Fedorovo people. Furthermore, as a matter of a fact, particular groups of Andronovo people regularly entered Central Asia throughout the entire Andornovo culture period. This allows to assume that Central Asia is exactly the place to reveal the origin of the Andronovo cremation rite."
An interesting Y-test result of an Agul individual from the village of Richa:
https://t.me/c/1991407368/14720
Haplogroup: J1b-F3249 (xF1614)
Terminal SNP: N/A
According to the results of the autosomal Family Finder test, the subclade J1b-F3249 was assigned, with an estimated age of ~17,000 years. This subclade did not achieve demographic success comparable to its “brother” lineages J1a-P58 and J1a-Z1842, which are widely distributed in the Middle East and the Eastern Caucasus, respectively. It is found sporadically across different regions; however, its main concentration is observed in Anatolia. The FTDNA service returned a negative result for the SNP F1614, so with deeper testing, the individual will be assigned either to the root of the F3249 branch or to one of the subclades within FT33726.
Within the subclade J1b-FT33726, particular interest lies in the branch J1b-FT34521, with an estimated age of around 14,000 years. It is especially notable due to the paleogenetic sample Satsurblia, one of the oldest in the Caucasus, associated with Caucasus hunter-gatherers .
Perhaps its branch is somehow connected with the migration of J1b into the Eneolithic Ukrainian steppes? (Vasilevsky Cardon, Gumelnița 4, Revova 7929, etc.)
This is a very rare result and, so far, a unique case for NEC
If anyone is interested, you can chip in for a big test 😏
https://x.com/Tom_Rowsell/status/2036786934677143947?s=20
I remember this reconstruction from a film about the Indo-Europeans. Even back then I thought these people looked completely unrealistic, like aliens. But now here's the new reconstruction from Ancestral Whispers — he looks much more like a modern person. What's more, he even resembles the Irish actor Ciaran Hinds.
https://x.com/MrshomuTepe/status/2036831371138568456?s=20
@ Ethan
''The R1b individual at Kartal is under R-V1636.''
Yes you're right, in fact we've discussed that before. Must have had 3 grandparents from Tripolje :)
We are seeing a smattering of lower Volga-Caucasus lineages (Q1, V1636, J1) co-migrating with the main Sredni Stog - Cernavoda group, but commencing from a different part of the steppe, and not entirely homogenizing, but each mixing in according to their own pattern
BTW seems like those new ? Anatolian samples from Akbari fall under I-Y87044 with Smyadovo & Pietrale
With improved reference pops and replacing Saka with Kangju.
Target
Iran_Zoroastrian.HO
Best Model (3-way)
p-value: 0.701
chisq: 7.26
dof: 10
rank: 2
Ancestry Proportions
Iran_ShahTepe_BA.SG → 0.403 ± 0.044 (Z = 9.24)
Lebanon_ERoman.SG → 0.370 ± 0.034 (Z = 11.0)
Kazakhstan_Kangju.SG → 0.227 ± 0.041 (Z = 5.54)
With sintashta alone model fails with p value 0.0069
@Rob
When I examined the hg R-V1636, 15 or 20 Years ago, I concluded that there was an haplotype centered in Italy and another in the Caucasus, and, as the Italian one had YCAII=18-23 and the Caucasian one YCAII=23-23, the Caucasian one derived from the Italian or Alpine one. After we had a sample from Iraq who seemed to break this rule. We know now that Iraq/Mesopotamia had a migration of R-L23-Z2103 from Yamnaya. I'll consider again what you say now.
https://t.me/LakiaDNA/5631?single
BigY700 result of the well-known athlete, a Lak from the village of Burshi, Islam Makhachev (currently ranked the world’s No. 1 pound-for-pound fighter):
Haplogroup: J1-Z1842
Terminal SNP: J1-FTG65427
Full phylogenetic path of the terminal lineage starting from J1-Z1842:
Z1842 > ZS3089 > FT275667 > FT277951 > FT276427 > FTG65427
An upgrade was performed from Y-37 to BigY700. As expected, Makhachev forms a distinct lineage, J1-FTG65427 (TMRCA ~650 years), together with his fellow villager Ramazanov.
Notably, the branch J1-Z1842 > ZS3089 is predominantly observed among Lak and Dargin populations and represents a parallel lineage to J1-Z1842 > CTS1460, which is characteristic of Avar–Ando–Tsez (Northeast Caucasian) populations. The latter branch also constitutes the majority of lineages associated with the Kura-Araxes cultural horizon in the South Caucasus and the broader Near East, including Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, the Levant, Turkey, and Iran.
@Rob
The Anatolian samples have not yet been added. I assume they may be today. They should be under I-S12195.
The samples already on the tree under the Theopetra clade include autosomal profiles reminiscent of the 3000BC "Romania_BA" sample that seems Cernavoda II related or something similar.
This post caught my attention:
https://www.reddit.com/r/illustrativeDNA/comments/1fueg8y/east_eurasian_ancestry_eec/
This seems to be inspired by the first post:
https://www.reddit.com/r/illustrativeDNA/comments/1rm6s2j/east_eurasian_ancestry_map/
I don't think the maps are fully accurate, but the general premise of the text in the first post sounds scientifically sound to me.
I'm throwing myself under the bus here and am willing to take a hit/criticism if someone thinks that these posts sound insane.
Also interesting that Scandinavians are a darker shade of green/purple than Central Europeans.
@Radiosource
Of course they do, because the Sami, Komi, Finno-Ugrics and related populations live there.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.03.21.713323v2
"Steppe Eneolithic individual K1.10 from the primary burial at the Katarzhyno 1 kurgan was another outlier in terms of 13C and 15N values, showing a similar to the L9 trend. The stable isotope values of K1.10 (δ¹³C = −18.05‰; δ¹⁵N = 15.16‰) are statistically incongruent with Eneolithic-EBA populations of the eastern and western Pontic steppe (χ²(2) = 12.49, p =364 0.002, and χ²(2) = 37.43, p ≪ 0.001, respectively), but fall within the isotopic ranges of both West Manych Yamna and Eneolithic Caspian steppe (χ²(2) = 0.52, p = 0.77, and χ²(2) = 0.59, p =366 0.75), suggesting affinity with the latter groups."
@ Ash
Kumsay fails with propper southeast /south Asian individuals in pRight. That's because she needs ASI ancestry.
left pops:
Turkey_Hatay_Alalakh_MLBA_o.AG
Kazakhstan_Andronovo.SG
Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA1.AG
best coefficients: 0.200 0.800 , tail prob 0.37
https://pastebin.com/hn8gbAJG
Given she dates to c. 1500 BC, it means Andronovo ancestry and those on the ShahrShokta-Harappa cline were mixing early on
@ Shomu
Ths site you have indicated is not the same site as the paper, look at their maps/ figures
@EthanR
And what could this mean? That the Yamnaya culture originates from the Eneolithic of the Caspian steppes rather than from Ukraine? Yes, because one of the oldest burials of the Yamnaya culture (which also has a purely Yamnaya autosomal profile) is a kurgan in Kalmykia, dated to 3600 BC
Sample ID: I33307
Location: Volga-Chogray-Channel-53 (Kurgan 6, Burial 17)
Region: Russia, Republic of Kalmykia, Yashkulsky District
Coordinates: 46.239806, 45.499833
https://www.google.com/maps?q=46.239806,45.499833
Calibrated date: 3705–3533 cal BCE
Culture/cluster: Russia_CaspianInland_EBA_Yamnaya
Haplogroup: mtDNA U4a1; Y-DNA R-Z2106 (R1b1a1b1b3)
Distance to: Russia_Kalmykia_EBA_Yamnaya:I33307__BC_3627__Cov_94.85%
0.02360012 Russia_MBA_Poltavka.AG:I8745.AG__BC_2350__Cov_52.19%
0.02371703 Russia_Ishkinovka_EBA_Yamnaya.AG:I0370.AG__BC_2900__Cov_60.63%
0.02564996 Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya:I0245__BC_2755__Cov_76.58%
0.02618355 Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya:I8291__BC_2703__Cov_72.77%
0.02637457 Russia_Volgograd_EBA_Yamnaya:I6918__BC_2614__Cov_73.91%
0.02645931 Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya:I10362__BC_2751__Cov_60.29%
0.02648942 Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya.AG:I0231.AG__BC_2894__Cov_96.04%
0.02717172 Russia_MBA_Poltavka.AG:I0126.AG__BC_2660__Cov_29.15%
0.02794706 Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya:I7677__BC_2894__Cov_71.37%
0.02825543 Russia_Chelyabinsk_EBA_Yamnaya:I7488__BC_2775__Cov_74.17%
0.02854868 Russia_MLBA_Potapovka.AG:I7670.AG__BC_2008__Cov_43.85%
0.02874980 Russia_Rostov_EBA_Yamnaya:I24093__BC_2952__Cov_72.27%
0.02875260 Russia_Altai_Eneolithic_Afanasievo:I32822__BC_3000__Cov_48.12%
0.02899799 Russia_Altai_Afanasievo:I13812__BC_2900__Cov_72.31%
0.02901215 Russia_Afanasievo.AG:I10565.AG__BC_2776__Cov_64.88%
As you can see, it belongs to the Caspian steppes.
https://i.ibb.co/fd4314kT/Screenshot-20260327-034206.jpg
Archaeologists have discovered a new site from the Late Chalcolithic period in the Caucasus (Chechnya), which has already been assigned to the so-called Anubekov culture (have you heard of such a thing?).
https://archaeolog.ru/expeditions/expeditions-2017/arkheologicheskie-issledovaniya-v-chechenskoy-respublike?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Tyalling-2 settlement
In 2025, an expedition from the Institute of Archaeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences carried out archaeological excavations at the Tyalling-2 settlement, located near the village of Kurchaloy in eastern Chechnya. The western part of the site was investigated, and settlement deposits dating to the Late Chalcolithic period, from the first half of the 4th millennium BCE, were identified.
@rob
Kazakhstan_Kumsay_EBA.AG
0.160 0.0432 3.71
Uzbekistan_SappaliTepe_BA
0.840 0.0432 19.4
P: 0.376
Chisq: 10.8
DoF: 10
Kazakhstan_Kumsay_EBA.AG
0.202 0.0538 3.75
Uzbekistan_SappaliTepe_BA
0.909 0.0732 12.4
Russia_MLBA_Sintashta.AG
-0.111 0.0912 -1.22
Model fails
This sample is similar to Bustan_BA_01
Uzbekistan_SappaliTepe_BA.AG
0.670 0.0443 15.1
Kazakhstan_Kumsay_EBA.AG
0.330 0.0443 7.44
P: 0.285
Chisq: 12
DoF: 10
20% andronovo shift should show even on PCA and it doesn't. Only sample that does show that is Bustan_BA_o2, which is largely IVC+andronovo.
https://ibb.co/Qv2zYdvg
https://ibb.co/xqKPm1k2
Ran F4 for the first time. Don't know if I did it right or how to interpret it. And asked chatgpt to interpret it.
"Your f4 test is:
f4( Kazakhstan_Kumsay_EBA.AG , Russia_Andronovo.SG ; Turkey_Hatay_Alalakh_MLBA_o.AG , Mbuti.DG )
Result
Estimate: 0.00169
SE: 0.000397
Z-score: 4.27
p-value: 0.0000196
SNPs: 711,550
Interpretation
Z = 4.27 (>3) → statistically significant result.
Positive value (0.00169) means:
Kazakhstan_Kumsay_EBA shares more alleles with Turkey_Hatay_Alalakh_MLBA than Russia_Andronovo does.
In simple terms
This suggests that Kumsay_EBA has greater genetic affinity to Alalakh_MLBA compared to Andronovo."
Seems like chatgpt got the wrong interpretation?
https://ibb.co/nMHMSYDw
F4
Previous interpretation was wrong Gonur_BA_1 and Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA1 shares more allele with Alalakh_MLBA_o than ShahTepe_BA?
@ Ash
We cant make simple interpretations from PCA when individuals have complex admixtures. As for admixture models, you'd need to show the pRight List. And if there is an adequate representation, it would show that Kumsay does not have right kind of deep East/ Southeast Asian ancestry. It also show she has increased affinities with EEF, associated with Fatyanovo descendants.
Or is it the excess ANE/WSHG in BMAC and IVCp related populations that is causing Z value to behave the way it does?
f4 stats won't tell you necessarily where admixture came from specifically, just the overall affinity of populations.
Andronovo is very European, so Asian populations with Andronovo admixture will often show greater affinity to other Asian populations despite this admixture.
Post a Comment