A new dataset has appeared online from a yet to be published paper titled
Cosmopolitanism in the depths of Barbaricum evidenced by archaeogenomic data from the Late Iron Age Goth community of the Masłomęcz group.
Most of these Gothic samples are clearly of Scandinavian origin, and very similar to present-day Swedes. Overall, however, they create a somewhat heterogeneous cluster that also overlaps with present-day Poles thanks to the presence of a few Balto-Slavic-related and possibly Roman-related individuals.
The Principal Component Analysis (PCA) plots below were produced with the excellent
Vahaduo G25 Global Views tool using the data
here.
Their Y-haplogroups more or less reflect the PCA results:
PL046 R-YP6228
PL048 I-PH833
PL049 I-A11537
PL052 R-Y48961
PL059 I-PH833
PL062 I-S15301
PL065 I-Y294193
PL066 R-FGC2555
PL067 R-S7759
PL070 I-CTS10028
PL071 I-BY316
PL076 I-S9318
PL082 I-Z2041
PL085 J-Z38241
PL086 I-FT29339
See also...
Early Slavs from Tribal Period Poland
Wielbark Goths were overwhelmingly of Scandinavian origin
High-resolution stuff
776 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 601 – 776 of 776Mbuti
Iran_GanjDareh_N
Kotias_M
Barcin_N
Natufian
Iberomarusian
Samara_H
Tyumen_N
Luxemburg_M
China Xiaohe
Shamanka_EN
Mongolia_North_N
Ong
@Shomu it means that buried inside a NW Pontic Kurgan ~3900bc was a migrant from somewhere around that region.
I ran F3 just now
(DinkhaTepe_BA_IA_2, Jordan_LBA,Steppe_C atacomb)
I am getting Z = - 7.40
Replaced Catacomb with Sintashta and Z drops to -1.20.
This means DinkhaTepe2 has a Jordan_LBA + Catacomb like base that later mixed with BMAC like people?
HajjiFiruz_BA -1.25
Tavshut is insignificant.
https://ibb.co/0ynKKT5w
If proto-celtic has no shared inherited maritime vocabulary how could celtic from the west possibly be true? They did not develop a common specific terminology for sailing and navigation. It came independently when central european Celts reached the insulars. Celtic from the west theory seems foolish and driven by bias. Dna does not support it either
@EthanR
Very interesting 🤔
DinkhaTepe2
P-value: 0.76 (Excellent fit)
Chi-squared: 6.62
Degrees of Freedom (dof): 10
BMAC (SappaliTepe_BA): 52.0% (±4.8%)
Levant (Jordan_LBA): 37.9% (±3.3%)
Steppe (Catacomb): 10.1% (±3.1%)
Final model with F3 backing.
At hasanlu though something weird is happening.
F3 analysis gives high negative z for Jordan_LBA-Catacomb and Jordan_LBA-BMAC but positive value for BMAC and catacomb.
How to read it?
Brother, what are you trying to prove ❓
I am getting high negative Z values F3 for Katelai_IA and SaiduSharif_H for Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2 and Sintashta but high positive for Udegram_IA. Any clue what could be happening?
Burusho.DG | P: 0.561 | Chisq: 7.74 | dof: 9 | ShahrISokhta: 67.2% | Sintashta: 20.1% | Russia_Yenisei_LBA_Karasuk.SG: 12.6%
Yenesian and Burushaski links, anybody 🧐
Birlik_Tasmola 600-200bce also works.
@ rozbójnik
As with everything, the context & 'philosophy' of theories being formulated needs to be understood. At the time, west European archaeologists were very much into 'local evolution', de-emphasizing migrations, with the view that BB evolved from local Atlantic Megalithic and in turn Celtic deveoped from that. ADNA disproved that, although for the first few years the pendulum swung too far in the other direction due to poor interpretation; esp. when it came to northern & central Europe (...for some reason).
Anyhow, there have since been alternative proposal about 'Celtic from the Middle' (https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/cambridge-archaeological-journal/article/an-alternative-to-celtic-from-the-east-and-celtic-from-the-west/4F186F087DD3BE66D535102484F8E8C3),
whilst recent aDNA papers going back to some form of Urnfield model (e.g Patterson, McColl).
@rozbójnik
That raises the question — who lived on the Atlantic shores of Western Europe simultaneously with the landlocked Proto-Celts? Perhaps other Indo-European tribes with similar genetics, their Indo-European languages/dialects now extinct.
It's starting to crystallize for me that the number of extinct Indo-European languages/dialects is perhaps much bigger than we think. You have the Atlantic shores of France, Belgium and Southern Netherlands, you have the Dutch Bell Beakers who are seemingly not Germanic based on their Y-DNA, you have the Battle Axe culture whose Y-DNA almost doesn't exist outside Scandinavia/Finland, you have pre-Celtic British Isles, pre-Celtic Indo-Europeans in the Iberian peninsula, and that's just those off the top of my head.
@shomu
Now that I have access to Qpadm, F2,F3,F4...I am trying to learn them and improve my interpretation and analysis of several populations which was previously limited to G25 and PCA.
Take for example Burusho. F4 shows affinity for Khovsgol and Northern sources but G25 always favor Tibetian and southern source. On qpadm inclusion and exclusion of certain pops can favor one model over the other even to the extent of going against what F3 and F4 might point to.
So trying to learn and make sense to perform better analysis which eventually would lead to better interpretation.
A couple of Bros pointed me to the recent Bulan-Koba / Turkic paper
https://genarchivist.net/showthread.php?tid=1498&page=2
How does the mass of R1a-Z93 and even J2a support the Slab Grave ancestry hypothesis proposed by (presumably) Turkish internet posters ?
We get they have a lot of northeast asian related ancestry, but where is this from specifically, and why is it almost exclusively Female mediated? (Obviously there might be some relevant Y-hg C2 clades)
@Rob
Ask these Turks why only R1b-L73 and the M478 subclade, we know is older in the Baltic and eastern Europe and probably (so I think) derived from Villabruna 14000 Years ago and relatives of his refugium?
@Rob
There's an interesting story behind that.
The Turkic expansion absorbed masses of Indo-Iranian and other non-Turkic speakers.
These people were basically forced to flee or join the Turkic expansion, because otherwise they were killed.
Once the Indo-Iranians switched to Turkic it became important for them to become as Turkic as possible, and that actually involved taking Turkic brides from the east with Asian features to cement their link to the Turkic homeland.
Yes, the socio-political dynamics determine which language prevails and takes hold in a population and not which Y haplo they carry or how much autosomal ancestry their gene pool has from X population.
Hence an I male in Anatolia might had been speaking a non-Indo european Hattian while someone with J in same region was speaking Hittite.
I made some change to the right pops for Burusho model. I introduced Taiwan_Hanben_IA.AG as a reference pops and model with TibetanPlateau_Zongri.AG has p: 0.4 vs Kazakhstan_Birlik_EIA_Tasmola.AG has p: 0.7.
Is Taiwan_Hanben_IA.AG properly anchoring the EA ancestry in Burusho by properly differentiating between Northern EA vs Tibetian related EA?
@ Davidski
Yep Y-hg R1a-Z93 were originally introduced to the region due to what we broadly classify as 'Indo-Iranians', and post-Neolithic/ post -Corded Ware language expansion & acquisition was more complex than expanding male groups.
I think my initial comment relates more to the Bulan Koby period samples, The paper states that the Pazyryk & other Scythian groups collapsed due to 'the military campaigns of the Xiongnu Empire in the 2nd c. BCE, when the Bulan-Koby archaeological culture in the Mountainous Altai emerged' and that the 'Bulan-Koby exhibits major cultural influences from the Xiongnu and later steppe polities,'. However, the BK group is dominated by R1a-YP1542, which is a Tasmola linage, and their genomic profile shows a slight western shift in their qpAdm models (e.g. additional 'Sarmatian' ancestry). It is therefore hard to rationalise this often quited historical explanation with the aDNA evidence at hand.
I think the Reich group might clarify this in their paper, and suggest that BK is not actually Turkic whilst Shaz Turks have BK ancestry. But the latter apparently have additional Mongol ancestry, which might be associated with the appearance of certain Y-DNA C2 lineages (we''d need an expert on that to clarify).
The Bulgars and Huns in Europe (Lir-Turkic) are strongly associated with R1a-Z93 and some Q1. So it seems that the 'Turkification' of Inner Asian Iranians was almost entirely female-mediated, or came from a group in Mongolia which just happened to be heavily R1a-Z93 and deficient in Y-hg C.
@ Gio
''Ask these Turks why only R1b-L73 and the M478 subclade, we know is older in the Baltic and eastern Europe and probably (so I think) derived from Villabruna 14000 Years ago and relatives of his refugium?''
I don't think the issue of Villabruna refugium is directly relevant to Turkic expansions. Anyhow, R1 makes a funny circuit- R1b-L754 arrives to Europe from Siberia in the Ice Age, its ancestors then spread back East. R1b-M73 and R1b-PH155 feature in various Altaic groups, the latter is probably Central Asian anyway. BTW did you know I was the first (or second) to properly sequence Y-hg R1b-PH155, from a modern Italian man ?
Wherever Turkic speakers arrive, they will easily displace local languages and assimilate other languages. There isn't even necessarily any genetic contribution. The Kumyks are an example.
@Rob
"BTW did you know I was the first (or second) to properly sequence Y-hg R1b-PH155, from a modern Italian man?"
I studied that haplogoup more than 15 Years ago, and through the few STRs it was difficult to understand all, but after I convinced myself that perhaps the R-PH155 could be the only one old in Asia and not migrated from Europe, even though the last documentations in the aDNA weren't older than the Others like R-M73, certainly older in Europe, thus I left open the possibility that also R-PH155 could be from Europe. About the samples I studied I never excluded that they could have come in more recent times through the Turkish expansion, but evidently all these hgs went and came in the Siberian corridor.
The explanation of Davidski seems to me reliable.
@Rob
Thanks I read your link. Good read. And which model for celtic do you prefer currently?
@Radiosource
Yes there were many IE dialects that went extinct or became substrates. Temematic maybe a substrate in Balto-Slavic. Nordwestblock probably extinct. Atlantic bronze age dialect probably extinct or a substrate in celtic
Look at this map
https://ibb.co/7tLGfYvZ
Turkic is a state of mind. Signed by the Gagauz and the Yakut.
@Rob
Bulan-Koby, despite being conquered by the Xiongnu, likely didn't adopt a Turkic tongue. The Turks really arrived in the the mid 5th century and as can be seen in the ancestry results became more prevalent during the Turkic khaganate which had it's beginnings in the Altai region. A similar story happens with the Tagar culture and the subsequent Tashtyk culture. They persist until the 4th century and then get displaced by the Kyrgyz as can be seen with the arrival of the Chaatas culture which showcase many typical Turkic traits.
And the Altai is more relevant for Common Turks, while Oghuric Turks were already roaming the European steppes as can be seen with the Huns.
There are going to be exceptional cases at the periphery of an expansion, but at a macro-scale language expansions have associated genetic impacts. However to me it seems that, although Turkic has highlevels of
Slab Grave ancestry, their ethnogensis occurred in NW Mongolia/ Altai region during the post-Xiongnu period.
bulk genomic ancestry =/= nuanced ethnogenesis
@ Gio
''Others like R-M73, certainly older in Europe''
Yes, with a distinct sub-lineage L1432 moving east toward Botai and Omsk districts in Siberia c 4000 BC.
Yet in 2026 one can still read claims that R1b-M73 is a recent arrival to Europe from Lake Baykal (where it’s completely missing in the aDNA record), notably the “usual suspects” Troll Sloppers from FraudArchiver
@ Norfern
I agree with much of what you say, however will begin with this
''Bulan-Koby, despite being conquered by the Xiongnu, likely didn't adopt a Turkic tongue. '
Although the authors of the paper (and others elswhere) make the claim, it doesn't even make chronological sense. The Bulan Koba monuments date 300 - 500 AD, which is long after the Xiongnu 'empire' ended.
(e.g. Ref 1 and 2.
Even during the actual Xiongnu period, it is not clear they really 'conquered' the northwest periphery regions such as the Altai, although it would have been integrated into some sort of compelx sphere (See Permutations of Peripheries in The Xiongnu Empire, Bryan Miller).
The collapse of Scythian groups such as Pazyryk is often blamed to Xiongnu, but this was a systemic issue offending even the 'western Scythians' in the Black Sea c. 300 BC, far away from any Xiongnu implact. So the explanation must be more complex
'' A similar story happens with the Tagar culture and the subsequent Tashtyk culture''
Indeed, continuity
As for your second comment ''likely didn't adopt a Turkic tongue. ''
I gather a recent abstract by another team suggests similar, but BK were apparently assimilated into common Turkic propper, whilst Huns/Oghurs/Bulgars lack such ancestry.
Note the Mongolian input in some of (post-Huno-Bulgar) Turkic groups
However, again I would highlight the importance of chronology: Huns appear in Europe 300 years after the Xiongnu ended. This is more in line with the Xianbei period. Things are always more complex than the irresistable urge for simple equations (in this case XIongnu= Huns)
qpAdm Model
Target: Chamar_Haryana
Russia_MLBA_Sintashta.AG — 27.3%
SE: 0.0329 | Z: 8.30
IruIa.DG — 72.7%
SE: 0.0329 | Z: 22.1
Fit: p = 0.423
qpAdm Model
Target: Brahmin_Haryana
Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2.AG — 65.4%
SE: 0.0595 | Z: 11.0
Russia_MLBA_Sintashta.AG — 25.6%
SE: 0.0455 | Z: 5.63
Onge.DG — 8.97%
SE: 0.0262 | Z: 3.43
Fit: p = 0.899
Both Upper caste Brahmins and Lower caste Chamar of Haryana have similar levels of Steppe. Only difference being Brahmins in this region have 26-30% AASI vs 45-50% AASI for Chamar.
Hard to tell if Chamar formed from mixing of high AASI population and steppe independent of Brahmins and Jats of the region or an IVC + high steppe population later mixed with high aasi population and became low caste. Or Brahmins formed from a high aasi population that mixed with steppe people with BMAC affinity.
Are there tools to test this?
@rob @davidski
Another model
Target
Brahmin_Haryana
PASS ✓
Feasible ✓
2-way admixture
p-value
0.495
Fit Quality
Excellent
chisq
9.39
Model
Weight
SE
z
Russia_MLBA_Sintashta.AG 19.3% 0.0452 4.27
Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2.AG 80.7% 0.0452 17.9
My question is, in this model my chisq/dof ratio is 0.939 which is closer to 1 while previous model had it at 0.46.
Is chisq/dof ratio of 0.46 over fitting? And how to interpret it? Overfitted model has 25 steppe vs 20 on the second one. Chamar model has 1.02 ratio making it a better model?
I avow I prefer the reasoning of Dospaises to the Gioiello and Gaska 's ones concerning the still uncertain geographic origin of Y-R1b P297 and M269!
qpAdm Ancestry Model: Brahmin_UP
A high-confidence 2-way model for the Uttar Pradesh Brahmin profile.
Ancestry Weights:
• 64.8% I8728 (IVC-related)
• 35.2% Sintashta (Steppe MLBA)
Statistical Fit:
• P-value: 0.536 (Strong fit)
• Chi-sq (χ²): 9.93
• DOF: 11
• Z-score: 14.8 / 8.08
• Std. Error: 0.0436
Right:
Mbuti.DG
Iran_GanjDareh_N.AG
Georgia_Satsurblia_LateUP.SG
Turkey_Marmara_Barcin_N.AG
Israel_Natufian.AG
Morocco_Iberomaurusian.AG
Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic.AG
Russia_Tyumen_N.AG
Russia_Shamanka_EN.SG
Luxembourg_Mesolithic.AG
Mongolia_North_N.AG
China_Xinjiang_Xiaohe_BA.AG
Onge.DG
One interesting thing to note is:
Brahmin_UP (35% steppe) and Jatt (35% steppe) even though share about the same steppe have different paternal origins. Even though they share R1a line, ( would be interesting to see which group is the sub group or if they broke away early and took different paths ), Jats have >50% males under L1a2 and Q paternal lines.
Brahmins of UP though have a dominant R2 male line ~32% and with ~23% R1a makes more than half of the Brahmin_UP paternal lines.
qpAdm results for Norwegian.DG (1.15M SNPs)
Ancestry model:
• Yamnaya (Russia Samara EBA): 42.2% ±5.3 (z=7.90)
• Globular Amphora (Poland): 42.8% ±5.3 (z=8.05)
• Latvia EN: 15.0% ±4.7 (z=3.21)
Model fit:
• dof = 11
• chisq = 11.0
• p = 0.439 → good fit
Never modeled Norwegian on qpadm before. Is it accurate?
The Khvalynians have been returned to their places! As with the old one, the new Khvalynians fall into the same age range of 15,000 BC, which doesn't quite fit with the Chokh Mesolithic.
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/J-Z1841/tree
Ran QPADM and F3 for Pashtun_Yosufzai
https://ibb.co/fd0NrXn1
https://ibb.co/gb79m6qJ
They look like an Indo aryan population that switched to Iranian language. 68% IVC and 32% steppe.
@Davidski
Dear Davidski, could you please extract from Progress, Berezhnovka, and other Eneolithic steppe samples (from their raw files) the part that is autosomally Caucasian? Are there any tools that allow this to be done? And then convert it into G25 coordinates. I have already tried doing this in various ways using Vahaduo coordinates, but that’s not quite right — those end up being synthetic coordinates based on an optimal vector.
@Rob
BTW did you know I was the first (or second) to properly sequence Y-hg R1b-PH155, from a modern Italian man ?
Oh fascinating ! When was this done
@Davidski
David can you please get rid of this troll Ash/Rudraman spamming the comment section with Bullshit models, giving serious Sridhar/Vashishta vibes. Merci
@ Kouros
It was approx 2015 or 2016, we noted there was a chap with STR c/w M335, first known to me via the study Excavating Y-chromosome haplotype strata in Anatolia; Cinnioğlu et al 2004. IIRC he might have been Italian American, but to protect privacy we wont go into more details. I submitted the data to ftDNA & YFull for expert Y DNA analysis, freely of course for the greater good.
@ rozbójnik
''Thanks I read your link. Good read. And which model for celtic do you prefer currently?''
If you asked me 10 years ago, when the buzz around steppe, BB and modern continuity led some to propose 'Atlantic Bronze Age Celtic', I would have stood in the 'traditionalist' Continental camp. But now, as recent genetics papers are swinging back to Urnfield models, Im not so sure.
For one, at its core in the Carpathian basin the Urnfield phenomenon seems to arise amongst the 'Tell communities' which have a significant 'pre-IE' genetic substrate. Obviously 'pre-IE' is a somewhat anachronistic term when talking about 2000-1200 BC, but as Alex & Radio have pointed out there must have been pre-IE speech communities through Europe, not just the Aegean & Iberia. Although some of these Urnfielders migrated about (e.g. see https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10963-022-09164-0), in many other regions cremation was gradually adopted by local groups, incl IE Nordic, Slavic, Celtic, etc. Secondly, I vaguely recall reading the Patterson suppl. that the Urnfield -like migrants seen in southeast Britain weren't exactly elite / warrior groups, in fact they didn't seem to be of an elevated status and could have been pragmatic migrants from central-east Europe, somewhat like recent times :) Thirdly, even if we can acccept that continental groups created a language shift in LBA southeast Britain (from whatever pre-Celtic idiom); we would need to explain how Scotland and Ireland became 'Celtic'. Because they do not appear to have been impacted by these genetic shifts, nor can we easily invoke 'language shift' as there was not unified British 'empire' or confedracy at the time. There might be an element of both. .
I see things like that: Italic, Celtic an other west-IE dialects had their genesis on a BB tongue basis not without influences of former non-IE languages - the Atlantic concept concerns more the BB basis than the subsequent IE dialects; we have no element to assign a precise place of birth to Celtic, only that the Italic ones seem to be born in a more eastern region, with diverse eastern influences, as well north and south; so if the Atlantic theory (Koch and Co) is not satisfying, the Urnfields one is not better. The Urnfields phenomenon was a complicated one, and I think already Celtic speaking pops of the tumuli culture (proto-Celtic and maybe partially proto-Italic) expanding eastward got in touch with Tells issued cultures and adopted parts of the new culture, but not new languages, before a return to West. Maybe the Qw-/P shift could be partly caused by this "travel" and linguistic-contacts? In my thought I see the Italics more impacted by southeastern Urnfields cultures; I wonder if some of their consonnantic features don't show also affinities with Greek evolution. SO, Celtic? Rather formed between current east-central France and southern Germany but long enough before the Urnfields, Hallstatt and La Tène times. Just for the fun.
With the samples we have published to date, this is basically all we can understand for the Anatolian question re: IBD. Grey lines are 10cm+ hits, yellow lines 20cm+ hits:
https://i.ibb.co/VWV9fhvs/newplot-4.png
Including West Anatolia BA samples shows nothing useful and just clutters the plot.
If you simplify it even further, you can see a big hit connecting Vonyuchka with both Cernavoda (an I-L699 sample) and Turkey_EBA.
After my previous message, the ftdna admins reconsidered their decision regarding the age of the Z1841 mutation and reduced it by as much as 5000 years. Now the total age of the Z1841 mutation is estimated at 10000 BC, which means it could correspond to the mesolithic Chokh—most likely that’s the case. Deal with it 😜
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/J-Z1841/tree
@ Moesan
''I avow I prefer the reasoning of Dospaises to the Gioiello and Gaska 's ones concerning the still uncertain geographic origin of Y-R1b P297 and M269!''
R1b-M269 obviously isn't from Iberia or Italy, but Dopie and the bored housewife Ameri-boomers on FraudArchiver are even more wrong about R1b (allegedly a recent migration from China!)
Instead of pretentious agnosticism, the reality is not so muddy via a rationale approach. There is first the question of tracing R1b-P297. L754 was in Europe by 18000, and probably 20,000 BP. The more proximate location of pre-M269 was probably between the middle & lower courses of the Don - Volga basins. I dont know why Jafety, Norfern, Kale and RMS are still waffling on about Mal'ta & Lake Baikal, probably becdause theyre scientifically illiterate.
There is then the question of Yamnaya dispersal, whose PCA position and presence of ~ 10% GAC ancestry points to a location somewhat further west.
It is absolutely idiotic to care about a person's personal life or to care where else people post in a blog about DNA in or from Europe. Name calling is immature. There was never an alleged recent migration from China. There was a study that reported an R-P312 Afanasievo specimen in what is now China but has been proven to not be R-P312 partly thanks to me getting people to get FTDNA to investigate. The raw data was/is not available to the public. The Chinese researchers don't even know how to use the phylogenetic software or trees correctly. I had no idea they didn't know how to use them. The thought was that IF that report was correct then an R-P312 individual made their way TO that Afanasievo site just like R-P310 made it's way to the Afanasievo site in Mongolia which is even farther if I looked at the map correctly. It was never implied that R-P312 is from China. If you can't get your facts straight then you shouldn't comment. I have never stated that R1b did not make it's way into Europe from wherever it originated.I have pointed out more recently that we have no samples to prove where a lot of the haplogroups actually were at specific points in time and I have pointed out that Villabruna 1 is not a direct ancestor of R-M269 derived people based on it's Y-DNA results. The most important detail that I can agree on is that R-M269 obviously isn't from Iberia or Italy. There still are too few ancient R1b specimens older than 8000 BC. None of them lead to R-M269 based on their ancestral calls.
@Rob
I have never claimed that R1a or R1b formed in Siberia. R1 may have already formed in Europe in it's terminal form, but we have R* from Mal'ta so it stands to reason that pre-R1 migrated from Baikal ANE to Eastern Europe EHG at some point.
@EthanR
Your messages are being quoted on X
https://x.com/paul_hundred/status/2040822141327724968?s=20
@ Shomy
''After my previous message, the ftdna admins reconsidered their decision regarding the age of the Z1841 mutation and reduced it by as much as 5000 years. Now the total age of the Z1841 mutation is estimated at 10000 BC, which means it could correspond to the mesolithic Chokh—most likely that’s the case. Deal with it 😜
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/J-Z1841/tree''
No, it means the samples I-12248 & Khvalynsk 6725 are low coverage, and hence no further downstream calls below generic J1. If they did have good covergae, I12248 would probably ibe in the saem subclade as I12416
The part about 10000BC Chockh mesolithic is your personal troll fantasy, of course, because no DNA exists from this rock shelter, indeed, there is no evidence of any human burial or ssettlement there. .
@EthanR Lazaridis also responded to this forwarded message.
https://x.com/iosif_lazaridis/status/2040861140377334028?s=20
@Shomu
I'm aware. It's hilarious that we are still pretending there is no Steppe ancestry in Kura-Araxes at this point.
They have sufficient coverage
''https://x.com/iosif_lazaridis/status/2040861140377334028?s=20''
actually, KAx has more steppe ancestry than Arslantepe. https://x.com/DrRob82/status/2040983136088309978
I dont know how Ethan is so patient with that grifter
Reminds me of the time he was debating with Tom, stating there isno such thing as "Europeans', then proceeded to show 7 different PCAs showing Europeans cluster together versus other Eurasians.
But the best is when he sends equations to Elon about Escape Velocity to Mars.
@ Norfern
'I have never claimed that R1a or R1b formed in Siberia. R1 may have already formed in Europe in it's terminal form, but we have R* from Mal'ta so it stands to reason that pre-R1 migrated from Baikal ANE to Eastern Europe EHG at some point.''
But the clown show on GA is quoting you on that, so you might want to help them out
https://genarchivist.net/showthread.php?tid=2467
Stating pre-R1 or R1b migrated to EE c. 20000 BP is a different thing to claiming that R1b-P297 arrived to Europe c. 11000 BP and that its ultimate phylogenetic ancestors link to Tianyuan. An equally silly hypothesis is the 'nihilistic' view that we have 'no idea' where P297 could have emerged from because we dont have SNPs.
@ Dospaises
It's idiotic for you to confuse your past arguements about Afansievo with Gaska with what I am acutally saying, as well as your insistance that we have no idea where the ancestors of P297 might have been between before their sudden appearance in 3000 bc. And yes, the north American 'genelogists' on GA present primitive takes on European history. They are dishonest, just like their idols at the Reich Lab.
modified the table, here is a direct link to a Table
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HFMqkhVbEAAvDkv?format=png&name=900x900
Old news
@ Rob
I lacked these last posts because they arrived to me to 2 addresses: the old (gioiellotgnn03@gmail.com) and the new (gioellotgnn06@gmail.com, which actually was the first but was suspended by our friends because I didn't want to pay for the upgrade from 15 to 100 giga of storage), but lastly I paid for this last address which was the first and I have interest to use it and not the intermediate one. So I looked at the other address where I had received the posts.
I'll study all them, but I want to say to Rob: why you Always speak of I-L699 and others (all derived from I-M223), and you don't ever say that this hg had never something to do not only with Asia or Middle East but only with Italy, at least from 20000 to 10000 Years ago? It is the link between it and R1b that I was speaking about.
@Dospaises-Twocountries
You and your friends have actively participated in the most notorious Kurganist blunders (no R1b west of the Dnieper River & No R1b in Iberia before the arrival of the steppe peoples, women in the Yamnaya culture did not practice exogamy, R1b-L51>L151 in Yamnaya, R1b-P312 in Afanasievo, the origin of the domestic horse, the origin of the BB culture, etc., etc.), and yet you still presume to lecture on genetics, archaeology, anthropology, and linguistics.
I don’t know the exact geographic origin of R1b-L754, but the oldest sample is from the Epigravettian culture in Italy, not from Ukraine or Russia.
I don't know the exact geographical origin of R1b-P297, but the oldest samples come from the north-eastern Technocomplex in the Baltic and northern Russia, not from the steppes.
I don’t know the exact geographic origin of R1b-M269, but the oldest samples are from the Gumelnita-Karanovo culture in the Balkans, not from Russia, the Caucasus, or Ukraine.
I don’t know the exact geographic origin of R1b-P312, but the oldest samples are from the BB Culture in Germany and Spain, not from China, Mongolia, or Kazakhstan.
I don't know the exact geographical origin of Df27, but the oldest samples come from the shores of the Mediterranean (Narbonne and Alicante), not from Germany, Bohemia, Hungary, or Croatia.
Your obsession with Iberia is unhealthy. Maybe you think R1b-M269 originated in Sinaloa, Querétaro, or California and that Moctezuma was Df27, tell your friends about it, and maybe together you’ll find a solution. In the meantime, forget about Spain and Italy; keep analyzing BAM files, and please don't say again that we need more samples—we all know that already.
@ Shomu
if Khvalynsk 6725 has sufficient coverage, then it should get a deeper assignemnt, rather than floating about in the void (as its currently depicted). So they either have not completed their analysis or it sits on some sort of private SNP line that that is awaiting a genealogical match
@Rob
The entire Arslantepe set can be explained without any statistically significant amount of northern sources (and this is probably an overly-generous way to model them, because Cayonu and Iranian sources love to be balanced out by Steppe-related sources).
https://i.ibb.co/n8n5rLt6/4c01c94ca428b00a912716d0708d4f1f.png
Interestingly, there are more IBD connections between Maikop and Arslantepe than Kura-Araxes. Areni shows zero with basically anything and itself is probably a dead-end.
https://i.ibb.co/yn1zZ8WC/newplot-7.png
Regardless, why he is modelling Arslantepe with an overly simplistic proximal model, and then pointing to a distal model for Kura-Araxes (where EHG is supposed to be an appropriate proxy for Steppe ancestry) is beyond me. The same distal model that shows no EHG ancestry in Kura-Araxes.. also shows no EHG in Arslantepe.
@Rob Look, if I start writing what I really think, what is on my mind, you will accuse me of being a nationalist, of trying to pull history toward myself, toward my region, and toward my nationality. But in fact I am not writing this because I want it that way; I am writing it because it stands out very clearly and is immediately obvious.
@EthanR
The oldest swords in the world, discovered in Arslantepe in eastern Turkey. The wielders of these weapons were men from the Kura-Araxes culture, who burned down the existing settlement of Arslantepe and founded their own on its remains.
https://x.com/kvali_app/status/2041391404761423952
@EthanR
Do they look like it ?https://i.ibb.co/2YkkCv8W/Screenshot-20260407-121118.jpg
Late Upper Paleolithic/Mesolithic situation in Eurasia:
https://i.imgur.com/UupfaKY.jpg
why are there sometimes such spaces between words?
@ Rob
What makes you think Yamnaya has GAC ancestry as opposed to EEF via admixture with the hybridized NW Pontic communities? I’m partial to the latter explanation personally, though I recognize many heavily underestimate how deep Old European agro-pastoral societies like GAC expanded into the steppe zone (ignored by Reich, LAZaridis, etc. for obvious reasons).
@ Shomu
Yeah, whether it’s your irrelevant tangential claims about genetics or your observations that words sometimes have spaces in between them, the world is not yet ready for your insightful truth bombs
The Kura Araks monument in ZidyanKazmalyar was flooded and partially washed away after heavy rains
https://t.me/c/1596350457/2419
@ Ethan
''The entire Arslantepe set can be explained without any statistically significant amount of northern sources (and this is probably an overly-generous way to model them, because Cayonu and Iranian sources love to be balanced out by Steppe-related sources).
https://i.ibb.co/n8n5rLt6/4c01c94ca428b00a912716d0708d4f1f.png
Interestingly, there are more IBD connections between Maikop and Arslantepe than Kura-Araxes.
https://i.ibb.co/yn1zZ8WC/newplot-7.png''
Interesting that Arslantepe has more links with Majkop. It makes sense, as most of the samples from Arslantepe are "Late Chalcolithic', which is Uruk period, which synch. in with Majkop. The goods and weapons of the chieftain burial at Arsl, are similar but a little later than those seen in Majkop.
The sites then gets destroyed, and groups using an impoverished KAx material culture then move in.
But sifting between northern Mesopotamia, sth Caucasus, Zagros and E Anatolia is obviously difficult, for one Nth Mesoptamia is porrly sampled
''Areni shows zero with basically anything and itself is probably a dead-end.''
As suspected, all fitting with non-proliferation of loco-regional Y-hg L. Just an interesting admixture curiosity
''Regardless, why he is modelling Arslantepe with an overly simplistic proximal model, and then pointing to a distal model for Kura-Araxes (where EHG is supposed to be an appropriate proxy for Steppe ancestry) is beyond me. The same distal model that shows no EHG ancestry in Kura-Araxes.. also shows no EHG in Arslantepe.''
He's dishonest and way out of his depth.
@ Tom
''What makes you think Yamnaya has GAC ancestry as opposed to EEF v''
actually both GAC & TC work, I can't really differentiate with qpADM. Indeed, people can get various models for Yamnaya
Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya
Steppe_En
Ukraine_VertebaCave_MLTrypillia
MiddleDon
0.463 0.069 0.468
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-026-03027-z
Perhaps this paper will help people better understand the BB culture. The authors argue that Iberian migrations predate the emergence of BB culture, but the fact is that the mass grave contains Spanish uniparentals and, obviously, objects from the Iberian Bell Beaker package, including pottery. Just as on the French Atlantic coast, where a connection to Portugal has been successfully demonstrated, the Beaker people reached the Paris Basin and continued to use communal graves until individual burials gradually became the norm. We now have evidence of Iberian migrations to North Africa, Sardinia, Sicily, northern Italy, Brittany, the Paris Basin, and even Hungary, following the traditional routes of the western megalithic culture. Those buried in the megaliths of the Paris region are 70% of Iberian descent, and furthermore, the link between various clades of I2a-P37 and I2a-M436 and the BBC is a fact, which undermines the Kurganist explanation of the miraculous transformation of the CWC into the BBC. How R1b-P312 men came to join the BBC remains a mystery, but we are getting closer to solving it. Here are some of the male lineages involved;
*I6601 (2700 AC)-Hipogeo de Bolores, Torres Vedras, Iberia-I2a1a1a1-P37>CTS595>L158>Y3992
*BUR310 (2657 AC)-Bury, Paris Basin, N_France-I2a1a1a1-L158>Y3992-Seersholm, 2026
*I10277 (2950 AC)-Cueva de la Guineu, Iberia-I2a1a1a1-P37>CTS595>L158>Y3992>Z2049
*BUR245 (2657 AC)-Bury, Paris Basin, N_France-I2a1a1a1a-Y3992>Z2049-Seersholm, 2026
*MON017 (2763 AC)-Valencina, Campaniforme, Iberia-I2a1a1a1a1-P37>CTS595>Y3992>L160
*BUR314 (2657 AC)-Bury, Paris Basin, N_France-I2a1a1a1a1-L160-Seersholm, 2026
Areni is not a dead end, it's the base component in Armenian Kura-Araxes which has other components that arrived over Areni.
The best model for Yamnaya archaeologically and genetically is two-way admix between 75% core Sredny Stog and 25% Para-Maykop (Remontnoye, Zolotarevka). Para+Maykop admix arrived over the local SS affiliated population, this could've happened right after end of SS phase c. 3600 BCE when Proto-Yamnaya cultures began, or could've happened by the end of Proto-Yamnaya cultures c. 33-00-3200 BC. Since we have one Yamnaya profile sample from Mikhailovka (a Proto-Yamnaya and Post-Sredny subculture), the admix probably happened c. 3600 BCE, but more samples will clarify as to when.
@Rob
Does the model work with GAC in the right or are Trypillia and GAC too interrelated?
WRT western ancestry in Yamnaya, mtDna lineages or lucky IBD hits might help
Kura-Araxes has no Areni ancestry. It may have ancestry related to the Steppe pulse that contributed to Areni. This is pretty clear based on the lack of IBD connections, uniparentals, or even just observing the Taribana Kura-Araxes samples more closely.
The Mykhailovka sample is from 3500BC and isn't even the oldest Core Yamnaya sample, that would be KST001.
Yamnaya isn't the result of Remontoye "arriving over" a Sredni Stog population. That's expressly not even Lazaridis' conclusion. I'd suggest you read the entire supplementary text from his paper.
@Rob
EEF Mtdna in Yamnaya isn't too promising when I manually tried to review FTDNA's tree.
Here are all the IBD connections (every Ukraine/Russian Yamnaya group) with Trypillia and Gumelnita. They all disappear when you set the cut off to 10cm hits. I could add other EEF groups but it will show the same thing.
https://i.ibb.co/LhhGJjJ4/newplot-8.png
Maikop shows more IBD connections but is too young to account for all the ANF ancestry in Sredni Stog/Yamnaya.
@Gaska
Are you sure that these hg I are I-Y3992 (Iberia) and not I-Y3992 > Z2049 > L160 (Italy)?
> Kura-Araxes has no Areni ancestry. It may have ancestry related to the Steppe pulse that contributed to Areni.
Kura-Araxes directly succeeds Areni, no complete population replacement happened in Armenia that time. Areni is the base component of Armenian Kura-Araxes which has further input from nearby populations.
> This is pretty clear based on the lack of IBD connections, uniparentals, or even just observing the Taribana Kura-Araxes samples more closely.
What IBD connections? What uniparentals? Materially Armenian Kura-Araxes itself derives from older Areni/Sioni Chaff-Tempered Ware
> Yamnaya isn't the result of Remontoye "arriving over" a Sredni Stog population. That's expressly not even Lazaridis' conclusion
That's what happened actually, Remontnoye profile is limited to Manych and at most around Don. They were probably fleeing Steppe Maykop expansion into their territory. Remontnoye is just Para-Maykop both materially and genetically
@Gio
Well, they could be Italian migrations because Remedello has I2a-Y3992 (3294 BCE) and even I2a-Y11222 (2743 BCE), or Hungarian migrations (Balatonlelle also has I2a-Y3992-3181 BCE) but at these Italian and Hungarian sites there is no BB pottery of the international style, whereas in Iberia and at Bury (Paris Basin) there is.
In addition to the Bell Beaker connection, it is evident that there was a connection between France-Belgium-Iberia-Italy and even Hungary (Baden culture) and Germany (Wartberg culture) at the end of the Neolithic period, when I2a clans took advantage of the decline of the Anatolian farming lineages and seized control of the territory in Western Europe.
The reproductive success of these descendants of the Western HGs slowed down in the first quarter of the 3rd millennium, but even so, at many European sites of the BB culture, we still find I2a men (from different branches) dating from 2500 to 2000 BCE.
Only in Sardinia and Iberia did the I2a1a1a-L158-M26 clade survive in significant numbers to this day.
@ Gaska
"Only in Sardinia and Iberia did the I2a1a1a-L158-M26 clade survive in significant numbers to this day".
Of course, and I thought hat I-M26 (40% in Sardinia, a little in the Basques but also in continental Italy) was the hg of he Basque-Caucasian language that was the ancestor of Basque and Old Sardinian (look at Blasco Ferrer hypothesis), and, whereas I thought that the R1b1 Villabruna adopted that language, I think now that the other way around happened, if also my ancestors R-L23-Z2103 of Yamnaya spoke very likely IE, if they brought the Euphratic into Mesopotamia and Latin in Italy.
@ Norfern
Yes both GAC & CT work as is and with each other as competing pRight
@ Leon
''Kura-Araxes directly succeeds Areni, no complete population replacement happened in Armenia that time. Areni is the base component of Armenian Kura-Araxes which has further input from nearby populations.''
The Areni _C samples date to ~ 4100 BC, Kura Araxes begins c. 3500 BC, so there's a 600 year gap.
Areni is approx 75% Sho-Shu 25% Steppe_EN, KAx can be modelled as ~ 75% Sho-Shu 15 % CHG 10% Yamnaya or STeppe_EN
It is possible that Areni_C is a base population for KAX, but it is not evident
''What IBD connections? What uniparentals? ''
As stated above, the males buried in Areni belong to L-M27. This lineage is absent in KAx, or indeed any other bronze age Caucasian group, Anatolia and elsewhere (apart from a Saka individual, etc)
Ethan has shown the IBD links, so not sure why you are confused
''Materially Armenian Kura-Araxes itself derives from older Areni/Sioni Chaff-Tempered Ware''
KAx pottery is completely different to CFW, it is black and red bichrome design whilst CFW is white/ bland. Archaeologists have not been able to come to a concensus as to the origins of KAX pottery.
The context of Areni individuals are from a cave burial. This is not a feature of KAX horizon. The pottery in the Areni cave has been just piled in over periods without any clear relation to the deceased.
Areni are a regional perculiarity during the 'disturbed' post-Shuvaleri epoch before the sweeping KAx phenomenon emerged. They signify that steppe ancestry had penetred into the southern Caucasus, but in and of themselves do not seem to have propagated or propered. KAX could have obtained their ancestry from Areni, some other steppe-admixed Caucasian population, Yamnaya, or Catacomb, etc. IBD and uniparentals are the best way to determine which
KAx is quite different to Areni_C
Armenia_EBA_KuraAraxes
Armenia_C
Georgia_Satsurblia.SG
Turkey_TepecikCiftlik_N.SG
best coefficients: 0.370 0.418 0.212
std. errors: 0.104 0.068 0.060
https://pastebin.com/3augc3yh
WIth the somewhat increased SE, lack of IBD links & markers, there might be no direct link between Areni directly links to KAx.
@ Gaska
The Paris basin samples in phase two II might be the dominated by I2a-M26-Y11222. I'd need to check individual by individual from the suppl. Im not entirely convinced about their clain of a pre-CW turnover in central France. But there does seem to be some sort of Iberian expansion c. 3000BC, but perhaps earlier, original link to an east Iberian Cardial group.
They have little to do with the emergence BB pottery, which is a variant of CW. But they are associated with a sort of west European warrior ethos. Same lineage in Baden, Csepel, Remedello, Iberian tholoi.
@Leon
Again, that's quite literally not even Lazaridis' conclusion. Go read the text. I am not pulling it up just because you are lazy.
@Rob
There are many samples, but they are easy to check in the supplementary information (Isogg tree). In the first phase, most are H2-P96, but there is also I2a1a2-M423>L161, which is a lineage that has been very common in Western Europe since the Mesolithic period and closely linked to the megalithic culture. Iberia (Cueva de Chaves, Gruta de Caldeirao, Cova das lapas, Sima del Angel, Bolores etc) & France (Lingolsheim, Rosheim- Grossgartach, Obernai-Linnear Pottery, Escalles-Mont d'Hubert, Prissé-la-Charrière, Bergheim-Michelsberg culture) and later, even in the CWC culture (Spreitenbach-Switzerland). For the first time, lineages that until now had only been found in the British Isles are also appearing in France, demonstrating the Franco-British-Spanish connection along the Atlantic coast. These samples from the first phase have nothing to do with BB culture; rather, they are associated with the builders of megaliths. For example;
*ROS78 (4650 BCE)-Rosheim, Grossgartach, France-I2a1a2-L161>L1498-Brunel, 2020
*CH448 (3468 BCE)-Cohaw Cavan, Ireland-I2a1a2-Y3104>L161>L1498-Cassidy, 2020
*BUR200 (3341 BCE)-Bury-Oise, Paris Basin, France-I2a1a2-L1498-Seersholm, 2026
*PT22194 (3088 BCE)-Cova das Lapas, Leiria, N_Iberia-I2a1a2-L1498-Roca-Rada, 2024
-But then, in the second phase (3000 BCE), and following the temporary closure of the site, marker M26 appears, and starting in 2550 BCE, pottery in the international maritime style identical to that found in Portugal (just as in Brittany). The male markers remain I2a-M26; there is no trace of R1b-M269, so Olalde and company’s theory of Iberian exceptionalism has been completely debunked, that is, while in the rest of Europe the BB culture spread through migration, Iberian maritime pottery spread as if by magic without any population movements originating from the Iberian Peninsula (and all of this to keep alive the Kurgan theory and the link between the BBC and some branch of Indo-European). The situation is far more complicated than the simplistic explanation of the transformation of the CWC into the BBC (especially since these cultures coexisted for centuries in some European regions). Perhaps the Iberian BBs were originally I2a-M438, and later there was a kind of backflow dominated by R1b-P312, as Sangmeister argued. If so, German, French, and Spanish archaeologists must resolve the origin of the Ciempozuelos-Pyrenean style (exclusive to southern France and Spain) and link it in some way to German pottery.
In my opinion, if IE isn't the language of the WHGs, then the BBC—at least in Spain and France—didn't speak IE.
I asked AI about the implications of the lopsided distribution of BAC ancestry
https://i.imgur.com/VG2gNKg.jpg
@Radiosource
Both BAC and SGC are probably relevant to Germanic in some way so not sure what you're trying to prove.
@Ethan
From whom do you think Yamnaya received it's ANF ancestry?
@Gaska
"In my opinion, if IE isn't the language of the WHGs, then the BBC—at least in Spain and France—didn't speak IE".
It is possible that the haplogroups of BB culture in your perspective didn't speak an IE Language, thus we have to think to a Basco-Caucasian one (like Basque and Sardinian) if we have to think to WHGs speaking IE only linked with the Villabruna and the I2a of Italy, mainly I-M223, and if the hypothesis of the Yamnayas linked to R-L23-Z2103 (centum) and clearly the R1a (satem) which are responsible of the expansion until central Asia and the Indo-Iranians. The IE centum could be formed already in Yamnaya, if so are all the "aree laterali" (Tokharian, Euphratic, Latin etc.), and the satem IE in the central area before the migration to east, and only historical facts could respond all the questions. Many languages went extinct, and only a political unity could explain the last events before the dispersion.
From my perspective I think that an inquiry about Albanian could give some answers to me. Already the Etruscan gave many answers, also in negative about a supposed origin in Anatolia (wrong from a genetic point of view) and above all the question of hg. G. Dispersed from the Caucasus? Probably. But one thing is the uniparental markers and another thing is the autosome. The IE languages are languages of the Siberian corridor.
@Perkwunos
Probably both Meshoko and Maikop-related groups but mediated by intermediate populations like the Krivyansky and Remontnoye eneolithic samples, over an extended time frame.
> As stated above, the males buried in Areni belong to L-M27. This lineage is absent in KAx
We have total of 3 Areni samples from a cave that are probably closely related. Most of Sioni proper sites are unsampled, so thinking Sioni is 100% L based on 3 isolated samples would be a good example of committing to sampling bias. The Areni samples are only relevant for knowing the autosomal profile of Sioni. As Armenian Kura-Araxes directly succeeds Sioni in chronology, it's very likely that admix from nearby populations happened over pre-existing Sioni population. Not that hard to understand. IBD is irrelevant in this. And Armenian Kura-Araxes can be modelled 3-way with Areni, and two other nearby populations
> Again, that's quite literally not even Lazaridis' conclusion
Doesn't matter, cause that's what happened. Sredny Stog didn't migrate over Remontnoye and then expand from Manych.
@Perkwunos Some of them come from the South Caucasus, through Shomutepe and further contacts of steppe cultures with cultures like Maikop, Kura-Araks, Nalchik, etc., and the other part comes from the Neolithic of Ukraine, the Trypillians, etc.
"Doesn't matter, cause that's what happened. Sredny Stog didn't migrate over Remontnoye and then expand from Manych. "
Well if you want to engage in an autistically literal interpretation of what qpadm spits out, then sure.
I am also sure you are able to provide a solid citation for the archeology positing that Remontnoye expanded into Sredni Stog territory to form Yamnaya.
"As Armenian Kura-Araxes directly succeeds Sioni in chronology, it's very likely that admix from nearby populations happened over pre-existing Sioni population. Not that hard to understand. IBD is irrelevant in this"
If there's no IBD matching and no uniparental matches, then there's no solid genetic evidence to suggest a direct contribution from the population of Areni cave.
@Perkwunos
"Both BAC and SGC are probably relevant to Germanic in some way so not sure what you're trying to prove."
I'm trying to reconstruct ethnogenesis as a more clear picture than a vague "relevant in some way".
Here's what we know and what we can logically derive:
1). SGC arrrived with the R1b (Bell Beaker) wave of Indo-Europeans, while BAC arrived with the R1a (Corded Ware) wave of Indo-Europeans. This gives the initial data point: the Indo-European dialect of SGC was more closely related to the dialects of other post-Beaker cultures than to the languages of post-Corded cultures (including BAC). This directly contradicts the assumption of a particularly close ethno-linguistic-genetic kinship at the initial phase.
2). Today there is little-to-none BAC ancestry in the South (Northern German lowlands), but potentially a truckload of SGC ancestry in the North (Scandinavia). This suggests that the relationship between SGC and BAC was not a mutual exchange of two equals, but explicitly dominated by SGC. Perhaps the SGC were more numerous in their total population, and them (or their descendants) swarmed Scandinavia with immigration. In addition to being numerically superior, their material culture could be slightly more developed due to slightly more favorable climatic conditions and a more productive agricultural output compared to the lands to their Northern neighbors.
3). If the relationship was numerically, demographically and genetically dominated by the Southern neighbor, and if the migration between them was a one-way path (South to North), then there is no reason to assume that both parties equally contributed to the linguistic developments.
4). During the Roman Iron Age, there still was a linguistic unity between the North (Scandinavia) and the South (Northern German lowlands). One may ask: how does a linguistic unity get preserved? The answer is — internal migration. Without internal migration, a shared language starts branching into dialects and then into something mutually unintelligible.
5). Absence of the BAC ancestry in the South (Northern German lowlands) strongly suggests that the internal migration has always been one-way. I repeat: always. From the times of SGC/BAC all the way into the Roman Iron Age, the migration could be only one-way (South to North) as evident in the absence of BAC ancestry in the South.
6). If the migration which facilitated a shared linguistic community has always been a one-way South-to-North tunnel over thousands of years, then there is no known mechanism which could allow the language of BAC to influence the language of the inhabitants of the Northern German lowlands.
We deal with a very long timeframe: SGC/BAC to the Roman Iron Age is ~2500 years. I do not possess an exact knowledge in which part of this long timeframe the linguistic unity between Northern German lowlands and Scandinavia had solidified. But what I do know is that throughout this whole period the genetic material of BAC had failed to penetrate the Northern German lowlands in a statistically meaningful way, and that the migration necessary for facilitating a shared linguistic community could only be one way (South to North).
Further implications of this: when we speak of the Germanic ancestry of modern English, German, Dutch or Frisian people, or attempt to quantitatively calculate proportions of Germanic ancestry in these populations, we do not imply BAC ancestry.
Terms such as "Germanic ancestry", "Indo-European ancestry", "EHG ancestry", "ANE ancestry", "Tianyuan ancestry", by definition, imply a shared ancestry, not a tapestry of ancestries. If you include BAC ancestry into the definition despite it being endemic to Scandinavia, then the definition of "shared ancestry" is violated. Because it's not a shared ancestry.
There may be people here who think that my posts are insane or illogical. If there are gaping holes in my reasoning, point them out.
@ Gaska
yes, even L161 looks like an Franco-Iberian expansion, earlier wave mixing with original Farmers, reaching fixation frequency in northern TRB, Scottish/ Irish Neolithic. M26 is a later wave
I'll explain BB in the future
Of course, ultimately both M26 and L161 are from Italy :)
@ Leon
''We have total of 3 Areni samples from a cave that are probably closely related. Most of Sioni proper sites are unsampled, so thinking Sioni is 100% L based on 3 isolated samples would be a good example of committing to sampling bias. The Areni samples are only relevant for knowing the autosomal profile of Sioni. As Armenian Kura-Araxes directly succeeds Sioni in chronology, it's very likely that admix from nearby populations happened over pre-existing Sioni population. Not that hard to understand. IBD is irrelevant in this. "
You need to think about what point you are trying to make. If you are saying that Kura Araxes has some ancestry from the preceding South Caucasian Chalcolithic, as a whole, then fine.
If you are saying that the Bronze Age KAx group followed the Late Chaoclithic, then it's a case of 'No Shit Sherlock'. But if you are attempting to argue that KAx specifically follows Areni (the site), or Sioni (the vague and poorly dated cultural concept), then this is also not as evident as you think.
The issue here is that, as in parts of Europe, after the initial Neolithic Boom , there was a bust and fragmentation. The Neolithic Boom was assoc with a fairly uniform Shuvaleri horizon, which then dissipates and fragments after ~ 5200 BC. Between 5200 and 3300 BC, we dont have a solid grasp of what was going on, we see references to CFW, 'Sioni;' Mentesh Tepe culture, etc; These might have been quite varied and it is not clear with which, if any, Areni-C are associated with. They might have been their own little esoteric group, which obviously didnt expand.
''And Armenian Kura-Araxes can be modelled 3-way with Areni, and two other nearby populations''
Yes, KAx is a mix of regional populations. But its an entirely new cultural entity, different folks to Areni. Just like CW has GAC ancestry, but it is a different entity, different people.
@ Ethan
If you are checking for ulterior sources of extra ANF in Yamnaya, I found that with competitive modelling Majkop also works agains GAC or TC, but Meshoko Fails. Probably because it has too much CHG.
Are there any IBD links between Majkop and Yamnaya. I guess the little J2b remnant surviving around Moldova might be a clue
@ Radio
I agree with what you're saying about proto-Germanic, although as we know the Allentoft team identified IBD signals of a net flow from Scandinavia into continental Europe during the pre-Roman Iron Age (or whatever time period it was). I'm not sure about that, in fact the 'real life' archaeological data points to a population flow from Denmark/ southern Sweden toward eastern Sweden (the famed Malar province).
I would say however, even if SGC ancestry was 'dominant', there is no reason why the BAC group did also not contribute to the development of Germanic.
Finally, in order to understand what happens for historic Germanic groups, & the development of 'North' 'West' and 'East Germanic', we need to understand the empirical details of what happens following the LBA collapse of the Nordic culture. Many of the previously prominent chiefly centres decline and previously unassuming centres in Jutland become prominent and expansive. They might have served as an early wave of Germanic expansion, however I see no issues with the Scandic links of the Goths
@Rob
I think Sredni Stog may have some amount of Meshoko (probably from Svobodnoe site) ancestry, but between then and the EBA, Pre-Maikop and Maikop subsumes that role in the mating network.
I can't pull them up right now but there is healthy ibd sharing between Maikop and Yamnaya/Afanasievo. Nothing overwhelming, but it's there.
@Rob
Some parts of Denmark may have little-to-none BAC ancestry, which would just reaffirm that Denmark is a transitional country between Scandinavia proper and Northern German lowlands.
And yes, the specific parts of Scandinavia without BAC ancestry (i.e. parts of Denmark) can very plausibly be a source of a geneflow into Central Europe.
@Radiosource
You're indeed insane so at least you're self-aware. Your exercise fails because you're unaware and/or fail to mention the basic facts:
1.) SGC is Corded Ware, not Bell Beaker. LNBA Scandinavia is devoid of P312 and it's not only R-U106 but R-V1636, R1a (CTS4385), I2 (I-Z165/GAC derived) present in Denmark so there was more going besides R1b in SGC.
2). ~ 2300 BCE BAC & R1a vanishes from Scania and get's replaced by R-U106 flat gravers like RISE98. I1 guys start popping up there as well (oll009), the commoners used gallery graves.
3). The key to Germanic is figuring out the proximate origins of the I1/East Scandinavian group. The elites were buried in kurgans in Scandinavia and they actually turned out to be I1 (RISE179, RISE175).
I think these I1 kurgan elites are most relevant but the Copenhagen boys failed to prove their Finnish origins and we lack I1 in Comb Ceramic so we need more data.
I don't know if it's proved but since a long time I supposed the BB story was a multi-stores rocket; I favoured a southwestern European creation adopted later by Steppic group in west-central Europe and then later developments
Don't we only have a single SGC genome? How can we tell that this sample's ancestry was representative of the entire culture and that BAC and SGC didn't form one metapopulation?
@Perkwunos
1). SGC was mostly R1b and arrived with the same Indo-European wave as other R1b branches that formed the Bell Beaker complex. The smaller percentage of R1a-L664 points to an admixture of CWC, but to attribute it entirely to CWC is false. CWC proper cultures are R1a clades through and through.
2). R1a-L664 is a pan-Germanic Y-DNA of CWC origin, I should have mentioned it initially to not let you play a gotcha.
3). You just casually moved a goalpost with that Scania claim. BAC & R1a being gone from Scania by 2300 BC just means that the area of BAC/R1a contracted and that they were pushed farther North. Your initial claim was that the Germanic is a fusion of SGC of BAC, and BAC being gone from Scania proves the exact opposite.
4). You're being vague again with your "I1 guys". BAC were not only R1a-Z284 but also I1-L22 and guess what, I1-L22 is endemic to Scandinavia/Finland. The type of I1 that is present in all Germanic areas is I1-Z58, likely to be found among SGC if the sample size grows.
I'm welcoming valid criticisms, but your post is just a mix of gotcha and goalpost-moving.
@Norfern-Ostrobothnian
If SGC and BAC were one population, then why both R1a-Z284 and I1-L22 statistically insignificant in modern Niedersachsen, among modern Frisians, and everywhere else in the West Germanic world? The type of I1 that is abundant in Niedersachsen/Friesland is I1-Z58, not BAC's I1-L22.
If someone rolls out a paper which states that SGC were a mix of R1a-Z284 and I1-L22 like BAC, it will be a mystery for me how did they vanish from the Northern German lowlands. Currently there is no reason to assume that SGC were like BAC.
BAC/R1a-Z284 disappearing from Scania and R1b-U106 popping up also means that Scania was a receiving end of those R1b guys who came from elsewhere (from the South).
This positions Scania as a receiving end of genetics from the Northern German lowlands.
@Radiosource
Have you heard of Papac 2021? R-U106 and R-L151 are in Bohemian Corded Ware.
R-U106 is a SGC marker (and thus a CWC marker).
You read like you're stuck in 2015 archeogenetics so it's not even worth discussing this IMO.
If I were you I would keep your options open because your thinking is way too narrow since we're talking about LNBA dynamics not modern y-hg frequencies.
I-L22 has a TMRCA 2150 BCE according to FamilyTreeDNA post-dating BAC.
How can you get the basics so wrong lol
Next time post sample ID's, C14 dates etc. You grifter.
Whatever we call the wave of migration moving through Denmark c. 2400 BC, it was a Bell Beaker -type culture. The arrowheads, daggers, wristguards, house construction are all 'Beaker goods'. But they were predominantly U106 rather than P312.
The Gjerrild R1b-V1636 individuals are from a megalithic interment, but according to old conventions classified as "SGC'. Acc. to same old conventions, SGC was said to be replaced by BB , but Gjerrild dates to ~ 2200 bc.
@ Radio
Theres no I1 in Battle Axe culture period. (2700-2300). It just seems to 'appear' c. 2000 BC.
The recently published individuals from Warberg now split I1-M253 into the main lineage which expanded in and then from Scandinavia (I1-L840); and a second main line found in the Warberg individuals from a Dolmen 'Farmer' burial in Germany , late TRB. A few new Akbari samples also on this lineage (I1-FTF27125).
@ Norfern
Not sure if this is what you're asking, but there is good evidence that BAC came via the east Baltic.
see here for a brief look (old news to most of you)
https://x.com/DrRob82/status/2010648402049307064
@Rob
There's no evidence of 2400 BCE U106 arrivals in Jutland. They just copied and traded with some NW Beaker groups and it was spotty, centered around northern Jutland.
Same story like the so-called R1b Unetice elites meme from a years back. There were cultural impulses from Central Europe ~ 2200 BCE.
@ Perkwunos
''There's no evidence of 2400 BCE U106 arrivals in Jutland. They just copied and traded with some NW Beaker groups and it was spotty, centered around northern Jutland.''
Interesting inversion of reality; given that there is no evidence for U106 being present in Scandinavia before 2400 BC. Secondly, groups do not just 'borrow' an entire cultural package.
If we were to follow the data, we would observe that U106 appears some time after 2400 bc, and that just so corresponds with the arrival of a new cultural entity.
Yes there is the CW male from Netherlands who is U106, but as his autosomal profile was too heavily Swifterband admixed, he is probably not the founding father of Danish U106. This case <- and the Gjerrild individual tells us that not every 'early CW' founder group was successful. Many died off and were replaced by other, late CW and BB groups
''Same story like the so-called R1b Unetice elites meme from a years back. There were cultural impulses from Central Europe ~ 2200 BC''
Yes I recall some folks had a major issue with this (esp. the girls over on the pseudoGermanic thread at GeneArchivist).
Current sit rep: the earliest U106 is from Bohemia and (according to present data) it appears in Denmark 2200 BC. A movement up the Elbe remains a sensible proposal, but it might have been earlier.
For Denmark & BB;
“On the outskirts of the European Bell Beaker Phenomenon – the Danish case”; T Sarauw
“ The Late Neolithic Expansion in Denmark. Ancient and new traditions 2350-1700 BC”. Johanssen
To clarify my comment - ''the earliest U106 is from Bohemia and (according to present data) it appears in Denmark 2200 BC. A movement up the Elbe remains a sensible proposal, but it might have been earlier'
obviously, I am not proposing a sudden migration from Bohemia to Jutland in 2200BC. Instead, I think U106 groups moved into northern Europe from the 'Bohemia-ELbe route' during the middle CW period (~ 2600bc). They then developed into what we can call 'Lowland BB societies", between north Germany & northern Poland, forming a northern periphery to the emerging Unetice network and having diverged from the 'classic western BB".
w.r.t Denmark, we should recall the 2450BC individual from Toftum Mose derived for R1a-M17 and a late persistence of TRB related I2a lineages. So although the 2800 - 2200BC period is relatively poorly sampled, we do have an idea what was going on: - a smattering of different groups (late TRB - I2a), some early CW pioneers (R1b-V1636, R1a-M17), then a confluent 'northern Beaker expansion assoc with R1b-U106 c. 2400 BC. They might have been accompanied by late Hunter/ quasi-TRB groups of I1 males, which rose to a prominent elite caste a couple hundred years (internal social ascendance).
@Radiosource
SGC too could have been displaced, at least unipaternally, by some southern impulse perhaps related to the Bell Beaker Culture.
@Rob " I vaguely recall reading the Patterson suppl. that the Urnfield -like migrants seen in southeast Britain weren't exactly elite / warrior groups, in fact they didn't seem to be of an elevated status and could have been pragmatic migrants from central-east Europe"
Interesting.
@Perkwunos "I think these I1 kurgan elites are most relevant but the Copenhagen boys failed to prove their Finnish origins and we lack I1 in Comb Ceramic so we need more data."
I think you are looking in the wrong place. It's not from Finland
@Radiosource
"R1a-L664 is a pan-Germanic Y-DNA of CWC origin"
No. Dead theory. R-L664 is single grave pre-Germanic. Not found in east germanic aDNA, so not pan-germanic.
"BAC were not only R1a-Z284 but also I1-L22".
No, only R1a found there. The mrca for I-L22 was born 200 years after the nordic battle axes stopped existing. Are you parroting what your AI told you?
Map of BAC autosomal ancestry among modern populations (broad guesstimate)
https://i.imgur.com/hjEQ3Vo.jpg
Categories are super broad because narrowing it down more precisely is beyond the scope of 2026
@Perkwunos
@Rob
Will answer later
@rozbójnik
I'm not looking for anything.
In fact, I think I1 arrived in Scandinavia from East-Central Europe during the dagger period.
@Rob
The adoption of the Beaker package was partial and restricted to northern Jutland. That's consistently described in most BB scholarship and in Sarauw's work.
Beakers are found on settlement sites; no funerary contexts, emphasis on selective adoption, lacking uniform distrubtion etc.
You're a known grifter.
@Perkwunos
"Have you heard of Papac 2021? R-U106 and R-L151 are in Bohemian Corded Ware.
R-U106 is a SGC marker (and thus a CWC marker)."
I'm mentioning CWC and BB as more genetic than cultural terms
The clean distribution of R1b and R1a (West and East) with some mixing in the middle suggests that there were two disparate waves of IE migrations. This may sound like an unconfirmed speculation to many of you but oftentimes the simpliest explanation is the most functional one
SGC may be be consideted a CWC subgroup based on its cultural features, but unlike other CWC groups, it's mostly R1b. The cultural commonality with other CWC groups was likely brought by receiving a CWC proper admixture (hence R1a-L664), but it was a secondary genetic influence, not a dominant one
Not sure about R1b-to-R1a proportions in the Bohemian Corded Ware, but wouldn't be surprised if it's also a mix (geographically Central position)
Either way, how does this affect the absence of the BAC ancestry in the Northern German lowlands? You seem willing to discuss anything except the actually relevant part
@Perkwunos
"I-L22 has a TMRCA 2150 BCE according to FamilyTreeDNA post-dating BAC. How can you get the basics so wrong lol. Next time post sample ID's, C14 dates etc. You grifter."
@Rob
"Theres no I1 in Battle Axe culture period. (2700-2300). It just seems to 'appear' c. 2000 BC."
@rozbojnik
"No, only R1a found there. The mrca for I-L22 was born 200 years after the nordic battle axes stopped existing. Are you parroting what your AI told you?"
Maybe the issue is a sample size and a frequency shift over time. For example, during the BAC proper period (2800/2700-2300 BC) the frequency of I1 could be so vanishingly small that the available sample size doesn't allow to confirm its existence, but after the BAC proper period its frequency could've exploded enough for it to be detectable with even a small sample size. Alternatively, it could've entered from Finland or elsewhere
Either way, this wouldn't really change anything because I1-L22 is endemic to Scandinavia/Finland and has little-to-no presence in the Northern German lowlands. The minor I1-L22 presence in the British Isles was brough in by the vikings, but since the British Isles is not a Germanic homeland, our compass should be the Northern German lowlands where I1-L22 has little-to-no presence
@Norfern-Ostrobothnian
"SGC too could have been displaced, at least unipaternally, by some southern impulse perhaps related to the Bell Beaker Culture."
Occam's Razor says no. No reason to assume that SGC was choke-full with R1a-Z284 and that it was cleanly removed afterwards unless a specific evidence emergences that would prove so. Even if R1a-Z284 gets discovered somewhere on the SGC territory with a SGC dating, it would likely be in some of its Northern outskirts (i.e., parts of Denmark) which could only suggest a genetic mixing with the neighboric BAC culture, but the Northern German lowlands being choke-full with R1a-Z284 is firmly a sci-fi territory unless a freak of nature evidence proves otherwise
@rozbojnik
"No. Dead theory. R-L664 is single grave pre-Germanic. Not found in east germanic aDNA, so not pan-germanic."
Again, what's the sample size? R1a-L664 has always been a minor Y-DNA and still is. You would need a sample size of several thousands to prove its absence
The critical thinking has left the chat
@ Perkwunos
“ TThe adoption of the Beaker package was partial and restricted to northern Jutland. That's consistently described in most BB scholarship and in Sarauw's work.
Beakers are found on settlement sites; no funerary contexts, emphasis on selective adoption, lacking uniform distrubtion etc...”
Nope, the BB package is associated with a coherent group of people (U106 rich in this case) that migrated north, as far as Norway even.
They were at liberty to use the Beaker package components in whatever manner & combination they wished. In this case, the northern BB group de-selected BB pottery from the funerary sphere and chose to only use it in domestic contexts.
The same thing happens in Iberia Bronze Age, when the BB pottery is no longer deposited in burials, but many of the other components of a package (wrsit guards, copper daggers, etc) remained.
''You're a known grifter''
If I were a grifter i'd be making claims such as ''There's no evidence of 2400 BCE U106 arrivals in Jutland', despite the data showing just that.
@ Radiosource
''Maybe the issue is a sample size and a frequency shift over time. For example, during the BAC proper period (2800/2700-2300 BC) the frequency of I1 could be so vanishingly small that the available sample size doesn't allow to confirm its existence, but after the BAC proper period its frequency could've exploded enough for it to be detectable with even a small sample size. Alternatively, it could've entered from Finland or elsewhere'
The absence of I1 in Battle Axe period is real because BAx identity was restricted to R1a-Z283 (-Z284) males.
It it is possible that pre-I1 which rose during the Nordic BA was laying ''hidden'' in Sweden (as some would like to believe) however it is quite unlikely that I1 is from Finland. During the mesolithic, Finland was part of the EHG sphere/ eastern technocomplexes, so I would guess for Y-hg R1a (x Z283), R1b-M73 or even Q1. Taken to the extreme, there was even a group of 'genetics afficianados' that went so far as to claim that PGMc is from Finland.
So far the trail of pre-I1 links in Iberia, France, west Germany then to north Germany. Even the (likely dead-end) pre-I1 in Stora Forvar ultimately comes from (north)western Europe.
Moreover, we do see a migration from the East Baltic coasts to Scandinavia - the Pitted Ware groups which swept across east Sweden, Gotland, east Denmark, and they are I2a-S21825.
''The clean distribution of R1b and R1a (West and East) with some mixing in the middle suggests that there were two disparate waves of IE migrations. This may sound like an unconfirmed speculation to many of you but oftentimes the simpliest explanation is the most functional one''
I agree on this. There was differences within so-called "Corded Ware', with a Danubian R1b-L51 rich group and a sub-Baltic R1a-Z645 route (at least in broad terms).
And the haplogroup frequencies we later see in CW, BB and Unetice periods were in flux.
@Radiosource
No one cares about your fake BAC ancestry maps. It's not worth discussing imaginary stats.
BAC ancestry may have been displaced by I1 groups for all I care.
BAC/R-Z284 survived out in LNBA Norway but received continous East Scandinavian/I1 geneflow during NBA and pre-Roman Iron Age so R-Z284 swapped out it's BAC genome for East Scandinavian ancestry (McColl 2025).
The I1 cluster seem to have different GW-wide affinities and richer in MN-EEF and HG ancestry so I find it hard to see them deriving from BAC and/or SGC.
On TG they are using simulated coords and calling it zarubinets but it's not a real sample. How can you use simulated coords to prove anything about proto Slavic?
Radio, the simplest explanation is that you're stuck in a 2015 archeogenomic capsule.
Nothing will ever make sense from you because you got everything wrong and will keep being wrong.
@Rob
Whether U106 is from Jutish CW or post-SGC Northern Germany are minor details.
Finland is a sink not a source despite the wishes of the gurus on Genarchivist.
Will you use the new 2M AADR datasets for future PCA projects?
Yeah, sure, if there's no Great Depression and I actually have access to electricity then there will be future PCA projects, otherwise probably no.
@Davidski🙏
What about the "new type of calculator" you wrote about last year?
The sheet from the published Akbari paper makes it easier to find the "region" and date of the new samples. Almost all the interesting Anatolian-profile samples happen to date to antiquity, some of which seemingly being migrants to southern Europe.
Many of the samples under the Theopetra clade also do seem to date to 3100-2900BC, in the "East" region, which includes Romania.
CentralEurope:I37968.TW_1250BCE,0.12862,0.135065,0.062225,0.053618,0.038469,0.019522,0.00564,0.009,0.003272,-0.016583,-0.002273,-0.004646,0.00892,0.022295,-0.012351,0.001326,0.008084,-0.003167,0.003268,0.001876,-0.004991,0.004699,0.01368,-0.010604,0.002036
CentralEurope:I37969.TW_1250BCE,0.140002,0.127957,0.068636,0.065246,0.040623,0.020917,0.010105,0.007846,-0.00225,-0.019681,0.00341,-0.008692,0.015461,0.025047,-0.019001,0.004906,0.009648,0.003801,-0.008422,0.003001,-0.006489,-0.005935,0.003697,-0.00482,-0.002515
CentralEurope:I37970.TW_1250BCE,0.137726,0.136081,0.068259,0.062339,0.044931,0.017849,0.008225,0.014769,0.00634,-0.024966,-0.004222,-0.010341,0.017393,0.023121,-0.014251,-0.010342,-0.009257,-0.002407,-0.000503,-0.001751,0.003244,0.000866,0.002958,-0.013616,-0.001676
I37968.TW U3b1b
I37969.TW I-A12505 N1b1a3
I37970.TW I-A7358 J1c2i
https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-A12505/
https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-A7358/
Distance to: C:I37970.TW_1250BCE
0.02513675 Russian_Smolensk
0.02548249 Ukrainian_Sumy
0.02761648 Polish
0.02771529 Belarusian
0.02888237 Ukrainian_Chernihiv
Distance to: C:I37969.TW_1250BCE
0.02164048 Ukrainian_Rivne
0.02164272 Ukrainian_Chernihiv
0.02352139 Russian_Belgorod
0.02384614 Russian_Voronez
0.02474497 Ukrainian_Zhytomyr
Distance to: C:I37968.TW_1250BCE
0.02176371 Polish
0.02330205 Ukrainian_Lviv
0.02394503 Ukrainian_Rivne
0.02523628 Sorb_Niederlausitz
0.02538423 Ukrainian_Zakarpattia
It seems that our sample I12248 J1-Z1841 turned out to be not a representative of the Khvalynsk culture, but rather a representative of the Yamnaya culture.
^^^ These samples may be misdated, but...
A12505 and A7358 (if these assignments are correct) are sibling clades directly below https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-Z16969/ with TMRCA 1700ybp.
This would place this group at around 250CE somewhere in Central Europe (not Ukraine, not Belarus, not Lithuania).
@Arza
These samples look like early Slavs, maybe even proto-Slavs.
But yeah, this doesn't mean much if we're not absolutely sure that their dates are correct. Even if their dates are correct, we need to be sure that they're not outliers and thus migrants from the east.
Also, what does Central Europe actually mean here? Does it include the border area between Poland/Ukraine or Slovakia/Ukraine? Because if it does, then I don't think it would be unusual to find such people in these areas as early as the Iron Age, even if the Slavic homeland was in Eastern Europe.
Apparently there is some study being prepared about CW/ SGC in northern Germany (Elbe/ Saxony region)
@ Ethan
so apart from these possible post-Cernavoda individuals, was there anything useful or interesting in Akhbari paper ? Seems like a big waffle
@ Shomu
''It seems that our sample I12248 J1-Z1841 turned out to be not a representative of the Khvalynsk culture, but rather a representative of the Yamnaya culture.''
oh they're not Mesolithic Chock samples like you claimed they 'definitiely' were ? Shame
@Rob
Someone merged the Y-DNA calls against the time/region in on sheet, so I've reviewed them fairly thoroughly and there's really not anything too interesting. These samples should reflect the majority of future Reich lab studies but it seems like there isn't anything too new re: the Steppe or Anatolia.
There's some interesting Greek samples (Mycenaean through antiquity). Including an I-P78 sample and an E-V13 sample with that look like Mycenaeans.
There's a few I-L703 that appear to have core-Yamnaya profiles (not the Don-Yamnaya profile)
I'm curious about where FTDNA places some of the I-L703 individuals. Only a few have been added, but this individual, I26507, with a West Anatolian profile (dates to antiquity) is very far downstream I-S12195:
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/I-FT33773/ancient?connection=I26507
In any case, it came to them through the Khvalynsk culture 😁nerd
Target: Akbari2026Unpublished_Komi_Zyrian_Siberia-like:I12248.AG__BC_?__Cov_74.98%
Distance: 1.3830% / 0.01383039 | R3P
43.4 Russia_Kalmykia_EBA_Yamnaya
43.2 Russia_Saratov_Khvalynsk_Eneolithic
13.4 Kazakhstan_Kumsay_EBA.AG
https://x.com/volcaholic1/status/2044909709644239205?s=20
@ EthanR
'There's some interesting Greek samples (Mycenaean through antiquity). Including an I-P78 sample and an E-V13 sample with that look like Mycenaeans.'
Valuable data additions. All put together- several sources of inflow into post-Neolithic Greece.
4500 BC: fertile plains abandoned & decline of local Neolithic population (similar to Bulgaria "Varna-Karanovo VI", Central-West Anatolia, etc).
4000 BC: begin. of 'Neo_ West Asian' wave, accelerating to 3000-2500 BC, primarily via Aegean Islands/ Crete.
3000-2000 BC: a few 'northern waves', incl Baden, Cernavoda, 'Danube Yamnaya', Cetina.
1600 BC: Mycenean civ. develops out of the above, with early integration into pre-Greek Aegean. Myc. evidently spoke early eastern Greek (future Attic, Arcado-Cypriote).
Groups beyond the Mycenean sphere (to north & west) remained more 'Balkan'/less Aegean, utilised (N)W Greek, Macedonian, Phrygian, Paeonian..
@ Arsen - hopefully not near settlements, but looks amazing
@Rob
Check out this specimen, I guess those are the rumors we'd heard. It is from Akbaris 2026
It might be Pestera Climente (Romania)?. Maybe it has something to do with this paper-"Population from Balkans during LGM gave rise to populations across post LGM-Eurasia"
I5410 (13126 BCE)-Romania?-R1b1a-M207>M173>M343>L754>L761-Akbari, 2026
It is older than Villabruna and, on the autosomal level, is a Balkan HG.
In any case, this is fantastic news for all European R1b carriers, and of course, if it comes from Romania (where there are some Mesolithic L754 carriers), the Kurganist gurus will surely soon start claiming that it’s a dead lineage that parachuted in from Siberia. The truth is that after the LGM, the Balkan refuge contributed R1b to all of Europe including the sacrosanct Yamnaya, of course.
@Rob
Here's the Cernavoda-related family..
https://i.gyazo.com/414c7610c74be968efafc30490f5e58d.png
I have to say, I was not expecting Yamnaya to be completely beat out, as G25 generally tends to over-represent it vs other Steppe sources.
A couple of interesting older samples from the Akbari/ Reich data-dump/ 'selection' paper
I5410 ~ 15000calBP, Climente cave. Y-hg R1b, mtDNA K1/U8
Yet another paleolithic R1b from Europe; interesting association of R1b vs K1. Has less EHG/ ANE than younger (mesolithic) Iron Gates, individiduals; suggesting EHG inflow assoc. with females (e.g. U5a)
Also I think I saw an Mesolithic Romanian individual under Y-hg C1a-V20, debunking the claim that it is from Turkey (as proposed by the 'Dark Side' on Gene Archiver and whatever other riff-raff exists out there). Instead, my proposal that C1a traces a back-migration from Euroep to West Asia seems probable.
Winning Too Hard
@Gaska
Yes, that's right, this line comes from Siberia. And it came to Vilarbuna from the Balkans, everything matches up.
@Rob
"Has less EHG/ ANE than younger (mesolithic) Iron Gates, individiduals; suggesting EHG inflow assoc. "
But it still has more EHG/ANE ancestry than both younger and older WHG samples from Villabruna and other European caves, doesn’t it?
@Rob
The link with Siberia could be true, but when? Certainly hg P wandered in South East Asia, the dead end line of Mal'ta boy was in Siberia, these HG belonged to the Siberian corridor and the same IE language is linked with other nostratic languages of the Siberian corridor above all the Ugro-Finnic ones, but certainly Villabruna 14000 years ago, Les Iboussiéres 12000 and now this sample from Romania of 15000 years ago demonstrate that R1b was in Europe in the Palaeolithic. Yamnaya certainly R-L23-Z2103. That R-L23-L51 was westernmost I have always supported. Still to understand all the paths. Euphratic and Latin let me think that at Yamnaya they spoke an IE "centum" language. The migration of the Indo-Iraninans due above all to hg R1a with an IE "satem" language. Hope to understand through the oldest phases of Albanian the movements in the Balkans/Central Europe.
@ Gaska
'Check out this specimen, I guess those are the rumors we'd heard. It is from Akbaris 2026
It might be Pestera Climente (Romania)?. Maybe it has something to do with this paper-"Population from Balkans during LGM gave rise to populations across post LGM-Eurasia"
I5410 (13126 BCE)-Romania?-R1b1a-M207>M173>M343>L754>L761-Akbari, 2026
It is older than Villabruna and, on the autosomal level, is a Balkan HG.
In any case, this is fantastic news for all European R1b carriers, and of course, if it comes from Romania (where there are some Mesolithic L754 carriers), the Kurganist gurus will surely soon start claiming that it’s a dead lineage that parachuted in from Siberia. The truth is that after the LGM, the Balkan refuge contributed R1b to all of Europe including the sacrosanct Yamnaya, of course.''
The absence of R1b -L754 in pre-Bronze Age Siberia is deafening. It has even been proposed that Balkan_refuge ancestry extended as far as Siberia. This establishes that R1b-L754 (or the next down clade) expanded from Europe.
Yep, of course the theories propounded by those cos-playing weirdos from GeneArchivis are wrong. As they almost always are. We can't expect anything better from low-level social spawns of the Reich Lab kabbal.
@ Ethan
'I have to say, I was not expecting Yamnaya to be completely beat out, as G25 generally tends to over-represent it vs other Steppe sources.'
what do you mean here ? Low levels of Yamnaya ancestry
@ Gio
''The link with Siberia could be true, but when? Certainly hg P wandered in South East Asia, the dead end line of Mal'ta boy was in Siberia, these HG belonged to the Siberian corridor'
There are some historical Andamans and a modern south Asian men with 'divergent' lineages of P / R1. We don't know when they got there.
They probably moved from Siberia to south Asia rather than vice-versa.
The link between eastern Europe and Siberia is definitive, but because there is a 30,000 year gap between Kostenki and early EHG, it is hard to know who was coming, who was going. But I think its clear that first there was a 'west' Eurasian' movement into Siberia c. 30000 bp, then some came back c. 20000 BP. Then by 15000BP, R1 became almost completely extinct in Siberia, whilst some groups with R1b-PH155 harboured in central Asia, R2 had already moved toward Iran.
@ Asen/Shomu
''But it still has more EHG/ANE ancestry than both younger and older WHG samples from Villabruna and other European caves, doesn’t it''
Pretty much the same as Villabruna, less EHG than mesolithic R1b
The early R1b in northern Italy & Balkans probably evolved into R1b-V88
Well, whatever happens, I think it's time to revisit this post, which is dedicated to all those who continue to fight to uncover the truth.....
GASKA said (November 16, 2025 at 2:25 AM)-
@Rob
"The epigravettian WHGs spread from the Balkans to the Italian Alps around 21000 BCE and from there migrated westward, mixing with the western Solutrean (Iberia-MLZ005-20821 BCE) to form the Franco-Iberian Magdalenian culture. To the north, the WHGs reached central Europe (Germany, Oberkassel-OKL001-11945 BCE), where they mixed with the Solutrean-Magdalenian populations that were repopulating that region from the southwest after the LGM. EHG populations in eastern Europe are a mixture of Villabruna-Oberkassel and ANE ancestries, that is why we have P297 & M73 in the Butovo culture (Russia) and in the Baltic region. Siberia, Scandinavia, and northern Russia cannot be the origin of any uniparental marker considered European simply because they were uninhabitable. Therefore, common sense tells us that the Balkans, Italy, and Iberia were refuges until the north could be recolonized. Regarding R1b, the rumors from Romania could be true, but in any case, we already know that the origin of R1b-V88 is in the Balkans, and we have another R1b-L754 in Romania-ROM061 (7538 BCE)-Ostrovul-Corbului, IGHGs, Romania-Mattila, 2023-R1b1a-L754-HARVARD. It is only a matter of time before other L754s appear in both the Balkans and central-western Europe. For me, the interesting debate is the participation of male lineages originating in the WHGs in the formation of steppe cultures, because this would radically affect the linguistic debate, since at the moment, everything points to the fact that Siberian and Russian markers barely participated in the Yamnaya culture"
@Rob
"The early R1b in northern Italy & Balkans probably evolved into R1b-V88".
It is possible. From my oldest tests of 20 Years ago I thought that R-V88 was from Italy, just for the link of some old survived samples with the British Isles (for instance Marchesi, that FTDNA classified as R-M269, ahahah) and I was surprised of the oldest aDNA found in central Europe/the Balkans more than Italy also for the huge presence in Sardinia (with I-M26), anyway it was an important fight against the supporters of the Middle East and the same Cruciani who was against Italy he too, and many in the world are thinking the same yet. There are people in Africa (with a PhD in genetics) who think that it originated in the Horn of Africa: Academia.edu asked me for a peer review of their paper and of course I demolished their research. I don't understand how people continue to think that Sardinians did come from the EEF of Anatolia, whereas many hgs are Palaeolitic Europeans. I am waiting for the origin of R-V1636 to be resolved by other aDNA and perhaps we'll understand better also the other subclade. Also R-PH155 lacks 7000 years of its history... before we say that it was originating in Asia.
Numantia Victrix- Gaska said-“The steppes are not the origin but the sink of R1b”.
mtDNA-K1 so early in Romania means that the Balkan HGs have more CHG-Pinarbasi than other european HGs
This Balkan ancestry related to R1b-L761 is present at least as far as the Altai Mountains, ergo QUOD ERAT DEMOSTRANDUM we were right.
@Gaska
The Pontic-Caspian steppe extends into Romania.
So this isn't any sort of victory for the anti-kurgan brigade.
@Davidski
Perhaps you are right, but, as in every scientific hypothesis, we have to find the proof, i.e. in this case R1b in the Pontic-Caspian steppe older than the Romanian/Italian samples, also thinking that old samples may have reached every place in the world, and about the linguistics perhaps the separation between centum and satem IE is much older than people think, just by what is Sanskrit and Iranian languages and no doubt that they were brought through hg R1a.
I think Gaska is referring to “kurganists” as those personas who wish to claim that the R1b in Yamnaya is of Siberian origin, they also generally support the various ill-conceived ruminations of the west Asia - Volga theory proposed (essentially Ameriboomers, and schiptoids from GeneArchiver, anyone with a personal anti-European sentiment or Cope to be had)
Both theories have now been caste into the rubbish bin, the Reich Lab has played all their hands, & are now in demise. Thankfully, we can now move into a better, more competent and honest era in aDNA
Otherwise, the nuanced form of the kurgan hypothesis that most of us here propose can be accepted and further developed
@Rob
C1a2 is quite a lot older than the Mesolithic and it is found among Upper Paleolithic Europeans. So you'd have to be discussing more derived subclades regarding the profileration of later lineages of C1a2. Pınarbaşı may or may not be involved in some of them, some websites assign it to C1a2b.
@Rob
I5410 is practically no different from other Balkan hunter-gatherers, despite being several thousand years older. Same mixtures, same components. It also plots in PCA space within the WHG/EHG/Boncuklu–Pınarbaşı triangle, with a strong WHG pull. Basically a typical Iron Gates hunter-gatherer.
Maybe slightly less ANE, but that doesn’t really say much — the key point is that the cluster was already formed by that time, i.e. in the Epipaleolithic
https://i.ibb.co/LDMTnX9c/1776506593186.jpg
Anyways I don't think it is inherently relevant where very ancient stages of R1b were venturing during the Mesolithic when it comes to the immediate pre-Yamnaya stage of Proto-Indo-Anatolian/European. I think for that it is more important to look at the pre-Yamnaya and pre-CWC populations and their links to their successors, both in IBD, autosomes and haplogroups.
@Rob
It's rare for G25 to outright prefer Cernavoda to Yamnaya, which makes me think that those samples really are Cernavoda-derived.
@ Gaska
'' Therefore, common sense tells us that the Balkans, Italy, and Iberia were refuges until the north could be recolonized.''
However there were also glacial refuges in eastern Romania, Ukraine, and Russia.
"T'he epigravettian WHGs spread from the Balkans to the Italian Alps around 21000 BCE ''
The issue here is that WHGs cannot be accounted for exclusively by pre-Ice Age Europeans. They need something(s) extra which is missing in current UP samples from the Balkans, Iberia, Italy and Kostenki.
The 'extra' components are related Dzudzuana, the old Kotias and Pinarbasi, and a touch of Siberian-related ANE. But we currently have a 'chicken or egg' conundrum.
How R1b fits into this is yet another layer of complexity. We can neither propose that R1b is from Europe, nor that is simply arrived from Siberia. However, given that the major branches of L754 are only found in European hunters (from the Alps to the Don), it is more than reasonable to propose that L754 expanded a refuge in eastern Europe (what can be loosely termed as 'eastern Epigravettian").
I would suggest to you that the R1b-P297 in Butovo is in fact from EHGs, and not a 'typical WHG'; the 'WHG' component is instead represented by Y-hg I2a-P37-derived clans coming from northwestern Europe.
There are two types of Kurganists;
1-Genetic Kurganist aka “Mongolia Lux”-They believe that R-M207 originated in China (Tyanuan), R1b-L754 and R1b-P297 are from Siberia or Tajikistán, & M269>L23>L51>L151>P312 are from Mongolia, the Urals, or the Pontic Steppe. They claimed for years that R1b would never be found west of the Dnieper River, and has been saying for years that Villabruna—and now surely Pestera Climente as well—are dead lineages. And all this, because they are so ignorant that they think that if we find any R1b branch anywhere in Europe, OUR R1b-L151 lineage would not fit into Gimbutas’ Kurgan theory and would no longer be linked to the superior Indo-European race. They’ve got nothing but steppe in their brains, and they’re totally pathetic.
2-Linguistic Kurganist-Believes that Indo-European originated in the Pontic Steppe. I have stated my position on this matter many times before: I believe that the Yamnaya culture spoke the language of the European HGs (Western, Eastern, Balkan, Baltic, or Scandinavian) because its Y-chromosome markers are overwhelmingly European so I agree with them that this language family did not originate south of the Caucasus. As a direct descendant of the WHGs, R1b-L151 would also speak Indo-European, and the Yamnaya culture would be completely irrelevant to the spread of those languages in mainland Europe.
Another complication is R1b-M269, because IMHO its origin undoubtedly lies with the Western-Balkan European HGs (not the steppes or the Caucasus), and the oldest samples ACCORDING TO HARVARD link this marker once again to Bulgaria and Romania. So, can anyone provide conclusive evidence of what language this lineage spoke?
I6699 (5146 BCE)-Magura Buduiasca, Starcevo, N_Romania-R1b-M269-Gelabert, 2023
I2181 (4527 BCE)-Smyadovo, Gumelnita-Karanovo culture, Bulgaria-R1b-M269-Mathieson, 2018
PIE064 (4499 BCE)-Pietrele, Gumelnita, Romania-R1b1a1b-PF6517-M269-Penske, 2023
@ Ethan
''Here's the Cernavoda-related family..
https://i.gyazo.com/414c7610c74be968efafc30490f5e58d.png''
could be near Braillata
https://maps.app.goo.gl/SnWDnKsEjk7Q4ATN6
are they C14 dated in the publication ?
@Rob
You deleted your text, so I can’t quote part of it now. But, roughly speaking, you wrote that Balkan hunter-gatherers is a broad term, and that these hunter-gatherers differed from each other, just like hunter-gatherers in the Caucasus differed from one another autosomally. Well, judging by what you wrote above, and also by the screenshot you posted on Twitter, this individual I5410 — the hunter-gatherer from ‘Climente cave, Romania ~15000 BP’ — so my question is: isn’t this cave actually part of the Iron Gates area, one of the caves along the Danube River? After all, the Iron Gates is not one specific cave on the map, but a region — an arc along the Danube River that also includes Climente cave.
Isn't the most likely area of common origin between Villabruna and the Iron Gates the circum-Alpine region (which happens to be where the Villabruna specimen has been discovered)? The Iron Gates folk would have simply needed to follow the Danube downstream.
Besides the Villabruna specimen himself, what specimens do we have from the circum-Alpine region dated to 13,000-20,000 ybp?
@ Shomu
''I5410 is practically no different from other Balkan hunter-gatherers, despite being several thousand yea'
No.
It several thousands years old, it has less ANE/ EHG, and has mtDNA U8/ K1, whih ci srare in the younger/ main Iron Gates group
@Rob
I'm not sure, we only have the limited metadata from the one sheet, but some of them show extremely strong IBD sharing (one seems to be a close relative) with the already published I10494, which I believe is C14 dated to 3000BC. So I trust that they do date to around then.
I10494 is from Ploiești.
@Rob
Funnily enough to my understanding it is Anatolia which was uninhabited for most of the Upper Paleolithic.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41982-021-00089-2
My comment about R1b and Yamnaya shouldn't be understood as a deflection. I think it is better to work backwards from Yamnaya et al. to find their immediate ancestors and the source of their lineages. But for the record I don't think that R1b has anything to do with Siberia. The possible Climente sample is interesting as it lived around the formation of that specific haplotype, and the genetic cluster in Iron Gates seems to have been fairly stable and long lasting.
@ Arsen
I wanted to shorten and rephrase, but in brief, just because it is the same location, it doesnt mean the older individual is exactly the same as the younger group. Things can change in a few thousand years
In summary, ''I5410 is several thousands years old, it has less ANE/ EHG, and has mtDNA U8/ K1, which is rare in the younger/ main Iron Gates group (dominated by U5a, lesse degree U5b).
@ Norfern
''C1a2 is quite a lot older than the Mesolithic and it is found among Upper Paleolithic Europeans. So you'd have to be discussing more derived subclades regarding the profileration of later lineages of C1a2. Pınarbaşı may or may not be involved in some of them, some websites assign it to C1a2b.''
I am aware of that fact, so instead of deflecting to defend your gimmicky buddies from GA; please listen up.
C-V20 includes individuals from Vestonice & The Fournol group. Vestonice and 'Neolithic' individuals further lie under C-V86. There is then V3163, which includes C-PH428, the most profuse lineage which includes Pinarbasi, Tepecik, Catalhohyk, and sporadic EEF from Europe. However, there is also C-BY1463, which to date is missing in Anatolia (despite dozens of Neolithic and pre-Neolithic samples), and is only present in some Neolithic individuals from Hungary & Romania.
I hence proposed that V3163 traces a migration Europe to Anatolia / west Asia at some point during the paleolithic. This was already a self-evident fact, but its now even more clear with the east Romanian Meso individual.
But of course, this proposal offended the sensitivities of the woke orientalists on GA, who presented the usual waffle on 'absence of evidence is not evidence for abscence'', etc. Self-appointed but un-credentiallled afficionados Kolompar & Kale, even claimed that nobody lived in Europe during the Ice Age
https://genarchivist.net/showthread.php?tid=112&page=2
Even day 1 amateurs have heard of the Solutrean & Epigravettian refuges in Italy/Balkans, etc. In fact, the complete opposite is true, there appears to have been an absence of human settlement in Ice Age Anatolia.
''Anyways I don't think it is inherently relevant where very ancient stages of R1b were venturing during the Mesolithic''
Nice deflection, I guess the broader topic of understanding how R1b came to be in Europe is irrelevant unless it its speficially pertains to the personal cosplay fantasies of Bell Beaker or Yamnaya ''warriors'' from GeneArchiver.
You clowns from GA (incl. Richard Stevens, Kale, Tibor Feher/ Jafetie) can keep pretending that R1b arrived from Lake Baikal/ Altai, despite having a whopping presence of 0%
None of this really matters to me personally, stupid people/ liars have always existed. But it is worth highlighting the curious thing is how are these morons pretending to be experts, when they have zero understanding- and worse - consistently flat out lie.
That is why GeneArchivist is a joke, it continually propagates pseudo-science and is a source of disinformation. But we can't expect much from a form run by an uneducated favella gypsy called Albruic (Michalis M's best friend).
@Rob
What I meant when I said that it doesn’t matter that I5410 has slightly less EHG ancestry compared to later Danubian hunter-gatherers is that additional migrations from Ukraine likely diluted the EHG component among IGHG even further.
@ Norfern
'' I think it is better to work backwards from Yamnaya et al. to find their immediate ancestors and the source of their lineages. But for the record I don't think that R1b has anything to do with Siberia. The possible Climente sample is interesting as it lived around the formation of that specific haplotype, and the genetic cluster in Iron Gates seems to have been fairly stable and long lasting.'
Ae per above, the deeper affinities of hunter-gatherers is a separate & distinctive question to the immediate origins of M269
Not everybody's interest in Genetic Anthro is limited only to M269 and Yamnaya
@ Shomu
''What I meant when I said that it doesn’t matter that I5410 has slightly less EHG ancestry compared to later Danubian hunter-gatherers is that additional migrations from Ukraine likely diluted the EHG component among IGHG even further.''
In this particular individual, he probably has more Pinarbasi-related (or south Balkan) ancestry rather than 'Ukraine_HG'.
But if we were lucky enough to find similarly aged hunters from Ukraine or SW Russia, they'd most likely have more EHG/ANE
The R1b-L754>L761 WHGs from the Balkans, who evidently had a significant proportion of Anatolian ancestry, moved westward along the Danube and crossed the Alps (Villabruna). Both Pestera Climente and Villabruna were discovered in caves associated with the Epigravettian culture and are R1b-L761 (xV88 XP297). Others hunters moved toward Ukraine (around 9000 BC), but these were already R1b-V88 and evidently mixed with ANE, which is why we know them as EHGs. Since these human groups were highly mobile, they may have left the Balkans before the formation of R1b-V88, and so we might find R1b-L754 further east of Romania, but this is merely conjecture at this point. Italian hunters moved westward (we also find R1b in Iboussieres, France-9000 BC) and intermingled with the French and Iberian Solutreans, while others migrated north to settle in Oberkassel. The presence of P297 in the Baltic region and northern Russia is due to the migration of R1b-L754 from the Balkans, not the other way around.
@Gaska
Perhaps what you say is interesting, but you have to explain the link of Villabruna (14000 Years ago but I had been saying that it was probably present up there from 17000 Years ago due to the link with hg I2a of Tagliente 2) with hg I2a-M223, that has been found so far only in Italy from 20000 to 10000 Years ago, and its expansion all over Europe, not quoting other hg I2a present in the Po Valley to the Adriatic to the Balkans as Rob said.
What is the age of I6184 from Romania? An R-M417
Excuse me for going off-topic , but do we know what was the exact subclade of the eastern hunter gatherer individual that carry the J-M267 from popovo 2 sample ? I can also see it was a part of J1-L255 but it may be degraded since this subclade is 19,000 years old ? On my full y-dna SNP from family tree dna i am negative to all the caucasian hunter gatherers (Satsurblia Cave and kotias klde) but positive to J-L255..
Gaska wrote,
"we also find R1b in Iboussieres, France-9000 BC"
How certain is this Y-DNA result?
Has this sample been obtained from a specimen from l'Aven des Iboussières by the Rhône in southeastern France? The Rhône flows out of the Swiss Alps via Lake Geneva.
I am curious when members of R-L761 may have first appeared in the circum-Alpine region.
Post a Comment