I'm putting together a G25 Proto-Indo-European master sheet that I'll be using in a future blog post about the Indo-European, or, if you wish, Indo-Anatolian homeland.
An early version of the master sheet is available
HERE. Please note, the first pop label is my own while the second one is from the v66.2M.AADR dataset.
I'm aiming to expand it significantly and update it regularly. Below is a
Vahaduo G25 West Eurasia PCA with all the samples. What am I missing? Feel free to let me know in the comments.
Spoiler alert! Here are a few of the revelations that you can expect in the aforementioned blog post about the Indo-European homeland:
- Yamnaya is almost certainly derived from Serednii Stih (aka Sredny Stog). I've been talking about this for years and you can probably pick it up without too much trouble in the PCA above. Finally, even Iosif Lazaridis, David Reich, Nick Patterson and friends are now on board with this idea as per their latest paper on the topic (see Lazaridis et al. 2025).
- However, I'm not convinced by the Lazaridis et al. hypothesis that the Caucasus–lower Volga (CLV) cline is intimately linked to the Indo-Anatolian and proto-Anatolian expansions. That's because the CLV cline is an artifact of isolation-by-distance working for thousands of years across a vast and highly diverse landscape, and it includes a wide range of populations that usually have nothing to do with each other.
- The question of who actually spoke Indo-Anatolian first will, in all likelihood, never be solved to everyone's satisfaction. But the number of true candidate groups is actually quite small, and I reckon they're almost certainly all highlighted in my PCA above. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
See also...
The Caucasus is a semipermeable barrier to gene flow
419 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 419 Newer› Newest»@Davidski
I32534 is low coverage and not subject to IBD analysis.
There really aren't a ton of clues from Yamnaya/Sredni Stog's IBD results, just that the lower Volga-related samples show a strong presence in both, and UKR_N's direct role seems lower than expected.
it assumed it had - see the mentioned h2ulh1neh2, giving us the widespread IE (W)L(N) root with its many derivations but it most various wool words in various cultures seem generally to originally mean fur/hair, but compare IE: ulena, lana wool, and velna to Basque: artile, ile, ilaje
because wool is suspected to be one possible driver of the PIE expansion as the EEF seem to have had only hairy meat/milk sheep with no wool yet, and when a new advantageous technology is exported its word often travels with it, compare: computer" "email" CD and so one, so if the spread and antiquity of a word give us hint which culture was the most prominent driver of the adoption and spread of a specific technology
This map right here touches on the topic of this question
West Asia in 3500 BCE:
https://x.com/khlavkalashguy/status/2084423732957716799?s=20
Looks like the author of this post reads the Eurogenes blog and decided not to piss off Davidski by marking the western route of the Anatolian migration.
Rob i dont claim anything but we have J1 in sredny stog
https://www.dnagenics.com/ancestry/sample/view/cinematic/id/neo163?srsltid=AfmBOoppXnouhgc5agsEYZrzQGDY-PBuvPtXu34R4zOWZe0XbR8YW-uy
Steppe Eneolithic and Berezhnovka at reduce 4 and 5.
The Don Mariupol component does not appear as a source if I run each target separately, but if I run them all at once it shows up — maybe this is the source of I-L699→I-S12195?
At reduce 5 a South Caucasian / Aknashen source appears.
https://i.ibb.co/R4pR2B84/1786206862315.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/gFh8DchJ/1786206881822.jpg
What if R1a came from Globular Amphora? After all there are just 25 male samples from GAC.
@ Shomu
''I fixed a few errors in the calculator a bit.
https://i.ibb.co/sdwpBt7W/1786186591466.jpg''
This set up isn not very good, using Berezhnovka & Khvalynsk at the same time introduces redundancy, because Khv. is ancestral to Brz. and then youd need to add some TTK, Caucasus stuff, whatever, Igren isn;t a grea t representative of Dnieper N either.
But whatever the case, you're not showing us anything new; . Evey man & their dog has played around modelling Yamnaya. You're fixated about Volga ancestry in Yamnaya but fail to realise that they are west-shifted in comparison and R1b-M269 is absent in the Volga network. But we understand it's the more palatable, less 'European' susbstitute for the Dark Side & in those who hold the Demented twigs at Harvard in honorarium .
Also please stop posting random garbage about AI & ''Supercomputers'', it just exposes you as a dumbass pretending to be knowledgable
@Leon
R1a formed before GAC.
As for the specific branch of R1a in Corded Ware Culture, I doubt it was anywhere outside of the Steppe community
@ Isz
''Rob i dont claim anything but we have J1 in sredny stog
https://www.dnagenics.com/ancestry/sample/view/cinematic/id/neo163?srsltid=AfmBOoppXnouhgc5agsEYZrzQGDY-PBuvPtXu34R4zOWZe0XbR8YW-uy''
This individual is from the middle Don. not really Sredni Stog. Allentoft's team (from which it comes) mislabelled a whole series of individuals from Vorezhneh, incl GK, as Sredni Stog.
This J1 Looks like a leftover of the handful of J1's moving northward into EHG (Popovo, Karelia).
This has nothing to do with 'Caucasian pastoralists', because they are a non-entity. Instead, there is the possibility that certain sheep/goat breeds being introduced via the Caucasus - from Mesopotamia by settled farmers.
@ Shomu
''I fixed a few errors in the calculator a bit. The Samara Yamnaya literally has a foundation from local Eneolithic groups that lived in the Volga region.
https://i.ibb.co/sdwpBt7W/1786186591466.jpg''
Yamnaya has been analysed thousands of times by people far more astute than you. So you're not bringing anything new to the table, on the contrary you're just spamming; you're set-up is quite redundant, given that Berezhnovka largely derives from Khvalynsk. And you do Fail to accept that Yamnaya are more western than Volga groups, and their Y-DNA is not from that network. But you keep perseverating about lower Volga because it's the next stop on the Copium train: OIT -> Iran -> Caucasus -> Volga
R1A even before 8-9 thousand years was found in north eastern european hunter gatherers that had no farmer ancestry , damn even a few samples with J1 was found with R1a in the same location of northeast europe and they had the same autosomal profile. GAC had a majority of farmers ancestry if i am not mistakin , so it's not so logic .
What do you guys make of the Steppe Maikop resurgence in the Lola culture?
Thanks for the information , i didn't know that.
@ Odala
You replied to my '"Only if the 'nomads' are substantial in number would they impose their language. e.g. CW in Europe, Andronovo in Asia. But neither were nomads, and Andronovo were moving into sparsely populated, hunter-gatherer realms. Language imposition is a given."
with "Not really, see the Bulgars or Basques. The deciding factor seems the linguistic frangmentation vs uniformity of the conquered population at the time of conquest. ''
How does this ''rule of thumb'' philosophy you pulled out of nowhere change the fact that Andronovo were numerically dominant and moving into sparsely populated regions of southern Siberia and Inner Asia.
And what do Bulgars & Basque have to do with it ? I doubt you have a grasp of Bulgar or Basque ethnogenesis to begin with.
@Leon
There's R1a in Usatove (4336-4065 calBCE), Steppe Maykop (3360-3102 calBCE) and an early Corded Ware sample from Poland that is very similar to Yamnaya.
You're really dumb.
the horses are not really wholly sure, it might be that they were later distributed within an among already established wider PIE network, there were several horse taming projects going on then, the late Farmers had some trials of their own own too, but those did not hold - check the Dom2 and Dom3 horse lineages eg. here: "Horse genetics, archaeology, and the beginning of riding
David Anthony Martin and Volker Heyd 13 May 2026
@Odola
Where do you think the Indo-Anatolian homeland was and, if in Eastern Europe, which route did the ancestors of the Hittites and other Anatolians take into Anatolia?
Also, how does the issue of wooly sheep fit into the homeland debate? What does it prove or disprove?
@ Norfern
“ What do you guys make of the Steppe Maikop resurgence in the Lola culture?“
Curious historical fluke ?
Seems like multiple groups (Catacomb, Srubnaya) were refuging along the north Caucasian Piedmont c. 2200 BC, due to climate deterioration and aridization of steppe.
IRC Ghaliachi et al favoured Kumsay over a steppe-Majkop resurgence ? I’d have to check for myself
All these stories written by certain Boomer archaeologists revolve around “plagues”, “the Neolithic collapse”, magic horses and special sheep.
These reflect their own inabilty to decipher the nuances of IE (& other) population expansions (often often because they don’t understand DNA and enserfed to what David Reich claims) so they have to resort to these kind of tabloid,, mainstream media concepts which caricaturise prehistoric reality.
I don't deny R1a had eastern presence. But clade wise they seem different, and the M417 related have presence around Baltics and Ukraine. The HG part of Globular Amphora has some Ertebolle/Narva etc. shift, prompting whether it carried R1a and transmitted into CWC. R1a is completely absent in Yamnaya, Sredny Stog, Eneolithic Steppe. Shows up in Khvalynsk but separate clade. Present in Golubaya Krinitsa but too old clade.
David Reich claimed it cane from Baltics or something if I'm not wrong.
@Odola
"the horses are not really wholly sure, it might be that they were later distributed within an among already established wider PIE network, there were several horse taming projects going on then, the late Farmers had some trials of their own own too, but those did not hold - check the Dom2 and Dom3 horse lineages eg. here: "Horse genetics, archaeology, and the beginning of riding
David Anthony Martin and Volker Heyd 13 May 2026"
I think it was like this: in the Eneolithic the steppe groups were engaged in breeding sheep, as well as cattle, and also steppe groups of wild horses that lived in the steppes at that time, and at first all this was used only for food, clothing etc., but gradually the roles were distributed, and some selected groups of wild horses, which became the ancestors of all modern ones, began to be used more for riding, in short a full distribution of roles.
Thus this guy, who lived around 4331–4073 cal BCE, had mtDNA K1b2 and Y-DNA Q-Y6802 (steppe mtDNA and Y-DNA), ended up in the expanses of Hungary, and undoubtedly moved on a domesticated proto-horse.
Target: Hungary_Csongrád-Kettőshalom-Bárdostanya_N:I5124__BC_4255__Cov_59.26%
Distance: 1.8932% / 0.01893203 | R3P
59.8 Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic.AG
22.2 Russia_Kurgan_NovayaZavorina_Boborykino_LN
18.0 Russia_Volgograd_Berezhnovka_N
@Leon
The oldest M417 is in Usatove on the Ukrainian steppe and then in Corded Ware with a strong Yamnaya-like ancestry profile.
There's no M417 anywhere outside of the steppe before the Corded Ware expansion (except in an undated proto-Yamnaya sample from Bulgaria, very close to the steppe).
David Reich doesn't have a clue about R1a or M417. I doubt he even knows the significance of M417.
You're a dumb newbie making up stuff as you go along.
@ Leon
'' The HG part of Globular Amphora has some Ertebolle/Narva etc. shift, prompting whether it carried R1a and transmitted into CWC'
The obvious answer is Y-hg I2a-M223-Z161, which is aka the "GAC lineage' . In simple terms, a hunter-gatherer clan 'took over' middle neolithic farmers somewhere in north-central Europe and 'developed into GAC'. I-Z161 is a Y-DNA tracer-dye for the HG ancestry in GAC, although not exclusively.
Mind you, these GAC, which are entirely ''northern European'' in origins and culture, are 70% 'Turkish Farmer" genome-wide ancestry.
According to your friend, Shomu, this would mean GAC is from Turkey (viz-a-viz his claims about "Volga ancestry' in Yamnaya) :)
Usatovo R3P and R4P
https://i.ibb.co/Y44FL95R/1786272074609.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/KpLFs85M/1786272044745.jpg
Romania PietreleMaguraGorgana Gumelnita + Nalchik + Saratov Khvalynsk
Interesting, I didn’t know that Usatovo has a significant South Caucasian contribution — did it get passed to them through Nalchik and early Maykop?
Usatove probably has some admixture from the ancestor of Maykop.
That's when mobility on the steppe began to increase significantly, and then eventually from this process came Yamnaya and Corded Ware.
Removed Khvalynsk from the sources, and Usatovo preferred the Don Mariupol Neolithic
https://i.ibb.co/Z6607hDC/1786278837596.jpg
The Usatovo R1a is pretty upstream.
I think the Durankulak sample might be misdated:
Distance to: Bulgaria_C_ProtoYamnaya:I1456__BC_3250__Cov_35.48%
0.02512499 Poland_Maslomecz_Wielbark_IA.SG:PCA0103.SG__AD_194__Cov_74.66%
0.02513818 Germany_Saxony-Anhalt_Niederwünsch_Medieval:NDW055__AD_1100__Cov_77.38%
0.02639778 Slovakia_IA_Vekerzug.AG:I12106.AG__BC_664__Cov_56.93%
0.02641157 Germany_Saxony-Anhalt_Obermöllern_Medieval:OBM049__AD_1000__Cov_77.39%
0.02693619 Germany_Saxony-Anhalt_Niederwünsch_Medieval:NDW114__AD_1100__Cov_64.43%
@Ethan
The Usatove R1a is upstream, but the important point is that it's M417 in a Corded Ware/Yamnaya related sample on the steppe. There is no other reliable instance of M417 anywhere else until the Corded Ware expansion.
So this fits with the hypothesis that M417 moved out of the steppe with the Corded Ware expansion, rather than the stupid idea that M417 was a marker of Baltic hunter-gatherers or farmers.
@Davidski
No I meant, it's far upstream of R-M417, see the Mayaki sample here:
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-M459/classic
But yes, it's from somewhere in the Steppe zone. There seems to have been a lot of R1a along the Don river in the Eneolithic (at Golubaya Krinitsa, Vasilyevskiy kordon).
There's also the one Khvalynsk sample.
The analysis we ran with the raw data showed that it might even be Z93, but it is a poor quality sample.
@Davidski
I remember that one - I think it might be different from this published one? (as this one has decent coverage despite the lack of downstream reads).
Yes, I think they re-sequenced it.
The sample I was working with was the first one and it looked like M417/Z93.
If we ignore this sample and the proto-Yamnaya one from Bulgaria, I think we're left with poz81, the Yamnaya-like Corded Ware sample from Poland.
Probably almost straight from the steppe.
the Durankulak R1a is not dated and, if downstream for Z93, it might be Noua-Cosgleni related, or Scytho-Sarmatian
But we still have Usatavo-Majaki and the steppe Majkop. So there were a a couple of R1a around the pre-Yamnaya steppe
It'd be pretty wild if this "proto-Yamnaya" sample was actually dated properly and it turned out to be from the Copper Age.
Do we have any IBD results?
I1456.AG 4277 I1456 DUR1 ((flat) grave 15) long bone NikitinReichNature2025 NikitinReichNature2025 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-08372-2 ENA:PRJEB81468 Context: Archaeological 5200 144 3500-3000 BCE .. Bulgaria_Durankulak_C_ProtoYamnaya "Durankulak (Dobrich Province, Shabla Municpality)" Bulgaria 43.693333 28.526747 Native Pulldown on 3.2M snpset AG 1240k 1 0.55154918 0.02495316 609636 422742 221406 379670 102620 M .. 0 0 R-M417 R1a1a1 .. 192 U5a2a "[0.994,1.000]" 0.078 0.421 "[0.004,0.04]" "[0.004,0.014]" ds.half S1456.E1.L1 0.013 Pass ..
It wasn't subject to the IBD runs that are circulating.
IIRC it's just contextually dated to a Kurgan thought to be from around the Cernavoda III period. The remains themselves weren't carbon-dated.
Looks awfully modern
Target: Bulgaria_C_ProtoYamnaya:I1456__BC_3250__Cov_35.48%
Distance: 1.8997% / 0.01899681 | ADC: 0.5x RC
63.8 Polish_Kashubian
25.0 Finnish_Southwest
11.2 Basque_Baztan
@Norfern
That would be a highly unusual mix of ancestries, even if only approximate.
This sample is really strange, but I wouldn't necessarily call it modern.
We just have to wait until it's dated properly.
Here's what I'm getting when I limit models to populations older than 3000 BCE and younger than 20,000 BCE, minus contaminated samples (settings are 4X, 3 populations limit).
Balkan, Ukrainian and steppe populations dominate the list. This doesn't look random or like a modern sample.
Target: Bulgaria_C_ProtoYamnaya:I1456__BC_3250__Cov_35.48%
Distance: 3.6982% / 0.03698229 | R3P
42.0 Romania_Curatesti_Boian_LN_Eneolithic.SG
31.8 Ukraine_Mesolithic.AG
26.2 Russia_Altai_Afanasievo
Target: Bulgaria_C_ProtoYamnaya:I1456__BC_3250__Cov_35.48%
Distance: 3.8034% / 0.03803391 | R3P
35.4 Romania_Curatesti_Boian_LN_Eneolithic.SG
34.2 Ukraine_Dnieper_N_Mariupol.SG
30.4 Ukraine_CernavodaI_Kartal_C.AG
Myself? Undecided yet Indo-Anatolian homeland, coming here exaclty to check what the corrent stand of knowledge is. Imho it will take a couple of years yet before ti is wholly clear - but nothing will become clear on its own, it must be discussed first, as you do here. RE: wool: I saw wool mentioned by someone above and felt validated as I myself am convinced by the emerging ideas suggested in archeological circles that the spread of wooly sheep could have been a relevant factor in the PIE cultural package. Imho the existance or lack of wolly sheep and its spread is a worthwile trait to track and consider. My - completly intuitive and data-lacking yet - expectation is that the Yamnaya woudl have had a much higher percentage of wooly sheep than the late farmers and that they were a relevant intermediary in its spread West.
It is for sure that the dom2 horse line replaced any previous local lines and local late famer attemps, but it looks like the late farmer did try it on their own with they local dom3 horses. If those attemps were just imitations of trying to copy what the Steppe was already doing, or genuine local innovation is hard to guess.
Well, some grasp at least. More than most around me, that is, which might not be much, but still more. The invading Bulgars were not nomadic then? ("The Bulgars were Turkic semi-nomadic warrior tribes" starts even their own Wiki entry) And the Bell-Beaker men who spread around Western Europe either? Both did not manage to impose their languge over a local population in specific areas while at other placed it was managed with ease in similar constellations - when said local population was at the time currentely linguisticlly quite uniform - like the quite recently freshly slavicized Upper Thrace or the remote valleys of the Pyrenees.
Centroid M417 falls in Poland. Regardless of where the mutation defining this haplotype occurred, the last common ancestor of M417, from around 3400 BC, achieved reproductive success in Central Europe. Most of its offspring remained local, while some dispersed around the world. And we must be aware that no archaeogenetic discovery will change this.
I think it's pretty clear that both Corded Ware and M417 are from the Ukrainian steppe, probably from somewhere around the Dnieper.
I think the Ukrainian steppe is also the place where the first big expansion of M417 took place.
@Davidski
Do you think R-M417 is a Volga, forest steppe or North Pontic lineage?
I'm thinking R-M417 was on the Lower Don in a Ukraine_N-like population. Maybe some of the Ukraine_N admixture in Sredny Stog is from there.
To me it looks like the Don formed a kind of barrier between Steppe_N and Ukraine_N-like populations.
R-M417 and I-L703 could have both been sitting on the Lower Don and moved into the Caspian steppe, and that's how R1a ended up in a Steppe Maykop guy.
I think Coded Ware and its M417 came from the North Pontic. As for the ultimate origins of M417, I don't know.
The Steppe Maykop R1a isn't M417, but it seems like different R1a clades were all over that area in hunter-gatherers from the North Caucasus to the forest steppe.
David
The oldest CWC finds are probably those from the Volhynian Upland, far from the Dnieper.
Yeah, but the ancestor of Corded Ware is from the same place as Yamnaya. So from near the Dnieper.
Yamnaya from Zaporizhzhia & CW from Dnipropetrovsk?
Should explain the minute differences between CW & Yamnaya in Ukraine_N admixture.
@Odola
“ Imho it will take a couple of years yet before ti is (PIA) wholly clear - but nothing will become clear on its own, it must be discussed first, as you do here.“
The thing is, we keep discussing the same old things and getting nowhere. It’s the exact same situation—much like it was about two or three years ago when I first subscribed to the blog.
We’re literally just going in circles.
Target: Bulgaria_C_ProtoYamnaya.AG
p-val: 0.54; chisq: 6.0
45.6±7.6 Ukraine_CernavodaI_Kartal_C_A.AG
28.9±5.3 Romania_Boian_LN_Eneolithic.SG
25.5±3.3 Ukraine_Dnieper_N_Mariupol.SG
Outgroups (10): Cameroon_ShumLaka_SMA.DG, Iran_Wezmeh_N.SG, Georgia_Kotias_Mesolithic.SG, Russia_Karavaikha_LM_EN.SG, Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic.SG, Turkey_Marmara_Barcin_N.SG, Jordan_PPNC.SG, Russia_Tyumen_HG.SG, Russia_MA1_UP.SG, Australia_PreEuropean.SG
To break the deadlock, new types of calculators and computational algorithms are needed to construct models of admixture and the origins of ancient populations.
R1a M417 is just some Volga HG lineage. Probably came along with J2b L283 & R1b M269 from the Remontnoye Eneolithic. Serednii Stih is game over.
@Leon
Remontnoye Eneolithic is practically irrelevant.
Serednii Stih was picked as the ancestor of Yamnaya and Corded Ware even before ancient DNA.
Of course, it took my blog to get the message across so that even Lazaridis, Reich and Patterson finally got it.
@Rob
"Yes, forget deep & genuine knowledge. We need a magic supercomputer so we press button to Go Brrrr."
That’s absolutely right; delving into a topic requires more advanced tools.
I don't know why Davidski settled on the G25—especially since he wrote about some new type of calculator last year; he probably just got bored with it all and dropped it.
@Davidski
It's done, bro. M269 was the branch of Steppe Eneolithic and transmitted in Yamnaya from Remontnoye Eneolithic. No amount of repeating Serednii Stih will make it otherwise
Target: Russia_ManychSteppe_Eneolithic_NV3003.AG
p-val: 0.14; chisq: 10.9
60.1±13.3 Russia_ManychSteppe_Eneolithic.AG
31.6±9.8 Russia_Steppe_Maikop.AG
08.4±4.5 Azerbaijan_Caucasus_lowlands_LateC.AG
Outgroups (10): Cameroon_ShumLaka_SMA.DG, Iran_Wezmeh_N.SG, Georgia_Kotias_Mesolithic.SG, Russia_Karavaikha_LM_EN.SG, Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic.SG, Turkey_Marmara_Barcin_N.SG, Jordan_PPNC.SG, Russia_Tyumen_HG.SG, Russia_MA1_UP.SG, Australia_PreEuropean.SG
NV3003.AG 3776-3652 calBCE (4953±20 BP, MAMS-42353) Russia_Eneolithic_EBA_Caucasus Nevinnomyskiy-3 (Stavropol Krai, Kochubeyevsky District) Russia 898929 R-M269 U1a1a+16129
@ Shomu
''Honestly, I think we aren't that far off from that either.''
It will remain as brainless summaries of slop published by quantity rather than quality. AI even picks up the forums like GeneArchiver
But I'd let it clean my toilet and park my (non-favourite) car
The model doesn't fit well
@Leon
NV3003 is in the wrong place and represents the wrong archeology to be proto-Yamnaya. It's just a random cousin lineage.
Also, it's obvious that NV3003 is a migrant from the north to the North Caucasus steppe. You can see that in any decent PCA.
Keep dreaming newbie.
@Rob In reality, modern artificial intelligence models are not trained or taught to clean your filthy toilet or park your broken junk. They are mainly trained on thinking, logic, and mathematics, and in fact they have already surpassed any mathematicians in this. If things go further (and this will undoubtedly happen because there is no reason for it to stop), then this logic will surpass human logic so much that these models will improve themselves (singularity), and then it will be only a matter of days, not years or months, before we have such genetic tools and calculators.
And honestly, I’m waiting exactly for that moment. I’m not waiting for something to change here, because really nothing has changed here for at least 4 years, maybe while I’ve been sitting here.
@ Shomu
''n reality, modern artificial intelligence models are not trained or taught to clean your filthy toilet or park your broken junk. They are mainly trained on thinking, logic, and mathematics, and in fact they have already surpassed any mathematicians in this. If things go further (and this will undoubtedly happen because there is no reason for it to stop), then this logic will surpass human logic so much that these models will improve themselves (singularity), and then it will be only a matter of days, not years or months, before we have such genetic tools and calculators.''
How dare you offend my toilet. I keep it in mint condition, and my 1972 Mazda drives like a tank.
You might be right as far as complex computational, mathematical inquiry is concerned. All support, go for Mars. But 'archaeogenetics' is an Art as much as a Science. It has humanities (archaeology, social theory, linguistics) in it, fields not amenable to equations and supercomputers. One needs to have studied the latter for years, literally gone & 'touched the Grass'; you cant just dump data into a 'Supercalculators' and pretend to be Chad Anthropologist.
Actually everything is much simpler.
NV3003 is Steppe Eneolithic / Berezhnovka mixed with a WSHG population (Tyumen) and a Steppe Eneolithic population mixed with the Caucasus, like LateSteppe_Eneolithic_EBA_o:ZO1004.
That is, on one side Steppe Eneolithic + Tyumen, on the other side Steppe Eneolithic + Nalchik Eneolithic or something similar.
Target: Russia_Stavropol_Maykop/LateSteppe_FinalEneolithic:NV3003__BC_3714__Cov_75.54%
Distance: 1.3223% / 0.01322264 | R3P | PRNG: math
52.2 Russia_Volgograd_Berezhnovka_N
32.2 Russia_Stavropol_LateSteppe_Eneolithic_EBA_o
15.6 Russia_Ob_EN_KoshkinoBoborykino.SG
@ odala
''The invading Bulgars were not nomadic then? ("The Bulgars were Turkic semi-nomadic warrior tribes" starts even their own Wiki entry) And the Bell-Beaker men who spread around Western Europe either? '
he deciding factor seems the linguistic frangmentation vs uniformity of the conquered population at the time of conquest. The more uniform the local languge is it more likely is will prevail over the incoming one'
Bell Beaker folk were not 'nomads'. Some within BB society were highly mobile, but as a whole paleocological studies show that they had a mixed productive economy which included agriculture. So there goes that point.
There was no uniform language in the ''the remote valleys of the Pyrenees.' The idea that Basques hid in Pyreneean caves and somehow maternalised BB communities is not a solid theory.
In reality, a swathe of non-IE (diverse & non -uniform) survived across western Europe, from Hungary to Iberia (Etruscan, vasconic, Iberian, Sardinian, various now lost non-IE idioms from Central Europe). There’s more to play than people hiding in caves from nomads (although BB certainly were “menacing” & transformed western Europe).
''the invading Bulgars were not nomadic then? ("The Bulgars were Turkic semi-nomadic warrior tribes" starts even their own Wiki entry) did not manage to impose their languge over a local population in specific areas while at other placed it was managed with ease in similar constellations - when said local population was at the time currentely linguisticlly quite uniform - like the quite recently freshly slavicized Upper Thrace '
There's no real evidence that Bulgars were nomads. This view has become an institutionalised meme, but there are no paelo-studies studying the diet and practices of Bulgars, it's just that east European scholars suffer from 'Genghis Khan syndrome', and believe every historic steppe group is a barbaric eastern nomad eating raw flesh and predating on poor, peaceful farmers.
Secondly, there were no Slavs, "fresh" or otherwise, in upper Thrace when Bulgars arrived. Thrace was populated by a mish-mash of Greek-speaking peoples (Grecized “Thracians”, new Hellenic East-Med colonists , etc) well into the 9th century. Slavs only arrived there after the Bulgars transferred one group (the Severians) from eastern Romania toward the passes of Varna, then followed by centuries of borders. Although there is evidence for early adoption of Slavic by Bulgars, perhaps as early as in Ukraine, the Bulgars ultimately “lost” their language because they were annihilated by Byzantines and the Rus. All subsequent medieval 'Bulgarians' have no direct links to the Bulgars, the terms was used politically in the way that Otto of Saxony claimed to be "Roman'.
@ Leon
''It's done, bro. M269 was the branch of Steppe Eneolithic and transmitted in Yamnaya from Remontnoye Eneolithic. No amount of repeating Serednii Stih will make it otherwise''
Maybe M269 is from the Volga, I personally think it was the Don.
But you seem unaware that the Remontnoye site is within the 'Sredni Stog culture'. You are also confusing the cultural phenomenon 'Sredni Stog' with the so-name single site in central Ukraine. So yes, R1b-M269 is not form the middle Dnieper
Overall, nothing changes - PIE emerged within Sredni Stog, a phenomenon & people which formed due to a convergence of a hunter-gatherer koine in southern East Europe.
@Shomu
The chat bot type of AI isn't able to handle multidisciplinary issues by itself.
It needs to copy human input to work well, and so whatever humans come up with is going to be what the chat bot spits out when you ask it to "think" about the Indo-Anatolian problem.
And if you're hoping for singularity anytime soon, you're likely to be very disappointed. The quality of chat bot AI output falls when the chat bots have to rely on other chat bot input. They start hallucinating instead of working towards singularity.
@Davidski
The only reason modern artificial intelligence models are not as comprehensively developed as humans is because they do not have instant feedback like people do. In AI models, cause and effect is “felt” only through text, while in humans it is felt through all sensory signals from all sense organs — smell, touch, vision and so on, and not only through text like in AI. The brain constantly predicts the world, unlike AI which predicts the next token. AI has no world “feeling”, and another reason is that literally all their weights are frozen and do not change over time, that is the AI architecture is similar to the human brain, but it is not plastic like the human brain.
When scientists and programmers solve these 2 problems, then that’s it, literally everything.
@Norfern
That sample could be some sort of Rus or Estonian Viking.
"NV3003 is in the wrong place and represents the wrong archeology to be proto-Yamnaya. It's just a random cousin lineage.
Also, it's obvious that NV3003 is a migrant from the north to the North Caucasus steppe. You can see that in any decent PCA."
I never said it's ancestral - but it shows M269 was in Steppe Eneolithic distribution along with V1636. Yes NV3003 seems adjacent pop that didn't actually contribute to Yamnaya, but it's proof of M269 being through non Serednii Stih component after all. This is it, buddy.
Target: Russia_Afanasievo.AG
p-val: 0.68; chisq: 4.0
53.3±4.9 Ukraine_SeredniiStih_Eneolithic_A.AG+.AG.TW
19.8±9.6 Russia_ManychSteppe_Eneolithic.AG
16.2±2.6 Russia_Caucasus_Maikop.AG
10.7±4.5 Russia_Steppe_Maikop.AG
Outgroups (10): Cameroon_ShumLaka_SMA.DG, Iran_Wezmeh_N.SG, Georgia_Kotias_Mesolithic.SG, Russia_Karavaikha_LM_EN.SG, Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic.SG, Turkey_Marmara_Barcin_N.SG, Jordan_PPNC.SG, Russia_Tyumen_HG.SG, Russia_MA1_UP.SG, Australia_PreEuropean.SG
Yamnaya profiles with R-M269 already existed by 3800bc (KST001).
M269 & V1636 are Lower Volga/Caspian lineages.
M417 and I-L703 are Ukrainian (at least some I-L703 rebounded west from the Volga).
I think the situation in Sredny Stog was much more complex. And in part explains why there was so much variation.
@ Igor
"M269 & V1636 are Lower Volga/Caspian lineages.
M417 and I-L703 are Ukrainian (at least some I-L703 rebounded west from the Volga).
I think the situation in Sredny Stog was much more complex. And in part explains why there was so much variation".
I-L703 was in Russia perhaps 8000 years ago, but where was it between 20000 and 10000 Years ago? Of course in Italy. And the same for M269, but where was it for a bottleneck of 6900 Years? About R-V1636 the same for a bottleneck of 9000 Years. Next possible findings will say.
I5410 confirmed to be Climente
"Yamnaya profiles with R-M269 already existed by 3800bc (KST001)."
Around 3650 BCE with 2 sigma. As it turns out Yamnaya profile didn't form at the turn of 3300 BCE, which was obvious, but yes KST001 is Yamnaya like and adds to Yamnaya origin in east and of Serednii Stih.
David
When discussing language, linguistic facts are paramount. However, the Pontic-Caspian steppes lack the oldest layer of Proto-Indo-European hydronymy, which undermines the idea of the Yamnaya population as the source of PIE. At the same time, the areas north and northwest of the Pontic-Caspian steppes, settled by the CWC, are densely woven with the oldest layer of Proto-Indo-European hydronymy. Today's linguists generally agree that PIE arose through the convergence of numerous dialectal bundle. Some of these bundles may indeed have been contributed by Yamnaya populations. Nevertheless, if the Indo-European gene pool was completed only in the CWC, it was most likely only in the CWC that PIE convergence occurred.
@EthanR
In my calculations for Samara Yamnaya I did not add the KST001 sample because it had low coverage (about 10 percent SNPs), and I limited it to 20 percent coverage. I just ran it again but lowered the coverage threshold to 10 percent, and this KST001 replaced Ukrainian Chernavoda — it fits Yamnaya better. Another sample from Ukraine also appeared — Ukraine_Molyukhiv-Bugor_N, but it is also about 10 percent coverage. At reduce = R4P the Bulgarian sample Bulgaria_Chalcolithic_oSteppe turned on.
https://i.ibb.co/TDtfv6QT/1786381229614.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/f65P3dp/1786381252770.jpg
In reality KST001 is a mixture of Chernavoda and Khvalynsk.
@Davidski - "Interesting question, but it's important to note that there were Caucasian influences in pre-Indo-European Anatolia, and even in pre-Indo-European Greece. It's possible that Hattic, spoken in Central Anatolia, originally came from the Caucasus."
I'm hoping that maybe with sound-law changes and the like you could tell when these borrowings happened, but that may be too much to ask that far back. Or that the borrowings/influence would be from different Caucasian families if we're lucky. If memory serves though a lot of the Caucasian influence on PIE has to do with the structure of words?
I could see Hattic being distantly related to Neolithic European languages alternatively if it derived from the same source as ANF. There's a few weird potentially borrowings in Europe but I find this (particularly the second paper below) is starting to get into the more speculative side of linguistics.
https://www.academia.edu/download/118822677/SimonAnatolianSharedIESubstrate.pdf
https://www.academia.edu/1819598/La_langue_hattique_et_sa_pertinence_possible_pour_les_contacts_linguistiques_pr%C3%A9historiques_en_Europe_occidentale
@EthanR
Well, most likely they fit because of the low coverage, and because they have incorrect positions in the PCA G25 space, which nevertheless fits Yamnaya, I don’t know.
Target: Ukraine_Molyukhiv-Bugor_N:I1424__BC_3708__Cov_10.46%
Distance: 4.2344% / 0.04234387 | R3P | PRNG: math
55.2 Ukraine_Dnieper_N_Mariupol.SG
27.2 Russia_Rostov_Krivyansky-9_N
17.6 Sweden_Mesolithic_o.SG
Target: Russia_Stavropol_Maykop/LateSteppe_FinalEneolithic:KST001__BC_3824__Cov_10.46%
Distance: 4.1591% / 0.04159078 | R3P | PRNG: math
65.6 Russia_Volgograd_Berezhnovka_N
23.8 Ukraine_CernavodaI_Kartal_C.AG
10.6 Ukraine_N_dup.I5886.SG
🤔
Very interesting
A Group of Hunter-Gatherers Survived the Younger Dryas 14,000 Years Ago in a Cave in Northern Türkiye
https://www.labrujulaverde.com/en/2026/08/a-group-of-hunter-gatherers-survived-the-younger-dryas-14000-years-ago-in-a-cave-in-northern-turkey/
@ Ethan
“It wasn't subject to the IBD runs that are circulating.”
Because you’re using garbage put together by nomad from AG of garbage calculated by the Reich Lab. Double loser hit
@Rob
It was a run of the Akbari et al. 2026 samples, so things that failed to make that dataset were excluded.
@ Ethan
''It was a run of the Akbari et al. 2026 samples,''
AKA Reich Lab - track record of gate-keeping samples, cherry-picking publications, distorting data and erroneous conclusions.
No wonder they look like what they do
@ Gio
“ I-L703 was in Russia perhaps 8000 years ago, but where was it between 20000 and 10000 Years ago? Of course in Italy. An”
Of course I2a-L703 , nor any of its subabranches come from the Volga. Nothing comes from the CLV zone; because it was essentially uninhabited before 4500 BC. It was a site of mass migration from all directions.
I5410 from Climente II has already been added to FTDNA's Discover Haplotree thanks to the Akbari data drop, making this individual the oldest R1b sample so far. The 14842–14100 cal ybp date also has major implications (see L761's MRCA estimates).
https://x.com/Agamemnonuwa/status/2086799423405703431?s=20
@ Rob
The samples of I-M223-L699-Y5606-FTJ80 found in the aDNA in Russia are only 4250 ybp old. Much older is NE055 in Denemark (6300 ybp) and above all the upstream samples all around the Alps.
By the way, this guy has published an entire article on Balkan hg's, you should read it.
It seems like after ANE, WHG and AHG mixed in the Balkans to form Balkan Epigravettian, that went onto mix into the populations of both Western and Eastern Europe. So EHG postdates Balkan Epigravettian. I wonder what the pre-EHG population would have been like. And if Magdalenians have Italian or Balkan Epigravettian ancestry.
@ Gio
Italy was more of a genetic sink than a source. Even for whg. I don't understand your obsession with trying to make everything about italy. It reminds me of out of india theorists. Iberia and especially the balkans were the influential refugia for hunter gatherers in europe
I didn't realize that a low coverage Ikiztepe sample published a while back from a previous version of this paper is apparently I2:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/395700095_Evolutionary_history_and_recurrent_host_adaptation_in_ancient_Salmonella_enterica
It seems to share a Salmonella lineage with a Bulgarian Yamnaya sample (BOY008) and a Steppe Maikop sample (IV3002).
@Ethan
How do we know IKI003 is I2?
@ rozbójnik
"@ Gio
Italy was more of a genetic sink than a source. Even for whg. I don't understand your obsession with trying to make everything about italy. It reminds me of out of india theorists. Iberia and especially the balkans were the influential refugia for hunter gatherers in europe"
I've been hearing this for over twenty years, long before Villabruna and I-M223 were found in Italy, and only in Italy, between 20,000 and 10,000 years ago, which in my opinion is strong evidence of expansion from the Italian peninsula. I've always used my first and last name. And who are you? I'm mt K1a1b1e, a basal for the western haplogroup, while another exists in the Caucasus formed through heteroplasmy. My Y is R-L23-Z2103, and I have no difficulty believing that 5,300 years ago it was in Yamnaya and then came through the Balkans and the Adriatic with the Latins and Romans, along with Emanuele Infantino's R-Z2110-CTS699, ending up in Sicily with the Sicels. I also think that the Indo-European "centum" was spoken in Yamnaya, and other R-L23-Z2103s brought the Euphratic to Mesopotamia. I also think that all this talk of hg I2a and R1b 8,000 or 9,000 years after their birth should be prudent, because they were elsewhere before, if they weren't found there first. And who are you? Aren't you a ragtag bunch? Are you pure? You can show your data, just as I've been showing mine for over twenty years.
@Davidski
I thought I remembered seeing it in one of the various paper/preprint's supplemental docs but I'm unable to actually find it now. It's shown as I2 on some of the various aggregator websites, but someone could try to verify I suppose, the data should be in here somewhere:
https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/ERP118238
@ Norfern
pre-EHG in east Europe might have even been almost pure ANE
I don't see how Magdalenians get ancestry from Balkans rather Italy, indeed the rest of their claims about SHG etc seem almost certainly False.
@ Ethan/ David
IKI003
https://www.exploreyourdna.com/site/turkey/ikiztepe
@Rob This is what is known to me: Early Slavic tribes Sclaveni and Antae began migrating across the Danube River into the Roman Byzantine Balkan provinces of Moesia, Thrace, and Macedonia during the 6th century. By the early-to-mid 7th century, Slavs had densely settled throughout the rural Balkan countryside, forming small tribal territories known by the Byzantines as Sklavinias. They quickly became the dominant force across the rural interior, overwhelming the reduced native Paleo-Balkan populations, like Thracians, Illyriana, Dacians, and romanized folk. After the the Bulgars, described ass a semi-nomadic Turkic-speaking people, led by one Khan Asparuh, crossed the Danube in 680 AD, defeated the Byzantine forces at the Battle of Ongal, and established the First Bulgarian Empire in 681 AD. Upon their arrival, the Bulgars formed a ruling military elite over the vast, pre-existing Slavic majority in the region. As the land was already linguistically slavicized, the Bulgar rulers themselves gradually adopted the language, customs, and culture of their Slavic subjects. That is the accepted historical sequence and it demonstrates my point: Slavs arrived in a linguistically fragmented and diverse area and as such they slavicized it quickly, the Bulgars arrived in recently freshly slavicized area which was as such still linguistically uniform, as such they ended up as the ones being assimilated in. If you know any other sequence, please enlight me where I find it sourced?
but what with those PIE languages which are not CWC derived? Do you consider them descendants of Proto-Indo-Anatolian then?
@Norfern-Ostrobothnian
Do you think EHG was formed in the Balkans when these populations mixed there?
A good tool for population genetics.
https://x.com/DanTabin/status/2087301237184065694?s=20
@ Odala
''This is what is known to me: Early Slavic tribes Sclaveni and Antae began migrating across the Danube River into the Roman Byzantine Balkan provinces of Moesia, Thrace, and Macedonia during the 6th century. By the early-to-mid 7th century, Slavs had densely settled throughout the rural Balkan countryside, forming small tribal territories known by the Byzantines as Sklavinias. They quickly became the dominant force across the rural interior, overwhelming the reduced native Paleo-Balkan populations, like Thracians, Illyriana, Dacians, and romanized folk. After the the Bulgars, described ass a semi-nomadic Turkic-speaking people, led by one Khan Asparuh, crossed the Danube in 680 AD, defeated the Byzantine forces at the Battle of Ongal, and established the First Bulgarian Empire in 681 AD. Upon their arrival, the Bulgars formed a ruling military elite over the vast, pre-existing Slavic majority in the region'''
I've already outlined above in the counter-point to your 'upper Thrace' reference that what you've outlined is not actually the case, although it is what one might read in entry-level historical outlines, Wikipedia, various forums, etc..
E.g Slavs had not widely or densly settled the Balkans by 650 but only certain regions - namely Macedonia & Pannonia (Sava-Drava); the Antae had no role in colonizing the Balkans, the Bulgars moved some Slavs from the Danube basin toward Thrace after their arrival, etc, etc.
Too much to go into for now
Odola
There is no Indo-European language attested before the CWC. If the Hittite language were derived from the Yamnaya, the Pontic-Caspian steppes would have had an Indo-European hydronyms, older than the Iranian one.
EthanR
I2 was present even in Marmara Neolithic.
4 samples from Avar Period, Hungary under I-L699. Interesting.
Apparently the oldest M417 is a low cov sample from Channel Islands lmao. Anyone verified this? I16435.AG. adnaxp.github.io has it as M417, but official AADR anno file doesn't.
@MrShomuTepinski
I think EHG formed through gradual diffusion of Balkan Epigravettian/Iron Gates ancestry towards Eastern Europe, starting from Moldova and Ukraine and continuing onto Russia.
@ Odala
To correct myself '' Slavs had not widely or densly settled the Balkans by 650'.
They had settled widely, but not uniformly or -as yet- 'densely',
So in the 7th century AD, the 'Sklavinias' were separated by areas still settled by Late Roman provincials (NB at this Time, there were no "Illyrians', "Thracians' or ''Dacians'' per se).
The final linguistic shift was due to the establishment of Slavophone polities in the 9th century
Here is a slightly different visualisation of steppe groups (F3-based MDS plot, which is independent of modern projection; and also able to include low-coverage samples without tanking quality).
The included Anatolian samples reveal an interesting cline...
https://imgur.com/a/CPx7aCC direct Link
Close up view of some relevant steppe samples.
https://imgur.com/6P8ANJ6
@Leon
IKI003 probably belongs to I2a-L699, like some of the other Bronze Age Anatolians in that area. I2a-L699 is an Eastern European lineage.
That's because IKI003's Salmonella lineage is from Europe. It's shared with BOY008 from Bronze Age Bulgaria.
@Rob RE: "E.g Slavs had not widely or densly settled the Balkans by 650 but only certain regions - namely Macedonia & Pannonia (Sava-Drava); the Antae had no role in colonizing the Balkans, the Bulgars moved some Slavs from the Danube basin toward Thrace after their arrival, etc, etc."
Then you're discounting the explicit testimony of the Byzantines like Theophanes and Nikephoros, and I have no idea why. Both say Asparuh subjugated Slavic tribes already there (the Seven Tribes and the Severi) and only then resettled them. That is what we read. While Slavic settlement might have been uneven, sure, denser and earlier in Macedonia and parts of the interior, thinner in the southern Thracian zones still under stronger Byzantine control, but "essentially devoid of Slavs until the Bulgars moved some in themselves" isn't what the sources say. Full, uniform density across the whole area was never required, a sufficiently large Slavic-speaking (mark: not necessarily Slavic-descendant, just: Slavic-speaking) population in the key areas did the job. As the Magyars demonstrate: density doesn't dictate the linguistic outcome, the linguistic situation entered into does.
@ambron Do I understand you correctly, you discount Tocharian or Armenian from Indo-European? As that would also follow logically from your: "the Pontic-Caspian steppes would have had an Indo-European hydronyms, older than the Iranian one"? Then what are they in your opinion?
@ Odala
''
Then you're discounting the explicit testimony of the Byzantines like Theophanes and Nikephoros, and I have no idea why. Both say Asparuh subjugated Slavic tribes already there (the Seven Tribes and the Severi) and only then resettled them''
What I'm saying is consistent with these testimonies because - as already outlined above - the Bulgars first settled on the Lower Danube. This is Moesia Inferior & Scythia Minor (northeastern Bulgaria) and the trans-Danubian lands in what is now SE Romania, and this is where they encountered the Slavic tribes they subjected. Happy to discuss this further if & when the time comes, but for now you should carefully digest what I am stating. Otherwise, I take your point, if a foreign group encounters a linguistic homogeneous region, it is more likely they adopt the language. Fine, but there are many factors influencing language-shift, no hard & fast "Laws".
The IKI003 burial was also found in a supine posture, although I'm not sure if it's actually the classical Steppe posture (knees slightly raised and bent, and with red ochre sprinkled), but there are apparently burials of that type at Ikiztepe.
The Armenian language has a huge layer of Caucasian, it is practically of East Caucasian origin.
IKI003 doesn't exist in AADR.
Well, after 15 years of debating the origin of R1b-L754, we now have confirmation that it has a Balkan origin, just as we’ve been arguing all these years. It’s going to be fun to see the excuses and nonsense that will be posted on certain forums (this sample and Villabruna aren’t the ancestors of P297; no matter what is published, in any case, they are of Siberian origin etc etc.).
But the fact is that Daniel Tabin and his colleagues are unequivocal in their conclusions.
"The oldest uncontaminated newly reported individual is from the site of Climente II in Romania, dating to the Epigravettian period, and is radiocarbon-dated to 14842–14100 years cal BP (12687±45 BP; after a correction for the freshwater reservoir effect: 12349±63 BP, OxA-40804) (95.4% calibrated confidence interval). This individual was a male (genetic ID I5410, skeletal code S.IV, square 2 (F2320)) and carried a Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b-L754, the same haplogroup as the later Villabruna individual from Italy. We obtained high-quality data for this individual, and we estimate a low contamination rate (~1%) based on the X-chromosomal heterozygosity rate, as males with one X chromosome are not expected to exhibit X-chromosomal variation
"The Epi-Balkan population was a major component of the ancestry of Eastern European Hunter-Gatherers (sometimes called the “Sidelkino cluster”), who in turn gave rise to the Yamnaya, who were around 16% Epi-Balkan"
"No evidence for excess Siberian or East Asian ancestry in EpiBalkan people, but strong evidence for Near Eastern affinity Z-scores for f4-statistics of the form f4(Outgroup, Row population; Column population, Epi-Balkan), where the row populations are a diverse set of Eurasians which are generally older than Epi-Balkan, and where the column populations are a diverse set of Pre-LGM Gravettians from across Europe"
End of story: we were right. R1b is Western (because the Balkans are part of Western Eurasia) and contributed to the genetics of the EHGs through interbreeding with Siberians. This means we were also correct when we argued that it expanded northward after the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) toward the Baltic and Karelia, and during the Neolithic period toward the steppes and the northern Caucasus. 95% of the male markers in the Yamnaya culture originate from the WHGs—
How could I not mention this famous paper now? Massive migration from the steppe is a source for Indo-European languages in Europe signed by Wolfgang Haak, Iosif Lazaridis, Nick Patterson, Nadin Rohland, Swapan Mallick, Bastien Llamas, Guido Brandt..... "R1a and R1b are the most common haplogroups in many European populations today, and our results suggest that they spread into Europe from the East after 3,000 BCE. Two hunter-gatherers from Russia included in our study belonged to R1a (Karelia) and R1b (Samara), the earliest documented ancient samples of either haplogroup discovered to date"
Wolfgang, Iosif, Nick, Nadin, Swapan, Bastien, Guido, David Reich etc etc, have you realized that R1b was in Western Europe 10,000 years earlier than you thought? Until you find an R1b in Siberia that predates Climente and Villabruna, we won't take your theories seriously.
Best regards, Rob
EAA 2026 Abstract book:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1p4VdLe6HxSlk3BMoekzX2uUq3IpR6ra1/view?usp=sharing
There are a series of abstracts on the ChL/BA period of SE Europe/NW Pontic, starting on page 736.
I thought these abstracts were interesting:
1101. First encounters: the early 4th millennium site of Orlovets in Central North Bulgaria
Seems to be findings of Steppe-related pottery at the site ~3900 BC, similar to slightly earlier Cucuteni C wares.
and;
2575. A Preliminary Archaeogenomic Investigation of High-Resolution genomic data from the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age in Romania
Abstract clarifies it's LN through EBA - hopefully it includes Suvorovo and/or Cernavoda-related individuals.
@ Odala
''Do I understand you correctly, you discount Tocharian or Armenian from Indo-European? ambron Do I understand you correctly, you discount Tocharian or Armenian from Indo-European? ''
hhackshually, there is no convincing proof that Tocharian derives from Afansievo. Despite the advertisements by the Reich Lab & David Anthony, Armenian is neither from Yamnaya nor Catacomb.
Instead both have Srubnaya-Andronovo related admixture, which ultimately derives from CWC,
@Rob
"Instead both have Srubnaya-Andronovo related admixture, which ultimately derives from CWC,"
then from which culture do the Indian/Pakistani and Iranian/Yagnob/Ossetian languages originate?
Afanasievo related ancestry becomes heavily diluted already during the Afanasievo and Chemurchek era. Tocharian could have survived in a very limited area, and not necessarily in the area it was eventually attested in.
What we'd need is more coverage of Dzungaria and eastern Tarim from the Iron Age and Historical era, specifically Subeshi culture DNA.
@Gaska
Thank you very much. I never said the Villabruna were only in Italy; if anything, they were only found as far as the Western Alps (Les Iboussières 12,000 years ago). If anything, they didn't reach the Franco-Cantabrian Refuge, believed to be the origin of every European mt, like mitochondrial H, something I've refuted in 20 years of publications. We're awaiting details on the dynamics of the expansion after the Younger Dryas, and the fact remains that the related hg I-M223 was in Italy and only in Italy between 20,000 and 10,000 years ago, and other haplogroups come from the Po-Adriatic-Balkans. I told Robert George that Romania is a good fit for us, having always been against Ex Oriente Lux and all the Harvard-related ones.
Odola
Tocharian and Armenian, like Hittite, are, of course, Indo-European languages. The problem is that if they had originated from the Yamnaya population, the Pontic-Caspian steppes would have had an old Proto-Indo-European hydronymy, just like the areas to the north and northwest, inhabited by the CWC, which are densely woven with old Proto-Indo-European hydronyms. The areas inhabited by the Hittites, Armenians, and Tocharians also lack an old Proto-Indo-European hydronymy. This means that PIE was a CWC language, and all Indo-European languages are the result of migration or cultural induction from the CWC.
@ norfern
''Afanasievo related ancestry becomes heavily diluted already during the Afanasievo and Chemurchek era. Tocharian could have survived in a very limited area, and not necessarily in the area it was eventually attested in.''
Ok, but a better approach would be to objectively evaluate all flows of ancestry into the Tarim basin,. Andronovo groups moved into eastern Inner Asia without doubt, and likely contributed to the development of Tocharian.
@ Shomu
''then from which culture do the Indian/Pakistani and Iranian/Yagnob/Ossetian languages originate?''
Indo-Iranian is linked to Andronovo. But Srubnaja-Andronovo populations also contributed to the development of Armenian, Tocharian, possibly Thracian
@ambron the often sparse and tumultuous steppe could have lost it's oldest layers of hydronymy. How many pre-Scythian hydronyms we have from the area as a whole? You would expect something to be preserved even if non-Indo-European.
Norfern
In the Pontic-Caspian steppes there are three pre-Scythian hydronyms – Kuban, Indul and Kalaus, but they are Indo-Iranian, not Proto-Indo-European.
@ Gio, Gaska
Yes; this paper is a final blow to the 'late & recurrent out-of -Lake Baikal migrations' caricature which was being proposed by some folks (due a simplistic link with ANE).
That said, it remains obvious that Y-hg P ->R1 is not from the Balkans or elsewhere Europe, and it arrived sometime during the 'Ice Age'. I'm not aware of this 'Balkan signal' deep in Siberia, I had been of the view it was Kostenki-related. Maybe the authors see R1b-PH155 as being a tracer-dye of the 'Balkan signal' in distant Central Asia, although they make no specific uniparental or archaeological correlates. Being a preprint, we don't have access to the data, but given that none of the samples are very ancient, I don't see it changing the views of what most sensible people think.
Whatever the case, this data supports the common sense/ ''middle ground'' theory I proposed- an early arrival of R1b in east Europe, R1b-L754 then 'diversified' and expanded from east Europe, with an early movement toward the Balkan-Adriatic region by a group along R1b-L754 ->V88. And although I'm not a fan of the Reich Lab's approach to Topics, I commend Tabin & his team for the data & paper.
@ambron
Isn't Kalaus Turkic? Either way I think that underlies the issue. The older layers are poorly represented even when we know that they inhabited the region or the younger layers are used to explain the etymologies. This makes sense in a largely nomadic zone where the population can be replaced in quick succession and especially smaller hydronyms fail to pass on.
@Rob
The Balkan signal shows up in Mesolithic EHG populations
@ Rob
We all know that Harvard is the best, in terms of knowledge and funding, but it's also clear that so far they've had to please their sponsors, only to then bitterly see where that ideology is leading them. So the release of Lerga-Jaso 2025, and many others after it, like this Parker 2026, should make us understand that nothing that happens is a coincidence. Has anyone been writing these things for over twenty years?
"The genetic origins of Ashkenazi Jews are frequently described as intermediate between Europe and the Levant, often interpreted as evidence of substantial Near Eastern ancestry retained from an ancient Lev antine source population. This characterization is widely treated as an empirical result of genome-wide analyses. Here we reassess this interpretation by examining how reference population design, uniparental marker resolution, genetic drift, and founder effects shape inferred ancestry patterns. This study shows that apparent Ashkenazi genetic intermediacy arises primarily from asymmetric modeling practices in which Europe is represented by Northern or Central European populations and genetically drifted isolates, while Southern Italian, Sicilian, and Aegean populations with direct historical and genetic relevance are systematically excluded. When Southern European comparators are included and autosomal data are evaluated using appropriate population-genetic frameworks, Ashkenazi Jews consistently resolve within a Southern European and Mediterranean continuum rather than intermediate between Europe and the Levant. Reevaluation of early Y-chromosomal studies demonstrates that haplogroups frequently cited as evidence of Levantine paternal origin, including J1, J2, and E-derived lineages, are broadly distributed across the Mediterranean and Southern Europe and do not exhibit Levantine-specific structure when examined at subclade resolution. Ap parent Levantine signals in uniparental data are shown to result from coarse haplogroup binning, population pooling, and omission of relevant Southern European comparators. Independent autosomal evidence from principal component analysis, identity-by-descent sharing, FST distances, qpAdm admixture modeling, and medieval ancient DNA-anchored reconstructions converges on the same conclusion. Across distinct datasets 1 and methodologies, Southern Italian ancestry accounts for the majority of Ashkenazi autosomal ancestry, with additional components reflecting broader eastern Mediterranean continuity and later Eastern European admixture. Finally, autosomal markers with well-characterized geographic specificity, including the CCR5 32 allele and established Ashkenazi founder mutations such as the Tay–Sachs 1278insTATC variant, impose independent constraints on viable origin models. These variants have well-resolved European distributions and medieval or post-antique origins and are rare or absent in Levantine populations. Their presence at elevated frequencies in Ashkenazi Jews is incompatible with a Levantine-majority ancestry and instead indicates European introduction followed by demographic amplification through founder effects and long-term endogamy. While such markers are not used to estimate ancestry proportions, they provide independent population-genetic constraints that exclude Levantine-centered origin models and are fully consistent with a Southern European and central Mediterranean origin. Taken together, these results demonstrate that Ashkenazi genetic intermediacy between Europe and the Levant is not an intrinsic feature of the data but a methodological artifact. When Southern Europe is represented directly and population-genetic processes are properly accounted for, Ashkenazi Jews resolve as a Southern European–Mediterranean population with additional minor eastern Mediterranean and later Eastern European contributions" (https://doi.org/10.22541/au.176851539.93694915/v2).
@Rob
We've known about the Balkan signal in Sidelkino, Scandinavia, and the Baltic region for a long time; I remember discussing it with Alberto and Frank.
If I'm not mistaken, the oldest R1a-M420 is in Peschanitsa, Arkhangelsk Oblast, a site belonging to the Veretye culture (approximately 11000 BCE), R2 is in Iran and R1 can't be very far away from R1a and R1b. The R1b-L754 samples were already published this year by Akbari, so the history of this marker (formed, 14900 BCE & TMRCA-13100 BCE) that we know for certain is
I5410 (13176 BCE)-Pestere Climente, Romania-R1b1a-L754-Tabin, 2026
VILLABRUNA (12105 BCE)-Villabruna, Epigravettian, Italy-R1b1a-L754-Fu, 2016
I17060 (10383 BCE)-Pestere Climente, Romania-R1b1a-M343>L754-Tabin, 2026
IBOUSSIERES31-2 (9775 BCE)-Iboussieres, Epipaleolithic, France-R1b-L754 (xV88)
ROM061 (7538 BCE)-Ostrovul-Corbului, IGHGs, Romania-R1b1a-L754-Mattila, 2023
R1b1b-BY14355>PH15, formed (18400 BCE), TMRCA (5400 BCE) so rare, and widely dispersed that is difficult to draw any conclusions about its origin.
That's how I understand it
During the LGM (when global sea levels were the lowest during the last glacial period MIS2 between 26.5 and 19.0 ka calibrated kilo annum BP, Clark et al., 2009), early northern WHGs among them R-M207 (24000 BCE), R1-M173 (20000 BCE) or R1b-M343 (16000 BCE) took refuge in the Balkans where intermingled around 15000 BCE with Anatolian hunter-gatherers (Pinarbasi) and becomes Balkan HGs (Pestera Climente-R1b-L754>L761-13200 BCE) and later Iron Gates HGs (10000-5900 BCE). This Balkan group follow the Black Sea coast into north-east Europe and mix with ANE to form the Ukranian HGs and also migrated north reaching the Baltic region and Karelia, forming the Northeastern Technocomplex.
Other northern WHGs belonging to the Gravettian culture consisting primarily of I2a-P37>CTS595 (LeMura-15090 BCE) & I2a-M436 (Tagliente-14745 BCE) settled in Italy and became the Villabruna cluster of the WHGs who are the only European HG not to have AHG ancestry. Around 13000 BCE, Balkan R1b-L754 followed the Danube route to the Alps and became part of the Villabruna cluster (Villabruna-R1b-L761-12140 BCE). Italian WHGs made their way to southwestern Europe and intermingled with the Iberian & French Solutreans to form the Magdalenian people (19000-11000 BCE)-El Mirón-Dama Roja (16710 BCE), La Marche (16073 BCE), Grotte Pradis-I2a-P37 (10994 BCE), Rochedane-I2a-S21825 (10960 BCE) & Iboussieres-R1b-M343 (9675 BCE). They also migrated north maybe along the Rhone, mixing with the German HGs to form the Oberkassel Magdalenian cluster (Oberkassel-I2a-M423-11945 BCE).
@ Gio
“ We all know that Harvard is the best, in terms of knowledge and funding,”
Haha silly old man. If they know so much, maybe they would get one Topic correct
@ Rob
"@ Gio
“ We all know that Harvard is the best, in terms of knowledge and funding,”
Haha silly old man. If they know so much, maybe they would get one Topic correct".
But you should read all that I said: they had an agenda with their sponsors, and we know who they were and are, but we have all these materials now by them. You know that I was banned from everywhere, also from here at the time of Ted. A few days ago I entered again into the ex-DNAForums, that banned me 13 Years ago. Read who answers me, someone who isn't in contact with Harvard, and read the paper of Lerga-Jaso 2025: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-59936-3 .It seems that it too came from the Harvardian Medical school.
WHG+EHG+AHG
Target: I5410.AG.TW.BY__BC_13176__Cov_63.91%
Distance: 5.8329% / 0.05832887 | R3P | PRNG: math
71.8 Germany_LMagdalenian_Federmesser.AG
15.8 Russia_Mesolithic_Veretye.SG
12.4 Turkey_Central_Boncuklu_PPN.AG
Norfern
Kalaus comes from the Sanskrit "kala" meaning "black".
You can't turn a corner. Hydronymy indicates whether a given area was inhabited by speakers of a given language in pre-literate times. How are we supposed to know that the Pontic-Caspian steppes were inhabited by speakers of a Proto-Indo-European language?
@ambron
That was not necessarily the point. My point is that we seemingly have nothing remaining from pre-Indo-Iranian times. If all hydronym layers were to be preserved as evidence of habitation, we would expect something, Indo-European or not. If Yamnaya were non-Indo-European, then we would expect non-Indo-European hydronyms. In short, I think that after a certain point, and in certain sociocultural regions, hydronymy becomes incapable of probing the deep past.
@ Rob
You know that the problem for me isn't Lazaroglu, which it could be for you if you're truly Macedonian, but in that case I'd consider it a "backyard" problem. I've said before that I wouldn't have supported war against the USSR and a solution in the Balkans like in Alto Adige/South Tyrol. Unfortunately, the historical problem is understanding who was directing events at the highest levels, which is why I've always dedicated much of my studies to "Jewish identity," and it seems these latest essays prove me right. Unfortunately, the formation of the Balkans is very tangled, but I don't see any insurmountable obstacles, and I think that for my linguistic studies, I'd be very interested in delving deeper into the formation of the Balkan language, between Aromanian and Albanian, etc. The real problem in those places, I think, is Turkic-speaking Islamic nationalism, as I think it is for Russia as well, even if they don't seem to be aware of it.
@ Gio
I don’t know who Ted A is, we don’t need to get into conspiracy theories. Never underestimate the impact of hubris and incompetence in some of these academic fields.
And I don’t respect Lazaroglu because he’s full of it. That’s all.
@ Norfern
Looks like a population shift in Iron Gates from Ep to Meso: less AHG, more EHG
@Rob
I think bidirectional geneflow between Romania and Ukraine persisted through to the Neolithic.
@ Stefano (GenArchivist)
"Overall, our study supports central Europe as a core region in the diffusion of the La Tène culture, with population movement contributing to its southward spread. Additionally, it suggests that the NI group also included local individuals, possibly culturally integrated in the incoming community".
Of course. It Always happened, also in the ANF (read the last https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898...5.743150v1). It would be interesting to know if your mt hg. H1do is ancestral to that of I44724. But how is it possible that I44724, given about 15000 years old, had an mt like H1do1, when H1do* is found only in Italy and YFull gives an age of 2800 years ago and to H1do1 only 750 years old?
Very likely the mutation recognized for H1do, i.e. T15470C, came in hetoroplasmy from the oldest hg LO and emerged, very rarely, in great part of the hgs, and here only in some subclades of H1*, thus the mutation is only G3010A, and its age is only after H1*. Anyway the place of origin seems Italy.
Some new samples
https://www.mediafire.com/file/y3tv5jg56urzxhm/SK92.zip/file
https://www.mediafire.com/file/qjh9zp3twuve3rr/Yates_2021.zip/file
The Iron Gates samples are technically from the territory of present-day Romania, but please keep in mind that they are from a cave above the left bank of the Danube River, just across the river from present-day Serbia.
Something like "bidirectional gene flow between the Danube and Dnieper river basins" may be a more appropriate expression than "bidirectional geneflow between Romania and Ukraine" for the era under discussion.
“Bidirectional gene flow” is not accurate enough, although obvious. Gene flow and flux isn’t always at a steady state.
P.S. I apologize for the misunderstanding. Of course Climente II is I5410, anyway that the mutation T15470C coud have happened in heteroplasmy is a possibility.
Does I44724 come from Climente?
No, ancient DNA sample I44724 does not come from the Climente II cave. [1]
Provenance and Identity of the Sample
Geographical Origin: I44724 is a human skeletal specimen recovered in southwest England (SW Britain), not Romania. [1]
Dating: It dates to a much more recent period than the Epigravettian of Climente II, specifically around 1350 AD (the Middle Ages). [1]
Genetic Profile: This is a male individual belonging to the Y-chromosome haplogroup J-M304 (specifically J-M172) and the mitochondrial (mtDNA) haplogroup H1do1. [1, 2]
The connection with genetic studies
The confusion arises from the fact that both sites appear in the same paleogenetic databases (such as the tables from David Reich's laboratory), where autochthonous samples from Climente II (who lived between 14,000 and 11,000 years ago) are often used as a reference for studying the ancestral components of Balkan hunter-gatherers and subsequent European migrations. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Norfern
The Pontic-Caspian steppes have a hydronymy older than Indo-European – Caucasian.
As I mentioned earlier, it is most likely that some steppe groups brought some dialectal bundles to the PIE convergence, which took place only in the CWC.
From GenArchivist
Canterbury
So, Dzundzuana is 80% Balkan Epigravettian + 20+ basal.
Northern Osthrobotnian
I doubt Balkan Epigravettian is an exact match considering the chronology and ANE ancestry in it. But the bulk ancestry related to Italian and Balkan Epigravettian may be derived from some Balkan pre-LGM group, which also contributed to Dzudzuana/Caucasus MUP.
Anyway these last papers released by the Harvardians at last disprove what they said so far, that the EEF came from Anatolia, and the closest to them are Sardinians, because they are at 40% Y I-M26, and hg Y I-M223 was in Italy, and only in Italy, between 20000 and 10000 years ago, never in Anatolia, like hg Y R1b1...
EEF is still more related to ANF than an Epipaleolithic split would allow beyond the uniparentals which obviously had a sweep due to WHG admixture.
@Norfern
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hQs7r4Ek1bb8Z7gyuTJwTrgMSNoNrPd6/view?usp=sharing
''Northern Osthrobotnian
I doubt Balkan Epigravettian is an exact match considering the chronology and ANE ancestry in it. But the bulk ancestry related to Italian and Balkan Epigravettian may be derived from some Balkan pre-LGM group, which also contributed to Dzudzuana/Caucasus MUP.''
IMO the 'Caucasus_MUP' component which contributed to Villabruna/ WHG could be from Greece, Anatolia or the Caucasus. Chronology is not known with certainty, could be ~ 40 - 25000 BP. It seems to be associated wth Y-hg C1a-V20 and mtDNA Ub8/K1. But it was the post-Vestonice groups assoc with I2 and U5 which really expanded.
'EEF is still more related to ANF than an Epipaleolithic split would allow beyond the uniparentals which obviously had a sweep due to WHG admixture.''
Yep, there's no changing the fact that Early Balkan & LBK Farmers derive from West Asian Farmers. Almost 100%. This is probably also the case in Greece.
EF in North Europe & West Europe, and all later 'Farmer's are a different story.
@Davidski
Thanks. Seems like the Yates data was contamination after all. Well it was worth the try.
@Rob
"IMO the 'Caucasus_MUP' component which contributed to Villabruna/ WHG could be from Greece, Anatolia or the Caucasus. Chronology is not known with certainty, could be ~ 40 - 25000 BP. It seems to be associated wth Y-hg C1a-V20 and mtDNA Ub8/K1. But it was the post-Vestonice groups assoc with I2 and U5 which really expanded."
Could be, but we'd need something more recent (an maybe something more southern) Than BK1653 and Muierii1/2
@Rob
I don't understand your thoughts and your purposes. You know that I based my theories upon my known cases. My friend Paolo Prato, that I tested to understand if he was linked with the Jewish family of the Pratos from Leghorn, and it seemed he didn't (except that he actually descended from the family of Felix de Prato, converted to Christianism in the 15th century, and from the great family of the Jews from Terracina, but in this case he would be an introgressed Jew), very likely was a EEF from Anatolia (Y G-L166), migrated to the Eastern Alps, after to central Europe, entered the Gothic pool in Poland, invaded Italy with the Ostrogoths, fought the Greek-Gothish War, entered the Longobard pool, lived in Versilia and lastly near Pisa. His PCA is the same of me and my mother. We are Italians even though we had different paths in the past.
Can I ask an idle and naive layperson question? The upper right hand onnthe diagram where there’s a cluster of intermixed dark & light green squares, ancient near east and ancient central asia. What’s the archaeological context for these? Does this little mixed corner represent a named cluster in time &/or culture? Like Bactria-Margiana or something?
Yes, yes, everything comes from the Balkans, but before that they came from the homeland of humanity - Italy.
@ Norferm
“Could be, but we'd need something more recent (an maybe something more southern) than BK1653 and Muierii1/2”
I think there is.
It’s also interesting to reflect on how wrong your buddies on GeneArchiver were about this matter - ranging from Cope about R1b in Villabruna being an “error” or a “one-off freak” through to their ignorant claims that VB cluster being “from the Middle East”, esp “Kolompar” continually making dumb statements like “nobody survived in Europe during the ice age”. How can these people be such a basic bitch yet believe themselves to be archaeogenetics aficionados ? They should ease up on their communal self-brainwashing.
@ Gio
Another fascinating story. Thanks
@Rob
"@ Gio
Another fascinating story. Thanks
@Gio
“ i don't understand you”
I don’t think anyone understands you, at least try to make your sequential sensitive sentences somehow related to each other"
I appreciate your irony, at last, but I don't tell "story", I make science. Already in the past I wrote about the theory of Massimo Pallottino about Etruscans, that we have to investigate the "formation" of a people, not a supposed origin. It is found only in the Bible or the Kuran. After I discovered that the theory was before of the great German historian Theodor Mommsen and his monumental book about the history of Rome, told in German as it were the Latin of Tacitus...
@ Rob
Said otherwise. The reasoning of Rob is the same of all peoples, like Albanians for instance (but Beyond there are the Turks) who say that they are the "Illyrians" and everyone gets Illyrian intake is an Albanian and they want to own of the lands peopled by people with "Illyrian" intake, but everypne who passed fom Yamnaya to Italy or elsewhere lived in places named Illyrian. As I said above, this reasoning is in the Bible, the Kuran etc.
@Wee
Mouse over to see the sample labels.
https://vahaduo.github.io/g25views/#WestEurasia
@ Davidski
Great work. I wasn't wrong in saying that European Jews descend from Imperial Rome (and probably they were anyway 70% Italians). We descend from Italians of the Iron Age and the medieval migrations we know, that anyway were composed from all what they met during the migration (Germans, "Tuscans" i.e. 1000 Genomes Project, old people of central Europe etc.).
New preprint on a Neanderthal child from Teshik-Tash in Uzbekistan, the most southeastward Neanderthal data analyzed to date
The data is low coverage + contaminated, so the authors introduce a new method to analyze such data, finding the child closer to Western Neanderthals
https://x.com/DanTabin/status/2088988675560411204?s=20
Contaminated by North Italians again
@Ambron: the problem is we have no traces of CWC among the Hittites, and basically none among ancient Armenians nor Tocharian? As this is a time before books or schools, how would languages travel over so wide distances without human carriers? What advanced technology would CWC posses at that time for export to make culturally advanced Anatolians switch their language? Dom2 horses? But those seem to have not yet been established firmly even in the CWC itself?
But did not have the Roman empire a strong Levantine introgression? Do we not see Levantine lineagues e.g. almost dominating the later Etruscans? We know that there were many Jews in the Roman Empire? So that easily becomes a "chicken-and-egg" problem.
Am I the only one having problems logging into the genarchivist website?
I'm betting on everything I've written so far about ERS1789456. The test was submitted by a private citizen, perhaps previously involved in a scientific project like those at Harvard (it may have later merged with Antonio et al.), but the interested party, not satisfied with the data provided to him, privately performed a WGS, which cannot be the FTDNA Big Y, because it also has the mitochondrial one, so either Dantelabs or Nebula or similar. Then he submitted it, for a fee, to YFull, requesting complete anonymity; in fact, it has the ERS acronym, which he had previously had. I'm convinced he's a Roman Jew, as mentioned. The usual son of a bitch, in this case African, even if from 10,000 years ago, who doesn't want to infringe on the Jews' Mein Kampf, and the project of Greater Israel and the destruction of Rome.
Gioiello Tognoni del Badia, mt K1a1b1e, Y R-L23-Z2103, probably descendant of the Sabine-Roman Aureli family.
@Shomteppish
"Am I the only ne having problems logging into the genarchivist website?"
I had the same problem and I thought thar they banned me, as usual. I don't know.
@Odola
"But did not have the Roman empire a strong Levantine introgression? Do we not see Levantine lineagues e.g. almost dominating the later Etruscans? We know that there were many Jews in the Roman Empire? So that easily becomes a "chicken-and-egg" problem".
The question is that we aren't able to know anything about this DNA which is in the YFull tree, and, above all, that the Y is an R-L21 of some relatives of mine (and also of Doug Leeper's), and the Big Y of Roberto Pasquinelli, paid by Doug on a test of mine of FamilyFinder, had wrong results, so I sent the vcf file to YFull, and now the true tree is made.
Of course the Jewish lion says it is "contaminated"...
@ Gio
Nobody can understand what you are talking about - is it Palaeolithic Italy, Illyrians, Albanians, Jews, Russia and Gulf oil.
You just meander from one topic to another without any relation between in between. Then you start talking about letters you wrote to people that are also not relevant. Stick to the topic.
@ Rob
"@ Gio
Nobody can understand what you are talking about - is it Palaeolithic Italy, Illyrians, Albanians, Jews, Russia and Gulf oil.
You just meander from one topic to another without any relation between in between. Then you start talking about letters you wrote to people that are also not relevant. Stick to the topic".
Davidski's diagram is in argument?
https://vahaduo.github.io/g25views/#WestEurasia
All what I said is within...
If you know more about ERS1789456, write about that!
Somebody donate GeneArchiver $12 so they can pay their internet hosting Bill
Or the Boys are too busy salsa dancing at Miami’s most fabulouth club
@Rob
This is an excellent site, you can get all the new G25 from recent papers there, as well as the full lists from Anderson. I know they kicked you out of there like a bitch because you didn’t know how to behave, since it’s not allowed to act there the way you act here. Are you really going to stay mad at the creator of that site forever now?
By the way, I was also banned there for a while, and I still have a warning. I thought this site was unavailable to me because I had been permanently banned there, so I asked here.
@ Shomu
''This is an excellent site, you can get all the new G25 from recent papers there, as well as the full lists from Anderson. I know they kicked you out of there like a bitch because you didn’t know how to behave, since it’s not allowed to act there the way you act here. Are you really going to stay mad at the creator of that site forever now''
You're too dumb to take a joke, which was probably accurate (as to why their site was down). And G25 and Allens database isn't created by GeneArchiver, I don't know what you're on about. I just recall that they were a colectivity of douchebags with no releavnce, so I told them that up front. Maybe its different now, but I doubt it.
'By the way, I was also banned there for a while, and I still have a warning. I thought this site was unavailable to me because I had been permanently banned there”
So despite your pathetic grovelling, you got banned by your own kind. Fascinating
@Rob
GenArchivist is still probably the most populated ancient genetics forum still around, Eupedia and the Apricity are quit slow. These blogs are quite nice too but they're also pretty insular. I don't want to go to a discord server for ancient DNA discussions really, or Twitter.
Rob, you little online twat... If anyone is Mr. Delete, it is you, and you are by far the most avid GenArchivist reader of all. You are a midwit, at best.
In Karelia, near Kladovets Nos on the eastern shore of Lake Onega, underwater research revealed ancient rock art that is now submerged. These Onega petroglyphs are estimated to be around 6,000–7,000 years old. The images include birds, swans, and other figures, probably connected with the beliefs and hunting activities of Stone Age people.
https://m.nkj.ru/prtnews/60434/
These are EHG people
A sample from Iron Age England has been assigned as I-L704:
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/I-L704/tree
@Ethan
What's the very latest on Y-hg I2 subclades in ancient Anatolia?
@Ethan
"A sample from Iron Age England has been assigned as I-L704:
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/I-L704/tree"
@Davidski
"@Ethan
What's the very latest on Y-hg I2 subclades in ancient Anatolia?"
Certainly all these samples came, sometime, from Tagliente 2 (Italy to-day). It would be important to know their path and why the linked R1b1 of Villabruna never was in Anatolia, neither some supposed brother subclades from the Balkans...
There are several strata of I2 in Anatolia, excluding the recent Slavic-related I2a-L621
First there were I2c-L596-BY161062 in Marmara Neolithic.
Then the I2a-M223-L702, with P78 in Yassitepe, and L699 in central Anatolia.
these have a physical MRCS of 4500bc, and phylogenetic & chronological predecessors in the Dnieper region. Acc. to Ethan, P78 is from the Balkans and L699 is from Volgagrad, and these lineages just so happened to repopulated the Dnieper region and co-migrated into the Aegean and Anatolia despite being separated by ~ 2500 km. Sounds like something Lazarides would invent.
The third notable I2 wave is associated with proto-Armenian I2c-L596-Z26395. This has no proximal links to the Marmara group, but came via the Caucasus ultimately via an introgression from some western KMK-Babino group. Might be found in northeast Turkey as well (e.g. Sos Hoyuk)
@ Gio
The I2a in Anatolia have their quasi-distal origins in the Bug-Dniester region, not Italy.
@Rob
"@ Gio
''Certainly all these samples came, sometime, from Tagliente 2 (Italy to-day).''
Those in discussion come from the Bug-Dniester region".
Probably, but they weren't up there in origin, thus it would be useless to say that we was born in "Africa".
About I2c I found 20 years ago a sample in my zone, the Apennine, and I sent it to Ken Nordtvedt, the best expert of the haplogroup then, and he classified the subclade as "Adriatic/Italian".
@Davidski
There's no real update, this is where things stand:
I-L702>>I-P78 appears, chronologically in:
EBA Balkans in samples with lowish Steppe ancestry;
MBA West Anatolia (Yassitepe); then
Anatolian antiquity/Roman Imperial (including samples with ~100% Anatolian profiles).
I-L703>>I-S12195 appears, chronologically in:
Eneolithic Volga/Cernavoda/EBA Balkans with highish Steppe ancestry;
EBA NW Anatolia (Kulluoba) with some Steppe ancestry;
MBA Kalehoyuk seemingly with some Steppe ancestry; then
Anatolian antiquity/Roman Imperial (including samples with ~100% Anatolian profiles).
The Roman Imperial samples are obviously quite removed from the time/place Anatolian was spoken, but I think they serve as evidence that there was a demographically significant population of them in Anatolia.
The MRCA between I-S12195 and I-P78 is estimated to date to the mesolithic.
The I-L704 clade I posted above is closer to I-S12195 (parallel branch) but basically only appears in Don Yamnaya samples (and all I2 Don Yamnaya samples with sufficient downstream reads are assigned as I-L704).
@ Rob
"@ Gio
The I2a in Anatolia have their quasi-distal origins in the Bug-Dniester region, not Italy".
Of course. The 3 samples of these I2-s in Italy FTDNA project are 3100 yeas old as to their separation. Just in these days, when I was serching for Others in my documents, I found by chanvce the old data of Rossi, but I didn't save it. Very likely it is within these samples.
''The MRCA between I-S12195 and I-P78 is estimated to date to the mesolithic.''
Yep, that is the estimated phylogenetic MRCA. However, people generally confuse this to mean a physical separation of groups bearing respectively derived haplotypes. This not often the case, separation and subsequent range expansion occurs later, at last for the main expansions of lineages concerned. In this case, the real evidence based on aDNA find spots from a well-sampled region show a geographically circumscribed and chronologically linked expansion 2-3000 years later than the estimated MRCA, we cant pretend otherwise via misapplied theory. The molecular 'growth phase' probably correlates more closely with the divergence/ expansion phases.
We can recall the “pseudo-TMRCA” argument being invoked in other cases. Notably, the claim of that R1b-L754 in Epigravettian in Europe “didn’t prove anything” because the TMRCA uncertainties do not allow for it. Like Ethan, Dospy demanded we ignore evidence and rational deduction in lieu of their personally preferred alternative reality, or perhaps simply to “save face” as their own position has been shown to be consistently incorrect, that is, the position held by his friends on Tore the Twat’s forum.
Another example is the case of J2b-L283. All the evidence shows that it arrived after 4000 BC, and even partially co-migrated with a different J2b lineage found in Burusceni. But claims were being made that the TRCA of 12,000 BC means they are “completely unrelated” and that L283 probably could have arrived in Eastern Europe as early as the ice age or Mesolithic . Again all the direct evidence shows that contrary, so there’s no point waffling on nonsensically just to preserve your own fragile ego. It’s unethical in fact, because you’re just trying to confuse people and wantonly ignoring evidence
@Rob
The common root of the relevant I-L702 branches in this case is WHG/Iron Gates HG-like ancestry. There's no evidence to support any of the clades besides I-L703 actually ever being on the PC Steppe.
So yes, the mesolithic TMRCA appears informative.
https://i.gyazo.com/493786ac35d013d9ea8409dbf786c4ad.png
Here's the western samples on a PCA. Pretty clear that there's a bunch of neolithic I-L702 samples with nothing to do with the Steppe, as well as some samples under I-Y87044 showing the same thing (the Pietrele sample can be cleanly modelled as Iron Gates HG+the rest of the Pietrele set, which has a somewhat unusual PCA position vs other EEF).
@ Ethan
''The common root of the relevant I-L702 branches in this case is WHG/Iron Gates HG-like ancestry. There's no evidence to support any of the clades besides I-L703 actually ever being on the PC Steppe.''
I- L702 has never been attested in the Iron Gates sample set, which features R1b-V88 (predominantly)and other varieities of I2a. P78 in turn only becomes evident in the Balkans after 5000bc, when it starts sporadically appearing in Varna, Gumelnitsa, Tisza LN, etc, but still as an absolute & relative minority vs other HG lineages such as C1a2 & R1b-V88. Its appearance further south is later still, only after 3500 BC (Tel Kran, Beli Breyag, etc), and then GReece & Anatolia. The chronology & direction is very clear.
By contrast; all earlier representatives of the L702 clade have thus far only been found in the Dnieper region; although they weren;t native to that region c f Dnieper Mesolithic (probably arriving from somewhere just West).
This is 2D, primary school level analysis, flustered arguements to the contrary are not required.
@ Gio
''Of course. The 3 samples of these I2-s in Italy FTDNA project are 3100 yeas old as to their separation. Just in these days, when I was serching for Others in my documents, I found by chanvce the old data of Rossi, but I didn't save it. Very likely it is within these samples.''
There's no simple scenario or singular homeland for I2a groups, Villabruna or R1b sublineages. There was a complex network of settlements spanning from the Po-Adriatic plain to the Balkans and further East, and within this system the various representatives of VB emerged. In basic terms..
@ Ethan
“https://i.gyazo.com/493786ac35d013d9ea8409dbf786c4ad.png
Here's the western samples on a PCA.”
This PCA is essentially meaningless, because you have dumped a whole bunch of data whilst ignoring chronology & context. You’re also very confused about the difference between “steppe” - the real geographical place and the pseudo-steppe genetic category invented by the Reich lab. Thus putting aside the fact that Autosome profiles can change rapidly in the context of Low stream mobility, and the absence of “CLV” ancestry in early western representatives of Iway doesn’t mean they’re not from the steppe
So there’s a lot of confusion & irrationally in your claims.
@Rob
I'm going to ignore the deflections but given that your argument seems to be reducible to "the clades show up in Cernavoda III-related samples so it must all be from Ukraine", I am pretty comfortable with what I've presented.
"There's no simple scenario or singular homeland for I2a groups"
That's the obvious takeaway. These lineages come from various hunter gatherer groups throughout Europe. It is your special pleading that demands some sort of origin in Ukraine for the clades in question.
The key point though is that these I2 subclades show up in Cernavoda-related samples, so this strengthens the argument that their appearance in Copper Age/Bronze Age Anatolia was linked to the spread of Indo-European/proto-Anatolian peoples from Eastern Europe.
@Davidski
I-P78 very well could be related to the Indo-European migrations into Anatolia, although I'm not sure it took the same route(s) I-S12195 did for various reasons (an important question being, did proto-Anatolian speakers arrive in Anatolia with significant Balkan-related ancestry, or very little?).
It'll be easier to assess these things once the Kulluoba and Kalehoyuk samples are published.
FWIW these are our earliest I-P78 samples:
https://i.gyazo.com/faa460aafe3cd9ad9d86a901fb476c01.png
Presumably we should eventually find earlier samples, with profiles which will differ one way or another (either in the direction of the Steppe or local foragers).
strange models, for samples from the Bronze Age of Bulgaria
Post a Comment