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 over 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
21 comments:
@ Rob "lol you’re right. Ive observed current genosphere theories about “Daco-Thracians”, with elaborate maps, schemata of successive cultures, haplo-stories etc., are all rather fanciful. Eg Dacians emerge just after 300 BC, the Cotofeni, Vucedol, “Thracian Halstatt”, etc have almost nothing to do with them."
Ah. And fewer than 30 thracian words known. And nobody even knows what thracians called themselves. Im not trying to deconstruct their existence but many of the maps and theories about thracian haplogroups seem suppositional yes.
I'll take a look for anything specific missing, but I'd include the Csongrad sample (I5124) and the Khvalynsk cline for the sake of context.
How much data were you able to find in I20072? I'd re-label it as a Suvorovo culture sample (it and Csongrad). I'm not sure where the Cernavoda attribution comes from.
Also I would consider separating the Cernavoda A and B clusters. Even though all the samples are the same materially, on a PCA it creates a misleading cline.
Anyway, with respect to the indo/proto-Anatolian question, I am leaning more toward a Lower Volga origin.
The Yediay preprint includes a very poor resolution PCA which I've been able to intuit by looking at it with an image viewer (to see the IDs) and comparing the positions of already published samples.
It's a standard west eurasia PCA, but in reverse (in the screenshot, above is ANF, to the right is Steppe, right and downward is the caucasus etc). The Xs are new samples, circles are previously published. The pink is bronze age Anatolia, whereas the grey is iron age and later, and the "olive" is chalcolithic and older. I'm fairly certain the far right olive circle is Barcin_C:
https://i.gyazo.com/5ba93a19f4a9318149bd6d8029ce116f.png
It looks like Steppe ancestry in NW Anatolia is pulled from something close to Barcin_C. And then central Anatolia receives a pull from something in the middle of that cline (close to the Kulluoba samples). One of the Kalehoyuk samples with Steppe pull is also I-L699->I-S12195.
Barcin_C looks, to me, to show a preference for a Volga Steppe source (Igren is the the highest quality Sredni Stog, and among the most similar to Yamnaya). BA Central Anatolia shows the same preference. Admittedly, some West Anatolia samples show a mixed signal (some prefer Sredni Stog, others Berezhnovka), but Kalehoyuk is where we find I-S1295:
https://i.gyazo.com/3f738debf8b279216e0b013ccb366066.png
Here's an expanded run, including Cernavoda:
https://i.gyazo.com/180cd6013c1768388a5fc5030fa6d28f.png
👍
@Ethan
Which of the Cernavoda samples are A and which are B?
002, 004, 005 are cluster B (nomenclature from the Penske paper). The rest are cluster A.
Cluster B can be modelled by something like Remontnoye En or Maykop+EEF.
Cluster A can be modelled by something like SS or Berezhnovka+EEF.
They all date to the same period, have the same burial customs, etc, so it's confusing as to why they are genetically distinct.
The R-V1636 sample is from cluster B but the I-L699 is from cluster A.
@All
Keep in mind that there are a number of duplicates in my master sheet.
That's because the v66.2M.AADR dataset often has samples that are the same but genotyped in different ways, so they're labeled with suffixes like AG, TW or AG.TW.
I'll have to clean that up and just jeep the highest quality version of each duplicate.
@ Ethan
''It looks like Steppe ancestry in NW Anatolia is pulled from something close to Barcin_C. And then central Anatolia receives a pull from something in the middle of that cline (close to the Kulluoba samples). One of the Kalehoyuk samples with Steppe pull is also I-L699->I-S12195.''
Agree that Barcin_C has a steppe signature without additional forms of Balkan or Ukr-type ancestry, but the later and greater flow (which can be linked to Ezero) obviously does
''Anyway, with respect to the indo/proto-Anatolian question, I am leaning more toward a Lower Volga origin.''
I still disagree with this, for multiple reasons. I think people are being misled by simplistic autosomalism and fake archeology
''It's a standard west eurasia PCA, but in reverse (in the screenshot, above is ANF, to the right is Steppe, right and downward is the caucasus etc). The Xs are new samples, circles are previously published. The pink is bronze age Anatolia, whereas the grey is iron age and later, and the "olive" is chalcolithic and older. I'm fairly certain the far right olive circle is Barcin_C:
https://i.gyazo.com/5ba93a19f4a9318149bd6d8029ce116f.png''
I dont think there's much use in squinting at a low-resolution PCA which does not focus on Anatolia. A focussed F-stat MDS plot would be even more instructive
@Rob
"I dont think there's much use in squinting at a low-resolution PCA which does not focus on Anatolia. A focussed F-stat MDS plot would be even more instructive"
I agree but, until the samples are actually released (which at this rate may be 2027) it's the best that can be done to understand them.
I am hoping that if they are really taking 2+ years from when the preprint was first released, that they at least incorporate newer samples (Penske and Lazaridis papers) in their IBD analysis.
I mean there’s better, or at least additional, ways to visualise how these individuals plot
@ Ethan
“I am hoping that if they are really taking 2+ Years”
Maybe due to their opaque IBD-based admixture models and dubious interpretation thereof
We can only speak with certainty of CWC as the vector of Indo-European languages. Therefore, PIE could just as likely have been a GAC language.
Yamnaya doesn't have any GAC ancestry, and there's really no way to explain Anatolians or even Greeks with Corded Ware.
Ambron, I appreciate your attention to Central Europe bro, the too-far- east PIE narrative is not warranted ; but let's not go overboard in the other direction. We must remain impartial :)
@All
I removed all the duplicates. I also added Khvalynsk and changed some of the labels.
Take a look how close the two Suvorovo samples are to each other, even though one is from Hungary and the other from Moldova. Wow.
Have you decided to boost engagement and return to the topic of the Indo-Europeans?
David
However, the Polish CWC shares much IBD with Bronze Age Greece and Anatolia:
https://polandcw.netlify.app/
Rob
In my opinion, the last common homeland of the PIE should be sought where the Ymnaya mixed with the GAC, that is, between the middle Vistula and the upper Boh.
@ Dave
''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.''
I bet some people take this as a stubborn view, they would claim that Sredni Stog was virtually erased by groups from the Volga region, with the soon-to-be dominant R1b-M269 clan hiding out somewhere on the shores of the Caspian or further up the Volga, then expanding and forcing subordinate R1a-M17 clans to go hide in Poland, the Baltic, etc.
This view is fuelled by the persistent claims of the author you mentioned that ''The CLV people contributed around four-fifths of the ancestry of the Yamnaya'', and that our view that proto-Yamnaya-CW males somehow 'tookover' CLV ancestry via a predominantly female-mediated exchange as Nuts. In reality, the admixture rations are probably more like ~50% middle-Don / Sreni Stog like and 50% CLV.
Another thing I've noticed is that CW and Yamnaya pretty much date to the same period, 3000 - 2600BC, contra to the popularised view that Yamnaya dates from 3300 or even 3600 BC, whilst CW only begins 2800BC. This is not the case if we consciously observe the C14 dates of *actual* Yamnaya individuals and the 'early CW' guys from Bohemia & the Baltic/Poland region. At best there is a ~ 100 yr anteriority for Yamnaya (handful of individuals).
Anatolian samples do show some weak IBD hits with Corded Ware and other late Steppe-groups but it's just residue of the actual eneolithic steppe source.
@David
"Take a look how close the two Suvorovo samples are to each other, even though one is from Hungary and the other from Moldova. Wow."
They should plot close together but the Giurgiulesti sample is very low coverage:
https://i.gyazo.com/de9dab7769e079b282c2a62c1767930d.png
Post a Comment