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:
1 – 200 of 419 Newer› Newest»@ 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
The interesting thing about Csongrad & Giurgilesti, is (like Berezhnova _Ch) they are a 3-way mix of EHG, CHG , TTK, with no discernable southern Caucasus Farmer admixture.
This means they are not CLV.
But they're historical dead ends, early visitors to Varna societies that became extinct along with their hosts. I think it was some great flood event
Their steppe successors - Cernavoda I- are different type of steppe group. The Reich / Lazarides/ Patterson paper did a very poor job understanding the culture-history of the region. It's all just some waffle about clines with low-quality models and conveniently ignored evidence in Anatolia
@ Rob
What does the yDNA in Cernavoda look like again? Any Sredny lines? Its supposed to be the vector for Anatolian
Berezhnova, Csongrad and Giurgilesti are CLV, it's just that they form the top part of the CLV cline with no south Southern Caucasus-related admixture.
But yeah, this is a serious problem for Lazaridis, because Csongrad and Giurgilesti are Suvorovo, and thus Serednii Stih-related, and part of the core process that formed Yamnaya, Cernavoda and Usatove.
So, as a result, Southern Caucasus admixture becomes irrelevant to the Indo-Anatolian story, because it just ends up looking like collateral admixture and peripheral to the formation of the Indo-Anatolians.
The Cernavoda I cluster A/B dynamic suggests that their Steppe source had some heterogeneity, as the B cluster means that North Caucasus groups must have participated in its origin.
My guess is that cluster A is either formed by participation of both Sredni Stog-proper and lower Volga profiles, or a very Steppe-rich Sredni Stog population from further east. A post-Suvorovo migration from the Dnieper seems inadequate:
https://i.gyazo.com/4ca78c0b4610af561539fb2a90502c00.png
It seems to me that the phenomenon most able to account for that heterogeneity would be Suvorovo.
With respect to the model above, the best fit for cluster A is actually Trypillia+Berezhnovka (in both qpadm and G25). Lazaridis seems content with it, but I do not like that model, because cluster B does not seem to like Trypillia, and it seems nonsensical to me for Cluster A and B to have radically different farmer sources (he models cluster B with Yunatsite ChL).
@Ethan
Isn't Suvorovo just a derivative of early Serednii Stih, or its so called Skelya phase?
That would link Cernavoda and Usatove with Yamnaya quite nicely.
The North Caucasus admixture, bringing with it South Caucasus admixture, would then just be the indirect result of increasing mobility in the steppe, and associated with non-Indo-European influences in Indo-European.
A South Caucasus PIE origin is ridiculous irrespective of how you model Yamnaya or any of the other groups, because you end up excluding as PIE/para-PIE speaking most of Suvorovo+the Eneolithic Steppe (and alongside them, all their relevant archeological traits, i.e. horseriding, kurgan building, and prestige burials).
Yes, of course, para-PIE is all over the Pontic-Caspian steppe prior to the spread of South Caucasus-related admixture and influence.
Then the South Caucasus admixture spreads across the steppe, but it's associated with foreign/non-Indo-European influence in PIE.
@David
That is basically the conventional view (Rassamakin, Anthony etc.), that everything involving the Danube, Dnieper, and Volga commences with Skelya culture, which would include Suvorovo. This would coincide with the movement of Copper from the Balkans into the Steppe.
https://i.gyazo.com/55cc1b875aac4a0cb0a3cdd5201145c1.png
You could get away with a genetic argument that everything radiates from the lower Volga (Berezhnovka-like) and then the UKR_N/south caucasian ancestry enters the mix slowly, in specific regions, via exogamy.
I do like that model but the chronology/Y-DNA raises some questions (e.g.. our Suvorovo samples are the same age as our Dnieper Sredni Stog samples, where does I-L699 come from, and so on).
With respect to Cernavoda I cluster B and the North Caucasus connection, Remontnoye itself doesn't stand out from the other Steppe groups, archeologically:
"Steppe Eneolithic burials were placed in both simple pits and pits with a side chamber (catacombs). Bodies were usually arranged supine with raised knees, like Khvalynsk and Serednii Stih, or sometimes in a contracted position on their sides. Inventory items typically include saiga astragali, bone rods, and pottery vessels similar to Serednii Stih."
It semes like Berezhnovka-like and Ukraine N ancestries are the core part of the para-PIE > Indo-Anatolian process.
And then the South Caucasus admixture comes along a bit later.
Are the Steppe Eneolithic / Berezhnevka the main candidates for Proto-Anatolians ?
I would say that Cernavoda remains the main candidate for the source of proto-Anatolian.
The eastern route for the migration of proto-Anatolians into Anatolia is much less likely if we conclude that South Caucasus admixture on the steppe was not involved in the formation of Indo-Anatolian, and that Maykop and Maykop-related groups were not Indo-Anatolian speakers.
Berezhnovka itself has never been considered a good fit for a proto-Anatolian speaking culture.
Is Trypillia/EEF still the most parsiminious explanation for the ANF-related ancestry in Sredny Stog > Yamnaya per archeology & data?
If so, that makes the steppe & North Caucasian groups with South Caucasian ancestry (Remontnoye, Nalchik) largely cultural donors, but irrelevant genomic donors to Sredny Stog > Yamnaya.
Related steppe groups with similar phenomena from South Caucasian influence spheres.
And what's the verdict on R-M269 and R-M417? R-M269 from CLV & R-M417 Middle Don?
@Igor
Nalchik played a key role in the early formation of steppe Eneolithic populations. Nalchik is evidence of contact between Shomutepe and the steppe Eneolithic, with cattle exchanges, etc. Remontnoye is a much later process and is linked to the origins of the Yamnaya culture, and also demonstrates ongoing contacts between the South and North Caucasus.
@Shomu
The role of the Caucasus in the Proto-Indo-European expansion is that it provides the main foreign influences in Proto-Indo-European. These influences are well documented and important, because they help to anchor the Indo-European homeland in the steppe.
Thus, Caucasus and Caucasus-related populations like Nalchik and Remontnoye are the vectors for these foreign influences.
@Igor
Sredny Stog probably experienced admixture from both EEF and Caucasus populations.
But I have no idea how much came from EEF and how much from the Caucasus, and I'm no longer interested.
It's a pointless debate, because Sredny Stog formed largely from two groups: local hunter-gatherers and migrants from the Volga. The EEF and Caucasus admixtures came later, probably via exogamy from neighboring groups, and they were not formative.
EthanR
Interestingly, the strongest IBD connections between Poland CWC and Anatolia BA appear in Hittite times.
How do you explain the strong and numerous IBD connections between Poland CWC and Greece BA?
@Davidski
Yes, I understand everything. Initially, cattle breeders formed in the North Caucasus, adopted some traditions from the South Caucasus, and poured into Ukraine in a powerful wave. There they mixed with local farmers in varying proportions and became Indo-Europeans, not in the Caucasus but in Ukraine. When they crossed the Don River, they began to speak Indo-European and became proto-Anatolians. They moved to the Balkans. Those who remained in Ukraine after some time became proto-Europeans for the rest of the Europeans, Armenians, Greeks, and Indo-Iranians.
That's how I understood your theory.
@Shomu
Berezhnova-related people from the Lower Volga moved into Ukraine and they mixed with the hunter-gatherers there. This mixture resulted in the formation of the early Proto-Indo-Europeans.
This Proto-Indo-European population started to grow and expand, and they quickly came into contact and mixed with Trypillia farmers in the west and North Caucasus farmers and pastoralists in the southeast.
These processes resulted in the classic Proto-Indo-European language (with Caucasian influences) and mixture like Yamnaya and Corded Ware.
Within the limitation of us not having time machines, the most likely scenario is PIE was the langauge of hunter-gatherers from the northern Black Sea region. The farmer admixture is obvious from both the Caucasus and Europe route, theres a significant EEF % in Cernavoda and there's some Sho-Shu (via Nalchik, Meshoko, Majkop) into the LCV group. Linguists get excited about uncovering loans and adstrates from foreign languages, but this is a murky exercise and would probably underestimate the total impact by neighbouring farmers. I mean, adopting an agropastoralist economy would have been fairly revolutionary for the psyche & ideological domain of pre-proto-IE communities. Whilst the impact of Tripolje was always more or less clear, the Caucasus route has become clear in recent years. The problem before was that local archaeologists were focussing on the 'Lower Don culture', which was a misdirection as it was fisher-hunter-gatherer society with 'Neolithic pottery'.
None of the IBD connections between corded ware and hittites or Greece BA are strong. The reason why they show up is because there are hundreds of corded ware samples.
The stronger IBD hits for Greece is Yamnaya, and the strongest IBD hit for Anatolia BA is Vonyuchka.
@Rob Yes, but the genetic profile of the hunter-gatherers north of the Black Sea was roughly WHG+EHG; since we immediately rule out the WHG variant, we arrive back at the same conclusion—that the original speakers of the Proto-Indo-European language were EHG-type populations—though, as I recall, you don't subscribe to that theory.
An issue for Cernavoda I is that it is younger than Barcin_C (the Cernavoda I radiocarbon dates are not RE adjusted).
@ Ethan
''None of the IBD connections between corded ware and hittites or Greece BA are strong.''
Expectedly, because Greek, Illyrian, are ''from Yamnaya'. In fact, pre- or para-Yamnaya, hence the atypical lineages (R1b-PF7562, I2a-L702, J2b-L283); although R1b-Z2103 does come in a bit later.
''the strongest IBD hit for Anatolia BA is Vonyuchka.''
Interesting. Although these are at the mercy of chance (lucky hits, coverage, etc). But if true, how would it explain the haplos ?
@Shomu
The Proto-Indo-European language didn't exist when EHG mixed with WHG in Ukraine to form the Ukrainian hunter-gatherers.
It formed from different languages around 5,000-4,000 BC.
@Davidski
Or perhaps one of the populations was the one whose language served as the *lingua franca* for all the peoples who arrived in Ukraine—I mean, in any case, a specific people played a major role there; for instance, the language of nomads tends to prevail over that of settled peoples, which implies that populations of the Berezhnevka/Vonyuchka/Progress type played a significant part in this.
Yeah, maybe, but don't forget that Berezhnovka-related ancestry wasn't native to the North Caucasus. It arrived there from the north.
Significant CHG-related admixture was present in the forest steppe already during the Neolithic around 5,000 BCE. You can see that in my PCA.
At some point these people migrated not only west into Ukraine but also south into the Caucasus, and that's how the Vonyuchka/Progress people appeared there.
@Rob the Vonyuchka one is probably legitimate (14cm).
But Vonyuchka is also the strongest for Cernavoda I (excluding KTL001 which seems to share high drift with Yamnaya) and other Balkan ChL/EBA samples.
Vonyuchka and essentially none of the other Piedmont steppe groups actually show hits with the south caucasus or east Anatolia for that matter. Areni shows hits with Berezhnovka and Sredni Stog.
Well, yes—and we’re back to the point that the first Proto-Indo-Europeans were EHG people 🫵😀
@ Shomu
''Yes, but the genetic profile of the hunter-gatherers north of the Black Sea was roughly WHG+EHG; since we immediately rule out the WHG variant, we arrive back at the same conclusion—that the original speakers of the Proto-Indo-European language were EHG-type populations—though, as I recall, you don't subscribe to that theory.''
I'm not following your logic, If pPIE were EHG + WHG, how do we 'immediately rule out WHG' and rule in EHG ? One could even argue that pPIE was from a CHG group, or TTK/ Siberian HGs.
But I don't subscribe to either EHG & WHG, as it misses the Ball Park by 3 epochs. It would wrong to equate a 4000 bc language with macro-populations like EHG & WHG. We are looking at specific sub-groups and mixes thereof, when the immediate predecessor of PIE was spoken, there were WHG, CHG, TTK & EHG ancestries already mixing in.
''for instance, the language of nomads tends to prevail over that of settled peoples,'
The generally tendency is the opposite. E.g. Gothic/ Germanic was the prevalent language in the Hun Empire, even the name 'Attila' is Germanic.
Same with the later nomads in Central Asia adopting Sogdian, etc.
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 sparesely populated, hunter-gatherer realms. Language imposition is a given.
@ Ethan
''An issue for Cernavoda I is that it is younger than Barcin_C (the Cernavoda I radiocarbon dates are not RE adjusted).''
The Barcin_C 'middle' C14 value is 3770BC. Ilipinar are 3500-3300BC.
NB Maramara communities like Barcin, Ilipinar, etc also utlised fish in their diet.
The two earlier Kartal individuals are 3900 & 3800 BC; but most are little later. A bit 'tight' but still possible. The issue is the gap in southern Bulgaria (Thrace propper); no solid evidence before 3300BC, just some scatters of Cernavoda pottery [Laz. et al touched on this in their supplement]. They could have bypassed Thrace and moved directly into NW Anatolia, they have uncovered 'boat kurgans' in SW Ukraine.
@Rob
I don’t know about Attila, but the Turkic language clearly bears out my point: peoples with less than 3 percent East Asian ancestry speak a virtually pure form of Turkic—devoid of any local, pre-Turkic "autochthonous" vocabulary—across a vast region stretching from Anatolia, Eastern Europe, Crimea, and the North and South Caucasus to the countries of Central Asia, and so on.
@Rob iirc Manzura dates Kartal to 3750bc onward.
Re: Barcin_C, 80-85% of its ancestry is "local". By necessity you'd be looking at an arrival 3 or 4 generations back, and realistically a few more than that (as the newcomers also mixed between themselves).
@ Shomu
''I don’t know about Attila, but the Turkic language clearly bears out my point: peoples with less than 3 percent East Asian ancestry speak a virtually pure form of Turkic—devoid of any local, pre-Turkic "autochthonous" vocabulary—across a vast region stretching from Anatolia, Eastern Europe, Crimea, and the North and South Caucasus to the countries of Central Asia, and so on.''
There were multiple waves of Turkic migrations across Eurasia since at least 350AD BC. Even in Aatolia, there was hundreds of thousands of Turkic speakers arriving: Seljuks, Oghuz, etc. They conquered the midlands and took control from there. This 3% East Asian thing is a Noob Meme; the Turks weren't coming from Mongolia, but central Asia. Even early proto-Turks had west Eurasian admixture from the outset.
@ Ethan
''iirc Manzura dates Kartal to 3750bc onward.''
Penske et al state (with their C14 data) ''Cernavodă I (around 4000–3200 bc)'' , Manzura was a co-author.
Niktin / Ivanova showed a high FRE in Usatavo, and although local scholars believe Usatavo derives from Cernavoda, genetics tells us they are different peoples. We'll get more C14 & isotopic data soon.
'' By necessity you'd be looking at an arrival 3 or 4 generations back, and realistically a few more than that (as the newcomers also mixed between themselves).''
It depends if the Suvurovo-like or Cernavoda-like population already had ANF ancestry before arriving, somewhere with low WHG, then the additional mixing with neo-Anatolian CHG-ANF would erase any WHG / UkrN/ IHG ancestry after 1 generation. But I take your point, and my own view is that Barcin_C has something LCV or Suvorovo- like. However, she appears to be an isolated example. Then we have the R1b-V1636 off in SE Turkey/ Syria which as Ive previously stated, falls within an Uruk context (noted for sacrificial rituals). We are left with Bronze Age Ezero-period, where an entire horizon develops in Anatolia, incl introduction of horses. If the latter brought Hittite-Luwian, then Berezhnovka, Vonuchka or Sredni Stog aren't particularly relevant, regardless of what the IBD shows. We have to follow 'hard data'
Good Doco on Anatolia (no Genetics, but historically accurate)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBgq1taoUsY&pp=ygUedHVya3MgYW5hdG9saWEsIGtpbmdzIGdlbmVyYWxz
I find it hilarious how Lazaridis acknowledges the existence of Ukraine_N and the existence of a cline between Berezhnovka-related and Ukraine_N populations in their PCA, yet they model Yamnaya & Sredny Stog with one sample from the forest steppe who has like a Ukrainian Mesolithic/EHG profile.
They only use Ukraine_N to model Don Yamnaya as a mixture of their Core Yamnaya & a possible UNHG enclave.
Hasn't anyone noticed this?
The supplementary speaks further about that issue but they find that GK2 provides better fits while acknowledging that it's fairly close to ukraine_n and that the latter or a similar group might be the actual proximate source.
I imagine that Sredni Stog has ancestry from both, but I'm not sure Yamnaya has to.
@Davidski what are your thoughts on the proximate origins of I-L699 in Sredny Stog, from Berezhnovka-related or Ukraine_N foragers?
Now that we have I-L699 in Berezhnovka, the I-L699 in Khvalynsk makes a lot more sense now and opens up the possibility of CLV clans with I-L699.
This topic is heavily entangled with people's preferences to link their identity with the Proto-Indo-Europeans or the linguistic/genetic continuity with them — even being a distant/sideway relative is not dismissed but seen as some kind of partial victory or validation/satisfaction. It's actually fascinating to observe as a disinterested party
@Igor
I think I-L699 is ultimately from the western part of the steppe, so one way or another the I-L699 in Sredny Stog is from this source as well.
The fact that there's some I-L699 in Berezhnovka and Khvalynsk is very interesting, and I think it shows that there were movements of males to the east prior to the movements of Berezhnovka-related groups to the west.
Giga cope in thread even Golubaya Krinitsa samples have S Caucasus admix lmao, Berezhnovka Khvalynsk Sredny all do. Yamnaya is not just Sredny Stog it's Remontnoye paternally and declined leftover Sredny maternally, its origin is also way east if Sredny distribution. Serednii cope never ending since 4 years majority of samples are Dnieper shifted half HG variants, lol, supposed PIE culture
@All
Please don't copy paste multiple qpAdm models with lots of numbers into the comments here.
They automatically go into the spam folder. Don't hate me, hate blogger.
@Leon
You actually sound mentally retarded.
lol
@Davidski
Obviously, I-L699 is ultimately from the North Pontic, but do you think those Berezhnovka-related groups who moved west already carried I-L699 or not?
I think you already showed in the past Ukraine_N samples with Berezhnovka/Progress-related ancestry, so we might be dealing with bidirectional geneflow between the North Pontic, forest steppe and the Don-Caspian steppe starting from the Neolithic, increasing heavily towards the Eneolithic and ultimately culminating with the Yamnaya expansions which erased genetic diversity across the steppe.
Curiously, the I-L699 Berezhnovka male lacks Ukraine_N and/or GK2 ancestry per PCA. SH3001 and I22200 looked shifted towards Ukraine_N and/or GK2.
Yes, I-L699 may have "returned" to the west from the east with Berezhnovka-like groups. It might be useful to look at the deeper sub-clades to see if this is true.
But even if it is true, I see this as part of a wider pattern of a two-way exchange between the North Pontic and the Pontic-Caspian steppes.
“ Now that we have I-L699 in Berezhnovka, the I-L699 in Khvalynsk makes a lot more sense now and opens up the possibility of CLV clans with I-L699.”
This just shows that the origins of IndoEuropean culture emerged in the western-most steppe. This is the Mariupol Horizon which formed the basis for Sredni Stog, Yamnaya , CW., as well as the so-called CLV group. There is a clear evolution of burial styles and ideology . Not imaginary Caucasian pastoralists or female-mediated wine importers 🤣
Ethan’s claim that L699 is from the Volga is just dumb & it begs a scenario that the local groups of the Dnieper-Azov region just so happened to be replaced by the exact same haplotype as their grandfathers, but allegedly came from somewhere else .
I-L699 is from Ukraine_N-related groups, although it couldn't have arrived on the Volga too recently.
It's curious that the Berezhnovka I-S12195 is already fairly downstream. Meanwhile, all of the Don Yamnaya (lower Don and parts upstream) ended up being I-L704.
@David sadly, none of the Sredni Stog samples were placed very downstream, but you can see the I-L704/I-S12195 split here if you scroll down:
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/I-L703/tree
The Don Yamnaya samples almost all have excess ukraine_n, probably a remnant of the local late Stog population.
“ Yamnaya is not just Sredny Stog it's Remontnoye paternally”
If there was M269 in a chronologically anterior individual from Remontnoye, we would know about it. No need to speculate based ontheories proposed by the haploboomers from GA. Given
They have been wrong about everything so far, I wouldn’t hold my breath
There's I-L703 in non-Don Yamnaya & Catacomb as well.
I'm leaning towards I-L703 in Sredny Stog being from the east, if R-M269 is from the Lower Volga as well.
NV3003 looks to be a recent mixture of CLV, Steppe Maykop and perhaps Early Maykop. I think this gives a reasonable clue for M269 with I2181 from Smyadovo, which obviously has ancestry from Sredny Stog (both Ukraine_N & Berezhnovka-related).
How can L-703 from the East when the the oldest individuals are from Nikolskoe , Vilnyanka, Dereivka, Mariupol, etc 5500 BC
It the continues in Vinohradnoe (Ukr) 4500 BC, early drift west (Varna 4500BC), continuation in Molyukhiv-Bugor 3500 BC
All the L703 east of the Don are downstream descendants from the Dnieper
I-L703 is in any case from Ukraine, it is originally the ancestor of Western European HG, which later came to the steppe populations from the Don, but V1636 and M269, this line never existed west of the Volga River before, it came to the west already in the Copper Age, mixing with CHG/TTK
@Shomu
Steppe Neolithic is a mixture of Caspian EHG (ANE-rich) and North Caucasian CHG. Hence, Berezhnovka-related populations living on the Lower Volga.
You may be right about Mesolithic Chokh being relevant.
But I’ll add one more thing: before I-L703 men mixed with populations that had significant Steppe ancestry, they did *not* speak any Indo-European language—neither Anatolian, nor Tocharian, nor European, nor Armenian, and so on.
@Shomu
No one spoke any Indo-European languages before 5000 BCE or even 4,500 BCE.
@Davidski
Do you think the more downstream the Dnieper you go during Sredny Stog, the more Berezhnovka-rich the people get? Yamnaya/Afanasievo potentially forming near the sea of Azov?
After all, the most steppe Sredny Stog sample is I1430 from Vynohradne. And there's this Proto-Yamnaya sample from Mykhailivka.
Also, where R1b-M269 might have been before their expansion is irrelevant for I-L703. They underwent genomic and social convergence due to co-exogamy. Even R1a-M17 might have originally displaced from R1b-M269, that's what the handful of data points we have so far suggest
It seems like to me the more upstream the Dnieper you go, the more diluted the Volga ancestry becomes.
And once you reach the Moldovan forest steppe it becomes very EEF-rich fast, because that's where Cernavoda and Usatove formed.
@ Shomu - ''But I’ll add one more thing: before I-L703 men mixed with populations that had significant Steppe ancestry, they did *not* speak any Indo-European language—neither Anatolian, nor Tocharian, nor European, nor Armenian, and so on.''
Yep, professor Shomu absolutely, just 100% knows that. PIE was introduced by imaginary pastoralists from Dagestan 'because nomadism"..
It'll be okay
Also, whatever the pre-Yamnaya geographic origins of R1b-M269, it has no bearing on L703. This is a convergent phenomenon due to co-exogamy. Might be similar case with R1a-M17, but their convergence with R1b-M269 clans was more intense.
@Igor
Yes, Yamnaya probably formed in southeastern Ukraine, so somewhere near the Sea of Azov.
That actually makes good sense for a number of reasons. But I think the Indo-Anatolian homeland was somewhere north of the Yamnaya homeland.
If Rob is freaking out, then there's truth in what I'm saying.
EthanR
Long single hits are insignificant at the population level. Shorter but numerous IBD associations are significant, as for example in the case of Poland CWC/Greece BA or Poland CWC/Bulgaria BA. And the Anatolia BA and Poland CWC share over 31 cM of IBD total in four segments of approximately 7-8 cM each.
@ambron
Corded Ware came from the North Pontic steppe, the same as the ancestors of the Anatolians. That's the connection, and that's why there are some IBD hits shared between them.
But Corded Ware never moved into Anatolia. There are no Corded Ware Y-haplogroups in Bronze Age Anatolia and there's no archeological trail of a Corded Ware migration into Anatolia.
You need to think more carefully about what you're posting online, because you sometimes come across as just another internet crackpot.
David
I'm simply writing the truth: the only certain vector of Indo-Europeanization of Eurasia is the CWC population, which arose between the middle Vistula and the upper Boh Rivers as a result of the mixing of WSH and GAC. But I understand that some people don't like this truth, so they'd like to label me a crackpot.
@Davidski
You're just being your true self by hiding even my non model comment lmao. Retarded sperg muh Sredny Stog. Yamnaya is maternally Stog paternally Remontnoye. You will die on this hill nothing else. 55% Sredny in Afanasievo lol but we wuz Sredny
I just don’t think IBD is very useful for understanding migrations and big scale questions. It’s more relevant for understanding a well-sampled population’s mating / social habits
@ Shomu
''If Rob is freaking out, then there's truth in what I'm saying.''
Warn us before dropping your Truth Nukes bruh
The sequence seems more than obvious:
Proto Maikop post Shulaveri is probably PIA -> Maikop & Maikop adjacent (Remontnoye-Zolotarevka) = Proto Europic branch most likely
PIA -> migration into Anatolia gives Anatolian branch
Added possibility: remainder node in post Shulaveri in S Caucasus also goes to SC Asia -> Helmand -> Indus, so could be link for Indo-Iranian, but not completely needed as non partisan objectively guided Steppe hypothesis could explain too. Anatolian is dead case for Steppe, that's for sure. The dead don't have descendants left to fight, but atleast factually motivated people like me are here to keep on the struggle and their voice spoken. Hittites and Luwians.
@ Ambron
'I''m simply writing the truth: the only certain vector of Indo-Europeanization of Eurasia is the CWC population, which arose between the middle Vistula and the upper Boh Rivers as a result of the mixing of WSH and GAC.''
If Hittites-Luwians are somehow linked to Ezero, then not so nuts. Coz there was some CW - GAC 'reflux' back toward the western steppe & Carpathian/ north Balkans.
@ Leon
'' Yamnaya is maternally Stog paternally Remontnoye. You will die on this hill nothing else. 55% Sredny in Afanasievo lol but we wuz Sredny'
If we define 'core Yamnaya' as the bulk of R1b-M269 folks, then the fact that Sredni Stog was almost entirely I2a , its reasonable to state that Yamnaya is not paternally S.S.
There are some provisos, however. Firstly, there are I2a Yamnaya-Catacombians who are obviously from S.S, as well as J2b males who were ultimately from Majkop, thus negating the absolutism that ''Yamnaya males are all from Remontnoye''. Secondly, we don't know that M269 is from Remontnoye. Its possible, but the 2 published Eneolithic individuals are a female and R1b-V1636 male. Do you have an inside scoop to share with us ?
Then, looking at all data from the Volga-cisCaucasus region as a whole, which is one of the most densely samples 'clusters' - it is very much an R1b- V1636 world.
But lets put DNA to the side for a moment and look at the non-debatable 'hard data'. The north Caucasus - lower Volga region goes from a handful of hunter-gatherer sites to an entire series of elaborate kurgan burials appearing suddenly. This is a migration into the region from elsewhere, namely the eastern cousins of Sredni Stog (aka Khvalynsk senso lato). They were in turn replaced by a Sredni Stog group from the Don Bend
''Serednii cope never ending since 4 years majority of samples are Dnieper shifted half HG variants''
Most of these are misdated hunter-gatherers and Dereivkans, which are not actually 'Sredni Stog'
@Rob "''for instance, the language of nomads tends to prevail over that of settled peoples,'
The generally tendency is the opposite. E.g. Gothic/ Germanic was the prevalent language in the Hun Empire, even the name 'Attila' is Germanic.
Same with the later nomads in Central Asia adopting Sogdian, etc.
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 sparesely populated, hunter-gatherer realms. Language imposition is a given."
Yes. Same thing with steppe nomad rule in china. At least mongol rule. Manchus tried to impose their language.
I wonder what the hunnic language was. The language of the original huns not their subjects. Something turkic? Some kind of IE? Or even tungusic.
The IBD runs which have been circulating are cumulative IBD hits. When there are hundreds of samples being referenced from the same culture, it is unsurprising that you would see some signal preserved even if there is no direct relationship.
Regardless, barcin c is 3800 bc, Ilipinar c is ~3500 bc, and Kulluoba/Demircihoyuk are 3200 bc onward (with a related late ChL layer at each). So it is not possible for corded ware to be the Steppe source.
I think the evidence on balance implies that the actual surviving I-L699 comes from the Volga OR some/all of it of it comes from archaic (pre-stog) intermingling between the Don and Volga, and then you later have it expand from a still very Steppe-rich population from around that region.
It does show up once in GK, and then another GK sample is also I2a but very upstream due to coverage issues.
@Rob
Not misdated at all. There are 2 Sredny clusters, A and B / High And Med
The B cluster is Dnieper shifted and makes up majority of samples (7):
I7585.AG, I27283.AG, I27282.AG.TW, I28319.AG.TW, I4118_IL25.AG, I6558_IL25.AG.TW, I5894_IL25.AG.TW
The A cluster (4 samples) is taken as the "main" profile:
I1430.AG.TW, I1924.AG, I2108.AG.TW, I6559_IL25.AG.TW
@Rob
Fact is, Remontnoye has J2b (major Balkan Yamnaya uniparental pulse), and M269 as well is in Steppe Eneolithic (NV3003). This aligns with distribution of the cousin haplogroup of M269, i.e. V1636 ,so nothing surprising. Seredn Stog on the hand is just dead end stuff, I2-L699 et al, which becomes tiny minority in Core Yamnaya, i.e. is almost wiped out. We know it doesn't even survive post Yamnaya much.
Remontnoye is not M269 and it has substantial Steppe Maykop-related admixture which is easily picked up by G25.
Nothing to do with Yamanya. Shameless bullshit.
In fact, these samples show the process that lead to the Steppe Maykop outliers, they have nothing to do with Proto-Indo-Anatolians.
Remontnoye is basically a mixture of Early Maykop (50%), Steppe Maykop (10-15%) and 35-40% Berezhnovka-like.
How can they be relevant when core Yamnaya formed around 4000 BCE, while these Remontnoye samples are actually slightly younger and ~ 800 km away from where Yamnaya formed?
If there's Caucasian farmer ancestry in Yamnaya it can only be something mediated via Meshoko or Nalchik via it's Berezhnovka-related ancestry, but even that's a huge stretch when we have Lower Volga-derived profiles devoid of it and it only shows up in Progress around 4500 BCE (+ 1000 km from Sredny Stog).
There's no reliable proof there is any Caucasian ancestry in Sredny Stog. Yamnaya/Afanasievo prefer EEF in modelling.
@David
A few things I noticed looking at the sheet again.
I think you are missing I1924, which is a steppe-rich Sredni Stog sample.
I7929 is from Revova Kurgan and probably can be excluded from the Sredni Stog label. It resembles Usatovo genetically and the papers tend to label it Usatovo, although I don't believe it's an actual Usatovo site.
The EBA Caucasus label is a bit strange and can probably just be combined with the eneolithic label. ZO1002, ZO1004, NV3003 and KST001 are all eneolithic samples (it may make sense for KST001 to have its own label given the outlier status?). VIN001 is a generic Maikop sample. You could remove it or add other Maikop samples for context, I suppose.
@ leon
'Fact is, Remontnoye has J2b (major Balkan Yamnaya uniparental pulse), and M269 as well is in Steppe Eneolithic (NV3003). ''
No there is no J2b in Remontnoye, it is from Zoloterevka.
You are also ignoring the fact that these are completely absent until 3900 BC, appearing new and as outliers after that, during the demise of R1b-V1636 males and 'LCV' cluster
The main bulk of R1b was not in NV3003 but elswhere, further north
''Not misdated at all. There are 2 Sredny clusters, A and B / High And Med'
These are BS Reich Lab clustering that make no historical sense and are often misdated. This is the reality https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2025/08/tripolje-dereivka-and-sredni-stog.html
@ Ethan
''The IBD runs which have been circulating are cumulative IBD hits. ''
The spreadsheet you use made by the turkeys from GeneArchiver, like 'nomad'' ? its probably full of errors & worthless. Certainly, the way you guys use it is fairly meaningless
@ Davidski
''Yes, I-L699 may have "returned" to the west from the east with Berezhnovka-like groups. It might be useful to look at the deeper sub-clades to see if this is true.''
This Ethan's fanciful theory: L699 moved from the Azov-Dnieper to the Volga, then decided to do a 180' turn and move back west whilst politely asking nobody else join them.
One only needs to look at the post 4500 distribution of L703 downstream subclades Vynohradne 1430, Molyukhiv-Bugor, Kartal, . These are are not from the Volga, but acquired variable amounts of so-called steppe En via incoming females. The early Volga representative of L703 at Berezhnovka is from a very downstearm clade, and itself is a small twig (no major expansion). Even all the Don- Yamnaya -Catacomb (falling under I-L704) look like the mixed in with Yamnaya on the Don. That's about as eastern as it gets.
So Im not sure why Ethan he is perseverating with this nonsense but it seems he is struggling with the mentation or simply Trolling. I'd forget about this 'theory' because it won't be relevant
@ rozbójnik
''I wonder what the hunnic language was. The language of the original huns not their subjects. Something turkic? Some kind of IE? Or even tungusic.''
All the 'experts' would tell you that Huns derive from Xiongnu. But the Xiongnu were heterogeneous with a wide genetic cline whilst European Huns show a tighter clustering. They also seem unaware of the fact that a sprawling 'Hun culture' developed across southern Siberia & Inner Asia between 200 and 400 AD, so the Huns didn't just fly to Europe from Mongolia. Xiongnue didnt even exist at this point (apart from some leftover vassals near China),The Euro.Huns feature R1a-Z93 clades deriving from 'eastern Scythians', as well as Q-L715 (Altai region -> Scyths), a few R1b-PH155, also a couple of Avar-related N. This looks like they formed somehwere near the Altai region, which was not really part of the Xiongnu empire. I wouldnt say they spoke Tungus, but it could be Oghuric, Iranic, or even an extinct 'ANE language'
@Rob
"L699 moved from the Azov-Dnieper to the Volga, then decided to do a 180' turn and move back west whilst politely asking nobody else join them."
Well, they clearly were joined by other lineages in the movements westward, hence why Q1a, J1, R1a, and R-V1636 show up in the Eneolithic NW Pontic, and Q1b even further west than that.
For no reason in particular, here's Vonyuchka's cumulative IBD hits, ordered by length:
https://i.gyazo.com/8a791d8a3a8ccb39fabc5a3da6107d1c.png
@EthanR
Brother, create good qpadm models for the samples of Berezhnevka, Progress, Vonyuchka, and other samples of the steppe Eneolithic, and compile the results in table form.
And, again for no reason in particular, here's the two highest coverage Sredni Stog samples:
https://i.gyazo.com/bd63234683e5af3b639051a15a3473cf.png
https://i.gyazo.com/b6f6a7272450bc6f3b2297046658ac72.png
@Rob
Why would Lower Volga females flood the North Pontic, whilst North Pontic females not simultaneously flood the Lower Volga? It doesn't make sense this would be a non-reciprocal exchange.
If you actually bothered to look at the mtDNA's of these high-steppe Sredny Stog samples, most of them are actually local, even though the males are I-L703.
@Rob
You were saying that the Khvalynsk and Ekaterinovka burial grounds were dated incorrectly because the reservoir effect and the diet of those hunter-gatherers were not taken into account. What about the samples from Golubaya Krinitsa? Were those factors taken into account when determining their age?
@Ethan
According to him they are all dead-ends anyways, while local I-L703 men somehow prevailed over all them.
And I would M269 Smyadovo, even though he's buried in a local context.
@Davidski
So, one could say that the Indo-Anatolians—who contributed to the Hittites, Lydians, and so on—originated north of the Yamnaya horizon and then migrated via the route through Moldova, Bulgaria, and Greece/Thrace into present-day Turkey? After all, the Phrygians arrived much later (during the Iron Age).
EthanR
Hittite languages appear in Anatolia around 2000 BC, which is why I spoke of Anatolian individuals MA2205.SG, I14784.SG and ALA131.AG, sharing IBD with Polish pow040, pow041, pow061 and pow260.
@Steppe
It's difficult to be specific, but I think the first phase of Indo-Anatolian is the one where it doesn't have any foreign influences from the Caucasus and European farmers.
That's because if it did have those influences, they would not be picked up as foreign. They'd be baked into Indo-Anatolian.
As a result, we can't have the earliest phase of Indo-Anatolian close to the Caucasus. It most likely involved the fusion of para-Indo-Anatolian groups closer to the forest steppe zone in Ukraine and Russia.
@ Ethan, Igor
Look at the PCA here
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2025/08/tripolje-dereivka-and-sredni-stog.html
I2a-L703 males which post-date 5000 BC (e.g Molyukiv bugor, Vynohradonoe, etc) sit on a cline between Dnieper N. and the East. 'The East' in turn is a cline Berezhnovka <--> Remontnoye, differentiated by degree of south Caucasian Farmer admixture.
Although samples are limited, we also know that almost all pre-3000 BC males in the central north Pontic region derive from I2a-L703; the 'Suvorovo' R1b-V1636, Q1 individuals are further out in the Carpatho-Danube (Csongrad, Giurgilesti; etc); J2b2 comes later, but also focus around SW Ukraine and appear to skip-over the central part of the north Black Sea region. Maybe future data will modify this picture, if so fine.
This tells us (1) the degree of 'Eastern admixture' amongst the I2a-L703 males is variable (2) the source of admixture is not from 1 source, but possibly 2 or 3 'eastern groups'; and (3) admixture was mostly Female mediated (4) was ccuring over several hundred years (due to the chronological spread of individuals)
Hence this is not about 'Lower Volga females flooding the North Pontic', but a longer, complex process.
Thus, in addition to the fundamental phylogeny of I-L703 (which any person can check on ftDNA page), the genome-wide picture invalidates an 'L703 back-migration' from the Volga back toward the Dnieper-Azov region. If L703 males had in fact migrated from the Volga back West, then they should be an autosomally homogeneous cluster like (more or less), like the Z2013 Yamnaya clan or early CW males in Europe.
Moreover, - Yes I am saying the the lower Volga (R1b-V1636/ Q1-rich) groups more or less died off after 4000 BC. Several commentators have observed this and it is empirically uncontroversial, but others seem to be in a state of denial. Obviously a handful of these lineages persisted, .e.g a V1636 in Danish 'Single Grave' and Kartal, Q1 in Bohemian CW & Bulgarian Yamnaya, a J1 in Afansievo, but the overall picture remains. The demise of the CLV network occurred due to several reasons, e.g. Majkop expansion, the 'Danube Flood', so forth.
The Csongrad, Suvorovo, the Smyadovo outliers are indeed 'dead ends'. There is chronological gap between them and Cernavoda of ~ 200 years. You need to know these basic data before engaging in debate.
To your question how the ''I-L703 men somehow prevailed over all them''- probably because they just chilled in their core zone and weren't negatively impacted by events to the southwest and east. Instead, they began to increasingly fuse with proto-Yamnaya-CW, and thus PIE was 'born'. To 'tighten' what Davidski said, we can say that the pre-4200 steppe idioms were all pre-PIE , para-IE and non-IE steppe languages, and PIE/PIA propper can be dated from 42/4000 BC onward.
The I2a-rich group subsequently moved into the empty Balkano-Danube region, and Yamnaya then occupied the Black Sea steppe (there was also a minor introgression of Tripolje & Majkop farmers in between)
@ Shomu
''@Rob
You were saying that the Khvalynsk and Ekaterinovka burial grounds were dated incorrectly because the reservoir effect and the diet of those hunter-gatherers were not taken into account.''
These sites are very well studied and none of the publications have made errors here. Instead, some commentators are reciting 'wrong' dates because they don't realise that studies & summary sheets report 3 diferent types of dates (1) presumed archaeological date (when an individual has not been C14 dated) (2) C14 date (3) C14 date + RE correction. So when people say Khvalynsk, Ekaterinovka, etc, date 5200 - 4000 BC, they are citing a 'wrong date', as it is much younger and more limited (''Khvalynsk was in use about 4500–4300 BCE'' - D Anthony). The same with north Caucasus steppe (Progress, Vonuchka; 4700 vs 4200 BC; Wang et al); Nalchik has not been examined for FRE.
''What about the samples from Golubaya Krinitsa? Were those factors taken into account when determining their age?''
Yes, Allentoft et al esimated FRE for G.K; ~ 300 years offset (5600-> 5300BC). Probably not directly relevant for Yamnaya, but an interesting proxy and trail toward R1b-M269 and R1a-M17
I have also said that the term 'Sredni Stog' is used without specificity, and a Y-hg Q male previously thought to be an Eneolithic arrival from the Volga was C14 dated to the Mesolithic. Hence people are generally very confused about what was occuring in the Dnieper-Don steppe
What about the samples from Golubaya Krinitsa? Were those factors taken into account when determining their age?''
@Rob
"Thus, in addition to the fundamental phylogeny of I-L703 (which any person can check on ftDNA page), the genome-wide picture invalidates an 'L703 back-migration' from the Volga back toward the Dnieper-Azov region. If L703 males had in fact migrated from the Volga back West, then they should be an autosomally homogeneous cluster like (more or less), like the Z2013 Yamnaya clan or early CW males in Europe."
I don't think the genetic profiles of SS or phylogeny of I-L699 implies anything of that sort.
SS have a heterogeneous profile because they are likely surrounded by UKR_N-like profiles, and mixed with them in varying amounts over time. That doesn't say anything about what they looked like when the Berezhnovka-like component arrived there.
With respect to phylogeny, arguably the Berezhnovka sample having zero evidence for recent western ancestry yet being downstream is reason to believe I-S12195 at least began diverting on the Volga.
In fact, based on TMRCA, the separation of I-L704 and I-S12195 might predate the Steppe Eneolithic.
The Don is at least a plausible source for I-L699, but UKR_N is probably not if we are to trust the IBD data, for which none of the dozens of UKR_N samples subject to analysis even really suggest proof of admixture.
@All
I've made changes to the master sheet and the PCA plot.
@ Ethan
''I don't think the genetic profiles of SS or phylogeny of I-L699 implies anything of that sort.
SS have a heterogeneous profile because they are likely surrounded by UKR_N-like profiles, and mixed with them in varying amounts over time''
So the Suvorovo guys (v1636, Q1) did not with Ukr_N populations and remained almost pure Volga-Khvalynsk, whilst the L703 guys just so happened backmigrate to their grandparents region and mix with the locals.
Cool story bro
"With respect to phylogeny, arguably the Berezhnovka sample having zero evidence for recent western ancestry yet being downstream is reason to believe I-S12195 at least began diverting on the Volga.
In fact, based on TMRCA, the separation of I-L704 and I-S12195 might predate the Steppe Eneolithic."
This is incorrect, Berezhnovka and other Steppe Eneolithic have Ukraine_N shift (mediated by Golubaya Krinitsa most probably). Davidski for some reason will delete this but Golubaya Krinitsa has S Caucasus admix too, and those samples are misdated earlier. GK received same impulse as Nalchik in all likelihood
@Rob
The Giurgiulesti and Csongrad samples either never stopped in Ukraine, or did not stay there for long, so yes.
The real question is whether the eastern groups that arrived in and stayed in Ukraine already resembled samples like I2108 or I1430, or if they resembled Berezhnovka/Piedmont samples.
The one Novodanilovka sample we have is dated somewhat late (4100bc).
@Leon
I22199, the I-S12195 sample, has zero evidence of recent UKR_N ancestry.
In fact it seems to be more ANE-rich than most of the other Steppe_En samples.
If these samples really belong to Golubaya Krinitsa, then the steppe-like profile was formed at least 500 years earlier than the age of the burial ground from Nalchik.
Target: Russia_Voronezh_Golubaya-Krinitsa_N:I12491__BC_5475__Cov_67.92%
Distance: 1.2613% / 0.01261306 | R3P
45.2 Russia_Volgograd_Berezhnovka_N
35.2 Russia_Minino_Mesolithic.AG
19.6 Serbia_Lepenski_Vir_EN
Target: Russia_Voronezh_Golubaya-Krinitsa_N:I12490__BC_5500__Cov_61.62%
Distance: 1.0951% / 0.01095134 | R3P
63.4 Norway_Mesolithic.SG
26.4 Russia_Minino_Mesolithic.AG
10.2 Russia_Volgograd_Berezhnovka_N
@ Ethan
''The Don is at least a plausible source for I-L699, but UKR_N is probably not if we are to trust the IBD data, for which none of the dozens of UKR_N samples subject to analysis even really suggest proof of admixture.''
Of course IBD will show greater links between contemporaneous individuals admixing during their lifetime. IBD shows links between populations, not descent or geographic origins. And 'Dnieper N" is too broad to be meaningful. It includes samples from many sites which are distinct categories, such as Dereivka. The relevant individuals are from lower Dnieper sites, and for I-Y8551 sure - somewhat more eastern along the Azov and toward the Don. But we are still left with the fact the cousin clades I-P78 & Y87044 migrated from Ukraine toward Greece, Bulgaria & Anatolia at the same time, unless we choose to ignore those indiviauls
@Leon I uploaded the models for Golubaya Krinitsa G25, and this whole so-called South Caucasian component that you found in Golubaya Krinitsa is actually associated with steppe populations that probably already inhabited the North Caucasus around 5500 BC.🧹
Interesting that the only published pre-Yamnaya individual from the lower Don- Krivyanski (I11828) is Y-hg J2a-M67-M319. Shame we don't have more samples.
@Rob
Many of the Ukraine_N samples date closer to 5000 BC, and some of them seem to overlap with the Sredni Stog time period (NEO265 being one).
Even if the proposed source is from around the Azov, there should still be connections with the Dnieper samples.
With respect to I-P78, it's probably an acculturated Balkan lineage. I-L702's TMRCA is far older than Ukraine_N.
@Leon
Ukraine_N-like populations never lived southeast of the Don where the classic steppe profile formed.
Berezhnovka-like populations probably formed from interactions between Caspian-Lower Volga HG's and North Caucasian HG's.
And the J1 in Karelian EHG's up north is from this ancestry moving up north along the Volga where it got diluted heavily.
Anyone arguing over Ukraine_N, EHG and Tutkaul in steppe Eneolithic doesn't know what they are talking about.
@Shomu
I think Berezhnovka-like populations formed on the steppe between groups very rich in CHG ancestry (with some EHG ancestry) who recently arrived from the North Caucasus and steppe groups with little to no CHG ancestry.
Around 5000 BCE Lower Volga groups moved into the North Caucasus and some obviously made it down south to Areni.
Here's the highest ranking Ukraine_N sample (cumulative IBD) for each of Sredni Stog UKR104, I1924, and I2108, and some of the other similarly ranking samples:
https://i.gyazo.com/ab903870e9eb79a5ba49597937e43b3a.png
https://i.gyazo.com/417b9be4aaf230d4b2ea9f36c94d984f.png
https://i.gyazo.com/567e0f9494c9cc671150cb54fededf2d.png
@ Ethan
“ Many of the Ukraine_N samples date closer to 5000 BC, and some of them seem to overlap with the Sredni Stog time period (NEO265 being one).
Even if the proposed source is from around the Azov, there should still be connections with the Dnieper samples.”
This needs a proper re-do and analysis; some crappy excel sheet can’t looked by the clowns on GA bases on the Reich Lans ferry picked data isn’t useful
“ With respect to I-P78, it's probably an acculturated Balkan lineage. I-L702's TMRCA is far older than Ukraine_N.”
Neither P78 nor its immediate ancestor are attested in the Balkans before 4500bc
You now seem to be just trolling/ losing the plot. Are you ok ?
@Rob
"Neither P78 nor its immediate ancestor are attested in the Balkans before 4500bc"
The "immediate ancestor" has a TMRCA that's 3000 years older, so I'm not terribly concerned with that, but regardless, the fact that I-L702 shows up in late neolithic Hungary is plentifully informative of where I-P78 could have come from.
Similarly, I-Y87044 appears in a HG-rich Gumelnita sample (and Denmark) before later appearing in Cernavoda-III-related samples.
Neither show evidence of having anything to do with Ukraine. There is a reason all of the Ukraine_N samples that end up with downstream placements are under I-L703.
@ Ethan
''"Neither P78 nor its immediate ancestor are attested in the Balkans before 4500bc"
The "immediate ancestor" has a TMRCA that's 3000 years older, so I'm not terribly concerned with that, but regardless, the fact that I-L702 shows up in late neolithic Hungary is plentifully informative of where I-P78 could have come from.
Similarly, I-Y87044 appears in a HG-rich Gumelnita sample (and Denmark) before later appearing in Cernavoda-III-related samples.
Neither show evidence of having anything to do with Ukraine. There is a reason all of the Ukraine_N samples that end up with downstream placements are under I-L703.''
Nah its absent in early Farmers and Iron Gates, appear in late neolithic / copper age individuals in carpathian basin & eastern Romania. Likely sources is east or northeast (ukraine)
Steppe populations came to Areni much later , perhaps 4200-4000 BC
Hydronymy precisely delineates the area where Proto-Indo-European dialects were first spoken—in the east, it is enclosed by the Don and Donets rivers, and in the west by the Danube and Dunajec. Therefore, the Caucasian concept doesn't hold water. In my opinion, the Hittite lanquage source should be sought in the Dabene group, whose role as a cultural intermediary between Central Europe and Anatolia around 2000 BC is well-attested archaeologically.
After the early Neolithic, there was a regular but initially low % back flow of novel Hunter gatherer ancestry (That wasn’t Balkan/ iron gates in origin).
Berger et al wrote a paper on it
Then everyone thought they started seeing Slavs everywhere, like the Neolithic Balkans , or Slavs came from Hungary, Baltic-Slavic drift, etc
But it was nothing overly special, just a constant drift of Hunter gatherers to south from the area between Poland and Ukraine. Some of these were paraphyletic or vanguard of the of the Mariupol group.
Sorry - Gerber, not Berger
@Shomu
We lack data for the Eneolithic Caucasus.
Nalchik is more Cayonu-rich than Meshoko, less CHG.
@ Davidski
This is off-topic, but still genetics, would it be possible to obtain the coordinates of these 2 italian isolate villages dataset ? The data is in VCF format :
https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB53507
Maikop is pretty much nuclear IE homeland... Materially also true Maikop gave 90% of cultural elements to Yamnaya
"We lack data for the Eneolithic Caucasus.
Nalchik is more Cayonu-rich than Meshoko, less CHG."
Both things correct, but we have some idea (2 Darkveti Meshoko samples and 2 Nalchik)
How does Sredny Stog connect to Don origin anyway? Telegin and Kotova both believe it developed out of Dnieper N (Ukraine N sorry EHG bros), Kotova revised dates to 5000 BCE. Balkans origin for Anatolian is too weak, even tho Euro proponents will continue to argue for it till eternity rather than understand the complication and be open to other routes at the moment.
According to PCA, most WHG groups exhibit a drift relative to Bichon and La Braña. Accordingly, other hunters with WHG contributions also exhibit WHG drift. This is something akin to a pre-Balto-Slavic drift. Then, the most drifted group of Balkan or Aegean WHGs interbred with farmers, and this interbreeding gave rise to the true Balto-Slavic drift. Farmers with a Balto-Slavic drift advanced from the Balkans to the Carpathians and perhaps even further north in the Bronze Age. This trace is visible among the Polish Corded Ware people. At a parallel point, remnants of Ukrainian hunters also advanced from the east.
@ Ambron
''In my opinion, the Hittite lanquage source should be sought in the Dabene group, whose role as a cultural intermediary between Central Europe and Anatolia around 2000 BC is well-attested archaeologically.''
Aside from Barcin_Ch outlier, there was a migration of the Aegean kurgan horizon (unique stone kurgans, common use of remation), continuing with Dabene-Kaskovo-Sv Kirilovo (middle phase Ezero) into western Anatolia.
~ 2200-2000 BC was the conquest of Hatti land by IEs already in Anatolia.
These all have elevated central European (EEF + WHG) ancestry
''Therefore, the Caucasian concept doesn't hold water. ''
Same with Volga theory. Just vacuous inventions by pseudoscholars; there was nothing in the Caucasus & lower Volga, a cultural & demographic backwater until they got colonised & acculturated from the north & west
@ Leon
''How does Sredny Stog connect to Don origin anyway? Telegin and Kotova both believe it developed out of Dnieper N (Ukraine N sorry EHG bros), Kotova revised dates to 5000 BCE. Balkans origin for Anatolian is too weak, even tho Euro proponents will continue to argue for it till eternity rather than understand the complication and be open to other routes at the moment.''
Because the Ukr component moved via the Balkans early on. Its been found throughout central & western Anatolia, during the exact time period when IE is attested in said region. Where is the difficulty ?
Almost all of Kotova's dates are too early, but this is what she actually has to say:
"Nowadays the oldest settlements of the Sredniy Stog culture have been known in the Lower Don and Kalmius basins (Razdorskoe, Razdolnoe, fig.2). Here the oldest Mariupol and Karataevo cemeteries also located, where the Eneolithic burials situated near the Neolithic ones and had common types of adornments. On the basis of these facts it is possible to assume that the Don-Kalmius interfluve was the place of origin the Sredniy Stog culture. Probably, the long coexistence of the population of Surskaja and Lower Don cultures has led to the blending of traditions and formation a new culture on their basis.'
''On the basis of these facts it is possible to assume that the Don-Kalmius interfluve was the place of origin the Sredniy Stog culture.' Probably, the long coexistence of the population of Surskaja and Lower Don cultures has led to the blending of traditions and formation a new culture on their basis.''
I suspect Lower Don would also be predominatly I2a-L703 (although the one indivdual (~4200bc) we have so far is J2a). If so, then Surska and LDC basically the same population, indeed 'Surska' sites extend from the Dnieper to the Don. These developed the 'Mariupol cemeteries', which formed the basis for Sredni Stog, although 'strong eastern influences' were required. The latter were none other than Khvalynsk, which then migrated en masse down the Volga (accounting for the end of Khvalynsk-type sites in the middle Volga).
Golbaya Krinitsa is related to Ukraine_N only
Target: Ukraine_SeredniiStih_Eneolithic_B.AG+.AG.TW
p-val: 0.47; chisq: 8.7
71.1±3.2 Ukraine_SeredniiStih_Eneolithic_A.AG+.AG.TW
28.9±3.2 Ukraine_EarlyEneolithic.SG
Outgroups (11): 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, Ukraine_Mesolithic.SG
Target: Ukraine_SeredniiStih_Eneolithic_A.AG+.AG.TW
p-val: 0.47; chisq: 6.6
75.3±3.5 Russia_MiddleDon_N_Mariupol.SG
18.2±2.1 Russia_Caucasus_Eneolithic.AG
06.5±2.5 Tajikistan_Tutkaul_N.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
9/11 for Kurganists
Target: Russia_MiddleDon_N_Mariupol.SG
p-val: 0.60; chisq: 5.5
09.6±3.1 Azerbaijan_Caucasus_lowlands_LN.AG
18.3±3.2 Georgia_Kotias_Mesolithic.SG
32.2±3.2 Ukraine_N.AG
39.9±3.1 Russia_SatanajGrotto_Mesolithic.AG
Outgroups (11): Cameroon_ShumLaka_SMA.DG, Iran_Wezmeh_N.SG, Georgia_Satsurblia_LateUP.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, Ukraine_Mesolithic.SG
~10% Shulaveri-Shomu in Golubaya Krinitsa
Vasistha vindicated again
Russian paleogeneticists identified the remains of Princess Maria Vsevolozhaya, the wife of Prince Vsevolod the Big Nest. The scientists sequenced DNA from the tooth of a medieval woman whose remains were interred in the Assumption Cathedral of the Princess Convent. Genomic analysis indicated that the remains belonged to the great-grandmother of Grand Prince Dmitry Alexandrovich, whose DNA was sequenced several years ago. Moreover, as reported in "an article published in Acta Naturae" (https://actanaturae.ru/2075-8251/article/view/27916#tabs-5), the results support an Alan rather than a Czech origin for the princess.
Target: Russia_Maria_Vsevolozha:P145
Distance: 3.2900% / 0.03290029 | R3P
78.0 Georgian_Northeast_(n=2)
19.2 Komi_Zyrian_Siberia_(Ob-Ugric_Profile)_(n=3)
2.8 Zaghawa_Sudan_o3_(n=1)
Rob
So we see the matter of the Hittites and the Caucasus similarly.
the sample is quite low coverage and I wouldn't be surprised if a bit damaged or contaminated, but it seems to be roughly Caucasus related which matches the Alan identification
@Norfern-Ostrobothnian
I mean, Wikipedia says that more than a hundred Russian princely families descended from this woman and her husband:
“From Vsevolod and Maria came more than a hundred of the most distinguished Russian noble families, which shaped the further course of Russian history.”
That is, the origin of the Russians and their state is also connected to the Caucasian Alans, who genetically are the same Caucasians.
She specifically seems to descend from the Donets Alans, who were brought there by the Khazars and formed the Forest-Steppe variant of the Saltovo-Mayaki culture. The other component of the culture were the Bulgars who they intermixed with. The Donets Alans seem to have survived in some form until the Golden Horde.
perhaps ☺️
@ Davidski
I lost your thread and I am reading that now, thus let me answer this Shomu: “since we immediately rule out the WHG variant”...
Both I-L699 and R-V1636 derived from the WHG, I think the Villabruna. About I-M223 no doubt. About R-V1636 we'll see...The last FTDNA tests are giving to Italians close to me on average 25% WHG. It's enough...
Ancient ancestry estimates at FTDNA are garbage.
@ Davidski
"Ancient ancestry estimates at FTDNA are garbage".
Perhaps you know that I have a Whole life, more than 20000 letters and all my work in poetry and critics about FTDNA and its sponsors, and you know that I esteem your work, anyway I am waiting willing that all my work is estimated as to reason and truth.
@Davidski
I know that FTDNA is money-machine, but give me an autosome, whichever, and a SNP, even largely upstream, and a few STRs, and I'll say to you all what you didn't know so far.
Dear Doug, I thank you for all this data, but why was I looking to see if anyone, perhaps Pribislav on GenArchivist (which is why I signed up), had tested the SNPs of CSK068 beyond FGC24396 (which, incidentally, is named after my Full Genome with the 2014 FGC)? Because the answer to my questions depended on it. It seems that, given the high coverage of the test at almost 25% for an aDNA specimen, that is the terminal SNP before its private SNPs, and this has two consequences:
1) the specimen belongs to the Caucasian Avars, practically unmixed with the Asian Avars, and derives from the first migration from Yamnaya to the south;
2) this excludes the possibility that my haplogroup descends from medieval migrations, but, as I have been saying for some time, from the more ancient migration of the Latins/Romans through the Balkans to the Adriatic coast and then to Latium, and at the same time strengthens my hypothesis that the Jakeli of the Caucasus do not descend from a local dynasty but truly come from a Roman at the time of the conquest of Armenia after Tigranes, something I have already largely demonstrated in the past.
I understand that the Haplotree is based on FTDNA tests and ancient DNA, but in my case it would be necessary to take into account all the data at our disposal, otherwise my theories, for example, seem unfounded, but they are not. An Italian origin from R-FGC24444 is possible, given an expansion of R-L23-Z2103 from Yamnaya, but still several hundred years after its origin, and R-L23-L51 was certainly found towards Central Europe north of the Alps.
That is, after R-FGC24408 (5100 years ago, i.e., in Yamnaya), after a bottleneck of 29 SNPs, a descendant in Italy gave rise to Maddamma's R-FGC24444, then to my branch (R-FGC24383), immediately after to D'Ambrosio's branch (R-FT296919), and then to the R-FT296480 branch present in the noble Georgian family of Jakeli, which is assumed to derive from a Roman soldier perhaps belonging to the Latin-Roman nobility.
RE:"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 sparesely populated, hunter-gatherer realms. Language imposition is a given." 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. The more uniform the local languge is it more likely is will prevail over the incoming one. Imagine the incomer facing a linguistic monolith, their will adopt the local language as their chidlren will be raised by local-speaking mothers. But now imagine each of those mothers having a different language. Them and their chidlren will adopt the incomimg language as the lingue franca, even if the foreign fathers are few are little involved themselves - as e.g.often absent themselves - just to undertsand the various other-speaking parts of the local population.
@Davidski
A new computational approach that can detect ancient hominin ancestry in modern humans without requiring archaic reference genomes reveals a more complex picture of human evolution than previously imagined.
Leveraging this approach, researchers report in Science that an unidentified "ghost" population contributed DNA to the ancestors of all modern humans before they dispersed out of Africa.
Learn more: https://scim.ag/4q0of1S
https://x.com/ScienceMagazine/status/2085044443837604316?s=20
In 2026, AI supercomputers are making discoveries at record speed.
And they're solving what humans couldn't for centuries.
6 of the wildest things modern tech has discovered:
Continued below the post in the comments
https://x.com/FrankCurzio/status/2085014914935169126?s=20
@Davidski - "It's a pointless debate, because Sredny Stog formed largely from two groups: local hunter-gatherers and migrants from the Volga. The EEF and Caucasus admixtures came later, probably via exogamy from neighboring groups, and they were not formative."
That makes a lot of sense given the linguistic evidence that Anatolian languages lack the agricultural terms common to core-IE. A founding population with substantial ancestry from EEF would have had those terms.
Does anyone know of any studies on whether or not the suspected Caucasian influences on IE are found in Anatolian languages too?
@Ryan
Does anyone know of any studies on whether or not the suspected Caucasian influences on IE are found in Anatolian languages too?
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.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/10/a-homeland-but-not-homeland-3.html
I played around a bit with the Vahaduo calculator code and added the reduce algorithm for multi mode, so the calculator itself chooses from many input sources the combination that gives the minimal total distance spread for all targets. I think this is a very useful function for studying a group of populations instead of one individual at a time.
Then I ran the Samara Yamnaya, limiting the sources only to those older than ~3500 BC, and it turned out that these Yamnaya mainly come from local population groups that lived in the Volga area since the late Eneolithic (Yamnaya Kalmykia, Steppe Eneolithic Kalmykia, Berezhnovka, which is also not far from Kalmykia), and as a western source they need only a small admixture from Ukrainian Chernavoda, which in turn is also linked to the steppe populations of the Lower Volga Eneolithic + something related to Ukraine.👇
https://i.ibb.co/NdwGZg7z/1786088399595.jpg
That's not the right way to look at things.
Yamnaya is largely derived from Lower Volga-related populations that were already living in southeastern Ukraine since the pre-Sredny Stog period (~4,500 BCE).
We know this from archeology, because Sredny Stog was archeologically seen as ancestral to Yamnaya.
Yamnaya then expanded across the steppe, including east to the Lower Volga, and replaced most of the other native populations.
So no, Yamnaya doesn't come from the Lower Volga and it's not even derived from Lower Volga populations. Yamnaya actually represents an expansion to the east from Ukraine.
@Davidski
You are absolutely right about everything. If you remove the Yamnaya Kalmykia sample from the sources, the calculator immediately switches its attention to the Ukrainian "Ukraine_Igren'-8_N" as a suitable source.
https://i.ibb.co/rGNYmH8Y/1786094441077.jpg
I don't know how it is connected to Sredny Stog, but genetically it has overwhelming (more than 3/4) ancestry from the same Volga population.
Target: Ukraine_Igren'-8_N:I2108__BC_4282__Cov_87.12%
Distance: 1.4797% / 0.01479693 | R4P
47.4 Russia_Volgograd_Berezhnovka_N
27.2 Russia_Saratov_Khvalynsk_Eneolithic
13.2 Ukraine_N_son.I1732
12.2 Bulgaria_Varna_Chalcolithic.AG
But what difference does it make? Just because some herder from the Caucasus came to Ukraine and mixed in a proportion of 1/4 with local farmers, that doesn't make him Ukrainian. Plus, in the same Volga and Samara area they additionally mixed with a population similar to Khvalynsk / Steppe Eneolithic.
So the Yamnaya culture has the Lower Volga as its foundation )
Yes, there is influence from Ukraine and even Europe, but the base in it is the foundation of the Volga pastoralists.
And we return again to that photo I posted here about 2 years ago or so, where on the chronological map I marked the pastoralist triangle of the Eneolithic era that connected the cultures of Samara (Khvalynsk etc.), the Dnieper-Donets culture (Sredny Stog, Dnieper valley), and Eastern Caucasus (Ginchi and Chinna sites — I’m not sure how to write the name of this site correctly in English so it doesn’t get translated as the word “China”), and all these 3 cultures were united precisely by a similar breed of large sheep, the presence of similar sheep wool etc. Well, as is known, sheep are not a steppe animal, they never lived in the steppes, this is a mountain animal, and it was domesticated in mountain conditions.
https://i.ibb.co/vXQqpWR/Screenshot-86.png
well, we have Caucasus admixtures in Mesopotamia, and Mespotamian admicture inAnatolian Framer and pleanty of ancient word stamet share among those populations understod as "Wanderwoerter" "wandering words" - but now we know, the genre "wandered" too, so someone caiied those word. You will have word like KR GR for growing moutian rock stone hide and grain in PIR, Vasconic, but aslo Causkasian Languages and Sumerian... You will habe the Salt-Salvation -Hale-health-whole -and Shalom cocept of salt/presevation/protection/peace and blessing in this whole mutilingual area, but not really present outside of it...
The Caucasus lacks Proto-Indo-European hydronymy. It only has a very young Indo-European hydronymy—Ossetian. Therefore, searching for an Indo-European homeland in the Caucasus is pointless.
The greatest density of old Proto-Indo-European hydronymy is found in the area settled by the CWC. The Indo-European hydronymy in the area settled by the Yamnaya is relatively young—Iranian/Scythian. This raises doubts as to whether the Yamnaya were Indo-European. However, the CWC certainly was.
that is the issue, wool is an important factor here, we need more aDNA of sheep, as the sheep of the Anatolian and European farmers were hairy (Europe's mouflons descend from feral escaped Neolithic sheep) not wooly, the wooly sheep seem to originate in Iraq and to have spread over the millennia via the Caucasus to the Yamnaya and with them into Europe. See that Oetzi had no wool clothes, but the Tocharians had highly advanced wool technology which seemed to have been long in making. The Anatolian/European farmers seemed to have used leather and flax, also bast fiber like lime bast while wool seems to appear only in the later Steppe influenced staged of the late and collapsing Neolithic. See also where the "golden fleece" came from ;-) So it seems for now that wool could have been big factor in the spread of the Steppe-component (and in a possible late Neolithic plague dispersal, as we have confirmation of ancient plague in a sheep from that time in Central Asia.) But most archeologist are behind even on human aDNA, not to speak of on animal one and assume wool was always there since forever... Most of them do not even bother to differentiate between goat and sheep bones, not to speak of sheep subraces.
@Davidski
How would you square the profile of these samples, all of them mostly from Krivyansky on the Lower Don (right next to the Sea of Azov), with Yamnaya having an immediate origin close to that area?:
https://i.gyazo.com/43f9076994038aaafb58f2692d54c237.png
@ Shomu - ''it turned out that these Yamnaya mainly come from local population groups that lived in the Volga area since the late Eneolithic -Yamnaya Kalmykia,''
So you modelled Yamnaya with Yamnaya, and proved that PIE all comes from the Caucasus, ar at least Volga or Turkmenistan.
: Anosognosia
@ Odala
“ that is the issue, wool is an important factor here, we need more aDNA of sheep, as the sheep “
lol I recall when Guus Croonen from the Copenhagen group, came out in support of Reich Labs southern farce/ trans Caucasus theory because Guusy’s alleged investigations in “linguistic palaeontology” showed that wool was absent in Europe; but didn’t bother to sanity -check its linguistic tea-leaf reading with hard archaeological data showing textiles & wool already in 4th millennium Europe. Some of these “armchair academics” like Kroonen, Lazarides and Reich would benefit from starting all over again, and beginning with Wikipedia. But of course they’re all bogus
yes
@Ethan
These Lower Don Yamnaya samples show very similar behavior to the Sredny Stog samples from Ukraine in my PCA. So, I think the basic explanation for their existence is that the formation of the Yamnaya population wasn't a perfectly linear process in space or time.
That is, even though it's very likely that Yamnaya represents a founder effect and rapid expansion from within Sredny Stog, we should also keep in mind that the Sredny Stog population was genetically very heterogenous. And it seems like the genetic homogenization that led to the classic Yamnaya genotype wasn't able to sweep through all of the Sredny Stog and Yamnaya groups completely.
So, a Yamnaya sample from Russia with excess hunter-gatherer ancestry compared to some Sredny Stog samples from Ukraine isn't some sort of game changer, and we should expect to see a bit of counterintuitive diversity like this in the Yamnaya gene pool.
Obviously, the really important samples in the context of the formation of the classic Yamnaya genotype are the >4,000 BCE Suvorovo individuals from Hungary and Moldova and the Sredny Stog samples from Ukraine with excess Lower Volga ancestry.
@Davidski
"That is, even though it's very likely that Yamnaya represents a founder effect and rapid expansion from within Sredny Stog, we should also keep in mind that the Sredny Stog population was genetically very heterogenous"
I agree with this point, although, it seems that, if late Sredni Stog populations in that area are that rich in Ukraine_N-like ancestry (and very plausibly, late Stog groups closer to the Dnieper were too, see I1424 from ~3700 BC), the proximal Yamnaya may have to be from somewhere else in the Sredni Stog cultural sphere (presumably somewhere more distant from late Ukraine forager groups, whether that may be, as there could be a few options).
@Rob
I'm not sure archaic PIE even had a word for wool:
https://www.academia.edu/123968955/Wool_and_the_Indo_Anatolian_Hypothesis
@Ethan
There are a number of variables to take into account apart from geography and distance, including population density and the social and reproductive success of different clans.
It seems to me that a Sredny Stog clan rich in Lower Volga ancestry was located in Ukraine and this was the founding base for the classic Yamnaya genotype. The fact that a thousand years later there was a Yamnaya clan a few hundred kms to the east in Russia with excess hunter-gatherer ancestry doesn't contradict this.
@Davidski
I don't know, it seems like expecting a lot for that much substructure to be found within the same region, 1000 years into the Sredni Stog period, with a great enough population to homogenize the vast majority of the PC Steppe in just a few generations (even accounting for reproductive advantages).
I'd almost find it more likely that there was some sort of reflux involving part of the Ukrainian Sredni Stog population returning east, further back in time. Maybe that's what Repin was.
I can't understand something, I'm not a linguist, I don't understand this, but why is so much time devoted to wool in terms of Anatolian languages?
@ David , Ethan
keep in mind that these "Ukr_N' groups from the Dnieper are themselves recent migrants (probably from Bug-Dniester; due to the eastward push by Balkan-Danubian farmers].
So 'rump Ukraine HG' just east would be more like GK/ Vorezhneh Don profile (higher base EHG)
@ Ethan
''I'd almost find it more likely that there was some sort of reflux involving part of the Ukrainian Sredni Stog population returning east,''
But that reflux first began from the Dnieper interfluve, not the Volga or even Don
@Ethan
The Lower Don near Rostov isn't exactly the same region as the steppes between the Dnieper and the Sea of Azov in Ukraine. We're dealing here with different river valleys, probably different clans and highly mobile populations.
We would need detailed isotopic data and probably more samples from across space and time from those river valleys near the Sea of Azov to get a decent idea of what led to that unusual Lower Don Yamnaya population structure.
But it's already obvious that rapid population expansions and founder effects were a major part of the story for most of Yamnaya, and that sort of thing can make the idea that genes should show a strong correlation with geography untenable.
I don't know how Repin fits into the picture. Do we actually have any samples from Repin or Repin-related sites?
@Davidski
"I don't know how Repin fits into the picture. Do we actually have any samples from Repin or Repin-related sites?"
There's almost nothing sampled from that region for the entirety of the Eneolithic.
The site of the Mykhailovka late Eneolithic sample (I32534) is supposed to have received an influx of Repin pottery, but the chronology is vague.
@Ethan
Well, I would say the presence of a Yamnaya-like individual near the Dnieper dating to the period just after Sredny Stog and before the main Yamnaya expansion strengthens my position here.
This sample seems to suggest continuity between Sredny Stog, post-Sredny Stog and Yamnaya in this part of Ukraine.
That's not to say there wasn't any cultural influence and admixture from the east, like from Repin. But even if this is true, this is a very interesting datapoint that again points to Ukraine as the staging point for the classic Yamnaya genotype.
What sorts of IBD links does I32534 show to Sredny Stog and Yamnaya?
Repin is another one of those 'pottery horizon' cultures. I see it as it deriving from a group moving down the Don (north to south) and intergreting with middle-phase Sredni Stog.
@ Ethan
''I'm not sure archaic PIE even had a word for wool:
https://www.academia.edu/123968955/Wool_and_the_Indo_Anatolian_Hypothesis''
I just don;t think linguistic paleontology is a particularly relevant field.
Also I remain unconvinced about the Afansievo= 'Tocharians' meme being propagated by linguists, due to their uncritical acceptance of vanilla-stream archeogenetics.
@ Shomu
''Just because some herder from the Caucasus came to Ukraine and mixed in a proportion of 1/4 with local farmers, that doesn't make him Ukrainian. ''
This is a figment of your imagination. There were no 'Caucasian herders' in Ukraine, or Russia, or anywhere else in the indo-European world. Pastoralism was developed in the steppe itself . The native CHG lived in the forests of Georgia, which retained the glacial eco-niches, and were gradually replaced and/or assimilated by Mesopotamian/ Iranian Farmers coming from the South. CHG hold no relevance for PIE apart from third-hand autosomal transmission. That's why J1 doesn;t exist in CW., Yamnaya, Sredni Stog.
Even you know this, but in order to maintain your constructed alternative reality, you tell yourself that R1b-V1636 and R1b-M269 are 'Caucasian'.
@ Rob
"Even you know this, but in order to maintain your constructed alternative reality, you tell yourself that R1b-V1636 and R1b-M269 are 'Caucasian'".
This has to be told to Russians, because this is a decisive time for their future and ours, when the Gulf's Monarchies and Turkey and Pakistan...
@Rob
J1 exists in the Afanasievo culture in Mongolia. I don’t know how it got to them, but it is there. And since Afanasievo = Yamnaya and they have a common origin, this J1 entered the core of the proto-Afanasievo-Yamnaya culture, meaning it took part in their ethnogenesis.
@ Shomu
“ J1 exists in the Afanasievo culture in Mongolia. I don’t know how it got to them, ”
the 1x J1 in afansievo (we all knew about) changes nothing about the fact that pastoralism & other innovations was introduced into the caucasus due to multiple invasions and colonisations from the north (Eastern Europe) and south (Mesopotamia)
@ Gio
“ This has to be told to Russians, because this is a decisive time for their future and ours, when the Gulf's Monarchies and Turkey and Pakistan...”
? Ok .
Btw The gulf is the alleged out of Africa hub, according to the choir
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.
All these Ukrainian sources are also the same Volga populations that practiced seasonal transhumance animal husbandry.
https://i.ibb.co/sdwpBt7W/1786186591466.jpg
They had carts, wagons, horses, sheep; they always moved from place to place when the vegetation ran out.
There were many clans among them, some were very successful — among them first of all the M269 clan. Probably the richest ones had many women and accordingly many children. M269 was the main motherfucker.
And some groups even managed to get south into Anatolia already in the Eneolithic, and this is one of the hotly discussed topics here — how and by which route they got there: through Ukraine > Balkans > western Anatolia,
or through the steppe > North Caucasus > South Caucasus > Armenia > Anatolia.
As confirmation for each of these theories, on one side we have Chernavoda and Usatovo, and on the other side we have Areni.
So who is right?
Post a Comment