What do you think about the latest publication on the Eurogenes blog?

That's exactly what he did when I posted my Ancient Rome Test based on Dodecad K12b:

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread...-Mediterranean&p=637802&viewfull=1#post637802

What a completely dishonest, unscrupulous man he is. I don't think he knows the meaning of the word integrity. A couple of days ago I went to his site after seeing some comments on this thread, and it was clear he was at it again with his tinkering with the data. A poster named Henrique Pais clearly showed how he cherry picks populations to get the results he wants from the algorithms.

Not that it was any news to me, nor should it be any news to anyone who has been paying attention. I can just imagine his pms. Oh me, I'm such a victim. People are bullying me, trying to destroy my reputation when I've only ever been trying to do good work, and the worst are those people at eupedia, that joke of a site, who just hate me because I show they're not Indo-European like me and other Poles.

As if I've ever given the slightest indication that I would prefer to be more Indo-European.

Don't expect an honest debate from him; you won't get it.
 
Is the presence of the genetic component 'CHG' in the steppe a consensus? There seems to be a consensus that CHG is a relevant part of the steppe mixture, but in some media - such as Eurogenes - it still generates controversy. What do you think?


Note: my intention is not to attack anyone in particular, just to probe opinions

Link: http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2020/02/ancient-dna-vs-ex-oriente-lux.html

I don't think the point of Davidski in Eurogenes is that it is not CHG. His belief is that "the" CHG we all talk about had is not directly ancestral to the related and broadly CHG admixture in the Pontic-Caspian Eneolithic and Bronze Age, but rather that a proto-CHG divided between a northern and a southern group, and part of that northern CHG migrated to the steppe and mixed there with EHG at a very early date in the steppe on the piedmont of the Caucasus, probably still in the 6th millennium B.C. or even before that.

In any case, that CHG-like people were very closely related to "the" CHG we all know, so I don't see any reason to object using CHG as a proxy population until we have an unmixed Northern Caucasus CHG in the archaogenetic record. And that northern vs. southern divide probably didn't date to any time before the Mesolithic, therefore by the Eneolithic the CHG in the Pontic-Caspian Eneolithic and the CHG in the South Caucasus wouldn't be very drifted and different.

Incidentally, I did such a hypothetical experiment by "simulating" the G25 coordinates of the CHG in the Eneolithic Steppe_Piedmont and Eneolithic Khvalynsk samples. The results were unsurprising: plotting the coordinates of that "hypothetical Northern CHG" on a West Eurasian PCA chart, the hypothetical Northern_CHG plots very close to the Kotias/Satsurblia CHG we all know, though it does not overlap it.
 
I suspect their much of their phenotypic traits are a result of admixture with CHG. Especially if the EHG looked more like other Mesolithic Hunter-Gatherers, like the dark-skinned Cheddar man. The light skin mutation emerged in the middle east.

The EHG had relatively light skin, so they were not like the WHG. Only about 1/4 to 1/3 of their ancestry was WHG-like.
 
This is not directed at you, Ygorcs, but imo this is all "much ado about nothing."

Who cares if it went onto the steppe in the 6th millennium BC or the 4th millennium BC? Does that change the genomics of it? Who cares if there are some minute differences between the "CHG" on the steppe and that in the Middle East?

It's just stupid semantics or making claims he can't possibly prove just so he doesn't have to admit that the "steppe" people have a lot of ancestry very similar to that in Near Easterners. It's like his idiotic insistence that the ancestry in steppe people was "NEVER IN IRAN".

What, doesn't he get paid unless he proves that? It's sickening but typical of him.
 
Last edited:
This is not directed at you, Ygorcs, but imo this is all "much ado about nothing."

Who cares if it went onto the steppe in the 6th millennium BC or the 4th millennium BC? Does that change the genomics of it? Who cares if there are some minute differences between the "CHG" on the steppe and that in the Middle East?

It's just stupid semantics or making claims he can't possibly prove just so he doesn't have to admit that the "steppe" people have a lot of ancestry very similar to that in Near Easterners. It's like his idiotic insistence that the ancestry in steppe people was "NEVER IN IRAN".

What, doesn't he get paid unless he proves that? It's sickening but typical of him.

Hahaha good point about his unhealthy insistence on CHG "never in Iran, never, ever!" Why should it matter so much? I mean, it's not like the Piedmont Steppe just north of the North Caucasus is very far away from the Northern Iranian coast on the shores of the Caspian Sea. That area is almost, God forbid!, West Asian! :) Quite on the contrary, it's really, really close to northern Iran and Azerbaijan, especially if people knew how to navigate that closed ocean, which is very probably, given that many of those tribes once lived mainly as fishers and hunters. I also don't get Davidski's insistence on separating the CHG south of the Caucasus from the CHG north of it, the structure was probably not any higher than the internal structure between distinct EHG and WHG groups. I do get that he may be trying to say what I also believe, which is that the timing of the initial formation of the typical "steppe admixture" and the most likely timing of the early PIE language indicate a language being born in the steppe, not brought to the steppe... but he seems to be trying to make that CHG+EHG merge as early as possible. I think we can only say that it probably happened before the mid 5th millennium B.C., which is already old enough.
 
Therefore, it's possible that herding was adopted by the ancestors of the Yamnaya people as a result of their sporadic contacts with populations living on the western edge of the Pontic-Caspian steppe.

Eneolithic steppe is currently represented by just three samples in the ancient DNA record, and all of these individuals are from sites on the North Caucasus Piedmont steppe (two from Progress 2 and one from Vonyuchka 1).

As a result, it might be tempting to argue that cultural, if not genetic, impulses from the Caucasus did play an important role in the formation of the Yamnaya and related peoples. However, it's important to note that the North Caucasus Piedmont steppe was the southern periphery of Eneolithic steppe territory.

Greater_Caucasus_Fig_2_edited.png


Since none of these Maykop individuals carried haplogroup R1b1a2, which is typical among Yamnaya steppe herders, this blogger may be right to argue that cultural influences from the south of the Pontic-Caspian steppe played an important role in the formation of the Yamnaya culture. Some Yamnaya individuals were buried in Maykop graves and it is certain that there was a cultural overlap between the two cultures. Even if there were a genetic overlap between the two peoples through intermarriages, its impact would have been marginal.


Sample Site Age, BP Culture mtDNA Y-DNA

AY2001.A0101.TF1.1 Aygurskiy 2 5271.5 Steppe Maykop T2e
AY2003.A0101.TF1.1 Aygurskiy 2 5455.5 Steppe Maykop H2a1
MK3003.A0101 Marinskaya 3 4476.5 Catacomb U4a2
MK5012.A0101 Marinskaya 5 4663.5 Catacomb U5a1b1e ?
RK4002.B0101 Rasshevatskiy 4 4610.0 Catacomb U4d3 R1b1a2
RK4001.A0101 Rasshevatskiy 4 4277.0 Catacomb U5a1i R1b1a2
SA6003.B0101 Sharakhalsun 6 4292.5 Catacomb U2e3a R1b1a2
I6278 Shepsi 5200.0 Dolmen BA T1a2 ..
I6281 Shepsi 5200.0 Dolmen BA U2e1 ..
I2051 Marchenkova Gora, D13 3260.0 Dolmen LBA H6a1a2a J
I2055 Unakozovskaya 6533.0 Eneolithic Caucasus R1a J
I2056 Unakozovskaya 6477.5 Eneolithic Caucasus R1a J2a
I1722 Unakozovskaya 6403.5 Eneolithic Caucasus R1a
PG2001 Progress 2 6207.0 Eneolithic steppe I3a R1b1
PG2004 Progress 2 6090.0 Eneolithic steppe H2 R1b1
VJ1001 Vonyuchka 1 6242.0 Eneolithic steppe T2a1b
ARM001.A0101 Kaps 5329.5 Kura-Araxes R1a1
ARM002.A0101; ARM003 Kaps 5148.0 Kura-Araxes K3 G2b
VEK006.A0101 Velikent 4850.0 Kura-Araxes U4a2
VEK007.A0101; VEK009 Velikent 4850.0 Kura-Araxes U4a2 J1
VEK008.A0101 Velikent 4850.0 Kura-Araxes U4a2 ?
MK5008.B0101 Marinskaya 5 5185.5 Late Maykop T1a2 ?
MK5004 Marinskaya 5 5171.0 Late Maykop T2al L
MK5001 Marinskaya 5 5141.5 Late Maykop K1a4 L
SIJ003.A0101 Sinyukha 5174.0 Late Maykop U4c1
SIJ002.A0101 Sinyukha 5173.5 Late Maykop U4c1 L
SIJ001.A01(SA6002.A01) Sinyukha 5125.5 Late Maykop U4c1
KBD001 Kabardinka 4036.5 Late North Caucasus I4a R1b1a2
KBD002.A0101 Kabardinka 4057.0 Late North Caucasus W1+119
NV3001 Nevinnomiskiy 3 3970.5 Lola R1b Q1a2
I1720 Baksanenok 5300.0 Maykop HV ?
MK5007.B0101 Marinskaya 5 5455.0 Maykop U5a1b1
OSS001.A0101 Nogir 3 5570.0 Maykop J2a1
I6268 Klady 5564.0 Maykop Novosvobodnaya R1a J2a1
I6267 Klady 5438.0 Maykop Novosvobodnaya T2c1
I6270 Klady 5434.0 Maykop Novosvobodnaya U1b ?
I6266 Klady 5200.0 Maykop Novosvobodnaya X2f J2a1
I6272 Dlinnaya Polyana 5200.0 Maykop Novosvobodnaya U1b1 G2a2a
KDC001.A0101 Kudachurt 3823.5 MBA North Caucasus X2i J2b
KDC002.A0101 Kudachurt 3734.5 MBA North Caucasus HV1a1
BU2001.A0101 Beliy Ugol 2 4674.0 North Caucasus R1b1a2a2
GW1001.A0101 Goryachevodskiy 2 4726.0 North Caucasus U2e1b R1b1a2a2
I1723 Goryachevodskiy 2 4702.0 North Caucasus U5b2a1a R1b1a1a2a
LYG001.A0101 Lysogorskaya 6 4672.0 North Caucasus H13a1a2 R1b1a2
MK5009.A0101 Marinskaya 5 4710.0 North Caucasus R1a1a R1b1a2
PG2002.A0101 Progress 2 4362.5 North Caucasus U1a1a3
RK1003.C0101 Rasshevatskiy 1 4750.5 North Caucasus R1a1a
SA6001.A0101 Sharakhalsun 6 5444.0 Steppe Maykop U7b
SA6004 Sharakhalsun 6 5170.5 Steppe Maykop U7b Q1a2
IV3002.A0101 Ipatovo 3 5206.5 Steppe Maykop outlier X1'2'3 ?
SA6013.B0101 Sharakhalsun 6 5180.0 Steppe Maykop outlier I5b R1
RK1007.A0101 Rasshevatskiy 1 5123.0 Yamnaya Caucasus T2a1
RK1001.C0101 Rasshevatskiy 1 4726.0 Yamnaya Caucasus U5a1d R1b1a2
SA6010.A0101 Sharakhalsun 6 4731.5 Yamnaya Caucasus U5a1g ?
ZO2002.C0101 Zolotarevka 2 4850.0 Yamnaya Caucasus U5a1+@16192
 
Last edited:
Greater_Caucasus_Fig_2_edited.png

Since none of these Maykop individuals carried haplogroup R1b1a1, which is typical among Yamnaya steppe herders, this blogger may be right to argue that cultural influences from the south of the Pontic-Caspian steppe played an important role in the formation of the Yamnaya culture. Some Yamnaya individuals were buried in Maykop graves and it is certain that there was a cultural overlap between the two cultures. Even if there were a genetic overlap between the two peoples through intermarriages, its impact would have been marginal.
indeed, the genetic impact of Maykop to steppe is restricted to those 2 outliers
 
This is not directed at you, Ygorcs, but imo this is all "much ado about nothing."

Who cares if it went onto the steppe in the 6th millennium BC or the 4th millennium BC? Does that change the genomics of it? Who cares if there are some minute differences between the "CHG" on the steppe and that in the Middle East?

It's just stupid semantics or making claims he can't possibly prove just so he doesn't have to admit that the "steppe" people have a lot of ancestry very similar to that in Near Easterners. It's like his idiotic insistence that the ancestry in steppe people was "NEVER IN IRAN".

What, doesn't he get paid unless he proves that? It's sickening but typical of him.

for anyone who is interested in archeogenomics the how and when of the formation of CHG and steppe admixture should be a topic

I explained before, I even started a thread on the subject, IMO CHG and steppe were formed at the same time 15 - 14 ka on both sides of the Caucasus
that means that the formation of CHG was induced as much by admixture from the north as the formation of steppe was induced by admixture coming from Transcaucasia

EHG is more or less on a cline between WHG and ANE

and CHG and steppe are both on a cline between Dzudzuana and a EHG/ANE mixture

can anyone check that?
 
What I think about the latest publication is what I think about most of his publications. I take it with a grain of salt.
 
It's just stupid semantics or making claims he can't possibly prove just so he doesn't have to admit that the "steppe" people have a lot of ancestry very similar to that in Near Easterners. It's like his idiotic insistence that the ancestry in steppe people was "NEVER IN IRAN".
That is actually what he is trying to prove over and over again. That the CHG in the Yamnaya has ideally did not come from the Caucasus or at least had no connection to the Iranian Plateau. Since I was away I looked from time to time into his blog (once per month maybe) and it has always been about this. Disproving any connection from Yamnaya to anything south of it, especially the South Caucasus or the Iranian Plateau.
 
for anyone who is interested in archeogenomics the how and when of the formation of CHG and steppe admixture should be a topic

I explained before, I even started a thread on the subject, IMO CHG and steppe were formed at the same time 15 - 14 ka on both sides of the Caucasus
that means that the formation of CHG was induced as much by admixture from the north as the formation of steppe was induced by admixture coming from Transcaucasia

EHG is more or less on a cline between WHG and ANE

and CHG and steppe are both on a cline between Dzudzuana and a EHG/ANE mixture

can anyone check that?

Here is the wikipedia page, on ANE, it seems to have a pretty comprehensive breakdown. Though I would need to verify if the sources actually say what is written:

Groups derived from the Ancient North Eurasians

Eastern European Hunter-Gatherer (EHG) is a lineage derived predominantly (75%) from ANE.[2] It is represented by two individuals from Karelia, one of Y-haplogroup R1a-M417, dated c. 8.4 kya, the other of Y-haplogroup J, dated c. 7.2 kya; and one individual from Samara, of Y-haplogroup R1b-P297, dated c. 7.6 kya. This lineage is closely related to the ANE sample from Afontova Gora, dated c. 18 kya. After the end of the Last Glacial Maximum, the WHG and EHG lineages merged in Eastern Europe, accounting for early presence of ANE-derived ancestry in Mesolithic Europe. Evidence suggests that as Ancient North Eurasians migrated West from Eastern Siberia, they absorbed Western Hunter-Gatherers and other West Eurasian populations as well.[8]



Caucasian Hunter-Gatherer (CHG) is represented by the Satsurblia individual dated ~13 kya (from the Satsurblia cave in Georgia), and carried 36% ANE-derived admixture.[9] While the rest of their ancestry is derived from the Dzudzuana cave individual dated ~26 kya, which lacked ANE-admixture,[9] Dzudzuana affinity in the Caucasus decreased with the arrival of ANE at ~13 kya Satsurblia.[9]



Scandinavian Hunter-Gatherer (SHG) is represented by several individuals buried at Motala, Sweden ca. 6000 BC. They were descended from Western Hunter-Gatherers who initially settled Scandinavia from the south, and later populations of EHG who entered Scandinavia from the north through the coast of Norway.[10][11][12][13][14]



Iran Neolithic (Iran_N) individuals dated ~8.5 kya carried 50% ANE-derived admixture and 50% Dzudzuana-related admixture,[9] marking them as different from other Near-Eastern and Anatolian Neolithics who didn't have ANE admixture.[9] Iran Neolithics were later replaced by Iran Chalcolithics, who were a mixture of Iran Neolithic and Near Eastern Levant Neolithic.[2]



Ancient Beringian/Ancestral Native American are specific archaeogenetic lineages, based on the genome of an infant found at the Upward Sun River site (dubbed USR1), dated to 11,500 years ago.[15] The AB lineage diverged from the Ancestral Native American (ANA) lineage about 20,000 years ago. The ANA lineage was estimated as been formed 20,000 ago by a mixture of and Ancient North Eurasian (42-43%) and East Eurasian (57-58%) lineage consistent with the model of the peopling of the Americas via Beringia during the Last Glacial Maximum.[16]



West Siberian Hunter-Gatherer (WSG) are a specific archaeogenetic lineage, first reported in a genetic study published in Science in September 2019. WSGs were found to be of about 30% EHG ancestry, 50% ANE ancestry, and 20% East Asian ancestry.[17]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_North_Eurasian
 
Here is the wikipedia page, on ANE, it seems to have a pretty comprehensive breakdown. Though I would need to verify if the sources actually say what is written:
The Wikipedia article isn't very correct though. EHG is more like 40-50% ANE.
I doubt the other 50% in Iran_Neo is real Dzudzuana. More like a relative pop. And before the appearancr of this Dzudzuana sample CHG was modeled like 70% ANE like. Makes me wonder that Dzudzuana has shared ancestry with Mal'ta.
In fact I believe this Dzudzuana individual might be best represented by Haplogroup IJ.
In fact I always thought Basal Eurasian is best represented by yDNA G (E and F represent pre Basal pre Dzudzuana Eurasians before the split.)
 
The Wikipedia article isn't very correct though. EHG is more like 40-50% ANE.
I doubt the other 50% in Iran_Neo is real Dzudzuana. More like a relative pop. And before the appearancr of this Dzudzuana sample CHG was modeled like 70% ANE like. Makes me wonder that Dzudzuana has shared ancestry with Mal'ta.
In fact I believe this Dzudzuana individual might be best represented by Haplogroup IJ.
In fact I always thought Basal Eurasian is best represented by yDNA G (E and F represent pre Basal pre Dzudzuana Eurasians before the split.)

I think Dzudzuana = haplogroup IJ + Basal Eurasian,
and Basal Eurasian was brought by haplogroups G and H2.

Furthermore, haplogroup I2 (the Villabruna cluster, mesolithic western Europe) = haplogroup IJ + some drift.

This is speculation of course, but it fits with the modelling in the Laziridis Dzudzuana paper.
 
The Wikipedia article isn't very correct though. EHG is more like 40-50% ANE.
I doubt the other 50% in Iran_Neo is real Dzudzuana. More like a relative pop. And before the appearancr of this Dzudzuana sample CHG was modeled like 70% ANE like. Makes me wonder that Dzudzuana has shared ancestry with Mal'ta.
In fact I believe this Dzudzuana individual might be best represented by Haplogroup IJ.
In fact I always thought Basal Eurasian is best represented by yDNA G (E and F represent pre Basal pre Dzudzuana Eurasians before the split.)

Here is the reference that the wiki page cites, for EHG being 75% ANE:

Eastern Hunter Gatherers (EHG) derive ~3/4 of their ancestry from the ANE (Supplementary Information, section 11);

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5003663/
 
I think Dzudzuana = haplogroup IJ + Basal Eurasian,
and Basal Eurasian was brought by haplogroups G and H2.

Furthermore, haplogroup I2 (the Villabruna cluster, mesolithic western Europe) = haplogroup IJ + some drift.

But Dzudzuana itself is made up of a Villabruna like population ( very old WHG) and Basal Eurasian . IIRC Dzudzuana is 72% Villabruna and 28% Basal.

So the steppe eneolithic cluster ( EHG+CHG) could very well be something like 50% WHG. Even if the WHG in CHG and EHG are of a different time. WHG in EGH is clearly younger and likely is Mesolithic WHG ( Villabruna proper).
 
I think Dzudzuana = haplogroup IJ + Basal Eurasian,
and Basal Eurasian was brought by haplogroups G and H2.
Furthermore, haplogroup I2 (the Villabruna cluster, mesolithic western Europe) = haplogroup IJ + some drift.
But Dzudzuana itself is made up of a Villabruna like population ( very old WHG) and Basal Eurasian . IIRC Dzudzuana is 72% Villabruna and 28% Basal.
So the steppe eneolithic cluster ( EHG+CHG) could very well be something like 50% WHG. Even if the WHG in CHG and EHG are of a different time. WHG in EGH is clearly younger and likely is Mesolithic WHG ( Villabruna proper).

please check

View attachment 11846
attachment.php

supplements p32 : modelling CHG



tree.jpg
main tree :
IMO common west Eurasian = haplo IJ
Villabruna = haplo I2, common west Eurasian + drift

and EHG = 75 % ANE
ANE = Mal'ta in the tree = haplo QR during LGM
 
I explained before, I even started a thread on the subject, IMO CHG and steppe were formed at the same time 15 - 14 ka on both sides of the Caucasus
that means that the formation of CHG was induced as much by admixture from the north as the formation of steppe was induced by admixture coming from Transcaucasia

EHG is more or less on a cline between WHG and ANE

and CHG and steppe are both on a cline between Dzudzuana and a EHG/ANE mixture

can anyone check that?

But where would that 15-14 ka Steppe Admixture be located? Steppe Admixture, with its typical combination of a lot of EH with some significant proportion of CHG, can only be found in the aDNA ataset from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe from the 5th millennium B.C. I think it's probable that it was already found at least in the vicinity of the North Caucasus before that, but, if it had been formed a lot before the 5000-4300 B.C. period, then it was very restricted to the North Caucasus piedmont area before the Neolithic. I say that because all the HG aDNA samples from the Ukrainian and Russian steppe are overwhelmingly EHG and/or CHG, and there's a sudden increase in the CHG admixture when Khvalynsk, Sredny Stog and Eneolithic Steppe Piedmont (Progress/Vonyuchka) appear in the 5th millennium B.C. Before that, the CHG in Ukraine and Russia seems to have been very, very minor, and in Ukraine there was a lot of WHG that disappeared after the Neolithic except in the Dereivka samples (which also saw a significant increase in the CHG component)... so I think the data are telling us that some major changes happened between the Neolithic and the Eneolithic in the entire Pontic-Caspian zone.

See what my models show for the available G25 samples from Ukraine: https://imgur.com/a/CWeVy3X
 
But where would that 15-14 ka Steppe Admixture be located? Steppe Admixture, with its typical combination of a lot of EH with some significant proportion of CHG, can only be found in the aDNA ataset from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe from the 5th millennium B.C. I think it's probable that it was already found at least in the vicinity of the North Caucasus before that, but, if it had been formed a lot before the 5000-4300 B.C. period, then it was very restricted to the North Caucasus piedmont area before the Neolithic. I say that because all the HG aDNA samples from the Ukrainian and Russian steppe are overwhelmingly EHG and/or CHG, and there's a sudden increase in the CHG admixture when Khvalynsk, Sredny Stog and Eneolithic Steppe Piedmont (Progress/Vonyuchka) appear in the 5th millennium B.C. Before that, the CHG in Ukraine and Russia seems to have been very, very minor, and in Ukraine there was a lot of WHG that disappeared after the Neolithic except in the Dereivka samples (which also saw a significant increase in the CHG component)... so I think the data are telling us that some major changes happened between the Neolithic and the Eneolithic in the entire Pontic-Caspian zone.

See what my models show for the available G25 samples from Ukraine: https://imgur.com/a/CWeVy3X

indeed, it would have been restricted to Ciskaukasia untill ca 8,2 ka when hunter-fishers started moving up the lower Volga area eventualy reaching the Samara bend ca 6.6 ka
the majority of these fisher-hunters were R1b, and I suspect R1b-V1636

the oldest DNA from Ciskaukasia we have is from the Wang paper, with R1b-V1636
there is appearantly a new paper behind a paywall : New paper (behind paywall) by David Anthony, Archaeology, Genetics, and Language in the Steppes: A Comment on Bomhard
check this out : https://indo-european.eu/2019/08/do...proto-indo-europeans-of-pre-yamnaya-ancestry/ (take his conclusions with a pinch of salt)
and this : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khvalynsk_culture#Genetics

it makes sense to me
 
indeed, it would have been restricted to Ciskaukasia untill ca 8,2 ka when hunter-fishers started moving up the lower Volga area eventualy reaching the Samara bend ca 6.6 ka
the majority of these fisher-hunters were R1b, and I suspect R1b-V1636

the oldest DNA from Ciskaukasia we have is from the Wang paper, with R1b-V1636
there is appearantly a new paper behind a paywall : New paper (behind paywall) by David Anthony, Archaeology, Genetics, and Language in the Steppes: A Comment on Bomhard
check this out : https://indo-european.eu/2019/08/do...proto-indo-europeans-of-pre-yamnaya-ancestry/ (take his conclusions with a pinch of salt)
and this : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khvalynsk_culture#Genetics

it makes sense to me

If that were the case, then that could explain why I always get some % of Vonyuchka_Eneolithic or Progress_Eneolithic in nearly all the samples from Chalcolithic and EBA West Asia and Turan, as part of the best fitting model for them using all the available average population DNA samples from before the Bronze Age. The Vonyucha/Progress-like admixture from just north of the Caucasus may have already spilled southward (maybe via Dagestan and modern Azerbaijan) to Transcaucasia and beyond even before the end of the Copper Age (maybe that's why Anatolian was so divergent?).
 

This thread has been viewed 20385 times.

Back
Top