The Genetic Origin of the Indo-Europeans

[J Man]

This issue remains open for now. The authors could not place the Kriviyinsky 4500-4200 BC sample anywhere, which contained 60% "pure" CHG !!! And this is the region of the Lower Don. But this is the indigenous inhabitant of the Azov-Caspian steppes. The whole archaeology of this territory is based on the fact that even in the Mesolithic this area was inhabited by migrants from the Caucasus. Around 5500-5000 BC, a group from the South Caucasus appeared on the slopes of the North Caucasus with corresponding ceramics and house construction. About 5000 BC, the Novodanilovka group came to the same area. There are no signs of destruction. The second group simply settled in the settlements of the group from the South Caucasus. For a long time, archaeologists could not even understand that there were two groups there. The Nalchik burial ground is already the result of mixing of these groups. And now the hypothesis. The group that came from the steppe could well first mix with people like Kriviyinsky 4500-4200 BC and thus get CHG and only after that mix with migrants from the South Caucasus. ARM_Aknashen_N is selected in the analyses only because, in addition to 80% of CHG, it also contained ANF and Levant. However, if we assume that CHG is received from people like Kriviyinsky 4500-4200 BC, then the contribution of ARM_Aknashen_N will be minimal, but it will still be. And this contribution was made by people like the sample from Nalchik.

So you think that the Eneolithic Kriviyinsky-9 4500-4200 BC sample that belongs to J2a (J-M319) is an indigenous inhabitant of the Azov-Caspian steppes?....He lived and died in the Lower Don area though.

I think that the indigenous population of Kuban, who lived there since the Mesolithic, was CHG. About 5000 BC, people like Golubaya Crenitsa penetrated there from the west from the Sea of Azov, apparently I2a-L699, and as a result, people appeared "Krivyansky has little to no Central Asian ancestry (5.1±3.6%) but it can be fitted as 56.7±2.6% CHG-related and 43.3±2.6% GK2 alone (p=0.37)". At that time, people like Berezhnovka, apparently R1b-V1636, penetrated there from the Caspian Sea, and people like Progress appeared. As for J2a, it is probably an extinct subclades of J2a-M319*.

Very interesting information indeed....I would love to know if this Eneolithic J2a-M319 sample from Krivyanskiy-9 was a farmer, pastoralist or hunter-gatherer but without isotope testing we will probably never really know.

[Riverman]

Just curious as to what you mean by "higher cultural development" in the Lower Don area during the Eneolithic?...Do you mean agriculture or herding?

They had more developed tools, buildings and started to use animal husbandry, in a time the people to the North and East were still fully fledged foragers. They were also specialised fishermen, and in any case more settled down than their environment at the start of the development. Rakushechny Yar is just a prime example:

The multilayer settlement Rakushechny Yar situated in the lower Don River (Rostov region, Russia) is one of the oldest early Neolithic sites in this region, dated to the 7th and 6th millennia BC. Recent investigations have shown a particular importance of this site in the study of the spread of the Near Eastern “Neolithic package” and the neolithisation of Eastern Europe. Long-term study has provided unique evidence of lives of ancient communities. New 14C dates contribute to refining the chronology of the recently excavated to dating the development of cultural traditions more precisely. The excellent preservation state of organic materials led to uncovering a rich assemblage of faunal and fish remains, household constructions, hunting and fishing tools, as well as pottery. The subsistence strategies and the life cycle of these communities were reconstructed through multiple proxies, which describe a particular system of resource management determined by specific economic, environmental and cultural conditions. Rich fish remains, shell middens, site location, specific toolkit with restricted categories, and incomplete context of tool production testify all that it was a specialized site for aquatic resource procurement. Faunal remains indicated the use of resources from other ecological niches as well. Finds of bones of domesticated animals in the same Early Neolithic layers may suggest even a more complicated organization of this ancient community and may indicate the northern limit of the Neolithic package distribution.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar...8219300126

That we still have no samples from that area for the Pre-Neolithic and Early Neolithic period is a disaster und completely beyond me. They sampled similar groups of later steppe people for the 10th time, but are unable to at least check those sites? I don't get it.

Its one of the most important archaeological sites of the North Pontic region, whether they were PIE or not.

These Lower Don sites are also good candidates for yielding some J2a IMHO.

[J Man]

Just curious as to what you mean by "higher cultural development" in the Lower Don area during the Eneolithic?...Do you mean agriculture or herding?

They had more developed tools, buildings and started to use animal husbandry, in a time the people to the North and East were still fully fledged foragers. They were also specialised fishermen, and in any case more settled down than their environment at the start of the development. Rakushechny Ya is just a prime example:

The multilayer settlement Rakushechny Yar situated in the lower Don River (Rostov region, Russia) is one of the oldest early Neolithic sites in this region, dated to the 7th and 6th millennia BC. Recent investigations have shown a particular importance of this site in the study of the spread of the Near Eastern “Neolithic package” and the neolithisation of Eastern Europe. Long-term study has provided unique evidence of lives of ancient communities. New 14C dates contribute to refining the chronology of the recently excavated to dating the development of cultural traditions more precisely. The excellent preservation state of organic materials led to uncovering a rich assemblage of faunal and fish remains, household constructions, hunting and fishing tools, as well as pottery. The subsistence strategies and the life cycle of these communities were reconstructed through multiple proxies, which describe a particular system of resource management determined by specific economic, environmental and cultural conditions. Rich fish remains, shell middens, site location, specific toolkit with restricted categories, and incomplete context of tool production testify all that it was a specialized site for aquatic resource procurement. Faunal remains indicated the use of resources from other ecological niches as well. Finds of bones of domesticated animals in the same Early Neolithic layers may suggest even a more complicated organization of this ancient community and may indicate the northern limit of the Neolithic package distribution.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar...8219300126

That we still have no samples from that area for the Pre-Neolithic and Early Neolithic period is a disaster und completely beyond me. They sampled similar groups of later steppe people for the 10th time, but are unable to at least check those sites? I don't get it.

Its one of the most important archaeological sites of the North Pontic region, whether they were PIE or not.

These Lower Don sites are also good candidates for yielding some J2a IMHO.

Wow very cool!.....Hopefully within the next few years we get some more Eneolithic or earlier samples from Lower Don sites.

[Jerome]

pegasus


Some authors of the paper still try hard to fund a connection with Armenia when there really is none. Armenia_N is in large parts made of ancestry that didn't exist or was very low in Eneolithic Steppe (EEF/East Anatolian) so it can't be on a cline with Progress. Rather Steppe Eneolithic and Armenia_N shared ancestry from an oldef Mesolithic source of a CHG-type that lived north of Caucasus.
About R1a if we look at modern R1a clades that formed in HG Era before pastoralism we see around 3-5 relatively big clades with M417 making basically 99% of modern R1a so R1a should be very small in numbers and only in 3500 BC really started to grow probably among one clan that transitioned to pastoralism around (Middle) Dnjepr region.

The new samples in this paper and Nalchik disprove this directly. The CLV cline runs between South of Caucasus populations / Aknashen/Maikop and Lower Volga/Caspian populations like Remontnoye and Berezhnovka, so Aknashen-related ancestry was quite extensively present and Progress was only a part of it.

This issue remains open for now. The authors could not place the Kriviyinsky 4500-4200 BC sample anywhere, which contained 60% "pure" CHG !!! And this is the region of the Lower Don. But this is the indigenous inhabitant of the Azov-Caspian steppes. The whole archaeology of this territory is based on the fact that even in the Mesolithic this area was inhabited by migrants from the Caucasus. Around 5500-5000 BC, a group from the South Caucasus appeared on the slopes of the North Caucasus with corresponding ceramics and house construction. About 5000 BC, the Novodanilovka group came to the same area. There are no signs of destruction. The second group simply settled in the settlements of the group from the South Caucasus. For a long time, archaeologists could not even understand that there were two groups there. The Nalchik burial ground is already the result of mixing of these groups. And now the hypothesis. The group that came from the steppe could well first mix with people like Kriviyinsky 4500-4200 BC and thus get CHG and only after that mix with migrants from the South Caucasus. ARM_Aknashen_N is selected in the analyses only because, in addition to 80% of CHG, it also contained ANF and Levant. However, if we assume that CHG is received from people like Kriviyinsky 4500-4200 BC, then the contribution of ARM_Aknashen_N will be minimal, but it will still be. And this contribution was made by people like the sample from Nalchik.

The kriyavinski sample is 38% chg,check the supplementary

[Jerome]

ARM_Aknashen_N is selected in the analyses only because, in addition to 80% of CHG, it also contained ANF and Levant.

Aknashen is not 80% CHG. It is more like 30%. CHG is difficult to tell apart from Mesopotamian ancestry in qpadm if you don't split the CHG apart (one in left one in right)
right = c('Congo_Mbuti.DG', 'Anatolia_Boncuklu_N.SG', 'Iran_Wezmeh_N.SG', 'Satsurblia.SG', 'Morocco_OUB002_Epipaleolithic.SG', 'Italy_GrottaContinenza_HG.SG', 'RUS_Arkhangelsk_HG.SG', 'Botai.SG', 'Andaman_100BP.SG', 'RUS_Primorsky_DevilsCave_N.SG', 'Peru_RioUncallane_1800BP.SG')
allsnps=TRUE

Armenia_Aknashen_N
Anatolia_TepecikCiftlik_N.SG 0.330029 0.119975  2.75080
Iran_HajjiFiruz_CA          0.384564 0.161508  2.38108
Kotias.SG                    0.285407 0.0660966 4.31803
Tail: 0.64

Satsurblia removed from right...
Armenia_Aknashen_N
Anatolia_TepecikCiftlik_N.SG 0.436188 0.0728596 5.98669
Kotias.SG                    0.563812 0.0728596 7.73833
Tail: 0.96

Quite surprising the difference to MasisBlur

Armenia_MasisBlur_N
Anatolia_TepecikCiftlik_N.SG 0.190308 0.0947555 2.00841
Iran_HajjiFiruz_CA          0.809692 0.0947555 8.54506
Tail: 0.67

In distal modelling aknashen is 63% chg/iran_n rest being an equal split of levant_n+anatolia_n

[VladMC]

The new samples in this paper and Nalchik disprove this directly. The CLV cline runs between South of Caucasus populations / Aknashen/Maikop and Lower Volga/Caspian populations like Remontnoye and Berezhnovka, so Aknashen-related ancestry was quite extensively present and Progress was only a part of it.

This issue remains open for now. The authors could not place the Kriviyinsky 4500-4200 BC sample anywhere, which contained 60% "pure" CHG !!! And this is the region of the Lower Don. But this is the indigenous inhabitant of the Azov-Caspian steppes. The whole archaeology of this territory is based on the fact that even in the Mesolithic this area was inhabited by migrants from the Caucasus. Around 5500-5000 BC, a group from the South Caucasus appeared on the slopes of the North Caucasus with corresponding ceramics and house construction. About 5000 BC, the Novodanilovka group came to the same area. There are no signs of destruction. The second group simply settled in the settlements of the group from the South Caucasus. For a long time, archaeologists could not even understand that there were two groups there. The Nalchik burial ground is already the result of mixing of these groups. And now the hypothesis. The group that came from the steppe could well first mix with people like Kriviyinsky 4500-4200 BC and thus get CHG and only after that mix with migrants from the South Caucasus. ARM_Aknashen_N is selected in the analyses only because, in addition to 80% of CHG, it also contained ANF and Levant. However, if we assume that CHG is received from people like Kriviyinsky 4500-4200 BC, then the contribution of ARM_Aknashen_N will be minimal, but it will still be. And this contribution was made by people like the sample from Nalchik.

The kriyavinski sample is 38% chg,check the supplementary

It just follows from the general text on page 14 that "Krivyansky has practically no Central Asian ancestors (5.1±3.6%), but this may be due to 56.7±2.6% with CHG and 43.3±2.6% only with GK2 (p=0.37).""

[Jerome]

This issue remains open for now. The authors could not place the Kriviyinsky 4500-4200 BC sample anywhere, which contained 60% "pure" CHG !!! And this is the region of the Lower Don. But this is the indigenous inhabitant of the Azov-Caspian steppes. The whole archaeology of this territory is based on the fact that even in the Mesolithic this area was inhabited by migrants from the Caucasus. Around 5500-5000 BC, a group from the South Caucasus appeared on the slopes of the North Caucasus with corresponding ceramics and house construction. About 5000 BC, the Novodanilovka group came to the same area. There are no signs of destruction. The second group simply settled in the settlements of the group from the South Caucasus. For a long time, archaeologists could not even understand that there were two groups there. The Nalchik burial ground is already the result of mixing of these groups. And now the hypothesis. The group that came from the steppe could well first mix with people like Kriviyinsky 4500-4200 BC and thus get CHG and only after that mix with migrants from the South Caucasus. ARM_Aknashen_N is selected in the analyses only because, in addition to 80% of CHG, it also contained ANF and Levant. However, if we assume that CHG is received from people like Kriviyinsky 4500-4200 BC, then the contribution of ARM_Aknashen_N will be minimal, but it will still be. And this contribution was made by people like the sample from Nalchik.

The kriyavinski sample is 38% chg,check the supplementary

It just follows from the general text on page 14 that "Krivyansky has practically no Central Asian ancestors (5.1±3.6%), but this may be due to 56.7±2.6% with CHG and 43.3±2.6% only with GK2 (p=0.37).""

Yes,it seems to be right.
But they instead model Krivyansky as 38% CHG+55% Progres_Eneolithic+7% UKR_N as best p-val(0.589).

So, Krivyansky seems to be an outlier and gets its even higher CHG from mixing with progress type people.
Seems like CHG/Maykop(without the ANF) that mixed with Progress people.

[Jerome]

Interesting,I tried to follow their model from a G25 run(I know it's not Qpadm but I will have this run on Qpadm later)

The best model came out with using camlibel_Tarlasi_Late_Chalcolithic from central Anatolia but to recheck their model I also tried cayonu_PPN.
From what it seems this steppe in these 2 outliers seems to be very recent(post-2400 BC),from Armenia_MBA/HajjiFiruz_BA type people who were proto-armenians.
It's so strange that they didn't even try catacomb as a source in rotation and instead went with 'CLV'
From what it seems there's no progress/BP/CLV ancestry but recent ancestry from Armenian speakers/catacomb





Target: TUR_Kaman-Kalehoyuk_MLBA:MA2203__BC_1625__Cov_50.33%
Distance: 2.8401% / 0.02840079
84.4 TUR_SE_Cayonu_PPN
15.6 IRN_Hajji_Firuz_BA
0.0 RUS_Progress_En

Target: TUR_Kaman-Kalehoyuk_MLBA
Distance: 2.5817% / 0.02581704
87.2 TUR_SE_Cayonu_PPN
12.8 IRN_Hajji_Firuz_BA
0.0 RUS_Progress_En

Target: TUR_Ovaoren_EBA
Distance: 2.9360% / 0.02936022
89.4 TUR_SE_Cayonu_PPN
10.6 IRN_Hajji_Firuz_BA
0.0 RUS_Progress_EN




Target: TUR_Kaman-Kalehoyuk_MLBA:MA2203__BC_1625__Cov_50.33%
Distance: 2.6896% / 0.02689563
77.0 TUR_SE_Cayonu_PPN
23.0 ARM_MBA
0.0 RUS_Progress_En

Target: TUR_Kaman-Kalehoyuk_MLBA
Distance: 2.2768% / 0.02276775
77.6 TUR_SE_Cayonu_PPN
22.4 ARM_MBA
0.0 RUS_Progress_En

Target: TUR_Ovaoren_EBA
Distance: 2.7061% / 0.02706117
80.4 TUR_SE_Cayonu_PPN
19.6 ARM_MBA
0.0 RUS_Progress_En


Adding aknashen to account for excess CHG/Iran in these samples

Target: TUR_Kaman-Kalehoyuk_MLBA:MA2203__BC_1625__Cov_50.33%
Distance: 2.7983% / 0.02798307
81.8 TUR_SE_Cayonu_PPN
12.2 IRN_Hajji_Firuz_BA
6.0 ARM_Aknashen_N
0.0 RUS_Progress_En


Target: TUR_Kaman-Kalehoyuk_MLBA
Distance: 2.1172% / 0.02117154
76.0 TUR_SE_Cayonu_PPN
19.4 ARM_Aknashen_N
4.6 IRN_Hajji_Firuz_BA
0.0 RUS_Progress_En


Target: TUR_Ovaoren_EBA
Distance: 2.2121% / 0.02212130
69.4 TUR_SE_Cayonu_PPN
29.8 ARM_Aknashen_N
0.8 IRN_Hajji_Firuz_BA
0.0 RUS_Progress_En


1 outlier (MA2203) scores 12% HajjiF,The Kalehoyuk average(2/4 samples score no EHG almost) gets 4% HajjiF/Armenian.

Ovaoren gets 0%/noise level HajjiFiruz.

None of them scores Progress/BP.

Will this study even pass peer-reviewed with such modelling?

I am trying this on Qpadm soon,let's see how it comes out.

[targaryen]

People just need to follow the breadcrumbs, because Yamnaya didn't use corded decorated pottery, but other Western steppe groups did, like Usatovo, Cernavoda and Cotofeni. That points to the Western complex being interrelated and in exchange, while the actual Yamnaya were intrusive and from a different subset of Sredny Stog descendants in the East.

Kristiansen mentioned in Razib's podcast that archeologists have new proof that Yamnaya directly contributed materially/culturally to Corded Ware.

Lol, I truly don't understand this obsession by so many to constantly downplay Yamnaya. It's becoming nonsensical at this point. Especially after the R-L51 samples. At this point let's start denying BB came from CW, because they differ in frequency of Y-DNA.

[targaryen]

There is this Sredni Stih cline between Don-Volga that is BP + PV groups on the one end, towards the Don-Dnipro where it intermixed with additional Don-Dnipro Hg. BPgroup is present in both as is PV.  However the Don-Dnipro in the Eneolithic saw additional Aknashen admixture.  They call this the Srednih Stih cline.

They present this scenario in page 182 (183 of the PDF supplement).

Edit: It seems that they tried to model Core Yamnaya with this Don-Dnipro mix of BP + PV + Don-Dnipro HG, and they could not without adding an additional source of Aknashen (possibly through Maykop) + BP, for which they argue Remotnoye is the stand-in.

This helps visualize it

So GAC ancestry is absent in Yamnaya and its this Aknashen type, so basically BP Group ie Eneolithic Steppe types are the "PIE" since they are the vector of this ancestry for Indo Anatolians, is that what they are implying?  Thanks for clarifying! 

My second question is then , if Corded Ware stems from these Dnipro groups, where is the R1a?  I am astounded by the lack of R1a in the samples its overwhelmingly R1b.

Some authors of the paper still try hard to find a direct connection with Armenia when there really is none. Armenia_N is in large parts made of ancestry that didn't exist or was very low in Eneolithic Steppe (EEF/East Anatolian and North Mesopotamian) so it can't be on a cline with Progress. Rather Steppe Eneolithic and Armenia_N shared ancestry from an older Mesolithic source of a CHG-type that lived north of Caucasus.

About R1a if we look at modern R1a clades that formed in HG Era before pastoralism we see around 3-5 relatively big clades with M417 making basically 99% of modern R1a so R1a should be very small in numbers and only in 3500 BC really started to grow probably among one clan that transitioned to pastoralism around (Middle) Dnjepr region.

Yep. This is something people don't understand about R1a. It really shouldn't be that frequent back then.

People are expecting modern day frequencies of R1a that far in the past, but R1a was very sporadic in the steppe. Even in early CW it wasn't the majority. It was late CW that made it populous.

[VladMC]

The kriyavinski sample is 38% chg,check the supplementary

It just follows from the general text on page 14 that "Krivyansky has practically no Central Asian ancestors (5.1±3.6%), but this may be due to 56.7±2.6% with CHG and 43.3±2.6% only with GK2 (p=0.37).""

Yes,it seems to be right.
But they instead model Krivyansky as 38% CHG+55% Progres_Eneolithic+7% UKR_N as best p-val(0.589).

So, Krivyansky seems to be an outlier and gets its even higher CHG from mixing with progress type people.
Seems like CHG/Maykop(without the ANF) that mixed with Progress people.

Strangely, in the main text they write that this sample does not have Central Asia and then model it with Progress that has Central Asia. No, Maikop definitely had ANF. Moreover, Maikop appeared 500 years later than this sample

[Jerome]

It just follows from the general text on page 14 that "Krivyansky has practically no Central Asian ancestors (5.1±3.6%), but this may be due to 56.7±2.6% with CHG and 43.3±2.6% only with GK2 (p=0.37).""

Yes,it seems to be right.
But they instead model Krivyansky as 38% CHG+55% Progres_Eneolithic+7% UKR_N as best p-val(0.589).

So, Krivyansky seems to be an outlier and gets its even higher CHG from mixing with progress type people.
Seems like CHG/Maykop(without the ANF) that mixed with Progress people.

Strangely, in the main text they write that this sample does not have Central Asia and then model it with Progress that has Central Asia. No, Maikop definitely had ANF. Moreover, Maikop appeared 500 years later than this sample

Maybe,but if you see the supplementary table this model wins the tournament by 11 and also gets the best p-value.
Second is BP group,and both models are better than using just CHG+Ukraine_N/EHG.

[Vinitharya]

So GAC ancestry is absent in Yamnaya and its this Aknashen type, so basically BP Group ie Eneolithic Steppe types are the "PIE" since they are the vector of this ancestry for Indo Anatolians, is that what they are implying?  Thanks for clarifying! 

My second question is then , if Corded Ware stems from these Dnipro groups, where is the R1a?  I am astounded by the lack of R1a in the samples its overwhelmingly R1b.

Some authors of the paper still try hard to find a direct connection with Armenia when there really is none. Armenia_N is in large parts made of ancestry that didn't exist or was very low in Eneolithic Steppe (EEF/East Anatolian and North Mesopotamian) so it can't be on a cline with Progress. Rather Steppe Eneolithic and Armenia_N shared ancestry from an older Mesolithic source of a CHG-type that lived north of Caucasus.

About R1a if we look at modern R1a clades that formed in HG Era before pastoralism we see around 3-5 relatively big clades with M417 making basically 99% of modern R1a so R1a should be very small in numbers and only in 3500 BC really started to grow probably among one clan that transitioned to pastoralism around (Middle) Dnjepr region.

Yep. This is something people don't understand about R1a. It really shouldn't be that frequent back then.

People are expecting modern day frequencies of R1a that far in the past, but R1a was very sporadic in the steppe. Even in early CW it wasn't the majority. It was late CW that made it populous.

Exactly.  R1a is very bottlenecked.  Unlike R1b, which has central African V88 and Turkic/eastern steppe M73 as populous pre-M269 branches, R1a only has little trickles.  Likely only M417 and down on was Indo-European, but once it got going, it got going.  It is much like I1 in the Germanic history, a heavily bottlenecked line which became a major player.  Later on other lines got into the Indo-European mix, like E-V13 and J-L283 did in the Balkans, but R1a did it in the proto phase, and this is why it is more widespread.

[Andar]

An interesting source on Aknashen:The Neolithic Settlement of Aknashen (Ararat valley, Armenia)

The culture seems to be connected to the  Aratashen-Shulaveri-Shomutepe culture?

From the above source:

Horizon V (~6kBC radiocarbon date*) *emphasis mine
The skeleton was lying in a flexed position on the left side, the axis joining the pelvis to the top of the skull following a southwest – northeast orientation. The upper limbs were extended, the hands resting near the knees. The thighs were flexed at a right angle to the trunk and the legs were flexed at a right angle to the thighs. A detailed analysis of the position of the bones, especially those that would have been in disequilibrium after decay of the soft tissues, indicates that body decomposition occurred in a filled space, which means that the pit was filled with earth immediately after burial. At the time of discovery, the limits of the burial pit could not be recognized; it might thus be assumed that the pit was refilled with the earth taken off while it was dug. There was no archaeological material associated with the burial.

Early - Middle Bronze Age deposit A child burial was found in the northeastern part of Trench 7 (UF5 F2), north of a curvilinear wall (Figures 2 and 10). Its age at death is estimated between 5 years and 3 months and 7 years, based on the degree of dental maturity. 43 Mortuary practices at Aknashen Figure 7. Funerary deposit Tr.8 UF8: preservation file of the child burial. The body was lying on its left side, in a flexed position, presenting three-quarters of the back. The skull was crushed. The position of the upper limbs could not be identified, except for the right arm, which was in a position of slight abduction. The thighs were flexed at a right angle to the trunk and the legs were flexed at the thighs. The axis joining the pelvis to the top of the skull followed an east-northeast – west-southwest orientation, the head facing the north-northwest

From the supplements of The Genetic Origin of Indo-Europeans regarding Progress, mentions Nalchik:

2.10 Progress-2 and VonyuchkaSummary by D. Anthony

Progress-2 was excavated 2009-2010 under the direction of S.Y. Berzina. The multi-period kurgan cemetery was located on the left bank of the Malka River, itself a left tributary of the Terek River in the central Caucasus steppes east of Piatigorsk. The central Caucasus steppes consist of high grass-covered ridges that form a watershed, cut by streams flowing northeast into the Caspian (through the Terek River), north into the Manych Depression, or northwest into the Sea of Azov/Black Sea (through the Kuban), with the glaciated peaks of the Caucasus visible 100kmto the south. Progress-2 is one of many Eneolithic grave sites including Vonyuchka concentrated in the central Caucasus steppes, the upper Terek tributaries, and the Manych Depression. Very few Eneolithic graves are found in the NW Caucasus Kuban drainage.

The oldest and largest of these Eneolithic cemeteries was excavated in 1929-30 in the city of Nalchik and yielded one date of 4840–4820 BCE (GrA-24442, 5910 ± 45 BP). Nalchik has not been sampled for aDNA. Nalchik differed from other Eneolithic sites in its size (121 burials, while the later Eneolithic cemeteries such as Progress-2 usually have 2-4 individuals) and in the factthat 75% of the Nalchik burials were posed contracted on the left (mainly females) or right (mainly males) sides, while Progress-2 and almost all later Eneolithic graves were posed supine with raised knees, like most Khvalynsk and Serednii Stih graves (although contracted-on-the-side graves continued at Khvalynsk as a small minority). Burials contracted on one side were later also38typical of the Maikop culture.

About 25% of the graves at Nalchik in which a specific pose was clear were posed supine with raised knees. They can be interpreted as later graves in a multi-component cemetery, showing a shift in funeral ritual, a hypothesis supported by the discovery in one of the supine-with-raised knees graves (#83) of the only copper artifact found at Nalchik, a ring, and a serpentine stone bracelet like one found at Khvalynsk, dated 4500-4300 BCE there. Or the raised-knee graves at Nalchik could be older than Khvalynsk, contemporary with the raised-knee graves at LebyazhinkaV:12 and Ekaterinovka Mys in the Samara region, dated 4700-4500 BCE. More radiocarbon dates are needed to identify the oldest raised-knee graves, but Nalchik shows that the raised-knee posture was an Eneolithic innovation that replaced an older ritual (contracted on the side) in the North Caucasus.

So... I am very uninformed in archeology, or the region for that matter. But, maybe someone versed in archeology can make sense of this? It seems the common flexed to the side North Caucasus practice that was predominant in early Nalchik was in the Eneolithic replaced by the supine raised legs position common in later Progress/Yamnaya? But it also seems that Aknashen had the North Caucasian practice. Thus, at first sight, at least when it comes to funerary practices, it seems the later dominant culture in Progress was a Neolithic innovation rather than a South/North-Caucasus one?

---

Either way, the archeological part of the supplement of the IE paper mentions Aknashen only once:

The I31755 male had a Caucasus-derived Y-haplogroup, J2a J-M319, variants of which were shared with Aknashen and Maikop, but he lacked the Aknashen-type Neolithic CHG and instead exhibited only the older CHG variant related to Mesolithic CHG, like the Berzhnovka/Progress-2 population. His paternal ancestry was rare in the sampled steppe populations. His mt-haplogroup, T2a1b, was widespread among steppe women, found in Ukraine Neolithic, Serednii Stih and Volga Cline groups. In PCA the Krivyanskiy-9 male was very close to the Yamnaya cluster although not in the Yamnaya clade.

It seems this is the only Y haplogroup we can for certain trace to Aknashen: J2a J-M319

I am not aware of published M319 in Aknashen or ancient Armenia. Also M319 is over 10.000 years old so old enough to exist in CHG-type Mesolithic people North of Caucasus (likely source) and south of the Caucasus in the Mesolithic-Neolithic. So there is no reason to link directly to Neolithic Armenia yet

[Kale]

Interesting,I tried to follow their model from a G25 run(I know it's not Qpadm but I will have this run on Qpadm later)

I assume this means genotype data is available?