The Genetic Origin of the Indo-Europeans

[alanarchae]

A new great palaeogenetic article by Gabriel Solans, on Indo-European languages assessing the date & place of birth of most of the major branches, the links between them & the major Haplogroups.
Forthcoming but available now on Academia.

well that’s out of date already as L51 (L52/P310) is also known in Afanasievo, Yamnaya and the around CW. In fact the P310/L52 (tmrca c. 3350BC) is in all three in the 3300-2800BC era. I find that interesting as it suggested P310 was among the common ancestor of Afansievo, Yamnaya and CW c.3300BC. The clade is only a couple of generations younger than 3300BC . So it’s impossible for P310 to be down to some more distant root. It literally only started to exist just before the earliest Yamnaya and Afansievo dating c. 3300BC. So it had to live in an immediate common ancestor and must have been a case of maybe first cousins or not much more remote splitting with some wandering east to form Afanasievo and other close cousins staying put within Yamnaya and later moving west with it (with a side branch soon forming CW). P310 disproves the (imo already disproven) idea that it’s some older common ancestor like SS that links CW with Yamnaya. Every piece of evidence that exists points to L151 CW as being formed by  a splinter off Yamnaya not some more distant common ancestor.

[Joey37]

Does it say how R1a went from maybe like two people to dominating swaths of Eurasia?

[CowboyHG]

A new great palaeogenetic article by Gabriel Solans, on Indo-European languages assessing the date & place of birth of most of the major branches, the links between them & the major Haplogroups.
Forthcoming but available now on Academia.

Looks like it’s written by an amateur genealogist reducing the PIA/PIE complexity to one haplogroup & guessing. No models or relevant linguistics & archaeology there. One comes across these kinds of articles frequently

[CowboyHG]

A lot of archaeologists from former Soviet areas had a big fixation with middle eastern migrations directly into Eastern Europe , waves upon waves 
Eg https://arheologia.com.ua/index.php/arhe...e/view/302
I think most of these are outlandish, and are probably due unrecognised EHG impact
It was often thought that Crimean HGs would be near eastern but they turned out EHG

In case anyone is interested in that Mesolithic individual from crimea
It’s from https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/...512v1.full

Lesnik cave. Looks EHG,  but hard to make out for sure without raw data (usual caveats about abstracts, preprints, squinting at PCAs).

lesnik was also in a 2020 paper about iron gates if I remember correctly. Back then he was modeled as a round of the mill ukraine mesolithic sample.
60% WHG
40% ANE

I think you’re referring to the paper I’ve referenced . ukr-Mes like would make sense

[Konieczny]

Does it say how R1a went from maybe like two people to dominating swaths of Eurasia?

 Interestingly R1a-Z93 Indo-Iranian speakers are not found in core Yamnaya culture, or the formation of core Yamnaya component- both associated with the R1b-L23 lineages-- R1b-Z2103 and R1b-L51.  Also of interest is the evidence of Fatyanovo-Sintashta-Eurasian R1a-Z93 use of wheeled vehicles, Dom2 horse, and split mold single shaft axe  burials-- all of which don't predate the oldest Yamnaya R1b-Z2103/L51 cultural burials .  Even though Yamnaya  R1b-L51 was not found among the R1b samples  of abandoned and burnt ruins of Sintashta-Arkaim cultural settlement burials (  compared to R1b-Z2103), it does have a higher frequency in ancient Bell Beakers and modern day Western Europe compared to Eurasian-R1a-Z93 which lost to the successful Yamnaya R1b-310 and U106 branches in Europe. I'm actually interested in data sets with studies comparing Bashkir(Turkic speaking) frequency of R1a-Z93 and Ossetian(Iranian speaking) R1a-Z93.

[RCO]

All major haplogroups dominating swaths of Eurasia can have different clades related to different languages, ethnicities and religions fighting each other or living side by side in different locations in different historical periods, there's no exclusivity only precedence...

[Konieczny]

Y-DNA haplogroups J1 and J2 can be found together in several regions, reflecting historical patterns of migration and settlement. Here are some key areas where both haplogroups are present:

The Middle East: Both J1 and J2 are relatively common in the Middle East. Haplogroup J2, in particular, is widespread in countries like Turkey, Lebanon, and Syria, while J1 is more prevalent in the Arabian Peninsula and parts of the Levant.

North Africa: Haplogroups J1 and J2 are found in North African populations, such as in Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia. J1 is often associated with Berber and Arab populations in this region.

The Caucasus: Both haplogroups are present in the Caucasus region. Haplogroup J2 is found among various ethnic groups in this area, while J1 is less common but still present.

Mediterranean Basin: In countries around the Mediterranean, such as Greece and Italy, both haplogroups can be found. J2, in particular, has a notable presence in southern Italy and Greece.

However when it comes to studies of ancient DNA from the Yamnaya culture, Y-DNA haplogroups J1 and J2 have been identified but are relatively uncommon and found only in low frequencies, if at all.

Haplogroup J1: This haplogroup is quite rare in Yamnaya samples. Generally, it is not among the predominant haplogroups found in the Yamnaya population.

Haplogroup J2: This haplogroup is also found in small numbers among Yamnaya individuals. Like J1, J2 is not a major haplogroup in the Yamnaya genetic profile.

The majority of Yamnaya males belonged to haplogroups R1b Z2103 and L51, just like Eastern Bell Beakers; which were far more prevalent when compared to ydna-R1a-Z93 and ydna-J1 and ydna-J2.

[J Man]

Y-DNA haplogroups J1 and J2 can be found together in several regions, reflecting historical patterns of migration and settlement. Here are some key areas where both haplogroups are present:

The Middle East: Both J1 and J2 are relatively common in the Middle East. Haplogroup J2, in particular, is widespread in countries like Turkey, Lebanon, and Syria, while J1 is more prevalent in the Arabian Peninsula and parts of the Levant.

North Africa: Haplogroups J1 and J2 are found in North African populations, such as in Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia. J1 is often associated with Berber and Arab populations in this region.

The Caucasus: Both haplogroups are present in the Caucasus region. Haplogroup J2 is found among various ethnic groups in this area, while J1 is less common but still present.

Mediterranean Basin: In countries around the Mediterranean, such as Greece and Italy, both haplogroups can be found. J2, in particular, has a notable presence in southern Italy and Greece. 

  However when it comes to studies of ancient DNA from the Yamnaya culture, Y-DNA haplogroups J1 and J2 have been identified but are  relatively uncommon and found only in low frequencies, if at all.

Haplogroup J1: This haplogroup is quite rare in Yamnaya samples. Generally, it is not among the predominant haplogroups found in the Yamnaya population.

Haplogroup J2: This haplogroup is also found in small numbers among Yamnaya individuals. Like J1, J2 is not a major haplogroup in the Yamnaya genetic profile.

The majority of Yamnaya males belonged to haplogroups R1b Z2103 and L51, just like Eastern Bell Beakers; which were far more prevalent when compared to ydna-R1a-Z93 and ydna-J1 and ydna-J2.

There have been zero J1 and J2 results found among proper Yamnaya samples so far.

[Konieczny]

Yamnaya-Afanasievo-Catacomb connected with iron burials.

https://musaeumscythia.blogspot.com/2021...jects.html


In Ludmila Koryakova's 'The Urals and Western Siberia in the Bronze and Iron Ages'  it is mentioned that there potentially are more than 64 iron objects shared between the Yamnaya, Catacomb and Afanasievo cultures.

[RCO]

J1 was found in Afanasievo (Yamnaya strict IBD group) and Khvalynsk, the big game is the Ancient CIHG Y-DNA structure, J was an essential part of the Southern CIHG invasion of the steppe and the open question is about the preexistence (or not) of some R1b clades in the South as we can observe in the modern basal diversity and in the frequency of some derived local Southern CIHG admixtures.

[Konieczny]

The Proto-Afro-Asiatic language, the hypothetical common ancestor of the Afro-Asiatic language family, is reconstructed through linguistic analysis but not directly attested in written records. Unfortunately, specific vocabulary such as the Proto-Afro-Asiatic word for "wheel" is not well-documented due to the vast time depth and the nature of linguistic reconstruction.

  However, it's important to note that the wheel was not a widespread technology in many of the regions where Afro-Asiatic languages were historically spoken. The earliest known wheels appeared in the broader region of the Near East and Eurasia. As such, Proto-Afro-Asiatic speakers might not have had a term for "wheel" in the way we understand it today.



  In Proto-Indo-European (PIE), the reconstructed word for "wheel" is *h₂éḱmōn. This root is reconstructed based on linguistic evidence from various Indo-European languages, such as Sanskrit, Ancient Greek, Latin, and others.

The PIE root *h₂éḱmōn is related to words for "wheel" in descendant languages, such as:

Sanskrit: अश्व (aśva) for "horse" (which is linked with the wheel through the chariot)
Ancient Greek: ἄξων (áxōn) for "axle," which is part of the wheel mechanism
Latin: rota for "wheel"
Old English: hwēol (modern English "wheel")
This PIE root reflects the importance of the wheel and its components in the societies that spoke these early languages.

  Afro-Asiatic languages are not native to the Caucasus region. The Afro-Asiatic language family is primarily found in North Africa, the Horn of Africa, and parts of the Middle East, including countries like Egypt, Ethiopia, Sudan, and parts of the Sahel and Levant regions.

   The Caucasus region is linguistically diverse, but the languages spoken there belong to different families, such as:

Kartvelian (South Caucasian): This family includes Georgian, Mingrelian, Laz, and Svan.
North Caucasian: This group is further divided into:
Abkhazo-Adyghean: Including Abkhaz, Abaza, and Circassian (Cherkess).
Nakh-Daghestanian: Including Chechen, Ingush, and various languages spoken in Dagestan.
Indo-European: This includes the Armenian language and various languages of the Ossetian people.
Turkic: The presence of the Kipchak Turkic languages, such as Karachay-Balkar.
While Afro-Asiatic languages have not been historically documented in the Caucasus, the region’s linguistic landscape is rich and complex, reflecting its position as a crossroads of different linguistic and cultural influences.

   Y-DNA haplogroup J1 is one of the major Y-DNA haplogroups found in the Middle East and the Caucasus region. It is particularly prevalent in various populations of the Near East and parts of the Caucasus. Here are some groups in the Caucasus region known to have notable frequencies of Y-DNA haplogroup J1:

Georgians: Some Georgian ethnic groups show significant frequencies of haplogroup J1. This is particularly true for certain groups in the central and eastern parts of Georgia.

Chechens: Among the Chechen population, particularly in the highland areas, haplogroup J1 is present.

Ingush: Similar to the Chechens, Ingush populations also have a notable presence of haplogroup J1.

Ossetians: In parts of Ossetia, haplogroup J1 is found, although it may not be as prevalent as in some other groups.

Avars: The Avar people, living in Dagestan, have been found to carry haplogroup J1 as well.

Haplogroup J1 is associated with the ancient Near Eastern populations and has been linked to migrations and genetic exchanges throughout the region over millennia. Its presence in the Caucasus reflects the historical connections between this region and the broader Near East

   The Proto-Kartvelian language, the reconstructed common ancestor of the Kartvelian language family, is not directly attested, so specific words from it are reconstructed based on comparative evidence from the descendant languages: Georgian, Mingrelian, Laz, and Svan.
For the term "wheel," the Kartvelian languages use different words. For instance:

• Georgian: გორა (gora) or ბორბალი (borbali)
  
• Mingrelian: ბორბალი (borbali)
  
• Laz: ბორბალი (borbali)
  
• Svan: ბორბალი (borbali)
  

Given that ბორბალი (borbali) is a common term in these languages, it is likely derived from a shared Proto-Kartvelian root. However, the exact Proto-Kartvelian reconstruction for "wheel" is not definitively established due to the limitations of reconstructing ancient languages without written records.
Reconstructing Proto-Kartvelian vocabulary often relies on comparing terms across the Kartvelian languages and making educated guesses about their historical forms. For terms that are crucial for daily life and technology, like "wheel," this process can reveal insights into how early Kartvelian speakers might have referred to such objects.

[HurrianFam]

  In Proto-Indo-European (PIE), the reconstructed word for "wheel" is *h₂éḱmōn. This root is reconstructed based on linguistic evidence from various Indo-European languages, such as Sanskrit, Ancient Greek, Latin, and others.

The PIE root *h₂éḱmōn is related to words for "wheel" in descendant languages, such as:

Sanskrit: अश्व (aśva) for "horse" (which is linked with the wheel through the chariot)
Ancient Greek: ἄξων (áxōn) for "axle," which is part of the wheel mechanism
Latin: rota for "wheel"
Old English: hwēol (modern English "wheel")
This PIE root reflects the importance of the wheel and its components in the societies that spoke these early languages.

There's...... a lot wrong here

*h₂éḱmō is not "wheel", it's "stone", and gives us the modern English word hammer. The English word wheel comes from *kʷékʷlos "wheel".

The Sanskrit word अश्व (aśva)  comes from *h₁éḱwos "horse", while  *h₂éḱmō gives Sanskrit अश्मन् (áśman) "stone" and *kʷékʷlos gives चक्र (chakrá) "wheel". 

English axle, Latin axis (“axle”), Greek άξονας (áxonas, “axle”), Sanskrit अक्ष (ákṣa, “axle”) all come from *h₂eḱs-l-eh₂/*h₂eḱs- (“axis, axle”), but that root has nothing to do with *h₂éḱmō

[Арсен]

..while J1 is less common but still present.

You must be joking or you don't understand the genetics of the Caucasus

[Konieczny]

  In Proto-Indo-European (PIE), the reconstructed word for "wheel" is *h₂éḱmōn. This root is reconstructed based on linguistic evidence from various Indo-European languages, such as Sanskrit, Ancient Greek, Latin, and others.

The PIE root *h₂éḱmōn is related to words for "wheel" in descendant languages, such as:

Sanskrit: अश्व (aśva) for "horse" (which is linked with the wheel through the chariot)
Ancient Greek: ἄξων (áxōn) for "axle," which is part of the wheel mechanism
Latin: rota for "wheel"
Old English: hwēol (modern English "wheel")
This PIE root reflects the importance of the wheel and its components in the societies that spoke these early languages.

There's...... a lot wrong here

*h₂éḱmō is not "wheel", it's "stone", and gives us the modern English word hammer. The English word wheel comes from *kʷékʷlos "wheel".

The Sanskrit word अश्व (aśva)  comes from *h₁éḱwos "horse", while  *h₂éḱmō gives Sanskrit अश्मन् (áśman) "stone" and *kʷékʷlos gives चक्र (chakrá) "wheel". 

English axle, Latin axis (“axle”), Greek άξονας (áxonas, “axle”), Sanskrit अक्ष (ákṣa, “axle”) all come from *h₂eḱs-l-eh₂/*h₂eḱs- (“axis, axle”), but that root has nothing to do with *h₂éḱmō

The earliest evidence of wheeled vehicles and horse burials in the Eurasian Steppe is associated with ydna R1b-L51 and R1b Z2103 found in Yamnaya culture, also known as the Yamnaya Horizon or Pit Grave culture. This culture flourished from around 3300 to 2600 BCE and is one of the key cultures in the early Bronze Age. There are not many if any ydna-J1/J2 or ydna- R1a samples found amongst the oldest Yamnaya kurgans. 
Key Features of the Yamnaya Culture:

1. Wheeled Vehicles:
   • The Yamnaya culture is among the earliest to show evidence of wheeled vehicles. Archaeological finds include wheeled carts and wagons, which are indicative of a significant technological advancement in transportation.
     
2. Horse Burials:
   • Horse burials are a prominent feature of Yamnaya culture. These burials often include the skeletons of horses alongside those of humans, sometimes with elaborate grave goods. This suggests the high status of horses and possibly the use of horses in rituals or as symbols of status and power.
     
3. Steppe Nomadism:
   • The Yamnaya people were likely semi-nomadic pastoralists, heavily reliant on livestock, including horses, for their way of life. Their mobility and the use of wheeled vehicles facilitated their movements across the vast steppe.
     
4. Cultural Influence:
   • The Yamnaya culture had a significant influence on subsequent cultures across the Eurasian Steppe, including those in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. They played a crucial role in the spread of Indo-European languages and cultural practices across these regions.
     

The Yamnaya culture represents a pivotal moment in the development of steppe societies, characterized by innovations in transportation and changes in burial practices that reflect their evolving social and technological landscape.

[HurrianFam]

  In Proto-Indo-European (PIE), the reconstructed word for "wheel" is *h₂éḱmōn. This root is reconstructed based on linguistic evidence from various Indo-European languages, such as Sanskrit, Ancient Greek, Latin, and others.

The PIE root *h₂éḱmōn is related to words for "wheel" in descendant languages, such as:

Sanskrit: अश्व (aśva) for "horse" (which is linked with the wheel through the chariot)
Ancient Greek: ἄξων (áxōn) for "axle," which is part of the wheel mechanism
Latin: rota for "wheel"
Old English: hwēol (modern English "wheel")
This PIE root reflects the importance of the wheel and its components in the societies that spoke these early languages.

There's...... a lot wrong here

*h₂éḱmō is not "wheel", it's "stone", and gives us the modern English word hammer. The English word wheel comes from *kʷékʷlos "wheel".

The Sanskrit word अश्व (aśva)  comes from *h₁éḱwos "horse", while  *h₂éḱmō gives Sanskrit अश्मन् (áśman) "stone" and *kʷékʷlos gives चक्र (chakrá) "wheel". 

English axle, Latin axis (“axle”), Greek άξονας (áxonas, “axle”), Sanskrit अक्ष (ákṣa, “axle”) all come from *h₂eḱs-l-eh₂/*h₂eḱs- (“axis, axle”), but that root has nothing to do with *h₂éḱmō

The earliest evidence of wheeled vehicles and horse burials in the Eurasian Steppe is associated with ydna R1b-L51 and R1b Z2103 found in Yamnaya culture, also known as the Yamnaya Horizon or Pit Grave culture. This culture flourished from around 3300 to 2600 BCE and is one of the key cultures in the early Bronze Age. There are not many if any ydna-J1/J2 or ydna- R1a samples found amongst the oldest Yamnaya kurgans. 
Key Features of the Yamnaya Culture:

1. Wheeled Vehicles:
   • The Yamnaya culture is among the earliest to show evidence of wheeled vehicles. Archaeological finds include wheeled carts and wagons, which are indicative of a significant technological advancement in transportation.
     
2. Horse Burials:
   • Horse burials are a prominent feature of Yamnaya culture. These burials often include the skeletons of horses alongside those of humans, sometimes with elaborate grave goods. This suggests the high status of horses and possibly the use of horses in rituals or as symbols of status and power.
     
3. Steppe Nomadism:
   • The Yamnaya people were likely semi-nomadic pastoralists, heavily reliant on livestock, including horses, for their way of life. Their mobility and the use of wheeled vehicles facilitated their movements across the vast steppe.
     
4. Cultural Influence:
   • The Yamnaya culture had a significant influence on subsequent cultures across the Eurasian Steppe, including those in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. They played a crucial role in the spread of Indo-European languages and cultural practices across these regions.
     

The Yamnaya culture represents a pivotal moment in the development of steppe societies, characterized by innovations in transportation and changes in burial practices that reflect their evolving social and technological landscape.

I don't disagree with most of this, you just completely messed up what cognate terms in Indo-European languages come from which reconstructed roots for these items in Proto-Indo-European.