Spread of Indo-European and Uralic speakers in ADMIXTURE

The following are updated files for unsupervised ADMIXTURE of most available ancient Eurasian samples with K=7. For reference, see PCA of ancient and modern Eurasian samples.

NOTE. For a precise interpretation of ancestry evolution, be sure to first check the posts on the expansion of “Steppe ancestry”, on the spread of Yamnaya ancestry with Indo-Europeans, and on the evolution of Corded Ware ancestry typical of modern Uralic populations.

ADMIXTURE timeline

This is a YouTube video similar to the one on Indo-Europeans and Y-DNA evolution:


Some comments

  • I have tried running supervised ADMIXTURE models by selecting distant populations based on PCAs and qpAdm results. The most accurate approximations to what the software should offer appear with a small K number, between K=5 and K=7, whether supervised or unsupervised, and adding more ancestral populations gives some weird results the more distant (in time) populations are from these selected samples.
  • Labels for ancestral components are used following those commonly referred to in the literature, although supervised ADMIXTURE using corresponding available samples (viz. Anatolia Neolithic for AHG, Iran Hotu and/or CHG for IHG, AG2, AG3 and Mal’ta for ANE, etc.) offer slightly different, less smooth outputs for some periods, especially among more recent populations.
  • Outputs depend on many different factors, and these files are intended as an overview of the evolution of these simplistic components. The number of available samples per period, the potential ancestry changes within each conventionally selected period, or whether or not each available sample is representative of the territory they were recovered from, among many other factors, influence the outputs and the maps.
Unsupervised ADMIXTURE (K=7). See full image.

NOTE. In summary, ADMIXTURE results like these below might be used to develop new ideas, to be then formally tested; they cannot be used to support anything. Don’t be like the Copenhagen group, randomly selecting “Steppe ancestry” with K=4, identifying this component as “Indo-Europeans”, and correlating its evolution with changes in vegetation composition in yet another obvious correlation = causation argument among many confounding factors left unaccounted for…

Static ADMIXTURE + culture maps

Colours correspond to the components as labelled in the video and in the files below.

  1. Anatomically Modern Humans (PDF)
  2. Upper Palaeolithic (PDF)
  3. Epipalaeolithic (PDF)
  4. Early Mesolithic (PDF)
  5. Late Mesolithic (PDF)
  6. Neolithic and hunter-gatherer pottery (PDF)
  7. Early Eneolithic (PDF)
  8. Late Eneolithic (PDF)
  9. Early Chalcolithic (PDF)
  10. Late Chalcolithic (PDF)
  11. Early Bronze Age (PDF)
  12. Middle Bronze Age (PDF)
  13. Late Bronze Age (PDF)
  14. Early Iron Age (PDF)
  15. Late Iron Age (PDF)
  16. Antiquity (PDF)
  17. Middle Ages (PDF)

Natural interpolation maps of ADMIXTURE

The following maps offer natural neighbour interpolations of ancestral components in ancient DNA samples grouped by periods (conventionally selected following the same pattern as in the Prehistory Atlas).

  • Extrapolation (inferred ancestry beyond the frame created by available samples per map) is obtained by adding distant external locations (such as Greenland, Arctic, Alaska…) with a value of 0.
  • Videos offer a dynamic timeline.
  • Click on the images to see a version with higher resolution.

WHG ancestry


AHG ancestry


ANE ancestry


“Siberian” ancestry

This ancestry peaks among Baikal HG, Ust’Belaya, Nganasans, or Ulchi, hence the different labels used.


Iran HG ancestry


ADMIXTURE maps by period

Click on each image for a higher resolution version.





Early Eneolithic


Late Eneolithic


Early Chalcolithic


Late Chalcolithic


Early Bronze Age


Middle Bronze Age


Late Bronze Age


Early Iron Age


Late Iron Age




Middle Ages


Modern populations



These are the samples used for interpolations in each period (except for modern populations, which are those included in the Reich Lab curated dataset):

See also

4 thoughts on “Spread of Indo-European and Uralic speakers in ADMIXTURE

  1. http://pereformat.ru/2019/11/r1b-map/


    Interesting to see that starting from the same factual material Carlos Quiles and Anatoly Klyosov reach conclusions that are nearly perfect opposites when it comes down to identifying the speakers of early Indo-European languages.

    Where Quiles sees R1b as PIE speaking, Klyosov sees R1a.

    Where Klyosov is adamant about Bellbeaker R1b not being IE speakers, Quiles is certain R1a were (proto) Finno-Ugro-Uralic speakers.

    Both of them cannot be right.

    One of them must be wrong.

    But I have no idea whom is right and who is wrong.

    Anyway, this is not really a matter or right or wrong.

    Something else is probably more important.

    I am not specialized in Paleo-genomics or Linguistics, but my feeling is that when the same data are amenable to such diverse and/or opposite interpretation, it means that what we are dealing with is not hard science.

    Scientific claims should be clearly falsifiable.

    The linguistic attribution of certain language families to some ancient Y haplogroups is not falsifiable for very obvious reasons.

    As a consequence, I will continue reading both Mr Quiles and Mr Klyosov with a lot of interest, but without truly expecting a definitive demonstration of their opposed assertions.

    At the end of the day, pots are not people and long ago buried bones do not speak.

    Still the whole thing remains interesting…

    1. Klyosov, and many other nativists of hg. R1a (like nativists of hg. R1b, and nativists of hg. N), believed something years ago based on modern Y-DNA distributions, and they are using all recent findings of ancient DNA to support that, rationalizing their previous beliefs and turning them slowly somehow into some kind of not-fully-discarded theories.

      I would have read them with interest years ago, had DNA interested me as something a bit more than just some fringe, incomplete data with little relevance to the Proto-Indo-European reconstruction. I didn’t, because I didn’t thought it provided anything to the linguistic question, which is the relevant aspect here.

      I would have accepted the ideas of these nativists now, regardless of the racial overtones inherent to their writings, if ancient DNA had confirmed that Yamnaya expanded with hg. R1a into Corded Ware, and Bell Beakers expanded with R1b from Iberia – and possibly previously with some potentially “Caucasian-Basque” population, say with Anatolian farmers.

      That didn’t happen. So I changed my mind. In fact, ancient DNA (with the Yamnaya -> Bell Beaker connection) beautifully supports the idea of a North-West Indo-European linguistic community, which was difficult to fully combine under the umbrella of Úněticean “pan-European” influences in the Bronze Age. Now it is clear how this proposed European linguistic community happened, and it is incredible that once more linguists predicted something that not even archaeologists could properly fit with their own data.

      My guess is, none of this matters for most people (laymen or academics) who had different theories concerning “their” ancestors, or for those with different linguistic proposals (like “Indo-Slavonic”), or for those with different archaeological theories (like the migration of BBC from Iberia), all of which are impossible to support nowadays, if they could ever be really supported.

      As you say, there is only one truth. But I do think everyone has a right to believe whatever makes them happy, just like with religion or politics…

      But please don’t post Klyosov here. If I accept posting his links here, I would have to accept all kinds of links to “theories” linking Vasconic Europe to BBC, the expansion of IE to hg. I1 from Scandinavia, to CHG/Iran HG ancestry, to Anatolia Neolithic farmers, to the many OIT proposals, etc. And we would eventually get to those posts connecting Proto-Uralic with China, Greeks with Amerindians, videos of flat Earth, etc. and this blog’s discussion would turn into one of those forum/circus out there.

      Let whoever comes here read about the expansion of Indo-Europeans with the Yamnaya, and let others have their own way.

      1. Thank you for your thoughtful answer Mr Quiles.

        According to my (limited) understanding Mr Klyosov has never argued about Yamnaya R1b populations having any significant impact on Corded Ware R1a populations.

        He is not a proponent of a common R1a / R1b “Steppe Ancestry “.

        Quite the opposite.

        In fact, with my (limited) understanding of the subject, your respective views on the matter seem quite compatible.

        You both agree that Yamnaya and Corded Ware populations are very different since their inception and that despite their probable interactions they most probably spoke different languages.

        What is radically different in Klyosov’s narrative is:

        1) Klyosov traces the Bell Beaker expansion not directly to Yamnaya migration through European route, but to an R1b Yamnaya subpopulation that would have migrated south of the Caucasus and then moved along the Middle East to the West following the southern Mediterranean shore route to resurface in the Iberic Peninsula some thousand years after the original Yamnaya migrating into Western Europe.

        As a proof of his hypothesis he presents the following arguments:

        * A) Yamnaya R1b haplogroups and Bell Beaker R1b haplogroups have different SNPs. The direct descendants of the original Yamnaya R1b migrants are only rarely to be found in modern Europe, as they have been displaced by the Bell Beaker folks just like all other European haplogroups that preceded the Bell Beaker expansion. On the other hand, the direct descendants of Yamnaya are still found nowadays among the Central Asian Turkish populations (Bashkirs and to much lesser extent other Turks, especially Uyghurs). Descendants of Yamnaya are also to be found among Caucasus and Middle Eastern R1b populations. Of note, Klyosov suspects a possible connection of modern Middle Eastern Syriac R1b populations with the Sumerian populations of early historical times.

        * B) Along the southern route, Mainly R1b haplogroup Chadic speaking populations are found in North Africa. And Hausa speaking populations with a strong R1b component are found in sub-Saharan West Africa .

        * C) Substantial remaining R1b haplogroup populations (up to 15 % regional concentration). are found among the Berber populations of some local North African Mediterranean coastal areas in the Maghreb.

        * D) The earliest proto Bell Beaker archeological finds are to be traced to the Maghreb. These finds supposedly predate or are at the least contemporary with the earliest Iberian Bell Beaker archeological finds.

        2) Klyosov argues that after their lengthy migration the proto Bell Beaker folks arriving in Europe via Gibraltar route have not been initially PIE speakers, but must have spoken some other language (not necessarily Basque).

        3) Corded Ware people were probably initial PIE speakers in Central and Western Europe. Although the exact origin of PIE might have been not CWC, but Trypillian and is anyway very hard to ascertain. Of note, Klyosov is in general more concerned with the ancient Y haplogroup DNA analysis than linguistics.

        4) Upon mixing up with the CWC female lineages after conquering Europe and reducing all other European Y haplogroups to absolute minorities in Western Europe, the Bell Beaker people would have become at least partially IE speaking. Bell Beaker populations might have also acquired other non-IE ancient European languages by mixing with the conquered territories’ female populations (I wonder if Basque might have been one of these, but I digress and Klyosov does not delve into this).

        5) CWC Y haplogroup R1a and other non Bell Beaker European haplogroups have been chased from the Western and Central Europe by the Bell Beaker expansion and are now mainly to be found in Western Europe’s farthest territories. Some very rare Western European R1a lineages can directly be traced to these unfrequent survivors. Among these, some are found in the British Isles (Scotland).

        6) During Bell Beaker expansion, CWC Y haplogroup R1a populations have mainly fled Central Europe to the North Eastern Eurasia, where their R1a keen have lived initially.

        7) CWC R1a populations have undergone a revival there and have subsequently produced the Indo-European and Indo-Iranian populations known in the early historical record.

        I have described Klyosov’s hypothesis according to what I understand from reading his publications.

        My presentation might be incomplete and / or not detailed enough.

        I have done this for the sake of those people who are interested in these questions, but cannot access Russian language publications by Klyosov and Rozhansky.

        To state this firmly again and to emphasize; I am solely interested in the falsifiable claims Klyosov makes:

        * I) Bell Beaker Y derived R1b haplogroups cannot be directly traced to Yamnaya haplogroup R1b by European ancient DNA finds analysis.

        *II) At least a substantial proportion of modern R1b haplogroups in the Caucasus and the Middle East can be traced back to Yamnaya by ancient DNA analysis.

        *III) African R1a haplogroup populations might be related to ancestral proto Bell Beaker folks by DNA analysis.

        *IV) Earliest Bell Beaker finds are found in Magheb / West Africa.

        According to my scientific background, there is no hard science (indeed no sound scientific method possible) without identifying the falsifiable claims of a given hypothesis.

        If the claims derived from his hypothesis are disproved, then Klyosov’s hypothesis is probably wrong.

        Until then, it is not wrong, but as probable as any other alternative take on the matter at hand.

        Of note, it would be also possible, and I believe very useful, to make a listing of the falsifiable claims presented in your hypothesis Mr Quiles.

        Anyway, sorry for the very lengthy reply, but given that you seem to refuse debating Klyosov yourself (not sure whether your reasons are scientific of rather ideological), I felt it necessary to present his hypothesis according to my own (limited) understanding.

        I for one would deeply appreciate you and Mr Klyosov discussing your respective hypotheses in an open-minded scientific manner.

        Although, I understand that it might unfortunately be impossible due to various subjective reasons.

        Happy New Year.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.