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:

admixture-video-youtube

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.
plot-admixture-7
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

whg-ancestry

AHG ancestry

anatolia-hg-ancestry

ANE ancestry

ane-ancestry

“Siberian” ancestry

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

siberian-ancestry

Iran HG ancestry

iran-hg-ancestry

ADMIXTURE maps by period

Click on each image for a higher resolution version.

Mesolithic

1-mesolithic-admixture

Neolithic

2-neolithic-admixture

Early Eneolithic

3-eneolithic-early-admixture

Late Eneolithic

4-eneolithic-late-admixture

Early Chalcolithic

5-chalcolithic-early-admixture

Late Chalcolithic

6-chalcolithic-late-admixture

Early Bronze Age

7-bronze-age-early-admixture

Middle Bronze Age

8-bronze-age-middle-admixture

Late Bronze Age

9-bronze-age-late-admixture

Early Iron Age

10-iron-age-early-admixture

Late Iron Age

11-iron-age-late-admixture

Antiquity

12-antiquity-admixture

Middle Ages

13-middle-ages-admixture

Modern populations

14-modern-admixture

Samples

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

Join the discussion...

You must be registered and logged in to comment.
Please keep the discussion of this post on topic.
For other topics, use the forum instead.
newest oldest
Notify of
Carlos Quiles

I have also updated:

The PCAs of ancient Eurasian samples, adjusting the size and adding a grid for easy reference between groups, now including coloured modern populations.

The Y-DNA and mtDNA GIS tools with some corrections and new SNPs of ancient Sardinian samples.

All maps of Y-DNA, mtDNA, and ADMIXTURE (K=7) accompanying each of the maps of the Prehistory Atlas.

A section on tentative prehistoric language maps.

Mourad Sabri
Mourad Sabri

http://pereformat.ru/2019/11/r1b-map/ http://pereformat.ru/2019/10/r1a-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.… Read more »

Carlos Quiles

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… Read more »

Mourad Sabri
Mourad Sabri

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… Read more »