Uralic homeland and genetics and their implications for PIE

[Ryukendo]

You should not even use the label ”Uralic”, when you do not take the linguistic results as the starting point but instead totally ignore them. You will never be able to see the language from the DNA, because language is not inherited in the DNA: it is learned from the people among whom a child is raised, irrespective of their biological relatedness. A child of Chinese parents does not learn Chinese, if he is raised by German speakers. This should be obvious to everybody.

Your ”Uralic” has nothing to do with the language, but it is only some pseudo-linguistic phenomenon inherited in the DNA, unlike languages in the real world. You should rather use some other label, which does not denote any language.



Really? Based on what evidence is Kra001 the parental population for all the very diverse and different Uralic populations? And why do you ignore all the other possible parental populations, like the European HG ancestry or the Corded Ware -related ancestry, which spread from the Volga Region to Siberia during the 3rd millennium BC or even later? (See Tambets et al. 2018.)

You cannot just decide (or throw a dice) that one genetic component is connected to the Uralic language and another is not. You have to take the linguistic results and see, which genetic component is a better match for them. That is the only scientific method.

You can ignore that post—it’s not directed towards you and not a part of our conversation. Copperaxe, I and so on are all on the same page with regard to much of the broader picture and are just quibbling over details, so we’re playing very fast and loose with the terminology, of course a more academic discussion will not take place with us using such language.

On the more substantive point there is basically zero patrilineal continuity between the HGs of European Russia and present-day Uralics of the same region, and less than 15 percent genetic continuity overall. There is also basically zero genetic contribution from them to present-day Uralic peoples east of the Urals. Ancestry from them decreased in episodes of extreme genetic turnover and archaeological disruption, with complete replacements of culture. Similar factors play a role for CW ancestry as well. Reasoning sociolinguistically, the likelihood of a European HG model for Uralic origins is negligible at this point, while the likelihood for a CW model is extremely low, which is why everyone on this forum is on the same page regarding this.

[Ebizur]

On the more substantive point there is basically zero patrilineal continuity between the HGs of European Russia and present-day Uralics of the same region, and less than 15 percent genetic continuity overall. There is also basically zero genetic contribution from them to present-day Uralic peoples east of the Urals. Ancestry from them decreased in episodes of extreme genetic turnover and archaeological disruption, with complete replacements of culture. Similar factors play a role for CW ancestry as well. Reasoning sociolinguistically, the likelihood of a European HG model for Uralic origins is negligible at this point, while the likelihood for a CW model is extremely low, which is why everyone on this forum is on the same page regarding this.

Are you sure about this? It has been a while since I last looked at any relevant data, but I recall that even a significant proportion of Nganasans belong to what appear to be European HG mtDNA haplogroups, and European(-related) mtDNA accounts for at least half (more than half in fact IIRC) of all mtDNA among Khanty, Mansi, Selkups, and Kets (although the last are speakers of a Yeniseian language rather than a Uralic one).

[Huck Finn]

Its very likely that in the Bronze Age and later, there were two types of Kra001 ancestry, separated by the Yenisei-Angara region where you have a wedge of Baikal_BA ancestry. West of that you have Kra001 proper found among all Uralic people including Samoyeds, and east of that you have Yakutia-IA-type ancestry reaching a peak of 50% in Nganasans, even higher in Yukagir, Yakut, Dolgan and Tungusics etc. (high as in Yakutia_IA:Kra001 ratio), but not found among Finno-Ugrics. The western group were probably what got rolled into the Seima-Turbino phenomenon and responsible for the "unifying" Uralic-like ancestry in all present-day Uralics.

This indeed seems to be the case and this might very well be related to the fact that besides the putative loans into Yukaghiric there are no signs of Uralic language in the Ymyakhtakh area. I'd look for the common genetic root somewhere in Trans Baikal, river Vitim possibly being the starting point. The archeological roots of Ymyakhtakh expansion have been located as far as to the river Zeya, which is a tributary of river Amur, so sure there's a lot of leeway available.

[CopperAxe]

Are you sure about this? It has been a while since I last looked at any relevant data, but I recall that even a significant proportion of Nganasans belong to what appear to be European HG mtDNA haplogroups, and European(-related) mtDNA accounts for at least half (more than half in fact IIRC) of all mtDNA among Khanty, Mansi, Selkups, and Kets (although the last are speakers of a Yeniseian language rather than a Uralic one).

I think Ryukendo means directly from Eastern Euro HGs rsther than West-Siberian or steppe_mlba populations already carrying such ancestry.

[Ebizur]

I think Ryukendo means directly from Eastern Euro HGs rsther than West-Siberian or steppe_mlba populations already carrying such ancestry.

My impression has been that the Western Eurasian mtDNA in China and Mongolia tends to be rather run-of-the-mill West Asian and/or European, whereas the bulk of Western Eurasian mtDNA in present-day Siberian Uralic populations (plus the Yeniseian-speaking Kets) is more difficult to attribute to gene flow from any present-day European or West Asian population. In other words, I think simple female-mediated gene flow from Indo-Europeans is a plausible explanation for the presence of Western Eurasian mtDNA in e.g. Uyghurs and Mongols, but I have some doubt whether such an explanation is plausible for Siberian Uralic peoples and Kets.

[VladimirTaraskin]

[CopperAxe]

Even if Kra001 transversed the Angara area (and its not clear which route the Kra001 peoples took to move west from Yakutia to the Krasnoyarsk-Kansk area), it was not really a well-defined "route" of cultural and archaeological significance so much as an extremely quick and ephemeral translocation that left little of the local admixture among the westward moving Kra001 type peoples. The Angara route is far more significant for cultures and populations carrying Baikal_BA type ancestry--I think its virtually certain that all ancient samples from the Angara valley linking the Baikal to the Yenisei from the Bronze and Iron Ages will be extremely rich in Baikal_BA, baring some outliers. The list of cultures there--Glazkov, Shiverskaya, Tsepan and so on have repeatedly been linked to Yeniseians, especially the Tsepan. If the Kra001 population moved through the area in a very major, non-ephemeral manner they would have picked this Baikal ancestry up.

Its very likely that in the Bronze Age and later, there were two types of Kra001 ancestry, separated by the Yenisei-Angara region where you have a wedge of Baikal_BA ancestry. West of that you have Kra001 proper found among all Uralic people including Samoyeds, and east of that you have Yakutia-IA-type ancestry reaching a peak of 50% in Nganasans, even higher in Yukagir, Yakut, Dolgan and Tungusics etc. (high as in Yakutia_IA:Kra001 ratio), but not found among Finno-Ugrics. The western group were probably what got rolled into the Seima-Turbino phenomenon and responsible for the "unifying" Uralic-like ancestry in all present-day Uralics.

At some point, some site should emerge among the ST or Samus-Kizhirovo related circle of cultures that is extremely rich in 100% "western" Kra001-ancestry. Despite the fact that none of the cultures involved in ST or Samus-Kizhirovo appear very distinct from any other, the fact of the matter is that one of them must end up getting taken over by Kra001 type populations because the main conduit of eastern archaeological influence in LBA European Russian cultures is ST and especially Samus-Kizhirovo influences and not Yakutia or even boreal influences. We should wait and see.

Glazkovo and Shiversky generally are not connected to Yeniseians but Tungusics, which shows how much faith one should put in some of these proposed ethnic attributions to bronze age cultures. And to that point, look at the general distribution of Yeniseian toponyms and the assumed Yeniseian homeland:

 

Compared to the historical distribution of Yeniseian speakers:

 

Some of the cultures you discussed range beyond this terrritory, and it shows that Yeniseian presence was more or less throughout the whole region you allign with the migration route of Kra001 populations. This is also what genetics shows, that whole area was filled with WSHG-ESHG cline populations, which continued into the iron age. Yet we can tell that Kra001 populations had a presence, travelled towards the Yenisei, and then even further without a change in their autosomal profile. There are also mentions of Ust-Mil presence near the Angara so it is not like the only populations there were of the Baikal_BA type. Naturally, Ust-Mil in iself is not going to be relevant for Proto-Uralic but it shows that population from Yakutian areas did wound up near the Angara, which hints at it being soemwhat of a natural route to undertake.

Regarding Yakutia_IA and eastern distributions of Kra001, I think events such as the Evenk expansion and to a lesser degree the Yakut expansion sshouldn't be underestimated in terms of the impact they had on the distribution of Samoyedic speakers. The distribution of Samoyedic and Evenk visually on a map look pretty much like Tungusic "pushing" Samoyedci to the northwest. Prior to the period of Tungusic expansion the region must have looked substantially different in terms of ethnic distribution.

[CopperAxe]

We have had this discussion (two years ago already), but the Samus culture on the Mid-Ob is in a pretty direct path from kra001 to the West. Although, I concede that it appears to be related to Krotovo, Elunin, Okunevo, etc., which isn't conducive for a correlation with kra001-like ancestry. There is a seemingly unavoidable fact though- a demographic shift did occur in the Taiga zone from the Volga-Yenisei (beginning by ~1800 BC), without a major discontinuation in material culture.

As far as I'm aware, Samus-Kizhirovo materials don't have a special connection to the Samus culture. The Samus IV site was one of the earliest discovered and has some of the most SK materials, but the SK tradition did not emanate from there. Analogous to the Seima and Turbino sites giving their name to ST, but the ST tradition ultimately not originating in the Volga-Kama. In other words, SK is a transcultural phenomenon and the Samus culture is just one of many where these materials were eventually produced.

In all likelihood, the spread of SK was a 'multiethnic' process like ST, but I am suggesting that kra001-like groups might have played a much larger role. Although, I hesitate to say "like ST" because our understanding of the population/genetic dynamics is limited to a few samples from a single site.

When it comes to the Samus culture, unless if we have genetic samples coming out soon physical athropology might be our best bet. It should be fairly easy to tell if a population had mixed Eurasian features or were purely northeast Siberian. Unfortunately I haven't come across much.

I also think we really need to understand precisely where in the bronze age demographic shifts exactly occurred, and when. I don't think we should assume that the current "continuous" chain of Uralic languages spoken had a similar continuous distribution during the bronze age, or that since we have no prominent WSHG-ESHG type populations anymore that they all were replaced by Uralic populations in the bronze age. I expect things to look a bit more patchier if you will . There are some areas where high WSHG ancestry must have persisted during the iron age to explain some of he genetic samples we have, and the areas where WSHG ancestry remained at a high figure also seemed to have been somewhat adjacent to the areas where steppe_mlba derived populations lived. I already brought up the Bolsherechenskaya and Staro-Aleiskaya cultures, which more or less were on the same latitude as the Sargat culture or the bronze age Mezhovska culture yet lacked Kra001 input. Now these were only present in the steppe/taiga transitional period but this makes it a bit unlikely their immediate northern neighbours were very rich in Kra001.

To give a clue, look at this sample from northeastern Kazakhstan dating to 50 bc - 200 AD:
Target: KAZ_Nomad_IA: DA92
Distance: 3.7454% / 0.03745370
31.6 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
28.0 RUS_Tyumen_HG
27.0 MNG_North_N
12.0 IRN_Tepe_Hissar_C
1.4 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA

[VladimirTaraskin]

When it comes to the Samus culture, unless if we have genetic samples coming out soon physical athropology might be our best bet. It should be fairly easy to tell if a population had mixed Eurasian features or were purely northeast Siberian. Unfortunately I haven't come across much.

I also think we really need to understand precisely where in the bronze age demographic shifts exactly occurred, and when. I don't think we should assume that the current "continuous" chain of Uralic languages spoken had a similar continuous distribution during the bronze age, or that since we have no prominent WSHG-ESHG type populations anymore that they all were replaced by Uralic populations in the bronze age. I expect things to look a bit more patchier if you will . There are some areas where high WSHG ancestry must have persisted during the iron age to explain some of he genetic samples we have, and the areas where WSHG ancestry remained at a high figure also seemed to have been somewhat adjacent to the areas where steppe_mlba derived populations lived. I already brought up the Bolsherechenskaya and Staro-Aleiskaya cultures, which more or less were on the same latitude as the Sargat culture or the bronze age Mezhovska culture yet lacked Kra001 input. Now these were only present in the steppe/taiga transitional period but this makes it a bit unlikely their immediate northern neighbours were very rich in Kra001.

To give a clue, look at this sample from northeastern Kazakhstan dating to 50 bc - 200 AD:
Target: KAZ_Nomad_IA: DA92
Distance: 3.7454% / 0.03745370
31.6 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
28.0 RUS_Tyumen_HG
27.0 MNG_North_N
12.0 IRN_Tepe_Hissar_C
1.4 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA

https://www.academia.edu/66180279/Pa...ard=view-paper



Male cranial samples representing the following cultures,
periods, and territories were used:**.
1. Boisman culture, Primorye (Chikisheva, 2012:
38–39);
2. Neolithic, Yakutia (Ibid.);
3. Neolithic and Bronze Age, Trans-Baikal (Gokhman,
1980);
4. Kitoi tradition, eastern Trans-Baikal (Mamonova,
1983);
5. Kitoi tradition, western Trans-Baikal (Ibid.);
6. Kitoi tradition, Fofanovo (Gerasimova et al., 2010);
7. Kitoi tradition, Lena (Mamonova, 1983);
8. Kitoi tradition, Angara (Ibid.);
9. Kitoi tradition, Shamanka (D.V. Pezhemsky’s
unpublished data);
10.Isakovo tradition, Angara (Mamonova, 1983);
11.Serovo tradition, Lena (Ibid.);
12.Serovo tradition, Angara (Ibid.);
13.Glazkovo tradition, western Trans-Baikal (Ibid.);
14. Glazkovo tradition, Fofanovo (Gerasimova et al.,
2010);
15. Glazkovo tradition, Olkhon (Mamonova, 1983);
16. Glazkovo tradition, Lena (Ibid.);
17. Glazkovo tradition, Angara (Ibid.);
18. Neolithic, Krasnoyarsk-Kansk forest-steppe
(Solodovnikov, Bagashev, Savenkova, 2020);
19. Neolithic, Lower Angara (Ibid.);
20. Bolshoy Mys culture, Biysk stretch of the Ob
(Itkul, Kostenkova Izbushka) (Chikisheva, 2012: 36–37);
21. Neolithic, Barnaul stretch of the Ob (Firsovo XI)
(Solodovnikov, Tur, 2017);
22. Kuznetsk-Altai culture, Upper Ob (Solontsy-5,
Ust-Isha) (Chikisheva, 2012: 36–37);
23. Neolithic and Chalcolithic, Middle Irtysh
(Solodovnikov et al., 2019);
24. Neolithic, forest-steppe Trans-Urals and northern
Kazakhstan (Botai culture, Gladunino) (Khokhlov, Kitov,
2015);
25. Neolithic, Kuznetsk Basin (Solodovnikov, Tur,
2017);
26. Neolithic, Novosibirsk-Kamen stretch of the Ob
(Ibid.);
27. Neolithic, Baraba forest steppe (Chikisheva, 2012:
36–37; Chikisheva, Pozdnyakov, Zubova, 2015);
28. Ust-Tartas culture, Sopka 2/3 (Chikisheva, 2012:
69–72);
29. Ust-Tartas culture, Sopka 2/3A (Ibid.);
30. Odino culture, Sopka 2/4A (Ibid.: 98–101);
31. Odino culture, Tartas-1 (Chikisheva, Pozdnyakov,
2019);
32. Odino culture, Preobrazhenka-6 (Ibid.);
33. Krotovo culture, Sopka 2/4B, C (Chikisheva,
2012: 98–101);
34. Okunev culture, Uibat (Gromov, 1997);
35. Okunev culture, Verkh-Askiz I (Ibid.);
36. Okunev culture, Chernovaya IV, VI, VIII (Ibid.);
37. Okunev culture, Tas-Khazaa (Ibid.);
38. Karakol culture, Altai (Tur, Solodovnikov, 2005);
39. Chaa-Khol culture, Tuva (Aimyrlyg) (Gokhman,
1980);
40. Yelunino culture, Upper Ob (Solodovnikov, Tur,
2003);
41. Samus culture, Upper Ob (Solodovnikov, 2005);
42.Chemurchek culture, western Mongolia
(Solodovnikov, Tumen, Erdene, 2019);
43. Afanasyevo culture, western Mongolia (Gokhman,
1980);
44. Afanasyevo culture, southeastern Altai
(Solodovnikov, 2009);
45. Afanasyevo culture, northwestern Altai (Ibid.);
46. Afanasyevo culture, Middle Katun (Ibid.);
47. Afanasyevo culture, Ust-Kuyum (Ibid.);
48. Afanasyevo culture, Kurota (Ibid.);
49. Afanasyevo culture, Ursul (Ibid.);
50. Afanasyevo culture, Saldyar (Ibid.);
51. Afanasyevo culture, Minusinsk Basin (Ibid.);
52. Afanasyevo culture, Karasuk III (Alekseyev,
1981);
53. Afanasyevo culture, Afanasyeva Gora (Ibid.);
54. Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic, Volga-Ural
region (Khokhlov, 2017: 219–223);
55. Mesolithic, northern Russian Plain, Yuzhny Oleny
Ostrov (Alekseyev, Gokhman, 1984);
56. Mesolithic, northern Russian Plain, Popovo
(Gokhman, 1984);
57. Mesolithic, eastern Baltic, Zvejnieki (Denisova,
1975: 187–188);
58. Early Neolithic, eastern Baltic, Zvejnieki (Ibid.:
193–194);
59. Middle and Late Neolithic, eastern Baltic,
Zvejnieki (Ibid.: 202–203);
60. Pit-Comb Ware culture, northern Russia and the
Volga-Oka watershed (Chikisheva, 2012: 38–39);
61. Volosovo culture, the Volga-Oka watershed (Ibid.);
62. Khvalynsk culture, Khvalynsk cemeteries
(Khokhlov, 2017: 226–230);
63.Khvalynsk culture, Khlopkov Bugor (Ibid.:
230–231);
64. Mesolithic, Ukraine (Konduktorova, 1973:
13–14);
65. Neolithic, Ukraine, Dnieper-Donets culture
(Potekhina, 1999: 190–192);
66. Early Chalcolithic, Ukraine, Sredny Stog II culture
(Ibid.: 204–208).

This study examines the craniometric differentiation of Northern Eurasian groups with reference to genetic and partly linguistic facts. Measurements of 66 series of male crania from that territory, dating to various periods from the Mesolithic to the Early Bronze Age, were subjected to statistical methods especially destined for detecting spatial patterns, specifi cally gradients. Using the nonmetric multidimensional scaling of the matrix of D2 distances corrected for sample size, a two-dimensional projection of group constellation was generated, and a minimum spanning tree, showing the shortest path between group centroids in the multivariate space, was constructed. East-west clines in Northern Eurasia, detected by both genetic and craniometric traits, likely indicate not so much gene fl ow as isolation by distance, resulting from an incomplete evolutionary divergence of various fi lial groups constituting the Boreal meta-population. The western fi lial component, which, in Siberia and Eastern Central Asia, is mostly represented by Afanasyevans, has evidently made little contribution to the genetic makeup of later populations. The eastern fi lial component, which had appeared in the Cis-Baikal region from across Lake Baikal no later than the Neolithic, admixed with the autochthonous Paleosiberian component. The latter’s principal marker—the ANE autosomal component—had been present in Siberia since the Upper Paleolithic. Likewise autochthonous were both Eurasian formations—Northern and Southern; statis tical analysis has made it possible to make these more inclusive, whereby the former has been expanded in the eastern direction to include the Kuznetsk Basin, and the latter westwards, to the Middle Irtysh. Nothing suggests that Eastern European groups had taken part in the origin of either the Northern Eurasian formation or the proto-Uralic groups.

[CopperAxe]

https://www.academia.edu/66180279/Pa...ard=view-paper



Male cranial samples representing the following cultures,
periods, and territories were used:**.
1. Boisman culture, Primorye (Chikisheva, 2012:
38–39);
2. Neolithic, Yakutia (Ibid.);
3. Neolithic and Bronze Age, Trans-Baikal (Gokhman,
1980);
4. Kitoi tradition, eastern Trans-Baikal (Mamonova,
1983);
5. Kitoi tradition, western Trans-Baikal (Ibid.);
6. Kitoi tradition, Fofanovo (Gerasimova et al., 2010);
7. Kitoi tradition, Lena (Mamonova, 1983);
8. Kitoi tradition, Angara (Ibid.);
9. Kitoi tradition, Shamanka (D.V. Pezhemsky’s
unpublished data);
10.Isakovo tradition, Angara (Mamonova, 1983);
11.Serovo tradition, Lena (Ibid.);
12.Serovo tradition, Angara (Ibid.);
13.Glazkovo tradition, western Trans-Baikal (Ibid.);
14. Glazkovo tradition, Fofanovo (Gerasimova et al.,
2010);
15. Glazkovo tradition, Olkhon (Mamonova, 1983);
16. Glazkovo tradition, Lena (Ibid.);
17. Glazkovo tradition, Angara (Ibid.);
18. Neolithic, Krasnoyarsk-Kansk forest-steppe
(Solodovnikov, Bagashev, Savenkova, 2020);
19. Neolithic, Lower Angara (Ibid.);
20. Bolshoy Mys culture, Biysk stretch of the Ob
(Itkul, Kostenkova Izbushka) (Chikisheva, 2012: 36–37);
21. Neolithic, Barnaul stretch of the Ob (Firsovo XI)
(Solodovnikov, Tur, 2017);
22. Kuznetsk-Altai culture, Upper Ob (Solontsy-5,
Ust-Isha) (Chikisheva, 2012: 36–37);
23. Neolithic and Chalcolithic, Middle Irtysh
(Solodovnikov et al., 2019);
24. Neolithic, forest-steppe Trans-Urals and northern
Kazakhstan (Botai culture, Gladunino) (Khokhlov, Kitov,
2015);
25. Neolithic, Kuznetsk Basin (Solodovnikov, Tur,
2017);
26. Neolithic, Novosibirsk-Kamen stretch of the Ob
(Ibid.);
27. Neolithic, Baraba forest steppe (Chikisheva, 2012:
36–37; Chikisheva, Pozdnyakov, Zubova, 2015);
28. Ust-Tartas culture, Sopka 2/3 (Chikisheva, 2012:
69–72);
29. Ust-Tartas culture, Sopka 2/3A (Ibid.);
30. Odino culture, Sopka 2/4A (Ibid.: 98–101);
31. Odino culture, Tartas-1 (Chikisheva, Pozdnyakov,
2019);
32. Odino culture, Preobrazhenka-6 (Ibid.);
33. Krotovo culture, Sopka 2/4B, C (Chikisheva,
2012: 98–101);
34. Okunev culture, Uibat (Gromov, 1997);
35. Okunev culture, Verkh-Askiz I (Ibid.);
36. Okunev culture, Chernovaya IV, VI, VIII (Ibid.);
37. Okunev culture, Tas-Khazaa (Ibid.);
38. Karakol culture, Altai (Tur, Solodovnikov, 2005);
39. Chaa-Khol culture, Tuva (Aimyrlyg) (Gokhman,
1980);
40. Yelunino culture, Upper Ob (Solodovnikov, Tur,
2003);
41. Samus culture, Upper Ob (Solodovnikov, 2005);
42.Chemurchek culture, western Mongolia
(Solodovnikov, Tumen, Erdene, 2019);
43. Afanasyevo culture, western Mongolia (Gokhman,
1980);
44. Afanasyevo culture, southeastern Altai
(Solodovnikov, 2009);
45. Afanasyevo culture, northwestern Altai (Ibid.);
46. Afanasyevo culture, Middle Katun (Ibid.);
47. Afanasyevo culture, Ust-Kuyum (Ibid.);
48. Afanasyevo culture, Kurota (Ibid.);
49. Afanasyevo culture, Ursul (Ibid.);
50. Afanasyevo culture, Saldyar (Ibid.);
51. Afanasyevo culture, Minusinsk Basin (Ibid.);
52. Afanasyevo culture, Karasuk III (Alekseyev,
1981);
53. Afanasyevo culture, Afanasyeva Gora (Ibid.);
54. Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic, Volga-Ural
region (Khokhlov, 2017: 219–223);
55. Mesolithic, northern Russian Plain, Yuzhny Oleny
Ostrov (Alekseyev, Gokhman, 1984);
56. Mesolithic, northern Russian Plain, Popovo
(Gokhman, 1984);
57. Mesolithic, eastern Baltic, Zvejnieki (Denisova,
1975: 187–188);
58. Early Neolithic, eastern Baltic, Zvejnieki (Ibid.:
193–194);
59. Middle and Late Neolithic, eastern Baltic,
Zvejnieki (Ibid.: 202–203);
60. Pit-Comb Ware culture, northern Russia and the
Volga-Oka watershed (Chikisheva, 2012: 38–39);
61. Volosovo culture, the Volga-Oka watershed (Ibid.);
62. Khvalynsk culture, Khvalynsk cemeteries
(Khokhlov, 2017: 226–230);
63.Khvalynsk culture, Khlopkov Bugor (Ibid.:
230–231);
64. Mesolithic, Ukraine (Konduktorova, 1973:
13–14);
65. Neolithic, Ukraine, Dnieper-Donets culture
(Potekhina, 1999: 190–192);
66. Early Chalcolithic, Ukraine, Sredny Stog II culture
(Ibid.: 204–208).

This study examines the craniometric differentiation of Northern Eurasian groups with reference to genetic and partly linguistic facts. Measurements of 66 series of male crania from that territory, dating to various periods from the Mesolithic to the Early Bronze Age, were subjected to statistical methods especially destined for detecting spatial patterns, specifi cally gradients. Using the nonmetric multidimensional scaling of the matrix of D2 distances corrected for sample size, a two-dimensional projection of group constellation was generated, and a minimum spanning tree, showing the shortest path between group centroids in the multivariate space, was constructed. East-west clines in Northern Eurasia, detected by both genetic and craniometric traits, likely indicate not so much gene fl ow as isolation by distance, resulting from an incomplete evolutionary divergence of various fi lial groups constituting the Boreal meta-population. The western fi lial component, which, in Siberia and Eastern Central Asia, is mostly represented by Afanasyevans, has evidently made little contribution to the genetic makeup of later populations. The eastern fi lial component, which had appeared in the Cis-Baikal region from across Lake Baikal no later than the Neolithic, admixed with the autochthonous Paleosiberian component. The latter’s principal marker—the ANE autosomal component—had been present in Siberia since the Upper Paleolithic. Likewise autochthonous were both Eurasian formations—Northern and Southern; statis tical analysis has made it possible to make these more inclusive, whereby the former has been expanded in the eastern direction to include the Kuznetsk Basin, and the latter westwards, to the Middle Irtysh. Nothing suggests that Eastern European groups had taken part in the origin of either the Northern Eurasian formation or the proto-Uralic groups.

So you're telling me all I had to do was search in English rather than in Russian? Lmao.

I gotta say though its odd that the Samus sample seems fully within the steppe circle. How certain are we it is from the Samus culture?