MOESAN
Elite member
- Messages
- 5,922
- Reaction score
- 1,315
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Brittany
- Ethnic group
- more celtic
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- R1b - L21/S145*
- mtDNA haplogroup
- H3c
some disgression I've not red all post nor the complete study (some runs are too small for i can read them with my poor eyes)
I saw some of the tables and thoughtsof some of ours -
what puzzles me is the differences ofinterpretations according to definition of autosomes groups(poolings) ; ancient and current -
I never had the certitude to have wellunderstood the way 'components' are made by scientists and lobbyists– my first thought was they were tracking among today populationsthe portions of DNA which were typical (by denser presence thanelsewhere) to local population : a first step on a half blindempiric way to understand the between populations links – thereliability of this method is uncertain but I see no toher way tobegin with – I don't know if the scientists can track thegenealogic chain of genes at a so big scale (hundreds of thousands ofautosomal genes), which could be a very valuable way, as they do forsome haplogroups – I ever found a book explaining all thesepoolings -
in some studies they took an ancientpopulation as an unique « pure » component, what enablesus to see the DNA shared by between this old population and todaypopulations but the anteriority of the ancient population push us tobelieve this ancient source was homogenous, what is not proven -
&: if we find a certain % of say,'gedrosia' in an ancient population (more tha a man!) , I'm not sureit's a complete « panoramic » 'gedrosia' we find in a% of the ancient population members, but rather a certain % ofthe 'gedrosia' genes kit, common to the old and the currentpopulations – the other 'gedrosia' DNA, found in the current oneand not in the ancient one, can be : 1) mutated genes which werepresent among the ancient population / 2) new genes incorporated bycrossings with (an) other population(s) of other roots, « new »genes that became geographically « typical » to thecurrent 'gedrosia' component, by proportional and geographical moreor less recent concentration -
The way people assign a DNA portion toan « initial » population then considered as 'basiccomponent' changes completely the result of the diverse componentsdistribution – we saw that with the Neolithic 'Stuttgart' taken bysomeones as pure 'neolithic' EEF when it appeared further that hecould have some WHG DNA in him, according to method and criteria,arbitrary choice finally -
so we see a go-and-return between theconcept of 'population' and the concept of 'component', some supposed'basic populations' taken entirely as 'component' ? (I'm notsure of what I understood, by lack of pedagogy, so i take a taste ofdrink) -
in the work about Yamnaya
« Early Neolithic » (LBK_EN) : component with surelysome taste of WHG ?
« Western European Hunter-Gatherer » (Loschbour)
ure WHG ?
« Yamnaya » : ??? mystery ! It is basal inthe survey, but composed if i red well elsewhere by almost 50%EHG/WHG (?) and almost 50% of mixture ANE-Eastern Neolithic ? (Iavow I'm drown under all these changing namings) called« Armenian » by someones...
past : Karsdorf shows very little of LBK-EN and a lot ofYamnaya, with some WHG : surprising for a Neolithic site (lateit's true) : but the dates are of weight here :« neolithic » could be replaced by « chalcolithic » ?- funny to see almost NO WHG in Halberstadt, Alberstedt, Benzigerodein a same region -
soI wonder if the part of WHG present among Yamnaya population (here :Samara in fact) has not been labelled « Yamanya »component ina kind of try to increase the weight of Yamnaya people in Europeanpopulations : a bias, volontary or not ??? -sorry for my naïveté,I lack clear explanations about poolings... because I find hard tofind very more 'yamanya' among northern Europeans than among easternEuropeans, spite the fact that Yamnaya ought to have more 'westernasian' or a bit more 'ANE' among them (as today easterners) than havenorthern Europeans ?
So the borders between poolings old and new are moving and a bitconfusing, I think -
Zoffmann found in her work about the Carpathian Basin that the AlföldALP culture members had strong 'protonordic cro-magnoid' influencesbefore they became gracilized by the precedent people of theKörös-Cris culture of 'mediterranian' type ('danubian' of Coon?),the result becoming the « autochtonous » population ofCentral-Europe – these new element there were not by force camefrom to far eastern places, they could have been mounts HGs (Y-I2?)acculturated to farming – but later, Zoffmann sees the arrival of'cro-magnoid' types in Tiszapolgàr culture, she links to eastern PitGrave people before the constated archeologic changes inCarpathians : so for her, infiltrations ; they wereabsorbed for the most after – in fact some authors speak of a« carpatho-ukrainian » culture close to Tiszapolgar andin contact with Copper cultures of N-Black Sea ! - otherspopulations moves seem having occurred acccording to metricanthropology : in middle-late Copper Age, Baden, Cotofeni,Kostolac show all (as constated by archeology) the arrival of newpopulations, physically of evident south-southeastern features, ofmix economy – here we deal with an opposition of new types, notalready to deeply mixed, as we could expect at these times if comingfrom the Tripolje area, if the surveys conclusions are right :'cro-magnoid' on one side, roughly said 'southern' or 'mediterranian'(broad sense) on the other – all the way, new people andmoves at the artoculation Copper/Bronze Age !!! -
more northernly concerning the 2800/2500 BC, Coon had developped hisviews concerning Corded people, the most exemplar being those of EastGermany (less mixture with 'dinaroids' and gracile 'danubians' thanin South Ukraina) : he gave them a « type » :leptodolichomorphic, very high skulled, large long faced, very talland long legged (or longiligne, what is not exactly the same) withstron jaws and chin – I have a skull picture at hand from Yamnayahorizon (helas the palce is not given) which could roughlycorrespond : all the way nothing of little or robust'mediterranian', even 'irano-afghan' : my thoughts (still) :the types are for the most typical 'nordics' (not archaic at all),maybe the first ones in Western Europe, mixed with some other strongdolichos = a good bit of 'brünn' descendants (brutal features,compressed temporals, ruggish long faces with broad cheekbones) witha taste of some kind of 'eurafrican', it's to say something presentamong 'irano-afghan' and 'cappadocian' means... (more fronto-nasalprofile, but some ressemblances, perhaps by common descent at somepoint???) -
I saw some of the tables and thoughtsof some of ours -
what puzzles me is the differences ofinterpretations according to definition of autosomes groups(poolings) ; ancient and current -
I never had the certitude to have wellunderstood the way 'components' are made by scientists and lobbyists– my first thought was they were tracking among today populationsthe portions of DNA which were typical (by denser presence thanelsewhere) to local population : a first step on a half blindempiric way to understand the between populations links – thereliability of this method is uncertain but I see no toher way tobegin with – I don't know if the scientists can track thegenealogic chain of genes at a so big scale (hundreds of thousands ofautosomal genes), which could be a very valuable way, as they do forsome haplogroups – I ever found a book explaining all thesepoolings -
in some studies they took an ancientpopulation as an unique « pure » component, what enablesus to see the DNA shared by between this old population and todaypopulations but the anteriority of the ancient population push us tobelieve this ancient source was homogenous, what is not proven -
&: if we find a certain % of say,'gedrosia' in an ancient population (more tha a man!) , I'm not sureit's a complete « panoramic » 'gedrosia' we find in a% of the ancient population members, but rather a certain % ofthe 'gedrosia' genes kit, common to the old and the currentpopulations – the other 'gedrosia' DNA, found in the current oneand not in the ancient one, can be : 1) mutated genes which werepresent among the ancient population / 2) new genes incorporated bycrossings with (an) other population(s) of other roots, « new »genes that became geographically « typical » to thecurrent 'gedrosia' component, by proportional and geographical moreor less recent concentration -
The way people assign a DNA portion toan « initial » population then considered as 'basiccomponent' changes completely the result of the diverse componentsdistribution – we saw that with the Neolithic 'Stuttgart' taken bysomeones as pure 'neolithic' EEF when it appeared further that hecould have some WHG DNA in him, according to method and criteria,arbitrary choice finally -
so we see a go-and-return between theconcept of 'population' and the concept of 'component', some supposed'basic populations' taken entirely as 'component' ? (I'm notsure of what I understood, by lack of pedagogy, so i take a taste ofdrink) -
in the work about Yamnaya
« Early Neolithic » (LBK_EN) : component with surelysome taste of WHG ?
« Western European Hunter-Gatherer » (Loschbour)
ure WHG ?« Yamnaya » : ??? mystery ! It is basal inthe survey, but composed if i red well elsewhere by almost 50%EHG/WHG (?) and almost 50% of mixture ANE-Eastern Neolithic ? (Iavow I'm drown under all these changing namings) called« Armenian » by someones...
- I found as you some apparent discrepancies or surprises :
past : Karsdorf shows very little of LBK-EN and a lot ofYamnaya, with some WHG : surprising for a Neolithic site (lateit's true) : but the dates are of weight here :« neolithic » could be replaced by « chalcolithic » ?- funny to see almost NO WHG in Halberstadt, Alberstedt, Benzigerodein a same region -
soI wonder if the part of WHG present among Yamnaya population (here :Samara in fact) has not been labelled « Yamanya »component ina kind of try to increase the weight of Yamnaya people in Europeanpopulations : a bias, volontary or not ??? -sorry for my naïveté,I lack clear explanations about poolings... because I find hard tofind very more 'yamanya' among northern Europeans than among easternEuropeans, spite the fact that Yamnaya ought to have more 'westernasian' or a bit more 'ANE' among them (as today easterners) than havenorthern Europeans ?
So the borders between poolings old and new are moving and a bitconfusing, I think -
Zoffmann found in her work about the Carpathian Basin that the AlföldALP culture members had strong 'protonordic cro-magnoid' influencesbefore they became gracilized by the precedent people of theKörös-Cris culture of 'mediterranian' type ('danubian' of Coon?),the result becoming the « autochtonous » population ofCentral-Europe – these new element there were not by force camefrom to far eastern places, they could have been mounts HGs (Y-I2?)acculturated to farming – but later, Zoffmann sees the arrival of'cro-magnoid' types in Tiszapolgàr culture, she links to eastern PitGrave people before the constated archeologic changes inCarpathians : so for her, infiltrations ; they wereabsorbed for the most after – in fact some authors speak of a« carpatho-ukrainian » culture close to Tiszapolgar andin contact with Copper cultures of N-Black Sea ! - otherspopulations moves seem having occurred acccording to metricanthropology : in middle-late Copper Age, Baden, Cotofeni,Kostolac show all (as constated by archeology) the arrival of newpopulations, physically of evident south-southeastern features, ofmix economy – here we deal with an opposition of new types, notalready to deeply mixed, as we could expect at these times if comingfrom the Tripolje area, if the surveys conclusions are right :'cro-magnoid' on one side, roughly said 'southern' or 'mediterranian'(broad sense) on the other – all the way, new people andmoves at the artoculation Copper/Bronze Age !!! -
more northernly concerning the 2800/2500 BC, Coon had developped hisviews concerning Corded people, the most exemplar being those of EastGermany (less mixture with 'dinaroids' and gracile 'danubians' thanin South Ukraina) : he gave them a « type » :leptodolichomorphic, very high skulled, large long faced, very talland long legged (or longiligne, what is not exactly the same) withstron jaws and chin – I have a skull picture at hand from Yamnayahorizon (helas the palce is not given) which could roughlycorrespond : all the way nothing of little or robust'mediterranian', even 'irano-afghan' : my thoughts (still) :the types are for the most typical 'nordics' (not archaic at all),maybe the first ones in Western Europe, mixed with some other strongdolichos = a good bit of 'brünn' descendants (brutal features,compressed temporals, ruggish long faces with broad cheekbones) witha taste of some kind of 'eurafrican', it's to say something presentamong 'irano-afghan' and 'cappadocian' means... (more fronto-nasalprofile, but some ressemblances, perhaps by common descent at somepoint???) -
