Analysing Eurasian & African autosomal DNA from Lazaridis et al. 2013

What Haplogroups nowadays dominate is not always most important to what it was in the past. CPG is also strong in Balochistan and surrounding areas and L* + T* is very prominent there too. T and L are also very common throughout Mesopotamia and Iran as well in Georgia (L* in Laz is very prominent). G2a is definitely connected to East Med and as you see on the chart East Med is very strong in Georgians too (pink component).

But I agree on the point that J* as well R* very likely played also a role in distributing CPG.
Not sure about R*, but J2 is pure Caucaso-Iranic haplogroup. G2a and J2a are equally distributed in Georgia. And there's no Southwest Asia component in Georgia at all, Georgians have mostly what they call here 'Caucaso-Perso-Gedrosia' component and some minor East Mediterranean. I do agree with you that G2a can be assosiaed with Mediterranean, so we have only J2a left for Caucaso-Perso-Gedrosia. J2a is from NorthWest Iranian Plateau or Zagros mountains.
 
The pink component seems West-Med not East-Med since it peaks in Sardinians...and would be associated with I2...yes, it's a mesolithic haplogroup, but I believe this component entered in Europe already in Mesolithic, remember La Braña had decent amount of Mediterrnean, and also the that Sardinians or EEF have themselves a decent amount of hunter-gatherer ancestry.
That there is nothing like a native or ancestral "West Med" component is nowadays a recognized fact. In the past it might appeared like it did like many other components but nowadays we know that allot of the components we thought to be "ancestral" were in fact mixtures of more ancient once. The Atlanto_Med component is basically East Med + some WHG admixture.
La Brana was predominantly North European.
the first farmers likely reached Iberia already during the Mesolithic but the majority during the Neolithic. The H&G in EEF exists but it is more a small influence as the East African in Southwest Asian than significant admixture.
 
The associations I made above are based on the region of origin, not the region where it is most common now. Obviously Neolithic farmers didn't originated in the West Mediterranean and colonised the Near East !
The mediterranean components (the ones which peak in Sardinians) don't originate in the near-aest. They are a mixture of early near-easterns and european (unkown) hunter-gatherers. So, yea the Early European Farmers (EFF) did originate in the West-Mediterranean area.
 
he H&G in EEF exists but it is more a small influence as the East African in Southwest Asian than significant admixture.
Nope, according to the study they estimate around 33% of european Hunter-Gatherer for the EEF. Also, you can see on the PCA plot they are between the hunter-gathers and near-easterns, but closer to the first. Also on the admixture run, before getting their own component, for example at K=15, they show quite alot of HG component. The study says it pretty clear (textual) :

A few lines of evidence suggest that the Stuttgart female harbors ancestry not only from Near Eastern farmers but also from pre-Neolithic European hunter-gatherers:

1. Her position in Fig. 1B, intermediate between the Near East and European hunter-gatherers.

2. The fact that the statistic f4(Stuttgart, Near East; Loschbour, Chimp)is positive (Table S10.1).

3. The results of ADMIXTURE analysis (SI 9) which show that when the West Eurasian ancestral population is split into European/Near Eastern sub-populations centered in Loschbour and southern Near Easterners respectively (K=

10), Stuttgart shows mixed ancestry from both.


La Brana was predominantly North European.
On some calculators is up to 44% mediterrnaean.
 
Nope, according to the study they estimate around 33% of european Hunter-Gatherer for the EEF.
Can you show us where you found this in the paper. I must have missed it.
 
Nope, according to the study they estimate around 33% of european Hunter-Gatherer for the EEF. Also, you can see on the PCA plot they are between the hunter-gathers and near-easterns, but closer to the first. Also on the admixture run, before getting their own component, for example at K=15, they show quite alot of HG component. The study says it pretty clear (textual) :

A few lines of evidence suggest that the Stuttgart female harbors ancestry not only from Near Eastern farmers but also from pre-Neolithic European hunter-gatherers:

1. Her position in Fig. 1B, intermediate between the Near East and European hunter-gatherers.

2. The fact that the statistic f4(Stuttgart, Near East; Loschbour, Chimp)is positive (Table S10.1).

3. The results of ADMIXTURE analysis (SI 9) which show that when the West Eurasian ancestral population is split into European/Near Eastern sub-populations centered in Loschbour and southern Near Easterners respectively (K=

10), Stuttgart shows mixed ancestry from both.



On some calculators is up to 44% mediterrnaean.

Let me get this clear. You say the EEF component is made up of 33% H&G but than how can the EEF component be closer to the H&G? I didn't knew that 33% is more than 67%.

Just like in the paper you provided I said that Early European farmers were basically East Med + some WHG admixture. If it is true that this WHG admixture was 33% than I was only wrong in how strong this admixture really was.

But than again the main point you seem have to missed out, is that this admixture did not occure in the Western Mediterranean but in the East already on the Balkans (which is part of the Eastern Mediterranean) since farmers from the Balkans had the same component and all farmers throughout Europe had it too and the main Haplogroup (in 80% of the cases) was G2a*. Iberia and Sardinia are more a Neolithic isolate than origin.
 
Nope, according to the study they estimate around 33% of european Hunter-Gatherer for the EEF. .

How interesting that you didn't quote the authors' conclusion as to the amount of admixture.

.
"The amount of Near Eastern admixture estimated for

Stuttgart can be seen in Table S10.2 and RANGE

between 61-98% with estimates increasing as the am
ount of estimated African admixture in BedouinB

increases. Estimates using Dinka or Ju_hoan_North
as an African outgroup are similar. There are
reasons to doubt both the lower estimates (near
60%), since ALDER provides only a lower bound on
African ancestry, but also the higher estimates (near
100%) since there is direct evidence that Stuttgart
has European hunter-gatherer ancestry (Fig. 1B and
Table S10.1). Determining the precise levels of
Near Eastern admixture in Stuttgart must await furt
her ancient DNA studies from both Europe and the
Near East, but we can at least re
asonably claim that most of the
sample’s ancestry was Near Eastern,
consistent with the mtDNA ev
idence for the Linearbandkeramik,
which demonstrated a strong Near
Eastern influence
3-5



As to where they place the geographical region for such admixture...
"The existence of such admixture is also plausible archaeo
logically, as the Linearbandkeramik
postdates the earliest Neolithic of southeastern Eur
ope, and there may have
been opportunity for Near
Eastern Neolithic farmers to acquire a portion of
European hunter-gatherer ancestry prior to the

establishment of the central Europ
ean Neolithic, either en route to
central Europe (e.g., in the
Balkans) or by mixing with the indigenous central
European hunter-gathe
rers they encountered.


Their speculations would, in fact, fit rather nicely with some preliminary evidence for admixture of hunter-gatherers and farmers in the Balkans
 
from the paper.
The amount of Near Eastern admixture estimated for
Stuttgart can be seen in Table S10.2 and range
between 61-98% with estimates increasing as the am
ount of estimated African admixture in BedouinB
increases.

The paper says the Near Eastern admixture is estimated between 61 and 98% and depends on for how "pure" they take the Bedouins. Since my English knowledge isn't the best, I might be wrong but I understand it this way. If they consider that the Bedouins (Southwest Asian) are East African admixed (what they are proven by allot of admixture runs) than the percentage of Stuttgart's Near Eastern admixture gets higher reaches almost 98%. Basically they took Bedouins as proxy for the Near Eastern farmer admixture but we all know that the dominant "Southwest Asian" component in them is East African shifted "ancestral farmer". So taking this into consideration the "Near Eastern ness" of EEF reaches ~ +90%.
And this is what Davidski and Dienekes said previously. proto-farmer component is "Southwest Asian" minus the East African shift and Mediterranean minus the WHG admixture.

So if I understood the paper correctly. If the Bedouins are considered East African admixed (what they are) the H&G admixture in EEF can be estimated almost as low as 2%
 
from the paper.


The paper says the Near Eastern admixture is estimated between 61 and 98% and depends on for how "pure" they take the Bedouins. Since my English knowledge isn't the best, I might be wrong but I understand it this way. If they consider that the Bedouins (Southwest Asian) are East African admixed (what they are proven by allot of admixture runs) than the percentage of Stuttgart's Near Eastern admixture gets higher reaches almost 98%. Basically they took Bedouins as proxy for the Near Eastern farmer admixture but we all know that the dominant "Southwest Asian" component in them is East African shifted "ancestral farmer". So taking this into consideration the "Near Eastern ness" of EEF reaches ~ +90%.
And this is what Davidski and Dienekes said previously. proto-farmer component is "Southwest Asian" minus the East African shift and Mediterranean minus the WHG admixture.

So if I understood the paper correctly. If the Bedouins are considered East African admixed (what they are) the H&G admixture in EEF can be estimated almost as low as 2%

These are two tables from the same supplement section that are helpful...

Sorry, this one was too big to post, so I put it on tiny pic.com
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=260aj3k&s=5#.Us3mJ7RdDRY

This is helpful too
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2iv1w5c&s=5#.Us3narRdDRY

Here is where they explain why it's difficult to come up with a more precise number:

.
A challenge in estimating mixture proportions for Stuttgart is that the two constituent elements contributing to it may not be represented in our data. The present-day Near East has plausibly been affected by events postdating the migration of Neolithic migrants into Europe, showing negative f3(Near East; Stuttgart, X)where X is MA1, Native American, South Asian, or African (Table 1, Extended Data Table 1). As a result, it is risky to treat any individual Near Eastern population as an unmixed descendant of early Near Eastern farmers.
Similarly, the ancient European hunter gatherer samples that we have sequenced (Loschbour and Motala12) are very informative, but it is not clear how they relate to the pre-Neolithic inhabitants of the Balkans and central Europe.

Recognizing the challenge posed by the lack of
accurate surrogates for the ancestral populations, we hypothesized that Stuttgart is a mixture of an unknown hunter-gatherer population that forms a clade with Loschbour and an unknown Near Eastern population (NE) in proportions 1-and . We do not know the exact NE population contributing ancestry to Stuttgart. However, we explored usingBedouinB as a surrogate, as this is the population that appears at the southern end of the Near Eastern cline (Fig. 1B) and appears to have no Asian ancestry (SI 9). A complication of using the BedouinBpopulation is that it has some African admixture, as indicated by the ADMIXTURE analysis (SI 9). We estimated a lower bound (4.2 ± 0.3%) on this admixture proportion using ALDER1 using the Yoruba as a reference population. The advantage of this linkage-disequilibrium based method is that, unlike f4-ratio estimationno explicit model of population relationships is needed. We can also use the 5.1% estimate from ADMIXTURE K=3, or 7.2% from ADMIXTURE K=4 (SI 9). The two estimates differ because the Yoruba are inferred to have low levels of West Eurasian admixture at K=3, but to belong 100% to their own ancestral component at K=4.




wC10T1ooecD5wAAAABJRU5ErkJggg==
 
The mediterranean components (the ones which peak in Sardinians) don't originate in the near-aest. They are a mixture of early near-easterns and european (unkown) hunter-gatherers. So, yea the Early European Farmers (EFF) did originate in the West-Mediterranean area.


A few lines of evidence suggest that the Stuttgart female harbors ancestry not only from Near Eastern
farmers but also from pre-Neolithic European hunter-gatherers:
1. Her position in Fig. 1B, intermediate between the Near East and European hunter-gatherers.

2. The fact that the statistic f4(Stuttgart, Near East; Loschbour, Chimp)is positive (Table S10.1).

3. The results of ADMIXTURE analysis (SI 9) which show that when the West Eurasian ancestral population is split into European/Near Eastern sub-populations centered in Loschbour and southern Near Easterners respectively (K=

10), Stuttgart shows mixed ancestry from both.

]On some calculators is up to 44% mediterrnaean.


Originally Posted by Wilhelm
Nope, according to the study they estimate around 33% of european Hunter-Gatherer for the EEF.

Picking the highest estimated and possible value of 33% (why not pick 7%?), you have proved that you have an agenda. You are not talking science, which shows a range of possibilities and combinations, but you do cherry picking to skew the numbers and show only one possible outcome: "Whatever has to do with Iberia, has to be very European".


To strengthen my argument here are some other of your statements :
-
EEF originated in Europe
EEF is very strong in Iberia, so it would be a tragedy for you if EEF didn't originate in Europe. God forbid anything from Near East or Africa! Didn't they concluded in paper that Near Eastern admixture contained 7% African ancestry? Surprisingly you were not eager to share this scientific information from the paper.
-
EEF did originate in the West-Mediterranean area
Well, even better.
-
LaBrana could be up to 44% mediterranean
Of course! What would be a better proof of being pure European than 44% of WHG admixture?


I would like to stress again at this occasion that nobody really cares about this but you. And yes, be my guest and deny as much as you want and pretend that you don't care either, but I want you to know, that your agenda is very transparent for us "not Iberians". Don't waste too much time pretending, it is more annoying than anything.
 
These are two tables from the same supplement section that are helpful...

Sorry, this one was too big to post, so I put it on tiny pic.com
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=260aj3k&s=5#.Us3mJ7RdDRY

This is helpful too
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2iv1w5c&s=5#.Us3narRdDRY

Here is where they explain why it's difficult to come up with a more precise number:

.
A challenge in estimating mixture proportions for Stuttgart is that the two constituent elements contributing to it may not be represented in our data. The present-day Near East has plausibly been affected by events postdating the migration of Neolithic migrants into Europe, showing negative f3(Near East; Stuttgart, X)where X is MA1, Native American, South Asian, or African (Table 1, Extended Data Table 1). As a result, it is risky to treat any individual Near Eastern population as an unmixed descendant of early Near Eastern farmers.
Similarly, the ancient European hunter gatherer samples that we have sequenced (Loschbour and Motala12) are very informative, but it is not clear how they relate to the pre-Neolithic inhabitants of the Balkans and central Europe.

Recognizing the challenge posed by the lack of
accurate surrogates for the ancestral populations, we hypothesized that Stuttgart is a mixture of an unknown hunter-gatherer population that forms a clade with Loschbour and an unknown Near Eastern population (NE) in proportions 1-and . We do not know the exact NE population contributing ancestry to Stuttgart. However, we explored usingBedouinB as a surrogate, as this is the population that appears at the southern end of the Near Eastern cline (Fig. 1B) and appears to have no Asian ancestry (SI 9). A complication of using the BedouinBpopulation is that it has some African admixture, as indicated by the ADMIXTURE analysis (SI 9). We estimated a lower bound (4.2 ± 0.3%) on this admixture proportion using ALDER1 using the Yoruba as a reference population. The advantage of this linkage-disequilibrium based method is that, unlike f4-ratio estimationno explicit model of population relationships is needed. We can also use the 5.1% estimate from ADMIXTURE K=3, or 7.2% from ADMIXTURE K=4 (SI 9). The two estimates differ because the Yoruba are inferred to have low levels of West Eurasian admixture at K=3, but to belong 100% to their own ancestral component at K=4.




wC10T1ooecD5wAAAABJRU5ErkJggg==

Thanks, so was I right with my assumption that the East African admixture in Bedouins makes it hard to estimate the exact percentage of Near Eastern admixture in "Stuttgart" ?
 
Thanks, so was I right with my assumption that the East African admixture in Bedouins makes it hard to estimate the exact percentage of Near Eastern admixture in "Stuttgart" ?

That's my interpretation. However, as with the Mal'ta paper and the Reich group papers before that, I think that people are analyzing each paper that comes out as if it were written in stone. I've been guilty of that myself. The academicians who write them make no such claims. As the authors point out in the excerpt above, there is, as yet, no genome for a central European or Balkan hunter gatherer, (according to one paper, not one Greek mesolithic sample has yet come back mtDNA "U") not to mention that there isn't a sample genome for the first Near Eastern farmers or their hunter-gatherer ancestors. (That's one thing that amuses me in all these discussions. It's as if people think the neolithic near eastern farmers were transported here by some alien race...they were just hunter gatherers who happened to invent agriculture and animal husbandry.)

This is a story in progress.

There is one thing, however, of which I'm sure: a lot of the analysis that goes on seems to be very agenda driven, and one indicator of that is when you see data being misrepresented.

By the way, I totally agree that those clusters revealed in the ADMIXTURE based calculators are indeed not ancestral. There's a lot of "admixture" layers underneath each one.

Ed. That's my interpretation of the data if you choose the Bedouin (actually one group of Bedouins, I believe) as your surrogate for the Near Eastern farmers in the first place.
 
...There is one thing, however, of which I'm sure: a lot of the analysis that goes on seems to be very agenda driven, and one indicator of that is when you see data being misrepresented...

So very true. I don't know if there is another field that is more agenda driven that historical genetics. Everyone has a bias. Everyone. In this very thread Maciamo (the founder of this site) stated that R1b COULD have been in Paleolithic Europe.

I COULD win a million dollars in the lottery tomorrow, COULD be named as one of People Magazine's top fifty sexyist human-beings on the planet, COULD win the Nobel Peace Prize in Literature... but COULD isn't really that scientific.

And lest you think I'm above such nonsense, I'm not. I'm as pro hg. I1 as anyone I've seen posting here. I do try to let the facts speak for themselves, but yes at times I'll jump into a "haplogroup war" for kicks. The very nature of this subject matter does foster bias.

Some of us are more honest about it than others.
 
Another indicator is the macro Haplogroup IJK. Considering that I* as well K* is connected to ANE and WHG, it is unlikely that only the close cousin J is entirely different.

I would rather assume that Southwest Asian was spread by E1b1b* and some subclade of J1*(J1c3d) since it is basically East Mediterranean with an East African shift.

i would agree with you that E came via Southwest Asian ( arabia) and crashed into IJK (L15/S137, L16/S138, L69.1(=G)/S163.1) .
Also further proof is that J and T in Africa is very young.

IMO -
This brings me to the agreement , basically with Maciano, that west-asian ( caucasus-perso-gedrosian ) was originally only IJK.
If I had to place them in a north-south alignment ( which makes no sense but to appease some ), then north would be I, then K and south J
The R entered via the north ( central -asia or near there) to "obtain" west-asian over time.
 
So very true. I don't know if there is another field that is more agenda driven that historical genetics. Everyone has a bias. Everyone. In this very thread Maciamo (the founder of this site) stated that R1b COULD have been in Paleolithic Europe.

I COULD win a million dollars in the lottery tomorrow, COULD be named as one of People Magazine's top fifty sexyist human-beings on the planet, COULD win the Nobel Peace Prize in Literature... but COULD isn't really that scientific.

And lest you think I'm above such nonsense, I'm not. I'm as pro hg. I1 as anyone I've seen posting here. I do try to let the facts speak for themselves, but yes at times I'll jump into a "haplogroup war" for kicks. The very nature of this subject matter does foster bias.

Some of us are more honest about it than others.

yep, true as soon as anyone retains any nationalistic ideas, the data is distorted
 
So very true. I don't know if there is another field that is more agenda driven that historical genetics. Everyone has a bias. Everyone. In this very thread Maciamo (the founder of this site) stated that R1b COULD have been in Paleolithic Europe.

I COULD win a million dollars in the lottery tomorrow, COULD be named as one of People Magazine's top fifty sexyist human-beings on the planet, COULD win the Nobel Peace Prize in Literature... but COULD isn't really that scientific.

And lest you think I'm above such nonsense, I'm not. I'm as pro hg. I1 as anyone I've seen posting here. I do try to let the facts speak for themselves, but yes at times I'll jump into a "haplogroup war" for kicks. The very nature of this subject matter does foster bias.

Some of us are more honest about it than others.

Nordic Quarreler...I know we don't really count, but some of us don't even HAVE yDNA, :)

I'm one of those people, and I don't even KNOW my father's yDNA, nor, other than to satisfy my curiosity, am I much interested in finding out. Certainly I'm not interested enough to strong arm my reluctant relatives into getting genetic testing. Given his origins, some form of U-152 is a good bet, but others are very possible, and I'm sure I have G2a, E-V13, maybe some 12a and J2a among my ancestors too, at least from the studies I've seen. Am I supposed to have a favorite? And in what contest? Which one first set foot in "Europe"? I honestly couldn't care less. Which one is "Indo-European"? Franky, I don't get what all the fuss is about, again, other than for historical interest.

I do know my mtDNA...it's U2e. Doesn't make me feel any particular sense of identity with Eastern European/Western Siberian hunter gatherers either.

Europe is such a jumble genetically...if nothing else, the Lazaridis et al paper should prove that.

Plus, you may not credit it, but some of us became interested in this field totally as a result of academic interests, and with no preconceptions whatsoever.

At any rate, whatever prejudices or bias anyone may or may not have, just as a matter of integrity one should attempt to lay them aside and analyze (and present) the data as honestly and objectively as humanly possible.
 
That's what your daddy is for; go hold his hand and walk, and ask him what haplogroup he suspects he is XD
 
i would agree with you that E came via Southwest Asian ( arabia) and crashed into IJK (L15/S137, L16/S138, L69.1(=G)/S163.1) .
Also further proof is that J and T in Africa is very young.

And I even have some theories how this might have happened. E1b1b* picked up some J1c3d (and maybe T) in the Levant and moved into Norheast Africa as part of the early farmer component. There it took up a little East African admixture and became "Southwest Asian" component. And from exactly this point the Afro-Asiatic speakers formed and they spread this new component throughout the Middle East.

Or

some Afro Asiatic speakers from Northeast Africa immigrated to Levant and mixed with the local farmers. They brought a East African signal with them which produced the Southwest Asian in the Levant.
 
Last edited:
...At any rate, whatever prejudices or bias anyone may or may not have, just as a matter of integrity one should attempt to lay them aside and analyze (and present) the data as honestly and objectively as humanly possible.

<= Politely tapping my glass with a spoon to emphasize full agreement.

Your enlightened viewpoint regarding the sillines of exessive haplogroup identification may indeed stem from your gender. Obviously I'm no Einstein, but I did recognize long ago that the female version of our species is, on par, far more evolved than the standard male. (I know it's foolish to generalize like this, but some things have to be said aloud from time to time.)

Maybe we as a society should encourage more women to take up biological anthropology-- I bet we would get less biased (and more accurate) results. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: FBS

This thread has been viewed 108588 times.

Back
Top