The Gedrosia component and the origin of R1b M269

These Gedrosian autosomal results sound like a load of bunk to me. So now Iran has more genetic connections to Scandinavia than the French have to their Northern neighbors? I'm not buying it. Sorry to be rather blunt here...

do you have west-asian marker?
majority of europeans have west-asian except finland
 
These Gedrosian autosomal results sound like a load of bunk to me. So now Iran has more genetic connections to Scandinavia than the French have to their Northern neighbors?

No, we are speaking about ca. 10% Gedrosia/Indo-Iranian only, that's minimal. And both, French and Scandinavians have it.
 
Last edited:
If im not wrong in latest DNA tribes run both Ireland and Albania had among the highest Gedrosian scores.
 
If im not wrong in latest DNA tribes run both Ireland and Albania had among the highest Gedrosian scores.

I recall this as well.

I also recall that the higher the west-asian marker the more likely that race mixed less with other races
 
what I am saying is that gedrosia is on the coast of iran and it does not touch pakistan. but some admixture sites say balochi to include pakistan as well as gedrosia.
Unless you can link, there is no gedrosia representing pakistan.

The K12b of gedrosia which peaks in Balochi is on the "border" of gedrosia and balochi which is ALL in iran and not in Pakistan.
There is no gedrosia in Pakistan

You are right, I was unprecise.
 
@MOESAN
This is roughly what I have in mind too, but I forgot to consider Harappa, a very interesting candidate indeed. Many do criticise rigid interpretations of such sparse autosomal components, but somehow it all makes too much sense to be ignored. Like you I also consider the ratio of Caucasus/Gedrosia more important then each one alone, but I never calculated a table. So thanks for the table!

Regarding proto Basque - Finnic:

I don't know how strong this relationship really is. One might be tempted to assume contact in western europe, but evidence for old widespread presence of Basque in West Europe is weak as well. What if Basque-Finnic contact happened in south-Ural area. When spongetaro mentioned Kelteminar culture, I checked Wikipedia (I know I know...) and found this info:

...in the territories of ancient Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, dated to the 6th-3rd millennium BCE.
Scientists hold that Kelteminar culture is related to the Pit–Comb Ware culture and belongs to the Finno-Ugric peoples.[6][7]

It is quite a long distance from Ural to Turkmenistan and then to Basque, but could this be evidence for Finnic presence in supposed R1b homeland?!
 
If im not wrong in latest DNA tribes run both Ireland and Albania had among the highest Gedrosian scores.

Yes, these were STR data. Much less reliable, more like haplogroups, but still adding to evidence. And there was a higher Altai STRs as well in Irish and Albanians.
 
Yes, these were STR data. Much less reliable, more like haplogroups, but still adding to evidence. And there was a higher Altai STRs as well in Irish and Albanians.
What is the source of Altai component?
I think Finns got quite a few of it if i'm not wrong.
 
What is the source of Altai component?
I think Finns got quite a few of it if i'm not wrong.

DNA Tribes® Digest January 2, 2013


http://www.dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-01-02.pdf


According to this source both, Altai and Salishan are paleolithic remnants. So yes, Finns have most of it, makes sense. But Albanians have also much of Altai but no Salishan. It is not so easy to explain albanian Altai component by paleolithic remnant using these data given the maximal Balochi (Alb.: 15%, Balkan: 0.0%) and absence of Salishan. Still I would read these figures not too strictly and some interpretations seem weird (f.i. Anatolia South-Caucasus).
 

DNA Tribes® Digest January 2, 2013


http://www.dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-01-02.pdf


According to this source both, Altai and Salishan are paleolithic remnants. So yes, Finns have most of it, makes sense. But Albanians have also much of Altai but no Salishan. It is not so easy to explain albanian Altai component by paleolithic remnant using these data given the maximal Balochi (Alb.: 15%, Balkan: 0.0%) and absence of Salishan. Still I would read these figures not too strictly and some interpretations seem weird (f.i. Anatolia South-Caucasus).
Is it true that DNA tribes isn't reliable?
 
west-asian admixture

"The History of African Gene Flow into Southern Europeans, Levantines, and Jews."

Moorjani et al.

Based on data reported in the "Estimated date of admixture after bias correction" column in "Table 2" of the study.

Sorted by most ancient estimated date of admixture to the most recent:

When west-asian admixture reached areas in what timespan ....see below


BCE
3207 BCE Northern Italy
1322 BCE Iraqi Jews
104 BCE Sephardic Turkey Jews
104 BCE Italian Jews
75 BCE Syrian Jews
46 BCE Sardinian
17 BCE Iranian Jews

CE
215 CE Southern Italy
215 CE Sephardic Greek Jews
418 CE Spain
476 CE Ashkenazi Jews
708 CE Portugal
737 CE Druze
1056 CE Palestinian
1085 CE Bedouin 1
1114 CE Bedouin 2
1839 CE African Americans
 
Is it true that DNA tribes isn't reliable?
DNA Tribes uses a genetic test that was developed specifically for law enforcement purposes. It is VERY accurate for it's intended use, but DNA Tribes only tests 15 spots (actually 30 because it does hit both sides picking up the contribution of each parent). If you're looking to link crime evidence to an individual... it's an incredibly precise system. But for determining historical tribe membership you need to sample many more spots. FTDNA and 23 and me are better ways to look for historical movements/tribal orientation. Those trying to extract/infer too much data from DNA Tribes are building a castle on a footing of sand...
 
All that being said, DNA Tribes does have it's uses. If your really into this subject and don't mind spending a few extra coins on additional testing, I would recommend getting the test... but only after you take a 23 and me or FTDNA test. For example I was able to locate a distant paternal branch of the family we didn't know about in South America through DNA Tribes so it can prove an asset. It's nice to have more than one tool on your tool belt, right? Nice secondary source of information, but don't get carried away by the results.
 
These Gedrosian autosomal results sound like a load of bunk to me. So now Iran has more genetic connections to Scandinavia than the French have to their Northern neighbors? I'm not buying it. Sorry to be rather blunt here...

I 'm afraid you have misunderstood the data, whatever the confidence we have in the signification of these poolings - these percentages are "relative respective %'s" and not absolute ones: Scandinavian never had over 90% of Gedrosia!!! and frenchmen and scandinavian are very closer between them than they are as a whole to Baluchis! - but when we compare their respective %s for 'gedrosia' on one side and 'west-asian' on other side, we see some différences! read again (slowly) my humble post and I 'm sure it will be evident to you.Have a nice evening.
 
I 'm afraid you have misunderstood the data, whatever the confidence we have in the signification of these poolings - these percentages are "relative respective %'s" and not absolute ones: Scandinavian never had over 90% of Gedrosia!!! and frenchmen and scandinavian are very closer between them than they are as a whole to Baluchis! - but when we compare their respective %s for 'gedrosia' on one side and 'west-asian' on other side, we see some différences! read again (slowly) my humble post and I 'm sure it will be evident to you.Have a nice evening.

Balochi and gedrosia is same thing....happlaworld use balochi and others use gedrosia.
west-asian went to europe via danube or north of that.

I agree that scandinavia never had 90% let alone 10% of west-asian
 
Balochi and gedrosia is same thing....happlaworld use balochi and others use gedrosia.
west-asian went to europe via danube or north of that.

But Balochi/Gedrosia is usually separate from West-Asian, for instance in K12 and DNA Tribes. This is where it's getting interesting, provided that this separation is no fata morgana.
West Asian in K12b corresponds to "Caucasus", not "Gedrosia". Italy and Balkans is full of "Caucasus" and eastern europe also has some "Caucasus" admixture, but no "Gedrosia", which is detected in West Europe instead.

The heavy 'Caucasus' admixture in Balkans and Italy I associate partially with neolithic farmers, antiquity migrators and partially to early medieval iranian tribes (Bulgars?). The lesser Caucasus admixture in Slavs (and even lesser in Balts) I currently associate with iranian tribes (Antes, Skythian farmers) or other satem speaking IEans (EDIT: and Corded Ware).
Excluding the neolithic and antique sources of "Caucasus" admixture it matches both the european satem languages and european R1a.

On the other hand, the "Gedrosia" admixture in west europe matches well the european centum languages and european R1b.

I agree that scandinavia never had 90% let alone 10% of west-asian

Agree.
 
Last edited:
A bit of simplistic musing:

If doing simple comparison of maps, it appears that the Indo-Iranian (~Gedrosia/Baloch) map from Loxias matches perfectly R1a in Asia and R1b in Europe. The places where it matches both, are in between: in Bashkirs and North-East Caucasus (possibly the Dagestan-Scandinavia link found by Dienekes and/or the Maykop culture?). Bashkirs have both, R1a and R1b. So maybe Indo-Iranian component originally was linked to R1a and eventually got hijacked by R1b lineages on the way to west europe.

The world22 paleolithic/saami component stretches significantly into Kazakhstan (even further into the Indus-Valley, where Gedrosia is modal. Strange!). This probably comes from the finno-ugric tribes who were significantly involved in the Andronovo horizon. But why so much in the Indus-Valley again...

Caution is required of course since the population of the steppes has been replaced several times and the admixtures represent current populations.
 
But Balochi/Gedrosia is usually separate from West-Asian, for instance in K12 and DNA Tribes. This is where it's getting interesting, provided that this separation is no fata morgana.
West Asian in K12b corresponds to "Caucasus", not "Gedrosia". Italy and Balkans is full of "Caucasus" and eastern europe also has some "Caucasus" admixture, but no "Gedrosia", which is detected in West Europe instead.

The heavy 'Caucasus' admixture in Balkans and Italy I associate partially with neolithic farmers, antiquity migrators and partially to early medieval iranian tribes (Bulgars?). The lesser Caucasus admixture in Slavs (and even lesser in Balts) I currently associate with iranian tribes (Antes, Skythian farmers) or other satem speaking IEans.
Excluding the neolithic and antique sources of "Caucasus" admixture it matches both the european satem languages and european R1a.

On the other hand, the "Gedrosia" admixture in west europe matches well the european centum languages and european R1b.



Agree.

can you link me this west-asian = caucasus

this is what I know

west-asian = gedrosia, balochi ,- iran
SW-asian = arabia
caucasus = south caucasus,- armenia, georgia
central-asia = north caspian sea area
mid-east = mesopotamia, levant
near-east = anatolia
south-asia = india

etc etc
 
A bit of simplistic musing:

If doing simple comparison of maps, it appears that the Indo-Iranian (~Gedrosia/Baloch) map from Loxias matches perfectly R1a in Asia and R1b in Europe. The places where it matches both, are in between: in Bashkirs and North-East Caucasus (possibly the Dagestan-Scandinavia link found by Dienekes and/or the Maykop culture?). Bashkirs have both, R1a and R1b. So maybe Indo-Iranian component originally was linked to R1a and eventually got hijacked by R1b lineages on the way to west europe.

The world22 paleolithic/saami component stretches significantly into Kazakhstan (even further into the Indus-Valley, where Gedrosia is modal. Strange!). This probably comes from the finno-ugric tribes who were significantly involved in the Andronovo horizon. But why so much in the Indus-Valley again...

Caution is required of course since the population of the steppes has been replaced several times and the admixtures represent current populations.

Dagestan-Scandinavia link found by Dienekes ......link please

world-22 is MDLP test, which is heavy lithuanian based ( ie, to prevent finnish bottleneck issues)
 
can you link me this west-asian = caucasus

No, I mean the "Caucasus" component is the dominant component of actual west asia, not of the "West asia" component. Actual west asia = mid east + near east + caucasus.

The K7 "West-asian" included parts of south asia (Pakistan, Afghanistan, North-India), which is less west asia specific than K12 "Caucasus" component. The K12 "Gedrosia" component splitted away from actual west asia:

http://dodecad.blogspot.de/2012/01/k12b-and-k7b-calculators.html

"Similarly, the West_Asian component (from K=7) is intermediate between the Caucasus and Gedrosia components; the Gedrosia component diverges in the direction of the Asian groups (not shown in this figure), and in particular of South Asians. This divergence can also be seen in the plot of dimension #3."

this is what I know

west-asian = gedrosia, balochi ,- iran
SW-asian = arabia
caucasus = south caucasus,- armenia, georgia
central-asia = north caspian sea area
mid-east = mesopotamia, levant
near-east = anatolia
south-asia = india

etc etc

Could you provide a link to these categories?

From what I know mid-east is in the middle of west asia and K12 "Caucasus" component is dominant exactly there, despite being modal in the Caucasus countries.
 

This thread has been viewed 82035 times.

Back
Top