PDA

View Full Version : New map of East Asian autosomal admixtures in Europe and the Middle East



Maciamo
25-08-13, 10:43
It's been a few years since the Dodecad's K=12 admixtures were calculated. But I never got round to make the East Asian admixture map. It is now done. It combines the values for Northeast Asian and Southeast Asian.

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/East-Asian-admixture.gif (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/autosomal_maps_dodecad.shtml#East_Asian)

PaschalisB
25-08-13, 12:21
Interesting map.

silkyslovanbojkovsky
25-08-13, 22:34
It's been a few years since the Dodecad's K=12 admixtures were calculated. But I never got round to make the East Asian admixture map. It is now done. It combines the values for Northeast Asian and Southeast Asian.

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/East-Asian-admixture.gif (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/autosomal_maps_dodecad.shtml#East_Asian)

Very intersting map, but im suprised at the lack of East Asian in Baltic countries and Northwestern Russia.

Alexandros
26-08-13, 21:16
Very interesting indeed. I am surprised by the extremely low east Asian admixture in Greece and so high in Turkey.

Goga
26-08-13, 21:28
Thank you for the map.

Goga
26-08-13, 21:31
Very intersting map, but im suprised at the lack of East Asian in Baltic countries and Northwestern Russia.
Exactly! This means that Baltic and Northwestern Russian Y-DNA haplogroup N1c1 is part of East (northern) European component!

matbir
26-08-13, 21:50
Hallo evrybody!
This is my first post on forum.
Maciamo, I am curious what ethnic group is carrying this over 15% admixture near Ural mountains? Are they Udmurts, Bashkirs or Tatars?
Near Caspian Sea there should be Kalmyk and Kazakhs, they rarher has high admixture.

Sky earth
26-08-13, 22:03
Why did you dye Western Turkey brighter than Central Turkey? It must be actually the opposite

LeBrok
26-08-13, 22:18
Very interesting indeed. I am surprised by the extremely low east Asian admixture in Greece and so high in Turkey.
Because map shows also North East Asian admixture, and I believe it is the Turkic one, and as we know they've settled in Anatolia not in Greece. It looks like "Turkic" component didn't affect much of Balkans under Ottomans.


I believe this NE SE Asian component had spread fairly late in history. Mostly between 300-1300 AD. Big migrations at the end of Roman Empire with all Hunnic tribes and culminating with Mongols and Tatars. It ended with rise of Russian Empire conquering north and central Asia, the new IE expansion to the East.



PS. Welcome to Eupedia matbir and Sky earth.

Sky earth
26-08-13, 22:30
Hallo evrybody!
This is my first post on forum.
Maciamo, I am curious what ethnic group is carrying this over 15% admixture near Ural mountains? Are they Udmurts, Bashkirs or Tatars?
Near Caspian Sea there should be Kalmyk and Kazakhs, they rarher has high admixture.

Tatars are genetically European with some Mongoloid admixture but I think that Maciamo has colored the place in Russia where the Chuvashs live. They are also Turkic with 20-25 % Mongoloid admixture

LeBrok
26-08-13, 22:45
Hallo evrybody!
This is my first post on forum.
Maciamo, I am curious what ethnic group is carrying this over 15% admixture near Ural mountains? Are they Udmurts, Bashkirs or Tatars?

What about Volga Bulgars?

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f266/NikeBG_History/Historical%20maps/From%20the%20MFA%20site/02-AncientBulgarLands.jpg
https://www.google.ca/search?q=volga+bulgars+map&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=r7sbUtSkB4KsjAKnj4GQAw&ved=0CDkQsAQ&biw=1680&bih=925#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=c78MB--tSP3Z6M%3A%3B6ge5ApsyONbx4M%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fi 49.photobucket.com%252Falbums%252Ff266%252FNikeBG_ History%252FHistorical%252520maps%252FFrom%252520t he%252520MFA%252520site%252F02-AncientBulgarLands.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.tw center.net%252Fforums%252Fshowthread.php%253F37762 3-HISTORICAL-ISSUE-Iranian-origin-of-Croats-and-Serbs%3B800%3B584

LeBrok
26-08-13, 22:49
Tatars are genetically European with some Mongoloid admixture
They are heavily mixed now, but who knows how they looked when they arrived the first time.
I don't remember, did they arrive before Mongols or with Mongols?

Sky earth
26-08-13, 23:09
They are heavily mixed now, but who knows how they looked when they arrived the first time.
I don't remember, did they arrive before Mongols or with Mongols?

Tatars were definitely in Volga Bulgaria before the Mongols. The ethnonym "Tatar" is totally false for them because they are actually Volga Bulgars who speak a Kipchak language through the influence of the Golden Horde. The only REAL Bulgars today are the Chuvashs who speak the same language like their ancestors today. Chuvashs and "Volga Tatars" spoke both Bulgar languages until the Tatars adopted a Kipchak language. It was the Russians who gave them the ethnonym "Tatar" but the Volga Bulgars never called themselves so. The Bulgarians in Bulgaria are linguistically South Slavic today but they still carry a Turkic ethnonym.

matbir
26-08-13, 23:34
Chuvashs are believed to be descendants of Volga Bulgars. But the first Turkic people in Europe were rather Iranianians who adapt Turkic language. Sky earth, wow do you know that chuvashs are so heavy on East Asian admixture? I would rather thing that Tatars are having some East Asian admixture. "Tatar" is name of one of the medieval Mongol tribes, which was conquered by Genghis Khan and somehow ended up in Eastern Europe during Mongol invasion. Somehow the name was transferred from Mongols to Turkic speaking group.
Udmurts have about 20% of East Asian mtDNA, so this area on the map could be about them. Rest of Volga Finnic people are rather lower then 10%.

One more thing about Chuvashs, they belong to Oghur group of Turkic languages, and they are heavily influenced by Uralic languages.

LeBrok, some of this East Asian component spread out after Hunnic invasion, but in case of northeastern Europe I would thing that it is of Paleolithic origin.

Angela
27-08-13, 00:04
Very intersting map, but im suprised at the lack of East Asian in Baltic countries and Northwestern Russia.

What is high in certain parts of Europe is not "East Asian", but Siberian:

In K=12b run: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArJDEoCgzRKedEY4Y3lTUVBaaFp0bC1zZlBDcTZEY lE&hl=en_US#gid=0

Finland: 6.7 Siberian

Mixed Slavs: 1.5 Siberian (and .4 East Asian)

Russian: There are three populations, ranging from 7.3 to 3 for Siberian, and .8 to 1.1 for East Asian

Of course, these calculators don't reflect the underlying North Eurasian in any Europeans, a la all the Reich group papers such as Lipson et al.

Sky earth
27-08-13, 00:06
Chuvashs are believed to be descendants of Volga Bulgars. But the first Turkic people in Europe were rather Iranianians who adapt Turkic language. Sky earth, wow do you know that chuvashs are so heavy on East Asian admixture? I would rather thing that Tatars are having some East Asian admixture. "Tatar" is name of one of the medieval Mongol tribes, which was conquered by Genghis Khan and somehow ended up in Eastern Europe during Mongol invasion. Somehow the name was transferred from Mongols to Turkic speaking group.
Udmurts have about 20% of East Asian mtDNA, so this area on the map could be about them. Rest of Volga Finnic people are rather lower then 10%.

One more thing about Chuvashs, they belong to Oghur group of Turkic languages, and they are heavily influenced by Uralic languages.

LeBrok, some of this East Asian component spread out after Hunnic invasion, but in case of northeastern Europe I would thing that it is of Paleolithic origin.

I can't post any links know but I'm definitely sure that Chuvashs have 20-25 % Mongoloid admxiture while I think that Tatars have 10-15% Mongoloid admxiture. Based on the pictures I've seen Tatars look mainly like Russians and Volga Finns with a more Mongoloid and Western Asian apperance.

What do you mean with "The first Turkics were Iranians who adopted a Turkic language"? Do you think that Bulgars were originally Iranic?

ElHorsto
27-08-13, 00:17
Somehow I can't reproduce the map using the K12b table. Looks like it is Northeast Asian + Siberian? Else it would not match for Finland. Or has the scale too high numbers?

Templar
27-08-13, 00:17
Very interesting indeed. I am surprised by the extremely low east Asian admixture in Greece and so high in Turkey.

Why would you find that surprising? Seems pretty logical. The Turkic tribes didn't settle in Greece, and by the time they conquered them, they were already heavily mixed with native Anatolian people.

matbir
27-08-13, 01:45
What do you mean with "The first Turkics were Iranians who adopted a Turkic language"? Do you think that Bulgars were originally Iranic? Indo-European expansion to the steps reached Sayan, Altai Mountains and Tarim Basin. Scythians and Sarmatians were Iranic, and many other related to them tribes lived in central Asia. After Hunnic invasion every next tribe entering the Europe from the east was Turkic speaking. But the most interesting thing is that they were not mongoloid, they ware fair haired and light skinned, that means not much of East Asian blood. Example: Slavs used term "Połowcy" for Cumans what probably refer to their appearance and mean blond haired. They probably had a lot R1a hp. that is why there is not strong genetic sign of Turkic colonization of Pannonia and Balkans. First people who had considerable mongoloid admixture were Tatar and Nogay who settled in Pontic steps during Mongol invasion. But still they had mixed European and Asian ancestry.
So in my opinion many Iranic (certainly Indo-European) tribes of Central Asia in early medieval period adapt Turkic languages without considerable genetic admixture.

Sky earth
27-08-13, 03:09
Indo-European expansion to the steps reached Sayan, Altai Mountains and Tarim Basin. Scythians and Sarmatians were Iranic, and many other related to them tribes lived in central Asia. After Hunnic invasion every next tribe entering the Europe from the east was Turkic speaking. But the most interesting thing is that they were not mongoloid, they ware fair haired and light skinned, that means not much of East Asian blood. Example: Slavs used term "Połowcy" for Cumans what probably refer to their appearance and mean blond haired. They probably had a lot R1a hp. that is why there is not strong genetic sign of Turkic colonization of Pannonia and Balkans. First people who had considerable mongoloid admixture were Tatar and Nogay who settled in Pontic steps during Mongol invasion. But still they had mixed European and Asian ancestry.
So in my opinion many Iranic (certainly Indo-European) tribes of Central Asia in early medieval period adapt Turkic languages without considerable genetic admixture.

There is no genetical proof for it that the Proto-Turks were only Mongoloid. Proto-Turks were probably a mixture between Caucasoids and Mongoloids from day one. Even the third Qaghan of the Gökturks Muqan Khan was described with reddish hair and blue eyes. It's not true that the Kipchaks were only Caucasoid as they had also significant Mongoloid admxiture. A genetic mtDNA study was done on Cuman burials within Hungary and it was determined that they had both Western Eurasian and Eastern Eurasian Haplogroups. Six Haplogroups were revelaed. One of these Haplogroups was of Eastern Eurasian origin (Haplogroup D) while the other Haplogroups were of Western Eurasian origin (Haplogroups H, V, U, U3 and JT). This means that Cumans were mixed and not only Caucasoid. They have also done anthropometric analysis on the Cuman burials and five of the six skeletons appeared Asian rather than European.

silkyslovanbojkovsky
27-08-13, 04:15
Exactly! This means that Baltic and Northwestern Russian Y-DNA haplogroup N1c1 is part of East (northern) European component!

Yes that explains a lot. I always thought that Finnish people and Estonian and other balitc people look clearly European, but when I first started reading articles about genetics and saw how much N1c1 they had I was pretty shocked, but in reality my instincts were right, they only have minimal Asian admixture, especially most of the balitc people who have nothing, I do see a hint of Asian to finns though.

silkyslovanbojkovsky
27-08-13, 04:16
What is high in certain parts of Europe is not "East Asian", but Siberian:

In K=12b run: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArJDEoCgzRKedEY4Y3lTUVBaaFp0bC1zZlBDcTZEY lE&hl=en_US#gid=0

Finland: 6.7 Siberian

Mixed Slavs: 1.5 Siberian (and .4 East Asian)

Russian: There are three populations, ranging from 7.3 to 3 for Siberian, and .8 to 1.1 for East Asian

Of course, these calculators don't reflect the underlying North Eurasian in any Europeans, a la all the Reich group papers such as Lipson et al.

yes but Siberian is related to East Asian.

silkyslovanbojkovsky
27-08-13, 04:20
Very interesting indeed. I am surprised by the extremely low east Asian admixture in Greece and so high in Turkey.

Why would that be surprising? Greeks arnt turks and didn't receive Asian admixture neither from the ottomans or the original turks who never went there.

matbir
27-08-13, 15:30
There is no genetical proof for it that the Proto-Turks were only Mongoloid. Proto-Turks were probably a mixture between Caucasoids and Mongoloids from day one. Even the third Qaghan of the Gökturks Muqan Khan was described with reddish hair and blue eyes. It's not true that the Kipchaks were only Caucasoid as they had also significant Mongoloid admxiture. A genetic mtDNA study was done on Cuman burials within Hungary and it was determined that they had both Western Eurasian and Eastern Eurasian Haplogroups. Six Haplogroups were revelaed. One of these Haplogroups was of Eastern Eurasian origin (Haplogroup D) while the other Haplogroups were of Western Eurasian origin (Haplogroups H, V, U, U3 and JT). This means that Cumans were mixed and not only Caucasoid. They have also done anthropometric analysis on the Cuman burials and five of the six skeletons appeared Asian rather than European.
1. Indirectly you can proof that they were predominantly mongoloids. Let’s try, Gagauzes, Anatolian Turks, Chuvashs, Azerbaijani - western Eurasian. Turkmens, Uzbeks and Uyghurs mixed. Kazakhs and Kirgiz clearly are mongoloid with little European admixture. Tuvans, Yakuts and eastern Kazakhs are mongoloids. Only the last three are leaving in areas where Indo-Europeans didn’t. It is convincing me that proto-Turks were chiefly East Asian like looking. Of course the situation could be more complex, some groups could be mixed enyough to have some European features.
2. One of six is not much, however they had East Asian admixture, but I thing it wasn't considerable one. That is because of such a low East Asian admixture in southeast Europe reaching 2,5% while in this area settled Huns, Avars, Bulgars, Khazars, Pechenegs, Cumans, and Tatars.
3. There is some hypothesis that Bulgar could be descendents of Iranic speaking tribe from Pamir.


Edit: Interesting thing about Crimean Tatars is that they resemble rather Persians then Turkmens, mongoloid features are rare among them, which might be connection to Iranic Khwarezmians.

Ike
27-08-13, 16:20
It concurs with my observations in Balkans and West Anatolia.

Sky earth
27-08-13, 21:15
1. Indirectly you can proof that they were predominantly mongoloids. Let’s try, Gagauzes, Anatolian Turks, Chuvashs, Azerbaijani - western Eurasian. Turkmens, Uzbeks and Uyghurs mixed. Kazakhs and Kirgiz clearly are mongoloid with little European admixture. Tuvans, Yakuts and eastern Kazakhs are mongoloids. Only the last three are leaving in areas where Indo-Europeans didn’t. It is convincing me that proto-Turks were chiefly East Asian like looking. Of course the situation could be more complex, some groups could be mixed enyough to have some European features.
2. One of six is not much, however they had East Asian admixture, but I thing it wasn't considerable one. That is because of such a low East Asian admixture in southeast Europe reaching 2,5% while in this area settled Huns, Avars, Bulgars, Khazars, Pechenegs, Cumans, and Tatars.
3. There is some hypothesis that Bulgar could be descendents of Iranic speaking tribe from Pamir.


Edit: Interesting thing about Crimean Tatars is that they resemble rather Persians then Turkmens, mongoloid features are rare among them, which might be connection to Iranic Khwarezmians.

1. Scholars and linguists place the Proto-Turkic urheimat in the Altay region which lays between Central Asia, Siberia and Eastern Asia. The Pazyryk culture in the Altai mountains is a hot candidate for Proto-Turks and the geneticist have tested the Pazyryk burials and it came out that were Eurasian (mix between Mongoloid and Caucasoid). The people of the Pazyryk culture had also the same culture as the people who live today in the Altay mountains, the Turkic Altaians. My theory is that the Pazyryk people were Eurasian Proto-Turks who mixed with Eastern Iranian nomads and Mongols. Turks and Azeris have still 7-15 % Mongoloid admixture on average and Chuvashs have even 20-25 % Mongoloid admixture on average. That's too significant to be only Western Eurasian at least for Chuvashs. Kazakhs and Kyrgyz have also 30 % Caucasoid admixture on average which makes them almost Eurasian genetically. Yakuts and Tuvans are predominantly Eastern Eurasian. Here are you right!

2. Five of six skeletons still showed a more Asian apperance than a European apperance and only 6 skeletons were tested. That's too little. It's normal that Eastern Europe has only 1-2 % Mongoloid admxiture on average because the Turkic steppe nomads who were anyhow not fully Mongoloid mixed only with Caucasoids when they settled there. If you as an East Asian person would only mix with Caucasoids and your children and their children also, then there is not much of Mongoloid admixture left for the future generation.

3. Crimean Tatars look nothing like Persians sorry. They are even more Mongoloid admixed than Volga Tatars. The etimology of the name Bulgar come from the Turkic verb bulga (to mix, shake). It is accepted by most scholars, historians and linguists that the Bulgars were a Turkic tribe who spoke the Turkic Bulgar language and that Chuvash language is the only surviving Bulgar language today.

matbir
28-08-13, 23:29
1. Pazyryk burials also are hot candidate to be trails of Sakas, because of similarities to Scythians kurgans. I would like to read about DNA tests of these mummies, it is very interesting. Do you have some paper?
Generally I have different opinion of Turkic urheimat that is because progenitors of Uyghurs were Tiele people, who lived in eastern Mongolia what is far east from Altai.
2. First of all if admixture is under 2,5%, and less than 1% in western Pannonia it means that they were little in numbers or they had little admixture. I will try to estimate a population which gave this 2% of mongoloid admixture to Pannonia and Transylvania.
I know that estimation of polish population around 1000 AD is about 1,5 million
Transylvania and Pannonia covers area circa 250 000 km2 what is about the same as Poland in this time.
I assume that population density was twice as high as in Poland which give 12/km2
12*250 000 = 3 million people
2% of East Asian admixture gives 60 000 pure mongoloids
If each of coming person from the step has 20% mongoloid admixture it means that number of coming people is 5 times higher.
5*60 000 = 300 000 what makes 10% of population.
I thing this 300 000 is quite possible, but if you put 40% admixture which is significant, then it is only half of nomadic settlers, 150 000 people and 5% of population.
Migration from Pontic step to Pannonia wasn’t one time event, but this estimation gives a general idea of numbers.
3. Crimean Tatars differs in appearance due to division in two groups. First one is Tatars leaving in Crimia with Caucasoid appearance, dark eyes and hairs, and nomadic Tatars leaving in what is today southern Ukraine and Dobruja in Romania they have heavy mongoloid admixture. Descendants of the second group live today in Poland they are Lipka Tatars community has 3000 members and many of them look mongoloid. But majority of Tatars was not this step nomads. Why do you thing that they are more mongoloid then Volga Tatars?
4. Bulgars certainly spoke Turkic language, but some scholars emphasize that Bulgars means mix of people, and even some found traces of Zoroastrian theme in Bulgarian culture and even some similarities in languages. It is quite possible that Bulgars were Turkic and Iranic mix.

matbir
31-08-13, 15:17
Estimated number of people living in Avar Khanate is 250 000, from whom 100 000 ware Avars.
According to K12b dodecad Hungarians have 0,7% of Siberian and 0,3% of East Asian admixture.
If Avars are responsible for most of it then try to calculate:
0,01*250 000 = 2500 ; Avar admixture is 2500/100 000 = 2,5%
It means that they weren't looking like Asians at all.

Petter
31-08-13, 19:24
What is high in certain parts of Europe is not "East Asian", but Siberian:

In K=12b run: (link removed as I have less than 10 posts /Petter)

Finland: 6.7 Siberian

Mixed Slavs: 1.5 Siberian (and .4 East Asian)

Russian: There are three populations, ranging from 7.3 to 3 for Siberian, and .8 to 1.1 for East Asian

Of course, these calculators don't reflect the underlying North Eurasian in any Europeans, a la all the Reich group papers such as Lipson et al.

Exactly - the map would be more interesting, if it showed Siberian instead of East Asian admixture. Of course there has never been any actual East Asian admixture in for example Finland. Rather, the East Asian-like genes have come from Siberian peoples, which themselves have partly North European genes, partly East Asian genes, and probably also unique genes of their own as the region has been inhabited for a long time. Since the Siberian cluster in such analyses is usually only about 50% mongoloid, the percantage of siberian genes in for example Finns is higher than the percentage of East Asian genes. (Another thing is how much one should trust cluster analyses on such matters.)

The Siberian component in Finns has probably come from the proto-Saamis, before they entered present-day Lapland and mixed with the existing paleo-European people to form the current Saami population. The proto-Saamis had probably also picked it up from some other people, perhaps an ancient North-Easteran European population, since other Western Uralic groups (such as Baltic people, who previously spoke Finnic languages) do not have Siberian admixture.

"Siberian" should perhaps be considered more of a group of its own than a sub-group of East Asians. Hui Li et al are at least of that opinion in the paper "Genetic Landscape of Eurasia and ‘‘Admixture’’ in Uyghurs".

Now, there is probably also of course "pure" East Asian admixture in Europe - something most have been left after all the migrations of steppe people into Europe.

Petter
31-08-13, 19:27
yes but Siberian is related to East Asian.

Related yes, but hardly a sub-group. Siberian peoples probably do not have all genes that characterize East Asians. They have a surprising load of North European genes also, looking at cluster analyses.

adamo
31-08-13, 19:30
Siberian y-DNA tends to go along the lines of the N,Q and C haplogroups.

tlangford18
25-10-14, 04:41
Very cool, thanks for sharing!