PDA

View Full Version : Genome of Iron Age Thracian



Angela
09-05-14, 04:36
Well, they've finally published the paper on the genome of the Iron Age Thracian reputed to be another "Sardinian" like individual.

The paper: Martin Sikora et al...Population Genomic Analysis of Ancient and Modern Genomes Yields New Insights into the Genetic Ancestry of the Tryolean Iceman and the Genetic Structure of Europe.
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1004353#pgen-1004353-g001

Dienekes' take on it...
http://www.dienekes.blogspot.com/2014/05/ancient-dna-from-balkans-iron-age-thrace.html

Fire Haired14
09-05-14, 04:59
I just read that study, but not thoroughly. It is nothing compared to Laz(Historic and groundbreaking), but is still great. I expect these early Iron age Thracians to be most similar to modern Bulgarians and Italians, and I'll be very surprised if they are not. I can already tell that the Thracian individual K8 is significantly more north European-like than the other Thracian individual P192-1. Also, i see evidence in the admixtures, that Basque have a high amount of native Iberian hunter gatherer ancestry, since like in many admixtures La Brana-1 scores highest in a west European-specific component that is highest in Basque.

LeBrok
09-05-14, 05:02
It looks like this individual, from Iron Age, didn't mix with Indo Europeans much, genetically. Too bad that this sample wasn't in good genetic shape. They've mentioned sever damage and contamination.

Fire Haired14
09-05-14, 05:27
It looks like this individual, from Iron Age, didn't mix with Indo Europeans much, genetically. Too bad that this sample wasn't in good genetic shape. They've mentioned sever damage and contamination.

That's true but we can still learn alot through these Iron age Thracians.

How can we determine if they had mixed much with Indo Europeans, if we aren't sure how Indo Europeans affected people genetically, and specifically the ones who spread the Thracian language? There are alot of theories though, and the extra north-European-like ancestor of K8, who they mentioned had rich grave goods, may be because of more ANE and or WHG ancestry. He also may have extra west Asian ancestry, west Asian components are a mixture of middle eastern and ANE, and are closely related to north European components which are a mixture of middle eastern and WHG. I expect these Thracians to be very similar to modern Bulgarians, and i am disappointed that this study did not compare them to any populations from the Balkans.

It is interesting to get genomes from historical ancient people, who are still from pre-Roman Europe, because more is known about who they were.

LeBrok
09-05-14, 05:43
That's true but we can still learn alot through these Iron age Thracians.

How can we determine if they had mixed much with Indo Europeans, if we aren't sure how Indo Europeans affected people genetically, and specifically the ones who spread the Thracian language? It could be just this individual with limited IE ancestry. It is hard to be sure about population when we have just one individual.


I expect these Thracians to be very similar to modern Bulgarians, and i am disappointed that this study did not compare them to any populations from the Balkans. Good point. I think this paper is lacking in good sample quality and background/local population comparison. Was this paper rushed or is it very hard to find good samples?

Sile
09-05-14, 20:54
I expect these Thracians to be very similar to modern Bulgarians, and i am disappointed that this study did not compare them to any populations from the Balkans.



Impossible, modern bulgarians have some turkic mix in them from central asia, Thracians where 0% in turkic. Since the bones are iron-age, then its 0% for turkic bulgarians.
Even the paper states that they will refer to the bones as thracian and not bulgarian

Sile
09-05-14, 21:39
Thracian P192-1 is U3b in mtdna, other thracian is too damaged to get a mtdna reading

Maciamo, needs to add the first U3b in ancient mtdna to his list

Alan
09-05-14, 22:17
I expect these early Iron age Thracians to be most similar to modern Bulgarians and Italians, and I'll be very surprised if they are not.

In the opening post it says the two Iron Age individuals were Ötzi like (so basically EEF DNA) so how can they be similar to modern Bulgarians which have a good chunk of ANE and WHG in form of Caucasus_Gedrosia and North European?

Fire Haired14
09-05-14, 23:40
In the opening post it says the two Iron Age individuals were Ötzi like (so basically EEF DNA) so how can they be similar to modern Bulgarians which have a good chunk of ANE and WHG in form of Caucasus_Gedrosia and North European?

You can't just assume they were 100% Otzi-like, i think the authors are not giving enough detail and are basing that statement based on one admixture. I will make a thread about these two iron age Thracians today, then you'll see my full opinion on this.

Fire Haired14
09-05-14, 23:42
Thracian P192-1 is U3b in mtdna, other thracian is too damaged to get a mtdna reading

Maciamo, needs to add the first U3b in ancient mtdna to his list

Maciamo hasn't added anything to his ancient DNA article for about two years!!!! He probably realized there are better ways to organize the ancient DNA and that it is very difficult to put all the info in an article in a readable fashion, and that hardly anyone is reading it.

Angela
10-05-14, 01:51
You can't just assume they were 100% Otzi-like, i think the authors are not giving enough detail and are basing that statement based on one admixture. I will make a thread about these two iron age Thracians today, then you'll see my full opinion on this.

You're on a thread about the two Iron Age Thracians. That's the paper that was posted. Hadn't you noticed?

These are the modern Bulgarian numbers as per Lazaridis et al. No need to guess...
EEF: .712
WHG: .147
ANE: .141

They seem to be closest to the north Italians, which Cavalli-Sforza told us more than twenty years ago.
EEF: .715
WHG: .177
ANE: .108

They are not as close to Sardinians.
Sardinian numbers:
EEF: .817
WHG: .175
ANE: .008

Then we have Maltese, Ashkenazi Jews, Sicilians etc., who are more than 90% EEF.

So, no, they're not as Oetzi like as their ancestors.

Ed. Alan wasn't assuming anything; he was repeating the findings of the paper.

Ed. 2 To add numbers for northern Italians

ElHorsto
10-05-14, 02:01
You're on a thread about the two Iron Age Thracians. That's the paper that was posted. Hadn't you noticed?

These are the modern Bulgarian numbers as per Lazaridis et al. No need to guess...

EEF: .712
WHG: .147
ANE: .141

They're closest to northern Italians, it seems, which Cavalli Sforza told us more than twenty years ago.

Sardinian numbers:
EEF: .817
WHG: .175
ANE: .008

So, no, they're not as Oetzi like as their ancestors.

But do they also compare the Iron Age Thracians directly with modern Bulgarians, Tuscans or any other similar population except Sardinians and Ötzi? Sorry, I can not find it in the paper.

ElHorsto
10-05-14, 02:10
Impossible, modern bulgarians have some turkic mix in them from central asia,

So far I've not seen any admixture analysis which supports this claim.

Angela
10-05-14, 02:12
But do they also compare the Iron Age Thracians directly with modern Bulgarians, Tuscans or any other similar population except Sardinians and Ötzi? Sorry, I can not find in the paper.

I can't find it either, and that's a flaw in the paper. I think we got spoiled by the Lazaridis paper and have come to expect that kind of exhaustive and sophisticated analysis, and we're not getting it.

I also have a problem with the PCA and where the ancient samples land, and the admixture analyses are surprising in some ways. Why didn't they do an IBD analysis to clear it up?

It's also disappointing that the second Thracian sample seems to be contaminated, and so it's difficult to draw any conclusions about differences based on social status at this point in time.

Sile
10-05-14, 02:18
So far I've not seen any admixture analysis which supports this claim.

correct, these Thracians are NOT bulgarians

Why do you think they are Turkic, ?............because the "royal" k8 one is southern Russian?...........do you have proof?

Nobody1
10-05-14, 02:26
I could be wrong or completely dyslexic but this study seems to be more about Ötzi (the Iceman) than anything else;

"we confirm that the Iceman is, indeed, most closely related to Sardinians.....the Iceman is always significantly more closely related to Sardinians than any other European population..........."
http://replygif.net/i/537.gif

And the Thracians are not of the same class as one was found in a pit and the other in a grandeur tomb; And the one from the pit seems to be the more Neolithic; But the Bootstrep is only 56% to Sardinians whereas Ötzi and the Sardinians share a Bootstrep of >96% (gök4=83%); crazy crazy

Sile
10-05-14, 02:43
I could be wrong or completely dyslexic but this study seems to be more about Ötzi (the Iceman) than anything else;

"we confirm that the Iceman is, indeed, most closely related to Sardinians.....the Iceman is always significantly more closely related to Sardinians than any other European population..........."
http://replygif.net/i/537.gif

And the Thracians are not of the same class as one was found in a pit and the other in a grandeur tomb; And the one from the pit seems to be the more Neolithic; But the Bootstrep is only 56% to Sardinians whereas Ötzi and the Sardinians share a Bootstrep of >96% (gök4=83%); crazy crazy

check this out

http://www.cell.com/cms/attachment/2009185252/2031618619/mmc1.pdf

ElHorsto
10-05-14, 02:45
correct, these Thracians are NOT bulgarians

Why do you think they are Turkic, ?............because the "royal" k8 one is southern Russian?...........do you have proof?

That's not what I quoted and replied. Please read again more carefully. Thanks!

Nobody1
10-05-14, 02:58
check this out

http://www.cell.com/cms/attachment/2009185252/2031618619/mmc1.pdf

I know that;
Thats pre-hysteria of the current study; p.6 is very informative with the noble Thracians are close to modern Central/North Europeans and the common/peasant (more Neolithic) Thracians are closer to modern South Europeans (Tuscans); But the current study has both Thracians in the center of all modern Europeans (Figure S2) but also K8 clusters more towards North/Central and P192-1 clusters more towards South (more Neolithic); I thought both but app. just P192-1 (the pit corpse) is U3 mtDNA;

Sile
10-05-14, 03:36
That's not what I quoted and replied. Please read again more carefully. Thanks!

ditto, re-read my original post instead of chopping it up in small parcels

Sile
10-05-14, 04:02
I know that;
Thats pre-hysteria of the current study; p.6 is very informative with the noble Thracians are close to modern Central/North Europeans and the common/peasant (more Neolithic) Thracians are closer to modern South Europeans (Tuscans); But the current study has both Thracians in the center of all modern Europeans (Figure S2) but also K8 clusters more towards North/Central and P192-1 clusters more towards South (more Neolithic); I thought both but app. just P192-1 (the pit corpse) is U3 mtDNA;

Agreed

the paper states U3b for the "peasant"

I was wondering if the "royal" was part of the varna culture

LeBrok
10-05-14, 04:29
Agreed

the paper states U3b for the "peasant"

I was wondering if the "royal" was part of the varna culture
Varna culture was Neolithic Copper, we are in Iron age with these specimens.

kamani
10-05-14, 05:08
All these papers showing that 1/2 of Europe was "Sardinian" EEF up until the Iron Age, leads me to believe that there has been a massive migration from North Europe into the Balkans and the Italian Peninsula, sometime around Iron Age.

polako
10-05-14, 05:50
In the opening post it says the two Iron Age individuals were Ötzi like (so basically EEF DNA) so how can they be similar to modern Bulgarians which have a good chunk of ANE and WHG in form of Caucasus_Gedrosia and North European?

Nowhere in the study does it say that both of the Thracians were Oetzi-like.

It actually very clear states that there was no pattern for the two Thracians, with the one buried in the pit being more Oetzi and Sardinian-like, and the one from the Kurgan more Russian-like. It suggests this might be due to DNA contamination (presumably with Eastern European-like DNA), but this would be an odd coincidence considering that Kurgans spread into the Balkans from Eastern Europe.

Sile
10-05-14, 06:52
Nowhere in the study does it say that both of the Thracians were Oetzi-like.

It actually very clear states that there was no pattern for the two Thracians, with the one buried in the pit being more Oetzi and Sardinian-like, and the one from the Kurgan more Russian-like. It suggests this might be due to DNA contamination (presumably with Eastern European-like DNA), but this would be an odd coincidence considering that Kurgans spread into the Balkans from Eastern Europe.

Kurgan culture?.....3000BC this culture ended,......... K8 is from 450BC ..........you actually think no other culture was around between kurgan culture period and the k8 thracian homeland in his lifetime!
We are talking of the years ~450BC , many historians are around and can tell us the history, Macedonia is emerging, Illyrians are moving south th confront the macedonians and thracians/dacians ,migrations are basically finished unless its due to conquests. Ancient Iron-age Europe is basically set. Bronze-age mass migrations is finished.

polako
10-05-14, 08:24
Kurgan culture?.....3000BC this culture ended,......... K8 is from 450BC ..........you actually think no other culture was around between kurgan culture period and the k8 thracian homeland in his lifetime!
We are talking of the years ~450BC , many historians are around and can tell us the history, Macedonia is emerging, Illyrians are moving south th confront the macedonians and thracians/dacians ,migrations are basically finished unless its due to conquests. Ancient Iron-age Europe is basically set. Bronze-age mass migrations is finished.

Yes, Thracian Tumuli are essentially Kurgans. It's common knowledge.



The Thracian Tomb of Kazanlak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thracian_Tomb_of_Kazanlak), near the town of Kazanlak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazanlak) in central Bulgaria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgaria), is a Thracian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thracia) kurgan of c. the 4th century BC.
The Thracian Tomb of Sveshtari (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thracian_Tomb_of_Sveshtari), Bulgaria, is a Thracian kurgan of c. the 3rd century BC.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurgan

Fire Haired14
10-05-14, 08:53
You're on a thread about the two Iron Age Thracians. That's the paper that was posted. Hadn't you noticed?

These are the modern Bulgarian numbers as per Lazaridis et al. No need to guess...
EEF: .712
WHG: .147
ANE: .141

They seem to be closest to the north Italians, which Cavalli-Sforza told us more than twenty years ago.
EEF: .715
WHG: .177
ANE: .108

They are not as close to Sardinians.
Sardinian numbers:
EEF: .817
WHG: .175
ANE: .008

Then we have Maltese, Ashkenazi Jews, Sicilians etc., who are more than 90% EEF.

So, no, they're not as Oetzi like as their ancestors.

Ed. Alan wasn't assuming anything; he was repeating the findings of the paper.

Ed. 2 To add numbers for northern Italians

Much of their EEF is non early European farmer middle eastern ancestry. Not all Europeans have the same middle eastern ancestors. In admixtures Italians and Balkeners always score significant numbers in southwest Asian and west Asian specific components, which were close to none existent in early European farmers. The fact that Ashkenazi Jews(who have alot of recent south-west Asian ancestry) scored 90% EEF, is great evidence early European farmers descended mainly from the same ancient middle eastern source as do modern middle easterns, just both have some non-middle eastern ancestry.

Sile
10-05-14, 09:06
Yes, Thracian Tumuli are essentially Kurgans. It's common knowledge.



The Thracian Tomb of Kazanlak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thracian_Tomb_of_Kazanlak), near the town of Kazanlak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazanlak) in central Bulgaria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgaria), is a Thracian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thracia) kurgan of c. the 4th century BC.
The Thracian Tomb of Sveshtari (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thracian_Tomb_of_Sveshtari), Bulgaria, is a Thracian kurgan of c. the 3rd century BC.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurgan

Sveshtari is a getic tomb type not kurgan as per your link, the getic /getae are a branch of thracian tribes

The Getae or Gets (Ancient Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek): Γέται, singular Γέτης; Bulgarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarian_language): Гети; Romanian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_language): Geţi) are names given to several Thracian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thracians) tribes inhabiting the regions to either side of the Lower Danube (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danube), in what is today northern Bulgaria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgaria) and southern Romania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romania). Both the singular form Get and Getae may be derived from a Greek exonym (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exonym): the area was the hinterland of Greek colonies on the Black Sea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea) coast, bringing the Getae into contact with the Ancient Greeks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greeks) from an early date.

According to Herodotus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herodotus), the Getae were "the noblest as well as the most just (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice) of all the Thracian tribes."[47] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getae#cite_note-Herodotus._Histories.2C_4.93-47) When the Persians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Empire), led by Darius the Great (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darius_I_of_Persia), campaigned against the Scythians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythia), the Thracian tribes in the Balkans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkans) surrendered (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_%28military%29) to Darius on his way to Scythia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythia), and only the Getae offered resistance.[47] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getae#cite_note-Herodotus._Histories.2C_4.93-47)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getae

to long has passed in centuries for these Getae thracian to have any association with the Kurgan culture ( over 25 centuries had passed )

polako
10-05-14, 09:21
Sveshtari is a getic tomb type not kurgan as per your link, the getic /getae are a branch of thracian tribes

The Getae or Gets (Ancient Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek): Γέται, singular Γέτης; Bulgarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarian_language): Гети; Romanian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_language): Geţi) are names given to several Thracian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thracians) tribes inhabiting the regions to either side of the Lower Danube (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danube), in what is today northern Bulgaria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgaria) and southern Romania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romania). Both the singular form Get and Getae may be derived from a Greek exonym (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exonym): the area was the hinterland of Greek colonies on the Black Sea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea) coast, bringing the Getae into contact with the Ancient Greeks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greeks) from an early date.

According to Herodotus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herodotus), the Getae were "the noblest as well as the most just (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice) of all the Thracian tribes."[47] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getae#cite_note-Herodotus._Histories.2C_4.93-47) When the Persians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Empire), led by Darius the Great (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darius_I_of_Persia), campaigned against the Scythians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythia), the Thracian tribes in the Balkans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkans) surrendered (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_%28military%29) to Darius on his way to Scythia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythia), and only the Getae offered resistance.[47] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getae#cite_note-Herodotus._Histories.2C_4.93-47)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getae

to long has passed in centuries for these Getae thracian to have any association with the Kurgan culture ( over 25 centuries had passed )


The Thracians were a continuation of the Indo-European cultures of Eastern Europe. You can see it in their archeological remains and now their DNA (blue component in the Admixture analysis).

It is what it is. You can keep mumbling that up is down and down is up, but it won't change a thing.

Sile
10-05-14, 10:01
The Thracians were a continuation of the Indo-European cultures of Eastern Europe. You can see it in their archeological remains and now their DNA (blue component in the Admixture analysis).

It is what it is. You can keep mumbling that up is down and down is up, but it won't change a thing.

are you getting your theories/ideas from here

http://www.dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2010-05-31.pdf

polako
10-05-14, 10:04
are you getting your theories/ideas from here

http://www.dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2010-05-31.pdf


They're not my theories. They're theories of mainstream archeologists and historians based on the last 50 years of work by many qualified people.

Fire Haired14
10-05-14, 10:38
In the admixture K8 is obviously much more north European-like than P192.1, he may be as much WHG+ANE as French are. K8 is certainly more WHG-ANE than modern south-east Europeans, so it makes sense that he was an upper-class Indo European. Also, P192.1 obviously has post Neolithic south-west Asian ancestry, as do modern Italians and Balkaners, and this study exaggerated the Iron age Thracian's Sardinianism. This is exciting to me, because it is evidence post-Neolithic south-west Asian ancestry in the Balkans and Italy is not from the Greeks, Romans, Estruscans, etc. but is something much older.

Fire Haired14
10-05-14, 11:00
They're not my theories. They're theories of mainstream archeologists and historians based on the last 50 years of work by many qualified people.

The kurgen hypothesis is more true now than it ever was, because of DNA.

Sile
10-05-14, 11:20
It would seem that Ms Gimbutas was correct in her Kurgan theory

another paper below on this kurgan - thracian union

http://users.cwnet.com/millenia/The%20Etruscan%20People%20and%20language.htm

Alan
10-05-14, 12:50
All these papers showing that 1/2 of Europe was "Sardinian" EEF up until the Iron Age, leads me to believe that there has been a massive migration from North Europe into the Balkans and the Italian Peninsula, sometime around Iron Age.

Why only from the North? Modern Bulgarians have a good chunk of ANE in form of Caucasus_Gedrosia. I assume this extra H&G admixture came through the Indo Europeans who were more Caucasus_Gedrosia+North European admixed than the farmers. This is the only explanation why modern Bulgarians have a good chunk of Caucasus_Gedrosia.

Alan
10-05-14, 12:54
Nowhere in the study does it say that both of the Thracians were Oetzi-like.

It actually very clear states that there was no pattern for the two Thracians, with the one buried in the pit being more Oetzi and Sardinian-like, and the one from the Kurgan more Russian-like. It suggests this might be due to DNA contamination (presumably with Eastern European-like DNA), but this would be an odd coincidence considering that Kurgans spread into the Balkans from Eastern Europe.

Russian-like can mean allot of things, if we take into account that allot of scientist consider Northern Caucasus as part of the Russian horizon. I doubt that this one individual was exactly like modern Russians.

But I agree that this individual is a sign of Indo European admixture into the Balkans.

But yet this study gives us the evidence that not allot earlier this region was still farmer like. If one individual was Ötzi like and the other at least by half.

Alan
10-05-14, 12:59
In the admixture K8 is obviously much more north European-like than P192.1, he may be as much WHG+ANE as French are. K8 is certainly more WHG-ANE than modern south-east Europeans, so it makes sense that he was an upper-class Indo European. Also, P192.1 obviously has post Neolithic south-west Asian ancestry, as do modern Italians and Balkaners, and this study exaggerated the Iron age Thracian's Sardinianism. This is exciting to me, because it is evidence post-Neolithic south-west Asian ancestry in the Balkans and Italy is not from the Greeks, Romans, Estruscans, etc. but is something much older.


Angela and I already said earlier that this "Southwest Asian" in Europe is older and likely Neolithic, since even Ötzi had some of it?

Wilhelm
10-05-14, 13:15
Russian-like can mean allot of things, if we take into account that allot of scientist consider Northern Caucasus as part of the Russian horizon. I doubt that this one individual was exactly like modern Russians. f.
What are you talking about ? What caucasus ? The blue component peaks in Russians (and they are not russians from Caucasus), so it's obviously a North-East European-like component.

Fire Haired14
10-05-14, 14:05
What are you talking about ? What caucasus ? The blue component peaks in Russians (and they are not russians from Caucasus), so it's obviously a North-East European-like component.

Actually the blue component is north Eurasian hunter gatherer(WHG, and or ANE)+middle eastern. West Asian(centered in the Caucasus) and North European(centered in north-east Europe) components form as one component with a limited amount of samples and at low K's.

polako
10-05-14, 14:08
Why only from the North? Modern Bulgarians have a good chunk of ANE in form of Caucasus_Gedrosia. I assume this extra H&G admixture came through the Indo Europeans who were more Caucasus_Gedrosia+North European admixed than the farmers. This is the only explanation why modern Bulgarians have a good chunk of Caucasus_Gedrosia.

The so called Caucasus_Gedrosia cluster is a meaningless concept in the context of ancient migrations, because it's a signal of ANE mixing with EEF across a very wide range in Eurasia, but also recent isolation, endogamy and heavy genetic drift in very specific isolated places like the Caucasus and Hindu Kush.


Russian-like can mean allot of things, if we take into account that allot of scientist consider Northern Caucasus as part of the Russian horizon. I doubt that this one individual was exactly like modern Russians.

These Russians are from the HGDP, which means they were sampled in Kargopol in northwestern Russia.

They're unlikely to be a perfect proxy for the proto-Thracians from the steppe, but they actually do a very good job at teasing out the signal of admixture from the north that made the Thracians, and which Oetzi lacks except at noise levels.

Fire Haired14
10-05-14, 14:12
Angela and I already said earlier that this "Southwest Asian" in Europe is older and likely Neolithic, since even Ötzi had some of it?

Sure Otzi scores in it but much much much much less than modern Italians and Balkaners do. The southwest Asians that brought farming to Europe 9,000 years ago, had no ANE or African ancestry, unlike modern southwest Asians. Plus, the subclades early European farmers had in middle eastern haplogroups like H and J, have been separated from the subclades modern southwest asians mainly have for well over 10,000 years, so even their middle eastern ancestry is distant. Italians and Balkaners have POST-NEOLITHIC modern southwest Asian-like ancestry, and P192.1 is evidence it was already in Bulgaria by 2,800-2,500 years ago.

Fire Haired14
10-05-14, 14:29
These Russians are from the HGDP, which means they were sampled in Kargopol in northwestern Russia.

They're unlikely to be a perfect proxy for the proto-Thracians from the steppe, but they actually do a very good job at teasing out the signal of admixture from the north that made the Thracians, and which Oetzi lacks except at noise levels.

Do you really think Kargopol Russians are good proxies for proto-Indo Europeans?

No autosomal DNA has been sampled from proto-Indo Europeans, so we don't know how much hunter(WHG+ANE) and middle eastern(mainly or entirely EEF) they were, and specifically the ones who were partial ancestors of Iron age Thracians. We do know though that Yamna and Catcacomb people were darker haired and eyed than any modern Europeans(including Sardinians), and the dark eyes means they were probably mainly EEF, and can't be responsible for K8's extra WHG and or ANE ancestry. There are other possibilities, maybe Thracian royalty mixed with Scythian or a northern Iron age people's royalty, and K8 was a grandchild of this type of mix. Maybe proto-Thracians were closely related to porto-Indo Iranians and Tocherians, and therefore probably more WHG-ANE than Yamna and Catcacomb people.

Aberdeen
10-05-14, 14:38
The Eurogenes blog provides some comments on these finds, summarizing with this comment:

"In other words, perhaps K8 belonged to a ruling class of steppe origin, while P192-1 was of native Balkan stock, whose ancestors were conquered centuries earlier by the steppe nomads and forced to live as an underclass? If so, it wouldn't be the only time in history that this sort of thing has happened, especially within Indo-European societies."

If you agree with that conclusion, K8 may provide an example of who the IE folk were genetically, if you assume that he was of unmixed IE ancestry. I think that an Iron Age person in the Balkans would more likely be descended from a mixture of folk, but if one assumes that he is fully IE, and that the results aren't partly because of contamination, this one sample could provide a starting point for figuring out who the IE folk were, genetically. And it would explain the difference in results for the two samples.

Alan
10-05-14, 14:45
What are you talking about ? What caucasus ? The blue component peaks in Russians (and they are not russians from Caucasus), so it's obviously a North-East European-like component.


Ok modern Balkanians have roughly 20% Caucasus_Gedrosia admixture. Up to the Iron Age the whole Balkan region was more farmer like. Who or what could have brought this Caucasus_Gedrosia component into the Balkans? Mal'ta a proxy for ANE component was more Caucasus_Gedrosia_Kalash like than anything else. And don't we know from the Lazardis paper that North European and Caucasus_Gedrosia share one common ancestor (ANE) and that modern Russian genetics is also significantly Caucasus_Gedrosia_Kalash admixed. How do you know that this "blue" component is entirely made up of North European?

To understand what I mean you first need to understand what these "blue" components are really made off. What if this blue component is simply ANE? And I don't even see any North Caucasian samples used. Why? And even if this one individual was more "Russian like". How does this prove that the Kurgan people were too? How does an Iron Age individual from 450 bc proves that the Kurgan people from 3000 bc were the same?

Explain that.

polako
10-05-14, 14:48
Do you really think Kargopol Russians are good proxies for proto-Indo Europeans?

No, they're not, for a number of reasons, including relatively low ANE (I think PIE had much higher ANE than any modern Euros) and fairly high Siberian admix, at around 5%, which I suspect is higher than what PIE had.

But that's not really important. They do the job in this study, in spite of the fact that the ADMIXTURE analysis isn't all that great, although better than the crappy PCA.


If you agree with that conclusion, K8 may provide an example of who the IE folk were genetically, if you assume that he was of unmixed IE ancestry. I think that an Iron Age person in the Balkans would more likely be descended from a mixture of folk, but if one assumes that he is fully IE, and that the results aren't partly because of contamination, this one sample could provide a starting point for figuring out who the IE folk were, genetically. And it would explain the difference in results for the two samples.

There's no reason to assume that a Balkan individual from the Iron Age would still be genetically indistinguishable from the Proto-Indo-Europeans, who lived during the dawn of the Copper Age near the Volga somewhere, even if this individual was from some direct royal line originating among those Proto-Indo-Europeans.

polako
10-05-14, 14:58
Ok modern Balkanians have roughly 20% Caucasus_Gedrosia admixture. Up to the Iron Age the whole Balkan region was more farmer like. Who or what could have brought this Caucasus_Gedrosia component into the Balkans?

No one brought this component. It's not even a real ancestral component, just a composite of many things. It was created on the spot when the ANE-rich steppe people rushed into the Balkans and mixed with the EEF people there during the Copper Age. Exactly the same thing happened in the Caucasus and South Central Asia. In other words, it was a parallel process that affected many regions at about the same time.

But now, this so called Caucasus_Gedrosia cluster peaks in the Caucasus and South Central Asia because that's where people are more isolated and drifted, which is something that ADMIXTURE likes to latch onto.


To understand what I mean you first need to understand what these "blue" components are really made off. What if this blue component is simply ANE? And I don't even see any North Caucasian samples used. Why?

Explain that.

The blue component includes ANE, WHG and EEF. But the reason it works so well here is because it's in large part ANE, which is totally lacking in Oetzi and the Sardinians, and almost totally lacking in Basques.

By the way, where do you think the Adygei come from? Last time I looked it was the North Caucasus. They're also mostly blue in this ADMIXTURE run, and that's because of their high ANE.

kamani
10-05-14, 16:44
Why only from the North? Modern Bulgarians have a good chunk of ANE in form of Caucasus_Gedrosia. I assume this extra H&G admixture came through the Indo Europeans who were more Caucasus_Gedrosia+North European admixed than the farmers. This is the only explanation why modern Bulgarians have a good chunk of Caucasus_Gedrosia.
Yes, I'm not excluding gene flow from Caucasus over the centuries. Balkans have some 15-20% West Asian/Caucasus component. Is it because of the Indo-Europeans or just because of proximity, I'm not sure. Sometimes the biggest migrations are not even documented, because they were not part of a war. I think the small portion of ANE that Bulgarians have more than Greeks or Albanians, is probably slavic in origin, coming from North-East Europe in the middle ages.
I say a migration from the North because of various clues.. We have Neolithic "Sardinian" Oetzi in the Alps and then in the Iron Age we have Celts in the Area. Someone might say that it is a long time between Oetzi and the Celts...Well, it is not a long time because of this new paper...they found other "Sardinians" in the Iron Age Balkans... So where did the Celts come from? Due to many genetical and linguistic reasons, the best bet is from the North. Same with Illyrians in the Balkans, who were first identified before the Celts, some-time in the late Bronze Age. Greek mythology considers Celts, Illyrians and Gauls as brothers, but excavations show that Illyrians were similar but discontinuous in culture with Celts and Gauls, which might be because they were the first wave of migrations into the Balkans, centuries before the Celts existed. And then linguistically, we have the unexplainable large number of common word roots between Albanian and Old Germanic languages.
Another option all-together is that the Indo-Europeans split their migrations into Europe in the Bronze Age. One branch went into the Balkans to form Illyrians and Thracians, the other branch went to North-Europe and descended as Celts in the Iron Age.
I don't have enough information to decide which of the two options is the truth, but I'm leaning more towards the first option.

Goga
10-05-14, 18:06
Nothing new here. People in the Balkans were Indo-Europized by Slavic people from the Easter Europe. Most folks in the Balkans speak a South Slavic language. Slavic dialect evolved in Eastern Europe. These Thracian are not PROTO-Indo-Europeans or whatever. Ancient Indo-European Greeks and many other Indo-European Iranic tribes in West Asia predate them by many centuries. Maybe even millennia! But what I do consider very interesting is that native aboriginal folks in inland of Europe were Indo-Europized much much later than I thought by folks from Kurdistan. Kurgans in West Asia are much older than Kurgans in Europe. The first stage of Indo-Europization of Europe took place when Yamna folks got Indo-Europized by folks from West Asia. The second stage was when already Indo-Europized folks in the Steppes migrated deeper into Europe and according to this paper it was VERY late! It has been proven by the TRUE scientists that R1a and R1b are from West Asia!

Angela
10-05-14, 18:58
Much of their EEF is non early European farmer middle eastern ancestry. Not all Europeans have the same middle eastern ancestors. In admixtures Italians and Balkeners always score significant numbers in southwest Asian and west Asian specific components, which were close to none existent in early European farmers. The fact that Ashkenazi Jews(who have alot of recent south-west Asian ancestry) scored 90% EEF, is great evidence early European farmers descended mainly from the same ancient middle eastern source as do modern middle easterns, just both have some non-middle eastern ancestry.

How is this relevant? The point was that modern Bulgarians are not as "Oetzi like" or "Sardinian like" (although I would have preferred some direct comparisons of modern Bulgarians to Oetzi, Sardinians and the two Thracian samples) as some of their ancestors from the Iron Age, although they haven't changed a whole heck of a lot, since they're still 71% EEF.

You also persist in dragging in "components" from the old calculators which are no longer relevant. If you must discuss them, however, the S.W. Asian "component" has been in Europe, specifically in Italy, since the Neolithic, since Oetzi scored a percentage of it very similar to what it is currently in the north and in Tuscany. He also scored a high "Caucasus" number. "Caucasus" plus "Gedrosian" which arrived later, gives you your "West Asian" component.

And yes, most of their EEF is indeed from the neolithic farmers. You have proof somewhere in history or archaeology to the contrary, i.e. that hordes of people from the Levant moved to the Balkans post Bronze Age? Genetic evidence for that proposition certainly doesn't exist. That isn't to say there couldn't have been some more minor additions of course, perhaps with Byzantines etc., but there are no large, folk migrations of which I'm aware. Perhaps some people more expert in the history of the Balkans could chime in here if I am incorrect.

Finally, if you are talking about Italy, I'm afraid you are sadly misinformed. Please be aware that the genetic distance between northern Italy and southern Italy/Sicily is as great as between vastly geographically separated other nations in Europe, so, large generalizations about "Italians" are bound to be inaccurate.

To continue, any additional EEF in Italy post the Neolithic came by way of Greek and Balkan immigration starting in the Bronze Age. The only possible exception would be if it is proved that the Etruscans came from western Anatolia/the Aegean area. Even in that case, that would have been, in my opinion, an elite, male dominated migration. The mtDNA of the Etruscans looks very old indeed.

Nobody1
10-05-14, 19:13
Sure Otzi scores in it but much much much much less than modern Italians and Balkaners do. The southwest Asians that brought farming to Europe 9,000 years ago, had no ANE or African ancestry, unlike modern southwest Asians. Plus, the subclades early European farmers had in middle eastern haplogroups like H and J, have been separated from the subclades modern southwest asians mainly have for well over 10,000 years, so even their middle eastern ancestry is distant. Italians and Balkaners have POST-NEOLITHIC modern southwest Asian-like ancestry, and P192.1 is evidence it was already in Bulgaria by 2,800-2,500 years ago.

Solely based on that K=8 admixture than SW Asian was also decent in Gök4 (Sweden TRB 5000BP); As it was also in Stuttgart (LBK 7000BP) in the K=20 of Lazaridis 2013 and after which EEF is modeled; So its obviously older in Europe than post-Neolithic/Iron-age (P192-1) i.e. Neolithic;

What this K=8 actually shows is that the Neolithic (farmer/herders) in the Alps remained very isolated and archaic judging by the Ötzi K=8 (in contrast to the others); Ötzi was also always closer to Stuttgart (PCAs Lazaridis) despite ~1500 years afterwards; Gök4 is in this study closest to North Italians (study: Italians) and Tuscans and less Sardinians; As also in a Lazaridis PCA;

''Within the F group, gok4 has a slightly lower proportion of the Sardinian cluster than the Iceman, and most closely resembles the Tuscans and Northern Italians, in agreement with the results of Skoglund et al.''

I most def. consider Thracian K8 as a good example of an Iron-age Indo-European (Balkans) but something Polako pointed out (and mentioned in the study) about the contamination should not be completely ignored; The Blue admixture component is termed as Russian ancestry (whatever that means);

''While P192-1 still shows the highest proportion of Sardinian ancestry, K8 more resembles the HG individuals, with a high fraction of Russian ancestry''

So Thracian P192-1 has still good proportion of Sardinian ancestry in contrast to Thracian K8 (which has less) but obviously that does not mean that P192-1 was Sardinian or Ötzi-like just still more Ötzi-like/Sardinian than K8 (as also PCA FigureS2); My prediction months ago (in other thread about the first study that included Danish M4) was that P192-1 is still more of the remnant subjugated Neolithic pop. and K8 more of the emerging Indo-European pop. (being elite/nobility of Iron-age);

Angela
10-05-14, 19:46
Sure Otzi scores in it but much much much much less than modern Italians and Balkaners do. The southwest Asians that brought farming to Europe 9,000 years ago, had no ANE or African ancestry, unlike modern southwest Asians. Plus, the subclades early European farmers had in middle eastern haplogroups like H and J, have been separated from the subclades modern southwest asians mainly have for well over 10,000 years, so even their middle eastern ancestry is distant. Italians and Balkaners have POST-NEOLITHIC modern southwest Asian-like ancestry, and P192.1 is evidence it was already in Bulgaria by 2,800-2,500 years ago.

It's always a good idea to get your facts straight before you post. It's also a good idea never to take the statements of anyone else too much to heart unless one has analyzed the data for oneself.

As you insist on bringing the calculators into the discussion...these are the Dodecad K-12b numbers for SWAsian. Oetzi actually scores more S.W. Asian (and Gok 4 even more) than people in the Balkans and everywhere in Italy except the far south and Sicily. So, your statement is totally incorrect. In addition, as I said before, you know very little about the Italian genetic landscape so your generalizations are always off the mark.
Oetzi-7.6
Gok 4-8.6

N.Italian-5.6/5.8
Bulgarian-5.7
Sardinian-5.8
TSI-7.3
Greek-10.7
Sicilian-11.9

Silesian
10-05-14, 19:47
Epic hilarious/funny. Kargopol not a good sample for PIE ? Whaaaat 40% prime R1a territory and low ANE what's up?



(Arkhangelsk region (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkhangelsk_region))
IE (Slavic, East)
114
R1b-14.0%[60] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-DNA_haplogroups_by_ethnic_groups#cite_note-Balanovsky2008-60)
114
R1a-40.0%[60] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-DNA_haplogroups_by_ethnic_groups#cite_note-Balanovsky2008-60)
114
I-5.3% [60] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-DNA_haplogroups_by_ethnic_groups#cite_note-Balanovsky2008-60)
114
0.0[60] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-DNA_haplogroups_by_ethnic_groups#cite_note-Balanovsky2008-60)
114
0.0[60] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-DNA_haplogroups_by_ethnic_groups#cite_note-Balanovsky2008-60)
114
0.9[60] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-DNA_haplogroups_by_ethnic_groups#cite_note-Balanovsky2008-60)
114
1.3[60] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-DNA_haplogroups_by_ethnic_groups#cite_note-Balanovsky2008-60)
114
N-39.3% [60] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-DNA_haplogroups_by_ethnic_groups#cite_note-Balanovsky2008-60)
114

114




Let me guess the 14% R1b from the Levant is the bringing the ANE score down; just not enough to discard it as a reference population :laughing:

http://www.filipecardosopereira.com/Europe_Y-DNA_map_668x600.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/ZSBZyYJ.png

Aberdeen
10-05-14, 19:54
No, they're not, for a number of reasons, including relatively low ANE (I think PIE had much higher ANE than any modern Euros) and fairly high Siberian admix, at around 5%, which I suspect is higher than what PIE had.

But that's not really important. They do the job in this study, in spite of the fact that the ADMIXTURE analysis isn't all that great, although better than the crappy PCA.



There's no reason to assume that a Balkan individual from the Iron Age would still be genetically indistinguishable from the Proto-Indo-Europeans, who lived during the dawn of the Copper Age near the Volga somewhere, even if this individual was from some direct royal line originating among those Proto-Indo-Europeans.

There's no reason to assume that a conquering military elite couldn't have maintained its position for centuries. Other than the fact that you, and a lot of other people, are assuming that the IE folk were high in ANE. And that looks like a reasonable assumption, but suppose it's wrong? Until we have evidence from actual IE remains from the steppes, I don't think we can completely dismiss the possibility that the IE folk may have had a genetic signature similar to this high status individual who was buried in a kurgan-like tomb long after the IE folk migrated into the Balkans.

Aberdeen
10-05-14, 19:56
Nothing new here. People in the Balkans were Indo-Europized by Slavic people from the Easter Europe. Most folks in the Balkans speak a South Slavic language. Slavic dialect evolved in Eastern Europe. These Thracian are not PROTO-Indo-Europeans or whatever. Ancient Indo-European Greeks and many other Indo-European Iranic tribes in West Asia predate them by many centuries. Maybe even millennia! But what I do consider very interesting is that native aboriginal folks in inland of Europe were Indo-Europized much much later than I thought by folks from Kurdistan. Kurgans in West Asia are much older than Kurgans in Europe. The first stage of Indo-Europization of Europe took place when Yamna folks got Indo-Europized by folks from West Asia. The second stage was when already Indo-Europized folks in the Steppes migrated deeper into Europe and according to this paper it was VERY late! It has been proven by the TRUE scientists that R1a and R1b are from West Asia!

Nope. The Slavs didn't arrive in the Balkans for centuries after the lifetimes of these two individuals. Whoever the high status individual was, he wasn't a Slav. The method by which he was buried suggests that he was a descendent of IE folk, but we don't know to what extent he did or didn't have other admixture.

Goga
10-05-14, 20:26
Nope. The Slavs didn't arrive in the Balkans for centuries after the lifetimes of these two individuals. Whoever the high status individual was, he wasn't a Slav. The method by which he was buried suggests that he was a descendent of IE folk, but we don't know to what extent he did or didn't have other admixture.I think Thracian were related with proto-Slavs through hg. I2a. But Northern Slavs are more (Mongoloid?) N1c1 while Southern Slavs are more I2a.

Goga
10-05-14, 20:29
Proto Slavic speaking Indo-Europized foragers didn't stay at the same place. They always wandered between the Balkans and the Slavic lands. Thracians were heavily influenced by those Proto Slavic Indo-Europized foragers

Fire Haired14
10-05-14, 20:33
How is this relevant? The point was that modern Bulgarians are not as "Oetzi like" or "Sardinian like" (although I would have preferred some direct comparisons of modern Bulgarians to Oetzi, Sardinians and the two Thracian samples) as some of their ancestors from the Iron Age, although they haven't changed a whole heck of a lot, since they're still 71% EEF.

Your taking EEF percentages from Laz to literally. First of all Stuttgart had some WHG ancestry, my guess is ~20% because when computed into EEF, WHG, ANE results from Laz it is in line with Davidski's estimates of hunter ancestry in modern Europeans using Bedouin as a middle eastern source. Second of all, Laz found that Stuttgart's non WHG aka near eastern ancestors were closely related to modern middle easterns. This is why Askenazi Jews who have a high amount of recent middle eastern ancestry score 90% EEF.

The admixtures show that P192.1 is most similar to Tuscans, in line with Iron age Thracians being the ancestors of modern Bulgarians who score very similar results as Tuscans in admixtures. Therefore Iron age Thracians were probably not more EEF than modern Bulgarians.

Why do you keep ignoring Italians and Balkaners post Neolithic southwest Asian ancestry? It is obvious even when looking at Y DNA and mtDNA, they always have a high amount of typical southwest Asian haplogroups rarely found in the rest of Europe. Just because Otzi score 5% in a southwest Asian component, doesn't mean modern Italians 20-25% was all there in the Neolithic.

No matter what method you use post Neolithic southwest Asian ancestry in Italians and Balkaners is obvious, and can be mistakened for European farmer ancestry when not looked at thoroughly. Their overall admixture is very similar to European Jews.


You also persist in dragging in "components" from the old calculators which are no longer relevant. If you must discuss them, however, the S.W. Asian "component" has been in Europe, specifically in Italy, since the Neolithic, since Oetzi scored a percentage of it very similar to what it is currently in the north and in Tuscany. He also scored a high "Caucasus" number. "Caucasus" plus "Gedrosian" which arrived later, gives you your "West Asian" component.

Old calculators? How can you determine if they are now useless? They are not, and are constant with results of differnt tests. Components in admixtures don't represent real populations. They take a bunch of populations SNPs and force them into a certain number of components. Gedorsia and Caucasus are simply an admixture of middle eastern, ANE, and for Gedorsia south Asian(mixture of it's own)-specific alleles. Gedorsia scores in Europe may not be because of recent ancestry from west Asia, just similar mixtures.

Otzi is not evidence of genetic continuum in northern Italy, your twisting his results to fit your arguments.


And yes, most of their EEF is indeed from the neolithic farmers. You have proof somewhere in history or archaeology to the contrary, i.e. that hordes of people from the Levant moved to the Balkans post Bronze Age? Genetic evidence for that proposition certainly doesn't exist. That isn't to say there couldn't have been some more minor additions of course, perhaps with Byzantines etc., but there are no large, folk migrations of which I'm aware. Perhaps some people more expert in the history of the Balkans could chime in here if I am incorrect.

P192.1 is already prove that southwest Asian-like ancestry was in the Balkans during the early Iron age. He scored around around as high as Tuscans do, which is much higher than early European farmers do. I don't care if there is no archaeological evidence of a mass migration from the Levant, DNA as shown there is common southwest Asian admixture in the Balkans and Italy(highest in the south), and it has been in the Balkans since the early Iron age. It happened, and eventually all the dots will connect.


Finally, if you are talking about Italy, I'm afraid you are sadly misinformed. Please be aware that the genetic distance between northern Italy and southern Italy/Sicily is as great as between vastly geographically separated other nations in Europe, so, large generalizations about "Italians" are bound to be inaccurate.

To continue, any additional EEF in Italy post the Neolithic came by way of Greek and Balkan immigration starting in the Bronze Age. The only possible exception would be if it is proved that the Etruscans came from western Anatolia/the Aegean area. Even in that case, that would have been, in my opinion, an elite, male dominated migration. The mtDNA of the Etruscans looks very old indeed.

North Italian are more similar to Sicilians, than they are to Austrians. There is a high amount of common ancestry throughout Italy. The difference between north and south are differences in southwest Asian ancestry which is higher the more south you go. Like i said before similar southwest Asians migrated to Italy and the Balkans, and probably went through the Mediterranean sea because it's highest in the south, eventually archaeological and historical evidence will pop up, because it did happen.

Goga
10-05-14, 20:40
There's no reason to assume that a conquering military elite couldn't have maintained its position for centuries. Other than the fact that you, and a lot of other people, are assuming that the IE folk were high in ANE. And that looks like a reasonable assumption, but suppose it's wrong? Until we have evidence from actual IE remains from the steppes, I don't think we can completely dismiss the possibility that the IE folk may have had a genetic signature similar to this high status individual who was buried in a kurgan-like tomb long after the IE folk migrated into the Balkans.I still don't understand what ENA has to do with proto-Indo-Europeans. Although ENA could be part of the much later Indo-Europeanized folks outside Europe. Let assume that ENA was part of Eurasian of later Indo-Europeans. But, who's saying that they were proto? It's still possible that they firstly were Indo-Europized by proto-Indo Europeans before they migrated into Europe. With other words those proto-Indo-Europeans who arguably Indo-Europized foragers in the Eurasian steppes could have little to no ENA at all.

Goga
10-05-14, 20:46
I don't like any speculations, just stick to the facts. Just follow the migrations waves of Y-DNA! Stay close to science! This is how intellectualism/higher education works

Nobody1
10-05-14, 20:50
@ Firehaired

EEF is the Genetic continuum as are ANE and WHG (sequenced from the ancient corpses) and Ashkenazi, Sicilian and Maltese were considered invalid (by Lazaridis) due to recent additional Near East ancestry;

And where exactly do you suppose did the "post-Neolithic" Thracian get their SW Asian admixture from? If not from the Neolithic people themselves (who possessed it Stuttgart/Ötzi/Gök4); So your fictitious post-Neolithic SW Asian migration is not the prime source for SW Asian in any European pop. As for the continuum the bootstrap between Ötzi and Sradinians is >96% and Italians (North/Tuscans) have the highest amount of Sardinian ancestry (K=8) and are closest to Gök4 due to the additional proportion of Russian ancestry in both;

Angela
10-05-14, 21:07
Your taking EEF percentages from Laz to literally. First of all Stuttgart had some WHG ancestry, my guess is ~20% because when computed into EEF, WHG, ANE results from Laz it is in line with Davidski's estimates of hunter ancestry in modern Europeans using Bedouin as a middle eastern source. Second of all, Laz found that Stuttgart's non WHG aka near eastern ancestors were closely related to modern middle easterns. This is why Askenazi Jews who have a high amount of recent middle eastern ancestry score 90% EEF.

The admixtures show that P192.1 is most similar to Tuscans, in line with Iron age Thracians being the ancestors of modern Bulgarians who score very similar results as Tuscans in admixtures. Therefore Iron age Thracians were probably not more EEF than modern Bulgarians.

Why do you keep ignoring Italians and Balkaners post Neolithic southwest Asian ancestry? It is obvious even when looking at Y DNA and mtDNA, they always have a high amount of typical southwest Asian haplogroups rarely found in the rest of Europe. Just because Otzi score 5% in a southwest Asian component, doesn't mean modern Italians 20-25% was all there in the Neolithic.

No matter what method you use post Neolithic southwest Asian ancestry in Italians and Balkaners is obvious, and can be mistakened for European farmer ancestry when not looked at thoroughly. Their overall admixture is very similar to European Jews.



Old calculators? How can you determine if they are now useless? They are not, and are constant with results of differnt tests. Components in admixtures don't represent real populations. They take a bunch of populations SNPs and force them into a certain number of components. Gedorsia and Caucasus are simply an admixture of middle eastern, ANE, and for Gedorsia south Asian(mixture of it's own)-specific alleles. Gedorsia scores in Europe may not be because of recent ancestry from west Asia, just similar mixtures.

Otzi is not evidence of genetic continuum in northern Italy, your twisting his results to fit your arguments.



P192.1 is already prove that southwest Asian-like ancestry was in the Balkans during the early Iron age. He scored around around as high as Tuscans do, which is much higher than early European farmers do. I don't care if there is no archaeological evidence of a mass migration from the Levant, DNA as shown there is common southwest Asian admixture in the Balkans and Italy(highest in the south), and it has been in the Balkans since the early Iron age. It happened, and eventually all the dots will connect.



North Italian are more similar to Sicilians, than they are to Austrians. There is a high amount of common ancestry throughout Italy. The difference between north and south are differences in southwest Asian ancestry which is higher the more south you go. Like i said before similar southwest Asians migrated to Italy and the Balkans, and probably went through the Mediterranean sea because it's highest in the south, eventually archaeological and historical evidence will pop up, because it did happen.

You are totally mixing up terms from different analyses, which is why you get confused and may confuse others.

We are not talking about what may have gone into the composition of the EEF (early European farmers) in this analysis. We are comparing the EEF levels in different populations. Please try to stay on point and relevant if you expect a response.

Where on earth do you get that I am ignoring the SW Asian component in Italians and in the Balkans? You brought up the SW Asian component from the calculators and stated that Oetzi had much, much, much less of it than the modern Italians and people of the Balkans, which is manifestly incorrect, as I showed you by posting the SWAsian numbers from K-12b for Oetzi, Gok 4, and the modern Italian and Bulgarian populations. Oetzi, and even more so, Gok4, had more of it than modern northern Italians and Tuscans, and the Bulgarians. Southern Italians and Sicilians received an additional dose via the migrations from the Aegean and the Balkans, but even then, we're talking about an increase from 7.6% to 11.9%.

What don't you understand about this? How can you expect to be taken seriously if, after all that, you make a statement like the following:

P192.1 is already prove that southwest Asian-like ancestry was in the Balkans during the early Iron age. He scored around around as high as Tuscans do, which is much higher than early European farmers do.

In addition, you are making claims about movements of peoples from the Near East to the Balkans and Italy post Neolithic of which there is no proof in genetics or in the historical or archaeological record. It is therefore bogus.

That yDNA "J" and "E" in Italy mostly came from Greece and the Balkans in the Bronze and Iron Ages, with a very minor component of some non-E-V13 yDNA E arriving in the far south and Sicily perhaps during the Muslim occupation. No scientist is weighing in about the Etruscans anymore, because we just don't have the data. Their mtDNA looks very old in Europe. Should they turn out to be yDNA "J2a" it could represent a movement from the Aegean/coastal Anatolia, but even then it would be male dominated elite movement. We just don't know yet. Please get your facts straight. See Boattini et al 2014

The analysis of this kind of material requires focus, information and the ability to remember data, and most importantly, logic. Without it, conclusions are meaningless.

Angela
10-05-14, 21:30
Some of you seem very, very sure of the meaning of an admixture analysis based on a contaminated sample with a total of 1000 snps, it appears, and a limited set of reference populations.

Perhaps it would be wiser to wait for a better sample and better analysis to come to any grand conclusions about the population history of Europe post Neolithic?

I'm with Aberdeen on this one. There is so much that we don't know. We don't even know what we don't know, to use someone else's formulation. In particular, we don't have an autosomal analysis of the people from the steppes who adopted this Kurgan style type of burial.

We also don't know whether the people in the "wealthy" kurgan represent an intrusive population that actually "ruled" as an elite, or if this is one of those Iron Age still largely pastoralist groups making incursions from the steppe.

I, for one, am sorry that they didn't focus more or were unable to get more data from the Bronze Age sample that was discussed in the Carpenter et al paper by some of these same authors.

That sample, V2, which dates to 1500 to 1100 B.C., was, with the limited snps that they had available, rather CEU and Great Britain like, it seems to me. The T2G2 sample, which is the other Iron Age Thracian sample, but is from a tumulous and thus more "upper class" than the possibly sacrificial P 192-1 sample, is, so far as I can tell from that bad graphic, also close to GB, but not that far from the Iberians and Tuscans.

One of the only things which is very clear to me is that after all the "Indo-European" incursions, and the later Slavic incursions, Bulgarians are still 71% EEF, so I think any models which posit a "replacement" of the prior inhabitants of the Balkans should forthwith be retired.

Sile
10-05-14, 21:32
Your taking EEF percentages from Laz to literally. First of all Stuttgart had some WHG ancestry, my guess is ~20% because when computed into EEF, WHG, ANE results from Laz it is in line with Davidski's estimates of hunter ancestry in modern Europeans using Bedouin as a middle eastern source. Second of all, Laz found that Stuttgart's non WHG aka near eastern ancestors were closely related to modern middle easterns. This is why Askenazi Jews who have a high amount of recent middle eastern ancestry score 90% EEF.

The admixtures show that P192.1 is most similar to Tuscans, in line with Iron age Thracians being the ancestors of modern Bulgarians who score very similar results as Tuscans in admixtures. Therefore Iron age Thracians were probably not more EEF than modern Bulgarians.

Why do you keep ignoring Italians and Balkaners post Neolithic southwest Asian ancestry? It is obvious even when looking at Y DNA and mtDNA, they always have a high amount of typical southwest Asian haplogroups rarely found in the rest of Europe. Just because Otzi score 5% in a southwest Asian component, doesn't mean modern Italians 20-25% was all there in the Neolithic.

No matter what method you use post Neolithic southwest Asian ancestry in Italians and Balkaners is obvious, and can be mistakened for European farmer ancestry when not looked at thoroughly. Their overall admixture is very similar to European Jews.



Old calculators? How can you determine if they are now useless? They are not, and are constant with results of differnt tests. Components in admixtures don't represent real populations. They take a bunch of populations SNPs and force them into a certain number of components. Gedorsia and Caucasus are simply an admixture of middle eastern, ANE, and for Gedorsia south Asian(mixture of it's own)-specific alleles. Gedorsia scores in Europe may not be because of recent ancestry from west Asia, just similar mixtures.

Otzi is not evidence of genetic continuum in northern Italy, your twisting his results to fit your arguments.



P192.1 is already prove that southwest Asian-like ancestry was in the Balkans during the early Iron age. He scored around around as high as Tuscans do, which is much higher than early European farmers do. I don't care if there is no archaeological evidence of a mass migration from the Levant, DNA as shown there is common southwest Asian admixture in the Balkans and Italy(highest in the south), and it has been in the Balkans since the early Iron age. It happened, and eventually all the dots will connect.



North Italian are more similar to Sicilians, than they are to Austrians. There is a high amount of common ancestry throughout Italy. The difference between north and south are differences in southwest Asian ancestry which is higher the more south you go. Like i said before similar southwest Asians migrated to Italy and the Balkans, and probably went through the Mediterranean sea because it's highest in the south, eventually archaeological and historical evidence will pop up, because it did happen.

You have lost the plot

Why are EEF numbers for ...Bulgarians ( 71), Bergamo ( north-italians ) (70 ) , and South_French ( 69 ) so close to each other in these numbers?

Why do the majority of Admixture "tests" place Bergamo and Bulgarians close to each other?

Because Thracians are EEF , very ancient people in the area, even ancient historians note this many times..........the Bulgar-Turkic peoples from the north-Caucasus entered Bulgaria in the 8th century AD and where an elite minority people

Sile
10-05-14, 21:37
with this high contamination of the DNA of the "royal" k8 thracian.......maybe we need to not discuss this erred individual..............my opinion

Engel
10-05-14, 22:41
I always knew that kurds were predominantly African rather that indo European regardless of their y hg

Nobody1
10-05-14, 23:03
I always knew that kurds were predominantly African rather that indo European regardless of their y hg

Not really;
In fact far from it;

Aberdeen
10-05-14, 23:05
I still don't understand what ENA has to do with proto-Indo-Europeans. Although ENA could be part of the much later Indo-Europeanized folks outside Europe. Let assume that ENA was part of Eurasian of later Indo-Europeans. But, who's saying that they were proto? It's still possible that they firstly were Indo-Europized by proto-Indo Europeans before they migrated into Europe. With other words those proto-Indo-Europeans who arguably Indo-Europized foragers in the Eurasian steppes could have little to no ENA at all.

If by ENA, you mean ANE (ancient north eurasian), a lot of people think that would have been the primary component of the proto-Indo-European folk, and I have difficulty seeing what else they would have been, other than possibly at least partly European Hunter/Gatherer. Of course, that view is based on the idea that the IE homeland was on the steppes of southern Russia. If you want to move the IE homeland to Mount Zagros, that does open up other possibilities, but I'm not buying that viewpoint.

Aberdeen
10-05-14, 23:08
I don't like any speculations, just stick to the facts. Just follow the migrations waves of Y-DNA! Stay close to science! This is how intellectualism/higher education works

We don't have any DNA results for proto-Indo-Europeans yet, so we can either keep quiet or speculate, based on tangental evidence. Recognizing reality is how intellectualism/higher education works.

Aberdeen
10-05-14, 23:14
.............
One of the only things which is very clear to me is that after all the "Indo-European" incursions, and the later Slavic incursions, Bulgarians are still 71% EEF, so I think any models which posit a "replacement" of the prior inhabitants of the Balkans should forthwith be retired.

I personally think that the phenomenon that one might call "EEF persistence" is one of the most puzzling of the "IE in Europe" questions. IMO, either the genetic impact of the IE invasions was much less than has been assumed, which is what you seem to be suggesting, or the IE folk were partly EEF themselves. And if we accept that idea, it's difficult to reconcile to the archeological evidence of where the IE folk came from, I think. I don't really know how to explain it, because I am still assuming that the IE folk must have left a fair genetic footprint or they wouldn't have become so dominant in terms of linguistics and culture.

Goga
10-05-14, 23:30
If by ENA, you mean ANE (ancient north eurasian), a lot of people think that would have been the primary component of the proto-Indo-European folk, and I have difficulty seeing what else they would have been, other than possibly at least partly European Hunter/Gatherer. Of course, that view is based on the idea that the IE homeland was on the steppes of southern Russia. If you want to move the IE homeland to Mount Zagros, that does open up other possibilities, but I'm not buying that viewpoint.Sorry, I mean ANE. And who're so called "a lot of people"? Are they recognized scientists on this issue? I've got the feeling that they are same minority of amateur people spreading the same garbage time after time. With other words they're spamming in the hope that it will be accepted. But in a reality (real academic world) this will never work. I believe that people who’re spreading such garbage are not really smart and well educated people at all. Of course ENA came from the East. It's obvious. ENA could be also from Turkic, Turanic, Ugric, Altaic kind of people etc. Maybe some ENA came together with Indo-Europized steppe people Into Europe. Steppe People were always in close contact with other 'Mongoloid' races. But where's the proof that ENA was part of PROTO-Indo-European speakers? That's nonsense. It's obvious that people in the East have more ENA than people in the West. People in East are much more affected by people from more further East. Haplogroups like Q and N1c1 are also much, much more common among people in the East than in the West. If you are interested in genetics, Y-DNA haplogroups are the best tool to find out the migration waves. And Y-DNA migration is not in favor of PIE Urheimat being in North Eurasia, PERIOD!

Goga
10-05-14, 23:40
If you want to move the IE homeland to Mount Zagros, that does open up other possibilities, but I'm not buying that viewpoint.
The most recent SCIENTIFIC papers are indicating that both R1b and R1a are from that area, you like it or not. Are you against science? And It can be supported by archeology (Iranian plateau into Maykop into Yamna, Maykop Kurgans are older than Yamna Kurgans or from Iranian Plateau from the East into the Steppes and then into Europe) and culture (like religion). It has been proven even before genetics that there were many migration waves frmm that area! Sorry, but I will not buy it that somehow Northern EuroAsian foragers became so dominant that a very small minority of such kind of people affected 2 continents on grand scale in such a short period of time.

Aberdeen
11-05-14, 00:36
The most recent SCIENTIFIC papers are indicating that both R1b and R1a are from that area, you like it or not. Are you against science? And It can be supported by archeology (Iranian plateau into Maykop into Yamna, Maykop Kurgans are older than Yamna Kurgans or from Iranian Plateau from the East into the Steppes and then into Europe) and culture (like religion). It has been proven even before genetics that there were many migration waves frmm that area! Sorry, but I will not buy it that somehow Northern EuroAsian foragers became so dominant that a very small minority of such kind of people affected 2 continents on grand scale in such a short period of time.

We've had this conversation before. In the first place, saying that scientific papers support some point of view without providing a link to those papers just makes people think you don't know what you're talking about. Secondly, the origin point of R1a and R1b, wherever one might assume that to be, has little to do with where the IE homeland was, since both haplotypes appear to have arisen long before the proto-Indo-European language is believed to have been created, and both haplotypes have spread over a very wide area. So where they began is not necessarily the IE homeland. Do you get it now?

Goga
11-05-14, 00:52
We've had this conversation before. In the first place, saying that scientific papers support some point of view without providing a link to those papers just makes people think you don't know what you're talking about. Secondly, the origin point of R1a and R1b, wherever one might assume that to be, has little to do with where the IE homeland was, since both haplotypes appear to have arisen long before the proto-Indo-European language is believed to have been created, and both haplotypes have spread over a very wide area. So where they began is not necessarily the IE homeland. Do you get it now?Oh gosh, here is the link to the paper http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2014/03/major-new-article-on-deep-origins-of-y.html. But IF R1a is from West Asia, than the original R1a carriers had very high West Asian auDNA in them. What means than that we can easily say for sure that original R1a that migrated into the Steppes belonged at least to West Asia auDNA. We can speculate about ENA, but we're sure that original West Asian R1a was autosomally speaking West Asian. The same can be said with R1b. So, we can conclude that 'Indo-European' speakers who migrated into Europe (via the Steppes) and belonged partly to R1a/R1b were at least partly West Asian. Don't you agree with this? No matter how much (in my opinion pretty retard) people spam nonsense, by spamming, reality and the real truth can't be changed! This is not how science works!

Sile
11-05-14, 01:01
Oh gosh, here is the link to the paper http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2014/03/major-new-article-on-deep-origins-of-y.html. But IF R1a is from West Asia, than the original R1a carriers had very high West Asian auDNA in them. What means than that we can easily say for sure that original R1a that migrated into the Steppes belonged at least to West Asia auDNA. We can speculate about ENA, but we're sure that original West Asian R1a was autosomally speaking West Asian. The same can be said with R1b. So, we can conclude that 'Indo-European' speakers who migrated into Europe (via the Steppes) and belonged partly to R1a/R1b were at least partly West Asian. Don't you agree with this? No matter how much (in my opinion pretty retard) people spam nonsense, by spamming, reality and the real truth can't be changed! This is not how science works!

there are many Y dna markers that have west-asian, not just R1 group

http://dienekes.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/ie-speaking-west-europeans-are-west.html

everyone in this group below had west-asian
(http://dienekes.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/ie-speaking-west-europeans-are-west.html)Haplogroup GHIJKLT(Y-DNA)


There where Y dna groups in Europe with west-asian before even the R1 group emerged
(http://dienekes.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/ie-speaking-west-europeans-are-west.html)

Ike
11-05-14, 01:07
You're all into this too much. Let's wait for a more conclusive research? :)

Aberdeen
11-05-14, 14:40
Oh gosh, here is the link to the paper http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2014/03/major-new-article-on-deep-origins-of-y.html. But IF R1a is from West Asia, than the original R1a carriers had very high West Asian auDNA in them. What means than that we can easily say for sure that original R1a that migrated into the Steppes belonged at least to West Asia auDNA. We can speculate about ENA, but we're sure that original West Asian R1a was autosomally speaking West Asian. The same can be said with R1b. So, we can conclude that 'Indo-European' speakers who migrated into Europe (via the Steppes) and belonged partly to R1a/R1b were at least partly West Asian. Don't you agree with this? No matter how much (in my opinion pretty retard) people spam nonsense, by spamming, reality and the real truth can't be changed! This is not how science works!

Okay, you're referenced one blogger, who's talking about one paper about R1a, where the conclusion doesn't seem to match the data, IMO. What the data indicates is a probable rapid expansion of R1a in two separate directions from a common source, with the dividing line for the two dominant haplotypes appearing to confirm the steppe hypothesis. And no, you can't assume that what you think applies to R1a must apply to R1b, since they have a likely divergence time of about 25,000 years ago. In any case, I'm not sure what this has to do with the two Thracian samples. I've previously said I think that rather than make conclusions about the past based on current DNA distribution, it's better to wait until we have actual results from old skeletons. However, now we've got results from Iron Age Thrace, I'm really not sure what to make of the data, other than to consider the possibility that these two samples aren't necessarily representative of Iron Age Thrace.

Angela
11-05-14, 17:26
I personally think that the phenomenon that one might call "EEF persistence" is one of the most puzzling of the "IE in Europe" questions. IMO, either the genetic impact of the IE invasions was much less than has been assumed, which is what you seem to be suggesting, or the IE folk were partly EEF themselves. And if we accept that idea, it's difficult to reconcile to the archeological evidence of where the IE folk came from, I think. I don't really know how to explain it, because I am still assuming that the IE folk must have left a fair genetic footprint or they wouldn't have become so dominant in terms of linguistics and culture.

The persistence exists. I think we agree on that point? There is, contrary to the baseless assertions of Fire Haired, no indication in history or archaeology of any large scale folk movement from the Near East into northern Italy or the Balkans (or Spain for that matter, which has even higher EEF levels) post Neolithic, (or into Central Europe), of which I'm aware.

So, indeed, I think we're left with the alternatives that, as you say, either the genetic impact of the Indo-Europeans is less everywhere, and much less in the densely populated south than has been proposed, or the Indo-Europeans were more EEF by the time they got to central and southern Europe than has been proposed. I can't think of any other possibilities at the present.

Ed. Perhaps the history of the Americas might be analogous. In Mexico, the percentage of European ancestry is about 50% in certain areas if I remember correctly. In South America, in the Peru of the Incas, which had a relatively highly developed farming culture, the percentage is much lower. In sparsely populated, hunter gatherer North America, European genes have totally wiped out the Amerindian component. Now, in North America we have very large movements of Europeans to the continent. However, the estimates for the number of Spaniards who actually immigrated to Central and South America is astonishingly low, in my opinion.

So, perhaps we're talking about a male mediated expansion that became progressively more "native" through successive matings with local women. In particularly heavily populated and developed areas of Neolithic Europe, there was also incorporation of certain "native" yDNA lineages.

I don't think you need massive gene flow for a different culture to be adopted.

Aberdeen
11-05-14, 20:16
The persistence exists. I think we agree on that point? There is, contrary to the baseless assertions of Fire Haired, no indication in history or archaeology of any large scale folk movement from the Near East into northern Italy or the Balkans (or Spain for that matter, which has even higher EEF levels) post Neolithic, (or into Central Europe), of which I'm aware.

So, indeed, I think we're left with the alternatives that, as you say, either the genetic impact of the Indo-Europeans is less everywhere, and much less in the densely populated south than has been proposed, or the Indo-Europeans were more EEF by the time they got to central and southern Europe than has been proposed. I can't think of any other possibilities at the present.

Ed. Perhaps the history of the Americas might be analogous. In Mexico, the percentage of European ancestry is about 50% in certain areas if I remember correctly. In South America, in the Peru of the Incas, which had a relatively highly developed farming culture, the percentage is much lower. In sparsely populated, hunter gatherer North America, European genes have totally wiped out the Amerindian component. Now, in North America we have very large movements of Europeans to the continent. However, the estimates for the number of Spaniards who actually immigrated to Central and South America is astonishingly low, in my opinion.

So, perhaps we're talking about a male mediated expansion that became progressively more "native" through successive matings with local women. In particularly heavily populated and developed areas of Neolithic Europe, there was also incorporation of certain "native" yDNA lineages.

I don't think you need massive gene flow for a different culture to be adopted.

Well, Conan Doyle had Sherlock Holmes say something like "Once you've eliminated all the other possibilities, the one possibility that remains must be the truth, no matter how improbable it seems." So, unless the IE folk turn out quite unexpectedly to be part EEF, they can't have left much of a genetic footprint, although that's not at all what I would have expected.

Most of the Native people in North America at the time of European contact were actually subsistence farmers, but they proved far more susceptible to disease than the minority who were hunter/gatherer types. I'm not sure whether that has any relevance to what happened at the time of the IE invasions of Europe, but it's an interesting fact. Village folk also died in larger numbers than country folk during the Black Death, and in both cases the cause seems to have been the degree of proximity people had with their neighbours. I wonder whether the Bronze Age IE folk brought any interesting new diseases with them. The persistence of EEF in Western Europe would suggest not.

Greying Wanderer
11-05-14, 21:49
I personally think that the phenomenon that one might call "EEF persistence" is one of the most puzzling of the "IE in Europe" questions. IMO, either the genetic impact of the IE invasions was much less than has been assumed, which is what you seem to be suggesting, or the IE folk were partly EEF themselves. And if we accept that idea, it's difficult to reconcile to the archeological evidence of where the IE folk came from, I think. I don't really know how to explain it, because I am still assuming that the IE folk must have left a fair genetic footprint or they wouldn't have become so dominant in terms of linguistics and culture.

"or the IE folk were partly EEF themselves. And if we accept that idea, it's difficult to reconcile to the archeological evidence of where the IE folk came from"

Unless the EEF - or one segment of them at least - lived west of the Black Sea i.e adjacent to I-E north of the Black Sea.

Cucuteni etc.

Alan
12-05-14, 01:07
No one brought this component. It's not even a real ancestral component, just a composite of many things. It was created on the spot when the ANE-rich steppe people rushed into the Balkans and mixed with the EEF people there during the Copper Age. Exactly the same thing happened in the Caucasus and South Central Asia. In other words, it was a parallel process that affected many regions at about the same time.

But now, this so called Caucasus_Gedrosia cluster peaks in the Caucasus and South Central Asia because that's where people are more isolated and drifted, which is something that ADMIXTURE likes to latch onto.



The blue component includes ANE, WHG and EEF. But the reason it works so well here is because it's in large part ANE, which is totally lacking in Oetzi and the Sardinians, and almost totally lacking in Basques.

By the way, where do you think the Adygei come from? Last time I looked it was the North Caucasus. They're also mostly blue in this ADMIXTURE run, and that's because of their high ANE.

Thats not far from what I have been saying. I didn't see the Adygei samples and if as you said it is mostly blue this confirms my thoughts that this component is not "Russian exclusive" but more of an Indo European archtype which includes genes which call nowadays Caucasus_Gedrosia and North European. But Wilhelm of course made it once again appear like if Indo Europeans were straight out North Euro like and Other statements like (he was allot more Northern) implied the Indo European signal is exclusively North European. While in fact Indo European signal would be shifting an individual more Northern and Eastern as a farmer. This is why I believe the Tuscan farmer was Indo European admixed.

Alan
12-05-14, 01:17
He also scored a high "Caucasus" number. "Caucasus" plus "Gedrosian" which arrived later, gives you your "West Asian" component.



The Caucasus he scored must have been the ancient EEF genes which are nowadays part of this EEF ANE synthesis from which Caucasus evolved. And those "Southwest Asian" genes which were found in Ötzi are the farmer portion of the modern Southwest Asian component.

Aberdeen
12-05-14, 04:19
"or the IE folk were partly EEF themselves. And if we accept that idea, it's difficult to reconcile to the archeological evidence of where the IE folk came from"

Unless the EEF - or one segment of them at least - lived west of the Black Sea i.e adjacent to I-E north of the Black Sea.

Cucuteni etc.



That is the only other possibility that I can think of. But I think the linguists are fairly certain that a language like proto-IE would have evolved within a fairly limited area originally, so any admixture would have had to have occurred prior to the development of the language. I don't think we're going to resolve this puzzle until we have DNA results from specimens that we can definitely say were IE folk living on the steppe just prior to the IE expansion.

polako
12-05-14, 06:33
I'm really not sure what to make of the data, other than to consider the possibility that these two samples aren't necessarily representative of Iron Age Thrace.

Both samples look just fine as representatives of Iron Age Thrace. The only problem is the analysis. Refer to the comments at the link below, specifically this one...


They didn't run the ancient samples in the same ADMIXTURE analysis as the modern samples, but instead used allele frequencies sourced from the modern samples to test the ancient samples.

This was a problem because it changed the conditions under which the modern and ancient samples were tested under, and resulted in much less precise outcomes for the ancient samples. In effect, this was the ADMIXTURE version of PCA projection bias.

There are two ways around this: a) run the ancient samples together with the modern samples, or b) source the allele frequencies from a subset of modern samples, and then use them to test the ancient samples as well as the rest of the modern samples. Then you can actually compare the modern samples to the ancient samples.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2014/05/more-info-on-two-thracian-genomes-from.html

Engel
13-05-14, 07:36
Not really;
In fact far from it;
Nein. It ain't true and my opinion will not change

skaheen15
17-05-14, 11:41
I think Thracian were related with proto-Slavs through hg. I2a. But Northern Slavs are more (Mongoloid?) N1c1 while Southern Slavs are more I2a.

You do realize that Thracian wasn't a Slavic language, right? And that there were other IE cultures in the Balkans before the Slavs arrived? You think the Illyrians were Slavs? How can you say that the Balkans were 'Indo-Europeanized by Slavic people' when that's clearly not the case?

Yetos
10-07-14, 22:24
Kurgan culture?.....3000BC this culture ended,......... K8 is from 450BC ..........you actually think no other culture was around between kurgan culture period and the k8 thracian homeland in his lifetime!
We are talking of the years ~450BC , many historians are around and can tell us the history, Macedonia is emerging, Illyrians are moving south th confront the macedonians and thracians/dacians ,migrations are basically finished unless its due to conquests. Ancient Iron-age Europe is basically set. Bronze-age mass migrations is finished.


Interesting

450 BC is quite known era for archaologists, cause enough Data and literature we have from that Era, and surely is centuries of iraon age migrations,

WE SPEAK ABOUT PERSIAN WARS? and there were 3 Satrapies in Haimos peninsula, one of them is the one SKUDRA ΣΚΥΔΡΑ and Youna takubara (Greeks whith shiled hats (Kausia)) and the last was in Odrysse Thracians the Saka

From 500 to 450 we have Greco Persian wars and starting entrance of Scythians to the lands of Getae,
remember Greeks describe Scythians as relatives of Persians and Thracians as enemy of Persians from the times of Queen Thamar

PS
Skudra as also Skoda as also Scythia even Scot probably means shooters while saka as Achaioi as Saxon as Chech as Sah means noble men/kings

Yetos
10-07-14, 22:36
Yes, Thracian Tumuli are essentially Kurgans. It's common knowledge.



The Thracian Tomb of Kazanlak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thracian_Tomb_of_Kazanlak), near the town of Kazanlak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazanlak) in central Bulgaria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgaria), is a Thracian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thracia) kurgan of c. the 4th century BC.
The Thracian Tomb of Sveshtari (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thracian_Tomb_of_Sveshtari), Bulgaria, is a Thracian kurgan of c. the 3rd century BC.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurgan


In Fact in Bulgaria is where the both Gibutas Kurgan Hypothesis, and the other of horse wheel and chariots go boom,
Varna Necropolis complex proves the oposite,
That is Balkans that moved to stepe and N Caucasus
Varna is the first GOLD METTALURGY IN THE WORLD AND IS CONNECTED MUCH WITH AEGEAN AND MINOR ASIAN POPULATION,
THAT CULTURE EVEN CHANGE THE WAY EGYPTIAN PHARAOH WERE BURRIED,
By following arsenic bronze we find IE road, by Following gold mettalurgy we see an oposite road than Kurgans,

I am still waiting for more from there.

Yetos
10-07-14, 22:53
indeed interesting thread,

I am turning towards that K8 could be from a Scythian, that days with Persian Wars and 1-3 satrapies in Balkans and even Makedonians to be under one day and Free the other, while some Phrygians might return to Brygia who knows what alliances and refugges could have been done,
(no need to expand to the Δαρνακοχωρια borders)



But what I observe is this in Dienekes

"Also of interest, given previous suggestions that the Iceman had more Neandertal ancestry than modern Europeans:
However, all D-tests involving another non-African population do not significantly deviate from zero, suggesting that the Iceman genome contains levels of archaic ancestry that are comparable to that of other non-African populations."

which compining with I post few days Before
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30215-The-agricultural-booming-populations-in-Europe

I think I found 3rd clue that fits in my opignion about Balcanic-Italian (Not Iberian) E-V13 date and origin. It came after the E1b found in Konya, and was not present in Sesclo Vinca and Varna cultures,
(Personal believe, All rights reserved :laughing:)

Sile
18-07-14, 20:03
indeed interesting thread,

I am turning towards that K8 could be from a Scythian, that days with Persian Wars and 1-3 satrapies in Balkans and even Makedonians to be under one day and Free the other, while some Phrygians might return to Brygia who knows what alliances and refugges could have been done,
(no need to expand to the Δαρνακοχωρια borders)



But what I observe is this in Dienekes

"Also of interest, given previous suggestions that the Iceman had more Neandertal ancestry than modern Europeans:
However, all D-tests involving another non-African population do not significantly deviate from zero, suggesting that the Iceman genome contains levels of archaic ancestry that are comparable to that of other non-African populations."

which compining with I post few days Before
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30215-The-agricultural-booming-populations-in-Europe

I think I found 3rd clue that fits in my opignion about Balcanic-Italian (Not Iberian) E-V13 date and origin. It came after the E1b found in Konya, and was not present in Sesclo Vinca and Varna cultures,
(Personal believe, All rights reserved :laughing:)



The K8 sample has been discarded due to DNA corruption by the russians, only 192.1 sample is of any value. That sample shows a lot of french AuDna. The body was buried around 450BC

MOESAN
20-07-14, 19:07
not any new ethny coming from a same area send completelety new DNA, not everytime at least

Sile
04-08-14, 20:41
results of the 4 ancient Thracians

P192-1 was definitely male, and the DNA evidence indicates that T2G2 was also male. Archaeological evidence indicates that V2 and K8 were male, but their DNA indicates that they were female.

The calls show that P192-1 wasn’t E, G, or T1, and that T2G2 wasn’t E1.
If V2 and K8 were male, then they weren’t G.


The calls confirm the published finding that P192-1 was U3b.


The calls also confirm the published finding that T2G2 was HV.



The calls show that V2 was probably U2e.



The calls show that K8 was U.



Only one to have settled ydna and mtdna is 192-1
ydna = H1b1 ......called H-M82 in ftdna .......and H1a in isogg
Mtdna = U3b

Yetos
04-08-14, 21:27
bahhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!

so thracian keep their mystery again?

u2e a west Eurasian maybe expected?

u3b that is interesting, could Romani population be so old in Europe?

and to movements,
u2e can prove of Rusian/ukraine devastation?
u3b can brove a devastation from minor Asia to balkans to baltic?
and HV maybe from North? or Central Europe?

headache again, any clues from the result that Sile post?

Sile
05-08-14, 08:24
bahhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!

so thracian keep their mystery again?

u2e a west Eurasian maybe expected?

u3b that is interesting, could Romani population be so old in Europe?

and to movements,
u2e can prove of Rusian/ukraine devastation?
u3b can brove a devastation from minor Asia to balkans to baltic?
and HV maybe from North? or Central Europe?

headache again, any clues from the result that Sile post?

this is the current H ydna isogg tree...i gave you the wrong one
http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpH.html

the thracian 192-1.....is H1b1-Z14031, that the only positive marker found so far

Alan
05-08-14, 15:57
results of the 4 ancient Thracians

P192-1 was definitely male, and the DNA evidence indicates that T2G2 was also male. Archaeological evidence indicates that V2 and K8 were male, but their DNA indicates that they were female.

The calls show that P192-1 wasn’t E, G, or T1, and that T2G2 wasn’t E1.
If V2 and K8 were male, then they weren’t G.


The calls confirm the published finding that P192-1 was U3b.


The calls also confirm the published finding that T2G2 was HV.



The calls show that V2 was probably U2e.



The calls show that K8 was U.



Only one to have settled ydna and mtdna is 192-1
ydna = H1b1 ......called H-M82 in ftdna .......and H1a in isogg
Mtdna = U3b

Wow the thracian guy was H1b1*? Is this another indiciation that Thracians came from what is nowadays modern Iran or Central Asia? And this also proves that Haplogroup H1* among Romani might be of Indo_European origin.

Since HV, U2e, U3b are all common in Iranic speakers and Mesopotamians and H1b1* is close cousin of IJKLT. So might H* also have originated somewhere between West and Central Asia?

Alan
05-08-14, 15:58
bahhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!

so thracian keep their mystery again?

u2e a west Eurasian maybe expected?

u3b that is interesting, could Romani population be so old in Europe?



U3b is not a Romani Haplogroup. It is found in Indo_ Iranic (to which also Romanis belong)speakers. I personally know two Kurds with U3b.
U3b, U2 and HV must be Indo European markers.

Sile
05-08-14, 21:22
Wow the thracian guy was H1b1*? Is this another indiciation that Thracians came from what is nowadays modern Iran or Central Asia? And this also proves that Haplogroup H1* among Romani might be of Indo_European origin.

Since HV, U2e, U3b are all common in Iranic speakers and Mesopotamians and H1b1* is close cousin of IJKLT. So might H* also have originated somewhere between West and Central Asia?

H1 ydna is only in india , bulgaria and romania

u3b mtdna is 23% in modern assyrian people and is linked with U7 which is 22% of assyrian people

we can surmise this thracian was maybe an old hittite and moved to thrace when the hittite nation imploded and migrated ~1100BC

kamani
05-08-14, 21:53
I'm not sure we can rule out the H1 as a sign of early gipsy migrations together with the Indo-Europeans. I guess they would have been around as a group back then. I just don't want to fuel anymore the jokes about Romanians. :)

Alan
05-08-14, 22:00
H1 ydna is only in india , bulgaria and romania

u3b mtdna is 23% in modern assyrian people and is linked with U7 which is 22% of assyrian people

we can surmise this thracian was maybe an old hittite and moved to thrace when the hittite nation imploded and migrated ~1100BC


Genetic analysis of Y-chromosome DNA (Y-DNA) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosome) by Firasat et al. (2007) on Kalash individuals found high and diverse frequencies of these Y-DNA Haplogroups: L3a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_L_%28Y-DNA%29) (22.7%), H1* (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_H_%28Y-DNA%29) (20.5%), R1a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1a_%28Y-DNA%29) (18.2%), G (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_G_%28Y-DNA%29) (18.2%), J2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J2_%28Y-DNA%29) (9.1%), R* (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R_%28Y-DNA%29) (6.8%), R1* (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1_%28Y-DNA%29) (2.3%), and L* (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_L_%28Y-DNA%29) (2.3%).[37] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalash_people#cite_note-Firasat2007-37) Haplogroup L (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_L_%28Y-DNA%29) and Haplogroup H (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_H_%28Y-DNA%29) are thought to have originated from prehistoric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric) South Asia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Asia).[38] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalash_people#cite_note-38)

Kalasha have up to 20% H1*. H1 is found in South-Central Asia and Southeast Iran/Balochistan.



Genetic analysis of Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mtdna) by Quintana-Murci et al. (2004) stated that "the western Eurasian presence in the Kalash population reaches a frequency of 100%" with the most prevalent mtDNA Haplogroups being U4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_U_%28mtDNA%29#Haplogroup_U4) (34%), R0 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R0_%28mtDNA%29) (23%), U2e (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_U_%28mtDNA%29#Haplogroup_U2) (16%), and J2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J_%28mtDNA%29) (9%). The study asserted that no East or South Asian lineages were detected and that the Kalash population is composed of western Eurasian lineages (as the associated lineages are rare or absent in the surrounding populations). The authors concluded that a western Eurasian origin for the Kalash is likely, in view of their maternal lineages.

Kalasha have also quite high frequency of U2e.

As I said in the past, Kalasha are not a heterogenous bunch who evolved from mixings. If anything they are the remnant of an ancient Indo-Iranian people of the region. U3b and HV are quite signicant among Kurds, Iranians and Mesopotamians makes me wonder if the Thracians did not came somewhere from this region.

Also I believe Thracians were the closest you could get to Indo_Iranian speakers (maybe beside Tocharians).

Yetos
06-08-14, 04:54
U3b is not a Romani Haplogroup. It is found in Indo_ Iranic (to which also Romanis belong)speakers. I personally know two Kurds with U3b.
U3b, U2 and HV must be Indo European markers.

mt U3b in Europe is major in Romani populations

Alan
06-08-14, 06:17
mt U3b in Europe is major in Romani populations

This Haplogroup is not Romani.

J1 is major in Arabs but J1 is not Arabic.

U3b is Indo_Iranian and Anatolian. Romani are an Indo_Iranian speakers. Back than during Thracian period Romanis didn't exist.

This is the distribution map of U3*
http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/mtDNA-U3-map.png

Yaan
06-08-14, 06:40
H1 ydna is only in india , bulgaria and romania

u3b mtdna is 23% in modern assyrian people and is linked with U7 which is 22% of assyrian people

we can surmise this thracian was maybe an old hittite and moved to thrace when the hittite nation imploded and migrated ~1100BC

They are not tested for male lines!
H1 male line Bulgarian? R u crazy about 0.5 % of the Bulgarian carry this gene, so u r absolutely wrong.

Sile
06-08-14, 08:10
They are not tested for male lines!
H1 male line Bulgarian? R u crazy about 0.5 % of the Bulgarian carry this gene, so u r absolutely wrong.

All the test they have done for each of the 4 thracians so far.........bold = tested and positive , non-bold is tested and negative

P192-1
C1b2-Z12417
E-CTS9663/M5514/PF1774
E-M5428
E-Z15671
E1a2b-Z15104
E2b-Z15833
G-M3481/PF2880
G-M3580/PF3046
G-Z3104
G-Z3247
G2-Z6474
H1a1d2-Z4361
H1a1d2c2-Z12603
H1b1-Z14031
H1b1-Z14057
H1b2-Z14266
H1b2-Z14274
H3a-Z13440
H3b1-Z13710
Q1b1a1-FGC1904/Y2220
T1-L490


T2G2
E1-M5534/PF1809
E1a2b1a1a1-Z14974
E1b1a1a1c2b2-Z16055
E2-Z15727
H1a2a1-Z14731
H1b1-Z14070


V2
E2b-Z15833
G-M3494/Z3226
G-Z6318
H1a1d1-Z14596
H1b1-Z13987
H1b2-Z14274
H1b2a-Z14374
H1b2a-Z14375
H3b1-Z13642
H3b1-Z13710


K8
D1b1d1a-Z14831
E1a2-Z15140
E1b1a1a1c2c1a-Z16102
E2b-Z15823
E2b-Z15833
G-Z3247
G-Z3285
G2-Z3274
H1a1d2-Z14516
H1b2-Z14274
H3b1-Z13710

Sile
06-08-14, 08:13
Kalasha have up to 20% H1*. H1 is found in South-Central Asia and Southeast Iran/Balochistan.




Kalasha have also quite high frequency of U2e.

As I said in the past, Kalasha are not a heterogenous bunch who evolved from mixings. If anything they are the remnant of an ancient Indo-Iranian people of the region. U3b and HV are quite signicant among Kurds, Iranians and Mesopotamians makes me wonder if the Thracians did not came somewhere from this region.

Also I believe Thracians were the closest you could get to Indo_Iranian speakers (maybe beside Tocharians).

thanks...excellent

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalash_people

Have you any other info on these people

Sile
06-08-14, 08:37
Sample P192-1 was found at the site of a pit sanctuary near Svilengrad, Bulgaria, excavated between 2004 and 2006. The pits are associated with the Thracian culture and date to the Early Iron Age (800–500 BC) based on pottery found in the pits. A total of 67 ritual pits, including 16 pits containing human skeletons or parts of skeletons, were explored during the excavations. An upper wisdom tooth from an adult male was used for DNA analysis.

Sample T2G2 was found in a Thracian tumulus (burial mound) near the village of Stambolovo, Bulgaria. Two small tumuli dating to the Early Iron Age (850–700 BC) were excavated in 2008. A canine tooth from an inhumation burial of a child (c.12 years old) inside a dolium was used for DNA analysis.

Sample V2 was found in a flat cemetery dating to the Late Bronze Age (1500–1100 BC) near the village of Vratitsa, Bulgaria. Nine inhumation burials were excavated between 2003 and 2004. A molar from a juvenile male (age 16–17) was used for DNA analysis.

Sample K8 was found in the Yakimova Mogila Tumulus, which dates to the Iron Age (450–400 BC), near Krushare, Bulgaria. An aristocratic inhumation burial containing rich grave goods was excavated in 2008. A molar from one individual, probably male, was used for DNA analysis.

Sile
06-08-14, 08:38
These samples include both human DNA and DNA from environmental contaminants such as bacteria and fungi, which introduces a great deal of noise into the data. The very small number of SNPs for these samples also contributes to the noise in the data. This noise shows up in the results below as Negroid or Mongoloid admixture.
In spite of the noise, a few things can be learned. The two samples from the Thracian tumuli, T2G2 and K8, and the Bronze Age sample V2 had significant amounts of the K12b Gedrosia component. The amounts of the Gedrosia component seen in these samples are much larger than the 1.5–3.3% of the Gedrosia component seen in Bulgarians today. Note that the Gedrosia component is associated with R1b but not with R1a.
All of the samples have significantly more of the dv3 West European component than the dv3 East European component. Note that Thracians were typically described by ancient writers as having blue eyes and red hair, and that red hair is a predominantly Western European trait.

P192-1
globe4


90.47% European
9.53% African
0.00% Amerindian
0.00% Asian

globe10


85.37% Atlantic_Baltic
10.34% Palaeo_African
4.29% West_Asian
0.00% Amerindian
0.00% Australasian
0.00% East_Asian
0.00% Neo_African
0.00% Siberian
0.00% South_Asian
0.00% Southern

globe13


45.10% Mediterranean
42.11% North_European
9.71% Palaeo_African
3.08% West_Asian
0.00% Amerindian
0.00% Arctic
0.00% Australasian
0.00% East_African
0.00% East_Asian
0.00% Siberian
0.00% South_Asian
0.00% Southwest_Asian
0.00% West_African

K7b


75.63% Atlantic_Baltic
16.32% Southern
4.11% African
3.94% West_Asian
0.00% East_Asian
0.00% Siberian
0.00% South_Asian

K10a


48.93% Atlantic_Baltic
44.15% Mediterranean
6.91% Palaeoafrican
0.00% East_Asian
0.00% Red_Sea
0.00% Siberian
0.00% South_Asian
0.00% Southeast_Asian
0.00% Sub_Saharan
0.00% West_Asian

K12b


45.82% Caucasus
26.87% Atlantic_Med
21.68% North_European
2.36% Sub_Saharan
2.01% Northwest_African
1.26% Siberian
0.00% East_African
0.00% East_Asian
0.00% Gedrosia
0.00% South_Asian
0.00% Southeast_Asian
0.00% Southwest_Asian

dv3


42.86% Mediterranean
19.81% West_European
19.50% West_Asian
9.70% East_European
7.77% Northeast_Asian
0.36% Northwest_African
0.00% East_African
0.00% Neo_African
0.00% Palaeo_African
0.00% South_Asian
0.00% Southeast_Asian
0.00% Southwest_Asian

MDLP World-22


32.35% Austronesian
27.04% Atlantic_Mediterranean_Neolithic
17.80% North-East-European
15.94% Indo-Iranian
6.88% Samoedic
0.00% Arctic-Amerind
0.00% East-Siberean
0.00% East-South-Asian
0.00% Indian
0.00% Indo-Tibetan
0.00% Melanesian
0.00% Mesoamerican
0.00% Near_East
0.00% North-Amerind
0.00% North-European-Mesolithic
0.00% North-Siberean
0.00% Paleo-Siberian
0.00% Pygmy
0.00% South-African
0.00% South-America_Amerind
0.00% Sub-Saharian
0.00% West-Asian

Old World 26


15.97% Sardinian
14.70% Finnish
10.85% Palestinian
9.94% Dai
7.98% Yakut
7.27% Gujarati
7.14% Naxi
6.57% Yoruba
6.39% Kenya-Bantu
5.06% Mbuti-Pygmy
2.96% Archaic
1.90% Biaka-Pygmy
1.62% Kalash
0.95% She
0.50% Melanesian
0.16% Japanese
0.00% Basque
0.00% Bedouin
0.00% Brahui
0.00% Burusho
0.00% Druze
0.00% Lahu
0.00% Mandenka
0.00% Mozabite
0.00% Papuan
0.00% San

Sile
06-08-14, 08:39
T2G2
globe4


76.67% European
23.32% African
0.01% Amerindian
0.00% Asian

globe10


53.38% West_Asian
20.22% Atlantic_Baltic
17.12% Palaeo_African
9.28% Australasian
0.00% Amerindian
0.00% East_Asian
0.00% Neo_African
0.00% Siberian
0.00% South_Asian
0.00% Southern

globe13


51.47% West_Asian
15.94% North_European
11.78% Palaeo_African
8.80% East_African
7.12% Australasian
4.89% Arctic
0.00% Amerindian
0.00% East_Asian
0.00% Mediterranean
0.00% Siberian
0.00% South_Asian
0.00% Southwest_Asian
0.00% West_African

K7b


60.48% West_Asian
23.69% African
14.49% South_Asian
1.33% Atlantic_Baltic
0.00% East_Asian
0.00% Siberian
0.00% Southern

K10a


35.95% West_Asian
15.13% Atlantic_Baltic
15.01% Palaeoafrican
14.33% South_Asian
13.64% Mediterranean
3.14% East_Asian
2.81% Sub_Saharan
0.00% Red_Sea
0.00% Siberian
0.00% Southeast_Asian

K12b


54.44% Gedrosia
19.46% Sub_Saharan
13.43% Atlantic_Med
11.30% South_Asian
1.34% Caucasus
0.03% East_Asian
0.00% East_African
0.00% North_European
0.00% Northwest_African
0.00% Siberian
0.00% Southeast_Asian
0.00% Southwest_Asian

dv3


51.27% West_Asian
33.26% West_European
7.63% Neo_African
6.95% Southeast_Asian
0.89% Palaeo_African
0.01% South_Asian
0.00% East_African
0.00% East_European
0.00% Mediterranean
0.00% Northeast_Asian
0.00% Northwest_African
0.00% Southwest_Asian

MDLP World-22


Insufficient SNPs

Old World 26


18.90% Finnish
14.14% Kenya-Bantu
12.32% Yoruba
10.35% Gujarati
8.43% Yakut
7.03% Palestinian
6.90% Archaic
6.71% Mbuti-Pygmy
6.70% Dai
4.18% Naxi
2.72% Biaka-Pygmy
1.21% Kalash
0.18% Bedouin
0.17% San
0.04% She
0.00% Basque
0.00% Brahui
0.00% Burusho
0.00% Druze
0.00% Japanese
0.00% Lahu
0.00% Mandenka
0.00% Melanesian
0.00% Mozabite
0.00% Papuan
0.00% Sardinian

Sile
06-08-14, 08:39
V2
globe4


58.89% European
20.61% Asian
11.91% African
8.59% Amerindian

globe10


43.70% Atlantic_Baltic
24.26% West_Asian
12.27% East_Asian
11.29% Neo_African
8.47% Australasian
0.00% Amerindian
0.00% Palaeo_African
0.00% Siberian
0.00% South_Asian
0.00% Southern

globe13


39.58% North_European
27.22% West_Asian
12.61% West_African
12.60% East_Asian
7.56% Australasian
0.42% Arctic
0.00% Amerindian
0.00% East_African
0.00% Mediterranean
0.00% Palaeo_African
0.00% Siberian
0.00% South_Asian
0.00% Southwest_Asian

K7b


44.14% West_Asian
28.34% Atlantic_Baltic
18.46% African
5.72% East_Asian
3.34% Siberian
0.00% South_Asian
0.00% Southern

K10a


60.73% Atlantic_Baltic
16.10% Sub_Saharan
10.95% West_Asian
6.53% East_Asian
5.68% Southeast_Asian
0.01% Siberian
0.00% Mediterranean
0.00% Palaeoafrican
0.00% Red_Sea
0.00% South_Asian

K12b


44.15% North_European
20.14% Sub_Saharan
15.06% Gedrosia
9.62% Siberian
7.67% Caucasus
3.35% Southeast_Asian
0.01% East_Asian
0.00% Atlantic_Med
0.00% East_African
0.00% Northwest_African
0.00% South_Asian
0.00% Southwest_Asian

dv3


42.02% West_Asian
37.17% West_European
11.74% Neo_African
5.15% Southeast_Asian
3.93% East_European
0.00% East_African
0.00% Mediterranean
0.00% Northeast_Asian
0.00% Northwest_African
0.00% Palaeo_African
0.00% South_Asian
0.00% Southwest_Asian

MDLP World-22


46.09% North-East-European
22.90% Sub-Saharian
16.90% West-Asian
8.74% Mesoamerican
5.37% South-America_Amerind
0.00% Arctic-Amerind
0.00% Atlantic_Mediterranean_Neolithic
0.00% Austronesian
0.00% East-Siberean
0.00% East-South-Asian
0.00% Indian
0.00% Indo-Iranian
0.00% Indo-Tibetan
0.00% Melanesian
0.00% Near_East
0.00% North-Amerind
0.00% North-European-Mesolithic
0.00% North-Siberean
0.00% Paleo-Siberian
0.00% Pygmy
0.00% Samoedic
0.00% South-African

Old World 26


23.45% Sardinian
19.42% Finnish
17.05% Gujarati
8.80% Yoruba
6.84% Basque
6.75% Yakut
6.35% She
5.73% Kenya-Bantu
3.36% Archaic
1.13% San
0.75% Melanesian
0.37% Bedouin
0.00% Biaka-Pygmy
0.00% Brahui
0.00% Burusho
0.00% Dai
0.00% Druze
0.00% Japanese
0.00% Kalash
0.00% Lahu
0.00% Mandenka
0.00% Mbuti-Pygmy
0.00% Mozabite
0.00% Naxi
0.00% Palestinian
0.00% Papuan

Sile
06-08-14, 08:40
K8
globe4


97.86% European
1.65% Amerindian
0.49% African
0.00% Asian

globe10


46.81% West_Asian
36.90% Atlantic_Baltic
13.62% Southern
2.68% Palaeo_African
0.00% Amerindian
0.00% Australasian
0.00% East_Asian
0.00% Neo_African
0.00% Siberian
0.00% South_Asian

globe13


39.15% West_Asian
36.95% Mediterranean
20.05% North_European
2.99% Palaeo_African
0.85% Southwest_Asian
0.00% Amerindian
0.00% Arctic
0.00% Australasian
0.00% East_African
0.00% East_Asian
0.00% Siberian
0.00% South_Asian
0.00% West_African

K7b


46.44% Atlantic_Baltic
36.25% West_Asian
17.30% Southern
0.00% African
0.00% East_Asian
0.00% Siberian
0.00% South_Asian

K10a


47.35% Atlantic_Baltic
32.21% West_Asian
18.41% Mediterranean
2.02% Palaeoafrican
0.00% East_Asian
0.00% Red_Sea
0.00% Siberian
0.00% South_Asian
0.00% Southeast_Asian
0.00% Sub_Saharan

K12b


32.79% Atlantic_Med
29.27% Gedrosia
17.54% North_European
17.50% Caucasus
2.90% Northwest_African
0.00% East_African
0.00% East_Asian
0.00% Siberian
0.00% South_Asian
0.00% Southeast_Asian
0.00% Southwest_Asian
0.00% Sub_Saharan

dv3


39.88% West_European
24.25% East_European
14.34% West_Asian
12.79% Mediterranean
5.86% South_Asian
2.87% Palaeo_African
0.01% Northwest_African
0.00% East_African
0.00% Neo_African
0.00% Northeast_Asian
0.00% Southeast_Asian
0.00% Southwest_Asian

MDLP World-22


75.04% Atlantic_Mediterranean_Neolithic
9.27% Melanesian
9.00% West-Asian
6.68% South-African
0.02% North-East-European
0.00% Arctic-Amerind
0.00% Austronesian
0.00% East-Siberean
0.00% East-South-Asian
0.00% Indian
0.00% Indo-Iranian
0.00% Indo-Tibetan
0.00% Mesoamerican
0.00% Near_East
0.00% North-Amerind
0.00% North-European-Mesolithic
0.00% North-Siberean
0.00% Paleo-Siberian
0.00% Pygmy
0.00% Samoedic
0.00% South-America_Amerind
0.00% Sub-Saharian

Old World 26


35.08% Finnish
20.05% Yakut
17.38% Basque
10.37% Bedouin
6.09% Gujarati
4.40% Yoruba
3.70% Archaic
2.44% Mbuti-Pygmy
0.47% Naxi
0.01% Kalash
0.00% Biaka-Pygmy
0.00% Brahui
0.00% Burusho
0.00% Dai
0.00% Druze
0.00% Japanese
0.00% Kenya-Bantu
0.00% Lahu
0.00% Mandenka
0.00% Melanesian
0.00% Mozabite
0.00% Palestinian
0.00% Papuan
0.00% San
0.00% Sardinian
0.00% She

joeyc
06-08-14, 18:32
Wow with all that west asian they must be some of those milions of slaves who arrived during the Roman Era. Just like the copper age Iberian farmer.

Yetos
06-08-14, 19:55
@ SIle
not the Thracians with Blue eyes, but with Green eyes, blue eyes was considered Persian by ancients, and later the Cumans and GekTurks

Yetos
06-08-14, 20:03
@ Alan ,

The case of Romani is very strange, cuase we find many kinds, like The Hungarian who have no connection with the ones in Greece, etc etc,
the theories of Egyptian origin or India origin etc etc, are going pass and return,
U3b in Europe is very common and indicator of central Europe's Romani, while H1 is mostly in south balkans like Albania Bulgaria Greece,

the existance of U3b the age 2,8 -2,5 ky burried in a way of culture gives more than we could expect,
for example one male with that mtDNA can not help, but if his mother born him and was alive in the area?

we find either an isolated case, either a migration trail at a time we could not imagine, think if that was older by 1 or 2 millenium, what could we say then?

think if that a Polish Romani? how old is U3 in Poland? did it came from |North to thrace?
or the oposite? could Polish Romani passed from Thrace? and not from steppes?

Alan
06-08-14, 20:31
These samples include both human DNA and DNA from environmental contaminants such as bacteria and fungi, which introduces a great deal of noise into the data. The very small number of SNPs for these samples also contributes to the noise in the data. This noise shows up in the results below as Negroid or Mongoloid admixture.
In spite of the noise, a few things can be learned. The two samples from the Thracian tumuli, T2G2 and K8, and the Bronze Age sample V2 had significant amounts of the K12b Gedrosia component. The amounts of the Gedrosia component seen in these samples are much larger than the 1.5–3.3% of the Gedrosia component seen in Bulgarians today. Note that the Gedrosia component is associated with R1b but not with R1a.
All of the samples have significantly more of the dv3 West European component than the dv3 East European component. Note that Thracians were typically described by ancient writers as having blue eyes and red hair, and that red hair is a predominantly Western European trait.



Bam in the face of all those people who claimed Caucasus_Gedrosia genes are "assimilated" natives into the genetic pool of Indo Europeans! farmers lack this but suddenly when Indo_Europeans appear (Thracians) it's huge!

Sile The problem which I mentioned long time ago, is that people associate the "West European" component with West Indo Europeans while the "East European" with the eastern Indo Europeans.
But as I said "West European" like component was likely more prevelant in ancient Indo Europeans than the "Eastern European one, beside both beeing actually very similar and having probably evolved/split allot after the Indo Europeans.

If we take a look at Indo_Aryans in India EVEN they have more of this "West European" like component than "East European". EVEN the Ukrainians have more of it!

The North European genes spred by proto Indo Europeans must have been at first more West European like. So R1a was also spred together with "West European" like genes, of course in combination to Caucasus_Gedrosia.

This makes also sense if you take into account that proto ANE was ancestral to Caucasus_Gedrosia and North European. Inside this North European component the West European is slightly closer to Caucasus_Gedrosia than East European is.

Proto_North European must have been more West European like and throughout the centuries it split into an East European and West European branch.

Kurds have slightly more West European than East European. Ukrainians have slightly more West than East European, Iranians, Balkanians and Indians the same.


Thracians were described BY ALL ancient records as red haired and blue eyed. And now allot of them have allot more Caucasus_Gedrosia than modern Balkanians. Heck the frequency even reaches numbers typical of modern West Asians!

This should be a prove that light hair and light eyes are not connected to "North European" component exclusively. Those kind of traits must have been a genetic mutation which occured earlier.

Alan
06-08-14, 20:42
Wow with all that west asian they must be some of those milions of slaves who arrived during the Roman Era. Just like the copper age Iberian farmer.

I assume this was meant to be sarcastic. Roman era slaves during copper age :)

Yetos
06-08-14, 20:46
@ Alan
Thracians had Green eyes, even today original Pomaks and not lowland Pomaks have significant green eyes
Blue eyes were the Persians and later cumans and GekTurks

Sile
06-08-14, 21:29
@ SIle
not the Thracians with Blue eyes, but with Green eyes, blue eyes was considered Persian by ancients, and later the Cumans and GekTurks

Gedrosia is in eastern Persia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gedrosia

Alan
06-08-14, 21:48
Gedrosia is in eastern Persia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gedrosia

Gedrosia is modern Balochistan. Gedrosia is in the east of Persia and not eastern Persia. Persia is south of Media/Parthia and west of Gedrosia. ;-)

mihaitzateo
06-08-14, 22:17
All thos K and MDLP do not make much sense,a test is contradicting with another test.

Alan
06-08-14, 22:54
All thos K and MDLP do not make much sense,a test is contradicting with another test.

Not really. If we take into account that Caucasus_gedrosia and North European have same origin. And that some of the Caucasus_Gedrosia genes get eaten up by North European and vica versa depending on the K runs is a sign for that there are Genes which are on the edge of these both, or more precise ancestral to both. So genes which end up as Caucasus_Gedrosia in one run and as North European in another must be those genes who are very close to the root.

However this is only the case in P192-1

The other samples do not show "contradicting" results in different K's.

Sile
07-08-14, 07:51
Not really. If we take into account that Caucasus_gedrosia and North European have same origin. And that some of the Caucasus_Gedrosia genes get eaten up by North European and vica versa depending on the K runs is a sign for that there are Genes which are on the edge of these both, or more precise ancestral to both. So genes which end up as Caucasus_Gedrosia in one run and as North European in another must be those genes who are very close to the root.

However this is only the case in P192-1

The other samples do not show "contradicting" results in different K's.

But all show an inclination of more west European than east European

like my Dv3 below .................even though I have a west-asian marker I am far more western european than eastern european


#
Population
Percent


1
West_European
35.48


2
Mediterranean
33.62


3
West_Asian
14.07


4
East_European
9.91


5
Southwest_Asian
5.29


6
Northwest_African
1.43


7
Neo_African
0.09


8
Palaeo_African
0.09


9
South_Asian
0.03



and K7b below



#
Population
Percent


1
Atlantic_Baltic
55.72


2
Southern
26.21


3
West_Asian
17.43


4
South_Asian
0.44


5
African
0.2



Single Population Sharing:



#
Population (source)
Distance


1
N_Italian (Dodecad)
2.49


2
North_Italian (HGDP)
4.94


3
Bulgarians (Yunusbayev)
5.35


4
Romanians (Behar)
5.57


5
Bulgarian (Dodecad)
6.2


6

O_Italian (Dodecad)

6.87





Clearly, the indo-iranic people means indian-iranian ..........and they are west-asian and south-asian haplogroups

joeyc
07-08-14, 09:46
West European has more EEF/South West Asian alleles in it.

Alan
07-08-14, 12:34
But all show an inclination of more west European than east European

like my Dv3 below .................even though I have a west-asian marker I am far more western european than eastern european


#
Population
Percent


1
West_European
35.48


2
Mediterranean
33.62


3
West_Asian
14.07


4
East_European
9.91


5
Southwest_Asian
5.29


6
Northwest_African
1.43


7
Neo_African
0.09


8
Palaeo_African
0.09


9
South_Asian
0.03



and K7b below



#
Population
Percent


1
Atlantic_Baltic
55.72


2
Southern
26.21


3
West_Asian
17.43


4
South_Asian
0.44


5
African
0.2



Single Population Sharing:



#
Population (source)
Distance


1
N_Italian (Dodecad)
2.49


2
North_Italian (HGDP)
4.94


3
Bulgarians (Yunusbayev)
5.35


4
Romanians (Behar)
5.57


5
Bulgarian (Dodecad)
6.2


6
O_Italian (Dodecad)
6.87




Clearly, the indo-iranic people means indian-iranian ..........and they are west-asian and south-asian haplogroups


I wrote in my post above why this is the case. All Indo_Iranians, Balkanians and even half of the Slavic countries have more of "West European" than "East European". And I explained why

please read here. http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29957-Genome-of-Iron-Age-Thracian?p=436452&viewfull=1#post436452

mihaitzateo
07-08-14, 14:58
Not really. If we take into account that Caucasus_gedrosia and North European have same origin. And that some of the Caucasus_Gedrosia genes get eaten up by North European and vica versa depending on the K runs is a sign for that there are Genes which are on the edge of these both, or more precise ancestral to both. So genes which end up as Caucasus_Gedrosia in one run and as North European in another must be those genes who are very close to the root.

However this is only the case in P192-1

The other samples do not show "contradicting" results in different K's.

I thought Caucasus is a kind of admixture while Gedrosia is another kind of admixture,found in some people from Pakistan.
And I do not think N European admixture is same with Caucasus,but that North and West Europeans have a significant percentage of Gedrosia admixture and some Caucasus admixture,but few.
I know Eastern Europeans have instead few or none Gedrosia admixture but have a significant percentage of Caucasus admixture.

Alan
07-08-14, 15:35
I thought Caucasus is a kind of admixture while Gedrosia is another kind of admixture,found in some people from Pakistan.
And I do not think N European admixture is same with Caucasus,but that North and West Europeans have a significant percentage of Gedrosia admixture and some Caucasus admixture,but few.
I know Eastern Europeans have instead few or none Gedrosia admixture but have a significant percentage of Caucasus admixture.

Than you need first to take some extra time to get more recent informaions about Caucasus_Gedrosia, North European etc.

Those are "admixture" in some way but in reality they are not admixture but genetic drifts from one source known as ANE. They have one common origin.

Gedrosia is not a component from "Pakistan" it is a component which peaks in Balochistan, which is located in West Asia or to some people between West and South Asia.

However the point here is, that the ancient Thracians were more West Asian like than any modern Europeans and this is a bullet proof that Caucasus_Gedrosia genes reached Europe first with Indo_Europeans.

Dalmat
07-08-14, 16:22
@ Alan
Thracians had Green eyes, even today original Pomaks and not lowland Pomaks have significant green eyes
Blue eyes were the Persians and later cumans and GekTurks


you do realize green eyes are mix of blue and brown eye genes, you cant have population with green eyes without having blue eyes, infact, highest percentage of getting green eyes is if one parent is blue and other is brown eyed

...well i guess you dont realize

Sile
07-08-14, 20:31
you do realize green eyes are mix of blue and brown eye genes, you cant have population with green eyes without having blue eyes, infact, highest percentage of getting green eyes is if one parent is blue and other is brown eyed

...well i guess you dont realize

yes I agree.............my father is green, mother is hazel, i am mid green, sister is brown other brother is very light green.
Gfather army records says celeste eyes ...which means sky blue

so, you are most probably correct

mihaitzateo
07-08-14, 20:33
Than you need first to take some extra time to get more recent informaions about Caucasus_Gedrosia, North European etc.

Those are "admixture" in some way but in reality they are not admixture but genetic drifts from one source known as ANE. They have one common origin.

Gedrosia is not a component from "Pakistan" it is a component which peaks in Balochistan, which is located in West Asia or to some people between West and South Asia.

However the point here is, that the ancient Thracians were more West Asian like than any modern Europeans and this is a bullet proof that Caucasus_Gedrosia genes reached Europe first with Indo_Europeans.

I doubt. I think those people from North Europe are rather related to Sami and Baltic people,both Scandinavians and Finns,Estonians,Latvians,Lithuanians,North Russians.

Alan
07-08-14, 20:54
I doubt. I think those people from North Europe are rather related to Sami and Baltic people,both Scandinavians and Finns,Estonians,Latvians,Lithuanians,North Russians.

This statement didn't make quite sense to me. Scandos etc are North Europeans. You can doubt if you want but it is a proven fact that those genes in North Europeans shares origin with West Asian.

Yetos
07-08-14, 21:30
I thought Caucasus is a kind of admixture while Gedrosia is another kind of admixture,found in some people from Pakistan.
And I do not think N European admixture is same with Caucasus,but that North and West Europeans have a significant percentage of Gedrosia admixture and some Caucasus admixture,but few.
I know Eastern Europeans have instead few or none Gedrosia admixture but have a significant percentage of Caucasus admixture.

gedrosia is found more in R1b people than in R1a people

Yetos
07-08-14, 21:35
you do realize green eyes are mix of blue and brown eye genes, you cant have population with green eyes without having blue eyes, infact, highest percentage of getting green eyes is if one parent is blue and other is brown eyed

...well i guess you dont realize

No I know what old people in my village use to tell,
Green eyes Thracian, blond hair/red hair
Blue eyes, Persian, black hair
small blue eyes straight hair no wavy Gekotoyrkos

Besides in my country are almost all black or brown (hair and eyes) so any blue or green was excotic, but not blond hair, cause of very light brown, which is big %
I was born half blond hlaf light brown, but now I am full dark brown, except if I stay 3 days in the sun, my skin turns dark-dark and my hair very light brown

Alan
08-08-14, 00:49
No I know what old people in my village use to tell,
Green eyes Thracian, blond hair/red hair
Blue eyes, Persian, black hair
small blue eyes straight hair no wavy Gekotoyrkos

Besides in my country are almost all black or brown (hair and eyes) so any blue or green was excotic, but not blond hair, cause of very light brown, which is big %
I was born half blond hlaf light brown, but now I am full dark brown, except if I stay 3 days in the sun, my skin turns dark-dark and my hair very light brown

So this is how Greeks describe the Persian look?
6523

This look might have been more prevelant/characteristic for the ancient Persians, But I doubt that all looked this way, just like I doubt that all Thracians were blue/green eyed and red haired even though it was probably more prevelant among them.

Yetos
08-08-14, 06:49
So this is how Greeks describe the Persian look?
6523

This look might have been more prevelant/characteristic for the ancient Persians, But I doubt that all looked this way, just like I doubt that all Thracians were blue/green eyed and red haired even though it was probably more prevelant among them.

or perhaps a characteristic of an uper or rulling class?

Dalmat
08-08-14, 08:17
yes I agree.............my father is green, mother is hazel, i am mid green, sister is brown other brother is very light green.
Gfather army records says celeste eyes ...which means sky blue

so, you are most probably correct

genes for blue eyes are recesive, you can have brown eyes and still hold blue eye genes.

Green eyes fall into mixed eyes, with hazel, and yellowish 'beer like', ia all depends on a level of pigmentation represented
Getting green eyes is random chance.

with both parents having blue eyes, child will have blue eyes, both having brown, child will have brown, with already only one parent having mixed eyes, child could have anything

Alan
08-08-14, 13:42
or perhaps a characteristic of an uper or rulling class?

Doubt, if anything they came more often into contact with the warrior class. Rulers wouldn't be seen that often by the oponent.

Knovas
09-08-14, 12:00
Green eyes fall into mixed eyes, with hazel, and yellowish 'beer like', ia all depends on a level of pigmentation represented
Getting green eyes is random chance.
Not exactly. Real green eyes fall clearly into the light eyes category, sharing the main GG mutations with blue eyes at SNP rs12913832 (https://www.23andme.com/you/explorer/snp/?snp_name=rs12913832). And then, there are other genes which help on determining if it's green or blue: for instance, GG at SNP rs12896399 (https://www.23andme.com/you/explorer/snp/?snp_name=rs12896399) implies slightly lower odds of having blue instead of green eyes.

The typical brown-green eyes are out of range to be considered light, and of course most times show in people holding AG mutations at SNP rs12913832 (https://www.23andme.com/you/explorer/snp/?snp_name=rs12913832). To summarize, there's a difference between brown-green and real green eyes.

Sile
10-08-14, 01:56
genes for blue eyes are recesive, you can have brown eyes and still hold blue eye genes.

Green eyes fall into mixed eyes, with hazel, and yellowish 'beer like', ia all depends on a level of pigmentation represented
Getting green eyes is random chance.

with both parents having blue eyes, child will have blue eyes, both having brown, child will have brown, with already only one parent having mixed eyes, child could have anything

My wife is mid blue eyes ............all my children are sky-blue eyes like me Gfather ...................my green eyes missed out

Sile
10-08-14, 01:59
Not exactly. Real green eyes fall clearly into the light eyes category, sharing the main GG mutations with blue eyes at SNP rs12913832 (https://www.23andme.com/you/explorer/snp/?snp_name=rs12913832). And then, there are other genes which help on determining if it's green or blue: for instance, GG at SNP rs12896399 (https://www.23andme.com/you/explorer/snp/?snp_name=rs12896399) implies slightly lower odds of having blue instead of green eyes.

The typical brown-green eyes are out of range to be considered light, and of course most times show in people holding AG mutations at SNP rs12913832 (https://www.23andme.com/you/explorer/snp/?snp_name=rs12913832). To summarize, there's a difference between brown-green and real green eyes.

yes............but genes does always give you the correct result...................to this day, 23andme state my genes indicate I have 97% chance of blue eyes...........i sent them a photo with my green eyes and they say its an oddity

Knovas
10-08-14, 11:31
The SNP I mentioned for green eyes it's not the only one. You should bear the specific mutations in many others to have green eyes. It was just an example.

You can find discussions in 23andme about this topic.

By the way, it would be interesting to see V2's, V8's and T2G2's pigmentation results. It doesn't suprise me at all to see high West Asian percents considering the place and the period. To me it looks more surprising to still find individuals who are so Basque/Sardinian-like there.

Alan
11-08-14, 00:14
The SNP I mentioned for green eyes it's not the only one. You should bear the specific mutations in many others to have green eyes. It was just an example.

You can find discussions in 23andme about this topic.

By the way, it would be interesting to see V2's, V8's and T2G2's pigmentation results. It doesn't suprise me at all to see high West Asian percents considering the place and the period. To me it looks more surprising to still find individuals who are so Basque/Sardinian-like there.

Well actually it is quite "suprising" Thracia comprimises lands of modern Romania, Greece, Bulgaria. All those countries having significant Caucasus_Gedrosia admixture but non of them on the same level as the Thracians. This actually is an indiciation that the Slavic influx into the Balkans did change the the genetic landscape of the region.

But it is not suprising that the first Caucasus_Gedrosia genes in Europe appear among the Indo Europeans.

LeBrok
11-08-14, 01:36
But it is not suprising that the first Caucasus_Gedrosia genes in Europe appear among the Indo Europeans. Especially the ones rich in R1b who came via Anatolia.

joeyc
11-08-14, 14:57
genes for blue eyes are recesive, you can have brown eyes and still hold blue eye genes.

Green eyes fall into mixed eyes, with hazel, and yellowish 'beer like', ia all depends on a level of pigmentation represented
Getting green eyes is random chance.

with both parents having blue eyes, child will have blue eyes, both having brown, child will have brown, with already only one parent having mixed eyes, child could have anything

Black eyes are dominant over blue eyes, but the former are almost non existent in Europe. Most Dark eyes in Europe fall in the hazel-light brown category, which already carry the recessive genes for blue eyes.

So 2 Europeans with brown eyes can have a blue eyed child, althougt it's very rare.

Sile
12-08-14, 21:12
The SNP I mentioned for green eyes it's not the only one. You should bear the specific mutations in many others to have green eyes. It was just an example.

You can find discussions in 23andme about this topic.

By the way, it would be interesting to see V2's, V8's and T2G2's pigmentation results. It doesn't suprise me at all to see high West Asian percents considering the place and the period. To me it looks more surprising to still find individuals who are so Basque/Sardinian-like there.
Sample P192-1 was found at the site of a pit sanctuary near Svilengrad, Bulgaria, excavated between 2004 and 2006. The pits are associated with the Thracian culture and date to the Early Iron Age (800–500 BC) based on pottery found in the pits. A total of 67 ritual pits, including 16 pits containing human skeletons or parts of skeletons, were explored during the excavations. An upper wisdom tooth from an adult male was used for DNA analysis.

Sample T2G2 was found in a Thracian tumulus (burial mound) near the village of Stambolovo, Bulgaria. Two small tumuli dating to the Early Iron Age (850–700 BC) were excavated in 2008. A canine tooth from an inhumation burial of a child (c.12 years old) inside a dolium was used for DNA analysis.

Sample V2 was found in a flat cemetery dating to the Late Bronze Age (1500–1100 BC) near the village of Vratitsa, Bulgaria. Nine inhumation burials were excavated between 2003 and 2004. A molar from a juvenile male (age 16–17) was used for DNA analysis.

Sample K8 was found in the Yakimova Mogila Tumulus, which dates to the Iron Age (450–400 BC), near Krushare, Bulgaria. An aristocratic inhumation burial containing rich grave goods was excavated in 2008. A molar from one individual, probably male, was used for DNA analysis.

V2 is the only one that shows any amount of decent Asian

V2
globe4


58.89% European
20.61% Asian
11.91% African
8.59% Amerindian



V2 is the oldest of the 4
but 192-1 is the only one with a confirmed ydna which is H1b1 ( romani are H1a group)

also note IIRC the old F3 ydna is now called ( part of ) H ydna

........................

As per Basque ............isn't the original basques only french basques and Pas_Vasco means community of Vasconic people and with this term vasconic is only modern Gascony area of france, which is ancient French basque area and the old original vasconic language started in Aquitaine which is now modern Gascony!

Alan
16-08-14, 23:24
If I am not mistaken, wasn't there a Neolithic sample from Syria who also turned out as H1* ?

Yetos
17-08-14, 00:08
Sample P192-1 was found at the site of a pit sanctuary near Svilengrad, Bulgaria, excavated between 2004 and 2006. The pits are associated with the Thracian culture and date to the Early Iron Age (800–500 BC) based on pottery found in the pits. A total of 67 ritual pits, including 16 pits containing human skeletons or parts of skeletons, were explored during the excavations. An upper wisdom tooth from an adult male was used for DNA analysis.

Sample T2G2 was found in a Thracian tumulus (burial mound) near the village of Stambolovo, Bulgaria. Two small tumuli dating to the Early Iron Age (850–700 BC) were excavated in 2008. A canine tooth from an inhumation burial of a child (c.12 years old) inside a dolium was used for DNA analysis.

Sample V2 was found in a flat cemetery dating to the Late Bronze Age (1500–1100 BC) near the village of Vratitsa, Bulgaria. Nine inhumation burials were excavated between 2003 and 2004. A molar from a juvenile male (age 16–17) was used for DNA analysis.

Sample K8 was found in the Yakimova Mogila Tumulus, which dates to the Iron Age (450–400 BC), near Krushare, Bulgaria. An aristocratic inhumation burial containing rich grave goods was excavated in 2008. A molar from one individual, probably male, was used for DNA analysis.

V2 is the only one that shows any amount of decent Asian

V2
globe4


58.89% European
20.61% Asian
11.91% African
8.59% Amerindian



V2 is the oldest of the 4
but 192-1 is the only one with a confirmed ydna which is H1b1 ( romani are H1a group)

also note IIRC the old F3 ydna is now called ( part of ) H ydna

........................

As per Basque ............isn't the original basques only french basques and Pas_Vasco means community of Vasconic people and with this term vasconic is only modern Gascony area of france, which is ancient French basque area and the old original vasconic language started in Aquitaine which is now modern Gascony!

hm
can the H1b1 be an H-APT?

Firasat , Khalig, Papaioannou, Tyler-Smith, Underhill 2006
that case makes it interesting at least for me.