PDA

View Full Version : for a balance or digest of last ancient DNA results



MOESAN
10-09-15, 23:11
THIS THREAD IS PERHAPS CONDAMNED TO A SHORT LIFE BECAUSE IT IS A BIT GENERAL BUT I LIKE TAKE SOME DISTANCE AND TRY TO PUT ORDER IN MY THOUGHTS / YOU COULD HELP ME AND YOURSELVES IN IT / THANKS FOR CLEMENCE



Some personal impressions about our History

Recent papers have terribly changed our believings about the scheme of Europe History stages even if we need more extended samples, in number and places. Ancient DNA, even if the admixtures studies are not homogenous, gave us some surprises:


The “purety” of Neolithic men is no more so evident – we have still to find the origin of the first apparent HG components in them – it appears the Middle Neolithic men, whatever the place, had as a whole more of an HG component than the Early Neolithic people, and this HG was rather WHG.
A new survey about the Iberia Chalcolithic in Spain show people with a between position compared to today Basques and Sardinians, these last ones the closer ones to Neolithic people. Bronze Ages samples of Bulgary and Hungary shew positions very southern, close to Sardinians, but even more “southern” sometimes and a bit shifted towards Near-East but in very weak proportions. All the way, these ancient DNA concerning the transition from Neolithic to Metals Ages in South does not mark a strong imput of East Eurasia population or what has been called ‘ANE’ component.
The Gokhem (mid?) neolithical “Funnelbeaker” person shew some affinity with modern Basques, so shifted towards West compared too other Neolithic people, if it is less ‘western’ than the Bronze Age remnant of Iberia . As I believe a strong imput of Atlantic “long barrows” megalithers existed in Funnelbeaker, it could be easy to explain?

At the contrary, the ‘west-asian’ component seems proved as an important demic element (a new one) at Chalcolithic and Metals Ages in Northern and Eastern Europe (not in South), surely associated to pastors half-nomadic tribes. I think it owes very few to South-Caucasus populations at first and that they gave more than they received at Metals Ages even if we can think they previously received something from South (but not something EEF). The differences between Bronze Age Armenians and today Armenians for autosomes seems proving it clearly, because Armenians did not receive important external imput later in History, for I know.

&: surprises:
a) the apparent secondary people movement from North-Central Europe to Eastern Eurasia (Steppes until West Siberia and maybe partially until Hindu Kush), as illustrated by SIntashta population; the supposed Near-Eastern origin is discarded demically speaking; only a tiny element of ‘south-asian’ (?: red colour in Reich) speaks for a Southern imput and this imput seems to me from East the Caspian, not from Caucasus.
b) the first metals apparition in Europe (it’s not so new) would be the fact of Anatolia or Near-Eastern people, not by force speaking Indo-European languages (see the non-indo-european words for metals in basque language, according to someones); either they are shifted towards a kind of HG as in Basques (Spain) or they stay very southern, without being shifted too much towards Bedawins (‘east-african’ or rather ‘red sea’ elements among these last ones?) nor towards ‘west-asian’… that could prove the bulk of ‘west-asian’ component in Europe is rather late – some admix. Results are contradictory in showing absence or presence of HG among Farmers, absence or presence of ‘west-asian’ among Farmers and others (and even not mentioned ‘bedawin’),… but the weight of some gravity centers of genetic populations does not seem affected by this “in fine”. The weight of a ‘west-asian’ component, nor precised, is light until Bronze in western Europe, and augmented as in other parts of Eurasia/Siberia with Iron Age. The ‘west-asian’ is a question in itself: is the ‘west-asian’ of Steppes people or East Caspian the same as the ‘west-asian’ present at Neolithic in Europe or Near-East surroundings? Perhaps the same remote origin, but with some drift by time and isolation? I imagine several arrivals: a former western one in Europe-North Near-East, an later eastern one at Metal Ages from East Caspian and Steppes into Europe and Near-East/Caspian, and, leaving the Mongols aside, a Turcs mediated flow in Near-East/Anatolia (all that evidently mixed with other components); Turcs did not impone their languages in others lands they conquered so I wonder if in fact a lot of ‘west-asian’ rich bearers were not come from East, anciently indo-aryan, already turkicized speakers, into Anatolia where they reinforced the already present ancient ‘west-asian’ element (western = ‘caucasus’ this last one, less ‘gedrosia’, less ‘ANE’). North Europe gained the most of it ‘west-asian’ from the Metal Ages wave I think. The discrepancy between ‘ANE’ and ‘west-asian’ according to European places can be explained by these different waves of ‘west-asian’ bearers? What would be excellent would be having more ancient DNA from Near-East and East Caspian. Where was the former border between ‘southwest-asian’ and diverse EEF on one side and western ‘west-asian’ on the other side???

Closer to our time: Unetice reflects the BBs Corded mix in auDNA.
I noticed too a big heterogeneity among the Iron Age remnants of Siberia/Altaï regions, but with more imput of a not precised ‘west-asian’ element and a slight majority of East Asian components… all the way, most of the ancient DNA of same culture, sometimes same places, show very different levels of auDNA components: mark of recent arrival of elites with subsequent acculturated people or same elite but having mated with females of different cultures and origins?

&: beside all that I think that most of the DNA results are not too opposed to some metric anthropology results of ancient time and of today, apart some exceptions
11/ THE QUESTION OF LANGUAGE IS STILL HANGING UP

MOESAN
12-09-15, 23:43
At the contrary, the ‘west-asian’ component seems proved as an important demic element (a new one) at Chalcolithic and Metals Ages in Northern and Eastern Europe (not in South), surely associated to pastors half-nomadic tribes. I think it owes very few to South-Caucasus populations at first and that they gave more than they received at Metals Ages even if we can think they previously received something from South (but not something EEF). The differences between Bronze Age Armenians and today Armenians for autosomes seems proving it clearly, because Armenians did not receive important external imput later in History, for I know.

[/QUOTE]

I made a clown of myself here: in North and Eastern Europe Metals Ages seem having rather increased the weight of HG whatever the kind, plus 'west-asian' at some extend: in some analysis, this 'west-asian' seems mixed with some 'EHG' to produce "yamanya" as artifical component; in South the 'HG' seems very lighter in front of 'west-asian'; in Yamnaya the 'west-asian' component without 'EEF' (if I' don't mistake it for 'ENF') all the way a kind of 'mediterranean', or at least with very few of this southern component, seems having received it from East more than South: a "tadjiklike" component? the difference between Bronze Zrmenians and today Armenians could confirm this.
Sorry for the confusion.

bicicleur
13-09-15, 14:37
it's all very confusing
we need more details
we will get these new deatails the next few years in the form of a steady flow of more anciant DNA