PDA

View Full Version : Are NonMetric Dental Traits a good proxy for aDna?



Olympus Mons
22-09-16, 22:55
My Opinion is yes. aDna is sexy and has a lot of “Bang” but at a very expensive “buck”. Nm dental traits are not really subject on environmental conditions like some skeleton an Crania monuments. Pretty much a genetic marker.

Reading papers such as “Do nuclear DNA and dental nonmetric data produce similar reconstructions of regional population history? An example from modern coastal” Kenya at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25711463” or even Some work from Claudia Silva from Coimbra university and so forth the answer can only be YES. A very big Yes.
Non metric Dental traits It’s like looking into a CT Scan, a very good one. aDna is looking to an MRI. Crania morphology is a 70s CT scan… So all are looking bellow skin and flesh into the same object. Only the resolution is different.


So based on Nm dental traits, what narratives do you know of?
Here is one:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264673132_AEAE277

A V Zubova. She does have several, some very recent. A 2011, apart from as expected be right on target about thinks later showed correct by later Adna papers, there is a PCA that has a very telling cluster (4,7, 11, 38).
It tells us that a Çatal Hoyuk (7th millennia BC ) nm dental traits population (or related) shows up at the northern plains of the Caucasus as a Neolithic Russian plain population (5th millennia) that became Yamnaya pit grave by 3rd millennia and later as Srubna culture 2nd millennia.
It also impressive how 3 and 12 cluster. So Çatal Hoyuk (late series) by 6 millennia so close to Pit Grave (Yamnaya) culture of Kalmykia 3rd millennia.
So, aren’t people looking for how the steppe got CHG and Levant DNA?

Does anyone knows other Nmdental connections to share?

Olympus Mons
23-09-16, 16:21
Here is another story/trail/history:
On Anahit Khudaverdyan work,
Bioarchaeological Analysis Mutual Relations of PopulationsArmenian Highlands and Eurasia Using Craniological and Dental
Nonmetric Traits

There is dendogram that also tells the same story. Remember, this is not Craniometry (first part of paper) this is the second about nmdental traits. I don't have nothing against craniomtry analisis is just that this is about Dental traits that are mostly a genetic trait.
So, the dendogram on Nmdental groups 1, 4 and 8. What are those? - 1 Landjik (armenia Highlands) , 4 Kalmykia Total group (Pit Grave culture), Krivaya lyka (Pit Grave culture). For steppe fanatics its Yamnaya stuff the last two. All 3000. So anyone who knows anything about me, knows that I am all about shulaveri-Shomu. From 4.900-4500bc all Shulaveri-shomu disapeared and were replaced by the vast Kura-araxes. If I had to choose 3 places where the shulaveri people hunkered down one would be Landjik, which is where the ARATASHEN component of the shulaveri was, and were recently R1b1a was discovered. So, like all other cultures we are learning there were very diferent people at those times.

Further more, on the initial post on this thread, I made a cluster of several cultures... but left out a number. That number s very close to the cluster. so close I could have included in the cluster. that was number 16 ... same region named as Kura-araxes (but a very Shulaveri part of).

MOESAN
12-10-16, 11:24
No lone method of metric and non-metric approach can be considered as a 100% reliable one.
Cranial/body measurements put into "bags" to produce means, distances, PCAs and dendograms without any attempt of individuals typology can lead to numerous misinterpretations. Some absolute sizes are linked to mesologic process like 'gracilization', a process largely independant from genetic affinities/differerences; I have in mind a survey concluding today Europeans don't share (much) common origin with AND Mesolithic people AND Anatolian Neolithic people. Hard to swallow.
Some non-metric caracteres or "discret caracteres" spite the absolute aspect that have someones (presence / absence VS gradual) are not so absolute in some cases (look at the %s of errors, between scrutators AND with the SAME scrutators), and the genetic absolute base of their presence/absence is debated (non-genetic influences upon the phoenotypical manifestation of the trait).
+ In DESIDERI about BBs I saw she discarded a lot of common features to keep the most discriminant ones; how can you produce reliable distances with this method? A seldom trait can be over-represented in an elite clan and by eliminating the more common traits you overweight the clustering/discriminating importance of this seldom traits, on the cost of others, and manipulate distances by arbitrary choices. By instance I have difficulties to accept that Steppic people were for the most Armenians with a vague EHG input when I think they rather were EHG people with a not too heavy 'armenianlike' input (Armenian author you cited and whose study I had red).
Is that to say these methods have no interest? Not at all; I rely more on them when they lead to the same conclusions than when they lead to opposite ones, and then, I rely a bit more on metric surveys spite I long to ancient anthropology sometimes.
example: You cites Catal Höyük (Chatal) people input North the Caucasus around the 5th millenium BC, "revealed" by the appearance of some non-metric dental traits; OK! Catal Höyük has been discrived by COON as a pop with dominantly his 'danubian' type; with other words PINHASI established the ties between Catal Höyök ANCIENT people with the most of first farmers entering Europe about the 7th-6th millenia, themselves seen by COON as dominantly 'danubian' in his typology. Archeology/genetics tell us the cattle found in Ukraina later were for the most of Balkans origin! We can suppose the farmers part of Cucuteni-Tripolje has been the promoter of this cattle "expansion"? Others as KONINTSEV considered, through metrics, that Steppes cultures people I-Ean or not were diverse in their admixtures and that some of these cultures showed people with an "European" input either where 'nordics' and 'mediterraneans' - NOT from Near-East nor East Caspian - were present; he thinks Pit Grave had a slight input, the most common/central among all these cultures would have been the Catacombs; and the most or least rare sharings would have been between 'Old Europe' and Early Catacombs so it seems confirming a Tripolye input upon Ukraine Neolithic and later upon some steppic cultures - Catacomb people were more sedentary and more farmers than Pit Grave - it would be of importance to separate DNA surveys of Early and Later Catacombs (I think in a mtDNA survey showing more steppic input of Steppes mt upon SOME Catacomb pop than upon Yamna pops).
Konintsev I suppose is a defender of the Anatolian I-Ean thesis but he thinks (# Gamelidze) the West-East moves were launched from Eastern Europe; I 'll not debate this here. But it shows metrics are not always the worts method; by instance he thinks based on features that the people of Neolithic S-Siberia forming the base of Okunevo pop were not purely crossings between well formed 'europoids' and well formed 'mongoloids' but rather a local form of humanity of itself; the modern comparisons with modern admixtures geographic poolings cannot show this when some metrics can - we know Mal'ta was not a "crossing" between modern 'southasians', 'amerindians' and 'baltic people' by instance!
I 'll read Konintsev again in another thread concerning more details because the ties he evocates are interestings even if I don't take this as Bible words.

MOESAN
12-10-16, 12:08
Here under an opinion among others: this one is old but Pinhasi, more recently, seems having the same observations, maybe exprimed more evasively (I have to find it, anyway, it was just a short appreciation)

METRIC VERSUS NON-METRIC SKELETAL TRAITS: WHICH IS THE

MORE RELIABLE INDICATOR OF GENETIC DISTANCE ?
With special reference to crania
from ancient Greece and Egypt.
Judith Elaine Powell
Department of Anatomy, Bristol Medical School

Elaine POWELL
degree of Doctor of Philosophy
MARCH 1989
In studies of the affinity of human skeletal populations, morphological variation of the
Cranium is an important source of genetic information. Opinion is divided, however, as to
whether the shape and size (metric variation) of the skull or its minor anatomical variants
(non-metric traits) more closely reflect genetic distance. This work explores the controversy
and attempts to resolve it by recording both types of trait in a series of ancient crania from
Greece and Egypt. Taxon-distances are then constructed and compared. The findings
indicate that metric traits behave in a manner consistent with their having a strong genetic
component. The pattern of group affinity produced by non-metric traits is less stable,
varying according to sex, the number of traits used and whether the left or right side is
considered. Even when sample sizes are small, metric variation is found to be the more
valuable; methods of maximalising the metric information obtainable from incomplete
specimens are discussed. The genetic basis of non-metric variation, insofar as it can be
represented by dichotomous scoring, is questioned. It is concluded that multivariate metric
methods, which have lately been eclipsed by techniques employing non-metric data, are
worthy of re-appraisal.

MOESAN
12-10-16, 12:11
here under the same JE Powell comments about modern metrics, citing other scientists -


The univariate methods employed by Pearson were, however, subject to serious
limitations. These became plain when interest shifted from correlation and variation to -
population comparisons. Group relationships had to be inferred by a mental summing up of
differences in the separate measurements and their significances, closeness of the mean
values being taken to indicate promiscuity. Pearson's Coefficient of Racial Likeness
(Pearson 1926) was an attempt to quantify this problem and produce a single measure of
distance from the amassed parameters.
This analysis of individual measurements failed to detect the difference in shape
resulting from small absolute differences in opposite directions. To illustrate this with an
example, the orbits of group A might, say, be marginally higher and less broad than those
of group B, giving an overall appearance of comparative roundedness, but this difference in
orbital shape would not e detected if the mean values for height and breadth in the two
groups did not differ significantly. It was in response to the inability of univariate
statistic to consider more than one variable at a time, that multivariate statistical'
methods were developed. The vital concept underlying the use of multivariate methods is that the complete set of measurements taken from a single cranium represent a metric profile of that individual, called, in 'mathematical terms, 'a vector'. If each of the measurements is simply used by itself to find the in'.e an and variance of the measurement, this vector is dismembered and the individual lost (1916, ells1 969a). Bronowski and Long (1951) stressed that a bone should be regarded as a unit and not as a "haphazard jumble of piece mean(?) measurements"-.

MOESAN
12-10-16, 12:18
... keeping on ...
For clarity of thought, it is important to distinguish between the purely
mathematical output of the techniques, and the biological interpretation placed upon these
results. Statistical computer packages process numbers irrespective of what they are meant
to represent and, always provided that the distributional assumptions implicit in the ,
techniques are observed, the numerical output can be viewed with complete confidence. The
biological interpretation of results is, however, a n-dne field in which the experimenter must
tread most carefully. Again, Kowalski's comments on multivariate methods are
appropriate:
No one really questions the mathematics on which they are based.... (but)
mathematical artifacts may not be interpretable in the context of the subject-matter
problem ...
Yet, without interpretation of the results there may be very little point in carrying out an
analysis at all! The interpretation of genetic distances is discussed in section 1.5, but some
general points will be made here.

Multivariate methods have been criticized on the grounds that they separate units on
the basis of size rather than shape (Bookstein 1978, Corruccini 1987,1973). Where the aim
of the study is to elucidate taxonon-dc or functional relationships between different species,
then shape difference, rather than size difference should be the prime consideration. With
methods such as canonical variate and discriminant function analysis, the extent to which
the results are driven by size rather than shape seems to depend on the relationship
between the within-group and between-group variance (Albrecht 1976). Various techniques
have been suggested for separating size and shape factors (reviewed by Corruccini 1987,
1978), but controversy remains regarding the appropriateness and effectiveness of these
methods.
...
1.2.3. Some criticisms of the multivariate approach.
The undoubted elegance of the theory of multivariate analysis has led to the utilization of
these techniques for investigating a wide variety of morphometric problems. In recent
years, the exponential growth in the number of such studies has evoked some scepticism
about the value of these methods (e. g. Kowalski 1972, Szalay 1974, Lewis 1977). These
critics view the ready availability of computer packages as a mixed blessing; though they
are undoubtedly time-saving, they do allow workers with an incomplete appreciation of
statistics to undertake and interpret complex analyses without considering if their
interpretation is valid. Thomas (1976) comments:
Computers are seductive devices which tend to lure the unwary down the endless
trail toward numerical obscurity ... what good is an orthogonal multiple-factor
multivariate analysis if one does not understand the meaning of elementary
correlation?
1.2.3. Some criticisms of the multivariate approach.
The undoubted elegance of the theory of multivariate analysis has led to the utilization of
these techniques for investigating a wide variety of morphometric problems. In recent
years, the exponential growth in the number of such studies has evoked some scepticism
about the value of these methods (e. g. Kowalski 1972, Szalay 1974, Lewis 1977). These
critics view the ready availability of computer packages as a mixed blessing; though they
are undoubtedly time-saving, they do allow workers with an incomplete appreciation of
statistics to undertake and interpret complex analyses without considering if their
interpretation is valid. Thomas (1976) comments:
Computers are seductive devices which tend to lure the unwary down the endless
trail toward numerical obscurity ... what good is an orthogonal multiple-factor
multivariate analysis if one does not understand the meaning of elementary
correlation? Moesan: here you can see the magic 'maths' paintings under critics!

Nevertheless, these critics. acknowledge the potential strengths of the morphometric
approach, many of their criticisms are directed against abuses of these methods rather
than the methods themselves. Corruccini (1978) gives an instructive and cautionary account
of the many ways in which multivariate methods may be misused.
It should be remembered that the rationale for using a statistic is the simplification
of the original data, usually by reducing their dimensionality. Kowalski (1972) makes a
pertinent point:
While this approach may in fact occasionally produce the required simplification,
it is more usually the case that the new dimensions defy meaningful interpretation
and that no real simplification is realized.,'.. .
Kowalski believes that multivariate methods are frequently too complex to use and
difficult to interpret; consequently he believes univariate methods to be of more value.
Corruccini (1978) countest that univariate output may similarly be used to obfuscate the
reader by presenting an overwhelming array of tables'. Nonetheless, Kowalski's advice on
the criteria for employing multivariate methods is sound:

Nevertheless, these critics. acknowledge the potential strengths of the morphometric
approach, many of their criticisms are directed against abuses of these methods rather
than the methods themselves. Corruccini (1978) gives an instructive and cautionary account
of the many ways in which multivariate methods may be misused.
It should be remembered that the rationale for using a statistic is the simplification
of the original data, usually by reducing their dimensionality. Kowalski (1972) makes a
pertinent point:
While this approach may in fact occasionally produce the required simplification,
it is more usually the case that the new dimensions defy meaningful interpretation
and that no real simplification is realized.,'.. .
Kowalski believes that multivariate methods are frequently too complex to use and
difficult to interpret; consequently he believes univariate methods to be of more value.
Corruccini (1978) countest that univariate output may similarly be used to obfuscate the
reader by presenting an overwhelming array of tables'. Nonetheless, Kowalski's advice on
the criteria for employing multivariate methods is sound:

MOESAN
12-10-16, 12:23
E Powell still ... (yellow underlining is mine)
This utilization of non-metric traits as population indicators rested on the assumption

that this variation has a genetic, rather than environmental basis. Evidence for the
genetic nature of these traits in man came from a number of fan-dly studies (e. g. Montagu
1937,Torgersen 1951 ab, Selby, Garn and Kanareff 1955, Suzuki and Sakai 1960) where one particular type of trait was investigated. These studies generally concluded that the traits
were inherited, usually by a don-dnant gene with incomplete penetrance'. The observation
(Brothwell 1959) that the frequency of any particular variant was constant in a given race,
and similar in related races was also suggestive of a genetic basis. However, the major
breakthrough in elucidating the mechanisms controlling trait expression occurred in the
1950s. This came from a series of investigations by Griineberg and his co-workers, at
University College, London, into the inheritance of skeletal traits in the mouse
(sunumrised in Groneberg1, 963).
Groneberg discovered that a range of n-dnor variants in the skeletons of inbred strains
of laboratory nice, although manifesting as "all or none" characters, were inherited as
continuous variables rather than as Mendelian traits. These traits exhibit a wide range of
rnorphological expression but they are all distinguished by having a discontinuous
distribution based on an inherited underlying continuous variable - Gruneberg (1952) coined
the term 'quasi-continuous' for this type of discontinuous variation.
Gruneberg (1963) demonstrated that the actual inherited entity is the size or rate of
formation of an embryonic rudiment and not the presence or absence of a variant in'the
mature skeleton. In the CBA strain of mice, for example, 18% of adults lack one or both of
their lower third molars. There are apparently genes which control tooth size as such,
shown by the increased variance of third molar size in the hybrid offspring of two inbred

strains. Strains of mice in which the incidence of missing molars was high also had on
average, smaller molars than other strains. Grilneberg showed that in embryonic mice,
there was a range in size of the tooth germ at any particular stage, but that if the tooth
germ failed to reach a certain size by the sixth day after birth, the tooth germ regressed
and the tooth failed to develop.

Gruneberg also found that the factors determining whether a tooth will develop or
not are the environmental factors connected with maternal physiology. For example, tooth
loss was commonest in large litters and in first litters where the size of the young was small
at birth. Third molar size could be increased by fostering the young onto mothers whose
lactational performance was better than that of the natural mother, or decreased by
feeding the mother on a deficient diet which interfered with lactation.
...
For any inbred strain, the frequency of a trait was found to be constant in each
generation, and that the trait frequency was a characteristic of the gene pool in question.
Moreover this frequency was found to be largely independent of age, and usually sex, so that
it could be used as a genetical marker in population studies in approximately the same way
as the frequency of a blood group. Furthermore, there are in the mouse very few correlations
of the joint occurrence of pairs of variants.
...







...
In summary, this study has shown that the characteristics of distances based on metric
traits are consistentw ith those expectedo f a genetic or taxonon-dcd istance. Th, ep attern of
relationship between the groups, as revealed by the metric plots, is also reasonable in the
light of present archaeological knowledge. Non-metric traits, however, produce distances
which behave in an erratic manner, and the population relationships suggested by nonmetric
plots is problematical. Metric variation, therefore, must be regarded as the more
-227-
Rq=RETATION OF RESULTS.
reliable indicator of population affinity. This study is open to the criticism that the metric
variablest having been taken by different workers, are subject to inter-worker error.
However, the consistency of the metric results, and the discovery that non-metric traits are
subject to a considerable degree of intra-worker error, yield the conclusion that the results
are nonetheless valid.
62. The genetic basis of non-metric traits - revisited.
In chapter 2, the evidence was reviewed which showed that non-metric traits have a strong
genetic basis. The disagreement between male and female non-metric distances does not
concur with this supposition. Recently, some workers have begun to question this
assumption of a strong genetic component. Richtsmeier and McGrath (1986), studying mice,
found that in only 4 of 35 traits could they arrive at a significant heritability value.
Noting that these results were consistent with those of Self and Leamy (1978) and Searle
(1954), they suggest that "historically accepted assumptions about heritability of nonmetric
traits require continued close scrutiny".
The contention that non-metric traits are not genetic is not easily accepted in the face
of counter-evidencefr om numerouss tudiesi n mice (e.g . Grilneberg1 963)m, acaques(e .g .
Cheverud and Buikstra 1981) and man (e. g. Saunders and Popovich 1978). Heritability
estimates were originally formulated for the study of continuous variation, and the .'
statistical difficulties accompanying their modification for binary data may decrease the
validity of these family siudies (Falconer 1981). Similarly, many so-called discrete traits
do, in fact, show continuous variation (Corruccini 1974); subjectively constructed thresholds
may not adequately express an underlying genetic basis.
Categorical scoring of traits has been adopted by many workers to increase the
consistencyo f scoring,t hough the scoresa re usually dichoton-dsedp rior to analysis. The
loss of information which accompaniesd ichoton-dsationis expresseda s measuremente, rror
in the analysis. In heritability studies, this type of measurement error appears as
environmental variance (Falconer 1981, p. 124). This may account for the low heritability
values in some studies, though why all studies are not affected is unclear. If this type of
1 1, -11ý
-228-
RqTERPRETATION OF RESULTS.
error appears to reduce the genetic component of the trait data, it is possible that this
accounts for anomalous results which are a frequent feature of non-metric population studies.
As stated by Richtsmeier and McGrath (1986):
When dichoton-tizing, discrete categorization is imposed on a process which is, in
fact, continuous. Sincew e cannotd emonstratet he biological correctnesso f the chosen
categories,lu mping of trait expressionm ay not reflect the biological baseso f trait
variation.
Since the methods of trait development are poorly comprehended, arbitrarily defined
scoring thresholds can have no biological meaning. Richtsmeier and McGrath conclude that
"until a fuller understanding of nonmetric trait etiology is developed, the pron-dse of
nonmetric traits will remain unfulfilled".
The differences between left and right sides also has genetic implications. If
asymmetry is the result of random environmental noise, which at the moment seems to be
the most commonly accepted theory, the difference in information in the sides is diffýcult to
explain. It is quite possible that this difference is an artefact caused by inadequate sample
size. If this is not the case, it suggests that'sampling by individuar, as advocated by
Korey (1980) and Buikstra (1972) may be unwise, and that the 'additive genetic effects'
I
theory of Berry and Berry (1967, R. J. Berry 1968, A. C Berry 1975) and the'genetic basis of
asyrnmetry' theory of Ossenberg (1981) should be re-exan-dned. Until this matter is
resolved, it may be expedient to derive bilateral trait frequencies using one side only.

MOESAN
12-10-16, 12:24
Tyrrell cited by Samantha Walsh (about B-A Britain)
3.4.7 Non-metric traits and relatedness
Non-metric traits are natural variations in the skeleton which have been used in studies of skeletal populations when attempting to find ethnic identities or family groups (Berry and Berry 1972; Coppa et al. 1998; Tyrell 2000, 289; Gowland 2007, 58). There is much confusion in what non-metric traits mean and what they can be used for; also palaeopathological lesions are at times mistakenly classified with non-metric traits and vice versa. When non-metric traits are studied, they have often been recorded inconsistently. Non-metric traits have been used mainly for the determination of biodistance, which is a measure of the relative similarity between skeletal population samples. Biodistance analysis uses specific traits from the cranium or dentition to estimate genetic similarity among regional populations in the reconstruction of migration and gene flow (Stojanowski and Schillaci 2006, 49). Tyrell (2000) discusses the most reliable traits which are structures relating to vascular and neurological systems. Problematically, once dental development is complete the jaws and facial skeleton are subject to powerful stresses. The non-metric traits of the post-cranium are more susceptible to remodelling and functional modification so are even less suitable for analysis (Tyrell 2000, 294). Small changes in environment and loading on the skeleton can also alter heritability (Tyrell 2000, 296). Their polymorphic nature and the possible environmental contribution to their expression means non-metric traits are not useful as measures of relatedness or ethnicity within skeletal populations (Tyrell 2000, 301).

bicicleur
12-10-16, 14:47
I suppose ...

dental or skull morphology changes, already after the first generation of admixture, and it is very difficult to found out which were the ancestors before admixture
and we don't know if it is total admixture, or just males of tribe A with women of tribe B or vice versa

while admixed DNA can be traced back to a library of DNA of unadmixed populations
the library is not complete yet though

so DNA has much more potential for the future

Olympus Mons
12-10-16, 23:08
QUOTE=bicicleur;492092]I suppose ...

dental or skull morphology changes, already after the first generation of admixture, and it is very difficult to found out which were the ancestors before admixture
and we don't know if it is total admixture, or just males of tribe A with women of tribe B or vice versa

while admixed DNA can be traced back to a library of DNA of unadmixed populations
the library is not complete yet though

so DNA has much more potential for the future[/QUOTE]

Obviously DNA is the future.
the point is that there are more inferences from nonmetric than from DNA. Secondly, some nonmetric are actually being proven right by Adna.

Now, since DNA either by cold/dry preservation or by investigators biases (I dont care which) is actually centered in northeastern Europe. Therefore centered in the Historically most irrelevant, uneventful, boring, wasteland that Europe has ever produced. Even in later times of historical pivoteal moments (Greeks, etruscan romans, cartage, etc) has the world exploded in civilizations, that region is a black stain for millennia. It was a black hole for human relevance. However from the "who cares land" we see samples upon samples of high quality Ancient DNA being published almost every month. The right response would be... who cares!

The point is if Nonmetric RECENT studies and respecting ASUDS protocol, are correct then several gaps in Ancient Dna analysis can easily be closed.

Olympus Mons
12-10-16, 23:25
Several stories are easily written by Nonmetric dental traits:

*7000BC Karelia, and people from Latvia region, massively migrated to steppe at those times. Never really crossed the Urals, even to baraba forrest, but move as far south as the south Turkmenistan. Nonmetric was stating those huge differences to eastern Urals up to Baikal region from the steppe people. These are cultures prior to Yamnaya. If that Karelia was EHG… then they did they take EHG to steppe but to where else? Balkans?

*Oh, oh, Another, Even if MOESAN is making contortionism to prove Desideri Wrong, Nm metric clearly states Bell beakers went from Iberia to as far as Hungary and also clearly state that the eastern BB group, in bohemia in the Czech rep, were a mix of mainly CWC and BB and basically were the women being exchanged.

*Or, even, that Catal huyak Anatolia clearly neolithic (7000BC), show up later in south Caucasus near the Kura river (4000BC) and later are part of Yamnaya.

MOESAN
14-10-16, 11:05
I suppose ...

dental or skull morphology changes, already after the first generation of admixture, and it is very difficult to found out which were the ancestors before admixture
and we don't know if it is total admixture, or just males of tribe A with women of tribe B or vice versa

while admixed DNA can be traced back to a library of DNA of unadmixed populations
the library is not complete yet though

so DNA has much more potential for the future


after crossings, the phoenotypic traits change in sometimes surprising ways, but after few generations (the second after crossing) some traits inherited from the "mother" pops re-appear among numerous individuals of the new admixed pop; their study is uneasy, but a good observation permits to guess the "parent" elements (prudence: "fathers" or "grand' fathers" or "uncles" ?!! look at Yamna and CWC). With some prudence the metrics surveys (+ individual typology) can help to guess the history of the new pop.

auDNA of today is still too unprecise (in its publications, in the papers offered to us, at least); and don't forget we share a big amount of common DNA, not only with other Human beings but with animals too; it's almost too gradual;
Physical anthropology when used intelligently, is far more useful to differentiate neighbouring pops; by instance, ANE au-component is common to diverse pops, but which study tell us what part of ANE is among say North Russians and Tadjiks?; are these two pops the same ones? Sure, the phoenotypes, even very different, concern ONLY a tiny part of auDNA, but they can be very very useful when scientists have no agenda (old question);
auDNA is never a pure one, whatever its age; only some tiny parts of it tell us something at the scale of the 20000 last years; are Natufians a good proxi for a TRUE BASIC UNMIXTED POP? No. Were Mal'ta a good proxi? No. They are only previous stages of
admixtures; but yes they can help, because they surely knew some stage of isolation before giving birth to other newer pops;
I think that for history, EVERY MEAN is a useful tool for knowing more: docs, archeology, metric and non-metric anthropology, linguistics; only problem: the accuracy of everyone of them; but the number and importance of errors can be reduced by the interaction of all these tools; I would add another tool: good sense! (it lacks sometimes even among doctoring people)

MOESAN
14-10-16, 11:33
Several stories are easily written by Nonmetric dental traits:

*7000BC Karelia, and people from Latvia region, massively migrated to steppe at those times. Never really crossed the Urals, even to baraba forrest, but move as far south as the south Turkmenistan. Nonmetric was stating those huge differences to eastern Urals up to Baikal region from the steppe people. These are cultures prior to Yamnaya. If that Karelia was EHG… then they did they take EHG to steppe but to where else? Balkans?

*Oh, oh, Another, Even if MOESAN is making contortionism to prove Desideri Wrong, Nm metric clearly states Bell beakers went from Iberia to as far as Hungary and also clearly state that the eastern BB group, in bohemia in the Czech rep, were a mix of mainly CWC and BB and basically were the women being exchanged.

*Or, even, that Catal huyak Anatolia clearly neolithic (7000BC), show up later in south Caucasus near the Kura river (4000BC) and later are part of Yamnaya.

Moesan not glad, Moesan not glad, dear Olympus! Let's take it easy!
"contortionism"???
I tried to explain the limits of the dental non-metrics: NEVER said they were UNUSEFUL AT ALL! You are or were not in my "collimateur"; I was thinking also in a survey about Celts at IA times, based upon very few and little!!!
when applied to very distant pops non-metric can prove some moves of pops (by instance I'm interested in the studies about Karelia people migrating into Steppes, I don't throw this info into the rubbish pot);
I never said DESIDERI was wrong all the way; I tempered her results, not the same; by the way, "southern" ties is of interest only for Hungary in the case of the BBs study; DESIDERI did not compare females of ALL groups of BBs; only in Bohemia, along with CWC and Unetice; I NEVER said she proved nothing, surely some female moved during these times, but which ones, what number, from where to where? I said it's uneasy to weight the female input with this method, and that it's very uneasy to evaluate - with this method BUT ALSO WITH OTHERS the southern component precise geographic origin, in territories where this southern component was already present since a long time even if not always in the same exact precentages (France, Switzerland and others).
I have NO agenda, and I produce very few hypothesis, because I'm prudent; I don't believe in NO HALLSTATT NO LATENE in Eastern Britain, I don't believe in A HUGE SW-Iberian pop move into Europe at BBs (female or not). I don't believe IN A HUGE HALLSTATT/LATENE input in Britain, and I do believe in SOME input of Iberians during BBs times; question of dosis; maybe I'm wrong? SO I do objections, not theories.
Thanks for your objectivity!

MOESAN
14-10-16, 11:52
it's not the very thread but:*in my#3 I spoke of Tripolye input in Ukraina since Neolithic; Error! It seems the Ukraina "Neolithic" pop (6000/4000 BC?) was only partly neolithicized in its way of life and physically stayed very 'cromagnoid' and robust; + I red in Wiki that it was rather these kinds of females which had some input in Tripolye sites at those times; the reverse: input of "genuine" Tripolye pop upon Ukrainia ancient pop occurred a bit later, not at the first paces of Tripolye Neolithic. Only readings, I 'm too young to have witnessed all that.
&:Catal Höyük pop input onto Steppes is real IN CERTAIN PLACES (not all) and we cannot tell the route it took; I think more in Tripolye than in Caucasus, to date...

Olympus Mons
14-10-16, 17:26
Moesan not glad, Moesan not glad, dear Olympus! Let's take it easy!
"contortionism"???
...
I never said DESIDERI was wrong all the way; ...

I have NO agenda, and I produce very few hypothesis, because I'm prudent; I don't believe in NO HALLSTATT NO LATENE in Eastern Britain, I don't believe in A HUGE SW-Iberian pop move into Europe at BBs (female or not). I don't believe IN A HUGE HALLSTATT/LATENE input in Britain, and I do believe in SOME input of Iberians during BBs times; question of dosis; maybe I'm wrong? SO I do objections, not theories.
Thanks for your objectivity!


@Moesan,
Didn’t say that to spike you. But that is how I see it. I truly think that if it wasn’t the fact that Bell Beakers are at present associated with R1b expansion and being R1b so important in Western Europe and there wouldn’t even be any sort of discussions that the BB had come out of Iberia by the buck loads and papers like Desideri would be just looked at as proof.
Therefore so many facts are ignored.
Most importantly: Iberia from 3500BC on saw its populations explode with incoming population. For Christ sake. It went to a “semi deserted” peninsula to have in less than 300 year a city like Porto Torrão that must have harbored as much as 30,000 people. So almost as big as the city of Ur in Sumerian! And there were several, San Blas, la pijotilla, conception… loads.
3300BC to 2800BC something that must have looked like a “war” happened. And once finished we saw warriors Bell beakers move in large numbers starting from Lisbon area, to north Galiza, Basque, over pyrenes and all over Europe.

Olympus Mons
14-10-16, 17:40
it's not the very thread but:*in my#3 ...
&:Catal Höyük pop input onto Steppes is real IN CERTAIN PLACES (not all) and we cannot tell the route it took; I think more in Tripolye than in Caucasus, to date...

What I said was Catal Höyük is related to Shulaveri-Shomu and those seem close to Yamnaya by nm dental traits.

Shulaveri-Shomu must have been a considerable size population. 4900BC saw them desapear from the Kura river and be replaced by diferent population... where did they go?

Most times i think people these days have a problem with the concept of time and space.
And also they think ancient people had either nukes or heavy weaponry to eliminate whole populations.