PDA

View Full Version : FTDNA ancientOrigins



elghund
12-11-16, 18:39
Family Tree DNA (https://www.familytreedna.com/login.aspx) currently has a new feature for those customers whoorder Family Finder-- ancientOrigins. They are breaking down percentages into hunter gatherer, farmer, metal age invader, and non-European.

Maleth
12-11-16, 18:54
Thnks...enjoyed that:-

here are mine :)





(https://www.familytreedna.com/my/ancient-origins-map/?group=hunter#)













https://www.familytreedna.com/images/ancient-populations/hunting_3.png



Hunter-Gatherer 22%


The climate during the Pleistocene Epoch (2.6 mill – 11,700 YA) fluctuated between episodes of glaciation (or ice ages) and episodes of warming, during which glaciers would retreat. It is within this epoch that modern humans migrated into the European continent at around 45,000 years ago. These Anatomically Modern Humans (AMH) were organized into bands whose subsistence strategy relied on gathering local resources as well as hunting large herd animals as they travelled along their migration routes. Thus these ancient peoples are referred to as Hunter-Gatherers. The timing of the AMH migration into Europe happens to correspond with a warming trend on the European continent, a time when glaciers retreated and large herd animals expanded into newly available grasslands.
Evidence of hunter-gatherer habitation has been found throughout the European continent from Spain at the La Brana cave to Loschbour, Luxembourg and Motala, Sweden. The individuals found at the Loschbour and Motala sites have mitochondrial U5 or U2 haplogroups, which is typical of Hunter-Gatherers in Europe and Y-chromosome haplogroup I. These findings suggest that these maternally and paternally inherited haplogroups, respectively, were present in the population before farming populations gained dominance in the area.
Based on the DNA evidence gathered from these three sites, scientists are able to identify surviving genetic similarities between current day Northern European populations and the first AMH Hunter-Gatherers in Europe. The signal of genetic sharing between present-day populations and early Hunter-Gatherers, however, begins to become fainter as one moves further south in Europe. The hunter-gatherer subsistence strategy dominated the landscape of the European continent for thousands of years until populations that relied on farming and animal husbandry migrated into the area during the middle to late Neolithic Era around 8,000–7,000 years ago.



https://www.familytreedna.com/images/ancient-populations/farmer.png
Farmer 61%


Roughly 8,000–7,000 years ago, after the last glaciation period (Ice Age), modern human farming populations began migrating into the European continent from the Near East. This migration marked the beginning of the Neolithic Era in Europe. The Neolithic Era, or New Stone Age, is aptly named as it followed the Paleolithic Era, or Old Stone Age. Tool makers during the Neolithic Era had improved on the rudimentary “standard” of tools found during the Paleolithic Era and were now creating specialized stone tools that even show evidence of having been polished and reworked. The Neolithic Era is unique in that it is the first era in which modern humans practiced a more sedentary lifestyle as their subsistence strategies relied more on stationary farming and pastoralism, further allowing for the emergence of artisan practices such as pottery making.
Farming communities are believed to have migrated into the European continent via routes along Anatolia, thereby following the temperate weather patterns of the Mediterranean. These farming groups are known to have populated areas that span from modern day Hungary, Germany, and west into Spain. Remains of the unique pottery styles and burial practices from these farming communities are found within these regions and can be attributed, in part, to artisans from the Funnel Beaker and Linear Pottery cultures. Ötzi (the Tyrolean Iceman), the well-preserved natural mummy that was found in the Alps on the Italian/Austrian border and who lived around 3,300 BCE, is even thought to have belonged to a farming culture similar to these. However, there was not enough evidence found with him to accurately suggest to which culture he may have belonged.
Although farming populations were dispersed across the European continent, they all show clear evidence of close genetic relatedness. Evidence suggests that these farming peoples did not yet carry a tolerance for lactose in high frequencies (as the Yamnaya peoples of the later Bronze Age did); however, they did carry a salivary amylase gene, which may have allowed them to break down starches more efficiently than their hunter-gatherer forebears. Further DNA analysis has found that the Y-chromosome haplogroup G2a and mitochondrial haplogroup N1a were frequently found within the European continent during the early Neolithic Era.



https://www.familytreedna.com/images/ancient-populations/metallurgist.png
Metal Age Invader 14%


Following the Neolithic Era (New Stone Age), the Bronze Age (3,000–1,000 BCE) is defined by a further iteration in tool making technology. Improving on the stone tools from the Paleolithic and Neolithic Eras, tool makers of the early Bronze Age relied heavily on the use of copper tools, incorporating other metals such as bronze and tin later in the era. The third major wave of migration into the European continent is comprised of peoples from this Bronze Age; specifically, Nomadic herding cultures from the Eurasian steppes found north of the Black Sea. These migrants were closely related to the people of the Black Sea region known as the Yamnaya.
This migration of Asian Steppe nomads into the temperate regions further west changed culture and life on the European continent in a multitude of ways. Not only did the people of the Yamnaya culture bring their domesticated horses, wheeled vehicles, and metal tools; they are also credited for delivering changes to the social and genetic makeup of the region. By 2,800 BCE, evidence of new Bronze Age cultures, such as the Bell Beaker and Corded Ware, were emerging throughout much of Western and Central Europe. In the East around the Urals, a group referred to as the Sintashta emerged, expanding east of the Caspian Sea bringing with them chariots and trained horses around 4,000 years ago.
These new cultures formed through admixture between the local European farming cultures and the newly arrived Yamnaya peoples. Research into the influence the Yamnaya culture had on the European continent has also challenged previously held linguistic theories of the origins of Indo-European language. Previous paradigms argued that the Indo-European languages originated from populations from Anatolia; however, present research into the Yamnaya cultures has caused a paradigm shift and linguists now claim the Indo-European languages are rooted with the Yamnaya peoples.
By the Bronze Age, the Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b was quickly gaining dominance in Western Europe (as we see today) with high frequencies of individuals belonging to the M269 subclade. Ancient DNA evidence supports the hypothesis that the R1b was introduced into mainland Europe by the Asian Steppe invaders coming from the Black Sea region. Further DNA evidence suggests that a lactose tolerance originated from the Yamnaya or another closely tied steppe group. Current day populations in Northern Europe typically show a higher frequency of relatedness to Yamnaya populations, as well as earlier populations of Western European Hunter-Gatherer societies.



https://www.familytreedna.com/images/ancient-populations/other.png
Non-European 3%


Most of the world is not of European descent and alternatively, have genetic contributions from influential and significant populations for which we currently do not have enough scientific data. For this reason, those whose ancestral makeup is of non-European descent cannot be grouped into these three particular ancient European categories. As more significant DNA evidence is found in other regions of the world, we will work to continue to connect the ancient with the present in our effort to further our understanding of the interconnectedness between us all.






(https://www.familytreedna.com/my/ancient-origins-map/?group=hunter#site_1)

Sile
12-11-16, 19:53
mine below

Hunter-Gather-30%

Farmer-54%

Metal Age Invader-16%

non-European-0%

Boreas
12-11-16, 21:01
Hunter-Gather-19%

Farmer-49%

Metal Age Invader-24%

non-European-8%

Maciamo
12-11-16, 21:19
Interesting initiative, but when I see the results (mine and those posted here), they percentages for the Metal-age invaders seems completely off for everyone.

Sile
12-11-16, 21:51
Interesting initiative, but when I see the results (mine and those posted here), they percentages for the Metal-age invaders seems completely off for everyone.

There is chit-chat on other forums , saying

metal-age = CHG from South Caucasus

Farmer = EEF in Anatolia

hunter-gathers = WHG and EHG

non-european = outside of Europe , Cyprus and Anatolia ..............

HYGILI4K
12-11-16, 22:12
Hunter-Gather-28%

Farmer-60%

Metal Age Invader-12%

Maciamo
12-11-16, 22:29
There is chit-chat on other forums , saying

metal-age = CHG from South Caucasus

Farmer = EEF in Anatolia

hunter-gathers = WHG and EHG

non-european = outside of Europe , Cyprus and Anatolia ..............

This confirms how ridiculous the Metal-age percentages are. Yamna were not pure CHG, and not even mainly CHG. How can people at FTDNA not know that?

Fluffy
12-11-16, 22:34
This confirms how ridiculous the Metal-age percentages are. Yamna were not pure CHG, and not even mainly CHG. How can people at FTDNA not know that?

LOL I got 10% Metal age.

Twilight
12-11-16, 22:52
This confirms how ridiculous the Metal-age percentages are. Yamna were not pure CHG, and not even mainly CHG. How can people at FTDNA not know that?

If metal age is truly CHG then I recommend Ftdna add Malta Boy into the percentage mix.

Sile
12-11-16, 23:59
This confirms how ridiculous the Metal-age percentages are. Yamna were not pure CHG, and not even mainly CHG. How can people at FTDNA not know that?

:confused2: Yamna is not in south caucasus.......it is north of north caucasus

Tomenable
13-11-16, 00:58
Here are my results in Ancient European Origins:

48% Hunter-Gatherer
36% Farmer
17% Metal Age Invader
0% Non-European

===============

While according to Eurogenes Steppe K10, I am:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/32855-Post-your-Eurogenes-Steppe-K10?p=490493&viewfull=1#post490493

37% Western Hunter-Gatherer
29% Near Eastern Farmer
30% Steppe Invader
4% all other admixtures

===============

I must add "gathering - expert level" to my CV:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b56eAUCTLok

Tomenable
13-11-16, 01:06
This confirms how ridiculous the Metal-age percentages are. Yamna were not pure CHG, and not even mainly CHG. How can people at FTDNA not know that?

So it seems that my 48% = EHG and WHG combined. But its EHG part should actually be added to "Metal Age Invader". Also some of WHG is included in "Farmer", because Early European Farmers had some minor WHG ancestry (at least around 15%).

Eurogenes Steppe K10 is perhaps more accurate. There I'm a well-balanced mix of 1/3 WHG, 1/3 ENF, 1/3 Steppe.

Sile
13-11-16, 02:42
So it seems that my 48% = EHG and WHG combined. But its EHG part should actually be added to "Metal Age Invader". Also some of WHG is included in "Farmer", because Early European Farmers had some minor WHG ancestry (at least around 15%).

Eurogenes Steppe K10 is perhaps more accurate. There I'm a well-balanced mix of 1/3 WHG, 1/3 ENF, 1/3 Steppe.

why should ALL of EHG be in metal?

most metal should be with CHG in south caucasus

Hauteville
13-11-16, 10:00
Metal Age Invader is Corded+Yamnaya.

John Doe
13-11-16, 10:33
My results

21% Metal Age invader

62% Farmer

17% Hunter Gatherer

0% Non-European.

Hauteville
13-11-16, 11:06
Mine:

15% Hunter-Gatherer
63% Farmer
22% Metal Age Invader
0% Non-European

Tomenable
13-11-16, 15:52
Metal Age Invader is Corded+Yamnaya.

Are you sure? I think it is more like CHG or Iran Neolithic.

But Yamnaya were a mix of EHG and CHG, not just CHG.

And there can be also some Non-Yamnaya CHG ancestry.


why should ALL of EHG be in metal?

Because EHG lived only in Russia before the Bronze Age.

Hauteville
13-11-16, 16:03
Are you sure? I think it is more like CHG or Iran Neolithic.

But Yamnaya were a mix of EHG and CHG, not just CHG.

And there can be also some Non-Yamnaya CHG ancestry.



Because EHG lived only in Russia before the Bronze Age.

On the maps there are Yamnaya and Corded as references.

citizen of the world
13-11-16, 22:24
Mine:

Farmer: 34%
Metal age invader: 8%
Hunther- Gatherer: 0%
Non-European: 57%

Lebdover
14-11-16, 07:02
I got 46 Hunter and Gatherer, 42 Farmer and 12 Metal and my double first cousin got 49 Hunter and gatherer, 41 Farmer and 10 Metal. I actually think this is probably totally worthless and tells us nothing about our ancestral origins. Both my grandfathers were R1b ydna -my paternal M222+ A260+ and my maternal SYR2627+ FCG11245+ and my grandmothers were I1a1b and J1b1a1 mt-dna.

Huitzilopochtli
14-11-16, 07:14
Is it technically difficult to approximate Haak et al.? Davidski apparently did but hasn't published it on Gedmatch.

Maleth
14-11-16, 09:11
Interesting initiative, but when I see the results (mine and those posted here), they percentages for the Metal-age invaders seems completely off for everyone.

I agree. This is a little fishy. I am sure they must be much higher for some folks that come from particular geographical regions. Seems like something is missing there.

Sile
14-11-16, 09:48
I am surprised that most here think that the ancients used should fit modern pops and then themselves.....when the program wants to see where YOU fit in the ancient world ...............forget the modern one.
Clearly your line did not originate where you are living now


http://www.ancestorcentral.com/12th-international-conference-on-genetic-genealogy-saturday/

Hauteville
14-11-16, 09:53
I have seen that Caucasians have highest Metal Age admix of all the results I've seen. I guess Metal Age invaders is a mix of CHG+ANE.

Goga
14-11-16, 14:11
55% - Farmer
45% - Metal Age Invader
0% - Hunter Gatherer
0% - Non-European


'Metal Age Invader' seems to be a Caucaso-Gedrosia (Iranian Plateau) marker...

Maciamo
14-11-16, 16:01
In my case the percentage for Metal-age invader is exactly the same as the Gedrosia in Dodecad K12b, so they do not take into account at all the fact that Yamna only had about 30% of Gedrosia, and the rest was mostly Mesolithic European (North_European in K12b). Therefore a good deal of the Hunter-Gatherer reported in FTDNA is of Indo-European origin and should be listed as Metal-age invaders.

I don't understand how a supposedly serious company like FTDNA could publish such misleading (in fact downright wrong) data, when they have the means to compare customers' genomes directly with Yamna samples and other prehistoric samples (Mesolithic Europeans, Near Eastern farmers). That's really a blow to the image of FTDNA, in my opinion.

Goga
14-11-16, 16:09
In my case the percentage for Metal-age invader is exactly the same as the Gedrosia in Dodecad K12b, so they do not take into account at all the fact that Yamna only had about 30% of Gedrosia, and the rest was mostly Mesolithic European (North_European in K12b). Therefore a good deal of the Hunter-Gatherer reported in FTDNA is of Indo-European origin and should be listed as Metal-age invaders.

I don't understand how a supposedly serious company like FTDNA could publish such misleading (in fact downright wrong) data, when they have the means to compare customers' genomes directly with Yamna samples and other prehistoric samples (Mesolithic Europeans, Near Eastern farmers). That's really a blow to the image of FTDNA, in my opinion.
Because Hunter Gatherers were just very 'primitive' tribes (some say cannibals) that were just hunting and gathering their food. While Gedrosia from the Iranian Plateau people were highly advanced 'metallurgy' people (Aryans) who build empires and found civilizations (Mesopotamia, BMAC, Indus Valley, Egypt, Greece?? etc..)

Without Gedrosia there would be NEVER metallurgy in the Yamnaya Horizon. That's why Metal Age Invaders are assosiated with Gedrosia (Iranian Plateau) people. It were the Gedrosia (Iranian Plateau) people who Indo-Europized the Yamnaya Horizon. Yamnaya folks were just a SECOND stage Indo-Europeans who invaded Europe. It is just that plain and simple...

Regio X
14-11-16, 16:22
I have seen that Caucasians have highest Metal Age admix of all the results I've seen. I guess Metal Age invaders is a mix of CHG+ANE.See these from Afghanistan and (it seems) India, around 60%: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?9060-FTDNA-ancientOrigins/page9

Maciamo
15-11-16, 07:39
Because Hunter Gatherers were just very 'primitive' tribes (some say cannibals) that were just hunting and gathering their food. While Gedrosia from the Iranian Plateau people were highly advanced 'metallurgy' people (Aryans) who build empires and found civilizations (Mesopotamia, BMAC, Indus Valley, Egypt, Greece?? etc..)

Without Gedrosia there would be NEVER metallurgy in the Yamnaya Horizon. That's why Metal Age Invaders are assosiated with Gedrosia (Iranian Plateau) people. It were the Gedrosia (Iranian Plateau) people who Indo-Europized the Yamnaya Horizon. Yamnaya folks were just a SECOND stage Indo-Europeans who invaded Europe. It is just that plain and simple...

You are so wrong and it's painful to see that you can't even realise it. I am sure it's useless to explain it again to you as you will never understand and change your mind about pre-Iranian inhabitant of Iran being the source of civilization. But I will explain so that other (new) members don't get confused.

1) Metallurgy (copper, silver and gold smelting) was not invented in Iran or the South Caucasus, but in central Anatolia and in the Balkans. So far there is no way to tell if the two happened independently.

2) Bronze metallurgy was invented in the North Caucasus, in the Maykop culture, which could be considered as a sub-culture of Yamna, given the very close interactions between the two. Bronze quickly spread around all the Pontic-Caspian Steppe where it acquired a military role. The fact is that there was no real metal-age invasion before the expansion of Yamna people. Copper is not robust enough to make swords or large axes, let alone helmets and armours. It is malleable and like other softer metals (gold, silver) it has primarily a decorative use. I do not deny that there was a Neolithic migration from the South Caucasus or Iran to the Steppe, but these were cattle herders, not metal-age warriors.

3) FTDNA's Metal-age invader admixture really does look like CHG, which is based on Late Palaeolithic–Mesolithic Caucasus hunter-gatherers. It is not even the same as Gedrosia. It is wider than that and may be closer to the West Asian admixture in Dodecad K12. That explains why Northwest Europeans, who have the highest percentage of Yamna ancestry according to Haak 2015, end up with far less 'Metal-age invader than South Italians and Maltese (who have the lowest no Steppe ancestry in Europe along with Sardinians), or even Greeks and Middle Easterners.

4) FTDNA is an American company with mostly Western customers. The ancientOrigins tool was developed with these Western people of European descent in mind. In fact I find it rather shocking, and surprising considering that FTDNA's boss is Jewish, that they did not even specify that 'Hunter-Gatherers' means exclusively European Hunter-Gatherers, not Caucasian HG or Natufian, or North African, or Siberian, or East Asian or whatever else it could have implied. Imagine a person of Chinese descent ordering the FTDNA test and wondering what to do with the results? "100% Others"? What good is that to them? Even Jewish customers, who are much more numerous at FTDNA, would find it useless. If I were Jewish I would like to know my percentage of Natufian ancestry, which is a type of hunter-gatherer. So this ancientOrigins tool is completely useless for people of non-European descent as the labels all implied a European point of view. But they are also useless for Europeans, since they only look at the Caucasian/Gedrosian 30% of Yamna people to determine Metal-age Steppe ancestry.

If you can't even realise that it's very sad, especially considering the number of years you have spend on the forum, apparently just to remind people of your daffy and delusory theories. In fact, I am getting a bit fed up of you, and if I see you mention one more time the kind of ineptitude I quoted here, you are out.

Hauteville
15-11-16, 12:13
See these from Afghanistan and (it seems) India, around 60%: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?9060-FTDNA-ancientOrigins/page9
The same Yamnaya samples scores around 30% gedrosia on Dodecad K12b.

Goga
15-11-16, 15:28
2) Bronze metallurgy was invented in the North Caucasus, in the Maykop culture, which could be considered as a sub-culture of Yamna, given the very close interactions between the two. Bronze quickly spread around all the Pontic-Caspian Steppe where it acquired a military role. The fact is that there was no real metal-age invasion before the expansion of Yamna people. Copper is not robust enough to make swords or large axes, let alone helmets and armours. It is malleable and like other softer metals (gold, silver) it has primarily a decorative use. I do not deny that there was a Neolithic migration from the South Caucasus or Iran to the Steppe, but these were cattle herders, not metal-age warriors.
Well, it is your OPINION against the SCIENCE. Don't be angry at me. I'm just reproducing what science is telling us. Be angry at the science that is proving you wrong.


" Arsenical bronze was used by many societies and cultures across the globe. Firstly, the Iranian plateau (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_plateau), followed by the adjacent Mesopotamian area, together covering modern Iran, Iraq and Syria, has the earliest arsenical bronze metallurgy in the world, as previously mentioned. It was in use from the 4th millennium BC through to mid 2nd millennium, a period of nearly 2,000 years. There was a great deal of variation in arsenic content of artefacts throughout this period, making it impossible to say exactly how much was added deliberately and how much came about by accident.[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenical_bronze#cite_note-De_Ryck.2C_2005-5) Societies using arsenical bronze include the Akkadians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akkadians), those of Ur (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur), and the Amorites (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amorites), all based around the Tigris (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tigris) and Euphrates (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphrates) rivers and centres of the trade networks which spread arsenical bronze across the Middle East during the Bronze Age.[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenical_bronze#cite_note-De_Ryck.2C_2005-5) "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenical_bronze


" The Zagros Mountains are rich in mineral resources, so metal-workers could mix copper with arsenic or iron to harden it. The technique of making arsenical copper bronze spread to the copper-rich Caucasus by 3,700 BC. True bronze (a copper-tin alloy) did not appear until around 3000 BC. "

http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/metal.shtml


" More recently, Thornton et al. (2009) proposed that an artificial iron-arsenic alloy, called speiss, was produced in Early Bronze Age Tepe Hissar, North Iran, presumably to be added to copper metal for the production of arsenical copper. Even though finds of speiss are relatively well-known from several EBA copper workshops, suggesting that this material was widely used and traded (see Rehrenet al., 1988; Keesmann and Moreno-Onorato, 1999; Hauptmann et al., 2003; Müller et al., 2004; Doonan et al., 2007), the Tepe Hissar study was based on only a small number of finds from an urban workshope hardly enough to postulate with confidencea regular, intentional speiss production. "

http://www.academia.edu/1563389/Large_scale_smelting_of_speiss_and_arsenical_coppe r_at_Early_Bronze_Age_Arisman_Iran





You are also making huge, huge mistakes on all other points. But since you are threatening me with a ban (because you don't want to hear the truth) I don't have any urge anymore to show you the thruth. You can believe in everything what you want. But don't attack others and other professional sites when they do speak the truth...

Fluffy
15-11-16, 17:44
Well, it is your OPINION against the SCIENCE. Don't be angry at me. I'm just reproducing what science is telling us. Be angry at the science that is proving you wrong.


" Arsenical bronze was used by many societies and cultures across the globe. Firstly, the Iranian plateau (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_plateau), followed by the adjacent Mesopotamian area, together covering modern Iran, Iraq and Syria, has the earliest arsenical bronze metallurgy in the world, as previously mentioned. It was in use from the 4th millennium BC through to mid 2nd millennium, a period of nearly 2,000 years. There was a great deal of variation in arsenic content of artefacts throughout this period, making it impossible to say exactly how much was added deliberately and how much came about by accident.[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenical_bronze#cite_note-De_Ryck.2C_2005-5) Societies using arsenical bronze include the Akkadians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akkadians), those of Ur (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur), and the Amorites (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amorites), all based around the Tigris (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tigris) and Euphrates (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphrates) rivers and centres of the trade networks which spread arsenical bronze across the Middle East during the Bronze Age.[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenical_bronze#cite_note-De_Ryck.2C_2005-5) "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenical_bronze


" The Zagros Mountains are rich in mineral resources, so metal-workers could mix copper with arsenic or iron to harden it. The technique of making arsenical copper bronze spread to the copper-rich Caucasus by 3,700 BC. True bronze (a copper-tin alloy) did not appear until around 3000 BC. "

http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/metal.shtml


" More recently, Thornton et al. (2009) proposed that an artificial iron-arsenic alloy, called speiss, was produced in Early Bronze Age Tepe Hissar, North Iran, presumably to be added to copper metal for the production of arsenical copper. Even though finds of speiss are relatively well-known from several EBA copper workshops, suggesting that this material was widely used and traded (see Rehrenet al., 1988; Keesmann and Moreno-Onorato, 1999; Hauptmann et al., 2003; Müller et al., 2004; Doonan et al., 2007), the Tepe Hissar study was based on only a small number of finds from an urban workshope hardly enough to postulate with confidencea regular, intentional speiss production. "

http://www.academia.edu/1563389/Large_scale_smelting_of_speiss_and_arsenical_coppe r_at_Early_Bronze_Age_Arisman_Iran





You are also making huge, huge mistakes on all other points. But since you are threatening me with a ban (because you don't want to hear the truth) I don't have any urge anymore to show you the thruth. You can believe in everything what you want. But don't attack others and other professional sites when they do speak the truth...


Good post Goga. You seem to know your stuff.

Mars
15-11-16, 19:01
My results are
25% Hunter-gatherer
59% Farmer
16% Metal Age invader
0% non european
Metal Age invader is CHG in my opinion, maybe they'll change something in the near future, I don't know. I hope they refine the non-european set, in order to see the ancestral origins of users from outside of Europe.

Boreas
15-11-16, 19:05
I am surprised that most here think that the ancients used should fit modern pops and then themselves.....when the program wants to see where YOU fit in the ancient world ...............forget the modern one.
Clearly your line did not originate where you are living now


http://www.ancestorcentral.com/12th-international-conference-on-genetic-genealogy-saturday/


http://image.slidesharecdn.com/hammerslidesv22015-151117221658-lva1-app6892/95/r1b-and-the-people-of-europe-an-ancient-dna-update-30-638.jpg?cb=1447798795
My 8% non-european eyes can't see right

In mesolithic, one is I*/I2, the small one?

They have killed the chart with mixing backgroup colours and the line colours.

Maciamo
15-11-16, 22:21
" Arsenical bronze was used by many societies and cultures across the globe. Firstly, the Iranian plateau (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_plateau), followed by the adjacent Mesopotamian area, together covering modern Iran, Iraq and Syria, has the earliest arsenical bronze metallurgy in the world, as previously mentioned. It was in use from the 4th millennium BC through to mid 2nd millennium, a period of nearly 2,000 years. There was a great deal of variation in arsenic content of artefacts throughout this period, making it impossible to say exactly how much was added deliberately and how much came about by accident.[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenical_bronze#cite_note-De_Ryck.2C_2005-5) Societies using arsenical bronze include the Akkadians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akkadians), those of Ur (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur), and the Amorites (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amorites), all based around the Tigris (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tigris) and Euphrates (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphrates) rivers and centres of the trade networks which spread arsenical bronze across the Middle East during the Bronze Age.[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenical_bronze#cite_note-De_Ryck.2C_2005-5) "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenical_bronze

Nothing new here. All the civilisations you mention are more recent than Maykop (from 3700 BCE) and Yamna (from 3500 BCE). It is true that the Kura-Araxes culture in the Caucasus had bronze around the same time as Yamna and Maykop, but they only used bronze for arts and utensils, not weapons. That is why the Steppe PIE managed to invade both Europe and Central Asia, while the people of the Kura-Araxes culture and the Iranian plateau did not expand very far. BTW, the oldest bronze sword in the world comes from the Maykop culture and dates from c. 3250 BCE.

- Ur started using bronze in the third millennium BCE, about 1000 years after the start of Maykop.
- The Akkadian Empire only started from 2334 BCE, i.e. 1350 years after Maykop.
- The Amorites only show up from c. 2050 BCE.



" More recently, Thornton et al. (2009) proposed that an artificial iron-arsenic alloy, called speiss, was produced in Early Bronze Age Tepe Hissar, North Iran, presumably to be added to copper metal for the production of arsenical copper. Even though finds of speiss are relatively well-known from several EBA copper workshops, suggesting that this material was widely used and traded (see Rehrenet al., 1988; Keesmann and Moreno-Onorato, 1999; Hauptmann et al., 2003; Müller et al., 2004; Doonan et al., 2007), the Tepe Hissar study was based on only a small number of finds from an urban workshope hardly enough to postulate with confidencea regular, intentional speiss production. "

I am not denying that the Caucasus and Zagros were metal-rich region that developed metallurgy earlier than almost anywhere else (except the Balkans and Anatolia). You do remember that I made a map of Copper Age diffusion (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29077-New-map-of-the-diffusion-of-the-Copper-Age-in-Europe) three years ago, don't you? Wasn't that clear that copper metallurgy was in Iran before the Steppe? But as far as bronze weapons and bronze-age invaders are concerned, the invaders came primarily from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe. The point of this discussion was to determine what admixture represents what FTDNA calls 'Metal-age invaders'. They clearly state on their website (https://www.familytreedna.com/learn/ftdna/ancient-origins/) that the "Ancient European Origins page displays the percentages of autosomal DNA that you still carry from the three ancient European groups". If that is not clear enough, the Metal-age invader description states:

"The third major wave of migration into the European continent is comprised of peoples from this Bronze Age; specifically, Nomadic herding cultures from the Eurasian steppes found north of the Black Sea. These migrants were closely related to the people of the Black Sea region known as the Yamnaya."

I don't know what you are arguing about, or why. I have been explaining that their Metal-age admixture, despite expressly claiming to represent Yamna Steppe people, does not represent Yamna admixture at all, but rather South Asian + West Asian admixture. We end up with Middle Easterners having three times more presumably Yamna admixture than Northwest Europeans, which is utterly ridiculous.




You are also making huge, huge mistakes on all other points. But since you are threatening me with a ban (because you don't want to hear the truth) I don't have any urge anymore to show you the thruth. You can believe in everything what you want. But don't attack others and other professional sites when they do speak the truth...

Please, do tell. I won't ban you this time.

Fluffy
15-11-16, 22:41
Nothing new here. All the civilisations you mention are more recent than Maykop (from 3700 BCE) and Yamna (from 3500 BCE). It is true that the Kura-Araxes culture in the Caucasus had bronze around the same time as Yamna and Maykop, but they only used bronze for arts and utensils, not weapons. That is why the Steppe PIE managed to invade both Europe and Central Asia, while the people of the Kura-Araxes culture and the Iranian plateau did not expand very far. BTW, the oldest bronze sword in the world comes from the Maykop culture and dates from c. 3250 BCE.

- Ur started using bronze in the third millennium BCE, about 1000 years after the start of Maykop.
- The Akkadian Empire only started from 2334 BCE, i.e. 1350 years after Maykop.
- The Amorites only show up from c. 2050 BCE.




I am not denying that the Caucasus and Zagros were metal-rich region that developed metallurgy earlier than almost anywhere else (except the Balkans and Anatolia). You do remember that I made a map of Copper Age diffusion (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29077-New-map-of-the-diffusion-of-the-Copper-Age-in-Europe) three years ago, don't you? Wasn't that clear that copper metallurgy was in Iran before the Steppe? But as far as bronze weapons and bronze-age invaders are concerned, the invaders came primarily from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe. The point of this discussion was to determine what admixture represents what FTDNA calls 'Metal-age invaders'. They clearly state on their website (https://www.familytreedna.com/learn/ftdna/ancient-origins/) that the "Ancient European Origins page displays the percentages of autosomal DNA that you still carry from the three ancient European groups". If that is not clear enough, the Metal-age invader description states:

"The third major wave of migration into the European continent is comprised of peoples from this Bronze Age; specifically, Nomadic herding cultures from the Eurasian steppes found north of the Black Sea. These migrants were closely related to the people of the Black Sea region known as the Yamnaya."

I don't know what you are arguing about, or why. I have been explaining that their Metal-age admixture, despite expressly claiming to represent Yamna Steppe people, does not represent Yamna admixture at all, but rather South Asian + West Asian admixture. We end up with Middle Easterners having three times more presumably Yamna admixture than Northwest Europeans, which is utterly ridiculous.




Please, do tell. I won't ban you this time.

Good post. Some interesting stuff in here.

Goga
15-11-16, 23:20
Nothing new here. All the civilisations you mention are more recent than Maykop (from 3700 BCE) and Yamna (from 3500 BCE). It is true that the Kura-Araxes culture in the Caucasus had bronze around the same time as Yamna and Maykop, but they only used bronze for arts and utensils, not weapons. That is why the Steppe PIE managed to invade both Europe and Central Asia, while the people of the Kura-Araxes culture and the Iranian plateau did not expand very far. BTW, the oldest bronze sword in the world comes from the Maykop culture and dates from c. 3250 BCE.

- Ur started using bronze in the third millennium BCE, about 1000 years after the start of Maykop.
- The Akkadian Empire only started from 2334 BCE, i.e. 1350 years after Maykop.
- The Amorites only show up from c. 2050 BCE.
Leyla-Tepe culture from the Iranian Plateau PRE-DATE Maykop culture. It has been said that Maykop folks came from Leyla Tepe.

Agdam District settlement ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agdam_District ) of Leyla Tepe is dated from 4350 B.C until 4000 B.C


I'm not talking about Ur, Akkadians and other Semites who came from the Levant into the southern parts of the Mesopotamia, but I'm talking about the NATIVE people of the Iranian Plateau.


Leyle-Tepe civilization predate all of them. Maykop culture was born out of the Leyla Tepe kind of culture. There was a migration from the Iranian Plateu into the Maykop Horizon.
Leyla-Tepe metallurgy PREDATE Caucasian metallurgy:

" The appearance of Leilatepe tradition’s carriers in the Caucasus marked the appearance of the first local Caucasian metallurgy. This is attributed to migrants from Uruk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruk), arriving around 4500 BCE.
Leilatepe metalwork tradition was very sophisticated right from the beginning, and featured many bronze items. Yet later, the quality of metallurgy declined with the Kura–Araxes culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kura%E2%80%93Araxes_culture). "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leyla-Tepe_culture


" The culture has also been linked to the north Ubaid period (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubaid_period) monuments, in particular, with the settlements in the Eastern Anatolia Region (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Anatolia_Region) (Arslantepe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arslantepe), Coruchu-tepe, Tepechik, etc.).

It has been suggested that the Leyla-Tepe were the founders of the Maykop culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maykop_culture). An expedition to Syria by the Russian Academy of Sciences (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Academy_of_Sciences) revealed the similarity of the Maykop and Leyla-Tepe artifacts with those found recently while excavating the ancient city of Tel Khazneh I, from the 4th millennium BC. "

Other sites belonging to the same culture in the Karabakh valley of Azerbaijan are Chinar-Tepe, Shomulu-Tepe, and Abdal-Aziz-Tepe. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leyla-Tepe_culture


Leyla-Tepe = 4350 BC. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leyla-Tepe_culture )
Maykop = 3700 BC ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maykop_culture )
Yamnaya = 3500 BC ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamna_culture )

Goga
15-11-16, 23:37
I don't know what you are arguing about, or why.I'm not arguing about the SECOND stage of PIEans who invaded Europe. Those people of Yamnaya were already Indo-Europized by Maykop/Iranian Plateau folks. It has been proven that second stage IEans from Yamnaya Horizon invaded Europe. Yamnaya invaded Europe and NOT West Asia. That's why Europeans have more Yamnaya auDNA. But the point is that Yamnaya Horzion was invaded by West Asians at the first place prior to the Yamnaya adventure in Europe.
Why would Yamnaya invade West Asia when West Asians invaded Yamnaya Horizon? That would be useless. Those Yamnaya folks invaded Europe, because they looked for something they couldn't get in West Asia.


I'm just telling you that Yamnaya folks didn't invent bronze at all. They got it from the Iranian Plateau, could be via Maykop. Caucaso-Gedrosia auDNA is the source of the metallurgy in the Yamnaya Horzion. Maybe folks from FTDNA wanted to show only the real true Metal Age auDNA. And that auDNA is native to the Iranian Plateau. That's why people who are related to the Iranian Plateau score more of that Metal Age auDNA than Europeans. Simply because Iranian Plateau folks are direct descedants of those Iranian Plateau "metal age" inventors and have more of their DNA.

Goga
15-11-16, 23:46
Yamnaya Culture was actually found by folks from Leyla-Tepe. Maykop was just a GEOGRAPHIC link (like highway) between Leyla-Tepe and Yamnaya Horizon.

Bronze items were found in Leyla-Tepe culture native to the Iranian Plateau. Academic paper in English: http://www.academia.edu/9535165/Problems_of_Early_Metal_Age_Archaeology_of_Caucasu s_and_Anatolia._Proceedings_of_International_Confe rence

" The appearance of Leilatepe tradition’s carriers in the Caucasus marked the appearance of the first local Caucasian metallurgy. It emerged not on the basis and not in the entrails of the Caucasian Neolithic but was brought to this region by Uruk migrants from their ancestral home (Ахундов -Махмудова 2008).

Leilatepe carriers made the first step in the Metal Age in Caucasus, noteworthy straight in the Bronze Age. However, this step in the Southern Caucasus did not receive its further logical continuation, was interrupted without any further development and so was the Leilatepe tradition itself. There were reasons for this. Perhaps, this was connected with the movement of the Kura-Araxes carriers, who cut off all communication links of Leilatepe tradition’s carriers with their Central Asian ancestral home. "



Leyla-Tepe = at least 4350 BC. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leyla-Tepe_culture ) = FIRST stage PIE
Maykop = 3700 BC ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maykop_culture )
Yamnaya = 3500 BC ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamna_culture ) = SECOND stage PIE

Sile
16-11-16, 06:54
I'm not arguing about the SECOND stage of PIEans who invaded Europe. Those people of Yamnaya were already Indo-Europized by Maykop/Iranian Plateau folks. It has been proven that second stage IEans from Yamnaya Horizon invaded Europe. Yamnaya invaded Europe and NOT West Asia. That's why Europeans have more Yamnaya auDNA. But the point is that Yamnaya Horzion was invaded by West Asians at the first place prior to the Yamnaya adventure in Europe.
Why would Yamnaya invade West Asia when West Asians invaded Yamnaya Horizon? That would be useless. Those Yamnaya folks invaded Europe, because they looked for something they couldn't get in West Asia.


I'm just telling you that Yamnaya folks didn't invent bronze at all. They got it from the Iranian Plateau, could be via Maykop. Caucaso-Gedrosia auDNA is the source of the metallurgy in the Yamnaya Horzion. Maybe folks from FTDNA wanted to show only the real true Metal Age auDNA. And that auDNA is native to the Iranian Plateau. That's why people who are related to the Iranian Plateau score more of that Metal Age auDNA than Europeans. Simply because Iranian Plateau folks are direct descedants of those Iranian Plateau "metal age" inventors and have more of their DNA.

The first split from PIE happened ~4000BC in Anatolia , not europe

If people think R1 created PIE in the west urals............then they must have migrated to anatolia in large numbers to get the FIRST split from PIE

Maciamo
16-11-16, 07:27
Leyla-Tepe culture from the Iranian Plateau PRE-DATE Maykop culture. It has been said that Maykop folks came from Leyla Tepe.

Agdam District settlement ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agdam_District ) of Leyla Tepe is dated from 4350 B.C until 4000 B.C


I'm not talking about Ur, Akkadians and other Semites who came from the Levant into the southern parts of the Mesopotamia, but I'm talking about the NATIVE people of the Iranian Plateau.


Leyle-Tepe civilization predate all of them. Maykop culture was born out of the Leyla Tepe kind of culture. There was a migration from the Iranian Plateu into the Maykop Horizon.
Leyla-Tepe metallurgy PREDATE Caucasian metallurgy:

" The appearance of Leilatepe tradition’s carriers in the Caucasus marked the appearance of the first local Caucasian metallurgy. This is attributed to migrants from Uruk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruk), arriving around 4500 BCE.
Leilatepe metalwork tradition was very sophisticated right from the beginning, and featured many bronze items. Yet later, the quality of metallurgy declined with the Kura–Araxes culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kura%E2%80%93Araxes_culture). "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leyla-Tepe_culture


" The culture has also been linked to the north Ubaid period (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubaid_period) monuments, in particular, with the settlements in the Eastern Anatolia Region (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Anatolia_Region) (Arslantepe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arslantepe), Coruchu-tepe, Tepechik, etc.).

It has been suggested that the Leyla-Tepe were the founders of the Maykop culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maykop_culture). An expedition to Syria by the Russian Academy of Sciences (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Academy_of_Sciences) revealed the similarity of the Maykop and Leyla-Tepe artifacts with those found recently while excavating the ancient city of Tel Khazneh I, from the 4th millennium BC. "

Other sites belonging to the same culture in the Karabakh valley of Azerbaijan are Chinar-Tepe, Shomulu-Tepe, and Abdal-Aziz-Tepe. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leyla-Tepe_culture


Leyla-Tepe = 4350 BC. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leyla-Tepe_culture )
Maykop = 3700 BC ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maykop_culture )
Yamnaya = 3500 BC ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamna_culture )


I know all this, and I agree with you that the Gedrosian admixture in Yamna probably came from Leyla Tepe or another culture in Azerbaijan, northwest Iran, Armenia or Kurdistan (such as Korucutepe, as suggested by Philip Kohl (https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0521130158?ie=UTF8&tag=eupedia-21&link_code=as3&camp=2506&creative=9298&creativeASIN=0521130158)).

I was the one who claimed for the first time (in 2009) that R1b-M269 people were cattle herders from that region who crossed the Caucasus and mixed with the R1a HG in the Steppe and that the resulting merger of the two groups became the Proto-Indo-Europeans.

I also mentioned in 2012 that PIE language showed similarities with Hurrian (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/27900-The-rise-of-PIEs-in-the-steppes-From-the-Ural-or-from-the-from-the-Caucasus?p=399869&viewfull=1#post399869), the ancient language of Mesopotamia, which points to a common origin of the two in the same region. I also proposed in 2013 that the Proto-Indo-Europeans possibly originated from the Uruk expansion (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29350-Origins-of-the-Indo-Europeans-the-Uruk-expansion-and-Cucuteni-Trypillian-culture).

Have you not read anything I wrote about it on the forum for the last 7 years? You don't need to convince me that there was a migration across the Caucasus that brought that Gedrosia admixture. I was also the one who proposed that Gedrosia was linked with the diffusion R1b when Dodecad K12b was released in 2012 (can't find the original post, but I explained everything in detail when I made the Gedrosia admixture map (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29002-New-map-of-Gedrosian-autosomal-admixtures-in-Europe-and-the-Middle-East) and you were the first to reply to me).

Are you trying to take credit for all my theories or did you just forget that I was the one who proposed all of them?

That doesn't change what I am trying to explain here, which is that bronze was only used for the first time on a regular basis deserving to be called 'Bronze Age' in Maykop, was used for military purpose by Maykop and Yamna people and their descendants, and that they were the only real invaders. You need a military elements and battles to be able to invade territories. Neolithic farmers did not invade Europe. They just moved a few kilometres further per year, with hunter-gatherers living side by side. There is no evidence that Leyla Tepe or other South Caucasian people invaded the Steppe. They just migrated and blended with the locals. If you have any evidence to the contrary, I would be very interested to read about it.

You are also forgetting something when you claim that people from the Iranian plateau were the first metal-age invaders. Leyla Tepe was in Azerbaijan, and if they descend from Uruk, the original PIE would actually be Mesopotamian. Neither of them are from the Zagros or the Iranian plateau as you claim. Azerbaijan is mostly lowland located between the North and South Caucasus, and Leyla Tepe was in the lowland, not even in the mountainous area that abut the country. So it's a bit strange when you write that "Leyla-Tepe metallurgy PREDATE Caucasian metallurgy". Leyla Tepe is Caucasian metallurgy, just like Maykop! Perhaps our argument is about mainly about geography and the definition of 'invasion'.

Maciamo
16-11-16, 08:16
Yamnaya Culture was actually found by folks from Leyla-Tepe. Maykop was just a GEOGRAPHIC link (like highway) between Leyla-Tepe and Yamnaya Horizon.

Bronze items were found in Leyla-Tepe culture native to the Iranian Plateau. Academic paper in English: http://www.academia.edu/9535165/Problems_of_Early_Metal_Age_Archaeology_of_Caucasu s_and_Anatolia._Proceedings_of_International_Confe rence

" The appearance of Leilatepe tradition’s carriers in the Caucasus marked the appearance of the first local Caucasian metallurgy. It emerged not on the basis and not in the entrails of the Caucasian Neolithic but was brought to this region by Uruk migrants from their ancestral home (Ахундов -Махмудова 2008).

Leilatepe carriers made the first step in the Metal Age in Caucasus, noteworthy straight in the Bronze Age. However, this step in the Southern Caucasus did not receive its further logical continuation, was interrupted without any further development and so was the Leilatepe tradition itself. There were reasons for this. Perhaps, this was connected with the movement of the Kura-Araxes carriers, who cut off all communication links of Leilatepe tradition’s carriers with their Central Asian ancestral home. "


I haven't had time to read this paper yet, but if there is enough evidence that Leyla Tepe was founded by Uruk migrants, and that indeed Leyla Tepe was the source of Maykop, then it would confirm my suggestion that Uruk people were R1b-M269 people and the first PIE. Why is it so important for you to say that Leyla Tepe was first, and not Uruk or an even earlier culture. People always descend from earlier people. I placed the origin of R1b1 (P25) in Neolithic northern Mesopotamia/eastern Anatolia because this was where cattle were first domesticated, and that both R1b-V88 in Africa and R1b-M269 in Yamna were cattle herders. But cattle domestication happened 6000 years before Uruk. That's longer than from the onset of Maykop or Yamna until now! So, if PIE originated with R1b people, then when do you place its origin on the timeline? The conscensus among linguists is that we only start talking about a true PIE language in the Steppe because PIE includes borrowings from Proto-Uralic language (in addition to similarities with Hurrian and loanwords from Caucasian languages), which could only have happened in the Steppe. So Uruk and Leyla Tepe could have been ancestral to PIE, but they were not yet PIE. An analogy would be to say that the Anglo-Saxons did not colonise North America, but were ancestral to the English who did. Of course in both cases, the older population mixed with others (Leyla Tepe with EHG in the Steppe; the Anglo-Saxons with Romano-Britons, then Danes and Normans) before getting the final population (Proto-Indo-European and English in each part of the analogy).

bicicleur
16-11-16, 09:24
I haven't had time to read this paper yet, but if there is enough evidence that Leyla Tepe was founded by Uruk migrants, and that indeed Leyla Tepe was the source of Maykop, then it would confirm my suggestion that Uruk people were R1b-M269 people and the first PIE. Why is it so important for you to say that Leyla Tepe was first, and not Uruk or an even earlier culture. People always descend from earlier people. I placed the origin of R1b1 (P25) in Neolithic northern Mesopotamia/eastern Anatolia because this was where cattle were first domesticated, and that both R1b-V88 in Africa and R1b-M269 in Yamna were cattle herders. But cattle domestication happened 6000 years before Uruk. That's longer than from the onset of Maykop or Yamna until now! So, if PIE originated with R1b people, then when do you place its origin on the timeline? The conscensus among linguists is that we only start talking about a true PIE language in the Steppe because PIE includes borrowings from Proto-Uralic language (in addition to similarities with Hurrian and loanwords from Caucasian languages), which could only have happened in the Steppe. So Uruk and Leyla Tepe could have been ancestral to PIE, but they were not yet PIE. An analogy would be to say that the Anglo-Saxons did not colonise North America, but were ancestral to the English who did. Of course in both cases, the older population mixed with others (Leyla Tepe with EHG in the Steppe; the Anglo-Saxons with Romano-Britons, then Danes and Normans) before getting the final population (Proto-Indo-European and English in each part of the analogy).

watch this, I think it is realy interesting

8209

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=8209&d=1479283692

there are 3 Kvalynsk genomes which you can find in above chart



Samara Eneolithic
Russia
Khvalynsk II, Volga River, Samara [I0122/SVP 35]
M
4700-4000 BC
R1b1
M415
H2a1
Mathieson 2015


Samara Eneolithic
Russia
Khvalynsk II, Volga River, Samara [I0433/SVP 46]
M
4700-4000 BC
R1a1
M459
U5a1i
Mathieson 2015


Samara Eneolithic
Russia
Khvalynsk II, Volga River, Samara [I0434/SVP 47]
M
4700-4000 BC
Q1a
F2676
U4a2 or U4d
Mathieson 2015



2 are mainly EHG (blue) with some WHG (navy blue), basically the same like the Karelia and Samara HG (also on the chart)
they have no teal (CHG)

they are R1a1 and Q1a and mtDNA U4 and U5, U4 and U5 are WHG in origin

the 3rd has 22 % teal (CHG), 71 % EHG and no WHG
he is a newcomer
he is R1b1 and mtDNA H2a1, H2a1 is CHG in origin
he may have been pré-R1b-V88 (but very early V88 then, spliting from the main V88 branch ca 16-17 ka)

the Yamnaya (Pit Grace on the chart) and Afanasievo are a mixture of mainly this newcomer and some the 2 others
Yamnaya and Afanasievo have about 16 % CHG, 82 % EHG and only 1 % WHG

Yamnaya and Afanasievo people probably arrived in the Volga area during Khvalynsk period.
That is way before Maykop.

Goga
20-11-16, 03:48
I was the one who claimed for the first time (in 2009) that R1b-M269 people were cattle herders from that region who crossed the Caucasus and mixed with the R1a HG in the Steppe and that the resulting merger of the two groups became the Proto-Indo-Europeans.
They found R1a1 in the Baikal region (just north of Mongolia) from the Early Neolithicera (5500 BC), VERY far away from Europe. http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/33112-Ancient-y-Dna-from-Lake-Baikal-Siberia?p=494891#post494891

That means that R1a was already in Central Asia BEFORE Yamnaya! It predate let say Sintashta culture by 3500 years!

R1a in Iran, South Central Asia predate Yamnaya by thousands of years. That means that R1a-Z93 in NATIVE to Iran/SouthCentral Asia.

R1a1 entered the Steppes from IRAN, since they also found some eNeolithic P* in Iran.


So, what am I trying to say??

Also R1a1 has to be linked to Gedrosia auDNA. Gedrosia = at least R1 (R1a & R1b) and R2 ...


R2 and R1 (R1a & R1b) all has to be linked with Gedrosia auDNA. Gedrosia in the Steppes was not ONLY from R1b but also from R1a !!!

KaiserT
26-11-16, 07:01
Metal Age Invader - 63%
Farmer - 23%
Hunter-Gatherer - 0%
non-European - 14%

Aaron1981
09-12-16, 18:15
Whatever Metal Age invader is, it is not Yamnaya. It is basically a Caucasian reference population. There is no way that it should be higher in Southern Euros, Ashkenazi jews, and other Middle Eastern populations, than central European populations that were affected by any population movements in northern Europe.

Syky
23-02-17, 16:14
I am mostly Czech.

43% Hunter-Gatherer
41% Farmer
16% Metal Age Invader
0% Non-European

Apsurdistan
01-05-17, 18:20
Mine
17 metal age invader
44 farmer
39 hunter gatherer
0 non european

Hey Syky the Czech guy we're pretty damn close

MsJ
02-05-17, 04:36
47% Farmer
38% HG
15% Metal Invader
0% Non European

For whatever this is worth. I keep getting SSA hits between .2 and 1.3 percent on calculators so I'm not sure how that fits this strange way of representing our DNA. The Youtube videos are hilarious if you want a laugh. "15 percent of my ancestors were metal smiths" is a line i heard.

OkTex
06-05-17, 11:49
My results are
25% Hunter-gatherer
59% Farmer
16% Metal Age invader
0% non european
Metal Age invader is CHG in my opinion, maybe they'll change something in the near future, I don't know. I hope they refine the non-european set, in order to see the ancestral origins of users from outside of Europe.
FTDNA lacks diversity within their database because, as stated, they mostly have European-derived testees!

Aha
11-05-17, 17:55
Hunter-Gatherer - 47%
Farmer - 35%
Metal Age Invader - 18%

non-European - 0%

Yaan
01-10-17, 09:45
For my GrandPa :

19% Metal Age Invader
52% Farmer
29% Hunter- Gatherer
0% Non-European

for me:

18% Metal Age Invader
51% Farmer
31% Hunter-Gatherer
0% Non-European

:)

taiabafa
08-10-17, 09:49
My results

12% Metal Age invader

59% Farmer

29% Hunter Gatherer

0% Non-European.

IronSide
08-10-17, 14:59
Misleading calculator :( for Europeans it would probably be accurate in some way, except that the metal age component should take some hunter-gatherer ancestry into account, and so, in reality, it should be higher throughout Europe than its current values.

In non-Europeans like my self, the farmer probably refers to Levantine and Anatolian farmers, while metal age is Iranian farmer, that's why it is extremely high in South Asians.

Anyway my results:

Metal Age Invader 26%
Farmer 66%
Hunter-Gatherer 0%
non-European 7%

davef
08-10-17, 15:24
Metal Age Invader 0%
Farmer 0%
Hunter-Gatherer 100%
non-European 0%
Yeah, I know it's fake, I've never even been tested to begin with, but in my state of mind, im hunter gatherer through and through ;)
btw before someone calls me a "nordicist" I meant to say that i identify with all hunter gatherers, including natufians.
I don't expect to score anywhere near this, trust me. Even Russians won't get that much hunter gatherer.

Wheal
08-10-17, 16:59
I have to agree with you Maciamo. How in the world do they really know. I look at the various %'s of my kits, and they very between siblings to an extent the sibs do not even seem related. But it's a fun thing to look at.

Angela
08-10-17, 19:48
As someone pointed out upthread:

metal-age = CHG from South Caucasus

Farmer = EEF in Anatolia

hunter-gathers = WHG and EHG

By naming "CHG" the Metal Age Invaders, the creators may be indicating they see not just metallurgy but the entire transformative culture as flowing from south of the Caucasus in all directions.

That said, whether it's this company or all the Davidski calculators, or anyone else's calculators, if it's based on modern populations it's going to be off. The comparison has to be to ancient samples.

kingjohn
08-10-17, 21:23
ftdna ancient origins is based on ancient { they compare your DNA to la -brana, loschbour , motola, oetzi ,lbk farmers,corded ware remains in Germany Hungary and yamnaya remains}
but very different from k12 test of Kurd
in ftdna ancient origins i scored 12% whg and Kurd k12 0% Nada.
but i will give credit to kurd here for his test which is probably more precise...
and those whg alleles are hiding in the west farmers or the steppe ...
kind regards
Adam

Angela
08-10-17, 22:06
ftdna ancient origins is based on ancient { they compare your DNA to la -brana, loschbour , motola, oetzi ,lbk farmers,corded ware remains in Germany Hungary and yamnaya remains}
but very different from k12 test of Kurd
in ftdna ancient origins i scored 12% whg and Kurd k12 0% Nada.
but i will give credit to kurd here for his test which is probably more precise...
and those whg alleles are hiding in the west farmers or the steppe ...
kind regards
Adam

I didn't know that; thank-you Kingjohn.

I never had much faith in ftdna autosomal analysis. I remember when they included Ashkenazim in the Near Eastern reference sample, even though we knew even then they were about 50% non-Levantine. Of course, Southern Europeans got inflated Near Eastern as a result.

Wheal
09-10-17, 16:40
My dad
11% Metal Age
44% Farmer
45% HG
0% Non-European

My Mom
11% Metal
45% Farmer
44% HG
0% Non-E

Dibran
12-10-17, 02:27
14% Metal Age Invader, 62% Farmer, 24% Hunter-Gatherer

Dema
22-10-17, 17:06
Mine:
Farmer: 59%
Metal age invader: 14%
Hunther- Gatherer: 27%
Non-European: 0%

Interesting feature tho, i think they will upgrade it in the future its pretty basic now..

Arbaso
23-10-17, 19:28
My results:

0% Metal Age Invader
58% Farmer
42% Hunter-Gatherer
0% Non-European

I really would like to know why Basque people show 0% metal invader ancestry. As I understand it, the metal invaders were the carriers of haplogroup R1b to western Europe, and around 85% of Basque men belong to that haplogroup. Any ideas?

IronSide
23-10-17, 21:17
My results:
0% Metal Age Invader
58% Farmer
42% Hunter-Gatherer
0% Non-European
I really would like to know why Basque people show 0% metal invader ancestry. As I understand it, the metal invaders were the carriers of haplogroup R1b to western Europe, and around 85% of Basque men belong to that haplogroup. Any ideas?

Very interesting. 0% metal age, Basques are indeed a relic of a distant past.

Please don't ever get extinct :embarassed:

Angela
23-10-17, 21:32
My results:

0% Metal Age Invader
58% Farmer
42% Hunter-Gatherer
0% Non-European

I really would like to know why Basque people show 0% metal invader ancestry. As I understand it, the metal invaders were the carriers of haplogroup R1b to western Europe, and around 85% of Basque men belong to that haplogroup. Any ideas?

This commercial testing company is getting it wrong to some degree, imo. Basques do have "steppe" ancestry according to academic analyses.
https://evolutionistx.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/picture-10.png


In this test the "Metal Age Invaders" means, I think, the "Caucasus" portion of the "steppe" people. The only way that Basques could have no "Caucasus" ancestry is if their R1b ancestors only got EHG, not CHG/Iranian Neo. That would mean, however, that their results are somehow confounding the academic tests for "steppe".

IronSide
23-10-17, 21:51
This commercial testing company is getting it wrong to some degree, imo. Basques do have "steppe" ancestry according to academic analyses.
https://evolutionistx.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/picture-10.png


In this test the "Metal Age Invaders" means, I think, the "Caucasus" portion of the "steppe" people. The only way that Basques could have no "Caucasus" ancestry is if their R1b ancestors only got EHG, not CHG/Iranian Neo. That would mean, however, that their results are somehow confounding the academic tests for "steppe".

Harrapa World Basque results:

S-Indian 1
Baloch 6
Caucasian 1
NE-Euro 32
SE-Asian 0
Siberian 0
NE-Asian 0
Papuan 0
American 0
Beringian 0
Mediterranean 56
SW-Asian 2
San 0
E-African 0
Pygmy 0
W-African 0

Caucasian is close to null, Baloch is 6. I never really grasped the difference between them, aren't they all associated with Iran Neolithic ? some calculators combine both to a West Asian component.

Arbaso
24-10-17, 11:23
Angela, you are probably right when you say that the metal invader in FTDNA is associated to the Caucasus part of the Steppe ancestry.

Using Dodecad World 9 in Gedmatch, I get 2.11% in the Caucasus-Gedrosia component; and the Basque reference model for it is 0%.

In the Eurogenes K12b calculator I also get 0% for Caucasus and 0% for West Central Asia.

So, that would mean that the Basque Yamnaya or Steppe ancestry comes from a different source other than Caucasus. Which one would that be, though?

Looking at the Figure 3 you posted, it seems that the Yamnaya element is higher in Basques than in Spanish, which makes me wonder what the authors understand as Yamnaya then.

Angela
24-10-17, 15:40
Angela, you are probably right when you say that the metal invader in FTDNA is associated to the Caucasus part of the Steppe ancestry.

Using Dodecad World 9 in Gedmatch, I get 2.11% in the Caucasus-Gedrosia component; and the Basque reference model for it is 0%.

In the Eurogenes K12b calculator I also get 0% for Caucasus and 0% for West Central Asia.

So, that would mean that the Basque Yamnaya or Steppe ancestry comes from a different source other than Caucasus. Which one would that be, though?

Looking at the Figure 3 you posted, it seems that the Yamnaya element is higher in Basques than in Spanish, which makes me wonder what the authors understand as Yamnaya then.

Arbaso, there is a big difference between calculators based on modern population clusters such as you can find on gedmatch, or even ones produced by commercial genomics companies based on those same modern populations, and academic analyses comparing modern genomes to actual ancient samples. The latter is always going to be more accurate. Then, comparisons based on ADMIXTURE programs are less accurate than formal stats.

That Haak et al graphic is based on formal statistical analysis, not on ADMIXTURE, which is why I turn to it often even though it's about two years old. I don't remember the particular ancient steppe samples that they used, but they would have been a combination of EHG hunter-gatherer and Caucasus ancestry. I'd have to comb through the supplement again to see if there is a breakdown for those particular samples.

So, imo, Pais Vasco does indeed have steppe ancestry.

They do have more of it than standard Spanish samples, but the difference is very slight. I think what difference exists may be a function of the ancestry they don't have. For example, they have much less North African and African from what I remember. As an isolated population who may have moved into the area from the French Basque area they have a slightly different population history.

AdeoF
24-10-17, 21:46
Meh here is mine and I might the only few people here who has some "non-european"

Metal Age Invader: 10%
Farmer: 56%
Hunter-Gatherer: 32%
Non-European: 2%

Angela
24-10-17, 22:11
Arbaso, there is a big difference between calculators based on modern population clusters such as you can find on gedmatch, or even ones produced by commercial genomics companies based on those same modern populations, and academic analyses comparing modern genomes to actual ancient samples. The latter is always going to be more accurate. Then, comparisons based on ADMIXTURE programs are less accurate than formal stats.

That Haak et al graphic is based on formal statistical analysis, not on ADMIXTURE, which is why I turn to it often even though it's about two years old. I don't remember the particular ancient steppe samples that they used, but they would have been a combination of EHG hunter-gatherer and Caucasus ancestry. I'd have to comb through the supplement again to see if there is a breakdown for those particular samples.

So, imo, Pais Vasco does indeed have steppe ancestry.

They do have more of it than standard Spanish samples, but the difference is very slight. I think what difference exists may be a function of the ancestry they don't have. For example, they have much less North African and African from what I remember. As an isolated population who may have moved into the area from the French Basque area they have a slightly different population history.

Arbaso, a correction. I once again forgot that the FTDNA ancient origins test does compare to actual ancient samples. However, I believe it is still based on ADMIXTURE. I would still go with Haak et al since it's based on formal stats.

@AdeoF,
I think all of that stuff is nonsense. If the genes in question have been in Europe for a thousand or more years, for any sensible purpose they're European.