PDA

View Full Version : ATP9 (MBA Iberia, ca. 1600 BC)



Tomenable
26-11-16, 14:40
Finally a Bronze Age Iberian uploaded to GEDmatch:

ATP9 (Middle Bronze Age Iberia, 1700-1518 BC).

GEDmatch kit number: M116706

Results in Eurogenes K15:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Atlantic 44.39
2 West_Med 37.4
3 North_Sea 17.71
4 Baltic 0.49

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 French_Basque 12.34
2 Spanish_Aragon 17.77
3 Southwest_French 18.44
4 Spanish_Cantabria 18.47
5 Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha 19.44
6 Spanish_Valencia 20.59
7 Spanish_Andalucia 20.65
8 Spanish_Castilla_Y_Leon 22.53
9 Spanish_Murcia 22.72
10 Spanish_Cataluna 22.81
11 Spanish_Extremadura 23.01
12 Portuguese 23.92
13 Spanish_Galicia 24.93
14 North_Italian 28.02
15 Sardinian 28.73
16 French 29.09
17 South_Dutch 32.41
18 Southwest_English 32.89
19 Tuscan 33.54
20 Southeast_English 34.42

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 79.9% French_Basque + 20.1% Sardinian @ 10.35
2 100% French_Basque + 0% Abhkasian @ 12.34
3 100% French_Basque + 0% Adygei @ 12.34
4 100% French_Basque + 0% Afghan_Hazara @ 12.34
5 100% French_Basque + 0% Afghan_Pashtun @ 12.34
6 100% French_Basque + 0% Afghan_Tadjik @ 12.34
7 100% French_Basque + 0% Afghan_Turkmen @ 12.34
8 100% French_Basque + 0% Afghan_Uzbeki @ 12.34
9 100% French_Basque + 0% Algerian @ 12.34
10 100% French_Basque + 0% Algerian_Jewish @ 12.34
11 100% French_Basque + 0% Altaian @ 12.34
12 100% French_Basque + 0% Anzick-1 @ 12.34
13 100% French_Basque + 0% Armenian @ 12.34
14 100% French_Basque + 0% Ashkenazi @ 12.34
15 100% French_Basque + 0% Assyrian @ 12.34
16 100% French_Basque + 0% Austrian @ 12.34
17 100% French_Basque + 0% Austroasiatic_Ho @ 12.34
18 100% French_Basque + 0% Azeri @ 12.34
19 100% French_Basque + 0% Balkar @ 12.34
20 100% French_Basque + 0% Balochi @ 12.34

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

In a PCA (based on Eurogenes K15 scores), ATP9 plots far away from modern Spanish guy:

http://i.imgur.com/zDUZ41R.png

http://i.imgur.com/zDUZ41R.png

Tomenable
26-11-16, 14:46
What do you think ???

IMO it shows that there were no Indo-Europeans in Iberia before 1500 BC.

Fire Haired14
26-11-16, 15:05
IMO it shows that there were no Indo-Europeans in Iberia before 1500 BC.

To me ATP9 shows the opposite. In every ADMIXTURE test he shows an ANE-signal. He's the first ancient Iberian genome with Steppe ancestry. It's probably not a councidence he is our only non pre-Bell Beaker Iberian genome. Bell Beaker may have brought R1b-DF27, Steppe ancestry, and IE languages(maybe Celtic).

Tomenable
26-11-16, 15:07
To me ATP9 shows the opposite. In every ADMIXTURE test he shows an ANE-signal. He's the first ancient Iberian genome with Steppe ancestry.

But only less than 3%. Eurogenes ANE K7:





Population



ANE
2.79


ASE
-


WHG-UHG
74.26


East_Eurasian
-


West_African
-


East_African
0.21


ENF
22.74

Fire Haired14
26-11-16, 15:08
But only less than 3%. Eurogenes ANE K7:





Population



ANE
2.79


ASE
-


WHG-UHG
74.26


East_Eurasian
-


West_African
-


East_African
0.21


ENF
22.74







Yet in every test he consistently shows an ANE signal. No matter how you spin it he had Steppe ancestry.

Tomenable
26-11-16, 15:11
You are probably right. We should check all available Copper Age Iberians for comparison.

Here are some recently uploaded ones (by MfA):

GEDmatch / Sample

M422959 / ATP16 Iberia Pre-Bell Beaker/Chalcolithic [3211-2866 BC] X2c -
M784782 / I1281 Iberia Chalcolithic [2880-2630 BC] H1t -
M734278 / I1303 Iberia Chalcolithic [2880-2630 BC] U3a1 Y-DNA = I2a1a1-L158
M216291 / I1314 Iberia Chalcolithic [2880-2630 BC] J2a1a1 Y-DNA = G2a-PF3141
M855364 / I1280 Iberia Chalcolithic [2880-2630 BC] J1c1 -
M874014 / I1274 Iberia Chalcolithic [2880-2630 BC] H3 Y-DNA = I2a2-L181

I checked ATP16 (M422959) and there is no ANE admixture:



Population



ANE
-


ASE
-


WHG-UHG
68.62


East_Eurasian
-


West_African
-


East_African
-


ENF
31.38

Tomenable
26-11-16, 15:18
Interestingly, I have R1b-DF27>L617 and this subclade (L617) is ca. 4300 years old.

However, there was probably no R1b and no ANE admixture in Iberia 4300 years ago.

So it seems that L617 migrated from Poland to Iberia rather than the other way around.

Unetice culture is also around 4300 years old. Maybe L617 was originally part of Unetice:

https://i.imgur.com/zqudwdp.png

Compare that with the modern distribution of R1b-L617 (the map is incomplete of course):

http://s4.postimg.org/79wnm2ucd/L617_distribution.png

L617 correlates with Celts and with mining (for example it is very common in Cornwall):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_in_Cornwall_and_Devon#Stone_Age_and_early_B ronze_Age


Mining in Cornwall has existed from the early Bronze Age Britain around 2150 BC.

It is believed that the Unetice culture were Proto-Celts.

Angela
26-11-16, 15:25
You can't compare the processes that went on in Central Europe, much less a northern Europe which was very low in population, to what went on in southern Europe.

Look at the Yamnaya percentages for Spaniards:
https://f.hypotheses.org/wp-content/blogs.dir/727/files/2015/06/Haak-et-al-2015-Figure-3-Admixture-Proportions-in-Modern-DNA-With-Linguistic-and-Historical-Origins-Added.png

It makes perfect sense to me that he's Basque like.

Tomenable
26-11-16, 15:54
You can't compare the processes that went on in Central Europe, much less a northern Europe which was very low in population, to what went on in southern Europe.

Look at the Yamnaya percentages for Spaniards:

It makes perfect sense to me that he's Basque like.

But I wonder how could R1b in Iberia or Italy rise to so high frequencies despite relatively small autosomal impact.

Obviously there was still some autosomal impact, because Remedello people resembled Sardinians, not Italians.

Tomenable
26-11-16, 16:09
My hypothesis for today (based on DNA, but in fact it is in agreement with archaeology) is that Proto-Celts (maybe Proto-Italo-Celts?), Proto-Germanics and Proto-Balto-Slavs all had their ethnogenesis during the Bronze Age, in 3 archaeological cultures:

1) Nordic Bronze Age = Proto-Germanic
2) Unetice culture = Proto-[Italo]-Celtic
3) Trzciniec culture = Proto-Balto-Slavs

We already have ancient DNA from 1) and 2) and very soon we will have ancient DNA also from 3).

Interestingly, present-day Poland is located in the middle between those 3 archaeological cultures:

https://i.imgur.com/KzvBnze.png

https://i.imgur.com/KzvBnze.png

Tomenable
26-11-16, 16:44
If ATP9 is the first ancient from Iberia with Steppe admixture, then it means that it took Indo-Europeans ca. 1500 years to get to Iberia from the Steppe. Assuming that they started expanding from the Steppe ca. 3500-3000 BC, and first groups came to Spain ca. 2000-1500 BC. Of course those groups did not enter Iberia directly from the Steppe, but from somewhere in the middle of Europe.

Maciamo
26-11-16, 17:23
What do you think ???

IMO it shows that there were no Indo-Europeans in Iberia before 1500 BC.

I think that Indo-Europeans reached parts of Iberia (e.g. south-east Spain) as early as 1800 BCE, as this is when the Bronze Age appears, but spread very slowly in a patchwork manner around the penninsula, and only really covered most (but not all) regions by 1200 BCE.

This MBA Iberian genome clearly shows some sign of Steppe ancestry. It is obviously much lower than in Central Europe a millennium earlier because Steppe ancestry progressively got diluted at each generation of interbreeding with local women. I would be very interested to see this sample's Dodecad K12b to see the percentage of Gedrosia and North European. Is it available at GEDMatch? (believe it or not I do not have a GEDMatch account yet).

Helgenes
26-11-16, 19:17
I think that Indo-Europeans reached parts of Iberia (e.g. south-east Spain) as early as 1800 BCE, as this is when the Bronze Age appears, but spread very slowly in a patchwork manner around the penninsula, and only really covered most (but not all) regions by 1200 BCE.

This MBA Iberian genome clearly shows some sign of Steppe ancestry. It is obviously much lower than in Central Europe a millennium earlier because Steppe ancestry progressively got diluted at each generation of interbreeding with local women. I would be very interested to see this sample's Dodecad K12b to see the percentage of Gedrosia and North European. Is it available at GEDMatch? (believe it or not I do not have a GEDMatch account yet).

Here are his Dodecad K12b results

1 Atlantic_Med 67.21
2 North_European 24.2
3 Caucasus 7.61
4 Northwest_African 0.9
5 Southeast_Asian 0.08

Helgenes
26-11-16, 19:30
And now, here is what he gets by using K7 Basal-rich and nMonte


"Baalberge_MN:I0560" 44.3
"Iberia_MN:I0408" 18
"Iceman_MN:Iceman" 16.5
"Loschbour:Loschbour" 15
"Yamnaya_Temrta:RISE546" 6.2

Tomenable
26-11-16, 20:11
Is it available at GEDMatch? (believe it or not I do not have a GEDMatch account yet).

Yes it is available. You can still create a GEDmatch account even if you did not test your own DNA.

And you can use it for testing other DNA samples (as long as you know their kit numbers, of course).

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

Here is a list of post-Neolithic ancient Y-DNA and GEDmatch kits from Iberia and Italy:

Y-DNA haplogroups and autosomal DNA of Copper Age Iberians:

Sample / (dating) / Y-DNA / GEDmatch kit / Single Pop. Sharing in Eurogenes K15:

ATP16 (3211-2866 BC) - woman - M422959 - Sardinians
ATP12 (3010-2879 BC) - I2a2a2
ATP17 (3007–2871 BC) - I2a2a
ATP2 (2899-2678 BC) - H2 - M849224 - Sardinians
I1300 (2880-2630 BC) - woman - M547763 - Sardinians
I1281 (2880-2630 BC) - woman - M784782 - Sardinians
I1303 (2880-2630 BC) - I2a1a1 - M734278 - Sardinians
I0581 (2880-2630 BC) - I2a2a1
I1284 (2880-2630 BC) - I
I1302 (2880-2630 BC) - G2a2b2b
I1314 (2880-2630 BC) - G2a - M216291 - Sardinians
I1280 (2880-2630 BC) - woman - M855364 - Sardinians
I1274 (2880-2630 BC) - I2a2 - M874014 - Basques
I1277 (2568-2346 BC) - I2a2a

Bronze Age:

ATP9 (1700-1518 BC) - woman - M116706 - Basques

Y-DNA haplogroups and autosomal DNA of Remedello culture Italians:

Sample / (dating) / Y-DNA / GEDmatch kit / Single Pop. Sharing in Eurogenes K15:

RISE487 (3483-3107 BC) - I2a1a1 - T699825 - Sardinians
RISE489 (2908-2578 BC) - I2a1a1a - T135721 - Sardinians
RISE486 (2134-1773 BC) - I2a1a1a - T319214 - Sardinians

Simply SHOCKING !!! "Genetical Sardinians" everywhere. And a few Basques. But no any R1b.

According to Genetiker, there was one R1b (ATP3), but this doesn't change the general picture:

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2015/09/08/y-snp-calls-from-copper-and-bronze-age-spain/

MarkoZ
26-11-16, 21:22
My hypothesis for today (based on DNA, but in fact it is in agreement with archaeology) is that Proto-Celts (maybe Proto-Italo-Celts?), Proto-Germanics and Proto-Balto-Slavs all had their ethnogenesis during the Bronze Age, in 3 archaeological cultures:

1) Nordic Bronze Age = Proto-Germanic
2) Unetice culture = Proto-[Italo]-Celtic
3) Trzciniec culture = Proto-Balto-Slavs

We already have ancient DNA from 1) and 2) and very soon we will have ancient DNA also from 3).

Interestingly, present-day Poland is located in the middle between those 3 archaeological cultures:

https://i.imgur.com/KzvBnze.png

https://i.imgur.com/KzvBnze.png

It's really not a hypothesis if you do not provide evidence let alone flesh out the reasoning behind your assertions.

MarkoZ
26-11-16, 21:24
According to Genetiker, there was one R1b (ATP3), but this doesn't change the general picture:

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2015/09/08/y-snp-calls-from-copper-and-bronze-age-spain/

Quite to the contrary, R1b1a1a2 in Eneolithic Spain would change the general picture drastically. Let's wait for official confirmation though.

MOESAN
26-11-16, 21:32
not to discuss but : is ANE everytime a signal of Steppes, North Caucasus?

Fire Haired14
26-11-16, 21:43
But I wonder how could R1b in Iberia or Italy rise to so high frequencies despite relatively small autosomal impact.

Obviously there was still some autosomal impact, because Remedello people resembled Sardinians, not Italians.
Just about no where in southern Europe is Steppe ancestry small. 20-30% isn't small and you have to consider it was brought to Southern Europe admixed.

Maciamo
26-11-16, 22:04
Here are his Dodecad K12b results

1 Atlantic_Med 67.21
2 North_European 24.2
3 Caucasus 7.61
4 Northwest_African 0.9
5 Southeast_Asian 0.08

Thanks. No Gedrosia though, so I am not so sure this sample was Indo-European. Even diluted he should show a few percents.

Genetiker
26-11-16, 23:17
To me ATP9 shows the opposite. In every ADMIXTURE test he shows an ANE-signal. He's the first ancient Iberian genome with Steppe ancestry. It's probably not a councidence he is our only non pre-Bell Beaker Iberian genome. Bell Beaker may have brought R1b-DF27, Steppe ancestry, and IE languages(maybe Celtic).

The El Portalón samples ATP2 (2899–2678 BC), ATP3 (3516–3362 BC), ATP7 (3345–2944 BC), ATP9 (1750–1618 BC), and ATP20 (2289–2050 BC) all had significant amounts of Eastern European admixture. My admixture analyses have shown that for a long time now. People have either not noticed it or pretended that it's not the case.

And ATP3 was R1b-M269. Another stubborn fact which many have been in denial about.

Genetiker
26-11-16, 23:23
Quite to the contrary, R1b1a1a2 in Eneolithic Spain would change the general picture drastically. Let's wait for official confirmation though.

In other words:

"I don't care what the data says, only an official proclamation from an academic authority can make something true or false."

I on the other hand couldn't care less what the academics say. I look only at the data, and the data leaves no doubt that ATP3 was R1b-M269.

Tomenable
26-11-16, 23:37
It's really not a hypothesis if you do not provide evidence let alone flesh out the reasoning behind your assertions.I don't know if I can provide evidence because the study with Trzciniec genomes has not yet been published.

And I know these results (Y-DNA haplogroups, autosomal data) but I should probably stay silent until it gets published.

As for Proto-Celts - some of Unetice genomes are very similar to Hinxton4 (Iron Age Briton) and Rathlin1 (Bronze Age Irish), even though the latter two lived in Britain, and the former in Central Europe. Which shows that there was something that we can call "Celtic genetic signature", which was similar both in Britain and in Central Europe, despite geographical distance between them.

Of course when Proto-Celts expanded to Southern Europe, they mixed with local Mediterranean-like people.

And that mixture produced Celtiberians in Iberia, Gauls in France, or Cisalpine Gauls in Northern Italy.

Before mixing with Southern Europeans, Proto-Celts were genetically very similar to Proto-Germanics. Celts from Britain and Ireland remained the most genetically similar to Proto-Celts, because they mixed less than other Celtic groups. And Celts from Germany became swallowed and assimilated by expanding Germanic tribes (who were very similar to them already before mixing).

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

As for Proto-Slavs, we don't have Proto-Slavic DNA but they had to be very similar to modern Balts, but slightly more southern or south-eastern shifted. IMO a Proto-Slav could be modeled as 75% Lithuanian + 25% Circassian (Caucasian admixture).

In terms of Y-DNA there was likely no any N1c among Proto-Slavs. It was mostly various R1a and I2a-Din.

Tomenable
27-11-16, 00:13
Eurogenes K15 scores for all Proto-Germanic and Proto-Celtic samples.

"Germanic" and "Celtic" in bold = average scores for Germanics/Celts:

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




North Sea
Atlantic
Baltic
East Euro
West Med
West Asian
South Asian
Sub-Saharan
Amerind
Oceanian
Siberian
East Med
NE African
Red Sea
SE Asian


RISE94
38,9
30,74
9,3
11,15
0,23
9,68
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0


RISE61
41,9
22,42
13,76
7,53
12,24
0,5
0
1,64
0
0
0
0
0
0
0


RISE71
50,33
23,06
8,27
2,59
0
4,51
0
0,48
0
0
0
0
0
0
0


RISE97
37
39,07
10,85
5,57
7,51
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0


RISE98
39,93
18,64
15,82
16,41
7,64
0
1,07
0,36
0
0,12
0
0
0
0
0


RISE174
40,24
31,48
16,78
10,88
0,28
0
0
0
0,34
0
0
0
0
0
0


Germanic Average
41,38
27,57
12,46
9,02
4,65
2,45
0,18
0,41
0,06
0,02
0
0
0
0
0



North Sea
Atlantic
Baltic
East Euro
West Med
West Asian
South Asian
Sub-Saharan
Amerind
Oceanian
Siberian
East Med
NE African
Red Sea
SE Asian


Hinxton-4
34,84
31,86
13,89
5,72
6,34
4,78
1,93
0,51
0
0
0,13
0
0
0
0


RISE150
39,26
27,35
10,84
14,89
1,72
5,55
0
0,24
0
0,14
0
0
0
0
0


RISE569
27,52
23,44
27,12
10,39
10,88
0,65
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0


RISE577
31,08
31,7
11,72
7,81
13,91
3,79
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0


I0099
42,07
21,58
12,51
13,2
5,94
4,7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0


I0047
34,99
36,93
11,91
9,33
4,19
2,65
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0


I0164
38,42
27,49
15,1
11,85
0
7,14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0


I0116
30,27
30,83
16,78
13,56
4,73
3,83
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0


I0803
38,99
23,63
12,29
16,47
1,64
6,98
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0


RISE431
41,45
24,3
15,29
11,79
6,95
0
0
0,22
0
0
0
0
0
0
0


RISE139
26,37
22,94
21,22
17,08
5,74
4,15
0
2,51
0
0
0
0
0
0
0


RISE154
27,3
35,7
16,43
4,8
6,63
8,48
0
0,67
0
0
0
0
0
0
0


Rathlin-1
31,58
32,45
12,95
11,65
1,39
3,29
3,17
1,59
1,87
0
0
0
0
0,06
0


Celtic Average
34,16
28,48
15,23
11,43
5,39
4,31
0,39
0,44
0,14
0,01
0,01
0
0
0,00
0

MarkoZ
27-11-16, 01:38
As for Proto-Celts - some of Unetice genomes are very similar to Hinxton4 (Iron Age Briton) and Rathlin1 (Bronze Age Irish), even though the latter two lived in Britain, and the former in Central Europe. Which shows that there was something that we can call "Celtic genetic signature", which was similar both in Britain and in Central Europe, despite geographical distance between them.

You have a habit of coming to spectacularly wrong conclusions. What the data actually shows is that after an almost complete discontinuation of human activity in the British Isles before the beginning of the third millennium B.C. as demonstrated by McLaughlin et al. [McLaughlin, T.R., Whitehouse, N.J., Schulting, R.J. et al. J World Prehist (2016) 29: 117. doi:10.1007/s10963-016-9093-0] earlier this year, people not too dissimilar from modern Celtic speakers of North-Western Europe settled in Ireland and Britain. Unless these humans had iPhones to communicate with their Gaulish kinfolk in continental Europe, they could not possibly have been the linguistic ancestors of the Gaels and the Britons. This means your 'Celtic genetic structure' is untenable.

LeBrok
27-11-16, 01:57
What do you think ???

IMO it shows that there were no Indo-Europeans in Iberia before 1500 BC.Not necessarily. There could have been early smaller incursions of Steppe into Iberia. You know the hobby of steppe warriors was to plunder the rich farmer societies. Gold and silver was already precious commodity. Not mentioning a lot of "fun" with their women.

Tomenable
27-11-16, 02:06
By the way,

When testing ancient samples with GEDmatch, sometimes a problem called the "calculator effect" can occur.

And this problem can lead to misleading results.

Davidski wrote about this here: http://bga101.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/beware-calculator-effect.html

And also here: http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2014/10/ancient-genomes-and-calculator-effect.html

AFAIK this problem occurs especially when you try to check how much of admixture from someone younger did someone older have. For example if you are using Gedrosia K14 Neolithic which has "Yamnaya-Afanasievo" admixture, and you are testing Loschbour WHG with it. And our result is that Loschbour had, for example, 25% of Yamnaya. Of course it makes no sense if interpreted literally, because Loschbour lived thousands of years before Yamnaya.

But according to Davidski, his calculators ("Eurogenes") do not suffer from this problem. So testing ancients with them should be safe.

He wrote:

"Here's the good news: the Eurogenes calculators don't suffer from the calculator effect. That's because the reference samples are treated in the same way as the test samples, so there's only one variable: ancestry. What this means is that when you run a modern or ancient genome with a Eurogenes calculator you can confidently compare the result to those of the reference samples (provided enough SNPs are used), and then be able to make sensible inferences about its genetic origins."

And here about testing HGDP genomes: http://bga101.blogspot.com/2016/09/orcadians-k15-and-calculator-effect.html

HGDP = Human Genome Diversity Project. These are modern people who are used as reference populations, and that's why there is no point in testing them with these calculators etc. For example I uploaded an Orcadian from HDGP to DNA.Land and the result was "100% North-Western European" - of course only because this guy was used as one of reference samples for this component.

Tomenable
27-11-16, 02:24
What the data actually shows is that after an almost complete discontinuation of human activity in the British Isles before the beginning of the third millennium B.C. as demonstrated by McLaughlin et al. [McLaughlin, T.R., Whitehouse, N.J., Schulting, R.J. et al. J World Prehist (2016) 29: 117. doi:10.1007/s10963-016-9093-0] earlier this year, people not too dissimilar from modern Celtic speakers of North-Western Europe settled in Ireland and Britain. Unless these humans had iPhones to communicate with their Gaulish kinfolk in continental Europe, they could not possibly have been the linguistic ancestors of the Gaels and the Britons. This means your 'Celtic genetic structure' is untenable.

I am not insisting that Rathlin1 was for sure a Celtic-speaker. He could be some other Indo-European.

Maybe he spoke something else, closely related to Celtic. But Rathlin1 is only one of many samples that I used. The remaining ones were Proto-Celts according to archaeologists (many archaeologists agree that the Unetice culture was Proto-Italo-Celtic). Hinxton4 lived around 170 BC - 80 AD, in times of Roman expansion into Celtic lands, so there is no doubt that he was Celtic.

Tomenable
27-11-16, 04:50
Quite to the contrary, R1b1a1a2 in Eneolithic Spain would change the general picture drastically. Let's wait for official confirmation though.

Why drastically ??? One singleton R1b flowing in an ocean of Non-R1b would not really change anything.

Especially considering that there is an ocean of R1b1a1a2 in Eastern European samples from similar periods.

This R1b has not been confirmed by any other source apart from Genetiker. I'm not saying that he is unreliable, but considering that he believes in some White European ruling elite in Pre-Columbian Peru and Chile (check his blog (https://genetiker.wordpress.com)), I would rather wait for at least one more person to confirm his result. Moreover, even if this R1b is legit, it would still be only 9% of Copper Age Iberian Y-DNA (11 samples, including one probable R1b). Compared to ca. 70% today. And Copper Age Iberians were autosomally like modern Sardinians. There were big autosomal changes in Iberia after the Copper Age - what Y-DNA did those new immigrants carry, if not R1b ???

Time to accept the fact that Iberia has been a genetic sink, not a source of migrations to other parts of Europe.

Aaron1981
27-11-16, 06:11
Quite to the contrary, R1b1a1a2 in Eneolithic Spain would change the general picture drastically. Let's wait for official confirmation though.

Not really. Even if we consider the R1b1a2 as a true result, it's possible the lineage travelled with farmers. Note that the sample appears to be xU106 and xP312 if we assume the other calls as valid. Almost all the R1b in Spain is the considerably younger DF27+. We already know R1b was spread out through northern Eurasia, there is no need to keep it in the Pyrenees simply because rare lineages have been discovered in two ancient European samples.

Coriolan
27-11-16, 08:27
You have a habit of coming to spectacularly wrong conclusions. What the data actually shows is that after an almost complete discontinuation of human activity in the British Isles before the beginning of the third millennium B.C. as demonstrated by McLaughlin et al. [McLaughlin, T.R., Whitehouse, N.J., Schulting, R.J. et al. J World Prehist (2016) 29: 117. doi:10.1007/s10963-016-9093-0] earlier this year, people not too dissimilar from modern Celtic speakers of North-Western Europe settled in Ireland and Britain. Unless these humans had iPhones to communicate with their Gaulish kinfolk in continental Europe, they could not possibly have been the linguistic ancestors of the Gaels and the Britons. This means your 'Celtic genetic structure' is untenable.
Why would you think that? If ancient Britons and Irish and Gauls all descend from Central European Proto-Celts, it's only logical that they all spoke related languages.

Coriolan
27-11-16, 08:29
Not necessarily. There could have been early smaller incursions of Steppe into Iberia. You know the hobby of steppe warriors was to plunder the rich farmer societies. Gold and silver was already precious commodity. Not mentioning a lot of "fun" with their women.
These Steppe people behaved very much like Vikings. Well if Norwegians have the highest Yamna ancestry that make sense.

Genetiker
27-11-16, 08:59
Why drastically ???

Because just about everybody, yourself included, claims that R1b-M269, Eastern European autosomal DNA, and Indo-European languages didn't spread to Western Europe until well after 3000 BC. ATP3 and the other El Portalón samples prove them wrong.


Especially considering that there is an ocean of R1b1a1a2 in Eastern European samples from similar periods.

And so far it's all R1b-Z2103, not the R1b-L51 that now dominates Western Europe.


This R1b has not been confirmed by any other source apart from Genetiker. I'm not saying that he is unreliable, but considering that he believes in some White European ruling elite in Pre-Columbian Peru and Chile (check his blog)

All you can ever do is insinuate that the idea of pre-Viking transatlantic contact is somehow absurd, when of course there's nothing absurd about it. You never dispute the mountain of historical, archeological, anthropological, and genetic evidence proving the presence of Europeans in the Americas before the Vikings, because you can't.


I would rather wait for at least one more person to confirm his result.

If you're incapable of analyzing Y chromosomes yourself, as you obviously are, then you have no business calling my work into question. Either use the ATP3 data to show which of my Y-SNP calls are incorrect, or stop calling into question my R1b-M269 assignment.


Moreover, even if this R1b is legit, it would still be only 9% of Copper Age Iberian Y-DNA (11 samples, including one probable R1b). Compared to ca. 70% today. And Copper Age Iberians were autosomally like modern Sardinians. There were big autosomal changes in Iberia after the Copper Age - what Y-DNA did those new immigrants carry, if not R1b ???

All of the Copper Age Iberian samples we have so far come from one location, the Atapuerca Mountains, and even within that one location there's autosomal complexity, with the El Portalón samples having Eastern European admixture and the El Mirador samples lacking it. Almost all of Copper Age Iberia remains unsampled, and it's possible that within that vast territory there were populations that were contemporaneous with the Copper Age El Portalón population that had higher frequencies of R1b-M269 and higher proportions of Eastern European admixture. Later mixing with those other populations would explain the higher frequency of R1b-M269 and higher proportion of Eastern European admixture in modern Iberians compared to the El Portalón samples.


Time to accept the fact that Iberia has been a genetic sink, not a source of migrations to other parts of Europe.

You should reflect on the fact that the Bell Beaker culture began in Iberia around 2900 BC, and later spread northward and eastward throughout Western and Central Europe. And also on the fact that the Bell Beaker samples we currently have from Central Europe carry mitochondrial haplogroups like H1 and H3 that originated in Southwestern Europe.

By the way, your assertion that the Unetice people spoke proto-Italo-Celtic is wrong. The R1b-P312 men of the Bell Beaker culture spoke proto-Italo-Celtic. The men of that culture who spread to the British Isles around 2500 BC gave rise to R1b-L21 men, like those on Rathlin Island, who spoke proto-Insular-Celtic.

Genetiker
27-11-16, 09:04
Even if we consider the R1b1a2 as a true result, it's possible the lineage travelled with farmers.

No, it isn't, because none of the early farmers were R1b-M269. Some were R1b-V88, but none were R1b-M269. And again, ATP2, ATP3, ATP7, ATP9 and ATP20 had significant Eastern European autosomal DNA, which none of the early farmers had.


Note that the sample appears to be xU106 and xP312 if we assume the other calls as valid. Almost all the R1b in Spain is the considerably younger DF27+.

It's not known whether ATP3 was L23, L51, L151, U106, P312, U152, DF27, or L21, because it doesn't have any calls for those SNPs or their equivalents.

Fire Haired14
27-11-16, 09:09
These Steppe people behaved very much like Vikings. Well if Norwegians have the highest Yamna ancestry that make sense.

I think some of us wrongly view them as solely warrior invaders. As much as that might be true, they also brought entire populations with old/young and men/women to Europe.

Corded Ware culture is the best example. They made Eastern Europe their permanent home and made themselves the dominate people there within a few hundred years. In that sense they're more similar to Americans(United States) who expanded Westward in the 1700/1800s than Vikings.

Coriolan
27-11-16, 09:14
I think some of us wrongly view them as solely warrior invaders. As much as that might be true, they also brought entire populations with old/young and men/women to Europe.

Corded Ware culture is the best example. They made Eastern Europe their permanent home and made themselves the dominate people there within a few hundred years. In that sense they're more similar to Americans(United States) who expanded Westward in the 1700/1800s than Vikings.
The same is true with the Vikings. Sometimes they led raids to plunder and rape. But they also migrated with their families and built settlements. Usually the raids came first and the migrations followed. I think it was the same with the Steppe people.

berun
27-11-16, 10:48
Finally a Bronze Age Iberian uploaded to GEDmatch:

ATP9 (Middle Bronze Age Iberia, 1700-1518 BC).

GEDmatch kit number: M116706

Results in Eurogenes K15:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Atlantic 44.39
2 West_Med 37.4
3 North_Sea 17.71
4 Baltic 0.49

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 French_Basque 12.34
2 Spanish_Aragon 17.77
3 Southwest_French 18.44
4 Spanish_Cantabria 18.47
5 Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha 19.44
6 Spanish_Valencia 20.59
7 Spanish_Andalucia 20.65
8 Spanish_Castilla_Y_Leon 22.53
9 Spanish_Murcia 22.72
10 Spanish_Cataluna 22.81
11 Spanish_Extremadura 23.01
12 Portuguese 23.92
13 Spanish_Galicia 24.93
14 North_Italian 28.02
15 Sardinian 28.73
16 French 29.09
17 South_Dutch 32.41
18 Southwest_English 32.89
19 Tuscan 33.54
20 Southeast_English 34.42

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 79.9% French_Basque + 20.1% Sardinian @ 10.35
2 100% French_Basque + 0% Abhkasian @ 12.34
3 100% French_Basque + 0% Adygei @ 12.34
4 100% French_Basque + 0% Afghan_Hazara @ 12.34
5 100% French_Basque + 0% Afghan_Pashtun @ 12.34
6 100% French_Basque + 0% Afghan_Tadjik @ 12.34
7 100% French_Basque + 0% Afghan_Turkmen @ 12.34
8 100% French_Basque + 0% Afghan_Uzbeki @ 12.34
9 100% French_Basque + 0% Algerian @ 12.34
10 100% French_Basque + 0% Algerian_Jewish @ 12.34
11 100% French_Basque + 0% Altaian @ 12.34
12 100% French_Basque + 0% Anzick-1 @ 12.34
13 100% French_Basque + 0% Armenian @ 12.34
14 100% French_Basque + 0% Ashkenazi @ 12.34
15 100% French_Basque + 0% Assyrian @ 12.34
16 100% French_Basque + 0% Austrian @ 12.34
17 100% French_Basque + 0% Austroasiatic_Ho @ 12.34
18 100% French_Basque + 0% Azeri @ 12.34
19 100% French_Basque + 0% Balkar @ 12.34
20 100% French_Basque + 0% Balochi @ 12.34

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

In a PCA (based on Eurogenes K15 scores), ATP9 plots far away from modern Spanish guy:

http://i.imgur.com/zDUZ41R.png

http://i.imgur.com/zDUZ41R.png


Conclusion: the actual local population is autosomaly similar to ATP9, so no big population replacements after ATP9. The BB stay long there also.

arvistro
27-11-16, 10:48
I don't know if I can provide evidence because the study with Trzciniec genomes has not yet been published.

And I know these results (Y-DNA haplogroups, autosomal data) but I should probably stay silent until it gets published.

Oh no, you should not, you should not :)

Too much silence this year in regards to aDNA, just promises, promises, promises and no publications. At least we get some leaks now and then to speculate :)

berun
27-11-16, 10:50
Yet in every test he consistently shows an ANE signal. No matter how you spin it he had Steppe ancestry.

I think that bellow 3% it could be assumed to be noise?

berun
27-11-16, 10:56
If ATP9 is the first ancient from Iberia with Steppe admixture, then it means that it took Indo-Europeans ca. 1500 years to get to Iberia from the Steppe. Assuming that they started expanding from the Steppe ca. 3500-3000 BC, and first groups came to Spain ca. 2000-1500 BC. Of course those groups did not enter Iberia directly from the Steppe, but from somewhere in the middle of Europe.

Sorry to say but your argument is not backed by archaeology. It will be necessary to wait till 1200 BC to see in Iberia Central European cultures (Urnfield), which was by sure the first Celtic wave.

berun
27-11-16, 10:59
Oh no, you should not, you should not :)

Too much silence this year in regards to aDNA, just promises, promises, promises and no publications. At least we get some leaks now and then to speculate :)

I agree with you
;)

Or he may just link some wiki haplos in some post about his "cousins"
;)

Maciamo
27-11-16, 11:11
I am not insisting that Rathlin1 was for sure a Celtic-speaker. He could be some other Indo-European.


There was no Celtic language in 2000 BCE. That was still Proto-Italo-Celtic. Keep in mind that the Italic branch only split from 1300 BCE, when R1b tribes crossed the Alps to invade the Italian peninsula. As for Rathlin, R1b-L51 people having expanded from central Europe from circa 2500 BCE, all of them must still have spoken reasonably close languages across all western and central Europe around 2000 BCE. The question is whether Gaelic descend directly from that Proto-Italo-Celtic tongue of the first R1b-L21 in Britain and Ireland, or if it is a later import from the continent? What is certain is that Brittonic Celtic languages were more closely related to Gaulish (P-Celtic group) than to Goidelic Celtic in Ireland, and must therefore have come later, probably with Hallstatt migrants, but reinforced later with the arrival of Belgic tribes.

Goidelic Celtic and Celtiberian both belonged to the older Q-Celtic group. The P-Celtic group is composed mostly of Gaulish and Brittonic. The Italic branch kept the Q (e.g. the word for horse is equus in Latin vs epos then eponos in Gaulish Celtic). The Q to P shift happened after R1b-L21 tribes had settled to Britain and Ireland, but also after R1b-D27 spread over Iberia, and after R1b-U152 invaded Italy, so after 1300 BCE. But it probably happened before the Hallstatt expansion to Britain around 500 BCE.

Fire Haired14
27-11-16, 11:42
Keep in mind that the Italic branch only split from 1300 BCE, when R1b tribes crossed the Alps to invade the Italian peninsula.

I know this is probable but it isn't fact so you should insert a "probably" next time. Language aside, IMO, there's no room for debating whether Bell Beaker introduced L21 to the British Isles and U152 to Central Europe/France because of Ancient Y DNA. We have no confirmation but I'm pretty confident DF27's origin in Iberia is also Bell Beaker or at least people from the era Bell Beaker lived in. There is a confirmed, not by academics, DF27 from German Bell Beaker.

The only area we can debate about is Italy because Bell Beaker had a weak presence there. A U152 arrival after Bell Beaker wouldn't supine me. All I'm saying here is that Bell Beaker appears to have a close link with P312. The trend is that Indo European languages expanded with lots of genes. So unless Y DNA in Iberia, France, and Britain hardly changed as a result of the expansion of Celtic languages maybe they expanded with Bell Beaker and P312. Maybe the age estimates for the origins of different Celtic branches are wrong.


Goidelic Celtic and Celtiberian both belonged to the older Q-Celtic group. The P-Celtic group is composed mostly of Gaulish and Brittonic. The Italic branch kept the Q (e.g. the word for horse is equus in Latin vs epos then eponos in Gaulish Celtic). The Q to P shift happened after R1b-L21 tribes had settled to Britain and Ireland, but also after R1b-D27 spread over Iberia, and after R1b-U152 invaded Italy, so after 1300 BCE. But it probably happened before the Hallstatt expansion to Britain around 500 BCE.

Isn't there hardly any writing remaining from the Gaulish language(s)? Plus, only having some writings and no living speakers definitely hurts any efforts to understand the language. Isn't it possible contact between Gaul and Britain caused them to exchange vocab and pronunciation(q-p). Or maybe after a first arrival of Celtic languages in Britain in 2300 BC, France and Britain stayed in constant contact and their languages changed together, then broke off, then exchanged vocab. If a place as large as Gaul spoke basically the same language in 50 BC why couldn't, for a time maybe in 1800 BC or whatever, Britain and France have spoken the same language?

I'm not arguing for any of those sceniors I just think you're too confident in evidence that comes from sources as non-concrete as linguistics with extinct languages like Gaulish. I don't know anything about linguistics but I think I know enough to know it's difficult to make language age estimates or to know a lot about the origins of extinct languages and their relationship to modern languages.

Maciamo
27-11-16, 11:50
Because just about everybody, yourself included, claims that R1b-M269, Eastern European autosomal DNA, and Indo-European languages didn't spread to Western Europe until well after 3000 BC. ATP3 and the other El Portalón samples prove them wrong.

I personally have no problem with that R1b-M269 sample from 3400 BCE Spain. I explained here (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31558-Analysis-of-Chalcolithic-El-Portalon-samples-(G%C3%BCnther-at-al-2015)) when the paper was released that ATP3 was surely a Steppe immigrant because not only his Y-DNA, but also his mtDNA and autosomal DNA were clearly Proto-Indo-European. My conclusion was that this was an early incursion of R1b-M269 into western Europe, but one on a very small scale that would not have affected much the general ethnic make-up on the Iberian peninsula. So I agree with you that this ATP3 was a Steppe immigrant, but I very much doubt that this represent a group of people large enough to establish the Bell-beaker culture.



And so far it's all R1b-Z2103, not the R1b-L51 that now dominates Western Europe.

The German Bell-Beaker and Unetice samples belonged to R1b-P312 and even R1b-U152.



You should reflect on the fact that the Bell Beaker culture began in Iberia around 2900 BC, and later spread northward and eastward throughout Western and Central Europe. And also on the fact that the Bell Beaker samples we currently have from Central Europe carry mitochondrial haplogroups like H1 and H3 that originated in Southwestern Europe.

I agree that H1 and H3 lineages probably spread across western Europe and Scandinavia during the Bell Beaker period, but this process started with Megalithic people. The Bell-beaker were Neolithic people directly descended from the Megalithic cultures. They practised common burial in passage tombs too and had no cultural trait to link them to Yamna or other Steppe culture (except for the Yamna R1b migrants in Central Europe, who were immigrants among the Bell Beaker folks). I have explained in detail why the original Bell beakers could not have been R1b Steppe people.

- Why R1b couldn't have been spread around Western Europe by the Bell Beaker people (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29290-Why-R1b-couldn-t-have-been-spread-around-Western-Europe-by-the-Bell-Beaker-people)

- Bell Beakers were a multicultural phenomenon & trade network, not an ethnic culture (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29565-Bell-Beakers-were-a-multicultural-phenomenon-trade-network-not-an-ethnic-culture)

- Spanish Chalcolithic mtDNA provides more evidence that Bell Beakers were non-IE (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30327-Spanish-Chalcolithic-mtDNA-provides-more-evidence-that-Bell-Beakers-were-non-IE)

Apparently it's particularly hard for people to understand, as a majority of people disagree with me, even on this forum. At best, isolated R1b horse-riding adventurers like the one from El Portalon could have facilitated trade routes across western Europe, which was used by Megalithic people to trade objects such as the bell-beaker pottery that gave its name to the culture. But it is clear that this bell-beaker network encompassed a wide variety of people from very different regions. Yet almost none of them were Copper or Bronze Age societies, but Neolithic ones. I think that the confusion comes from a fundamental error by the archaeologists who named the Bell-beaker culture and named it after a pottery type, not realising that, contrarily to many other Neolithic cultures, the pottery was not developed locally by one homogeneous group of people, but was on the contrary traded for the first time across half of the continent, almost certainly for what it contained (e.g. beer or mead). Unfortunately that mistake is as serious as to look at the archaeological record of the Roman era and conclude that the Scandinavians, the Balts, the Scythians, the Indians or the Chinese were Roman because Roman objects from trade were found among their remains. Likewise, it's not because you find the skeletons of Roman merchants in India and DNA tests confirm that they were genetically close to Roman-era Italians, that it means that Indians 2000 years ago were Romans. Isolated samples don't mean anything if we don't know the story of how they got there.

Maciamo
27-11-16, 11:58
Isn't there hardly any writing remaining from the Gaulish language(s)? Plus, only having some writings and no living speakers definitely hurts any efforts to understand the language. Isn't it possible contact between Gaul and Britain caused them to exchange vocab and pronunciation(q-p). Or maybe after a first arrival of Celtic languages in Britain in 2300 BC, France and Britain stayed in constant contact and their languages changed together, then broke off, then exchanged vocab. If a place as large as Gaul spoke basically the same language in 50 BC why couldn't, for a time maybe in 1800 BC or whatever, Britain and France have spoken the same language?

I'm not arguing for any of those sceniors I just think you're too confident in evidence that comes from sources as non-concrete as linguistics with extinct languages like Gaulish. I don't know anything about linguistics but I think I know enough to know it's difficult to make language age estimates or to know a lot about the origins of extinct languages and their relationship to modern languages.

There are about 800 surviving texts or inscriptions in Gaulish, written in Greek or Latin alphabet. That's enough to know over 1000 words and get a sense of the grammar (declensions, conjugation) and to classify the language with reasonable confidence. The Greeks and Romans also commented on Gaulish language and compared it to their language. In addition to the texts, there are thousands of place names in France, Belgium, Germany, Swizterland and northern Italy today that are derived from Gaulish.

berun
27-11-16, 14:03
I think that the confusion comes from a fundamental error by the archaeologists who named the Bell-beaker culture and named it after a pottery type, not realising that, contrarily to many other Neolithic cultures, the pottery was not developed locally by one homogeneous group of people, but was on the contrary traded for the first time across half of the continent, almost certainly for what it contained (e.g. beer or mead).

Not so wrong the archaeologists here, as the pots first appeared in a little region, a given dialect or language could evolve to a given idiom (or lingua franca) that thereafter would expand all over Western Europe. And pots are not the unique track, also Palmela points (for spears), winged arrowheads, wristguards, copper daggers, and so. By that I doubt much that they were simply trading beer or copper...

MarkoZ
27-11-16, 17:45
Maybe he spoke something else, closely related to Celtic.

So her language must have been closely related to Celtic because Celtic is spoken in the Isles in historic times? That's ludicrous. All we can say is that we don't know what language Rathlin1 spoke.



The remaining ones were Proto-Celts according to archaeologists (many archaeologists agree that the Unetice culture was Proto-Italo-Celtic).

As far as I know, a genetic relationship between Italic and Celtic is disputed by most linguists these days. I've never seen that claim about Unetice either. Most archaeologists see Hallstatt or La Tène as likely candidates for the dispersal of Celtic languages in the Iron Age.

Fire Haired14
28-11-16, 02:23
So her language must have been closely related to Celtic because Celtic is spoken in the Isles in historic times? That's ludicrous. All we can say is that we don't know what language Rathlin1 spoke.

True.


I've never seen that claim about Unetice either. Most archaeologists see Hallstatt or La Tène as likely candidates for the dispersal of Celtic languages in the Iron Age.

It's essentially impossible for Hallstatt or La Tene to have anything to do with proto-Celtic because the oldest Celtic inscriptions are far away from Hallstatti(Southern Portugal, Northern Italy) and are as old as Hallstatt. If all of Gaul(inclu. ones in Italy) spoke the same language, CeltIberians spoke a slightly different language but still shared a Celtic identity(like classical writers suggest), if Britons spoke/speak a more distant but closely related language, and if Irish spoke/speak an even more distant but closely related language, then I guess an origin slightly before Hallstatt is possible.

Olympus Mons
28-11-16, 02:30
@Maciamo
... And will people accept that in the absence of aDna, the best next thing is Nm dental traits such as J.Desideri work from Geneva Univ. and that work (s) clearly state that Bell beaker not only were genetics, but a genetic stock that resisted to any mixing at all.

Olympus Mons
28-11-16, 02:32
@Genetiker.
You are too silent on your blog.

Anyway. - Most of us do not understand How you could call M269 on ATP3 and not other people. Can you explain how you did it?

Tomenable
28-11-16, 18:34
All you can ever do is insinuate that the idea of pre-Viking transatlantic contact is somehow absurd, when of course there's nothing absurd about it. You never dispute the mountain of historical, archeological, anthropological, and genetic evidence proving the presence of Europeans in the Americas before the Vikings, because you can't.What genetic evidence?

Most of ancient Chachapoya genomes that you tested have very low SNP counts. With such low coverage, their autosomal results are uselesss. The only ones of relatively good quality are NA40 and NA42. I have just uploaded NA40 to GEDmatch and I don't see any European admixture there (this "North-European-Mesolithic" was actually a Mongoloid-admixed population similar to modern Saami people / Lapps, so they just shared some ancient Northern Siberian ancestry with Native Americans):

GEDmatch kit Z656658, NA40, Laguna de Los Condores (ancient Peru), [1000-1500 AD]

That guy was one of the Chachapoyas:

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

MDLP World-22 results:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Mesoamerican 51.43
2 North-Amerind 33.41
3 South-America_Amerind 5.88
4 North-European-Mesolithic 4.7
5 Paleo-Siberian 4.58

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Luiseno (derived) 8.82
2 Huichol (derived) 12.07
3 Mixtec (derived) 12.31
4 Maya (derived) 13.48
5 Cucupa (derived) 15.43
6 Kumiai (derived) 21.12
7 Apache (derived) 22.22
8 Karitiana (derived) 28.37
9 Colombian (derived) 28.86
10 Cochimi (derived) 30.69
11 Serrano (derived) 32.36
12 Navajo (derived) 32.95
13 Mexican (derived) 44.36
14 Haida (derived) 45.92
15 Miwok (derived) 47.42
16 Tsimsian (derived) 51.5
17 Pima (derived) 53.14
18 Tlingit (derived) 53.61
19 Mesomerican (ancestral) 59.91
20 Costanoan (derived) 61.06

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 68.9% Huichol (derived) + 31.1% Apache (derived) @ 7.57
2 88.5% Luiseno (derived) + 11.5% Navajo (derived) @ 7.76
3 85.2% Huichol (derived) + 14.8% Tlingit (derived) @ 7.84
4 83.9% Luiseno (derived) + 16.1% Apache (derived) @ 7.87
5 95.4% Luiseno (derived) + 4.6% North-Amerind (ancestral) @ 7.88
6 94.5% Luiseno (derived) + 5.5% Athabask (derived) @ 7.9
7 93.4% Luiseno (derived) + 6.6% Tlingit (derived) @ 7.97
8 77.9% Huichol (derived) + 22.1% Navajo (derived) @ 7.99
9 68.9% Mixtec (derived) + 31.1% Apache (derived) @ 8.01
10 96.8% Luiseno (derived) + 3.2% Paleo-Siberean (ancestral) @ 8.01
11 83.4% Huichol (derived) + 16.6% Haida (derived) @ 8.08
12 96.7% Luiseno (derived) + 3.3% Koryak (derived) @ 8.23
13 88.4% Huichol (derived) + 11.6% Athabask (derived) @ 8.29
14 77.8% Mixtec (derived) + 22.2% Navajo (derived) @ 8.3
15 85.4% Mixtec (derived) + 14.6% Tlingit (derived) @ 8.32
16 97.4% Luiseno (derived) + 2.6% North-European-Mesolithic (ancestral) @ 8.35
17 71.8% Apache (derived) + 28.2% Pima (derived) @ 8.36
18 94.5% Luiseno (derived) + 5.5% Haida (derived) @ 8.42
19 96.5% Luiseno (derived) + 3.5% Chukchi (derived) @ 8.43
20 97.4% Luiseno (derived) + 2.6% Bra1 (derived) @ 8.44

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

And also Eurogenes K15:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Amerindian 87.39
2 Siberian 10.75
3 Northeast_African 1.18
4 Sub-Saharan 0.47
5 Oceanian 0.21

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Pima 7.07
2 Anzick-1 8.92
3 Mayan 10.08
4 Karitiana 18.59
5 North_Amerindian 24.26
6 East_Greenlander 65.86
7 West_Greenlander 68.91
8 MA-1 89.25
9 Chukchi 93.18
10 Koryak 103.9
11 Shors 106.99
12 Tatar 107.49
13 Afghan_Hazara 107.5
14 Afghan_Turkmen 107.74
15 Uygur 107.76
16 Uzbeki 107.78
17 Hazara 108.32
18 Nogay 108.48
19 Chuvash 108.61
20 Tadjik 108.83

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 87.3% Karitiana + 12.7% Evens @ 2.15
2 87.1% Karitiana + 12.9% Dolgan @ 2.41
3 87.4% Karitiana + 12.6% Evenki @ 2.41
4 83.5% Karitiana + 16.5% Chukchi @ 2.54
5 85% Karitiana + 15% Koryak @ 2.63
6 87.2% Karitiana + 12.8% Yakut @ 3.01
7 78.2% Karitiana + 21.8% East_Greenlander @ 3.03
8 56.8% Karitiana + 43.2% North_Amerindian @ 3.76
9 85.9% Karitiana + 14.1% Saqqaq @ 3.92
10 79.2% Karitiana + 20.8% West_Greenlander @ 4.41
11 94.3% Anzick-1 + 5.7% Evens @ 4.46
12 85.9% Karitiana + 14.1% Ket @ 4.51
13 94.3% Anzick-1 + 5.7% Evenki @ 4.61
14 87.4% Karitiana + 12.6% Oroqen @ 4.65
15 92.5% Anzick-1 + 7.5% Chukchi @ 4.69
16 93.2% Anzick-1 + 6.8% Koryak @ 4.72
17 86.3% Karitiana + 13.7% Selkup @ 4.72
18 94.3% Anzick-1 + 5.7% Dolgan @ 4.74
19 89.8% Anzick-1 + 10.2% East_Greenlander @ 4.88
20 94.4% Anzick-1 + 5.6% Yakut @ 4.89

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

You cannot possibly be more purely Amerindian than this ancient Chachapoya guy.

BTW - if you uploaded other Chachapoyas to GEDmatch, give me their kit numbers.

Genetiker
28-11-16, 19:46
Genetiker.
You are too silent on your blog.

There hasn't been any new data to analyze recently.


Anyway. - Most of us do not understand How you could call M269 on ATP3 and not other people. Can you explain how you did it?

I look at many more SNPs than others do.

Sile
28-11-16, 20:12
Isn't there hardly any writing remaining from the Gaulish language(s)? Plus, only having some writings and no living speakers definitely hurts any efforts to understand the language. Isn't it possible contact between Gaul and Britain caused them to exchange vocab and pronunciation(q-p). Or maybe after a first arrival of Celtic languages in Britain in 2300 BC, France and Britain stayed in constant contact and their languages changed together, then broke off, then exchanged vocab. If a place as large as Gaul spoke basically the same language in 50 BC why couldn't, for a time maybe in 1800 BC or whatever, Britain and France have spoken the same language?

I'm not arguing for any of those sceniors I just think you're too confident in evidence that comes from sources as non-concrete as linguistics with extinct languages like Gaulish. I don't know anything about linguistics but I think I know enough to know it's difficult to make language age estimates or to know a lot about the origins of extinct languages and their relationship to modern languages.

https://digilib.phil.muni.cz/bitstream/handle/11222.digilib/114125/N_GraecoLatina_13-2008-1_4.pdf

Tomenable
28-11-16, 20:30
DNA Land:

http://i.imgur.com/7juf2EK.png

Another one added to GEDmatch:

Kit Z713184, NA42, Laguna de Los Condores (ancient Peru), [1000-1500 AD]

Genetiker
28-11-16, 20:48
What genetic evidence?

Most of ancient Chachapoya genomes that you tested have very low SNP counts. With such low coverage, their autosomal results are uselesss...

Right, just pretend that Cieza de León didn't write the following about the Chachapoyas:


These Indians of Chachapoyas are the whitest and most attractive of any that I have seen in the Indies, and their women are so beautiful that many of them were worthy to be wives of the Incas, and to be taken to the temples of the sun. To this day the Indian women of this race are exceedingly beautiful, for they are white and well formed. They go dressed in woolen clothes, like their husbands, and on their heads they wear their llautos, the sign by which they may be known in all parts.

Just pretend that the photographs of Chachapoya remains with wavy brown and red European hair and not stiff black Mongoloid Amerindian hair, linked to on my blog, don't exist.

Just pretend that the "Gringuito" descendants of the Chachapoyas don't have features like fair skin, blond and red hair, blue eyes, and freckles, which are typical of modern Northern Europeans, and not at all typical of modern Southern Europeans like Spaniards.

You're wasting your time with the seven published Chachapoya samples. Willerslev, Bustamante, and Guillén deliberately excluded samples with European admixture from their paper.

And if it's genetic evidence you want, then you can see the numerous analyses on my blog going back to a year and a half ago showing that a Chinchorro DNA sample dated to around 4000 BC was 30% European and 70% Amerindian. Analyses that were met with nothing but inane comments and a thread closure when I posted them on Anthrogenica, and which everybody has pretended never happened since then.

Fire Haired14
28-11-16, 22:59
@Geneticker,

To me it seems when that Colonial Spanish guy wrote "white" he was using it as an adjective for something besides skin color or color at all or race. Also, because we Americans use the word for the color white to refer to Europeans we wrongly interpret people from other cultures when they use the word white when it describes people's appearance. We use color words to describe people unliterally sometimes, like when we say someone is blue we don't mean they're literally blue.

If Spanish found Northern European-looking people in South America I'm sure they would have said so. They knew about geography and knew it'd be strange if they found such people in America.

berun
28-11-16, 23:17
Going out of topic yet... what about to use Occam's razor: if red hair is debt by oxydization or mummyfication, if white chachapoyas werr so white by living in the cloud forests (when their neighbours in the coast and in the altiplanes were charred by the sun), if actual blue eyes of Gringuitos just is debt to some Conquistadores...

Tomenable
28-11-16, 23:20
The Japanese, Koreans and Northern Chinese can also be called white based on their skin color.

Maybe the Chachapoyas had Mongoloid skin-lightening mutations, rather than Caucasoid ones.

Genetiker
29-11-16, 00:27
Geneticker,

To me it seems when that Colonial Spanish guy wrote "white" he was using it as an adjective for something besides skin color or color at all or race. Also, because we Americans use the word for the color white to refer to Europeans we wrongly interpret people from other cultures when they use the word white when it describes people's appearance. We use color words to describe people unliterally sometimes, like when we say someone is blue we don't mean they're literally blue.

Absurd rubbish.

I can tell from the ignorance displayed in these comments that people don't even bother to look at what I've posted on my blog before ridiculing me and branding me a "kook".

In my post "Statuettes of the White Gods" I included the following quote from Pedro Pizarro, cousin of Francisco Pizarro, describing the Incas in his 1571 work Relation of the discovery and conquest of the kingdoms of Peru:


The people of this kingdom of Peru were white, swarthy in color, and among them the Lords and Ladies were whiter than Spaniards. I saw in this land an Indian woman and a child who would not stand out among white blonds. These people [of the upper class] say that they were the children of the idols.

And in my post "The Chachapoyas" I noted that at 45:55 in the documentary "Carthage's Lost Warriors" a painting from the Inca period is shown depicting captured Chachapoya women, showing that they had white skin and red hair.


If Spanish found Northern European-looking people in South America I'm sure they would have said so. They knew about geography and knew it'd be strange if they found such people in America.

You're not paying attention. They did say so. They were indeed astonished to find White people among the dark-skinned Amerindians of the New World, and they duly noted it.

Genetiker
29-11-16, 01:29
Going out of topic yet... what about to use Occam's razor: if red hair is debt by oxydization or mummyfication

No. Hair doesn't magically change color after death. Here's a quote from Warren Royal Dawson that Thor Heyerdahl included in the section "Tall stature, narrow face, and non-Mongoloid hair on Paracas mummies" in his 1952 work American Indians in the Pacific:


From the examination of a large number of mummies both from Egypt and other countries including South America, my opinion is that hair does not undergo any marked change post-mortem. The hair of a wavy or curly individual remains curly or wavy, and that of a straight-haired person remains straight. In mummies and desiccated bodies the hair has a tendency to be crisp and brittle, but this is the natural result of the drying-up of the sebaceous glands, which during life, feed fatty matter into the hair follicles which keeps the hair supple and flexible. … it seems to me very unlikely that any change in colour would take place in a body which had never been exposed to the light, … To sum up then, all the evidence I have indicates that the nature of hair does not alter after death except in becoming dry and brittle.

And as I said above, a painting from the Inca period depicts Chachapoya women as having white skin and red hair.

Also, the hair of many ancient Peruvian mummies is European rather than Amerindian not only in its color, but also in its structure. See my post "More proof of Whites in ancient Peru and Chile".


if white chachapoyas werr so white by living in the cloud forests (when their neighbours in the coast and in the altiplanes were charred by the sun), if actual blue eyes of Gringuitos just is debt to some Conquistadores...

No, they're white because of their European admixture, as genetic testing of the Gringuitos has shown. That same testing has shown that the red hair found in the Gringuitos is of European origin.

If you look at the photographs of Gringuitos in my post "More proof of Whites in ancient Peru and Chile", then you'll realize that there's no way that the physical features they possess can possibly be due to admixture from Spaniards. Their features look more like the features of the Irish than any other European population I've seen.

Percy Fawcett saw similar-looking white natives on the Amazon, which he described as "people with red hair and blue eyes like a gringo". He explicitly stated that "They are not albinos". He recorded the following story he heard from the manager of a French rubber colony in 1906–7:


There are white Indians on the [river] Acre. My brother went up … in a launch, and one day, well up river, was told that white Indians were near. He didn't believe it and scoffed at the men who told him, but nevertheless went out in a canoe and found unmistakable signs of Indians. The next thing he knew, he and his men were being attacked by big, well-built, handsome savages, pure white with red hair and blue eyes. They fought like devils too. … Many people say these white Indians don't exist, and, when it's proved they do, that they are half-breeds, mixtures of Spanish and Indians. That's what people say who never saw them, but those who have seen them think differently.

Tomenable
29-11-16, 02:26
Genetiker, have you tested also MARC1492, or only samples from South America?

GEDmatch Z648313 = MARC1492, Native Mi'kmaq from Canada, 1550-1700 AD.


the hair of many ancient Peruvian mummies is European rather than Amerindian not only in its color, but also in its structure

Not specifically European, but - generally - Caucasoid.

Ancient North Eurasians were Caucasoid and Amerindians are not pure Mongoloids, but a Mongoloid-Caucasoid hybrid population. Probably among some individuals and sub-populations those Caucasoid features were more pronounced.

Australoid and Polynesian admixtures were also undoubtedly present in Pre-Columbian America.

There is no doubt that Polynesians visited South America, traded and mixed with the locals.

Have you noticed any signals of Polynesian admixture in your South American samples?

Tomenable
29-11-16, 02:54
Right, just pretend that Cieza de León didn't write the following about the Chachapoyas:


These Indians of Chachapoyas are the whitest and most attractive of any that I have seen (...)

Cieza de Leon was Spanish, right?

This guy is probably (?) 99% Spanish:

http://fotos00.levante-emv.com/fotos/noticias/318x200/2009-07-16_IMG_2009-07-09_00.11.13__JV011CV001.jpg.jpghttp://cdn.20m.es/img/2009/06/25/975730.jpg?v=20101112192812

This is a 99% Native American person:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l12eckFp2tM


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l12eckFp2tM

Question - who has whiter skin ??? :laughing:

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

Peruvian ancestry by region according to Sandoval 2013 (Table 1. on page 5):

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249997244_Tracing_the_genomic_ancestry_of_Peruvian s_reveals_a_major_legacy_of_pre-Columbian_ancestors

Population size by region: http://www.pqs.pe/sites/default/files/poblacion_peru_inei_0.png

According to Sandoval, Peruvians have some Oceanian (Polynesian) admixture.

I added it to Amerindian, because in my opinion all/most of it is Pre-Columbian:



% of Peru's population
region of Peru
Amerind* admixture
Europid admixture
African admixture
(sample size)


4,9%
Cajamarca
0,748
0,223
0,029
(67)


4,1%
Lambayeque
0,823
0,145
0,033
(31)


28,4%
Provincia Lima
0,833
0,143
0,023
(43)


2,7%
San Martin
0,895
0,087
0,018
(18)


2,2%
Ayacucho
0,897
0,081
0,022
(31)


1,6%
Uayli
0,906
0,08
0,014
(10)


4,4%
Junin
0,911
0,061
0,028
(29)


1,4%
Amazonas
0,922
0,054
0,024
(15)


4,1%
Arequipa
0,94
0,048
0,012
(71)


3,7%
Ancash
0,946
0,037
0,017
(11)


3,3%
Loreto
0,952
0,035
0,013
(79)


3,0%
Region Lima
0,968
0,02
0,012
(15)


4,2%
Cusco
0,97
0,019
0,008
(19)


1,5%
Apurimac
0,977
0,016
0,007
(9)


4,6%
Puno
0,981
0,011
0,008
(103)


74,1%
3/4 PERU average
0,881 (~88%)
0,098 (~10%)
0,020 (~2%)
(551)


6,0%
La Libertad



(0)


5,9%
Piura



(0)


3,2%
Callao



(0)


2,8%
Huánuco



(0)


2,5%
Ica



(0)


1,6%
Huancavelica



(0)


1,1%
Tacna



(0)


1,0%
Pasco



(0)


0,8%
Tumbes



(0)


0,6%
Moquegua



(0)


0,4%
Madre de Dios



(0)


100,0%
total PERU average
?
?
?
(551+)



*Oceanian and East Asian added to Amerindian.

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

And a map based on regional data posted above:

Regions of Peru:

http://theonlyperuguide.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Peru-Map-Regions1.jpg

Amerindian ancestry:

http://i.imgur.com/PAA1KQe.png

https://i.imgur.com/kSBQwTC.png

Peru is one of the most Amerindian countries. However, Bolivia is even more Amerindian.

I checked admixture averages for Bolivian reference populations in GEDmatch calculators:

1) HarappaWorld:

Bolivian - 90,5% Amerindian, 9% European, 0,5% African

2) MDLP K23b:

Quechua Bolivia - 99% Amerindian, 1% European, 0% African
Bolivian La Paz - 98% Amerindian, 2% European, 0% African
Bolivian Cochabamba - 93% Amerindian, 7% European, 0% African
Bolivian Pando - 91% Amerindian, 8,5% European, 0,5% African
Bolivian* - 88% Amerindian, 12% European, 0% African

[*where is this sample from, perhaps from several different locations?]

3) puntDNAL K10:

Bolivian1 - 97% Amerindian, 3% European, 0% African
Bolivian2 - 85% Amerindian 14% European, 1% African

[where are these two samples from, why is there such a big difference?]

LeBrok
29-11-16, 03:54
Finally a Bronze Age Iberian uploaded to GEDmatch:

ATP9 (Middle Bronze Age Iberia, 1700-1518 BC).

GEDmatch kit number: M116706

Results in Eurogenes K15:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Atlantic 44.39
2 West_Med 37.4
3 North_Sea 17.71
4 Baltic 0.49

Single Population Sharing:
==========================

In a PCA (based on Eurogenes K15 scores), ATP9 plots far away from modern Spanish guy:

http://i.imgur.com/zDUZ41R.png

http://i.imgur.com/zDUZ41R.png
Good job Tomenable.
I think he is still very like neolithic Iberian, just for some reason having more WHG than Copper Age guy. It might mean that IE didn't invade Spain yet, or they did but most of population didn't mix with newcomers yet. It takes a thousand of years and more to have well mixed society.

Genetiker
29-11-16, 04:29
The Japanese, Koreans and Northern Chinese can also be called white based on their skin color.

Maybe the Chachapoyas had Mongoloid skin-lightening mutations, rather than Caucasoid ones.

Only a small percentage of the Mongoloid populations you mention have skin that could be described as white. Most of them have skin that ranges from yellow to brown.

And Amerindians don't have the Mongoloid depigmentation mutations. They arose in Asia long after Amerindians had branched off from the Asian Mongoloids.

And we know from the genetic analyses of the Gringuito descendants of the Chachapoyas that they have the European features they do because they have a significant amount of European admixture.

Genetiker
29-11-16, 05:19
Genetiker, have you tested also MARC1492, or only samples from South America?

GEDmatch Z648313 = MARC1492, Native Mi'kmaq from Canada, 1550-1700 AD.

All 23 ancient American samples from the paper that included MARC1492 have appeared in all my admixture analyses for about a year and a half now.


Not specifically European, but - generally - Caucasoid.

Many European populations have hair that is considerably finer than the hair of Middle Eastern and North African Caucasoids, and some ancient Peruvian hair approaches the hair of those European populations in its fineness.


Ancient North Eurasians were Caucasoid and Amerindians are not pure Mongoloids, but a Mongoloid-Caucasoid hybrid population. Probably among some individuals and sub-populations those Caucasoid features were more pronounced.

You don't have to tell me that Amerindians are Mongoloid-Caucasoid hybrids. You're talking to the first person to ever show using DNA that that's what they are. Who did so eight months before Willerslev took credit for "revealing" it. Who was attacked by Dienekes and regarded as a "kook" for saying so, at a time when everybody believed David Reich's preposterous claim that Northern Europeans are Mediterranean-Amerindian hybrids.

The fact that Amerindians have Caucasoid admixture is irrelevant to comparisons involving their hair, because it's the 370A EDAR mutation that causes Mongoloid hair structure, and that mutation is fixed or close to being fixed in all pure Amerindian populations. Amerindians have even higher frequencies of the EDAR mutation than most Asian Mongoloid populations do.

And, anyway, the point is that ancient Peruvian hair is structurally European compared not to Asian Mongoloid hair, but to multiple and diverse samples of Amerindian hair.


Australoid and Polynesian admixtures were also undoubtedly present in Pre-Columbian America.

So you have zero doubt that Australoids and Taiwanese-Melanesian hybrids crossed the Pacific, against the prevailing winds and currents, to reach the Americas, but the idea that Europeans crossed the Atlantic, aided by the prevailing winds and currents, is absurd to you. At least we now know where your prejudices lie.


There is no doubt that Polynesians visited South America, traded and mixed with the locals.

No, what really happened is that the White Gods of South America traveled out into the Pacific, aided by the prevailing winds and currents, to the islands of Polynesia, where they established civilization again.


Have you noticed any signals of Polynesian admixture in your South American samples?

Nothing that I would say rises to the level of signficance.

Tomenable
29-11-16, 05:37
So you have zero doubt that Australoids and Taiwanese-Melanesian hybrids crossed the Pacific

Only Taiwanese-Melanesian hybrids did. Australoid-admixed people came much earlier, and they did not cross the Pacific.

This is how they came in my opinion (remember that the Ainu and the Aleuts have some of this Australoid admixture too):

http://oi68.tinypic.com/i2ovtj.jpg

http://oi68.tinypic.com/i2ovtj.jpg

The second wave were Polynesians, but they mostly admixed Andean tribes, not those deep inside Brazil like Karitiana:

http://i.imgur.com/okkSeZx.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/okkSeZx.jpg

Fire Haired14
29-11-16, 05:49
Ancient North Eurasians were Caucasoid and Amerindians are not pure Mongoloids, but a Mongoloid-Caucasoid hybrid population. Probably among some individuals and sub-populations those Caucasoid features were more pronounced.

If you're referring to Caucasoid skull features, Caucasoid hair doesn't have to always be on Caucasoid heads. How do we know ANE had Caucasoid skulls anyways? They had a very distant relationship with WHG, who we can definitely say had Caucasoid skulls, but that doesn't mean ANE did.

What is Caucasoid hair or Caucasoid phenotype anyways? You and I haven't seen many Middle Easterners. I don't know if they could fall under a very defining pan West Eurasian Caucasian phenotype. They share features with Europeans but maybe not much. What you're calling Caucasoid might only be European.

We don't fully understand the relationship between the four Holocene ancestors of Europeans. The defining features of Europeans can't come from only one of them. So, where did the European aka Caucasoid(?) look come from? We can't give a definite answer. All I'm saying is we have no idea what ANE looked like.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is just my opinion, I think race/genetic grouping usually doesn't determine much of our phenotype, beyond superficial things like skin color, hair, color, and hair texture. Our Facial features are determined by universal human variation, especially gender, more than anything else.

Genetiker
29-11-16, 07:28
Cieza de Leon was Spanish, right?

This guy is probably (?) 99% Spanish:

An absurd cherry-picked example. You must have spent some time looking for the darkest Spaniard you could find. The vast majority of Spaniards aren't that dark.


This is a 99% Native American person:

Question - who has whiter skin ???

Anybody can look at a map of human skin color and see that, cherry-picked extreme outliers aside, Peruvian Indians are much darker than Spaniards:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PSM_V50_D780_Global_map_of_skin_color_distrib ution.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/PSM_V50_D780_Global_map_of_skin_color_distribution .jpg

Fire Haired14
29-11-16, 07:41
Geneticker your quotes are interesting. Can you provide sources?

berun
29-11-16, 10:01
@Genetiker, if a barely scientific statement of Thor Heyerdahl ("it seems to me") from the fifties is your best source to avoid other explanations as climatology, chemicals used in mummification, or other cases I lose interest very quick in such discussion, moreover when it's possible to find out "blondes" among Indonesian tribes...

8248


And as I said above, a painting from the Inca period depicts Chachapoya women as having white skin and red hair.

there is a lot of decoloration in ancient pottery and statues, do you know, or not?

For the "European" gringuitos, can you prove that they have not received a recent Spanish admixture? or do you prefer to just don't look at it?

For the "Irish" aspect of Gringuitos... (what a scientific proof to deal?), you can look at those "Irish" kids from north Spain

8249

8250

So it seems that you get the best proofs for Europeans in pre-Columbine America and just dismiss the Occam's razor as inconvenient for your thinkings.

Tomenable
29-11-16, 15:23
Genetiker,

Quality / coverage of Chachapoya genomes, listed from best to worst:

NA42, file size 17944 KB
NA40, file size 17155 KB
NA39, file size 5010 KB
NA41, file size 3335 KB
NA50, file size 2942 KB
NA47, file size 2542 KB
NA43, file size 1812 KB

Better quality samples have more of Amerindian ancestry in DNA.Land:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/33150-Ancient-American-DNA?p=495524&viewfull=1#post495524

Ricimer
05-12-16, 14:03
Could anybody upload the ATP9 sample in dna.land? My guess is 75% Southwestern Europe and 25% Sardinian

A. Papadimitriou
09-12-16, 12:54
That's his HarappaWorld Admixture proportions. Yamnayans had just NE Euro and Baloch.



Population



S-Indian
-


Baloch
-


Caucasian
7.33


NE-Euro
36.77


SE-Asian
-


Siberian
-


NE-Asian
-


Papuan
-


American
-


Beringian
-


Mediterranean
55.74


SW-Asian
-


San
-


E-African
-


Pygmy
-


W-African
0.15

LeBrok
09-12-16, 20:33
CA Iberia, ATP2, M849224
BA Iberian, ATP9, M116706


CO1 Hungary


BR1 Hungary


Unetice I0116, M425717


Population


Population


Population


Population


Population



S-Indian
-

S-Indian
-

S-Indian
-

S-Indian
-

S-Indian
-


Baloch
-

Baloch
-

Baloch
-

Baloch
3.15

Baloch
12.21


Caucasian
4.19

Caucasian
7.33

Caucasian
19.26

Caucasian
14.73

Caucasian
2.27


NE-Euro
24.19

NE-Euro
36.77

NE-Euro
16.74

NE-Euro
46.18

NE-Euro
58.33


SE-Asian
0.23

SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
0.2

SE-Asian
-


Siberian
-

Siberian
-

Siberian
-

Siberian
-

Siberian
-


NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-


Papuan
0.23

Papuan
-

Papuan
-

Papuan
0.18

Papuan
-


American
-

American
-

American
-

American
-

American
0.88


Beringian
-

Beringian
-

Beringian
-

Beringian
-

Beringian
-


Mediterranean
63.33

Mediterranean
55.74

Mediterranean
55.37

Mediterranean
31.73

Mediterranean
26.25


SW-Asian
5.14

SW-Asian
-

SW-Asian
8.52

SW-Asian
3.33

SW-Asian
-


San
-

San
-

San
-

San
-

San
-


E-African
-

E-African
-

E-African
-

E-African
-

E-African
-


Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-

Pygmy
0.07


W-African
2.69

W-African
0.15

W-African
0.1

W-African
0.48

W-African
-



I couldn't find Iberian Early Neolithic to check first farmers there.

Looks like source of BA Iberian change could have come from Hungarian Bronze age.
More explanation here: http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/32877-HarappaWorld-Gedmatch-post-and-compare-your-admixtures-to-ancient-and-contemporary/page6

MOESAN
09-12-16, 20:53
Conclusion: the actual local population is autosomaly similar to ATP9, so no big population replacements after ATP9. The BB stay long there also.

It is not what I read on theis PCA: modern Spain is between North and ATP9; or I missed something in your statement? It's true this "map" lacks explanation for some plots...

MOESAN
09-12-16, 21:03
https://digilib.phil.muni.cz/bitstream/handle/11222.digilib/114125/N_GraecoLatina_13-2008-1_4.pdf

Good answer Sile - Fire Haired still makes sometimes weird statements (less than in past). (on archeolinguistic here)

MOESAN
09-12-16, 21:11
. Our Facial features are determined by universal human variation, especially gender, more than anything else.

Wow! What an affirmation!

Cato
17-12-16, 18:43
If ATP9 is the first ancient from Iberia with Steppe admixture, then it means that it took Indo-Europeans ca. 1500 years to get to Iberia from the Steppe. Assuming that they started expanding from the Steppe ca. 3500-3000 BC, and first groups came to Spain ca. 2000-1500 BC. Of course those groups did not enter Iberia directly from the Steppe, but from somewhere in the middle of Europe.

There was a reflux of BB into Iberia from the Rhine region at that time, maybe they were the R1b DF27 carriers ?, considering that the first DF27 was a BB man from Central Europe (Quedlinburg)


Los dos enterramientos en cista en Rincón de Soto (Rioja Baja), en proximidad geográfica y cronológica con el yacimiento de Urbiola, sería concordante
con la brusca floración de elementos braquicéfalos —campaniformes del Rhin, entre otros— que procedentes de países más septentrionales, solamente
logran modificar el sustrato racial original en áreas muy localizadas (RIQUET 1967). Estas oleadas, que probablemente se inician durante el Eneolítico,
adquieren su máxima intensidad con las invasiones célticas y germánicas (FUSTE 1965).

C. de la RUA, The studies of Paleoanthropology in the Basque Country, 1990

Wilhelm2
25-12-16, 01:22
This ATP9 sample has 0% of Baltic component on Eurogenes K13, when modern Spaniards average 10%, this means there had to be a post-Bronz Age population movement that had at least 20% Baltic component.