Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
West Asian is not Middle Eastern but Caucasus-Anatolia. The Middle East should be the Red Sea admix.
imgur.***/A2nSoKe (replace stars with com)
Founder effect?
3) With the further expansion of northern Middle Eastern people during the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age across the East Mediterranean at least as far west as Italy.
to become isolated and to develop their specificity in front of typical Natufians descendants (Levant).I think the first people were rather in mountainous regions, but I'm not sure this localisation was Caucasus ; the center could have been Zagros?
&: Alan, I agree with your demonstration about confusion of 'westasian' with 'near-eastern' being only a vague geogaphic naming.
*:'westasian' is not outdated, it's only a modern proxi of more defined ancient component; but it still tells us something about modern pops distances and admixtures, I mind.
CHG and Iranian Farmer they were the closest buddies in the area. Genetically far away from WHG, EHG or Natufians and Anatolians, but very close together. They were related a bit to EHG through Baloch(i) component, and to Anatolian Farmer through Caucasus/Caucasian component. Otherwise they were very distinct.CHG is closely related to Anatolia Neolithic with some EHG+Iran Neolithic shift.
Iran Neolithic component is similar to CHG, but it has a significant chunk of Ancestral South Eurasian component so Iran Neolithic can be described as 70-80% CHG + 20-30% Ancestral South Eurasian/Australasian.
It's a separated component of its own but distant from CHG and more related to ANI (Ancestral North Indian) as i remember.
Kotias (CHG) shows more relatedness with North-East European populations than with South-Central Asian groups which supports my observations.
The so called "West Asian" component tend to be a mix of CHG (Caucasus) + Balochi (South Central Asian) and this component usually peaks in Iranians, Afghans.
The same way Mediterranean, Southwest Asian is a mix of Basal Eurasian and Villaburra.
CHG and Iranian Farmer they were the closest buddies in the area. Genetically far away from WHG, EHG or Natufians and Anatolians, but very close together. They were related a bit to EHG through Baloch(i) component, and to Anatolian Farmer through Caucasus/Caucasian component. Otherwise they were very distinct.
CHG is closely related to Anatolia Neolithic with some EHG+Iran Neolithic shift.
Iran Neolithic component is similar to CHG, but it has a significant chunk of Ancestral South Eurasian component so Iran Neolithic can be described as 70-80% CHG + 20-30% Ancestral South Eurasian/Australasian.
It's a separated component of its own but distant from CHG and more related to ANI (Ancestral North Indian) as i remember.
Kotias (CHG) shows more relatedness with North-East European populations than with South-Central Asian groups which supports my observations.
The so called "West Asian" component tend to be a mix of CHG (Caucasus) + Balochi (South Central Asian) and this component usually peaks in Iranians, Afghans.
The same way Mediterranean, Southwest Asian is a mix of Basal Eurasian and Villaburra.
You better compare real genetics not some general labels with your rough ratios, or we never agree on anything.Iran Neolithic component is basically 80% "West Asian" + 20% "South Asian"
CHG component is "West Asian" + North European, some WHG like allleles
You better take it seriously. First of all it was created by scientists who were right many times before. Look up Lazaridis papers. Secondly, it confirms all the distances, directions and differences I can see from admixture runs.The fact that maps shows the two component related is because the lack of 3 dimensional view, which would show the two component significantly more distant.
Most "DNA maps" can't be be taken seriously.
You better compare real genetics not some general labels with your rough ratios, or we never agree on anything.
You better take it seriously. First of all it was created by scientists who were right many times before. Look up Lazaridis papers. Secondly, it confirms all the distances, directions and differences I can see from admixture runs.
This thread has been viewed 16961 times.