Ancient Genomes Review-Skoglund and Mathiesen

See:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ddzg6q5e14dg6ad/Ancient Genomics.pdf

I have to read it carefully before I comment.

Lazaridis had a minor correction:
https://twitter.com/mathiesoniain/status/935160360792928257

There may be other comments already, which should be interesting.

Here is their map of human expansion. If someone can get a clearer image, that would be great.

View attachment 9469

This would be a great paper for all beginners to read. It gives an in depth background of what we know so far about major human migrations, neanderthal/denisovan admixture and the usual suspect mutations relating to phenotype, microbiome and lactose persistence. It touches on a great deal, from the adaptations derived from denisovan ancestry in Tibetans and the possible source for Melanesian like ancestry in amazonians, but personally I see nothing new here.

They try correlating Yamnaya ancestry and increased height, but to my eye it seems more closely correlated with WHG ancestry in general. Also I'm surprised to see Czechs as the second tallest, anecdotally they don't seem so tall to me.




One other important fact the paper brought up: We still don't have any ancient South or South East Asian dna, hopefully that will change soon.

Angela said:

Here is their map of human expansion. If someone can get a clearer image, that would be great.
View attachment 9469

Click to expand...

Here's all the graphics.

Figure 1
A)

B)



Figure 2
A)

B)



Figure 3.



Figure 4.



Figure 5.



Figure 6.

Jovialis said:

Here's all the graphics.

Click to expand...

The Yamnaya ancestry data are from Haak, I think. The average adult male height is from very dishomogeneous sources. Some sources are based on self-claimed height reports, others have very small samples compared to the rest and data were taken in different times to people of different ages.

I do not understand what this correlation between the height and the Yamnaya ancestral component is, we are comparing a very variable height dimension, with a theoretically structural and structural component of European genetics.In Spain the height has varied a lot, from the current grandparents, who have been children of the post-civil war, that the majority did not exceed 170 cm to the current young people with important frequencies above 180 cm.On the other hand if I had to choose a dimension to compare it with height in Europe I would not choose Yamnaya (based on the hypothesis that everyone in Europe had the same food and tolerated the same foods), but Neolithic vs Hunter-Gatherer, which I understand that it is the basis of an almost autosomal scientific labeling in Europe, the least is if the hunter gatherer comes from the east or is from the Caucasus and if the Neolithic is from Anatolia or northern Africa, most of the time the human being He has been a collector hunter to determined our genetics extraordinarily, then a brutal change took place with the agriculture that returned to determine it and the mixture of both genetic make up the modern human being in Europe.Then I would like to be explained by the wise men of this forum the relationship between GAC and Yamnaya, I do not understand it, we will not be attending as always, that is, behind the yamnaya component a great Neolithic mixture.

I don't know if they have controlled for the effects of diet. Once I read it I'll respond. That there is one is clear when you look at something like the height of Danes in the 19th century versus today. Fwiw from what I remember of a bunch of statistics posted here on one of the height threads, there wasn't all that much difference between the WHG and the AN farmers in terms of height. So if it's anything it would be EHG, which makes sense because it's correlated with very cold climates usually.

I don't understand what you mean about GAC. They had an Indo-European type culture but genetically they were mostly Late Neolithic farmers like the rest of Europeans at the time: about 75% EEF/25% WHG. It took about 2000 years for that amount of WHG to introgress into the farmers. There are two threads here about GAC where you can read about it.

It's in the Mathiesen paper about the genetics of Southeastern Europe and also in the paper about the GAC in particular.

Francesca Tassi et al
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royprsb/284/1867/20171540.full.pdf

"Except for one of our Kierzkowo samples (in which it representedabout 15% of the genotype), the Steppe-relatedcomponent was absent altogether in the GAC population. Allother GAC samples showed, instead, a mix between a majorEarly Neolithic component (up to 83%), and the componentfound at high frequencies among hunter-gatherers (up to30%). When the ADMIXTURE is asked to cluster the samplesinto four rather than three groups, the Early Neolithic clusterfissions into two, and the new component (green) is presentin the GAC, as well as in several other Western European populations.This second Neolithic component, here referred to as Western Europe Neolithic, accounts for a large share of theancestry of individuals such as those from Iberia (Iberia_CA),La Mina (LaMina_MN) and Els Trocs (Els_Trocs_EN). Go to page 5 for the diagrams.

Mathiesen et al:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2017/05/09/135616.full.pdf

His admixture graphs are on page 24.

We discussed both papers. Just use the search engine to find them and reach the posts.

If you have further questions specifically about GAC, please go to the dedicated thread.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2017/05/09/135616.full.pdf

Remedello is much the same. Yamnaya like culture, but no Yamnaya like genes. I said it happened, and now we have the proof.

Thank you very much for the reply

Jovialis said:

Figure 6.

Click to expand...

Dependency is quite obvious except for Croats and Greeks. It seems that information on average heights was correct:

http://www.averageheight.co/average-male-height-by-country

Then there must be something wrong with the autosomal samples. Does anyone know the source of data?

Wonomyro said:

Dependency is quite obvious except for Croats and Greeks. It seems that information on average heights was correct:

http://www.averageheight.co/average-male-height-by-country

Click to expand...

It's quite the opposite. Information on average heights are all based on dishomogeneous sources (some are self-reported, others are not), while Yamnaya ancestry percentages are instead based on the same peer reviewed paper.

Wonomyro said:

Then there must be something wrong with the autosomal samples. Does anyone know the source of data?

Click to expand...

A peer reviewed paper.

Pax Augusta said:

It's quite the opposite. Information on average heights are all based on dishomogeneous sources (some are self-reported, others are not), while Yamnaya ancestry percentages are instead based on the same peer reviewed paper. A peer reviewed paper.

Click to expand...

Bold letters wont help. Only data. We need to know how the Croatian regions were internaly represented in the sample set. Peers are not neccessarily qualified for everything.

they only made the plot for Yamna ancestry

I guess the plot for WHG ancestry would give similar results (tall Scandinavians) and for EEF ancestry inverse results (short Sardinians)

Wonomyro said:

Bold letters wont help. Only data. We need to know how the Croatian regions were internaly represented in the sample set. Peers are not neccessarily qualified for everything.

Click to expand...

Finally, I tracked down the location of the Croatian samples. Information can be found in Lazaridis “Ancient human genomes suggest three ancestral populations for present-day Europeans”:

Total of 10 samples taken on or near the location Lat. 43.51 Long. 16.45. It is a city of Split on the Dalmatian Coast! One of the people who provided samples is Igor Rudan who published lot of works on the island populations, and I assume that majority if not all of the samples came from his previous works - that means from the islanders. It is common practice in Croatia to reuse old data. Even the latest work on Croatians is full of islanders, even though they represent only few percent of the total population.

It is not a secret that the coastal line and especially islands have lot more of Mediterranean influx than the mainland. That means that the samples show more EFF then it is the Croatian average.

And yes, something was not clear with that data.

(The one who gave a negative point to my previous post should be ashamed!)

Promenade said:

This would be a great paper for all beginners to read. It gives an in depth background of what we know so far about major human migrations, neanderthal/denisovan admixture and the usual suspect mutations relating to phenotype, microbiome and lactose persistence. It touches on a great deal, from the adaptations derived from denisovan ancestry in Tibetans and the possible source for Melanesian like ancestry in amazonians, but personally I see nothing new here.

They try correlating Yamnaya ancestry and increased height, but to my eye it seems more closely correlated with WHG ancestry in general. Also I'm surprised to see Czechs as the second tallest, anecdotally they don't seem so tall to me.

View attachment 9470


One other important fact the paper brought up: We still don't have any ancient South or South East Asian dna, hopefully that will change soon.

Click to expand...

Surely as a mean based upon a long period, Czechs are lower statured than all (true) Scandinavians, English people, Dutch people, Balts and Western Finns, Germans and all ex-Yougoslavians + Northern Albanians Kossovars, even Greeks -
the statures exposed here are false also for a lot of other populations, but is this not a genetic prevision for statures and not a phenotypes verified statures mean? Spite genetic the determination of stature is also matter of environment/mode of life.
BTW, WHG were not so high, rather halfway statured, some of them, in West were very small, sammest than mediterraneans of any kind, thought they were more "robust" concerning bones. WHat I red about verified statures of HG's said the higher statured were the EHG, so, as a whole, their affirmation is not completely out of worth.

'sammest'? sorry: 'smallest' but everybody with some mind will have understood.

Wonomyro said:

Finally, I tracked down the location of the Croatian samples. Information can be found in Lazaridis “Ancient human genomes suggest three ancestral populations for present-day Europeans”:

Total of 10 samples taken on or near the location Lat. 43.51 Long. 16.45. It is a city of Split on the Dalmatian Coast! One of the people who provided samples is Igor Rudan who published lot of works on the island populations, and I assume that majority if not all of the samples came from his previous works - that means from the islanders. It is common practice in Croatia to reuse old data. Even the latest work on Croatians is full of islanders, even though they represent only few percent of the total population.

It is not a secret that the coastal line and especially islands have lot more of Mediterranean influx than the mainland. That means that the samples show more EFF then it is the Croatian average.

And yes, something was not clear with that data.

(The one who gave a negative point to my previous post should be ashamed!)

Click to expand...

I don't know if it 'll help but for what I red in old times islanders in Croatia coastal regions were less tall (1930/40's: rather 1m68 compared to 1m70 to 1m74 in inland regions) and less brachycephallic (less 'dinariclike'), rather mesocephallic, implying for old anthropologists a strong 'atlanto-med' componant so surely some correlation with more EEF auDNA, maybe with some taste of South-Caucasus elements...