101 Ancient Eurasian Genomes Available Online

Alan said:
I will try to explain it.

Look see it that way. From ancient Armenia perspective (in the middle)

pgtml7dn4r8w.jpg




Those ancient samples on the more on the left side of the "ancient Armenia" cirlcle will have Italians/Greeks/Bulgarians as their top 10 fit. But the following ten (11-20) are the North Caucasian/Iranic groups.

Those ancient samples who are more on the eastern part of the circle will have NorthCaucasians/Iranic groups as their top 10 fit but the following ten will be the South Euros.

The ancient samples are very similar just that their genetic make up position them in between modern South Euros and North Caucasians/Iranics. And depending on a few percentage more in one or the other component some will have South Euros in their top ten followed by North Caucasus/Iranics and vice versa.

If the table were going further down to top 20 we would see this as in the one Iron Age Armenian sample. Unfortunately I don't have the following 10. The person who made this admixture Oracle did not list the top 20.
Click to expand...
I like your visualization method.

So far I would guess that Bronze Age Armenians came from Balkans or from the Steppe. Or whole Anatolia and Caucasus was more IE? We need more Near Eastern samples.
 
Angela said:
No, it means "Other Italian". I misremembered; the outlier in that group had strangely high northeast Asian not SSA, so obviously admixed to some degree. Imo that group and its scores should be disregarded in any analysis of Italians.

Dodecad ProjectJune 22, 2011 at 1:34 AM
"O_Italian is Other Italian, and that is all due to a single individual that I am waiting to hear from to see whether he/she has any explanation for these results. I will also carry another data cleanup once I'm done with this, to detect submitted relatives or outliers that likely misreported their ancestry. This is part of the reason why I am not reporting raw averages at this time, as I have not cleaned up all the latest submissions.

Part of the (to be continued) involves visually inspecting the population portraits to catch outliers such as the one contributing the "Northeast Asian" in the O_Italian sample."


Makes sense now why "Other Italians" landed where they did.

Did they go beyond 20 populations on that list?
Click to expand...

wasn't the Dodecad rules that 5 samples equalled one of its naming titles ..............reference to O_Italian, North_Italian, TSI etc

Others use O_italian to represent Italians displaced from an area into Italy since the end of the Napoleonic wars to the end of WWII ................so, 90000+ from Istria, 40000+ from Dalmatia, north-tyrol, Swiss, Monaco, Nice ( the french Riviera) , Montenegro, Croatia, Slovenia, albania, Greece etc etc etc
 
QUOTE=LeBrok;459940]

So far I would guess that Bronze Age Armenians came from Balkans or from the Steppe. Or whole Anatolia and Caucasus was more IE? We need more Near Eastern samples.[/QUOTE]


It's possible that these ancient Armenian samples are the product of admixture between the earlier inhabitants and a movement of steppe people from the north, regardless of whether or not the steppe people were themselves formed by a prior movement of people north from this region. As to why there would be an "Atlanto-Med" component among them given this scenario, I'm not sure. EEF might have formed in Anatolia, not in Europe. Any additional WHG like genes in the area, when combined with that EEF might be seen by the calculator as "Atlantic-Med". I think we have to be cautious when using ADMIXTURE calculators derived from modern samples on more ancient people.

It's also possible, and perhaps more likely that this represents steppe admixture from the Balkans. There is this assumption that the only proposed movement of Indo-European people into Anatolia from the Balkans took place rather late in the day with the speakers of the "Armenian" language. That isn't the case. The Anthony/Ringe model shows a movement of "Anatolian" speakers from the Balkans very early on, the first "break-away" group. The ancient Armenian samples, at least the earliest ones, or perhaps some of the more western ones, may represent the mixture of these people with the prior farming populations. This would neatly explain the "Atlanto-Med" element in them, and that, combined with the heterogeneity of the samples, may explain why a few of them cluster so close to the southern European populations.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Et6SS_bTF.../s1600/annurev-linguist-030514-124812.f2.jpeg
annurev-linguist-030514-124812.f2.jpeg


I don't think these samples represent a population that went north to form the Yamnaya population. I'm not even sure that there was a population that went directly north from this area to form the steppe people, whether it was a whole group or just female mediated gene flow. We need to see earlier Neolithic samples from this area and from Central Asia as well to get a sense of the direction of gene flow.

Then, as LeBrok mentioned, we need an early Anatolian farmer from around south-eastern Anatolia/the northern Levant, not just a Natufian ( the farmer from a later period in northwestern Anatolia will be helpful as well, but harder to interpret because it's later and so subject to different gene flows).

Oh, and we need samples from further west in Yamnaya and from the southeastern European Neolithic areas adjacent to them. I don't see how anything can really be said about the formation of later European groups until we have them
 
Angela said:
It's possible that these ancient Armenian samples are the product of admixture between the earlier inhabitants and a movement of steppe people from the north, regardless of whether or not the steppe people were themselves formed by a prior movement of people north from this region. As to why there would be an "Atlanto-Med" component among them given this scenario, I'm not sure. EEF might have formed in Anatolia, not in Europe. Any additional WHG like genes in the area, when combined with that EEF might be seen by the calculator as "Atlantic-Med". I think we have to be cautious when using ADMIXTURE calculators derived from modern samples on more ancient people.

It's also possible, and perhaps more likely that this represents steppe admixture from the Balkans. There is this assumption that the only proposed movement of Indo-European people into Anatolia from the Balkans took place rather late in the day with the speakers of the "Armenian" language. That isn't the case. The Anthony/Ringe model shows a movement of "Anatolian" speakers from the Balkans very early on, the first "break-away" group. The ancient Armenian samples, at least the earliest ones, or perhaps some of the more western ones, may represent the mixture of these people with the prior farming populations. This would neatly explain the "Atlanto-Med" element in them, and that, combined with the heterogeneity of the samples, may explain why a few of them cluster so close to the southern European populations.
Click to expand...
It makes sense.

I don't think these samples represent a population that went north to form the Yamnaya population. I'm not even sure that there was a population that went directly north from this area to form the steppe people, whether it was a whole group or just female mediated gene flow. We need to see earlier Neolithic samples from this area and from Central Asia as well to get a sense of the direction of gene flow.

Then, as LeBrok mentioned, we need an early Anatolian farmer from around south-eastern Anatolia/the northern Levant, not just a Natufian ( the farmer from a later period in northwestern Anatolia will be helpful as well, but harder to interpret because it's later and so subject to different gene flows).

Oh, and we need samples from further west in Yamnaya and from the southeastern European Neolithic areas adjacent to them. I don't see how anything can really be said about the formation of later European groups until we have them
Click to expand...
The main idea would be to catch ancestral populations in their, still stagnant, not very mobile stage during end of Ice Age. Before explosion of farmers and other later migrations, before the picture got "mudded". Sequence as many Mesolithic groups as possible. It would give us a picture of uni-parental geographical configuration, and a way to identified true admixtures with there starting location, and finally naming them correctly.
 
Sile said:
wasn't the Dodecad rules that 5 samples equalled one of its naming titles ..............reference to O_Italian, North_Italian, TSI etc

Others use O_italian to represent Italians displaced from an area into Italy since the end of the Napoleonic wars to the end of WWII ................so, 90000+ from Istria, 40000+ from Dalmatia, north-tyrol, Swiss, Monaco, Nice ( the french Riviera) , Montenegro, Croatia, Slovenia, albania, Greece etc etc etc
Click to expand...

For privacy reasons, Dienekes never published the exact locations of any of the samples. People were free to identify themselves on a thread he provided. Is this where you're getting this information?

The only thing he mentioned that I remember is that there was one sample who had an oddly high North East Asian component, as can be seen in the quote from his blog.

If it's true that the samples in this group have such extremely varied origins then it just underlines my point that they shouldn't be used in these kinds of analyses.
 
Arame said:
Alan
Armenians are synthesis from historic Armenia
Click to expand...

I sense a little bit of politics here. I was never a fan of calling a region "historic Armenia, Kurdistan Assyria" or whatever for obvious reasons. Neither the ethnogenesis of Armenians, modern Kurds or Assyrians predate the Iron Age. And who ever claims something else is a delusional chauvinist. And if we want to start this way than Iranic tribes (of which Armenians also have allot of ancestry) are not only attested but also genetically proven to be among the earliest arrivals

Armenians have absorbed genes from various populations who lived in the region from Neolithic to Iron Age. The Armenian ethnogenesis formed during Iron Age in Central Anatolia.



This is pretty vast area and different autosomal genes. You will find very different autosomal patterns from BA Van, Malatya, Erzrum. This are only pieces of puzzle not the whole puzzle. You will find very high SWA in БА Sasun.
Click to expand...

mere speculation with no valid reasoning. Van, Erzurum, Sivas, Elih/Sasun all those regions were populated by the same kind of people in the same Empires and Kingdoms. Hurrians,Urartaens,Subarians&Gutians/Mitanni/Medes are who populated this region from Baghdad/Tikrit all the way up to Erzurum. Why should we assume that there was a large genetic difference there?

http://www.urkesh.org/images/HUrrians 3500 BC small.jpg
https://narinnamkn.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/mitanni.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/Urartu743.png

And again no modern population can claim that their ethnogenesis has formed during the Bronze Age. No one




But than you seem to be confused about something. It is not the SWA DNA what makes the ancient DNA so different. With more Southwest Asian DNA the ancient Samples would rather appear like typical Iranians and Kurds. It is the lack of the SouthWest Asian and stronger West Mediterranen and North Euro like DNA what makes the ancient sample more shifted towards North Caucasus and South Europe.


Perhaps he will be much closer to Assyrians. In another place You will find a piece that will be closer to Georgians.
Click to expand...
Again sounds to my ears VERY unlikely if not unthinkable. With more Southwest Asian DNA they would appear even more like Iranians and Kurds because their overal genetic make up doesn't fit for Assyrians. I think I mentioned this at least 10 times already. The ancient samples have high frequency of Gedrosia, North Euro and significant percentage of Central Asian ASI. Assyrians lack North Euro, have far too low Gedrosia and no ASI. Even if the ancient samples had 30% genetic variation they would still cluster closer to modern Iranians.


But You will NOT find a piece that will be closer to modern Armenians because Armenians are the sum of all this components and one piece will never be the same as the whole.
Click to expand...
I think you misunderstood something again. All the people living their today are the result of many components, The reason why you don't find any which resemble more closely the modern Armenians is because during that time an important component of the Armenian ethnogenesis (The linguistic forefathers) hadn't reached the region yet. I am sure by 1200 BC we will find people genetically allot more similar to Armenians in Central Anatolia and by 600 BC some in Transcaucasus/EastAnatolia and Mesopotamia.

The thing that glued all this various stuff are the IE. There is no other candidates for this synthesis.
Click to expand...

the thing what differentiate all the people is 1. the Semitic 2 Balkanic Indo European expansion. The Assyrians are simply not natives to this region it's easy as that. Assyrians and Syriacs are a cross of ancient Levantines and modern Armenians.




, when they became part of all Armenians their 'Balkanic' signal was shared by everybody. The same apply to SWA. You think You find a proof that Semitic influence came late. But it is just an illusion (it came late only to lake Sevan). Because what You see is just the spread of SWA from Sasun like people in South to the rest of Armenians.
The number of true Balkanic Y DNA is ridiculosly low among Armenians.
Click to expand...
Sorry there is no known Semite people prior to 2500 BC in Mesopotamia and 700 BC in Transcaucasus. You are not giving any scientific evidences merely using assumptions.

But just for the sake of it if you want, let's wait for more ancient samples to take final conclusions.
I am tired now and for me the discussion ends here my dear friend. Have a nice day/night (depending where you live).
 
Last edited:
LeBrok said:
I like your visualization method.

So far I would guess that Bronze Age Armenians came from Balkans or from the Steppe. Or whole Anatolia and Caucasus was more IE? We need more Near Eastern samples.
Click to expand...



As said Bronze Age Armenians didn't have more "European" admixture. It is the Bronze Age Armenian samples representing a more EEF like core component with more North European component prior to Semite expansion which most likely deluded the North European component which "shifts" them closer to Europe.

Atlantic_Med as part of the EEF has been there since Neolithic.
During Bronze Age the samples looked like a cross of native EEF farmers and native NorthCaucsian/Iranic speakers.

But just for the sake of it to make other people also happy. Let's wait for more ancient samples to take final conclusions.
 
Last edited:
Angela,
where did you get this map?
I saw that D. Anthony was using this picture?

I remember that he had some more fine diagrams.
 
Johannes said:
There were never any "Poles" or Slavs west of the Vistula during the Iron Age.
Click to expand...

Did I claim so above? Nope - I claimed that genetic ancestors of Poles lived west of the Vistula during the BRONZE Age. Bronze Age people of modern East Germany and Poland were not ancestors of Germans, they had too much of R1a to be their ancestors (see below). Apparently when Germanic tribes expanded from Scandinavia in the Iron Age, they drove previous inhabitants out. They escaped to the east:

Those Bronze Age inhabitants who escaped to the east in the Iron Age, several centuries later returned, under the name "Slavs":

ybp = years before present

http://s8.postimg.org/67u7kqtb9/R1_samples_C.png

R1_samples_C.png
 
Dear Alan

Ok let's stop this discussion and let's wait further developments.
My predictions are this.
You will see a lot off regional disparities in West Asia, especially the Northern mountainous part. And we will not find any R1b-Z2103 in Neolithic. Even Copper Age.

If someone think that genetics had influence on politics, give somebody a right to live somewhere or deny somebody to live somewhere I think this is wrong. Politics is about living persons. Turkey is wrong not because they came from Altai but because they don't respect basic human rights. I was very happy when I knew that Kurdish party won in Kars, Igdir and most other places of Kurdistan . And You know that I am fan of Independent Kurdistan. But this is off-top here and it should be continued elsewhere.
 
Tomenable said:
Did I claim so above? Nope - I claimed that genetic ancestors of Poles lived west of the Vistula during the BRONZE Age. Bronze Age people of modern East Germany and Poland were not ancestors of Germans, they had too much of R1a to be their ancestors (see below). Apparently when Germanic tribes expanded from Scandinavia in the Iron Age, they drove previous inhabitants out. They escaped to the east:
Click to expand...

how far east? Balkans and Ukraine where dominated by Goths
and there was also pressure from the east : 99 BC Hunns arrived near the Aral Sea
 
something else : Allentoft et al claims people or ancestors from Central Europe were involved in the well-planned Sintashta colonization
maybe R1a-Z93 in central Europe was replaced by R1a-Z283
 
Jordanes claimed that Slavs at some point became vassals [slaves?] of the Goths, but later rebelled against them and started to "rage in war far and wide, in punishment for our [Gothic] sins":

Jordanes, Gothic chronicler - in "Getica", 23 - claimed the following achievements for his ancestors:

"Post Herulorum cede item Hermanaricus in Venethos arma commovit, qui, quamvis armis despecti, sed numerositate pollentes, primum resistere conabantur. Sed nihil valet multitudo inbellium, praesertim ubi et deus permittit et multitudo armata advenerit. Nam hi, ut in initio expositionis vel catalogo gentium dicere coepimus, ab una stirpe exorti, tria nunc nomina ediderunt, id est Venethi, Antes, Sclaveni; qui quamvis nunc, ita facientibus peccatis nostris, ubique deseviunt, tamen tunc omnes Hermanarici imperiis servierunt. Aestorum quoque similiter nationem, qui longissimam ripam Oceani Germanici insident, idem ipse prudentia et virtute subegit omnibusque Scythiae et Germaniae nationibus ac si propriis lavoribus imperavit."

Translation to English:

"After defeating the Heruls, Hermanaric also took arms against the Wends [Slavs]. This peoples, though despised in war, was strong in numbers and tried to resist him. But a multitude of cowards is of no avail particularly when god permits an armed multitude to attack them. This nation, as we started to say at the beginning of our account or catalogue of nations, though off-shoots from one stock, has now three names, that is Wends, Ants and Slavs. Though they now rage in war far and wide, in punishment for our sins, yet at that time they were all obedient to Hermanaric’s commands. This ruler also subdued by his wisdom and might the race of the Aesti [literally "Easterners", Balts], who dwell on the farthest shore of the German Ocean [Baltic Sea], and ruled all the nations of Scythia and Germania by his own prowess alone."

Defeat of the Heruls by the Goths was probably in the 2nd half of the 300s:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heruli#History

Jordanes also describes a war of Goths against one of Slavic tribes in the 300s:

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

maybe R1a-Z93 in central Europe was replaced by R1a-Z283
Click to expand...

Not a single ancient Z93 was found in Central Europe so far. By contrast you have for example 3100 years ago that Z280 near Halberstadt, and Polish Bronze Age warrior was also under Z283:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31197-R1a1-found-in-Bronze-age-warrior-from-Poland
 
dominated by Goths
Click to expand...

Politically.

But political domination is not the same as being the majority of inhabitants.

See for example South Africa and Rhodesia during the Germanic Apartheid.

Tacitus would definitely count South Africans as one of "Germanic tribes".

Even though only the ruling class was Germanic, the majority wasn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 176810 times.

Back
Top