DNA Tribes Autosomal Results

[Knovas]

When it all comes down to it, Mainland Italians barley have any admixture. And yeah, I've been warned, so what? It's not like I'm breaking any rules. You just don't like people who disagree with you. Do you think you scare me?

You broke several rules and you got infractions. And no, you can't disagree because you don't have an opinion: your point is saying Iberians have African admixture when you see the smallest oportunity to do so (now for example, with ridiculous scores such as 0.1% and misinterpreting the componenets at your convenience). So a person with no Iberian ancestry is talking recurrently about this using the methods described above.

There you are another example which proves you are t.r.o.l.l.i.n.g.

And yes, Southern Italy/Sicily are much less African than Spain. Especially mainland Southern italy.

If Southern Italy and Sicily are less African, then how is it possible to obtain figures like this?

Spain: 1% Egyptian and 6% NA
General Italy: 6.1% Egyptian and 1.4% NA

If what you say is true (which is obviously not and you know it), then the figures should be lower for Italy, and they are not. So Southern Italy and Sicily are less African according to you, and you intentionally ignore the fact that added to Italy as whole makes the general Italian sample more African than Spain. And this without taking into account East Med and Arabian.

The only thing I can say is: thanks for clarifying your agenda, you'll make the task fairly easy.

+1 Kardu

 

[Alan]

Wow, it shoes 0% for Sub-Saharan African/Northeast African for all countries except for Spain and Portugal. What does Middle Eastern mean?

Scores are less than 1%, not worth mention this. Checking the 24 world regions most countries, specially those in Southern Europe, show Egyptian and North African. Having high amounts of East Med seems to indicate similar ancestry as well at some point, since Southern Italy has a lot of it. The so called component peaks in Azerbaijan Jews, obviously substantial amounts are telling something.

Middle Eastern should mean Mediterranean with some East African influence, but in the previous test it wasn't exactly like this (it was more about overlaping groups related to the Middle East, so maybe it was only the Mediterranean similarity). According to the results I've seen this Middle Eastern seems more East African influenced than the other, but until I test myself and compare the results of both analysis I cannot know it for sure. For instance, the Andalusian sample shows no African, but has higher Mideast than the whole Spain instead, and the same is surely valid for other populations with apparently no African (but high in Mideast).

The few Northern Europeans I've seen tend to get some East Asian scores (as well as Amerindian or Oceanian) despite the fact they come out 100% European in the 8 Continents.

As Middle Eastern are counted "Arabian", "North African", "Egyptian", partly (probably 2/5) "Baloch", ~ half of the genes classified under "East Mediterranean" and "Persian".

Here as prove

South Italians/Sicilians are classified as 29.7% "Middle Eastern"

30.7% Eastmed / 2 = 15.3 %
2.2% Persian / 2 = 1.1
Arabian = 3.6%
North African = 5.5%
Egyptian = 4.8%

15.3 + 1.1 + 3.6 + 5.5 + 4.8 = 30.3%

30.3%~ 29.7% fits almost perfectly.

 

[Knovas]

I agree, although possibly the calculations would not always fit that good. Anyways, it basically shows that it makes no sense to assume those populations have no African or Asian influence (even the 3 main European clusters should deviate towards them in a lesser degree). A shame the Fst distances are not listed with precise numbers to see it properly.

For instance, if we check the Azerbaijan Jews, they show less Egyptian + North Africa than most Southern European Areas, but this by no way means they are less African influenced. Those genes simply got diluted inside the 65% East Med, it's just a different way to show the mentioned affinity. We could easily find other examples as well.

 

[Rachel Burke]

Continent	Percentage
European	99.2%
Native American	0.8%

Region Percentage
Northwest European 41.9%
Baltic-Urals 37.5%
Iberian 10.3%
North Caucasus 4.2%
Egyptian 3.1%
Arabian 1.8%
Mesoamerican 1.2%

Top 10 ancestral contributions
Population
Percentage
Ukraine 11.0%
Slovenia 9.5%
Lithuania 9.2%
Western Scotland and Ireland 7.0%
Belarus 6.5%
Tuscany Italy 6.2%
Russia General 5.7%
England 4.8%
Orkney Islands Scotland 4.7%
Scandinavia 3.8%

Top 10 populations
1 Lithuania 0.7153
2 Belarus 0.7148
3 Serbia and Croatia 0.7136
4 Ukraine 0.7136
5 Western Scotland and Ireland 0.7133
6 Slovenia 0.7131
7 Russia General 0.7131
8 Germany and Austria 0.7129
9 Netherlands 0.7128
10 European-American Utah 0.7128

 

[jjmuneer123]

I was wondering, why there is northern european component amongst Kurds? I see it is actually higher in Tajikis and Turkmens. Does anyone know why?

 

[Goga]

I was wondering, why there is northern european component amongst Kurds? I see it is actually higher in Tajikis and Turkmens. Does anyone know why?

Huh, I see onlly 1.6% and it is almost nothing.

Tajikistan and Turkmenistan were part of the USSR. So for the same reason why there's Turkic and Mongolian DNA in Eastern Europe. Since the Slavic expansion to the East and Turkic expansion to the West there is a very tight interaction between Central Asian (Turkic) and Slavic tribes. Slavic people are partly Mongoloid.

In the past there lived a lot Russians and lot Russians are still living in Central Asia. Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan etc. A lot Russian females married with Turkic and Mongolian people in Central Asia!

 

[jjmuneer123]

Huh, I see onlly 1.6% and it is almost nothing.

Tajikistan and Turkmenistan were part of the USSR. So for the same reason why there's Turkic and Mongolian DNA in Eastern Europe. Since the Slavic expansion to the East and Turkic expansion to the West there is a very tight interaction between Central Asian (Turkic) and Slavic tribes. Slavic people are partly Mongoloid.

In the past there lived a lot Russians and lot Russians are still living in Central Asia. Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan etc. A lot Russian females married with Turkic and Mongolian people in Central Asia!

On dodecad calculator it is 4.5%, and 1.6% percent isn't nothing. It is quite significant for a west asian population. I really doubt Tajikis and Turkmens have a higher North western european component due to the soviet union, nor is there evidence that they mixed. I'm also unaware of any early Slavic migrations into central asia.
Slavs on 'DNA tribes' are mostly Baltic.

 

[jjmuneer123]

Great. Kurds have the highest amount of the so called 'Persian' component, 39.5%. As far as I know modern Kurds are as a nation genetically the closest ethnic group to the ancient 'Umman Manda', Iranic folks like the Medes.

Iranians are after the Kurds the second largest group and are only for about 22.5% 'Persian'.

It's not meant to be "Median" marker. It is meant to be an 'Indo-Iranian' marker; they just termed it as 'Persian' for some reason. Hence why Bahrainis have a high percentage along with Turkmens, considering the Medes were never in Bahrain, but Persians were.

 

[Goga]

There's more Egyptian, Arabian, Indus Valley and even Iberian component in Kurds than North European component. So it's nothing. Just noice...

I was born in the USSR, I have seen many examples of mixed marriages between Russian and Turkic Central Asian folks.

Also I Know Russia history very well. Slavic tribes (Russians) and Turco-Mongolain tribes from central Asia are interaction with each other for thousands of years!

Eastern Russia toward Siberia was always populated by Turco-Mongolian tribes. Russian expansion toward east is well documented. And Turco-Mongolian expansion in Europe I also well documented

 

[jjmuneer123]

As I mentioned "Persian" is a wrong terminus used for this component and obviously stems from the fact that many people still think Iran is equal to Persia. However this component peaks in Northwest Iran/North Mesopotamia/Southeast Caucasus and follows a Southern Caspian root to Northeast Iran-Turkmenistan. This is the legacy of Median/Parthian/Scythian and Mannaean/Hurrian ancestors.

Nope the component is strictly 'indo-Iranian', but they coined the term abit differently. Considering the caucasus as it's own component and so does 'east med'. Both probably relate to the pre-indo-european populations of west asia such as the Hurrians.

 

[Goga]

It's not meant to be "Median" marker. It is meant to be an 'Indo-Iranian' marker; they just termed it as 'Persian' for some reason. Hence why Bahrainis have a high percentage along with Turkmens, considering the Medes were never in Bahrain, but Persians were.

 

[Goga]

 

[Goga]

Nope the component is strictly 'indo-Iranian', but they coined the term abit differently. Considering the caucasus as it's own component and so does 'east med'. Both probably relate to the pre-indo-european populations of west asia such as the Hurrians.

No, Indo-Iranian folks didn't belong to strictly 1 component. I believe they had also other components in them, like North Caucasus component.

East Med component in Kurds can be everything: from the Semitic Akkadians, Chaldeans or Jews to Greeks or Armenians or even proto-Indo-Europeans. Or just native to Kurds...

 

[tlangford18]

Very interesting post!