Analysing Eurasian & African autosomal DNA from Lazaridis et al. 2013

(P.S. Don't let any of the landed gentry R1ba2b1a1b2a2b1C3p0 clan members know that I drink out of a glass. I'd prefer they keep thinking we hg. I1 heathens slurp only from a garden hose.)
 
Last edited:
And I even have a theory how this might have happened. E1b1b* picked up some J1c3d (and maybe T) in the Levant and moved into Norheast Africa as part of the early farmer component. There it took up a little East African admixture and became "Southwest Asian" component. And from exactly this point the Afro-Asiatic speakers formed and they spread this new component throughout the Middle East.

I see it as part of the recently paper and agree with it, that T and J1 where persian and arab slavers from Oman and Hormuz form the early dark-ages. The T in east africa is very young in time. They enslaved the Negroes, like the europeans did on the west side of Africa.
 
Nordic Quarreler...I know we don't really count, but some of us don't even HAVE yDNA, :)

I'm one of those people, and I don't even KNOW my father's yDNA, nor, other than to satisfy my curiosity, am I much interested in finding out. Certainly I'm not interested enough to strong arm my reluctant relatives into getting genetic testing. Given his origins, some form of U-152 is a good bet, but others are very possible, and I'm sure I have G2a, E-V13, maybe some 12a and J2a among my ancestors too, at least from the studies I've seen. Am I supposed to have a favorite? And in what contest? Which one first set foot in "Europe"? I honestly couldn't care less. Which one is "Indo-European"? Franky, I don't get what all the fuss is about, again, other than for historical interest.

I do know my mtDNA...it's U2e. Doesn't make me feel any particular sense of identity with Eastern European/Western Siberian hunter gatherers either.

Europe is such a jumble genetically...if nothing else, the Lazaridis et al paper should prove that.

Plus, you may not credit it, but some of us became interested in this field totally as a result of academic interests, and with no preconceptions whatsoever.

At any rate, whatever prejudices or bias anyone may or may not have, just as a matter of integrity one should attempt to lay them aside and analyze (and present) the data as honestly and objectively as humanly possible.

U2e ...wow same as my paternal Gmother ...........Her family came from Capoistria to Merlengo Veneto in around 1700. But her family name is ancient in Italy, about 450AD according to the family tree owners ...of which there are about 50.

What is your father? ...my Maternal Gfather is R-Z331
 
(P.S. Don't let any of the landed gentry R1ba2b1a1b2a3b4a2b7 clan members know that I drink out of a glass. I'd prefer they keep thinking we hg. I1 heathens slurp only from a garden hose.)
lol, what garden hoses? From animal bladders and skin sacks, or whatever WHG used for water storage.:27:


Your words about this ongoing R versus I war is always confusing for me, specially if I consider it nonexistent here on Eupedia. Even if somehow I can't recognize this supposed war, I'm sure sparkey (I2c) would quickly step in to deal with it as the moderator.
Perhaps you the one who strongly desire a conflict, or feel a danger coming from all directions,... looking for it, talking about it,...just to feel excited and alive?:76:
 
How interesting that you didn't quote the authors' conclusion as to the amount of admixture.

.
"The amount of Near Eastern admixture estimated for

Stuttgart can be seen in Table S10.2 and RANGE

between 61-98% with estimates increasing as the am
ount of estimated African admixture in BedouinB

I already know that...but the 98% wouldn't be realistic considering all the factors we know , since on the PCA they are very far from the Bedouins...Also on the ADMIXTURE run they show considerable HG component before getting their own

Also, remember we have also the Dodecads of Gök4 (called Skoglung_Farmer on the study) is highly Atlantic_Baltic (Hunter-Gather show 100% of it) :

ancientdna.png



Let me get this clear. You say the EEF component is made up of 33% H&G but than how can the EEF component be closer to the H&G? I didn't knew that 33% is more than 67%.
Yes, that is one of the contradictions I see on this study, that on PCA they are close to HG's, yet on their ancestry estimates they consider around 60-70% near-eastern.


Picking the highest estimated and possible value of 33% (why not pick 7%?), you have proved that you have an agenda.
It's not about an agenda, it's a bout common sense. If they had only 7% of HG they wouldn't :

- Cluster so far from near-easterns on PCA plot
- Show so much HG component on ADMIXTURE before showing their own component
- Show positive f-statistics


To strengthen my argument here are some other of your statements :
- EEF is very strong in Iberia, so it would be a tragedy for you if EEF didn't originate in Europe. God forbid anything from Near East or Africa!
The EEF containt a lot of HG ancestry, therefore they are a product of Europe. Simple as that. Remember they are European farmers..


Didn't they concluded in paper that Near Eastern admixture contained 7% African ancestry? Surprisingly you were not eager to share this scientific information from the paper.
I already knew this fact, but don't see the need to mention that, since it has nothing to do with anything, this layer of african-admixture in the Near-Eastern happened AFTER the near-east farmers migrations, because these EFF don't show that much african admixture, if any at all.

- Well, even better.
-Of course! What would be a better proof of being pure European than 44% of WHG admixture?
Their HG ancestry is of an unkown kind, but ancestrally related with thre WHG.

I would like to stress again at this occasion that nobody really cares about this but you. And yes, be my guest and deny as much as you want and pretend that you don't care either, but I want you to know, that your agenda is very transparent for us "not Iberians". Don't waste too much time pretending, it is more annoying than anything.
Of course I do care about the truth. If you want to believe that the EEF were pure Near-Easterns ok that's up to you, but then you demonstrate you have not understood anything about that study nor about genetics.
 
What Haplogroups nowadays dominate is not always most important to what it was in the past. CPG is also strong in Balochistan and surrounding areas and L* + T* is very prominent there too. T and L are also very common throughout Mesopotamia and Iran as well in Georgia (L* in Laz is very prominent).
Do you think I'm close if I say that T* (maybe LT*) is 'Perso-Gedrosian', J2* (maybe J*) is 'Caucaso-Persian' and R1* (maybe R*) is 'Caucaso-Gedrosian' in Caucaso-Perso-Gedrosian component?
 

I already know that...but the 98% wouldn't be realistic considering all the factors we know , since on the PCA they are very far from the Bedouins...Also on the ADMIXTURE run they show considerable HG component before getting their own
Sorry but your reasoning why the 98% "couldn't be" doesn't make much sense and is only your own preference than something scientific.
And if you actually followed the recent articles and discussions, you should have realized that Bedouins are not the Source of Near Eastern farmers but just a suboptimal Isolate of them just like modern Sardinians and Basques.

Also, remember we have also the Dodecads of Gök4 (called Skoglung_Farmer on the study) is highly Atlantic_Baltic (Hunter-Gather show 100% of it) :

ancientdna.png

you have such a motivation in pointing out the WHG admixture in the EEFs which could be as low as ~2%, but it doesn't seem to bother you that this Atlantic_Baltic is not the H&G component but includes a huge portion of farmer genes. Even the Sardinians are more Atlantic_Baltic than Southern https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArAJcY18g2GadHZ6SHpiLTNTa3lsUmZJY2pQblVRR2c#gid=0 So in your logic even the farmer Isolates of Europe are more H&G than really farmers.

Also Wiliam as other and I have already pointed out, no matter how much this H&G was in EEF it is very unlikely that this admixture took place in Iberia but in the Eastern Mediterranean.
So or so your Iberiian hypothesis is unlikely and you shouldn't quote scientific articles selectively.

I have to agree here with LeBrok you have a very obvious agenda.
 
Do you think I'm close if I say that T* (maybe LT*) is 'Perso-Gedrosian', J2* (maybe J*) is 'Caucaso-Persian' and R1* (maybe R*) is 'Caucaso-Gedrosian' in Caucaso-Perso-Gedrosian component?

Thats just an unnecessary differntiation. I don't even know what you try to proof or get by splitting them into these three subtypes. Why should R* be Caucaso_Gedrosian but not the Perso in between? Did R* skip Iran and reached Caucasus through the sky? Goga that was a really silly question.

Almost ANYTHING what reached the Caucasus from Gedrosia or Gedrosia from the Caucasus very likely crossed Iran or East Europe but in this case the through Iran is allot more likely.

About LT* we don't know where it started and tghere is allot of time between those two Haplogroups. T could have started in Mesopotamia while it's brother clade L* in between Mesopotamia-South/Southwest Iran and Balochistan. Or both could even have come from the East together with R*
 
Thats just an unnecessary differntiation. I don't even know what you try to proof or get by splitting them into these three subtypes. Why should R* be Caucaso_Gedrosian but not the Perso in between? Did R* skip Iran and reached Caucasus through the sky? Goga that was a really silly question.
Because I thought that Gedrosia is closely related to Caucasus componet according to DODECAD K12b. And DODECAD K12b doesn't have 'Persian' ('Iranic') component. That's why.
 

you have such a motivation in pointing out the WHG admixture in the EEFs which could be as low as ~2%, but it doesn't seem to bother you that Atlantic_Baltic is not the H&G component but includes a decent amoung of EEF genes.
It's not motivation, is what the study saiys ¡t's an unkown HG, not WHG, and yes the Atlantic-Baltic component includes some EEF genes, but since it's 100% in Hunter-Gathers, it's a close component that we have for a rough estimate of HG ancestry. If you look at Sardinians, they score 50% of this component on Dodecad, and at the study of Lazaridis they got rouglhy half of the blue Mesolithic component, so yes they are similar components.

So or so your Iberiian hypothesis is unlikely and you shouldn't quote scientific articles selectively.
It's not an iberian hypothesis, it's a West-Med (Sardinia, Iberia, North Italy) ...also we don't know if the East-Med/Central Euro famers were different from western ones, a different source, remember their mtDNA is different,
 
lol, what garden hoses? From animal bladders and skin sacks, or whatever WHG used for water storage.:27:


Your words about this ongoing R versus I war is always confusing for me, specially if I consider it nonexistent here on Eupedia. Even if somehow I can't recognize this supposed war, I'm sure sparkey (I2c) would quickly step in to deal with it as the moderator.
Perhaps you the one who strongly desire a conflict, or feel a danger coming from all directions,... looking for it, talking about it,...just to feel excited and alive?:76:

Poor LeBrok.

He goads me yet again into a battle of wits, knowing full well that I will almost effortlessly lop off his head (metaphorically speaking of course) simply by applying my more robust grasp of logic... and my more complete command of the English language. I do admire his bravery though.

Alas my Polish-Canadian friend, I'm off to work this morning so I must sheath my cranial broadsword. You can relax a bit longer... I won't be drinking ale from your skull-cup on this day.
 
U2e ...wow same as my paternal Gmother ...........Her family came from Capoistria to Merlengo Veneto in around 1700. But her family name is ancient in Italy, about 450AD according to the family tree owners ...of which there are about 50.

What is your father? ...my Maternal Gfather is R-Z331

As I said, I don't know my dad's yDNA .... he died 20 years ago.

The earliest I can track my mtDNA is back to a Ghelfi-early 1500's. We seem to have liked broadcasting our political affiliations...the surname is all over my family tree, lol.

We also seem to cling to our ancestral areas...like a cluster of datteri clinging to the rocks in the Mediterranean.
http://www.gens.info/italia/it/turi...-italia?cognome=Ghelfi&x=29&y=14#.Us64L7RdDRZ
 

I already know that...but the 98% wouldn't be realistic considering all the factors we know , since on the PCA they are very far from the Bedouins...Also on the ADMIXTURE run they show considerable HG component before getting their own

Also, remember we have also the Dodecads of Gök4 (called Skoglung_Farmer on the study) is highly Atlantic_Baltic (Hunter-Gather show 100% of it) :

ancientdna.png




Yes, that is one of the contradictions I see on this study, that on PCA they are close to HG's, yet on their ancestry estimates they consider around 60-70% near-eastern.



It's not about an agenda, it's a bout common sense. If they had only 7% of HG they wouldn't :

- Cluster so far from near-easterns on PCA plot
- Show so much HG component on ADMIXTURE before showing their own component
- Show positive f-statistics



The EEF containt a lot of HG ancestry, therefore they are a product of Europe. Simple as that. Remember they are European farmers..



I already knew this fact, but don't see the need to mention that, since it has nothing to do with anything, this layer of african-admixture in the Near-Eastern happened AFTER the near-east farmers migrations, because these EFF don't show that much african admixture, if any at all.


Their HG ancestry is of an unkown kind, but ancestrally related with thre WHG.


Of course I do care about the truth. If you want to believe that the EEF were pure Near-Easterns ok that's up to you, but then you demonstrate you have not understood anything about that study nor about genetics.

I don't think LeBroc *wants* to prove EEF wholly Near Eastern, nor do I think it's necessary to impugn his knowledge of genetics, which he has amply demonstrated here on this site.

The question is why did you produce the 33% figure for the H/G admixture in EEF when you knew it was merely the upper limit of the range, and the authors specifically stated that they didn't believe either that figure or 2%, the lower end of the range, were accurate. That almost makes it seem as if you were attempting to distort the findings.

I mean, here is the quote itself...

There are REASONS TO DOUBT BOTH THE LOWER (near60%), SINCE ALDER PROVIDES ONLY A LOWER BOUND ON AFRICAN ANCESTRY, BUT ALSO THE HIGHER ESTIMATES (near 100%) since there is direct evidence that Stuttgart
has European hunter-gatherer ancestry (Fig. 1B and Table S10.1). Determining the precise levels of Near Eastern admixture in Stuttgart must await further ancient DNA studies from both Europe and the Near East, but we can at least reasonably claim that of th MOST OF THE SAMPLE'S ANCESTRY WAS NEAR EASTERN.

So, why all this talk of 33% H/G ancestry in EEF, or 2% for that matter, when it's clear that the authors think that both numbers are highly unlikely?

As for the PCA, you don't need me to tell you that it only represents two dimensions, and so while it is some evidence, it has to be taken in context, and the statistical analysis in the supplement is more informative.

In reference to the Dodecad cluster analyses, I have used and analyzed and learned a great deal from them, but it is clear that those clusters do NOT represent ancestral populations, and that there are layers beneath them.

Later analyses by Dienekes himself made that clear.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/09/inter-relationships-between-dodecad-k7b.html
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/08/inter-relationships-of-dodecad-k12b-and.html

You'll note that the Atlantic/Baltic component is majority Southern and Caucasus/Gedrosia, with a slice of Siberian.

Also, none of this has anything to do with the Western Mediterranean. Any differences between western Mediterranean and eastern Mediterranean as components obviously deveoped later, and the cause is probably drift. The admixture with H/G's that produced EEF took place either at the Anatolia/Greek interface, or in the Balkans, and the movement THEN took place toward the western Med. The genome of the Iberian farmer, which is very Oetzi like, should make that clear.

Finally, for clarity, the approx. 4 or 7% African admixture which was mentioned upthread indeed relates to the admixture in the Bedouin, which the authors attempted to remove before using them as a surrogate population for the EEF. I'm not sure that they were the best choice, but that's another issue for another day.
 
Do you think I'm close if I say that T* (maybe LT*) is 'Perso-Gedrosian', J2* (maybe J*) is 'Caucaso-Persian' and R1* (maybe R*) is 'Caucaso-Gedrosian' in Caucaso-Perso-Gedrosian component?

your forgetting that the highest T % are from north Caucasus with the 8% of North Ossetians to the west side of the Caspian sea ( 7% dagestan Lezgian ) down to 7% Azeri people(Azerbaijani ) , across south caucasas 6% Armenians, 6% zargos mountains of persia/iran and then with 16% assyrians.

People seem to want to keep attaching LT together, when the older IJKLT is more relevant in this article. The old statement that T and L came from K is in error, it is T and L came from K2 ( a artificial marker never used today) and this is only because geneticists did not have the time to investigate ( as currently being said) that LT split from K along with IJ

IMO if you want a break up ( i do not know why)
L = Perso-Gedrosian
J2 + T = Caucaso-Persian
 
It's not motivation, is what the study saiys ¡t's an unkown HG, not WHG, and yes the Atlantic-Baltic component includes some EEF genes, but since it's 100% in Hunter-Gathers, it's a close component that we have for a rough estimate of HG ancestry. If you look at Sardinians, they score 50% of this component on Dodecad, and at the study of Lazaridis they got rouglhy half of the blue Mesolithic component, so yes they are similar components.


It's not an iberian hypothesis, it's a West-Med (Sardinia, Iberia, North Italy) ...also we don't know if the East-Med/Central Euro famers were different from western ones, a different source, remember their mtDNA is different,

Why you throwing in North-Italy with Sardinian. If you check all autosomal plots today, the closest plot to North-Italy is always Bulgaria, the closest to Sardinian is South-france as per this article .
 
As I said, I don't know my dad's yDNA .... he died 20 years ago.

The earliest I can track my mtDNA is back to a Ghelfi-early 1500's. We seem to have liked broadcasting our political affiliations...the surname is all over my family tree, lol.

We also seem to cling to our ancestral areas...like a cluster of datteri clinging to the rocks in the Mediterranean.
http://www.gens.info/italia/it/turi...-italia?cognome=Ghelfi&x=29&y=14#.Us64L7RdDRZ

Ghelf war still rages in Italy behind the scenes
with nearly 800 of your surnames
http://www.cognomix.it/mappe-dei-cognomi-italiani/GHELFI
 
IMO if you want a break up ( i do not know why)
L = Perso-Gedrosian
J2 + T = Caucaso-Persian

On the first look it appears reasonable but I would be very careful with these kind of clusters (the reason why I didn't gave Goga my opnion). There are isolates in the Caucasus (like the Laz) who have very high frequency of L. Also L* shows presence in allot of Caucasian populations (Chechens, Armenians etc.). We can't say for sure where this or that Haplogroup started exactly. But what we know is that it must have been somewhere between Turkenistan-Kazakhstan-Balochistan-Afghanistan-Iran-Mesopotamia-Eastern Anatolia-Caucasus.
 
The question is why did you produce the 33% figure for the H/G admixture in EEF when you knew it was merely the upper limit of the range,

There are REASONS TO DOUBT BOTH THE LOWER (near60%), SINCE ALDER PROVIDES ONLY A LOWER BOUND ON AFRICAN ANCESTRY, BUT ALSO THE HIGHER ESTIMATES (near 100%) since there is direct evidence that Stuttgart
has European hunter-gatherer ancestry (Fig. 1B and Table S10.1). Determining the precise levels of Near Eastern admixture in Stuttgart must await further ancient DNA studies from both Europe and the Near East, but we can at least reasonably claim that of th MOST OF THE SAMPLE'S ANCESTRY WAS NEAR EASTERN.

So, why all this talk of 33% H/G ancestry in EEF, or 2% for that matter, when it's clear that the authors think that both numbers are highly unlikely?
Because if we take a look at the ADMIXTURe, before the Sardinians/EFF get their own component, they are split between Mesolithic HG and Bedouin :

6pj3.png





In reference to the Dodecad cluster analyses, I have used and analyzed and learned a great deal from them, but it is clear that those clusters do NOT represent ancestral populations, and that there are layers beneath them.

Later analyses by Dienekes himself made that clear.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/09/inter-relationships-between-dodecad-k7b.html
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/08/inter-relationships-of-dodecad-k12b-and.html

You'll note that the Atlantic/Baltic component is majority Southern and Caucasus/Gedrosia, with a slice of Siberian.
In the first link, the North-European component appears mostly as Atlantic-Baltic, and in turn, the Atlantic-Baltic appears mostly as Northern-European. In the second link there seems to be an error between the bars and the legend of colors, considering that African appears as 100% South-Asian or Southern as 100% Atlantic-Baltic. In any case, yes there is an common shared ancient ancestry between the north-euro components and the Caucasus ones.

Also, none of this has anything to do with the Western Mediterranean. Any differences between western Mediterranean and eastern Mediterranean as components obviously deveoped later, and the cause is probably drift. The admixture with H/G's that produced EEF took place either at the Anatolia/Greek interface, or in the Balkans, and the movement THEN took place toward the western Med.
Of course it has to do with western-mediterranean, the difference is not genetic drift, since these populations (SW Euros) have the lowest levels of the ANE ancestry of all West-Eurasia, meaning there have been different sources of hunter-gatherer ancestry as well as near-east farmer ancestry.

The genome of the Iberian farmer, which is very Oetzi like, should make that clear.
What iberian farmer ? There is none, In any case, yes they were most likely EEF
 
Because if we take a look at the ADMIXTURe, before the Sardinians/EFF get their own component, they are split between Mesolithic HG and Bedouin :

6pj3.png


This is because Sardinians have additional 25-30% H&G to their EEF and Bedouins are suboptimal for proto-Near Eastern farmer component since using African admixed population as reference will make any other Eurasian appear more H&G as they in reality are. If we had a isolated farmer population in the Levant things might have looked different. Unfortunately Bedouins from Arabia are the only people who retained their farmer ancestry but (unfortunately for scientific reasons) are already admixed with a second wave of East African migrants which brought additional ~7-10% East African genes. For Gods sake how can someone be so obstinate even after so many attempts of so many Users, with considerable knowledge about genetics, to explain it.
 
Another indicator is the macro Haplogroup IJK. Considering that I* as well K* is connected to ANE and WHG, it is unlikely that only the close cousin J is entirely different.

I would rather assume that Southwest Asian was spread by E1b1b* and some subclade of J1*(J1c3d) since it is basically East Mediterranean with an East African shift.

I'm tired and cannot go deeply in the central question of this thread, but just concerning this precise point, I say I think the core of the Y-J ancestors were living for a long time between North Near Eastern, the Zagros and South Caucasus (with some rare Y-I* and Y-G*? and Y-T*?) - I think they colonized (more J1 than J2) Arabia taking the strong side upon Y-E1b (M78?)males and their wives, loosing a lot of their 'west-asian' component to take arabian-Red Sea autosomals - drift gave advantage to Y-J1 -




d
 

This thread has been viewed 108608 times.

Back
Top