Genome of Iron Age Thracian

Your taking EEF percentages from Laz to literally. First of all Stuttgart had some WHG ancestry, my guess is ~20% because when computed into EEF, WHG, ANE results from Laz it is in line with Davidski's estimates of hunter ancestry in modern Europeans using Bedouin as a middle eastern source. Second of all, Laz found that Stuttgart's non WHG aka near eastern ancestors were closely related to modern middle easterns. This is why Askenazi Jews who have a high amount of recent middle eastern ancestry score 90% EEF.

The admixtures show that P192.1 is most similar to Tuscans, in line with Iron age Thracians being the ancestors of modern Bulgarians who score very similar results as Tuscans in admixtures. Therefore Iron age Thracians were probably not more EEF than modern Bulgarians.

Why do you keep ignoring Italians and Balkaners post Neolithic southwest Asian ancestry? It is obvious even when looking at Y DNA and mtDNA, they always have a high amount of typical southwest Asian haplogroups rarely found in the rest of Europe. Just because Otzi score 5% in a southwest Asian component, doesn't mean modern Italians 20-25% was all there in the Neolithic.

No matter what method you use post Neolithic southwest Asian ancestry in Italians and Balkaners is obvious, and can be mistakened for European farmer ancestry when not looked at thoroughly. Their overall admixture is very similar to European Jews.



Old calculators? How can you determine if they are now useless? They are not, and are constant with results of differnt tests. Components in admixtures don't represent real populations. They take a bunch of populations SNPs and force them into a certain number of components. Gedorsia and Caucasus are simply an admixture of middle eastern, ANE, and for Gedorsia south Asian(mixture of it's own)-specific alleles. Gedorsia scores in Europe may not be because of recent ancestry from west Asia, just similar mixtures.

Otzi is not evidence of genetic continuum in northern Italy, your twisting his results to fit your arguments.



P192.1 is already prove that southwest Asian-like ancestry was in the Balkans during the early Iron age. He scored around around as high as Tuscans do, which is much higher than early European farmers do. I don't care if there is no archaeological evidence of a mass migration from the Levant, DNA as shown there is common southwest Asian admixture in the Balkans and Italy(highest in the south), and it has been in the Balkans since the early Iron age. It happened, and eventually all the dots will connect.



North Italian are more similar to Sicilians, than they are to Austrians. There is a high amount of common ancestry throughout Italy. The difference between north and south are differences in southwest Asian ancestry which is higher the more south you go. Like i said before similar southwest Asians migrated to Italy and the Balkans, and probably went through the Mediterranean sea because it's highest in the south, eventually archaeological and historical evidence will pop up, because it did happen.

You are totally mixing up terms from different analyses, which is why you get confused and may confuse others.

We are not talking about what may have gone into the composition of the EEF (early European farmers) in this analysis. We are comparing the EEF levels in different populations. Please try to stay on point and relevant if you expect a response.

Where on earth do you get that I am ignoring the SW Asian component in Italians and in the Balkans? You brought up the SW Asian component from the calculators and stated that Oetzi had much, much, much less of it than the modern Italians and people of the Balkans, which is manifestly incorrect, as I showed you by posting the SWAsian numbers from K-12b for Oetzi, Gok 4, and the modern Italian and Bulgarian populations. Oetzi, and even more so, Gok4, had more of it than modern northern Italians and Tuscans, and the Bulgarians. Southern Italians and Sicilians received an additional dose via the migrations from the Aegean and the Balkans, but even then, we're talking about an increase from 7.6% to 11.9%.

What don't you understand about this? How can you expect to be taken seriously if, after all that, you make a statement like the following:
P192.1 is already prove that southwest Asian-like ancestry was in the Balkans during the early Iron age. He scored around around as high as Tuscans do, which is much higher than early European farmers do.

In addition, you are making claims about movements of peoples from the Near East to the Balkans and Italy post Neolithic of which there is no proof in genetics or in the historical or archaeological record. It is therefore bogus.

That yDNA "J" and "E" in Italy mostly came from Greece and the Balkans in the Bronze and Iron Ages, with a very minor component of some non-E-V13 yDNA E arriving in the far south and Sicily perhaps during the Muslim occupation. No scientist is weighing in about the Etruscans anymore, because we just don't have the data. Their mtDNA looks very old in Europe. Should they turn out to be yDNA "J2a" it could represent a movement from the Aegean/coastal Anatolia, but even then it would be male dominated elite movement. We just don't know yet. Please get your facts straight. See Boattini et al 2014

The analysis of this kind of material requires focus, information and the ability to remember data, and most importantly, logic. Without it, conclusions are meaningless.
 
Some of you seem very, very sure of the meaning of an admixture analysis based on a contaminated sample with a total of 1000 snps, it appears, and a limited set of reference populations.

Perhaps it would be wiser to wait for a better sample and better analysis to come to any grand conclusions about the population history of Europe post Neolithic?

I'm with Aberdeen on this one. There is so much that we don't know. We don't even know what we don't know, to use someone else's formulation. In particular, we don't have an autosomal analysis of the people from the steppes who adopted this Kurgan style type of burial.

We also don't know whether the people in the "wealthy" kurgan represent an intrusive population that actually "ruled" as an elite, or if this is one of those Iron Age still largely pastoralist groups making incursions from the steppe.

I, for one, am sorry that they didn't focus more or were unable to get more data from the Bronze Age sample that was discussed in the Carpenter et al paper by some of these same authors.

That sample, V2, which dates to 1500 to 1100 B.C., was, with the limited snps that they had available, rather CEU and Great Britain like, it seems to me. The T2G2 sample, which is the other Iron Age Thracian sample, but is from a tumulous and thus more "upper class" than the possibly sacrificial P 192-1 sample, is, so far as I can tell from that bad graphic, also close to GB, but not that far from the Iberians and Tuscans.

One of the only things which is very clear to me is that after all the "Indo-European" incursions, and the later Slavic incursions, Bulgarians are still 71% EEF, so I think any models which posit a "replacement" of the prior inhabitants of the Balkans should forthwith be retired.
 
Your taking EEF percentages from Laz to literally. First of all Stuttgart had some WHG ancestry, my guess is ~20% because when computed into EEF, WHG, ANE results from Laz it is in line with Davidski's estimates of hunter ancestry in modern Europeans using Bedouin as a middle eastern source. Second of all, Laz found that Stuttgart's non WHG aka near eastern ancestors were closely related to modern middle easterns. This is why Askenazi Jews who have a high amount of recent middle eastern ancestry score 90% EEF.

The admixtures show that P192.1 is most similar to Tuscans, in line with Iron age Thracians being the ancestors of modern Bulgarians who score very similar results as Tuscans in admixtures. Therefore Iron age Thracians were probably not more EEF than modern Bulgarians.

Why do you keep ignoring Italians and Balkaners post Neolithic southwest Asian ancestry? It is obvious even when looking at Y DNA and mtDNA, they always have a high amount of typical southwest Asian haplogroups rarely found in the rest of Europe. Just because Otzi score 5% in a southwest Asian component, doesn't mean modern Italians 20-25% was all there in the Neolithic.

No matter what method you use post Neolithic southwest Asian ancestry in Italians and Balkaners is obvious, and can be mistakened for European farmer ancestry when not looked at thoroughly. Their overall admixture is very similar to European Jews.



Old calculators? How can you determine if they are now useless? They are not, and are constant with results of differnt tests. Components in admixtures don't represent real populations. They take a bunch of populations SNPs and force them into a certain number of components. Gedorsia and Caucasus are simply an admixture of middle eastern, ANE, and for Gedorsia south Asian(mixture of it's own)-specific alleles. Gedorsia scores in Europe may not be because of recent ancestry from west Asia, just similar mixtures.

Otzi is not evidence of genetic continuum in northern Italy, your twisting his results to fit your arguments.



P192.1 is already prove that southwest Asian-like ancestry was in the Balkans during the early Iron age. He scored around around as high as Tuscans do, which is much higher than early European farmers do. I don't care if there is no archaeological evidence of a mass migration from the Levant, DNA as shown there is common southwest Asian admixture in the Balkans and Italy(highest in the south), and it has been in the Balkans since the early Iron age. It happened, and eventually all the dots will connect.



North Italian are more similar to Sicilians, than they are to Austrians. There is a high amount of common ancestry throughout Italy. The difference between north and south are differences in southwest Asian ancestry which is higher the more south you go. Like i said before similar southwest Asians migrated to Italy and the Balkans, and probably went through the Mediterranean sea because it's highest in the south, eventually archaeological and historical evidence will pop up, because it did happen.

You have lost the plot

Why are EEF numbers for ...Bulgarians ( 71), Bergamo ( north-italians ) (70 ) , and South_French ( 69 ) so close to each other in these numbers?

Why do the majority of Admixture "tests" place Bergamo and Bulgarians close to each other?

Because Thracians are EEF , very ancient people in the area, even ancient historians note this many times..........the Bulgar-Turkic peoples from the north-Caucasus entered Bulgaria in the 8th century AD and where an elite minority people
 
with this high contamination of the DNA of the "royal" k8 thracian.......maybe we need to not discuss this erred individual..............my opinion
 
I always knew that kurds were predominantly African rather that indo European regardless of their y hg
 
I still don't understand what ENA has to do with proto-Indo-Europeans. Although ENA could be part of the much later Indo-Europeanized folks outside Europe. Let assume that ENA was part of Eurasian of later Indo-Europeans. But, who's saying that they were proto? It's still possible that they firstly were Indo-Europized by proto-Indo Europeans before they migrated into Europe. With other words those proto-Indo-Europeans who arguably Indo-Europized foragers in the Eurasian steppes could have little to no ENA at all.

If by ENA, you mean ANE (ancient north eurasian), a lot of people think that would have been the primary component of the proto-Indo-European folk, and I have difficulty seeing what else they would have been, other than possibly at least partly European Hunter/Gatherer. Of course, that view is based on the idea that the IE homeland was on the steppes of southern Russia. If you want to move the IE homeland to Mount Zagros, that does open up other possibilities, but I'm not buying that viewpoint.
 
I don't like any speculations, just stick to the facts. Just follow the migrations waves of Y-DNA! Stay close to science! This is how intellectualism/higher education works

We don't have any DNA results for proto-Indo-Europeans yet, so we can either keep quiet or speculate, based on tangental evidence. Recognizing reality is how intellectualism/higher education works.
 
.............
One of the only things which is very clear to me is that after all the "Indo-European" incursions, and the later Slavic incursions, Bulgarians are still 71% EEF, so I think any models which posit a "replacement" of the prior inhabitants of the Balkans should forthwith be retired.

I personally think that the phenomenon that one might call "EEF persistence" is one of the most puzzling of the "IE in Europe" questions. IMO, either the genetic impact of the IE invasions was much less than has been assumed, which is what you seem to be suggesting, or the IE folk were partly EEF themselves. And if we accept that idea, it's difficult to reconcile to the archeological evidence of where the IE folk came from, I think. I don't really know how to explain it, because I am still assuming that the IE folk must have left a fair genetic footprint or they wouldn't have become so dominant in terms of linguistics and culture.
 
If by ENA, you mean ANE (ancient north eurasian), a lot of people think that would have been the primary component of the proto-Indo-European folk, and I have difficulty seeing what else they would have been, other than possibly at least partly European Hunter/Gatherer. Of course, that view is based on the idea that the IE homeland was on the steppes of southern Russia. If you want to move the IE homeland to Mount Zagros, that does open up other possibilities, but I'm not buying that viewpoint.
Sorry, I mean ANE. And who're so called "a lot of people"? Are they recognized scientists on this issue? I've got the feeling that they are same minority of amateur people spreading the same garbage time after time. With other words they're spamming in the hope that it will be accepted. But in a reality (real academic world) this will never work. I believe that people who’re spreading such garbage are not really smart and well educated people at all. Of course ENA came from the East. It's obvious. ENA could be also from Turkic, Turanic, Ugric, Altaic kind of people etc. Maybe some ENA came together with Indo-Europized steppe people Into Europe. Steppe People were always in close contact with other 'Mongoloid' races. But where's the proof that ENA was part of PROTO-Indo-European speakers? That's nonsense. It's obvious that people in the East have more ENA than people in the West. People in East are much more affected by people from more further East. Haplogroups like Q and N1c1 are also much, much more common among people in the East than in the West. If you are interested in genetics, Y-DNA haplogroups are the best tool to find out the migration waves. And Y-DNA migration is not in favor of PIE Urheimat being in North Eurasia, PERIOD!
 
If you want to move the IE homeland to Mount Zagros, that does open up other possibilities, but I'm not buying that viewpoint.
The most recent SCIENTIFIC papers are indicating that both R1b and R1a are from that area, you like it or not. Are you against science? And It can be supported by archeology (Iranian plateau into Maykop into Yamna, Maykop Kurgans are older than Yamna Kurgans or from Iranian Plateau from the East into the Steppes and then into Europe) and culture (like religion). It has been proven even before genetics that there were many migration waves frmm that area! Sorry, but I will not buy it that somehow Northern EuroAsian foragers became so dominant that a very small minority of such kind of people affected 2 continents on grand scale in such a short period of time.
 
The most recent SCIENTIFIC papers are indicating that both R1b and R1a are from that area, you like it or not. Are you against science? And It can be supported by archeology (Iranian plateau into Maykop into Yamna, Maykop Kurgans are older than Yamna Kurgans or from Iranian Plateau from the East into the Steppes and then into Europe) and culture (like religion). It has been proven even before genetics that there were many migration waves frmm that area! Sorry, but I will not buy it that somehow Northern EuroAsian foragers became so dominant that a very small minority of such kind of people affected 2 continents on grand scale in such a short period of time.

We've had this conversation before. In the first place, saying that scientific papers support some point of view without providing a link to those papers just makes people think you don't know what you're talking about. Secondly, the origin point of R1a and R1b, wherever one might assume that to be, has little to do with where the IE homeland was, since both haplotypes appear to have arisen long before the proto-Indo-European language is believed to have been created, and both haplotypes have spread over a very wide area. So where they began is not necessarily the IE homeland. Do you get it now?
 
We've had this conversation before. In the first place, saying that scientific papers support some point of view without providing a link to those papers just makes people think you don't know what you're talking about. Secondly, the origin point of R1a and R1b, wherever one might assume that to be, has little to do with where the IE homeland was, since both haplotypes appear to have arisen long before the proto-Indo-European language is believed to have been created, and both haplotypes have spread over a very wide area. So where they began is not necessarily the IE homeland. Do you get it now?
Oh gosh, here is the link to the paper http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2014/03/major-new-article-on-deep-origins-of-y.html. But IF R1a is from West Asia, than the original R1a carriers had very high West Asian auDNA in them. What means than that we can easily say for sure that original R1a that migrated into the Steppes belonged at least to West Asia auDNA. We can speculate about ENA, but we're sure that original West Asian R1a was autosomally speaking West Asian. The same can be said with R1b. So, we can conclude that 'Indo-European' speakers who migrated into Europe (via the Steppes) and belonged partly to R1a/R1b were at least partly West Asian. Don't you agree with this? No matter how much (in my opinion pretty retard) people spam nonsense, by spamming, reality and the real truth can't be changed! This is not how science works!
 
Oh gosh, here is the link to the paper http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2014/03/major-new-article-on-deep-origins-of-y.html. But IF R1a is from West Asia, than the original R1a carriers had very high West Asian auDNA in them. What means than that we can easily say for sure that original R1a that migrated into the Steppes belonged at least to West Asia auDNA. We can speculate about ENA, but we're sure that original West Asian R1a was autosomally speaking West Asian. The same can be said with R1b. So, we can conclude that 'Indo-European' speakers who migrated into Europe (via the Steppes) and belonged partly to R1a/R1b were at least partly West Asian. Don't you agree with this? No matter how much (in my opinion pretty retard) people spam nonsense, by spamming, reality and the real truth can't be changed! This is not how science works!

there are many Y dna markers that have west-asian, not just R1 group

http://dienekes.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/ie-speaking-west-europeans-are-west.html

everyone in this group below had west-asian
Haplogroup GHIJKLT(Y-DNA)


There where Y dna groups in Europe with west-asian before even the R1 group emerged
 
You're all into this too much. Let's wait for a more conclusive research? :)
 
Oh gosh, here is the link to the paper http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2014/03/major-new-article-on-deep-origins-of-y.html. But IF R1a is from West Asia, than the original R1a carriers had very high West Asian auDNA in them. What means than that we can easily say for sure that original R1a that migrated into the Steppes belonged at least to West Asia auDNA. We can speculate about ENA, but we're sure that original West Asian R1a was autosomally speaking West Asian. The same can be said with R1b. So, we can conclude that 'Indo-European' speakers who migrated into Europe (via the Steppes) and belonged partly to R1a/R1b were at least partly West Asian. Don't you agree with this? No matter how much (in my opinion pretty retard) people spam nonsense, by spamming, reality and the real truth can't be changed! This is not how science works!

Okay, you're referenced one blogger, who's talking about one paper about R1a, where the conclusion doesn't seem to match the data, IMO. What the data indicates is a probable rapid expansion of R1a in two separate directions from a common source, with the dividing line for the two dominant haplotypes appearing to confirm the steppe hypothesis. And no, you can't assume that what you think applies to R1a must apply to R1b, since they have a likely divergence time of about 25,000 years ago. In any case, I'm not sure what this has to do with the two Thracian samples. I've previously said I think that rather than make conclusions about the past based on current DNA distribution, it's better to wait until we have actual results from old skeletons. However, now we've got results from Iron Age Thrace, I'm really not sure what to make of the data, other than to consider the possibility that these two samples aren't necessarily representative of Iron Age Thrace.
 
I personally think that the phenomenon that one might call "EEF persistence" is one of the most puzzling of the "IE in Europe" questions. IMO, either the genetic impact of the IE invasions was much less than has been assumed, which is what you seem to be suggesting, or the IE folk were partly EEF themselves. And if we accept that idea, it's difficult to reconcile to the archeological evidence of where the IE folk came from, I think. I don't really know how to explain it, because I am still assuming that the IE folk must have left a fair genetic footprint or they wouldn't have become so dominant in terms of linguistics and culture.

The persistence exists. I think we agree on that point? There is, contrary to the baseless assertions of Fire Haired, no indication in history or archaeology of any large scale folk movement from the Near East into northern Italy or the Balkans (or Spain for that matter, which has even higher EEF levels) post Neolithic, (or into Central Europe), of which I'm aware.

So, indeed, I think we're left with the alternatives that, as you say, either the genetic impact of the Indo-Europeans is less everywhere, and much less in the densely populated south than has been proposed, or the Indo-Europeans were more EEF by the time they got to central and southern Europe than has been proposed. I can't think of any other possibilities at the present.

Ed. Perhaps the history of the Americas might be analogous. In Mexico, the percentage of European ancestry is about 50% in certain areas if I remember correctly. In South America, in the Peru of the Incas, which had a relatively highly developed farming culture, the percentage is much lower. In sparsely populated, hunter gatherer North America, European genes have totally wiped out the Amerindian component. Now, in North America we have very large movements of Europeans to the continent. However, the estimates for the number of Spaniards who actually immigrated to Central and South America is astonishingly low, in my opinion.

So, perhaps we're talking about a male mediated expansion that became progressively more "native" through successive matings with local women. In particularly heavily populated and developed areas of Neolithic Europe, there was also incorporation of certain "native" yDNA lineages.

I don't think you need massive gene flow for a different culture to be adopted.
 
The persistence exists. I think we agree on that point? There is, contrary to the baseless assertions of Fire Haired, no indication in history or archaeology of any large scale folk movement from the Near East into northern Italy or the Balkans (or Spain for that matter, which has even higher EEF levels) post Neolithic, (or into Central Europe), of which I'm aware.

So, indeed, I think we're left with the alternatives that, as you say, either the genetic impact of the Indo-Europeans is less everywhere, and much less in the densely populated south than has been proposed, or the Indo-Europeans were more EEF by the time they got to central and southern Europe than has been proposed. I can't think of any other possibilities at the present.

Ed. Perhaps the history of the Americas might be analogous. In Mexico, the percentage of European ancestry is about 50% in certain areas if I remember correctly. In South America, in the Peru of the Incas, which had a relatively highly developed farming culture, the percentage is much lower. In sparsely populated, hunter gatherer North America, European genes have totally wiped out the Amerindian component. Now, in North America we have very large movements of Europeans to the continent. However, the estimates for the number of Spaniards who actually immigrated to Central and South America is astonishingly low, in my opinion.

So, perhaps we're talking about a male mediated expansion that became progressively more "native" through successive matings with local women. In particularly heavily populated and developed areas of Neolithic Europe, there was also incorporation of certain "native" yDNA lineages.

I don't think you need massive gene flow for a different culture to be adopted.

Well, Conan Doyle had Sherlock Holmes say something like "Once you've eliminated all the other possibilities, the one possibility that remains must be the truth, no matter how improbable it seems." So, unless the IE folk turn out quite unexpectedly to be part EEF, they can't have left much of a genetic footprint, although that's not at all what I would have expected.

Most of the Native people in North America at the time of European contact were actually subsistence farmers, but they proved far more susceptible to disease than the minority who were hunter/gatherer types. I'm not sure whether that has any relevance to what happened at the time of the IE invasions of Europe, but it's an interesting fact. Village folk also died in larger numbers than country folk during the Black Death, and in both cases the cause seems to have been the degree of proximity people had with their neighbours. I wonder whether the Bronze Age IE folk brought any interesting new diseases with them. The persistence of EEF in Western Europe would suggest not.
 
I personally think that the phenomenon that one might call "EEF persistence" is one of the most puzzling of the "IE in Europe" questions. IMO, either the genetic impact of the IE invasions was much less than has been assumed, which is what you seem to be suggesting, or the IE folk were partly EEF themselves. And if we accept that idea, it's difficult to reconcile to the archeological evidence of where the IE folk came from, I think. I don't really know how to explain it, because I am still assuming that the IE folk must have left a fair genetic footprint or they wouldn't have become so dominant in terms of linguistics and culture.

"or the IE folk were partly EEF themselves. And if we accept that idea, it's difficult to reconcile to the archeological evidence of where the IE folk came from"

Unless the EEF - or one segment of them at least - lived west of the Black Sea i.e adjacent to I-E north of the Black Sea.

Cucuteni etc.

 
No one brought this component. It's not even a real ancestral component, just a composite of many things. It was created on the spot when the ANE-rich steppe people rushed into the Balkans and mixed with the EEF people there during the Copper Age. Exactly the same thing happened in the Caucasus and South Central Asia. In other words, it was a parallel process that affected many regions at about the same time.

But now, this so called Caucasus_Gedrosia cluster peaks in the Caucasus and South Central Asia because that's where people are more isolated and drifted, which is something that ADMIXTURE likes to latch onto.



The blue component includes ANE, WHG and EEF. But the reason it works so well here is because it's in large part ANE, which is totally lacking in Oetzi and the Sardinians, and almost totally lacking in Basques.

By the way, where do you think the Adygei come from? Last time I looked it was the North Caucasus. They're also mostly blue in this ADMIXTURE run, and that's because of their high ANE.

Thats not far from what I have been saying. I didn't see the Adygei samples and if as you said it is mostly blue this confirms my thoughts that this component is not "Russian exclusive" but more of an Indo European archtype which includes genes which call nowadays Caucasus_Gedrosia and North European. But Wilhelm of course made it once again appear like if Indo Europeans were straight out North Euro like and Other statements like (he was allot more Northern) implied the Indo European signal is exclusively North European. While in fact Indo European signal would be shifting an individual more Northern and Eastern as a farmer. This is why I believe the Tuscan farmer was Indo European admixed.
 

This thread has been viewed 99214 times.

Back
Top