Ancient DNA from Hungary-Christine Gamba et al

[Aberdeen]

For what it's worth my model is (currently)

Stage 1)
I think ANE = mammoth steppe HG and WHG = coastal rim HG and if you look at a map of the extent of the mammoth steppe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammoth_steppe#mediaviewer/File:Last_glacial_vegetation_map.png

you can see although the center of gravity is far to the east the edges reach right into western Europe so as the ice retreated it wouldn't be surprising that the northwest of Europe would be repopulated by both WHG and ANE while the northeast was repopulated by mostly ANE.

So in simple terms after the LGM i think the population of Europe was split into roughly four quadrants:
SW Europe = WHG
SE Europe = WHG
NW Europe = WHG + ANE
NE Europe = ANE

(although as a separate issue i think there's also two components buried inside WHG)

................

No. EHG is only partly ANE and WHG doesn't contain ANE.

 

[Greying Wanderer]

Indo-European is a specific cultural and linguistic term, and Proto-Indo-European is probably much younger than the split of R1 into R1a and R1b. And if Yamna culture is a mixture of EHG and a Caucasian group, it probably has more than one Y haplotype. You can't just equate R1a with IE, even though I think it likely that the EHG part of Yamna was predominantly R1a.

I think you can if the full package was developed in one place by one patrilineal clan or more likely by a small number of related patrilineal clans with only one lineage avoiding extinction over time. I agree it's after the fact though i.e. it's an association with a *surviving* lineage and not necessarily a *founding* lineage.

 

[Greying Wanderer]

No. EHG is only partly ANE and WHG doesn't contain ANE.

I'm not saying WHG contains ANE I'm saying if ANE represents the mammoth steppe HGs then given how far west that ecozone would have extended after the LGM then the repopulation of the northwest as the ice retreated could easily have involved groups from both WHG and ANE. This could explain the relatively high levels of ANE in places like Scotland and Scandinavia separately from IE expansion (if the clades were different from the IE clades - if they weren't different then the theory would be wrong).

 

[Robert6]

what is this TSI mean?

Is it the old system of 4 years ago when it meant , Italy, Alps and Balkans or is it something different?

some of the old ones below

ASW - African ancestry in Southwest USA
CEU - Utah residents with Northern and Western European ancestry from the CEPH collection
CHB - Han Chinese in Beijing, China
CHD - Chinese in Metropolitan Denver, Colorado
GIH - Gujarati Indians in Houston, Texas
JPT - Japanese in Tokyo, Japan
LWK - Luhya in Webuye, Kenya
MXL - Mexican ancestry in Los Angeles, California
MKK - Maasai in Kinyawa, Kenya
TSI - Toscani in Italia
YRI - Yoruba in Ibadan, Nigeria
and more

If you will put your cursor into the "TSI" after 2-3 seconds in a small white window you will see the "Toscani in Italia"


Same for "RUS" If you will put your cursor into it, after 2-3 seconds you will see in the small window "Russia"

 

[Angela]

J-Y3021*

• id:NA20534 TSI

TSI=Toscani in Italia
http://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Y3021/

Thanks for responding Robert 6. Well waddaya know? The J2a1 in a bunch of Tuscans from a little town north east of Florence have a J2a1 lineage specifically associated with Bronze Age steppe people.

Didn't one of those Thracian samples supposedly plot somewhere near Tuscans? Was it the Bronze Age sample or one of the Iron Age ones?

I'm telling you, the hits just keep a comin'.

 

[Angela]

Yes quite - labeling on this is a nightmare.

I think "IE" may need three sub-divisions or three labels:
1) a very early mammoth steppe HG version with some cultural similarities extending over a huge area from Europe to America
2) a pastoralist but pre horse culture version which expanded over the steppe and near the edges
3) a specific population within (2) that developed the full horse pastoralist culture, expanded, and probably displaced most of (2) who weren't protected by terrain.

So I think there may be HG descended R1a clades tucked away in very remote regions, early pastoralist clades tucked away in semi-remote regions and the main IE clades which came to dominate the space originally shared with lots of other ANE sub-groups.

In the context of my previous comment I was talking about the latter - the traditional full horse pastoralist version of IE.

I can see where you're going with 2 and 3, but I don't think number 1 has anything to do with the Indo-Europeans except as one of the "feeder" populations that went into their ethnogenesis. Those are just ancient ANE type HG's who wound up speaking a bunch of different languages, including North American Indian ones. As Aberdeen pointed out, many of them in Europe wound up speaking Uralic languages.

The Indo-Europeans are a specific linguistic and cultural group. If we lose sight of that then the term becomes meaningless. It was that package which so changed the world, and the people who created that package were mixed "ethnically". As I've annoyed people by insisting before, no hunter/ gatherer or fisher/gatherer living in a cave or a yurt or a brush shelter in a marsh is going, imo, to magically transform into a pastoralist (which of course is just an off-shoot of a farmer) and a highly sophisticated bronze worker, without input from prior cultures that did farm, and keep domestic animals, and experiment with metallurgy.

I hope I can find some time to go back and re-read Michael Frachetti and listen to his lecture again too. I think he's the go to person for that Central Asian type pastoralist, "horse" culture.

This is the link to one of his seminal papers: From sheep to (some) horses: 4500 years of herd structure at the pastoralist settlement of Begash (south-eastern Kazakhstan)
http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/083/ant0831023.htm

A discussion of it:
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/05/horse-not-important-for-emergence-of.html

His lecture at Penn (don't let the title fool you):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7qq9__GWN0

He's had a book out for quite a while called Pastoralist Landscapes and Social Interaction in Bronze Age Eurasia, but it's pricey. I doubt my library can get it even on loan, but maybe I'll try.

I sure hope they're factoring his findings into the Samarra paper.

 

[Greying Wanderer]

I can see where you're going with 2 and 3, but I don't think number 1 has anything to do with the Indo-Europeans except as one of the "feeder" populations that went into their ethnogenesis. Those are just ancient ANE type HG's who wound up speaking a bunch of different languages, including North American Indian ones. As Aberdeen pointed out, many of them in Europe wound up speaking Uralic languages.

The Indo-Europeans are a specific linguistic and cultural group. If we lose sight of that then the term becomes meaningless. It was that package which so changed the world, and the people who created that package were mixed "ethnically". As I've annoyed people by insisting before, no hunter/ gatherer or fisher/gatherer living in a cave or a yurt or a brush shelter in a marsh is going, imo, to magically transform into a pastoralist (which of course is just an off-shoot of a farmer) and a highly sophisticated bronze worker, without input from prior cultures that did farm, and keep domestic animals, and experiment with metallurgy.

I hope I can find some time to go back and re-read Michael Frachetti and listen to his lecture again too. I think he's the go to person for that Central Asian type pastoralist, "horse" culture.

This is the link to one of his seminal papers: From sheep to (some) horses: 4500 years of herd structure at the pastoralist settlement of Begash (south-eastern Kazakhstan)
http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/083/ant0831023.htm

A discussion of it:
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/05/horse-not-important-for-emergence-of.html

His lecture at Penn (don't let the title fool you):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7qq9__GWN0

He's had a book out for quite a while called Pastoralist Landscapes and Social Interaction in Bronze Age Eurasia, but it's pricey. I doubt my library can get it even on loan, but maybe I'll try.

I sure hope they're factoring his findings into the Samarra paper.

"I can see where you're going with 2 and 3, but I don't think number 1 has anything to do with the Indo-Europeans except as one of the "feeder" populations that went into their ethnogenesis. "

Yeah it's translating the private labeling in my head to the "page" that causes the issues.

re Frachetti

The idea of a first wave of wagon-based pastoralists expanding over a range and then somewhere within that range a horse-culture develops which eventually turns into the traditional IE second wave makes a lot of sense to me. My only quibble is I think the first wave were sort-of-IE-but-not-quite.

 

[arvistro]

IMO corded ware were R1a Yamnaya people moving north and northwest
and some of their tribes spoke proto-Baltic
but i don't know :
did they come all the way till Latvia some 2900 BC, or did they arrive later, in a subsequent move?

I can't find exact chronology of corded ware in Latvia. It seems they estimated graves age by pottery types mostly...
According to Gimbutas, since 2000 BC Corded Ware same Baltic culture continued in around same area.
As noted here in Violet http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/East_europe_5-6cc.png
Initial 2000 BC and/or before area was wider, I think she believes Fatyanovo (also Corded) was East Baltic.
So, Balts are children of Corded. If Corded is child of Yamna, Balts are grandsons of Yamna. But has lower Yamna related ancestry than Corded.

 

[Sile]

If you will put your cursor into the "TSI" after 2-3 seconds in a small white window you will see the "Toscani in Italia"


Same for "RUS" If you will put your cursor into it, after 2-3 seconds you will see in the small window "Russia"

This means nothing as they do not have for swiss or austrians or french etc..............as I said what area of europe does TSI incorporate , Italy and ?

edit - do not bother replying , they use the same system as I mentioned

 

[Sile]

This means nothing as they do not have for swiss or austrians or french etc..............as I said what area of europe does TSI incorporate , Italy and ?

edit - do not bother replying , they use the same system as I mentioned

Only european ones

TSI
RUS = russians
IBS = iberians
CEU = western atlantic

I do not know of any others

 

[Alan]

As to "West Asian" in K7b I'm not sure if it's one third ANE. How did you arrive at that precise figure? Is that a blogger computed figure?

On Eurogenes blogspot under an article about Mal'ta genome. Davidski commented to a question that West Asian is probably 40% ANE derived and the rest beeing Early Near Eastern Farmer. I think 40% is a little bit too high so I think it might actually be 1/3.

 

[Angela]

K12b analysis based on the Genetiker runs: The usual disclaimers apply. I don’t know if these percentages are exact, but since I’m just comparing one sample to another sample using an analysis done by one person and using the same calculator it should give us some clues. I’ve removed anything below .5%. I think it’s good to keep in mind that the K12b “North Euro” component is mostly At/Baltic (which has some At/Med in it) plus some West Asian. The K12b “Caucasus” component is about 50% of the K7b West Asian, a chunk of Southern, plus a bit of Atlantic Baltic. For our purposes I think we could perhaps view it as mostly an eastern shifted EEF, yes?

AJV70

North Euro 76.4
At.Ned 20.6
Siberian 1.6
SSA 1.3


AJV52

North Euro 77.5

At Med 13.3

S.Asian 4.9
SSA 4.3

K01 Mesolithic HG part of Neolithic Farming Community at Koros

• [FONT=&quot]70.14% North_European[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]27.50% Atlantic_Med[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]1.72% Sub_Saharan[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]0.40% Siberian[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]0.21% Southeast_Asian[/FONT]

Otzi

[FONT=&quot]North Euro 0[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]At/Med 57.7[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Caucasus 22.3[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]S.W.Asian 7.6[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]NWAfrican 5.7[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]East African 24[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]S.E.Asian 2[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]S.Asian 1.5[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]E,Asian .7[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]Gok 4

[FONT=&quot]North Euro 5.5[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]At/Med 81[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Caucasus 4.2[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]S.W.Asian 8.6[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]E. African .7[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
K02 Early Neolithic Körös 5570–5710 BC.

• [FONT=&quot]47.77% Atlantic_Med[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]27.46% Caucasus[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]13.95% Southwest_Asian[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]10.17% Northwest_African[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]0.60% East_Asian[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]0.05% Southeast_Asian[/FONT]

C01-Baden Copper Age Culture 2700-2900

• [FONT=&quot]51.30% Atlantic_Med[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]22.93% Caucasus[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]9.69% Southwest_Asian[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]9.25% North_European[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]5.77% Northwest_African[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]0.78% Sub_Saharan[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]0.22% Siberian[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]0.05% Southeast_Asian[/FONT]

CO1 had more of the North European components and less of the Caucasus components than KO2. Like KO2, CO1 didn’t have any of the K12b Gedrosia component,

BR1 Early Bronze Age Mako Culture 1980-2190 BC (roughly 800 years later)

• [FONT=&quot]48.74% North_European[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]34.34% Atlantic_Med[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]9.46% Caucasus[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]3.87% Southwest_Asian[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]1.12% Sub_Saharan[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]0.78% South_Asian[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]0.77% East_African[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]0.63% East_Asian[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]0.25% Southeast_Asian[/FONT]

BR2 Late Bronze Kyjatice culture dated to 1110–1270 BC (800 years later)

• [FONT=&quot]41.61% North_European[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]35.99% Atlantic_Med[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]16.30% Caucasus[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]3.51% Southwest_Asian[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]1.34% Sub_Saharan[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]1.12% Gedrosia[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]0.10% Northwest_African[/FONT]

IR1- pre-Scythian Iron Age Mezőcsát culture of Hungary. 830–980 BC.

• [FONT=&quot]34.63% North_European[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]19.54% Atlantic_Med[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]16.66% Caucasus[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]15.22% Gedrosia[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]4.90% Siberian[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]3.30% East_Asian[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]2.38% Southwest_Asian[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]1.53% Northwest_African[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]1.08% Sub_Saharan[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]0.77% South_Asian[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]KO1, the Mesolithic HG who became part of the Early Neolithic at Koros, is within a few points of Ajv 70 and 52, so basically the same..[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
The KO2 sample, the southern most early Neolithic farmer, definitely seems to have a slightly more “eastern” tilt than Oetzi, and certainly more than the more admixed Gok 4.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
Otzi’s Atlantic Med is roughly 58%, to KO2’s 48%, (and Gok 4’s 81%). Otzi has 22% Caucasus, KO27% and Gok 4 4%. Gok 4 has 9% S.W.Asian, Otzi 8%, but KO2 14%. Now it’s clear why most of these Neolithic farmers plot Southeast of Otzi. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
This raises an interesting question. Otzi was a Copper Age person from around 3200 B.C.and Gok 4 a TRB farmer from 3100 BC. Is the change in her numbers because of more admixture?Dienekes had speculated that perhaps this group was related to Coon’s Long Barrow Group. I don’t know. (Of course, her admixture has nothing to do with the amount of EEF in modern people. That’s supposedly based on a comparison with Stuttgart (and Otzi?), and KO2 still seems pretty similar to Otzi, although definitely a little to the south and east of him.)[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
Then, in the 3,000 years from the early Neolithic Koros culture to the Copper Age Baden Culture the change was very minimal.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The only change, which appears to have taken place around the time of the Copper Age, is that there was an infusion of about 10% “North Euro”.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This increased the Atlantic Med by 3, lowered the “Caucasus” by 4, and lowered the Southwest Asian by 4. You also suddenly get a smidgeon of Siberian, .22, and surprisingly, .78 of SSA.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I think it may be that the first steppe people were starting to arrive, but, in this part of Europe, it was about 10% of the total genome.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]What’s more amazing to me is that for about 3,000 years, the people in Hungary didn’t change. Whatever WHG they had was incorporated very early, perhaps further south near the Danube Gorges, and after that there seems not to have been any admixture with hunter-gatherers. Whether that’s because a sort of strict apartheid was enforced after the first admixture, as happened in parts of the Spanish New World, for example, or whether there just weren’t any left in the vicinity, I don’t[/FONT][FONT=&quot]know.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
(I don’t understand why it’s so hard to locate a good carbon dated map of Neolithic and forage[/FONT][FONT=&quot]r settlements in central Europe in, say, the Neolithic, so this doesn’t all have to be guesswork. I’ve tried, and I can’t find it.)[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
The Early Bronze sees a much greater change. Eight hundred years later, the “North Euro” has jumped from 9% to 49%. Atlantic Med has dropped from 51% to 34%. Caucasus has dropped from 23 to 9%, S.W.Asian has dropped from 10 to 4%. Also, there are trace amounts of south, southeast and east Asian, a bit of East African, and SSA increases. I’m not quite sure what to make of this. Is Genetiker’s run just too noisy? These are all over .5%, however. Is it possible it’s telling us these Bronze Age invaders were both more “eastern” shifted and more “southern” shifted than the EEF and WHG of Europe? I don’t know.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
Eight hundred years later in the late Bronze things have slightly shifted again. North Euro has dropped by 7 points. Atlantic Med has stayed about the same, but “Caucasus” has gone back up by about 7 points. Southwest Asian and SSA stay about the same, but the really “Asian” traces have disappeared. Interestingly, Gedrosia has shown up for the first time, but only to the tune of 1%.So, what happened? Did a fresh wave, somewhat different from the first, come in from the steppes, or was the change the product of admixture with the prior inhabitants, or a little of both?


(Just to isolate North Euro for a moment, it went from 0 in the Early Neolithic to 9% in the Copper Age, to 49% in the early Bronze, back down to 42% in the Late Bronze Age.)


The Iron Age steppe person is from another eight hundred years later. (He is a child with a G2a1 mtDna, so it seems these people from the steppe did bring some of their own women with them, as was also clear with some mtDna studies. )His North Euro drops from 42 to 35, Atlantic Med from 36 to 20. Caucasus and SW Asian and SSA stays the same, but Gedrosia jumps from 1% to 15%. Interestingly, Siberian now shows up at 5% and East Asian at 3%.




I’m not sure how to interpret this change, other than to point out the obvious that Gedrosia seems to appear mostly during the Iron Age. Also, there's definitely a more southern, but also again a more eastern shift in these people. Is it because we’ve sort of “captured” someone “fresher” off the steppe? Or, did the steppe population itself change slightly between the Bronze and the Iron Age, in that it became even more “eastern”? I do think that the EEF in the steppe populations was more eastern and southern shifted compared to central European EEF. Their hunter gatherer was also much more eastern shifted.


I don’t think we’ll know much more until we see the Samarra samples and the Yamnaya samples

I did this in a rush, so if anyone sees errors just let me know.

The only other thing I'll do is take a look at the modern populations to see if it's the same pattern as for the K7b analysis.

 

[Sile]

On Eurogenes blogspot under an article about Mal'ta genome. Davidski commented to a question that West Asian is probably 40% ANE derived and the rest beeing Early Near Eastern Farmer. I think 40% is a little bit too high so I think it might actually be 1/3.

And how did he work out 40% and West Asian for the siberian Mal'ta boy, when Mal'ta boy is neither in the R1 nor R2 branches ?:kaioken:

 

[Alan]

And how did he work out 40% and West Asian for the siberian Mal'ta boy, when Mal'ta boy is neither in the R1 nor R2 branches ?:kaioken:

Mal'ta boys genome itself showed 26% West Asian related genes. That means at least 26% of WA is ANE derived. How he came to the 40% conclusion I don't know. But 1/3 doesn't look that wrong at all. Also the fact that Near Eastern groups which almost completely lack North European with some 50% "West Asian", yet have 12-14% ANE speaks for it. How else could they end up with so much ANE if there is no other source it might have come from?

 

[LeBrok]

KO1, the Mesolithic HG who became part of the Early Neolithic at Koros, is within a few points of Ajv 70 and 52, so basically the same..

What surprises me is higher Atl_Med in KO1 and yet he ended up farther North on PCA plot.

I’m not sure how to interpret this change, other than to point out the obvious that Gedrosia seems to appear mostly during the Iron Age. Also, there's definitely a more southern, but also again a more eastern shift in these people. Is it because we’ve sort of “captured” someone “fresher” off the steppe? Or, did the steppe population itself change slightly between the Bronze and the Iron Age, in that it became even more “eastern”? I do think that the EEF in the steppe populations was more eastern and southern shifted compared to central European EEF. Their hunter gatherer was also much more eastern shifted.

Bronze Age invaders came from East, from the Steppe. Iron Age invasions came from Caucasus through Anatolia?

 

[Angela]

Just quickly eyeballing the population averages for K12b, BR1 doesn't look bad for German D population, and BR2 approaches the Dutch D population. IR1 looks like it could have definitely been a feeder population into the Bulgarians, but the Bulgarians have 10 points more Caucasus and a lot less Gedrosia. Gedrosia shows up more in the more western populations. K12b may not be as good as K7b for these purposes. At least, the K7b gets you closer to the PCA in Cristina Gamba's paper.

Anyway, this is from just quickly looking over the K12b spreadsheet at Dodecad. Someone who likes to play with the numbers could produce much more accurate results.

Personally, I'm wondering about the Tuscans, as I'm sort of half quasi-Tuscan, and I usually plot midway between Bergamo and Firenze in all the Dodecad runs. (I'm also a project member.) R1b is the most common y lineage in Toscana, but there's quite a bit of J2a as well. People have speculated that this is the Etruscan lineage, as some people have claimed there was at least an elite migration from Anatolia, which has a lot of J2a, in the first millenium BC. I have no idea if that's accurate. The other factor that has to be considered is that Etruscan related languages have been found in the eastern Med and in the Alps. Most people have speculated that the Raetic in the Alps comes from Etruscans to the south. I don't know if that's the case either.

However, a finding of J2a1 in the BR2 sample, and an actual y dna match between that sample and a Tuscan in the TSI sample opens up some other possibilities, including, I suppose, that a Caucasus heavy steppe group came through central Europe and down into Italy. Given the language difference, we would have to suppose that some of the early steppe groups actually didn't speak an Indo-European language. Something similar has been posited, I think, for the Basques, i.e. that it is a Copper Age language of the Caucasus.

I don't know what the story is...the language is just a problem for me with this theory. Of course, I may be resisting this new idea because I've always preferred to think that they were a remnant of Old Europe, or at least connected to Crete or something. However, as I keep saying, you have to try and be as objective about the data as possible. Someone is just going to have to fund full genomes sequences of some ancient Etruscans. I feel as if I should start an online fund drive or something!

@LeBrok
I think some of the migrations may have gone south through the Caucasus, or from the Steppe, down through the Balkans, then into Anatolia, and then who knows, maybe back west along a southern route, but I think some, at least, probably came straight across and then either west through Central Europe (explaining the Gedrosia all the way in the Northwest, a Gedrosia that only makes a big appearance with IR1) or south, southwest into the Balkans and Greece, i.e. the Dorians. From Greece it could have spread all over. The impression I am getting is that in the Bronze Age there were movements in all directions, as there was in the Neolithic thousands of years before. The movements continued in the Iron Age all the way into the early Medieval period. Europe has only been "at rest" in terms of major population migrations for about 1000 years.

 

[arvistro]

Mal'ta boys genome itself showed 26% West Asian related genes. That means at least 26% of WA is ANE derived.

I am not sure it works that linearly. What were other 74% of Mal'ta?
Although I don't argue the estimate you mentioned (30-40%), just I think this reasoning might not always be true.
Then again I could be wrong.

 

[Alan]

............

 

[Alan]

I am not sure it works that linearly. What were other 74% of Mal'ta?
Although I don't argue the estimate you mentioned (30-40%), just I think this reasoning might not always be true.
Then again I could be wrong.

the rest of the genome was 30% North Euro like, 25% Amerindian like and some 20% Southeast Asian, ASI like.
Another example for my estimation. ANE in North Caucasians reaches levels of 23 to 30%.

Lets take 26% as average.

On Dodecad k12b average "North European" in North Caucasus is 23% and average West Asian of K7b is 55%. If we take that 1/3% of "North European" is ANE. That would make roughly ~8% out of 23%.

If we assume 1/3 of West Asian is ANE that would make ~19% out of 55%. 8%+19%= 27% ANE.

Thats very simplistic and definitely not 100% accurate of course, but it gives a good picture imo.

 

[arvistro]

On a second thought maybe it makes sense mathematically. Since we are going from 3 (ANE+WHG+EEF) to 12 (West Asian + North Euro + ...). In most scenarious your logic would fit.
It would not fit going from 12 to 3. Also it would not work in some extreme 3 to 12 cases. If ANE ancestry was really low in all 12, say max 10% in one population and present only in few of those, so that adding % points from all is less than 100%.


I read some more about these things, and I would like to check my understanding.
The whole thing I picture as kind of red+blue+yellow turned into 7 (K7) or 12 (K12) colors. And then we go by saying something like red is 40% of Dark Orange, 20% of Light Orange and 40% of Violet (ANE is x% of West Asian + ...).
Although since it all is still young, maybe we are not talking about red+blue+yellow. Maybe we are talking "light orange"+"green"+"violet". Who knows?