New map of Ancient Eurasian (ANE) admixture

[Robert6]

If he is only interested in russians then he should not show anything ( any details ) outside of russia

In his first maps I think there were only former Soviet Union + Europe(but without Spain Germany Chechia etc), people asked him to add some more populations

................besides he must be a very poor , when he bases his information on modern nationality .................

The data is from "modern nationalities" so everybody is using these information, everybody is using the same data.

[Robert6]

Robert6 for Gods sake dude even despite you asking him about Burusho and Kurds he totally avoided to give you an answer concerning the Kurds. How much more obvious does it need to be to know that this wannabe scientist has an obvious agenda? If it was his first map in this manner I wouldn't react like that but he did it already earlier. So he obviously is going after and agenda, what ever it might be.

I didn't ask him about Kurds

[Alan]

Robert let's try it a last time. If this guy was really only interested in Russia and only uses "Nationalities".

Why the heck is he using Ket samples? And if he is using nationalities Why is ANE on his maps getting weaker towards Kurdish land despite this?

Well let's go even further. If he didn't "saw" the Kurdish samples for the ANE map, why does however his WHG map fit the Kurdish results?

On the WHG map he obviously took the Kurdish samples into consideration as we see is getting weaker while going into Kurdistan?



I don't know who that dude is but if he has his issues with Kurds than he should concentrate on his country and Europe and stay the heck away from Western Asia and especially Kurdistan with his biased maps.

[Robert6]

If "Nationalities" isn't the right word, so lets use the word "Tribes".
The WHG is weaker because of Armenian and Iranian sample.

[Robert6]

I see it now in his maps he is using "Tribes" only from former Soviet Union from Italy and from China
and "Nationalities" from other countries

[Alan]

If "Nationalities" isn't the right word, so lets use the word "Tribes".
The WHG is weaker because of Armenian and Iranian sample.

Iranian samples reaching all the way into Kurdish inhabited land in Eastern Anatolian/North Kurdistan. It can't be Armenian samples also because Armenian is one shade lighter. Don't you realize that you are contradicting yourself. On one hand you say in Western Asia he made the maps based on nationality and on the other you try to explain the lighter shades in Kurdistan with Iranian and Armenian samples?

But ok let's stop it here.

I know what to think about these maps whether they wrong on purpose or wrong not on puporse, they are still wrong and not accurate

I have seen better maps made by various "amateurs" heck even my own map which Imade within hours just based on my "eye calculation" more accurate.

[Robert6]

Iranian samples reaching all the way into Kurdish inhabited land in Eastern Anatolian/North Kurdistan. It can't be Armenian samples also because Armenian is one shade lighter.

But ok let's stop it here.

I know what to think about these maps whether they wrong on purpose or wrong not on puporse, they are still wrong and not accurate

I have seen better maps made by various "amateurs" heck even my own map which Imade within hours just based on my "eye calculation" more accurate.

Is in your map the Crimean sample?
Is that your map?
http://img5.fotos-hochladen.net/uplo...geknb6c5ox.png
If it is your map, I do not see them there, what is your agenda?
Just kidding LoL

[Robert6]

Iranian samples reaching all the way into Kurdish inhabited land in Eastern Anatolian/North Kurdistan. It can't be Armenian samples also because Armenian is one shade lighter. Don't you realize that you are contradicting yourself. On one hand you say in Western Asia he made the maps based on nationality and on the other you try to explain the lighter shades in Kurdistan with Iranian and Armenian samples?

It depends from where he put the center for Turkish sample
You can see it clearly here, it is in N.C.Turkey and N.W. Turkey for Turkish sample
http://s013.radikal.ru/i324/1412/2e/d9ff57185493.png


And Cypriot sample is affecting Turkey from the south, and Armenian from the east.

[Robert6]

Kurdistan

One S.E.Armenian man(who matches more to Kurds than to Armenians on IBD segments) from Syunik asked him to add Kurds in his own matches map
http://s018.radikal.ru/i516/1501/9a/8d220437077f.png


source of the map
http://forum.molgen.org/index.php/to...html#msg276034

[epoch]

I agree with what you're saying, except for the lack of evidence of ANE among pre-IE Europeans.

Motola 12 carried a substantial amount of ANE. Loschbourg did not carry any.

[MOESAN]

observations 'worth?)
'gedrosia' seems at least partially linked to ANE, but 'caucasus' too !
in Northwest Europe, ANE seems corresponding better to 'gedrosia', in Southeast Europe, ANE seems corresponding better to 'caucasus' - in N-E Europe ANE shows other links (Mesolithic) almost without 'westasian' nor 'gedrosia'
it could be that ANE, ancient, was present in Asia in different groups, maybe not always the same parts of ANE -

the possible correlation of Y-R1b-L51 with 'gedrosia' is interesting, and the lack of 'gedrosia' among European 'west-asians' could be explained by 2 hypothesis:
-the ancestors of Y-R1b-L51 could have been passed northernly, North the Black Sea, far enough North - the R1b L23 of S-E Europe could have been separated from the R1b-L23 of N-Europe who could have picked their 'gedrosia' on their way from East Caspian or farther in Asia
-the ancestors of Y-R1b-L51 could have passed through Anatolia and Balkans before going northwards and found 'gedrosia' people in N-E Europe before turning westwards -
this last hypothesis is a bit weird to me -
the ANE of S-E Europe seems linked mayby partially to Turks (very slightly) but principally to I-Eans of a different wave opposed to the wave rich of 'gedrosia' of NW Europe -
the lack of 'gedrosia' in E and S-E Europe opposed them to the Anatolian Caucasus Near-Eastern case where the 'gedrosia' seems more recent and linked to all kinds of steppic people (late Iranians, Turks, Mongols)

[Robert6]

ANE high among Kets Caucasus people and Tajiks(close to Burusho people)
Ket Burushaski and Caucasian laguages are "Sino-Caucasian"
http://f-picture.net/fp/b267ea42bcf1...c226f1cd1c1fdb

The picture is from
http://forum.molgen.org/index.php/to...html#msg271516

ANE in Paleolithic times was among R*(Afontova Gora) and R1a(Malta)

http://ejournal23.com/journals_n/1418626543.pdf
The analysis has demonstrated strong correlation between
R and Q haplogroups and Dene-Sino-Caucasian peoples: Sino-Tibetan, Na-Dene, North Caucasian,
Burushasky, and Basque. Evidently, the spread of R (and Q) haplogroups from Central Asia into
the Western Asia, which occurred in the final of Late Pleistocene – Early Holocene was closely
related with Sino-Caucasian peoples. Some of these Sino-Caucasian peoples, probably closely
related to Proto-North Caucasians, became for Proto-Indo-Europeans the source of R haplogroup.

[Longbowman]

Somebody already posted one of my maps, I was going to post links to the others but apparently you need 10 posts for that. Ah, well.

[LeBrok]

Somebody already posted one of my maps, I was going to post links to the others but apparently you need 10 posts for that. Ah, well.

Welcome to Eupedia Longbowman. Did you get the credit for the map from the poster?

[MOESAN]

I think you (and Aberdeen) are addressing an important issue. Just to point out another situation in which there is a discrepancy, let's consider the situation of the Tuscans. I don't know what the ancient Dna will, in the end, show. However, let's assume for the moment that there was some significant gene flow from Anatolia in the first millennium BC. I don't have it at my fingertips, but I have posted a map of J2a M67, which does show a hot spot in the Caucasus and a secondary one in Toscana. Then look at the ANE values in that area. How could the Tuscans have only .118 ANE when they were also affected by Indo-European migrations, which supposedly were high in ANE? (Even if the "Etruscans' didn't carry it, the Romans certainly did, and they totally mixed.) It just doesn't hang together. Perhaps, in that case, there just wasn't a significant migration. However, the larger point remains.

I am increasingly leaning toward the view that ANE=Indo-European in Europe is much too simplistic. As you say, in the north east I think a good amount, if not the majority of it, has very little to do with the Indo-Europeans. In fact, I'm not even so sure that all of it in places like Scotland is Indo-European in origin if we're speaking strictly of the people of Yamnaya in 4,000-3,000 BC.

Very late answer, and incomplete
I'm sure "OUR" I-Eans send with them ANE ASDNA - but they were not a dominantly ANE population, they had ANE because they cristallized as a mass of people North of the Black Sea and in western Steppes whereever were they true cradle (I 've not answer yet!) -
by the way Selkups (Uralic lang.) and Kets (Na Dene L.) have very high %s of ANE as well as some South Indians, Burushos, and as a whole the N-Caucasus ethnies and the East Caspian peoples, and I don't speak about Karintianians! 40%) - Mal'ta was located in East central Siberia and I'm not sure the ANE elements we find in all our human populations today have been passed us in same time by same culture!!! surely different "packages" from initial ANE -
but in Europe, the I-Eans who send ANE had maybe about 25 or 30% ANE as a mean so (IF ALL OUR WESTERN ANE IS FROM I-E) a 10% ANE could signify about 40 to 50% of I-Ean ancestry what is not neglictible!
but I'm sure you are aware of that - that said, in some parts of Eurasia, as I and others said, ANE has not been send by I-Eans only (I think in Finns, Balts of today - even in Europe the case is not so simple in every place-
the first ANE in our I-Eans can have been picked up among East Caspian people, not only by supposed raids of steppic I-Eans in South (some thesis), but also because of their possible genesis involving Hurritian or akin people (complementary: or also akin people of N-Caucasus?) - uneasy to say...
the stronger presence of ANE in North Europe is not I-Ean by nature but surely the northern final I-Eans who reached North-Sea had picked a bit more ANE among Eastern Hunters-Gatherers... the high ANE among "Celts" is intriguing as said someones here - could Y-R1b of Western Europe have passed more northernly than we believe? I see (from archeology) no big demic move East >> West before I-Eans there, quite the opposite!!! or more skeletons from scandinavian HGs could provide us more ANE rich samples, changing our data?
or can we suppose northern Europe is more I-Ean than southern Europe? were the first I-Eans if south Caucasus, poorer for ANE than the supposed "teached" I-Europeanized people of the Steppes???...

[Aberdeen]

Motola 12 carried a substantial amount of ANE. Loschbourg did not carry any.

Thanks. I didn't see this post before. I've had trouble finding out about whether any of the older European samples carry ANE (perhaps I haven't been reading the scientific papers carefully enough). But if Motala 12 contained a substantial amount of ANE, that reinforces my opinion that a certain percentage of the ANE in northern Europe came from the maternal side. I'd be interested in finding out whether people who have mtDNA U5 have elevated levels of ANE. Although I suppose modern Europeans are to mixed to show too much correlation between mtDNA and autosomal DNA, just as they're too mixed to show too much correlation between Y DNA and authosomal DNA. But there still seems to be a bit of a link between Y haplotype R and ANE and I wonder if there's a similar link between mtDNA U5 and ANE.

[LeBrok]

Thanks. I didn't see this post before. I've had trouble finding out about whether any of the older European samples carry ANE (perhaps I haven't been reading the scientific papers carefully enough). But if Motala 12 contained a substantial amount of ANE, that reinforces my opinion that a certain percentage of the ANE in northern Europe came from the maternal side. I'd be interested in finding out whether people who have mtDNA U5 have elevated levels of ANE. Although I suppose modern Europeans are to mixed to show too much correlation between mtDNA and autosomal DNA, just as they're too mixed to show too much correlation between Y DNA and authosomal DNA. But there still seems to be a bit of a link between Y haplotype R and ANE and I wonder if there's a similar link between mtDNA U5 and ANE.

Is it possible that the small amount of ANE Motala had was very ancient commonality of hg I and R? Haplogroup F has split into G and I/J/K first, before I/J/K has split into I and R. Therefore there is a part of genome common to ancient hunter-gatherer I and R kind, which is missing in G and E of first farmers.

[Aberdeen]

Is it possible that the small amount of ANE Motala had was very ancient commonality of hg I and R? Haplogroup F has split into G and I/J/K first, before I/J/K has split into I and R. Therefore there is a part of genome common to ancient hunter-gatherer I and R kind, which is missing in G and E of first farmers.

I would say that it's possible but quite improbable. Given that both MA1 and Motala 12 were mtDNA U, I think it's more likely that the unexplained high level of ANE in northern Europe comes from the maternal side.

[Angela]

Very late answer, and incomplete
I'm sure "OUR" I-Eans send with them ANE ASDNA - but they were not a dominantly ANE population, they had ANE because they cristallized as a mass of people North of the Black Sea and in western Steppes whereever were they true cradle (I 've not answer yet!) -
by the way Selkups (Uralic lang.) and Kets (Na Dene L.) have very high %s of ANE as well as some South Indians, Burushos, and as a whole the N-Caucasus ethnies and the East Caspian peoples, and I don't speak about Karintianians! 40%) - Mal'ta was located in East central Siberia and I'm not sure the ANE elements we find in all our human populations today have been passed us in same time by same culture!!! surely different "packages" from initial ANE -
but in Europe, the I-Eans who send ANE had maybe about 25 or 30% ANE as a mean so (IF ALL OUR WESTERN ANE IS FROM I-E) a 10% ANE could signify about 40 to 50% of I-Ean ancestry what is not neglictible!
but I'm sure you are aware of that - that said, in some parts of Eurasia, as I and others said, ANE has not been send by I-Eans only (I think in Finns, Balts of today - even in Europe the case is not so simple in every place-
the first ANE in our I-Eans can have been picked up among East Caspian people, not only by supposed raids of steppic I-Eans in South (some thesis), but also because of their possible genesis involving Hurritian or akin people (complementary: or also akin people of N-Caucasus?) - uneasy to say...
the stronger presence of ANE in North Europe is not I-Ean by nature but surely the northern final I-Eans who reached North-Sea had picked a bit more ANE among Eastern Hunters-Gatherers... the high ANE among "Celts" is intriguing as said someones here - could Y-R1b of Western Europe have passed more northernly than we believe? I see (from archeology) no big demic move East >> West before I-Eans there, quite the opposite!!! or more skeletons from scandinavian HGs could provide us more ANE rich samples, changing our data?
or can we suppose northern Europe is more I-Ean than southern Europe? were the first I-Eans if south Caucasus, poorer for ANE than the supposed "teached" I-Europeanized people of the Steppes???...

I think we are largely in agreement, even about our uncertainties!

As to your last points, I'm not sure where the I-European urheimat was located.What is pretty clear, however, is that Reich and company have stated that the mtDna in Samara changed from mtDna U to more typically "Near Eastern" lineages around 4000 BC. I think a strong case can also be made that a significant part of what constitutes the "Yamnaya technological and cultural package" is sourced in the Near East proper. Then, around 4000 to 3000 BC the Yamnaya package actually came together. I don't think this is all a coincidence. I don't know if the language started out south of the steppe or if it was influenced by languages spoken in the south but developed on the steppe where it was also influenced by Uralic, but I can see related but not identical populations straddling the Caucasus who both spoke a version of it. From there I could see one group (higher in ANE perhaps, with a significant amount of WHG perhaps growing as these groups moved north and north west, but also lower in early near eastern farmer type alleles) going west across the steppes, and one group (higher in ENF, lower in ANE and with very little WHG, going into Anatolia and then into southeast Europe. That would indicate the point of view of works like "The Coming of the Greeks" by Robert Drews was correct. There is supposedly a big paper coming out with ancient DNA from Greece with samples from the Neolithic all the way into close to the historical era so perhaps that will be illuminating, although that would depend, I think, on whether they have samples from the relevant periods in Anatolia, as well. Could the same group be responsible for the Indo Iranian language spread into India by traveling from there through Bactria?

On the other hand, it just may be that the northern Europeans have more ANE because Corded Ware derived from a group related to Yamnaya which had more WHG and ANE, or because Corded Ware absorbed SHG people who still remained in their refuge, or both. I also wonder if its possible that there was a "belt" east/west at that latitude where migration and admixture took place, much like the circumpolar regions and so might have fed into earlier far northern populations.

Or, northern Europe just may have more ANE because given climate driven and ecologically driven population crashes in central Europe, and low overall population levels in the peripheral refuge areas, there was more "room" for them to make a genetic impact, unlike the densely populated southern regions which might not have experienced such population declines. I really should investigate to see what is known of the situation in this regard in more southern areas.

Oh, it just occurred to me that if indeed there was a group of Indo-Europeans from the Caucasus who took a route through Anatolia into Greek and adjacent areas, then these people would be just as Indo-European, if not more so than northern Europeans, while being less ANE and WHG.

The slight increase in WHG (which so far as I know is just speculated about given the changes in mtDna) in central Europe which took place right before the formation of Corded Ware is another issue.

[Arame]

Now that we know that Kalash has no any admixture the last 10.000 year doesn't this mean that ANE is not about Siberia but perhaps about Central Asia ?

[LeBrok]

Now that we know that Kalash has no any admixture the last 10.000 year doesn't this mean that ANE is not about Siberia but perhaps about Central Asia ?

Yes ANE is about Central-North-East Asia. Pretty huge area.
Kalash do have other admixtures, though it seems that they travel their from some northern location, rich in ANE.

[Arame]

LeBrok
Well I don't mean ANE today but ANE in early Neolithic or late Paleolithic.
According to Lazaridis 2013 Kalash ANE is huge. And they are isolated
They are high in ydna L and H.
So I don't see how they can come from somewhere else especially the North Eurasia .
The logical explanation is that ANE was very high in Central Asia in Paleolithic it moved East and North and have founder effect in Siberia. It is now known that North Siberia was recolonized later after Ice Age. So North Siberia population is relatively new.
Later ANE decreased in South Central Asia after the arrival of farmers. ANE was best preserved in Steppe because there were no farmers there.

[LeBrok]

LeBrok
Well I don't mean ANE today but ANE in early Neolithic or late Paleolithic.
According to Lazaridis 2013 Kalash ANE is huge. And they are isolated
They are high in ydna L and H.
So I don't see how they can come from somewhere else especially the North Eurasia .
The logical explanation is that ANE was very high in Central Asia in Paleolithic it moved East and North and have founder effect in Siberia. It is now known that North Siberia was recolonized later after Ice Age. So North Siberia population is relatively new.
Later ANE decreased in South Central Asia after the arrival of farmers. ANE was best preserved in Steppe because there were no farmers there.

I meant ancient times. I'm not sure if there was any ANE in Near East before 10,000 years ago. This is map of Ice Age Maximum. Even then there was a lot of space in Central Asia without ice. ANE didn't need to hide in Middle East to survive and repopulate.

[Arame]

Lol LeBrok we are saying the same thing. Please read once more. I never claim that ANE has a refuge in Near East. ( Near East end for me after Iran ). I said they where in Central Asia.

[LeBrok]

Lol LeBrok we are saying the same thing. Please read once more. I never claim that ANE has a refuge in Near East. ( Near East end for me after Iran ). I said they where in Central Asia.

OK, I thought so probably because of this below citation, I thought that you thought that Kalash originally were from Near East as a source of ANE.

They are high in ydna L and H.
So I don't see how they can come from somewhere else especially the North Eurasia