Autosomal results of Neolithic genome from Iberia

[Finalise]

Anglo-Saxon has no Gedrosia just like Old Europe samples, and IE tribes are heavily Gedrosianised. Something is not adding up here. IE migrations might not as straightforward as Yamna -> CW as we thought.

 

[Alan]

I'm ready to accept your explanations but somethings stay unclear to me:
'gedrosia' seems OLD and very largely spred in Central Asia for a very long time - not WestAsian (geographically speaking) at all...

I think you overread what I wrote. Gedrosia peaks in Balochistan which is located in Western Asian.
So no it does not peak in Central Asia.

Major ethnic groups of Pakistan in 1980. The pink color represents the Baloch ethnic group. Balochistan or Baluchistan^[1] (Balochi: بلوچستان, lit. Land of the Baloch) is an arid desert and mountainous region on the Iranian plateau in south-western Asia, northwest of the Arabian Sea.

Balochis are a Northwest Iranic tribes originaly stamming from Kurdistan. Balochi ancestry is very strong in all of Pakistan to India. Many Balochis have been assimilated into the Punjabi population.
So the fact that they come from Kurdistan can indiciate that Gedrosia was once much stronger here. And it might have been deluted by other components. You know where a component is stronger doesn't automatically mean it was so in pre historic times.

Another argument for this is the R1b in Iberian Neolithic which was much more Caucasus and had no Gedrosia. This kind of ancestry can only stem from Western Asia.

I think R1b spred around when the "West Asian" component hadn't yet diverged into Gedrosia and Caucasus. Remember Caucasus and Gedrosia only appear in the higher K's. That means it must have been once the same. Gedrosia is 92% West Asian and ~8% ANI (which in itself is actually atpyical to other South Asian components in clusterin right next to West Asian, therefore must have the same origin)

See here => http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-v80ztSRUM9E/UE3JklSVh5I/AAAAAAAAGUg/cUR5Ps2TBA8/s1600/_7.png

Thats the reason I think betwen Taurus_Zagros mountains is a good guess. But of course this doesn't rule out Central Asia as long as we don't have actual data.

travelled across East Eurasian regions where they had or picked 'gedrosia' bearers, and I don't see that near the Zagros, where apparently 'gedrosia' was absent in old times, before steppic invasions or penetrations of later periods, whatever these last bearers: Iranian I-Eans, Turkmens, even Mongols...

Are you aware that Gedrosia frequency in Zagros is higher as in Yamna and nearby Balochistan has twice as much. How does this bring us to the conclusion that Gedrosia originated in North Eurasia?

Nothing personal here, But I think you might be missing some basic knowledge about the genetic landscape of Western Asia and therefore come to wrong conclusions.

I don't see that near the Zagros, where apparently 'gedrosia' was absent in old times

How do you know that Gedrosia was absent in the Zagros in old times? It goes against my understanding, how you can come to this conclusion as if it is the most logical thing in the world while it is actually quite the opposite.

I am not going to argue about the origin of Gedrosia. That is clear as water I think. And it honestly can't believe that all the Gedrosia was brought to Western Asia by Yamna. If it is actually more frequent here.

The opposite is the case imo. If anything Yamna migration might halfed the Gedrosia in the region.

I've apriori no problem with our first Y-R1v being come from SOuth Caucasus, but for now it doesn't check the data: it could seem absurd, but simetimes I think seeing the contrary, Y-R1b intruding from North or South-East in South-Caucasus regions (but not native, again, to Zagros) -
It's a "reflex" answer, I'll try to look again at my notes (by example about Kostenki, Mal'ta, Ust'Ishim friends) -

Moesan you are often reprsenting theories without actual strong argument for it. It might be because your knowledge of the genetic make up of Western Asia is not as good. I understand that. My knowledge of European DNA Is also not that good. But I get quite tired explain things over and over again seeing it go against deaf ears. So don't take it personal if I don't answer that much anymore.


Now to the reasons why your theory has not many valid reasons.
Gedrosia is stronger in the Zagros mountains than South Caucasus. 1:0 for Zagros. R1b in South Caucasus or anywhere else North of it is founder effect, almost always the same subclade(l23). Doesn't speak for an origin in that place. R1b in Zagros is allot more diverse. It has R1b m343, R1b l23, R1b m269 and heck even R1b l11! That is allot of diversity
http://corduene.blogspot.de/2014/04/northern-kurds-paternal-haplogroups_1.html

2:0 for the Zagros_Taurus theory.

 

[Alan]

Found Kostenki genome, interestingly no Caucasus but already some Gedrosia.
K12b

• 26.45% North_European
• 19.54% Atlantic_Med
• 15.98% South_Asian
• 11.83% Gedrosia
• 6.59% Southeast_Asian
• 4.92% East_African
• 4.58% Southwest_Asian
• 4.39% Sub_Saharan
• 3.28% Siberian
• 2.00% Northwest_African
• 0.45% East_Asian
• 0.00% Caucasus

PS. He was partially lactose tolerant.
https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2014/11/14/analyses-of-the-kostenki-14-genome/

His location was in European Russia, halfway between Moscow and Black Sea. The genome is very old, 40 ky, and possibly is not fully comparable with all admixtures. Some of them needed much longer to show up, to come to be fully formed. However, 0 Caucasus probably means that Caucasus was on the other side of Caucasus Mountains in Middle East, and probably not fully formed yet. Heavy mixture of ENF with Caucasus in early farmers alludes to closeness of these two on South Side of Caucasus Mountains, and lack of contact to HGs from the North.

Gedrosia is rather high in Kostenki (though probably also not fully formed yet), and it is at similar level as Gedrosia in Samara samples. As we know it is completely missing from first farmers from Near East. For these reasons, I'm going to move epicenter of Gedrosia from SE off Caspian to NE off Caspian, Kazakhstan. Knowing that Mal'ta genome contained some Gedrosia too, and Gedrosia containing ANE, it places both in Central Asia contact area. It doesn't seem there was a contact between them and area where ENF and Caucasus were formed in Near East.


His all Atlantic Med, might mean WHG component.

Atlantic is by majority ENF with some WHG admixture. And going by the other components (SOuthwest Asian he has it) I am pretty convinced this is ENF.

Don't forget Kostenki already had Basal Eurasian.

 

[Alan]

Here is KO1, the hunter gatherer from Hungary, Early Neolithic. Thanks to Genetiker again:
https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2014/10/23/analyses-of-an-early-neolithic-hungarian-genome/
K12b

• 70.14% North_European
• 27.50% Atlantic_Med
• 1.72% Sub_Saharan
• 0.40% Siberian
• 0.21% Southeast_Asian
• 0.02% East_Asian
• 0.01% East_African
• 0.00% Caucasus
• 0.00% Gedrosia
• 0.00% Northwest_African
• 0.00% South_Asian
• 0.00% Southwest_Asian

Looks like there is a big portion of hunter gatherer in Atlantic Med admixture. Again some history of Sub Saharan Africa is showing in this hunter, WHG. Neither Caucasus (nor ENF) nor Gedrosia was reaching to Europe Center at this time, well, before Neolithic farmers showed up.

We know form the actual paper that KO1 was compared to his mesolithic H&G cousins bit Farmer admixed. Farmer DNA is not Caucasus alone. Caucasus is actually some of the less "typical" to ENF part of the farmer DNA.

All the farmers had more of Atlantic_Med than Caucasian. If you also look at the distribution and frequency of Atlantic Med, Southwest Asian, Caucasus in Britain for example, you will see that it is quite similar.

So Atlantic_Med is probably 2/3 ENF and 1/3 WHG. Interesting and fitting if we consider that both West Asian which is supposedly 2/3 ENF and 1/3 ANE and Atlantic Med have the same distance from North European component.

Speaks for a similar mixture. Just that it is ANE in West Asian and WHG in Atlantic_Med.

 

[LeBrok]

Atlantic is by majority ENF with some WHG admixture. And going by the other components (SOuthwest Asian he has it) I am pretty convinced this is ENF.

Don't forget Kostenki already had Basal Eurasian.

He is a weird dude and very old. He shows some relation with ENF, from way back. Things must have changed there during LGM. When we look at Samars, almost from same area as Kostenki, the genome is quite different. Kostenki like population could have died out or were pushed back into Caucasus Mountains by northern HGs. He does plot extremely close to modern guys from Caucasus.
As I mentioned before, he is so old, that the admixtures as we know them were not fully developed yet, and his admixtures might not be very accurate I'm afraid.

 

[Alan]

He is a weird dude and very old. He shows some relation with ENF, from way back. Things must have changed there during LGM. When we look at Samars, almost from same area as Kostenki, the genome is quite different. Kostenki like population could have died out or were pushed back into Caucasus Mountains by northern HGs. He does plot extremely close to modern guys from Caucasus.
As I mentioned before, he is so old, that the admixtures as we know them were not fully developed yet, and his admixtures might not be very accurate I'm afraid.

This and the fact that Kostenki had already "Basal Eurasian" like DNA makes me doubt that ANE/WHG diverged from Basal Eurasian before it diverged from East Eurasian, because Kostenki obviously shows typical modern "West Eurasian" genetic structure (with East Eurasian admixture).

If Proto ANE/WHG really diverged from Basal Eurasian earlier as from East Eurasian, we would see a genetic structure in which ANE/WHG and East Eurasian were stronger and ENF instead of East Eurasian showing as admixture.


Therefore I think Basal Eurasian/Proto ANE/WHG and East Eurasian diverged first OR all roughly at the same time.

 

[LeBrok]

Yamna:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30944-Autosomal-results-of-Neolithic-genome-from-Iberia/page2
K12b

• 60.18% North_European
• 26.29% Gedrosia
• 4.89% Atlantic_Med
• 4.50% Siberian
• 2.12% Caucasus
• 2.02% South_Asian
• 0.00% East_African
• 0.00% East_Asian
• 0.00% Northwest_African
• 0.00% Southeast_Asian
• 0.00% Southwest_Asian
• 0.00% Sub_Saharan

Atlantic med is very low. It is hard to find any farmer genes in this genome. To bad there is only one Yamna sample tested for K12b, perhaps this individual didn't mix well yet.
Seams like the main genetic influence came from Gedrosia territory. I'm picturing Kazakhstan area.

I think if Gedrosia was a farmer marker from Near East we should be getting at least some Southeast Asian signal. The K17 confirms lack of farmer ENF/EEF admixture:

MDLP Ancient Roots K17

• 46.02% Ancestral_East_European_ANE
• 14.40% Caucasian-Basal
• 9.65% Ancestral_North_Indian
• 8.93% Uralic
• 7.46% West_European_HG
• 4.49% Ancestral_West_Siberian
• 4.46% Amerindian
• 1.43% Circumpolar
• 1.41% Ancestral_Sami-Finnic
• 1.10% Ancestral_South_Indian
• 0.30% Melano-Austronesian
• 0.18% Ancestral_East_Siberian
• 0.08% Ancestral_Mediterranean_EEF
• 0.03% African_Sub_Saharian
• 0.03% South_East_Asian
• 0.01% Archaic_African
• 0.01% Near-East-Basal

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2015/03/03/analyses-of-a-yamna-genome/
That's why I'm suspecting that Gedrosia came from around Kazakhstan as HG or Pastoralist admixture. Anything from other side of Caucasus should have farmer heavy genome at this late neolithic time.

 

[Sile]

I think if Gedrosia was a farmer marker from Near East we should be getting at least some Southeast Asian signal. The K17 confirms lack of farmer ENF/EEF admixture:

MDLP Ancient Roots K17

• 46.02% Ancestral_East_European_ANE
• 14.40% Caucasian-Basal
• 9.65% Ancestral_North_Indian
• 8.93% Uralic
• 7.46% West_European_HG
• 4.49% Ancestral_West_Siberian
• 4.46% Amerindian
• 1.43% Circumpolar
• 1.41% Ancestral_Sami-Finnic
• 1.10% Ancestral_South_Indian
• 0.30% Melano-Austronesian
• 0.18% Ancestral_East_Siberian
• 0.08% Ancestral_Mediterranean_EEF
• 0.03% African_Sub_Saharian
• 0.03% South_East_Asian
• 0.01% Archaic_African
• 0.01% Near-East-Basal

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2015/03/03/analyses-of-a-yamna-genome/
That's why I'm suspecting that Gedrosia came from around Kazakhstan as HG or Pastoralist admixture. Anything from other side of Caucasus should have farmer heavy genome at this late neolithic time.

I believe the Gedrosian that Alan supports ( i.e the balochi ) , is the one that stays on the northtern side of the Zargos mountains heading to the caucasus

 

[Alan]

I think if Gedrosia was a farmer marker from Near East we should be getting at least some Southeast Asian signal. The K17 confirms lack of farmer ENF/EEF admixture:

MDLP Ancient Roots K17

• 46.02% Ancestral_East_European_ANE
• 14.40% Caucasian-Basal
• 9.65% Ancestral_North_Indian
• 8.93% Uralic
• 7.46% West_European_HG
• 4.49% Ancestral_West_Siberian
• 4.46% Amerindian
• 1.43% Circumpolar
• 1.41% Ancestral_Sami-Finnic
• 1.10% Ancestral_South_Indian
• 0.30% Melano-Austronesian
• 0.18% Ancestral_East_Siberian
• 0.08% Ancestral_Mediterranean_EEF
• 0.03% African_Sub_Saharian
• 0.03% South_East_Asian
• 0.01% Archaic_African
• 0.01% Near-East-Basal

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2015/03/03/analyses-of-a-yamna-genome/
That's why I'm suspecting that Gedrosia came from around Kazakhstan as HG or Pastoralist admixture. Anything from other side of Caucasus should have farmer heavy genome at this late neolithic time.

Gedrosia just like many other components is a mix of two or many components.

That Gedrosia is at least 50% farmer admixed is not much of doubt. If it wasn't than I would have 30% of ANE because I have 26.5% Gedrosia + 6.5% North European. But I "only" have 19% of ANE.

Also compare the ENF scores in South_ Central Asia with their Southwest Asian, Mediterranean and Caucasus scores.

It doesn't fit.

 

[Alan]

Let's take Tajiks as example.

They have ~45% ENF. => https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...qMYVFKXrUdnThmQJVMtjczLhoTs/edit#gid=74932529

But they have ~25% Atlantic_Med/Caucasus/Southwest Asian => https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArJDEoCgzRKedEY4Y3lTUVBaaFp0bC1zZlBDcTZEYlE#gid=0

20% ENF remain.

So which of these remaining components are the most likely source for the rest of the ENF. We have to chose between North European, Gedrosia, South Asian or Siberian.

I bet my money on Gedrosia. And we shouldn't forget the relation between Gedrosia and Caucasus is like the relation between Northwest European and Northeast European. So if Caucasus is predominantly ENF, so Gedrosia must have allot of ENF itself.

And we also had already this discussion about low EEF. It isn't something new.

The reason why the EEF is so low is because Yamna does not have the European farmer type ancestry. Their ENF ancestry is directly the highland pastoralist type. So EEF is unlikely to show up.

 

[LeBrok]

Let's take Tajiks as example.

They have ~45% ENF. => https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...qMYVFKXrUdnThmQJVMtjczLhoTs/edit#gid=74932529

But they have ~25% Atlantic_Med/Caucasus/Southwest Asian => https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArJDEoCgzRKedEY4Y3lTUVBaaFp0bC1zZlBDcTZEYlE#gid=0

20% ENF remain.

So which of these remaining components are the most likely source for the rest of the ENF. We have to chose between North European, Gedrosia, South Asian or Siberian.

I bet my money on Gedrosia. And we shouldn't forget the relation between Gedrosia and Caucasus is like the relation between Northwest European and Northeast European. So if Caucasus is predominantly ENF, so Gedrosia must have allot of ENF itself.

And we also had already this discussion about low EEF. It isn't something new.

The reason why the EEF is so low is because Yamna does not have the European farmer type ancestry. Their ENF ancestry is directly the highland pastoralist type. So EEF is unlikely to show up.

There is at least 75% ENF in EEF. So if EEF doesn't show in Yamna it is very unlikely that there is substantial ENF in Yamna. I would be surprised if other components have more than 10% of ENF. If we find Gedrosia in Neolithic in Near East I will agree with you that it contained ENF.

 

[Alan]

There is at least 75% ENF in EEF. So if EEF doesn't show in Yamna it is very unlikely that there is substantial ENF in Yamna. I would be surprised if other components have more than 10% of ENF. If we find Gedrosia in Neolithic in Near East I will agree with you that it contained ENF.

Bedouins are 85%. Going by that, we need to assume Bedoins beeing ~40% Atlanto_Med. That is impossible.

You see what I mean? Atlanto_Med came to existence with ENF(2/3) mixing with some WHG(1/3). But that doesn't mean every ENF group needs to have some Atlanto_Med, because this component is a specific type which was probably born in Europe because of additional WHG admixture.

West Asian highlanders also score only half that much EEF as they score ENF, simply because they do not have this WHG admixed type of farmer ancestry. This is why you will not find any EEF in Yamna.

Imagine if we had a population with 50% Northwest European component. And I would tell you they are not "North European" admixed because look here they show no Northeast European ancestry

Thats exactly the problem here. Just because someone has no EEF('Northeast European') doesn't mean he has no ENF('North European'), because his ENF is possibly the highlander type('West Asian').


LeBrock we know that Yamna is ~25% ENF but Yamna has only 7% Caucasus/Atlanto_Med. The rest must come from Gedrosia. Just like in my example with Tajiks there is no other way or component it could have come from. There is no denying there.
And Even Reich said the ENF ancestry in Yamna is typical Near Eastern and came directly from the highlands and not of the type found in Europe(EEF).

So everything adds up

Believe me Gedrosia is roughly 60% ENF.

 

[MOESAN]

Gedrosia of today in Near East and Pakistan and surroundings is not by force exactly the Gedrosia we find elsewhere more northern or we FOUND before -
and even this southern Gedrosia we constate nowaday is not by force from a Near Eastern unique source - ANE seems new in Near Eastern (differences between sub-populations of ancient endogamy and the remnant) as Gedrosia is, even if Gedrosia is not equal ANE - a population showing ANE shew also Gedrosia (whatever a tiny link between both, uniquely statistical in some population, but this "cocktail" for me evocates a Central or South-Central Asian population, not a genuine old Near-Eastern one - just my point, trying to find my way in darkness (here I leave a tear dropping down from my eye)

 

[gervais]

So here it is, the results of the R1b1 sample from 5100 BC late neolithic Spain.

K12b

• 74.26% Atlantic_Med
• 18.37% Caucasus
• 3.70% Southwest_Asian
• 3.67% Northwest_African
• 0.00% East_African
• 0.00% East_Asian
• 0.00% Gedrosia
• 0.00% North_European
• 0.00% Siberian
• 0.00% South_Asian
• 0.00% Southeast_Asian
• 0.00% Sub_Saharan

Typical European farmer with the typical Mediterranean/Southwest Asian/Caucasus DNA + some North European from admixing with WHG (also typical for European farmers).
This is quite irritating. We have Samara H&G with not much sign of ENF but yet we have another R1b with typical farmer DNA.

.

I do not agree!
The Spanish neolithic is different from the Neolithic of Europe central as LBK.
See the difference:

LBK (F999916)
#PopulationPercent
1Atlantic_Med 54.922
Caucasus30.33
Southwest_Asian10.784
Northwest_African3.795
North_European0.146
Southeast_Asian0.06

The Spanish Neolithic have more Atlantic_Med and less of caucasus and SW_Asian.

I do not know why everyone thinks Atlantic-Med comes from near-east!


Only SW_Asian and caucasus were probably brought by farmers of Near-East

 

[Greying Wanderer]

I do not agree!
The Spanish neolithic is different from the Neolithic of Europe central as LBK.
See the difference:

LBK (F999916)
#PopulationPercent
1Atlantic_Med 54.922
Caucasus30.33
Southwest_Asian10.784
Northwest_African3.795
North_European0.146
Southeast_Asian0.06

The Spanish Neolithic have more Atlantic_Med and less of caucasus and SW_Asian.

I do not know why everyone thinks Atlantic-Med comes from near-east!


Only SW_Asian and caucasus were probably brought by farmers of Near-East

Quite. The Atlantic coast had a different climate and that led to a different story.

 

[Angela]

I do not agree!
The Spanish neolithic is different from the Neolithic of Europe central as LBK.
See the difference:

LBK (F999916)
#PopulationPercent
1Atlantic_Med 54.922
Caucasus30.33
Southwest_Asian10.784
Northwest_African3.795
North_European0.146
Southeast_Asian0.06

The Spanish Neolithic have more Atlantic_Med and less of caucasus and SW_Asian.

I do not know why everyone thinks Atlantic-Med comes from near-east!


Only SW_Asian and caucasus were probably brought by farmers of Near-East

Atlantic Med is probably best described as a combination of Neolithic farmer alleles from the Near East and a minority WHG component. The creator of the calculator being used by you as well as by the poster Alan explained the relationship of these components here:
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/08/inter-relationships-of-dodecad-k12b-and.html
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/09/inter-relationships-between-dodecad-k7b.html

The graphs are particularly interesting. Note that S.W. Asian is just a "specialized" form of "Caucasus", and "Caucasus" goes into "Atlantic Med".

I wouldn't quarrel with Alan's estimate of about a 25% or so WHG percentage in Atlantic Med.

It's important to realize that these calculators, while they were useful in their day, produce components which represent much more recent geographical "poolings" which are the result of many layers of migration. Formal stats are much more informative. For that, you have to read Lazaridis et al, and Haak et al.
http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2013/12/23/001552
http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/02/10/013433

In Haak et al, the resnorm stats are particularly interesting. As you can see, the French are 69% Early Neolithic. (Of course, these numbers are the result not only of Neolithic migrations, but also of those of Bronze Age "Indo-Europeans".) It would be impossible to reach numbers like this if only S.W.Asian and Caucasus represented migration of peoples with ancestry from the Near East.


View attachment 7147

 

[gervais]

Atlantic Med is probably best described as a combination of Neolithic farmer alleles from the Near East and a minority WHG component. The creator of the calculator being used by you as well as by the poster Alan explained the relationship of these components here:
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/08/inter-relationships-of-dodecad-k12b-and.html
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/09/inter-relationships-between-dodecad-k7b.html

The graphs are particularly interesting. Note that S.W. Asian is just a "specialized" form of "Caucasus", and "Caucasus" goes into "Atlantic Med".

I wouldn't quarrel with Alan's estimate of about a 25% or so WHG percentage in Atlantic Med.

It's important to realize that these calculators, while they were useful in their day, produce components which represent much more recent geographical "poolings" which are the result of many layers of migration. Formal stats are much more informative. For that, you have to read Lazaridis et al, and Haak et al.
http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2013/12/23/001552
http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/02/10/013433

In Haak et al, the resnorm stats are particularly interesting. As you can see, the French are 69% Early Neolithic. (Of course, these numbers are the result not only of Neolithic migrations, but also of those of Bronze Age "Indo-Europeans".) It would be impossible to reach numbers like this if only S.W.Asian and Caucasus represented migration of peoples with ancestry from the Near East.


View attachment 7147

Yes, the component closest to Atlantic-Med is Caucasus, but the closest component of North-European is Atlantic-med.
How the Basques have 0% Caucasus (the only of Europe!!) and Kostenki14 a russian Palaeolithic (- 35,000) has 21.46% of Atlantic-Med!


It is as if we were dealing with two migrations: Atlantic-Med and then caucasus.
The question is: the two were farmers or only one of the two?

Basque:
Atlantic-Med: 73,1
North-European: 17,1
Gedrosia 9,8
Caucasus: 0

Kostenki14
#PopulationPercent
1North_European28.8
2Atlantic_Med21.46
3South_Asian15.7
4Gedrosia12.38
5Southeast_Asian6.12
6Southwest_Asian4.95
7East_African3.87
8Siberian3.78
9Northwest_African1.65
10Sub_Saharan1.15
11East_Asian0.15

 

[Armoricain]

Atlantic Med is probably best described as a combination of Neolithic farmer alleles from the Near East and a minority WHG component. The creator of the calculator being used by you as well as by the poster Alan explained the relationship of these components here:
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/08/inter-relationships-of-dodecad-k12b-and.html
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/09/inter-relationships-between-dodecad-k7b.html

The graphs are particularly interesting. Note that S.W. Asian is just a "specialized" form of "Caucasus", and "Caucasus" goes into "Atlantic Med".

I wouldn't quarrel with Alan's estimate of about a 25% or so WHG percentage in Atlantic Med.

It's important to realize that these calculators, while they were useful in their day, produce components which represent much more recent geographical "poolings" which are the result of many layers of migration. Formal stats are much more informative. For that, you have to read Lazaridis et al, and Haak et al.
http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2013/12/23/001552
http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/02/10/013433

In Haak et al, the resnorm stats are particularly interesting. As you can see, the French are 69% Early Neolithic. (Of course, these numbers are the result not only of Neolithic migrations, but also of those of Bronze Age "Indo-Europeans".) It would be impossible to reach numbers like this if only S.W.Asian and Caucasus represented migration of peoples with ancestry from the Near East.


View attachment 7147

In the last paper of Haak, french are 43 % EN ( not 69%) 57 % WHG
(figure S9.24 p.120)


That is maybe different in the paper of 2013 ?


But I agree with Gervais, there is a difference between the Atlantic Neolithics and those of the Bassin Danunian, the Caucasian component is higher in the LBKs

 

[Angela]

In the last paper of Haak, french are 43 % EN ( not 69%) 57 % WHG
(figure S9.24 p.120)


That is maybe different in the paper of 2013 ?


But I agree with Gervais, there is a difference between the Atlantic Neolithics and those of the Bassin Danunian, the Caucasian component is higher in the LBKs

I'm aware of the figure to which you referred. Haak et al did exhaustive modeling. With each successive model they tried to reduce the residuals (or improve the fit) more and more. The model to which you referred only used EN and WHG. In the subsequent model (page 121), they added the Yamnaya, and the result for EN in the French was 51.2, with lower residuals. In the next model, the figure was 64.3. In the figure to which I linked but which did not post, Figure S9.27 on page 124 of the Haak et al 2015 supplement, the figure for EN is indeed 69%. I'm going to try to post it again.



Whatever the figure you want to use, whether it's the one on page 121 of 51.2 percent, or even the 43% EN from a model with high residuals (i.e. not a good fit), it doesn't change the fact that based on Dodecad K12b, the total of S.W.Asian and Caucasus in the French is 11%. Obviously, there is EN in "Atlantic Med" as well, and as Dienekes pointed out about his own calculator, in North European.

As to your last statement, I personally don't think it is very helpful to rely on the once useful but obviously flawed admixture calculators based on modern populations and relatively modern geographical groupings or components, when the formal stats based on actual ancient genomes give far more accurate results. (I concede you don't get the tightest possible fit using only ancient genomes, as the authors realized, which is why they added the Nganasan and the Bedouin to the graphic I posted.)

In so far as I can tell, PCA's and formal stats and sophisticated Admixture programs indicate that the early EEF samples are all pretty much alike, which is exactly what this Lab has said numerous times. They certainly cluser closely together on PCA's, and there is no marked "eastward" shift in LBK samples:

See Gamba et al:
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/full/ncomms6257.html

It's true that the LBK did not at first mix very much. As time passed, there was more admixture, but in terms of the initial farmers, whether they were "Cardial" or "LBK", I haven't seen anything which would indicate major differences. If you have data to that effect which is persuasive, i.e. formal stats from academics, not Blogger calculators, I would of course change my opinion. It's true, of course that the EN which fed into Europe through Yamnaya is more "Caucasus" like.

You might also want to take a look at Paschou et al and the thread here discussing it.

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/25/9211.abstract

http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2014/06/04/1320811111.DCSupplemental/pnas.1320811111.sapp.pdf

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...Europe-(Paschou-et-al-2014)?highlight=Paschou

 

[Greying Wanderer]

in terms of the initial farmers, whether they were "Cardial" or "LBK", I haven't seen anything which would indicate major differences.

I don't think there's going to be major differences because they're all mixed to a large extent but the *small* differences will be what provides the clues to the detailed history imo.