Teal people found: Caucasians!

Current Indo-Aryans are mostly dravidian with some West Asian (teal) DNA in them. Dravidian is native to their region. So that means that the original Aryans were mostly West Asian people from the Iranian Plateau/BMAC.

Aryans that invaded the Indian Peninsula were mostly Caucaso-Gedrosia folks, almost identical to their direct descendants Kurds and Persians, although Kurds are more pure Iranids than Persians. Persians are more mixed with non-Iranids/non-Aryans...

you're turning things upside down
Dravidians were in India before Indo-Europeans
Dravidians originate from a mixture of 1st agriculture in Mergarh 9 ka with local paleolithical Indian haplo H
They expanded southward from the Indus Valley way before arrival of first Indo-Europeans 3.7 ka
 
you're turning things upside down
Dravidians were in India before Indo-Europeans
Dravidians originate from a mixture of 1st agriculture in Mergarh 9 ka with local paleolithical Indian haplo H
They expanded southward from the Indus Valley way before arrival of first Indo-Europeans 3.7 ka
I was talking about the current Indo-European speaking Indians (Indo-Aryans). Before Aryans (Iranians) from BMAC and Zoroastrian Yaz migrated into India, people of India were Dravidian. Those Dravidians mixed a little bit with Aryans (Iranids) from BMAC and the Zoroastrian Yaz culture and a new group was born: Indo-Aryans. But Indo-Aryans (Indid) are still mostly Dravidian and have just a little bit input from Aryan (Iranid) BMAC and Aryan (Iranid) Zoroastrian Yaz culture. Aryans (Iranians) of BMAC & Zoroastrian Yaz culture were most likely Caucaso-Gedrosia folks. Zoroastrianism is not really native to SouthCetral Asia but more to West Asia. BMAC had close ties with the Iranian Plateau, since it was actually an eastern extension of the Iranian Plateau..





http://www.unm.edu/~gbawden/328-cenAsia/328-cenAsia.htm


 
you're turning things upside down
Dravidians were in India before Indo-Europeans
Dravidians originate from a mixture of 1st agriculture in Mergarh 9 ka with local paleolithical Indian haplo H
They expanded southward from the Indus Valley way before arrival of first Indo-Europeans 3.7 ka

Futile attempt
 
Thanks, but you know many humiliated scientists had this attitude.

Since the ydna tree via van oven is based on papers like karafet and others and agreed by the genetic scholars, then I see little point in wasting our time reading posts by others who have an agenda of creating their own trees to fit the needs of their haplogroup
 
These are apparently the K12b results for one of these samples. Does anyone know which of these is from the DIY and which is from gedmatch? Also, why are they so different?

"K12 Dodecad results:

32.98% Gedrosia

- Siberian
- Northwest_African
- Southeast_Asian
- Atlantic_Med
7.08% North_European
- South_Asian
0.01% East_African
- Southwest_Asian
- East_Asian
59.02% Caucasus
0.91% Sub_Saharan
Code:
Distance ID
17.8 Abhkasians_Y
19.4 Adygei
19.5 Chechens_Y
19.8 Georgians
19.9 North_Ossetians_Y
20.3 Lezgins
20.4 Balkars_Y
20.8 Armenians
21.1 Kumyks_Y
21.4 Armenians_15_Y
21.8 Kurds_Y

22.0 Iranian_D
22.7 Kurd_D

22.9 Armenian_D
24.9 Azerbaijan_Jews
25.1 Turks
25.4 Iranians
25.5 Georgia_Jews
25.8 Uzbekistan_Jews
25.9 Assyrian_D"


"Kit F322930

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Caucasus 48.47
2 Gedrosia 18.61
3 Southwest_Asian 14.3
4 Atlantic_Med 10.98
5 North_European 5.14
6 South_Asian 1.75
7 Northwest_African 0.69
8 Southeast_Asian 0.06

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Uzbekistan_Jews (Behar) 6.03
2 Azerbaijan_Jews (Behar) 6.45
3 Georgia_Jews (Behar) 6.88
4 Assyrian (Dodecad) 7.04
5 Armenians_15 (Yunusbayev) 7.1
6 Armenian (Dodecad) 7.28
7 Turks (Behar) 7.84
8 Turkish (Dodecad) 9.11
9 Iranian_Jews (Behar) 10.11
10 Armenians (Behar) 11.35
11 Iraq_Jews (Behar) 11.36
12 Kurds (Yunusbayev) 11.44
13 Kurd (Dodecad) 12.78
14 Druze (HGDP) 13.16
15 Iranian (Dodecad) 13.32
16 Lebanese (Behar) 13.95
17 Cypriots (Behar) 15.25
18 Iranians (Behar) 16.32
19 Syrians (Behar) 17.5
20 Kumyks (Yunusbayev) 18.94
my result with Dodekade 12b"

Ed. It would also be interesting to see how this sample scores in the K7b calculator's "West Asian" component, especially in light of Dienekes' comment that:

"
Years ago, I detected the presence of a West_Asian genetic component (with dual modes in "Caucasus" and "Gedrosia") whose origins I placed in the "highlands of West Asia" and which I proposed spread into Europe post-5kya with Indo-European languages.

Earlier this year, the study by Haak et al. showed that steppe invaders after 5kya brought into Europe a 50/50 mix of "Eastern European Hunter-Gatherer" (EHG) ancestry/An unknown population from the Near East/Caucasus. The "unknown population" was most similar to Caucasians/Near Easterners like Armenians but did not correspond to any ancient sample.

A new paper in Nature Communications by Jones et al. finds this "missing link" in the flesh in Upper Paleolithic/Mesolithic hunter-gatherers from Georgia which they call "Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers" (CHG)."

Ed. I've been informed these are the K12b results of the two specimens from the paper, one perhaps more EEF admixed than the other.
 
Last edited:
Clearly all signs show that K moving from SW asia towards SE asia , came back via northern iran and the caspian sea areas .
the movement back to wards SW asia seems very minimal in haplotypes in pre bronze age times

with the split of IJ happening the same time as LT splitting off from K ( making it the first to make the separation ), I will not be surprised to find any further studies in the regions noted as per the paper to show L and T as well as G and H

I am only talking about ydna
 
These are apparently the K12b results for one of these samples. Does anyone know which of these is from the DIY and which is from gedmatch? Also, why are they so different?

"K12 Dodecad results:

32.98% Gedrosia

- Siberian
- Northwest_African
- Southeast_Asian
- Atlantic_Med
7.08% North_European
- South_Asian
0.01% East_African
- Southwest_Asian
- East_Asian
59.02% Caucasus
0.91% Sub_Saharan
Code:
Distance ID
17.8 Abhkasians_Y
19.4 Adygei
19.5 Chechens_Y
19.8 Georgians
19.9 North_Ossetians_Y
20.3 Lezgins
20.4 Balkars_Y
20.8 Armenians
21.1 Kumyks_Y
21.4 Armenians_15_Y
21.8 Kurds_Y

22.0 Iranian_D
22.7 Kurd_D

22.9 Armenian_D
24.9 Azerbaijan_Jews
25.1 Turks
25.4 Iranians
25.5 Georgia_Jews
25.8 Uzbekistan_Jews
25.9 Assyrian_D"


"Kit F322930

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Caucasus 48.47
2 Gedrosia 18.61
3 Southwest_Asian 14.3
4 Atlantic_Med 10.98
5 North_European 5.14
6 South_Asian 1.75
7 Northwest_African 0.69
8 Southeast_Asian 0.06


Ed. It would also be interesting to see how this sample scores in the K7b calculator's "West Asian" component, especially in light of Dienekes' comment that:

"Years ago, I detected the presence of a West_Asian genetic component (with dual modes in "Caucasus" and "Gedrosia") whose origins I placed in the "highlands of West Asia" and which I proposed spread into Europe post-5kya with Indo-European languages.

Earlier this year, the study by Haak et al. showed that steppe invaders after 5kya brought into Europe a 50/50 mix of "Eastern European Hunter-Gatherer" (EHG) ancestry/An unknown population from the Near East/Caucasus. The "unknown population" was most similar to Caucasians/Near Easterners like Armenians but did not correspond to any ancient sample.

A new paper in Nature Communications by Jones et al. finds this "missing link" in the flesh in Upper Paleolithic/Mesolithic hunter-gatherers from Georgia which they call "Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers" (CHG)."
Nice, so that 13,000 years old Caucasians were 32.98% Gedrosia and 59.02% Caucasus.

So they had more Caucasus than Gedrosia. It's like 2/3 Caucasus and 1/3 Gedrosian. This makes sense, due to Caucasians are more J2a, G2 and J1 folks than R1b, R1a and R2a folks.


I believe that the original Indo-Europeans were more like the opposite. Like 2/3 Gedrosia and 1/3 Caucasus. Becasue I do relate Caucasus with G2a and J2a and Gedrosia with R1b, T, R1a and R2a. They came to birth when Caucasus and Gedrosia folks mixed with each other, but R1a, R2a, T, R1b were in majority above J2a, G2a significant minority.
 
Since the ydna tree via van oven is based on papers like karafet and others and agreed by the genetic scholars, then I see little point in wasting our time reading posts by others who have an agenda of creating their own trees to fit the needs of their haplogroup

I gotchya. It was just a very final position.
 
Apparently, even academics don't think things through sufficiently. Roy King: "A nice game changer. Satsurblia is the magnet that draws much of the Near East away from Early Neolithic farmers. Again, the revenge of the Mesolithic."

I don't think so. Mesolithic peoples were small in number. Their life style couldn't support anything else. It's only when these people adopted farming and their numbers massively increased that they were able to change the balance in Anatolia and the Levant.

Just so we have it to look at, this is the proposed tree from Jones et al including the CHG:

Jones et al proposed tree including CHG.jpg

Ed. Perhaps, indeed, as I once speculated, the Basal Eurasian refugium was actually near the Caucasus.
 
Clearly all signs show that K moving from SW asia towards SE asia , came back via northern iran and the caspian sea areas .
the movement back to wards SW asia seems very minimal in haplotypes in pre bronze age times

with the split of IJ happening the same time as LT splitting off from K ( making it the first to make the separation ), I will not be surprised to find any further studies in the regions noted as per the paper to show L and T as well as G and H

I am only talking about ydna

I have another scenario.
K was in northern India when it gave birth to P and NO.
K was ousted or outcompeted by haplo H from central India who allready had microliths. P was allready born by then and split into P1 and P2
Part of K and sons went west, part crossed the Hindu Kush to Central Asia and another part went east to Sundaland

remember both Ust-Ishim and Oase were sons of K

new tools arrived at Altaï Mountains and spread further from there to Bajkal area 38 ka
there are no signs whatsoever for an expansion from Sundaland into Siberia
 
Apparently, even academics don't think things through sufficiently. Roy King: "A nice game changer. Satsurblia is the magnet that draws much of the Near East away from Early Neolithic farmers. Again, the revenge of the Mesolithic."

I don't think so. Mesolithic peoples were small in number. Their life style couldn't support anything else. It's only when these people adopted farming and their numbers massively increased that they were able to change the balance in Anatolia and the Levant.

Just so we have it to look at, this is the proposed tree from Jones et al including the CHG:

View attachment 7522

Ed. Perhaps, indeed, as I once speculated, the Basal Eurasian refugium was actually near the Caucasus.

yes mesolithic were small in number
but the distribution of J2a seems to reflect the spread of neolithics except in Europe
that is why it was tought they were the Natufians
now they appear to be the Eastern Epigravettians
somehow somewhere they must have taken over the initiative from the first farmers (G2a?), it seems they were the ones bringing SW Asian agriculture to Mehrgarh
European and Anatolian neolithic was G2a, but no trace of them in India (well some Indian subclades of J2a are as old as Mehrgarh, 9 ka, we don't have any anciant DNA from there yet)

as for Basal Eurasian, I think they diverged way before LGM and I'd say in northern India - but these are wild guesses
if Basal Eurasian split way before LGM, some of their sons came together during LGM and started mixing again, others went extinct
 
Ed. Perhaps, indeed, as I once speculated, the Basal Eurasian refugium was actually near the Caucasus.

CHG basically is Teal. That tree is based on a handful of formal stats and ignores other formal stats.
 
These are apparently the K12b results for one of these samples. Does anyone know which of these is from the DIY and which is from gedmatch? Also, why are they so different?

"K12 Dodecad results:

32.98% Gedrosia

- Siberian
- Northwest_African
- Southeast_Asian
- Atlantic_Med
7.08% North_European
- South_Asian
0.01% East_African
- Southwest_Asian
- East_Asian
59.02% Caucasus
0.91% Sub_Saharan
Code:
Distance ID
17.8 Abhkasians_Y
19.4 Adygei
19.5 Chechens_Y
19.8 Georgians
19.9 North_Ossetians_Y
20.3 Lezgins
20.4 Balkars_Y
20.8 Armenians
21.1 Kumyks_Y
21.4 Armenians_15_Y
21.8 Kurds_Y

22.0 Iranian_D
22.7 Kurd_D

22.9 Armenian_D
24.9 Azerbaijan_Jews
25.1 Turks
25.4 Iranians
25.5 Georgia_Jews
25.8 Uzbekistan_Jews
25.9 Assyrian_D"


"Kit F322930

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Caucasus 48.47
2 Gedrosia 18.61
3 Southwest_Asian 14.3
4 Atlantic_Med 10.98
5 North_European 5.14
6 South_Asian 1.75
7 Northwest_African 0.69
8 Southeast_Asian 0.06

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Uzbekistan_Jews (Behar) 6.03
2 Azerbaijan_Jews (Behar) 6.45
3 Georgia_Jews (Behar) 6.88
4 Assyrian (Dodecad) 7.04
5 Armenians_15 (Yunusbayev) 7.1
6 Armenian (Dodecad) 7.28
7 Turks (Behar) 7.84
8 Turkish (Dodecad) 9.11
9 Iranian_Jews (Behar) 10.11
10 Armenians (Behar) 11.35
11 Iraq_Jews (Behar) 11.36
12 Kurds (Yunusbayev) 11.44
13 Kurd (Dodecad) 12.78
14 Druze (HGDP) 13.16
15 Iranian (Dodecad) 13.32
16 Lebanese (Behar) 13.95
17 Cypriots (Behar) 15.25
18 Iranians (Behar) 16.32
19 Syrians (Behar) 17.5
20 Kumyks (Yunusbayev) 18.94
my result with Dodekade 12b"

Ed. It would also be interesting to see how this sample scores in the K7b calculator's "West Asian" component, especially in light of Dienekes' comment that:

"
Years ago, I detected the presence of a West_Asian genetic component (with dual modes in "Caucasus" and "Gedrosia") whose origins I placed in the "highlands of West Asia" and which I proposed spread into Europe post-5kya with Indo-European languages.

Earlier this year, the study by Haak et al. showed that steppe invaders after 5kya brought into Europe a 50/50 mix of "Eastern European Hunter-Gatherer" (EHG) ancestry/An unknown population from the Near East/Caucasus. The "unknown population" was most similar to Caucasians/Near Easterners like Armenians but did not correspond to any ancient sample.

A new paper in Nature Communications by Jones et al. finds this "missing link" in the flesh in Upper Paleolithic/Mesolithic hunter-gatherers from Georgia which they call "Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers" (CHG)."


So CHG is basically two component/ancestry of Gedrosian and Caucasian. Now should we look for these two ancestors of CHG or we are closer to conclude that Gedrosia and Caucasia is one and the same component? Just not strongly defined from modern genomes and easily mixed.
I think Alan had a thread about this issue.
 
Kit F322930 must be the EEF mixed sample since it shows Atl_Med and Southwest Asian.

While the other is the purer CHG/Teal individual.


 
CHG basically is Teal. That tree is based on a handful of formal stats and ignores other formal stats.



Agreed, going by that tree it seems like CHG is all Basal Eurasian derived, but CHG has as much affinity to EF as to WHG or EHG. In fact it is closer to EHG than EF is but by this tree the opposite seems to be.

I still think CHG is higher up in the tree close to the root but drifting towards WHG and EHG actually and the only reason why it shares Basal Eurasian like ancestry is because it is so close to the root and like a sibling to Basal Eurasian.
 
I have another scenario.
K was in northern India when it gave birth to P and NO.
K was ousted or outcompeted by haplo H from central India who allready had microliths. P was allready born by then and split into P1 and P2
Part of K and sons went west, part crossed the Hindu Kush to Central Asia and another part went east to Sundaland

remember both Ust-Ishim and Oase were sons of K

new tools arrived at Altaï Mountains and spread further from there to Bajkal area 38 ka
there are no signs whatsoever for an expansion from Sundaland into Siberia

the time line is this
K , next

K1 ( which is T and L )

next
K2a ( which is N and O )

next
K2b ( which is P, with later M, S, Q and R )

they did not split off each other at the same time
 
CHG basically is Teal. That tree is based on a handful of formal stats and ignores other formal stats.

This is sort of what I was getting at earlier. We have an early, relatively homogenous Teal source in CHG. But it's still just Teal, which using drift comparisons and other stats appears to have differentiated from ENF and WHG at such and such a time.

I don't know that there's such thing as a basal Eurasian yet.
 

This thread has been viewed 168083 times.

Back
Top