Teal people found: Caucasians!

I don't know if it can help but I have since a long time the impression (confirmed by the little aDNAwe have) that Copper and even Bronze Age in Europe ought in some part to a very southern population without too much Yamnayalike imput. We have Montenegro people and Copper of Hungary and Spain. Could these people be akin to the last wave of Neolithic? either someones from Neolithic, acculturated to metallurgy skills or reinforced their auDNAb by new waves from S-East with beginning metallurgy, new waves of same human stock? largely EEF plus some evolved CHGlike imput from East? Cyprus and Egea people of the time?

I can't locate the study right now, but my recollection is that it said that the change in Greece came between the early to late Neolithic, or something to that effect, and that there was no change in the Bronze Age. I, like you, think it's possible this was a last, slightly different wave of the Neolithic, perhaps from Cyprus, but perhaps also through the Aegean, of people who might indeed have brought more advanced metallurgy with them. If CHG ancestry had been filtering into the western areas of Anatolia, this migration might have contained CHG that wasn't previously present, or perhaps present in very small frequencies.

If some of these newer calculators are correct, Oetzi has a bit of CHG, and he may have been a copper worker, if we go by the amount of arsenic they found in his blood.

At any rate, contrary to what some misinformed people are posting on the internet, the CHG levels in Sicily, Southern Italy, and mainland Greece are virtually identical. (These posters seem to be unaware that the Greek sample being used is from Thessaly, so it's not a question of only the Greek islands having similar levels.) The "Balkan" countries score three points lower, 25 versus 28, and that's after the Slavic migrations.

The "West Asian" levels of prior calculators showed exactly the same pattern. So, whatever processes were involved, they had to affect all these areas. That's why I think we're on the right track for a good part of it, although later internal European migrations might have redistributed it. There's also, in the case of southern Italy and Sicily, the Moorish migrations, even if it was minor in comparison, but that would have brought the single digit North African. There's precious little CHG in Tunisia, from which most of the Moorish settlers came.
 
One thing I realized about this calculator again, it must be flawed if the source for CHG(Satsurbila) is only ~80% CHG and 15% EHG by this calculator. This is not possible if the CHG samples are older than the EHG samples and what seems to have happened here. The CHG ancestry in EHG is been shown as EHG ancestry in CHG.

Therefore the real CHG frequency might be slightly higher for all populations.


EDIT: Yep obviously this calculator is biased towards EHG, that gets visible when looking at the Yamna frequency. This can't even be Caucaso_Gedrosia. Yamna is shown as 83% EHG and 3% CHG. A good chunk of CHG is gettting eaten up by EHG. No way that 12.000 BC Satsurbila has 20% of EHG ancestry. This calculator shows even me as 11% East African. Sorry but the scores on this calculator are simply out of place. Reminds me once again to never give too much trust in most amateur calculators.

Wait, so the person who modeled Yamnaya as 50% EHG/50% CHG now has Yamnaya as 83% EHG and 3% CHG? Well, there's definitely some dissonance there. Generally, I think that not only is CHG too low, but WHG seems to be too high, as I pointed out above.

As you say, the East African scores make no sense. He must be using some Horn of Africa populations that are more than 50% West Eurasian in ancestry. Is it picking up "East African" in southern Europeans and Near Easterners, or, per some implications from the Mota paper, Neolithic style ancestry that moved south toward the Horn as well as other parts of Africa?

At any rate, in terms of possible use as a personal calculator at gedmatch, it's not going to be very helpful for any southern Europeans if the only Italian reference populations are the Tuscans and the Sicilians, the only Spanish reference is half Catalan and half eastern Andalucian, and the only Greek sample is from Thessaly.
 
One thing I realized about this calculator again, it must be flawed if the source for CHG(Satsurbila) is only ~80% CHG and 15% EHG by this calculator. This is not possible if the CHG samples are older than the EHG samples and what seems to have happened here. The CHG ancestry in EHG is been shown as EHG ancestry in CHG.

Therefore the real CHG frequency might be slightly higher for all populations.


EDIT: Yep obviously this calculator is biased towards EHG, that gets visible when looking at the Yamna frequency. This can't even be Caucaso_Gedrosia. Yamna is shown as 83% EHG and 3% CHG. A good chunk of CHG is gettting eaten up by EHG. No way that 12.000 BC Satsurbila has 20% of EHG ancestry. This calculator shows even me as 11% East African. Sorry but the scores on this calculator are simply out of place. Reminds me once again to never give too much trust in most amateur calculators.

May I inquire what calculator you prefer to use with Yamnaya samples that reflects their true component levels; if any?
 
May I inquire what calculator you prefer to use with Yamnaya samples that reflects their true component levels; if any?
There isn't yet any CHG using, close to 100% accurate calculator out there. I would prefer the admixture calculators used by the most recent Lazaridis paper but even the puntDNAL K11 is quite accurate even if not 100%(because they didn't had any CHG samples yet).

But I surely can tell you this calculator has some major issues, if it shows the 50/50 EHG/CHG Yamna as 83% EHG, 3% CHG and the rest as WHG. ~90% of the WHG ancestry in Yamna is already included in EHG and the other ~10% come via CHG. No need for extra WHG and never seen any calculator showing extra WHG and only 3% CHG

Than we have Satsurbila who is the pure source of CHG labeled as ~80% CHG? How can a sample be only 80% of a component which is modeled after himself? Thats like saying I am only 80% of myself. He might have used the obviously Anatolian farmer admixed and less pure Kotias sample as refference for CHG and therefore the rest of Satsurbilas (the older and most pure sample according to the study) ancestry is getting eaten up by EHG.

I also noticed how on that other forum the "experts" always seemed to use and argue about Kotias as comparison and refference for their CHG ancestry not realizing that this individual has obvious Anatolian Farmer ancestry as by the study stating it so itself.

Obviously some of the CHG ancestry is getting eaten up by EHG.

Than we have Sintashta which is said to have, in comparison to Yamna, 40% of real Anatolian Farmer ancestry and 60% Yamna.
However in this calculator Sintashta is shown as only 6% Anatolian farmer 22% CHG, 27% EHG (which doesn't fit quite well as 60% Yamna model but close enough) and again 42% real WHG admixture.

Again WHG ancestry outside of EHG, where shouldn't be any. Obviously Anatolian farmer ancestry is getting eaten up as WHG, even the Basal Eurasian portion of it.

In this Calculator allot of CHG ancestry is getting eaten up as EHG and allot of Anatolian Farmer ancestry as WHG and East African.

Reason for that could simply be that he is using not so suitable reference populations.

He is probably taking some East Africans(who are 50/50 Farmer/SSA mixed) as "source" population and modeling other ethnic groups after that. Also he is probably taking EHG as source population as modeling CHG after them while logically seen if anything that EHG should have CHG ancestry because 1. CHG is significantly older sample 2. There are strong signs of direct CHG influx into EHG groups (yDNA J).


As I have red even the author "Kurd" says Yamna can be modeled as 50/50 CHG and one of the EHG samples with most ANE admixture.

I think his calculaor just catched up some few error unintentionally and he should be able to correct them.
 
Yep as I thought here the final proof that the reason for his calculator flaws is the source populations he uses as refference and models other after them.

His ~5000 BC "Eneolithic_Samara" samples are calculated as 99,99% EHG, while according to the per reviewed studies they are ~20-25% CHG. So since this Samara samples are shown as 100% themselves that means they are used as source population. And CHG which is 5-7000 years older is modeled after them, as ~20% EHG like and 80% something unknown (labeled as CHG).

Here one of the major flaws comes from. And I bet he has used some hybrid samples (East Africans) as source population too which creates a zombie component and makes any West Asian and South Europeans with EEF ancestry be labeled as signficiantly "East African" mixed. In other calculators I score ~23-30% EF while in this calculator I am ~17% EF and 11% "East African". I have yet to see a calculator which models me as more than a percent African. Obviously a whole lot of my EF is eaten up here.
 
Mr. Kurd's calculator results are not meant to be interpreted as ancestral percentages. Yamnaya's CHG score is not an estimate of CHG ancestry in Yamnaya. The components are based on ancient genomes, reveal trends about ancestral related to those genomes, but is not literally percentages of ancestry.
 
Mr. Kurd's calculator results are not meant to be interpreted as ancestral percentages. Yamnaya's CHG score is not an estimate of CHG ancestry in Yamnaya. The components are based on ancient genomes, reveal trends about ancestral related to those genomes, but is not literally percentages of ancestry.

I think everyone here needs to think about this fact for quite some time before posting again. A Nietzsche quote comes to mind about the seduction of metaphor.
 
His ~5000 BC "Eneolithic_Samara" samples are calculated as 99,99% EHG, while according to the per reviewed studies they are ~20-25% CHG. So since this Samara samples are shown as 100% themselves that means they are used as source population. And CHG which is 5-7000 years older is modeled after them, as ~20% EHG like and 80% something unknown (labeled as CHG).

Alan,

Which Samara do you mean - Eneolithic (= Copper Age), or Hunter-Gatherer ???

Eneolithic Samara = 3 Khvalynsk samples, and it was indeed ~25% CHG, but it was 4700-4000 BC.

There is also 1 Hunter-Gatherer Samara, which is older - from 5650-5555 BC - and it is ~0% CHG.

In terms of Y-DNA Khvalynsk samples were R1a, R1b and Q. Hunter-Gatherer Samara was R1b.

That hunter-gatherer from Samara had pottery, but had no copper, so it was not Eneolithic.
 
Alan,

Which Samara do you mean - Eneolithic (= Copper Age), or Hunter-Gatherer ???

Eneolithic Samara = 3 Khvalynsk samples, and it was indeed ~25% CHG, but it was 4700-4000 BC.

There is also 1 Hunter-Gatherer Samara, which is older - from 5650-5555 BC - and it is ~0% CHG.

In terms of Y-DNA Khvalynsk samples were R1a, R1b and Q. Hunter-Gatherer Samara was R1b.

That hunter-gatherer from Samara had pottery, but had no copper, so it was not Eneolithic.

Tomenable I am talking about the Samara samples which are labeled as "Eneolithic_Samara" in the Spredsheet. So yes they are the Eneolithic_Samara samples and they are listed as ~100% EHG (used as a source population). And as you state yourself they are 25% CHG therefore the calculator eats up CHG ancestry as EHG.
 
Such a comparison of R1a vs. R1b samples from the Eurasian steppe known to date:

Abbreviations used:

EHG = Eastern Hunter-Gatherers
EBA = Early Bronze Age
LBA = Late Bronze Age

Steppe culture:R1a samples:R1b samples:Dates of samples:Approximate location:
Samara EHG
(other EHG)
0 (2)15650-5555 BCSamara region
Khvalynsk114700-3800 BCSamara region,
Khvalynsk II
Yamnaya0113340-2620 BCSamara region,
Buribay, Elista
Poltavka142925-2200 BCSamara region
Stalingrad EBA012857-2497 BCStalingrad Quarry
Xiaohe Tomb complex1102558-1940 BCTarim Basin
Potapovka202469-1900 BCSamara region
Sintashta202298-1896 BCOrenburg,
Chelyabinsk
Srubnaya601850-1200 BCSamara region
Andronovo301800-1298 BCBarnaul, Uzhur,
Abakan
Mezhovskaya111598-700 BCKapova Cave
Karasuk201416-1261 BCAltai Krai
Altai Scythians401371-1011 BCMongolian Altai
Tanais Scythians10older than
1000 BC
Maeotia,
Azov steppe
Afontova Gora LBA10926-815 BCKrasnoyarsk region
Tagar60800 BC -
100 AD
Khakassia, Krasnoyarsk
Pazyryk10450 BCSebystei Valley
Sabinka II
Iron Age
10396-209 BCAltai Krai
Volga Scythians10380-200 BCBalakovo region
Tashtyk10100-400 ADKhakassia
Caucasus Alans10400-600 ADKrasnyy Kurgan region
Saltovo-Mayaki10800-900 ADeastern part of
Belgorod Oblast
TOTAL:47 (2)195650 BC -
900 AD
Eurasian steppes

We can also add 2 Bronze Age R1b samples from the Armenian Plateau (1906-855 BC).

I think that R1a from Xiaohe Tomb complex is going to surprise us!

I can't wait until they finally publish more precise data on subclades.
 
The 2nd oldest (after Khvalynsk) R1a sample from the steppe - Poltavka, dated 2925-2536 BC - is R1a1a1b2a Z94.

According to YFull Z94 formed 4800 ybp (ca. 2800 BC) and its TMRCA was also 4800 ybp (ca. 2800 BC):

http://www.yfull.com/tree/R1a/
 
The 2nd oldest (after Khvalynsk) R1a sample from the steppe - Poltavka, dated 2925-2536 BC - is R1a1a1b2a Z94.

According to YFull Z94 formed 4800 ybp (ca. 2800 BC) and its TMRCA was also 4800 ybp (ca. 2800 BC):

http://www.yfull.com/tree/R1a/

It was luck we got his genome. He represents the first West to East migration of R1a-Z93/proto-Indo Iranians.
 
^ How do we know that got from West to East ??? Due to his autosomal DNA ???
 
One must consider geography of the period. For instance Europe was heavily forested and stones axes wouldn't do the job of clearing the forest. I don't think fire was used to clear the forest either. Most likely it would be the iron age when trees were cut for ships and coke for smelting. So in Bronze Age I doubt the trees were cut. So it would benear water where most of the people lived. It would probably take a whole day or more for a big guy to cut down a 5-foot-diameter or bigger tree as they were probably like that since the end of the Ice Age 5,000 to 10,000 years to Bronze Age.
 
But what is your point, Oriental ???
 
Often he doesn't make one. He is just very social and loves talking to people. ;)

Thank You, LeBrok

Tomenable:
Yes, I am an odd ball. I mostly surf for music and I sometimes respond to posts way back which seems out of place. Anyway, try to picture people in Europe occupying confined spaces so there is going to be a lot of fighting and mixing as well or even isolation for those wanting to find a peaceful existence. The forest would be a good hiding place.

The outcome could be:
1. Male replacement from conflict
2. Mixing of genes
3. Inbreeding from isolated communities that didn't want to fight but hid deep in the forest.
4. There would be frequent temporary and permanent visitors from Asia, Eastern Europe, Africa and Middle East.

That is the kind of mix I can see.
 
Last edited:
Tomenable I am talking about the Samara samples which are labeled as "Eneolithic_Samara" in the Spredsheet. So yes they are the Eneolithic_Samara samples and they are listed as ~100% EHG (used as a source population). And as you state yourself they are 25% CHG therefore the calculator eats up CHG ancestry as EHG.

Is not there a mistake? I don't think Eneolithic/Chalcolithic Samara was classified 100% EHG, or who did that? 100% EHG was the Hunter-Gatherer of 5650/5555 BC I think...
we know 'teal' was already among the Copper Age Yamanya of Samara in other surveys...
 

This thread has been viewed 168117 times.

Back
Top