MOESAN
Elite member
- Messages
- 5,885
- Reaction score
- 1,294
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Brittany
- Ethnic group
- more celtic
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- R1b - L21/S145*
- mtDNA haplogroup
- H3c
first answer
@Johen
I don?t know what you call ?Modern Europeans? - modern, OK ; ?Europeans?: western and central ones ?
- This study is a metric one, so, cumulative measures on an axis and on another, without individual research of typology or shapes ? the result is that the author found some relative homogeneity within and and between Steppes tribes of North Central Asia as opposed to relative different homogeneity within and between BMAC pops of the pre- and early metals ages ; the results are that she shows a change between 2000 and 1500 BCE in the BMAC region in the pop, distinguishable thanks to the neat enough mean differecnes between previous Steppes and BMAC pops ; change we may put on the account of a steppic tribes introgression into South, even if not overwhelming but rather moderate and maybe progressive -
- this could be put in relation with auDNA modifications in the same period -
- this kind of metric survey cannot witness for phenotypical types because it speaks of global population and not of supposed earlier elements taking part in the population genesis ; it compares only means, for the most ? so, taking as basis two pops, it speaks only of two pops -
- this notion of pops is arbitrary as well as the notion of type, but s based on chronologic and geographical criteria ;
- if your tracking modern ?Europeans? origins here, it depends on the depth of your exigences : phenotypical types or basic autosomals groups as defined by mainstream studies? Phenotypically, Europeans, as they are at the autosomal level, are a mix of several groups or groupings ? roughly said, they share almost the same basis but in different proportions -
- they cannot be reduced to one of the two groups of pops present in this study ; autosomatically they share in diverse proportions ?steppe? and ?EEF? (very close to anatolian ?ANF? ? first mediters ?) + some elements of ?WHG? ? but ?steppe? is a compound of ?CHG? + ?EHG? ? cousins ? of ?WHG? and ?CHG? is ? cousin ? to the basis of the BMAC pop as a whole, as I know you know - ancient pops speaking it seems according to scholars that today Europeans are principally the result of a cumul of waves like this : ?WHG? (rather limited in number), EEF farmers (numerous enough) and Steppes herders (numerous enough too), % depending on places, + some Anatolians carrying ?ANF and CHG? - spite formed of ?CHG?like (much) and ?ANF?like (litttle) people, historically speaking we cannot say our ? Europeans ? have BMAC distinguishable input ? it?s a question of historical common sense, spite we can say we share some % of common ancestors more remotely in time -
- on the typologic side, visible phenotypical traits evolving sometimes faster than global auDNA, Europeans of today are very more diverse in their crossings and cannot be reduced to two or even three groups ? BTW this study conclusion does not go into individual details but concerning within homogeneity of both groups, we can be sure that Steppes tribes were rather similar but far to be identical in space and time ? by instance some metric traits are close between WSHG (?proto-uralic?) and ?proto-europoids? spite shapes were different in details, and the input of southern pops were visible too in diverse proportions among Steppes tribes -
To do short, Europeans have little in common with ancient BMAC people, and uniquely by older ancestots, and are also not so close to the Steppes mean, except in Northern Europe -
- at the phenotypical level, this study fails (by definition ; as its aim seems being elsewhere) to show the proximity of some steppic pops with Northwestern and Central Euroepean Chalco?EBA pops, proximity not discarded by autosomals studies -
@Johen
I don?t know what you call ?Modern Europeans? - modern, OK ; ?Europeans?: western and central ones ?
- This study is a metric one, so, cumulative measures on an axis and on another, without individual research of typology or shapes ? the result is that the author found some relative homogeneity within and and between Steppes tribes of North Central Asia as opposed to relative different homogeneity within and between BMAC pops of the pre- and early metals ages ; the results are that she shows a change between 2000 and 1500 BCE in the BMAC region in the pop, distinguishable thanks to the neat enough mean differecnes between previous Steppes and BMAC pops ; change we may put on the account of a steppic tribes introgression into South, even if not overwhelming but rather moderate and maybe progressive -
- this could be put in relation with auDNA modifications in the same period -
- this kind of metric survey cannot witness for phenotypical types because it speaks of global population and not of supposed earlier elements taking part in the population genesis ; it compares only means, for the most ? so, taking as basis two pops, it speaks only of two pops -
- this notion of pops is arbitrary as well as the notion of type, but s based on chronologic and geographical criteria ;
- if your tracking modern ?Europeans? origins here, it depends on the depth of your exigences : phenotypical types or basic autosomals groups as defined by mainstream studies? Phenotypically, Europeans, as they are at the autosomal level, are a mix of several groups or groupings ? roughly said, they share almost the same basis but in different proportions -
- they cannot be reduced to one of the two groups of pops present in this study ; autosomatically they share in diverse proportions ?steppe? and ?EEF? (very close to anatolian ?ANF? ? first mediters ?) + some elements of ?WHG? ? but ?steppe? is a compound of ?CHG? + ?EHG? ? cousins ? of ?WHG? and ?CHG? is ? cousin ? to the basis of the BMAC pop as a whole, as I know you know - ancient pops speaking it seems according to scholars that today Europeans are principally the result of a cumul of waves like this : ?WHG? (rather limited in number), EEF farmers (numerous enough) and Steppes herders (numerous enough too), % depending on places, + some Anatolians carrying ?ANF and CHG? - spite formed of ?CHG?like (much) and ?ANF?like (litttle) people, historically speaking we cannot say our ? Europeans ? have BMAC distinguishable input ? it?s a question of historical common sense, spite we can say we share some % of common ancestors more remotely in time -
- on the typologic side, visible phenotypical traits evolving sometimes faster than global auDNA, Europeans of today are very more diverse in their crossings and cannot be reduced to two or even three groups ? BTW this study conclusion does not go into individual details but concerning within homogeneity of both groups, we can be sure that Steppes tribes were rather similar but far to be identical in space and time ? by instance some metric traits are close between WSHG (?proto-uralic?) and ?proto-europoids? spite shapes were different in details, and the input of southern pops were visible too in diverse proportions among Steppes tribes -
To do short, Europeans have little in common with ancient BMAC people, and uniquely by older ancestots, and are also not so close to the Steppes mean, except in Northern Europe -
- at the phenotypical level, this study fails (by definition ; as its aim seems being elsewhere) to show the proximity of some steppic pops with Northwestern and Central Euroepean Chalco?EBA pops, proximity not discarded by autosomals studies -