K12b Autosomal map : West Asian admixture (from Dodecad)

[Maciamo]

As you probably expected, the next map in the series is the West Asian admixture. The link with haplogroup J2 and G2a is undeniable.

What surprised me is the very low West Asian admixture in Iberia, even among Portuguese and Andalusians, and in Sardinia (which has 15% of G2a and 10% of J2). This could imply that the Sardinian and Iberian J2+G2a didn't come from Anatolia, but rather from the Levant, perhaps following the coast of North Africa during the spread of agriculture, but being diluted on the way or soon after mixing with the indigenous population of Iberia.

Here are the maps of J2 and G for comparison.

 

[Knovas]

Ethnic Catalans are really 0% West Asian/Southwest Asian. However, Catalunya actually has enough influences from the rest of the Peninsula to get similar figures, althought must still be a bit lower.

 

[Goga]

As you probably expected, the next map in the series is the West Asian admixture. The link with haplogroup J2 and G2a is undeniable.

Thank you very much! I expected more West Asian admixture in Scandinavia, because I thought that in Scandinavia live much more Indo-Europeans!

What I don't understand is why G2 is West Asian, while R1b is not. According to you G2 was in Europe even before R1b!

So maybe it means that R1b in Europe is not from West Asia, but from somewhere else?

But maybe these kind admixture analyses show much more recent gene flow?

 

[LeBrok]

I'm pretty sure it was explained once before by Maciamo. For these maps it doesn't matter what was, but only matters what is now.

Originally Posted by Goga
Original J1 is not from Southwest Asian, but is West Asian.

It doesn't matter. There is no label on the genes that says "Southwest Asian". It just happened that the J1 population carried genes that are now more common in Southwest Asia, regardless of where they originated.

Another more obvious example is R1b, which probably arose in Central Asia, but spend a long time in the Middle East (late Paleolithic to Neolithic) but is now more common in Western Europe. In the Dodecad admixture, R1b correlates mostly with "West European" but also with "Mediterranean", even though it was absent from Europe until approximately 4500 years ago.

 

[Goga]

I'm pretty sure it was explained once before by Maciamo. For these maps it doesn't matter what was, but only matters what is now.

Ok, but European G2 is older than the European R1b. And it is European now, isn't it? It was in Europe before R1b, according to this site though. Why labelling it as West Asian?

I don't get it...

 

[Maciamo]

Thank you very much! I expected more West Asian admixture in Scandinavia, because I thought that in Scandinavia live much more Indo-Europeans!

And the Balts and Slavs, which are possibly the purest Indo-Europeans of all, have even less West Asian (almost 0% for the Lithuanians). This is an undeniable proof that the Indo-Europeans did not originated in West Asia, as people like Dienekes would want you to believe, but in the Pontic-Caspian steppes, as I have always said.

What I don't understand is why G2 is West Asian, while R1b is not. According to you G2 was in Europe even before R1b!

That is because you confuse the appellations based on the modern distribution with the ancient locations of haplogroups. If you were to test 8000 year-old samples of R1b1b people from northern Anatolia (as was done with Ötzi), and ran them in the Dodecad calculator, it is likely that they would turn out to be "West European", even though there was no R1b in Europe at the time. Dienekes labelled the admixture "West European" because that was where it was more commonly found today (in fact he should have called it "North-West European"). There isn't a sequence in the DNA that says "West European" in it ! We call it whatever we want. The point is, this particular admixture was probably found in northern Anatolia a long time ago, but the people migrated, and it is now found most in North-West Europe. You should think this way for every admixture and every haplogroup. It's easier to think only in modern terms, but it is mistaken. Most people think like you, and that is why most people originally thought that R1b was associated with Cro-Magnon, and why many people now think that R1b came with Neolithic farmers. It's not that easy to redraw the map of population movement through the ages in one's mind.

 

[Goga]

And the Balts and Slavs, which are possibly the purest Indo-Europeans of all, have even less West Asian (almost 0% for the Lithuanians). This is an undeniable proof that the Indo-Europeans did not originated in West Asia, as people like Dienekes would want you to believe, but in the Pontic-Caspian steppes, as I have always said.

???

Are you serious? Are you saying that hg. N and hg. Q in the Baltics were proto-Indo-European? There're only 2 possibilities. Or North Europeans (with very much hg. N) were and still are proto-Indo-European or West Asians (with very much J2) were proto-Indo-European and still are IE folks.
Well, according to many 'western' scientists Europeans are actually NOT 'Indo-European' at all.

Wow, it will be a scoop if people find out that hg. N in the Baltics belonged to proto-Indo-European folks!


"R1a1a influence into India was not from Europe since the M458 marker is rare in India."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1a_(Y-DNA)

Dienekes labelled the admixture "West European" because that was where it was more commonly found today (in fact he should have called it "North-West European"). There isn't a sequence in the DNA that says "West European" in it ! We call it whatever we want. The point is, this particular admixture was probably found in northern Anatolia a long time ago, but the people migrated, and it is now found most in North-West Europe. You should think this way for every admixture and every haplogroup. It's easier to think only in modern terms, but it is mistaken. Most people think like you, and that is why most people originally thought that R1b was associated with Cro-Magnon, and why many people now think that R1b came with Neolithic farmers. It's not that easy to redraw the map of population movement through the ages in one's mind.

Ok, thanks. It's more clear now!

But why labelling hg. E as the Mediterranean if it is mostly common in Africa nowadays? Maybe we speak about an evolved ('European') hg. E1b1b in Europe. Or maybe according to Dienekes Africa is also part of the Mediterranean?

 

[Knovas]

The African Mediterranean is listed as Northwest African, that's what makes more sense. If there's Mediterranean and even some West European between North Africans, it's due to ancient migrations emanating from Europe. Other clades of E, in my opinion, carried West Asian and Southwest Asian in their migration way through the Middle East and Anatolia to Europe, leaving back the African autosomes. That's the case for example of E-M78, wich I think it's autosomally absent considering its ancestral place (probably Northeast Africa), and diluted after mixing during the migration way, and finally in Southern Europe with the indigenous peoples (Med-West-East Euro in different proportions).

Maciamo does not think the same. Pick the explanation you prefer.

 

[Maciamo]

???

Are you serious? Are you saying that hg. N and hg. Q in the Baltics were proto-Indo-European? There're only 2 possibilities. Or North Europeans (with very much hg. N) were and still are proto-Indo-European or West Asians (with very much J2) were proto-Indo-European and still are IE folks.
Well, according to many 'western' scientists Europeans are actually NOT 'Indo-European' at all.

Wow, it will be a scoop if people find out that hg. N in the Baltics belonged to proto-Indo-European folks!

How do you make this kind of stuff up ? Have you not read anything of what I have written in Origins and history of the European haplogroups ?

But why labelling hg. E as the Mediterranean if it is mostly common in Africa nowadays? Maybe we speak about an evolved ('European') hg. E1b1b in Europe. Or maybe according to Dienekes Africa is also part of the Mediterranean?

What are you talking about ? E is not the same as E-M78.

 

[Goga]

How do you make this kind of stuff up ? Have you not read anything of what I have written in Origins and history of the European haplogroups ?

According to you Balts and Slavs are possibly the purest Indo-Europeans. But nobody else except you ever claimed that!

The biggest haplogroup in Balts is N1c1, the second biggest and almost as big as N is R1a. So you assume that proto-IE were R1a & R1b folks? But are you SURE that proto-IE were R1a & R1b? Also it is very doubtful that proto-IE had only R1* haplogroup.

I do believe that the Balts are after the Finns the most Ugrian/Uralo-Finnic peoples in Europe. Even more than Hungarians (Ugrians)! I mean they have almost 40% of N, while 38% of R1a. I do also believe that part of R1a in the Baltics has a Finno-Ugric origin.

I think that proto-IE were more than just R1* folks. I think they had very much J2 & G2 in them too.
Actually I believe that the proto-IE were like NON-Indo-European, but Caucasian modern day Georgians!


If Balts and Slavs are the purest Indo-Europeans than I'm from Planet X. But this is just my opinion.

 

[julia90]

What is considered west asia? Anatolia?

 

[Knovas]

Genetically speaking, the component has its major frequency in the Caucasus (Georgians). You can consider this geographical point if you want.

 

[Maciamo]

According to you Balts and Slavs are possibly the purest Indo-Europeans. But nobody else except you ever claimed that!

The biggest haplogroup in Balts is N1c1, the second biggest and almost as big as N is R1a. So you assume that proto-IE were R1a & R1b folks? But are you SURE that proto-IE were R1a & R1b? Also it is very doubtful that proto-IE had only R1* haplogroup.

I do believe that the Balts are after the Finns the most Ugrian/Uralo-Finnic peoples in Europe. Even more than Hungarians (Ugrians)! I mean they have almost 40% of N, while 38% of R1a. I do also believe that part of R1a in the Baltics has a Finno-Ugric origin.

I think that proto-IE were more than just R1* folks. I think they had very much J2 & G2 in them too.
Actually I believe that the proto-IE were like NON-Indo-European, but Caucasian modern day Georgians!


If Balts and Slavs are the purest Indo-Europeans than I'm from Planet X. But this is just my opinion.

Linguistically, the Balto-Slavic branch of IE languages is the purest, the one with the least outside influence and probably closest to Proto-IE. I doubt that it is a coincidence that the Proto-IE homeland is now in Slavic territory, and that the Slavs and Balts have such a high percentage of West and East European admixture.

Greek and Latin have influences from West Asian languages (associated to J2 peoples) like Etruscan or Minoan, but also from Southwest Asian/Semitic languages (related to E1b1b, T and J1). For example, the Latin for cow is vacca (same in modern Italian, vaca in Spanish, vache in French) related to the Biblical Hebrew is baqar, in modern Arabic baqara, but not to the PIE *gwous.

Celtic languages share grammatical structures with Afro-Asiatic languages, surely an influence of pre-IE people, which could have included a great number of Paleolithic E1b1b (Mediterranean admixture in Dodecad).

Germanic languages have a big share of their vocabulary that comes from Nordic pre-IE languages (presumably spoken by I1 and/or I2b people).

Indo-Iranian languages were influenced by native South Asian languages (Elamite, Dravidian...), linked with hg G1, J2, T, L, H and R2.

 

[Goga]

Linguistically, the Balto-Slavic branch of IE languages is the purest, the one with the least outside influence and probably closest to Proto-IE. I doubt that it is a coincidence that the Proto-IE homeland is now in Slavic territory, and that the Slavs and Balts have such a high percentage of West and East European admixture.

Greek and Latin have influences from West Asian languages (associated to J2 peoples) like Etruscan or Minoan, but also from Southwest Asian/Semitic languages (related to E1b1b, T and J1). For example, the Latin for cow is vacca (same in modern Italian, vaca in Spanish, vache in French) related to the Biblical Hebrew is baqar, in modern Arabic baqara, but not to the PIE *gwous.

Celtic languages share grammatical structures with Afro-Asiatic languages, surely an influence of pre-IE people, which could have included a great number of Paleolithic E1b1b (Mediterranean admixture in Dodecad).

Germanic languages have a big share of their vocabulary that comes from Nordic pre-IE languages (presumably spoken by I1 and/or I2b people).

Indo-Iranian languages were influenced by native South Asian languages (Elamite, Dravidian...), linked with hg G1, J2, T, L, H and R2.

With all due respect I think that you're wrong big time. Yes, maybe the Baltics are the purest Europeans, but that doesn't mean they are the purest Indo-Europeans. Take Lapland and the Sami people. I think they're the purest and the true native folks of northern Europe

Scandinavians and the Baltics share a lot DNA with Sami people. My point is that Sami people are maybe 100% North European, but they aren't Indo-Europeans at all. I mean Sami folks are even more pure European that the Balts, are Sami more Indo European?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_people

The Balts are actually Finno-Ugric folks who just speak an IE language. I don't know, maybe they speak the purest IE language, it says NOTHING about their DNA. No way these Finno-Ugric people are the closest people to the original Indo-Europeans. Balts were like Sami peoples who were influenced by the Indo-European from West and Central Asia!

Everybody is mixed. And I'm not saying that Iranics are the purest Indo-Europeans. That just be very wrong and I don't dare to declare such crazy wild fantasy things.

My point is that the original Indo-Europeans came from West Asia, and that they had very much of J2 and G2 in them.

No way these Finno-Ugric Balts who juist speak an Indo-European language are the closest people to the original Indo-Europeans! With all due respect, but I think you're a little bit confused.

 

[Goga]

(Baltic) Estonian is by the way an Uralic language (Finno-Ugric). Very close related to Finnish. and not IE at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uralic_languages


'It is a Uralic language and is closely related to Finnish.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonian_language



Have you noticed that pure Nordic European Finno-Ugric peoples don't have any West Asian admixture? These Nordic European Finno-Ugric peoples have nothing in common with the original Indo-Europeans!

 

[Knovas]

The Finns show 0.8% West Asian, wich is probably noise. Norway and Sweeden are a different story, just point most Sami people are far from being pure Nordics since they carry Mongoloid genes and, I asume, in a substantial degree in quite cases (average Finns also have).

The Baltics are the most purest Nordics (mostly Northeast) even having a bit more Mediterranean, and they really show noise levels of West Asian admixture according to the last run. But keep in mind results sometimes change from a run to another, cheking K=10 or the other K=12 you can see slightly different interpretations.

 

[Goga]

What you do consider 'Mongoloid' is actually native North European! Haplogroup N is actually native to North Europe and European Nordics.

The European Nordics are actually closer to Finno-Ugric folks than to the orginal proto-Indo-Europeans from West Asia.

These 2 maps tell million stories and are actually the EVIDENCE that proto-Indo-Europeans came from West Asia, since Finno-Ugric NATIVE Nordic Europeans lack West ASIAN component!


West Asian admixture:

 

[Knovas]

What the hell areyou saying? of course they have Mongoloid genes, don't be ignorant please and check the Finnish Northeast + Southeast Asian average: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...owN3M3UWRyNnc&hl=en_US&authkey=COCa89AJ#gid=0

I'll do the job for you: 5.9% + 08% = 6.7%

Not noise, it's real, and I'm sure most Samis show even higher percents. However, want to point that in comparison with the total European score (more than 90%) that's not huge. But of course the genes are present, and some individuals can show Mongoloid tratis due to this.

 

[Goga]

What the hell areyou saying? of course they have Mongoloid genes, don't be ignorant please and check the Finnish Northeast + Southeast Asian average: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...owN3M3UWRyNnc&hl=en_US&authkey=COCa89AJ#gid=0

I'll do the job for you: 5.9% + 08% = 6.7%

Not noise, it's real, and I'm sure most Samis show even higher percents. However, want to point that in comparison with the total European score (more than 90%) that's not huge. But of course the genes are present, and some individuals can show Mongoloid tratis due to this.

What're talking about? Sami ARE the most NATIVE and INDIGENOUS inhabitants of Northern Europe! Sami are 100% PURE NORDICS! And they're absolutely NOT Indo-European!

 

[Knovas]

Keep dreaming man, this is something you simply invented. Think what you want, I don't care.