Mapping admixtures

[LeBrok]

so English people had a lot of Welsh but French people has a lot of English without Welsh.....................................
I'm too old!...
my poor brain is heating too much when I try to understand these "admixtures" calculations - as others here I have the impression carrots, potatoes and bananas have been mixed -
perhaps the new basic elements of comparisons are banarrots, potananas, carrotoes, potarrotonas...??? I'm going to take my pills and go to bed without supper nor even a drink!
I'm destroyed!

I have my issues with the conclusions drawn in this paper, but even with papers that make sense to me, like Lazaridis et al or Ralph and Coop, while I try to blunder through the math, at a certain point I just have to take it on faith...that or spend all my time on this. I thought I was pretty good at mathematics, but either I've forgotten a lot, or they've gone beyond me, lol.

Lol, it sounds so human and you make my heart soft. This surely takes extreme brain gymnastics.
Thanks for opening up.

 

[Sile]

I have my issues with the conclusions drawn in this paper, but even with papers that make sense to me, like Lazaridis et al or Ralph and Coop, while I try to blunder through the math, at a certain point I just have to take it on faith...that or spend all my time on this. I thought I was pretty good at mathematics, but either I've forgotten a lot, or they've gone beyond me, lol.

What maths do you need?

The arrows go in one direction..........example some of Tuscany ( arrow going to tuscany )
English (18.6%)GermanyAustria (15.0%)Welsh (8.1%)NorthItalian (6.5%)French (4.4%

You don't expect 15.0% of tuscans to go back to Germany..........do you.? the 15% germans would be replaced by someone else. That shows how migrations work

Basically each marker is separate and not aligned with each other...makes sense to me

 

[Vallicanus]

Why trust a genetic atlas with samples of SIX or EIGHT!

 

[ebAmerican]

For instance 'Scottish' has overwhelming 'Irish' ancestry (no surprise), but 'Welsh' have zero 'Irish'.
The 'Welsh' are about half 'Italian', but 'Scottish' are zero 'Italian'.
That makes no sense. Or it shows only very recent admixtures.
Interesting though again the 'Baloch' and 'Lezgin' link for 'Scottish'.

The Welsh dilemma is kind of a stumper, seeing that 10% of Brits have an Irish grandparent. The sample is realy small only 4 individuals. Going through the different nationalities most samples are small. I don't see how 50 samples could give you an accurate picture of an entire countries autosomal picture. It's a start and will be interesting to periodically take a look and see if their sample base increases.

 

[tjlowery87]

they didnt add the dutch,danes or belguim

 

[Angela]

What maths do you need?

The arrows go in one direction..........example some of Tuscany ( arrow going to tuscany )
English (18.6%)GermanyAustria (15.0%)Welsh (8.1%)NorthItalian (6.5%)French (4.4%

You don't expect 15.0% of tuscans to go back to Germany..........do you.? the 15% germans would be replaced by someone else. That shows how migrations work

Basically each marker is separate and not aligned with each other...makes sense to me

I don't blindly accept a paper's conclusions. I always at least attempt to check the assumptions, the methodology, the programs, and yes, the mathematics.

As for the direction of flow, I believe it was you who said the flow went both ways. I don't think I ever made any such claim.

I have a few issues with the conclusions drawn by the authors of this paper as regards Italy. For one, let's take the postulated date for the admixture (in the 900's) in Toscana. There is no large migration into the area in that century. The closest might be the Lombards, but the Duchy of Tuscia was constituted by them in the year 570, centered around their capital in Lucca. Now, as the Lombards initially instituted various laws against intermarriage between themselves and the "Romans", perhaps one could say the intermarriage only happened later? Still, the sources with which I'm familiar hold that the amalgamation of Langobard and Roman was well underway within a hundred years of the invasion. Or, maybe it was the arrival of the Frankish elite which led to the amalgamation of the Romans and the Lombards. Still, even that occurred in the 700's.

This online book provides quite a bit of good detail about the period:
http://books.google.com/books?id=lA...age&q=How many Lombards invaded Italy&f=false

As does this book by Patrick Geary:
http://books.google.com/books?id=A2... time of the invasion by the Lombards&f=false

Also, what is one to make of the fact that while 15% of the Tuscan genome is attributed to "Germans", 18.6% is English, and 8.1% is "Welsh". (Let's ignore the French, Basque etc. and other minor components for now.) Assuming for the moment that this almost 27% of the genome(English and Welsh) is attributable to general central European "Celtic"/"Germanic" alleles, are we supposed to assume that these elements were part of the greater Langobard genome that arrived in Italy in the sixth century? I know that the Langobards picked up other tribes in their migrations, but we've had no indication that they were such a large percentage of the general Langobard force.

There's also the fact that given the numbers posited for the Langobards and assorted barbarian tribes involved in the sixth century invasion, you would have to assume an almost complete depopulation of the Italian peninsula for that number of people to have this kind of genomic effect. There is indeed controversy as to the the numbers of people that remained in the peninsula after the horrors of the Gothic Wars and the attendant famine and disease, but even the most pessimistic accounts put the number in the millions. I think we can take some of Paul the Deacon's account as hyperbole.

A discussion of the small numbers involved in the Lombard invasion can be found here:
http://rbedrosian.com/Ref/Bury/ieb14.htm

So, while the authors of this paper claim that their dating method is far superior to the results available from the Roll-Off program, I'm not convinced.

The results also would seem to conflict with the IBD analysis by Ralph and Coop, who see no admixture in these areas of Italy after the arrival of the Gauls or Celts in the first millennium B.C. Then, there's the conflict with the findings of Lazaridis et al. How could the northern Italians, who are about 70% (?) EEF have 63% of their ancestry from north of the Alps?

While in the end they may be proven to be correct, as things stand now, some things don't quite add up.

 

[Sile]

I don't blindly accept a paper's conclusions. I always at least attempt to check the assumptions, the methodology, the programs, and yes, the mathematics.

As for the direction of flow, I believe it was you who said the flow went both ways. I don't think I ever made any such claim.

I have a few issues with the conclusions drawn by the authors of this paper as regards Italy. For one, let's take the postulated date for the admixture (in the 900's) in Toscana. There is no large migration into the area in that century. The closest might be the Lombards, but the Duchy of Tuscia was constituted by them in the year 570, centered around their capital in Lucca. Now, as the Lombards initially instituted various laws against intermarriage between themselves and the "Romans", perhaps one could say the intermarriage only happened later? Still, the sources with which I'm familiar hold that the amalgamation of Langobard and Roman was well underway within a hundred years of the invasion. Or, maybe it was the arrival of the Frankish elite which led to the amalgamation of the Romans and the Lombards. Still, even that occurred in the 700's.

This online book provides quite a bit of good detail about the period:
http://books.google.com/books?id=lA...age&q=How many Lombards invaded Italy&f=false

As does this book by Patrick Geary:
http://books.google.com/books?id=A2... time of the invasion by the Lombards&f=false

Also, what is one to make of the fact that while 15% of the Tuscan genome is attributed to "Germans", 18.6% is English, and 8.1% is "Welsh". (Let's ignore the French, Basque etc. and other minor components for now.) Assuming for the moment that this almost 27% of the genome(English and Welsh) is attributable to general central European "Celtic"/"Germanic" alleles, are we supposed to assume that these elements were part of the greater Langobard genome that arrived in Italy in the sixth century? I know that the Langobards picked up other tribes in their migrations, but we've had no indication that they were such a large percentage of the general Langobard force.

There's also the fact that given the numbers posited for the Langobards and assorted barbarian tribes involved in the sixth century invasion, you would have to assume an almost complete depopulation of the Italian peninsula for that number of people to have this kind of genomic effect. There is indeed controversy as to the the numbers of people that remained in the peninsula after the horrors of the Gothic Wars and the attendant famine and disease, but even the most pessimistic accounts put the number in the millions. I think we can take some of Paul the Deacon's account as hyperbole.

A discussion of the small numbers involved in the Lombard invasion can be found here:
http://rbedrosian.com/Ref/Bury/ieb14.htm

So, while the authors of this paper claim that their dating method is far superior to the results available from the Roll-Off program, I'm not convinced.

The results also would seem to conflict with the IBD analysis by Ralph and Coop, who see no admixture in these areas of Italy after the arrival of the Gauls or Celts in the first millennium B.C. Then, there's the conflict with the findings of Lazaridis et al. How could the northern Italians, who are about 70% (?) EEF have 63% of their ancestry from north of the Alps?

While in the end they may be proven to be correct, as things stand now, some things don't quite add up.

I don't blindly accept a paper's conclusions. I always at least attempt to check the assumptions, the methodology, the programs, and yes, the mathematics.

As for the direction of flow, I believe it was you who said the flow went both ways. I don't think I ever made any such claim.

I have a few issues with the conclusions drawn by the authors of this paper as regards Italy. For one, let's take the postulated date for the admixture (in the 900's) in Toscana. There is no large migration into the area in that century. The closest might be the Lombards, but the Duchy of Tuscia was constituted by them in the year 570, centered around their capital in Lucca. Now, as the Lombards initially instituted various laws against intermarriage between themselves and the "Romans", perhaps one could say the intermarriage only happened later? Still, the sources with which I'm familiar hold that the amalgamation of Langobard and Roman was well underway within a hundred years of the invasion. Or, maybe it was the arrival of the Frankish elite which led to the amalgamation of the Romans and the Lombards. Still, even that occurred in the 700's.

This online book provides quite a bit of good detail about the period:
http://books.google.com/books?id=lA...age&q=How many Lombards invaded Italy&f=false
[/QUOTE]

Yes, it was I in error, but after re-reading it , it is only way way traffic.

As per your tuscan time frame, it states between 400AD to 1200AD. The north-italian component with german included in it was most likely be Lombard with Rugii and Heruli with it ( lombards -milan area, Rugii-east lake garda area and heruli = Concordia-friuli area), the others would be the remains of the ostro-goths. Do you know how many samples?


As does this book by Patrick Geary:
http://books.google.com/books?id=A2... time of the invasion by the Lombards&f=false

Also, what is one to make of the fact that while 15% of the Tuscan genome is attributed to "Germans", 18.6% is English, and 8.1% is "Welsh". (Let's ignore the French, Basque etc. and other minor components for now.) Assuming for the moment that this almost 27% of the genome(English and Welsh) is attributable to general central European "Celtic"/"Germanic" alleles, are we supposed to assume that these elements were part of the greater Langobard genome that arrived in Italy in the sixth century? I know that the Langobards picked up other tribes in their migrations, but we've had no indication that they were such a large percentage of the general Langobard force.

you have burgundian, frankish ( swabia and alemanni ), the welsh is celt and the english..unsure

There's also the fact that given the numbers posited for the Langobards and assorted barbarian tribes involved in the sixth century invasion, you would have to assume an almost complete depopulation of the Italian peninsula for that number of people to have this kind of genomic effect. There is indeed controversy as to the the numbers of people that remained in the peninsula after the horrors of the Gothic Wars and the attendant famine and disease, but even the most pessimistic accounts put the number in the millions. I think we can take some of Paul the Deacon's account as hyperbole.

there was only about 150,000 lombards, the rest where others.

A discussion of the small numbers involved in the Lombard invasion can be found here:
http://rbedrosian.com/Ref/Bury/ieb14.htm

So, while the authors of this paper claim that their dating method is far superior to the results available from the Roll-Off program, I'm not convinced.

The results also would seem to conflict with the IBD analysis by Ralph and Coop, who see no admixture in these areas of Italy after the arrival of the Gauls or Celts in the first millennium B.C. Then, there's the conflict with the findings of Lazaridis et al. How could the northern Italians, who are about 70% (?) EEF have 63% of their ancestry from north of the Alps?

While in the end they may be proven to be correct, as things stand now, some things don't quite add up.[/QUOTE]

I imagine , the more samples they use over time the more accurate it will be

 

[Sile]

granted there are not many samples and as yet I cannot get full access to the paper.

some access I can see

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE53626

http://www.admixturemap.paintmychromosomes.com/

[url]http://www.mpg.de/7910586/human-genetic-history-map


[/URL]

 

[Greying Wanderer]

@Angela

The three (non-expert) random thoughts i had about this were

1) What effect does speed have on the timing? A Roman foundation myth type admixture event would be very fast but what if populations A / B are adjacent plains / mountain people and only inter-marry very slowly over many centuries?

2) Similar to the above what effect might selection in place have? Example, one population conquers another but the female part of the conquered population has some beneficial trait so over time although the male proportion of the conquering population increases as you might expect the female side of the conquered population increases in frequency also.

3) What happens if you have multiple unfinished admixture events like point (1) in the same region e.g. your Tuscan example, assume for the sake of argument the "Welsh" component is a Ligurian substrate, the "English" is a Gallo-Celt substrate and the "German" is the Lombards all from different time periods. How might that jumble up the admixture date? Might they all be timed to the last event?

 

[Angela]

@Angela

The three (non-expert) random thoughts i had about this were

1) What effect does speed have on the timing? A Roman foundation myth type admixture event would be very fast but what if populations A / B are adjacent plains / mountain people and only inter-marry very slowly over many centuries?

2) Similar to the above what effect might selection in place have? Example, one population conquers another but the female part of the conquered population has some beneficial trait so over time although the male proportion of the conquering population increases as you might expect the female side of the conquered population increases in frequency also.

3) What happens if you have multiple unfinished admixture events like point (1) in the same region e.g. your Tuscan example, assume for the sake of argument the "Welsh" component is a Ligurian substrate, the "English" is a Gallo-Celt substrate and the "German" is the Lombards all from different time periods. How might that jumble up the admixture date? Might they all be timed to the last event?

I agree with all three of your points. One of my main issues is with their dating. Roll-off, imo, produces a date which corresponds only to the last date of admixture. Despite the protestations of the authors that their dating methodology is superior to Roll-off, I think it suffers from the same problem. Another example of the issue I have with the dating is the fact that the northern Italian admixture event is dated to to the time of the Gallic migration, which makes sense, but the admixture event is so much later for the Tuscans. Also, such an early admixture date for the northern Italians leaves the Lombards out altogether.

Sticking with the Tuscan example, the Welsh and some of the English alleles might have come to Tuscany with the Italic peoples who spoke a related language to Celtic, or, as you say, from the Ligures, who were at least partly Indo European according to the latest analysis of their language. That gene flow would have been enriched by the Gallic invasions. Then, I can make sense of the about 15% Germanic by attributing it to the Lombards, although, as I said, Ralph and Coop found no admixture after the Gauls, and the Lombard influence has always been held to have been the greatest in Friuli and the Veneto, and to a lesser extent, Lombardia.

I'm still rather surprised by this 55% number for northern admixture in Tuscans, and 63% in northern Italians, but it's possible, I suppose, although as I said, that seems to contradict the EEF number for northern Italians and Tuscans as per Lazaridis et al.

Perhaps when they have some more samples, and they fix up their dating methodology, this will make more sense.

Oh, as to your point number 2, I don't know that it would apply to northern Italy and Toscana, at least as applies to the Gallic and Lombard invasions. Both were more in the nature of folk movements. The Ostrogoths, Huns, etc., were more in the nature of small bands of warriors. I doubt they had much of a genomic impact at all. The Indo-Europeans, I don't know. I think that whole migration needs to be fleshed out by a lot of ancient DNA.

 

[MOESAN]

What maths do you need?

The arrows go in one direction..........example some of Tuscany ( arrow going to tuscany )
English (18.6%)GermanyAustria (15.0%)Welsh (8.1%)NorthItalian (6.5%)French (4.4%

You don't expect 15.0% of tuscans to go back to Germany..........do you.? the 15% germans would be replaced by someone else. That shows how migrations work

Basically each marker is separate and not aligned with each other...makes sense to me

sorry but making maths with not well identified elements (or worst: varying elements) cannot send us very far ... or too far!) the 'english' elements in Italy are surely only SOME of the elements that produced "english" population and reached Italy WITHOUT BEING PASSED THROUGH England at any time, for the most: what worth for History of populations moves???... Or I'm an idiot (possible too: it will never distroy my appetite for life)

 

[Sile]

maybe this link below is a better guide

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ejhg20141a.html



here are where samples and fst placements are from
Suppl. Table 1. Populations are shown with their geographic centres, obtained from [17], and the latitudes and longitudes of those centres [18]

Population	City	Latitude	Longitude
Czech Republic	Cihost	49.74​	15.34​
Finland	Kajaani	64.23​	27.73​
France	Paris	48.52​	2.2​
Germany	Thuringen	51.01​	10.85​
Greece	Delphi	38.48​	22.49​
North Italy	Verona	45.44​	10.99​
South Italy	Naples	41.54​	12.29​
Netherlands	Utrecht	52.09​	5.12​
Norway	Ogndalsfjella	64.02​	11.53​
Poland	Piatek	52.07​	19.48​
Spain	Madrid	40.24​	3.41​
Sweden	Flataklocken	62.38​	16.3​
UK	Slaidburn	53.98​	-2.45

 

[Angela]

Sile;426903]maybe this link below is a better guide

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ejhg20141a.html

Thanks for the link to this paper. I'll read it this week-end.

Meanwhile, I did look at a couple of the figures. Could you check the legend on the PCA's? I'm slightly color blind so I might be getting this wrong, but it seems as if they have the Northern Italy and Southern Italy labels switched.

 

[Sile]

looks fine

But only 4 Germans where tested, so this portion is exaggerated and also means others that replaced German are exaggerated .

only 8 tuscans tested

12 north -italians

28 french .................indicates not much migration from there

 

[Greying Wanderer]

@Angela

"I'm still rather surprised by this 55% number for northern admixture in Tuscans, and 63% in northern Italians, but it's possible, I suppose, although as I said, that seems to contradict the EEF number for northern Italians and Tuscans as per Lazaridis et al."

Isn't EEF 50% basal and 50% WHG (or WHG-like)?

.

"Oh, as to your point number 2, I don't know that it would apply to northern Italy and Toscana"

Yeah I was thinking more central Europe. If LBK was over-run but x% of the female side remained and if the farmers had lots of useful genes then it seems plausible that the farmer proportion might increase over time through the female line. This might not effect the admixture calcs but I wondered if an increasing mixture - say from 20% to 40% - through a process of selection in place might show up as admixture with a skewed date - if you see what I mean.

 

[Angela]

@Angela

"I'm still rather surprised by this 55% number for northern admixture in Tuscans, and 63% in northern Italians, but it's possible, I suppose, although as I said, that seems to contradict the EEF number for northern Italians and Tuscans as per Lazaridis et al."

Isn't EEF 50% basal and 50% WHG (or WHG-like)?

.

"Oh, as to your point number 2, I don't know that it would apply to northern Italy and Toscana"

Yeah I was thinking more central Europe. If LBK was over-run but x% of the female side remained and if the farmers had lots of useful genes then it seems plausible that the farmer proportion might increase over time through the female line. This might not effect the admixture calcs but I wondered if an increasing mixture - say from 20% to 40% - through a process of selection in place might show up as admixture with a skewed date - if you see what I mean.

EEF, which is represented by the Stuttgart woman, is approximately 44% Basal Eurasian, and the rest is West Eurasian on their charts. Their analysis indicated that some proportion of that West Eurasian is probably attributable to WHG, but they were unable to specifically quantify the amount, because we don't yet have a genome from a West Asian farmer. Their range for that WHG component is from 2 to 32%. In some parts of the paper they use an average amount of about 18%. If we use that figure, then EEF is 44% Basal Eurasian, 18% WHG, and 38% ancestral West Eurasian.

What I was looking at is the EEF score for Northern Italians currently, which is about 70%. If I remember correctly, the EEF score for the Germans and the English hovers around the 50% mark.
If I accept the conclusion of this paper we are currently discussing, there was a major admixture event in the middle of the first millennium B.C. in northern Italy, which would correlate with the Gallic invasions. Let's assume for a moment that the population of northern Italy at that time was 100% EEF, or close to it. Now, I think we could use the current 50% figure for the EEF of the invaders, as there has been no migration from the south into the north since that time. Therefore, one of my questions is...would the admixture of a 50% EEF population with a 100% EEF population result in a population that is currently 70% EEF? I think, generally, that isn't a bad figure.

However, wouldn't a population in which 63% of the alleles can be attributed to populations north of the Alps be less EEF? Somewhere around 55% perhaps? That's why that 63% "northern" figure seems high to me.

The only way it would make sense is if their dating program is off, and the northern alleles also arrived with the Indo-European Italics, and therefore the northern Italians already had some amount of northern alleles by the time of the Gallic invasions. This would all apply to the Tuscans as well, just at a slightly lower level, since they show up in this paper as a 55% generally "northern" people.

There, I've now convinced myself that the admixture levels are reasonable so long as the dating program is incorrect.

If I've gone wrong somewhere, I hope someone will post and point out the errors.


As to your point about the LBK, I think I understand what you're getting at, but if you're speaking about the late Neolithic/early metal ages intrusions supposedly attributable to the Indo-Europeans, it seems to me that the mtDNA evidence shows that they didn't bring all that much new mtDNA into Europe. See:
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/10/ancient-central-european-mtdna-across.html

In fact, I'm leaning toward the view that the "Indo-Europeans" probably already had an EEF component, as well as ANE and probably WHG. The exact proportions will of course have to wait for genome sequencing of some of them. And I hope they sequence samples not only from the steppe and the line of kurgans into Hungary, but from the population(s) that moved on from there, if they can find traces of them. As these people moved west, they probably absorbed more and more of the EEF from the people they encountered. After all, how else would Germans wind up about 50% EEF?

I also don't think that admixture works in the way that you envisage. The alleles attributable to the ability to digest lactose, or for light skin, or other such advantageous adaptations for a neolithic diet in central and northern Europe account for only a very small percentage of the autosomes.

 

[Angela]

looks fine

But only 4 Germans where tested, so this portion is exaggerated and also means others that replaced German are exaggerated .

only 8 tuscans tested

12 north -italians

28 french .................indicates not much migration from there

Sile, they definitely screwed it up. Hard to believe, I know, but look at the page of fst results:
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/fig_tab/ejhg20141t3.html#figure-title

It's the northern Italians who should have an FST distance to the Spanish, the French, and the Greeks of .001, and to the Germans of .002.

And it's the southern Italians who should have an FST of .001 to the Greeks, .002 to the Spanish, .003 to the French, and .004 to the Germans.

Otherwise, everything we know about Italian genetics and European genetics would be wrong.

Similarly, on the PCA plot, it's the northern Italians who should be overlapping with the Spanish and the French, not the southern Italians. The colors and the labels would indicate that the southerners plot further north than the northern Italians.
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/fig_tab/ejhg20141f2.html#figure-title

It's disgraceful when you think about it. This isn't even a preview...it's gone through peer review, supposedly.

Anyway, I noticed a few interesting things about the graphic:
l. The range in the southern Italian samples is interesting, larger than I thought it would be...a lot of variation there.

2. I also found it interesting that in this analysis the British seem to overlap much more with the Germans than with the French.

3. The Finns are even further away from other European populations in this analysis than in others I've seen.

Of course, PCA's are limited in their usefulness because they only show the first two principal components. Also, I always find the intra-European ones rather misleading. If you threw in east Asian and SSA populations and made it a global PCA, the positioning would change.

 

[Greying Wanderer]

@Angela

"I also don't think that admixture works in the way that you envisage. The alleles attributable to the ability to digest lactose, or for light skin, or other such advantageous adaptations for a neolithic diet in central and northern Europe account for only a very small percentage of the autosomes."

Sure but you can't just marry 1% of a woman to get the SLC genes. You have to marry the whole woman so the kids will be 50/50. If you have admixture between two groups and a gene that was initially only carried by one of the populations has been strongly selected for then it seems to me their proportion of the autosomal DNA must have gone up dramatically from its initial level.

Example population A over-runs population B with the end result 100 A males, 100 A females and 20 B females. If the A females have an average of 1.9 surviving kids and the B females an average of 2.1 then over time the autosomal B DNA will go up from c. 10% to c. 50% (hmm?) Anyway, whatever the equilibrium level is it will be substantially above the start level because the selected for genes come in a full package.

 

[ElHorsto]

As to your point about the LBK, I think I understand what you're getting at, but if you're speaking about the late Neolithic/early metal ages intrusions supposedly attributable to the Indo-Europeans, it seems to me that the mtDNA evidence shows that they didn't bring all that much new mtDNA into Europe. See:
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/10/ancient-central-european-mtdna-across.html

Interesting the map were it can be seen than Britain is the only place in west Europe which was affected by mtDNA of all three metal-working cultures (CWC,BBC,UC), which supports Maciamo's and my humble opinion that Britain was particularly attractive for metal workers. Thanks for the link, it is often enlightening to take a look at past data and maps repeatedly.

In fact, I'm leaning toward the view that the "Indo-Europeans" probably already had an EEF component, as well as ANE and probably WHG. The exact proportions will of course have to wait for genome sequencing of some of them. And I hope they sequence samples not only from the steppe and the line of kurgans into Hungary, but from the population(s) that moved on from there, if they can find traces of them. As these people moved west, they probably absorbed more and more of the EEF from the people they encountered. After all, how else would Germans wind up about 50% EEF?

And the English too
I also think that EEF was important in at least part of IEans, yet I also think that IEans could have been diverse enough to have been much more ANE on one end (see ANE peak in Scotland), mostly ANE+WHG on another (Lithuanian language is very ancient IEan) and more EEF on another end (see the low WHG and perhaps too low ANE in several south european countries). But as you say, this diversity could have emerged by diverse subsequent admixtures into the 'original' IEans while moving west, depending on the route.

 

[Sile]

Sile, they definitely screwed it up. Hard to believe, I know, but look at the page of fst results:
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/fig_tab/ejhg20141t3.html#figure-title

It's the northern Italians who should have an FST distance to the Spanish, the French, and the Greeks of .001, and to the Germans of .002.

And it's the southern Italians who should have an FST of .001 to the Greeks, .002 to the Spanish, .003 to the French, and .004 to the Germans.

Otherwise, everything we know about Italian genetics and European genetics would be wrong.

Similarly, on the PCA plot, it's the northern Italians who should be overlapping with the Spanish and the French, not the southern Italians. The colors and the labels would indicate that the southerners plot further north than the northern Italians.
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/fig_tab/ejhg20141f2.html#figure-title

It's disgraceful when you think about it. This isn't even a preview...it's gone through peer review, supposedly.

Anyway, I noticed a few interesting things about the graphic:
l. The range in the southern Italian samples is interesting, larger than I thought it would be...a lot of variation there.

2. I also found it interesting that in this analysis the British seem to overlap much more with the Germans than with the French.

3. The Finns are even further away from other European populations in this analysis than in others I've seen.

Of course, PCA's are limited in their usefulness because they only show the first two principal components. Also, I always find the intra-European ones rather misleading. If you threw in east Asian and SSA populations and made it a global PCA, the positioning would change.

ignore my comments, i thought you where still talking about the first link and not the second link I provided. there are 203 north italians samples in the second link........but distance is from verona and not bergamo