K12 New map of Caucasian autosomal admixtures in Europe and the Middle East

I 'm afraid none of the Dodecad poolings is good enough in itself and I think a 'Atlantic-Baltic' component is a nonsense according to my (modest) knowledge of anthropology, ancient as well as current - so we are obliged, waitning better, to combinne more or less the different poolings, trying to see were some names can abuse us about their genetical contents
Maybe your knowledge on anthropology (I guess phenotypes and things like this) makes you think there are more differences in Europe than what really exists (genetically speaking). Europeans as whole are pretty homogeneous, so the more one splits components, the more one exposes to get strange results. However, some experiments in both Eurogenes and Dodecad were quite successful in that regard IMO.
 
I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean by breaking down this unity of the "caucasian" element in northern Italy. That element is clinal in Italy, like virtually everything else; caucasus is 22.8 in northern Italy, about 28 in Tuscany and 36 or so in the south on this calculator.

Within the north, the academic sample from Bergamo and the more general north Italian dodecad population have virtually the same amount of 'caucasus' component.

The interesting thing, as I've mentioned before, is that Oetzi's caucasus component on the same calculator was also 22%, but Gok 4, also a Neolithic farmer, only had about 5%. So, does the caucasus component in Europe represent a later and slightly different Neolithic migration, and/or is this a sign of the beginning of the metal age migrations. After all, not only did Oetzi possess copper tools, but he had high arsenic levels in his blood, which indicate he probably was a copper worker, and let's not forget that metal working first moved from the east into the Balkans, and then later came east again with other migrations.

As to the relationship between the Gedrosia and West Asian components, this is what Dienekes has to say about it:

"Similarly, the West_Asian component (from K=7) is intermediate between the Caucasus and Gedrosia components; the Gedrosia component diverges in the direction of the Asian groups (not shown in this figure), and in particular of South Asians.

Caucasus/West_Asian components are definitely not comparable across calculators, since 'dv3' used a "West European" category that the other calculators do not, and which was shifted toward West Asia relative to the other "East_European" component."

As to the K=12 versus K=12b calculators, this is what he has to say: "The additional step of distant relative filtering may also have influenced overall component levels in some cases. Its overall effect is to preclude the creation of population-specific components. Such filtering did take place during 'dv3' for populations with known sets of apparently distantly related individuals (such as the HGDP Arab groups), but it was done with a uniform procedure across all populations in K12a/b."

Different calculators were done at different times, and the later ones are going to both include more populations and be more refined that the earlier ones. Also, some calculators were created for specific purposes, such as the Globe 13, which was meant to clarify the issue of the SSA component in West Eurasians.

His best explanation of the relationship between the Caucasus and West Asian components is here in his discussion discussion of K=7b versus K=12b:
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/09/inter-relationships-between-dodecad-k7b.html

Gedrosia is just Caucasus with a slice of South Asian. Perhaps a population from further south toward South Asia that picked up a lot of Caucasus during their stay in that area. When the Gedrosia component is not included, I think this is where the South Asian that people get comes from...

OK as a whole
when I was speaking about breaking down 'Caucasian' in North Italy, I was not speaking about the diverses components of this pooling but about the diverse subregions of Northern Italy I know has had a complicated history - not only ancient strata of different sources but also some more recent events and after that sedentarization and compartmentation by valleys etc... with autsomals we don't need too big sample by region but we need more regional samples -
when I see to Dodecad runs, I found %s as diverging as 12-13 % to 26-27% concerning 'west-asian' in Northern Italy: and I suppose 'west-asian' contains AND 'gedrosian' AND 'cuacasian': very inequal indeed!!! so when I read %s as 22% or more...!?!
but as you wrote elsewhere current northern Italians are not exactly the genuine ancient inhabitants: surely there is a big difference between ancestry of rural compared to urban population? i "studied" thousands of sportmen of whole Europe and I know sportmen, more yet in hard physical sports, are from rural extraction or lower classes of cities then often closer to ancient populations: I know N-Italians only by this way, surely I should be desappointed if I looked at today streets 'northerners' in Milano or elsewhere...concerning Ötzi, as said, he was surely a mix of diverses stratas of "Italians", where dominated perhaps Y-G and 'sardinian' (central mediterranean for me) but already he received "blood" from newcomers, as by S-East than by N-East so... subsequent NW ALps imiigrant in Italy could have send less 'caucasian' or 'west-asian' to speak less precisely
for me the first agricultors-breeders were a mix where dominated 'sardinian' but other waves could have send a bit more 'caucasian' before even the metals - and maybe 'sardinian' had already begun to colonize S-W Europe at mesolithical time? 'caucasian' had a weight in the first I-E southern colonies in Europe (see the 'south-Caucasus element in Maykop and the Catacomb culture and surely in Ferghana - but a taste of 'caucasian' was present among some agriculturists - maybe the most of 'caucasian' came before the steppic people, through Anatolia and Bulgaria Romania with the first metals, but without I-E.
I agree nevertheless 'sardinian' was the core of the first agriculturists (they are found at low level in slavic baltic lands) - the mesolithic ones would have been more on the 'basque' side (look at Scandinavians and Celts, and iberians too) - I know I bet a lot because 'sardinian' and 'basque' are very often grouped as 'mediterranean' or 'south-Europe' but so a part of 'basque' is comprise in 'N' or 'NW-europe'...
have a good sunday

 
OK as a whole
when I was speaking about breaking down 'Caucasian' in North Italy, I was not speaking about the diverses components of this pooling but about the diverse subregions of Northern Italy I know has had a complicated history - not only ancient strata of different sources but also some more recent events and after that sedentarization and compartmentation by valleys etc... with autsomals we don't need too big sample by region but we need more regional samples -
when I see to Dodecad runs, I found %s as diverging as 12-13 % to 26-27% concerning 'west-asian' in Northern Italy: and I suppose 'west-asian' contains AND 'gedrosian' AND 'cuacasian': very inequal indeed!!! so when I read %s as 22% or more...!?!
but as you wrote elsewhere current northern Italians are not exactly the genuine ancient inhabitants: surely there is a big difference between ancestry of rural compared to urban population? i "studied" thousands of sportmen of whole Europe and I know sportmen, more yet in hard physical sports, are from rural extraction or lower classes of cities then often closer to ancient populations: I know N-Italians only by this way, surely I should be desappointed if I looked at today streets 'northerners' in Milano or elsewhere...concerning Ötzi, as said, he was surely a mix of diverses stratas of "Italians", where dominated perhaps Y-G and 'sardinian' (central mediterranean for me) but already he received "blood" from newcomers, as by S-East than by N-East so... subsequent NW ALps imiigrant in Italy could have send less 'caucasian' or 'west-asian' to speak less precisely
for me the first agricultors-breeders were a mix where dominated 'sardinian' but other waves could have send a bit more 'caucasian' before even the metals - and maybe 'sardinian' had already begun to colonize S-W Europe at mesolithical time? 'caucasian' had a weight in the first I-E southern colonies in Europe (see the 'south-Caucasus element in Maykop and the Catacomb culture and surely in Ferghana - but a taste of 'caucasian' was present among some agriculturists - maybe the most of 'caucasian' came before the steppic people, through Anatolia and Bulgaria Romania with the first metals, but without I-E.
I agree nevertheless 'sardinian' was the core of the first agriculturists (they are found at low level in slavic baltic lands) - the mesolithic ones would have been more on the 'basque' side (look at Scandinavians and Celts, and iberians too) - I know I bet a lot because 'sardinian' and 'basque' are very often grouped as 'mediterranean' or 'south-Europe' but so a part of 'basque' is comprise in 'N' or 'NW-europe'...
have a good sunday

Now I understand.:) From the results I have seen within northern Italy itself, the "West Asian" component does vary slightly, and the cline for that component in northern Italy is not north/south, but east to west. I think Maciamo's map is very informative in that way. I think it is related to the Balkans as intermediary. As you get into northwestern Piemonte, for example, it is slightly less. The relatively high levels of West Asian in north eastern Italians may very well comport with the rather surprising y dna results for that area in the latest papers, which shows rather more J2, E1b, G2a etc., than people were expecting.

Other components vary more, I think, even within northern Italy, and those seem to vary on a north south cline. This would be the case, in this calculator, for the Atlantic/Baltic and Southern components.
That's why I think Sile's and my results make sense. As a north east Italian, versus a generally half northwest Italian half Tuscan, he has the same amount of West Asian, but 6% more Atlantic/Baltic, which is taken from the southern component.

You're very right in that not only different regions, bu also different sub-regions in Italy have had different migration histories, without even considering the population isolates. My father's people all come from one of those isolates, a group that was studied by Cavalli Sforza for decades, and which formed the basis for his seminal work. Unfortunately, that was before the days of y dna and mt dna and autosomal analysis. They might still have all the blood samples, though, so I live in hope. :)

My mother lived in a more accessible region, but still relatively isolated. In that rural world, old divisions still remained. There was an observable gradient in terms of phenotype from the Mediterranean north along the river valley to the foothills of the Apennines that led to Emilia. The y dna distributions bear that out.

I've had numerous discussions about why such divisions remained for so long in Italy. It's partly, of course, that it wasn't unified until so late, and so political divisions played their part. Geography, the high mountains that carve Italy into different sections, also played a part. To this day, going from west to east in Italy is difficult, more difficult than going north/south, because you have to cross the Apennines. Part of it is sort of inexplicable. To this day, Italians are a "commuting" people, so attached to their own "terra" that they will commute extraordinary distances in order to stay "home". Someone from Parma may work all week in Milano and come home on the week-ends, or arrange to go in three days a week, but the thought of moving one's "residence" is not part of the equation. Some of the lengths to which they'll go are extraordinary. It's ever been thus. It also explains the high rate of return of Italian migrants to other countries. In the U.S., it's the highest of all the immigrant groups, at least until lately.

On the other hand, internal migration from the south has had an impact, and barriers are indeed breaking down somewhat. If population geneticists really want to figure it all out, they'd better get busy, and they'd better demand that all eight great-grandparents be from the same area.
 
to clarify, my mother was born in San Zenone dei Ezzelini, which is inside treviso region, but is the last town before crossing into Vicenza Region. San Zenone is 6k from Bassano di Grappa ( which is th efirst town in Vicenza region)



Since I am 100% European which makes me 2200 years in Europe, my goal is to find out for me where my line was before. So, if the Caucasus is west-asian admixture and to me the caucasus represents Europe ( of advise me if I am wrong ), then I am searching in the wrong place.
Are the ossetians , west-asian admixture, what about Jordanians? .......i would really like to find out the borders of these admixtures.


If your ancestors have been in Europe for 2,000 years, I don't know what you could be other than European. In terms of the "Caucasus" component specifically, if the adna analysis of Oetzi is to be believed, this component has been in Europe for 5,000 years. How long does it take to become European?

I think that it's helpful to keep in mind that these clusters are named for where they are modal geographically *today*. They don't represent any "pure" population which can be tied to any *specific* spot on the map. It's important to understand that each of them is composed of deeper layers of gene flow. It's also important to keep in mind that "West Asian" in one calculator is not necessarily "West Asian" in another calculator.

In terms of the "Caucasus" K=12b component specifically, if analyzed in terms of the K=7b components, it is 55% West Asian, about 35% Southern, and about 10% Atlantic/Baltic.

West Asian, when analyzed in terms of the K-12b components, turns out to be 60% Gedrosia, and 40% Caucasus. Gedrosia has two peaks, one in Baluchistan, and one in the Caucasus.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/09/inter-relationships-between-dodecad-k7b.html

But then, if you want to peel the onion back on all these calculators, you only need to look at the analysis that Dienekes did in comparing World 9 and K=12b.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/08/inter-relationships-of-dodecad-k12b-and.html

In that comparison, Atlantic Med is 90% Caucasus (10% North Euro), while North Euro itself is about 65% Atlantic/Med, 30% Gedrosian, and about 5% Siberian. If you consider that Gedrosia is Caucasus and Siberian in this analysis, then you add even more Caucasus to North European. North European is no more a "pure" genetic isolate than any of the others; it's just the cluster that is modal in Northern Europe today. (All of this explains the close relationship of "Northern" Europe and the "Caucasus" in terms of fst."

In fact, if you look at the graphic, it supports the idea that wherever this "group" originated was indeed, as Dienekes has stated in the past, the "Womb of Nations" I just disagree with the position he's sometimes taken that it was located in the Caucasus itself. I still think the Caucasus was more of a refuge area than a source, although I will grant that as a refuge area, it may have preserved that cluster.

(Anyone who is interested in Dienekes' "Womb of Nations" Theory just has to google search for it at his site. )

The more I think about this whole Gedrosia business, the more I think it may indeed be linked with the sort of second wave of metal working, coming from western Iran or perhaps the southern Caucasus and then into Europe.
Whether it's related to R1b, I don't know, and I also don't know how exactly it's related to the Indo-European languages.
 
K7b is a much reliable than K12b, and fits with the vast majority of experiments done so far.


Mine:

Atlantic Baltic 64.6 %

Southern 30.1 %

West Asian 3.3 %

South Asian 1.9%

Siberian 0.0 %

East Asian 0.0 %

African 0.0 %


It is courious how South Asian shows up many times among Europeans, specially in the Globe13 analysis where I got a very similar figure. Dienekes' blogged time ago some of the West Asian segments are sometimes interpreted by the software as South Asian, since the later is quite similar to West Asian for obvious reasons. Anyways, that goes pretty much in line with other results and shows me incredibly close to the Aragonese samples. I guess other Catalans from little towns would get more or less the same.

By the way, K12b shows 10% Caucasus, 3% Gedrosia, 2% South Asian...so I think it is very likely that at least this Caucasus component does not always reflect reality. Just remove it and then makes perfect sense with K7b.

i agree with you in respect to K7b.
K12b is too diluted in markers which represent "noise"

I wonder what influence south-asian via DougM is represented in Dodecad.

I have 6 % of south-asian marker in my X chromosome bar ( the only place it appears) and he noted to me that if one is 100% european and south-asian appears in X it it used by himself and BGA to represent extreme eastern europe. I don't know if this has influence dodecad in any way in regards to europeans with south-asian marker.
 
Alan

Maybe what is useless is a Southwest Asian component then. I've seen it many times in the Erogenes project: at lower resolution I have 5% aprox (the same as globe13), while increasing it I get 0% (identical to Dv3). So to my understanding, that is telling indeed Southwest Asian isn't particularly informative in terms of admixture, not even for Saudis for instance, who would get more East African instead of Southwest Asian.

Are you saying that south-west asian does not represent the arabian peninsula?
 
OK as a whole
when I was speaking about breaking down 'Caucasian' in North Italy, I was not speaking about the diverses components of this pooling but about the diverse subregions of Northern Italy I know has had a complicated history - not only ancient strata of different sources but also some more recent events and after that sedentarization and compartmentation by valleys etc... with autsomals we don't need too big sample by region but we need more regional samples -
when I see to Dodecad runs, I found %s as diverging as 12-13 % to 26-27% concerning 'west-asian' in Northern Italy: and I suppose 'west-asian' contains AND 'gedrosian' AND 'cuacasian': very inequal indeed!!! so when I read %s as 22% or more...!?!
but as you wrote elsewhere current northern Italians are not exactly the genuine ancient inhabitants: surely there is a big difference between ancestry of rural compared to urban population? i "studied" thousands of sportmen of whole Europe and I know sportmen, more yet in hard physical sports, are from rural extraction or lower classes of cities then often closer to ancient populations: I know N-Italians only by this way, surely I should be desappointed if I looked at today streets 'northerners' in Milano or elsewhere...concerning Ötzi, as said, he was surely a mix of diverses stratas of "Italians", where dominated perhaps Y-G and 'sardinian' (central mediterranean for me) but already he received "blood" from newcomers, as by S-East than by N-East so... subsequent NW ALps imiigrant in Italy could have send less 'caucasian' or 'west-asian' to speak less precisely
for me the first agricultors-breeders were a mix where dominated 'sardinian' but other waves could have send a bit more 'caucasian' before even the metals - and maybe 'sardinian' had already begun to colonize S-W Europe at mesolithical time? 'caucasian' had a weight in the first I-E southern colonies in Europe (see the 'south-Caucasus element in Maykop and the Catacomb culture and surely in Ferghana - but a taste of 'caucasian' was present among some agriculturists - maybe the most of 'caucasian' came before the steppic people, through Anatolia and Bulgaria Romania with the first metals, but without I-E.
I agree nevertheless 'sardinian' was the core of the first agriculturists (they are found at low level in slavic baltic lands) - the mesolithic ones would have been more on the 'basque' side (look at Scandinavians and Celts, and iberians too) - I know I bet a lot because 'sardinian' and 'basque' are very often grouped as 'mediterranean' or 'south-Europe' but so a part of 'basque' is comprise in 'N' or 'NW-europe'...
have a good sunday


IMO , north-east Italy was roughly influenced by people along the danube and sava rivers in very ancient times, while north-west italy had the galllic-liguri/helvetic influence . later in pre-roman times, gallic influence via migrations from modern southern france moved in and through northern italy as far as eastern slovenia and to vienna. The romans came after this.
The linguistic terminology for northern italian languages is called Gallic-iberian, due to this long term influence by the gauls. central and southern Italy is termed Gallic-italic in language.
 
IMO , north-east Italy was roughly influenced by people along the danube and sava rivers in very ancient times, while north-west italy had the galllic-liguri/helvetic influence . later in pre-roman times, gallic influence via migrations from modern southern france moved in and through northern italy as far as eastern slovenia and to vienna. The romans came after this.
The linguistic terminology for northern italian languages is called Gallic-iberian, due to this long term influence by the gauls. central and southern Italy is termed Gallic-italic in language.


I'm not sure exactly what you mean by people from the Danube. There is, of course, whatever remained of the Paleolithic/Mesolithic stratum, represented in Liguria by the Arena Candide caves, and then you would have the Neolithic peoples. The Neolithic culture in Italy is, however, not Danubian, i.e. derived from LBK, but Cardial.

You can see it in the map here:
http://images.wikia.com/ceramica/images/8/85/Neolítico_en_Europa.png

Or here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Boians.png

The Eupedia map is not very different.

It seems to have followed the coastlines of both the Balkans and Italy, and then moved into the interior. (and other areas of the northern Mediterranean as well)

After that you would have Bronze Age Italic people, i.e. Indo-Europeans. One theory does hold that the languages were carried by a folk movement that spread up the Danube, but after entering Italy they moved throughout the peninsula wherever Italic languages were spoken. According to most theories, the Ligures may have been an earlier branch of Indo-Europeans, speaking something close to an Italic-Celtic, perhaps. From everything I was taught, Venetic is similarly an Indo-European language with Celtic affinities. There is nothing as of yet to tell us their y dna signatures, much less their autosomal component.

Finally, you do have the Gallic migrations of the first millennium B.C., which are usually held to have entered Italy from the north or northwest, although there are some sources who hold that some tribes, like the Boii, entered Italy from the area of modern Bohemia. The Wiki article on the Boii isn't bad, in my opinion, as it doesn't assert a certainty which it is impossible to have at the present time. This map shows what I mean.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Boians.png
 
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by people from the Danube. There is, of course, whatever remained of the Paleolithic/Mesolithic stratum, represented in Liguria by the Arena Candide caves, and then you would have the Neolithic peoples. The Neolithic culture in Italy is, however, not Danubian, i.e. derived from LBK, but Cardial.

You can see it in the map here:
http://images.wikia.com/ceramica/images/8/85/Neolítico_en_Europa.png
From what I was taught, water travel was the easier and safer mode, for naturally drinking water and because no road system. When I said along, i meant traveled via

Or here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Boians.png

The Eupedia map is not very different.

It seems to have followed the coastlines of both the Balkans and Italy, and then moved into the interior. (and other areas of the northern Mediterranean as well)

what period is this? is it late bronze ie Mycenae times?

After that you would have Bronze Age Italic people, i.e. Indo-Europeans. One theory does hold that the languages were carried by a folk movement that spread up the Danube, but after entering Italy they moved throughout the peninsula wherever Italic languages were spoken. According to most theories, the Ligures may have been an earlier branch of Indo-Europeans, speaking something close to an Italic-Celtic, perhaps. From everything I was taught, Venetic is similarly an Indo-European language with Celtic affinities. There is nothing as of yet to tell us their y dna signatures, much less their autosomal component.
On venetic, the 2012 paper from Uni of Heidelberg states an old language replaced by celtic and later accepting Latin

Our analysis has reached exactly this conclusion concerning areal phenomena shared between Venetic and Italic with the result that Northern Adriatic Venetic occupies an intermediate position on the traditional classificatory parameters, but belongs to the Celtic type on the basis of the phonological patterning (including lenition in the consonant system based on the tense vs, lax opposition). This fact, combined with morphology which can be identified as Celtic, leads to the conclusion that Northern
Adriatic Venetic was a variety of Celtic which was subject to areal common developments with
Italic in the phonology and the lexicon, but remained entirely Celtic in the grammar.

I am unsure what period they talk about as the venetic have been in Veneto area from archeological finds from 1100BC


Finally, you do have the Gallic migrations of the first millennium B.C., which are usually held to have entered Italy from the north or northwest, although there are some sources who hold that some tribes, like the Boii, entered Italy from the area of modern Bohemia. The Wiki article on the Boii isn't bad, in my opinion, as it doesn't assert a certainty which it is impossible to have at the present time. This map shows what I mean.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Boians.png

my initial studies stated the Boii came firstly from modern Alsace. I need to revisit these.



My world 9 ................similar to K7b
Admix Results:

#PopulationPercent
1Amerindian0.00
2East_Asian0.06
3African0.19
4Atlantic_Baltic56.29
5Australasian0.00
6Siberian0.00
7Caucasus_Gedrosia17.20
8Southern25.49
9South_Asian0.78


Pct. Calc. Option 1

1N_Italian92.05%
2Mordovians3.99%
3Kalash2.25%
4Lezgins1.51%
5Romanians0.15%
6Greek0.03%
7O_Italian0.01%
8S_Italian0.01%
9Chechens0.00%
10Pathan0.00%

Total RMSD: 0.269527

see the veneti link for the latest on venetic people
 
From what I was taught, water travel was the easier and safer mode, for naturally drinking water and because no road system. When I said along, i meant traveled via



what period is this? is it late bronze ie Mycenae times?


On venetic, the 2012 paper from Uni of Heidelberg states an old language replaced by celtic and later accepting Latin

Our analysis has reached exactly this conclusion concerning areal phenomena shared between Venetic and Italic with the result that Northern Adriatic Venetic occupies an intermediate position on the traditional classificatory parameters, but belongs to the Celtic type on the basis of the phonological patterning (including lenition in the consonant system based on the tense vs, lax opposition). This fact, combined with morphology which can be identified as Celtic, leads to the conclusion that Northern
Adriatic Venetic was a variety of Celtic which was subject to areal common developments with
Italic in the phonology and the lexicon, but remained entirely Celtic in the grammar.

I am unsure what period they talk about as the venetic have been in Veneto area from archeological finds from 1100BC




my initial studies stated the Boii came firstly from modern Alsace. I need to revisit these.



My world 9 ................similar to K7b
Admix Results:

#PopulationPercent
1Amerindian0.00
2East_Asian0.06
3African0.19
4Atlantic_Baltic56.29
5Australasian0.00
6Siberian0.00
7Caucasus_Gedrosia17.20
8Southern25.49
9South_Asian0.78


Pct. Calc. Option 1

1N_Italian92.05%
2Mordovians3.99%
3Kalash2.25%
4Lezgins1.51%
5Romanians0.15%
6Greek0.03%
7O_Italian0.01%
8S_Italian0.01%
9Chechens0.00%
10Pathan0.00%

Total RMSD: 0.269527

see the veneti link for the latest on venetic people


I'm guilty of using "Italic" in the broadest possible sense. I'll correct the post above. The Indo-Europeans are generally held to have migrated into Italy sometime around 3,000 B.C. In my opinion, there's some fiddling with the dates to accommodate various theories, i.e. to try to fit it with a Yamnaya movement from the steppes. Since this theory traditionally connects metal working with the Indo-Europeans, there's the additional problem that Oetzi used a copper ax of Remedello style (and had arsenic in his blood) and he is dated to 3300 B.C. So, you either push the Indo-European migration back to the Copper Age, and a G2a Sardinian like Oetzi is part of it, or you push it forward to the beginnings of the Bronze Age. Then, the languages have to be fit into the scheme. This is why I'm rather an agnostic about all of this.

This article in Wiki is obviously a work in progress. It needs a lot more detail, but the only thing with which I disagree is the statement at the end that Ligurian is not an Indo-European language. The latest papers seem to indicate that it is, although the people speaking it, or speaking any of these languages, would possess an earlier Neolithic substrate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_peoples_of_Italy

Sorry, all of this belongs on a different thread. :)
 
Are you saying that south-west asian does not represent the arabian peninsula?
No. What I'm saying is that this component is slightly East African shifted, but still incredibly similar to Mediterranean. Hence small amounts are likely to be misinterpreted by the software, while huge percents on the other hand hide the aforementioned shift.

I think the k10a run, even if there's not an East African component, but a Red Sea one instead, is quite ilustrative regarding the issue, and shows interesting results in the Arabian Peninsula when Southwest Asian is not included.
 
i agree with you in respect to K7b.
K12b is too diluted in markers which represent "noise"
My opinion as well.

I wonder what influence south-asian via DougM is represented in Dodecad.
Difficult question. I had no South Asian in that test, so I don't know what to make of it.
 
True, World9 is pretty similar to K7b:

Atlantic-Baltic: 67.2 %

Southern: 28.0 %

Caucasus/Gedrosia: 2.8 %

South Asian: 1.8 %

Amerindian: 0.2%

East Asian: 0.0%

Siberian: 0.0%

African: 0.0%

Australasian: 0.0%
 
In trying to make sense of all of Dienekes' calculators, I try to keep in mind that as much as I enjoy breaking down my own ancestry, the calculators were created in an attempt to unravel the population genetics of Europe. We consumers are beneficiaries of his experiments, but they weren't done for us.

So, if someone is trying to understand the movement of population groups from North Africa into Europe, the calculators that contain that cluster are important. (Individuals might also want a way to estimate the influence of those groups on their own genetic make-up).

Similarly, the Globe 13 seems to me to be the best for pulling out the SSA in Europeans.

In this blogpost, there is an explanation of the progression of the calculators and what they are examining.

So, using the different calculators of the Dodecad Project, we first have (K7) a contrast between Africa and West Eurasia, then a signal of the shared ancestry between Arabia and East Africa (K10), and finally, strong signals of local ancestry in the two regions.

Also, K=7 shows North Africa as predominantly West Eurasian with an added African component, K10 shows Mediterranean as modal in Sardinians once again, but also shows it as part of North Africa, and k=12 shows that the Atlantic Med and North West African clusters have formed.

In terms of the Southwest Asian component, it would be very difficult to do any analysis of the Levant or the greater Middle East without looking at the proportions of Southwest Asian versus West Asian in these populations. That there is a cline in these populations, not only in terms of a north/south gradient, but in terms of religious affiliation, is pretty clearly indicated in this relatively new paper: Haber et al, Genome Wide Diversity in the Levant.
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1003316

And discussed here: http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/03/genomewide-diversity-in-levant-haber-et.html

In terms of the Caucasus component, the whole point was to see, I think, if Gedrosia could be isolated, at a higher K level, from the West Asian, and use it to possibly track the movements of the "Indo-European" peoples.

In terms of individual results, I always look at the FST number in the original Oracle program for these runs. The lower it is, obviously, the more it has captured my individual variation. For analysis of the population genetics of Italy, they're all valuable, as they all produce valuable insights.
 
Maciamo, I'm a bit surprised by the 'spot' of 'caucasian' in Guipuzcoa (I believe), lost among a region where 'caucasian' is poor enough - in Iberia

@MOESAN: I don't see any Caucasus spot there in Basque, but exactly a hole. Maybe you have confused the grey color with a greenish spot? The dark green and grey can be easily confused if the area is small.
 
@MOESAN: I don't see any Caucasus spot there in Basque, but exactly a hole. Maybe you have confused the grey color with a greenish spot? The dark green and grey can be easily confused if the area is small.

OK you're right El Horsto: my great age! my IO screen was not well positioned! like that, it is very more logical! you are my eyes!
when I compare the two maps, (I know some frontiers are artificial by lack of regional accurate data) I constate a very different distribution of these two autosomals components whatever the way they were composed - as others here I believe (even if I know other minor moves mixed more the different components) that the most of 'caucasian' in western Europe is from Neolithic agricultors and breeders - becuse I'm on it, I add southern Italians show being somewhat more 'greek' than the Greeks themselves (late Slavic influence on N-Greeks?) - later Helladic (Egea-W-Anatolia) and Greek colonies brought some more 'caucasian' but not so much?
'caucasian' seems not too strong in megalithic zones of Atlantic shores (with some exceptions)
'gedrosia' is very more occidental and artic in Europe, except the S-E regions close to Anatolia-Near-Eastern - Slavs had erased the few contained in N-E Europe (I'm almost sure they came through North) - a map showing the quotient 'gedrosia'/'gedrosia'+'caucasus' would prove very much more! the mix 'gedrosia-''caucasus' abuses us today - I believe in ancient times they were more separated...
what is curious, 'gedrosia' is strong among Neo-Celts and Basques, and in some part too among Germans (I-E? pre-I-E? only partly indoeuropeanized?) and in regions were mt H1+H3 are strong too (as recent Y-R1b) - matter to discuss, I think (the challenge is open)
I red 'long barrows' megalithic settlements (maybe part of a greater megalithic movement) were denser in Britain and North Sea shores + S-Scania (they were a mighty component in Funnelbeaker culture, they did not go back in front of Corded people) - they were surely the heirs of the FIRST MEGALITHS found in Europe, all of them in North-West around the 4000 BC!) - a mighty human group if I judge on the dense and numerous megalithic areas - inFrance the southern megaliths were said to be come down from N-W (I don't know if it still holds ...)
 
OK you're right El Horsto: my great age! my IO screen was not well positioned! like that, it is very more logical! you are my eyes!
when I compare the two maps, (I know some frontiers are artificial by lack of regional accurate data) I constate a very different distribution of these two autosomals components whatever the way they were composed - as others here I believe (even if I know other minor moves mixed more the different components) that the most of 'caucasian' in western Europe is from Neolithic agricultors and breeders - becuse I'm on it, I add southern Italians show being somewhat more 'greek' than the Greeks themselves (late Slavic influence on N-Greeks?) - later Helladic (Egea-W-Anatolia) and Greek colonies brought some more 'caucasian' but not so much?
'caucasian' seems not too strong in megalithic zones of Atlantic shores (with some exceptions)
'gedrosia' is very more occidental and artic in Europe, except the S-E regions close to Anatolia-Near-Eastern - Slavs had erased the few contained in N-E Europe (I'm almost sure they came through North) - a map showing the quotient 'gedrosia'/'gedrosia'+'caucasus' would prove very much more! the mix 'gedrosia-''caucasus' abuses us today - I believe in ancient times they were more separated...
what is curious, 'gedrosia' is strong among Neo-Celts and Basques, and in some part too among Germans (I-E? pre-I-E? only partly indoeuropeanized?) and in regions were mt H1+H3 are strong too (as recent Y-R1b) - matter to discuss, I think (the challenge is open)
I red 'long barrows' megalithic settlements (maybe part of a greater megalithic movement) were denser in Britain and North Sea shores + S-Scania (they were a mighty component in Funnelbeaker culture, they did not go back in front of Corded people) - they were surely the heirs of the FIRST MEGALITHS found in Europe, all of them in North-West around the 4000 BC!) - a mighty human group if I judge on the dense and numerous megalithic areas - inFrance the southern megaliths were said to be come down from N-W (I don't know if it still holds ...)

I agree with most of what you say. Especially the Gedrosia/Cacuasus ratio seems really like a hot trace, whereas southern european Caucasus admixture has to be interpreted differently as you say.
Some remarks:
- I think it is possible that also the Caucasus admix in Balts and Slavs could be of neolithic origin, just more indirectly (perhaps via iranic tribes like Antes).
- The relation of H1/H3 to R1b is tempting but I'd be cautious because H1/H3 presence in europe is probably older than R1b. I think there are at least two interesting autosomal candidates to consider here: Gedrosian (R1b?) and Atlantic_med (H1/H3?).
- You think of possible Gedrosian introduction to Funnelbeakers from Megalith peoples, but so far the only Funnelbeaker sample which I know (Gok4) has zero Gedrosian admix. This strongly suggests a later appearance of Gedrosian.
 
I evocated 'Long Barrows'in this thread to stay open, for their geographic localizations - I don't hold it for a proof of 'gedrosia' component among them... By the way I said I thought 'L-B' played a role in the funnelbeaker complex but were not the creating core of this culture, and they stayed a coastal population and I don't think they had an heavy demic imput in all the regions covered by Funnelbeaker culture that surely involved also more continental peasants (accultured mesolithical people remnants + post LBK people, maybe interations with the 'Globular Amphores' culture) - rheir influence could have been more cultural than demic so concerning Gok4...
I think too mt H1-H3 could be older in W-Europe than 'gedrosia' and than y-R1b whatever the links we could imagine between both last ones (knowing nevertheless autosomals an Y-HGs are distincts at individual level)
 
The Caucasian admixture looks more Neolithic (matching particularly well G2a + J1xP58 + J2) and is high among Slavs, but nearly absent in Northwest Europe as well as among the Basques.

Well, maybe, I'm the exception that proves the rule!
All my ancestors came from eastern Britany and Maine (Mayenne+Sarthe) in France.
In K12b I have 13.04% Caucasus (France 8.4%).
In K12a I have 11.46% East European (France 3.9%), a portion of which is transfered, at K12B, in North Europe and Caucasus ..


I wonder if U4 mdtna is not related to the Caucasian admixture?
Myself, i am U4, and there is a high percentage U4 in Maine (11% in the Sarthe by Richard 2007).
It is possible that there are isolates Caucasians admixtures in Western Europe, as studies, very fragmented, have not yet demonstrated!
 
Well, maybe, I'm the exception that proves the rule!
All my ancestors came from eastern Britany and Maine (Mayenne+Sarthe) in France.
In K12b I have 13.04% Caucasus (France 8.4%).
In K12a I have 11.46% East European (France 3.9%), a portion of which is transfered, at K12B, in North Europe and Caucasus ..


I wonder if U4 mdtna is not related to the Caucasian admixture?
Myself, i am U4, and there is a high percentage U4 in Maine (11% in the Sarthe by Richard 2007).
It is possible that there are isolates Caucasians admixtures in Western Europe, as studies, very fragmented, have not yet demonstrated!

That is odd indeed. The Caucasian admixture might be a remnant of Neolithic ancestry, perhaps higher in Brittany than in the rest of France.

Your high East European admixture is actually in line with the percentages observed along the English Channel, from Normandy to Belgium. So you might have more Germanic ancestry (especially Norman) than the average for Brittany.


The origin of your U4 could be Mesolithic European (I, R1a), Indo-European (R1a or R1b), either Celtic or more recent Germanic invaders. It's probably not Neolithic though. The U4 in the Caucasus is linked to the Indo-Europeans.
 

This thread has been viewed 61064 times.

Back
Top