Teal people found: Caucasians!

[Alan]

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

thats the point. But the calculator takes the Eneolithic Samara samples as refference population for EHG. Therefore the EHG component in this calculator includes CHG ancestry.

 

[Fire Haired14]

^ How do we know that got from West to East ??? Due to his autosomal DNA ???

Yes obviously. He was like 50% MN_European. An amazing thing is 2200 years after in 300 BC, a Sycthian genome has the same R1a-Z94 and same autosomal makeup except for 10% Siberian.

It's remarkable how long R1a-Z93 groups remained in North Eurasia with very little foreign admixture and how wide of an area they lived. Lots were very mixed but some weren't. The Sycthians, Sarmatians, Alans, etc. are quite obviously simple the various descendants of Sintatashta/Timber Grave. They weren't a single ethnicity.

A mystery is what happened to them. Did they get absorbed and replaced by North Asian people? Modern Volga/Steppe pops are the most mixed in Europe. They're part Slavic, part Norse, part Indo Iranian, part Finno-urgic(whatever it is), part Turkic, part Yamnaya, etc. after Steppe>Europe migrations, there were a million Europe>Steppe and Asia>Steppe migrations. In that area they were obviously absorbed/mixed with people, but in North Asia it looks like they were simply replaced/exterminated, there's barely a signal of Steppe ancestry there.

 

[oriental]

in North Asia it looks like they were simply replaced/exterminated, there's barely a signal of Steppe ancestry there.

Ha, ha those cold Siberian winters help one to decide to move.

The Turkish expansion and the Mongol empire right up to the doorsteps of Europe changed the genetic landscape especially the Mongols as they sold those inhabitants to slavery or they left to more friendlier lands.

Don't forget the Milankovitch cycles for climate change.

Every 20,000 years the Sahara and the Middle east turned green for 5,000 years. The last time the Sahatra and Mid East was green 5,000 years ago i.e. 3,000 BC. From 8,000 BC to 3,000 BC Sahara and Mid East were green. Before that 28,000 BC to 11,000 BC Sahara and Mid East were green and so on.

 

[Alan]

Yes obviously. He was like 50% MN_European. An amazing thing is 2200 years after in 300 BC, a Sycthian genome has the same R1a-Z94 and same autosomal makeup except for 10% Siberian.

It's remarkable how long R1a-Z93 groups remained in North Eurasia with very little foreign admixture and how wide of an area they lived. Lots were very mixed but some weren't. The Sycthians, Sarmatians, Alans, etc. are quite obviously simple the various descendants of Sintatashta/Timber Grave. They weren't a single ethnicity.

A mystery is what happened to them. Did they get absorbed and replaced by North Asian people? Modern Volga/Steppe pops are the most mixed in Europe. They're part Slavic, part Norse, part Indo Iranian, part Finno-urgic(whatever it is), part Turkic, part Yamnaya, etc. after Steppe>Europe migrations, there were a million Europe>Steppe and Asia>Steppe migrations. In that area they were obviously absorbed/mixed with people, but in North Asia it looks like they were simply replaced/exterminated, there's barely a signal of Steppe ancestry there.

Actually the Iron Age Scythian does differ significantly form the very early Sintashta samples, he plots much further south and slightly east, don't believe everything Eurogenes tries to make you believe. He has started his crusade of making Yamna once again "less Near East" by publishing an article that contrary to what all the scientific papers say, Yamna could be explained by "extra WHG" by replacing some of the CHG ancestry with WHG. He even tried to sell the audience the Iron Age Scythians as Latvian/Lithuanian like (his dream and claim since 4-5 years) by saying they share most drift with them, not mentioning that all ancient Steppic groups share most drift with them and letting out that the rest(large part) of their genome is very different which places them somewhere in between modern East Europeans, North Caucasians and South_Central Asians.

And this can not be explained by "PCA bias" cause this only happens if two samples with very different autosomal DNA are plotted next to each other because the one is so mixed from two distinct groups which coincidencly ends up plotting next to an pure sample of a different component which is naturally in between the other two components of which the Sample is a mix off.

But this is all just Scythians yet, we know about the Sarmatians, even by archeologists, anthropologists and historians that they had a more significant(even compared to Scythians) "southern" inpiut.

And we don't have yet any of these samples.

And to what happened to these people. I have explained it over a year ago. here => http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30706-Europe-West-and-South_Central-Asia-and-the-unnatural-gap

It is the lack of East and North Iranic groups that causes the gap between North Caucasus, South_Central Asia and Steppes. Even before them their predecessors in the region, Yamna and related groups were closing the gap as we see on PCAs.

 

[Danelaw]

Yes obviously. He was like 50% MN_European. An amazing thing is 2200 years after in 300 BC, a Sycthian genome has the same R1a-Z94 and same autosomal makeup except for 10% Siberian. It's remarkable how long R1a-Z93 groups remained in North Eurasia with very little foreign admixture and how wide of an area they lived. Lots were very mixed but some weren't. The Sycthians, Sarmatians, Alans, etc. are quite obviously simple the various descendants of Sintatashta/Timber Grave. They weren't a single ethnicity.A mystery is what happened to them. Did they get absorbed and replaced by North Asian people? Modern Volga/Steppe pops are the most mixed in Europe. They're part Slavic, part Norse, part Indo Iranian, part Finno-urgic(whatever it is), part Turkic, part Yamnaya, etc. after Steppe>Europe migrations, there were a million Europe>Steppe and Asia>Steppe migrations. In that area they were obviously absorbed/mixed with people, but in North Asia it looks like they were simply replaced/exterminated, there's barely a signal of Steppe ancestry there.

They were butchered by Altaic mongoloids.

 

[Alan]

They were butchered by Altaic mongoloids.

Actually not, they were overrun by the Hunoi who are originally an East Iranic tribe, mentioned as far back as in the Avesta, who started a tribal confederation with Altaic groups and those went into the Steppes. simultanously among those Altaic groups were the first Turkic tribes which slipped in. Later the Slavs went into the Steppes and pushed back the Turkic groups. So we now had a gap created between two unrelated groups (Slavs and Turkic groups), which caused a genetic gap and discontinuity in the region. Before that there was just one large ethno-linguistic family (North and East Iranic tribes).

 

[Danelaw]

Turkic groups were butchered by Genghiz Khan's mongols. Most Central Asian Turks and even few Iranics like Hazara are Mongols who shifted to Turkic and Iranic languages.

 

[MOESAN]

Turkic groups were butchered by Genghiz Khan's mongols. Most Central Asian Turks and even few Iranics like Hazara are Mongols who shifted to Turkic and Iranic languages.

If Mongols were the strong element, why did some of them return to defeated people languages? So Mongols did not "butchered" all Iranians and Turks? maybe the term "butchered" is to be limited to some vanquished tribes only? In fact we see very often the steppic invaders, physically and linguistically mongoloid / mongolic or not, slaughtering at first step but later that taking other ethnies in their confederations as mercenaries or inferior allies (the study of Middle Ages cemeteries in Hungary shows that, with different physical types in the tombs, according to social class... Not to contradict you but to put some nuances in the sketche.

 

[Fire Haired14]

Actually the Iron Age Scythian does differ significantly form the very early Sintashta samples, he plots much further south and slightly east, don't believe everything Eurogenes tries to make you believe.

In CHG K8 admixture he looks like Sintashta with some Siberian which pulls him east.

He has started his crusade of making Yamna once again "less Near East" by publishing an article that contrary to what all the scientific papers say, Yamna could be explained by "extra WHG" by replacing some of the CHG ancestry with WHG.

He isn't manipulating data.

He even tried to sell the audience the Iron Age Scythians as Latvian/Lithuanian like (his dream and claim since 4-5 years) by saying they share most drift with them, not mentioning that all ancient Steppic groups share most drift with them and letting out that the rest(large part) of their genome is very different which places them somewhere in between modern East Europeans, North Caucasians and South_Central Asians.

He never said the Sycthian was the same as Lithuanians. He doesn't have to explain Lithuanians/Latvians have the most Steppe while explaining the Sycthian shares most drift with them.

And this can not be explained by "PCA bias" cause this only happens if two samples with very different autosomal DNA are plotted next to each other because the one is so mixed from two distinct groups which coincidencly ends up plotting next to an pure sample of a different component which is naturally in between the other two components of which the Sample is a mix off.

I don't know anything about this, but i do know other methods are more relatible than PCA and that academic studie's PCAs do look goofy often times. And they are not more reliable than ADMIXTURE and formal stats.

But this is all just Scythians yet, we know about the Sarmatians, even by archeologists, anthropologists and historians that they had a more significant(even compared to Scythians) "southern" inpiut.

That could be but this Sycthian in ADMIXTURE at least doesn't seem to have Southern input. It should be investigated but he is certainly mostly from Sintashta.

And to what happened to these people. I have explained it over a year ago. here => http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30706-Europe-West-and-South_Central-Asia-and-the-unnatural-gap

It is the lack of East and North Iranic groups that causes the gap between North Caucasus, South_Central Asia and Steppes. Even before them their predecessors in the region, Yamna and related groups were closing the gap as we see on PCAs.

That idea makes a lot of sense. And it made a lot more sense back then. But now we have ancient Steppe DNA and they didn't fill the gap. Their relation to Northern West Asia and S/C Asia is mostly due to shared CHG.

 

[LeBrok]

If Mongols were the strong element, why did some of them return to defeated people languages? So Mongols did not "butchered" all Iranians and Turks? maybe the term "butchered" is to be limited to some vanquished tribes only? In fact we see very often the steppic invaders, physically and linguistically mongoloid / mongolic or not, slaughtering at first step but later that taking other ethnies in their confederations as mercenaries or inferior allies (the study of Middle Ages cemeteries in Hungary shows that, with different physical types in the tombs, according to social class... Not to contradict you but to put some nuances in the sketche.

It is rather transparent that he doesn't like Mongols.

 

[Danelaw]

If Mongols were the strong element, why did some of them return to defeated people languages? So Mongols did not "butchered" all Iranians and Turks? maybe the term "butchered" is to be limited to some vanquished tribes only? In fact we see very often the steppic invaders, physically and linguistically mongoloid / mongolic or not, slaughtering at first step but later that taking other ethnies in their confederations as mercenaries or inferior allies (the study of Middle Ages cemeteries in Hungary shows that, with different physical types in the tombs, according to social class... Not to contradict you but to put some nuances in the sketche.

Because centuries later they converted to Islam and so decided to better blend in the Islamic world, by adopting the languages of Muslims. Not all of them were Mongols, but also Manchus, Khitans, etc... even many Chinese converted to Islam and adopted the native languages. Some groups like the Dungans are still there. One big example are Kalmuks who are Mongol speakers and buddhist, while other Mongols in the Caucasus/Pontic steppe shifted to Kipchak Turkic after converting to Islam. They mixed with other people and became Nogais, Tatars, Chuvash, etc...

 

[Greying Wanderer]

Yes obviously. He was like 50% MN_European. An amazing thing is 2200 years after in 300 BC, a Sycthian genome has the same R1a-Z94 and same autosomal makeup except for 10% Siberian.

It's remarkable how long R1a-Z93 groups remained in North Eurasia with very little foreign admixture and how wide of an area they lived. Lots were very mixed but some weren't. The Sycthians, Sarmatians, Alans, etc. are quite obviously simple the various descendants of Sintatashta/Timber Grave. They weren't a single ethnicity.

A mystery is what happened to them. Did they get absorbed and replaced by North Asian people? Modern Volga/Steppe pops are the most mixed in Europe. They're part Slavic, part Norse, part Indo Iranian, part Finno-urgic(whatever it is), part Turkic, part Yamnaya, etc. after Steppe>Europe migrations, there were a million Europe>Steppe and Asia>Steppe migrations. In that area they were obviously absorbed/mixed with people, but in North Asia it looks like they were simply replaced/exterminated, there's barely a signal of Steppe ancestry there.

I think the early steppe expansions were west to east but switched east to west later so that explains half of it.

My guess on the mixture in the west is by taking captives, raider populations autosomally gradually turn into the people they raid.

 

[Tomenable]

raider populations autosomally gradually turn into the people they raid.

Good point. Of course this happens only to some extent.

 

[MOESAN]

Because centuries later they converted to Islam and so decided to better blend in the Islamic world, by adopting the languages of Muslims. Not all of them were Mongols, but also Manchus, Khitans, etc... even many Chinese converted to Islam and adopted the native languages. Some groups like the Dungans are still there. One big example are Kalmuks who are Mongol speakers and buddhist, while other Mongols in the Caucasus/Pontic steppe shifted to Kipchak Turkic after converting to Islam. They mixed with other people and became Nogais, Tatars, Chuvash, etc...

It's not the whole explanation, there is not any nation that was completely slaughtered, even if males payed an heavy tribute. And Hungary show us an other story about the relations between winners and loosers... the mt DNA in today Steppes show a stronger europaisan (europoid) imput, and even some not turkc not mongol Y lignages survived in lands sacked by Turks and Mongols.

 

[MOESAN]

But this is all just Scythians yet, we know about the Sarmatians, even by archeologists, anthropologists and historians that they had a more significant(even compared to Scythians) "southern" inpiut.

And we don't have yet any of these samples.

in fact on plottings I saw Sarmatians, some Alans, and Roxolans and Iazyges are situated halfway between Scot Orcadians and Pathans, but are not very shifted towards South Europe and even less towards Bedawins. they are closed to Cimmerians, these last ones closer yet to North Europeans. So more South Central Asia than true South

 

[Alan]

In CHG K8 admixture he looks like Sintashta with some Siberian which pulls him east.

As I have said in your thread already. CHG k8 Eurogenes is not perfectly reliable. It has it's issues some of the EEF ancestry is getti ng eaten up as CHG, therefore Sardinians turn out with a whole chunk of CHG. While CHG ancestry is getting eaten up by EHG and EHG by WHG.

On the PCA of the study. The Scythian samples did not only cluster further east (due to their ~10% East Eurasian) but also further South from Andronovo and Sintashta that can only be explained with further Southern admixture.

He isn't manipulating data.

You are being too naive if you believe he hasn't an agenda. Everyone of the bloggers have. In every of his calculators so far always Southern Admixture decreases in favor of Northern admixture. Why this kind of "errors" never happen to the opposite. His work is good but he is making himself not very reliable because of these kind of things.

I don't know anything about this, but i do know other methods are more relatible than PCA and that academic studie's PCAs do look goofy often times. And they are not more reliable than ADMIXTURE and formal stats.

No they didn't look goofy just because some individuals don't like them. PCAs are not reliable for populations with very mixed origin. They can often plot on region they don't really belong but PCAs can show you a trend. And the trend is visible.

That could be but this Sycthian in ADMIXTURE at least doesn't seem to have Southern input. It should be investigated but he is certainly mostly from Sintashta.

I am absolutely stunned how the Scythians can be Sintashta if even Andronovo (said by some to be Proto-Scythian) differs significantly enough from Proto Sintashta by having slightly less EF and more CHG/EHG. You haven't seen any other professional admixture analyses on the Scythian samples so far.

That idea makes a lot of sense. And it made a lot more sense back then. But now we have ancient Steppe DNA and they didn't fill the gap. Their relation to Northern West Asia and S/C Asia is mostly due to shared CHG.

In what way does this contradict what I said. They fill the gap exactly because they have more of the Caucasus and Central Asian component compared to modern East Europeans which fits them in between East Europeans and North Caucasians-Central Asians. This is how they are placed on all PCAs. You are not blind haven't you seen it or are you just ignoring it. Who on freakny earth has a ~50/50 EHG/CHG ancestry in modern Europe? This kind of population has died out. Therefore there is a gap. Before this this gap was closed by Yamna, Afaniesevo and especially North iranic groups.

 

[Alan]

in fact on plottings I saw Sarmatians, some Alans, and Roxolans and Iazyges are situated halfway between Scot Orcadians and Pathans, but are not very shifted towards South Europe and even less towards Bedawins. they are closed to Cimmerians, these last ones closer yet to North Europeans. So more South Central Asia than true South

Yes, but I didn't lost a word about Bedouins or akine. They couldn't plot close to them because they obviously were a mxiture of a Steppe and modern Caucasus /South Central Asian like group.

But I haven't yet seen any PCA of Alans or Sarmatians (are their even any results published yet). Would love if you could share the PCAs want to have a look at them.

 

[MOESAN]

Yes, but I didn't lost a word about Bedouins or akine. They couldn't plot close to them because they obviously were a mxiture of a Steppe and modern Caucasus /South Central Asian like group.

But I haven't yet seen any PCA of Alans or Sarmatians (are their even any results published yet). Would love if you could share the PCAs want to have a look at them.

I've the "map" at hand but not the source (ir could be a hobbyist re-worked one so not so reliable as a scientist work; I'm looking for the source and send it to you.

 

[moore2moore]

I noticed a spike in 3-letter acronym use coinciding with the "discovery of teal." Might I respectfully suggest something?

First the deficiencies, as I respectfully see them, at least:

1. Before farming, every culture was a Hunter Gatherer. Thus, every component of a certain age will have -HG as part of its acronym, i.e., CHG, WHG, EHG, etc.

2. When we use such broad terms, it gives the mistaken impression that some scientist somewhere did a broad sample, and is comparing moderns with all, or a large group of, for example Western Hunter Gatherers.

In fact (look it up!), when we say WHG, we mean just Loschbour. When we say ANE, we mean just Mal'ta, when we say EEF, we mean Stuttgart, etc.

Why not just say that a modern (individual or population) has (whatever percentage) affinity with the sample itself, and when found?

For example, instead of saying "CHG," we would say, "Kotias2015." (The find, and year).

That would not give the false impression that this was a broad comparison to a large population. It's not. And it would also reduce the redundancy of adding Hunter Gatherer to all ancient remains past a certain age.

 

[MOESAN]

I noticed a spike in 3-letter acronym use coinciding with the "discovery of teal." Might I respectfully suggest something?

First the deficiencies, as I respectfully see them, at least:

1. Before farming, every culture was a Hunter Gatherer. Thus, every component of a certain age will have -HG as part of its acronym, i.e., CHG, WHG, EHG, etc.

2. When we use such broad terms, it gives the mistaken impression that some scientist somewhere did a broad sample, and is comparing moderns with all, or a large group of, for example Western Hunter Gatherers.

In fact (look it up!), when we say WHG, we mean just Loschbour. When we say ANE, we mean just Mal'ta, when we say EEF, we mean Stuttgart, etc.

Why not just say that a modern (individual or population) has (whatever percentage) affinity with the sample itself, and when found?

For example, instead of saying "CHG," we would say, "Kotias2015." (The find, and year).

That would not give the false impression that this was a broad comparison to a large population. It's not. And it would also reduce the redundancy of adding Hunter Gatherer to all ancient remains past a certain age.

You're right for most cases, but in other cases we have several individuals of the same region and not too far in time and with the same culture broadly said (Neolithic etc...) - the better way to do is to cite every individual with time and localization as you say, what doesn't exclude to make means when sensible. by the way the individual comparisons are interesting because they show great individual variations spanning short periods among the same culture, not everytime, not everywhere, and it helps to catch some mutations periods in History and some social practices(political intermariages and so on). We see variations in Hungary BA and BBs, and 'east-asian' rising at iron Age.

to Alan: sorry, I don't find the origin of my PCA about Sakas, Scythians and other Cimmerians; but the space distribution on the PCA I have doesn't point to an Eurogenes product at first glance. By the way the mentioned Eurogenes wrote a post about a Scythian drift towards N-E and N Europe if I'm right (you can check it): the commentaries are interesting as someones mention big differences between different Scythians according to location... Evrybody can go to read it on Eurogenes blog; no surprise: I think the most of the Scythians studied were from IA, a very human crossings time in Central Asia at least, maybe elsewhere.