# Population Genetics > Autosomal Genetics >  DNA Tribes Autosomal Results

## Alan

DNAtribes have improved there data and differentiate very good between the different Genes shared. They give you a very specific and most detailed analyses of the genetic relations.

http://www.dnatribes.com/dnatribes-s...2012-08-01.pdf

They have now a huge Data available and improved their whole Calculation.






*About the so called "Persian" component.





DNATribes is calling the most prominent component in Kurds the "Persian" component (or "world region") regardless of the fact that it is peaking in Kurds (39.5%) and not in Iran (22.0%). Turkmen also have a high portion of this component (32.6%). The description of this component states: "Lake Urmia, Zagros and Elburz Mountains." Lake Urmia is not Persian, the Zagros Mountains are not Persian. Some people still seem to have problems to distinguish between "Iranic" and "Persian"




The best Term for this component would be "South Caspian" since it obviously follows a southern route from West Caspian to East. It most probably contained in the ancient Median, Parthian and some Scythian groups.

The "North Caucasus" component is a connection between the North Caucasus and Pontic-Caspian Steppes.

The "Indus Valley" component seems to be a more "Western Central- South Asian" like component.

The "Eastmediterranean" component seems to be Levant-Transcaucasus specific.

"Iberian" is a general South(west) European component peaking in Iberians.


*

----------


## Goga

Great. Kurds have the highest amount of the so called 'Persian' component, 39.5%. As far as I know modern Kurds are as a nation genetically the closest ethnic group to the ancient '_Umman Manda_', Iranic folks like the Medes.

Iranians are after the Kurds the second largest group and are only for about 22.5% 'Persian'.

----------


## Knovas

Their analysis were quite good even before the last update. They added more data thanks to the Eurogenes project participants who did the test for free (including my sample).

That's what they said to me, note that we are not dealing with the same analysis, but the population matches would come out surely the same. It makes sense to me considering I'm Catalan:

21 World regions 

63.30% Iberian 
27.05% Northwest European 
6.37% Arabian 
2.01% Baltic-Urals 
1.05% North African 
0.21% South India 

Top 10 populations 

1 Basque Spain 0.7174 - Europe 
2 Basque France 0.7171 - Europe 
3 France 0.7168 - Europe 
4 Bergamo Italy 0.7167 - Europe 
5 Lithuania 0.7161 - Europe 
6 Spain 0.7158 - Europe 
7 England 0.7157 - Europe 
8 Galicia Spain 0.7156 - Europe 
9 European-American Utah 0.7154 - Diaspora 
10 Cornwall West Britain 0.7153 - Europe 

If I remove European-American Utah, then Sardinians show up with 7152 (10).

I think I've recieved more accurate admixture percents than those from both Eurogenes and Dodecad, but it's still quite consistent showing a strong connection with Basques as I've seen before in many other experiments. The top 10 populations make sense to me, except for Lithuania. I don't plan to pay for the last test, but considering there's and East Med cluster, it seems to me that the Arabian would completely disappear according to new Iberian results I've seen (possibly increasing North African).

----------


## Kardu

For my sample the results are bit weird :) 
Alongside obvious Georgian, Armenian, Adyghe, Abkhazian, Balkar and Ossetian I get Hungary as number 9, Bergamo Italy - 10, Cyprus -11, Western Scotland and Ireland - 13, Basque Spain -14, Tuscany Italy -15.

So I remain skeptical :)

----------


## Alan

> Great. Kurds have the highest amount of the so called 'Persian' component, 39.5%. As far as I know modern Kurds are as a nation genetically the closest ethnic group to the ancient '_Umman Manda_', Iranic folks like the Medes (the greatest Iranics of them all).
> 
> Iranians are after the Kurds the second group and are only for about 22.5% 'Persian'. With other words, Iranians steal history from the Kurds.



As I mentioned "Persian" is a wrong terminus used for this component and obviously stems from the fact that many people still think Iran is equal to Persia. However this component peaks in Northwest Iran/North Mesopotamia/Southeast Caucasus and follows a Southern Caspian root to Northeast Iran-Turkmenistan. This is the legacy of Median/Parthian/Scythian and Mannaean/Hurrian ancestors.

----------


## Goga

> As I mentioned "Persian" is a wrong terminus used for this component and obviously stems from the fact that many people still think Iran is equal to Persia. However this component peaks in Northwest Iran/North Mesopotamia/Southeast Caucasus and follows a Southern Caspian root to Northeast Iran-Turkmenistan. This is the legacy of Median/Parthian/Scythian and Mannaean/Hurrian ancestors.


Yes, the so called 'Persian' component is not really 'Iranian/Persian' but 'Kurdish/Median' from Zagros moutains. 

As you can see Armenians have with 40.9% the highest percentage of East Mediterranean component, while Kurds, like other folks in the Transcaucasia have around 20.0% of it.
What I'm trying to say is that the '_Umman Manda_' tribes were practically an admixture of Persian-North Caucasus-East Mediterranean components.

According to DNAtribes Kurds have also for about 7.2% of Balochi/Gedrosia component. There're two possibilities.
This could mean that a part of Kurds moved to Gedrosia, Balochi language is a West-Iranic language, and according to the Balochi folks they are descendants of the Medes from Kurdistan.
Or that people of Baluchistan moved to Kurdistan, like Parthians and Saka/Eastern Scythians.

----------


## wormhole

Wow, it shoes 0% for Sub-Saharan African/Northeast African for all countries except for Spain and Portugal. What does Middle Eastern mean?

----------


## Knovas

Scores are less than 1%, not worth mention this. Checking the 24 world regions most countries, specially those in Southern Europe, show Egyptian and North African. Having high amounts of East Med seems to indicate similar ancestry as well at some point, since Southern Italy has a lot of it. The so called component peaks in Azerbaijan Jews, obviously substantial amounts are telling something.

Middle Eastern should mean Mediterranean with some East African influence, but in the previous test it wasn't exactly like this (it was more about overlaping groups related to the Middle East, so maybe it was only the Mediterranean similarity). According to the results I've seen this Middle Eastern seems more East African influenced than the other, but until I test myself and compare the results of both analysis I cannot know it for sure. For instance, the Andalusian sample shows no African, but has higher Mideast than the whole Spain instead, and the same is surely valid for other populations with apparently no African (but high in Mideast).

The few Northern Europeans I've seen tend to get some East Asian scores (as well as Amerindian or Oceanian) despite the fact they come out 100% European in the 8 Continents.

----------


## Kardu

Which 'Middle Eastern' do you mean? On the schemes here I can't see it

----------


## Knovas

It's in the 8 continents admixture (not the 24 World Regions).

----------


## Kardu

> It's in the 8 continents admixture (not the 24 World Regions).


Ah, now I see, gracies :) But why do you say East Africa and not just Arab/Beduin/Old Semitic?

----------


## Knovas

They are representative of the Southwest Asian component at higher ressolution (different tests), but according to Dienekes' and Davidski this component is basically Mediterranean with some East African influence. It's the same as if we check Berbers at higher ressolution: they come out very high in Northwest African, which is also Mediterranean with some African as well.

The present Middle Eastern in the 8 continental admixture seems more "Southwest Asian like" than it was before, that's the main point.

----------


## wormhole

> Scores are less than 1%, not worth mention this. *Checking the 24 world regions most countries, specially those in Southern Europe, show Egyptian and North African. Having high amounts of East Med seems to indicate similar ancestry as well at some point, since Southern Italy has a lot of it*.
> 
> *Middle Eastern should mean Mediterranean with some East African influence*


No, it is worth mentioning this since it shows up in the Spanish cluster. 

There's barley any Egyptian in Southern Italians and even less if Sicilians aren't considered. Sicilians shouldn't even be apart of the Italian cluster since they have a different genetic history altogether. Spanish/Portuguese have highest N.African influence. 

And no, As you can see, there is 0% East African in the Italy (General) category as well as Southern Italy/Sicily.

----------


## Knovas

The General Italian sample shows 6% Egyptian, so you obviously see what you want to see. And by the way, you don't understand what the issue is (or you simply don't want to understand): the African influence is INSIDE the Middle Eastern cluster, this is atested by the example I posted concerning the Andalusian (0% African) and the general Spanish samples (0.1%...ridiculous lol). And also atested by the 24 world regions, where seems clear that the mentioned populations are not 0% African (East Med, Arabian, North African and Egyptian). That's what really worth mentioning if you want to talk about African influence, although I asume you don't like to accept it of course.

----------


## wormhole

> *The General Italian sample shows 6% Egyptian, so you obviously see what you want to see.* And by the way, you don't understand what the issue is (or you simply don't want to understand): the African influence is INSIDE the Middle Eastern cluster, this is atested by the example I posted concerning the Andalusian (0% African) and the general Spanish samples (0.1%...ridiculous lol). And also atested by the 24 world regions, where seems clear that the mentioned populations are not 0% African (East Med, Arabian, North African and Egyptian). That's what really worth mentioning if you want to talk about African influence, although I asume you don't like to accept it of course.


Are you blind, or can you articulate and read what I just wrote? Sicilians aren't Italian, nor do they consider themselves to be. In you remove them from the equation, the amount of Egyptian would drop ENORMOUSLY. If you want to talk about admixture, how come Spain has 6.0% N.African while Italy (General) has 1.4%? Maybe it's something that YOU don't want to see/accept. Southern Italy/Sicily alone is 4.8%. Imagine how much of the Egyptian would drop if Sicily was removed from the equation.

----------


## Knovas

The only blind is you. 6% is *General Italy,* and Spain is also general, so it's exactly the same. Spain has much lower Egyptian and much lower East Med (which is obviously African shifted and very high in ALL Italian regions, but you like to miss this point). So stop worrying about the African genes in Iberia and take care of your Italians.

However, this are the figures without East Med and Arabian (also African shifted and higher in Italy, by the way):

Spain: 1% Egyptian and 6% NA
General Italy: 6.1% Egyptian and 1.4% NA

Even with this figures I don't consider the African contribution significant nowhere in Europe, but considering you're so concerned about it you'll probably enjoy the summary. I hope so, good night ;)

PD: Weren't you the one who said that Southern Italy and Sicily were less African than Spain even with its history? And now it seems it alters the equation so much LOL. Seriously, stop t.r.o.l.l.i.n.g, you've been warned many times.

----------


## wormhole

> The only blind is you. 6% is *General Italy,* and Spain is also general, so it's exactly the same. Spain has much lower Egyptian and much lower East Med (which is obviously African shifted and very high in ALL Italian regions, but you like to miss this point). So stop worrying about the African genes in Iberia and take care of your Italians.
> 
> However, this are the figures without East Med and Arabian (also African shifted and higher in Italy, by the way):
> 
> Spain: 1% Egyptian and 6% NA
> General Italy: 6.1% Egyptian and 1.4% NA
> 
> Even with this figures I don't consider the African contribution significant nowhere in Europe, but considering you're so concerned about it you'll probably enjoy the summary. I hope so, good night ;)


Your delusional. Arabian is not African, nor African influenced first of all. You need to worry about genes in Spaniards from the trans-Atlantic slave trade. It's been confirmed time and time again that they have the brunt of it. Plus, East Med doesn't include African. Egyptian would be MUCH lower if Sicilians weren't included, thus making Italians have less Egyptian and 1.4% N.African. It's been confirmed that N.African DNA is only high in Sicily and pretty much absent in all other Italian regions.

And yes, Southern Italy/Sicily are much less African than Spain. Especially mainland Southern italy.

----------


## Knovas

For more you keep denying again and again, those clusters are admixed. You don't know what the admixture software does, it's useless to talk about this with someone like you with no other pretension than having fun with strange agendas. That's the only thing it's been largely confirmed, and I told you, you've been warned many times and still prefer not to listen.

----------


## wormhole

> For more you keep denying again and again, those clusters are admixed. You don't know what the admixture software does, it's useless to talk about this with someone like you with no other pretension than having fun with strange agendas. That's the only thing it's been largely confirmed, and I told you, you've been warned many times and still prefer not to listen.


When it all comes down to it, Mainland Italians barley have any admixture. And yeah, I've been warned, so what? It's not like I'm breaking any rules. You just don't like people who disagree with you. Do you think you scare me?

----------


## Kardu

> When it all comes down to it, Mainland Italians barley have any admixture. And yeah, I've been warned, so what? It's not like I'm breaking any rules. You just don't like people who disagree with you. Do you think you scare me?


Before talking about generalized results and making flaming remarks, why don't you order a test? Who knows what your own ancestry is.. ;)

----------


## Knovas

> When it all comes down to it, Mainland Italians barley have any admixture. And yeah, I've been warned, so what? It's not like I'm breaking any rules. You just don't like people who disagree with you. Do you think you scare me?


You broke several rules and you got infractions. And no, you can't disagree because you don't have an opinion: your point is saying Iberians have African admixture when you see the smallest oportunity to do so (now for example, with ridiculous scores such as 0.1% and misinterpreting the componenets at your convenience). So a person with no Iberian ancestry is talking recurrently about this using the methods described above. 

There you are another example which proves you are t.r.o.l.l.i.n.g.



> And yes, Southern Italy/Sicily are much less African than Spain. Especially mainland Southern italy.


If Southern Italy and Sicily are less African, then how is it possible to obtain figures like this?

*Spain: 1% Egyptian and 6% NA
General Italy: 6.1% Egyptian and 1.4% NA*

If what you say is true (which is obviously not and you know it), then the figures should be lower for Italy, and they are not. So Southern Italy and Sicily are less African according to you, and you intentionally ignore the fact that added to Italy as whole makes the general Italian sample more African than Spain. And this without taking into account East Med and Arabian.

The only thing I can say is: thanks for clarifying your agenda, you'll make the task fairly easy.

+1 Kardu ;)

----------


## Alan

> Wow, it shoes 0% for Sub-Saharan African/Northeast African for all countries except for Spain and Portugal. What does Middle Eastern mean?





> Scores are less than 1%, not worth mention this. Checking the 24 world regions most countries, specially those in Southern Europe, show Egyptian and North African. Having high amounts of East Med seems to indicate similar ancestry as well at some point, since Southern Italy has a lot of it. The so called component peaks in Azerbaijan Jews, obviously substantial amounts are telling something.
> 
> Middle Eastern should mean Mediterranean with some East African influence, but in the previous test it wasn't exactly like this (it was more about overlaping groups related to the Middle East, so maybe it was only the Mediterranean similarity). According to the results I've seen this Middle Eastern seems more East African influenced than the other, but until I test myself and compare the results of both analysis I cannot know it for sure. For instance, the Andalusian sample shows no African, but has higher Mideast than the whole Spain instead, and the same is surely valid for other populations with apparently no African (but high in Mideast).
> 
> The few Northern Europeans I've seen tend to get some East Asian scores (as well as Amerindian or Oceanian) despite the fact they come out 100% European in the 8 Continents.





As Middle Eastern are counted "Arabian", "North African", "Egyptian", partly (probably 2/5) "Baloch", ~ half of the genes classified under "East Mediterranean" and "Persian".

Here as prove

South Italians/Sicilians are classified as 29.7% "Middle Eastern"

30.7% Eastmed / 2 = 15.3 %
2.2% Persian / 2 = 1.1
Arabian = 3.6%
North African = 5.5%
Egyptian = 4.8%

15.3 + 1.1 + 3.6 + 5.5 + 4.8 = 30.3%

30.3%~ 29.7% fits almost perfectly.

----------


## Knovas

I agree, although possibly the calculations would not always fit that good. Anyways, it basically shows that it makes no sense to assume those populations have no African or Asian influence (even the 3 main European clusters should deviate towards them in a lesser degree). A shame the Fst distances are not listed with precise numbers to see it properly.

For instance, if we check the Azerbaijan Jews, they show less Egyptian + North Africa than most Southern European Areas, but this by no way means they are less African influenced. Those genes simply got diluted inside the 65% East Med, it's just a different way to show the mentioned affinity. We could easily find other examples as well.

----------


## Rachel Burke

*Continent* 
*Percentage* 

European
99.2%

Native American
0.8%



Region Percentage
Northwest European 41.9%
Baltic-Urals 37.5%
Iberian 10.3%
North Caucasus 4.2%
Egyptian 3.1%
Arabian 1.8%
Mesoamerican 1.2%

Top 10 ancestral contributions
Population
Percentage
Ukraine 11.0%
Slovenia 9.5%
Lithuania 9.2%
Western Scotland and Ireland 7.0%
Belarus 6.5%
Tuscany Italy 6.2%
Russia General 5.7%
England 4.8%
Orkney Islands Scotland 4.7%
Scandinavia 3.8%

Top 10 populations
1 Lithuania 0.7153
2 Belarus 0.7148
3 Serbia and Croatia 0.7136
4 Ukraine 0.7136
5 Western Scotland and Ireland 0.7133
6 Slovenia 0.7131
7 Russia General 0.7131
8 Germany and Austria 0.7129
9 Netherlands 0.7128
10 European-American Utah 0.7128

----------


## jjmuneer123

I was wondering, why there is northern european component amongst Kurds? I see it is actually higher in Tajikis and Turkmens. Does anyone know why?

----------


## Goga

> I was wondering, why there is northern european component amongst Kurds? I see it is actually higher in Tajikis and Turkmens. Does anyone know why?


Huh, I see onlly 1.6% and it is almost nothing.

Tajikistan and Turkmenistan were part of the USSR. So for the same reason why there's Turkic and Mongolian DNA in Eastern Europe. Since the Slavic expansion to the East and Turkic expansion to the West there is a very tight interaction between Central Asian (Turkic) and Slavic tribes. Slavic people are partly Mongoloid.

In the past there lived a lot Russians and lot Russians are still living in Central Asia. Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan etc. A lot Russian females married with Turkic and Mongolian people in Central Asia!

----------


## jjmuneer123

> Huh, I see onlly 1.6% and it is almost nothing.
> 
> Tajikistan and Turkmenistan were part of the USSR. So for the same reason why there's Turkic and Mongolian DNA in Eastern Europe. Since the Slavic expansion to the East and Turkic expansion to the West there is a very tight interaction between Central Asian (Turkic) and Slavic tribes. Slavic people are partly Mongoloid.
> 
> In the past there lived a lot Russians and lot Russians are still living in Central Asia. Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan etc. A lot Russian females married with Turkic and Mongolian people in Central Asia!


On dodecad calculator it is 4.5%, and 1.6% percent isn't nothing. It is quite significant for a west asian population. I really doubt Tajikis and Turkmens have a higher North western european component due to the soviet union, nor is there evidence that they mixed. I'm also unaware of any early Slavic migrations into central asia.
Slavs on 'DNA tribes' are mostly Baltic.

----------


## jjmuneer123

> Great. Kurds have the highest amount of the so called 'Persian' component, 39.5%. As far as I know modern Kurds are as a nation genetically the closest ethnic group to the ancient '_Umman Manda_', Iranic folks like the Medes.
> 
> Iranians are after the Kurds the second largest group and are only for about 22.5% 'Persian'.


It's not meant to be "Median" marker. It is meant to be an 'Indo-Iranian' marker; they just termed it as 'Persian' for some reason. Hence why Bahrainis have a high percentage along with Turkmens, considering the Medes were never in Bahrain, but Persians were.

----------


## Goga

There's more Egyptian, Arabian, Indus Valley and even Iberian component in Kurds than North European component. So it's nothing. Just noice...

I was born in the USSR, I have seen many examples of mixed marriages between Russian and Turkic Central Asian folks.

Also I Know Russia history very well. Slavic tribes (Russians) and Turco-Mongolain tribes from central Asia are interaction with each other for thousands of years!

Eastern Russia toward Siberia was always populated by Turco-Mongolian tribes. Russian expansion toward east is well documented. And Turco-Mongolian expansion in Europe I also well documented

----------


## jjmuneer123

> As I mentioned "Persian" is a wrong terminus used for this component and obviously stems from the fact that many people still think Iran is equal to Persia. However this component peaks in Northwest Iran/North Mesopotamia/Southeast Caucasus and follows a Southern Caspian root to Northeast Iran-Turkmenistan. This is the legacy of Median/Parthian/Scythian and Mannaean/Hurrian ancestors.


Nope the component is strictly 'indo-Iranian', but they coined the term abit differently. Considering the caucasus as it's own component and so does 'east med'. Both probably relate to the pre-indo-european populations of west asia such as the Hurrians.

----------


## Goga

> It's not meant to be "Median" marker. It is meant to be an 'Indo-Iranian' marker; they just termed it as 'Persian' for some reason. Hence why Bahrainis have a high percentage along with Turkmens, considering the Medes were never in Bahrain, but Persians were.

----------


## Goga



----------


## Goga

> Nope the component is strictly 'indo-Iranian', but they coined the term abit differently. Considering the caucasus as it's own component and so does 'east med'. Both probably relate to the pre-indo-european populations of west asia such as the Hurrians.


No, Indo-Iranian folks didn't belong to strictly 1 component. I believe they had also other components in them, like North Caucasus component.

East Med component in Kurds can be everything: from the Semitic Akkadians, Chaldeans or Jews to Greeks or Armenians or even proto-Indo-Europeans. Or just native to Kurds...

----------


## tlangford18

Very interesting post!

----------

