# Population Genetics > Autosomal Genetics >  Genetic origin of modern Armenians

## Angela

*Genetic evidence for an origin of the Armenians from Bronze Age mixing of multiple populations*See:
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v...206a.html#tbl1

"The Armenians are a culturally isolated population who historically inhabited a region in the Near East bounded by the Mediterranean and Black seas and the Caucasus, but remain under-represented in genetic studies and have a complex history including a major geographic displacement during World War I. Here, we analyse genome-wide variation in 173 Armenians and compare them with 78 other worldwide populations. We find that Armenians form a distinctive cluster linking the Near East, Europe, and the Caucasus. *We show that Armenian diversity can be explained by several mixtures of Eurasian populations that occurred between ~3000 and ~2000 bce, a period characterized by major population migrations after the domestication of the horse, appearance of chariots, and the rise of advanced civilizations in the Near East. However, genetic signals of population mixture cease after ~1200 bce when Bronze Age civilizations in the Eastern Mediterranean world suddenly and violently collapsed.* Armenians have since remained isolated and genetic structure within the population developed ~500 years ago when Armenia was divided between the Ottomans and the Safavid Empire in Iran. *Finally, we show that Armenians have higher genetic affinity to Neolithic Europeans than other present-day Near Easterners, and that 29% of Armenian ancestry may originate from an ancestral population that is best represented by Neolithic Europeans."

*There are other interesting bits:

"We observe that Armenians form a distinctive cluster bounded by Europeans, Near Easterners, and the Caucasus populations. More specifically, Armenians are close to (1) Spaniards, Italians, and Romanians from Europe; (2) Lebanese, Jews, Druze, and Cypriots from the Near East; and (3) Georgians and Abkhazians from the Caucasus (Figure 2b). The position of the Armenians within the global genetic diversity appears to mirror the geographical location of Turkey."

More relating to what I think we can now call EEF/Anatolian Neolithic:
"We then ran _TreeMix_ allowing it to infer only one migration event, and revealed gene flow from the Iceman to Armenians, accounting for about 29% of their ancestry. The graph structure appeared robust in 100 bootstrap replicates with the first migration (highest weight and lowest _P_-value), always leading from the Iceman to Armenians (Figure 4"

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/fig_tab/ejhg2015206f4.html#figure-titl


This is more confusing:
" We found signals of mixture from several African and Eurasian populations (Table 1, Figure 3). The most significantly negative _f3_ statistics are from a mixture of populations related to Sardinians and Central Asians, followed by several mixtures of populations from the Caucasus, Arabian Peninsula, the Levant, Europe, and Africa. We sought to date these mixture of events using exponential decay of admixture-induced LD. The oldest mixture events appear to be between populations related to sub-Saharan Africans and West Europeans occurring ~3800 bce, followed closely by a mixture of Sardinian and Caucasus-related populations. Later, several mixture events occurred from 3000 to 1200 bce involving diverse Eurasian populations (Table 1, Figure 3)."

Are they talking about a movement north from the area of Arabia around 3800 BCE? (so, close to 6,000 years ago?) What evidence do we have for an archaeological movement which would track that? IF that's the case, did it not affect the more westerly Anatolian Neolithic groups, or if it _did_ affect them, then _when_ did it affect them? What's the date for Barcin again? (Sorry, I'm in a rush) If the Aegean populations received diffused gene flow from this movement, then it would have affected all subsequent movements into Europe, including Bronze Age and Iron Age ones. Why also do they show it as a mixture of SSA and_ West Europeans_? Also, is this another Alder "time estimation" problem? 

The mixture of Sardinian and Caucasus related populations around that time makes more sense. IF the timing is correct, then perhaps ANE didn't arrive until shortly after that time. 
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v...l#figure-title

----------


## MOESAN

I had red this digest and I find it weird I did not write about it - but it's it (+ my logic for what it's worth) which push me to interprete the difference auDNA ancient vs modern Armenians as rather the mark of a N>>S influence and not a S>>N one at Bronze Age...

----------


## Alan

God another of those idiotic articles. First the Mansi -ANE paper now that. It looks like anyone can nowadays become a "scientist" on this fields.
When agenda is mixed into science. How incredibly stupid or ignorant must someone be to claim the ethnogenesis of Armenians all formed during the Bronze Age (2000-3000 BC) when you have genetic material by hand that proves that modern Armenians are by at least 50% different to ancient Transcaucasians/North Mesopotamians and have 70% dissimilarity to neolithic Anatolians.

I mean the guy who wrote this article says that all important mixing for the Armenian ethnogenesis happened during the Bronze age so he is seriously proposing a 100% continuity of ancient Bronze Age Anatolians to modern Armenians!

Over 4-5000 of years of continuity in a region we know there was a massive population change within single millennia. So what happened to the 50-70% genetic dissimilarity to ancient samples?

*As I said in the past NON of the current ethnicities in the Near East can be traced further back than the Iron Age anyone who claims different has a ethno-agenda or has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. I even doubt that there is any population in the old world that can trace their ethnicity prior to Iron Age.*

Another simple argument to destroy this hypothesis. I take the Bronze Age samples from Armenia as examples. We know that the ethnogenesis of modern Turks in Anatolia, Mesopotamia and Iranian Plateau is not older than ~1000 years. And that of the Iranians/Persians who are mentioned in the region during the Iron AGE.

So if those BA Armenian samples appear more similar to North Caucasians, Iranians/Tajiks and even "Turks" (more of a coincidence because Turks are basically a mostly a mix of Iranians, Circassians/Georgians, Greeks and Armenians) than modern Armenians . And we know that Iranians and Turks are the results of post Bronze Age period. 
How the heck can Armenians be the result of Bronze Age mixings if other post Bronze Age populations show closer affinities based on fst distances, where is the logic? Additional to that is there any mention of Armenians 2000 to 3000 BC?

No the fact that Armenians appear more EEF shifted fits actually perfectly with the Iron Age West_Central Anatolia-Balkan hypothesis and looks like an eastward migration and the EEF in BaArmenians is of different source than the EEF in modern Armenians which looks rather like a "backflow" from further West.

*I am actually not disagreeing with the proposal of an Anatolian origin of Armenians. Since I do also favor the hypothesis that the proto Armenian speakers came ultimately from West_Central Anatolia. I am just disagreeing with the proposel that the forming of the Armenian ethnogenesis finished all during Bronze Age.* We know from Iron Age Thracian samples that there were until Iron Age still completely EEF like individuals in West Anatolia and Balkans. I would say during Bronze Age West- and Central Anatolia was already been heavily mixed with teal like Groups but yet still more EEF like similar to Balkans. But by Iron Age it would be more 40/60 and fit better the modern Armenians. 

Armenians are a two or even three way mix, the result of Bronze Age Central Anatolian/Transcaucasians/Mesopotamian groups such as the Hatti/Hurrians/Urartains and Iron Age group coming from West Anatolia such as the Phrygians who gave them their language. But it didn't stop here. modern Armenians are also the result of heavy Iranic admixture via Medes/Parthians, Cimmerians and Persians. It is even said that a whole chunk of West Parthians became Christians and Armenians. That is simply undeniable. And anyone claiming the forming ended 2-3000 BC, is being absurd and should not call himself a scientist on this field in my honest opinion.

----------


## Arame

Moesan

This article was already published in bioRxiv before the Allentoft et al. paper with aDNA from Armenia. Then it passed peer-review ( You know that peer-review can sometimes last long ) and now it is present in Nature. 
I don't think that Nature's editor didn't knew about the Allentoft paper. 

Btw this 1200 BC date is not something new. It was present in the Dienekes rolloff analysis also made 3 years ago. 
So similar methods gives similar results.

----------


## Arame

Alan

You hurry too much with conclusions. There is no aDNA from Eastern Turkey and North Mesopotamia. 

There is only some MB/LB/IA from the peripheral side of modern Republic Armenia. I use the word peripheral because from archaeological points of view those places were different from Ararat Valley, and certainly much more different from Van region, Pontic region or Iraqi Kurdistan. And we only Early Neolithic samples from NW Anatolia.
I don't understand how You can be so self confident about places that were the 'frontline' of two/three different Worlds, western farmers and eastern pastoralists/farmers. Combine this with southern afro-asiatics.

Do You know that the oldest sample of MBA Armenia clusters with modern Armenians? How does it fit into Your theory?
Isn't it obvious that there was a lot off heterogeneity both in time and space during the bronze age. 

Armenia_PCA3.jpg

----------


## Arame

Alan 
You can't call teal as a Persian/Iranian ancestry because it is a generic IE ancestry. Teal+EHG=PIE.
Teal is also shared by some non IE people like the Caucasian nations. So I don't see how You found that Armenians had a huge Iranian ancestry. An Iranian ( i mean historic post-BMAC Iranian) ancestry would bring with him some (not big but measurable ) ASI. But Armenians don't have ASI. So I don't know how You make that claim. The level of Z93 is also very low among Armenians. Less than 2%.

But Your claim do have basis from another point of view. Armenians share the bulk of their ancestry with Iranian people. *And the level of this ancestry is much higher than the Oetzi's 29%.* And linguistically it is like this. And culturally it was like this. Perhaps You don't know but initially the Armenian language was classified as an Iranian group language. 
You just don't want to admit that the Proto-Armenian is from the 'teal' side :)

----------


## MOESAN

@ Arame
'teal' is a large-spectre pooling with internal variations according to regions ('gedrosia', 'caucasus' and ... ?)

@ Alan
I still have some doubts about accuracy of subclades datations for DNA and genes stream direction but I have not the knowledge to discuss them. I don’ think Armenia were a so stable place after BA, ‘southwest-asian’ DNA of Semites can have been reinforced in later times, as well as other components. But it’s not sure IA send so much revolution in the auDNA after BA; when speaking about CA and BA we see places by example in C-S-E Europe where the cultural changes did not radically change the auDNA at first, before the Steppes people introgression: few new elite males drown genetically? Or completely “new” people but coming from lands where the admixture was already the same as in the target places?… the same could have occurred during IA. And I have in mind that when mixings take place involving very different populations with pseudo “pure” DNA, the first results are drastic; but after centuries of osmosis or continual invasions on every directions in the same lands from the same sources, the new mixings modify only very slightly the precedent situations. Plus: in some cases some “invasions” knew a back wave and left few DNA imput (rare it’s true).
that said, the Ötzi Iceman question is amazing for me: what this survey want to prove?: a West to East move at BA? I'm not sure archeology confirms that... I haveto read it again or I'm afraid I 'll say nonsense.

----------


## Goga

> Alan 
> You can't call teal as a Persian/Iranian ancestry because it is a generic IE ancestry. Teal+EHG=PIE.
> Teal is also shared by some non IE people like the Caucasian nations. So I don't see how You found that Armenians had a huge Iranian ancestry. An Iranian ( i mean historic post-BMAC Iranian) ancestry would bring with him some (not big but measurable ) ASI. But Armenians don't have ASI. So I don't know how You make that claim. The level of Z93 is also very low among Armenians. Less than 2%.
> 
> But Your claim do have basis from another point of view. Armenians share the bulk of their ancestry with Iranian people. *And the level of this ancestry is much higher than the Oetzi's 29%.* And linguistically it is like this. And culturally it was like this. Perhaps You don't know but initially the Armenian language was classified as an Iranian group language. 
> You just don't want to admit that the Proto-Armenian is from the 'teal' side :)


Teal+EHG is NOT PIE, but Teal + some Steppe ancestry was part of Yamnaya folks that entered Europe.

The very first and original PIE were only Teal! Those folks brought Teal into Yamnaya horizon

Armenians are mostly descendants of the ancient Urartu and were not Indo-European at all. Later on they mixed with the Semitic tribes from the south (from Arabia and Levant). But later on they got Indo-Europized by folks close to Kurds and Persians, folks with a huge part of Teal/Gedrosia in them. But still in general Armenians don't cluster with Kurds and Persians, Armenians are closer to West Anatolian and Levant folks.

Z93 was not the only marker of the ancestors of the Medes and Persians. I'm sure that J2a and some other markers were also prominent in them, Iranid folks.

----------


## Arame

Moesan

The Oetzi ancestry among Armenians is not a sensation. It should be like this. After all Oetzi's ancestor came from NW Anatolia and ultimatly from places like Catal Hoyuk or even further east and south. Rootsie et al. showed that the most probable origin of G is somewhere between Anatolia, Armenia and NW Iran. Modern Armenians have 12% of G and have almost all kinds of the subclades of that haplogroup even two cases of Oetzi's G2-L91. 

Logically Turks should have higher Oetzi ancestry, but because Anatolia had higher population turnover than the mountains in the final they got diluted their Oetzi like ancestry. If You remove the 7.5 % of East Asia from Turks, then remove the extra WHG that appeared there from Balkans due to Slavic expansion. And if You remove the extra 'teal' brought by Turks from Iran and South Central Asia ( imagine that a turkish tribe having an Afshar ancestry do have more than 45% of haplogroup L ) . After all this removing You will have a population that will have higher EEF than modern Armenians. And will cluster more to West than modern Armenians on the PCA. 

In fact there is no even need to make that calculations. Because there is a Turkish population that live in a isolated place and was affected very little by all this movement. It is the Trabzon Turks.
On the PCA they cluster more West than modern Armenians and I guess they will have slightly higher Oetzi than Armenians. Here the top is the West. The left is the North.

----------


## Arame

Goga




> The very first and original PIE were only Teal!


I will be glad if You find a proof of that claim. :)




> But later on they got Indo-Europized by folks close to Kurds and Persians, folks with a huge part of Teal/Gedrosia in them.


This claim makes sense. But You need to understand that this happened before the Urartu and not later.




> Z93 was not the only marker of the ancestors of the Medes and Persians. I'm sure that J2a and some other markers were also prominent in them, Iranid folks.


Of course they are prominent. Because the origin of J2 is in Iranian plateau. But You need to find some J2 subclades that are comparable to the age of Proto-Indo-Iranian language. And after finding this Iranian markers You can say me the SNP numbers and I will tell how many Armenians do have it.

----------


## Goga

> Goga
> 
> 
> 
> I will be glad if You find a proof of that claim. :)
> 
> 
> 
> This claim makes sense. But You need to understand that this happened before the Urartu and not later.
> ...


1) There was a migration from the Iranian Plateau into Yamnaya from 2 different directions. First: via Maykop. Second via the eastern side of the Caspian Sea. Folks from the Iranian Plateau brought 'Teal' into Yamnaya.

Check out this topic: http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31647-Genetic-History-of-Siberian-and-Northeastern-European-Populations





2) I thnk that Hurrians/Urartu folks were native to Caucasus and related to Kura-Araxes folks. It has been showen that there was a migration from Caucasus into Northern Kurdistan in the early Bronze age. It's possible that Urartu came from those Kura-Araxes folks.

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...ral-migrations




~





3) It's not that difficult. To find out which subclades of J2a, G, J, E were part of proto-Iranid folks you have to look for common J2a, G haplogroups among Kurds, Persians and native Iranic speaking tribes in SouthCentral Asia, folks around BMAC etc..

----------


## Alan

> Alan
> 
> You hurry too much with conclusions. There is no aDNA from Eastern Turkey and North Mesopotamia. 
> 
> There is only some MB/LB/IA from the peripheral side of modern Republic Armenia. I use the word peripheral because from archaeological points of view those places were different from Ararat Valley, and certainly much more different from Van region, Pontic region or Iraqi Kurdistan. And we only Early Neolithic samples from NW Anatolia.


Arame, modern state boundaries play absolutely no role for the distribution of genes in the ancient times. between 2000 to 100 BC, the time from where those samples are we are dealing with a continuity of the same people. Basically Urartaens/ Hurrians and Indo_Iranians. The people who lived in Bronze Age Armenia are not different from the people who lived in Bronze Age Ararat valley.





There is absolutely no way that people 100 miles away in Ararat valley were of different stock.




> I don't understand how You can be so self confident about places that were the 'frontline' of two/three different Worlds, western farmers and eastern pastoralists/farmers. Combine this with southern afro-asiatics.


See the explanation above, by 2000 BC you werent dealing with "three or two" frontlines anymore. East Anatolia was the merging point of East and West farmers which is quite franky visible from the BaArmenian samples. Those are basically this.



> Do You know that the oldest sample of MBA Armenia clusters with modern Armenians? How does it fit into Your theory?
> Isn't it obvious that there was a lot off heterogeneity both in time and space during the bronze age.


No my dear it does not cluster with Armenians. And it does fit in my theory. 

1. If you actually paid close attention to it, you would realize that* there is not even a single Iranic sample on this map, I wonder why. Also every ancient Armenian sample, expect Rise413 end up among North Caucasians and Georgians
*
2. You shouldn't take everything what Amateur bloggers post as granted. 

3. Another thing you have to know, "genetic closeness" is relative. Are modern Armenians relatively close to BaArmenians? Sure, but relativ to other groups of the region? The answer is clearly no. I don't know why we are still disputing this if we have aDNA, fst stats and oracle stats all showing this. But that isn't even the point, the point is that if other ethnicities of the Iron Age show slightly closer affinities to BaArmenians, that means modern Armenians can't be a Bronze Age phenomenon.

4. Take in mind this is just a PCA plot. There is something called PCA bias. We can never in the world show the relationship of groups based entirely on a two dimensional PCA. There is absolutely no way this will work. Just on coincidence two populations can appear to sit next to each other on a 2 dimensional plot because the genetic structure of both can make it appear like they are similar yet they can belong to completely different aDNA.
I give you an example. We had a Turkish girl who appeared on 2 dimensional PCA plot like a Northwest Iranian, despite most of her aDNA being completely typical West-Central Anatolian Turkish.
It was the East Eurasian admixture in her which dirifted towards east ending up somewhere in the Northwest Iranian cluster, despite autosomally being significantly distinct. We also had Balkan mixed Turks who ended up in middle of the Black Sea(no mans land) because the East Eurasian drifted them there. If you want to see real genetic relationship you need to take fst stats and Oracle tools.

But the only reason I brought up Iranians or other ethnicity as example is to make clear the absurdity of the claim that there is 5000 years of continuity, if even those groups whoms presence in the region is post 4000 BC show at least as much (if not more) affinities to those ancient samples. This is why the ethnicity of modern Armenians can't have formed 5000 BC. Obviously Armenians are the result of Bronze/Iron Age Central Anatolians, North Mesopotamians/Transcaucasians/Iranian Plateau and something Iron Age from West Anatolia or Balkans.

And sorry for my direct words *but there is absolutely no way,* that a population stayed homogenous in the Near East for over 4 to 5000 years! during a time when they historically didn't even exist yet. And if a "scientist" says that all the mixing responsible for the Armenian ethnogenesis happened 4 to 5000 years ago, than he is basically claiming that Armenians as we know them, not only formed during that time but also stayed homogenous for so long. And I can't think of anything but ethno-agenda being the reason for such kind of absurd claim. 

And any people of modern times who tells me his ethnicity is beyond 3000 years old and even than has minimally changed genetic wise from even that far back* let alone 4 to 5000 years ago 
*has lost any credibility in my eyes.

So let me say it one more time. No population in the "old world" can claim that their ethnicity predates Iron Age. And if there is someone who thinks he can do that, he has no idea of history and genetics and is merely basing it on his ethno-agenda. Thats my honest opinion.

----------


## Alan

> Alan 
> You can't call teal as a Persian/Iranian ancestry because it is a generic IE ancestry. Teal+EHG=PIE.



Dear Arame when did I call Teal "Persian/Iranian" ? There is allot of Teal *like* admixture in Armenians. But the whole point is they have rather little of two/three decisive components of the teal DNA. They almost lack the "North European" type DNA which probably came in connection with the ANE ancestry in Teal, while BaArmenians had 20% of it, similar amount as North Caucasians and Tajiks and almos twice as much as modern West Iranic groups. Armenians only have ~3% of it. 
BaArmenian sample had 25% of Atl-Med and 25% of Caucasus and 25% of Gedrosia component. Modern Armenians have 10% Atl_Med, 56% Caucasus and 16% Gedrosia. 
BaArmenian sample had 0% SW Asian, modern Armenians have 14%. 

You see were I am going? BaArmenians had a very different genetic structure to *any* modern population in the same region, even to North Caucasians. Going by this numbers modern Armenians share at max ~40-50% of their ancestry with BaArmenians. Now if some "scientists" comes and tries to explain me that all the important mixture which caused the Armenian ethnogenesis happened during Bronze Age. What not only implies that Armenians are 4-5000 Years but also have a close to 100% genetic continuity to modern times. Can you imagine how absurd this statement appears in my eyes knowing these numbers and the history of the region?

By Iron Age however the samples were slowly shifting visibly towards modern Kurds, Iranians and Armenians. From 0% SW Asian to ~6% caused most probably by Assyrian and other Semite expansions into the region. From 25% Atl_Med to ~15% from 20% North Euro to ~15% and ~5-10% ASI/ South_Central Asian(Andronovo) like ancestry appearing.





> Teal is also shared by some non IE people like the Caucasian nations. So I don't see how You found that Armenians had a huge Iranian ancestry. An Iranian ( i mean historic post-BMAC Iranian) ancestry would bring with him some (not big but measurable ) ASI.


I never said Teal is Iranian. I know it is shared by non Indo European people too. But wasn't you actually being advocating for Iranic ancestry in Armenians yourself? There is Iranic ancestry in Armenians without a doubt. The role Medes/Parthians, Persians and Cimmerians played on Armenians can't be denied.
Andronovo had ~5-10% ASI. By the time they reached West Asia some of it must have been deluted. But than Iron Age Armenian samples even had 5-10% ASI. And this is another reason why I don't think it is possible that there is a 5000 year of genetic continuity.




> The level of Z93 is also very low among Armenians. Less than 2%.


It's not like all the Iranic tribes carried with them was z93. What about J2a, J1, G2a, R1b, R2 and other Haplogroups prominent in modern Iranic groups and obviously existent in ancient Iranic groups also?






> But Your claim do have basis from another point of view. Armenians share the bulk of their ancestry with Iranian people. *And the level of this ancestry is much higher than the Oetzi's 29%.* And linguistically it is like this. And culturally it was like this. Perhaps You don't know but initially the Armenian language was classified as an Iranian group language. 
> You just don't want to admit that the Proto-Armenian is from the 'teal' side :)


Dear friend I do know Armenians share most of their ancestry with modern Iranic groups. And less with Oetzi like people. This is another of the reasons why I say modern Armenians can't be the result of Bronze Age groups alone, because neither are modern Iranic groups. No one in the region is. 

As I said, modern Armenians share like 40% of their ancestry with BaArmenian samples, Another ~30% (probably coming via the main linguistic forefathers in West Anatolia). And the rest is mostly Iranic.

~50% of Modern West Iranic ancestry comes from BaArmenians, 35-40% from Sintashta like ancestry and 10-15% from Semites. 

What you seem to not know even modern West Iranic groups have ~20-22% Oetzi like ancestry, because even Sintashta as well BaArmenians were ~40% EEF like. It is not like Iranic, let alone West Iranic groups are all Teal.

So if modern West Iranic groups have ~20% EEF. The rest seems quite Teal like because they don't seem to have much EHG like ancestry at all (very little WHG probably all deluted with Teal by the time they reached West Asia). Modern West Iranic groups are like ~65% Teal. (my own estimation). And than probably ~10% Semite admixture.


To Armenians now, So if modern Armenians are ~40% BaArmenian like. that is already ~24% of Teal. And they are 30% Phrygian like who in my opinion must have been ~70/30 EEF/Teal. That makes a total of ~33% Teal. Than the rest is probably Iranic like what adds another ~20% Teal. Thats a total of ~53% Teal. 

So my own estimation is 53% Teal, 30% EEF and ~15% Semite admixture.

That means modern West Iranic groups and Armenians *share ~83-88% of their ancestry.

*:)

----------


## MOESAN

> Moesan
> 
> The Oetzi ancestry among Armenians is not a sensation. It should be like this. After all Oetzi's ancestor came from NW Anatolia and ultimatly from places like Catal Hoyuk or even further east and south. Rootsie et al. showed that the most probable origin of G is somewhere between Anatolia, Armenia and NW Iran. Modern Armenians have 12% of G and have almost all kinds of the subclades of that haplogroup even two cases of Oetzi's G2-L91. 
> 
> Logically Turks should have higher Oetzi ancestry, but because Anatolia had higher population turnover than the mountains in the final they got diluted their Oetzi like ancestry. If You remove the 7.5 % of East Asia from Turks, then remove the extra WHG that appeared there from Balkans due to Slavic expansion. And if You remove the extra 'teal' brought by Turks from Iran and South Central Asia ( imagine that a turkish tribe having an Afshar ancestry do have more than 45% of haplogroup L ) . After all this removing You will have a population that will have higher EEF than modern Armenians. And will cluster more to West than modern Armenians on the PCA. 
> 
> In fact there is no even need to make that calculations. Because there is a Turkish population that live in a isolated place and was affected very little by all this movement. It is the Trabzon Turks.
> On the PCA they cluster more West than modern Armenians and I guess they will have slightly higher Oetzi than Armenians. Here the top is the West. The left is the North.


Thanks
OK I knew that - I was just taking 'Ötzi' as a specific subgroup among mostly EEF people - if Ötzi is taken only as a EEF proxi OK it's clear and sensible.
by the way we see on this mapping that BA Armenians as other regions where new elites came, show a very HETEROGENOUS auDNA (same with Corded, BBs and all "proto-metals" and "metals" cultures introduced by elites colonization: modern population or even ancient source populations are more homogenous (ex: Yamnaya). As I see metals introduced by males, I conclude BA was introduced in ancient Armenia from elsewhere, and was not a local produce at first; confirmation of all these males roverings are proved by the excessive discrepancy between Y-haplos and auDNA.

----------


## B99G51

According to those mammals, it sounds like Armenians either descended to the region from heaven, because it was a deserted land, or blown onto by some strange wind.

----------


## LeBrok

> According to those mammals, it sounds like Armenians either descended to the region from heaven, because it was a deserted land, or blown onto by some strange wind.


Tone down your language your you'll be kicked out on day one. Read the rules.

Here is how Armenians plot into the region. You can compare yourself to CHG samples from the region if you like.

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...d-contemporary

And the PCA chart:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...l=1#post517163

----------

