# Population Genetics > Autosomal Genetics >  New map of Ancient Eurasian (ANE) admixture

## Maciamo

Year 2014 is drawing to a close and I was hoping to finish the ANE and WHG maps by the end of the year. Here is the first one. The data is based on Eurogenes.

This map compares the genes of modern people to the DNA of a Central Siberian mammoth hunter (known as MA-1), who lived 24,000 years ago and belonged to Y-DNA haplogroup R* and mtDNA haplogroup U*. The Paleolithic sample was tested by Raghavan et al. (2014). This admixture was absent from Mesolithic European samples, except in Scandinavia and Eastern Europe, and was completely absent from all Neolithic European samples tested to date. It is thought to have been spread across Europe and the Middle East by the Proto-Indo-Europeans (Y-haplogroups R1a and R1b) from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe, and to a lower extent also by Uralic people (Finns, Estonians, Magyars) and Turkic people (Avars, Bulgars, Khazars, Kurds, Turks). The ANE admixture is particularly common today among North Caucasian and Volga-Ural ethnicities, who live in regions strongly associated with the development of Proto-Indo-European cultures in the Early Bronze Age. Within Europe, the highest percentages of ANE admixture are observed among the Lezgins (26.5%), Chechens (26%), North Ossetians (23.5%) Kumyks (23.5%), and Adyghei (22.5%). Frequencies of over 20% of R1b have been found among the Lezgins, Kumyks and North Ossetians.

The Sardinians have the lowest percentage of ANE (4%), which is in agreement with the fact that the island was bypassed by the Indo-European migrations and that Sardinians still spoke a non-Indo-European language until the Roman conquest some 2,000 years ago. Sardinians also have the lowest incidence of fair hair in Europe (along with Sicilians). The 18% of R1b in Sardinia was probably brought mostly by the Romans and subsequent immigrations from mainland Italy, and to a lower extent by the Vandals and the Goths. This explains the non-null percentage of ANE, which is only 1/5 of the R1b percentage.





N.B. : It would be interesting to get ANE percentages for Bosnia-Herzegovina and Montenegro. Considering the low percentage of R1a and R1b, I would expect it to be lower than in surrounding countries. Unfortunately I couldn't find any data.


EDIT : I have just noticed some inconsistencies in the ANE frequencies for the North Caucasus. I used this data from Eurogenes for the Caucasus (and other regions not covered by Lazaridis et al.). Unfortunately it looks like it could be ANE + WHG and not just ANE. LeBrok pasted here the data of someone who calculated the admixtures by applying the WHG-EEF-ANE calc to the Eurogenes K13, and it turns out that the Lezgins are 13% ANE and 13% WHG, not 26% ANE. Since both data sets are from Eurogenes, I don't know which is correct. I would rather think the 13% + 13% as otherwise North Caucasians end up with close to 0% WHG, which is odd for a European region that was often invaded by northerners.

----------


## Aberdeen

That's a fascinating map, but I'm not sure how to interpret it. The amount of ANE doesn't seem to correspond very well to the levels of R1a and R1b across Europe. And although I suppose the high levels of ANE in Turkey come from the Turkish invasions, I don't know why there's such a strong band across northwestern Europe, in places like Scotland and Norway. Is there an explanation for that? Why is Scotland so much higher than some other Atlantic areas that also have high R1b. And Norway is higher in ANE than many areas that have higher R1a and R1 totals.

----------


## ElHorsto

> That's a fascinating map, but I'm not sure how to interpret it. The amount of ANE doesn't seem to correspond very well to the levels of R1a and R1b across Europe.


It would correspond much better to R1a+R1b if ANE was divided by WHG, because much of WHG hunter-gatherers already had ANE, especially in Scandinavia and NE-Europe. ANE in NW-Europe is more of IEan origin, while ANE in NE-Europe is mostly of mesolithic origin, I think. By dividing by WHG, also the Balkans and Italy would appear more prominently ANE, as one would expect from their high West-Asian admixture.
Why England has so much less than Scotland and Ireland I don't know either. Maybe it's the french admixture in English? But again, since Scots have also more WHG than the English, it would even out a bit when divided by WHG I guess.

EDIT: When I say ANE/WHG I actually mean ANE/(ANE+WHG), which would be math. more correct.

----------


## ElHorsto

The peak in Hungarians suggests that their steppe legacy is still present. Despite, or because of that, they appear relatively close to NW-Europeans in PCA plots (same distance to east europeans), considering their eastern geography.

----------


## Maciamo

I have just noticed some inconsistencies in the ANE frequencies for the North Caucasus. I used this data from Eurogenes for the Caucasus (and other regions not covered by Lazaridis et al.). Unfortunately it looks like it could be ANE + WHG and not just ANE. LeBrok pasted here the data of someone who calculated the admixtures by applying the WHG-EEF-ANE calc to the Eurogenes K13, and it turns out that the Lezgins are 13% ANE and 13% WHG, not 26% ANE. Since both data sets are from Eurogenes, I don't know which is correct. I would rather think the 13% + 13% as otherwise North Caucasians end up with close to 0% WHG, which is odd for a European region that was often invaded by northerners.

----------


## Hauteville

Regarding fair hair it's wrong for Sicily.
Sicily have much more blondism than Sardinia in every anthropological studies and it's not even the less fair hair part of Italy.
Maps of Ridolfo Livi.

----------


## Angela

> Year 2014 is drawing to a close and I was hoping to finish the ANE and WHG maps by the end of the year. Here is the first one.
> 
> This map compares the genes of modern people to the DNA of a Central Siberian mammoth hunter (known as MA-1), who lived 24,000 years ago and belonged to Y-DNA haplogroup R* and mtDNA haplogroup U*. The Paleolithic sample was tested by Raghavan et al. (2014). This admixture was absent from Mesolithic European samples, except in Scandinavia and Eastern Europe, and was completely absent from all Neolithic European samples tested to date. It is thought to have been spread across Europe and the Middle East by the Proto-Indo-Europeans (Y-haplogroups R1a and R1b) from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe, and to a lower extent also by Uralic people (Finns, Estonians, Magyars) and Turkic people (Avars, Bulgars, Khazars, Kurds, Turks). The ANE admixture is particularly common today among North Caucasian and Volga-Ural ethnicities, who live in regions strongly associated with the development of Proto-Indo-European cultures in the Early Bronze Age. Within Europe, the highest percentages of ANE admixture are observed among the Lezgins (26.5%), Chechens (26%), North Ossetians (23.5%) Kumyks (23.5%), and Adyghei (22.5%). Frequencies of over 20% of R1b have been found among the Lezgins, Kumyks and North Ossetians.
> 
> The Sardinians have the lowest percentage of ANE (4%), which is in agreement with the fact that the island was bypassed by the Indo-European migrations and that Sardinians still spoke a non-Indo-European language until the Roman conquest some 2,000 years ago. Sardinians also have the lowest incidence of fair hair in Europe (along with Sicilians). The 18% of R1b in Sardinia was probably brought mostly by the Romans and subsequent immigrations from mainland Italy, and to a lower extent by the Vandals and the Goths. This explains the non-null percentage of ANE, which is only 1/5 of the R1b percentage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Very interesting. One thing puzzles me, however. Where in Lazaridis are the regions in Spain identified which correspond to the figures for "Northern Spain". From reading the paper it appeared to me that the region comprised Catalonia, and the northern strip contiguous to the west, but perhaps I missed it. 

As for the Caucasus problem, I'm afraid that combining figures from Lazaridis and Eurogenes is a bit problematical for me, not least because the Eurogenes figures change from iteration to iteration.

Ed. Also, is the darker strip along the Alps meant to represent Bergamo? From the table in Lazaridis, Bergamo is .108 for ANE, and Toscana .118. Sicily, of course, is .097.

----------


## Angela

> It would correspond much better to R1a+R1b if ANE was divided by WHG, because much of WHG hunter-gatherers already had ANE, especially in Scandinavia and NE-Europe. ANE in NW-Europe is more of IEan origin, while ANE in NE-Europe is mostly of mesolithic origin, I think. By dividing by WHG, also the Balkans and Italy would appear more prominently ANE, as one would expect from their high West-Asian admixture.
> Why England has so much less than Scotland and Ireland I don't know either. Maybe it's the french admixture in English? But again, since Scots have also more WHG than the English, it would even out a bit when divided by WHG I guess.
> 
> EDIT: When I say ANE/WHG I actually mean ANE/(ANE+WHG), which would be math. more correct.


I think you (and Aberdeen) are addressing an important issue. Just to point out another situation in which there is a discrepancy, let's consider the situation of the Tuscans. I don't know what the ancient Dna will, in the end, show. However, let's assume for the moment that there was some significant gene flow from Anatolia in the first millennium BC. I don't have it at my fingertips, but I have posted a map of J2a M67, which does show a hot spot in the Caucasus and a secondary one in Toscana. Then look at the ANE values in that area. How could the Tuscans have only .118 ANE when they were also affected by Indo-European migrations, which supposedly were high in ANE? (Even if the "Etruscans' didn't carry it, the Romans certainly did, and they totally mixed.) It just doesn't hang together. Perhaps, in that case, there just wasn't a significant migration. However, the larger point remains.

I am increasingly leaning toward the view that ANE=Indo-European in Europe is much too simplistic. As you say, in the north east I think a good amount, if not the majority of it, has very little to do with the Indo-Europeans. In fact, I'm not even so sure that all of it in places like Scotland is Indo-European in origin if we're speaking strictly of the people of Yamnaya in 4,000-3,000 BC.

----------


## Aberdeen

> I think you (and Aberdeen) are addressing an important issue. Just to point out another situation in which there is a discrepancy, let's consider the situation of the Tuscans. I don't know what the ancient Dna will, in the end, show. However, let's assume for the moment that there was some significant gene flow from Anatolia in the first millennium BC. I don't have it at my fingertips, but I have posted a map of J2a M67, which does show a hot spot in the Caucasus and a secondary one in Toscana. Then look at the ANE values in that area. How could the Tuscans have only .118 ANE when they were also affected by Indo-European migrations, which supposedly were high in ANE? (Even if the "Etruscans' didn't carry it, the Romans certainly did, and they totally mixed.) It just doesn't hang together. Perhaps, in that case, there just wasn't a significant migration. However, the larger point remains.
> 
> I am increasingly leaning toward the view that ANE=Indo-European in Europe is much too simplistic. As you say, in the north east I think a good amount, if not the majority of it, has very little to do with the Indo-Europeans. In fact, I'm not even so sure that all of it in places like Scotland is Indo-European in origin if we're speaking strictly of the people of Yamnaya in 4,000-3,000 BC.


I agree with what you're saying, except for the lack of evidence of ANE among pre-IE Europeans. And since MA1 (who was R) is near the origin point of ANE, to the point that we can say MA1=ANE even though he had no direct descendants, I would think that the further back one goes the more ANE should correspond with R but the first R1b in Europe is Bell Beaker and the first R1a is Europe is Corded Ware. I wonder if those samples had ANE - they should, although the interesting thing about Corded Ware is that the oldest samples we have are I-J rather than R, which came later.

----------


## Mars

> 


I've just ran the Eurogenes ANE K7 test on GEDmatch, it appears I'm veeeeery slightly above the average of the part of northern Italy where my ancestors were from: I'm 10.28% ANE, vs an average 7.5-10%.

----------


## Angela

> I've just ran the Eurogenes ANE K7 test on GEDmatch, it appears I'm veeeeery slightly above the average of the part of northern Italy where my ancestors were from: I'm 10.28% ANE, vs an average 7.5-10%.


The numbers will change depending on the run. There's an ANE 8 coming from what I understand, and there were others before it. For these figures to be correct for northern Italy the number of Indo-Europeans who made it over the Alps would have to be very small or the Indo-Europeans weren't very ANE heavy by the time they made it to central Europe. 

Ed. My results on the ANE 7 at Gedmatch are almost 10%. My maternal half must have some quasi-Tuscan ancestry, which could perhaps explain a slight uptick, since according to Lazaridis Tuscans have a smidgeon more ANE, but that wouldn't explain your case. 
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1x8pm8sVcHqceiNFJMO082kxaBF5ePr4__bAK05VQRFw/edit?pli=1#gid=62882571

----------


## Angela

> I agree with what you're saying, except for the lack of evidence of ANE among pre-IE Europeans. And since MA1 (who was R) is near the origin point of ANE, to the point that we can say MA1=ANE even though he had no direct descendants, I would think that the further back one goes the more ANE should correspond with R but the first R1b in Europe is Bell Beaker and the first R1a is Europe is Corded Ware. I wonder if those samples had ANE - they should, although the interesting thing about Corded Ware is that the oldest samples we have are I-J rather than R, which came later.


I suppose it doesn't make much sense to keep on speculating about these things since we should very soon have some ancient genomes which will hopefully clarify things a bit.. (That's actually why I've taken a bit of a break from it recently.) We need to see these Yamnaya genomes and how and when they changed over time, and the Corded Ware ones, hopefully pre and post the Yamnaya influence. I'd like to see some from the far north east in particular. I still think that the modern map of Europe genetically, at least other than in south central and southwestern Europe, owes something even to historic era migrations. The effect of the "Slavic" era migrations in the Balkans, for one, is undeniable. 

Perhaps I'll be proven wrong, but I believe, as I have for years, that most of these formulations, whether they are genetics based or based on archaeology or linguistics seem to start with a premise or bias or what somebody wrote in the late 1800's or even earlier, and then the data is sort of massaged or forced to fit into one model or another. I don't think there's anything nefarious about it on the part of most people, I hasten to add: they are doing it unconsciously, I think, but that's how it appears to me. 

I had thought the genetics analysis would be free of this sort of thing since genetics is a "harder" science, but I'm not finding that to be the case necessarily. In fact, it may be even more agenda driven on the part of hobbyists. Plus, most of the people interested in the genetics side of the issue seem to think that archaeology doesn't matter, and it does. The disciplines have to be in sync or the solution isn't persuasive, in my opinion. 

That's why we get these pat, simplistic models, when the reality is much more complex, and spread out further in time.

----------


## Aberdeen

I understand why you're saying that there's no point in speculating without enough data, Angela, but I have a question for those of you who actually understand how the percentage of ANE, WHG and EEF are calculated in various populations. Is it based solely on Y DNA, does it include mtDNA or is it sometimes calculated differently for different populations? Because since WHG didn't include any Y DNA R, it can't have contributed to the high ANE levels in northern populations that have a lot of WHG if ANE is based only on Y DNA. But if the calculation of ANE in various populations is partly based on mtDNA, that's the connection, since MA1 and the Loschbour samples were mtDNA U. However, being a scientific illiterate, I don't know whether that's relevant. If not, the high levels of ANE across northern Europe will remain difficult to explain even when the paper on IE haplotypes is released, IMO.

----------


## ElHorsto

> I am increasingly leaning toward the view that ANE=Indo-European in Europe is much too simplistic. As you say, in the north east I think a good amount, if not the majority of it, has very little to do with the Indo-Europeans. In fact, I'm not even so sure that all of it in places like Scotland is Indo-European in origin if we're speaking strictly of the people of Yamnaya in 4,000-3,000 BC.


Maybe not all of ANE in Scotland is IEan, but mesolithic samples from east (Scandinavia) had less ANE than contemp. Scots, and La Brana and Loschbourg from the south had none. So a decent part in Scots must be of different origin. Also they consistently show West-Asian admixture in most calculators, which was completely absent in all hunter-gatherers so far. 

What I don't understand is how is it possible that south-eastern europe has so low ANE while having highest 'West-Asian' (or alike) in all calculators. West-Asian should contain 1/3 ANE.
For example Bulgaria had one of the highest 'Caucasus' admixture (~30%) in Europe, yet in this map the Turks are the ones who have high ANE but neighbouring Bulgarians have even less then central and north Europe. I can't make sense of it. I know that ANE does not imply West-Asian, but West-Asian should always imply some ANE.

I agree that ANE=Indo-European is too simplistic, especially when I look at southern europe. but for the rest it is still consistent.

I'll keep making bets about these things because it makes fun. If I'm wrong, I will survive it :).

----------


## Angela

> I understand why you're saying that there's no point in speculating without enough data, Angela, but I have a question for those of you who actually understand how the percentage of ANE, WHG and EEF are calculated in various populations. Is it based solely on Y DNA, does it include mtDNA or is it sometimes calculated differently for different populations? Because since WHG didn't include any Y DNA R, it can't have contributed to the high ANE levels in northern populations that have a lot of WHG if ANE is based only on Y DNA. But if the calculation of ANE in various populations is partly based on mtDNA, that's the connection, since MA1 and the Loschbour samples were mtDNA U. However, being a scientific illiterate, I don't know whether that's relevant. If not, the high levels of ANE across northern Europe will remain difficult to explain even when the paper on IE haplotypes is released, IMO.



Well, we know how it was done in Lazaridis et al. They compared three sets of genomes of ancient samples to modern Europeans. So, it was a total genome comparison. 

As to the correlation between yDna and autosomal composition, I've been surprised at how little actually exists in some situations. I think there is more correlation with mtDna, but I don't think it's an easily quantifiable correlation there either. How much is down to founder effect in virtually empty territory, to selective pressures, to just chance operating in bottlenecked isolated populations? The study on Icelandic mtDna showed how some lineages can be lost in small populations. In terms of the autosomes, I was struck by the population figures that were given in that paper about Viking dna. The population in Sweden was extremely small before the Neolithic, and then was decimated once again. How was selection operating in that situation, or just sheer chance?.

I think this is yet another area where we just don't know enough yet to reach really definitive conclusions. As someone once famously said, there are the known knowns, the known unknowns, and then, most difficult of all, the unknown unknowns. 

As for the ANE levels in particular, I think we need, as I said, some high quality genomes from far northeastern and northern Europe from various time periods and cultures. Even then, it may be difficult. Wasn't there some rumor coming out of Reich and company that they were having a hard time quantifying the precise amount of ANE in the ancient Karelian? If _they're_ having a difficult time, I wouldn't put money on any particular figures just yet. Then, who knows what the model will look like when we get an actual Near Eastern farmer from a very early time period? It's only actual ancient Dna that will provide the answers, and even then it may not be all that cut and dried. 

Still, that's a good thing, in a way, if I may speak personally. If we have all the answers right away, this will get really boring, really fast. The only thing that keeps me interested is the fact that it's such a puzzle. :)

----------


## Angela

> Maybe not all of ANE in Scotland is IEan, but mesolithic samples from east (Scandinavia) had less ANE than contemp. Scots, and La Brana and Loschbourg from the south had none. So a decent part in Scots must be of different origin. Also they consistently show West-Asian admixture in most calculators, which was completely absent in all hunter-gatherers so far. 
> 
> What I don't understand is how is it possible that south-eastern europe has so low ANE while having highest 'West-Asian' (or alike) in all calculators. West-Asian should contain 1/3 ANE.
> For example Bulgaria had one of the highest 'Caucasus' admixture (~30%) in Europe, yet in this map the Turks are the ones who have high ANE but neighbouring Bulgarians have even less then central and north Europe. I can't make sense of it. I know that ANE does not imply West-Asian, but West-Asian should always imply some ANE.
> 
> I agree that ANE=Indo-European is too simplistic, especially when I look at southern europe. but for the rest it is still consistent.
> 
> I'll keep making bets about these things because it makes fun. If I'm wrong, I will survive it :).


What a sensible post! Well, of course I _would_ think it's sensible, since I agree with almost all of it. :) 

Where I would differ is that if it doesn't work for southern Europe, more than half of the population of Europe as a whole (?), then there are some gaps in our understanding of these matters.

----------


## Aberdeen

> Maybe not all of ANE in Scotland is IEan, but mesolithic samples from east (Scandinavia) had less ANE than contemp. Scots, and La Brana and Loschbourg from the south had none. So a decent part in Scots must be of different origin. Also they consistently show West-Asian admixture in most calculators, which was completely absent in all hunter-gatherers so far. 
> 
> What I don't understand is how is it possible that south-eastern europe has so low ANE while having highest 'West-Asian' (or alike) in all calculators. West-Asian should contain 1/3 ANE.
> For example Bulgaria had one of the highest 'Caucasus' admixture (~30%) in Europe, yet in this map the Turks are the ones who have high ANE but neighbouring Bulgarians have even less then central and north Europe. I can't make sense of it. I know that ANE does not imply West-Asian, but West-Asian should always imply some ANE.
> 
> I agree that ANE=Indo-European is too simplistic, especially when I look at southern europe. but for the rest it is still consistent.
> 
> I'll keep making bets about these things because it makes fun. If I'm wrong, I will survive it :).


Okay, so if the entire geonome was used to calculate ANE, look at the mtDNA information for Loschbour and Mal'ta and explain to me how Loschbour could have no ANE?

----------


## ElHorsto

> What a sensible post! Well, of course I _would_ think it's sensible, since I agree with almost all of it. :) 
> 
> Where I would differ is that if it doesn't work for southern Europe, more than half of the population of Europe as a whole (?), then there are some gaps in our understanding of these matters.


I was unprecise, sorry. It actually also works for southern europe to some extent, especially when we compare with Sardinia. There are just some flaws. And it is good to know that there might have been problems in determining the precise amount ANE in ancient Karelians. I'll better not put too much money on the table yet.

----------


## ElHorsto

> Okay, so if the entire geonome was used to calculate ANE, look at the mtDNA information for Loschbour and Mal'ta and explain to me how Loschbour could have no ANE?


Wait, you think that mtDNA is part of the entire genome? I always thought whole genome refers to autosomal DNA only.

----------


## Maciamo

> Maybe not all of ANE in Scotland is IEan, but mesolithic samples from east (Scandinavia) had less ANE than contemp. Scots, and La Brana and Loschbourg from the south had none. So a decent part in Scots must be of different origin. Also they consistently show West-Asian admixture in most calculators, which was completely absent in all hunter-gatherers so far. 
> 
> What I don't understand is how is it possible that south-eastern europe has so low ANE while having highest 'West-Asian' (or alike) in all calculators. West-Asian should contain 1/3 ANE.


The West Asian admixture also dates from the Bronze Age. The R1b branch of the Indo-Europeans carried a small but significant percentage (along with what was labelled as East European, West European and Gedrosian in Dodecad). This is obvious from looking at the West Eurasian admixtures found among North Asians (Altaians, Mongols) who possess both R1a and R1b, but otherwise only Mongoloid haplogroups. It makes sense since R1b domesticated cattle in West Asia and absorbed a minority of West Asian lineages, especially mtDNA J1b1a, which I found to be the maternal lineage most strongly correlated with the spread of all R1b subclades (even V88) since the Neolithic. After that, R1b people integrated a small number of Y-DNA G2a3b1 and J2b2, who probably migrated from the Balkans/Carpathians to the Pontic Steppe and North Caucasus before the Indo-European migrations started. So yes, some West Asian is Indo-European. I think that 10% of West Asian admixture is a reasonable estimate for the Proto-Indo-European R1b branch by the time they reached Germany (c. 2500 BCE).

Greeks and Italians have more West Asian because of the later Bronze Age expansion from Anatolia to Greece (Minoans), then the Etruscan and Greek colonisation of Italy. The Balkans have more West Asian because of higher Neolithic ancestry, but also because of the Greek, Roman, and latter Byzantine and Turkish influences.




> For example Bulgaria had one of the highest 'Caucasus' admixture (~30%) in Europe, yet in this map the Turks are the ones who have high ANE but neighbouring Bulgarians have even less then central and north Europe. I can't make sense of it. I know that ANE does not imply West-Asian, but West-Asian should always imply some ANE.
> 
> I agree that ANE=Indo-European is too simplistic, especially when I look at southern europe. but for the rest it is still consistent.
> 
> I'll keep making bets about these things because it makes fun. If I'm wrong, I will survive it :).


The Caucasian admixture from Dodecad is essentially Neolithic. Bulgarians don't have less than their neighbours. 

ANE is more similar to the Gedrosian admixture, although both are quite distinct. The Gedrosian admixture only seem to include very old components of R1b shared with Kalash-like people in South Asia. ANE encompasses all haplogroup R (R1a, R1b and R2), but also some nearby haplogroups (N, O, Q). It's still a work in progress. The true Proto-Indo-European admixture hasn't been identified yet. If we look only at Europe, the Gedrosian correlates with R1b, while ANE correlates with R1b, R1a and N1c.

ANE being the DNA from the Siberian Mal'ta boy, it shouldn't have any West Asian admixture. Its purely Siberian/Eurasian, linked to Y-DNA macro-haplogroup N, O, P Q, R. 

West Asian means haplogroups G, J1, J2 and T.

Gedrosian apparently mixes R1b, R2, L and T. I think it only represents the West/South Asian admixture that R1b picked up between the Late Paleolithic and the Early Neolithic, when R1b tribes lived around Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Iran, Azerbaijan, Armenia and Kurdistan. They domesticated cattle in eastern Anatolia around 8,500 BCE, then crossed over the Caucasus to make use the vast extent of grassland for their herds. That's where they came into contact with R1a hunters who already lived there, but lacked the Gedrosian admixture as they migrated to Eastern Europe straight from Siberia and instead picked up Palaeolithic European genes (including blue eyes).

----------


## ElHorsto

> The West Asian admixture also dates from the Bronze Age. The R1b branch of the Indo-Europeans carried a small but significant percentage (along with what was labelled as East European, West European and Gedrosian in Dodecad). This is obvious from looking at the West Eurasian admixtures found among North Asians (Altaians, Mongols) who possess both R1a and R1b, but otherwise only Mongoloid haplogroups. It makes sense since R1b domesticated cattle in West Asia and absorbed a minority of West Asian lineages, especially mtDNA J1b1a, which I found to be the maternal lineage most strongly correlated with the spread of all R1b subclades (even V88) since the Neolithic. After that, R1b people integrated a small number of Y-DNA G2a3b1 and J2b2, who probably migrated from the Balkans/Carpathians to the Pontic Steppe and North Caucasus before the Indo-European migrations started. So yes, some West Asian is Indo-European. I think that 10% of West Asian admixture is a reasonable estimate for the Proto-Indo-European R1b branch by the time they reached Germany (c. 2500 BCE).
> 
> Greeks and Italians have more West Asian because of the later Bronze Age expansion from Anatolia to Greece (Minoans), then the Etruscan and Greek colonisation of Italy. The Balkans have more West Asian because of higher Neolithic ancestry, but also because of the Greek, Roman, and latter Byzantine and Turkish influences.
> 
> 
> 
> The Caucasian admixture from Dodecad is essentially Neolithic. Bulgarians don't have less than their neighbours. 
> 
> ANE is more similar to the Gedrosian admixture, although both are quite distinct. The Gedrosian admixture only seem to include very old components of R1b shared with Kalash-like people in South Asia. ANE encompasses all haplogroup R (R1a, R1b and R2), but also some nearby haplogroups (N, O, Q). It's still a work in progress. The true Proto-Indo-European admixture hasn't been identified yet. If we look only at Europe, the Gedrosian correlates with R1b, while ANE correlates with R1b, R1a and N1c.
> ...


Makes sense, and is more-or-less what I also think. It is good that you remind to distinguish Gedrosia and Caucasus.
Instead of assuming Caucasus to be neolithic I rather thought that the NW-European-R1b-Gedrosia complex is somewhat linked to the Central-Asia-BMAC sphere, while East-European 'Caucasus' admix is just from the adjacent western steppe and Caucasus.
Explaining 'Caucasus' by neolithic incursions is very convenient, but I'm still hesitant because there is no sample supporting this view yet. Only Ötzi showed very slight Caucasus admixture in K12b, but same with Sardinians, so not very convincing. For now I remain agnostic.
Regarding Bulgarian and Romanian 'Caucasus' levels, I would be almost sure much of it comes from Bulgars. The problem is that then there should be much more east-asian and siberian admixture then, as historic evidence suggests AFAIK.

EDIT: And I might add, the Balkans underwent the most frequent steppic incursions in europe according to history. So again, seeing still so low ANE there is surprising, unless these incursions were different (more 'Caucasus'/southern) from those affecting northern europe (more 'Gedrosian'/'Karelian'/'Amerindian').

----------


## Aberdeen

> Wait, you think that mtDNA is part of the entire genome? I always thought whole genome refers to autosomal DNA only.


The entire geonome consists of an organism's complete set of DNA, including autosomes, mtDNA and Y DNA. Intermixing of people will alter the genetic makeup of their descendants, so it's not surprising that someone with R1b could have minimal ANE if the descendants of MA1's clan intermixed with multiple other groups while migrating to Europe over the course of a long period of time. However, Maciamo seems to be saying that we should still expect some correlation between people who are members of haplogroup R and people who have ANE, even though it's only a partial correlation. My question is why the same wouldn't apply to people who are members of the same mtDNA haplogroup as MA1.

----------


## Alan

> That's a fascinating map, but I'm not sure how to interpret it. The amount of ANE doesn't seem to correspond very well to the levels of R1a and R1b across Europe. And although I suppose the high levels of ANE in Turkey come from the Turkish invasions,


The figures for Turkey and Iran are slightly Incorrect. I made my own calculation on the Eurogenes data yesterday. In Iran ANE reaches an average of 20% even in the Southwestern Portions, which is here colored in the 15-17.5%.
Among Turks ANE reaches at max 16.5%. The frequency rises towards 19.5% to Kurds and 19% towards Georgia/Laz.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...t#gid=62882571


So it doesn't have much to do only with Turkic but Indo_Iranian and Caucasian expansion as a whole.

----------


## Alan

> Year 2014 is drawing to a close and I was hoping to finish the ANE and WHG maps by the end of the year. Here is the first one. The data is based on Eurogenes.
> 
> This map compares the genes of modern people to the DNA of a Central Siberian mammoth hunter (known as MA-1), who lived 24,000 years ago and belonged to Y-DNA haplogroup R* and mtDNA haplogroup U*. The Paleolithic sample was tested by Raghavan et al. (2014). This admixture was absent from Mesolithic European samples, except in Scandinavia and Eastern Europe, and was completely absent from all Neolithic European samples tested to date. It is thought to have been spread across Europe and the Middle East by the Proto-Indo-Europeans (Y-haplogroups R1a and R1b) from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe, and to a lower extent also by Uralic people (Finns, Estonians, Magyars) and Turkic people (Avars, Bulgars, Khazars, Kurds, Turks). The ANE admixture is particularly common today among North Caucasian and Volga-Ural ethnicities, who live in regions strongly associated with the development of Proto-Indo-European cultures in the Early Bronze Age. Within Europe, the highest percentages of ANE admixture are observed among the Lezgins (26.5%), Chechens (26%), North Ossetians (23.5%) Kumyks (23.5%), and Adyghei (22.5%). Frequencies of over 20% of R1b have been found among the Lezgins, Kumyks and North Ossetians.
> 
> The Sardinians have the lowest percentage of ANE (4%), which is in agreement with the fact that the island was bypassed by the Indo-European migrations and that Sardinians still spoke a non-Indo-European language until the Roman conquest some 2,000 years ago. Sardinians also have the lowest incidence of fair hair in Europe (along with Sicilians). The 18% of R1b in Sardinia was probably brought mostly by the Romans and subsequent immigrations from mainland Italy, and to a lower extent by the Vandals and the Goths. This explains the non-null percentage of ANE, which is only 1/5 of the R1b percentage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You should have used the most recent Calculator of Eurogenes West_Eurasia K8
http://eurogenes.blogspot.de/2014/12...-triangle.html


ANE in North Caucasians indeed reaches levels of 27% and their WHG is ~9%.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...t#gid=62882571


correction: Kurds are not Turkic people.

----------


## Silesian

> Year 2014 is drawing to a close and I was hoping to finish the ANE and WHG maps by the end of the year. Here is the first one. The data is based on Eurogenes.
> 
> 
> EDIT : I have just noticed some inconsistencies in the ANE frequencies for the North Caucasus. I used this data from Eurogenes for the Caucasus (and other regions not covered by Lazaridis et al.). Unfortunately it looks like it could be ANE + WHG and not just ANE. LeBrok pasted here the data of someone who calculated the admixtures by applying the WHG-EEF-ANE calc to the Eurogenes K13, and it turns out that the Lezgins are 13% ANE and 13% WHG, not 26% ANE. Since both data sets are from Eurogenes, I don't know which is correct. I would rather think the 13% + 13% as otherwise North Caucasians end up with close to 0% WHG, which is odd for a European region that was often invaded by northerners.


Nice, thank you for all your efforts. Is it possible to use Eurogenes West Eurasion K8 and scale up 25>% to pick up Caucasus region groups like Tabasarrans; expand map a little to include a little more of Caspian[East and North]?

----------


## Alan

> Maybe not all of ANE in Scotland is IEan, but mesolithic samples from east (Scandinavia) had less ANE than contemp. Scots, and La Brana and Loschbourg from the south had none. So a decent part in Scots must be of different origin. Also they consistently show West-Asian admixture in most calculators, which was completely absent in all hunter-gatherers so far. 
> 
> What I don't understand is how is it possible that south-eastern europe has so low ANE while having highest 'West-Asian' (or alike) in all calculators. West-Asian should contain 1/3 ANE.
> For example Bulgaria had one of the highest 'Caucasus' admixture (~30%) in Europe, yet in this map the Turks are the ones who have high ANE but neighbouring Bulgarians have even less then central and north Europe. I can't make sense of it. I know that ANE does not imply West-Asian, but West-Asian should always imply some ANE.
> 
> I agree that ANE=Indo-European is too simplistic, especially when I look at southern europe. but for the rest it is still consistent.
> 
> I'll keep making bets about these things because it makes fun. If I'm wrong, I will survive it :).



Caucasus is the portion of "West Asian" which consists less ANE. The break up of this component shows it is some 58% "West Asian" some 34% "Southern" and some 8% "North European". 
Gedrosia is actually the "purer" form of West Asian and it's break up shows it is, 92% "West Asian" and 8% "ANI". 
And if you keep a close look at Data from the Caucasus you will realize that Populations with more Gedrosia have higher ANE than populations with less. See Lezgins vs Georgians as example. 

Bulgarians have roughly 18% West Asian. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...owsperpage=250

If 1/3 of this is ANE. This would correspondence to ~5.4% ANE. The rest of their ANE they got from their North European percentage what pretty much fits the figures.

----------


## Maciamo

> The figures for Turkey and Iran are slightly Incorrect. I made my own calculation on the Eurogenes data yesterday. In Iran ANE reaches an average of 20% even in the Southwestern Portions, which is here colored in the 15-17.5%.
> Among Turks ANE reaches at max 16%. The frequency rises towards 19.5% to Kurds and 19% towards Georgia/Laz.
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...t#gid=62882571
> 
> 
> So it doesn't have much to do with Turkic but Indo_Iranian and Caucasian expansion as a whole.
> 
> You should have used the most recent Calculator of Eurogenes West_Eurasia K8
> http://eurogenes.blogspot.de/2014/12...-triangle.html
> ...


Thanks. I hadn't noticed the West_Eurasia K8 calculator. I will correct the map accordingly. However the WHG percentages do not correspond at all to the ones I used for the map.




> correction: Kurds are not Turkic people.


Sorry about that. I wrote too quickly and somehow mixed up Turkic and Indo-Iranian, probably because of this.

----------


## Alan

> Thanks. I hadn't noticed the West_Eurasia K8 calculator. I will correct the map accordingly. However the WHG percentages do not correspond at all to the ones I used for the map.


Yes there is indeed more WHG in North Caucasus, Turkey/Anatolia and parts of the Levant. WHG in North Africa is relatively strong. 

You can use this map If it helps.

Legend

ENF: Early Neolithic Farmer /Near Eastern
ANE: Ancient North Eurasian
WHG: Western Hunters&Gatherers
SEA: South Eurasian (seems to be some kind of South_Central Asian component related to ANE)
EEA: East Eurasian
OCE: Oceanian
SSA: Sub Saharan African (but is in my opinion more of an "East African" type).

Components <1% were not taken into consideration.

http://img5.fotos-hochladen.net/uplo...gjpclfv1a0.png

Update: Jews-Samaritans and Palestinians added. Samaritans seem to be best proxy for ENF with 87.5%.




> Sorry about that. I wrote too quickly and somehow mixed up Turkic and Indo-Iranian, probably because of this.


No problem.

----------


## Maciamo

> Nice, thank you for all your efforts. Is it possible to use Eurogenes West Eurasion K8 and scale up 25>% to pick up Caucasus region groups like Tabasarrans; expand map a little to include a little more of Caspian[East and North]?


I have added a new shade for >25%, but I cannot easily expand the map eastward.

----------


## Maciamo

> Yes there is indeed more WHG in North Caucasus, Turkey/Anatolia and parts of the Levant. WHG in North Africa is relatively strong. 
> 
> You can use this map If it helps.
> 
> Legend
> 
> ENF: Early Neolithic Farmer /Near Eastern
> ANE: Ancient North Eurasian
> WHG: Western Hunters&Gatherers
> ...


Thanks again. Since the WHG percentage varies a lot between calculators, I have checked where Maghrebians and North Caucasians stood compared to the lowest known WHG percentages in Europe (namely Sicily and Cyprus). Since they are both lower than Sicily, I have classified both regions in the <5% shade.

----------


## Silesian

> I have added a new shade for >25%, but I cannot easily expand the map eastward.



Thank's professor for all your hard work and dedication; and Tomatoes for K8, it's perfect. Best wish and happy 2015 for all your friends and loved ones.

----------


## Robert6

ANE high among Kets Caucasus people and Tajiks(close to Burusho people) 
Ket Burushaski and Caucasian laguages are "Sino-Caucasian"
http://f-picture.net/fp/b267ea42bcf1...c226f1cd1c1fdb

The picture is from
http://forum.molgen.org/index.php/to...html#msg271516

----------


## Robert6

An Eurasian map for ANE, 
https://www.facebook.com/groups/G.M2...2753616688813/

----------


## LumiBardha

My wifes mom is Turkish/greek/bulgar I think and dad is Albanian. Here are the results 
you can see there is some kind of mix 

Population


ANE
14.25%

ASE
2.40%

WHG-UHG
31.20%

East_Eurasian
6.23%

West_African
0.24%

East_African
-

ENF
45.69%

----------


## Alan

> ANE high among Kets Caucasus people and Tajiks(close to Burusho people) 
> Ket Burushaski and Caucasian laguages are "Sino-Caucasian"
> http://f-picture.net/fp/b267ea42bcf1...c226f1cd1c1fdb
> 
> The picture is from
> http://forum.molgen.org/index.php/to...html#msg271516


The map is still not accurate for Western Asia. On the map it looks like Turkey has more ANE than Kurdistan and is on level with Iran while in reality from any single calculator or sample I have seen Kurdistan has around 3% more ANE than Turkey. 

Also there seems to be no samples for Kalash on this map otherwise they would probably score one of the highers(probably the highest) percentage,

----------


## Alan

> ANE high among Kets Caucasus people and Tajiks(close to Burusho people) 
> Ket Burushaski and Caucasian laguages are "Sino-Caucasian"
> http://f-picture.net/fp/b267ea42bcf1...c226f1cd1c1fdb
> 
> The picture is from
> http://forum.molgen.org/index.php/to...html#msg271516


Who makes this map for Gods sake. How can Armenia, Turkey and Azerbaijan have more ANE than Kurdistan? The map just like it's predecessor has no value if it does not hold on the data.
It looks like Turkey has more ANE than Kurdistan. But in reality in all calculators Kurds score around 3% more ANE than Turks. So how comes this false calculations?

Also there seems to be no samples of Kalash. If there was Kalash would score one of the highest (probably the highest) percentage of ANE.
Here is a better map of ANE admixture someone made. It is a 100% calculated map based on Eurogenes K8. The 13.7% under the Kurdish 19.3% is Assyrian. The Iranian samples are from Behat et al. . And as confirmed by Behar they are from South/Southwestern Iran.

----------


## Ziober

Obviously, ANE doesn't mean the whole IE’ans,. The Maciamo's ANE Map, showed 10-15% ANE in Iberia, While this other Maciamo's map show 50-90?% celtic blood in Spain, the second celtic blood nation after Ireland and probably the first in people number. Aren't Celts IE’s?

----------


## Alan

> Obviously, ANE doesn't mean the whole IE’ans,. The Maciamo's ANE Map, showed 10-15% ANE in Iberia, While this other Maciamo's map show 50-90?% celtic blood in Spain, the second celtic blood nation after Ireland and probably the first in people number. Aren't Celts IE’s?




ANE is an component of Proto Indo Europeans. Large majority of it reached Europe during Bronze Age with Indo Europeans and as such it is the most accurate signal of Indo European ancestry. 

However Indo European genome was not all ANE. The major component among them was probably still ENF (Early Neolithic famers) it's just that ENF component beside WHG already existed in Europe and therefore we can not trace Indo European ancestry based on these. So ANE remains as only signal tracing Indo European ancestry.

However We are talking here about *Proto* Indo Europeans, Celts as Indo Europeans who have evolved most likely outside the original Proto Indo European homeland were genetically already different from Proto Indo Europeans. So Iberia can be as high as 40% (in my opinion most Iberians are basically, firstly celtified/romanized Proto Basque like people) "Italo_Celtic" and still be only 20-30% Proto Indo European.

By the way this is a map of Italo_celtic yDNA. ydna=|= aDNA.

----------


## Sile

> Who makes this map for Gods sake. How can Armenia, Turkey and Azerbaijan have more ANE than Kurdistan? The map just like it's predecessor has no value if it does not hold on the data.
> It looks like Turkey has more ANE than Kurdistan. But in reality in all calculators Kurds score around 3% more ANE than Turks. So how comes this false calculations?
> 
> Also there seems to be no samples of Kalash. If there was Kalash would score one of the highest (probably the highest) percentage of ANE.
> Here is a better map of ANE admixture someone made. It is a 100% calculated map based on Eurogenes K8. The 13.7% under the Kurdish 19.3% is Assyrian. The Iranian samples are from Behat et al. . And as confirmed by Behar they are from South/Southwestern Iran.


It must be eurogenes,* "fishing"* for a slavic path into Europe

----------


## Robert6

> So how comes this false calculations?


Where do you see the false if Kurds are not considered?
Only those whose name is in the map are considered. 
http://s011.radikal.ru/i317/1412/ad/41ee935ebae1.png

----------


## Alan

> Where do you see the false if Kurds are not considered?
> Only those whose name is in the map are considered. 
> http://s011.radikal.ru/i317/1412/ad/41ee935ebae1.png


If the dude who made the map used Eurogenes K8 calculator 

As seen here from the link.
http://forum.molgen.org/index.php/to...html#msg271516

*Why did he not "consider" the Kurds in his map?* There is no freaking reason to not use Kurds in your consideration if you use a database which does have a good amount of Kurdish samples. The explanation for this is some hidden agenda.

----------


## Alan

> Where do you see the false if Kurds are not considered?
> Only those whose name is in the map are considered. 
> http://s011.radikal.ru/i317/1412/ad/41ee935ebae1.png


If the User who made that map used Eurogenes K8 as seen from this link. => http://forum.molgen.org/index.php/to...html#msg271516 Why didn't he take the Kurdish samples into "consideration" despite there beeing a number of samples? I have no explanation for that beside maybe some hidden agenda.

So if you are going to make a map based on a database and when you have samples of a region, than use them and don't make simply some shades of color based on your "opinion". Otherwise there is no difference to making a map out of the air.

----------


## Alan

> Where do you see the false if Kurds are not considered?
> Only those whose name is in the map are considered. 
> http://s011.radikal.ru/i317/1412/ad/41ee935ebae1.png


If the User who made that map used Eurogenes K8 as seen from the link you provided. Why didn't he take the Kurdish samples into "consideration" despite there beeing a number of samples? I have no explanation for that beside maybe some hidden agenda.

So if he is going to make a map based on a database, than he should use the whole database and don't make some shades of color out of his not explainable "opinion". Otherwise there is no difference to making a map out of the air.

----------


## Robert6

> If the User who made that map used Eurogenes K8 as seen from the link you provided. Why didn't he take the Kurdish samples into "consideration" despite there beeing a number of samples? I have no explanation for that beside maybe some hidden agenda.
> 
> So if he is going to make a map based on a database, than he should use the whole database and don't make some shades of color out of his not explainable "opinion". Otherwise there is no difference to making a map out of the air.


I asked 10 days ago only about Burusho, not about Kurds.


And he answered
(translated text from Russian)
""I overlooked when I drawed the map, it turns out that the Burusho people, are also in the dataset""

Я проглядел, когда рисовал карту, буриши, оказывается, тоже есть в таблице:
Afghan_Hazara 21,3937
Afghan_Pashtun 30,47106
Afghan_Tadjik 26,15578
Afghan_Turkmen 22,1969
Afghan_Uzbeki 25,28598
*Burusho 34,406316*
Tadjik 27,53793571


_So I don't think that there were "hidden agenda"_

----------


## Alan

> I asked 10 days ago only about Burusho, not about Kurds.
> 
> 
> And he answered
> (translated text from Russian)
> ""I overlooked when I drawed the map, it turns out that the Burusho people, are also in the dataset""
> 
> Я проглядел, когда рисовал карту, буриши, оказывается, тоже есть в таблице:
> Afghan_Hazara 21,3937
> ...


SOO he "overlooked" the data, found the Burusho. He found 4 Ket samples but wasn't able to see the 6 Kurdish samples? No "hidden agenda?" Give me a break.

----------


## Robert6

> SOO he "overlooked" the data, found the Burusho. He found 4 Ket samples but wasn't able to see the 6 Kurdish samples? No "hidden agenda?" Give me a break.


He is Russian and I would say that he is mostly interested about people who lived in Russian Empire + Europe, and not about people like Kurds.

----------


## Alan

> He is Russian and I would say that he is mostly interested about people who lived in Russian Empire + Europe, and not about people like Kurds.


Just *lol*. No one asked for his interest of Kurds. What kind of absolutely ridiculous excuse is this to defend his falsifying of data? 

So because I am interested more in Western Asia and it's history I should start to make a map which shows 80% ANE there and expect anyone else too consider my map as "reliable work".

Thats exactly what you are telling me. If you aren't interested in other groups beside the Russian Empire+Europe than don't make a freakn fake map about the other region just to make it appear like the "Slavs" are the sources of all this.

Just admit it you don't have an explanation for him not taking Kurdish samples into consideration and this is not the first time I have seen this on his maps. So hidden agenda is obvious.

----------


## Robert6

LoL 
Alan so why in this map there is no Crimean results? What is the hidden agenda? LoL
http://cdn.eupedia.com/images/conten..._admixture.png
http://img5.fotos-hochladen.net/uplo...geknb6c5ox.png

----------


## Sile

> He is Russian and I would say that he is mostly interested about people who lived in Russian Empire + Europe, and not about people like Kurds.


If he is *only interested* in russians then he should not show anything ( any details ) outside of russia ................besides he must be a *very poor* , when he bases his information on modern nationality .................

----------


## Alan

Robert6 for Gods sake dude even despite you asking him about Burusho and Kurds he totally avoided to give you an answer concerning the Kurds. How much more obvious does it need to be to know that this wannabe scientist has an obvious agenda? If it was his first map in this manner I wouldn't react like that but he did it already earlier. So he obviously is going after and agenda, what ever it might be.

----------


## Robert6

> If he is *only interested* in russians then he should not show anything ( any details ) outside of russia


In his first maps I think there were only former Soviet Union + Europe(but without Spain Germany Chechia etc), people asked him to add some more populations




> ................besides he must be a *very poor* , when he bases his information on modern nationality .................



The data is from "modern nationalities" so everybody is using these information, everybody is using the same data.

----------


## Robert6

> Robert6 for Gods sake dude even despite you asking him about Burusho and Kurds he totally avoided to give you an answer concerning the Kurds. How much more obvious does it need to be to know that this wannabe scientist has an obvious agenda? If it was his first map in this manner I wouldn't react like that but he did it already earlier. So he obviously is going after and agenda, what ever it might be.


I didn't ask him about Kurds

----------


## Alan

Robert let's try it a last time. If this guy was really only interested in Russia and only uses "Nationalities".

Why the heck is he using Ket samples? And if he is using nationalities Why is ANE on his maps getting weaker towards Kurdish land despite this?

Well let's go even further. If he didn't "saw" the Kurdish samples for the ANE map, why does however his WHG map fit the Kurdish results?

On the WHG map he obviously took the Kurdish samples into consideration as we see is getting weaker while going into Kurdistan?



I don't know who that dude is but if he has his issues with Kurds than he should concentrate on his country and Europe and stay the heck away from Western Asia and especially Kurdistan with his biased maps.

----------


## Robert6

If "Nationalities" isn't the right word, so lets use the word "Tribes". 
The WHG is weaker because of Armenian and Iranian sample.

----------


## Robert6

I see it now in his maps he is using "Tribes" only from former Soviet Union from Italy and from China 
and "Nationalities" from other countries

----------


## Alan

> If "Nationalities" isn't the right word, so lets use the word "Tribes". 
> The WHG is weaker because of *Armenian* *and Iranian sample.*


Iranian samples reaching all the way into Kurdish inhabited land in Eastern Anatolian/North Kurdistan. It can't be Armenian samples also because Armenian is one shade lighter. Don't you realize that you are contradicting yourself. On one hand you say in Western Asia he made the maps based on nationality and on the other you try to explain the lighter shades in Kurdistan with Iranian and Armenian samples?

But ok let's stop it here.  :Useless: 

I know what to think about these maps whether they wrong on purpose or wrong not on puporse, they are still wrong and not accurate

I have seen better maps made by various "amateurs" heck even my own map which Imade within hours just based on my "eye calculation" more accurate.

----------


## Robert6

> Iranian samples reaching all the way into Kurdish inhabited land in Eastern Anatolian/North Kurdistan. It can't be Armenian samples also because Armenian is one shade lighter.
> 
> But ok let's stop it here. 
> 
> I know what to think about these maps whether they wrong on purpose or wrong not on puporse, they are still wrong and not accurate
> 
> I have seen better maps made by various "amateurs" heck even my own map which Imade within hours just based on my "eye calculation" more accurate.


Is in your map the Crimean sample?
Is that your map?
http://img5.fotos-hochladen.net/uplo...geknb6c5ox.png
If it is your map, I do not see them there, what is your agenda? 
Just kidding LoL

----------


## Robert6

> Iranian samples reaching all the way into Kurdish inhabited land in Eastern Anatolian/North Kurdistan. It can't be Armenian samples also because Armenian is one shade lighter. Don't you realize that you are contradicting yourself. On one hand you say in Western Asia he made the maps based on nationality and on the other you try to explain the lighter shades in Kurdistan with Iranian and Armenian samples?


It depends from where he put the center for Turkish sample
You can see it clearly here, it is in N.C.Turkey and N.W. Turkey for Turkish sample
http://s013.radikal.ru/i324/1412/2e/d9ff57185493.png


And Cypriot sample is affecting Turkey from the south, and Armenian from the east.

----------


## Robert6

> Kurdistan


One S.E.Armenian man(who matches more to Kurds than to Armenians on IBD segments) from Syunik asked him to add Kurds in his own matches map 
http://s018.radikal.ru/i516/1501/9a/8d220437077f.png


source of the map
http://forum.molgen.org/index.php/to...html#msg276034

----------


## epoch

> I agree with what you're saying, except for the lack of evidence of ANE among pre-IE Europeans.


Motola 12 carried a substantial amount of ANE. Loschbourg did not carry any.

----------


## MOESAN

observations 'worth?)
'gedrosia' seems at least partially linked to ANE, but 'caucasus' too !
in Northwest Europe, ANE seems corresponding better to 'gedrosia', in Southeast Europe, ANE seems corresponding better to 'caucasus' - in N-E Europe ANE shows other links (Mesolithic) almost without 'westasian' nor 'gedrosia'
*it could be that ANE, ancient, was present in Asia in different groups, maybe not always the same parts of ANE -*

the possible correlation of Y-R1b-L51 with 'gedrosia' is interesting, and the lack of 'gedrosia' among European 'west-asians' could be explained by 2 hypothesis:
-the ancestors of Y-R1b-L51 could have been passed northernly, North the Black Sea, far enough North - the R1b L23 of S-E Europe could have been separated from the R1b-L23 of N-Europe who could have picked their 'gedrosia' on their way from East Caspian or farther in Asia
-the ancestors of Y-R1b-L51 could have passed through Anatolia and Balkans before going northwards and found 'gedrosia' people in N-E Europe before turning westwards - 
this last hypothesis is a bit weird to me - 
the ANE of S-E Europe seems linked mayby partially to Turks (very slightly) but principally to I-Eans of a different wave opposed to the wave rich of 'gedrosia' of NW Europe - 
the lack of 'gedrosia' in E and S-E Europe opposed them to the Anatolian Caucasus Near-Eastern case where the 'gedrosia' seems more recent and linked to all kinds of steppic people (late Iranians, Turks, Mongols)

----------


## Robert6

> ANE high among Kets Caucasus people and Tajiks(close to Burusho people) 
> Ket Burushaski and Caucasian laguages are "Sino-Caucasian"
> http://f-picture.net/fp/b267ea42bcf1...c226f1cd1c1fdb
> 
> The picture is from
> http://forum.molgen.org/index.php/to...html#msg271516


ANE in Paleolithic times was among R*(Afontova Gora) and R1a(Malta)

http://ejournal23.com/journals_n/1418626543.pdf
The analysis has demonstrated strong correlation between
R and Q haplogroups and Dene-Sino-Caucasian peoples: Sino-Tibetan, Na-Dene, North Caucasian,
Burushasky, and Basque. Evidently, the spread of R (and Q) haplogroups from Central Asia into
the Western Asia, which occurred in the final of Late Pleistocene – Early Holocene was closely
related with Sino-Caucasian peoples. Some of these Sino-Caucasian peoples, probably closely
related to Proto-North Caucasians, became for Proto-Indo-Europeans the source of R haplogroup.

----------


## Longbowman

Somebody already posted one of my maps, I was going to post links to the others but apparently you need 10 posts for that. Ah, well.

----------


## LeBrok

> Somebody already posted one of my maps, I was going to post links to the others but apparently you need 10 posts for that. Ah, well.


Welcome to Eupedia Longbowman. Did you get the credit for the map from the poster?

----------


## MOESAN

> I think you (and Aberdeen) are addressing an important issue. Just to point out another situation in which there is a discrepancy, let's consider the situation of the Tuscans. I don't know what the ancient Dna will, in the end, show. However, let's assume for the moment that there was some significant gene flow from Anatolia in the first millennium BC. I don't have it at my fingertips, but I have posted a map of J2a M67, which does show a hot spot in the Caucasus and a secondary one in Toscana. Then look at the ANE values in that area. How could the Tuscans have only .118 ANE when they were also affected by Indo-European migrations, which supposedly were high in ANE? (Even if the "Etruscans' didn't carry it, the Romans certainly did, and they totally mixed.) It just doesn't hang together. Perhaps, in that case, there just wasn't a significant migration. However, the larger point remains.
> 
> I am increasingly leaning toward the view that ANE=Indo-European in Europe is much too simplistic. As you say, in the north east I think a good amount, if not the majority of it, has very little to do with the Indo-Europeans. In fact, I'm not even so sure that all of it in places like Scotland is Indo-European in origin if we're speaking strictly of the people of Yamnaya in 4,000-3,000 BC.


_Very late answer, and incomplete
I'm sure "OUR" I-Eans send with them ANE ASDNA - but they were not a dominantly ANE population, they had ANE because they cristallized as a mass of people North of the Black Sea and in western Steppes whereever were they true cradle (I 've not answer yet!) -
by the way Selkups (Uralic lang.) and Kets (Na Dene L.) have very high %s of ANE as well as some South Indians, Burushos, and as a whole the N-Caucasus ethnies and the East Caspian peoples, and I don't speak about Karintianians! 40%) - Mal'ta was located in East central Siberia and I'm not sure the ANE elements we find in all our human populations today have been passed us in same time by same culture!!! surely different "packages" from initial ANE - 
but in Europe, the I-Eans who send ANE had maybe about 25 or 30% ANE as a mean so (IF ALL OUR WESTERN ANE IS FROM I-E) a 10% ANE could signify about 40 to 50% of I-Ean ancestry what is not neglictible!
but I'm sure you are aware of that - that said, in some parts of Eurasia, as I and others said, ANE has not been send by I-Eans only (I think in Finns, Balts of today - even in Europe the case is not so simple in every place-
the first ANE in our I-Eans can have been picked up among East Caspian people, not only by supposed raids of steppic I-Eans in South (some thesis), but also because of their possible genesis involving Hurritian or akin people (complementary: or also akin people of N-Caucasus?) - uneasy to say...
the stronger presence of ANE in North Europe is not I-Ean by nature but surely the northern final I-Eans who reached North-Sea had picked a bit more ANE among Eastern Hunters-Gatherers... the high ANE among "Celts" is intriguing as said someones here - could Y-R1b of Western Europe have passed more northernly than we believe? I see (from archeology) no big demic move East >> West before I-Eans there, quite the opposite!!! or more skeletons from scandinavian HGs could provide us more ANE rich samples, changing our data?
or can we suppose northern Europe is more I-Ean than southern Europe? were the first I-Eans if south Caucasus, poorer for ANE than the supposed "teached" I-Europeanized people of the Steppes???..._

----------


## Aberdeen

> Motola 12 carried a substantial amount of ANE. Loschbourg did not carry any.


Thanks. I didn't see this post before. I've had trouble finding out about whether any of the older European samples carry ANE (perhaps I haven't been reading the scientific papers carefully enough). But if Motala 12 contained a substantial amount of ANE, that reinforces my opinion that a certain percentage of the ANE in northern Europe came from the maternal side. I'd be interested in finding out whether people who have mtDNA U5 have elevated levels of ANE. Although I suppose modern Europeans are to mixed to show too much correlation between mtDNA and autosomal DNA, just as they're too mixed to show too much correlation between Y DNA and authosomal DNA. But there still seems to be a bit of a link between Y haplotype R and ANE and I wonder if there's a similar link between mtDNA U5 and ANE.

----------


## LeBrok

> Thanks. I didn't see this post before. I've had trouble finding out about whether any of the older European samples carry ANE (perhaps I haven't been reading the scientific papers carefully enough). But if Motala 12 contained a substantial amount of ANE, that reinforces my opinion that a certain percentage of the ANE in northern Europe came from the maternal side. I'd be interested in finding out whether people who have mtDNA U5 have elevated levels of ANE. Although I suppose modern Europeans are to mixed to show too much correlation between mtDNA and autosomal DNA, just as they're too mixed to show too much correlation between Y DNA and authosomal DNA. But there still seems to be a bit of a link between Y haplotype R and ANE and I wonder if there's a similar link between mtDNA U5 and ANE.


Is it possible that the small amount of ANE Motala had was very ancient commonality of hg I and R? Haplogroup F has split into G and I/J/K first, before I/J/K has split into I and R. Therefore there is a part of genome common to ancient hunter-gatherer I and R kind, which is missing in G and E of first farmers.

----------


## Aberdeen

> Is it possible that the small amount of ANE Motala had was very ancient commonality of hg I and R? Haplogroup F has split into G and I/J/K first, before I/J/K has split into I and R. Therefore there is a part of genome common to ancient hunter-gatherer I and R kind, which is missing in G and E of first farmers.


I would say that it's possible but quite improbable. Given that both MA1 and Motala 12 were mtDNA U, I think it's more likely that the unexplained high level of ANE in northern Europe comes from the maternal side.

----------


## Angela

> _Very late answer, and incomplete
> I'm sure "OUR" I-Eans send with them ANE ASDNA - but they were not a dominantly ANE population, they had ANE because they cristallized as a mass of people North of the Black Sea and in western Steppes whereever were they true cradle (I 've not answer yet!) -
> by the way Selkups (Uralic lang.) and Kets (Na Dene L.) have very high %s of ANE as well as some South Indians, Burushos, and as a whole the N-Caucasus ethnies and the East Caspian peoples, and I don't speak about Karintianians! 40%) - Mal'ta was located in East central Siberia and I'm not sure the ANE elements we find in all our human populations today have been passed us in same time by same culture!!! surely different "packages" from initial ANE - 
> but in Europe, the I-Eans who send ANE had maybe about 25 or 30% ANE as a mean so (IF ALL OUR WESTERN ANE IS FROM I-E) a 10% ANE could signify about 40 to 50% of I-Ean ancestry what is not neglictible!
> but I'm sure you are aware of that - that said, in some parts of Eurasia, as I and others said, ANE has not been send by I-Eans only (I think in Finns, Balts of today - even in Europe the case is not so simple in every place-
> the first ANE in our I-Eans can have been picked up among East Caspian people, not only by supposed raids of steppic I-Eans in South (some thesis), but also because of their possible genesis involving Hurritian or akin people (complementary: or also akin people of N-Caucasus?) - uneasy to say...
> the stronger presence of ANE in North Europe is not I-Ean by nature but surely the northern final I-Eans who reached North-Sea had picked a bit more ANE among Eastern Hunters-Gatherers... the high ANE among "Celts" is intriguing as said someones here - could Y-R1b of Western Europe have passed more northernly than we believe? I see (from archeology) no big demic move East >> West before I-Eans there, quite the opposite!!! or more skeletons from scandinavian HGs could provide us more ANE rich samples, changing our data?
> or can we suppose northern Europe is more I-Ean than southern Europe? were the first I-Eans if south Caucasus, poorer for ANE than the supposed "teached" I-Europeanized people of the Steppes???..._



I think we are largely in agreement, even about our uncertainties! 

As to your last points, I'm not sure where the I-European urheimat was located.What is pretty clear, however, is that Reich and company have stated that the mtDna in Samara changed from mtDna U to more typically "Near Eastern" lineages around 4000 BC. I think a strong case can also be made that a significant part of what constitutes the "Yamnaya technological and cultural package" is sourced in the Near East proper. Then, around 4000 to 3000 BC the Yamnaya package actually came together. I don't think this is all a coincidence. I don't know if the _language_ started out south of the steppe or if it was influenced by languages spoken in the south but developed on the steppe where it was also influenced by Uralic, but I can see related but not identical populations straddling the Caucasus who both spoke a version of it. From there I could see one group (higher in ANE perhaps, with a significant amount of WHG perhaps growing as these groups moved north and north west, but also lower in early near eastern farmer type alleles) going west across the steppes, and one group (higher in ENF, lower in ANE and with very little WHG, going into Anatolia and then into southeast Europe. That would indicate the point of view of works like "The Coming of the Greeks" by Robert Drews was correct. There is supposedly a big paper coming out with ancient DNA from Greece with samples from the Neolithic all the way into close to the historical era so perhaps that will be illuminating, although that would depend, I think, on whether they have samples from the relevant periods in Anatolia, as well. Could the same group be responsible for the Indo Iranian language spread into India by traveling from there through Bactria?

On the other hand, it just may be that the northern Europeans have more ANE because Corded Ware derived from a group related to Yamnaya which had more WHG and ANE, or because Corded Ware absorbed SHG people who still remained in their refuge, or both. I also wonder if its possible that there was a "belt" east/west at that latitude where migration and admixture took place, much like the circumpolar regions and so might have fed into earlier far northern populations.

Or, northern Europe just may have more ANE because given climate driven and ecologically driven population crashes in central Europe, and low overall population levels in the peripheral refuge areas, there was more "room" for them to make a genetic impact, unlike the densely populated southern regions which might not have experienced such population declines. I really should investigate to see what is known of the situation in this regard in more southern areas.

Oh, it just occurred to me that if indeed there was a group of Indo-Europeans from the Caucasus who took a route through Anatolia into Greek and adjacent areas, then these people would be just as Indo-European, if not more so than northern Europeans, while being less ANE and WHG.

The slight increase in WHG (which so far as I know is just speculated about given the changes in mtDna) in central Europe which took place right before the formation of Corded Ware is another issue.

----------


## Arame

Now that we know that Kalash has no any admixture the last 10.000 year doesn't this mean that ANE is not about Siberia but perhaps about Central Asia ?

----------


## LeBrok

> Now that we know that Kalash has no any admixture the last 10.000 year doesn't this mean that ANE is not about Siberia but perhaps about Central Asia ?


 Yes ANE is about Central-North-East Asia. Pretty huge area.
Kalash do have other admixtures, though it seems that they travel their from some northern location, rich in ANE.

----------


## Arame

LeBrok
Well I don't mean ANE today but ANE in early Neolithic or late Paleolithic.
According to Lazaridis 2013 Kalash ANE is huge. And they are isolated
They are high in ydna L and H.
So I don't see how they can come from somewhere else especially the North Eurasia .
The logical explanation is that ANE was very high in Central Asia in Paleolithic it moved East and North and have founder effect in Siberia. It is now known that North Siberia was recolonized later after Ice Age. So North Siberia population is relatively new.
Later ANE decreased in South Central Asia after the arrival of farmers. ANE was best preserved in Steppe because there were no farmers there.

----------


## LeBrok

> LeBrok
> Well I don't mean ANE today but ANE in early Neolithic or late Paleolithic.
> According to Lazaridis 2013 Kalash ANE is huge. And they are isolated
> They are high in ydna L and H.
> So I don't see how they can come from somewhere else especially the North Eurasia .
> The logical explanation is that ANE was very high in Central Asia in Paleolithic it moved East and North and have founder effect in Siberia. It is now known that North Siberia was recolonized later after Ice Age. So North Siberia population is relatively new.
> Later ANE decreased in South Central Asia after the arrival of farmers. ANE was best preserved in Steppe because there were no farmers there.


I meant ancient times. I'm not sure if there was any ANE in Near East before 10,000 years ago. This is map of Ice Age Maximum. Even then there was a lot of space in Central Asia without ice. ANE didn't need to hide in Middle East to survive and repopulate.

----------


## Arame

Lol LeBrok we are saying the same thing. Please read once more. I never claim that ANE has a refuge in Near East. ( Near East end for me after Iran ). I said they where in Central Asia.

----------


## LeBrok

> Lol LeBrok we are saying the same thing. Please read once more. I never claim that ANE has a refuge in Near East. ( Near East end for me after Iran ). I said they where in Central Asia.


OK, I thought so probably because of this below citation, I thought that you thought that Kalash originally were from Near East as a source of ANE.



> _They are high in ydna L and H._
> _So I don't see how they can come from somewhere else especially the North Eurasia_

----------


## A. Papadimitriou

ANE obviously isn't exclusively Indoeuropean *at least*. It is extremely high in some Uralic and Turkic speaking groups.

Magyars and Oghuz Turks could have brought more ANE in the areas they settled.

----------


## Alan

> ANE obviously isn't exclusively Indoeuropean *at least*. It is extremely high in some Uralic and Turkic speaking groups.
> 
> Magyars and Oghuz Turks could have brought more ANE in the areas they settled.


??? Have you actually seen the ANE scores of Turkic groups in Central and East Asia? Heck even those in Central Asia score less than Indo_Iranians and Caucasians as well North Europeans. Also today the ANE in the Steppes is weaker than in the past, So how could they have brought more ANE??

----------


## A. Papadimitriou

If you explain with examples I will answer and I may recall.

----------


## AliShirwan

My results for ANE:




> MDLP K13 'Ultimate' Oracle
> 
> *Admix Results (sorted):
> 
> #
> Population
> Percent
> 
> 1
> ...

----------


## Ordas

My results based on Eurogenes K13

I'm Hungarian from Hungarian part of Romania (Partium)

EEF 55.96 %

WHG 30.24 %

ANE 13.80 %

according to Eurogenes ANE K7

ANE 15.33

ASE 2.20

WHG/UHG 57.04

ENF 24.30

E-Eurasian 0

W-Afr 0.60

E-Afr 0.53

based on MDLP K16 Gedmach Genesis


#PopulationPercent
1Neolithic26.88
2Caucasian24.26
3NorthEastEuropean22.82
4Steppe22.17
5NearEast2.04
6SouthEastAsian0.93
7Ancestor0.54
8Amerindian0.33
9Subsaharian0.04

Gesendet von meinem SM-G903F mit Tapatalk

----------

