# Population Genetics > Autosomal Genetics >  New map of Caucasian autosomal admixtures in Europe and the Middle East

## Maciamo

After the map of Gedrosian admixture I found it would be interesting to compare the distribution of the 'Caucasus' admixture in the same K12b. Although both peak around West Asia and South Asia, the frequency inside Europe is completely different. The Caucasian admixture looks more Neolithic (matching particularly well G2a + J1xP58 + J2) and is high among Slavs, but nearly absent in Northwest Europe as well as among the Basques. In contrast, the Gedrosian is virtually absent in Slavs but is the highest in Northwest Europe among Europeans and appears linked to the diffusion of R1b lineages.

It's also interesting how the Caucasian admixture is so unevenly spread within Spain (unlike any other country).

----------


## Angela

> After the map of Gedrosian admixture I found it would be interesting to compare the distribution of the 'Caucasus' admixture in the same K12b. Although both peak around West Asia and South Asia, the frequency inside Europe is completely different. The Caucasian admixture looks more Neolithic (matching particularly well G2a + J1xP58 + J2) and is high among Slavs, but nearly absent in Northwest Europe as well as among the Basques. In contrast, the Gedrosian is virtually absent in Slavs but is the highest in Northwest Europe among Europeans and appears linked to the diffusion of R1b lineages.
> 
> It's also interesting how the Caucasian admixture is so unevenly spread within Spain (unlike any other country).


I agree that at least some of the Caucasus is Neolithic, although I think that the Mediterranean component is also very significant, unless it should be found, for example, that Mesolithic samples from the Balkans already contained it. Also, the southwest Asian was present in the earliest Neolithic farmers.

Once again, the analysis of Oetzi and Gok 4, including one based on the K=12b calculator. 
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/04...neolithic.html

The most likely explanation for the differing Caucasus numbers for Oetzi and Gok 4 might be that there were various Neolithic migrations, from slightly different areas, and at slightly different times.

I find it interesting that Otzi's numbers for Caucasus and S.W.Asian are so similar to the numbers of current North Italians and Tuscans. It's the other components that have changed in the last five thousand years.

----------


## Noman

Those two shouldn't expect to be related, and mountains are generally a refugium.

The caucasian is probably neolithic farmers and gedrosian migratory people who move around a bit. Note that they are not descended from gedrosians or anything, just have had contact with them, or contact with people who contacted them etc. as happens in a cultural exchange. You can see this in all peoples with their neighbors.

----------


## Silesian

Thanks for posting nice maps.R1b L23x[51] is also found at elevated levels in the region between the two darkened regions of Gedrosia and Caucasus component. Armenian Syunik-Karabakh region and ancient Iranian tribes[Medes] Northwestern Iranian language; Old Azeri, Gilacki, Talysh, and Luri.

----------


## Goga

Of all West Asian/Near Eastern groups Iranic Kurds and Persians have the highest amount of this component. 3000 years ago the Medes Persians & Parthians were very closely related to each other. Even 3000 years later we can see that Kurds (modern descendants of the Medes) and Persians have almost the same amount of this component. Persian and Kurdish populations are still very close to each other. This means that Kurds & Persians didn't changed a lot in the last 3000 years and also that ancient Iranic tribes were for the important part Gedrosian, since this Gedrosian component is very high among all Iranic nations, even in South & Central Asia. Ancient proto-Iranians were West Asian/Gedrosian!

----------


## Fire Haired

Macimao dont u think there is a reason why Italy and Greece have so much more mid eastern than the rest of Europe. every aust dna test i have looked at Italy and Greece will have over 3-4 times as much mid eastern groups as the rest of Europe. The more south u go in Italy the higher it gets. Y DNa J also seems to be most popular in Europe around Italy and Greece. Also southeast Europe around Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Romania area have high amounts but less than Greece they also have more E V13 and J than the rest of Europe. I think there is defintley a connection with hg E V13 and J1-J2 and amount of mid eastern blood in diff europeans. Alo I think the reason that Italy and Greece have so much more mid eastern blood than the rest of Europe is because of the ancient Greco Roman world not the Neolithic age. 

Sradine people are true Neolithic west europeans they are probably close to 100% from the people that spread farming acroos Europe. They probably formed form a mix of European and the mid eastern farmers. I would guess that Sardine people orignalley lived in Italy over 6,000 years ago they have much less mid eastern than Italians that is evidence the high amount of mid eastern blood in Italy came after the Neolithic age. There is a connection with the Roman empire and Y DNA J2 in Europe i think alot of Y DNA J in Europe mainly Italy, Greece, and south east Europe came in the Greco Roman age.

----------


## ElHorsto

In Balkans and Italy the Caucasus admixture it is certainly neolithic because Atlantic_med is very high too. But the very low Atlantic_med in Balts and north-Slavs suggests that their Caucasus admixture is from a different source, maybe satem-speaking indo-europeans.

----------


## Fire Haired

Goga proto Indo Iranian speakers came from Russia. They came out of Yamna culture and migrated acroos central asia eventulley had alot of contact with people from around IRan spread there then also from there spread to were Kurds live today. The gedorsian in Kurds and Iranians is from the pre Indo Iranian speakers. R1b shows a connection with Gedorsian but that does not mean it is unque to R1b just R1b began in that area.

Maciamo i think thee is deifntley good evidence alot of Y DNA J is Neolithic but i defintley think some is Greco Roman. Why from 31 Y DNa samples from west European farmers dating any where from 7,000 to 4,725 years old not one had hg J it deifntley does not connect with how popular J is today u would except at least one. I am wondering what J1 and J2 subclades in Europe have old enough ages to be Neolithic and pretty much only found in Europe or very rare in areas of the mid east Greek and Italian civilizations had contact with.

Do u think that Cardium culture and LBK came from the same source. I think that all or almost all farming in Europe was spread by the same family of farmers who orignalley came from a culture around Greece and Anatolia 9,000ybp. I think G2a3 L30 was their main G2a subclade and G2a was their main haplogroup period.

----------


## Fire Haired

I really doubt the Caucus admixture in Italy and Greece is Neolithic. i made a map of west asian from the globe13 test it is distrubted around Italy Greece and southeast europe almost exactley the same way same with southwest asian. The fact is that Italians, Greeks, and southeast Europeans have more mid eastern than the rest of Europe The farmers that came to Italy came from central Europe why doesnt central Europe have as much and why does southern Italy have more. That makes me think it came through the Mediterranean sea in the Greco Roman age not everything mid eastern in europe is neloithic i get sick of that assumtion.

----------


## Angela

> I really doubt the Caucus admixture in Italy and Greece is Neolithic. i made a map of west asian from the globe13 test it is distrubted around Italy Greece and southeast europe almost exactley the same way same with southwest asian. The fact is that Italians, Greeks, and southeast Europeans have more mid eastern than the rest of Europe The farmers that came to Italy came from central Europe why doesnt central Europe have as much and why does southern Italy have more. That makes me think it came through the Mediterranean sea in the Greco Roman age not everything mid eastern in europe is neloithic i get sick of that assumtion.


http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/04...neolithic.html

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/04...neolithic.html

West Asian and Caucasus are also two different components

----------


## Goga

> Goga proto Indo Iranian speakers came from Russia. They came out of Yamna culture and migrated acroos central asia eventulley had alot of contact with people from around IRan spread there then also from there spread to were Kurds live today. The gedorsian in Kurds and Iranians is from the pre Indo Iranian speakers. R1b shows a connection with Gedorsian but that does not mean it is unque to R1b just R1b began in that area.


I don't like to talk about this with you. I'm tired of ignorance among some denials here! You can still believe in stupid fairytales. Lets just *agree to disagree*, dude! There're no 'European' N1c1, I2a and R1a-Z283 Y-DNA haplogroups in Central Asia! Gedrosian component = R1* + J2a & G2a. This is the same formula of modern-day and ancient Iranic peoples that still speak and spoke Iranic languages. Russians (*N1c1*, R1a-Z283 & *I2a* folks) speak a Slavonic language. Slavic nations have nothing to do with Iranic and proto-Iranic nations, since they never spoke Iranic. Iranic R1a is NOT the same as Slavic R1a! The only true Iranians and descendants of the ancient Iranians are moder-day Persians and Kurds (/Medes). Even today among ALL WestAsian peoples, Kurds have the highest amount of Caucasian-Gedrosian component! Together with Caucasian, Gedrosian is the *most imporant* auDNA component among *ALL* Iranians, from West (Asia) to East (Cetral Asia)! Ancient Sogdians, Parthians, Bactrians, Persians and Medes were all Caucasian-Gedrosian! We can attest that by looking at the auDNA of modern-day Iranic nations from Kurdistan to Afghanistan!

----------


## Tabaccus Maximus

> After the map of Gedrosian admixture I found it would be interesting to compare the distribution of the 'Caucasus' admixture in the same K12b. Although both peak around West Asia and South Asia, the frequency inside Europe is completely different. The Caucasian admixture looks more Neolithic (matching particularly well G2a + J1xP58 + J2) and is high among Slavs, but nearly absent in Northwest Europe as well as among the Basques. In contrast, the Gedrosian is virtually absent in Slavs but is the highest in Northwest Europe among Europeans and appears linked to the diffusion of R1b lineages.
> 
> It's also interesting how the Caucasian admixture is so unevenly spread within Spain (unlike any other country).


Great Maps, Maciamo!
Do you think possibly these maps could be intrepreted the other way around?

The Gerdosian map, I think, is quite clear as you've said. It corresponds with R1b's movement.
The Caucasian map could be much, much later though. Could the Ottomans and the Goths could have spread K12b?
Excluding some of the other wandering peoples, the Gothic and Vandalic influence is much stronger in Spain and Italy than some think. Perhaps the Eastern Germanics had a more eastern and Crimean maternal mix, which tends to disguise their total presence in Spain and Italy. It probably also better explains the uneven distribution in Gothic Spain.

Edit* Afterthought. I'm ignorant on how these genes are selected in children, but I would imagine a single ancestor in the genealogy of a cross-section of modern people could have spread K12b to many descendants. For example, a single Ottoman soldier who married a local Middle Eastern 400 years ago may now have several million offspring many of which may or may not have K12b. If a bunch of Ottoman soldiers married Middle Eastern women 400 years ago, the gene might be almost universal...?

----------


## Tabaccus Maximus

> 



Interesting, the hotspot over R1b Bashkirostan. 
Also, interesting; the relative softness over Yamanaya. 
Maikop, Kura-Araxes and Northern Mespotamia look fairly hot.
I would be interested to know its distribution in Asian and Africa.

----------


## Noman

> Goga proto Indo Iranian speakers came from Russia. They came out of Yamna culture and migrated acroos central asia eventulley had alot of contact with people from around IRan spread there then also from there spread to were Kurds live today. The gedorsian in Kurds and Iranians is from the pre Indo Iranian speakers. R1b shows a connection with Gedorsian but that does not mean it is unque to R1b just R1b began in that area.
> 
> Maciamo i think thee is deifntley good evidence alot of Y DNA J is Neolithic but i defintley think some is Greco Roman. Why from 31 Y DNa samples from west European farmers dating any where from 7,000 to 4,725 years old not one had hg J it deifntley does not connect with how popular J is today u would except at least one. I am wondering what J1 and J2 subclades in Europe have old enough ages to be Neolithic and pretty much only found in Europe or very rare in areas of the mid east Greek and Italian civilizations had contact with.
> 
> Do u think that Cardium culture and LBK came from the same source. I think that all or almost all farming in Europe was spread by the same family of farmers who orignalley came from a culture around Greece and Anatolia 9,000ybp. I think G2a3 L30 was their main G2a subclade and G2a was their main haplogroup period.


And here we go. The discrepancy here is that the proto indo europeans and the indo european speakers are not the same people as I've been trying to say. Nobody packed up from iran to make a big migration to europe, it just never happened. All the people in that whole area have always been related for all time practically. Also this map shows yamanaya is nothing to do with anything which no one should have thought anyway. Maykop on the other hand obviously took on a lot of that culture.

It's not that the iranians moved west and became european looking. They always looked european and lately they get more and more influence from mongols and arabs, and by way of them influence to east asia and north africa so they look different now. Nobody looked like khomeni in iran even a couple hundred years ago!

----------


## Goga

> It's not that the iranians moved west and became european looking. They always looked european and lately they get more and more influence from mongols and arabs, and by way of them influence to east asia and north africa so they look different now. Nobody looked like khomeni in iran even a couple hundred years ago!


Uh, not really. Ancient Greeks described Persians & Medes darker than themselves. The Sumerians described themselves 'black headed'/dark haired. According to me the Sumerians were ancestors of proto-Iranic tribes.

----------


## Sile

> After the map of Gedrosian admixture I found it would be interesting to compare the distribution of the 'Caucasus' admixture in the same K12b. Although both peak around West Asia and South Asia, the frequency inside Europe is completely different. The Caucasian admixture looks more Neolithic (matching particularly well G2a + J1xP58 + J2) and is high among Slavs, but nearly absent in Northwest Europe as well as among the Basques. In contrast, the Gedrosian is virtually absent in Slavs but is the highest in Northwest Europe among Europeans and appears linked to the diffusion of R1b lineages.
> 
> It's also interesting how the Caucasian admixture is so unevenly spread within Spain (unlike any other country).


I would like to know about the oval area in both maps in the caucasus area. Are they the Kabardin people?

*Kabarda or Kabard (Adyghe: Къэбэртайхэр-адыгэ or Qăbărtajxăr-adǝgă; Arabic: القبرطاي أو القبردي‎); are terms referring to a people of the northern Caucasus more commonly known by the plural term Kabardin (or Kebertei as they term themselves). Originally they (with the Besleney (Arabic: البسلني‎) tribe comprised the semi-nomadic eastern branch of what was once the Adyghe tribal fellowship. The Kabardin still consider themselves as a tribe of Adyghe. They speak Kabardian, a North West Caucasian language that represents the easternmost extension of the Circassian language group.
*
*There is an approach among the Adyghe in Circassia from different tribes to use only the Name Circassians (Adyghe) in Census 2010 in Russia; to reflect and revive the unity of the Adyghe Nation (Adyghes in Republic of Adyghea, Kabardians in Kabardino-Balkaria, Cherkess (Adyghe: Шэрджэс or Šărdžăs) in Karachay–Cherkessia, and the Shapsugs in the southern part of Krasnodar Krai, plus small Adyghe groups in Stavropol Krai and North Ossetia. This approach is widely supported in the Caucasus and among the Circassians in Diaspora.[citation needed]

if they are adyghe , then maykop culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adyghe_people


*

----------


## Maciamo

> I agree that at least some of the Caucasus is Neolithic, although I think that the Mediterranean component is also very significant, unless it should be found, for example, that Mesolithic samples from the Balkans already contained it. Also, the southwest Asian was present in the earliest Neolithic farmers.


The Caucasus admixture is from the K12b admixture, while the Mediterranean is from the K12. They are therefore not mutually exclusive. I don't really like the K12's Mediterranean admixture because it encompass too many different ethnic elements and consequently is not a very coherent marker.

----------


## Maciamo

> Great Maps, Maciamo!
> Do you think possibly these maps could be intrepreted the other way around?
> 
> The Gerdosian map, I think, is quite clear as you've said. It corresponds with R1b's movement.
> The Caucasian map could be much, much later though. Could the Ottomans and the Goths could have spread K12b?
> Excluding some of the other wandering peoples, the Gothic and Vandalic influence is much stronger in Spain and Italy than some think. Perhaps the Eastern Germanics had a more eastern and Crimean maternal mix, which tends to disguise their total presence in Spain and Italy. It probably also better explains the uneven distribution in Gothic Spain.
> 
> Edit* Afterthought. I'm ignorant on how these genes are selected in children, but I would imagine a single ancestor in the genealogy of a cross-section of modern people could have spread K12b to many descendants. For example, a single Ottoman soldier who married a local Middle Eastern 400 years ago may now have several million offspring many of which may or may not have K12b. If a bunch of Ottoman soldiers married Middle Eastern women 400 years ago, the gene might be almost universal...?


The Goths and Vandals had only a very minor impact (under 5%) on the population in the regions where they settled. The Ottomans spread East Asian genes, and their soldiers were from all the Middle East, but they all stayed in the Middle East and in the Balkans. That wouldn't explain how Caucasian DNA got in Europe in the first place. The Caucasian admixture is essentially Neolithic and was probably amplified in Italy and the Balkans through Greco-Anatolian Bronze Age people.

----------


## Tabaccus Maximus

> The Goths and Vandals had only a very minor impact (under 5%) on the population in the regions where they settled. The Ottomans spread East Asian genes, and their soldiers were from all the Middle East, but they all stayed in the Middle East and in the Balkans. That wouldn't explain how Caucasian DNA got in Europe in the first place. The Caucasian admixture is essentially Neolithic and was probably amplified in Italy and the Balkans through Greco-Anatolian Bronze Age people.



I suppose you are right. I read some of the archeogenetic results of European neolithic samples on Dienekes blog and it seems they had the Caucasian mixture. 

I have to admit though, the results of these maps are a bit puzzling. The Transcaucus is puzzling in that it seems to be divided in an East-West fashion genetically between Gedrosian and Caucasian. If you look at your previous map on East Asian admixture, again you see an impact exclusively in the Eastern side of the Caucus.

That makes me question the ethnic mixture of the Maikop Culture in the Western Caucaus. Possibly it was one divided into several castes. The Kurgan builders may have represented a tiny minority of the population in an upper caste. Obviously those buried in the Kurgans were incredibily wealthy.

Also, the lack of overlap in a meaningful way is significant. Given the time and generations to present, I would expect the two maps to be identical if they had their genesis in the same relative region.
If Gedrosian had its genesis in the population of Balochistan, then possibly within a subset, R1b's entry into Europe was much later than previously supposed?

----------


## Noman

> Uh, not really. Ancient Greeks described Persians & Medes darker than themselves. The Sumerians described themselves 'black headed'/dark haired. According to me the Sumerians were ancestors of proto-Iranic tribes.


Yeah, I know all that but.... for the ancient greeks, I can't find any reason to think were the least bit dark. They used to call just about everyone darker than them. For that and a million other reasons I think it's the opposite. Black-headed is telling because it implies the people around them didn't have black hair.

----------


## Knovas

This Caucasus component overlaps with Med. Sometimes what is shown as Caucasus here is most likely Med. It is really confusing since it is pretty much like a West Asian component when one checks the distribution, but definitely there's something strange:

This was the only experiment I got high Caucasus/West Asian figures. Most times I came out very low or even 0%, so for me that's enough reason to take this run with more caution. 

Dienekes' argued this wasn't West Asian, but Caucasus, hence the results were different. However, the Euro7 test also included the Caucasus element with very similar distribution, and my result was 0% (overwhelmingly Southwestern, which is most similar to Med).

So that's the story, hope it helps.

----------


## Knovas

> The Caucasus admixture is from the K12b admixture, while the Mediterranean is from the K12. They are therefore not mutually exclusive. I don't really like the K12's Mediterranean admixture because it encompass too many different ethnic elements and consequently is not a very coherent marker.


Rather the opposite: it is this Caucasus element what is not very coherent.

----------


## Noman

> This Caucasus component overlaps with Med. Sometimes what is shown as Caucasus here is most likely Med. It is really confusing since it is pretty much like a West Asian component when one checks the distribution, but definitely there's something strange:
> 
> This was the only experiment I got high Caucasus/West Asian figures. Most times I came out very low or even 0%, so for me that's enough reason to take this run with more caution. 
> 
> Dienekes' argued this wasn't West Asian, but Caucasus, hence the results were different. However, the Euro7 test also included the Caucasus element with very similar distribution, and my result was 0% (overwhelmingly Southwestern, which is most similar to Med).
> 
> So that's the story, hope it helps.


The thing is, if you check every kind of marker you are probably going to get a similar spread but it doesn't mean that the people involved literally up and move to those locations, which will become clear when you realize some will be moving east and in general everything will simply spread out. Depending on what the "marker" is you might be spreading nothing at all but the marker, lots of genes are under selection pressure.

So all it means is there's contact and some exchange between these peoples. If it were really a wholesale migration then the whole map would be black because unlike y-dna it won't wash out very easily. Which is a good quality about y-dna, you don't get massive false positives, whereas the autosomals are like painting with fire. You can't miss them but they don't necessarily mean anything.

----------


## Knovas

I know what you mean Noman. And because of this, I give more credit to the regular results.

----------


## MOESAN

> After the map of Gedrosian admixture I found it would be interesting to compare the distribution of the 'Caucasus' admixture in the same K12b. Although both peak around West Asia and South Asia, the frequency inside Europe is completely different. The Caucasian admixture looks more Neolithic (matching particularly well G2a + J1xP58 + J2) and is high among Slavs, but nearly absent in Northwest Europe as well as among the Basques. In contrast, the Gedrosian is virtually absent in Slavs but is the highest in Northwest Europe among Europeans and appears linked to the diffusion of R1b lineages.
> 
> It's also interesting how the Caucasian admixture is so unevenly spread within Spain (unlike any other country).


_Maciamo, I'm a bit surprised by the 'spot' of 'caucasian' in Guipuzcoa (I believe), lost among a region where 'caucasian' is poor enough_ -_ in Iberia, 'caucasian' seems linked to 1) late neolithical movements - 2) to bronze ages colonizations from East - the less dense Portugal could be explained by a first wave of neolithical people, more on the side of Y-G2a and 'western mediterranean' ('basque' + 'sardinian'), and maybe by a light Lusitani impact (I-Eans) - in Spain, the central less dense 'caucasian can be due to Celtiberes' and others from central and western Europe?_ Germanics could have played too - 
_for northern Italy, I'm surprised too by the very high level of 'caucasian': a more precise sampling could break down this unity?_

----------


## Angela

> _Maciamo, I'm a bit surprised by the 'spot' of 'caucasian' in Guipuzcoa (I believe), lost among a region where 'caucasian' is poor enough_ -_ in Iberia, 'caucasian' seems linked to 1) late neolithical movements - 2) to bronze ages colonizations from East - the less dense Portugal could be explained by a first wave of neolithical people, more on the side of Y-G2a and 'western mediterranean' ('basque' + 'sardinian'), and maybe by a light Lusitani impact (I-Eans) - in Spain, the central less dense 'caucasian can be due to Celtiberes' and others from central and western Europe?_ Germanics could have played too - 
> _for northern Italy, I'm surprised too by the very high level of 'caucasian': a more precise sampling could break down this unity?_




I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean by breaking down this unity of the "caucasian" element in northern Italy. That element is clinal in Italy, like virtually everything else; caucasus is 22.8 in northern Italy, about 28 in Tuscany and 36 or so in the south on this calculator.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

----------


## Sile

> I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean by breaking down this unity of the "caucasian" element in northern Italy. That element is clinal in Italy, like virtually everything else; caucasus is 22.8 in northern Italy, about 28 in Tuscany and 36 or so in the south on this calculator.
> 
> Within the north, the academic sample from Bergamo and the more general north Italian dodecad population have virtually the same amount of 'caucasus' component. 
> 
> The interesting thing, as I've mentioned before, is that Oetzi's caucasus component on the same calculator was also 22%, but Gok 4, also a Neolithic farmer, only had about 5%. So, does the caucasus component in Europe represent a later and slightly different Neolithic migration, and/or is this a sign of the beginning of the metal age migrations. After all, not only did Oetzi possess copper tools, but he had high arsenic levels in his blood, which indicate he probably was a copper worker, and let's not forget that metal working first moved from the east into the Balkans, and then later came east again with other migrations.
> 
> As to the relationship between the Gedrosia and West Asian components, this is what Dienekes has to say about it:
> 
> "Similarly, the West_Asian component (from K=7) is intermediate between the Caucasus and Gedrosia components; the Gedrosia component diverges in the direction of the Asian groups (not shown in this figure), and in particular of South Asians.
> ...


wasn't the final outcome that gedrosian was a subset of west-asian and formed in western iran and moved eastward, while west-asian "birthplace" is more an area covering mesopotamia and northern iranian areas?

----------


## Sile

> wasn't the final outcome that gedrosian was a subset of west-asian and formed in western iran and moved eastward, while west-asian "birthplace" is more an area covering mesopotamia and northern iranian areas?


Edit: looking at dodecad K7b, K12 and K12b , I find the K7b more clearer and less cluttered than the others.
For me, it fits with verbal info from some genetic companies, ie, ftdna, dnatribes and others.
K12b seems to want to find the precise area for each individual, which seems a tall order.

K7b for me
*#*
*Population*
*Percent*

1
South_Asian
0.44

2
West_Asian
17.43

3
Siberian
0.00

4
African
0.20

5
Southern
26.21

6
Atlantic_Baltic
55.72

7
East_Asian
0.00




Pct. Calc. Option 2

1
N_Italian
90.69%

2
Mordovians
3.06%

3
Bulgarian
2.93%

4
Burusho
2.39%

5
TSI30
0.49%

6
Lezgins
0.31%

7
Tajiks
0.11%

8
Canarias
0.00%

9
O_Italian
0.00%

10
Murcia
0.00%



Mordovians are central russian people......not to be confused with Moldovians.
Burusho are border people between tajikstan and pakistan
TSI30 are tuscan
Lezkins and a mix of azeri and _Azerbaijan_

----------


## Angela

> Edit: looking at dodecad K7b, K12 and K12b , I find the K7b more clearer and less cluttered than the others.
> For me, it fits with verbal info from some genetic companies, ie, ftdna, dnatribes and others.
> K12b seems to want to find the precise area for each individual, which seems a tall order.
> 
> K7b for me
> *#*
> *Population*
> *Percent*
> 
> ...


It always amazes me how accurate his calculators can be, at least for people of Italian ancestry, which are the results with which I'm most familiar, in how individual results so clearly fit the overall patterns.

These are are mine for 7b:
S.Asian .2
W.Asian 17.2 ( virtually identical)
Siberian 0
African 0
Southern 32.1
Atlantic/Baltic 50.6
E.Asian 0

Given that I'm half Tuscan, and that Parma is south of you, (Friuli and Vicenza?) the about six percent swing in Southern vs. Atlantic Baltic makes sense to me. And, as I suspected, there's almost no difference in the West Asian. 

I think there does tend to be more clarity at the lower "K". Not using North Africa as a cluster is also very helpful, I think. North Africa, as Dienekes showed in the link above, is neatly about 60% Southern, it looks like, with the rest divided between SSA and Atlantic/Batlic. (on average of course.) As for K=12, as I posted above, I think it's got some issues.

With reference to your question about Gedrosian and West Asian, I thought that northern Iran was part of the discussions about possible locations, or at least way stations, for the origin of R1b, and/or the Indo-European languages. I certainly could be wrong about that, though. Do you have any blogs in particular where he discussed the West Asian and Gedrosian relationship in more detail than in the one I linked to above? I'd love to read it...the whole topic is indeed a little murky.

From what I can see in that analysis above, West Asian in the K=7b run, as expressed in k= 12b components, shows that West Asian as a combination of Caucasus and Gedrosian. (The modal for "West Asian" is variably either Georgia or the Adyghei. )

K=12b Caucasus as expressed in K=7b components is what looks to be about 50-60% or so West Asian, about 30% Southern and about 10% Atlantic-Baltic.

----------


## Sile

> It always amazes me how accurate his calculators can be, at least for people of Italian ancestry, which are the results with which I'm most familiar, in how individual results so clearly fit the overall patterns.
> 
> These are are mine for 7b:
> S.Asian .2
> W.Asian 17.2 ( virtually identical)
> Siberian 0
> African 0
> Southern 32.1
> Atlantic/Baltic 50.6
> ...


my line is Trevisan and Trentin , you parma Line indicates an Emilian and northern Tuscan, maybe even Lucchese. The lombard and piedmontese would also fit to a degree.
I agree the six % makes sense especially for you, deducting from atlantic to give to your southern





> With reference to your question about Gedrosian and West Asian, I thought that northern Iran was part of the discussions about possible locations, or at least way stations, for the origin of R1b, and/or the Indo-European languages. I certainly could be wrong about that, though. Do you have any blogs in particular where he discussed the West Asian and Gedrosian relationship in more detail than in the one I linked to above? I'd love to read it...the whole topic is indeed a little murky.
> 
> From what I can see in that analysis above, West Asian in the K=7b run, as expressed in k= 12b components, shows that West Asian as a combination of Caucasus and Gedrosian. (The modal for "West Asian" is variably either Georgia or the Adyghei. )
> 
> K=12b Caucasus as expressed in K=7b components is what looks to be about 50-60% or so West Asian, about 30% Southern and about 10% Atlantic-Baltic.


I will check my data for you.

in regards to placing these names,
West-asian is mesopotamia, and most of irak, western iran, going east from there is Gedroasian which is eastern iran, and then the last piece of eastern iran with southern pakistan is Baloucki. Some companies say the levant and anatolia are wes-asian as well......I am unsure.

Is west-asian to you the caucasus as well or only for K7b?........i see as separate ( but not for K7b, they are the same, included)

Soth-west asian is the arabian peninsula.

----------


## Angela

> my line is Trevisan and Trentin , you parma Line indicates an Emilian and northern Tuscan, maybe even Lucchese. The lombard and piedmontese would also fit to a degree.
> I agree the six % makes sense especially for you, deducting from atlantic to give to your southern
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will check my data for you.
> 
> in regards to placing these names,
> ...


I'm sorry, I thought you said your mother's family was from Vicenza. I don't go into all the details when speaking with non-Italians, as I'm sure it generates total boredom and incomprehension, but to be precise, my father's lineages are all from Parma for at least the last 500 or so years. My mother's line is half from La Spezia, and half from the Lunigiana, (part of Massa Carrara) which has been "Tuscan" since the Medici got it, but which is more a blend of eastern Liguria and Emilia in terms of language, food, culture etc. The dialect is basically emiliano un po ligurizzato. 

Lucca (and Pisa), is quite different...and not only in terms of language etc., from the Lunigiana (especially the central and northern Lunigiana), more so from western Emilia, but even from the Fiorentini. If you look at the old anthropology maps of Italy, you can see it clearly. They're more "southern" than they should be, given their location. I think it may have something to do with their isolation behind the Apennines. You can sometimes track the north to south migrations by looking at where the major passes (and today the major roads) are located, and where they empty out onto the plain from the mountains. Of course, these distinctions hardly exist in today's Italy, given the massive emigration from south to north, but also within the north. 

Well, there's a difference between where these populations may have been during the Neolithic and where these components can be found, and in what percentage, in modern populations. There's been some good papers recently on the Levant, particularly on Christian versus Moslem populations there. You may have seen it. Anyway, the "West Asian" component declines as you go south from the Caucasus. (West Asian today, as I said, is modal in Georgians usually.) The Southwest Asian (which is modal in the Bedouin) declines as you go north. The Levant is a mix. I think the percentages would have varied depending on the period under discussion. That recent paper showed that Christian Levantines, who have not intermarried with the new influx of people from the south because of the Muslim incursions, are proportionately more West Asian than the Moslem Levantines. (They also don't have as much SSA, because they did not participate in the Arab slave trade.) It's not a one to one correspondence, but you could broadly see it as J2a versus J1e, although both probably originated around the Taurus mountains, but with J1e moving south early and then that founder event and drift expanding the J1e. Iraq is even *more* different today than what it was like in the Neolithic. A lot of southern Iraq was settled by Arabian tribes after the Muslim period started, so I don't think you're not going to find the original agriculturalists of the Neolithic in that area. Iran has changed too. 

This is why I keep harping on the fact that modern populations are only a poor approximation of ancient ones, although some are better than others. :)

----------


## Angela

Apropos of this discussion:
http://www.dienekes.blogspot.com/201...an-barley.html

We must have ESP...

----------


## Sile

> I'm sorry, I thought you said your mother's family was from Vicenza. I don't go into all the details when speaking with non-Italians, as I'm sure it generates total boredom and incomprehension, but to be precise, my father's lineages are all from Parma for at least the last 500 or so years. My mother's line is half from La Spezia, and half from the Lunigiana, (part of Massa Carrara) which has been "Tuscan" since the Medici got it, but which is more a blend of eastern Liguria and Emilia in terms of language, food, culture etc. The dialect is basically emiliano un po ligurizzato. 
> 
> Lucca (and Pisa), is quite different...and not only in terms of language etc., from the Lunigiana (especially the central and northern Lunigiana), more so from western Emilia, but even from the Fiorentini. If you look at the old anthropology maps of Italy, you can see it clearly. They're more "southern" than they should be, given their location. I think it may have something to do with their isolation behind the Apennines. You can sometimes track the north to south migrations by looking at where the major passes (and today the major roads) are located, and where they empty out onto the plain from the mountains. Of course, these distinctions hardly exist in today's Italy, given the massive emigration from south to north, but also within the north.


to clarify, my mother was born in San Zenone dei Ezzelini, which is inside treviso region, but is the last town before crossing into Vicenza Region. San Zenone is 6k from Bassano di Grappa ( which is th efirst town in Vicenza region)




> Well, there's a difference between where these populations may have been during the Neolithic and where these components can be found, and in what percentage, in modern populations. There's been some good papers recently on the Levant, particularly on Christian versus Moslem populations there. You may have seen it. Anyway, the "West Asian" component declines as you go south from the Caucasus. (West Asian today, as I said, is modal in Georgians usually.) The Southwest Asian (which is modal in the Bedouin) declines as you go north. The Levant is a mix. I think the percentages would have varied depending on the period under discussion. That recent paper showed that Christian Levantines, who have not intermarried with the new influx of people from the south because of the Muslim incursions, are proportionately more West Asian than the Moslem Levantines. (They also don't have as much SSA, because they did not participate in the Arab slave trade.) It's not a one to one correspondence, but you could broadly see it as J2a versus J1e, although both probably originated around the Taurus mountains, but with J1e moving south early and then that founder event and drift expanding the J1e. Iraq is even *more* different today than what it was like in the Neolithic. A lot of southern Iraq was settled by Arabian tribes after the Muslim period started, so I don't think you're not going to find the original agriculturalists of the Neolithic in that area. Iran has changed too. 
> 
> This is why I keep harping on the fact that modern populations are only a poor approximation of ancient ones, although some are better than others. :)


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

----------


## Kardu

Here are my (as one of the real representative of the Caucasus:)) data for K12b and K7b for comparison:

Gedrosia 18.27%

North_European 8.78%

Southwest_Asian 6.82%

East_Asian 1.14%

Caucasus 64.96%

1
Abhkasians (Yunusbayev)
8.32

2
Georgians (Behar)
10.41

3
Armenians (Behar)
11.61

4
Armenians_15 (Yunusbayev)
14.24

5
North_Ossetians (Yunusbayev)
14.58

6
Adygei (HGDP)
14.74

7
Balkars (Yunusbayev)
14.81

8
Armenian (Dodecad)
15.33

9
Georgia_Jews (Behar)
18.2

10
Azerbaijan_Jews (Behar)
19.11




West_Asian 60.16%

Southern 28.92%

Atlantic_Baltic 9.55%

East_Asian 1.37%

1
Georgians (Behar)
3.06

2
Abhkasians (Yunusbayev)
5.05

3
Kurds (Yunusbayev)
7.17

4
Kurd (Dodecad)
7.56

5
Armenians (Behar)
8.9

6
Armenians_15 (Yunusbayev)
9.05

7
Iranian (Dodecad)
9.8

8
Iranians (Behar)
10.52

9
Armenian (Dodecad)
11.21

10
Uzbekistan_Jews (Behar)
11.8

----------


## Knovas

K7b is a much reliable than K12b, and fits with the vast majority of experiments done so far.


Mine:

Atlantic Baltic 64.6 %

Southern 30.1 %

West Asian 3.3 %

South Asian 1.9%

Siberian 0.0 %

East Asian 0.0 %

African 0.0 %


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

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

----------


## Alan

> K7b is a much reliable than K12b, and fits with the vast majority of experiments done so far.
> 
> 
> Mine:
> 
> Atlantic Baltic 64.6 %
> 
> Southern 30.1 %
> 
> ...


 Globe 13 or K12b are of better use for population genetics of the modern because it does differentiate between SW Asian and Mediterranean genes, though both components are close there is still a difference.

----------


## Alan

However, Maciamo I do not agree that Caucasus is the Neolithic farmer signal since it's absent in the much more Neolithic influenced West Europe. 

The Mediterranean or Southern component of the lower Ks from K7b is a much better candidate for Neolithic farmer signal.

----------


## Alan

..................

----------


## MOESAN

> K7b is a much reliable than K12b, and fits with the vast majority of experiments done so far.
> 
> 
> Mine:
> 
> Atlantic Baltic 64.6 %
> 
> Southern 30.1 %
> 
> ...


I 'm afraid none of the Dodecad poolings is good enough in itself and I think a 'Atlantic-Baltic' component is a nonsense according to my (modest) knowledge of anthropology, ancient as well as current - so we are obliged, waitning better, to combinne more or less the different poolings, trying to see were some names can abuse us about their genetical contents

----------


## Knovas

Alan

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

----------


## Knovas

> I 'm afraid none of the Dodecad poolings is good enough in itself and I think a 'Atlantic-Baltic' component is a nonsense according to my (modest) knowledge of anthropology, ancient as well as current - so we are obliged, waitning better, to combinne more or less the different poolings, trying to see were some names can abuse us about their genetical contents


Maybe your knowledge on anthropology (I guess phenotypes and things like this) makes you think there are more differences in Europe than what really exists (genetically speaking). Europeans as whole are pretty homogeneous, so the more one splits components, the more one exposes to get strange results. However, some experiments in both Eurogenes and Dodecad were quite successful in that regard IMO.

----------


## MOESAN

> I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean by breaking down this unity of the "caucasian" element in northern Italy. That element is clinal in Italy, like virtually everything else; caucasus is 22.8 in northern Italy, about 28 in Tuscany and 36 or so in the south on this calculator.
> 
> Within the north, the academic sample from Bergamo and the more general north Italian dodecad population have virtually the same amount of 'caucasus' component. 
> 
> The interesting thing, as I've mentioned before, is that Oetzi's caucasus component on the same calculator was also 22%, but Gok 4, also a Neolithic farmer, only had about 5%. So, does the caucasus component in Europe represent a later and slightly different Neolithic migration, and/or is this a sign of the beginning of the metal age migrations. After all, not only did Oetzi possess copper tools, but he had high arsenic levels in his blood, which indicate he probably was a copper worker, and let's not forget that metal working first moved from the east into the Balkans, and then later came east again with other migrations.
> 
> As to the relationship between the Gedrosia and West Asian components, this is what Dienekes has to say about it:
> 
> "Similarly, the West_Asian component (from K=7) is intermediate between the Caucasus and Gedrosia components; the Gedrosia component diverges in the direction of the Asian groups (not shown in this figure), and in particular of South Asians.
> ...


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

_

----------


## Angela

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


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

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

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

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

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

On the other hand, internal migration from the south has had an impact, and barriers are indeed breaking down somewhat. If population geneticists really want to figure it all out, they'd better get busy, and they'd better demand that all eight great-grandparents be from the same area.

----------


## Angela

> to clarify, my mother was born in San Zenone dei Ezzelini, which is inside treviso region, but is the last town before crossing into Vicenza Region. San Zenone is 6k from Bassano di Grappa ( which is th efirst town in Vicenza region)
> 
> 
> 
> Since I am 100% European which makes me 2200 years in Europe, my goal is to find out for me where my line was before. So, if the Caucasus is west-asian admixture and to me the caucasus represents Europe ( of advise me if I am wrong ), then I am searching in the wrong place.
> Are the ossetians , west-asian admixture, what about Jordanians? .......i would really like to find out the borders of these admixtures.



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The more I think about this whole Gedrosia business, the more I think it may indeed be linked with the sort of second wave of metal working, coming from western Iran or perhaps the southern Caucasus and then into Europe.
Whether it's related to R1b, I don't know, and I also don't know how exactly it's related to the Indo-European languages.

----------


## Sile

> K7b is a much reliable than K12b, and fits with the vast majority of experiments done so far.
> 
> 
> Mine:
> 
> Atlantic Baltic 64.6 %
> 
> Southern 30.1 %
> 
> ...


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

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

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

----------


## Sile

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


Are you saying that south-west asian does not represent the arabian peninsula?

----------


## Sile

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


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

----------


## Angela

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



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

You can see it in the map here:
http://images.wikia.com/ceramica/ima..._en_Europa.png

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

The Eupedia map is not very different.

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

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

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

----------


## Sile

> I'm not sure exactly what you mean by people from the Danube. There is, of course, whatever remained of the Paleolithic/Mesolithic stratum, represented in Liguria by the Arena Candide caves, and then you would have the Neolithic peoples. The Neolithic culture in Italy is, however, not Danubian, i.e. derived from LBK, but Cardial.
> 
> You can see it in the map here:
> http://images.wikia.com/ceramica/ima..._en_Europa.png


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




> Or here:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Boians.png
> 
> The Eupedia map is not very different.
> 
> It seems to have followed the coastlines of both the Balkans and Italy, and then moved into the interior. (and other areas of the northern Mediterranean as well)


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




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


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

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

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





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


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



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

*#*
*Population*
*Percent*

1
Amerindian
0.00

2
East_Asian
0.06

3
African
0.19

4
Atlantic_Baltic
56.29

5
Australasian
0.00

6
Siberian
0.00

7
Caucasus_Gedrosia
17.20

8
Southern
25.49

9
South_Asian
0.78




Pct. Calc. Option 1

1
N_Italian
92.05%

2
Mordovians
3.99%

3
Kalash
2.25%

4
Lezgins
1.51%

5
Romanians
0.15%

6
Greek
0.03%

7
O_Italian
0.01%

8
S_Italian
0.01%

9
Chechens
0.00%

10
Pathan
0.00%



Total RMSD: 0.269527

see the veneti link for the latest on venetic people

----------


## Angela

> From what I was taught, water travel was the easier and safer mode, for naturally drinking water and because no road system. When I said along, i meant traveled via
> 
> 
> 
> what period is this? is it late bronze ie Mycenae times?
> 
> 
> On venetic, the 2012 paper from Uni of Heidelberg states an old language replaced by celtic and later accepting Latin
> 
> ...



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

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

Sorry, all of this belongs on a different thread. :)

----------


## Knovas

> Are you saying that south-west asian does not represent the arabian peninsula?


No. What I'm saying is that this component is slightly East African shifted, but still incredibly similar to Mediterranean. Hence small amounts are likely to be misinterpreted by the software, while huge percents on the other hand hide the aforementioned shift. 

I think the k10a run, even if there's not an East African component, but a Red Sea one instead, is quite ilustrative regarding the issue, and shows interesting results in the Arabian Peninsula when Southwest Asian is not included.

----------


## Knovas

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


My opinion as well.




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


Difficult question. I had no South Asian in that test, so I don't know what to make of it.

----------


## Knovas

True, World9 is pretty similar to K7b:

Atlantic-Baltic: 67.2 % 

Southern: 28.0 % 

Caucasus/Gedrosia: 2.8 % 

South Asian: 1.8 % 

Amerindian: 0.2% 

East Asian: 0.0% 

Siberian: 0.0% 

African: 0.0% 

Australasian: 0.0%

----------


## Angela

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In terms of individual results, I always look at the FST number in the original Oracle program for these runs. The lower it is, obviously, the more it has captured my individual variation. For analysis of the population genetics of Italy, they're all valuable, as they all produce valuable insights.

----------


## ElHorsto

> _Maciamo, I'm a bit surprised by the 'spot' of 'caucasian' in Guipuzcoa (I believe), lost among a region where 'caucasian' is poor enough_ -_ in Iberia_


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

----------


## MOESAN

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


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

----------


## ElHorsto

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


I agree with most of what you say. Especially the Gedrosia/Cacuasus ratio seems really like a hot trace, whereas southern european Caucasus admixture has to be interpreted differently as you say. 
Some remarks:
- I think it is possible that also the Caucasus admix in Balts and Slavs could be of neolithic origin, just more indirectly (perhaps via iranic tribes like Antes).
- The relation of H1/H3 to R1b is tempting but I'd be cautious because H1/H3 presence in europe is probably older than R1b. I think there are at least two interesting autosomal candidates to consider here: Gedrosian (R1b?) and Atlantic_med (H1/H3?).
- You think of possible Gedrosian introduction to Funnelbeakers from Megalith peoples, but so far the only Funnelbeaker sample which I know (Gok4) has zero Gedrosian admix. This strongly suggests a later appearance of Gedrosian.

----------


## MOESAN

I evocated 'Long Barrows'in this thread to stay open, for their geographic localizations - I don't hold it for a proof of 'gedrosia' component among them... By the way I said I thought 'L-B' played a role in the funnelbeaker complex but were not the creating core of this culture, and they stayed a coastal population and I don't think they had an heavy demic imput in all the regions covered by Funnelbeaker culture that surely involved also more continental peasants (accultured mesolithical people remnants + post LBK people, maybe interations with the 'Globular Amphores' culture) - rheir influence could have been more cultural than demic so concerning Gok4...
I think too mt H1-H3 could be older in W-Europe than 'gedrosia' and than y-R1b whatever the links we could imagine between both last ones (knowing nevertheless autosomals an Y-HGs are distincts at individual level)

----------


## gervais

> The Caucasian admixture looks more Neolithic (matching particularly well G2a + J1xP58 + J2) and is high among Slavs, *but nearly absent in Northwest Europe* as well as among the Basques.


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


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

----------


## Maciamo

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


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

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


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

----------


## Sile

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


can you do me a favour and run the new Eurogenes K13 in gedmatch, as your K12a and K12b are very similar to my data numbers.

these are my K13 below
#	Population	Percent
1 North_Atlantic 29.98
2 West_Med 23.08
3 East_Med 17.3
4 Baltic 16.99
5 West_Asian 8.11
6 Red_Sea 2.29
7 South_Asian 1.16
8 East_Asian 0.56
9 Sub-Saharan 0.31
10 Oceanian 0.22


you are from brittany......strabo states brittany is veneti area...same people as adriatic veneti  :Laughing:

----------


## MOESAN

the old populations having lived for a long time in big towns are very well mixed it is evident, but a local rural level, the big countries and even the regions are far to be "level" , they show differences in percentages of mixed types on short distances (two factors: ancient differences of colonizators and recent drifts by isolation (short endogamy) - archaïc types are seen in some districts neighbouring other districts where they are absent - 
For I believe I know Brittany (West particuliarly) received few of the neolithic peasants compared to more eastern or southern neighbours - in Anjou, there WERE differences between districts (more "neolithical" in North and near the Loire, as well for 'danubian' and 'cardial-baumes-chaudes' types, less in the 'bocage' district of the "Mauges" where I think there are a more 'cromagnon' and 'cromagnoid-borreby-like' imput, by instance (this corner is close to the eastern breton Loire-Atlantique departement, with some similitudes for populations) - 
the ancient studies about skeletons were biased to too much "subtypes" but the 20°Century ones were (in opposition) doing too much rough means for human types - I never heard speaking about regional types in Spain, nevertheless some regions seem showing a bit of 'archaïc' types too ('cromagnon' + 'cromagnoid-borreby' also, seeming not too rare among people of Murcia, by example) - Portugal too (more on the C-Capelle types sometimes) - the studies concerning the sitting-height upon total height or the span show too some neat differences between some regions but were not very often taken in account compared to the eternal cephalic index or statures mean ... - 
so: the autosomals surveys will be efficient when they will be done not on a globally high amount of people but rather on well distinct (regionally, culturally) small groups which ancestry is certain: the number of genes implied is so big that we don't need a huge number, spite what someones think - but all what I say here will become out of play before long because the people of today are marrying all over the world - it becomes urgent!

----------


## MOESAN

I just add that at last Neolithical period in France, some intrusions of Cardial "types" (with a new mediterranean subtype 'baumes-chaudes') followed the garonne river from Mediterranea and reached E-Poitou and surroundings BUT lived poor remnants in Gwascoigne West the Garonne: an example - it is true it is old but...

----------


## adamo

So the Enetoi were either paphlagonian Turks or linked to some form of pottery from Turkmenistan, but I just can't shake the similarity between ancient armorica's Veneti and north-east Italy's Veneti, there must be some Celtic link as the nearby Carni were celts and I suspect they descended from the carnutes Gauls.

----------


## gervais

> That is odd indeed. The Caucasian admixture might be a remnant of Neolithic ancestry, perhaps higher in Brittany than in the rest of France. 
> 
> Your high East European admixture is actually in line with the percentages observed along the English Channel, from Normandy to Belgium. So you might have more Germanic ancestry (especially Norman) than the average for Brittany.
> 
> 
> The origin of your U4 could be Mesolithic European (I, R1a), Indo-European (R1a or R1b), either Celtic or more recent Germanic invaders. It's probably not Neolithic though. The U4 in the Caucasus is linked to the Indo-Europeans.


Yes, I also think that U4 is probably very old, and it has not been recently bring in the north-west of France.
Britany has been hit by two invasions in Neolithic: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...olithique_.png

----------


## gervais

> can you do me a favour and run the new Eurogenes K13 in gedmatch, as your K12a and K12b are very similar to my data numbers.
> 
> these are my K13 below
> # Population Percent
> 1 North_Atlantic 29.98
> 2 West_Med 23.08
> 3 East_Med 17.3
> 4 Baltic 16.99
> 5 West_Asian 8.11
> ...


I do not subscribe to gedmatch. I prefer the "Do it yourself" of Dodecad!
But I am less mediterranean than the French average.
I made a graph for the 3 models of Dodecad, comparing me to the French average:
comparaisonmodele.jpg

----------


## MOESAN

> Yes, I also think that U4 is probably very old, and it has not been recently bring in the north-west of France.
> Britany has been hit by two invasions in Neolithic: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...olithique_.png


_Right - but this map (as other maps) shows the maximal extension of cultural expansion, but does not say anything about demic density of these cultures "initiators" nor even their density of cultural implantation -I hold saying Brittany received few men of the original centers of these 2 neolithical cultures : Cardial left more human remnants in western and southern France a sa whole than in Brittany and "Rubané" people left more human remnants in Alsace/Elsass or Normandy than in Brittany_

----------


## Angela

> _Right - but this map (as other maps) shows the maximal extension of cultural expansion, but does not say anything about demic density of these cultures "initiators" nor even their density of cultural implantation -I hold saying Brittany received few men of the original centers of these 2 neolithical cultures : Cardial left more human remnants in western and southern France a sa whole than in Brittany and "Rubané" people left more human remnants in Alsace/Elsass or Normandy than in Brittany_



It's true, of course, that it's often unclear how much demic involvement there is in any given cultural expansion. That said, what evidence leads you to believe that Brittany didn't receive substantial members from the centers of these two neolithic cultures? Or at least significant gene flow via their descendents, descendents who, at least outside the Balkans, seemed to engage in a rather limited amount of inter-marriage with the locals, thereby preserving their genetic signatures. 

I'm waiting to see the actual paper, but if the abstract is correct, this four thousand year old farmer from Burgos (2,000 B.C.) is much the same as the farmer from Sweden, who is much the same as the farmer from the Tyrol. Yes, Gok 4 may have mixed a little more with the prior inhabitants, but basically, farmers from very widely separated areas of Europe share a remarkable genetic similarity. 

http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/rec...d=diva2:665597
The spread of farming, the neolithisation process, swept over Europe after the advent of the farming lifestyle in the near east approximately 11,000 years ago. However the mode of transmission and its impact on the demographic patterns of Europe remains largely unknown. In this study we obtained : 66,476,944 bp of genomic DNA from the remains of a 4000 year old Neolithic farmer from the site of El Portalón, 15 km east of Burgos, Spain. We compared the genomic signature of this individual to modern-day populations as well as the few Neolithic individuals that has produced large-scale autosomal data. The Neolithic Portalón individual is genetically most similar to southern Europeans, similar to a Scandinavian Neolithic farmer and the Tyrolean Iceman. In contrast, the Neolithic Portalón individual displays little affinity to two Mesolithic samples from the near-by area, La Brana, demonstrating a distinct change in population history between 7,000 and 4,000 years ago for the northern Iberian Peninsula. 

I think it's important to remember how few H/G's there were in Europe when the First Farmers arrived. I don't think it's analogous to the situation in Mexico or South America, where the rise of agriculture had led to the growth of large populations in certain areas.

Whatever more H/G or more northeastern input contributed to the genome of Europeans would not seem to have arrived in Iberia, for example, until perhaps 1600 B.C. where it made less of an impact than in Central Europe and the Isles perhaps because the central European and Isles farming communities had collapsed due to some combination of climate change, environmental collapse because of over use of the soil, the fact that the Neolithic package of the time was not yet appropriate for the climate and soils of the area, or even that some newcomers from the steppe brought with them some particularly nasty plague, as they did many times thereafter.

----------

