# Population Genetics > Autosomal Genetics >  Why does Georgia have the highest amount of "west asian" (middle-eastern?) DNA?

## Voight

Founder effect?

----------


## Hauteville

West Asian is not Middle Eastern but Caucasus-Anatolia. The Middle East should be the Red Sea admix.

----------


## Voight

> West Asian is not Middle Eastern but Caucasus-Anatolia. The Middle East should be the Red Sea admix.







okay. So does that mean then that the Caucasus mountains are the origin of these genes, and at what point in history did they "travel" further south?

----------


## LeBrok

There is no sign of Caucasus-Caucasian admixture North of Caucasus Mountains or in Europe in Paleolithic, and until Neolithic. The oldest sign of this admixture is in Kotias Caucasus hunter gatherer 13,000 years ago, and some in Natufians. South of Caucasus Mountains could be the place of origin or it came from farther south, south/east.

----------


## Fire Haired14

Because Georgians have the highest amount of ancestry from Paleo Caucasians. Paleo Caucasians are the primary source of the West Asian component aka the Caucasus component.

----------


## Alan

> imgur.***/A2nSoKe (replace stars with com)
> 
> Founder effect?


The West Asian component is outdated. If you mean CHG it is merely coincidence of Iran_Neo and CHG like groups took over much of Anatolian and North Levantine lands. If instead the Anatolian_Neo were more lucky and could have spred their genes more around the rest of the "Middle East" we would be talking about "Why Sardinians or Basques have the highest Middle Eastern genes" while no one would even be thinking about calling the CHG component that is dominant in Georgians "Middle Eastern". And if Basal Eurasians weren't so successfull in the Middle East we would maybe be asking ourselfs why the Baltics are so high in the "Near Eastern-Balkan" WHG-UHG. 

Just as a sidenote. It seems that Anatolia still has a reasonable amount of Barcin_Farmer like admixture (at ~40%).

----------


## Maciamo

The quick answer is that the West Asian admixture is similar to CHG (Caucasian Hunter-Gatherers), which represents the Late Palaeolithic to Mesolithic population of the Caucasus region. 

I believe that this CHG/West Asian admixture spread in three phases:

1) With Neolithic herders to Russia, Central Asia and South Asia. (probably the lowest genetic impact of the three)
2) During the expansion of the Kura-Araxes culture toward the northern Fertile Crescent, Anatolia and across Iran toward India during the Early to Mid Bronze Age.
3) With the further expansion of northern Middle Eastern people during the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age across the East Mediterranean at least as far west as Italy.

----------


## MOESAN

to become isolated and to develop their specificity in front of typical Natufians descendants (Levant).I think the first people were rather in mountainous regions, but I'm not sure this localisation was Caucasus ; the center could have been Zagros?
&: Alan, I agree with your demonstration about confusion of 'westasian' with 'near-eastern' being only a vague geogaphic naming.
*:'westasian' is not outdated, it's only a modern proxi of more defined ancient component; but it still tells us something about modern pops distances and admixtures, I mind.

----------


## Alan

> 3) With the further expansion of northern Middle Eastern people during the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age across the East Mediterranean at least as far west as Italy.


Indo_European and Paleo-Caucasian expansion and what many people tend to forget the Turkic expansion that didn't neccessary brought much of Altaic admixture with them but typical Iranic ancestry, since the Seljuks were more like West Iranics than even Central Asian Turkics.

----------


## Alan

> to become isolated and to develop their specificity in front of typical Natufians descendants (Levant).I think the first people were rather in mountainous regions, but I'm not sure this localisation was Caucasus ; the center could have been Zagros?
> &: Alan, I agree with your demonstration about confusion of 'westasian' with 'near-eastern' being only a vague geogaphic naming.
> *:'westasian' is not outdated, it's only a modern proxi of more defined ancient component; but it still tells us something about modern pops distances and admixtures, I mind.


I know what you mean, the thing is the West Asian component, even if often used as modern equivalent or proxy to CHG or Iran_Neo by some people, it is not identical to it. The West Asian component for example includes some of the Anatolian_Neo admixture, while the CHG component includes some ancestry that was labeled as "North European" in the same calculators that also use West Asian.

for example North European populations that score 20-25% CHG usually scored around 5-15% West Asian. There is more to this CHG and Iran_Neo components than just the "West Asian" portion that nowadays peaks in Georgians and Baloch. CHG/Iran_Neo are generally at least ~10 to 15% higher than the West Asian component among the same populations.

----------


## abelgalois

The regions around Georgia have some greater percentage of neighboring DNA components. (i.e.- Iran has some South Asian DNA component).

----------


## Seanp

The "West Asian" component is often wrongly labeled, a better word would be Caucasian. Because it peaks there not in Iran. Most of it is CHG related - Caucasus Hunter Gatherer. 
Iran Neolithic component is more West Asian with strong South Asian affinity and it peaks in Balochis, Pashtuns and other South-Central Asian ethnic groups.

----------


## Angela

Last time I checked CHG is majority Iran Neolithic with a bit of EHG. Obviously, some of those genes flowed south in the Mesolithic. So far as I know, that's the only difference.

If that's incorrect someone can correct the record.

----------


## Seanp

CHG is closely related to Anatolia Neolithic with some EHG+Iran Neolithic shift.

Iran Neolithic component is similar to CHG, but it has a significant chunk of Ancestral South Eurasian component so Iran Neolithic can be described as 70-80% CHG + 20-30% Ancestral South Eurasian/Australasian. 

It's a separated component of its own but distant from CHG and more related to ANI (Ancestral North Indian) as i remember.

Kotias (CHG) shows more relatedness with North-East European populations than with South-Central Asian groups which supports my observations.





The so called "West Asian" component tend to be a mix of CHG (Caucasus) + Balochi (South Central Asian) and this component usually peaks in Iranians, Afghans.

The same way Mediterranean, Southwest Asian is a mix of Basal Eurasian and Villaburra.

----------


## LeBrok

> CHG is closely related to Anatolia Neolithic with some EHG+Iran Neolithic shift.
> 
> Iran Neolithic component is similar to CHG, but it has a significant chunk of Ancestral South Eurasian component so Iran Neolithic can be described as 70-80% CHG + 20-30% Ancestral South Eurasian/Australasian. 
> 
> It's a separated component of its own but distant from CHG and more related to ANI (Ancestral North Indian) as i remember.
> 
> Kotias (CHG) shows more relatedness with North-East European populations than with South-Central Asian groups which supports my observations.
> 
> 
> ...


CHG and Iranian Farmer they were the closest buddies in the area. Genetically far away from WHG, EHG or Natufians and Anatolians, but very close together. They were related a bit to EHG through Baloch(i) component, and to Anatolian Farmer through Caucasus/Caucasian component. Otherwise they were very distinct.

----------


## Seanp

> CHG and Iranian Farmer they were the closest buddies in the area. Genetically far away from WHG, EHG or Natufians and Anatolians, but very close together. They were related a bit to EHG through Baloch(i) component, and to Anatolian Farmer through Caucasus/Caucasian component. Otherwise they were very distinct.



Iran Neolithic component is basically 80% "West Asian" + 20% "South Asian" 

CHG component is "West Asian" + North European, some WHG like allleles 

The fact that maps shows the two component related is because the lack of 3 dimensional view, which would show the two component significantly more distant. 
Most "DNA maps" can't be be taken seriously.

----------


## Boreas

The issue is partly Geography and ethnic history of Georgians. Geographically, Georgia is a isloated country as Island Sardinia, Ireland, Finland. They can able to protect their genetic heritage.

Also instead of Armenians, they stayed mostly Caucasia. Look at how Armenians were living mix with Kurds and Turks. Even in Roman times, Armenians were living like this especially during the Byzantine times

----------


## Alan

> CHG is closely related to Anatolia Neolithic with some EHG+Iran Neolithic shift.
> 
> Iran Neolithic component is similar to CHG, but it has a significant chunk of Ancestral South Eurasian component so Iran Neolithic can be described as 70-80% CHG + 20-30% Ancestral South Eurasian/Australasian. 
> 
> It's a separated component of its own but distant from CHG and more related to ANI (Ancestral North Indian) as i remember.
> 
> Kotias (CHG) shows more relatedness with North-East European populations than with South-Central Asian groups which supports my observations.
> 
> 
> ...


Almost not a singly word of what you said is correct. I don't even know where to start at.


1. CHG is not closest to Anatolian_Neolithic with some EHG and Iran_Neo mixed in. Where did you catch up this bollocks? How can, CHG that predates the EHG samples be EHG admixed? Anatolian_Neo and CHG share their Basal Eurasian like ancestry otherwise, their other portion is quite distinct.

2. Iran_Neo is not CHG + some South Eurasian, you got that completely wrong. CHG is ~75% Iran_Meso_Neo with 25% additional ANE. Iran_Neo is not "South Eurasian" admixed by our current knowledge. "South Eurasian" populations used as proxy for this component like the Onge are Iran_Neo_Meso admixed. We don't even have ancient South Eurasian sampels yet. Chances are higher that we will find a ANE like population in South_Central Asia that moved onto the Iranian_Plateau. Real "South Eurasian" (ASI like) population will be probably found on the Indian sub continent. 

3. It is not more related to ANI. ANI is a zombie component based on all West Eurasian admixture found in South Asia. And this component/admixture is more related to Iran_Neo.

4. You frankly didn't understand this map correctly. It shows that REAL CHG admixture has been more significant in Europe than South_Central Asia. This is because the CHG like admixture in South_Central Asia is Iran_Neo derived. You are comparing apples with oranges. 


5. The so called West Asian component peaks in Georgians and Baloch. Baloch is not a component on level with CHG because it is a new component. Therefore "West Asian" is not a mix of CHG and Baloch. West Asian is stronger in Levantine populations as CHG or Iran_Neo is, because it includes "Anatolian_Neo like" admixture.
West Asian is Iran_Neo like + significant amount of Anatolian_Neo like. Since some of the CHG admixture is more prominent in North Europeans nowadays, allot of the CHG was catched up as "North European" in old calculators. If we had to explain CHG by modern components. it would be West Asian (minus the Anatolian_Neo portion) + North European. 

You basically threw every component of the last decade into one big pot and mixed it and tried to explain the genetic landscape with it not knowing the essential rules of these components and their backround. It's things like this that are so frustrating

----------


## LeBrok

> Iran Neolithic component is basically 80% "West Asian" + 20% "South Asian" 
> 
> CHG component is "West Asian" + North European, some WHG like allleles


You better compare real genetics not some general labels with your rough ratios, or we never agree on anything.




> The fact that maps shows the two component related is because the lack of 3 dimensional view, which would show the two component significantly more distant. 
> Most "DNA maps" can't be be taken seriously.


You better take it seriously. First of all it was created by scientists who were right many times before. Look up Lazaridis papers. Secondly, it confirms all the distances, directions and differences I can see from admixture runs.

----------


## Alan

> You better compare real genetics not some general labels with your rough ratios, or we never agree on anything.
> 
> You better take it seriously. First of all it was created by scientists who were right many times before. Look up Lazaridis papers. Secondly, it confirms all the distances, directions and differences I can see from admixture runs.


Actually this is one of the few of his statements where he was partly correct. You will never see the full picture in a 2 dimensional map. But he is making something up based on his assumption that in the third dimension there will be significant difference between Iran_Neo and CHG what is bollocks.

----------


## Seanp

*Genetic distance by inferred ancestral population* 


*Georgian*
*Sardinian*
*Mozabite*
*Lithuanian*
*Saudi*
*Basque*

*Georgian*
0
0.048
0.071
0.039
0.059
0.049

*Sardinian*
0.048
0
0.073
0.041
0.061
0.046

*Mozabite*
0.071
0.073
0
0.069
0.077
0.077

*Lithuanian*
0.039
0.041
0.069
0
0.059
0.04

*Saudi*
0.059
0.061
0.077
0.059
0
0.067

*Basque*
0.049
0.046
0.077
0.04
0.067
0




Lithuanian reference population is the closest to Georgia based on K6 made by Razib Khan. 

As we know Georgians have one of the most CHG/Caucasus like admixture, i would consider the possibility the Caucasus and North European like components share a common ancestral origin which would correlates with linguistic and culture if we consider Georgian is one of the oldest unique Ind-European language and i would go as far to say the majority of West Eurasians excluding the Semitic speakers share a common North Caucasian-Southern Steppe origin.

I'd also add Georgians have significant Iran Neolithic admixture component which might be the ancestor of all Indo-Aryan/Hindu Kush civillizations from Kurdistan to North India.

Source&Map:




> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gn.../#.WHAA-blV66g

----------

