# Population Genetics > Autosomal Genetics > Dodecad >  Autosomal map : West Asian admixture (from Dodecad)

## Maciamo

As you probably expected, the next map in the series is the West Asian admixture. The link with haplogroup J2 and G2a is undeniable. 

What surprised me is the very low West Asian admixture in Iberia, even among Portuguese and Andalusians, and in Sardinia (which has 15% of G2a and 10% of J2). This could imply that the Sardinian and Iberian J2+G2a didn't come from Anatolia, but rather from the Levant, perhaps following the coast of North Africa during the spread of agriculture, but being diluted on the way or soon after mixing with the indigenous population of Iberia.



Here are the maps of J2 and G for comparison.

----------


## Knovas

Ethnic Catalans are really 0% West Asian/Southwest Asian. However, Catalunya actually has enough influences from the rest of the Peninsula to get similar figures, althought must still be a bit lower.

----------


## Goga

> As you probably expected, the next map in the series is the West Asian admixture. The link with haplogroup J2 and G2a is undeniable.


Thank you very much! I expected more West Asian admixture in Scandinavia, because I thought that in Scandinavia live much more Indo-Europeans!

What I don't understand is why G2 is West Asian, while R1b is not. According to you G2 was in Europe even before R1b!

So maybe it means that R1b in Europe is not from West Asia, but from somewhere else?

But maybe these kind admixture analyses show much more recent gene flow?

----------


## LeBrok

I'm pretty sure it was explained once before by Maciamo. For these maps it doesn't matter what *was*, but only matters what *is now*.




> Originally Posted by *Goga*  
> Original J1 is not from Southwest Asian, but is West Asian.
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter. There is no label on the genes that says "Southwest Asian". It just happened that the J1 population carried genes that are now more common in Southwest Asia, regardless of where they originated.
> 
> Another more obvious example is R1b, which probably arose in Central Asia, but spend a long time in the Middle East (late Paleolithic to Neolithic) but is now more common in Western Europe. In the Dodecad admixture, R1b correlates mostly with "West European" but also with "Mediterranean", even though it was absent from Europe until approximately 4500 years ago.

----------


## Goga

> I'm pretty sure it was explained once before by Maciamo. For these maps it doesn't matter what *was*, but only matters what *is now*.


Ok, but European G2 is *older* than the European R1b. And it is European *now*, isn't it? It was in Europe before R1b, according to this site though. Why labelling it as West Asian?

I don't get it...

----------


## Maciamo

> Thank you very much! I expected more West Asian admixture in Scandinavia, because I thought that in Scandinavia live much more Indo-Europeans!


And the Balts and Slavs, which are possibly the purest Indo-Europeans of all, have even less West Asian (almost 0% for the Lithuanians). This is an undeniable proof that the Indo-Europeans did not originated in West Asia, as people like Dienekes would want you to believe, but in the Pontic-Caspian steppes, as I have always said. 





> What I don't understand is why G2 is West Asian, while R1b is not. According to you G2 was in Europe even before R1b!


That is because you confuse the appellations based on the modern distribution with the ancient locations of haplogroups. If you were to test 8000 year-old samples of R1b1b people from northern Anatolia (as was done with Ötzi), and ran them in the Dodecad calculator, it is likely that they would turn out to be "West European", even though there was no R1b in Europe at the time. Dienekes labelled the admixture "West European" _because that was where it was more commonly found today_ (in fact he should have called it "North-West European"). There isn't a sequence in the DNA that says "West European" in it ! We call it whatever we want. The point is, this particular admixture was probably found in northern Anatolia a long time ago, but the people migrated, and it is now found most in North-West Europe. You should think this way for every admixture and every haplogroup. It's easier to think only in modern terms, but it is mistaken. Most people think like you, and that is why most people originally thought that R1b was associated with Cro-Magnon, and why many people now think that R1b came with Neolithic farmers. It's not that easy to redraw the map of population movement through the ages in one's mind.

----------


## Goga

> And the Balts and Slavs, which are possibly the purest Indo-Europeans of all, have even less West Asian (almost 0% for the Lithuanians). This is an undeniable proof that the Indo-Europeans did not originated in West Asia, as people like Dienekes would want you to believe, but in the Pontic-Caspian steppes, as I have always said.


???

Are you serious? Are you saying that hg. *N* and hg. *Q* in the Baltics were proto-Indo-European? There're only 2 possibilities. Or North Europeans (with very much hg. *N*) were and still are proto-Indo-European or West Asians (with very much *J2*) were proto-Indo-European and still are IE folks.
Well, according to many 'western' scientists Europeans are actually NOT 'Indo-European' at all.

Wow, it will be a scoop if people find out that hg. *N* in the Baltics belonged to proto-Indo-European folks!


"_R1a1a influence into India was not from Europe since the M458 marker is rare in India._"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1a_(Y-DNA)





> Dienekes labelled the admixture "West European" _because that was where it was more commonly found today_ (in fact he should have called it "North-West European"). There isn't a sequence in the DNA that says "West European" in it ! We call it whatever we want. The point is, this particular admixture was probably found in northern Anatolia a long time ago, but the people migrated, and it is now found most in North-West Europe. *You should think this way for every admixture and every haplogroup.* It's easier to think only in modern terms, but it is mistaken. Most people think like you, and that is why most people originally thought that R1b was associated with Cro-Magnon, and why many people now think that R1b came with Neolithic farmers. It's not that easy to redraw the map of population movement through the ages in one's mind.


Ok, thanks. It's more clear now!

But why labelling hg. E as the Mediterranean if it is mostly common in Africa nowadays? Maybe we speak about an evolved ('European') hg. E1b1b in Europe. Or maybe according to Dienekes Africa is also part of the Mediterranean?

----------


## Knovas

The African Mediterranean is listed as Northwest African, that's what makes more sense. If there's Mediterranean and even some West European between North Africans, it's due to ancient migrations emanating from Europe. Other clades of E, in my opinion, carried West Asian and Southwest Asian in their migration way through the Middle East and Anatolia to Europe, leaving back the African autosomes. That's the case for example of E-M78, wich I think it's autosomally absent considering its ancestral place (probably Northeast Africa), and diluted after mixing during the migration way, and finally in Southern Europe with the indigenous peoples (Med-West-East Euro in different proportions).

Maciamo does not think the same. Pick the explanation you prefer.

----------


## Maciamo

> ???
> 
> Are you serious? Are you saying that hg. *N* and hg. *Q* in the Baltics were proto-Indo-European? There're only 2 possibilities. Or North Europeans (with very much hg. *N*) were and still are proto-Indo-European or West Asians (with very much *J2*) were proto-Indo-European and still are IE folks.
> Well, according to many 'western' scientists Europeans are actually NOT 'Indo-European' at all.
> 
> Wow, it will be a scoop if people find out that hg. *N* in the Baltics belonged to proto-Indo-European folks!


How do you make this kind of stuff up ? Have you not read anything of what I have written in Origins and history of the European haplogroups ? 





> But why labelling hg. E as the Mediterranean if it is mostly common in Africa nowadays? Maybe we speak about an evolved ('European') hg. E1b1b in Europe. Or maybe according to Dienekes Africa is also part of the Mediterranean?


What are you talking about ? E is not the same as E-M78.

----------


## Goga

> How do you make this kind of stuff up ? Have you not read anything of what I have written in Origins and history of the European haplogroups ?


According to you Balts and Slavs are possibly the purest Indo-Europeans. But nobody else except you ever claimed that! 

The biggest haplogroup in Balts is N1c1, the second biggest and almost as big as N is R1a. So you assume that proto-IE were R1a & R1b folks? But are you SURE that proto-IE were R1a & R1b? Also it is very doubtful that proto-IE had only R1* haplogroup.

I do believe that the Balts are after the Finns the most Ugrian/Uralo-Finnic peoples in Europe. Even more than Hungarians (Ugrians)! I mean they have almost 40% of N, while 38% of R1a. I do also believe that part of R1a in the Baltics has a Finno-Ugric origin.

I think that proto-IE were more than just R1* folks. I think they had very much J2 & G2 in them too.
Actually I believe that the proto-IE were like NON-Indo-European, but Caucasian modern day Georgians!


If Balts and Slavs are the purest Indo-Europeans than I'm from Planet X. But this is just my opinion.

----------


## julia90

What is considered west asia? Anatolia?

----------


## Knovas

Genetically speaking, the component has its major frequency in the Caucasus (Georgians). You can consider this geographical point if you want.

----------


## Maciamo

> According to you Balts and Slavs are possibly the purest Indo-Europeans. But nobody else except you ever claimed that! 
> 
> The biggest haplogroup in Balts is N1c1, the second biggest and almost as big as N is R1a. So you assume that proto-IE were R1a & R1b folks? But are you SURE that proto-IE were R1a & R1b? Also it is very doubtful that proto-IE had only R1* haplogroup.
> 
> I do believe that the Balts are after the Finns the most Ugrian/Uralo-Finnic peoples in Europe. Even more than Hungarians (Ugrians)! I mean they have almost 40% of N, while 38% of R1a. I do also believe that part of R1a in the Baltics has a Finno-Ugric origin.
> 
> I think that proto-IE were more than just R1* folks. I think they had very much J2 & G2 in them too.
> Actually I believe that the proto-IE were like NON-Indo-European, but Caucasian modern day Georgians!
> 
> ...


Linguistically, the Balto-Slavic branch of IE languages is the purest, the one with the least outside influence and probably closest to Proto-IE. I doubt that it is a coincidence that the Proto-IE homeland is now in Slavic territory, and that the Slavs and Balts have such a high percentage of West and East European admixture.

Greek and Latin have influences from West Asian languages (associated to J2 peoples) like Etruscan or Minoan, but also from Southwest Asian/Semitic languages (related to E1b1b, T and J1). For example, the Latin for cow is _vacca_ (same in modern Italian, _vaca_ in Spanish, _vache_ in French) related to the Biblical Hebrew is _baqar_, in modern Arabic _baqara_, but not to the PIE *_gwous_.

Celtic languages share grammatical structures with Afro-Asiatic languages, surely an influence of pre-IE people, which could have included a great number of Paleolithic E1b1b (Mediterranean admixture in Dodecad). 

Germanic languages have a big share of their vocabulary that comes from Nordic pre-IE languages (presumably spoken by I1 and/or I2b people).

Indo-Iranian languages were influenced by native South Asian languages (Elamite, Dravidian...), linked with hg G1, J2, T, L, H and R2.

----------


## Goga

> Linguistically, the Balto-Slavic branch of IE languages is the purest, the one with the least outside influence and probably closest to Proto-IE. I doubt that it is a coincidence that the Proto-IE homeland is now in Slavic territory, and that the Slavs and Balts have such a high percentage of West and East European admixture.
> 
> Greek and Latin have influences from West Asian languages (associated to J2 peoples) like Etruscan or Minoan, but also from Southwest Asian/Semitic languages (related to E1b1b, T and J1). For example, the Latin for cow is _vacca_ (same in modern Italian, _vaca_ in Spanish, _vache_ in French) related to the Biblical Hebrew is _baqar_, in modern Arabic _baqara_, but not to the PIE *_gwous_.
> 
> Celtic languages share grammatical structures with Afro-Asiatic languages, surely an influence of pre-IE people, which could have included a great number of Paleolithic E1b1b (Mediterranean admixture in Dodecad). 
> 
> Germanic languages have a big share of their vocabulary that comes from Nordic pre-IE languages (presumably spoken by I1 and/or I2b people).
> 
> Indo-Iranian languages were influenced by native South Asian languages (Elamite, Dravidian...), linked with hg G1, J2, T, L, H and R2.


With all due respect I think that you're wrong big time. Yes, maybe the Baltics are the purest Europeans, but that doesn't mean they are the purest Indo-Europeans. Take Lapland and the Sami people. I think they're the purest and the true native folks of northern Europe

Scandinavians and the Baltics share a lot DNA with Sami people. My point is that Sami people are maybe 100% North European, but they aren't Indo-Europeans at all. I mean Sami folks are even more pure European that the Balts, are Sami more Indo European?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_people

The Balts are actually Finno-Ugric folks who just speak an IE language. I don't know, maybe they speak the purest IE language, it says NOTHING about their DNA. No way these Finno-Ugric people are the closest people to the original Indo-Europeans. Balts were like Sami peoples who were influenced by the Indo-European from West and Central Asia!

Everybody is mixed. And I'm not saying that Iranics are the purest Indo-Europeans. That just be very wrong and I don't dare to declare such crazy wild fantasy things.

My point is that the original Indo-Europeans came from West Asia, and that they had very much of J2 and G2 in them.

No way these *Finno-Ugric Balts* who juist speak an Indo-European language are the closest people to the original Indo-Europeans! With all due respect, but I think you're a little bit confused.

----------


## Goga

(Baltic) Estonian is by the way an Uralic language (Finno-Ugric). Very close related to Finnish. and not IE at all.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uralic_languages


_'It is a_ _Uralic language__ and is closely related to_ _Finnish__.'_

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonian_language



Have you noticed that pure Nordic European Finno-Ugric peoples don't have any West Asian admixture? These Nordic European Finno-Ugric peoples have nothing in common with the original Indo-Europeans!

----------


## Knovas

The Finns show 0.8% West Asian, wich is probably noise. Norway and Sweeden are a different story, just point most Sami people are far from being pure Nordics since they carry Mongoloid genes and, I asume, in a substantial degree in quite cases (average Finns also have).

The Baltics are the most purest Nordics (mostly Northeast) even having a bit more Mediterranean, and they really show noise levels of West Asian admixture according to the last run. But keep in mind results sometimes change from a run to another, cheking K=10 or the other K=12 you can see slightly different interpretations.

----------


## Goga

What you do consider 'Mongoloid' is actually native North European! Haplogroup N is actually *native* to North Europe and European Nordics.

The European Nordics are actually closer to Finno-Ugric folks than to the orginal proto-Indo-Europeans from West Asia. 

These 2 maps tell million stories and are actually the *EVIDENCE* that proto-Indo-Europeans came from West Asia, since Finno-Ugric NATIVE Nordic Europeans lack West ASIAN component!


West Asian admixture:

----------


## Knovas

What the hell areyou saying? of course they have Mongoloid genes, don't be ignorant please and check the Finnish Northeast + Southeast Asian average: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...COCa89AJ#gid=0

I'll do the job for you: 5.9% + 08% = 6.7%

Not noise, it's real, and I'm sure most Samis show even higher percents. However, want to point that in comparison with the total European score (more than 90%) that's not huge. But of course the genes are present, and some individuals can show Mongoloid tratis due to this.

----------


## Goga

> What the hell areyou saying? of course they have Mongoloid genes, don't be ignorant please and check the Finnish Northeast + Southeast Asian average: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...COCa89AJ#gid=0
> 
> I'll do the job for you: 5.9% + 08% = 6.7%
> 
> Not noise, it's real, and I'm sure most Samis show even higher percents. However, want to point that in comparison with the total European score (more than 90%) that's not huge. But of course the genes are present, and some individuals can show Mongoloid tratis due to this.


What're talking about? Sami ARE the most NATIVE and INDIGENOUS inhabitants of Northern Europe! *Sami* are *100% PURE NORDICS*! And they're absolutely *NOT* Indo-European!

----------


## Knovas

Keep dreaming man, this is something you simply invented. Think what you want, I don't care.

----------


## oreo_cookie

Saamis have some Mongoloid influence, they are not pure Nordics in that sense.. if you want pure Nordics, look at Lithuanians, Latvians.

----------


## Knovas

> Saamis have some Mongoloid influence, they are not pure Nordics in that sense.. if you want pure Nordics, look at Lithuanians, Latvians.


Correct, these are the most similar populations to have an accurate idea, although they are mostly Northeast (Baltic) phenotype.

----------


## Goga

> Keep dreaming man, this is something you simply invented. Think what you want, I don't care.


"_The Sami people, also spelled Sámi, or Saami, are the arctic indigenous people inhabiting Sápmi, which today encompasses parts of far northern Sweden, Norway, Finland, the Kola Peninsula of Russia, and the border area between south and middle Sweden and Norway. The Sámi are Europe’s northernmost and the Nordic countries’ only officially indigenous people._"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_people

----------


## Goga

You folks are ignorant as hell and blinded by racism! Sami *ARE* the *PUREST* Nordics and *officially* recognised as the only indigenous people of Nordic Europe! This is a fact! I don't know where you folks got your education...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_people

----------


## Knovas

Genetically speaking they are not. All Northern side of Scandinavia and Finland has increased levels of Mongoloid influence. If you don't like, that's another thing. No need to mention Russia, where Mongoloid genes are present in EVERY Russian leaving there, perhaps excepting the ones who border the Baltic countries and near the Southern side.

You have absolutely no reason, but I know it's a waste of time.

Good afternoon.

----------


## Goga

> Genetically speaking they are not. All Northern side of Scandinavia and Finland has increased levels of Mongoloid influence. If you don't like, that's another thing. No need to mention Russia, where Mongoloid genes are present in EVERY Russian leaving there, perhaps excepting the ones who border the Baltic countries and near the Southern side.
> 
> You have absolutely no reason, but I know it's a waste of time.
> 
> Good afternoon.


The so called 'Mongoloid influences' has been in Northern Europe *for ever*. 1000 years ago and 1000000 years ago! They're NATIVE to all parts of Northern EURASIA!

You're ignorant! Go to school and get some basic education!

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> What're talking about? Sami ARE the most NATIVE and INDIGENOUS inhabitants of Northern Europe! *Sami* are *100% PURE NORDICS*! And they're absolutely *NOT* Indo-European!


Wow, where do you come up with these notions!? Any person who understands anything about population genetics is well aware that the Sami have elevated levels of Mongoloid, Siberian influences for the most part.

----------


## Goga

> Wow, where do you come up with these notions!? Any person who understands anything about population genetics is well aware that the Sami have elevated levels of Mongoloid, Siberian influences for the most part.


Yes, Siberia, Alaska etc. are NORDIC areas too! Nordic areas are not only in Europe!

----------


## Knovas

Hello?

The Section is called General GENETICS. To post childish nonsense and twist all things, there is the Chit-Chat section.

Thank you.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> Yes, Siberia, Alaska etc. are NORDIC areas too! Nordic is not only in Europe!


The ancient Siberians were Mongoloid, not Nordic in the Euro sense.

----------


## Goga

> Hello?
> 
> The Section is called General GENETICS. To post childish nonsense and twist all things, there is the Chit-Chat section.
> 
> Thank you.


Like I said:

What you do consider 'Mongoloid' is actually native North European! Haplogroup N is actually *native* to North Europe and European Nordics. The European Nordics are actually closer to Finno-Ugric folks than to the orginal proto-Indo-Europeans from West Asia. 

These 2 maps tell million stories and are actually the *EVIDENCE* that proto-Indo-Europeans came from West Asia, since Finno-Ugric NATIVE Nordic Europeans lack West ASIAN component!




> West Asian admixture:

----------


## Goga

> The ancient Siberians were Mongoloid


Like the most and only indigenous and *officially recognised* (as indigenous) inhabitants of Europe's northernmost and the Nordic countries.

Here's a source for you!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_people

----------


## Wilhelm

> What're talking about? Sami ARE the most NATIVE and INDIGENOUS inhabitants of Northern Europe! *Sami* are *100% PURE NORDICS*! And they're absolutely *NOT* Indo-European!


 Please, you might want to look at this autosomal study on Saamis, they have more than double asian than Russians :

----------


## Goga

> Please, you might want to look at this autosomal study on Saamis, they have more than double asian than Russians :


Ok. Thanks. But NORDIC areas are in ASIA too, not only in Europe!

Sami are the most and only indigenous and *officially recognised* (as indigenous) inhabitants of Europe's northernmost and the Nordic countries! They're EUROPEAN, like Finns, Basques, Hungarians etc. FACT!

Here's a source for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_people

----------


## Goga

I like these maps very much. These 2 maps combined are actually the *EVIDENCE* that the proto-Indo-Europeans came from West Asia, since Finno-Ugric NATIVE Nordic European speakers lack West ASIAN component!

North European component doesn't correlate with the proto-Indo-Europeans!




>

----------


## Alan

> And the Balts and Slavs, which are possibly the purest Indo-Europeans of all, have even less West Asian (almost 0% for the Lithuanians). This is an undeniable proof that the Indo-Europeans did not originated in West Asia, as people like Dienekes would want you to believe, but in the Pontic-Caspian steppes, as I have always said.


The Balts and Slavs with their strong Finno-Ugric admixture are most probably one of the least representative Groups for proto-Indo Europeans. The North European component peaks in the Baltic Region while the West Asian component has its origin in Northwest Caucasus. So what is more realistic, that Proto-Indoeuropeans moved from the Baltics into the Steppes or from Northwest Caucasus? I highly doubt that the Proto-Indoeuropeans moved from the Baltics into Pontic-Caspian steppe. However I assume that some West Asian folks whom spread into the Pontic-Caspian steppes came in contact with North European Hunthers and Gatherers and the Proto-Indoeuropeans developed. Central and North Russia might be very low in West Asian admixture but if we look at Ukraine-Southeast Europe, we clearly see that it is very much present and it only goes as far as the kurgan area was located in East Europe. Further North, where there was no trace of Kurgan People, there is also no significant West Asian admixture.

In my opinion the Proto-Indoeuropeans were Maykop people which moved into the steppes, influenced the hunthers and gatherers.

----------


## Alan

> That is because you confuse the appellations based on the modern distribution with the ancient locations of haplogroups. If you were to test 8000 year-old samples of R1b1b people from northern Anatolia (as was done with Ötzi), and ran them in the Dodecad calculator, it is likely that they would turn out to be "West European", even though there was no R1b in Europe at the time. Dienekes labelled the admixture "West European" _because that was where it was more commonly found today_ (in fact he should have called it "North-West European"). There isn't a sequence in the DNA that says "West European" in it ! We call it whatever we want. The point is, this particular admixture was probably found in northern Anatolia a long time ago, but the people migrated, and it is now found most in North-West Europe. You should think this way for every admixture and every haplogroup. It's easier to think only in modern terms, but it is mistaken. Most people think like you, and that is why most people originally thought that R1b was associated with Cro-Magnon, and why many people now think that R1b came with Neolithic farmers. It's not that easy to redraw the map of population movement through the ages in one's mind.


My speech. Exactly the same can be said about the ANI component which is labeled as "South Asian" because its modern distribution is mainly Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan but this component is closer to West Asian (most probably developed from West Asian) as it is to ASI in which it is clustered together as "South Asian"

----------


## Goga

> In my opinion the Proto-Indoeuropeans were Maykop people which moved into the steppes, influenced the hunthers and gatherers.


100% true! Maykop folks were 100% West Asians from SOUTHWest Caucasus (where the modern Georgia is located nowadays) with very much J2 & G2!

----------


## Alan

> 100% true! Maykop folks were 100% West Asians from SOUTHWest Caucasus (where the modern Georgia is located nowadays) with very much J2 & G2!


Goga cant you one time give an answer without acting like hyperactive. Sometimes I imagine you jumping on your seat all around and going crazy when someone doesent agree with you.

It is nice that you agree with me, you are welcome to disagree, but when someone disagrees with you than make your arguments in a more calm behave. This is a Forum where people share there knowledge but in almost every of your comments you sound very aggressive. I ask you one more time please stay calm and stop acting like insane otherwise not many people will take you serious.

----------


## Mzungu mchagga

I think what Goga wants to say is, both "Mongoloid-looking" people and "White-Caucasian-looking" people entered Europe at the one or other time. But as Mongoloid-looking people have entered Northern Europe before "Whites" did, people like Saami can be considered as the "true Europeans". It is more from a geographic perspective than from a genetic one. But even from a genetic point of view it becomes necessary to draw a geographic line between Europe and the rest.
But btw, it might be true for Northern Europe, but one should keep in mind that Cro-magnid people have lived in Southern Europe during the last Ice Age, while Northern Europe was completely under a thick glacier-mass.

----------


## Alan

@Mzungu mchagga I know what Goga meant to say and I totally agree with him in many points. I am simply saying that he should discuss more calm otherwise even though he is right and knows much, no one will take his words serious. I know that because I ones were similar to him. And this is sad. He has much knowledge.

----------


## Knovas

> *My point is that Sami people are maybe 100% North European*, but they aren't Indo-Europeans at all. I mean Sami folks are even more pure European that the Balts, are Sami more Indo European?


As you can see, this is the first message he wrote in relation with the other discussion (Samis). After my reply, he dishonestly changed the arguments claiming a very old Mongoloid presense there, wich makes this peoples the same "Nordic". Now, of course, including Northern European and North Asian in the category.

Just wanted to point that, originally, the message did not say what he stated at the final. I said no way they were the most purest Northern Europeans, and he added the other part to "keep the reason".

Time to go with the insanity nonsense.

----------


## Alan

Actually he is right. Mongoloid components doesnt have to be from Asia. The Saami people are native to this region as well Finno-Ugric people. Considering that all Caucasian elements in North Europe came as invaders from somewhere else,(doesnt matter when this was) than obviously the Saami are North Europeans.

----------


## Knovas

For the same reason the real Northern Europeans were Neanderthals, not Mongoloids. And we can follow such silly logic all day. 

No, genetics separate exceedingly well what is NORTHERN EUROPEAN and NORTH ASIAN. Trying to use the term "Nordic" including both categories AFTER the reply is just a dishonest trick. Very clear clear as I showed above.

----------


## Goga

> For the same reason the real Northern Europeans were Neanderthals, not Mongoloids. And we can follow such silly logic all day. 
> 
> No, genetics separate exceedingly well what is NORTHERN EUROPEAN and NORTH ASIAN. Trying to use the term "Nordic" including both categories AFTER the reply is just a dishonest trick. Very clear clear as I showed above.


Indigenous North-European Finno-Ugric Sami folks are Nordics.

Nordics = indigenous inhabitants of Northern Europe(, + north Asia etc.).

----------


## Knovas

> Indigenous North-European Finno-Ugric Sami folks are Nordics.
> 
> Nordics = inhabitants of Northern Europe(, + north Asia etc.)


The thing is very clear from what you said before to what you said after my post. The message is quoted, keep trying.

----------


## Goga

> The thing is very clear from what you said before to what you said after my post. The message is quoted, keep trying.


Ok. But this is what I always tried to say you. That Finno-Ugric Scandinavians and Baltic folks are Nordic. Being Nordic (North-European Dodecad component) doesn't correlate with the ancient proto-Indo-Europeans. Because native Finno-Ugric Nordics don't speak an Indo-European language.

Dienekes is right that proto-Indo-Europeans were West Asian.


Btw, Sami are 100% (= native) European / Nordics!

----------


## Knovas

It's possible Dienekes' is right, although he wasn't other times.

----------


## Goga

> It's possible Dienekes' is right, although he wasn't other times.


Ok. But many 'western' scolars suggest that Europeans actually aren't Indo-European. Dienekes is not the only source...

----------


## Bodin

> Wow, where do you come up with these notions!? Any person who understands anything about population genetics is well aware that the Sami have elevated levels of Mongoloid, Siberian influences for the most part.


Where did you get that Saami has Mongolian influence - N haplogroup is NorthWest Siberian and Northeast European haplogroup - Uralic . There is significant Mongolic influence in East Europe and Scandinavia , but not by Saami but by various Turkic nations that settled steppes - Altaic R1a and Q

----------


## Bodin

N haplogroup lived in North Europe lot before R1a , I1 , I2b or R1b , it is realy stupid to call it Asian - ofcourse it also lived( and still do) in Asia at the same time , but haplogroups do not recognize borders betwen continents or any other borders , so N is both European - Nordic and North Asian . Why would we call it Asian ? Finns are Nordic as Swerige and Norge .

----------


## Knovas

You can easily find Sami pictures with Mongoloid traits. Also, if you look back, there's a study showing the North/East Asian admixture between them.

Haplogroup N1c1 in my opinion is another story. I think the original N1c1 peoples were not close to Mongoloids, since its presence it's so huge between Finns and Baltics, and they should have more Asian admixture than what it's detected. So in my opinion, the reason must be different...perhaps maternal linages.

----------


## julia90

so, does this map represent east mediterranean genes, or is it something diverse, being caucasus the peak?

----------


## julia90

> As you probably expected, the next map in the series is the West Asian admixture. The link with haplogroup J2 and G2a is undeniable. 
> 
> What surprised me is the very low West Asian admixture in Iberia, even among Portuguese and Andalusians, and in Sardinia (which has 15% of G2a and 10% of J2). This could imply that the Sardinian and Iberian J2+G2a didn't come from Anatolia, but rather from the Levant, perhaps following the coast of North Africa during the spread of agriculture, but being diluted on the way or soon after mixing with the indigenous population of Iberia.
> 
> 
> 
> Here are the maps of J2 and G for comparison.


in the first map.. is it possible to know the tribe or the ethnic group of the greenest area near Ukraine?

----------


## Maciamo

> in the first map.. is it possible to know the tribe or the ethnic group of the greenest area near Ukraine?


I suppose you are talking about the Adygey from the North Caucasus ?

----------


## LuciaEnurn

They didnt just have criminal intent, desertion in itself is a very serious offence. They would still have broken the law even if theyd left their guns and ammunition behind.It is? Id never have guessed.

----------

