# Population Genetics > Autosomal Genetics >  The Gedrosia component and the origin of R1b M269

## spongetaro

I was recently looking at the K12a spreadsheet for the participants of the Dodecad proect and I've noticed that R1b frequencies and the Caucasus admixture are totally unrelated in Northwestern Europe. If the proto IE carrying R1b M269 or R1b L11 really originated around the Black sea area we would expect a higher rate of Caucasus component than the Gedrosia one for the British or Basque people for instance. But the Irish in the Dodecad project have 1,5% of Caucasus and 9,5% of Gedrosia and the French Basque have 0,1% of Caucasus vs 7,6% of Gedrosia. 
As we know, the Basque do have really low frequencies of "neolithic haplogroup" such as G2a, EV13, J1, T etc. we can conclude that the Caucasus component (only 0,1% among French Basque but 22,3% for Otzi) only represents the neolithic legacy of men carying G2a, EV13, J1 etc.
So we have the caucasus admixture related to Neolithic farmers and R1b somewhat related to the Gedrosia admixture in Northwestern Europe (and in the Basque country).
It really looks like R1b men came to Europe directly from an area East of the Caspian sea without settling around the Black sea area (Maykopp etc) .

----------


## ElHorsto

Very interesting, it makes some sense to me. But still there are problems:
- NW-Europe is still a stronghold of neolithic mtDNA K. Neolithic Ötzi had K too.
- Basques and Sardinians (Ötzi) were supposed to be related, but this seems less likely now.
- The basque origin is probably neither IE or neolithic then, further increasing the mystery of basque origin.

----------


## Knovas

Both K12a and K12b experiments show more noise than ancestry IMO. There's even little or no correlation with the K7b experiment, which was developed at the same time and mathes better what was done before (also present experiments by the Eurogenes Project). There we see for example that Sardinians are 0% West Asian, while the Caucasus component it's over 20% in the others. Honestly, I wouldn't take any conclusions based on this.

----------


## spongetaro

> Very interesting, it makes some sense to me. But still there are problems:
> - NW-Europe is still a stronghold of neolithic mtDNA K. Neolithic Ötzi had K too.


Otzi was at least partly "mediterranean" since he was 57.7% "Atlantic_Med" (more than its 22,3% caucasus). Northwest european like British people in the K12a experiment shows around 40% of mediteranean admixture. mtDNA K could be an evidence to this mediterranean legacy (or "Atlanto med") as opposed to Ydna G2a which I think represents the Caucasus admixture.

----------


## spongetaro

> Both K12a and K12b experiments show more noise than ancestry IMO. There's even little or no correlation with the K7b experiment, which was developed at the same time and mathes better what was done before (also present experiments by the Eurogenes Project). There we see for example that Sardinians are 0% West Asian, while the Caucasus component it's over 20% in the others. Honestly, I wouldn't take any conclusions based on this.


We still have some regularities like the Basque with almost no Caucasus and almost no West Asian admixture which once again reflects the absence of Ydna G2a, EV13, J1 etc.
You probably know more than me in the field of autosomal studies but I just find problematic to place the origin of Proto IE people and the european branch of R1b in the Black sea region when population with high levels of R1b (Basque and British people especially) show almost no Caucasus admixture.

----------


## Taranis

> We still have some regularities like the Basque with almost no Caucasus and almost no West Asian admixture which once again reflects the absence of Ydna G2a, EV13, J1 etc.
> You probably know more than me in the field of autosomal studies but I just find problematic to place the origin of Proto IE people and the european branch of R1b in the Black sea region when population with high levels of R1b (Basque and British people especially) show almost no Caucasus admixture.


The question is, what does this make of the Basques if they have virtually no Caucasus/West Asian admixture (both usually taken as a signature of the Neolithic farmers)? I mean, essentially things are all the more mysterious. We might interprete it this way that the Basques must be either older (ie, Mesolithic), or they arrived even later (Copper Age / Bronze Age)?

----------


## spongetaro

> The question is, what does this make of the Basques if they have virtually no Caucasus/West Asian admixture (both usually taken as a signature of the Neolithic farmers)? I mean, essentially things are all the more mysterious. We might interprete it this way that the Basques must be either older (ie, Mesolithic), or they arrived even later (Copper Age / Bronze Age)?


As you say, it reduces the solution to two options. The mesolithic one seems quite risky, it would mean that I2a people (which I think are the pre IE ancestors of Basque, as showed by the high level of med admixture) were "hidding" somwhere during the neolithic.

----------


## Taranis

> As you say, it reduces the solution to two options. The mesolithic one seems quite risky, it would mean that I2a people (which I think are the pre IE ancestors of Basque, as showed by the high level of med admixture) were "hidding" somwhere during the neolithic.


Yeah, I see your point. I certainly agree on the assessment that the Mesolithic option is risky. There's also the linguistic perspective here: if we remove all Indo-European borrowings, we get essentially a Copper Age or Bronze Age language. If Basque really was Paleolithic, this would mean not only that a hunter gatherer society survied the Neolithic and the Bronze Age, but also that Basque borrowed all the words for domesticated animals, for crop plants/agriculture, as well as for metals and metal-working from non-IE sources. That's quite a stretch in my opinion. The flip side, which in my opinion speaks against a later introduction is this: Basque is obviously a language isolate, with no clearly demonstrable link to other language families (Iberian, perhaps? but this is disputed too), and this in turn supports the ancientness of the language.

----------


## Knovas

Ok ok, I partly agree. My point is not to use only this autosomal run to support the argument, it's better to check as much experiments as possible. The Basques are regular in the absence of West Asian/Caucasus components compared to other runs, but no way the British and Irish. Those populations usually show 5-10% West Asian/Caucasus, so they clearly don't match what you say spongetaro exept for a single run.

I recommend to check the last experiments by the Eurogenes Project, they could clarify some things. There are some West Eurasian genetic plots as well, which are very ilustrative.

----------


## ElHorsto

> Otzi was at least partly "mediterranean" since he was 57.7% "Atlantic_Med" (more than its 22,3% caucasus). Northwest european like British people in the K12a experiment shows around 40% of mediteranean admixture. mtDNA K could be an evidence to this mediterranean legacy (or "Atlanto med") as opposed to Ydna G2a which I think represents the Caucasus admixture.


Indeed, the elevated mtDNA K does not seriously question your hypothesis. It rather decreases the likelyhood of mtDNA K being neolithic. That in turn fits to my theory that a good part of "Mediterranean" is actually older than neolithic. Initially I thought that a good part of Y-HG I represents "Mediterranean" too, but Sparkey's Paleolithic Remnants map proved this to be unlikely, unfortunately. 
BTW, would be great to have a Bayesian Networkat hand for all these theories.

----------


## ElHorsto

> ... I just find problematic to place the origin of Proto IE people and the european branch of R1b in the Black sea region when population with high levels of R1b (Basque and British people especially) show almost no Caucasus admixture.


If you are right, then the nearly absence of "East-European" (Maciamo's map) in Iberia, Britain and Basque should represent a similar problem then.

I'm not familiar with the autosomal analysis methods, just looking at Maciamos automsomal maps (f.i. "NW-European"). It looks like the Caucasus is a region with skyrocketing genetic diversity and strong genetic boundaries between the peoples, probably as a result of the high mountains. For instance there is plenty of "NW-European" north of the Caucasus (30%-40%) in Russia, but south of the mountains in Turkey it suddenly drops to 5%-10%. Even more so with "East-European". The "Caucasian" Y-HG G is also very unevenly distributed even among Caucasian peoples. And also founder effects should be considered for autosomals, I think. The "NW-European" for instance might represent only a part of the original (centum?) IE, eventually later becoming a unique "NW-European" cluster only by admixture from "Atlanto-Med", for instance. Maybe original IE tribes were much more diverse and only a subset went to certain places of Europe.

----------


## spongetaro

> If you are right, then the nearly absence of "East-European" (Maciamo's map) in Iberia, Britain and Basque should represent a similar problem then.


The absence of "East European" admixture is indeed a big challenge for the "post neolithic arrival of R1b" theory. It clearly speaks in favour of the paleolithic continuity unless "East European" is a relatively new admixture that formed after the Kurgan expansion into europe. The other explanation would be that R1b came indeed during the bronze age in Europe and spread without affecting the genome of the population (founder effect) hence the lack of East european admixture in western Europe.




> The "NW-European" for instance might represent only a part of the original (centum?) IE, eventually later becoming a unique "NW-European" cluster only by admixture from "Atlanto-Med", for instance. Maybe original IE tribes were much more diverse and only a subset went to certain places of Europe.



The North West European and North European admixtures are obviously a mix of the Paleolithic and IE genetic legacy since it peaks in non R1b area like Scandinavia and Finland.

----------


## ElHorsto

> The absence of "East European" admixture is indeed a big challenge for the "post neolithic arrival of R1b" theory. It clearly speaks in favour of the paleolithic continuity unless "East European" is a relatively new admixture that formed after the Kurgan expansion into europe. The other explanation would be that R1b came indeed during the bronze age in Europe and spread without affecting the genome of the population (founder effect) hence the lack of East european admixture in western Europe.


Maybe things are different. Let's once assume that South-West-Europeans population is still primarily of palaeolithic origin (i.e. K12b "Atlantic-Med") and R1b abundance is just a founder effect from Bronze age: Then there might be a similar pattern in eastern europe with regard to R1a:
According to the K12b table, the "North-European" admixture peaks in Finland and the baltic countries (70%), but is also second highest in "Mixed_Slav" (64%), whereas "Mixed_Germanic" has only (44%, Scandinavia about 54%). This "North-European" cluster overlaps much with the previous "East-European" cluster, and the peaks of both have actually not changed(!). The respective percentages for "Atlantic-Med" are exactly complementary. The former "North-West" cluster on the other hand, does not match any cluster in K12b.

To summarize - from K12b I conclude that:

1. former "East-European" = "North-European", 
2. former "NW-European" = "North-European" + "Atlantic_med". 

Thus let's ignore "NW-European":

Where do K12b "North-European" and K12b "Atlantic_med" peak:

1. Finland / Lithuania (75% North_European) = *non-IE* + satem IE
2. French Basque (73% Atlantic_Med) = *non-IE*

These are almost exactly the non-IE languages of Europe. Interestingly, Lithuanian is considered as a very pure IE language, yet it is close neighbor of non-IE Finland. But that's in accordance with the overlap of former "East Euro" and K12b "North-Euro".

The complementary cluster of "North_European" Finnic would be "Atlantic_Med" Basque, not British or Germanic. The British celts, Germans and Scandinavians are mixtures.

Note, this is not a proof that IE is paleolithic. It is rather an evidence that "East-European" (or "North_European") is not a useful IE marker, contrary to what I suggested before. The differences between two models provide much insight, and the East-European scenario (paleolithic finns got satemized) can be a useful complement of what happened in west europe.

----------


## ElHorsto

> The differences between two models provide much insight, and the East-European scenario (paleolithic finns got satemized) can be a useful complement of what happened in west europe.


I have found another analogy for a Basque-Lithuanian-Finnic comparison:

Lithuanians have 8% Caucasian and 0% Gedrosian. 
Basques have 0% Caucasian and 9.8% Gedrosian - opposite percentages.
Finns have 1.3 Caucasian and 0.9 Gedrosian - almost none.

I'd be tempted to conclude that "Gedrosian" represents Centum-IE and "Caucasian" Satem-IE, but it does not explain why Basques don't speak IE despite having the same Gedrosian percentage as neighboring countries. OTH, one could also ask how could 10% Gedrosian manage to change the native languages. Or maybe this musing is just too simplistic.

----------


## spongetaro

> I have found another analogy for a Basque-Lithuanian-Finnic comparison:
> 
> Lithuanians have 8% Caucasian and 0% Gedrosian. 
> Basques have 0% Caucasian and 9.8% Gedrosian - opposite percentages.
> Finns have 1.3 Caucasian and 0.9 Gedrosian - almost none.
> 
> I'd be tempted to conclude that "Gedrosian" represents Centum-IE and "Caucasian" Satem-IE, but it does not explain why Basques don't speak IE despite having the same Gedrosian percentage as neighboring countries. OTH, one could also ask how could 10% Gedrosian manage to change the native languages. Or maybe this musing is just too simplistic.


I see your point but it only applies to Europe. Iranian and Indo Aryan language are satem language but you would find the highest percentages of Gedrosia admixture in Iran, Northern India Afghanistan etc.

----------


## ElHorsto

> I see your point but it only applies to Europe. Iranian and Indo Aryan language are satem language but you would find the highest percentages of Gedrosia admixture in Iran, Northern India Afghanistan etc.


Actually, Iranians and Kurds have much more caucasian than gedrosian. But you are right for Balochi, Brahui, Burusho, Sindi, etc. Also, the majority of Caucasian percentages in Italy, Greece and Balkans is most likely neolithic, not IE. 

The absence of centum today in the east remains a challenge in general. Still, there was Tocharian and Hettite, and R1b is visible in Turkey, Armenia and Uyghurs today. But that's not quite Gedrosia unfortunately. In Europe, R1b seem to corellate with both, Gedrosian and Atlantic_Med. It is odd that exactly the east europeans have almost no Gedrosian component, despite that they are both R1a and satem speaking. Not to mention the similarities of Lithuanian and Sanskrit.

----------


## spongetaro

> Actually, Iranians and Kurds have much more caucasian than gedrosian. But you are right for Balochi, Brahui, Burusho, Sindi, etc. Also, the majority of Caucasian percentages in Italy, Greece and Balkans is most likely neolithic, not IE. 
> 
> The absence of centum today in the east remains a challenge in general. Still, there was Tocharian and Hettite, and R1b is visible in Turkey, Armenia and Uyghurs today. But that's not quite Gedrosia unfortunately. In Europe, R1b seem to corellate with both, Gedrosian and Atlantic_Med. It is odd that exactly the east europeans have almost no Gedrosian component, despite that they are both R1a and satem speaking. Not to mention the similarities of Lithuanian and Sanskrit.


There is also the possibility that the Gedrosia admixture is pre IE and came to the Doggerland during the mesolithic carrying maybe mtdna J

----------


## ElHorsto

> There is also the possibility that the Gedrosia admixture is pre IE and came to the Doggerland during the mesolithic carrying maybe mtdna J


And you probably think so because Caucasian component might have spread later, in neolithic times. That's a valid idea.

On the other hand, if we still assume an IE origin of Gedrosian, the Pontic Steppe would be indeed a very unlikely route, not only because of lacking Caucasian admixture in Gedrosian, but even more so because of lack of Gedrosian today in Ukrainians and Russians. But a little further south in Caucasus and Turkey there is again a significant Gedrosian component (ca. 13%) and in Chechens there is a peak of even 25%! That could make "Gedrosian" itself an alternative marker for Caucasian origin, since we don't know who settled when in Caucasus itself.

----------


## spongetaro

> And you probably think so because Caucasian component might have spread later, in neolithic times. That's a valid idea.
> 
> On the other hand, if we still assume an IE origin of Gedrosian, the Pontic Steppe would be indeed a very unlikely route, not only because of lacking Caucasian admixture in Gedrosian, but even more so because of lack of Gedrosian today in Ukrainians and Russians. But a little further south in Caucasus and Turkey there is again a significant Gedrosian component (ca. 13%) and in Chechens there is a peak of even 25%!


And also 25,5% for the Kurds!
The Gedrosian admixture in Turkey could also be from Tukish tribes who came from Central Asia where Gedrosia admixture is high. Anyway, Gedrosia admixture didn't come with the caucasus one to Northern Europe. It was either sole Gedrosia or North European+Gedrosia, or Med+ Gedrosia. 
But as the med admixture is centred on western mediterranean and Atlantic it is very unlikely that Gedrosia ad came with the Med one. I personally think that the first men carrying R1b to Europe were 75% North European and 25% Gedrosia.

If you look at this proposed Urheimat below, it is located enough North to lack the Caucasus admixture and enough East to have a little bit of Gedrosia admixture. The question is why are Russian and Ukrainian lacking Gedrosia ad? Maybe, only the branch of IE represented by Tocharian and Italo Celtic (which are closely related)
included this component because of its more eastern initial location. 



Kurgan_map.png

----------


## ElHorsto

> And also 25,5% for the Kurds!
> The Gedrosian admixture in Turkey could also be from Tukish tribes who came from Central Asia where Gedrosia admixture is high. Anyway, Gedrosia admixture didn't come with the caucasus one to Northern Europe. It was either sole Gedrosia or North European+Gedrosia, or Med+ Gedrosia. 
> But as the med admixture is centred on western mediterranean and Atlantic it is very unlikely that Gedrosia ad came with the Med one. I personally think that the first men carrying R1b to Europe were 75% North European and 25% Gedrosia.
> If you look at this proposed Urheimat below, it is located enough North to lack the Caucasus admixture and enough East to have a little bit of Gedrosia admixture. The question is why are Russian and Ukrainian lacking Gedrosia ad? Maybe, only the branch of IE represented by Tocharian and Italo Celtic (which are closely related)
> included this component because of its more eastern initial location.


Yes, that makes much sense, since "North_European" stretches remarkably far to the east. Even the Mordvins still have 63% of it. I wouldn't be surprised to see similar figures for Bashkirs and Tatars. And the absence of Gedrosian in Russians/Ukrainians can be explained by local diversity at this place of origin. Slavs actually came rather late from the north-west I suppose. Also the Sardinians perfectly support this view by having 0% "North_Euro" and 0% "Gedrosian" but plenty of "Atlantic_Med".
It only bugs me why have the Basque proportionally more Gedrosian than North European then? Maybe this is either noise, or the clustering algorithm had some problems to group them properly, assuming the Basques developed genetic peculiarities over time due to isolation.

----------


## spongetaro

> It only bugs me why have the Basque proportionally more Gedrosian than North European then? Maybe this is either noise, or the clustering algorithm had some problems to group them properly, assuming the Basques developed genetic peculiarities over time due to isolation.



Yes, the Gedrosia makes more than 1/3 of the North European component for the Basque while it makes less than 1/4 of the Northern European component for the Irish. This maybe explain why the Basque don't speak an IE language. 


In this case, Proto Indo European would be the language of the "North European" of the eastern steppe while Basque would be related to the more southward culture of Central Asia (carrying Gedrosia admixture to the Steppe ) of Djebel, Dam Dam Chashma, and Keltermnar.
I prefer this theory because it explains why Basque is so isolated in Europe (even compared to Iberian and Tartessian in the Iberian Peninsula) and why there is no Basque substratum in Europe.

----------


## spongetaro

It also seems that Horse wasn't domesticated in the Pontic steppe near the Black sea but in the Botai culture located in North Central Asia (Near Astana, Kazakhstan).

----------


## ElHorsto

> Yes, the Gedrosia makes more than 1/3 of the North European component for the Basque while it makes less than 1/4 of the Northern European component for the Irish. This maybe explain why the Basque don't speak an IE language.
> 
> 
> In this case, Proto Indo European would be the language of the "North European" of the eastern steppe while Basque would be related to the more southward culture of Central Asia (carrying Gedrosia admixture to the Steppe ) of Djebel, Dam Dam Chashma, and Keltermnar.


I rather think the Basque language is mesolithic/paleolithic Atlantic Med because of the Atlantic_Med peak. Usually, the language is inherited from the mothers. Maybe the maternal society of Basques combined with the paternalistic IE system produced something odd. Maybe the centum-IE peoples had more than 25% Gedrosian. I have no clue.

From an algorithmic point of view, it could be that the Gedrosian component in Europe is underestimated in general, because the place of origin is very far away and that could result in an own european genetic branch of "Gedrosian", difficult to recognize by the algorithm. But I don't know how the algorithm works exactly.

----------


## Alan

> Both K12a and K12b experiments show more noise than ancestry IMO. There's even little or no correlation with the K7b experiment, which was developed at the same time and mathes better what was done before (also present experiments by the Eurogenes Project). There we see for example that Sardinians are 0% West Asian, while the Caucasus component it's over 20% in the others. Honestly, I wouldn't take any conclusions based on this.


According to Dienekes himself. K12a and more even K12b is the best of all experiments so far. 

In my own opinion the Gedrosia component evolved somewhere in Southeast Caucasus/West Iran and moved into West Europe and Central- South Asia. Another indication for this is that Gedrosia is highest among Baluch people which originated in Northwest Iran and speak a language closely related to Kurdish.

----------


## Alan

> The question is, what does this make of the Basques if they have virtually no Caucasus/West Asian admixture (both usually taken as a signature of the Neolithic farmers)? I mean, essentially things are all the more mysterious. We might interprete it this way that the Basques must be either older (ie, Mesolithic), or they arrived even later (Copper Age / Bronze Age)?


You make a big mistake by equalizing Caucasus with the West Asian component of v3. The West Asian component was split into Caucasus (a Northwest Caucasian component) and Gedrosia (an East Caucasian-Iranian component).

----------


## Taranis

> You make a big mistake by equalizing Caucasus with the West Asian component of v3. The West Asian component was split into Caucasus (a Northwest Caucasian component) and Gedrosia (an East Caucasian-Iranian component).


I didn't mean to equalize them.

----------


## Alan

> I didn't mean to equalize them.


well sorry than. I had the impression that you think Caucasus is the same as West Asian. But in reality West Asian (Caucasus + Gedrosia). I got something interesting for the topic. Gedrosia is relatively high among West Asian Groups with significant presence of R1b. The Lezgins, Kurds, Iranians, Armenians as example.
I start to believe that R1b evolved in (North)west Iran (Which is also a hotspot of R1(R1b as well R1a).

Interestingly I once red that Italian archaeologists found Celtic (like) graves there.

----------


## Knovas

> According to Dienekes himself. K12a and more even K12b is the best of all experiments so far. 
> 
> In my own opinion the Gedrosia component evolved somewhere in Southeast Caucasus/West Iran and moved into West Europe and Central- South Asia. Another indication for this is that Gedrosia is highest among Baluch people which originated in Northwest Iran and speak a language closely related to Kurdish.


I know what Dienekes's thinks, but my opinion is exactly the same. The little or no correlation with the K7b experiment (developed at the same time), speaks in favor of this IMO. Actually, the most accurate tool one could find is a genetic plot using as much samples as possible. Obviously you don't recieve any %, but the individual position compared to others is based on all AIMs, and it's absolutely true if the sample size is enough significant (Davidski also said it's really accurate). I mentioned the Eurogenes project specially for this, and my conclusion focussing in my results, is that the only experiments not matching what I see in the West Eurasian genetic plots, are both K12a and K12b (same could be applied to other people). Then, I must asume there's a lot of noisy or ambiguous results, not useful to understand ones ancestry (or at least quite problematic in some ethnic groups).

And no Alan, your thoughts about West Asian cannot be true simply because I was 0% West Asian, and I became 6% Caucasus+ 3% Gedrosian aprox. Results which I never obtained again, even in the Eurogenes project using West-Central Asian references. So I find quite difficult that the only experiments not matching my regular scores and detailed plots, could be the best ones as you suggest. I only use them to compare what other Iberians get, just curious about this, but I don't take it seriously.

----------


## Alan

> And no Alan, your thoughts about West Asian cannot be true simply because I was 0% West Asian, and I became 6% Caucasus+ 3% Gedrosian aprox. Results which I never obtained again, even in the Eurogenes project using West-Central Asian references. So I find quite difficult that the only experiments not matching my regular scores and detailed plots, could be the best ones as you suggest. I only use them to compare what other Iberians get, just curious about this, but I don't take it seriously.



Look the answer for this is very simply. Namely because those so called "components" do not exist in reality and are only meant to help to understand better the relationship between groups. Some of the former "Mediterranean" component moved into the new Caucasus one and the ANI "South Asian" component which has cost many errors moved into the new Gedrosia component simply because in fact the former "South Asian" was a zombie component which combined all Caucasian (be it North European or West Asian) and aboriginal Indian genes into one. Now with K12b Dienekes did distinguish West Asian and North European genes from aboriginal South Asian and took it into the new Gedrosia.

Gedrosia and Caucasus are not exactly the same as West Asian but those two taken together are the closest to the former West Asian component.

----------


## Alan

actually all of this experiments (be it Dodecad v3, k12 or k7) say very much the same when it comes to the relationship of different populations. Just they use different definitions for some Genes.

as example.

population Spaniards got genes y x z n a c 
Germans got y x z n a b g
and Kurds got z n a b d c


dodecad v3
Spaniards= Mediterranean(y,x,z,n) West Asian(a) North European(c)
Germans= Mediterranean(y,x,z,n) West Asian(a) North European(c,g)
Kurds= Mediterranean(z,n) West Asian(a,b,d) North European (c)

Dodecad K12b 
Spaniards= Atlantic Med(y,x,z) Caucasus/Gedrosia(n,a) North European(c)
Germans= Atlantic Med(y,x,z) Caucasus/Gedrosia(n,a) North European(c,g)
Kurds= Atlantic Med (z) Caucasus/Gedrosia(n,a,b,d) North European (c)

Now what did change? Did the new admixture programm change the genes Spaniards and Germans share? NO
Did it made Spaniards closer to West Asians(Kurds) as before? NO
What did change? The definitions changed and he moved some genes from one category to another ( in my example it was a gene from Mediterranean which moved into category West Asian).

----------


## Knovas

Those points are obvious Alan, noone could think seriously that some genes changed. My point is that these experiments hide the proximities between some ethnic groups, as for example Spaniards and Basques to my knowledge, so it rather gives a strange picture which is a bit far from reality. If the main goal is to show how do populations connect to each other, I think this could become even more confusing. In that issue, it was much useful, for example, the K12 with Sardinian and Basque components (best example I found).

And to understand ones ancestry, as I said, the Eurogenes Project is becoming now more interesting IMO, with both admixture experiments and genetic plots. Really informative. However, I'm sure Dienkes' is going to surprise us too.

----------


## ElHorsto

> And also 25,5% for the Kurds!
> The Gedrosian admixture in Turkey could also be from Tukish tribes who came from Central Asia where Gedrosia admixture is high. Anyway, Gedrosia admixture didn't come with the caucasus one to Northern Europe. It was either sole Gedrosia or North European+Gedrosia, or Med+ Gedrosia. 
> But as the med admixture is centred on western mediterranean and Atlantic it is very unlikely that Gedrosia ad came with the Med one. I personally think that the first men carrying R1b to Europe were 75% North European and 25% Gedrosia.
> 
> If you look at this proposed Urheimat below, it is located enough North to lack the Caucasus admixture and enough East to have a little bit of Gedrosia admixture. The question is why are Russian and Ukrainian lacking Gedrosia ad? Maybe, only the branch of IE represented by Tocharian and Italo Celtic (which are closely related)
> included this component because of its more eastern initial location. 
> 
> 
> 
> Attachment 5572


A further tiny evidence that your theory might be right is the elevated Y-HG Q in Basque land. Although it is very low (<1%), it shows that asian connections are indeed possible. Also, R1a is suddenly almost absent right east from the "Urheimat", which is important, since Basques don't have R1a either:

300px-R1a1a_distribution.png

And Y-HG Q is already present at this place, mainly in turcic peoples:

300px-Haplogroup_Q_(Y-DNA).PNG 


Another country with high Gedrosia component and elevated Q is Scandinavia. It was speculated here that it might be brought together with the peculiar central asian/non-slavic R1a clades peaking in Tröndelag. Either that is a different Gedrosia source than for Basque, or Q has actually more to do with R1b, even in Scandinavia. Maybe also both, R1b and R1a.

----------


## Goga

> I start to believe that R1b evolved in (North)west Iran (Which is also a hotspot of R1(R1b as well R1a).


Actually it's possible that hg. R1* (direct ancestor of R1b* and R1a*) is from an area between Northeast Kurdistan - Northwest Iran. I read somewhere that they also found some of the oldest subclades of hg. R1a* there.

----------


## MOESAN

> Yes, the Gedrosia makes more than 1/3 of the North European component for the Basque while it makes less than 1/4 of the Northern European component for the Irish. This maybe explain why the Basque don't speak an IE language. 
> 
> 
> In this case, Proto Indo European would be the language of the "North European" of the eastern steppe while Basque would be related to the more southward culture of Central Asia (carrying Gedrosia admixture to the Steppe ) of Djebel, Dam Dam Chashma, and Keltermnar.
> I prefer this theory because it explains why Basque is so isolated in Europe (even compared to Iberian and Tartessian in the Iberian Peninsula) and why there is no Basque substratum in Europe.


I take on very late, sorry
I red some posts and I find it interesting and difficult also - 
1) some big "pools" of genes could be broken down some coming day
2) to associate 'Gedrosia' AS to North European and Y-R1b is not absurd even if a speculation (our job!)
We could associate as do Spongetaro mt-J to Gedrosia and R1b: but R1b closer to the North European component by origin in a previous population and mt J and Gedrosia pertening to an other and distinct population - these two populations could have merged sometime in Antiquity, in Siberia at the frontier between a I-E speaking population and maybe a turkish one or why not (as poposed on french forums) a proto-bask one? with some exchanges of females or even males??? these last case could explain the Basque mistery: a non-IE tribe associated with more numerous I-E (centum?) ones? at the arrival in West these Basques could have been influenced by 'north european' (what kind of mt DNA?) but kept a lot of 'gedrosia' and mt J... very speculative too!

----------


## MOESAN

some questions yet:
I thought to Y-Q present in Scandinavia and Orkney-Shetland for a male correspondant of mt-J and 'gedrosia' - what is hard to understand is the big difference of percentages between AS 'gedrosia' and Y-Q in Central Asia where we find a lot of Y-R1a - but drift has been frequent in ancient times so?
for basque substrate I say again what concluded a survey on lappish finnic language: they find two substrate, one satem I-E (or proto-satem) and one proto-basque: hard to make an opinion without beeing a specialist....

----------


## Goga

There's no Gedrosia component in Eastern Europe because I believe that R1a arrived in Central Europe before R1b. Before R1a migrated into Eastern Europe from the 'West' it was already mixed with native Central Europeans, hg. I2 folks. R1b came to Europe much later.

----------


## ElHorsto

> ... we can conclude that the Caucasus component (only 0,1% among French Basque but 22,3% for Otzi) only represents the neolithic legacy of men carying G2a, EV13, J1 etc.
> So we have the caucasus admixture related to Neolithic farmers and R1b somewhat related to the Gedrosia admixture in Northwestern Europe (and in the Basque country).
> It really looks like R1b men came to Europe directly from an area East of the Caspian sea without settling around the Black sea area (Maykopp etc) .


Maybe the Proto-Celtic Hallstatt-LaTéne region (Austria, Pannonia, Switzerland) represents a similar problem then, given that Ötzi genetically was like Sardinians (approx. 20%Caucasus, 0%Gedrosia). Assuming that he and his people lived that close to the Alps or even in the Alps, one might expect (Proto-)Celts got caucasian admixture at least during their stay in that region. And even today, germany has much caucasian admixture (10%), more than gedrosian, and I believe that most of it is concentrated in the south. The dutch for instance have only half that much caucasian.
If the british celts are of celtic origin too, they should carry caucasian admixture, if not from the pontic steppe than at least from the alpine region. But strangely, they have the least Caucasian admixture, almost similar to the Basques.

I'm now speculating that Gedrosian admixture (possibly R1b or even pre-centum-IE) could have come not by land but by the Mediterranean and Atlantic coast, starting from Anatolia or the Levant already before the semitic peoples arrived. That migration then should have happened in the neolithic or even earlier. Of course, there again are very sparse genetic traces at the Mediterranean shores, but it is easier to not leave any genetic traces by sea than by land. Perhaps they just did not go ashore before they reached west europe. But even if they had settled in east mediterranean regions long enough ago, then they might have been again expelled by the subsequent neolithic "caucasian" invaders. Maybe they got expelled by the neolithic newcomers already in the near east, provided they (gedrosian) lived there before. Gedrosians then might have been the first migration wave at the beginning of the neolithic, triggered by caucasian and semitic farmers. The sumerians also disappeared.

----------


## ElHorsto

And I'm not suggesting that Hallstatt-LaTéne was not Celtic, but maybe they were a different celtic branch. Actually I find the celtic traces in the balkans surprisingly sparse. Most of the few traces can be explained by later intrusions from central europe (scordisci, galatians etc.)

----------


## Taranis

> And I'm not suggesting that Hallstatt-LaTéne was not Celtic, but maybe they were a different celtic branch. Actually I find the celtic traces in the balkans surprisingly sparse. Most of the few traces can be explained by later intrusions from central europe (scordisci, galatians etc.)


I don't quite understand what you're trying to say here: the Hallstatt Culture _wasn't really on the Balkans_, anyways. It's core area was what is today eastern France, southern Germany, Austria and the Czech Republic. 



You're correct that the incursion onto the Balkans occured only relatively late, and are part of the events that lead up to the Celtic/Galatian invasion of Greece in the early 3rd century BC. There can be little doubt though about wether the people of the Hallstatt Culture were speakers of a Celtic language (I always like to ask, if not, what else? Etruscan? Germanic? Slavic?? None of this makes any real sense). However, the problem is trying to link this with genetics.

This is the problem between the Britons and the Basques. But, we do have other examples: I suppose that from the genetic perspective (that is, comparing with their adjacent neighbours), nobody would suspect that the Hungarians speak an Uralic language.

----------


## ElHorsto

> I don't quite understand what you're trying to say here: the Hallstatt Culture _wasn't really on the Balkans_, anyways. It's core area was what is today eastern France, southern Germany, Austria and the Czech Republic.


Sorry, I was not precise enough. I was just wondering why the proto-Celts did not leave more traces between the Maykop and Hallstatt-LaTéne regions. The Balkans just jumped to my mind as a region in-between. I should have said Ukraine and northern Balkans.




> You're correct that the incursion onto the Balkans occured only relatively late, and are part of the events that lead up to the Celtic/Galatian invasion of Greece in the early 3rd century BC. There can be little doubt though about wether the people of the Hallstatt Culture were speakers of a Celtic language (I always like to ask, if not, what else? Etruscan? Germanic? Slavic?? None of this makes any real sense).


Of course not, therefore I said in my previous post that I'm *not* suggesting that Hallstatt-LaTéne were non-celtic speaking.




> However, the problem is trying to link this with genetics.
> 
> This is the problem between the Britons and the Basques. But, we do have other examples: I suppose that from the genetic perspective (that is, comparing with their adjacent neighbours), nobody would suspect that the Hungarians speak an Uralic language.


Very much agree, the language and genetics rarely do corellate (for instance romance speaking amerindians, germanic/english peaking indians). It's just that we already used to link R1b to Italo-Celts, and the new "gedrosia" component is yet another third attribute that correlates nicely to both inside Europe.

Don't get me wrong, I'm still preferring the theory of an eastern origin of Indo-Europeans. The latest admixture analysis just adds a tiny question mark to the Caspian-Steppe/Maykop origin of the Q-Celts. And for the same reason I question a bit the Hallstatt-LaTéne region as likely source for those island celts. The admixture suggests a possible Iberian origin of at least some celts, because british celts have relatively more in common with the Basques than with Germans, Austrians, and Ötzi or Sardinians in particular. The Atlantic_Med and Northern_euro components are not significant in my opinion because they are ubiquitous in europe.
If my speculation about gedrosian-centum relation is wrong, than the peculiar gedrosia component on the Atlantic shores must be older than bronze age, or just did not leave traces of the migration.

----------


## Taranis

> Sorry, I was not precise enough. I was just wondering why the proto-Celts did not leave more traces between the Maykop and Hallstatt-LaTéne regions. The Balkans just jumped to my mind as a region in-between. I should have said Ukraine and northern Balkans.


I think you're making too much of a stretch of an assumption there, namely that there was already a distinct "Proto-Celtic" language by the time that (presumably) they left the Maykop area (I'm not wholly convinced of the Maykop hypothesis, but I'm perfectly willing to go with it for the sake of this discussion): so, there's two reasons why wouldn't see such a thing. The first is because by the early date of the Maykop culture (late 4th / early 3rd millennium BC), we can be safely assume that a _distinct_ Proto-Celtic language didn't exist yet. The further you go back, the more similar languages are. It's more likely that the Celtic languages (along with the Italic languages, hence "Italo-Celtic" and a few other, poorly attested languages such as Venetic and Lusitanian), sprung from a common "western" IE spectrum. Secondly, all written sources are thousands of years later, with a lot of ethnic movements occuring in the meantime. It should be no surprise that we don't see anything, either way.




> Very much agree, the language and genetics rarely do corellate (for instance romance speaking amerindians, germanic/english peaking indians). It's just that we already used to link R1b to Italo-Celts, and the new "gedrosia" component is yet another third attribute that correlates nicely to both inside Europe.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I'm still preferring the theory of an eastern origin of Indo-Europeans. The latest admixture analysis just adds a tiny question mark to the Caspian-Steppe/Maykop origin of the Q-Celts. And for the same reason I question a bit the Hallstatt-LaTéne region as likely source for those island celts. The admixture suggests a possible Iberian origin of at least some celts, because british celts have relatively more in common with the Basques than with Germans, Austrians, and Ötzi or Sardinians in particular. The Atlantic_Med and Northern_euro components are not significant in my opinion because they are ubiquitous in europe.
> If my speculation about gedrosian-centum relation is wrong, than the peculiar gedrosia component on the Atlantic shores must be older than bronze age, or just did not leave traces of the migration.


Well, the crucial question, regardless of all details, should be this: how much genetic impact (read: population replacement) is necessary to impose a language onto a population. How possible was this in ancient times without significantly exterminating the old population?

----------


## ElHorsto

> Well, the crucial question, regardless of all details, should be this: how much genetic impact (read: population replacement) is necessary to impose a language onto a population.


Actually there is enough eastern genetic impact on the fringes of western europe, namely the Gedrosian component, and I'm trying to explain it by the IE centum language, not the other way round. The Indo-Europeanization of western europe would be the most likely explanation. But this theory does not answer some questions for western europe:

1. Why caucasus component is missing at the same time?

- Spongetaro suggested that these assumed IE people probably did not stay in the pontic steppe for a longer time.
- I further conclude that they probably did not stay much longer in the Hallstatt-LaTéne region too.

2. Why are the Basques a stronghold of Gedrosian component?

Speculations:
- either because their matriarchal system was able preserve the old native language.
- ,or because Gedrosian component is not only indo-european. It could have partially became associated with turkic speakers (close to Tocharian area) or sumerian (possibly close to original pre-Babylonian IE language origin).

This puzzles me. But probably we don't have enough data to derive plausible answers.

----------


## MOESAN

just a remark
in ancient times neighbouring populations did not IMMEDIATLY mix one together : we have examples of populations meeting one together and taking different spaces of life in the SAME region, not mixing: not same economy + not same language, and different "rapports de force" - mixings come AFTER- neolithic Y-G2 bearers was not Celts at first and did not become Celts for a long time I suppose: surely they were pushed in the highlands of Alps before the Celts themselves would be pushed by Germanic people to the same refuge country before the modern mixt of populations... Immigration was not so individual as nowaday, and interpenetration of populations was not immediate, I think or only partly at the beginning

----------


## spongetaro

Dienekes tested 3 Neolithic samples from Sweden with its K12b calculator. As we can see the Gedrosia admixture is absent from the Farmer and the two hunter gatherers.


*Gok4* (TRB / farmer) *Ajv52* (PWC / hunter-gatherer) *Ajv70* (PWC / hunter-gatherer) 

K12b.jpg

----------


## ElHorsto

> Dienekes tested 3 Neolithic samples from Sweden with its K12b calculator. As we can see the Gedrosia admixture is absent from the Farmer and the two hunter gatherers.
> 
> 
> *Gok4* (TRB / farmer) *Ajv52* (PWC / hunter-gatherer) *Ajv70* (PWC / hunter-gatherer) 
> 
> K12b.jpg


Exciting! The result makes actually sense (except the Sub_Saharan and South_Asian admixtures). This is my current raw picture:

- The absence of Gedrosian component in all makes it yet more likely to be of later origin. Whether it is IE or not, remains unclear.

- Atlantic_Med was already considerably present among northern hunter-gatherers. A constant south-north diffusion along the atlantic coast is also visible in that the Atlantic_Med is strong among northern hunter-gatherers, but yet less than today, and at the same time the North_Euro part is very small in the Gok4 farmer. I believe that the late-palaeolithic Combe-Capelle finding was related to the Atlantic_Med component rather than North_Euro.

- The North_Euro component results indicate an eastward push of many northern hunter-gatherers.

- The *Gok4* farmer already has some Caucasian+South_west_asian, while Basques still today don't have it, despite being very similar otherwise by the very high Atlantic_Med component. This is further evidence that Atlantic_Med was also not originally related to the neolithic farming, but maybe to fishers, hunters and perhaps even early seafarers. They just adopted farming earlier than North_Euro peoples.

- The South-West Asian component is surprisingly high in the Gok4 farmer, but still consistent with the supposed near-eastern origin of farming.

----------


## Knovas

The SNP's available are incredibly low compared to Ötzi or any present day participant. I think it's useful to see the major components, but minor ancestries cannot be represented accurately with the present data. Forget about speculations based on this, it's not the time.

----------


## MOESAN

> Dienekes tested 3 Neolithic samples from Sweden with its K12b calculator. As we can see the Gedrosia admixture is absent from the Farmer and the two hunter gatherers.
> 
> 
> *Gok4* (TRB / farmer) *Ajv52* (PWC / hunter-gatherer) *Ajv70* (PWC / hunter-gatherer) 
> 
> K12b.jpg


very interesting and thank you Spongetaro:
as a whole it give us some important informations - but we see also how the different "calculators" can give us so different analysis... even about hunters-gatherers that seam having been a lot of "exotic" genes according to the chosen "calculator"...

----------


## Knovas

The problem is not with the calculators, as I said, it's the small number of SNP's available. This is just a narrow taste, an aproximation to the the major ancestries (which of course could perfectly be altered testing more SNP's).

And according to Dienekes', all the present clusters are admixed with various influences (mostly Neolithic With Meso-Paleolithic substratum), and this is also valid for the K7b experiment. I mean, there's still no cluster to represent a Hunter Gatherer properly, and until we're not able to test more SNP's, it simply won't be possible.

That's all folks.

----------


## ElHorsto

> The SNP's available are incredibly low compared to Ötzi or any present day participant. I think it's useful to see the major components, but minor ancestries cannot be represented accurately with the present data. Forget about speculations based on this, it's not the time.


Of course it is invalid to draw conclusions based on this piece alone. The Gok4, Ajv52, Ajv70 calculation is just a tiny piece in a big puzzle, which fits, nothing else.

----------


## Goga

Well, Gedrosia is not Turkic, because there's not so much of it in Hungary.

According to me Gedrosia component is either very old and proto-Indo-European (from West Asia / the Iranian Plateau) or not so old Iranic, came to Europe with Scytho-Sarmatians etc.

----------


## spongetaro

Hello, has someone informations about Johanna Nichols’s Bactrian theory of Indo-European homeland? There must be some evidences in it of the links between european R1b and the Gedrosia component.

----------


## MOESAN

> Yes, the Gedrosia makes more than 1/3 of the North European component for the Basque while it makes less than 1/4 of the Northern European component for the Irish. This maybe explain why the Basque don't speak an IE language. 
> 
> 
> In this case, Proto Indo European would be the language of the "North European" of the eastern steppe while Basque would be related to the more southward culture of Central Asia (carrying Gedrosia admixture to the Steppe ) of Djebel, Dam Dam Chashma, and Keltermnar.
> I prefer this theory because it explains why Basque is so isolated in Europe (even compared to Iberian and Tartessian in the Iberian Peninsula) and why there is no Basque substratum in Europe.


_I take on very late for these points:
I repaet (as in other threads) I red a survey that concluded it was 2 substratums in Saami finnish: one I-E satem or nearly satemized (interesting whne we look at the Y-DNA-R1a in Scandinavia), and one akin to a kind of proto-basque... look at the mtDNA-V (with a big drift it is true) among Saami
sure even if true these does not tell us what role was the Gedrosia's one (if Gedrosia autosomals is not a mirage)
have a good night rich of historical dreams - Moesan_

----------


## ElHorsto

> The SNP's available are incredibly low compared to Ötzi or any present day participant. I think it's useful to see the major components, but minor ancestries cannot be represented accurately with the present data. Forget about speculations based on this, it's not the time.


Well, if I understood correctly, the usual SNP number for analysis of contemporary humans is approx. 166000. Dienekes came up with 4000-6600 useful SNPs by overlapping the full SNP sets with the ancient ones. For finding at least 5% Gedrosian admixture, there are at least 0.05 * 4000 = 200 SNPs available to represent Gedrosian admixture after all. Statistically that should be reliable enough I would expect. But I don't understand why the overlap is so small.

----------


## Knovas

I understand the way you think. Noise scores usually appear even checking 166.000 SNP's, so the problem tends to increase if there are only 6.000 available. I don't know more details, but it's well known. Note that Dienekes' only considered the major components, and when someone asked him about minnor ancestries, he did not consider this relevant...well, maybe it's true, but the fact is that we don't know it

----------


## ElHorsto

One additional puzzle piece for the Gedrosia-R1b M269 connection from last year, the MDLP-World 22 calculator:

* Indo-Iranian component:*

http://magnusducatus.blogspot.de/201...p-world22.html

MDLPindoiranian.jpg

Fits well R1b M269 and K12b Gedrosia in north-western europe Ireland, Britain, Brittany, BMAC and Pakistan. Austria, Hungary, North Italians and Czechs have it too but less. Notable presence is also in Altai, west China and Bashkirs.

----------


## zanipolo

> One additional puzzle piece for the Gedrosia-R1b M269 connection from last year, the MDLP-World 22 calculator:
> 
> * Indo-Iranian component:*
> 
> http://magnusducatus.blogspot.de/201...p-world22.html
> 
> MDLPindoiranian.jpg
> 
> Fits well R1b M269 and K12b Gedrosia in north-western europe Ireland, Britain, Brittany, BMAC and Pakistan. Austria, Hungary, North Italians and Czechs have it too but less. Notable presence is also in Altai, west China and Bashkirs.


IIRC Gedrosia is in eastern iran along the coast and next to it is baloch which is the remaining eastern iran lands and western pakistan lands along the coast. Some admixture sites combine these in one name , either gedrosia or balochi ...........so you need to be careful

----------


## ElHorsto

> IIRC Gedrosia is in eastern iran along the coast and next to it is baloch which is the remaining eastern iran lands and western pakistan lands along the coast. Some admixture sites combine these in one name , either gedrosia or balochi ...........so you need to be careful


Not sure I understand...
'Gedrosia' in K12b peaks in Balochi. The component called 'Indo-Iranian' in world22 is not the same as 'Gedrosia' and peaks in north pakistan, but both are still very close and overlapping and show too much similar distribution outside pakistan and iran to be coincidental. Thus I assume it is a fourth evidence.

----------


## MOESAN

thanks to El Horsto for these maps he provided us - by hazard I was writing a post about the subject -
by the way, an intersting civilization was no far from the 'gedrosian' center of today: ancient Harappa culture having influenced the agricultural-metallurgic iranians (what nam ahd they at this time) settlements that were in contact with the steppic tribes at the beginning of metals and after, at the foothills of Altai, until having contact with southern skirts of Andronovoculture;

_Some thoughts about the so called 'gedrosia' autosomals element in Europe heritage and the problem of Basques and Y-DNA R1b -
_
_as said Spongetaro some months ago, the surprise concerning 'gedrosia' is that its center of density is situated in Pakistan with «radiation» around this country, but in Europe its stronger centers, even if moderate compared to Pakistan, are in neo-celtic lands and Austria, and too Scandinavia and Portugal: all the way, a kind of rough Atlantic-North Sea arc. Its presence is modest in Mediterranea, close nevertheless to Anatolia and Near-Eastern where 'gedrosia' is dense enough, and modest too among slavic countries. But here we are speaking about absolute percentages. What is interesting is to compare the respective percentages of 'gedrosia' and 'west-asian' components in all places, to see if they present some stability at this level, showing so common movings into Europe?_
_The result at first sight shows no similitude at all._
_What is striking is that the France Basques and Orcadians show again here a strong connexion between them having more than 95% of 'gedrosian' versus less than 5% of 'caucasian' – then come the Irish people and Scandinavians with about 85% of 'gedrosian' versus approximatively 5% of 'caucasian': on their heels come Brittain and Portugal, then The Netherlands-Belgium group; Austria and then France and Spain are far behind. The stronger N-W and W european «teams» are in competition with the groups of Pakistan (!) when France and Spain and Germany are under 40%, in company of Iranians and Kurds! Italians, even in North, Greeks and Slavs are under 15% of 'gedrosian' in this rapport, often under 7%, being in company of Slavs and southern Arabs!_
_I think Y-R1 having as others Y-R its supposed center of developpement in this East Caspian Sea area, that Y-R1b too is born there, before giving birth to downstream HGs – maybe some Hgs took the southern way, going to Near Eastern and then forking again, one way to Africa, one other way to Anatolia, but I suppose someones took the way northwards in direction of steppes. Being the present day 'gedrosian' center in Pakistan and being the N-W+W-european 'gedrosia' people poor concerning 'caucasian' fellows, I think I'm right concerning their way East the caspian Sea. I am also tempted to think either 'gedrosia' people were Y-R1b by male ligneages, or they were subjugued by a Y-R1b male elite transmetting only their autosomals by females mediation... the first solution seems the better one to me for now._ 
_The fact Basques show a big ratio in favor of 'gedrosia' as atlantic Celts but do not speak a celtic languages push me to consider this first colony of 'gedrosian' «pakistan» people of steppes did not speak an indo-european language. Maybe they spoke a «caucasic» language or a dravidian one (Elam?), or an unkown one, with a very far common origin with these kinds of languages and the first migrants transformed it into a proto-basque one, when the brother migrants stayed in steppes produced a proto-indo-european there, perhaps by contacts with fino-ugrian languages??? we can also suppose (what else can we do for the moment?) but I like less, that they spoke yet a proto-proto-indo-european and that the first wave reaching W-Europe was not numerous enough to impose this language to an autochtonous occidental population speaking a kind of proto-basque???_
_I recall again that some proto-basque language has been spoken in Scandinavia before finnic, so the less numerous supposed (by me) first wave of migrants could have met proto-basque speakers very sooner nad more in East on their travel, South the baltic Sea maybe??? in these last hypothesis taking in account a less numerous first wave, the origin language of these migrants could be without weight helas and without traceability!_
_Concerning pheotypes ( a first rapid tasting) East Caspian region seems having given place to a pseudo 'proto-mediterranean' type more akin to a 'cro-magnon' types (broader face and eye-sockets) whatever the pigmentation at this stage. Coon found some far ressemblances with the old mesopotamian 'eurafrican» types and the 'long-barrows' people, not without see differences too. What is curious is that the present day localization of strong rapports 'gedrosian' versus 'caucasian' are almost exactly the megalithic centers of the future Atlantic Bronze Age» and its closer colonies, where 'long barrows' types were dominant! And I think before having evident contradiction, that the 'long-barrows' people showed some 'cro-magnon' influences into its types of middle stature 'gracile' types, but in more dolichocephalic. Where did they «buy» this 'cro-magnoid' stuff: in East Caspian or in Pyrenees surroundings? So I rely only with caution upon phenotypic convergeances because old common origins can give unchanged heritage concerning some external traits among popula-tions that diverged a long time ago and underwent a lot of divergent mutations for their other genes._
_Just thoughts waiting more. 
here under a 'table' based upon K2a:

_ 
*AUTOSOMAUX*
*CAUCAS*
*GEDROS*
*C/(B+C)*









































Euskaris eus Frañs
0,1
7,6
98,7


french Basques


Brahui
2,0
67,6
97,1


Brahui Indies


Bro-Skoss Orkadianed
0,4
9,7
96,0


Scotland Orcades


Baluchistan
6,0
63,3
91,3


Baluchistan


Indes
4,3
38,9
90,0


Indies


Makrani
7,2
60,0
89,3


Makrani Pakistan


Sindhi
6,4
49,4
88,5


Sindhi Pakistan


Mozabited
0,2
1,4
87,5


Mozabites Tunisia


Iwerzhon
1,5
9,5
86,4


Ireland


Sweden
1,1
6,1
84,7


Sweden


Norwegia
1,2
6,4
84,2


Norway


Burusho
10,5
41,8
79,9


Burusho Pakistan


Pataned
13,9
42,6
75,4


Patans Pakistan


Breizh-Veur
3,0
8,4
73,7


Brittain


Portugal
2,9
7,8
72,9


Portugal


Broioù-Isel-Belgia
5,1
8,1
61,4


The Netherland-Belgium


Bro-Uygur
12,5
15,2
54,9


Uygurs


Alamagn Su + Aostria
6,4
7,1
52,6


S-Germany-Austria


Frañs B
8,4
6,3
42,9


France B


Frañs A
8,2
5,3
39,3


France A


Iran
40,5
25,9
39,0


Iran


Spagn
7,9
4,9
38,3


Spain


Kurded
42,3
25,5
37,6


Kurds


Alamagn
7,8
4,4
36,1


Germany


Tchouvached
9,6
3,5
26,7


Chuvashs


Assurianed
51,8
14,4
21,8


Assyrians


Azerbadjan
52,7
14,3
21,3


Azerbaidjian


Arménia A
56,7
12,5
18,1


Armenia A


Turki
45,7
9,5
17,2


Turkey


Finnland
1,5
0,3
16,7


Finnland


Arménie B
56,1
10,5
15,8


Armenia B


Bedwined
18,2
3,4
15,7


Bedwins


Adygei Tcherkessed
58,8
9,7
14,2


Adygei Cherkesses


Russia
8,2
1,3
13,7


Russia


Italia Norzh B
21,4
3,1
12,7


North Italy B


Palestina
36,8
5,0
12,0


Palestine


Druzed
48,4
6,2
11,4


Druzes


Italia Kornaoueg
28,4
3,6
11,3


West Italy


Italia Norzh A
21,3
2,6
10,9


North Italy A


Italia Su + Sikilia
35,1
3,5
9,1


S- Italy-Sicilia


Italia Kreiz
30,9
2,8
8,3


Center Italy


Italia Toskana
28,3
2,5
8,1


Toscana Italy


Italia Sikilia
34,5
2,6
7,0


Sicilia Italy


Kubros
48,7
3,1
6,0


Cyprus


Pologn
11,1
0,7
5,9


Poland


Yuzewion Askhenasad B
34,0
2,0
5,6


Askhenazes Jews B


Italia Su
38,2
2,1
5,2


South Italy


Yuzewion Askhenasad A
34,8
1,7
4,7


Askhenazes Jesws A


Bulgaria
28,4
1,3
4,4


Bulgaria


Gressia
37,5
1,7
4,3


Greece


Ejipt
27,4
1,2
4,2


Egypt


Lituania
6,6
0,2
2,9


Lithuania


Russia Wenn
10,6
0,3
2,8


Bielo-Russia


Italia Sardinia
15,8
0,0
0,0


Sardinia Italy

----------


## zanipolo

> Not sure I understand...
> 'Gedrosia' in K12b peaks in Balochi. The component called 'Indo-Iranian' in world22 is not the same as 'Gedrosia' and peaks in north pakistan, but both are still very close and overlapping and show too much similar distribution outside pakistan and iran to be coincidental. Thus I assume it is a fourth evidence.


what I am saying is that gedrosia is on the coast of iran and it does not touch pakistan. but some admixture sites say balochi to include pakistan as well as gedrosia.
Unless you can link, there is no gedrosia representing pakistan.

The K12b of gedrosia which peaks in Balochi is on the "border" of gedrosia and balochi which is ALL in iran and not in Pakistan.
There is no gedrosia in Pakistan

----------


## nordicwarrior

These Gedrosian autosomal results sound like a load of bunk to me. So now Iran has more genetic connections to Scandinavia than the French have to their Northern neighbors? I'm not buying it. Sorry to be rather blunt here...

----------


## zanipolo

> These Gedrosian autosomal results sound like a load of bunk to me. So now Iran has more genetic connections to Scandinavia than the French have to their Northern neighbors? I'm not buying it. Sorry to be rather blunt here...


do you have west-asian marker?
majority of europeans have west-asian except finland

----------


## ElHorsto

> These Gedrosian autosomal results sound like a load of bunk to me. So now Iran has more genetic connections to Scandinavia than the French have to their Northern neighbors?


No, we are speaking about ca. 10% Gedrosia/Indo-Iranian only, that's minimal. And both, French and Scandinavians have it.

----------


## Eldritch

If im not wrong in latest DNA tribes run both Ireland and Albania had among the highest Gedrosian scores.

----------


## zanipolo

> If im not wrong in latest DNA tribes run both Ireland and Albania had among the highest Gedrosian scores.


I recall this as well.

I also recall that the higher the west-asian marker the more likely that race mixed less with other races

----------


## ElHorsto

> what I am saying is that gedrosia is on the coast of iran and it does not touch pakistan. but some admixture sites say balochi to include pakistan as well as gedrosia.
> Unless you can link, there is no gedrosia representing pakistan.
> 
> The K12b of gedrosia which peaks in Balochi is on the "border" of gedrosia and balochi which is ALL in iran and not in Pakistan.
> There is no gedrosia in Pakistan


You are right, I was unprecise.

----------


## ElHorsto

@MOESAN
This is roughly what I have in mind too, but I forgot to consider Harappa, a very interesting candidate indeed. Many do criticise rigid interpretations of such sparse autosomal components, but somehow it all makes too much sense to be ignored. Like you I also consider the ratio of Caucasus/Gedrosia more important then each one alone, but I never calculated a table. So thanks for the table!

Regarding proto Basque - Finnic:

I don't know how strong this relationship really is. One might be tempted to assume contact in western europe, but evidence for old widespread presence of Basque in West Europe is weak as well. What if Basque-Finnic contact happened in south-Ural area. When spongetaro mentioned Kelteminar culture, I checked Wikipedia (I know I know...) and found this info: 




> ...in the territories of ancient Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, dated to the 6th-3rd millennium BCE.





> Scientists hold that Kelteminar culture is related to the Pit–Comb Ware culture and belongs to the Finno-Ugric peoples.[6][7]


It is quite a long distance from Ural to Turkmenistan and then to Basque, but could this be evidence for Finnic presence in supposed R1b homeland?!

----------


## ElHorsto

> If im not wrong in latest DNA tribes run both Ireland and Albania had among the highest Gedrosian scores.


Yes, these were STR data. Much less reliable, more like haplogroups, but still adding to evidence. And there was a higher Altai STRs as well in Irish and Albanians.

----------


## Eldritch

> Yes, these were STR data. Much less reliable, more like haplogroups, but still adding to evidence. And there was a higher Altai STRs as well in Irish and Albanians.


What is the source of Altai component?
I think Finns got quite a few of it if i'm not wrong.

----------


## ElHorsto

> What is the source of Altai component?
> I think Finns got quite a few of it if i'm not wrong.



DNA Tribes® Digest January 2, 2013 


http://www.dnatribes.com/dnatribes-d...2013-01-02.pdf


According to this source both, Altai and Salishan are paleolithic remnants. So yes, Finns have most of it, makes sense. But Albanians have also much of Altai but no Salishan. It is not so easy to explain albanian Altai component by paleolithic remnant using these data given the maximal Balochi (Alb.: 15%, Balkan: 0.0%) and absence of Salishan. Still I would read these figures not too strictly and some interpretations seem weird (f.i. Anatolia South-Caucasus).

----------


## Eldritch

> DNA Tribes® Digest January 2, 2013 
> 
> 
> http://www.dnatribes.com/dnatribes-d...2013-01-02.pdf
> 
> 
> According to this source both, Altai and Salishan are paleolithic remnants. So yes, Finns have most of it, makes sense. But Albanians have also much of Altai but no Salishan. It is not so easy to explain albanian Altai component by paleolithic remnant using these data given the maximal Balochi (Alb.: 15%, Balkan: 0.0%) and absence of Salishan. Still I would read these figures not too strictly and some interpretations seem weird (f.i. Anatolia South-Caucasus).


Is it true that DNA tribes isn't reliable?

----------


## zanipolo

west-asian admixture

"The History of African Gene Flow into Southern Europeans, Levantines, and Jews." 

Moorjani et al.

Based on data reported in the "Estimated date of admixture after bias correction" column in "Table 2" of the study. 

Sorted by most ancient estimated date of admixture to the most recent:

When west-asian admixture reached areas in what timespan ....see below


*BCE* 
3207 BCE Northern Italy 
1322 BCE Iraqi Jews
104 BCE Sephardic Turkey Jews
104 BCE Italian Jews
75 BCE Syrian Jews 
46 BCE Sardinian 
17 BCE Iranian Jews

*CE* 
215 CE Southern Italy 
215 CE Sephardic Greek Jews 
418 CE Spain 
476 CE Ashkenazi Jews
708 CE Portugal
737 CE Druze 
1056 CE Palestinian 
1085 CE Bedouin 1 
1114 CE Bedouin 2 
1839 CE African Americans

----------


## nordicwarrior

> Is it true that DNA tribes isn't reliable?


DNA Tribes uses a genetic test that was developed specifically for law enforcement purposes. It is VERY accurate for it's intended use, but DNA Tribes only tests 15 spots (actually 30 because it does hit both sides picking up the contribution of each parent). If you're looking to link crime evidence to an individual... it's an incredibly precise system. But for determining historical tribe membership you need to sample many more spots. FTDNA and 23 and me are better ways to look for historical movements/tribal orientation. Those trying to extract/infer too much data from DNA Tribes are building a castle on a footing of sand...

----------


## nordicwarrior

All that being said, DNA Tribes does have it's uses. If your really into this subject and don't mind spending a few extra coins on additional testing, I would recommend getting the test... but only after you take a 23 and me or FTDNA test. For example I was able to locate a distant paternal branch of the family we didn't know about in South America through DNA Tribes so it can prove an asset. It's nice to have more than one tool on your tool belt, right? Nice secondary source of information, but don't get carried away by the results.

----------


## MOESAN

> These Gedrosian autosomal results sound like a load of bunk to me. So now Iran has more genetic connections to Scandinavia than the French have to their Northern neighbors? I'm not buying it. Sorry to be rather blunt here...


I 'm afraid you have misunderstood the data, whatever the confidence we have in the signification of these poolings - these percentages are "relative respective %'s" and not absolute ones: Scandinavian never had over 90% of Gedrosia!!! and frenchmen and scandinavian are very closer between them than they are as a whole to Baluchis! - but when we compare their respective %s for 'gedrosia' on one side and 'west-asian' on other side, we see some différences! read again (slowly) my humble post and I 'm sure it will be evident to you.Have a nice evening.

----------


## zanipolo

> I 'm afraid you have misunderstood the data, whatever the confidence we have in the signification of these poolings - these percentages are "relative respective %'s" and not absolute ones: Scandinavian never had over 90% of Gedrosia!!! and frenchmen and scandinavian are very closer between them than they are as a whole to Baluchis! - but when we compare their respective %s for 'gedrosia' on one side and 'west-asian' on other side, we see some différences! read again (slowly) my humble post and I 'm sure it will be evident to you.Have a nice evening.


Balochi and gedrosia is same thing....happlaworld use balochi and others use gedrosia. 
west-asian went to europe via danube or north of that.

I agree that scandinavia never had 90% let alone 10% of west-asian

----------


## ElHorsto

> Balochi and gedrosia is same thing....happlaworld use balochi and others use gedrosia. 
> west-asian went to europe via danube or north of that.


But Balochi/Gedrosia is usually separate from West-Asian, for instance in K12 and DNA Tribes. This is where it's getting interesting, provided that this separation is no fata morgana. 
West Asian in K12b corresponds to "Caucasus", not "Gedrosia". Italy and Balkans is full of "Caucasus" and eastern europe also has some "Caucasus" admixture, but no "Gedrosia", which is detected in West Europe instead.

The heavy 'Caucasus' admixture in Balkans and Italy I associate partially with neolithic farmers, antiquity migrators and partially to early medieval iranian tribes (Bulgars?). The lesser Caucasus admixture in Slavs (and even lesser in Balts) I currently associate with iranian tribes (Antes, Skythian farmers) or other satem speaking IEans (EDIT: and Corded Ware).
Excluding the neolithic and antique sources of "Caucasus" admixture it matches both the european satem languages and european R1a.

On the other hand, the "Gedrosia" admixture in west europe matches well the european centum languages and european R1b.




> I agree that scandinavia never had 90% let alone 10% of west-asian


Agree.

----------


## ElHorsto

A bit of simplistic musing:

If doing simple comparison of maps, it appears that the Indo-Iranian (~Gedrosia/Baloch) map from Loxias matches perfectly R1a in Asia and R1b in Europe. The places where it matches both, are in between: in Bashkirs and North-East Caucasus (possibly the Dagestan-Scandinavia link found by Dienekes and/or the Maykop culture?). Bashkirs have both, R1a and R1b. So maybe Indo-Iranian component originally was linked to R1a and eventually got hijacked by R1b lineages on the way to west europe.

The world22 paleolithic/saami component stretches significantly into Kazakhstan (even further into the Indus-Valley, where Gedrosia is modal. Strange!). This probably comes from the finno-ugric tribes who were significantly involved in the Andronovo horizon. But why so much in the Indus-Valley again...

Caution is required of course since the population of the steppes has been replaced several times and the admixtures represent current populations.

----------


## zanipolo

> But Balochi/Gedrosia is usually separate from West-Asian, for instance in K12 and DNA Tribes. This is where it's getting interesting, provided that this separation is no fata morgana. 
> West Asian in K12b corresponds to "Caucasus", not "Gedrosia". Italy and Balkans is full of "Caucasus" and eastern europe also has some "Caucasus" admixture, but no "Gedrosia", which is detected in West Europe instead.
> 
> The heavy 'Caucasus' admixture in Balkans and Italy I associate partially with neolithic farmers, antiquity migrators and partially to early medieval iranian tribes (Bulgars?). The lesser Caucasus admixture in Slavs (and even lesser in Balts) I currently associate with iranian tribes (Antes, Skythian farmers) or other satem speaking IEans.
> Excluding the neolithic and antique sources of "Caucasus" admixture it matches both the european satem languages and european R1a.
> 
> On the other hand, the "Gedrosia" admixture in west europe matches well the european centum languages and european R1b.
> 
> 
> ...


can you link me this west-asian = caucasus

this is what I know

west-asian = gedrosia, balochi ,- iran
SW-asian = arabia
caucasus = south caucasus,- armenia, georgia
central-asia = north caspian sea area
mid-east = mesopotamia, levant
near-east = anatolia
south-asia = india

etc etc

----------


## zanipolo

> A bit of simplistic musing:
> 
> If doing simple comparison of maps, it appears that the Indo-Iranian (~Gedrosia/Baloch) map from Loxias matches perfectly R1a in Asia and R1b in Europe. The places where it matches both, are in between: in Bashkirs and North-East Caucasus (possibly the Dagestan-Scandinavia link found by Dienekes and/or the Maykop culture?). Bashkirs have both, R1a and R1b. So maybe Indo-Iranian component originally was linked to R1a and eventually got hijacked by R1b lineages on the way to west europe.
> 
> The world22 paleolithic/saami component stretches significantly into Kazakhstan (even further into the Indus-Valley, where Gedrosia is modal. Strange!). This probably comes from the finno-ugric tribes who were significantly involved in the Andronovo horizon. But why so much in the Indus-Valley again...
> 
> Caution is required of course since the population of the steppes has been replaced several times and the admixtures represent current populations.


Dagestan-Scandinavia link found by Dienekes ......link please

world-22 is MDLP test, which is heavy lithuanian based ( ie, to prevent finnish bottleneck issues)

----------


## ElHorsto

> can you link me this west-asian = caucasus


No, I mean the "Caucasus" component is the dominant component of actual west asia, not of the "West asia" component. Actual west asia = mid east + near east + caucasus.

The K7 "West-asian" included parts of south asia (Pakistan, Afghanistan, North-India), which is less west asia specific than K12 "Caucasus" component. The K12 "Gedrosia" component splitted away from actual west asia:

http://dodecad.blogspot.de/2012/01/k...lculators.html

"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*. This divergence can also be seen in the plot of dimension #3."




> this is what I know
> 
> west-asian = gedrosia, balochi ,- iran
> SW-asian = arabia
> caucasus = south caucasus,- armenia, georgia
> central-asia = north caspian sea area
> mid-east = mesopotamia, levant
> near-east = anatolia
> south-asia = india
> ...


Could you provide a link to these categories?

From what I know mid-east is in the middle of west asia and K12 "Caucasus" component is dominant exactly there, despite being modal in the Caucasus countries.

----------


## ElHorsto

> Dagestan-Scandinavia link found by Dienekes ......link please
> 
> world-22 is MDLP test, which is heavy lithuanian based ( ie, to prevent finnish bottleneck issues)


http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...North-Caucasus

It's an old result.

----------


## zanipolo

> http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...North-Caucasus
> 
> It's an old result.


thanks, very interesting. might be the early one of the I2*-J2-T1-G2a4 that the other site mentioned. The issue ( I still have not fully read it ) seems the north-west caucasus problem, where they claim it a pontic steppes and belonging to the cimmeranians

----------


## zanipolo

> No, I mean the "Caucasus" component is the dominant component of actual west asia, not of the "West asia" component. Actual west asia = mid east + near east + caucasus.
> 
> The K7 "West-asian" included parts of south asia (Pakistan, Afghanistan, North-India), which is less west asia specific than K12 "Caucasus" component. The K12 "Gedrosia" component splitted away from actual west asia:
> 
> http://dodecad.blogspot.de/2012/01/k...lculators.html
> 
> "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*. This divergence can also be seen in the plot of dimension #3."
> 
> 
> ...


I cannot remember as I hand written it down , but I got it from this link
http://www.isogg.org/wiki/Admixture_analyses

----------


## tlangford18

Very interesting observations!

----------

