# Population Genetics > Autosomal Genetics >  teal CHG component in Yamna and Afanasievo arrived during Khvalynsk period

## bicicleur

check this, I think it is realy interesting





there are 3 Khvalynsk genomes which you can find in above chart

Samara Eneolithic
Russia
Khvalynsk II, Volga River, Samara [I0122/SVP 35]
M
4700-4000 BC
R1b1
M415
H2a1
Mathieson 2015

Samara Eneolithic
Russia
Khvalynsk II, Volga River, Samara [I0433/SVP 46]
M
4700-4000 BC
R1a1
M459
U5a1i
Mathieson 2015

Samara Eneolithic
Russia
Khvalynsk II, Volga River, Samara [I0434/SVP 47]
M
4700-4000 BC
Q1a
F2676
U4a2 or U4d
Mathieson 2015




2 are mainly EHG (blue) with some WHG (navy blue), basically the same like the Karelia and Samara HG (also on the chart)
they have no teal (CHG)

they are R1a1 and Q1a and mtDNA U4 and U5, U4 and U5 are WHG in origin

the 3rd has 22 % teal (CHG), 71 % EHG and no WHG
he is a newcomer
he is R1b1 and mtDNA H2a1, H2a1 is CHG in origin
he may have been pré-R1b-V88 (but very early V88 then, spliting from the main V88 branch ca 16-17 ka)

the Yamnaya (Pit Grave on the chart) and Afanasievo are a mixture of mainly this newcomer and some the 2 others
Yamnaya and Afanasievo have about 16 % CHG, 82 % EHG and only 1 % WHG

Yamnaya and Afanasievo people probably arrived in the Volga area during Khvalynsk period.
That is way before Maykop.

----------


## MarkoZ

Where's this ADMIXTURE (?) analysis from?

----------


## Maciamo

This confirms that R1b may have entered the Steppe during the Khvalynsk period, perhaps as an offshoot from the contemporary Leyla Tepe culture in Azerbaijan. It is very clear from these three samples that only the R1b guy is an outsider with Caucasian admixture. This R1b guy also lacks the dark blue WHG admixture, which hints that in the Epipaleolithic R1a and R1b were originally EHG, but while R1a people intermingled with WHG tribes (linked to I2a, and surely that I2a2a-L701 found in Yamna), some R1b tribes had already moved south of the Caucasus, where they mixed with the teal people - indubitably linked to Y-haplogroup J, and probably J2b in this was, as J2b is found at relatively high frequency in the Volga-Ural region.

----------


## johen

> 2 are mainly EHG (blue) with some WHG (navy blue), basically the same like the Karelia and Samara HG (also on the chart)
> they have no teal (CHG)
> 
> they are R1a1 and Q1a and mtDNA U4 and U5, U4 and U5 are WHG in origin




Looks like pottery people migration from lake Baikal with language:

"_Individuals from Lokomotiv and Shamanka II were found to possess haplogroups K,_
_R1a1__ and C3, and individuals from Ust’-Ida and Kurma XI were found to belong to haplogroups Q, K and unidentified SNP (L914). For those individuals belonging to haplogroup Q, further experimentation to examine sub-haplogroups of Q revealed that these individuals belong to sub-haplogroup_ *Q1a3"*





> the 3rd has 22 % teal (CHG), 71 % EHG and no WHG





> he is a newcomer
> he is R1b1 and mtDNA H2a1, H2a1 is CHG in origin
> he may have been pré-R1b-V88 (but very early V88 then, spliting from the main V88 branch ca 16-17 ka)
> 
> the Yamnaya (Pit Grave on the chart) and Afanasievo are a mixture of mainly this newcomer and some the 2 others
> Yamnaya and Afanasievo have about 16 % CHG, 82 % EHG and only 1 % WHG
> 
> Yamnaya and Afanasievo people probably arrived in the Volga area during Khvalynsk period.
> That is way before Maykop.


If the R1b1 came from afanasievo area with language, what kind of problem is it?

1.yamna pit grave originated in pit house:

Botai pit house


2. afanasievo was related with botai horse domestication culture and Tocharian. But David Anthony explained that Repin culture brought the horse domestication culture of botai into afanasievo, but looks like the explanation is not persuasive at all.

3. mtDNA of afanasievo is H. However, H was already found in Korea 7,000y ago(right one in the picture). Unfortunately there is no research paper, but the top research center has the DNA sample now, where recently a paper regarding Gengiskan Ydna was published. is there some member able to contact David Reich to call the research center to get auDNA of the sample? I think it is very important for Indoeuropean Culture. I am 99% sure the samples belong to ANE R or Q, even if it was reported that they EEF from Harz area in Germany.


- stealing women is just a routine job of Indoeuropean, which became a tradition of exogamy of nomad, I think




> * When it comes to understanding the origin of European culture, there’s another reason for looking at the Yamnaya. The very foundation of Rome may be steeped in their traditions*_. According to studies of IndoEuropean mythology, young Yamnaya men would go off in warlike groups, raping and pillaging for a few years, then return to their village and settle down into respectability as adults. Those cults were mythologically associated with wolves and dogs, like youths forming wild hunting packs, and the youths are said to have worn dog or wolf skins during their initiation. Anthony has found a site in Russia where the Yamnaya killed wolves and dogs in midwinter. He says it’s easy to imagine groups_
> _sacrificing and consuming the animals as a way to symbolically become wolves or dogs themselves. Bodies in Yamnaya graves on the western steppes frequently have pendants of dog canine teeth around their necks. Anthony says that all this offers solid archaeological evidence for the youthful “wolf packs” of Indo-European legends – and sees a link to the myth of the foundation of Rome. “You’ve got two boys, Romulus and Remus
> and a wolf that more or less gives birth to them,” he says. “And the earliest legends of the foundation of Rome are connected with a large group of homeless young men who were given shelter by Romulus. But they then wanted wives, so they invited in a neighbouring tribe and stole all their women. You can see that
> whole set of early legends as being connected possibly with the foundation of Rome by youthful war bands._

----------


## bicicleur

> Where's this ADMIXTURE (?) analysis from?


K = 14

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2016...apita-genomes/

there is more interesting stuff in the table

----------


## bicicleur

> This confirms that R1b may have entered the Steppe during the Khvalynsk period, perhaps as an offshoot from the contemporary Leyla Tepe culture in Azerbaijan. It is very clear from these three samples that only the R1b guy is an outsider with Caucasian admixture. This R1b guy also lacks the dark blue admixture, which, if I remember well, is WHG.


yes the WHG is from the Swiderian culture, which arrived in Eastern Europe prior to the EHG folks ; they brought the mtDNA U4/U5/U2e into Eastern Europe
it is logical that the Karelians have some more WHG than the Samara HG / Khvalynsk folks

the fact that the R1b Khvalynsk doesn't have WHG proves that he is a newcomer
the fact that he has CHG indicates he comes from south of the Caucasus

the subsequent Afanasievo/Yamna genomes could be explained more or less as 2/3 newcomer admixed with 1/3 of the 2 earlier Khvalynsk genomes

these are the Y-calls for the Khvalynsk newcomer :

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-i0122/

1 out of 14 calls for R1b-V88 is positive, but it may be a false call as it is not confirmed by more positive calls nearby

Leyla-Tepe is contemporary with Khvalynsk culture, but not older, so this newcomer is more likely to come from a common ancestor with Leyla Tepe than from Leyla Tepe itself

apart from all this, it seems more and more likely to me that the first tribe that melted copper ores, both in Tal-i Iblis and in eastern Serbia may have been R1b-V88 

these are the paleo/mesolithic western European genomes : 

A Paleo Meso WHG.png



you can see the oldest genomes evolving from +/- 50 % WHG into practically 100 % WHG by abt 18.5 ka
both the El Miron and the Villabruna clusters are 100 % WHG

the later Motala genomes (7.5 ka) have EHG (blue) admixture, which is logical because pottery arrived into Scandinavia from Eastern Europe

in the pitted ware, apart from blue EHG also light blue appears which is EEF

----------


## MarkoZ

I think there's a problem with the dataset considering Karelia shows up as only roughly ~70% 'EHG'. For reference, here's what the author of the blog believes the different colors to represent:

Capture.PNG

I'd venture a guess that this makes it quite useless for the sort of fine-scale analysis you are trying to do.

----------


## bicicleur

> If the R1b1 came from afanasievo area with language, what kind of problem is it?


Afanasievo came later than Khvalynsk.
And CHG came from south of Caucasus, not lake Bajkal.

----------


## bicicleur

> I think there's a problem with the dataset considering Karelia shows up as only roughly ~70% 'EHG'. For reference, here's what the author of the blog believes the different colors to represent:
> 
> Capture.PNG
> 
> I'd venture a guess that this makes it quite useless for the sort of fine-scale interpetration you are trying to do.


the reference you post is slightly different, it is for K = 16, while the tables I post are for K = 14

30 % WHG in Karelia makes perfect sense as I explained above in my post # 6

----------


## bicicleur

> 3. mtDNA of afanasievo is H. However, H was already found in Korea 7,000y ago(right one in the picture). Unfortunately there is no research paper, but the top research center has the DNA sample now, where recently a paper regarding Gengiskan Ydna was published. is there some member able to contact David Reich to call the research center to get auDNA of the sample? I think it is very important for Indoeuropean Culture. I am 99% sure the samples belong to ANE R or Q, even if it was reported that they EEF from Harz area in Germany.


I have lots of anciant DNA from western Eurasia but not so much from eastern Eurasia. (except Kitoi and some Chinese neolithic)
Could you share some of your sources with me?

----------


## MarkoZ

> the reference you post is slightly different, it is for K = 16, while the tables I post are for K = 14
> 
> 30 % WHG in Karelia makes perfect sense as I explained above in my post # 6


While the dataset is slightly different, the results are roughly similar. Since the 'White God' seems unwilling to divulge what he thinks his results are supposed to prove, this is still my best guess.

Yet more 'WHG' in Karelia would imply that the very concept of 'EHG' should be called into question, since the Karelians already derived a large part of their ancestry from a similar source population in previous models. This means 'EHG' becomes another hypothetical population - at this point ADMIXTURE-based analyses would have pretty much outlived their usefulness IMHO. Hence the author of the blog deceptively referring to this component as 'Gravettian'.

----------


## johen

> I have lots of anciant DNA from western Eurasia but not so much from eastern Eurasia. (except Kitoi and some Chinese neolithic)
> Could you share some of your sources with me?


 Sorry, as I said, there is no research paper at all. Nobody care about neolithic foreigners in Korea.
However, it was shocking that long skulls with crouched positions were found 3 or 4 years ago. Only the reporters were concerned with the sensational issue.
So they traced the origin of sample. They requested the above mentioned research center to get aDNA, where they got only mtDNA H. With the DNA, they went germany to meet so many scholars. German geneticist told them that modern people don't have that H, but EEF at germany had. And they concluded that the people were EEF from germany. But I don''t think the neolithic weakest EEF could not enter korean peninsular, b/c Korea was surrounded by neolithic wolf and lions, Hg N, R and Q at that time. so I thought R or Q carried Hg H or woman w/ Hg H. 
Their pottery was similar to The Linear *Pottery OF GERMANY.:
*

----------


## LeBrok

> This confirms that R1b may have entered the Steppe during the Khvalynsk period, perhaps as an offshoot from the contemporary Leyla Tepe culture in Azerbaijan. It is very clear from these three samples that only the R1b guy is an outsider with Caucasian admixture. This R1b guy also lacks the dark blue admixture, which, if I remember well, is WHG.


 Though he has a lot of this red element mofe popular in central Asia (I guess) and missing from Iranian Farmer. Maybe this R1b came from east side of Caspian and not from South Caucasus?

----------


## Angela

> I think there's a problem with the dataset considering Karelia shows up as only roughly ~70% 'EHG'. For reference, here's what the author of the blog believes the different colors to represent:
> 
> Capture.PNG
> 
> I'd venture a guess that this makes it quite useless for the sort of fine-scale analysis you are trying to do.


I totally agree. The creator's explanation plus the fact that Karelia isn't 100% EHG tells you it's off. Plus, it doesn't comport with any of the academic papers on the subject.

I wouldn't give it any serious consideration at all in terms of percentages.

----------


## berun

A foreigner DNA would match quite well with pots (paper online _Pottery from the Volga area in the Samara and South Urals region from Eneolithic to Early Bronze Age_):




> According to the evidence from
> the early stage of the Eneolithic
> Samara culture, we can identify
> two typological groups of pottery,
> because the difference between
> them is confirmed technologically.
> One of them predominates and finds
> its origin in the traditions of the local Neolithic culture.
> The other group is considered outlandish, connected
> ...

----------


## Maciamo

> the fact that the R1b Khvalynsk doesn't have WHG proves that he is a newcomer
> ...
> Leyla-Tepe is contemporary with Khvalynsk culture, but not older, so this newcomer is more likely to come from a common ancestor with Leyla Tepe than from Leyla Tepe itself


Not necessarily. Khvalynsk could have been founded by R1a-dominant tribes, and saw the arrival of Leyla Tepe R1b newcomers after the Khvalynsk period had started. The number of R1b people grew faster until over time they became dominant and the culture became Yamna. Note that there is a 500 year gap between the end of Khvalynsk (4000 BCE) and the beginning of Yamna (3500 BCE). Such transitional periods between clear-cut archeoloogical cultures is generally a sign of population change. So in my opinion, R1b entered the Steppe during Khvalynsk as a foreign element, not as a founder of Khvalynsk culture, just like R1b invaded the pre-existing Bell Beaker culture but did not found it. 




> apart from all this, it seems more and more likely to me that the first tribe that melted copper ores, both in Tal-i Iblis and in eastern Serbia may have been R1b-V88


I think you mean R1b1-P25, as R1b1c-V88 is not ancestral to R1b1a2-M269.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> This confirms that R1b may have entered the Steppe during the Khvalynsk period, perhaps as an offshoot from the contemporary Leyla Tepe culture in Azerbaijan. It is very clear from these three samples that only the R1b guy is an outsider with Caucasian admixture. This R1b guy also lacks the dark blue WHG admixture, which hints that in the Epipaleolithic R1a and R1b were originally EHG, but while R1a people intermingled with WHG tribes (linked to I2a, and surely that I2a2a-L701 found in Yamna), some R1b tribes had already moved south of the Caucasus, where they mixed with the teal people - indubitably linked to Y-haplogroup J, and probably J2b in this was, as J2b is found at relatively high frequency in the Volga-Ural region.


Don't trust ADMIXTURE analysis especially . All Eneolithic Samara guys had CHG admixture. The Q1a guy had the most CHG out of the three. The R1b guy had more EHG than Yamnaya, he was mostly EHG. The most likely CHG uniparental representative in the Eneolithic Samara guys is the mtDNA H2a1 in the R1b guy.

----------


## bicicleur

> I totally agree. The creator's explanation plus the fact that Karelia isn't 100% EHG tells you it's off. Plus, it doesn't comport with any of the academic papers on the subject.
> 
> I wouldn't give it any serious consideration at all in terms of percentages.


it is a K = 14 admixture run on a large dataset
the colours do not match 100 % to a predefined genome
but upon inspection of the results it becomes clear which colour matches which genome most closely
and the results make perfect sense

e.g. EEF = Stutgart genome doesn't make any more sense than the light blue colour in this table, because the Stutgart genome is not a pure ancestor, it would be much more logical to define the Boncuklu genomes as EEF

you are right that the light blue colour isn't an exact match of EEF, but it at least is as workable as the Stutgart genome which is more or less arbitrarily chosen as the best ancestral candidate from a small sample group
in this tabel the light blue is more like the Barcin genomes than the Stutgart :

D1 EEF Europa Asia Minor EN.jpg D2 EN LN CA Europe.jpg


again you see a gradual increase of navy bleu (similar to WHG) admixture from EN to MN, LN and CA (copper age) which makes perfect sense

----------


## Angela

> it is a K = 14 admixture run on a large dataset
> the colours do not match 100 % to a predefined genome
> but upon inspection of the results it becomes clear which colour matches which genome most closely
> and the results make perfect sense
> 
> e.g. EEF = Stutgart genome doesn't make any more sense than the light blue colour in this table, because the Stutgart genome is not a pure ancestor, it would be much more logical to define the Boncuklu genomes as EEF
> 
> you are right that the light blue colour isn't an exact match of EEF, but it at least is as workable as the Stutgart genome which is more or less arbitrarily chosen as the best ancestral candidate from a small sample group
> in this tabel the light blue is more like the Barcin genomes than the Stutgart :
> ...


It doesn't matter, Bicicleur, the percentages are wrong. It's a flawed analysis, as Fire-Haired also pointed out. Admixture alone can't be used, you have to look at formal statistics as well. Plus, even in terms of admixture the percentages are off from those in the academic papers.

----------


## bicicleur

and here you can see what the teal actualy means in this table (at the top of this image) :

CHG Iran EN Armenian Assyrian.png

----------


## Rethel

> Capture.PNG


It is no longer actual.

This what was Gravettian now is Yaman.
He added also WHG, which was in this legenda on the same colour.

And he added also more colours.
You must look by populations.

----------


## bicicleur

> It doesn't matter, Bicicleur, the percentages are wrong. It's a flawed analysis, as Fire-Haired also pointed out. Admixture alone can't be used, you have to look at formal statistics as well. Plus, even in terms of admixture the percentages are off from those in the academic papers.


K = 14 means 14 eigenvectors are calculated, which are specific to this dataset
it makes perfect sense to compare genomes within this dataset

however, if you run K = 14 on another dataset another 14 eigenvectors will be calculated
therefore it doesn't make sense to compare genomes from 2 different datasets on which K =14 has been calculated
that is the mistake many make
that is why they think K admixture don't work

----------


## Goga

> and here you can see what the teal actualy means in this table (at the top of this image) :
> 
> CHG Iran EN Armenian Assyrian.png


Why are you showing Armenians and the Semites (Jews + Assyrians)??? Modern Armenians & Semitic Assyrians are not really a good proxy for 'teal'. Both groups are NOT native to the Iranian Plateau. Original Armenians are native to Southern Caucasus and Semites are native to the Levant. Assyrian/Akkadians ancestors came from the Levant. Aramaic and Ugaritic ancestral Semitic tribes of the Assyrians came from the Levant. Their Akkadian ancestors came from the Arabistan.


"_ The region of origin of the reconstructed Proto-Semitic language, ancestral to historical and modern Semitic languages in the Middle East, is still uncertain and much debated. A 2009 Bayesian analysis identified an origin for Semitic languages in the Levant around 3750 BC with a later single introduction of Ge'ez from what is now South Arabia into the Horn of Africa around 800 BC, with a slightly earlier introduction into parts of North Africa and southern Spain with the founding of Phoenician colonies such as ancient Carthage in the ninth century BC and Cádiz in the tenth century BC.[1][2][3] The earliest records of Semitic languages are from 30th century BCE Mesopotamia.
_
_Other theories include origins in the Arabian Peninsula or North Africa._ "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancien...eaking_peoples

----------


## LeBrok

> It doesn't matter, Bicicleur, the percentages are wrong. It's a flawed analysis, as Fire-Haired also pointed out. Admixture alone can't be used, you have to look at formal statistics as well. Plus, even in terms of admixture the percentages are off from those in the academic papers.


Possibly you are right, and I too take these amateurish admixture runs rather lightly. However, I find it more logical to see Europe after IE bronze age invasion more ANE (or is it EHG - dark blue) than typically more WHG - black. There is always a question where this surge of WHG comes from in modern Europeans? 
We don't need to do much of mental equilibristics to explain extra EHG/ANE after Bronze Age, to agree with huge invasion of IE from Yamnaya. Having said that, I'm still digesting this K14 runs.

----------


## LeBrok

> Why are you showing Armenians and the Semites (Jews + Assyrians)??? Modern Armenians & Semitic Assyrians are not really a good proxy for 'teal'. Both groups are NOT native to the Iranian Plateau. Original Armenians are native to Southern Caucasus and Semites are native to the Levant. Assyrian/Akkadians ancestors came from the Levant. Aramaic and Ugaritic ancestral Semitic tribes of the Assyrians came from the Levant. Their Akkadian ancestors came from the Arabistan.
> 
> 
> "_ The region of origin of the reconstructed Proto-Semitic language, ancestral to historical and modern Semitic languages in the Middle East, is still uncertain and much debated. A 2009 Bayesian analysis identified an origin for Semitic languages in the Levant around 3750 BC with a later single introduction of Ge'ez from what is now South Arabia into the Horn of Africa around 800 BC, with a slightly earlier introduction into parts of North Africa and southern Spain with the founding of Phoenician colonies such as ancient Carthage in the ninth century BC and Cádiz in the tenth century BC.[1][2][3] The earliest records of Semitic languages are from 30th century BCE Mesopotamia.
> _
> _Other theories include origins in the Arabian Peninsula or North Africa._ "
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancien...eaking_peoples


Goga, look at this huge WHG in Iranian Zoroastrians. Where did it come from?
https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2016...apita-genomes/

----------


## Goga

> Goga, look at this huge WHG in Iranian Zoroastrians. Where did it come from?
> https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2016...apita-genomes/


Yeah, that's absurd much. I don't know where it is from? What do you think? This doesn't make any sense, maybe they made an error. But if is true, I don't think it is from the Steppes, because in the Steppes there is not much of that dark blue auDNA, almost the same amount as those Zoroastrian samples. Don't forget that at one point ALL people in Iran were 'Zoroastrians' and there is a continuations of the Iranian from Bronze age to nowadays. If there was a migration from the Steppes, there would be also much much more EHG (other blue) in those Zoroastrian samples and much less of that dark blue..


Look at the Levant N (neolithic), some of those samples have also very much of that dark blue component.

----------


## Alan

That has been actually known for long time now but somehow some bloggers delibaretly ingored this. Even in the Haak papers you could see CHG like admixture in some of the Samara Eneolithic samples. And as Maciamo pointed out above and as I too had said this. The Leyla Tepe is probably a transition region. As far as I remember there was a study some times back that said archeologically there is connection between Leyla Tepe- Maykop and some older cultures in North/Northwest Iran. So the source is ultimately somewhere there. It is no coincidence that the oldest Kurgans are found in the Leyla Tepe culture closely followed by the Samara Eneolithic.

However I disagree that the original R1a and R1b people were EHG. I believe the original R1 people were something part ancestral to both EHG and Iran_Neo/CHG. Something ANE like (not necessary ANE itself).

----------


## MarkoZ

> K = 14 means 14 eigenvectors are calculated, which are specific to this dataset
> it makes perfect sense to compare genomes within this dataset
> 
> however, if you run K = 14 on another dataset another 14 eigenvectors will be calculated
> therefore it doesn't make sense to compare genomes from 2 different datasets on which K =14 has been calculated
> that is the mistake many make
> that is why they think K admixture don't work


More accurately, the figure should refer to the number of subpopulations (if the usual nomenclature applies to this particular set). ADMIXTURE uses a relatively simple optimization algorithm applied directly to the SNPs you chose to feed it with.

The question is if global analyses like the one in the original post are informative at all. For example, if, say, Khvalynsk is closest to the ancestral blue component, does it really make sense to model significantly older Samara hunter gatherer as partly derived from a Khvalynsk-like population? The problem would be even more pronounced with the Karelian individuals, of course. This approach tends to produce hypothetical populations where they really aren't needed to arrive at a relatively complete understanding of the population dynamics in a given time and space.

----------


## Tomenable

In GEDmatch Multiple Kit Analysis, Karelian EHG share a lot of segments with Samara EHG, and both also share with Khvalynsk.

And Khvalynsk shares a lot with Indo-Iranian cultures. These cultures (Sintashta, Srubna, Potapovka) share with Ancient Iranians:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...l=1#post494942

Check this comparison of segment sharing between 17 ancient samples (two from ancient Iran/Kurdistan, 15 from the Steppe):

GEDmatch comparison of ancient Iranians and ancient Steppe

----------


## Tomenable

Kotias shares more segments with Steppe than IranN does; so I guess Kotias is a more likely source of CHG in Yamna:

GEDmatch comparison of Kotias CHG, Iran Neo and Steppe

----------


## Goga

Nothing new. There is some Steppe ancestry in West Asia (Iran, Kurdistan, etc) due to some backmigration of the EASTERN Iranic speaking Scythians from the Steppes. Ancient Iranians Iranized the Steppes. Many thousands of years later some Iranized Scythinas migrated back into the Iranian Plateau. It has been documented.

But it doesn't mean that ancient Original Iranians are from the Steppes. Only 'Iranized' East Iranic speaking Scythians were from the Steppes. But those Scythians were MULTI inter-racial/ethnic people...

----------


## bicicleur

> More accurately, the figure should refer to the number of subpopulations (if the usual nomenclature applies to this particular set). ADMIXTURE uses a relatively simple optimization algorithm applied directly to the SNPs you chose to feed it with.
> 
> The question is if global analyses like the one in the original post are informative at all. For example, if, say, Khvalynsk is closest to the ancestral blue component, does it really make sense to model significantly older Samara hunter gatherer as partly derived from a Khvalynsk-like population? The problem would be even more pronounced with the Karelian individuals, of course. This approach tends to produce hypothetical populations where they really aren't needed to arrive at a relatively complete understanding of the population dynamics in a given time and space.


indeed K = 14 supposes the whole dataset can be explained by 14 ancestral components

I checked th whole list and it seems to work for this dataset

But on the other hand, you could ask the same question about e.g. EEF, is the Stutgart genome realy the best representative? I don't think so. The stutgart genome is not ancestral, maybe the recently found Boncuklu genomes are a better fit. It is almost certain there is already some WHG admixture in the Stutgart genome.

----------


## Tomenable

> Many thousands of years later some Iranized *Scythinas* migrated back into the Iranian Plateau.


Actually Iron Age and Medieval Kurds/Iranians do *not* share any segments >3 cM with IA Scythian. They share with Sintashta, Srubnaya, Potapovka. BTW, only high quality samples are useful for these comparisons (I used only samples with >400,000 SNPs).

----------


## Goga

> Actually Iron Age and Medieval Kurds/Iranians do *not* share any segments >3 cM with IA Scythian. They share with Sintashta, Srubnaya, Potapovka. BTW, only high quality samples are useful for these comparisons (I used only samples with >400,000 SNPs).


double post

----------


## Tomenable

T637158 & M381564 are Iron Age Iranian (sample F38) and Medieval Iranian (sample I1955).

They are from Western Iran (Iranian part of Kurdistan).

----------


## MarkoZ

> indeed K = 14 supposes the whole dataset can be explained by 14 ancestral components
> 
> I checked th whole list and it seems to work for this dataset
> 
> But on the other hand, you could ask the same question about e.g. EEF, is the Stutgart genome realy the best representative? I don't think so. The stutgart genome is not ancestral, maybe the recently found Boncuklu genomes are a better fit. It is almost certain there is already some WHG admixture in the Stutgart genome.


Arguments about perceived 'purity' are misplaced. Stuttgart is useful because he's in the right place at the right time to tell us something about the peopling of central Europe. If you want to further break up his ancestry that's quite another matter. You could do the same thing with the Karelian genomes.

----------


## bicicleur

> Arguments about perceived 'purity' are misplaced. Stuttgart is useful because he's in the right place at the right time to tell us something about the peopling of central Europe. If you want to further break up his ancestry that's quite another matter. You could do the same thing with the Karelian genomes.


Stuttgart should be considered EEF with WHG admixture.
The same bias as in a well-defined K admixture.

----------


## MarkoZ

> Stuttgart should be considered EEF with WHG admixture.
> The same bias as in a well-defined K admixture.


I guess we're getting a little off-topic. The fact remains that Stuttgart was an actual individual and in all likelihood a good representative of the larger Central European Neolithic.

----------


## LeBrok

> Kotias shares more segments with Steppe than IranN does; so I guess Kotias is a more likely source of CHG in Yamna:
> 
> GEDmatch comparison of Kotias CHG, Iran Neo and Steppe


I don't know, it there is something fishy here. How come the best fit for Iran and CHG is Potapovka (almost in Siberia). Also Khvaliynsk, the R1b from Samara) is only at 34 and 16? If he was a fresh immigrant from South Caucasus, as we supposed in other thread, the numbers should have been in high hundreds, but they are not. See the Khvalinsk to Potapovka is at 240.
And Scythian IA is so little related to anyone as he have come from the Moon (almost). Kotias and Iran samples are over 10ky old while others are from 6 to 3 ky old. Also we have to keep in mind that there was bigger relationship steppe HG to CHG due to sharing some WHG/EHG genes.

----------


## Tomenable

I was told that low quality genomes (fewer SNPs) tend to share more segments:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthre...l=1#post198769

So only comparisons with high coverage / quality genomes are useuful in this tool.

However, all genomes used in my comparison above had at least 400,000 SNPs.

----------


## bicicleur

> I guess we're getting a little off-topic. The fact remains that Stuttgart was an actual individual and in all likelihood a good representative of the larger Central European Neolithic.


I guess this genome was the best option before the Barcin, Mentese, Boncuklu and Tepecik genomes were published.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Sorry, as I said, there is no research paper at all. Nobody care about neolithic foreigners in Korea.
> However, it was shocking that long skulls with crouched positions were found 3 or 4 years ago. Only the reporters were concerned with the sensational issue.
> So they traced the origin of sample. They requested the above mentioned research center to get aDNA, where they got only mtDNA H. With the DNA, they went germany to meet so many scholars. German geneticist told them that modern people don't have that H, but EEF at germany had. And they concluded that the people were EEF from germany. But I don''t think the neolithic weakest EEF could not enter korean peninsular, b/c Korea was surrounded by neolithic wolf and lions, Hg N, R and Q at that time. so I thought R or Q carried Hg H or woman w/ Hg H. 
> Their pottery was similar to The Linear *Pottery OF GERMANY.:
> *


Source please, that is extremely interesting (the long skulls bit - that is clearly of non-Mongoloid origin).

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> check this, I think it is realy interesting
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there are 3 Khvalynsk genomes which you can find in above chart
> 
> Samara Eneolithic
> ...


Was the R1b guy the one with more CHG, or the Q1a guy? Davidski said it was the Q1a guy, but R1b would make more sense, so idk

----------

