Gedrosia in Mal'ta Buret sample

[Stefano]

Here are the k12b results of the Mal'ta Buret sample which is found on gedmatch with kit number [FONT=&quot]F999914.
[/FONT]

[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff"][/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff, align: right"] [/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff"]Gedrosia[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFFF, align: right"]24.43 Pct[/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff"]Siberian[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFFF, align: right"]13.59 Pct[/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff"]Northwest_African[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFFF, align: right"]- [/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff"]Southeast_Asian[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFFF, align: right"]- [/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff"]Atlantic_Med[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFFF, align: right"]- [/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff"]North_European[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFFF, align: right"]47.43 Pct[/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff"]South_Asian[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFFF, align: right"]14.41 Pct[/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff"]East_African[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFFF, align: right"]- [/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff"]Southwest_Asian[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFFF, align: right"]- [/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff"]East_Asian[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFFF, align: right"]- [/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff"]Caucasus[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFFF, align: right"]- [/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff"]Sub_Saharan[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFFF, align: right"]0.13 Pct[/TD]

Why is the Gedrosia component so hight? IS the calculator misrepresenting it? Is it a proxy for something else?
Also may it be the source of the gedrosian found in steppe population?
What is the difference between caucasus and gedrosian?

 

[MOESAN]

Maybe can we suppose that the modern 'gedrosia' created element is rich in ANA which was the basis of those Mal'ta people? The 'northeuropean' element has also some good bits of ANE, I think, as have surely 'siberian'; for sure, Malta had not 'gedrosia', but 'gedrosia' has Mal'ta or rather common DNA inherited from one of it ancestors... The 'southindian' element in Mal'ta confirms this, I think.
BTW it's curious how vary the respective %'s of 'gedrosia' vs 'caucasus' in Europe: The richest in 'gedrosia' are the Basques, then the British Irish Celts then Scandinavians and other British folks, even Finland people and Frenchies have more than Iberians who have more than Itaalians who have more than Greeks and Slavs, the % of 'caucasus' being the opposite, by force! 'gedrosia' recovers a bit of health only in modern Anatolia where it seems logical because we come close to Eastern Iran there. But may we imagine the 'gedrosia' of Northwestern Europe passed through Turkey (before: Anatolia) ? And ancient pops of Steppes and Chalco pop's of Northern Europe had all of them 'gedrosia' almost without any 'caucasus'.
'caucasus' seems appearing only late enough in very ancient pop's, some %'s have been discussed in Eupedia long ago (maybe with Tomenable's posts?). But these components are creations and these creations are manipulated later by processors with algorythms; We can suppose that 'caucasus' contains more 'ancient anatolian' and 'levantine' than 'gedrosia' - the absence in Mal'ta of 'atlanticmed', 'eastafrican', 'southwestasian' and 'northwestafrican' seems to me confirming that. Central Asia has seen old communications between North and South, and the Northern and Western Europe received akin components during the Steppes introgressions for the most.
The question is: why Slavs have so much 'caucasus' compared to 'gedrosia'? it's not EEF, so...
I have not "studied" enough the question

 

[Diictodon]

Gedrosia stands in for Iran_N/CHG which has high ANE. Its how Iberomaurasians were modelled 1/3 SSA before 2018 when the taforalt genome was fully sequenced and published and how its was SSA groups that had 12% Taforalt DNA.

 

[Anfänger]

I also have noticed that there is some Iran_N in Mal`ta Buret samples. We still don't know how far East Iran_N reached, it could even have been in Central Asia. Anyway, it might be very old.

See here:
Target: RUS_MA1
Distance: 2.4447% / 0.02444686
69.8 RUS_AfontovaGora3
22.8 RUS_Yana_UP
7.4 IRN_Wezmeh_N
0.0 GEO_CHG

 

[Stefano]

MOESAN, i have found the post you were talking about. The thing which is really strange is the absence of Gedrosia in the slavs and in the zone where there should have been a lot of steppe.
Also its high presence in the basques, they should have not been affected by steppe migration so much.


As you suggested its presence in Mal'ta may be realted to ANE, i've noticed it is present also in paleoamerican samples, along with north european and south asian, reflecting Mal'ta proportions.


Clovis
Gedrosia 7.82 Pct
Siberian 33.5 Pct
Northwest_African -
Southeast_Asian 6.33 Pct
Atlantic_Med -
North_European 17.79 Pct
South_Asian 4.42 Pct
East_African -
Southwest_Asian -
East_Asian 29.08 Pct
Caucasus -
Sub_Saharan 1.07 Pct






Kennewick
Gedrosia 8.45 Pct
Siberian 31.29 Pct
Northwest_African -
Southeast_Asian 4.68 Pct
Atlantic_Med -
North_European 24.03 Pct
South_Asian 2.57 Pct
East_African -
Southwest_Asian -
East_Asian 26.82 Pct
Caucasus -
Sub_Saharan 2.16 Pct

 

[MOESAN]

No, 'gedrosia' is not for CHG/N-Iran, it's a construct concept based on modern pops; proof? 'caucasus' component is less pure for CHG but has surely a high % of it. But their respective distribution is not level in modern pops .These comparisons between old and modern pop's are by force a bit distorded. They don't give us directions but %'s of similarities pop to pop. the ancient 'ANE' is divided in more than a part, and the modern components don't always possess tha same 'ANE' spite thay have of it. In the symetric way, the modern 'gedrosia' or 'northeurope' or any sort of modern component, present among ancient pop's is not by force the same part of this modern component in every ancient pop (hard, my style of writing, I know!); hard game, spite not completely absurd.

The very oldest pop's have the most numerous kinds of "modern" components, but often of modern archaic pop's ('oceanic' BI),

 

[MOESAN]

I add that ancient pop's were closer between them that a lot of modern sendentised pop's (before the very last years when people began to 'planemove'); between past and present a lot of drift + selection (by isolation or natural pressure) occurred; so a lot of exotic components existed which were not signals of introgressions but rather of old common human sharing. A lot of them was eliminated later. I know I break in an open door...

 

[Stefano]

I add that ancient pop's were closer between them that a lot of modern sendentised pop's (before the very last years when people began to 'planemove'); between past and present a lot of drift + selection (by isolation or natural pressure) occurred; so a lot of exotic components existed which were not signals of introgressions but rather of old common human sharing. A lot of them was eliminated later. I know I break in an open door...

You are perfectly right.



Ust-ishim


Population
Gedrosia 9.56 Pct
Siberian 2.61 Pct
Northwest_African 2.57 Pct
Southeast_Asian 13.88 Pct
Atlantic_Med 6.85 Pct
North_European 7.4 Pct
South_Asian 31.52 Pct
East_African 8.18 Pct
Southwest_Asian 3.33 Pct
East_Asian 8.35 Pct
Caucasus -
Sub_Saharan 5.75 Pct






Kostenki


Population
Gedrosia 12.36 Pct
Siberian 3.74 Pct
Northwest_African 1.65 Pct
Southeast_Asian 6.09 Pct
Atlantic_Med 21.46 Pct
North_European 28.8 Pct
South_Asian 15.77 Pct
East_African 4.03 Pct
Southwest_Asian 4.88 Pct
East_Asian 0.18 Pct
Caucasus -
Sub_Saharan 1.05 Pct

 

[MOESAN]

MOESAN, i have found the post you were talking about. The thing which is really strange is the absence of Gedrosia in the slavs and in the zone where there should have been a lot of steppe.
Also its high presence in the basques, they should have not been affected by steppe migration so much.

'gedrosia' isn't high among Basque at the absolute level, nor it is among Finland people; above I was speaking of the ratio 'gedrosia'/'caucasus', two close components, but selected differently by algoryhtms in diverse pops. This relative aspect doesn't prevent to make statements nevertheless.