Massive migration from the steppe is a source for Indo-European languages in Europe

[MOESAN]

​Just a point, but not a detail: the today majority of Y-I in Scandinavia is Y-I1, not Y-I2, even if at Mesolithic it seems I2 was there and not I1...

 

[MOESAN]

Interesting. If he added map with movement arrows and dates would be more easy to follow his theory.
According to him Corded was not ancestors of known IEs right?

I agree: he links Corded to a mix of first I-Ean wave into Europe (from where? West Anatolia, during late Neolithic?) with former neolitihic non-I-Ean people. Doesn't seem linking them to later Germanic or Baltic-Slavic people; he sees these last ones coming into Europe after a concretion of Fedorovo (what precise culture? again an South-East-Caspian-Sumbar-Culture, for him) with other cultures already I-Ean(?), from Irtych river to Kama-Volga region.
I avow his demonstration has something of straight-away-short-cut and he seems forgetting that some artefacts and even mortuary habits can been passed after long contacts between two foreign cultures. I'm sure a southern human element, culturally linked to the most advanced cultures concerning agriculture, architecture and metals, took part, demically and culturally, in the I-Ean steppic cultures. But I 've some difficulty to admit so easily that some obscure tribes of the mountainous regions of North Mesopatamia, could have created their own language, so different from any other family of languages there AND already broken off into different enough dialects spite their proximity, and expand towards every directions except South, and colonize a so vaste territory, showing here some huge might and skill and demography but without staying the master in its cradle; and no mention of a possible PIE language in Near-East (cradle!) until the rising of Hittites which seem a handful of warlike rulers rather than autochtonous people... Grigoryev in this digest doesn't speak of Hittites, nor of satemization. the only interesting cultures in the genesis of an Anatolian-South-Caucasus cradle are of people we know they didn't speak I-Ean of any sort.
Bt who knows, at this stage? I 'll read again abstracts of Allentoft survey about Sintashta (Indo-iranian too, as Catacomb, for Grigoryev)
&; what is interesting is the statement of maintain of different sepultures modes in some cultures, showing the possibility of incomplete and social classes biased osmosis. It was the case in central Europe too at Bronze Age.

 

[Fluffy]

in summary , the paper states that there was one set of haplogroups in central Europe prior to 4500BC and then another different set came in....the older set comprises of I2 , G2 and T1, C and others from what I recall .............corded ware was the others .............R1 came in the younger set of migrations

[TABLE="class: cms_table"]
[TR]
[TD]Culture

[/TD]
[TD]Country
[/TD]
[TD]YBP
[/TD]
[TD]Hg
[/TD]
[TD]Simple hg
[/TD]
[TD]N



[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Mesolithic_HG
[/TD]
[TD]Luxembourg
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]8'000
[/TD]
I2a1b

[/TR]
[/TABLE]


Surprised to find Haplogroup T in there. Thought they would of come later. C was expected, as were G2 and I2.

 

[MOESAN]

Metric affinities and differences among bronze Age Steppes populations, according to Kazarnitzky: to compare with autosomes and linguistic/culture results:
The Neolithic people of Dnieper region (and others) were a bit heterogenous but not too much: they showed some affinities to -a) the Mesolithic people of the region –b) the Pit Grave people of Kalmykia/Astrakhan region, N-W the Caspian sea. People of Kalmykia/Astrakhan showed big affinities to these "Neolithic" people but very less with their neighbors of Maykop. Compared to others, Maykop and Armenians people were a bit marginal, and at the opposite side compared to Neolithic people. Curiously the Mesolithic people were not as far from Maykop-Armenians as Neolithic ones were… The other Pit Grave (Yamnaya) people had all a middle in position between all other groups. Curiously too they were closer to Maykop/Armenia than the Kalmykia/Astrakhan people, and closer to Mesolithic than to Neolithic Dnieper. As a whole the other Pit Grave are between Maykop/Armenians and Mesolithic people, not too much shifted towards Neolithic Dnieper people.
Some cases: people Sredny Stog closest to Maykop/Armenians.
Khvalynsk I was very close to Sredny Stog, showing same affinities, and Pit Grave Kherson (near Crimea) is close too..
At the contrary, Khvalynsk II is far, among Mesolithic people variations, and merging wit the Neolithic people the most shifted towards Mesolithic.
What can we deduce from these “distances”?
The people of the oldest post-Neolithic cultures are the closest to or less far from Maykop/Armenians people. The subsequent Yamnaya people showed more Northern and Eastern influences of ancient pre-Neolithic populations; WHG (EHG?) and (less) ANE possible aDNA , except Kherson : … the settlements of N-W Caspian showed more affinities with Neolithicized ancient populations, but not so much with Mesolithic ones nor southern Chalcolithic, so some of the “Neolithic” population (regrouping in fact Ukrainian, N. Russian and Latvian ones) got down to South and had an imput upon the N-W Caspian Pit Grave people: maybe the signature of previous Cucuteni-Tripolye first imput upon northern Mesolithic people, with subsequent demic inversion of preponderances farmers/gatherers. By the way, I doubt more and more that all so called “Neolithic” mt DNA would be come from South… we have to wait for more mt-DNA and subclades from ancient Anatolia S-Caucasus to be sure.
I notice Mesolithic people were not all of the very same stock, and at Neolithic times, there has been a change not due only to southern people, far from that.
the cultural major impulse at Chalcolithic came from South before being passed to Steppes populations of different kinds.what does not exclude later reversed moves. that said, language and artefacts do not run always in the same direction so...

 

[MOESAN]

in my post #534 I took the name of Kozmintsev out of my hat! Some obtured synapse in my brain! it was Karnitzky! Sorry

 

[arvistro]

in my post #534 I took the name of Kozmintsev out of my hat! Some obtured synapse in my brain! it was Karnitzky! Sorry

Can you give a link to the source?
It is just our English is very different Latvian English has one structure and French English another, and it is difficult for me to follow you

 

[Sile]

in summary , the paper states that there was one set of haplogroups in central Europe prior to 4500BC and then another different set came in....the older set comprises of I2 , G2 and T1, C and others from what I recall .............corded ware was the others .............R1 came in the younger set of migrations

[TABLE="class: cms_table"]
[TR]
[TD]Culture[/TD]
[TD]Country[/TD]
[TD]YBP[/TD]
[TD]Hg[/TD]
[TD]Simple hg[/TD]
[TD]N

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Mesolithic_HG[/TD]
[TD]Luxembourg[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]8'000[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]


Surprised to find Haplogroup T in there. Thought they would of come later. C was expected, as were G2 and I2.

I do not know why you think T should come later, the latest ages of origins are noted as

LT = 44500

L = 42500
T = 42500

and I is 42800 ....................so I is only 300 years earlier ( in forming )than T

 

[MOESAN]

Can you give a link to the source?
It is just our English is very different Latvian English has one structure and French English another, and it is difficult for me to follow you

it's not french english but MY personal bad english!!! (too long sentances?)

ACADEMIA EDU
Alexey Kazarnitsky (sorry for my error):iOn the bilogical distinctness of Pit Grave (Yamnaya) in the North-West Caspian - cranial evidence -
if you have not the same analysis as me, let me know - it could be interetsing - good reading!

 

[MOESAN]

By the way, in Eurogenes I red an abstract (maybe based upon kazarnitsky's works) where it was said Maikop culture people were not so homogenous (in the study I mentioned above they were grouped in an unic spot). some of them showed some crossings with more robust populations typical of previous Steppes populations...

 

[LeBrok]

By the way, in Eurogenes I red an abstract (maybe based upon kazarnitsky's works) where it was said Maikop culture people were not so homogenous (in the study I mentioned above they were grouped in an unic spot). some of them showed some crossings with more robust populations typical of previous Steppes populations...

Interesting. In this case we better get few samples of Mykop, from few communities.

 

[MOESAN]

I could have posted it in a lot of threads all of them turning around the same basic problem

a puzzling hypothesis more
THE SINTASHTA CULTURE AND SOME QUESTIONS OF INDO-EUROPEANS ORIGINS
S.A. GRIGORIEV
only 3 pages but striking!

I answer myself
classical anthropologist Komintsev criticized Grigoryev's work - he estimates based upon crania and post-crania metrics that Sintashta people had more in common with Western and Central Europeans what was a bit icinoclastic at first sight - it is funny seeing this Konitsev was right when we read the aDNA paper of Allentoft's team... at least that Corded have something to do with Sintashta...

 

[LeBrok]

I answer myself
classical anthropologist Komintsev criticized Grigoryev's work - he estimates based upon crania and post-crania metrics that Sintashta people had more in common with Western and Central Europeans what was a bit icinoclastic at first sight - it is funny seeing this Konitsev was right when we read the aDNA paper of Allentoft's team... at least that Corded have something to do with Sintashta...

Good science is always confirmed and lasts.

 

[Tomenable]

for example Herodotus:

"The Budini for their part, being a large and numerous nation, are all mightily blue-eyed and ruddy."

Or for arabic source Ahmad Ibn Fadlan, just to prove not every nations or peoples think themselves like perfect or the best:

"I have seen the Rus as they came on their merchant journeys and encamped by the Itil. I have never seen more perfect physical specimens, tall as date palms, blond and ruddy; "

We can say what we want, but in general peoples in other countries find Europeans extremely atractives.

Not all of them.

Early Medieval (9th century) Muslim author Al-Gahiz did not find Northern European pigmentation attractive - he wrote:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?134398-Early-Slavic-phenotypes-(6th-10th-centuries)

"(...) Tell me friend, after how many generations a Zang [Sub-Saharan African] became black, and a Slav became white? (...) Among Slavic people, abominable and ugly are smoothness and delicateness of their hair [as opposed to curly and thick hair], as well as blond or ruddy colour of their hair and beards, and also their whiteness (...)"

As for Ahmad Ibn-Fadlan, above you quoted only the part where he admired how athletic / sporty were the Rusiyyah.

But - apart from admitting that they were athletic / sporty - Ibn-Fadlan did not really find them "sexy", as the next part of his account shows.

Below is another excerpt from "Journey of Ahmad Ibn-Fadlan to the Itil River and Adoption of Islam in Bulgaria". This book describes the journey of Ahmad Ibn-Fadlan, Chief of the Embassy of the Baghdad Caliph Al-Muktadir to the Volga River, to the realm of Volga Bulgars (now in central Russia), in years 921-922 CE, in regard to their adoption of Islam. This excerpt describes hygiene of people whom Ibn-Fadlan calls the Rusiyyah:

"(...) The Rusiyyah are the filthiest of Allah's creatures: they do not purify themselves after excreting or urinating, nor do they wash themselves when in a state of impurity after coitus and do not even wash their hands after food. Indeed they are like wild asses that roam in the fields. They arrive from their land and moor their boats by the Itil, which is a great river, building on its banks large wooden houses. They gather in each house in their tens and twenties, sometimes more, or less. Each of them has a couch on which he sits. They are accompanied by beautiful slave girls for trading. One man will have intercourse with his slave-girl while his companions look on. Sometimes a group of them comes together to do this, each in front of the other. Sometimes indeed a merchant will come in to buy a slave-girl from one of them and he will chance upon him having intercourse with her, but a Rus will not leave her alone until he has satisfied his urge. They cannot, of course, avoid washing their faces and their heads each day, which they do with the filthiest and most polluted water imaginable. I shall explain. Every day a slave-girl arrives in the morning with a large basin with water, which she hands to her owner. He washes his hands, then his face and his hair in the water, then he dips his comb in the water and brushes his hair, blows his nose and spits in the basin. There is no filthy impurity which he will not do in this water. When he no longer requires it, the slave-girl takes the basin to the man beside him and he goes through the same routine as his friend. She continues to carry it from one man to the next until she has gone round everyone in the house, with each of them blowing his nose and spitting into the basin, then washing his face and hair in the basin. (...)"

So I really do not think that Ibn-Fadlan considered the Rusiyyah as more perfect than the Arabs (i.e. his own nation)...

=============================

And the next part of Ibn-Fadlan's account about the Rusiyyah (just for the sake of it):

"(...) As soon as their boats arrive at this port [the city of Bulgar], each of them disembarks (...) and prostrates himself before a great idol, saying to it: 'Oh my lord, I have come from a far country and I have with me such and such a number of young beautiful slave girls, and such and such a number of sable skins (...) I would like you to do the favour of sending me a merchant who has large quantities of dinars and dirhams and who will buy everything that I want and not argue with me over my price. (...)"

 

[Tomenable]

I answer myself
classical anthropologist Komintsev criticized Grigoryev's work - he estimates based upon crania and post-crania metrics that Sintashta people had more in common with Western and Central Europeans what was a bit icinoclastic at first sight - it is funny seeing this Konitsev was right when we read the aDNA paper of Allentoft's team... at least that Corded have something to do with Sintashta...

Sintashta people do not cluster autosomally with Western Europe, but with North-Eastern Europe.

Check this autosomal comparison from Davidski's blog:

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2015/06/k8-results-for-selected-allentoft-et-al.html

I've added some descriptions so it is more transparent:

http://oi61.tinypic.com/33bflzn.jpg

 

[Tomenable]

MOESAN,

Comparing DNA is more reliable than comparing crania metrics.

This study illustrates how misleading physical racial anthropology can sometimes be:

http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:667495/FULLTEXT01.pdf

Check pages 39 - 41 of the link above. When anthropologists under Sholts examined bones and skulls of crew members of Swedish ship "Kronan" (which sank in June 1676 in the Baltic Sea), they concluded based on skull shapes, that among crew members there were: a Chinese, an Egyptian, and a native Patagonian. Yet DNA shows, that those presumed Chinese, Egyptian and Patagonian, were in fact all Europeans.

Presumed Native American (A. - "Patagonian skull") and presumed Asian (B. - "Chinese skull") genetically cluster with Europe:

http://oi59.tinypic.com/jr8y2r.jpg

This is similar to the story of Kennewick Man, who was claimed to be Ainu, Polynesian, European, or anything but Native American, based on his skull. Skull shape may be quite unreliable in determining "racial" affinities of individuals, due to "too large within-population craniometric variation":

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vnfv/ncurrent/full/nature14625.html

(...) It has been asserted that “…cranial morphology provides as much insight into population structure and affinity as genetic data”2. However, although recent and previous craniometric analyses have consistently concluded that Kennewick Man is unlike modern Native Americans, they disagree regarding his closest population affinities, the cause of the apparent differences between Kennewick Man and modern Native Americans, and whether the differences are historically important (for example, represent an earlier, separate migration to the Americas), or simply represent intra-population variation2, 3, 7, 10, 26, 27, 28. These inconsistencies are probably owing to the difficulties in assigning a single individual when comparing to population-mean data, without explicitly taking into account within-population variation. Reanalysis of W. W. Howells’ worldwide modern human craniometric data set29 (Supplementary Information 9) shows that biological population affinities of individual specimens cannot be resolved with any statistical certainty. While our individual-based craniometric analyses confirm that Kennewick Man tends to be more similar to Polynesian and Ainu peoples than to Native Americans, Kennewick Man’s pattern of craniometric affinity falls well within the range of affinity patterns evaluated for individual Native Americans (Supplementary Information 9). For example, the Arikara from North Dakota (the Native American tribe representing the geographically closest population in Howells’ data set to Kennewick), exhibit with high frequency closest affinities with Polynesians (Supplementary Information 9). Yet, the Arikara have typical Native-American mitochondrial DNA haplogroups30, as does Kennewick Man. We conclude that the currently available number of independent phenetic markers is too small, and within-population craniometric variation too large, to permit reliable reconstruction of the biological population affinities of Kennewick Man. In contrast, block bootstrap results from the autosomal DNA data are highly statistically significant (Extended Data Fig. 3), showing stronger association of the Kennewick man with Native Americans than with any other continental group. (...)

In other words there is greater variation between individuals from the same population, than between distinct populations:

"Reanalysis of W. W. Howells’ worldwide modern human craniometric data set29 (Supplementary Information 9) shows that biological population affinities of individual specimens cannot be resolved with any statistical certainty."

 

[Alan]

Sintashta people do not cluster autosomally with Western Europe, but with North-Eastern Europe.

Check this autosomal comparison from Davidski's blog:

Coincidence, different admixture propotions putting them in the same place. Andronovo is like Central-North Europeans +Tajiks. Since "technically" Northeast Euros are in between North Euros and North_Caucasians and Tajiks, they are close on pca plots. With other words Northeast Euros and Sintashta/Andronovo are related and very close based on fst distance but it's different autosomal DNA creating similar results. Related but not of the same stock.


Same case with Yamna based on fst Distance they cluster close with Mordovians/Lezgians/Russians but based on their autosomal signature they are more like a mixture of Northwest Euros and Georgians/Tajiks(minus the East Eurasian).

 

[Tomenable]

Related but not of the same stock.

Not of the same stock? Definitely of the same ancestral stock, when it comes to paternal lineages.

Both groups actually are largely of the same Y chromosomal stock, namely descended from R1a-Z645 subclade.

Currently YFull estimates TMRCA of Z645 as having taken place around year 2900 BC, give or take few centuries:

http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z645/

Sintashta sample RISE386 (dated 2298-1760 BC) belonged to its subclade, R1a-Z2124 (YFull estimate: 2700 BC):

http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z2124/

Sintashta sample RISE392 (dated 2126-1611 BC) belonged to its subclade, R1a-Z2123 (YFull estimate: 1800 BC):

http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z2123/

Those people lived relatively short time after TMRCAs of their respective subclades occured, if we believe YFull.

 

[Alan]

Not of the same stock? Definitely of the same ancestral stock, when it comes to paternal lineages.

Both groups actually are largely of the same Y chromosomal stock, namely descended from R1a-Z645 subclade.

Currently YFull estimates TMRCA of Z645 as having taken place around year 2900 BC, give or take few centuries:

http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z645/

Sintashta sample RISE386 (dated 2298-1760 BC) belonged to its subclade, R1a-Z2124 (YFull estimate: 2700 BC):

http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z2124/

Sintashta sample RISE392 (dated 2126-1611 BC) belonged to its subclade, R1a- (YFull estimate: 1800 BC):

http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z2123/

Those people lived relatively short time after TMRCAs of their respective subclades occured, if we believe YFull.

modern distribution of yDNA is not necessary a good indiciation for autosomal DNA but even than. R1a predominantly z93 (includes z2124/3) vs predominantly z283. There are thousands of years in between.

But as I said this is yDNA it only shows that both groups derived from a proto ancestor but this could and was probably thousand years before Sintashta and proto Northeast Europeans formed. This why Sintashta and Northeast Europeans very similar but still different stock. In German there are two ways to describe something what is equal and something what is the same.

"Das Gleiche" =/= "Das Selbe"


I have seen both SIntashta and Andronovo autosomal results, multiple populations oracle and single population results. North Europeans such as Norwegians always come on top before every other populations.

 

[Tomenable]

R1a predominantly z93 (includes z2124/3) vs predominantly z283. There are thousands of years in between.

What are you talking about? What "thousands of years"? Common ancestor of both R1a Z93 and R1a Z283, was of course R1a Z645 - and according to YFull, TMRCA of Z645 was ca. 4900 years ago, Z283 formed ca. 4900 years ago, and Z93 formed also ca. 4900 years ago. It doesn't necessarily mean, that first Z93 and first Z283 were brothers, but definitely there were not many generations between them, and they both formed from their common ancestral Z645 population around the same time:

There were likely not even hundreds of years in between. There were just "years", maybe "dozens of years" in between:

http://s14.postimg.org/zf7z4qq0h/Z645.png

I have seen both SIntashta and Andronovo autosomal results, multiple populations oracle and single population results. North Europeans such as Norwegians always come on top before every other populations.

Lithuanians and other North-Eastern Europeans come on top before Norwegians.

Pashtuns descend to a large extent (ca. 40-50%) from Sintashta, and they also score 66% Lithuanian-like in ADLER - quotes:

Pashtun autosomal DNA can be modelled as 43% Sintashta, their Y-DNA is even more Sintashta (perhaps mtDNA is less so):

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthr...toft-et-al-2015)&p=93179&viewfull=1#post93179

Also, the IBD links [of ancient Sintashta people and modern Pashtuns] are pretty strong, despite the fact that the samples aren't of ideal quality for IBD analysis, and despite the fact that it is very hard to detect IBD over the time scale which currently concerns us. I don't know where this notion stems from.

In addition, Sintashta have the right R1a1a subclades. We can be 100% certain that 50%-70% of Pashtun males are direct descendants of Sintashta and/or it's descendant/related steppe cultures. Even the mtDNA shows links. Taking this into consideration, it is of no real surprise that Pashtuns are predominantly steppe-derived in terms of genome-wide ancestry.

3) The Pashtun-Sintashta fits are always the best fits produced by this software, probably because Sintashta are directly ancestral to Pashtuns and company (a fact borne out by the presence of R1a1a lineages in Sintashta which are the exact same lineages found in anywhere from around 50% to 70% of Pashtun males. Also, Sintashta and Andronovo in Allentoft et al. have a hefty share of mtDNA U2 lineages, which constitute the largest share of the modern Pashtun mtDNA gene pool). If they were a broad proxy for general steppe admixture, the fits would be great, but not as amazingly excellent as they are now.

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthr...toft-et-al-2015)&p=93441&viewfull=1#post93441

I have used an input ancestral population with similar admixture as modern Armenians. This change from above results in repositioning of Population X. Under this scenario, Pashtuns can be modeled as 43% Sintashta + 38% BA [Bronze Age] population similar in admix to modern Armenians + 19% Pop X, with Pop X's position being shifted from above.

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthr...toft-et-al-2015)&p=93179&viewfull=1#post93179

Edit: Everest once used ALDER (another piece in the ADMIXTOOLS package) on the HGDP Pashtuns. With Lithuanians, he got Pashtuns to be 66% Lithuanian-admixed. That is quite close to the Sintashta percentages. Here is what he wrote to me:

"Interesting. Alder can calculate admixture % using just 1 reference samples. I tried computer admixture % for Pashtuns using Georgians, Sindhis and then Lithuanians. The admixture using Lithuanian was a whopping 66%."

Also check for example the Dodecad Ancestry Project - Lithuanians are much more North_European than Norwegians:

http://dodecad.blogspot.com/2012/01/k12b-and-k7b-calculators.html

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1GWhNZcfTQ2hMSK9Ni1IqG7aXHB00SRE5L6ED2osPs9M/edit#gid=0

North_European admixture in Dodecad K12b (Lithuanians and Finns have the highest scores out of populations included):

Lithuanians - 77,1%
Finnish people - 75,5%
Lithuanians (another sample) - 73,7%
Finns (another sample) - 73,5%
(...)
Poles - 63,3%
(...)
Swedes - 56,8%
Norwegians - 54,7%
(...)
Orcadians - 46,4%
(...)
French people - 36,9%
French (another sample) - 36,5%
(...)
Spanish people - 23%
Spaniards (another sample) - 22,7%

New study on British DNA also has Finns much more northern than Norwegians (PC1 shows north-south patterns). ED Figure 3 from this study confirms the pattern shown by Dodecad K12b (from north to south: Finns, Norwegians, Orcadians, French, Spanish):

http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2015/07/17/022723.full.pdf

http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2015/07/17/022723.DC1/022723-1.pdf

 

[Tomenable]

Lithuanians and other North-Eastern Europeans come on top before Norwegians.

^ This also applies to Yamnaya, not only to Sintashta:

Kit M020637 (Yamnaya_Sok_River individual I0443):

http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/5774979/1/

Dodecad K12b Oracle:

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Mordovians (Yunusbayev) 23.89
2 Russian (HGDP) 25.52
3 Russian (Dodecad) 26.42
4 Mixed_Slav (Dodecad) 28.08
5 Russian_B (Behar) 28.23
6 FIN30 (1000Genomes) 28.49
7 Belorussian (Behar) 29.25
8 Ukranians (Yunusbayev) 29.42
9 Finnish (Dodecad) 29.52
10 Lithuanian (Dodecad) 29.59
11 Polish (Dodecad) 29.74
12 Chuvashs (Behar) 29.98
13 Lithuanians (Behar) 30.6
14 Swedish (Dodecad) 31.29
15 Hungarians (Behar) 33.49
16 Norwegian (Dodecad) 33.71
17 German (Dodecad) 34.02
18 Mixed_Germanic (Dodecad) 37.46
19 Dutch (Dodecad) 37.68
20 Argyll (1000Genomes) 38.36

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 70.6% Lithuanians (Behar) + 29.4% Brahui (HGDP) @ 11.63
2 71.6% Finnish (Dodecad) + 28.4% Brahui (HGDP) @ 12.05
3 69.6% Lithuanians (Behar) + 30.4% Balochi (HGDP) @ 12.38
4 70.5% Finnish (Dodecad) + 29.5% Balochi (HGDP) @ 12.38
5 72.7% FIN30 (1000Genomes) + 27.3% Brahui (HGDP) @ 12.75
6 71.7% FIN30 (1000Genomes) + 28.3% Balochi (HGDP) @ 13.07
7 70.6% Finnish (Dodecad) + 29.4% Makrani (HGDP) @ 13.1
8 69.7% Lithuanians (Behar) + 30.3% Makrani (HGDP) @ 13.2
9 72% Lithuanian (Dodecad) + 28% Brahui (HGDP) @ 13.39
10 71.8% FIN30 (1000Genomes) + 28.2% Makrani (HGDP) @ 13.73
11 71.1% Lithuanian (Dodecad) + 28.9% Balochi (HGDP) @ 14.18
12 71.2% Lithuanian (Dodecad) + 28.8% Makrani (HGDP) @ 14.97
13 78.6% Mordovians (Yunusbayev) + 21.4% Brahui (HGDP) @ 15.38
14 76.8% Russian (HGDP) + 23.2% Brahui (HGDP) @ 15.44
15 66.7% Finnish (Dodecad) + 33.3% Pathan (HGDP) @ 15.61
16 68% FIN30 (1000Genomes) + 32% Pathan (HGDP) @ 16.07
17 76.2% Russian (HGDP) + 23.8% Balochi (HGDP) @ 16.1
18 78.2% Mordovians (Yunusbayev) + 21.8% Balochi (HGDP) @ 16.12
19 71% Finnish (Dodecad) + 29% Sindhi (HGDP) @ 16.16
20 65.8% Lithuanians (Behar) + 34.2% Pathan (HGDP) @ 16.18

Dodecad K12b 4-Ancestors Oracle:

Using 1 population approximation:

1 Mordovians @ 26.117958
2 Russian @ 27.766514
3 Russian @ 28.903084
4 Mixed_Slav @ 30.708838
5 Russian_B @ 30.943394
6 FIN30 @ 30.961552
7 Chuvashs @ 30.993589
8 Belorussian @ 31.977346
9 Finnish @ 32.122631
10 Ukranians @ 32.236179
11 Lithuanian @ 32.296879
12 Polish @ 32.407936
13 Lithuanians @ 33.380260
14 Swedish @ 33.754078
15 Norwegian @ 36.340675
16 Hungarians @ 36.471939
17 German @ 36.782593
18 Mixed_Germanic @ 40.382317
19 Dutch @ 40.600632
20 Argyll @ 41.286118

Using 2 populations approximation:

1 50% Finnish +50% Tajiks @ 20.027649

Using 3 populations approximation:

1 50% Finnish +25% Lithuanians +25% Makrani @ 14.506863

Using 4 populations approximation:

1 Brahui + Finnish + Lithuanians + Lithuanians @ 12.911041
2 Brahui + Finnish + Finnish + Lithuanians @ 12.946719
3 Brahui + FIN30 + Lithuanians + Lithuanians @ 12.991430
4 Brahui + FIN30 + Finnish + Lithuanians @ 13.056005
5 Brahui + FIN30 + FIN30 + Lithuanians @ 13.190562
6 Brahui + Finnish + Lithuanians + Mordovians @ 13.302384
7 Brahui + Finnish + Lithuanian + Lithuanians @ 13.320297
8 Brahui + Finnish + Finnish + Lithuanian @ 13.321767
9 Brahui + Lithuanians + Lithuanians + Lithuanians @ 13.329762
10 Brahui + FIN30 + Lithuanian + Lithuanians @ 13.431521
11 Brahui + Finnish + Finnish + Finnish @ 13.435610
12 Brahui + FIN30 + Finnish + Lithuanian @ 13.461216
13 Brahui + Finnish + Finnish + Mordovians @ 13.499441
14 Brahui + FIN30 + Lithuanians + Mordovians @ 13.523365
15 Brahui + Lithuanians + Lithuanians + Mordovians @ 13.550054
16 Brahui + Finnish + Lithuanians + Russian @ 13.567525
17 Brahui + FIN30 + Finnish + Finnish @ 13.568962
18 Brahui + FIN30 + FIN30 + Lithuanian @ 13.624578
19 Brahui + Finnish + Lithuanians + Russian @ 13.675117
20 Brahui + Lithuanians + Lithuanians + Russian @ 13.679604