Maciamo

Veteran member
Admin
Messages
10,088
Reaction score
3,519
Points
113
Location
Lothier
Ethnic group
Italo-celto-germanic
Year 2014 is drawing to a close and I was hoping to finish the ANE and WHG maps by the end of the year. Here is the first one. The data is based on Eurogenes.

This map compares the genes of modern people to the DNA of a Central Siberian mammoth hunter (known as MA-1), who lived 24,000 years ago and belonged to Y-DNA haplogroup R* and mtDNA haplogroup U*. The Paleolithic sample was tested by Raghavan et al. (2014). This admixture was absent from Mesolithic European samples, except in Scandinavia and Eastern Europe, and was completely absent from all Neolithic European samples tested to date. It is thought to have been spread across Europe and the Middle East by the Proto-Indo-Europeans (Y-haplogroups R1a and R1b) from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe, and to a lower extent also by Uralic people (Finns, Estonians, Magyars) and Turkic people (Avars, Bulgars, Khazars, Kurds, Turks). The ANE admixture is particularly common today among North Caucasian and Volga-Ural ethnicities, who live in regions strongly associated with the development of Proto-Indo-European cultures in the Early Bronze Age. Within Europe, the highest percentages of ANE admixture are observed among the Lezgins (26.5%), Chechens (26%), North Ossetians (23.5%) Kumyks (23.5%), and Adyghei (22.5%). Frequencies of over 20% of R1b have been found among the Lezgins, Kumyks and North Ossetians.

The Sardinians have the lowest percentage of ANE (4%), which is in agreement with the fact that the island was bypassed by the Indo-European migrations and that Sardinians still spoke a non-Indo-European language until the Roman conquest some 2,000 years ago. Sardinians also have the lowest incidence of fair hair in Europe (along with Sicilians). The 18% of R1b in Sardinia was probably brought mostly by the Romans and subsequent immigrations from mainland Italy, and to a lower extent by the Vandals and the Goths. This explains the non-null percentage of ANE, which is only 1/5 of the R1b percentage.





N.B. : It would be interesting to get ANE percentages for Bosnia-Herzegovina and Montenegro. Considering the low percentage of R1a and R1b, I would expect it to be lower than in surrounding countries. Unfortunately I couldn't find any data.


EDIT : I have just noticed some inconsistencies in the ANE frequencies for the North Caucasus. I used this data from Eurogenes for the Caucasus (and other regions not covered by Lazaridis et al.). Unfortunately it looks like it could be ANE + WHG and not just ANE. LeBrok pasted here the data of someone who calculated the admixtures by applying the WHG-EEF-ANE calc to the Eurogenes K13, and it turns out that the Lezgins are 13% ANE and 13% WHG, not 26% ANE. Since both data sets are from Eurogenes, I don't know which is correct. I would rather think the 13% + 13% as otherwise North Caucasians end up with close to 0% WHG, which is odd for a European region that was often invaded by northerners.
 
Last edited:
That's a fascinating map, but I'm not sure how to interpret it. The amount of ANE doesn't seem to correspond very well to the levels of R1a and R1b across Europe. And although I suppose the high levels of ANE in Turkey come from the Turkish invasions, I don't know why there's such a strong band across northwestern Europe, in places like Scotland and Norway. Is there an explanation for that? Why is Scotland so much higher than some other Atlantic areas that also have high R1b. And Norway is higher in ANE than many areas that have higher R1a and R1 totals.
 
That's a fascinating map, but I'm not sure how to interpret it. The amount of ANE doesn't seem to correspond very well to the levels of R1a and R1b across Europe.

It would correspond much better to R1a+R1b if ANE was divided by WHG, because much of WHG hunter-gatherers already had ANE, especially in Scandinavia and NE-Europe. ANE in NW-Europe is more of IEan origin, while ANE in NE-Europe is mostly of mesolithic origin, I think. By dividing by WHG, also the Balkans and Italy would appear more prominently ANE, as one would expect from their high West-Asian admixture.
Why England has so much less than Scotland and Ireland I don't know either. Maybe it's the french admixture in English? But again, since Scots have also more WHG than the English, it would even out a bit when divided by WHG I guess.

EDIT: When I say ANE/WHG I actually mean ANE/(ANE+WHG), which would be math. more correct.
 
The peak in Hungarians suggests that their steppe legacy is still present. Despite, or because of that, they appear relatively close to NW-Europeans in PCA plots (same distance to east europeans), considering their eastern geography.
 
I have just noticed some inconsistencies in the ANE frequencies for the North Caucasus. I used this data from Eurogenes for the Caucasus (and other regions not covered by Lazaridis et al.). Unfortunately it looks like it could be ANE + WHG and not just ANE. LeBrok pasted here the data of someone who calculated the admixtures by applying the WHG-EEF-ANE calc to the Eurogenes K13, and it turns out that the Lezgins are 13% ANE and 13% WHG, not 26% ANE. Since both data sets are from Eurogenes, I don't know which is correct. I would rather think the 13% + 13% as otherwise North Caucasians end up with close to 0% WHG, which is odd for a European region that was often invaded by northerners.
 
Regarding fair hair it's wrong for Sicily.
Sicily have much more blondism than Sardinia in every anthropological studies and it's not even the less fair hair part of Italy.
Maps of Ridolfo Livi.
6mAO5w9.gif

BSjlSNW.jpg

2dyWR4i.jpg

4ulG1G2.jpg
 
Year 2014 is drawing to a close and I was hoping to finish the ANE and WHG maps by the end of the year. Here is the first one.

This map compares the genes of modern people to the DNA of a Central Siberian mammoth hunter (known as MA-1), who lived 24,000 years ago and belonged to Y-DNA haplogroup R* and mtDNA haplogroup U*. The Paleolithic sample was tested by Raghavan et al. (2014). This admixture was absent from Mesolithic European samples, except in Scandinavia and Eastern Europe, and was completely absent from all Neolithic European samples tested to date. It is thought to have been spread across Europe and the Middle East by the Proto-Indo-Europeans (Y-haplogroups R1a and R1b) from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe, and to a lower extent also by Uralic people (Finns, Estonians, Magyars) and Turkic people (Avars, Bulgars, Khazars, Kurds, Turks). The ANE admixture is particularly common today among North Caucasian and Volga-Ural ethnicities, who live in regions strongly associated with the development of Proto-Indo-European cultures in the Early Bronze Age. Within Europe, the highest percentages of ANE admixture are observed among the Lezgins (26.5%), Chechens (26%), North Ossetians (23.5%) Kumyks (23.5%), and Adyghei (22.5%). Frequencies of over 20% of R1b have been found among the Lezgins, Kumyks and North Ossetians.

The Sardinians have the lowest percentage of ANE (4%), which is in agreement with the fact that the island was bypassed by the Indo-European migrations and that Sardinians still spoke a non-Indo-European language until the Roman conquest some 2,000 years ago. Sardinians also have the lowest incidence of fair hair in Europe (along with Sicilians). The 18% of R1b in Sardinia was probably brought mostly by the Romans and subsequent immigrations from mainland Italy, and to a lower extent by the Vandals and the Goths. This explains the non-null percentage of ANE, which is only 1/5 of the R1b percentage.





N.B. : It would be interesting to get ANE percentages for Bosnia-Herzegovina and Montenegro. Considering the low percentage of R1a and R1b, I would expect it to be lower than in surrounding countries. Unfortunately I couldn't find any data.


EDIT : I have just noticed some inconsistencies in the ANE frequencies for the North Caucasus. I used this data from Eurogenes for the Caucasus (and other regions not covered by Lazaridis et al.). Unfortunately it looks like it could be ANE + WHG and not just ANE. LeBrok pasted here the data of someone who calculated the admixtures by applying the WHG-EEF-ANE calc to the Eurogenes K13, and it turns out that the Lezgins are 13% ANE and 13% WHG, not 26% ANE. Since both data sets are from Eurogenes, I don't know which is correct. I would rather think the 13% + 13% as otherwise North Caucasians end up with close to 0% WHG, which is odd for a European region that was often invaded by northerners.

Very interesting. One thing puzzles me, however. Where in Lazaridis are the regions in Spain identified which correspond to the figures for "Northern Spain". From reading the paper it appeared to me that the region comprised Catalonia, and the northern strip contiguous to the west, but perhaps I missed it.

As for the Caucasus problem, I'm afraid that combining figures from Lazaridis and Eurogenes is a bit problematical for me, not least because the Eurogenes figures change from iteration to iteration.

Ed. Also, is the darker strip along the Alps meant to represent Bergamo? From the table in Lazaridis, Bergamo is .108 for ANE, and Toscana .118. Sicily, of course, is .097.

attachment.php
 
It would correspond much better to R1a+R1b if ANE was divided by WHG, because much of WHG hunter-gatherers already had ANE, especially in Scandinavia and NE-Europe. ANE in NW-Europe is more of IEan origin, while ANE in NE-Europe is mostly of mesolithic origin, I think. By dividing by WHG, also the Balkans and Italy would appear more prominently ANE, as one would expect from their high West-Asian admixture.
Why England has so much less than Scotland and Ireland I don't know either. Maybe it's the french admixture in English? But again, since Scots have also more WHG than the English, it would even out a bit when divided by WHG I guess.

EDIT: When I say ANE/WHG I actually mean ANE/(ANE+WHG), which would be math. more correct.

I think you (and Aberdeen) are addressing an important issue. Just to point out another situation in which there is a discrepancy, let's consider the situation of the Tuscans. I don't know what the ancient Dna will, in the end, show. However, let's assume for the moment that there was some significant gene flow from Anatolia in the first millennium BC. I don't have it at my fingertips, but I have posted a map of J2a M67, which does show a hot spot in the Caucasus and a secondary one in Toscana. Then look at the ANE values in that area. How could the Tuscans have only .118 ANE when they were also affected by Indo-European migrations, which supposedly were high in ANE? (Even if the "Etruscans' didn't carry it, the Romans certainly did, and they totally mixed.) It just doesn't hang together. Perhaps, in that case, there just wasn't a significant migration. However, the larger point remains.

I am increasingly leaning toward the view that ANE=Indo-European in Europe is much too simplistic. As you say, in the north east I think a good amount, if not the majority of it, has very little to do with the Indo-Europeans. In fact, I'm not even so sure that all of it in places like Scotland is Indo-European in origin if we're speaking strictly of the people of Yamnaya in 4,000-3,000 BC.
 
I think you (and Aberdeen) are addressing an important issue. Just to point out another situation in which there is a discrepancy, let's consider the situation of the Tuscans. I don't know what the ancient Dna will, in the end, show. However, let's assume for the moment that there was some significant gene flow from Anatolia in the first millennium BC. I don't have it at my fingertips, but I have posted a map of J2a M67, which does show a hot spot in the Caucasus and a secondary one in Toscana. Then look at the ANE values in that area. How could the Tuscans have only .118 ANE when they were also affected by Indo-European migrations, which supposedly were high in ANE? (Even if the "Etruscans' didn't carry it, the Romans certainly did, and they totally mixed.) It just doesn't hang together. Perhaps, in that case, there just wasn't a significant migration. However, the larger point remains.

I am increasingly leaning toward the view that ANE=Indo-European in Europe is much too simplistic. As you say, in the north east I think a good amount, if not the majority of it, has very little to do with the Indo-Europeans. In fact, I'm not even so sure that all of it in places like Scotland is Indo-European in origin if we're speaking strictly of the people of Yamnaya in 4,000-3,000 BC.

I agree with what you're saying, except for the lack of evidence of ANE among pre-IE Europeans. And since MA1 (who was R) is near the origin point of ANE, to the point that we can say MA1=ANE even though he had no direct descendants, I would think that the further back one goes the more ANE should correspond with R but the first R1b in Europe is Bell Beaker and the first R1a is Europe is Corded Ware. I wonder if those samples had ANE - they should, although the interesting thing about Corded Ware is that the oldest samples we have are I-J rather than R, which came later.
 
I've just ran the Eurogenes ANE K7 test on GEDmatch, it appears I'm veeeeery slightly above the average of the part of northern Italy where my ancestors were from: I'm 10.28% ANE, vs an average 7.5-10%.
 
I've just ran the Eurogenes ANE K7 test on GEDmatch, it appears I'm veeeeery slightly above the average of the part of northern Italy where my ancestors were from: I'm 10.28% ANE, vs an average 7.5-10%.

The numbers will change depending on the run. There's an ANE 8 coming from what I understand, and there were others before it. For these figures to be correct for northern Italy the number of Indo-Europeans who made it over the Alps would have to be very small or the Indo-Europeans weren't very ANE heavy by the time they made it to central Europe.

Ed. My results on the ANE 7 at Gedmatch are almost 10%. My maternal half must have some quasi-Tuscan ancestry, which could perhaps explain a slight uptick, since according to Lazaridis Tuscans have a smidgeon more ANE, but that wouldn't explain your case.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1x8pm8sVcHqceiNFJMO082kxaBF5ePr4__bAK05VQRFw/edit?pli=1#gid=62882571

 
I agree with what you're saying, except for the lack of evidence of ANE among pre-IE Europeans. And since MA1 (who was R) is near the origin point of ANE, to the point that we can say MA1=ANE even though he had no direct descendants, I would think that the further back one goes the more ANE should correspond with R but the first R1b in Europe is Bell Beaker and the first R1a is Europe is Corded Ware. I wonder if those samples had ANE - they should, although the interesting thing about Corded Ware is that the oldest samples we have are I-J rather than R, which came later.

I suppose it doesn't make much sense to keep on speculating about these things since we should very soon have some ancient genomes which will hopefully clarify things a bit.. (That's actually why I've taken a bit of a break from it recently.) We need to see these Yamnaya genomes and how and when they changed over time, and the Corded Ware ones, hopefully pre and post the Yamnaya influence. I'd like to see some from the far north east in particular. I still think that the modern map of Europe genetically, at least other than in south central and southwestern Europe, owes something even to historic era migrations. The effect of the "Slavic" era migrations in the Balkans, for one, is undeniable.

Perhaps I'll be proven wrong, but I believe, as I have for years, that most of these formulations, whether they are genetics based or based on archaeology or linguistics seem to start with a premise or bias or what somebody wrote in the late 1800's or even earlier, and then the data is sort of massaged or forced to fit into one model or another. I don't think there's anything nefarious about it on the part of most people, I hasten to add: they are doing it unconsciously, I think, but that's how it appears to me.

I had thought the genetics analysis would be free of this sort of thing since genetics is a "harder" science, but I'm not finding that to be the case necessarily. In fact, it may be even more agenda driven on the part of hobbyists. Plus, most of the people interested in the genetics side of the issue seem to think that archaeology doesn't matter, and it does. The disciplines have to be in sync or the solution isn't persuasive, in my opinion.

That's why we get these pat, simplistic models, when the reality is much more complex, and spread out further in time.
 
I understand why you're saying that there's no point in speculating without enough data, Angela, but I have a question for those of you who actually understand how the percentage of ANE, WHG and EEF are calculated in various populations. Is it based solely on Y DNA, does it include mtDNA or is it sometimes calculated differently for different populations? Because since WHG didn't include any Y DNA R, it can't have contributed to the high ANE levels in northern populations that have a lot of WHG if ANE is based only on Y DNA. But if the calculation of ANE in various populations is partly based on mtDNA, that's the connection, since MA1 and the Loschbour samples were mtDNA U. However, being a scientific illiterate, I don't know whether that's relevant. If not, the high levels of ANE across northern Europe will remain difficult to explain even when the paper on IE haplotypes is released, IMO.
 
I am increasingly leaning toward the view that ANE=Indo-European in Europe is much too simplistic. As you say, in the north east I think a good amount, if not the majority of it, has very little to do with the Indo-Europeans. In fact, I'm not even so sure that all of it in places like Scotland is Indo-European in origin if we're speaking strictly of the people of Yamnaya in 4,000-3,000 BC.

Maybe not all of ANE in Scotland is IEan, but mesolithic samples from east (Scandinavia) had less ANE than contemp. Scots, and La Brana and Loschbourg from the south had none. So a decent part in Scots must be of different origin. Also they consistently show West-Asian admixture in most calculators, which was completely absent in all hunter-gatherers so far.

What I don't understand is how is it possible that south-eastern europe has so low ANE while having highest 'West-Asian' (or alike) in all calculators. West-Asian should contain 1/3 ANE.
For example Bulgaria had one of the highest 'Caucasus' admixture (~30%) in Europe, yet in this map the Turks are the ones who have high ANE but neighbouring Bulgarians have even less then central and north Europe. I can't make sense of it. I know that ANE does not imply West-Asian, but West-Asian should always imply some ANE.

I agree that ANE=Indo-European is too simplistic, especially when I look at southern europe. but for the rest it is still consistent.

I'll keep making bets about these things because it makes fun. If I'm wrong, I will survive it :).
 
I understand why you're saying that there's no point in speculating without enough data, Angela, but I have a question for those of you who actually understand how the percentage of ANE, WHG and EEF are calculated in various populations. Is it based solely on Y DNA, does it include mtDNA or is it sometimes calculated differently for different populations? Because since WHG didn't include any Y DNA R, it can't have contributed to the high ANE levels in northern populations that have a lot of WHG if ANE is based only on Y DNA. But if the calculation of ANE in various populations is partly based on mtDNA, that's the connection, since MA1 and the Loschbour samples were mtDNA U. However, being a scientific illiterate, I don't know whether that's relevant. If not, the high levels of ANE across northern Europe will remain difficult to explain even when the paper on IE haplotypes is released, IMO.


Well, we know how it was done in Lazaridis et al. They compared three sets of genomes of ancient samples to modern Europeans. So, it was a total genome comparison.

As to the correlation between yDna and autosomal composition, I've been surprised at how little actually exists in some situations. I think there is more correlation with mtDna, but I don't think it's an easily quantifiable correlation there either. How much is down to founder effect in virtually empty territory, to selective pressures, to just chance operating in bottlenecked isolated populations? The study on Icelandic mtDna showed how some lineages can be lost in small populations. In terms of the autosomes, I was struck by the population figures that were given in that paper about Viking dna. The population in Sweden was extremely small before the Neolithic, and then was decimated once again. How was selection operating in that situation, or just sheer chance?.

I think this is yet another area where we just don't know enough yet to reach really definitive conclusions. As someone once famously said, there are the known knowns, the known unknowns, and then, most difficult of all, the unknown unknowns.

As for the ANE levels in particular, I think we need, as I said, some high quality genomes from far northeastern and northern Europe from various time periods and cultures. Even then, it may be difficult. Wasn't there some rumor coming out of Reich and company that they were having a hard time quantifying the precise amount of ANE in the ancient Karelian? If they're having a difficult time, I wouldn't put money on any particular figures just yet. Then, who knows what the model will look like when we get an actual Near Eastern farmer from a very early time period? It's only actual ancient Dna that will provide the answers, and even then it may not be all that cut and dried.

Still, that's a good thing, in a way, if I may speak personally. If we have all the answers right away, this will get really boring, really fast. The only thing that keeps me interested is the fact that it's such a puzzle. :)
 
Maybe not all of ANE in Scotland is IEan, but mesolithic samples from east (Scandinavia) had less ANE than contemp. Scots, and La Brana and Loschbourg from the south had none. So a decent part in Scots must be of different origin. Also they consistently show West-Asian admixture in most calculators, which was completely absent in all hunter-gatherers so far.

What I don't understand is how is it possible that south-eastern europe has so low ANE while having highest 'West-Asian' (or alike) in all calculators. West-Asian should contain 1/3 ANE.
For example Bulgaria had one of the highest 'Caucasus' admixture (~30%) in Europe, yet in this map the Turks are the ones who have high ANE but neighbouring Bulgarians have even less then central and north Europe. I can't make sense of it. I know that ANE does not imply West-Asian, but West-Asian should always imply some ANE.

I agree that ANE=Indo-European is too simplistic, especially when I look at southern europe. but for the rest it is still consistent.

I'll keep making bets about these things because it makes fun. If I'm wrong, I will survive it :).

What a sensible post! Well, of course I would think it's sensible, since I agree with almost all of it. :)

Where I would differ is that if it doesn't work for southern Europe, more than half of the population of Europe as a whole (?), then there are some gaps in our understanding of these matters.
 
Maybe not all of ANE in Scotland is IEan, but mesolithic samples from east (Scandinavia) had less ANE than contemp. Scots, and La Brana and Loschbourg from the south had none. So a decent part in Scots must be of different origin. Also they consistently show West-Asian admixture in most calculators, which was completely absent in all hunter-gatherers so far.

What I don't understand is how is it possible that south-eastern europe has so low ANE while having highest 'West-Asian' (or alike) in all calculators. West-Asian should contain 1/3 ANE.
For example Bulgaria had one of the highest 'Caucasus' admixture (~30%) in Europe, yet in this map the Turks are the ones who have high ANE but neighbouring Bulgarians have even less then central and north Europe. I can't make sense of it. I know that ANE does not imply West-Asian, but West-Asian should always imply some ANE.

I agree that ANE=Indo-European is too simplistic, especially when I look at southern europe. but for the rest it is still consistent.

I'll keep making bets about these things because it makes fun. If I'm wrong, I will survive it :).

Okay, so if the entire geonome was used to calculate ANE, look at the mtDNA information for Loschbour and Mal'ta and explain to me how Loschbour could have no ANE?
 
What a sensible post! Well, of course I would think it's sensible, since I agree with almost all of it. :)

Where I would differ is that if it doesn't work for southern Europe, more than half of the population of Europe as a whole (?), then there are some gaps in our understanding of these matters.

I was unprecise, sorry. It actually also works for southern europe to some extent, especially when we compare with Sardinia. There are just some flaws. And it is good to know that there might have been problems in determining the precise amount ANE in ancient Karelians. I'll better not put too much money on the table yet.
 
Okay, so if the entire geonome was used to calculate ANE, look at the mtDNA information for Loschbour and Mal'ta and explain to me how Loschbour could have no ANE?

Wait, you think that mtDNA is part of the entire genome? I always thought whole genome refers to autosomal DNA only.
 
Maybe not all of ANE in Scotland is IEan, but mesolithic samples from east (Scandinavia) had less ANE than contemp. Scots, and La Brana and Loschbourg from the south had none. So a decent part in Scots must be of different origin. Also they consistently show West-Asian admixture in most calculators, which was completely absent in all hunter-gatherers so far.

What I don't understand is how is it possible that south-eastern europe has so low ANE while having highest 'West-Asian' (or alike) in all calculators. West-Asian should contain 1/3 ANE.

The West Asian admixture also dates from the Bronze Age. The R1b branch of the Indo-Europeans carried a small but significant percentage (along with what was labelled as East European, West European and Gedrosian in Dodecad). This is obvious from looking at the West Eurasian admixtures found among North Asians (Altaians, Mongols) who possess both R1a and R1b, but otherwise only Mongoloid haplogroups. It makes sense since R1b domesticated cattle in West Asia and absorbed a minority of West Asian lineages, especially mtDNA J1b1a, which I found to be the maternal lineage most strongly correlated with the spread of all R1b subclades (even V88) since the Neolithic. After that, R1b people integrated a small number of Y-DNA G2a3b1 and J2b2, who probably migrated from the Balkans/Carpathians to the Pontic Steppe and North Caucasus before the Indo-European migrations started. So yes, some West Asian is Indo-European. I think that 10% of West Asian admixture is a reasonable estimate for the Proto-Indo-European R1b branch by the time they reached Germany (c. 2500 BCE).

Greeks and Italians have more West Asian because of the later Bronze Age expansion from Anatolia to Greece (Minoans), then the Etruscan and Greek colonisation of Italy. The Balkans have more West Asian because of higher Neolithic ancestry, but also because of the Greek, Roman, and latter Byzantine and Turkish influences.

For example Bulgaria had one of the highest 'Caucasus' admixture (~30%) in Europe, yet in this map the Turks are the ones who have high ANE but neighbouring Bulgarians have even less then central and north Europe. I can't make sense of it. I know that ANE does not imply West-Asian, but West-Asian should always imply some ANE.

I agree that ANE=Indo-European is too simplistic, especially when I look at southern europe. but for the rest it is still consistent.

I'll keep making bets about these things because it makes fun. If I'm wrong, I will survive it :).

The Caucasian admixture from Dodecad is essentially Neolithic. Bulgarians don't have less than their neighbours.

ANE is more similar to the Gedrosian admixture, although both are quite distinct. The Gedrosian admixture only seem to include very old components of R1b shared with Kalash-like people in South Asia. ANE encompasses all haplogroup R (R1a, R1b and R2), but also some nearby haplogroups (N, O, Q). It's still a work in progress. The true Proto-Indo-European admixture hasn't been identified yet. If we look only at Europe, the Gedrosian correlates with R1b, while ANE correlates with R1b, R1a and N1c.

ANE being the DNA from the Siberian Mal'ta boy, it shouldn't have any West Asian admixture. Its purely Siberian/Eurasian, linked to Y-DNA macro-haplogroup N, O, P Q, R.

West Asian means haplogroups G, J1, J2 and T.

Gedrosian apparently mixes R1b, R2, L and T. I think it only represents the West/South Asian admixture that R1b picked up between the Late Paleolithic and the Early Neolithic, when R1b tribes lived around Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Iran, Azerbaijan, Armenia and Kurdistan. They domesticated cattle in eastern Anatolia around 8,500 BCE, then crossed over the Caucasus to make use the vast extent of grassland for their herds. That's where they came into contact with R1a hunters who already lived there, but lacked the Gedrosian admixture as they migrated to Eastern Europe straight from Siberia and instead picked up Palaeolithic European genes (including blue eyes).
 

This thread has been viewed 75687 times.

Back
Top