That sounds bizarre. Any evidence to back this up? We are talking about two different corners of the continent here. Maybe you confuse it with North Asian (Siberian) that Finns have?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadu
Printable View
That sounds bizarre. Any evidence to back this up? We are talking about two different corners of the continent here. Maybe you confuse it with North Asian (Siberian) that Finns have?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadu
Because of where they peak.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Well, but Caucasoid is much broader than European. Im talking about the specific european components, such as West Euro, East Euro, South Euro,etc. they all peak in European populations.Quote:
Obviously, it's not as simple as that. There are overlaps, and West Asian is present in most of Europe as a minority element, so it's nothing strange or foreign really. It is common knowledge that other Caucasoids like Iranians, Assyrians etc are closely related to Europeans - and one can see it phenotypically in many of them as well. Overall they are all part of the Caucasoid race, including Europeans.
So if the R1a haplogroup peaks in India, it is Asian? Or E necessarily African? It's not as simple as that, merely convenient for you to assert this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iberia
No, no, just look the fst distances of the last Dodecad runsQuote:
Originally Posted by Loki
V3
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Pw7x-HD7ON.../s1600/fst.png
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-P2GJvQzlQW.../s1600/1_2.png
V2
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PmjCGIHFti.../s1600/Fst.png
Yes, the R1a was born in Central Asia actually.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
That doesn't even have Northern European.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadu
The Western European component peaks in Ireland and Norway, that's pretty much Northern Europe to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I see what you mean now, but it still seems bizarre to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadu
Conversely, if West Asian is so closely related to Northern European, it weakens Iberia's argument.
It's very clear the pattern followed :
http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg42/...gif&res=medium
Thus, part and parcel of what we know as Europe. Without it Europeans wouldn't exist, save for perhaps the Basques.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iberia
Norwegians, Finnish, Lithuanians, Polish, Belarussians, etc. have also less than 4% of WAQuote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I wasn't trying to strenghten his argument but to help you understand your results. Regarding the closeness between the North European and West Asian components it's just a pattern that I've been seeing in every single run.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
From "how to create zombies"
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YzwPd_v6xN.../s1600/1_2.png
"K=12 for selected participants"
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-po3ry04KyL...MIXTURE_12.png
"K=11 for selected participants"
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2cIeCsZrY6...MIXTURE_11.png
Or even the basic Dodecad V1
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_UOHFTxL-bO...s1600/dist.png
It doesn't mean a thing. The Scandinavians have 0% Southern European. They're more isolated. But the majority of Europeans have a WA component that is larger than that. They're still Europeans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iberia
Yes I know, thanks. It's just a coincidence that it weakens Iberia's argument on West Asians. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Kadu
Im not saying they are not europeans. They are still 80-90% european without west-asian.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
No, it still doesn't establish where the origin of west-asian is. But it's pretty clear looking at the map I posted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Where the geographical origin is doesn't really matter. If it did, we are all Africans since humans originated there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iberia
The fact that West Asian is close to Northern European (as Kadu coincidentally pointed out) should tell you something.
Ok, let's imagine now for a moment that West-Asian is European. That would mean, doing a (West Euro + East Euro + West Asia + Med) score that :
- Georgians more european than Germans, British, French, Dutch, Scandinavians, Irish, Hungarians, Finnish, etc.
But, oh !, surpisingly Georgians they don't even cluster with europeans on genetic PCA plots, they cluster with Turks, Iranians, Armenians,etc :
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_6XAIk6ygt...s1600/waeu.png
How does this logic work? I don't see the implication.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iberia
They are still closely related to Europeans on this plot. For example, Georgians seem as far away to Spaniards as Spaniards are away from Russians.Quote:
But, oh !, surpisingly Georgians they don't even cluster with europeans on genetic PCA plots, they cluster with Turks, Iranians, Armenians,etc :
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_6XAIk6ygt...s1600/waeu.png
Human DNA today is different that when humans came out of Africa, otherwise all these autosomal differences between populations wouldn't exist, So it's irrelevant to the matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
But if you see the european scores inlcuding West-Asian that I made above, they should be clustering with Germans or Polish, since they have more European than them (if we consider West Asian as European, that is).Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
You are aware of the fact that Georgia is technically in Europe geographically? Thus, this West Asian element is found in highest proportions within Europe!Quote:
Originally Posted by Iberia
It's far too easy for you to plainly categorise West Asian as automatically non-European. A lot of West Asian types came to Europe a long time ago before the Arabs expanded outside their peninsula. Undoubtedly, modern Syrians and others who peak in West Asian absorbed the original West Asians.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iberia
I think West Asian can be separated into two categories. One old pre-Islam, pre-Turkic West Asia and other post-Turkic, post-Islam West Asia. If we go by this system then we can confirm Europeans who carry some West Asian belong to the pre-Islam, pre-Turkic West Asia category and others such as Syrians, Turks, Iranians and Azeris belong to the latter category.
Paleo-West Asians clearly was much more similar to current Europeans in genes and phenotypical makeup otherwise we'd see a lot more foreign-looking Europeans today alike to modern West Asians that are largely composed of Arabs and Turkics. I think we can recognise West Asian as something that is much older with Iranian origins since the areas West Asian peaks in used to be dominated by various Iranian peoples such as Scythians, Persians, etc.
No, the highest proportions are not within Europe, more likely in theQuote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Iranian Plateau :
http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg42/...gif&res=medium
If my eyes are not failing me yet, Iran shows 49% ... whereas 63%, 65% and 72% seem to be north of the Caucasus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iberia
I'm not sure you can compare it directly anyway and as you can see, the "West Asian" in the Dodecad runs varies a lot as well, depending on reference, samples, admixture program mode etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
These components appear out of Europe too and are closest related to West Asian, especially West European, which is probably, if there is something real behind it, the "colonisation event" from different directions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iberia
So there would be a more ancient (included in West European) and a more recent (independent) West Asian influence, since the West Asian core region is also part of the Europid core per se.
This makes it even more important and closer related, because of this colonisation eventS.
Also, like I said, the other components ARE NOT exclusively European, they appear in various other populations too.
The Lebanese for example have 28,8 "Mediterranean" and West-East is present too. "Mediterranean" is therefore the 2nd biggest (after WA) component in them.
Jordanians have 26,9 too, it is the biggest component in Morocco Jews with 35,4 - even the Yemenese have it at 15,7.
The biggest difference between some of this populations as West Asians and Europeans is rather not the ancestry primarily, but the time in between, because after the colonisations eventS there came both new migrations/genflow AND different selective regimes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iberia
For example I wouldn't wonder if the remains of Çatalhöyük would be closest to the West Asian component, but also very close to Western European.
Now if looking at the remains of some of the Tells related to this movements and influences, what you see are quite often (Proto-)Mediterranoid variants, sometimes Alpinoid in between.
That's what dominated the region for quite some time, until new migrations, changing climates and selective trends changed the racial character of the regions in question, I'm speaking primarily of the "Armenoidisation". If you look at what is left of regional Mediterranids and Alpinoids f.e., they look often quite European/Euro-like. The main difference, racially, is the "Armenoidisation" and secondly new foreign influences, especially Orientalid and Mongoloid.
The Lebanese, Turks and Georgians which are not affected by this newer influences, look often quite European - racially, typologically, they are European actually.
So it is not the origin, but what happened AFTER that, which made the difference. Those going to Europe mixed with European locals and had a different development, including Nordisation and Dinarisation for example, those staying behind came under the influences mentioned for the region...
Parts of Central Asia were, that's the opinion of various authors at least and mine too, earlier inhabited by fully Europid people than most of Europe.Quote:
Yes, the R1a was born in Central Asia actually.
After all, one should keep in mind that ALL European elements had to enter the continent at some point of time, and most did so over Anatolia-Caucasus-Central Asia obviously...
Northern Europe, to point that out, was largely uninhabited during the last Ice Age, so the question always remains when and from where the new colonisers came after it. From what we know there were waves of colonisers from DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS at DIFFERENT TIMES and the position of Western European would reflect that perfectly, again, like mentioned before, with a major more ancient WA-related component INCLUDED.
A lot of other Europeans have practically no Eastern European...Quote:
Norwegians, Finnish, Lithuanians, Polish, Belarussians, etc. have also less than 4% of WA
Notice that these two components are pretty much some of the most distant ones in the European context and among the major components.
The question remains how old this differences are. Obviously there was relative isolation for thousands of years, after the colonisation events took place.Quote:
But, oh !, surpisingly Georgians they don't even cluster with europeans on genetic PCA plots, they cluster with Turks, Iranians, Armenians,etc
Now look at where the Basques or Sardinians are, because of their isolation and now add to that different developments and later influences - and you get what we have.
Genetically humans are still very closely related to each other, but nevertheless in the time IN BETWEEN many changes took place, which can't be all seen if looking at neutral percentages only, and ignoring the results of selection (!) and gendrift (!).Quote:
Human DNA today is different that when humans came out of Africa, otherwise all these autosomal differences between populations wouldn't exist, So it's irrelevant to the matter.
Similar to the case we are talking about.
By the way, that a component peaks NOW in a specific region, doesn't have to mean it originated there!
For example some regions in which NOW R1b or R1a and their variants peak, are not the cradle of that haplogroups.
Also, if you look at Western European, Eastern European, Mediterranean, you don't know for sure where they originated, but only where they peak today and not even that is always so clear, if looking at the distribution.
Probably some later expansions of different components and people carrying it eliminated original cradles of haplotypes and components visible in such admixture-results, you don't know that for sure.
To me the West Asian component of this latest K-12 run of Dienekes is indeed somewhat "less European" but not "non-European", if you get the difference.
That is like it is with blond hair and blue eyes, which is more frequent and exclusive in Europe and insofar dark hair and brown eyes could be considered "less European", since they are shared with non-Europeans to a greater extend, yet it is for sure, without any doubt and for all good reasons surely not "non-European", just less "Europe-specific".
Of course they appear out of Europe, but they peak in Europe, the South European component in the K=10 peaks in Sardinians and Basques, and the mediterranean in the K=12 peaks in Sardinians and North-Italians, there is nothing more european than that. Also, it's important the routes. Was this Southern-Euro imported from outside or exported outside ? The west-asian component seems clearly to have been introduced in Europe from the Caucasus/Iranian Plateau.Quote:
Originally Posted by Agrippa
yes, but that's the only european part they have. Otherwise, Lebanese would be 70% european, which is ridiculous. There has never been a massive presence of Europeans in the Levant. Also, the Morocco Jews have REAL european admixture, since some of them were sephardites expelled from Iberia.Quote:
The Lebanese for example have 28,8 "Mediterranean" and West-East is present too. "Mediterranean" is therefore the 2nd biggest (after WA) component in them.
Jordanians have 26,9 too, it is the biggest component in Morocco Jews with 35,4 - even the Yemenese have it at 15,7.
Caucasian you mean, not European. Genetically they don't cluster with Europeans.Quote:
The Lebanese, Turks and Georgians which are not affected by this newer influences, look often quite European, racially, typologically, they are European actually.
That's not true, there is no isolation. See the surrounding areas of the Caucasus (Iranian plateau) have also very high levels of WA. And the surrounding areas of Basques, are genetically similar to them.Quote:
The question remains how old this differences are. Obviously there was relative isolation for thousands of years, after the colonisation events took place.
Now look at where the Basques or Sardinians are, because of their isolation and now add to that different developments and later influences - and you get what we have.
It's even more interesting to see the Kazakh persons results in Eurogenes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Iberia
NE Baltic: 32.4%
N Atlantic: 22.4%
S European: 11%
That's because Georgians & Europeans have been in isolation after the ancient west Asian/North European split. Since then, both west Asians & North Europeans have drifted away from each other and formed their own distinct genetic groups - groups that Dodecad & Eurogenes still have trouble differentiating because they are so similar to one another.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iberia
Yes but most west Asian in central Asia came via. Neolithic farmers like the BMAC and after that with the Islamic expansions into the area. It's difficult to say how much west Asian the original Indo-European invaders into Asia carried, but looking at Mongolia is a good clue, since neither Neolithic farmers or Arabs could or would want to penetrate that far into barren Mongolia. Also, Mongols still have more east + west European than they do west Asian, so the Afanasevo people were largely east + west European with some west Asian.Quote:
Originally Posted by Apotheosis
Polish are isolated ? Spaniards isolated ? Lithuanians ? Geographically British or Irish are more isolated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
That's not so ridiculous at all, many Lebanese could pass for Southern Europeans. 70% is a low figure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iberia
Irrelevant, because Indo-Europeans themselves (or their forebears) migrated from Asia into Europe anyway. So we are talking about progenitors of Europeans, not necessarily modern Europeans who have settled there.Quote:
There has never been a massive presence of Europeans in the Levant.
So ? You are telling me the reason we are genetically different, but it's not the point, Africans are also different because of thousands of years of isolation. The point is that difference, and why West-Asia can't be considered as European.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bastarnae
All these are on either the western or northern fringes of Europe, so yes they are isolated from the West Asian component. Just as Spaniards have almost no Eastern European component because they're too far away from them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iberia
Everything "was imported", the question is not whether it came from outside, but WHEN!Quote:
Also, it's important the routes. Was this Southern-Euro imported from outside or exported outside ? The west-asian component seems clearly to have been introduced in Europe from the Caucasus/Iranian Plateau.
And you can't know for sure when "Mediterranean" came from outside - always thinking about the fact, that this is the result of an admixture run, probably there is something like ancestral component behind it, probably NOT.
Or probably a component which peaks now in Georgians or Iran, but came from somewhere else and transformed in Europe in something different for the most part, like "Western European".
You see it the wrong way, because the pre-Semitic Eastern Mediterranean people in ancient times were MUCH CLOSER to Europeans by default and elements related to them entered Europe on a most likely MASSIVE SCALE in Neolithic times.Quote:
yes, but that's the only european part they have. Otherwise, Lebanese would be 70% european, which is ridiculous. There has never been a massive presence of Europeans in the Levant. Also, the Morocco Jews have REAL european admixture, since some of them were sephardites expelled from Iberia.
If they wouldn't have changed that much in between or changed in a simlar way as Europeans, they would still be Europeans - but as things are, they did change, racially, genetically, culturally - for various reasons, some mentioned above, yet individually many still prove the now more distant, but still present, relatedness.
Yet the Basques and Sardinians often get their own distant clusters, sometimes even further aways from other Europeans than some non-Europeans, in various genetic analysis.Quote:
That's not true, there is no isolation. See the surrounding areas of the Caucasus (Iranian plateau) have also very high levels of WA. And the surrounding areas of Basques, are genetically similar to them.
And of course, I spoke of relative isolation, which means there was no constant genflow going from the Caucasus-Anatolia to Northern Europe. There was most likely one or more MAJOR events of such kinds, during the Mesolithic and Neolithic colonisation periods in particular, but afterwards the isolation by distance worked out and from a certain time on, other factors, including languages and culture, helped to increase the distance.
Isn't it interesting that the Basques are often in their own cluster and being oftentimes used as reference for "the West" - now the Caucasians are linguistically largely isolated too, some even proposed ancient links to the Basques, but the crucial point is: They were not part of the later Indo-European story.
I wouldn't wonder if a major reason for the West Asian component as it is visible especially in the latest runs is the prominent position of the Caucasian relative isolates as representative of a more general West Asian base.
These relative isolates seem to define themselves, whereas others being defined BY THEM in such admixture runs.
That is often a problem it seems...
Here is an example of how extremes can affect the whole result:
http://bga101.blogspot.com/2011/06/e...-update-1.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by Polako
The WA in the Dodecad K-12 results seems to be pretty balanced, but still one has to keep in mind their special history and I really doubt the origin was in the Caucasus anyway, but rather it is where it was best preserved...
well, that's your opinion, they don't look european to me, but that's irrelevant now. Being 70% european is equivalent of having a full european father and a half european mother. I don't see all that europeanness honestly. Where are all the most frequent european haplogroups ? I think we are confusing term, european with Caucasoid. Are they Caucasoid ? Sure, and probably more than 95%, but european-wise they are about 30%, mostly from the Mediterranean component, which peaks in North-Italians and Sardinians.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
We don't even know if the indo-european presence was MASSIVE in Europe.Quote:
Irrelevant, because Indo-Europeans themselves (or their forebears) migrated from Asia into Europe anyway. So we are talking about progenitors of Europeans, not necessarily modern Europeans who have settled there.
It's irrelevant the When. What it's important, is the alleles frequency which peak in certain populations, see the Europeans at Behar et al. :Quote:
Originally Posted by Agrippa
http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/2415/behar.jpg
What pre-Semitic people ? What makes you believes the populations have changed in the now semitic areas ? Sounds to me like a fairy tale.Quote:
You see it the wrong way, because the pre-Semitic Eastern Mediterranean people in ancient times were MUCH CLOSER to Europeans by default and elements related to them entered Europe on a most likely MASSIVE SCALE in Neolithic times.
Sorry, that's all fantasy. There is no reason to believe that Ancient West-Asians where a different population than now.Quote:
If they wouldn't have changed that much in between or changed in a simlar way as Europeans, they would still be Europeans - but as things are, they did change, racially, genetically, culturally - for various reasons, some mentioned above, yet individually many still prove the now more distant, but still present, relatedness.
That's because we don't have in-between populations to fill the gaps, that's why they seem to look isolated. If we were to include surrounding areas we would see a continuum.Quote:
Yet the Basques and Sardinians often get their own distant clusters, sometimes even further aways from other Europeans than some non-Europeans, in various genetic analysis.
Lebanese, and other predominantly Muslim Levantine populations, have the least West Asian scores in the entire Near East, Caucasus, and surrounding areas, excluding Arabians (eg Yemeni, Saudis, etc.):Quote:
Originally Posted by Iberia
Population West_Asian
1 Georgians 72.3
2 Lezgins 64.6
3 Adygei 62.9
4 Armenian_D 54
5 Assyrian_D 50.6
6 Iranian_D 49.3
7 Urkarah 47.2
8 Azerbaijan_Jews 43.4
9 Kalash 42.9
10 Kurd 41.8
11 Iraq_Jews 41.3
12 Turkish_D 41.1
13 Druze 40.7
14 Iranian_Jews 40.6
15 Georgia_Jews 38.9
16 Stalskoe 38.9
17 Uzbekistan_Jews 38.4
18 Makrani 35.5
19 Samaritans 35.2
20 Cypriots 35.1
21 Brahui 34.8
22 Balochi 33.6
23 Syrians 33.6
24 Lebanese 32.4
25 Palestinian 30.6
26 Jordanians_19 29.3
Well, im not a robot I was talking out of memory. But yes, the West-Asian is most frequent in the Iranian plateau, as seen in the list.Quote:
Originally Posted by Transhumanist
Yes, but what good are genetics for if you can't infer historical processes from it. E.g. how informative is to know that you have some north African, eastern European affinity or whatever if you can't correlate it to a specifical historical period of time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iberia
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iberia
Code:POP Eeuro Weuro Medit NeoAfr WeAsi Sasian NEAsia SEAsia Eafrica SwAsia NwAfric PalAfri
Dhimmi* populations for ~ 1500 years, save for the Druze
Levant through Mesopotamia
ASY 0.6 0.7 26.7 0.0 49.1 2.9 0.1 0.2 0.0 19.5 0.3 0.0
MAN 0.8 2.4 27.4 0.3 43.0 6.4 0.6 0.0 0.0 19.2 0.0 0.0
IQJ 0.4 2.1 28.2 0.1 41.3 4.4 0.0 0.1 0.7 22.0 0.8 0.0
DRZ 0.4 2.6 31.5 0.4 40.7 0.6 0.1 0.2 1.8 20.0 1.4 0.2
IRJ 0.9 2.7 26.9 0.0 40.6 5.9 0.2 0.2 1.0 20.5 1.0 0.0
SAM 0.1 1.6 32.2 0.2 35.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.9 25.9 2.8 0.0
Levantine Arab Muslims
Levant
SYR 2.3 1.8 23.8 2.2 33.6 3.3 0.5 0.5 1.9 28.4 0.9 0.9
LEB 2.5 1.2 28.8 1.9 32.4 1.4 0.7 1.0 3.1 23.9 2.2 0.9
PAL 0.3 2.3 27.4 2.4 30.6 1.0 0.2 0.3 5.5 24.7 3.9 1.5
JOR 1.0 0.7 26.9 2.3 29.3 1.6 0.4 0.6 4.7 28.7 2.5 1.3
Quote:
*The Status of Non-Muslim Minorities Under Islamic Rule
Dhimmitude: the Islamic system of governing populations conquered by jihad wars, encompassing all of the demographic, ethnic, and religious aspects of the political system. The word "dhimmitude" comes from dhimmi, an Arabic word meaning "protected". Dhimmi was the name applied by the Arab-Muslim conquerors to indigenous non-Muslim populations who surrendered by a treaty (dhimma) to Muslim domination. Islamic conquests expanded over vast territories in Africa, Europe and Asia, for over a millennium (638-1683). The Muslim empire incorporated numerous varied peoples which had their own religion, culture, language and civilization. For centuries, these indigenous, pre-Islamic peoples constituted the great majority of the population of the Islamic lands. Although these populations differed, they were ruled by the same type of laws, based on the shari'a.
Im not saying it's irrelevant from a historical point of view, im saying irrelevant to determine wether something is European or not (European as in a component that peaks in Europe, as in the dark-blue in Behar et al.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadu
West Asian seems to peak just north of the Caucasus, which is technically Europe - by your own map that you posted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iberia