Not at it's root, but it has a significant presence in Europe. I suppose if you had to list major European components and minor European components, you could include West Asian as a minor European component.
Printable View
Not at it's root, but it has a significant presence in Europe. I suppose if you had to list major European components and minor European components, you could include West Asian as a minor European component.
Considering it's found in Europe from Neolithic times....
Asian is just a word. If we say "West Asian" is not European, we are saying people from Barcelona, Athens, and Marseilles may not be fully European.
If you wanna call it West Asian then how about haplogroup N?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashina
it's more widespread in Siberia than Europe, we should call it North Asian right?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._N_(ADN-Y).PNG
Haplogroup N is as common in Northeast Sibera as Northeast Europe. Calling it North EuroAsian would be more logical. But in essence, it's a North Asian haplogroup yes.
However, you can not really compare these to. It's like comparing apples and pears. Haplogroup N already has a name: N. It doesn't need to be renamed as haplogroups are not named after regions, while autosomal components are. There is for example a Baltic component, North European, South Asian etc. These are all named after the regions they peak in. So why would West Asian need to be named differently? To cover up the insecurities of certain Euro nations?
It's all a matter of definition. If having West Asian DNA makes someone less European, then perhaps you should change the definition of European instead of changing the West Asian component. It's extremely eurocentric and egoist to name a part of DNA shared by half of the people in the world to European or something European-related because of the 'damage' it has to the pride of certain European nations/peoples. I mean, the Northern European/Baltic component is also very common in the Caucasus, Central Asia, North Asia and to a lesser extent: West Asia. But does that make those people partial European? Don't think so. Do those people ask to change the name of those components? Nope. So why can't Europeans just accept that a part of their DNA is simply more common outside of Europe?Quote:
Originally Posted by Scholarios Chiotis
You know, we are all people before we are Europeans, West Asians, Middle Easterns etc. I think people should understand that first. Europeans are not different human species that came from a different planet..the same goes for West Asians or whatever people where in the world. People used to move, mix and what more. We are human and we all share DNA.
People like to split components as west and east while the reality is more north and south.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Capelli
But most of Europe has no N at all while as regards Asia it is present in the whole China and as southward as Vietnam, if one looks at that map he cannot avoiding to call it an Asian haplogroup.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashina
Indeed.Quote:
Calling it North EuroAsian would be more logical. But in essence, it's a North Asian haplogroup yes.
Wich are these autosomal strings they have decided to label as "West Asian" then?Quote:
However, you can not really compare these to. It's like comparing apples and pears. Haplogroup N already has a name: N. It doesn't need to be renamed as haplogroups are not named after regions, while autosomal components are. There is for example a Baltic component, North European, South Asian etc. These are all named after the regions they peak in. So why would West Asian need to be named differently? To cover up the insecurities of certain Euro nations?
Since this has seemed to turn into a moan and groan session regarding the 'controversial' West Asian component....
My biggest problem with the 'West Asian' component is that never before in the history of mankind has anyone like a geographer or anthropologist referred to the Caucuses or even Middle East as 'West Asia'.:picard2:
I remember the first time I was telling someone about the 'West Asian' component who never had their DNA analyzed and they confirmed my notion of what I always felt most would feel the term is alluding to who have a sense of Geography: he thought I was referring to territory in present day western Kazakhstan.
What is European to begin with?
Apparently only Mesolithic-Pitted Ware culture aDNA.Quote:
Originally Posted by dandelion
Anything prior to that like the Aurignacian culture is irrelevenat.:rolleyes::picard2:
It doesn't says that.Quote:
Originally Posted by orangepulp
"No need to repeat that these prices are aspects of relations between the Greeks and other populations and not necessarily mean that the Greeks are a mixture of Basque, Sardinians, West Asiats, etc. Just demonstrate that there are eg greater common roots with the peoples of Asia Minor than with the Basques or with Sardinians and other Mediterranean peoples than with those of the Baltic."
http://greekgenetics.blogspot.gr/
It says that we are not a mixture of West Asiats and that we just have, partly, common roots(=same place origin) with the peoples of Asia Minor.
Why is Med component native European?Quote:
Originally Posted by orangepulp
http://www.yourchildlearns.com/onlin...iterranean.gif
Out European
Turks.................Mediterranean.....26,7%
Sephardic Jews....Mediterranean....40,2%
Ashkenazy Jews...Mediterranean....37,5%
Egyptians............Mediterranean....24,3%
Algerian..............Mediterranean....37,6%
Morroccans.........Mediterranean....39,3%
Morocco Jews......Mediterranean....40,8%
Into Europe
North Italian........Mediterranean....46,6%
French................Mediterranean....40,5%
Mixed Germanic....Mediterranean....33,4%
German...............Mediterranean....29,7%
Austrian..............Mediterranean....30,6%
Polish.................Mediterranean.....20,1%
Irish...................Mediterranean.....33,7%
British.................Mediterranean....34,8%
English................Mediterranean.....35,8%
British isles..........Mediterranean.....34,8%
Dutch.................Mediterranean.....33,3%
Swedish..............Mediterranean.....26,1%
Norwegian...........Mediterranean.....28,9%
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...E&pli=1#gid=24
Mediterranean genes extends from Turkey, Israel and north Africa up to Skandinavia, so it seems, according to your logic, that central and north Europe is full of Turkic, Israelitic & African, non-European, Mediterranean blood.
West Asia is in green.
http://i45.tinypic.com/2q0le8z.png
West Asian can be seen as a reference population with a number of different races associated with it. Could the reason Europeans score west Asian be the result of ancient tribes from Anatolia who migrated to Europe? Wasn't Anatolia (west asia) once inhabited by racially Europid people before the arrival of Turkic and Semitic tribes?
Nice map but it has some obvious problems. Why would ethno-geographic boundaries exactly follow modern political boundaries? For example, I would call West Turkestan part of central Asia ("inner" Asia if you prefer).Quote:
Originally Posted by Vojnik
I dunno but it wasn't it generally regarded as being Greek for over a thousand years?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vojnik
Genetic wise Caucasus/West Asian component is the closest or equal distant to north european than atlantic/med
Globe13/K13 fst
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...tUE9kaUE#gid=3
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Xal68HraeT.../s1600/1_2.png
k12b fst
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...DcTZEYlE#gid=1
No absolutely not, if we were to consider turks, iranians, georgians as european and white, we should also start considering assyrians, arabs and pakistanis european.
Even though, armenians seem to be very well integrated, and an interesting society.
I remember this being shown before, that North European is pretty close to West Asian. Interesting stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by MfA_
What are the specific markers labeled as ''West Asian''?
Globe13; Caucasus+GedrosiaQuote:
Originally Posted by Roys
K12b; Caucasus
Yes, it's closest to North Euro component and haves an old historical diffusion into Europe.
How would one know if his/her West Asian is recent or
Neolithic?
No, it's not european. Otherwise some middle-eastern would be almost fully european genetically, and plots don't show that.
Maybe we should ask if North European is a West Asian component?
Even without delving into used methodology ... What is Gedrosia?Quote:
Originally Posted by MfA_
No no no and no
No. But like what makes Europeans European (North European component), it's similarily East Asian admixed.
I don't think it is as it most likely originated in West Asia or the Caucasus and probably mainly spread to Europe during the Neolithic and also at later periods in time.
West Asian as strictly a very recent Bronze age component to Europe = Dienekes wet dream/ultimate fantasy land.
Indeed I think it is likely that some of it spread to Europe during the Bronze Age especially into the Mediterranean region. Some could have also spread during the Neolithic as well though. Polako seems to think that it was probably the main component of the LBK Neolithic farmers of Central Europe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vesuvian Sky
Maybe Greeks West Asian could be more recent compared to other Southern Europeans because I noticed that Greeks can be very matchy with Turks and Armenians when using 23andmes compare genes tool.
waaaaay more the reality. Also, I'd expect it in Cardial Ware and Starcevo Koros Cris culture. Its already been found in Oetzi and I bet it was waaay more among populations contemporary to him further south.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaxman
I doubt Bronze age dispersals have anything to do with 'West Asian' genes though. Its been said that Dienekes is more concerned w/ 'politics' (to sum it up generally) and that is probably tr00 regarding this matter.
edit: Bronze age dispersals for its primary or initial founding in Europe I find dubious. Just to be perfectly clear. Greek expansion during the historical era probably spread it further however. But Greeks would theoretically have initially received this component during the Starcevo-Koros Kris archaeological horizon.
To be honest I think the Cardial Ware Neolithic groups would be more Mediterranean when it comes to these autosomal components. Of course I could be wrong though. I am in line with thinking that the maritime Neolithic groups of Europe such as Cardial Ware were more Mediterranean genetically while the inland riverine groups like the LBK were more West Asian.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vesuvian Sky
Both really, that is west asian and east med based on what we know of the Cardial Ware's dispersal pattern:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaxman
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ardial_map.pngQuote:
The earliest Impressed Ware sites, dating to 6400-6200 BC, are in Epirus and Corfu. Settlements then appear in Albania and Dalmatia on the eastern Adriatic coast dating to between 6100 and 5900 BC. The earliest date in Italy comes from Coppa Nevigata on the Adriatic coast of southern Italy, perhaps as early as 6000 cal B.C. Also during Su Carroppu civilization in Sardinia, already in its early stages (low strata into Su Coloru cave, c. 6000 BC) early examples of cardial pottery appear. Northward and westward all secure radiocarbon dates are identical to those for Iberia c. 5500 cal B.C., which indicates a rapid spread of Cardial and related cultures: 2,000 km from the gulf of Genoa to the estuary of the Mondego in probably no more than 100–200 years. This suggests a seafaring expansion by planting colonies along the coast.
Older Neolithic cultures existed already at this time in eastern Greece and Crete, apparently having arrived from the Levant, but they appear distinct from the Cardial or Impressed Ware culture. The ceramic tradition in the central Balkans also remained distinct from that along the Adriatic coastline in both style and manufacturing techniques for almost 1,000 years from the 6th millennium BC. Early Neolithic impressed pottery is found in the Levant, and certain parts of Anatolia, including Mezraa-Teleilat, and in North Africa at Tunus-Redeyef, Tunisia. So the first Cardial settlers in the Adriatic may have come directly from the Levant. Of course it might equally well have come directly from North Africa, and impressed-pottery also appears in Egypt. Along the East Mediterranean coast Impressed Ware has been found in North Syria, Palestine and Lebanon.
Also the Med component seems to be a very broad category that can be broken up into an east and west Med component. the east med was probably rather archaeic to its region but so was the west med. biased thinking IMO insists that the La Brana remains med component is due to admixture with farmer but I'm not a firm believer that geography does not play a role in genetic components. that's why after all the Med component is more separable from the SW Asian component on Globe 13 plot, even more so compared to how the N. Euro and W. Asian component seperate on same plot.
According to some geneticists logic, occupation = genetic makeup or correlates with such. However I'd rather expect then to see hunter and gatherers be just one component as well as later Neolithics like Oetzi. But this is just not the case. Even the Northern Hunter gatherers from the Mesolithic had other components to them likely based on geographic proximity to such groups and what not.
And in reality right now we just do not know exactly how ''Mesolithic'' and how ''Neolithic'' modern Europeans are. We need more ancient autosomal DNA tested first and more research done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vesuvian Sky
So-called "west asia" is simply europe. It's only recently that mongol, turk, levant, and african dna flooded in. And it's still mainly european DNA.
No one can say for sure where this genetic component comes from but I don't think anatolia is a bad guess, but ancient anatolia, which was much different.
What about the African that southern Europeans score and the Asian that some North Euros have? Who brought those over?Quote:
Originally Posted by Melonhead
If you think West Asian is mostly a European component its abundant all over from Central Asia all the way to The Levant and Anatolia which means the populations that live there are mostly European by your logic.
Aren't you tired of repeating the same shit again and again? Where are your references? Just because you claim this doesn't mean it's true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melonhead
I am sorry to tell you this but as a European (mutt), you probably have around 10% ancient Mong admix.
West asian is a seperate component of its own, its not european
Pre-mong, which isn't the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by chwarae
In general, europeans have more neanderthal than mong, to put things into perspective.