That makes it even more accurate because I got about 88% on the McDonald test. I see a lot of people have West Asian.:) Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Printable View
That makes it even more accurate because I got about 88% on the McDonald test. I see a lot of people have West Asian.:) Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
No, the West Asian is not european, otherwise Georgians would be 98% europeans, and of course they are not, since they genetically cluster with Iranians and Turks. Going by North+South they are only 23% european.
West Asian is caucasoid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iberia
If West Asian should be considered un-Europid, then I would be about 90% European in the Dodecad-analysis. In Dr. McDonalds analysis, I am 100% European.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iberia
Yes, because the McDonalds analysis is K=7 while Dodecad is K=10, which means the European at McDonalds includes already the west Asian, while Dodecad is able to splitt the west-asian component from europeans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Olavsson
West Asian is an integral part of the European genetic make up since many thousands of years and other European components appear outside of Europe in the geographical sense as well.
Now Anatolians are heavily mixed with other elements too and Caucasians had a long development on their own and other admixture as well.
So from a racial point of view, the racial type of those people which carried West Asian genetic influences into Europe were most likely different from todays carriers in the Caucasian areas, after Armenoidisation took place.
This is therefore more a difference of evolution SINCE THEN, rather than a difference per se, if you get what I mean.
Fact is, that the Southern and West Asian components are part of the European make up, you can't subtract it, that would be insane, because as the distribution shows, it is an integral part of the European genetic make up since thousand of years and very close to other European components - some European components are closer to this component than to others in Europe, so it can be hardly seen as "non-European" in a meaningful way.
It does seem likely, below is my interpretation of the data on my Dienekes' test.Quote:
Originally Posted by Agrippa
North European: 44%
My North European genetype is much higher than South European. Could be attributed to my Slavic ancestors who lived in the Carpathians.
South European: 27%
My South European genetype is second highest which suggests Paleobalkan and Hellenic influence.
West Asian: 19%
Neolithic wave influence? My Egyptian ancestors from many millennias ago who migrated out of East Africa and into the Balkans could be the primary cause of West Asian score.
Southwest Asian: 7.7%
Southwest Asian could mean either Anatolian or Iranian. I think former is more likely than the latter but if there is any truth to Serbian Iran origins theory then the latter could be attributed to Iranian/Scythian influence.
Northeast Asian: 0.7%
Northeast Asia is around Mongolia so my guess is Tatar/Cuman influence but obviously this influence was limited to very few ancestors way back.
East Asian: 0.8%
China, Japan, Korea and Mongolia are the only countries in East Asia. Only Mongolians made it all the way to Europe so this could be either Magyar or Mongolian influence from an already mixed person.
Northwest African: 0.2%
Carthaginian/Phoenician remnants?
^ Not a bad idea, here's mine.
West Asian - 38.5%
I'm 1/4 South Ossetian so no suprise that this would be my dominating component, since West Asian peaks in Georgians.
North European - 37.1%
Mostly from Slavs but also from East Germanic tribes & Scythian too.
South European - 19.5%
Probably from Dacians/Thracians, the Kurganized Anatolian farmers.
South-West Asian - 2.5%
Glad my ancestors kept this one at bay. 2.5% is not that much. :D
North-East Asian - 2.4%
Mostly from Bulgars.
It is never that easy and whether we deal with ancestral components in reality is open to debate, but if wanting to overstretch things and putting them into context, my ideas, as speculative as they are, would be like this now:
North European:
Currently I see different components in it, pre-Mesolithic, Mesolithic and early Neolithic influences from North of a certain line.
Probably it could be split up in "archaic" and "colonisers", like suggested before, with the archaic being pre- and early Mesolithic, especially from the fringes (extreme North and North East), the "colonisers" late Mesolithic and Neolithic from the Southern parts of Eastern Europe.
The colonisers already had an old West Asian influence probably, being essentially the population which was formed after the Ice Age and the beginning of higher hunter culture and Neolithic culture North of a certain line.
The archaic component can be associated with the mtDNA U5 and U4 in particular.
South European:
Essentially the same as the "early colonisers" before, just for the parts of Europe South of a certain line (around the Alps) where this populations were largely formed.
Again they can be split up in an earlier wave and later coming colonisers.
West Asian:
The orginal core region of Europids from which many waves came to other regions and differentiated from it.
Again, this influence was present in earlier colonisers already, but is largely melted and deviated already, while the later waves are still better recognisable. These can be associated with late Neolithic and Metal Age expansions from the South East-West Asia.
Southwest Asian:
Essentially from the Southern region of Arabia, most likely Afro-Asiatic in origin, spread in the Metal Ages and with Semitic people in Europe, like Phoenicians, Jews, Arabs, but also Metal Age specialists and latest immigrant waves in prehistoric times.
Northeast Asian:
Essentially Siberian people, mostly of Sibirid race in Europe, secondly Tungid (Turko-Mongol) possible.
Came to Europe primarily with Finno-Ugrians/Uralics and Turkic people.
East Asian:
Mostly the same, but more likely to be Turko-Mongol in origin if talking about Europe.
In both "Asian cases", a common and very old Proto-Euromongoloid Siberian component could be present, related to Indianids, too.
Northwest African:
North West African could have come with various people, but most likely being associated with regional inhabitants, the autochthonous people of North Africa.
Like other elements, this could be carried on by different people which made contacts with the North African Europids.
So according to you the Georgians are 98% european, that's insane considering they genetically cluster with Iranians and Turks, and it's higher than most europeans. Besides, the Basques don't have this west-asian component. Yes, this component probably came in the neolithic waves from the near-east, carrying haplogroups E,J,G, mostly. It's not authoctnous europeans. So, the purest europeans are Basques, making them 99% european by adding only South and North components.Quote:
Originally Posted by Agrippa
Look, the general West Asian component, whether best exemplified by Georgians and whether this approach is hundert percent correct is open to debate, is a common root and source for many Europeans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iberia
Fact is just, that those "which stood behind" developed in a different direction from the time the original component made it into Europe. So they are not as European, because of the racial change taking place.
Genetically however, their component is not that foreign to Europe and calling it non-European, if it is there for thousands of years and fully Europid, not even associated with foreign racial forms and traits, it just not applicable.
South West Asia on the other hand is clearly foreign and came mostly later it seems, also from a source further removed from Europeans - yet still Europid by race of course.
The Basques are an isolate which in itself can hardly be representative of Europeans now or thousands of years ago, considering that they are non-Indo-Europeans...
They are only representative of one important and original European part - among others.
Among the others West Asian or at least related elements were present since the Mesolithic, latest early Metal Age, so...
South West Asian cluster has a higher drag toward SSA Africa than any other Caucasoid cluster safe for the Berber one. Though it seems to be distantly related to the Med component, and not the West Asian cluster, since the West Asian cluster seems to be related distantly to the North European cluster, but it does not show a drag to SSA Africa. Today the South West Asian cluster peaks in the Bedouins, Saudis, Yemeni Jews and Iraqis who usually score from 100% to 85% South West Asian. Reaching Northern Iraq it falls dramatically to the West Asian cluster. It's one of the very unique "West Eurasian" clusters, and as well most distant to Europeans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Agrippa
Then we should apply the same to other components, like the Southwest-asian. In conclusion, you are confusing caucasoid with european. Yes, west-asian is a caucasoid component, no doubt, but it's not european.Quote:
Originally Posted by Agrippa
Why later ? Im pretty sure this southwest asian component in Europeans was carried by neolithic people, the near-east farmers, which is whre it peaks actually. Exactly the same times as the West-Asian component, and carried by the same people who carried haplogroups E, J, etc. This component is highest in greeks and italians, and coincidently, these are the places with highest J and E of Europe.Quote:
South West Asia on the other hand is clearly foreign and came mostly later it seems, also from a source further removed from Europeans - yet still Europid by race of course.
well, that's not true. Paternally they are very indo-european, having 90% of haplogroup R1b-M269. Plus, the isolation factor is not an explanation of why the basques lack the west-asian component.Quote:
The Basques are an isolate which in itself can hardly be representative of Europeans now or thousands of years ago, considering that they are non-Indo-Europeans...
The West Asian component reaches 30% in both Greeks and southern Italians (and up to 40% in people from Crete), which are areas that are the most Neolithic in Europe (also Albania would likely be similar but I haven't seen data for them) and have the most of haplogroups E and J as stated above.
That is for sure, considering the geographical proximity and history of the region and populations, it makes perfect sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by IdealUral
Well, that's the important point I referred to. Modern Europeans, especially the Indo-European component, is largely a mix of West Asian + Mesolithic Eastern Europeans.Quote:
Though it seems to be distantly related to the Med component, and not the West Asian cluster, since the West Asian cluster seems to be related distantly to the North European cluster, but it does not show a drag to SSA Africa.
If you can distinguish the archaic Mesolithic component of the fringe regions, isolate it, you get a Northern component which is closest to West Asian.
That is the Afro-Asiatic/Semitic group.Quote:
Today the South West Asian cluster peaks in the Bedouins, Saudis, Yemeni Jews and Iraqis who usually score from 100% to 85% South West Asian.
Indeed, because the Northern Near Eastern component is very close to Europeans and was much more so before becoming mixed with different elements, like South West Asians.Quote:
Reaching Northern Iraq it falls dramatically to the West Asian cluster. It's one of the very unique "West Eurasian" clusters, and as well most distant to Europeans.
It is one of the larger components in Europe, so you might say it WAS coming from somewhere else, but so did the other components to a large degree too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iberia
Don't forget, just because the other components were essentially cut off doesn't mean they were present in Europe so much longer...
Well, probably not only later, but also along different pathways. It is typical however, that the overlap between these two components is far from complete, with some regions having much higher West Asian : South West Asian ratios than others and vice versa.Quote:
Why later ? Im pretty sure this southwest asian component in Europeans was carried by neolithic people, the near-east farmers, which is whre it peaks actually. Exactly the same times as the West-Asian component, and carried by the same people who carried haplogroups E, J, etc. This component is highest in greeks and italians, and coincidently, these are the places with highest J and E of Europe.
It seems quite obvious to me, that a large portion of West Asian and related elements, now already merged into the "Northern coloniser group", therefore tearing it towards West Asian, while the "Fringe groups" being further removed from it, came early on, even in the Mesolithic and spread strongly on the land route, early on.
While the West Asian had more a spread along the coastal routes and presumably later. This is just my suggestion based on various factors, but it might be proven someday :)
This is one of the maps showing the distribution of J1:
http://www.anthropometry.info/Haplogroup_J1.jpg
Further inland it came mainly along the Danube, otherwise it is practically everywhere coastal.
I'm pretty sure South West Asian will correspond more to that, than to the standard Neolithic markers of the West Asian group.
So, what else do you think is the reason?Quote:
well, that's not true. Paternally they are very indo-european, having 90% of haplogroup R1b-M269. Plus, the isolation factor is not an explanation of why the basques lack the west-asian component.
All Indo-Europeans seem to have two components: Northern European (Eastern European) and West Asian.
Everything else varies from region to region...
And how do you know that R1b-M269 must have been Indo-European?
A group with 90 percent of another group's parternal lineages would be much more likely to actually become part of that or so heavily influenced in language and culture...
Well, I don't see the relation between the west-asian and northern european components. The levantines, like Syrians, have 50% of west-asian yet 0% of northern-european. How do you explain that ? On the other hand, Basques lack any west or southwest asian, yet they are 40% northern-european. Im pretty sure the west-asian and southwest component came to Europe at about the same period. The known least neolithic countries in Europe, like Spain or Portugal, have also the least west-asian of all Western Europe. While the known countries with more neolithic admixture have the highest west-asian (Sicilians, South-Italians, Greeks, Balkans). Also, the least southwestasian of all southern Europe is in Spain.
Southwest Asian confuses me, because it's higher in Central Italy even than in Greece, and I've seen some Northern Italians with more SW Asian than some Greeks.. and then Sicilians and south Italians have in some cases 18-20% of this component but their frequency of haplogroup J1 is what, 5%? Almost makes me wonder if we should look to mtdna for the answer instead.
Just wondering what haplogroup is associated with the African components instead (in Europe highest among the Iberians).Quote:
Originally Posted by Iberia
Who?Quote:
Originally Posted by cmariexo
:confused: And what the fuck has this anything to do with the west-asian component that we were talking about ?Quote:
Originally Posted by alzo zero
No need to swear my excitable friend. Some (most) clades of E are almost exclusively African so it's better to make it explicit with what kind of E we are dealing with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iberia
It's quite obvious that we are dealing with the kind of E found in Europe, because we were talking about europeans, not about africans. Please, read the thread before embarrassing yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by alzo zero
Sorry if I upset you. Agrippa has already schooled you enough so I wouldn't be speaking about "embarassing" one's self if I were you. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Iberia
We were actually agreeing pretty much in everything we said. No schooling whatsoever dude. It's about having different interpretations, not about schooling anyone. Even scientists don't agree between them.Quote:
Originally Posted by alzo zero
The West Asian area is a very old cradle of the Europid race, so more than one wave left it at different times, never forget that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iberia
So an earlier wave was melted into the "Northern colonisers", a later being still better recognisable - and a lot stood behind.
You get it? There were waves of distinguished Northern strains back too, but the major movements went in one direction, from the West Asian cradle in all directions.
I would like to know what exact kind of Northern European, because the longer term isolation and drift made them special, hard to split up like Sardinians.Quote:
On the other hand, Basques lack any west or southwest asian, yet they are 40% northern-european.
Yet I guess they have their fair share of the early Mesolithic colonisers from the East, those which, most likely, brought the R1b too.
How the West Asian component was crucial in forming the racially and culturally more progressive "Northern colonisers" might be explainable through this archaeologically researched process:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/sho...3&postcount=22
Do you think the South West Asian came through the Caucasus into Eastern Europe, especially the Black Sea region, in the late Mesolithic and early Neolithic?Quote:
Im pretty sure the west-asian and southwest component came to Europe at about the same period.
Spain is highly differentiated by regions in this respect though.Quote:
The known least neolithic countries in Europe, like Spain or Portugal, have also the least west-asian of all Western Europe. While the known countries with more neolithic admixture have the highest west-asian (Sicilians, South-Italians, Greeks, Balkans). Also, the least southwestasian of all southern Europe is in Spain.
Ever looked at the individual results of general samples or Dodecad participants?
Also, Belorussians have about as much West Asian, but much less South West Asian than the Spaniards.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PQgoNZLt0J...MIXTURE_10.png
Also compare the 12-component analysis, only Basque is slightly closer to North Western in this run than West Asian, this shows a very clear relation:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-po3ry04KyL...MIXTURE_12.png
Whereas North Eastern became more of a representant of the fringe-archaic Mesolithics in it, being fairly distant from virtually all the rest, but still closest to NW, which is the "early coloniser component" with different roots-closer relations (especially Basque, West Asian, Sardinian) in this run in my opinion.
Also note that West Asian was shrinking, with more of it being inclusive in North Western I guess.
Note the different ratios of WA vs. SWA then.
I think some things will be just revealed if more of the ancient DNA was tested, like here:
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/05...somal-dna.html
No, I don't think, because the Caucasas have small SWA. The southwest-asian came from the near-east, from areas already high in West-asian component, such as levantines, mesopotamians.Quote:
Originally Posted by Agrippa
They have more west-asian because they are much closer to the area of neolithic invasions. We are probably dealing with different routes, one north of the caucasus towards the rest of Europe, and another route via Anatolia towards the Balkans and Central-Europe. The southwest asian in spaniards, which is very small at least for south-european standards, it's probably due to a combination of Romans, and ancient neolithic movements through the sea.Quote:
Also, Belorussians have about as much West Asian, but much less South West Asian than the Spaniards.
Yet I would guess, in the crucial late Mesolithic and early Neolithic period, they hadn't...Quote:
No, I don't think, because the Caucasas have small SWA.
So in a nutshell, because Iberia has little neolithic influence, you now feel obliged to call other Europeans "non-European" in order to elevate your own grouping. This is nonsense. European culture and civilization was formed and spread by neolithic Greek culture. What is more European than that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Iberia
No, im not calling other non-europeans, only the west-asian component, otherwise we might also consider the southwest asian as european, when the two came in about the same period, and outside of Europe. The west-asian component is representative of ancient Anatolian/caucasus/Iranid populations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Well that is the same. Many, if not most, Europeans seem to have 10-15% West Asian. So ... we are all mongrels and not pure Europeans, except for the glorious Spaniards?Quote:
Originally Posted by Iberia
So you mean to say that classical European civilization was essentially Iranid? Ahmadinejad would be pleased.
Yes indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Agrippa
The West Asian cluster is the closest to Europeans and especially Northern European component, and unlike the South West Asian component it's not dragged into SSA Africa. This does seem to be the case for the most part.Quote:
Originally Posted by Agrippa
Indeed West Asian component does seem to have strong relationship to the Northern European component. What is interesting about it does not fall anywhere else or draged into other places, but rather into Europe. Showing a close relationship between West Asians and Europeans. Today the most European looking people outside of Europe tend to live in the Caucasus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Agrippa
These groups mentioned Bedouins, Yemenite Jews, Saudis, and Iraqis score very high levels of the South West Asian component some are even 100% a large number, and some have higher but no less than 85%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Agrippa
What is interesting it seems to fall once it hits Northern Iraq and Syria even among the Arab populations, and in Anatolia and other regions there is very minimal of the South West Asian component. In the Caucasus it becomes 0%. The expansion of the South West Asian component might be linked to the spread of the Semitic languages that might have originated in Arabia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Agrippa
The West Asian is probably the closest West Eurasian cluster outside of Europe and they are the closest people related to Europeans. It's the South West Asian cluster that is very distantly related to Europeans, and it peaks heavily among Arabians but it dwindles in the Northern Middle East.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I'm pretty confident that some of the most "West Asian" people which ever lived were those of the higher Neolithic culture represented by sites like that of Çatalhöyük - racially they were mostly (Proto-) Mediterranoid with an Alpinoid minority, similar to the finds mentioned North of the Caucasus in Mesolithic times already, if talking about the "new colonisers".
I do not necessarily disagree with you on your point, in bold, above. Just one correction. Syrians have less than 40% "West Asian." Assyrians (Mesopotamian Christians), and the one Iraqi Mandaean (DOD460), carry the 50% "West Asian" and 0% "North European" combination.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iberia
Dodecad average values
Assyrian Dodecad population = 12.Code:POP W_Asia Nw_Afri S_Euro Ne_Asi Sw_Asi E_Asia N_Euro W_Afri E_Afri S_Asia
KSA 12.2 0.8 3.9 0.1 76.7 0.1 0.2 1.4 2.6 2
EGY 19.1 7.7 15.3 0.1 38.9 0.1 0 4.1 14.7 0
JOR 31.3 3.8 19.2 0.3 33.9 0.2 0.3 2.4 7.3 1.3
SYR 37.2 1.4 19 0.4 33.1 0.5 1.1 1.6 2.7 3
PAL 29.6 3.6 28.1 0.1 28.8 0.2 0.5 1.7 6.9 0.5
EAF 1.6 3.2 1.9 0 26.5 0 0 0 66.9 0
DRZ 37.4 1.1 34.4 0 24.8 0.1 0.6 0 1.2 0.3
ASY 51 0 23 0 24 0 0 0 0 1.8
MAN 50.4 0 21.4 0.3 24 0 0 0 0 3.9
CYP 39.1 0.3 35.5 0 23.7 0.1 1.2 0 0.1 0
ASJ 27 2 35 0.6 21 0.8 15 0 0.1 0.1
I wonder what is the difference between West Asian (Neolithic?) and South European.
Like suggested probably Southern European refugia + earlier coloniser waves + the isolated samples used for Sardinians and Basque as standard vs. later and Eastern colonisers from West Asia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Forget Me Not
I recognize this is a European focused forum, but since it is very relevant to the question of our nomenclature (the subject of my previous post), I thought some may find of interest the results I received today of my father's Dr. McDonald analysis. The "South Asian" may in part be due to our proselytizing and ancient relationship with the St. Thomas Christians of Kerala*, beginning in the 4th century of the CE. The "European" segment may also be associated in some way with early Christianity. But, there exists the very real possibility it is even more ancient. The majority Subarian** component (Ninevite? + Hurrian?) comes as no surprise.
*Mar Thoma: The Apostolic Foundation of the Assyrian Church and the Christians of St. Thomas in IndiaQuote:
Most likely fit is 14.7% (+- 8.8%) Mideast (various subcontinents)
and 79.5% (+- 8.5%) Mideast (all Caucasus Area)
which is 94.3% total Mideast
and 0.6% (+- 0.8%) Europe (various subcontinents)
and 5.1% (+- 1.0%) S. Asia (various subcontinents)
The following are possible population sets and their fractions, most likely at the top:
Bedouin = 0.098 Armenian= 0.860 Finland= 0.000 S_India= 0.042
Bedouin = 0.101 Armenian= 0.845 Sardinia= 0.009 S_India= 0.045
Bedouin = 0.101 Armenian= 0.851 Finland= 0.000 N_India= 0.047
Bedouin = 0.102 Armenian= 0.848 Basque= 0.001 N_India= 0.048
Bedouin = 0.108 Armenian= 0.826 Sardinia= 0.014 N_India= 0.052
Bedouin = 0.113 Armenian= 0.790 Sardinia= 0.025 Sindhi= 0.071
Bedouin = 0.099 Armenian= 0.845 Lithuani= 0.000 Sindhi= 0.055
Bedouin = 0.107 Armenian= 0.824 Basque= 0.009 Sindhi= 0.060
Druze= 0.351 Armenian= 0.592 Chuvash= 0.000 Sindhi= 0.057
Druze= 0.293 Armenian= 0.673 Tuscan= 0.000 S_India= 0.034
Quote:
**Most scholars accept Subartu as an early name for Assyria proper on the Tigris, although there are various other theories placing it sometimes a little farther to the east, north or west of there.
Subartu was listed as a province of the empire of Lugal-Anne-Mundu; in a later era Sargon of Akkad campaigned against Subar, and Naram-Sin listed Subar along with the Armani (~Armenians), among the lands under his control.
DOD726
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_Iss3ibZxh..._DOD728_10.png
West Asian = 11.6%
South European = 31%
North European = 57.4%
I gather West Asian represents something similar to the Baltic group in Eurogenes?
That would be rather weird when thinking of my own results from both projects. My Dodecad 'West Asian' score is 10% (the Norwegian average is 7% if I remember it correctly), while my 'Baltic' scores in the intra-North European runs by Eurogenes are 0%, which is lower than the Norwegian average.Quote:
Originally Posted by Imperivm
Humm, ok.Quote:
Originally Posted by Olavsson
I was just guessing really. I haven't read the thread through yet to see how the test works.
That's not the intention, but since no West Asian is present in the Northern European analysis, it could go there, since the Southern component in Eurogenes is primarily Western, would be generally interesting to compare the different analysis directly...Quote:
Originally Posted by Imperivm
The "Southern European" is basically a combination of Sardinian and Basque, is it not?