Dodecad k12b south, west and central asian results

Quote:

Originally Posted by Babak

Here's something

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8f740_B13UU&t=13s

I just now watched the video. And it is not really good. I am not aware of any Achaeamenid sample. The guy is presenting some medievil Iranian sample as Achaeamenid. And the worst part is he is trying to explain the ancestry of Achaeamenids with recent proxy such as BedouinB. It's not like Achaeamenids had real Bedouin ancestry.

Also his explanation of the results are very bad. Some sample picking Hurrian over Achaeamenid doesn't mean they are of Hurrian origin. It simply means the target population prefers a population that resembles the Hurrians more than Achaeamenids. That could be very much Medes for all we know.
In fact how could you make a Hurrian vs Achaeamenid comparison to begin with. Both from very different timeframes. Hurrians from a Bronze Age vs Achaeamenids from the Iron Age doesn't work.

Hurrian related populations played a role in the building of the Achaeamenids. As he correctly pointed out the very big genetic correlation.

The video spreds too much missinformations for my taste. It will make some people believe, that some Iranics are descend of Hurrians while other descend from Achaeamenids. While in reality all have varying amounts of Hurrian related ancestry even if they are descend from Achaemenids, because Hurrians are so old that they qualify as source population for the Achaeamenids themselves.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Demhat

I just now watched the video. And it is not really good. I am not aware of any Achaeamenid sample. The guy is presenting some medievil Iranian sample as Achaeamenid. And the worst part is he is trying to explain the ancestry of Achaeamenids with recent proxy such as BedouinB. It's not like Achaeamenids had real Bedouin ancestry.

Also his explanation of the results are very bad. Some sample picking Hurrian over Achaeamenid doesn't mean they are of Hurrian origin. It simply means the target population prefers a population that resembles the Hurrians more than Achaeamenids. That could be very much Medes for all we know.
In fact how could you make a Hurrian vs Achaeamenid comparison to begin with. Both from very different timeframes. Hurrians from a Bronze Age vs Achaeamenids from the Iron Age doesn't work.

Hurrian related populations played a role in the building of the Achaeamenids. As he correctly pointed out the very big genetic correlation.

The video spreds too much missinformations for my taste. It will make some people, that some Iranians are descend of Hurrians while other descend from Achaeamenids. While in reality all have varying amounts of Hurrian ancestry even if they are descend from Achaemenids, because Hurrians are so old that they qualify as source population for the Achaeamenids themselves.

https://journals.plos.org/plosgeneti...007&size=large

Quote:

Originally Posted by Demhat

I just now watched the video. And it is not really good. I am not aware of any Achaeamenid sample. The guy is presenting some medievil Iranian sample as Achaeamenid. And the worst part is he is trying to explain the ancestry of Achaeamenids with recent proxy such as BedouinB. It's not like Achaeamenids had real Bedouin ancestry.

Also his explanation of the results are very bad. Some sample picking Hurrian over Achaeamenid doesn't mean they are of Hurrian origin. It simply means the target population prefers a population that resembles the Hurrians more than Achaeamenids. That could be very much Medes for all we know.
In fact how could you make a Hurrian vs Achaeamenid comparison to begin with. Both from very different timeframes. Hurrians from a Bronze Age vs Achaeamenids from the Iron Age doesn't work.

Hurrian related populations played a role in the building of the Achaeamenids. As he correctly pointed out the very big genetic correlation.

The video spreds too much missinformations for my taste. It will make some people, that some Iranians are descend of Hurrians while other descend from Achaeamenids. While in reality all have varying amounts of Hurrian ancestry even if they are descend from Achaemenids, because Hurrians are so old that they qualify as source population for the Achaeamenids themselves.

Totally agree. I wouldn't call him an idiot. Clearly he's not a scientist if he's relying exclusively on G25. I would just call him a misinformed amateur who doesn't understand the issues with Davidski's G25.

The Hurrian he's referring to I think is Haji-Firuz-IA ! and the the Archemenid I believe is Hasanlu-IA. Clearly the G25 is giving totally off results. Davidski's G25 is a mish mosh of modern and ancient samples. Obviously the moderns he has in the run to generate coordinates are having all sorts of effects on the test samples.

Anyways if he was a scientist he would use qpAdm and if he had he would have seen the following for Haji-Firuz-IA (courtesy EurasianDNA)

numthreads: 8
## qpAdm version: 634
seed: 1295334595

left pops:
Iran_IA_HajjiFiruz
Iran_C_HajjiFiruz
Kazakhstan_Sarmatian.SG

right pops:
Mbuti.DG
Russia_Ust_Ishim.DG
Onge_1000G
Russia_MA1_HG.SG
Chinese_Han_1000G
Karitiana.DG
Anatolia_N

0 Iran_IA_HajjiFiruz 1
1 Iran_C_HajjiFiruz 4
2 Kazakhstan_Sarmatian.SG 2
3 Mbuti.DG 4
4 Russia_Ust_Ishim.DG 1
5 Onge_1000G 6
6 Russia_MA1_HG.SG 1
7 Chinese_Han_1000G 211
8 Karitiana.DG 3
9 Anatolia_N 29
jackknife block size: 0.050
snps: 709309 indivs: 262
number of blocks for block jackknife: 711
## ncols: 709309
coverage: Iran_IA_HajjiFiruz 292807
coverage: Iran_C_HajjiFiruz 624648
coverage: Kazakhstan_Sarmatian.SG 474638
coverage: Mbuti.DG 690580
coverage: Russia_Ust_Ishim.DG 654138
coverage: Onge_1000G 704593
coverage: Russia_MA1_HG.SG 493659
coverage: Chinese_Han_1000G 709306
coverage: Karitiana.DG 690550
coverage: Anatolia_N 709269
dof (jackknife): 639.251
numsnps used: 155390
codimension 1
f4info:
f4rank: 1 dof: 5 chisq: 2.444 tail: 0.784873416 dofdiff: 7 chisqdiff: -2.444 taildiff: 1
B:
scale 1.000
Russia_Ust_Ishim.DG 0.201
Onge_1000G 0.337
Russia_MA1_HG.SG 1.217
Chinese_Han_1000G 0.919
Karitiana.DG 1.512
Anatolia_N -1.111
A:
scale 723.320
Iran_C_HajjiFiruz -0.613
Kazakhstan_Sarmatian.SG 1.274

full rank
f4info:
f4rank: 2 dof: 0 chisq: 0.000 tail: 1 dofdiff: 5 chisqdiff: 2.444 taildiff: 0.784873416
B:
scale 1.000 1.000
Russia_Ust_Ishim.DG 0.200 0.200
Onge_1000G 0.330 0.790
Russia_MA1_HG.SG 1.203 -0.685
Chinese_Han_1000G 0.901 1.264
Karitiana.DG 1.520 -0.226
Anatolia_N -1.132 1.794
A:
scale 746.734 3511.876
Iran_C_HajjiFiruz -0.755 -1.065
Kazakhstan_Sarmatian.SG 1.196 -0.931

best coefficients: 0.675 0.325
Jackknife mean: 0.675276889 0.324723111
std. errors: 0.069 0.069

error covariance (* 1000000)
4774 -4774
-4774 4774

summ: Iran_IA_HajjiFiruz 2 0.784873 0.675 0.325 4774 -4774 4774

fixed pat wt dof chisq tail prob
00 0 5 2.444 0.784873 0.675 0.325
01 1 6 22.856 0.000846255 1.000 0.000
10 1 6 69.650 4.82473e-13 0.000 1.000
best pat: 00 0.784873 - -
best pat: 01 0.000846255 chi(nested): 20.412 p-value for nested model: 6.24515e-06

coeffs: 0.675 0.325

## dscore:: f_4(Base, Fit, Rbase, right2)
## genstat:: f_4(Base, Fit, right1, right2)

details: Iran_C_HajjiFiruz Russia_Ust_Ishim.DG -0.000306 -0.488565
details: Kazakhstan_Sarmatian.SG Russia_Ust_Ishim.DG 0.000229 0.320063
dscore: Russia_Ust_Ishim.DG f4: -0.000132 Z: -0.221248

details: Iran_C_HajjiFiruz Onge_1000G -0.000616 -1.068608
details: Kazakhstan_Sarmatian.SG Onge_1000G 0.000281 0.433744
dscore: Onge_1000G f4: -0.000325 Z: -0.594148

details: Iran_C_HajjiFiruz Russia_MA1_HG.SG -0.001029 -1.356903
details: Kazakhstan_Sarmatian.SG Russia_MA1_HG.SG 0.002090 2.335904
dscore: Russia_MA1_HG.SG f4: -0.000015 Z: -0.020790

details: Iran_C_HajjiFiruz Chinese_Han_1000G -0.001319 -2.756043
details: Kazakhstan_Sarmatian.SG Chinese_Han_1000G 0.001087 1.983415
dscore: Chinese_Han_1000G f4: -0.000538 Z: -1.181505

details: Iran_C_HajjiFiruz Karitiana.DG -0.001515 -2.368054
details: Kazakhstan_Sarmatian.SG Karitiana.DG 0.002453 3.290047
dscore: Karitiana.DG f4: -0.000225 Z: -0.364006

details: Iran_C_HajjiFiruz Anatolia_N 0.000570 1.157302
details: Kazakhstan_Sarmatian.SG Anatolia_N -0.002317 -4.105960
dscore: Anatolia_N f4: -0.000368 Z: -0.780912

gendstat: Mbuti.DG Russia_Ust_Ishim.DG -0.221
gendstat: Mbuti.DG Onge_1000G -0.594
gendstat: Mbuti.DG Russia_MA1_HG.SG -0.021
gendstat: Mbuti.DG Chinese_Han_1000G -1.182
gendstat: Mbuti.DG Karitiana.DG -0.364
gendstat: Mbuti.DG Anatolia_N -0.781
gendstat: Russia_Ust_Ishim.DG Onge_1000G -0.326
gendstat: Russia_Ust_Ishim.DG Russia_MA1_HG.SG 0.154
gendstat: Russia_Ust_Ishim.DG Chinese_Han_1000G -0.792
gendstat: Russia_Ust_Ishim.DG Karitiana.DG -0.147
gendstat: Russia_Ust_Ishim.DG Anatolia_N -0.431
gendstat: Onge_1000G Russia_MA1_HG.SG 0.409
gendstat: Onge_1000G Chinese_Han_1000G -0.514
gendstat: Onge_1000G Karitiana.DG 0.180
gendstat: Onge_1000G Anatolia_N -0.087
gendstat: Russia_MA1_HG.SG Chinese_Han_1000G -0.785
gendstat: Russia_MA1_HG.SG Karitiana.DG -0.294
gendstat: Russia_MA1_HG.SG Anatolia_N -0.507
gendstat: Chinese_Han_1000G Karitiana.DG 0.748
gendstat: Chinese_Han_1000G Anatolia_N 0.421
gendstat: Karitiana.DG Anatolia_N -0.266

## end of run

So what the G25 shows is irrelevant. Haji-Firuz-IA is actually 67.5% Iran-Chl + 32.5% Central Asian Sarmatian related with a p-value of 0.78 (excellent p-value, model passing p-values used in scientific papers is 0.05)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zoro

Totally agree. I wouldn't call him an idiot. Clearly he's not a scientist if he's relying exclusively on G25. I would just call him a misinformed amateur who doesn't understand the issues with Davidski's G25.

The Hurrian he's referring to I think is Haji-Firuz-IA ! and the the Archemenid I believe is Hasanlu-IA. Clearly the G25 is giving totally off results. Davidski's G25 is a mish mosh of modern and ancient samples. Obviously the moderns he has in the run to generate coordinates are having all sorts of effects on the test samples.

Anyways if he was a scientist he would use qpAdm and if he had he would have seen the following for Haji-Firuz-IA (courtesy EurasianDNA)

numthreads: 8
## qpAdm version: 634
seed: 1295334595

left pops:
Iran_IA_HajjiFiruz
Iran_C_HajjiFiruz
Kazakhstan_Sarmatian.SG

right pops:
Mbuti.DG
Russia_Ust_Ishim.DG
Onge_1000G
Russia_MA1_HG.SG
Chinese_Han_1000G
Karitiana.DG
Anatolia_N

0 Iran_IA_HajjiFiruz 1
1 Iran_C_HajjiFiruz 4
2 Kazakhstan_Sarmatian.SG 2
3 Mbuti.DG 4
4 Russia_Ust_Ishim.DG 1
5 Onge_1000G 6
6 Russia_MA1_HG.SG 1
7 Chinese_Han_1000G 211
8 Karitiana.DG 3
9 Anatolia_N 29
jackknife block size: 0.050
snps: 709309 indivs: 262
number of blocks for block jackknife: 711
## ncols: 709309
coverage: Iran_IA_HajjiFiruz 292807
coverage: Iran_C_HajjiFiruz 624648
coverage: Kazakhstan_Sarmatian.SG 474638
coverage: Mbuti.DG 690580
coverage: Russia_Ust_Ishim.DG 654138
coverage: Onge_1000G 704593
coverage: Russia_MA1_HG.SG 493659
coverage: Chinese_Han_1000G 709306
coverage: Karitiana.DG 690550
coverage: Anatolia_N 709269
dof (jackknife): 639.251
numsnps used: 155390
codimension 1
f4info:
f4rank: 1 dof: 5 chisq: 2.444 tail: 0.784873416 dofdiff: 7 chisqdiff: -2.444 taildiff: 1
B:
scale 1.000
Russia_Ust_Ishim.DG 0.201
Onge_1000G 0.337
Russia_MA1_HG.SG 1.217
Chinese_Han_1000G 0.919
Karitiana.DG 1.512
Anatolia_N -1.111
A:
scale 723.320
Iran_C_HajjiFiruz -0.613
Kazakhstan_Sarmatian.SG 1.274

full rank
f4info:
f4rank: 2 dof: 0 chisq: 0.000 tail: 1 dofdiff: 5 chisqdiff: 2.444 taildiff: 0.784873416
B:
scale 1.000 1.000
Russia_Ust_Ishim.DG 0.200 0.200
Onge_1000G 0.330 0.790
Russia_MA1_HG.SG 1.203 -0.685
Chinese_Han_1000G 0.901 1.264
Karitiana.DG 1.520 -0.226
Anatolia_N -1.132 1.794
A:
scale 746.734 3511.876
Iran_C_HajjiFiruz -0.755 -1.065
Kazakhstan_Sarmatian.SG 1.196 -0.931

best coefficients: 0.675 0.325
Jackknife mean: 0.675276889 0.324723111
std. errors: 0.069 0.069

error covariance (* 1000000)
4774 -4774
-4774 4774

summ: Iran_IA_HajjiFiruz 2 0.784873 0.675 0.325 4774 -4774 4774

fixed pat wt dof chisq tail prob
00 0 5 2.444 0.784873 0.675 0.325
01 1 6 22.856 0.000846255 1.000 0.000
10 1 6 69.650 4.82473e-13 0.000 1.000
best pat: 00 0.784873 - -
best pat: 01 0.000846255 chi(nested): 20.412 p-value for nested model: 6.24515e-06

coeffs: 0.675 0.325

## dscore:: f_4(Base, Fit, Rbase, right2)
## genstat:: f_4(Base, Fit, right1, right2)

details: Iran_C_HajjiFiruz Russia_Ust_Ishim.DG -0.000306 -0.488565
details: Kazakhstan_Sarmatian.SG Russia_Ust_Ishim.DG 0.000229 0.320063
dscore: Russia_Ust_Ishim.DG f4: -0.000132 Z: -0.221248

details: Iran_C_HajjiFiruz Onge_1000G -0.000616 -1.068608
details: Kazakhstan_Sarmatian.SG Onge_1000G 0.000281 0.433744
dscore: Onge_1000G f4: -0.000325 Z: -0.594148

details: Iran_C_HajjiFiruz Russia_MA1_HG.SG -0.001029 -1.356903
details: Kazakhstan_Sarmatian.SG Russia_MA1_HG.SG 0.002090 2.335904
dscore: Russia_MA1_HG.SG f4: -0.000015 Z: -0.020790

details: Iran_C_HajjiFiruz Chinese_Han_1000G -0.001319 -2.756043
details: Kazakhstan_Sarmatian.SG Chinese_Han_1000G 0.001087 1.983415
dscore: Chinese_Han_1000G f4: -0.000538 Z: -1.181505

details: Iran_C_HajjiFiruz Karitiana.DG -0.001515 -2.368054
details: Kazakhstan_Sarmatian.SG Karitiana.DG 0.002453 3.290047
dscore: Karitiana.DG f4: -0.000225 Z: -0.364006

details: Iran_C_HajjiFiruz Anatolia_N 0.000570 1.157302
details: Kazakhstan_Sarmatian.SG Anatolia_N -0.002317 -4.105960
dscore: Anatolia_N f4: -0.000368 Z: -0.780912

gendstat: Mbuti.DG Russia_Ust_Ishim.DG -0.221
gendstat: Mbuti.DG Onge_1000G -0.594
gendstat: Mbuti.DG Russia_MA1_HG.SG -0.021
gendstat: Mbuti.DG Chinese_Han_1000G -1.182
gendstat: Mbuti.DG Karitiana.DG -0.364
gendstat: Mbuti.DG Anatolia_N -0.781
gendstat: Russia_Ust_Ishim.DG Onge_1000G -0.326
gendstat: Russia_Ust_Ishim.DG Russia_MA1_HG.SG 0.154
gendstat: Russia_Ust_Ishim.DG Chinese_Han_1000G -0.792
gendstat: Russia_Ust_Ishim.DG Karitiana.DG -0.147
gendstat: Russia_Ust_Ishim.DG Anatolia_N -0.431
gendstat: Onge_1000G Russia_MA1_HG.SG 0.409
gendstat: Onge_1000G Chinese_Han_1000G -0.514
gendstat: Onge_1000G Karitiana.DG 0.180
gendstat: Onge_1000G Anatolia_N -0.087
gendstat: Russia_MA1_HG.SG Chinese_Han_1000G -0.785
gendstat: Russia_MA1_HG.SG Karitiana.DG -0.294
gendstat: Russia_MA1_HG.SG Anatolia_N -0.507
gendstat: Chinese_Han_1000G Karitiana.DG 0.748
gendstat: Chinese_Han_1000G Anatolia_N 0.421
gendstat: Karitiana.DG Anatolia_N -0.266

## end of run

So what the G25 shows is irrelevant. Haji-Firuz-IA is actually 67.5% Iran-Chl + 32.5% Central Asian Sarmatian related with a p-value of 0.78 (excellent p-value, model passing p-values used in scientific papers is 0.05)

So Iranians are more steppe than anticipated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Babak

So Iranians are more steppe than anticipated.

Indeed if we use the Chalcolithic as a point of reference. Don't pay too much attention to informal methods such as G25 or Gedmatch calculators. They were not designed to measure how steppe Iranians are shifted compared to the Iran-Chl. Also Iranians are more E. Asian shifted compared to the Chalcolithic than what most people are led to believe. There has been lots of influx at various timescales since the Chalcolithic into the Iranian plateau from the north.

This said Afghans and to a smaller extent some N. Pakistanis and Indians are obviously more steppe and E. Eurasian shifted than the average Iranian.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Babak

https://journals.plos.org/plosgeneti...007&size=large

From which study is this sample and the PCA? If it is a real Achaemenid sample that's fantasting.

But my point still stands. Some Iranic individuals picking Hurrian over Achaemenid simply means. these individuals might be a little more Hurrian shifted (as I would expect from Medes for example) and since you don't have a Median source population it picks up Hurrian as the next best. As we know Achaeamenids themselves were actually a Medo_Persian Dynasty some other samples might turn out different.

I will try to explain this visually
Look at this painting. Hope it explains what I mean.

https://www.bilder-upload.eu/upload/...1587350492.png

Quote:

Originally Posted by Demhat

From which study is this sample and the PCA? If it is a real Achaemenid sample that's fantasting.

But my point still stands. Some Iranic individuals picking Hurrian over Achaemenid simply means. these individuals might be a little more Hurrian shifted (as I would expect from Medes for example) and since you don't have a Median source population it picks up Hurrian as the next best. As we know Achaeamenids themselves were actually a Medo_Persian Dynasty some other samples might turn out different.

I will try to explain this visually
Look at this painting. Hope it explains what I mean.

https://www.bilder-upload.eu/upload/...1587350492.png

I got it from anthrgenica https://journals.plos.org/plosgeneti...n.1008385.g007

But yea, i agree with your point. Haji firuz is a better fit tbh

Quote:

Originally Posted by Babak

I got it from anthrgenica https://journals.plos.org/plosgeneti...n.1008385.g007

But yea, i agree with your point. Haji firuz is a better fit tbh

Thank you it seems like we finally have a real Achaemenid sample. The sample is perfect. But as you might understand it's only one sample. With more samples a little variation will come in. If we get our hands on samples from Medes and the Old Persians from the Achaemenid Dynasty, we will see what I mean. We can't base our decisions solely on one sample. As you might have noticed even the ancient Bronze Age Hurrians overlap with the Achaemenid sample as much as around 90%. And Hurrian is a bad example for comparison since it predates Achaemenids and is rather a source than competing population.

We need more Achaemenid and Median samples.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Demhat

Thank you it seems like we finally have a real Achaemenid sample. The sample is perfect. But as you might understand it's only one sample. With more samples a little variation will come in. If we get our hands on samples from Medes and the Old Persians from the Achaemenid Dynasty or during the Median Empire, we will see what I mean. We can't base our decisions solely on one sample. As you might have noticed even the ancient Bronze Age Hurrians overlap with the Achaemenid sample as much as around 90%. And Hurrian is a bad example for comparison since it predates Achaemenids and is rather a source than competing population.

We need more Achaemenid and Median samples.

It is not an Achaemenid sample, but a sample from outside West Asian from the Achamenid era. It has nothing to do with the Iranians. It has only something to do with the AGE of the sample.

It is from this study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6759149/

According to this study, ancient proto-Aryan (West Iranian), so called ancient Central Iranian Cluster (CIC) that connects all Iranic people together is just native to Kurdistan.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eline

It is not an Achaemenid sample, but a sample from outside West Asian from the Achamenid era. It has nothing to do with the Iranians. It has only something to do with the AGE of the sample.

It is from this study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6759149/

According to this study, ancient proto-Aryan (West Iranian), so called ancient Central Iranian Cluster (CIC) that connects all Iranic people together is just native to Kurdistan.

Quote:

The majority of Iran’s ethnic groups comprise largely overlapping genetic autosomal diversity, implicating a shared and largely autochthonous ancestry, designated as the Central Iranian Cluster (CIC). Notably, the CIC also includes Iranian Arabs and Azeris (Fig 1) as well as the religious group of Zoroastrians (Fig 3), being consistent with the suggestion that Zoroastrians have lived in the area of present-day Iran for millennia and had formed an early group of Indo-European speakers.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6759149/

Kurds are much more homogenous (pure) than Persians. Kurds are clustered closely with other Western Iranians such as Gilaks, Mazanderanis and Lurs, while only one part of the Persians overlaps with the Kurds, while other part of the Persians is more shifted toward the Turkmen. Persians are much more diverse and a little bit more shifted toward the Turkmen (Turkic speaking people).