North European ADMIXTURE Component From Eurogenes And Dodecad

I am starting this topic as I know mane here also have an interest in the ADMIXTURE components from both the Eurogenes and Dodecad Projects. As most of you know both Polako and Dienekes have found what they call a ''North European'' ancestral component in their different ADMIXTURE analysis. This component as you know is the dominant autosomal ancestral component all over Northern and Central Europe. It is spread from Ireland in the far west to Russia in the far east. Now Polako seems to think that it originated in groups that formed in the Baltic region during the middle or late Neolithic. It arose from the mixing between local Mesolithic origin hunter-gatherers and incoming Neolithic farmers. He then thinks that is spread around later to all parts of Europe including Ireland in the very far west with Indo-European speakers. The problem that I see with this theory though is that there really are no indications of massive population movements into Britain or Ireland since the Neolithic period. So what then explains the presence of the North European component in all of the populations of Northern and Central Europe? That is how can the Irish and the Russians both score so high in the North European ADMIXTURE component when they come from the opposite sides of Europe and have very different population histories? Does this component relate back to common Mesolithic hunter-gatherer ancestry that survived in both Ireland and Russian and many other parts of Europe?

What do people here think about the origins of the North European component that both Polako and Dienekes discovered in their different calculators such as the Eurogenes K9 and K13 and the Dodecad K12b and globe13? We know that this component was the dominant one among the ancient Mesolithic Iberian hunter-gatherers from La Brana and also the later PWC hunter-gatherers from Sweden but these ancient samples are still outside the range of modern variation apparently. So it seems then that the North European component can't really be a purely Upper Paleolithic or Mesolithic component when seen in modern Europeans today. So what is it then exactly? A combination of old Mesolithic European hunter-gatherer genes and later incoming Neolithic farmer type genes? Thoughts?

Dodecad North European DNA in South Asia correlates very closely to Indo-Europeans!

Dodecad North European DNA is highest in Europe in Lithuanians who have the most conservative ancient Indo-European language!

It seems to correlate quite closely!

i am agree with you Jaxman, it is extrange that the called Nothern european component is relative high in Iberian being southern

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrudnyZydMalpa

Dodecad North European DNA in South Asia correlates very closely to Indo-Europeans!

Dodecad North European DNA is highest in Europe in Lithuanians who have the most conservative ancient Indo-European language!

It seems to correlate quite closely!

---

Yes indeed it is true that the North European component reaches it's very highest frequency among Lithuanians and probably also Latvians if they test. It is also very high among Finns but we know that Finns are largely descended genetically from Indo-European type peoples who at some point switched their language to a Uralic one. The presence in India is also quite interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gold_fenix

i am agree with you Jaxman, it is extrange that the called Nothern european component is relative high in Iberian being southern

---

Among modern Iberians as well you mean?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaxman

Yes indeed it is true that the North European component reaches it's very highest frequency among Lithuanians and probably also Latvians if they test. It is also very high among Finns but we know that Finns are largely descended genetically from Indo-European type peoples who at some point switched their language to a Uralic one. The presence in India is also quite interesting.

---

It seems like Latvians are less North-European than Lithuanians. (This fits though since Lithuanians speak a more ancient Indo-European language than Lithuanians)
(See cluster 4 below)
http://imageshack.us/a/img560/1594/eskoclusters.png


Polako did a good article here connecting North-West Eurasian DNA to Indo-Europeans!

http://bga101.blogspot.com/2012/09/t...-eurasian.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaxman

Yes indeed it is true that the North European component reaches it's very highest frequency among Lithuanians and probably also Latvians if they test. It is also very high among Finns but we know that Finns are largely descended genetically from Indo-European type peoples who at some point switched their language to a Uralic one. The presence in India is also quite interesting.

---

It is very possible that Finland was of Indo-Europeans who became Finno-Ugric speakers!

It seems like the Saami are the true Finno-Ugrics of the West.

You can see in this DNA map below where Finno-Ugric DNA cluster is to the lower right & how Kuusamo Finns more like the Saami are further from Indo-Europeans by DNA than is Helsinki!

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gn...0/09/nord3.png

I'd like to think North-European is synonymous with Mesolithic-European but it could very well be a hybrid of Mesolithic+Neolithic. At 37% north-European I consider myself 1/3 Mesolithic hunter gatherer but it could be as low as 1/5 if that component is mixed with Neolithic. However looking at Finns they seem to be 85% north European so that would make sense considering they have minimal Neolithic farming ancestry (15%?).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrudnyZydMalpa

It is very possible that Finland was of Indo-Europeans who became Finno-Ugric speakers!

It seems like the Saami are the true Finno-Ugrics of the West.

You can see in this DNA map below where Finno-Ugric DNA cluster is to the lower right & how Kuusamo Finns more like the Saami are further from Indo-Europeans by DNA than is Helsinki!

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gn...0/09/nord3.png

---

Yes I believe that quite a few linguists also believe that most of the ancestors of modern day Finns most likely were originally Indo-European like people who at some point switched to speaking a Uralic language.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaxman

Yes I believe that quite a few linguists also believe that most of the ancestors of modern day Finns most likely were originally Indo-European like people who at some point switched to speaking a Uralic language.

---

It is very likely that the arrival of Tat-C (N haplogroup) is when the arrival of Finno-Ugrics came to Finland!

However this is likely only a few thousand years ago!

What happened before that!?

Indo-Europeans!?

Yes, it makes sense since North European DNA seems to correlate so closely with Indo-Europeans that Finns were previously Indo-European!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bogatyr

I'd like to think North-European is synonymous with Mesolithic-European but it could very well be a hybrid of Mesolithic+Neolithic. At 37% north-European I consider myself 1/3 Mesolithic hunter gatherer but it could be as low as 1/5 if that component is mixed with Neolithic. However looking at Finns they seem to be 85% north European so that would make sense considering they have minimal Neolithic farming ancestry (15%?).

---

I really do not think that the North European component when seen in modern Europeans is composed of pure Mesolithic genes. It is probably a hybrid of Mesolithic and Neolithic genes. The question then is how much of it is from Mesolithic Europeans and how much from Neolithic Europeans?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrudnyZydMalpa

It is very likely that the arrival of Tat-C (N haplogroup) is when the arrival of Finno-Ugrics came to Finland!

However this is likely only a few thousand years ago!

What happened before that!?

Indo-Europeans!?

Yes, it makes sense since North European DNA seems to correlate so closely with Indo-Europeans that Finns were previously Indo-European!

---

Yes the North European component from these calculators at GEDmatch such as the Eurogenes K9 and K13 is found among Lithuanians at the highest frequency. Finns are not far behind though.

What I'm not sure of is how the Brits got such a high Baloch component. Some random Pakis in the mountains decide to start traveling? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by objectiverealist

What I'm not sure of is how the Brits got such a high Baloch component. Some random Pakis in the mountains decide to start traveling? :confused:

---

Gedrosia DNA is of moderate amounts in West Asia!

It could be that Neolithic farmers bought the Gedrosia DNA into Europe with them.

Perhaps with the arrival of R1b haplogroup!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrudnyZydMalpa

Gedrosia DNA is of moderate amounts in West Asia!

It could be that Neolithic farmers bought the Gedrosia DNA into Europe with them.

Perhaps with the arrival of R1b haplogroup!

---

Makes sense.

Let us try and keep this topic about the North European component for now can we please guys and girls?

Hey robar what do you not like about my posts and this thread so far huh?

Cuz this is pseudoscience speculation, and nothing more

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaxman

Hey robar what do you not like about my posts and this thread so far huh?

---

He does not like the dodecad project because it shows the Hungarians at a measly 1% Siberian which breaks his little Turanist heart.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robar

Cuz this is pseudoscience speculation, and nothing more

---

No it is not. You are a Hungarian correct? If so who do you think the vast majority of your ancestors are? Native Central Europeans who at one point in the past spoke Indo-European languages and at one point switched to speaking Uralic languages or were they always all just Uralic speakers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaxman

No it is not. You are a Hungarian correct? If so who do you think the vast majority of your ancestors are? Native Central Europeans who at one point in the past spoke Indo-European languages and at one point switched to speaking Uralic languages or were they always all just Uralic speakers?

---

and the wide majority of your ancestors spoke a diferent language, and language group.., and adding y-dna markers to specific languages etc is pseudoscience

lol Hungarians actually score even less than 1% Siberian in the Dodecad globe13 analysis. The average is only 0.8%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaxman

lol Hungarians actually score even less than 1% Siberian in the Dodecad globe13 analysis. The average is only 0.8%.

---

And?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robar

and the wide majority of your ancestors spoke a diferent language, and language group.., and adding y-dna markers to specific languages etc is pseudoscience

---

Sounds to me like you are a pseudoscientist. We are not even talking about Y-DNA markers/haplogroups here really. Educate yourself a bit about a topic before you jump in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robar

And?

---

You barely have any Siberian like genetic ancestry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaxman

You barely have any Siberian like genetic ancestry.

---

:picard2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robar

:picard2:

---

You list your ancestry as being Siberian in your profile there. If you truly are a Hungarian you should barely have any Siberian like genetic ancestry. You are genetically a Central European pretty much.

robar is a Hungarian and thinks he is a Siberian...What a joke lol!

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...yWTVheVE#gid=1

The MDLP K27 test seems to split the North European hunter-gatherer component in two, a La Brana branch (meaning north euro component in La Brana sample in the test is purely Balto-Finnic) and a Swedish Mesolithic branch (all North European in this sample is NE-Baltic). According to the Fst these are the two most related components in the analysis, and their combined values in population averages are highest in Baltics and Finland. The difference is that the Balto-Finnic (La Brana) peaks in the north and the North European Baltic in the south.

Another point of note is that Sami have less of the Balto-Finnic component here than La Brana or Finns, so it can't be exactly the same as North European Mesolithic from World-22.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Argang

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...yWTVheVE#gid=1

The MDLP K27 test seems to split the North European hunter-gatherer component in two, a La Brana branch (meaning north euro component in La Brana sample in the test is purely Balto-Finnic) and a Swedish Mesolithic branch (all North European in this sample is NE-Baltic). According to the Fst these are the two most related components in the analysis, and their combined values in population averages are highest in Baltics and Finland. The difference is that the Balto-Finnic (La Brana) peaks in the north and the North European Baltic in the south.

Another point of note is that Sami have less of the Balto-Finnic component here than La Brana or Finns, so it can't be exactly the same as North European Mesolithic from World-22.

---

Yes I have seen the MDLP K27 analysis as well.

Well going by Dodecad K12b...The only thing that really makes sense is that North European is equivalent to Indo-European (R1a and R1b types). If that's true though, La Brana, being 7000 years old and 40% North European the arrival time of Indo-Europeans in Western Europe has to be pushed back, what, 2500 years or so?

Actually the North European component is now looking incredibly Mesolithic. That is most of it is probably of Mesolithic European hunter-gatherer origin. Look at this recent blog entry by Polako.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.ca/2013/09...efuge-for.html

If that's the case than Indo-Europeans must be looking incredibly Mesolithic too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kale

If that's the case than Indo-Europeans must be looking incredibly Mesolithic too.

---

Yup I think that is very likely. BTW this robar guy seems like a true dumb ass.

That begs the question then, what archaeological culture(s) spread them? The ones we think now, just wrongly dated? Or some as of yet undiscovered ones? Or both?

Northern-Euro would be a mix of Mesolithic European, with some incoming Neolithic as well as Siberian/Asian (as demonstrated in Dienekes experiments),

Well everywhere you see North_Euro component (from as far as Basques to India to Selkup in Siberia) the only commonality observable is R1a/b. I have a hard time believing its some coincidental mix, rather than just one general population like the rest of the components seem to be. Each part in that mix have their own component(s), why would there be a component for a mix of components?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibericus

Northern-Euro would be a mix of Mesolithic European, with some incoming Neolithic as well as Siberian/Asian (as demonstrated in Dienekes experiments),

---

Polako seems to think that the North European component is definitely now largely made up of Mesolithic European hunter-gatherer origin alleles. Maybe around 80% or so. The rest is probably composed on mostly Neolithic alleles with maybe a small amount of Siberian influence.