PDA

View Full Version : Why do Europeans have such widely VARYING percentages of Near Eastern DNA?



leo76
08-01-2016, 04:58 PM
Title of OP says it all, really.

We all know why Europeans carry Near Eastern DNA. No big mystery there.

But what I want to know is, why the relatively broad range of % NE admixtures, given that so much time has passed since the Neolithic migrations of these agriculturalist peoples moving into Europe? Wouldn't their genetic influence have "settled down" to a baseline common percentage by now? Like steady background noise that's nearly universal to modern European peoples? 7,000 years after the NE migrations, why does one modern European show 3% NE DNA, while another shows 0%?

Often, in observing modern autosomal admixture results of native, "white" Europeans, I see anywhere from 0% to 9% Near Eastern (or "Southwest Asian" or "Arab") DNA admixtures come through.

Are these testing artefacts? Rough percentages to be taken with a grain of salt? Or does the Neolithic genetic presence really vary that widely among Europeans, and if so, why? Why hasn't it smoothed out to a flatline mean by now, if we only receive half our DNA from each parent, and there has not been any further major NE genetic influence for the past few thousands of years?

Thanks.

ffoucart
08-01-2016, 05:56 PM
can you define near Eastern DNA, please?

and from witch calculator those results are from?

As, to my knowledge, Europeans don't carry much "Near Eastern" admixture. They are basically a mix of European Hunter Gatherers (WHG and EHG), Caucasian Hunter Gatherers (CHG) and Anatolian Farmers (EEF).

Moreover, the EEF originated from Anatolia, not from Near Eastern "stricto sensu".

Modern Near Eastern populations have a high Natufian component, which is not widely diffused at high level in Europe.

parasar
08-01-2016, 06:51 PM
can you define near Eastern DNA, please?

and from witch calculator those results are from?

As, to my knowledge, Europeans don't carry much "Near Eastern" admixture. They are basically a mix of European Hunter Gatherers (WHG and EHG), Caucasian Hunter Gatherers (CHG) and Anatolian Farmers (EEF).

Moreover, the EEF originated from Anatolia, not from Near Eastern "stricto sensu".

Modern Near Eastern populations have a high Natufian component, which is not widely diffused at high level in Europe.

We don't know that EEF originated in Anatolia. A recent paper calls it Aegean. http://www.pnas.org/content/113/25/6886.full We have to back to the Mesolithic to confirm where this originated. It could very well have originated in Greece or the Balkans and spread to Anatolia.

Sikeliot
08-01-2016, 06:56 PM
EEF is a Sardinian-like component.

Saetro
08-01-2016, 07:36 PM
why does one modern European show 3% NE DNA, while another shows 0%?

Because the inheriting of segments is, in part, a lumpy and random process.
You might inherit a chunk of Near Eastern DNA from a parent - or not.
You might inherit chunks of Near Eastern DNA from both parents - or not.
See Jim Bartlett's blog for one account of this process - https://segmentology.org/2015/08/07/the-porcupine-chart/
I know several people who have tested siblings and parents and have a great range of ethnicity estimates for siblings.
It's lumpy and random.

ffoucart
08-01-2016, 09:53 PM
We don't know that EEF originated in Anatolia. A recent paper calls it Aegean. http://www.pnas.org/content/113/25/6886.full We have to back to the Mesolithic to confirm where this originated. It could very well have originated in Greece or the Balkans and spread to Anatolia.

Perhaps, but the first traces of neolithisation have been found in Anatolia, were one of the first city has also been found, Çatalhöyük.

http://www.academia.edu/9962258/An_Anatolian_Perspective_on_the_Neolithization_Pro cess_in_the_Balkans._New_Questions_New_Prospects

leo76
08-02-2016, 12:45 AM
You might inherit a chunk of Near Eastern DNA from a parent - or not.
You might inherit chunks of Near Eastern DNA from both parents - or not.
See Jim Bartlett's blog for one account of this process - https://segmentology.org/2015/08/07/the-porcupine-chart/....
It's lumpy and random.

Dude. I feel both SO stupid, and so excitedly enlightened. I can't believe I'm a college educated professional who's been doing genealogy for 21 years (and genetic genealogy for 10!) and I NEVER realized the reality of inheriting "lumpy" segments from grandparents and older ancestors! And the concept of having ancestors who aren't actually genetic ancestors is blowing my mind right now.

God I feel dumb. :)

Great blog post. Thanks for sharing that! I've bookmarked it.

leo76
08-02-2016, 01:07 AM
can you define near Eastern DNA, please?

Modern Near Eastern populations have a high Natufian component, which is not widely diffused at high level in Europe.

Forgive my imprecise language. Maybe this background info will help explain my question:

Geno 2.0+ shows me (an otherwise full NW European) as having 2% "Arabian" DNA. Not Asia Minor or Central Asian or Eastern European or Mediterranean/Southern European, mind you, all of which are possible designations in their test, and all of which might suggest CHG or EEF origin for this admixture component. No, they list that tiny admixture as "Arabian", per se.

Likewise, in their MyOrigins product, Family Tree DNA shows me as 4% "Eastern Middle East". Their heat map highlights this region as being what is now Israel, Jordan, Syria, etc, ie, the eastern coast of the Mediterranean. Some of my cousin matches on FTDNA have similar amounts of "Middle Eastern" DNA (or even slightly more), but most have none at all.

My understanding is that this 2% - 4% Arabian/Middle Eastern component is actually the signal left by Neolithic agriculturalists who moved into Europe.

But I wonder why both Geno and FTDNA mark it as "Arabian" and not Anatolian (or even Eastern or Southern European), and why I have 2% - 4% of it, but so many Europeans have none.

parasar
08-02-2016, 03:19 AM
Perhaps, but the first traces of neolithisation have been found in Anatolia, were one of the first city has also been found, Çatalhöyük.

http://www.academia.edu/9962258/An_Anatolian_Perspective_on_the_Neolithization_Pro cess_in_the_Balkans._New_Questions_New_Prospects

Please note that I was not referring to Neolithization but the European EEF component that was prevalent among Neolithic farmers. IMO, it is very easy to imagine an EEF component that was wide-spread over the region since the Mesolithic or earlier. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVI3y3I8wnk
With its eastern end influenced first by Neolithization.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Xpco2t7SWqg/ULurQwN_mNI/AAAAAAAAHy8/EWDJDiGH4Qw/s1600/fst.png


"coeval Neolithic on both sides of the Aegean"
"Aegean Neolithic populations, unlike central European Neolithic populations, being the direct descendants of the preceding Mesolithic peoples who inhabited broadly the same region. However, we caution against over-interpretation of the Aegean Mesolithic mtDNA data; additional genome-level data will be required to identify the Mesolithic source population(s) of the early Aegean farmers."
"Epipaleolithic/Mesolithic precursors of the early Aegean farmers."
http://www.pnas.org/content/113/25/6886.full

Gravetto-Danubian
08-02-2016, 03:45 AM
EEF came from Anatolia
The Greek Mesolithic had an Ne of 15 people
So EEF is (virtually) all from eastern Anatolia
Apart from ignoring archaeology, that study didn't even provide any convincing genetic evidence of Greek Mesolithic contribution / continuity with European Neolithic

parasar
08-02-2016, 04:09 AM
EEF came from Anatolia
The Greek Mesolithic had an Ne of 15 people
There's no way EEF came from there. It's (virtually) all from eastern Anatolia
Apart from ignoring archaeology, that study didn't even provide any convincing genetic evidence of Greek Mesolithic contribution / continuity with European Neolithic

Which EEF samples from eastern Anatolia are you referring to?

ffoucart
08-02-2016, 05:59 AM
Forgive my imprecise language. Maybe this background info will help explain my question:

Geno 2.0+ shows me (an otherwise full NW European) as having 2% "Arabian" DNA. Not Asia Minor or Central Asian or Eastern European or Mediterranean/Southern European, mind you, all of which are possible designations in their test, and all of which might suggest CHG or EEF origin for this admixture component. No, they list that tiny admixture as "Arabian", per se.

Likewise, in their MyOrigins product, Family Tree DNA shows me as 4% "Eastern Middle East". Their heat map highlights this region as being what is now Israel, Jordan, Syria, etc, ie, the eastern coast of the Mediterranean. Some of my cousin matches on FTDNA have similar amounts of "Middle Eastern" DNA (or even slightly more), but most have none at all.

My understanding is that this 2% - 4% Arabian/Middle Eastern component is actually the signal left by Neolithic agriculturalists who moved into Europe.

But I wonder why both Geno and FTDNA mark it as "Arabian" and not Anatolian (or even Eastern or Southern European), and why I have 2% - 4% of it, but so many Europeans have none.

It could be usefull to look at results wit other calculators (like ones of Gedmatch), because I think it's rather specific to Geno and FTDNA. There is no way that Northern European have some noticeable Arabian admixture.

leo76
08-02-2016, 07:14 AM
It could be usefull to look at results wit other calculators (like ones of Gedmatch), because I think it's rather specific to Geno and FTDNA. There is no way that Northern European have some noticeable Arabian admixture.

I've done that, but (IIRC) the Eurogenes calculators lack an "Arabian" designation anyway.

So whatever signal Eurogenes might be able to confirm our refute as being Arabian, it's just washing in as "Southwest Asian" or "Mediterranean" or whatever.

But I'll look again, as I don't have those results in front of me.

Thanks.

EDIT TO ADD: OK, I went back in and looked at my Eurogenes results, and they conform to Geno 2.0+ and FTDNA in indicating some kind of Neolithic component that's not West or Central Asian, Asia Minor, etc, that corresponds to the Near East or Arabia proper. Here they are:

Eurogenes K13
East Med: 4.93
Red Sea: 0.66

Eurogenes V2 K15
East Med: 2.00
Red Sea: 0.19

Eurogenes EU test
East Med: 0.87
Middle Eastern: 0

So I don't know what to make of all this. If, as you say, there's no way my cousins and I should have any noticeable ancient "Arabian" admixture, then there are some family secrets somewhere, a couple centuries back. :)

Gaku
08-02-2016, 09:04 AM
Forgoing potential ancient migration patterns I am taking it not a single one of you studied anything on the Trading Companies during school? Kind of slept through whatever lessons were held in high school & college & university maybe? A number of the British Trading Companies traded with the Levant Company and guess what region the Levant Company of the 1500s covered.... *drumroll* .... the eastern Mediterranean region. :rolleyes:

Now if you think members of the trading companies went to these regions as converted monks, who never touched a female least both man and woman melted into the sand, you need some definite help. It is well known during the Dutch-Japanese trading through Dejima, for example, that it wasn't uncommon for sailors to have omg sex with the local women as they did in India and other countries. Some of these mixed blooded children were taken back to England or Denmark or elsewhere. But a number also remained in the region of their mothers' home country.

My point.

This DNA doesn't prove anything about you being descended from eastern Mediterranean peoples. It indicates that you share DNA introduced via the reverse, the Trading Companies. This isn't the first time I say utter disregard about such basic everyone-should-know-about "migration", I believe there was another post where people were questioning of all things why Indians had such high European DNA. Well duh. Stop looking for imaginary ancestors, conjuring make-believe stories, and start looking at known human history.

leo76
08-02-2016, 01:39 PM
I am taking it not a single one of you studied anything on the Trading Companies during school? Kind of slept through whatever lessons were held in high school & college & university maybe? *drumroll* .... :rolleyes: .... Well duh. Stop looking for imaginary ancestors, conjuring make-believe stories, and start looking at known human history.

Your sarcastic tone is completely unnecessary, inappropriate, juvenile, and unappreciated.

There is no indication whatsoever that I have any imagined swashbuckling, romantic sea trader in my British ancestry. In fact as far back as 1760, it's nearly impossible, as ALL of my ancestors were already documented as living in North America by then. Regardless of the historicity of these trading companies, there is zero evidence that I have any such ancestor in my past. Comparing this bawdy sea-love hypothesis of yours with the known Near Eastern Neolithic ancestral admixture signal present in many European people today (including a handful of people who also have this same "Arabian" DNA admixture) and applying Occam's Razor (which you should have studied in college :rolleyes:) and you get .... *drumroll .... the simplest explanation being that of a Neolithic signal.

So tone. it. down, hero.

L1983
08-02-2016, 04:31 PM
I've done that, but (IIRC) the Eurogenes calculators lack an "Arabian" designation anyway.

So whatever signal Eurogenes might be able to confirm our refute as being Arabian, it's just washing in as "Southwest Asian" or "Mediterranean" or whatever.

But I'll look again, as I don't have those results in front of me.

Thanks.

EDIT TO ADD: OK, I went back in and looked at my Eurogenes results, and they conform to Geno 2.0+ and FTDNA in indicating some kind of Neolithic component that's not West or Central Asian, Asia Minor, etc, that corresponds to the Near East or Arabia proper. Here they are:

Eurogenes K13
East Med: 4.93
Red Sea: 0.66

Eurogenes V2 K15
East Med: 2.00
Red Sea: 0.19

Eurogenes EU test
East Med: 0.87
Middle Eastern: 0

So I don't know what to make of all this. If, as you say, there's no way my cousins and I should have any noticeable ancient "Arabian" admixture, then there are some family secrets somewhere, a couple centuries back. :)

Interesting thread...

I get similar results

Eurogenes k13
East Med 5.53
Red Sea 0.71

Eurogenes V2 K15
East Med 4.06
Red Sea 0.26

Eurogenes EU Test
East Med 6.20
Middle Eastern -----

Mestace
08-02-2016, 05:10 PM
Something to define first when talking about a percentage of "near eastern" you may have, is a time frame, because arguably pretty much everything comes from the middle east at some point. What matters or not, is how close you are from it today. How close it was when it came from the modern middle east is also an important subject. It's not just the east med and red_sea, though it's the two components still dominating today in the region.

MyAnthropologies
08-03-2016, 06:36 PM
can you define near Eastern DNA, please?

and from witch calculator those results are from?

As, to my knowledge, Europeans don't carry much "Near Eastern" admixture. They are basically a mix of European Hunter Gatherers (WHG and EHG), Caucasian Hunter Gatherers (CHG) and Anatolian Farmers (EEF).

Moreover, the EEF originated from Anatolia, not from Near Eastern "stricto sensu".

Modern Near Eastern populations have a high Natufian component, which is not widely diffused at high level in Europe.

Europeans don't have that much CHG except for Greeks and Northern Europeans. Also EHG was heavily wiped out by EEF, and though it was closest to WHG, they were still genetically far. EEF seems to peak in Jews and some other levite populations, so there definitely seems to be a connection that cannot be ignored.

Sicilians are genetically closer to Levites and some other west asians than they are to most other non south europeans for a reason.

We also don't know what WHG consists of yet.

I just find it ridiculous to say that ANF is a European component when appearance wise living in that climate there was no way that is true. Just because some Europeans received more input from ANF than near easterners does not mean that ANF was genetically closer to Euros than to Near Easterners.


Also Sardinians are not like these farmers to those who stated that. Sardinians highly descend from the WHG natives of Europe.

MyAnthropologies
08-03-2016, 06:56 PM
And to answer OP'S question it is because "Europeans" are not a uniform group of people genetically. They do share genetic commonalities yes, but they are obviously not the same at all and their genetic components vary.


For example Greeks have significant CHG whereas many other European groups have little to none. Not to mention that south europeans have more farmer DNA. The only strand that seems unique to Europe is WHG, but we don't know what that consists of yet.

Bas
08-03-2016, 10:00 PM
Yes, I guess if you are looking for 'Near Eastern DNA' by looking at a Finn and then a Sicilian for example, then there will be a big difference. Despite those differences, I think that in a world context, Europeans are actually quite similar to each other. I read once (can't remember where) that there is more genetic distance between indigenous Mexican tribes than in the whole of Europe-Finns and Sicilians included. It might not look that way close up though.

Apart from minor African and East Asian mixture in *some* European populations, we could say that the rest of outside genetic input to Europe came from it's doorsteps (EEF,CHG...ANE despite being associated with MA-1, I think was present very early in Europe and was something spread from there across to Eastern Siberia)

ffoucart
08-04-2016, 05:39 AM
And to answer OP'S question it is because "Europeans" are not a uniform group of people genetically. They do share genetic commonalities yes, but they are obviously not the same at all and their genetic components vary.


For example Greeks have significant CHG whereas many other European groups have little to none. Not to mention that south europeans have more farmer DNA. The only strand that seems unique to Europe is WHG, but we don't know what that consists of yet.

Wow! I guess you are living on another planet.

CHG is never close to zero in Europeans, and is either a component of the Steppe admixture (high in Northern Europeans, but present in all Europeans, even in Sardinians and Basques), and/or representative of a different admixture (Southern Europe).

And yes, Sardinians are the closest to EEF, with a low level of Steppe Admixture, and a limited amount of WHG. They are clearly not predominently WHG.

Davidski has made some months ago a simulation showing that all Europeans are the result of a 4 ways admixture (WHG, EHF, CHG and EEF), with only few % of other admixture in some populations.

MyAnthropologies
08-07-2016, 02:02 AM
Wow! I guess you are living on another planet.

CHG is never close to zero in Europeans, and is either a component of the Steppe admixture (high in Northern Europeans, but present in all Europeans, even in Sardinians and Basques), and/or representative of a different admixture (Southern Europe).

And yes, Sardinians are the closest to EEF, with a low level of Steppe Admixture, and a limited amount of WHG. They are clearly not predominently WHG.

Davidski has made some months ago a simulation showing that all Europeans are the result of a 4 ways admixture (WHG, EHF, CHG and EEF), with only few % of other admixture in some populations.

CHG is not that significant in MOST Europeans. A good chunk of it was Iranian Neo and other things proxied as CHG. West Europeans dont have significant CHG at all. Only Greeks and Northern Europeans do. Some calculators just make Europeans look like they have more than they actually do, but there was a better calculator that I forgot the name of but will get once theapricity is back up.

It is not a component of the steepe like Europeans would like to believe so, it comes from the caucasus which is why it peaks in the CAUCASUS, they are almost pure West Asia and they are not close to Europeans but to other West Asians.

Europeans make excuses for everything. "oh CHG isn't really West Asian, it is Northern European, steepe." "Anatolian Neotholic Farmers are not like modern West Asians at all. They were blonde haired aryans and in fact they migrated from Greece to Western Anatolia lel." Europeans are indeed mixed with Near Eastern semitic like people but there is nothing wrong with that.

Sikeliot
08-07-2016, 02:41 AM
CHG in Greeks is likely in part related to their NE European affinity, that which was pre-existent before Slavic migration.

Bonacci
08-07-2016, 05:53 PM
CHG in Greeks is likely in part related to their NE European affinity, that which was pre-existent before Slavic migration.

CHG is caucasus hunter gatherer and came from Kotias like populations. I assume the high presence of it in South Europe and particularly in Greece is the result of Anatolian migration waves towards Europe.

Sikeliot
08-07-2016, 07:08 PM
CHG is caucasus hunter gatherer and came from Kotias like populations. I assume the high presence of it in South Europe and particularly in Greece is the result of Anatolian migration waves towards Europe.

It definitely arrived separately from Levantine type migrations, which are higher elsewhere instead of in Balkan countries. I suspect that CHG migrated by land, Natufian by sea.

Coldmountains
08-07-2016, 07:53 PM
All Europeans have Near Eastern DNA and there are no "pure" Europeans". Even Finns and North Russians have at least 30% of their DNA from EEF+CHG people which were ultimately from the Near East and so all Europeans (even Saami!) share some of their dna with modern day Near Easterners. 23andme and most gedmatch dna calculators are just showing recent Near Eastern admixture but not admixture from ancient Neolithic people from Anatolia, the Caucasus and Levantine. Most of European Mtdna looks Near Eastern (H, T, ...) and even most of non-R and non-I Y-DNA also.

Coldmountains
08-07-2016, 07:58 PM
Europeans don't have that much CHG except for Greeks and Northern Europeans. Also EHG was heavily wiped out by EEF, and though it was closest to WHG, they were still genetically far. EEF seems to peak in Jews and some other levite populations, so there definitely seems to be a connection that cannot be ignored.

Sicilians are genetically closer to Levites and some other west asians than they are to most other non south europeans for a reason.

We also don't know what WHG consists of yet.

I just find it ridiculous to say that ANF is a European component when appearance wise living in that climate there was no way that is true. Just because some Europeans received more input from ANF than near easterners does not mean that ANF was genetically closer to Euros than to Near Easterners.


Also Sardinians are not like these farmers to those who stated that. Sardinians highly descend from the WHG natives of Europe.

Sardinians are closest to EEF and resemble them genetically a lot. EEF among modern day Europeans is of Near Eastern origin but it is so old in Europe and actually higher in Europe than in West Asia that it definitely can be called "European" in a modern context.

alan
08-07-2016, 08:04 PM
Sardinians are closest to EEF and resemble them genetically a lot. EEF among modern day Europeans is of Near Eastern origin but it is so old in Europe and actually higher in Europe than in West Asia that it definitely can be called "European" in a modern context. Genes

yes the phenomenon of genes and languages best or even exclusively surviving at a distant destination rather than at the origin source location is common. Its a big warning against interpreting the deep past in terms of the present re genetics and languages. In the case of early Farmers, the genes of them survives best in the west Med. of Europe, especially Sardinia, rather than at the source in the cradle of farming or indeed the next stepping stone west in western Anatolia/northernmost Levant. This is also surely going to be true of many population waves. Genetic conservatism and linguistic conservatism tend to go together but neither is geographically fixed over time.

alan
08-07-2016, 08:09 PM
Sardinians are closest to EEF and resemble them genetically a lot. EEF among modern day Europeans is of Near Eastern origin but it is so old in Europe and actually higher in Europe than in West Asia that it definitely can be called "European" in a modern context.

yes early Neolithic farmer is today European in the sense you will find more of their genes in southern Europe than in SW Asia. What we think of as SW Asian genes today owes much to later overlays and displacements dating to after the farmers had moved to Europe. The east and central Med. has had a heavy history of further movements from the east Med. of Asia and Anatolia so if you want to see a person who is most like a Neolithic farmer then go to the west Med. Even there there many peoples have settled in post-Neolithic times

Coldmountains
08-07-2016, 08:11 PM
CHG is not that significant in MOST Europeans. A good chunk of it was Iranian Neo and other things proxied as CHG. West Europeans dont have significant CHG at all. Only Greeks and Northern Europeans do. Some calculators just make Europeans look like they have more than they actually do, but there was a better calculator that I forgot the name of but will get once theapricity is back up.

It is not a component of the steepe like Europeans would like to believe so, it comes from the caucasus which is why it peaks in the CAUCASUS, they are almost pure West Asia and they are not close to Europeans but to other West Asians.

Europeans make excuses for everything. "oh CHG isn't really West Asian, it is Northern European, steepe." "Anatolian Neotholic Farmers are not like modern West Asians at all. They were blonde haired aryans and in fact they migrated from Greece to Western Anatolia lel." Europeans are indeed mixed with Near Eastern semitic like people but there is nothing wrong with that.

Nobody is claiming here that Europeans are a "pure race" . Your tone is too aggressive and on this forum there are few if any at all who have radical views about "races"

Generalissimo
08-08-2016, 02:57 AM
CHG is not that significant in MOST Europeans. A good chunk of it was Iranian Neo and other things proxied as CHG.

You've got things backwards there champ. CHG is at significant levels in many European populations. Iran_Neolithic ancestry, on the other hand, is marginal at best.

Have a look at the haplotype analysis here...


We sequenced Early Neolithic genomes from the Zagros region of Iran (eastern Fertile Crescent), where some of the earliest evidence for farming is found, and identify a previously uncharacterized population that is neither ancestral to the first European farmers nor has contributed significantly to the ancestry of modern Europeans.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2016/07/13/science.aaf7943.full

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2016/07/13/science.aaf7943.DC1

ffoucart
08-08-2016, 08:18 AM
But, as Kurd explained, CHG is very difficult to separate from Iran_Neolithic, hence difficulties to made calculators ( ;) ) and some confusion for some people T-T

Shaikorth
08-08-2016, 09:27 AM
But, as Kurd explained, CHG is very difficult to separate from Iran_Neolithic, hence difficulties to made calculators ( ;) ) and some confusion for some people T-T

Even if ADMIXTURE has issues, it isn't hard to separate Iranian Neolithic from CHG with other methods if we have quality genomes because they are differentiated populations and their haplotypes are clearly distinct. Hence those Broushaki et al. results.

Iran_N vanishes almost immediately in Caucasus populations north of Armenians, the Caspian coast being an exception. CHG drops when moving southeast from the Caucasus but is present in Anatolia.

Bonacci
08-08-2016, 09:56 AM
CHG is not that significant in MOST Europeans. A good chunk of it was Iranian Neo and other things proxied as CHG. West Europeans dont have significant CHG at all. Only Greeks and Northern Europeans do. Some calculators just make Europeans look like they have more than they actually do, but there was a better calculator that I forgot the name of but will get once theapricity is back up.

It is not a component of the steepe like Europeans would like to believe so, it comes from the caucasus which is why it peaks in the CAUCASUS, they are almost pure West Asia and they are not close to Europeans but to other West Asians.

Europeans make excuses for everything. "oh CHG isn't really West Asian, it is Northern European, steepe." "Anatolian Neotholic Farmers are not like modern West Asians at all. They were blonde haired aryans and in fact they migrated from Greece to Western Anatolia lel." Europeans are indeed mixed with Near Eastern semitic like people but there is nothing wrong with that.

It sounds you lack even the basic knowledge to understand how these dna tests work. Europe is a continent and not an "ethnicity", therefore it's hard to make a racial ideology based on geograpical content.

patrizio22
08-12-2016, 10:26 AM
On geno 2.0 the arabic component means the arabic peninsula. The middle east falls more into their asia minor component. So if you find arabic it means arabic. Dna from the middle east came to europe mostly after the neolithic. First thing first there was the jewish diaspora which was massive. Then there was always a massive trade of goods and ideas from civilizations of asia minor and the levant. And it has never stopped. Those civilizations had colonies all over the european mediterranean sea. Trade went on even during the middle ages. Even Britain had commercial relationships with the Bizantine empire in the early middle ages. That brought also dna. Besides, in roman times there weren't cultural barriers between people from the middle east and europe. They fit in pretty quick (unless they were slaves).

patrizio22
08-12-2016, 03:49 PM
I have a question about this matter. My surname is apparently from around an italian maritime repubblic on the adriatic coast (ancona) which had an extensive commercial relationship with the balkans, greece, the black sea and the levant. That may be an explanation for my paternal j-z1884.

On the other hand, I have a problem with the autosomal components from my geno 2.0 next gen results. According to them, my autosomal dna is basically south european and asia minor. I have an unusual 27 per cent asia minor component.

Now, according to those tables you find where there are approximative percentages of dna from each generation of our ancestor, to have 27 per cent asia minor at least one of my great grand parents of grand parents shoud have come straight from asia minor. As far as I know there weren't foreigners in the last 3 generations. I don't know before that.

In your opinion, is that 27 per cent asia minor the result of a previously unknown adoption of one of my recent ancestors or is it just the proximity of a maritime repubblic which can justify such percentages?

vettor
08-12-2016, 06:17 PM
I have a question about this matter. My surname is apparently from around an italian maritime repubblic on the adriatic coast (ancona) which had an extensive commercial relationship with the balkans, greece, the black sea and the levant. That may be an explanation for my paternal j-z1884.

On the other hand, I have a problem with the autosomal components from my geno 2.0 next gen results. According to them, my autosomal dna is basically south european and asia minor. I have an unusual 27 per cent asia minor component.

Now, according to those tables you find where there are approximative percentages of dna from each generation of our ancestor, to have 27 per cent asia minor at least one of my great grand parents of grand parents shoud have come straight from asia minor. As far as I know there weren't foreigners in the last 3 generations. I don't know before that.

In your opinion, is that 27 per cent asia minor the result of a previously unknown adoption of one of my recent ancestors or is it just the proximity of a maritime repubblic which can justify such percentages?

Clearly if others speak of ancient Sardinians with this marker, then they are speaking about ............at least pre-iron age

patrizio22
08-12-2016, 06:29 PM
The problem is that southern europe has, according to the genographic project, from 4 to 9 per cent of this autosomal asia minor component. Mine is 26 per cent.

vettor
08-12-2016, 06:32 PM
The problem is that southern europe has, according to the genographic project, from 4 to 9 per cent of this autosomal asia minor component. Mine is 26 per cent.

I have 18% ...............but also had first choice German, second choice Tuscan .................I think they refer to asia-minor as "european" in ancient times ....................that is my conclusion

patrizio22
08-13-2016, 03:49 PM
Doesn't the southern european component include already the anatolian farmers' dna? Southern europeans have often got black hair because of the anatolian farmers' dna, I presume. I don't really understand this asia minor component. Is it relative to people carrying for example y dna J? Or is it relative to anatolian farmers? The genographic project autosomal percentages are called regional ancestry and it is marked 5000/10000 years ago.

jpb
08-13-2016, 07:24 PM
According to Ancestry, I have 2% Middle Eastern.

ashstar
08-15-2016, 12:25 PM
Does anyone know much about the natufian result on the near east gedrosia gedmatch k13 calculator? I am wondering what may elevate above the average a result in someone of north European descent.

MyAnthropologies
08-16-2016, 02:33 AM
It sounds you lack even the basic knowledge to understand how these dna tests work. Europe is a continent and not an "ethnicity", therefore it's hard to make a racial ideology based on geograpical content.

But still, Europeans in general never scored much CHG before the diacovery of these iranians, now they suddenly score a lot? The only explaniation for that is that Europeans are actually mixed with Iranian Neotholics.

Some calculators just make europeans look like they have more.

K33
08-16-2016, 03:15 AM
As, to my knowledge, Europeans don't carry much "Near Eastern" admixture. They are basically a mix of European Hunter Gatherers (WHG and EHG), Caucasian Hunter Gatherers (CHG) and Anatolian Farmers (EEF).

Moreover, the EEF originated from Anatolia, not from Near Eastern "stricto sensu".Not in a strict sense, no. But EEF are essentially just a very drifted and bottlenecked Natufian-dominant hybrid population.


Often, in observing modern autosomal admixture results of native, "white" Europeans, I see anywhere from 0% to 9% Near Eastern (or "Southwest Asian" or "Arab") DNA admixtures come through.

Are these testing artefacts? Rough percentages to be taken with a grain of salt? Or does the Neolithic genetic presence really vary that widely among Europeans, and if so, why? Why hasn't it smoothed out to a flatline mean by now, if we only receive half our DNA from each parent, and there has not been any further major NE genetic influence for the past few thousands of years?Its a mistake to assume SW Asian/Natufian admixture in Europe (as distinct from the aforementioned EEF) is from Neolithic farmers. I believe the elevated SW Asian/Natufian levels in Sicily for example (seemingly ~15%) is of primarily Carthaginian and Islamic vintage.

EEF, on the other hand, forms a general cline from South to North in Europe generally correlated with arable land/sunlight hours. Of course there are exceptions to the North-South cline. Dinaric Croats, for example, have some of the lowest EEF and highest WHG levels across Mediterranean Europe, which seems to me an obvious result of geography--mountainous terrain isn't great farmland and its also ideal terrain for hunters/herders to successfully defend against numerically and technologically superior farmers.

Generalissimo
08-16-2016, 05:31 AM
But still, Europeans in general never scored much CHG before the diacovery of these iranians, now they suddenly score a lot? The only explaniation for that is that Europeans are actually mixed with Iranian Neotholics.

Nope. Europeans actually carry a lot of CHG, but hardly any Iran Neolithic admixture. Not much to debate here.


Not in a strict sense, no. But EEF are essentially just a very drifted and bottlenecked Natufian-dominant hybrid population.

Nope. Judging by the recently released Boncuklu genomes, belonging to foragers > farmers from one of the earliest Neolithic Anatolian sites, EEF are their direct descendants, with only minor extra input from Levant farmers and European foragers.

Nothing much, if anything at all, to do with Natufians.


Dinaric Croats, for example, have some of the lowest EEF and highest WHG levels across Mediterranean Europe, which seems to me an obvious result of geography--mountainous terrain isn't great farmland and its also ideal terrain for hunters/herders to successfully defend against numerically and technologically superior farmers.

Nope, Slavic migrations.

K33
08-16-2016, 06:19 AM
Nope. Judging by the recently released Boncuklu genomes, belonging to foragers > farmers from one of the earliest Neolithic Anatolian sites, EEF are their direct descendants, with only minor extra input from Levant farmers and European foragers.

Nothing much, if anything at all, to do with Natufians.
Hmm... I have not had a chance to read the new Anatolian paper but will check this out. I was basing my interpretation on this admixture model from the recent Lazaridis paper (Note Anatolia_N, ChL)
http://i.imgur.com/JhmtF4J.jpg


Nope, Slavic migrations.Not sure what this is supposed to mean. Dinaric/Bosnian Croats have arguably the highest I2a frequency in Europe (http://cdn.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup_I2a.gif)(60%+), and among the lowest total R1a/R1b (~ 32% combined).

Autosomally, just going by Kurd's Neolithic K13, Croats score just 15% Anatolia_Neolithic. Compare that w some of their close neighbors: Albanians (22%), South Italians and Greeks (both ~21%). (excluding northern Croats would probably even widen this gap). They also score consistently lower in ANE (which except for Balts/Scandis is exclusively steppe-derived in Europe) than other nearby Slavs like Czechs, Ukes, etc.

So yes, it would appear that Dinaric Croats received comparatively less impact from both the Neolithic and Bronze Age incursions than their close neighbors.

Generalissimo
08-16-2016, 06:29 AM
Hmm... I have not had a chance to read the new Anatolian paper but will check this out. I was basing my interpretation on this admixture model from the recent Lazaridis paper (Note Anatolia_N, ChL).

It's just a model to help explain the data. It shouldn't be taken too literally.

Anatolia_N are just native Anatolian foragers with minor admixture from Levant farmers, and no signs of any Natufian ancestry.


Not sure what this is supposed to mean.

Slavs invaded the Balkans. They came from the north.

patrizio22
08-16-2016, 06:13 PM
Are Eupedia admixtures maps reliable? If they are, there's a very high percentage of caucasian and west asian admixture in Italy, the highest in Europe, apparently. According to the Genographic Project, iberia and greece have 4 and 9 per cent asia minor component. There's no data with regard to Italy but we are two on this thread, one australian with italian ancestry and one italian, and have 18 and 26 per cent asia minor component. One is from northern, the other from central Italy. How do you explain that?

Bonacci
08-18-2016, 02:59 PM
But still, Europeans in general never scored much CHG before the diacovery of these iranians, now they suddenly score a lot? The only explaniation for that is that Europeans are actually mixed with Iranian Neotholics.

Some calculators just make europeans look like they have more.

There's no such thing as European in the sense of genetic, it's only geographical label. Around the same meaningless term as "Asian" which is more Asian? A Saudi or a Korean

EllieCharles
08-18-2016, 04:25 PM
"Why do west eurasians have west eurasian ancestry?" is basically what this question is asking.

Europeans obviously do have deep Near Eastern affinities.

ffoucart
08-18-2016, 05:48 PM
"Why do west eurasians have west eurasian ancestry?" is basically what this question is asking.

Europeans obviously do have deep Near Eastern affinities.
It depends on what you're talking about.

Affinities, yes, due to shared ancestry, but near eastern ancestry not so much.

Bas
08-20-2016, 07:53 PM
There's no such thing as European in the sense of genetic, it's only geographical label. Around the same meaningless term as "Asian" which is more Asian? A Saudi or a Korean

I would disagree with this. I think you can 'throw a net' so to say, around European genomes on a PCA for example, and they would be a distinct grouping from Asian, African, Oceanian, Native American etc. We see this all the time-Europeans form a tight cluster separate from other populations-despite the obvious admixture events almost everywhere in Europe throughout history, with overlapping only at the fringes of Europe. (Cyprus may overlap with the Levant for example)

I guess this is the essence of labeling one group as 'X' or 'Y' genetically.

Asia is a big and hugely diverse place, we have to split Asia up genetically. So in this case, we cannot say there is such thing as 'Asian' genetics, because that is too general, and there is a huge difference between East Asian and Arabian as you mentioned. But we can say 'South Asian' as we can say 'European' in terms of Genetics. Even then South Asia is way more diverse than Europe.

Dimanto
08-20-2016, 08:16 PM
An interesting study about the Italian peninsula and Sardinia:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283718503_The_Italian_genome_reflects_the_history_ of_Europe_and_the_Mediterranean_basin

Dimanto
08-20-2016, 08:28 PM
Europeans don't have that much CHG except for Greeks and Northern Europeans. Also EHG was heavily wiped out by EEF, and though it was closest to WHG, they were still genetically far. EEF seems to peak in Jews and some other levite populations, so there definitely seems to be a connection that cannot be ignored.

Sicilians are genetically closer to Levites and some other west asians than they are to most other non south europeans for a reason.

We also don't know what WHG consists of yet.

I just find it ridiculous to say that ANF is a European component when appearance wise living in that climate there was no way that is true. Just because some Europeans received more input from ANF than near easterners does not mean that ANF was genetically closer to Euros than to Near Easterners.


Also Sardinians are not like these farmers to those who stated that. Sardinians highly descend from the WHG natives of Europe.

Southern Italians/Sicilians form a cluster all together; I can't stand people mentioning Sicilians only, as if they are an alien population. The one region plotting furthest from anything north of Naples are Calabrians in general.

patrizio22
08-21-2016, 08:06 AM
An interesting study about the Italian peninsula and Sardinia:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283718503_The_Italian_genome_reflects_the_history_ of_Europe_and_the_Mediterranean_basin

The study talks about and admixture event which took place about 3000 years ago in central italy with people from caucasus/anatolia. This may explain the high percentage of asia minor component in central italy. They propose the etruscans as one of the origins. They also talk about an admixture event which took place in southern italy about 1000 years ago which introduced north african/middle eastern admixture and they propose the norman invasion as an historical period. But I don't understand the norman influence thing. The north african muslim came way before the normans. Perhaps it is because the normans took away the north african muslims from sicily by boat to another area of southern Italy, I think it is to the heel of the boot, Puglia.
I think we just lack information about bronze and iron age mediterranean civilizations to understand better. [QUOTE=Dimanto;181327]An interesting study about the Italian peninsula and Sardinia: