October 29, 2010

Continuity between Neolithic, Bronze Age, and recent Sardinians


The serendipity of this paper appearing just now is incredible. Sardinians emerge as belonging over 96.2% in a "Southern European" genetic component revealed by ADMIXTURE analysis, while peninsular Italians typically also possess to a great extent the West Asian, Northern European, and Southwest Asian components.

(On the right my ADMIXTURE analysis, with the Sardinian element in light green)

So, it is a great joy to read that this component may indeed correspond to an ancient southern European population inhabiting the island since Neolithic times, while peninsular Italy has deviated from this population, probably as the result of the settlement of Romano-Celts, Greeks, and all the other historical processes which have affected it through history, and which can be detected in the genetic record.

Note that, Sardinia is also one of the few locations in the world so far where there is clear evidence of mtDNA continuity, with many other samples showing contrasts with modern populations.

Homo. 2010 Oct 25. [Epub ahead of print]

Craniofacial morphometric variation and the biological history of the peopling of Sardinia.

D'Amore G, Di Marco S, Floris G, Pacciani E, Sanna E.

Abstract

The aim of this work is to explore the pattern of craniofacial morphometric variation and the relationships among five prehistoric Sardinian groups dated from Late Neolithic to the Nuragic Period (Middle and Late Bronze Age), in order to formulate hypotheses on the peopling history of Sardinia. Biological relationships with coeval populations of central peninsular Italy were also analysed to detect influences from and towards extra-Sardinian sources. Furthermore, comparison with samples of contemporary populations from Sardinia and from continental Italy provided an indication of the trend leading to the final part of the peopling history. Finally, Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic samples were included in the analyses to compare the prehistoric Sardinians with some of their potential continental ancestors. The analysis is based on multivariate techniques including Mahalanobis D(2) distance, non-parametric multidimensional scaling (MDS) and principal component analysis (PCA). The results showed the tendency to progressive differentiation between Sardinian groups and peninsular Italian groups, with the possible exception of a discontinuity showed by the Bonnànaro (Early Bronze Age) Sardinian sample. Several aspects of the morphological results were found to agree with the current genetic evidence available for the present-day Sardinian population and a Nuragic sample: (1) biological divergence between the Sardinian and peninsular Italian populations; (2) similarity/continuity among Neolithic, Bronze Age and recent Sardinians; (3) biological separation between the Nuragic and Etruscan populations; (4) contribution of a Palaeo-Mesolithic gene pool to the genetic structure of current Sardinians.

Link

33 comments:

ashraf said...

I think Sardinians are good representatives of pre[bronze age dated]indo-european migrations&pre [middle ages]German migrations, people of Italia.

The original languages of Italia and Sardinia could be connected to the Iberian and/or Raetian and/or Etruscan languages(all those languages are,perhaps interconnected at a very deep level, though them being poorly attested prevent scholars from stating clear conclusions about their exact inter-relationship)

onur said...

It would be nice if you share some of the results, figures, tables, etc. of this interesting study, since the article isn't free-of-charge.

ren said...

Unaffected since the Neolithic or "pure" because of the way the clusters are set up? Certainly there is a north-south cline that can show up at the 2 latitudinal extremes. Sardinians do speak Indo-European like most other Europeans.

Gioiello said...

Rather than Romano-Celts I think we should speak of Italo-Celts, being many the Italian Peoples and the Romans only the inhabitants of a little village at the beginnings. About the impact of Greeks on the Italian population I think we should deepen the problem, being probably many J2 etc. due to ancient migrations with the first agriculturalists from the Balkans.
The difference between Sardinians and Continental Italians could be due to the fact that Sardinians have more of the Paleolithic (I-M26) and less of the Mesolithic-Late Neolithic from Italy: I think R1b1b2, but the most ancient R-U152 reached the Sardinian from very ancient times.

just passing by said...

The pretty woman in the photo must be what the classic U5b women looked like back around the LGM (Ice Age).

DagoRed said...

It is not a new. A recent study by Guido Barbujanni, published in the journal "Human Genetics", did identify the inhabitants of the region of Ogliastra as the descendants of the Sardinian Bronze Age, or the " Nuraghe's people", which are clearly distinct from that of the Gallura region.

Here an article from a Sardinian news paper, in italian sorry.

http://lanuovasardegna.gelocal.it/dettaglio/il-popolo-dei-nuraghi-oggi-vive-in-ogliastra/1356869

I wrote this in the wrong post, erase the first please.

Dienekes said...

The study you refer to is the one I link to as "mtDNA continuity". This is a different piece of evidence, based on craniometric analysis, and my autosomal analysis is a 3rd piece of evidence.

So, all lines of evidence seem to agree

The pretty woman in the photo must be what the classic U5b women looked like back around the LGM (Ice Age).

Well, the authors say that there is evidence for contribution of the Paleo-Mesolithic gene pool, but speak of continuity since the Neolithic. So, the Sardinian blend was probably formed in the Neolithic from incoming and local groups and has persisted since then.

Fanty said...

Interesting is also that Sardinians are the European population with the lowest number of light hair and light eyes.Two things, that I am pretty sure, more than ever before, are traits tied to people of the North-European cluster that spread (or vannished, in case these people are the "natives" of Europe, that had been cornered when new people arrived) with them.

Blond hair map of Italy/Sicily/Sardinia:

http://mapsof.net/uploads/static-maps/blond_hair_italy.gif

Jack said...

"About the impact of Greeks on the Italian population I think we should deepen the problem, being probably many J2 etc. due to ancient migrations with the first agriculturalists from the Balkans."
I agree. I suspect that in some parts the "Greek influnce" includes something more ancient.

onur said...

Well, the authors say that there is evidence for contribution of the Paleo-Mesolithic gene pool, but speak of continuity since the Neolithic. So, the Sardinian blend was probably formed in the Neolithic from incoming and local groups and has persisted since then.

I think all components have varying degrees of contribution from the expanding Neolithic gene pools, but I think among the Western Eurasian components the most Neolithic-related component is the West Asian (light blue) component, given the fact that it is most prevalent in the populations residing closest to the birthplace of the Western Eurasian Neolithic.

Dienekes said...

onur, you are making the mistake of putting ages to these clusters. The emergence of a Sardinian-centered cluster does not mean that there is little input from West Asia.

This will all become clearer when I present (in the Dodecad blog), the results for K=2 to K=9, as these will show the relationships between the different ancestral clusters more clearly.

onur said...

onur, you are making the mistake of putting ages to these clusters. The emergence of a Sardinian-centered cluster does not mean that there is little input from West Asia.

Dieneke, I didn't mean to say that the Western Eurasian components other than the West Asian component has little genetic input from the Neolithic dispersals from West Asia, just that I think that they have less of such genetic input than the West Asian component, how much less is open to speculation.

Do you think all of the Western Eurasian components are completely or almost completely descended from the Neolithic dispersals from West Asia? If yes, all of the Western Eurasian populations should essentially be subsets of the West Asian Neolithic populations with some changes due principally to the passage of time, fissions, drifts and admixtures and fusions with each other, and having very little or no admixture from Paleolithic populations. In such a scenario all of the Western Eurasian components should essentially be equally genetically distant to the Neolithic source populations of West Asia. But such a scenario doesn't sound plausible to me. Paleolithic populations should also have significant roles in the genetic makeup of Western Eurasian populations. So the least Paleolithic-admixed populations should be the ones that are closest to the Western Eurasian Neolithic homeland in West Asia. Thus the most Neolithic-related Western Eurasian component should be the West Asian component.

aargiedude said...

I did this myself. After realizing, thanks to Dienekes, that there were other publicly available genomes besides the HGDP, I decided it was time to update the FST estimates I made back in 2009, when I only used the HGDP data. So here it is.

I've barely gone through the results yet, though I did some tests/comparisons to ensure everything was ok, and yes, everything is ok, no errors.

The smallest result is Spain-France: 0,0003 (0.0003 for you Americans :) ). The biggest is 0,4260 between Amazonian Surui and Khoisan of Namibia; opposite ends of the world. The average is 0,0900, influenced to the downside because of the disproportionate number of West Asian populations, producing much more within-continental comparisons than in a more balanced selection. Published studies using the uniformly distributed pan-global samples of HGDP obtained an average FST of 0,1100 to 0,1200.

The FST is calculated using the updated formula by Cockerham & Weir, which was shown to fit way better the expected results than the standard formula. I'm still seeing occasional published studies that use the older formula for FST, which tends to slightly reduce big distances (for example, 0,1400 instead of 0,1500) and greatly increase, proportionately, small distances (for example, 0,0100 instead of 0,0010).

aargiedude said...

I'm looking at the Xing (2010) genotype data right now to see if I can add them.

If you want to see a particular grouping of samples just ask me, it takes just 3 minutes to run the program. For example, combine the south Indian samples and the Pakistani to obtain an accurate distance between north and south India/Pakistan. The more samples a population has, the more accurate the result will be (both populations in the pair-comparison, not just one of them). I'm going to run a test to show this in detail. But in the meantime, you can see this in the Yoruba (Nigeria)-Kenya comparison. There's 2 of them. The first is with small sample sizes from HGDP, 24 & 12 samples, resulting in an FST of 0,0127. They're in cell G6. Now look at the equivalent comparison using the much bigger HapMap3 samples, 110 & 147 samples, resulting in an FST of 0,0077, quite a hell of a drop, relatively. That one is in cell BQ63.

And now that I'm looking at the HapMap3 samples, here's a curious thing I noticed. I separated the HapMap3 samples into "Unrelated" and "Child", because some of their samples consisted of family trios (father-mother-child). Obviously the child samples should be excluded because they're redundant. But for the heck of it, I still included them in the calculations, in their own separate population. Every single "Unrelated"-"Child" comparison, of the same ethnic group obviously, has a negative FST. There's 5 of them. A negative FST is extremely rare: in the other 5,000 FST results listed, there are only 2 more negative FST's, and both of them involve one population with just 2 samples, indicating their result is garbage due to the ridiculously small sample size.

DagoRed said...

Blond hair map of Italy/Sicily/Sardinia:

http://mapsof.net/uploads/static-maps/blond_hair_italy.gif

Well, the purple zone is the Gallura region, like the study claims it's inhabitants are the more far from the bronze age people.

About the Greeks influence, already T. Mommsen already suggested,comparing languages, religion and social organization, a common origin of the Italic peoples and the Hellenics, who were divided in some parts of central Europe, before settling in their historic locations. This is why communities are older than someone can think.

Aaron said...

You can't involve YDNA haplogroups with this, but the evidence would support R1b1b2 being the indigenous South European group. They are the Nuragh people and Bell Beaker people who come later. The latter were broader skulled and may have been I2a1 + R1b1b2. If we state that from one study I-M26 was found in 40% of the population that really means nothing - it's only the male we speak of, and in a somewhat closed population this could become dominant in small villages - perhaps biased studies as well. We've established a fairly closed population with the mtDNA lines being very consistent over the years - as per the article. If we look at the whole island of Sardinia it is most likely R1b1b2 majority. Again, we can't really read too much into it. More than likely E, J, G are younger people in Southern Europe overall. This is consistent with the autosomal data as well. R1b1b2 + Atlantic-Med grouped autosomes follow a very close relationship when it comes to megalithism and other early Impressed ware civilizations. Even the populations where this pottery is not found, often other types of megalithism are found.

Jean said...

The problem is that the study classifies Ozieri as Neolithic. Ozieri is actually the first Copper Age culture on Sardinia, and the earliest in the Central Mediterranean. Metal artifacts there date from 4,250-3,350 B.C. and it was also capable of fine ceramics, the product of high-temperature kiln firing. So it looks like a colony that fled the Balkans at the time that tell settlements there were abandoned. As I postulate in http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/peoplingeurope.shtml#copper

That might explain the 40% Y-DNA I2a1 today in Sardinia - a founder effect from Ozieri. We would expect the mtDNA of Ozieri to reflect both the Balkan and local mix of Levantine farmers and European Mesolithic.

But we don't have aDNA from Ozieri. We have only the later Nuragic aDNA, after an influx of Bell Beaker, which may be responsible for raising the level of mtDNA H.

In short - life isn't making anything easy or straightforward for those of us trying to make sense of past migrations.

Gioiello said...

Dear Jean (sweet name for me: I have always in my heart Norma Jean), I understand you took the map of the Etruscan civilization from Wikipedia, but a researcher should always verify anyway: the Etruscan towns are Spina and not Spica (which in Latin is “ear of wheat”) and Velathri and no Felathri (my Volterra). Also on Campeva I’d have something to say, and then this mix of Etruscan, Latin, English!
That Sardinian I-M26 is come from the Balkans is a little bit believable, being the Balkan haplogroup I probably very recent (see Nordtvedt, the best expert on this) and not having the Balkans I-M26, very ancient and present only in West Europe (Spain), probably from Italy. Once I said to Ken if he preferred to swim to Sardinia from Spain or from Italy, and he said he preferred his yacht.
If your analyses on European linguistics and genetics are like Spica/Felathri I continue to hold on tightly to my theories.

DagoRed said...

Ozieri is a Neolithic center and has always been important in the Sardinian culture, but it is not a good sample, because the city was exposed to outside influences at all times.
For the study on the ancestry of the Sardinians is preferable to ignore the big or open to trades cities .
It is easy to see in all the studies that cities such as Cagliari, Olbia and Sassari have different results respect to their own hinterland and then you can find a girl like this.

http://www.admaioramedia.it/public/Foto/ValentinaSotgia.jpg

Annie Mouse said...

For Europe what I think I am seeing from this genetic data is:

(1)"Southern European" is the southern coastal most probably paleozoic migration (the Atlantic Coastal people). If I am right these people should be over represented in Galway, Ireland on the west coast. Haplogroup V apparently is over represented in central Sardinia, which is most interesting.

(2)"Northern European" a northern-route migration from the East that looks to me to also be paleozoic (ancient Haplogroup U population perhaps).

With the blending of these populations forming the original/basal population of Western Europe. This is the reason I think both of these are paleozoic.

(3) The Western Asian (blue) looks to me like a later input eating into the founding European populations from the east. Could be Neolithic or earlier. Looks like this migration skipped Sardinia, presumably because it was an island, and already had a possibly fierce population.

aargiedude said...

In my previous post I forgot to include the link to the xls file. But now I've updated the file, by including the Xing data, which had lots of perfect new populations that weren't represented in any of the previous studies (HGDP, HapMap3, Behar). So here:

FST genetic distances (HGDP, HapMap3, Behar, Xing).xls

The smallest distance is a curious tie. It seems there are several separately obtained and unrelated Japanese samples, from HGDP, HapMap, etc. And 2 of these paired populations have exactly 0,0001 FST. The highest score is 0,4227 between Khoisan (Namibia) and Surui (Amazon jungle), opposite ends of the world. The average FST is 0,0960.

With the exception of 3 negative results which seem to be due to one of the populations having a sample size of 2 (!), there are 15 negative results, and all 15 seem to indicate the samples are related, either because it's a parent-child pairing from the HapMap3 samples, or because it's a single population but was included in 2 or more of the studies I used, so it appears twice in the table and I calculated their FST versus each other like if they were different samples.

There are 145 total populations. I used 13,600 SNPs to calculate FST. Each had a minimum separation from each other of 100,000 bases, to remove LD.

I believe that the greater the number of samples, the more accurate the result. If you'd like to see a specific combination of populations compared versus each other, just tell me, it only takes me 3 minutes to run the program. But give me the exact cells you want to see bunched up. For example: C and D (Biaka and Mbuti Pygmies) versus G, BK, CH and DB (Kenyans and Ethiopians).

Fanty said...

I wonder why the FST seems to totaly disagree with the admixture calculations.

The FST says CEU are closer to North Italians than to Belorussians.

The admixture components show a 82% overlap between CEU and Belorussians but only 70% between CEU and North Italians. Or 75% CEU/Spanish overlap (but FST says Spanish are closer)

How can this be explained?

Fanty said...

@Annie Mouse

Yeah, maybe.
But there is a problem with "U".

"U" may NOW be dominant in the North-East. But studies claim that in the hunter gatherer age, U was the dominant haplogroup between from Spain to the Ural.

Plus the claim, that "U" may even originate in Spain.

Another effect I observed is, if one uses Basques as an anchor population, their cluster copies R1b

But if one does not, their cluster is assimiliated into the northern European cluster, not the southern European cluster at some circumstances.

Wich would suggest most R1(a+b both) beeing closer connected to North than to South. (After all, it seems that most of West-European R1b SNP have the highest microsatelite diversity in Germany)

Also, if one remove the Lithuanian anchor, but leave a Basque/Chuvash instead, the North-Eurpean cluster is totaly dominated by the Basque and Chuvash components, wich blend into each others with the middle somewhere between Norway and Sweden. (Norse lean slightly to Basques and Swedes slightly to Chuvash). Hungarians apearing to be exactly the middle.

aargiedude said...

Now that I updated the FST table (linked above) with the new samples from HapMap3, Behar (2010), and Xing (2010), here's an updated map of Europe and its genetic distances, with Romania as the center.

Romania FST genetic distances.gif

I wonder why the FST seems to totaly disagree with the admixture calculations. The FST says CEU are closer to North Italians than to Belorussians.

Interesting. I was going to say that the sample size of Belarus (n=9) was probably distorting it's result, but now that I've checked Heath's 2008 study, with huge sample sizes, it turns out that CEU-Poland is 0,0026 and CEU-Russia is 0,0031, so the CEU-Belarus result of 0,0032 is actually pretty damn perfect. So I guess you're right, the FST disagrees with the admixture calculations.

Hmm, actually, I'm seeing that CEU-North Italy is also 0,0032, just like CEU-Belarus. North Italians aren't closer. And actually, now that I've looked, I'm not too sure the clusters are suggesting CEU are closer to North Italy. I would've put CEU closer to Belarus, really.

The admixture components show a 82% overlap between CEU and Belorussians but only 70% between CEU and North Italians.

This is kind of the opposite of what you said previously, I suppose you mistyped the first sentence. Anyhow, keep in mind that the clusters have variable genetic distances themselves. The 18% non-overlap between CEU-Belarus includes some East Asian clusters, while instead the 30% non-overlap between CEU-North Italy consists only of West Asian clusters, so despite having a greater mismatch, CEU-North Italy could still manage a smaller FST distance, or as happened in this case, the exact same FST distance as CEU-Belarus.

Also, I've done some tests taking the same 2 populations and picking a random subset from each and calculating their FST, and I've noticed that the FST score does dance around somewhat. There is some variance. Especially if the sample size is less than 30.

aargiedude said...

Forgot to add something. I'd really appreciate any new genotype data. If anyone knows of any study that tested at least 300K SNPs and whose genotype data is freely available, let me know. I already have the HGDP, HapMap3, Behar (2010), and Xing (2010) data.

I'll upload the results here as soon as I calculate them.

Annie Mouse said...

@ Fanty

""U" may NOW be dominant in the North-East. But studies claim that in the hunter gatherer age, U was the dominant haplogroup between from Spain to the Ural."

But last time I looked the evidence for southern U domination was absent? Just speculation based on all the U found in ancientmDNA (above a diagonal line from Scandinavia through Germany)

"Also, if one remove the Lithuanian anchor, but leave a Basque/Chuvash instead, the North-Eurpean cluster is totaly dominated by the Basque and Chuvash components"

Fascinating. I am particularly interested in the Chuvash and how they connect to Western Europe. Perhaps the Basques represent the Southern glacial enclave and the Chuvash the suspected Northern one? Although that still leaves us with tricky Lithuania to figure out. I would like to see some of this data correlated with geography on maps. Waves of different populations should show as gradients. A mixed population emerging from an enclave would retain relative proportions as it spreads out.

Gioiello said...

Argiedude writes: “Now that I updated the FST table (linked above) with the new samples from HapMap3, Behar (2010), and Xing (2010), here's an updated map of Europe and its genetic distances, with Romania as the center”.

Then what is said (and I said too) that Romanians derived from people coming from Italy and the Rhine Valley after the Roman conquest isn’t absurd.

Fanty said...

Second try (error)

"I am particularly interested in the Chuvash and how they connect to Western Europe"

Cant tell you their special connection to WESTERN Europe.
But their "Europeanes" is for example marked with a 35% mtDNA H.
dominating is however U, with 50%.

Amoung their Y-DNA are a 33% R1a1a* and 5% R1b. N only at 1.5%, kind of surprising.

The historical background of the Chuvash is virtually unknown.

What is known:

The area belonged to the Corded Ware Culture (a culture from the Ural to the Rhine and from the middle of Sweden to the Alps, wich many see as a anchestor culture to Baltic, Slavic and Germanic. Scandinavian R1a is explained with this culture.)

So, this explains Chuvash connection at least to the Rhine. Culturaly.

Then, its known that in the early middle age, 2 Sibirian tribes joined the Chuvash lands (this explaines their northern Asian admixture, wich varies between 10-25%)

Another thing that is known is, that one Chuvash tribe migrated into the Baltic states.

Chuvash speak a Turkish language and have some kind of Turkish culture. But by admixture calculations they are just Northern Europeans mixed with Northern Asians. Simple spoken, they would be like Fins, but with twice as much North Asian impact.
Funny that fins have 50% N and Chuvash only 1.5%, wich means N tells nothing about Asian influence.

And with their northern European admixture component, they have ties to western Europe for example.


Chuvash woman (quiet low Asian features):
http://www.russian-detective.com/images/Scammers/new/bahtina/zsw.jpg


Chuvash woman 2 (also quiet low Asian features):
http://pictures.wayn.com/photos/800x/028585624_843614328.jpg

Cuvash woman 3 (Quiet Asian):
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2285/2288315736_b2961b0f76.jpg?v=0

Chuvash male (medicore Asian features) http://pictures.wayn.com/photos/800x/029544857_871655932.jpg

Chuvash male 2:
http://www.nndb.com/people/778/000051625/nikolayev_andriyan-smaller.jpg

Bunch of Chuvash people:
http://www.allempires.net/uploads/6162/Chuvash2.jpg

.....

Here is a map, where the Basque cluster was assimiliated into the Northern European cluster Look, how it extents into the Iberian peninsular. I would even say, it reminds me of the combined R1 (a+b), with the exception of Finland, wich has virtually none R1 but still is dominated by this cluster.:

http://img28.imageshack.us/f/threebigclusters.jpg/

And thats an "Intra European K7":
http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/6969/intrak7.jpg

I dont have a map done yet, how it looks if the Lithuanian anchor is removed but the averages for some population are:

(Involved Anchors: Basque, Sardinians, Mozabites, Saudi Arabians, Georgians, Chuvash)

Average of 3 Germans:
Basque: 37%
Chuvash: 37%

2 Irish average:
Basque: 44%
Chuvash: 36%

The Behar French:
Basque: 41%
Chuvash: 27%

2 Swedes Average:
Basque: 37%
Chuvash: 48%

7 UK people:
Basque: 47%
Chuvash: 36%

Behars North Italians:
Basque: 30%
Chuvash: 16%

Behars North Russians:
Basque: 24%
Chuvash: 66%

Behars Orcadians:
Basque: 52%
Chuvash: 36%

Behars Romanians:
Basque: 23%
Chuvash: 28%

Behars Spanish:
Basques: 42%
Chuvash: 15%

Behars Lithuanians:
Basque: 34%
Chuvash: 60%

Fanty said...

Hope the post worked?
Had 2 erros. :(

Fanty said...

JUstin case it has not worked (it told something about "too big" or so.

I repost it in 2 parts:

PART 1:

"I am particularly interested in the Chuvash and how they connect to Western Europe"

Cant tell you their special connection to WESTERN Europe.
But their "Europeanes" is for example marked with a 35% mtDNA H.
dominating is however U, with 50%.

Amoung their Y-DNA are a 33% R1a1a* and 5% R1b. N only at 1.5%, kind of surprising.

The historical background of the Chuvash is virtually unknown.

What is known:

The area belonged to the Corded Ware Culture (a culture from the Ural to the Rhine and from the middle of Sweden to the Alps, wich many see as a anchestor culture to Baltic, Slavic and Germanic. Scandinavian R1a is explained with this culture.)

So, this explains Chuvash connection at least to the Rhine. Culturaly.

Then, its known that in the early middle age, 2 Sibirian tribes joined the Chuvash lands (this explaines their northern Asian admixture, wich varies between 10-25%)

Another thing that is known is, that one Chuvash tribe migrated into the Baltic states.

Chuvash speak a Turkish language and have some kind of Turkish culture. But by admixture calculations they are just Northern Europeans mixed with Northern Asians. Simple spoken, they would be like Fins, but with twice as much North Asian impact.
Funny that fins have 50% N and Chuvash only 1.5%, wich means N tells nothing about Asian influence.

And with their northern European admixture component, they have ties to western Europe for example.


Chuvash woman (quiet low Asian features):
http://www.russian-detective.com/images/Scammers/new/bahtina/zsw.jpg


Chuvash woman 2 (also quiet low Asian features):
http://pictures.wayn.com/photos/800x/028585624_843614328.jpg

Cuvash woman 3 (Quiet Asian):
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2285/2288315736_b2961b0f76.jpg?v=0

Chuvash male (medicore Asian features) http://pictures.wayn.com/photos/800x/029544857_871655932.jpg

Chuvash male 2:
http://www.nndb.com/people/778/000051625/nikolayev_andriyan-smaller.jpg

Bunch of Chuvash people:
http://www.allempires.net/uploads/6162/Chuvash2.jpg

Fanty said...

PART 2:

Here is a map, where the Basque cluster was assimiliated into the Northern European cluster Look, how it extents into the Iberian peninsular. I would even say, it reminds me of the combined R1 (a+b), with the exception of Finland, wich has virtually none R1 but still is dominated by this cluster.:

http://img28.imageshack.us/f/threebigclusters.jpg/

And thats an "Intra European K7":
http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/6969/intrak7.jpg

I dont have a map done yet, how it looks if the Lithuanian anchor is removed but the averages for some population are:

(Involved Anchors: Basque, Sardinians, Mozabites, Saudi Arabians, Georgians, Chuvash)

Average of 3 Germans:
Basque: 37%
Chuvash: 37%

2 Irish average:
Basque: 44%
Chuvash: 36%

The Behar French:
Basque: 41%
Chuvash: 27%

2 Swedes Average:
Basque: 37%
Chuvash: 48%

7 UK people:
Basque: 47%
Chuvash: 36%

Behars North Italians:
Basque: 30%
Chuvash: 16%

Behars North Russians:
Basque: 24%
Chuvash: 66%

Behars Orcadians:
Basque: 52%
Chuvash: 36%

Behars Romanians:
Basque: 23%
Chuvash: 28%

Behars Spanish:
Basques: 42%
Chuvash: 15%

Behars Lithuanians:
Basque: 34%
Chuvash: 60%

Annie Mouse said...

"Cant tell you their special connection to WESTERN Europe.
But their "Europeanes" is for example marked with a 35% mtDNA H.
dominating is however U, with 50%."


But the Haplogroup H in the Chuvash is mainly H6, which is rare in Western Europe. This implies to me that this is a group that (mostly) did not make it as far as Western Europe. An earlier offshoot of the original "Northern European" population

Still chewing over the rest of what you said.

Fanty said...

Maybe the northern european component is older than the H6 mutation.

Or founder effects.
In a single population for example, should most people have more or less the same aDNA, no matter what haplogroups they have.

If a small group of that splits off to another region, it may not be representative for the original group, if it comes to haplogroups. But they would have identical aDNA.

If now drift adds to the founder effect, then you have 2 groups that are totaly different in haplogroup setup, but still absolut identical at aDNA level.

I mean, if one reads stuff like, that most of all western Europeans (or at least 50% chunks of whole countries) stem form a single man that lived like 5k years ago (wich suggests uber-extreme drift and almost unbelievable founder effects bejond all imagination power....) its possible that the other men of his tribe (whos Y-DNA did not survive!) had different Y-DNA.