tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post6535838491292188117..comments2024-01-04T04:11:55.717+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: A genetic map of West EurasiansDienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger55125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-9857001414277042562011-01-19T16:56:29.443+02:002011-01-19T16:56:29.443+02:00This is impossible to read. Most of the 3 letter a...This is impossible to read. Most of the 3 letter abbreviations are on top of each other and so totally illegible. Also the list of the abbreviations and names on the right of the diagram are not listed alphabetically, which makes it a real chore to try to look each abbreviation up.Garethhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14463625520338156844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-62563454224266167942011-01-19T05:54:04.325+02:002011-01-19T05:54:04.325+02:00What fraction of samples is from men? Is the clu...What fraction of samples is from men? Is the cluster of the 5 to 10 Sardinians due to the I2A M26+ y-DNA found in the interior?matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14331613045178862418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-20943325226970909032011-01-17T00:02:31.020+02:002011-01-17T00:02:31.020+02:00"I wonder how Portugal is east of Spain on PC..."I wonder how Portugal is east of Spain on PC plots. "<br /><br />I think it is because Portugal is coastal and so more exposed to new people arriving through coastal trade routes.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11000684388615334278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-8447544746673222302011-01-16T04:09:55.510+02:002011-01-16T04:09:55.510+02:00"I've always found a little odd that most..."I've always found a little odd that most the PC plots show Italy closed to Portugal than Spain. Historically and geographically you might expect Italy to be closer to Spain. <br /><br />I wonder how Portugal is east of Spain on PC plots. Maybe the "eastern" influx (middle east and Italy/Greece) in Portugal was smaller than Spain, as expected, but their population was much smaller ie Portugals population is "younger".<br /><br />_____________<br /><br />It´s a good question, but Portugal and Spain always cluster together, here they both are in the cluster 2, just like N.italians, french basque and greeks.<br /><br />North african (caucasian E-M81) influx in iberia goes from 3% to 7%, in 2009 (Y) study it gives 7,1% do Portugal and 7,7% to Spain, here it gives more to Portugal and less to Spain.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-15888279471971918792011-01-12T08:09:30.099+02:002011-01-12T08:09:30.099+02:00This is my shot at interpretating this data. It w...This is my shot at interpretating this data. It would be easier to understand if the chart was flipped to put the Beduin (closest to Africa) at the bottom left, paralleling geography. I see three separate trading/breeding blocks.<br /><br />Block 1: Europe<br />The main thing I can see for Europe is that most of the populations are composed of variable admixtures of a Northern component (represented by Lithuania/Finland) and a southern component (represented by Northern Italy/Tuscany). <br /><br />Lets suppose at the end of the last Ice age there were 3 relevant isolated populations with their own unique characteristics. The northern population (Lithuania). A Southern component (represented by Sardinia). And a second Northern component (represented by the Chuvash or possibly the Kalash).<br /><br />Initially there was a recipricol flow of people between the Northern population (Lit) and the southern component (Sar) with the Basque representing an intermediate. This trade and flow probably occured just after the last glacial maximum as people reoccupied the land.<br /><br />Southern Europe only (Tuscany/ N. Italy) later receives additional genetic input from another population (lots of options here) pulling it down a bit. This could be the neolithic expansion, but I dont think it is because then modern Greece would be the terminus, but Greece is just a bit too far down indicating that the big population change representing the neolithic occured later.<br /><br />Then there is a second period of flow between the North Italian/Tuscan population and the rest of Europe, that somehow bypasses the Sardinians and Basques (notoriously exclusive and fierce peoples).<br /><br />At some stage the second northern population (Chuvash/ maybe Kalash) interacts with the first Northern component (Lit) pulling the Russians down off the line. The Chuvash may be representative of this population but I think the Kalash could be closer to the original population with the Chuvash an just another admixture.<br /><br />Greece is then pulled off the line with the neolithic expansion. I expected towards Turkish populations but the location of the Cypriots is puzzling and it may be that the pull was towards a population closer to the modern Druze/Samaritans.<br />-----------------<br />The intermediate Jewish cluster is consistent with European/Middle Eastern admixture followed by isolation (Sej, Ash etc). I think the near overlap with Greece and Cyprus is just coincidental.<br />----------------<br />Block 2 :Middle East<br />The Middle East and West Asia forms a block startlingly separate from Europe but with a similar North/South population flow this time between what may be Africa (top right) and a Chuvash like northern population. So along the Southern mediterranean coast and up into central Asia.<br /><br />Iran forms a separate population with a strong flow via the Kurds into Turkey. No apparent Iranic connection with Europe. <br /><br />Block 3: India<br /><br />The Indian tribals form a third block with surprisingly little connection (given the proximity) to the Middle-Eastern and Iranic block. There are again signs of a north-south flow between probably Africa and something similar to the Chuvash/Kalash.<br /><br />Overall<br />What is curious here is there is no evidence of a common root in India or the Middle East. Just establishment of three separate populations and separate North-South reciprocol flow of people.<br /><br />Plus the pequeliar second northern component which manages to interact with all three blocks at their most northern reaches. And seems to have no relationship to Iranic people.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11000684388615334278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-11941123951123859082011-01-12T05:34:47.279+02:002011-01-12T05:34:47.279+02:00@Dienekes Igenea used to have some extra Services ...@Dienekes Igenea used to have some extra Services like telling you at hand of your DNA from where your ancestors originated from. The Haplogroups doesen´t played much role. But after many People complained and there was big discussion about this ancient Folk clusters they stoped to do it.My english is not the best. I hope I could express my self.Corduenehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10043775187139063006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-32300437351081221742011-01-06T18:05:00.205+02:002011-01-06T18:05:00.205+02:00"I look forward to the day when we will have ..."I look forward to the day when we will have estimates of genetic distances based on ALL of the genes. I am confident that the Greeks will be closer to the Turks than to the French."<br /><br />The reason why Greeks are closer to French is because they do not have the Central, and East Eurasian components that Turks have. And if Greeks have this, it is considerably smaller than the Turks, and non-existant in French.<br /><br />The way I see this algorithm working is in a basic way. (I am not the strongest mathematician) The testee groups are assigned to a cluster based on the closest similarity. So for instance, Iberians, Greeks, French, Italians, Romanians and even Basque are assigned to Cluster 2 because they all share a very strong S.European component, and a fairly strong N.European component.<br /><br />Western Jewish groups, Cypriots, and Sicilians have a more mild N.European component with mild to medium Near Eastern, African, and Middle-Eastern components. This groups them together.<br /><br />I'm not sure why it's always the Western jewish groups that are stated as being mixed. You don't think other diaspora populations had any mixture? I don't think we will find the ancient jewish population because even Egypt and Jordan have strong African components which are not nearly as well represented among modern jews anywhere. (though at very low levels) So which group changed? Perhaps they all have in the last 3000+ years.AWoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14966600445259901063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-37197568593146457762011-01-05T22:43:25.744+02:002011-01-05T22:43:25.744+02:00I have an idea: analyze the Greeks, Turks, Cypriot...I have an idea: analyze the Greeks, Turks, Cypriots, Armenians, Italians, French and Jews separately (analyze them in different combinations for more clarity if you wish); this way you can preclude drags resulting from small scale admixture from distant populations.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-73760738114885550622011-01-05T20:46:40.458+02:002011-01-05T20:46:40.458+02:00Anyway, I was talking about genetic distances, I w...<i>Anyway, I was talking about genetic distances, I was not saying that Greeks and Turks are identical. I mentioned political union as one factor along with the main factor of geographical proximity so I think that your reply is really a straw man response.</i><br /><br />I gave you four different reasons why Greeks and Turks should not be genetically close. Let me reiterate:<br /><br />(1) The Aegean and other geographical barriers to gene flow among pre-Turkish Greek populations<br />(2) 1/7 Central Asian admixture in Turks, including ~6% Mongoloid.<br />(3) Non-Greek West Eurasian admixture in Turks (e.g., Armenian, Assyrian, Caucasian and Tatar Muslim, Syrian, etc.)<br />(4) Psychological/political/religious arriers to gene flow in the Ottoman system.<br /><br /><br /><i>I think that you may be allowing possible anti-Turkish feeling to surface.</i><br /><br />Incorrect. I argued why the observed clear separation is what it is; you may choose to accept the empirical evidence or to continue being puzzled by it, but I have already explained how the evidence is perfectly consistent with what one might expect.<br /><br /><i>By the way, you do use modern place names when discussing ancient migrations, like "India", "Syria", so why not Turkey? Why do you make an exception and use "Anatolia"?</i><br /><br />India and Syria are not modern names, they were used by the ancient Greeks to describe both India and Syria. <br /><br />Anatolia is a good term for the pre-Turkish population of Anatolia. To use "Turkish" for that population would be wrong both because it is an anachronism and because the Turs were historically a part of the Anatolian population, and, until recent centuries, a small part.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-86612134367921543842011-01-05T20:24:15.683+02:002011-01-05T20:24:15.683+02:00Hence, I do not share your befuddlement about the ...<i>Hence, I do not share your befuddlement about the Greeks not being closer to Turks, and I've already mentioned four reasons (geographical Greek structure, Central Asian admixture, non-Greek West Eurasian admixture, the millet system of the Ottoman Empire) why they shouldn't be, just as we can observe with both our eyes and with genetics.</i><br /><br />Dienekes, there is no need for rude personal comments like "I do not share your befuddlement."<br /><br />Anyway, I was talking about genetic <i>distances</i>, I was not saying that Greeks and Turks are identical. I mentioned political union as one factor along with the main factor of geographical proximity so I think that your reply is really a straw man response.<br /><br />I think that you may be allowing possible anti-Turkish feeling to surface.<br /><br />I look forward to the day when we will have estimates of genetic distances based on ALL of the genes. I am confident that the Greeks will be closer to the Turks than to the French.<br /><br />By the way, you do use modern place names when discussing ancient migrations, like "India", "Syria", so why not Turkey? Why do you make an exception and use "Anatolia"?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-26636353702347648682011-01-05T20:06:13.679+02:002011-01-05T20:06:13.679+02:00Dienekes, I was talking about the people of Anatol...<i>Dienekes, I was talking about the people of Anatolia known today as Turks according to the normal manner of naming peoples and places, who you have said have only about 6% Turkic admixture. </i><br /><br />First of all, it's not normal manner to label ancient people with modern names. The people who lived in Anatolia 1500 years ago were not Turks. Hell, most of them were not Turks until quite recently when the Turkish Republic decided to forge a Turkish nation out of the heterogeneous Muslim population of the Ottoman Empire.<br /><br />Second, I did not estimate a 6% Turkic input, I estimated a ~6% Mongoloid input and about 1/7 Central Asian Turkic input.<br /><br /><i>I was quite right to say that they were a part of the same empire as the Greeks for 1500 years, first the Byzantines and then the Ottomans</i><br /><br />I've already addressed the 1500-years part.<br /><br />Moving on to the substantive part of your argument, co-existence within an Empire does not mean obliteration of genetic differences. For example, the genetic differences of various peoples that were part of the Holy Roman Empire in Europe were not obliterated. <br /><br />When the Greeks and the indigenous ancestors of the Turks (Greeks, Armenians, etc.) were part of the same Empire you cannot assume that there was substantial intermarriage between them. Continental Greeks and Cypriots form distinct clusters even though they shared the same religion and language. Cretans have been shown to be distinctive from mainland Greeks by Y-chromosome analyses etc. Hence, you cannot assume a homogeneous pre-Turkish population stratum even in a population where there were no linguistic or religious barriers to gene flow. Regionalism has played an important role in the fragmented geological landscape of the Balkans and Anatolia since prehistoric times.<br /><br />Second, even if the Greek component in Turks was exactly like that of modern Greeks, you are forgetting that Turks also have non-Greek West Eurasian elements in addition to the aforementioned Central Asian/Mongoloid element.<br /><br />Finally, there were religious-political barriers to gene flow during Ottoman times, and gene flow was largely unidirectional.<br /><br />Hence, I do not share your befuddlement about the Greeks not being closer to Turks, and I've already mentioned four reasons (geographical Greek structure, Central Asian admixture, non-Greek West Eurasian admixture, the millet system of the Ottoman Empire) why they shouldn't be, just as we can observe with both our eyes and with genetics.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-21560642658121246492011-01-05T19:47:32.861+02:002011-01-05T19:47:32.861+02:00You have your history wrong. Greeks and Turks were...<i>You have your history wrong. Greeks and Turks were not part of the same Empire for 1500 years. Turks arrived in Anatolia in the 11th century, and the Greeks and Turks co-existed in the Ottoman Empire for a variable period of time, depending on locality, but certainly much less than 1500 years.</i><br /><br />Dienekes, I was talking about the people of Anatolia known today as Turks according to the normal manner of naming peoples and places, who you have said have only about 6% Turkic admixture. I was quite right to say that they were a part of the same empire as the Greeks for 1500 years, first the Byzantines and then the Ottomans, though there was of course local variations as the boundaries of the empires naturally expanded and contracted through the centuries.<br /><br /><i>Also, you are misinterpreting the plot by inferring genetic distances from distances along the first two dimensions; as I've said countless times genetic distances are not preserved by low-dimensional representations. The map captures the main features of the data at a broad context, it does not ensure that every pairwise individual (and population) distance is preserved.</i><br /><br />OK fair enough, as long as readers dont go away with the false impression that the Jews are genetically intermediate between the Greeks and the Cypriots or that the Greeks are genetically closer to the French than to the Turks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-58156215312704116212011-01-05T19:38:45.640+02:002011-01-05T19:38:45.640+02:00I can buy that maybe some of the R1b1b2* results m...<i>I can buy that maybe some of the R1b1b2* results might turn out to be Middle Eastern when we get more detail (given King Tutankahmun's result). But we are not there yet.</i><br /><br />AM, Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews have levels of male haplogroups I, R1a and R1b to a total of about 20%. That is in fact lower than their Middle Eastern Syrian neighbours. (Iran and Iraq also have similar levels.) So the male haplogroup evidence is contrary to any large-scale mixture between Jews and the Europeans of Spain or Poland or anywhere in Europe where Jews dwelt in large numbers. The other 80% of Jewish haplogroups comprise levels of G, J1, J2, E, T, L and Q that are normal for the Middle East and consistent with a Middle Eastern genesis of the Jews.<br /><br />http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-91477940374135751622011-01-05T19:33:04.468+02:002011-01-05T19:33:04.468+02:00And how is it that the Greeks are closer to the Fr...<i>And how is it that the Greeks are closer to the French than to the Turks when the Greeks and the Turks are neighbours and they were part of the same empire for 1500 years under first the Byzantines and then the Ottomans?</i><br /><br />You have your history wrong. Greeks and Turks were not part of the same Empire for 1500 years. Turks arrived in Anatolia in the 11th century, and the Greeks and Turks co-existed in the Ottoman Empire for a variable period of time, depending on locality, but certainly much less than 1500 years.<br /><br />Also, you are misinterpreting the plot by inferring genetic distances from distances along the first two dimensions; as I've said countless times genetic distances are not preserved by low-dimensional representations. The map captures the main features of the data at a broad context, it does not ensure that every pairwise individual (and population) distance is preserved.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-70340389796741332342011-01-05T19:19:12.102+02:002011-01-05T19:19:12.102+02:00Does this experiment prove anything apart from tha...Does this experiment prove anything apart from that these 37,000 "markers" produce this plot map?<br /><br />Would it not be more informative about genetic distances if ALL of the genes were compared?<br /><br />How is it that the Greeks are shown as closer genetically to the Jews than to the Cypriots? And indeed how is it that that the Cypriots are shown as closer to the Jews than to the Greeks? How did the Jews come between the Greeks and the Cypriots? Surely a comparison of ALL of the genes would produce a very different picture?<br /><br />And how is it that the Greeks are closer to the French than to the Turks when the Greeks and the Turks are neighbours and they were part of the same empire for 1500 years under first the Byzantines and then the Ottomans?<br /><br />And the Belorussians are as close or closer to the Scots than they are to the Russians?<br /><br />Does this plot map not seem counter-intuitive? Is it any more than an experirment on a predetermined data set of 37,000 "markers"?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-69682818766813301002011-01-05T15:16:59.343+02:002011-01-05T15:16:59.343+02:00Specifically Behar focuses on a group of K subclad...Specifically Behar focuses on a group of K subclades and N1b.<br /><br />http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1380291/?tool=pmcentrez<br /><br />In Behars own paper Figure 2 shows all but one of the K subclades (light blue) rooted in Europe (red). One subclade is shown as rooted in West Asia.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11000684388615334278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-10999806720397530022011-01-05T15:16:39.999+02:002011-01-05T15:16:39.999+02:00"The other thing I'm thinking as to why I..."The other thing I'm thinking as to why Italy is closer to Portugal on PC plot is because Portugal has more North African, which is reasonable historically and geographically, and that n. African influence pushed Portugal eastward.<br /><br /><br />Uh?<br />Tuscans and North Italians show any north african, nor west or east african admixture in any plot.<br />The african admixture in Iberia, both Portugal and Spain, is by far larger than in North-central Italy and for what i know african admixture and levant admixture have nothing in common.alfiohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10933271829812947439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-44723193289993190182011-01-05T12:19:23.384+02:002011-01-05T12:19:23.384+02:00Dienekes, why do you separate Cypriots from Greeks...<i>Dienekes, why do you separate Cypriots from Greeks?</i><br /><br />"Cypriots" is a sample collected/labeled by Behar et al., and consists of individuals from the Republic of Cyprus, probably Greeks as Greeks outnumber ethnic minorities in Cyprus (Armenians etc.) and the sample seems homogeneous.<br /><br />"Greeks" is a sample of Dodecad Project members. If enough people join the "Greeks" sample so I can split it even further according to my 5-person rule (e.g., there are 5 Cretans, or 5 Peloponnesians, or whatever other subgroup), then I will split it further.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-32058579925259079882011-01-05T06:58:22.542+02:002011-01-05T06:58:22.542+02:00Dienekes, why do you separate Cypriots from Greeks...Dienekes, why do you separate Cypriots from Greeks?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-22616603839939501002011-01-05T05:35:50.690+02:002011-01-05T05:35:50.690+02:00I've always found a little odd that most the P...I've always found a little odd that most the PC plots show Italy closed to Portugal than Spain. Historically and geographically you might expect Italy to be closer to Spain. <br /><br />I wonder how Portugal is east of Spain on PC plots. Maybe the "eastern" influx (middle east and Italy/Greece) in Portugal was smaller than Spain, as expected, but their population was much smaller ie Portugals population is "younger".<br /><br />The other thing I'm thinking as to why Italy is closer to Portugal on PC plot is because Portugal has more North African, which is reasonable historically and geographically, and that n. African influence pushed Portugal eastward.<br /><br />Does someone know how Spain and Portugal relate to Italy differently?princenuadhahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02165977957244158593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-82534256751013017172011-01-05T04:14:15.519+02:002011-01-05T04:14:15.519+02:00Mitochondrial haplogroup N1b is possible but even ...Mitochondrial haplogroup N1b is possible but even that is more common in Georgians of Eastern Europe.<br /><br />"Haplogroup N1b originated in southwestern Asia and remains concentrated there today, reaching its highest levels among the Mazandarani of northern Iran and the Georgians of the Caucasus Mountains between the Caspian and Black Seas. It is also detected at lower levels among the Egyptians, Saudi Arabians, Bedouin and other Near Eastern populations."<br /><br />from 23 and Me literature.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11000684388615334278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-14065655586070536542011-01-05T03:57:08.381+02:002011-01-05T03:57:08.381+02:00Dienekes:
You are likely right that Jews are the ...Dienekes:<br /><br />You are likely right that Jews are the result of admixture but Ponto is wrong in saying that Jews are basically Europeans who practice Judaism. Most Jewish populations - including Ashkenazi Jews - have significant Middle Eastern ancestry.Average Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12203996329459638052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-84268468532622216332011-01-05T03:50:12.024+02:002011-01-05T03:50:12.024+02:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11000684388615334278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-75039426146586114112011-01-05T03:15:27.771+02:002011-01-05T03:15:27.771+02:00@Apostate
I have read those papers and come to di...@Apostate<br /><br />I have read those papers and come to different conclusions. You have to look at the actual haplogroups they are talking about. <br /><br />I have no doubt that many haplogroups common in Ashkenazi today have been in the community for a long time. Some have even accumulated characteristic Jewish patterns of mutation in that time. But they are not originally Middle Eastern. Or at least there is no evidence, or likelyhoood, that they are. mi-Haplogroup K is just one example. <br /><br />I can buy that maybe some of the R1b1b2* results might turn out to be Middle Eastern when we get more detail (given King Tutankahmun's result). But we are not there yet.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11000684388615334278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-85767612509171962742011-01-05T02:42:43.443+02:002011-01-05T02:42:43.443+02:00We'll see what happens with these Israeli bone...We'll see what happens with these Israeli bones. Perhaps in the end things will be somewhere in between what Gioiello claims and the other extreme. I am a bit surprised by the large number of studies on Jewish populations. Gives an idea of what effect a religion can have. Other effects are car bombs, IED, etc. etc.Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01148345006852811881noreply@blogger.com