ancient modelling from anthrogenica

[FinalFlash]

Sure. The same way Levant_N gets overrepresented when you run Levant_N and Anatolia_N in the same model.

30% direct CHG ancestry for Georgians is odd enough. but since yamnaya itself is 30-40% CHG it adds extra indirect CHG for Georgians. but again, unless we see more qpAdm models of Georgians, we can't say for sure..

It's a very old Neolithic population. Nothing strange that it tops out in Georgians at 30% max.

 

[FinalFlash]

The one caveat is that there's only 1 or 2 CHG samples available. If more were available for testing then results may change somewhat, but we can only analyze what we have at the moment.

 

[Ben Dover]

It's a very old Neolithic population. Nothing strange that it tops out in Georgians at 30% max.

I see your point. but modeling populations with CHL, BA, IA components won't tell us who is native to what region and who isn't. CHL, BA, and IA components are all mixed up with Neolithic and pre-neolithic components from various regions.

For example, You can't model Armenians with Bronze Age levant and expect Armenians to be let's say 25% Levantine. Whereas, if you were to model Armenians with Natufians that would be a far better measure to determine the Levantine ancestry of Armenians.

 

[Ben Dover]

I see your point. but modeling populations with CHL, BA, IA components won't tell us who is native to what region and who isn't. CHL, BA, and IA components are all mixed up with Neolithic and pre-neolithic components from various regions.

For example, You can't model Armenians with Bronze Age levant and expect Armenians to be let's say 25% Levantine. Whereas, if you were to model Armenians with Natufians that would be a far better measure to determine the Levantine ancestry of Armenians.

At least on G25 that is.

 

[FinalFlash]

I see your point. but modeling populations with CHL, BA, IA components won't tell us who is native to what region and who isn't. CHL, BA, and IA components are all mixed up with Neolithic and pre-neolithic components from various regions.

For example, You can't model Armenians with Bronze Age levant and expect Armenians to be let's say 25% Levantine. Whereas, if you were to model Armenians with Natufians that would be a far better measure to determine the Levantine ancestry to Armenians.

Why wouldn't using BA and IA samples tell you who is native to what region and who isn't? That's precisely what they do because IA and BA populations are going to explain how modern day ethnic groups are formed, certainly for Armenians at least.

Using Neolithic models only, you are basically reading the first few pages of the book while skipping the remaining chapters. You won't grasp the full picture Using this method.

Now, if you want to "isolate" components in a vacuum to see what a population consists of, I suppose you can run a Neolithic model. Keep in mind however, G25 also gives precedence to relatively newer samples when ran with older models so that could possibly skew a picture as well. Using samples that overlap like CHG/Iran N or Steppe/CHG can skew things too.

Because of these issues, I simply prefer qpAdm to G25. Hopefully, more samples, particularly CHG is found so we can get a better picture.

 

[Ben Dover]

Why wouldn't using BA and IA samples tell you who is native to what region and who isn't?

Because BA and IA samples consist of many types of Copper age, Neolithic and pre-Neolithic samples which were native to their own lands respectively. Using such mixed components don't paint the picture. They just mask the clear picture. That's similar to comparing a mixed person to a pure person ethnicity wise and trying to refer that person as being pure something when in fact it has a lot of other ethnicities thrown into his or her genetic makeup.

That's precisely what they do because IA and BA populations are going to explain how modern day ethnic groups are formed, certainly for Armenians at least.

Yet it's not a particularly good way to determine to which places of the globe Armenians are really native to.

Using Neolithic models only, you are basically reading the first few pages of the book while skipping the remaining chapters. You won't grasp the full picture Using this method.

It's the base of everything else that follows. it's still a better way to grasp the full picture. Let's say that Georgians are indeed 30% CHG but if we model Georgians with Caucasus_BA instead of CHG, they are 70% Caucasus_BA. But we can't say that Georgians are 70% native to the Caucasus region, because caucasus_BA itself deviates from CHG which is more pure/native to the caucasus region than Caucasus_BA is. The latter contains more stuff from neighboring or different regions too yet a population will get it in a higher proportion.

 

[Ben Dover]

@FinalFlash have you used qpAdm yourself

 

[FinalFlash]

Because BA and IA samples consist of many types of Copper age, Neolithic and pre-Neolithic samples which were native to their own lands respectively. Using such mixed components don't paint the picture. They just mask the clear picture. That's similar to comparing a mixed person to a pure person ethnicity wise and trying to refer that person as being pure something when in fact it has a lot of other ethnicities thrown into his or her genetic makeup.

Yet it's not a particularly good way to determine to which places of the globe Armenians are really native to.

It's the base of everything else that follows. it's still a better way to grasp the full picture. Let's say that Georgians are indeed 30% CHG but if we model Georgians with Caucasus_BA instead of CHG, they are 70% Caucasus_BA. But we can't say that Georgians are 70% native to the Caucasus region, because caucasus_BA itself deviates from CHG which is more pure/native to the caucasus region than Caucasus_BA is. The latter contains more stuff from neighboring or different regions too yet a population will get it in a higher proportion.

You're whole premise is that everything Neolithic is ground zero but you're also forgetting that there is pre-neolithic populations that have existed and even pre pre-neolithic and so on and so forth. Even those Neolithic populations you speak of are mixed and don't paint the entire picture either. Using them as a benchmark for nativeity is a moot point.

Example: Barcin_N is a sample that was excavated in modern day Turkey, yet on calculators they don't peak in modern day Turks or other NWAs but in Sardinians and Basque. Did the Basque make their way to modern day Iberia or Sardinia and mixed with the locals or were they the origin or Barcin N where some of them made their way to Anatolia whilst some stayed in Iberia and mingled with the locals all those thousands of years ago?

The issue is that we don't have the capability at the moment to gauge what those extremely old populations consisted of because we don't either have enough samples or anything to compare to, really.

What we do have is relatively newer samples that we can compare modern populations to more accurately. Populations that have at least been recorded during the LBA and EIA periods. Populations that are attested to.

As for determining nativeity for modern day populations, that is quite easy, and certainly much easier to determine that for Neolithic populations.

 

[FinalFlash]

@FinalFlash have you used qpAdm yourself

I haven't. But I've seen some runs posted by Onyx and by another acquaintance of mine. They make much more sense from a geographic, chronological, and archeological perspective for me at least.

 

[Ben Dover]

You're whole premise is that everything Neolithic is ground zero but you're also forgetting that there is pre-neolithic populations that have existed and even pre pre-neolithic and so on and so forth. Even those Neolithic populations you speak of are mixed and don't paint the entire picture either. Using them as a benchmark for nativeity is a moot point.

Your previous point regarding IA, BA samples being better than neolithic samples for determining nativeness for modern day populations is contradicted in your most recent post and I'll explain why in a few sentences. but before that let's talk about this. If we go far back to the dawn of our species, we are all only native to SE Africa as suggested by the origins of Homo sapiens. Anywhere else where groups of those ancient humans settled and called those places homes aren't their actual homes. They migrated there. The same applies to billions of people today. Anyway, to keep things more on par with the current situation, using neolithic populations are the best way to determine where these migrated human populations are native to in the occupied lands. And I don't use the word native in a direct sense considering the previous point that I made. Using neolithic sources are better overall because they aren't too mixed up like the samples from later periods and most of these neolithic/early neolithic samples are still present in most of modern day populations. For sure neolithic and even pre-neolithic samples aconsist of ancestral components but we should draw a line here. if the issue is that neolithic samples are already mixed then how could you justify using even more mixed components to determining nativeness of modern day populations? that's right. It can't be easily done. Therefore it's a contradiction.

Example: Barcin_N is a sample that was excavated in modern day Turkey, yet on calculators they don't peak in modern day Turks or other NWAs but in Sardinians and Basque.

That's because modern day Turks are less "native" to Anatolia than Sardinians are. Sardinians also have WHG but nonetheless they are the purest Anatolians. just because they live on a Sardininan island now that doesn't mean that they don't descend from native anatolians, again judging by the neolithic sources.

Did the Basque make their way to modern day Iberia or Sardinia and mixed with the locals or were they the origin or Barcin N where some of them made their way to Anatolia whilst some stayed in Iberia and mingled with the locals all those thousands of years ago?

If we conclude that Sardinian population prior to modern day Sardinians descended from only WHG-like people or something else then it could have several explanations. The same goes for Basques. but it's not that relevant of a point to this discussion because it can have several separate discussions which will deviate things from the discussion.

The issue is that we don't have the capability at the moment to gauge what those extremely old populations consisted of because we don't either have enough samples or anything to compare to, really.

Which is why they can be taken as the "genesis" components for the modern day populations as I have said already.

What we do have is relatively newer samples that we can compare modern populations to more accurately. Populations that have at least been recorded during the LBA and EIA periods. Populations that are attested to.

And it's prevelanet that these LBA, EIA populations are all mixed bunch from previous periods/different locations.

As for determining nativeity for modern day populations, that is quite easy, and certainly much easier to determine that for Neolithic populations.

I have already gone over that.

 

[idklolimo]

all Middle Easterners are between 70-100% basal Eurasian

 

[FinalFlash]

Your previous point regarding IA, BA samples being better than neolithic samples for determining nativeness for modern day populations is contradicted in your most recent post and I'll explain why in a few sentences. but before that let's talk about this. If we go far back to the dawn of our species, we are all only native to SE Africa as suggested by the origins of Homo sapiens. Anywhere else where groups of those ancient humans settled and called those places homes aren't their actual homes. They migrated there. The same applies to billions of people today. Anyway, to keep things more on par with the current situation, using neolithic populations are the best way to determine where these migrated human populations are native to in the occupied lands. And I don't use the word native in a direct sense considering the previous point that I made. Using neolithic sources are better overall because they aren't too mixed up like the samples from later periods and most of these neolithic/early neolithic samples are still present in most of modern day populations. For sure neolithic and even pre-neolithic samples aconsist of ancestral components but we should draw a line here. if the issue is that neolithic samples are already mixed then how could you justify using even more mixed components to determining nativeness of modern day populations? that's right. It can't be easily done. Therefore it's a contradiction.

Neolithic samples are the "purest" by virtue of being the oldest gaugeable samples that are available. However, they don't have a direct impact to the overwhelming majority of modern day populations. I justify using BA/IA samples to model modern day populations because they are the sources directly responsible for the ethnogensis of modern day Old World populations for the most part. Their being a diluted/mixed/diverted offshore of N-Era populations is irrelevant to me. By that logic, sooner or later, we will be of the same opinion regarding N-era samples once even more pre-N bones are unearthed en masse sooner or later. We view the N samples as the purest because of technological limitations and lack of samples at this moment in time, nothing more nothing less.

That's because modern day Turks are less "native" to Anatolia than Sardinians are. Sardinians also have WHG but nonetheless they are the purest Anatolians. just because they live on a Sardininan island now that doesn't mean that they don't descend from native anatolians, again judging by the neolithic sources.

If we conclude that Sardinian population prior to modern day Sardinians descended from only WHG-like people or something else then it could have several explanations. The same goes for Basques. but it's not that relevant of a point to this discussion because it can have several separate discussions which will deviate things from the discussion.

Are modern day Turks less "native" though? Especially when taking most BA and even some pre-BA samples that we have into account? Sure, if we cherry-pick Barcin N as evidence for non-"nativity" then we would have to afford the same courtesy to most NWAs seeing how some of us are well over 40% Barcin. At that point, you'd have to start questioning the "nativity" of virtually every ethnicity on the planet barring a few exceptions.

Again, if you cherry pick using some arbitrary measure then as you put it, we all descend from some area in modern day e Africa. This method however, completely ignores thousands of years of human migrations and their roles in the ethnogensis of their descendants. Be careful with arbitrary cutoffs 😀

Which is why they can be taken as the "genesis" components for the modern day populations as I have said already.

This is where you and I fundamentally disagree. Why would you give this much importance to extinct populations who've had ZERO direct impact on you, myself, or any other Joe Schmoe that's on this forum? I totally understand their impact on our predecessors but using Neolithic Era sources on our DNA runs is never going to give you a more accurate picture as opposed to sources that are relatively newer and have likely contributed to your ethnogensis directly.

Look, I also see your point as well. I've made millions of runs using neolithic sources myself because I too am interested and it can be kind of fun when you dive into the tinier details but to reliably model ethnic groups today at a more accurate level, LBA and IA sources are your best bet. You'll never get a better fit distance from using N Era models as opposed to the later BA/IA Era either.

 

[Kurdquistador]

wut . neolithic populations ARE our ancestors . with them other time period populations formed (BA , IA)

i like neolithic models the most . whats the point of modelling yourself with 2 iron age pops ....oh i really have ancestry from hasanlu and anatolia ?.. oh you dont say ..

 

[Ben Dover]

@FinalFlash will respond later when I am on pc.

 

[FinalFlash]

wut . neolithic populations ARE our ancestors . with them other time period populations formed (BA , IA)

i like neolithic models the most . whats the point of modelling yourself with 2 iron age pops ....oh i really have ancestry from hasanlu and anatolia ?.. oh you dont say ..

They're not directly responsible for the Kurdish ethnogensis. You liking N models most doesn't change this fact. I like N models too because they can be fun to mess with but why give them this much importance?

The point in modeling yourself with IA populations is to see where your true ancestry comes from lol. What have I been saying this entire time?

 

[Kurdquistador]

They're not directly responsible for the Kurdish ethnogensis. You liking N models most doesn't change this fact. I like N models too because they can be fun to mess with but why give them this much importance?

The point in modeling yourself with IA populations is to see where your true ancestry comes from lol. What have I been saying this entire time?

why not go a step further ? let us model us with using our grandparents .....

the point is to go as far back as possible to see my ancient ancestors

 

[FinalFlash]

why not go a step further ? let us model us with using our grandparents .....

the point is to go as far back as possible to see my ancient ancestors

It becomes too dissimilar at that point in my opinion. You can see it from the relatively larger fit distances. It's going to get even weirder once we obtain pre N and eras before that as well.

 

[Kurdquistador]

It becomes too dissimilar at that point in my opinion. You can see it from the relatively larger fit distances. It's going to get even weirder once we obtain pre N and eras before that as well.

still . both have their place . IA and Neo

i am more interested in very far back times rather than recent

 

[FinalFlash]

still . both have their place . IA and Neo

i am more interested in very far back times rather than recent

Fair enough. I like both but give more value to LBA/IA

 

[Luso]

Target: Luso_scaled Distance: 2.4094% / 0.02409403
50.6	AnatolianFarmer
31.2	IndoEuropeanSteppePastoralist
10.6	WestEuropeanHunterGatherer
6.8	Iberomaurusian
0.4	Jomon
0.4	PygmaicForager