tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post8223684630276612360..comments2024-03-09T15:46:44.638+01:00Comments on For what they were... we are: Dystruct versus AdmixtureMajuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-91538705237047461742018-02-20T02:24:46.610+01:002018-02-20T02:24:46.610+01:00Yeah, what you say about Karelia-HG is true and a ...Yeah, what you say about Karelia-HG is true and a bit perplexing. I had not thought about it twice, as they appear as "absolutely normal European-HGs". I did comment on the pre-pub study that in order "to be reasonably certain of this, I'd suggest reprocessing using also Iran-Neolithic and Caucasus-HG samples"...Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-68559711641368901122018-02-19T18:43:27.441+01:002018-02-19T18:43:27.441+01:00I guess moreso than the temporal distance I was su...I guess moreso than the temporal distance I was surprised by the fact that the dysfunct model gets rid of the relationship of Yamnaya and the Karelia-Samara hunter-gatherers. Though I think that said relationship mostly had to do with the quite muddled ANE ghost component. So this might actually be more accurate than earlier models.<br /><br />Modern Caucasus populations show the highest contribution of the orange Kostenki component. I guess that would make sense given the proximity to the steppe. It's a shame they didn't include the CHGs and early Iranian samples. I'd think they'd come out very 'orange' as well.Markohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13528332333708536220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-87183136463201667232018-02-19T04:24:06.340+01:002018-02-19T04:24:06.340+01:00Why not? Kostenki was Gravettian and these guys we...Why not? Kostenki was Gravettian and these guys were soon after the last Epigravettian. There are only so many prehistorical migrations of some size to Europe, you know: (1) the Protoaurignacian or "Aurignacoid" one c. 50 Ka BP, (2) the Gravettian one c. 32 Ka BP and (3) the Neolithic one c. 8 Ka BP. Also it gets rid of that pesky ANE ghost, which is on its own definitely a good sign. <br /><br />As for the blog, I don't think i'll be the same. I'm less into following everything now and more in the mood of "this is worth noting". But thanks for the kind comment in any case. Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-82618505574861530252018-02-19T00:05:46.444+01:002018-02-19T00:05:46.444+01:00Glad to see you back! This has always been my favo...Glad to see you back! This has always been my favorite blog about prehistory, and I was distraught to see it die :-)<br /><br />Looking at the paper it seems that in the authors' model the Samara_HG is not related to the Yamnaya herders, but rather to the other European hunter gatherers. I think you misread that bit.<br /><br />Though it seems kind of hard to believe that unmixed descendants of Kostenki still existed by the bronze age - unless the were tucked away in the Caucasus, southern Central Asia or some other region yet unsampled. The dystruct model would suggest that the newcomers completely replaced the Mesolithic population of Russia & Ukraine.Markohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13528332333708536220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-75860868372910738462018-02-17T00:21:40.739+01:002018-02-17T00:21:40.739+01:00If you read the paper, they discuss a lot their si...If you read the paper, they discuss a lot their simulations and one thing they state is that it's perfectly possible to sample some key ancestral population just once: it happened to them in their virtual scenarios. Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-45575203530628284572018-02-17T00:18:56.842+01:002018-02-17T00:18:56.842+01:00Something I'm pretty sure about is that the CW...Something I'm pretty sure about is that the CW invasion did not kill all the farmers. The data we have is from very specific sites and regions and for example West Germany is poorly studied, among many other West European regions; the people who are really at the forefront of archaeogenetic research are based in East Germany, and to some extent in Sweden also, and that implies some important sampling biases for autosomal data. For ADNmt, a simpler technique, there is more abundance of data and to my eyes it does suggest that Western Europe and very possibly regions like Rhineland-Westfalia, Denmark, etc. could be critical in explaining the changes. Of course I'd like more archaeogenetic research in France: a huge state with a most important role in European prehistory, role still not properly ascertained. Also from the Low Countries, Iberia, Britain, Italy even: we know so little from West of the Elbe!Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-71323970779230603102018-02-14T14:23:24.838+01:002018-02-14T14:23:24.838+01:00Thank you. Very interesting how the CWC interacted...Thank you. Very interesting how the CWC interacted with HG & the BBC had more Farmer input( from where?). It’s a great time to be alive. We know so much about our ancient ancestors migrations. I’ve studied the Pontic Caspian Steppe Bronze Age Herders as my mtDNA spread with those Herders migrations. However, it had very little impact on my Autosomal DNA. jvhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283765275775165180noreply@blogger.com