Saturday, April 25, 2015

Eurogenes Admixture results for Motala HGs, Stora Förvar 11 Mesolithic and Samara HGs


(Link) to the spreadsheet

(Link) to the blog post where "Davidski" has posted the spreadsheet in the comments section.

Note that Swedish Motala HGs mysteriously show 100% "EuroHG" Ancestry.  Maybe it's just me, but I don't think I've ever seen an Admixture run that consistently weights as 100% in a particular component at K=10 over multiple samples from the same population.  There is almost always some variation at low level between the samples.

Looking at some of the other data in this run, the Mesolithic sample, Stora Förvar 11, also from Sweden, is shown as having approximately 17.7% "North Caucasus" ancestry:

Summarizing the Stora Förvar 11 sample, components for > 5% on this K=10 Eurogenes Admixture run: 
"Early European Farmer": 8.3%,
"North Caucasus": 17.7%,
"EuroHG": 71.3%
This Stora Förvar 11 sample was found on Stora Karlsö, a small island off the west coast of the larger Swedish island of Gotland, in the Baltic Sea. The remains were dated to 7,500 to 7,250 years ago.  They were found in a late Mesolithic context.
In comparison, the Samara HG results on the same run are as follows:
Summarizing Samara HG components for > 5% on this K=10 Eurogenes Admixture run: 
"Early European Farmers": 0%,
"North Caucasus": 26.5%,
"Amerindian": 9.25%
"EuroHG": 64.2%

The Samara hunter-gatherer sample I0124 is from Samara, near the Volga River in Russia. The sample is dated to 5650–5555 BC.
So, at least on this Admixture run, it is quite apparent that "North Caucasus" ancestry was already established both in the Baltic Sea and on the Volga River in the Mesolithic.  The Samara_HG Sample and the Stora Förvar 11 are quite similar, as is the Karelia I0061 sample (which you can check for yourself by looking at the spreadsheet.)
The major difference is that the Samara HG sample has some Amerindian like ancestry that does not appear in Western Europeans. 
Looking at the Stora Förvar 11 and Karelia samples, it is obvious that there is no need to argue for mass migration from the Steppe during the Neolithic or Bronze Age to explain the "North Caucasus" component in modern European populations.   This component was already present in Northern European populations in the Mesolithic.
In any event, it would be a fool's errand to try to use estimates of the proportion of this "North Caucasus" ancestry in populations of the Neolithic and Bronze age to try to pinpoint the source of Indo-European languages in a Steppe specific Bronze Age population within the last 5,000 years.  This component was obviously already widely distributed all the way from Gotland to the Steppe by the Mesolithic.  (. . . As I have argued for the last four months.)
But, hey, some people are fools and ignore their own data . . . and want to get their papers published in Nature, Science and the Society for American Archaeology by inventing salacious scenarios to grab attention for their projects. The bar is sometimes low.  What else can I say?
Map of Northern Europe, showing the Island of Gotland.
Related Posts on this Blog:

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comments have temporarily been turned off. Because I currently have a heavy workload, I do not feel that I can do an acceptable job as moderator. Thanks for your understanding.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.