search this blog

Thursday, September 8, 2016

ASHG 2016 abstracts


The 2016 Meeting Online Planner and Abstract Search can be accessed here. Unless I'm missing something, there's surprisingly little ancient genomics stuff this year considering the huge advances in this area recently.

However, Iain Mathieson has an interesting contribution about interactions between Balkan foragers and early Balkan farmers. Reading between the lines, I reckon we can probably expect some R1b in these Balkan ancients. This shouldn't be surprising, however, considering the publication earlier this year of the Ice Age Villabruna genome from present-day northeast Italy, which belonged to R1b and, as pointed out by myself, also showed strong genome-wide ties to ancient Siberians (see here).

Genome-wide ancient DNA from Europe’s first encounter of farmers and hunter-gatherers. I. Mathieson.

Oleg Balanovsky has been acting a little strange lately; seemingly going out of his way to fight the Kurgan Indo-European paradigm in various papers and talks. In this poster he underlines the fact that the Yamnaya people from the North Caspian region did not totally vacate their homeland nor moved en masse to Western Europe, but actually left most of their descendants in the North Caspian. OK Oleg, but almost all modern day Europeans, especially those from across Northern and Eastern Europe, do derive a lot of their ancestry from Bronze Age steppe groups closely related to the Yamnaya people of the North Caspian. This will become even more obvious soon with the publication of new ancient data from the Baltic region.

Y-chromosomal sequencing and screening reveal both stability and migrations in North Eurasian populations. O. Balanovsky.

And here we have what appears to be yet another hilariously wrong paper in the making on the population history of South Asia. Why do they mention Anatolia? How about the Arctic Circle? Enough already. Get some goddamn ancient genomes from South Asia and finally do it right.

Genetic variation reveals migrations into the Indian subcontinent and its influence on the Indian society. A. Bose, D.E. Platt, L. Parida, P. Paschou, P. Drineas.

These abstracts also sparked my interest, in a positive way:

Using whole-genome sequencing to shed insight on the complex prehistory of Sardinia. C. Chiang

Y-chromosomal composition of mediaeval and contemporary populations in Norway and adjacent Scandinavian countries: Y-STR haplotypes and the rare Y-haplogroup Q. B. Berger.

A complex history of archaic admixture in modern humans. R. Bohlender, Y. Yu, C. Huff, A. Rogers.

Genomic insights into the population structure and history of the Irish Travellers. E.H. Gilbert.

236 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 236 of 236
Olympus Mons said...

@Nirjhar007 ,
Yes. Really what they are saying is that After 5000 BC onwards you start to see a different Crania Morphology Only in Ukraine. wonder why that was.
Post Agriculture Ukraine is 5th millennia. So, Different people pored into Ukraine and change the cranial morphology, not happening in Anatolia/Midlle east or Anatolia, right?

So, who were the forefather of the Yamnaya?

Olympus Mons said...

they bluntly say it:

"n addition, an influx of foreign populations coinciding with the Ukrainian groups considered as agricultural is not to be excluded as a potential causation of morphological change. Indeed, there is a mounting body of genetic evidence suggesting a mixed European Mesolithic and Caucasus origin for the Yamnaya culture70,71. "

Gioiello said...

Even though Pinhasi is destined with the other PhD from Stanford and Harvard to the famous tumulus in Middle East I spoke about in another post
"Although there is archaeological evidence for this being the case in the Levant, the Neolithic transition in Iberia is unlikely to have taken place without the influx of any foreign populations, as molecular studies suggest a genetic discontinuity between Mesolithic and Neolithic populations in Iberia"
but they didn't come from Middle East but from Italy above all
this may be interesting for Davidski
"In addition, an influx of foreign populations coinciding with the Ukrainian groups considered as agricultural is not to be excluded as a potential causation of morphological change. Indeed, there is a mounting body of genetic evidence suggesting a mixed European Mesolithic and Caucasus origin for the Yamnaya culture".

Nirjhar007 said...

Well OM and other folks, IMO this is a ''partial shadow preview'' of the upcoming Ukrainian aDNA . This only rises the interest of the Ukrainian aDNA to us.

Davidski said...

Some of you guys are acting like you inhaled too many exhaust fumes today. Yamnaya is a mixture of EHG males and CHG/Anatolian females.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2016/07/modeling-steppeemba.html

Nirjhar007 said...

Ron Pinhasi doesn't take fumes bud, nor any of us.

Olympus Mons said...

@Gioiello,
Nope. Don't really know anything about Italy. What I know is the following.
Iberia was as boring as a celine Dion song up until 3500BC.
Perfectly clear. Even Late neolithic showed a very homogenous pop.
Then from 3300 onwards a staggering diversity of population traits. - WHO WERE THEY?

That diversity sort of followed Bell Beakers as they exit Iberia (later groups are more homogeneous although still Iberian as per J. Desideri)


Davidski said...

Ron Pinhasi doesn't take fumes bud, nor any of us.

The paper reiterates pretty much what I've been arguing here. Not sure why you're not getting that fact?

Olympus Mons said...

@Davidsky.

"Some of you guys are acting like you inhaled too many exhaust fumes today. Yamnaya is a mixture of EHG males and CHG/Anatolian females."


What were the Mtdna of Steppe women?



Nirjhar007 said...

The fact that they are speaking of Caucasian origin is the key , along with the obvious Mesolithic European . They do not speak of any female mediated influx . That idea is absurd (unless proven as a fact in the future ) . Now we should wait for the Ukrainian aDNA . We need to see what were the reasons for the change , which y-dna and Mtdna created the influx and the change in the Cranial stats . We also have to wait for the Balkan aDNA ( which will come soon) . Lots of things are at stake here . The other two huge pieces are of course Majkop and C-T .

Davidski said...

The idea that female exogamy brought CHG admixture from the Caucasus to the steppe is not absurd. It make a lot of sense considering the archaeological data.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2016/05/corded-ware-women-more-mobile-than.html

You're absurd for ignoring it because it doesn't fit your hopes and dreams.

Nirjhar007 said...

No you are mistaking, I don't have any dreams . I just to hope to see the very start of things . I say again its absurd to think that female exogamy created such impact . No serious geneticist will consider it . But at the end we will know what exactly happened .

Davidski said...

It makes sense and it is being considered as a key cultural trait of early steppe pastoralists and derived groups.

That's what the Corded Ware paper was about...duuuh.

Nirjhar007 said...

Bud,

If a geneticist states in his paper or even say here that ''yeah its a likely possibility ''. Then I will change my suggestion .

Olympus Mons said...

@ Davidsky.
What a load of Crap.
So, when it suits your pet theories you go all the way off the reservation... lol. Pretty good!

Gioiello said...

@ Olympus Mons
Olympi Montis
Olympo Monti
Olympum Montem
Olympe Mons
Olympo Monte

Olympi Montes
Olymporum Montium
Olympis Montibus
Olympos Montes
Olympi Montes
Olympis Montibus

If you need in the future ...

"@Gioiello,
Nope. Don't really know anything about Italy. What I know is the following.
Iberia was as boring as a celine Dion song up until 3500BC.
Perfectly clear. Even Late neolithic showed a very homogenous pop.
Then from 3300 onwards a staggering diversity of population traits. - WHO WERE THEY?
That diversity sort of followed Bell Beakers as they exit Iberia (later groups are more homogeneous although still Iberian as per J. Desideri)"

There are tons of proofs about that, from the Villabrunas who replaced the Franco-Cantabrians, from the Migration of Zilhao of 7500 YBP, from Celts that from Italy reached Iberia (see Lusitanians, see Ligurians etc.).
The expansion of Bell Beakers happened from Iberia but also from Southern France and Italy. You'll see when the Bell Beakers aDNA will be published.


Nirjhar007 said...

Dottore,

Give references , proofs demand references .

Gioiello said...


That Franco-Cantabrians went extinct and were replaced from Villabrunas is in all the papers after that Villabruna was tested. Zilhao published his papers around 2000, and mnore tha one. He is a classic now.
That Celts derives from Italy isn't said only from me from many years, but also from a great linguist: Peter Schrijver. Read.

Nirjhar007 said...

Well I read the names but give the links of their research. I am very interested on the Celtic one, that suggests Celts came from Italy.

Gioiello said...

It is enough you read the entry "Peter Schrijver" on Wikipedia. His books are too expensive also for me. I am reading a paper on Celts in Iberia uploaded for free. But I didn't say only that. For the pleasure of Davidski I said that IE comes from the Italian Refugium or nearby and that the satem languages were brought to Samara from the R1b1-L23 from West, and very likely IE formed amongst the Villabrunas from Nostratic etc etc.

Nirjhar007 said...

Perhaps not for me. But link me the paper .

Gioiello said...


Look at this sentence in Celtiberian

tiricantam bercunetacam tocoitoscue sarniciocue sua combalcez nelitam

you may see -cue, Latin -que (Etruscan -k) Samskrit -ca (-Kwe > -ke > -ce > -ca).

Olympus Mons said...

@Gioiello,
Nope.

*Bell Beakers span from zambujal, leceia, VNSP.
*All those places had at least a large population that had actually born in southern part of portugal in alentejo (strontium).
*And Southern part of Portugal had a lot of population from North Africa (recently arrived) as per strontium and Nm dental traits.
*And by 2000bc, after bell Beakers they formed a very tight genetic group for at least Portugal, Spain and north Italy that endures up until today.
*Proof of that is that even Etruscan cluster with Iberian DNA present DNA.
*And its the reason why Rome empire first moved to Iberia (Always follow Kinship) and actually never got into northern europe (R1a territory).
*And celts do not exist. Just celtic culture that span out of Cwc/unetice and Bell beakers mashing up. Proof is that nor Hallstatt or La Tène groups even cluster together with British Celts population.
*And Celts Its a derogatory word that Romans and Greeks used to call the northern part of Europe savages.

... this could go for ever. Feel free to context any of those sentences.



Gioiello said...

It is very likely that the oldest form of Celt is the "Stele di Novilara". Where Novilara is?

Nirjhar007 said...

Good god, Dottore , what will be so wrong if you give a link of a research?.

Olympus Mons said...

Guys.
Celts?
Just fresh of the printers a paper from University of Alaska Fairbanks, 2016 From Mallory J. Anctil.

"Ancient Celts: myth, invention or reality? Dental affinities among ..."


Gioiello said...

@ Olympo Monti

If I were Davidski I'd say that from your mouth only shit ... but I am not the owner of the blog.

Nirjhar007 said...

See Dottore? at least he named the research .

Now, OM if you have read it , what you found interesting?.

Nirjhar007 said...

Here-
https://scholarworks.alaska.edu/handle/11122/6802

Nirjhar007 said...

Abstract:
Dental anthropological study of the proto-Celts, and continental and non-continental Celtic tribes during the Iron Age, particularly its applicability in estimating biological affinities of these tribes, has been generally overlooked. The present study helps fill the gap in the current understanding of these groups in several ways. First, 36 morphological traits in 125 dentitions from four regional samples, representing the proto-Celts, the continental and non-continental Celts, along with a comparative European Iron Age sample, were recorded and analyzed. Frequencies of occurrence for each dental and osseous nonmetric trait were recorded for each sample. Second, the suite of traits was then compared among samples using principal components analysis, (PCA), and the Mean Measure of Divergence (MMD) distance statistic. Multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis were subsequently employed on the triangular pairwise MMD distance matrix to graphically illustrate the relationships between samples. These biological distance estimates suggest the following: 1) dental phenetic heterogeneity is evident across samples, 2) the proto-Celtic sample does not show any evidence of population continuity with the continental Celtic sample, 3) there is a significant difference between continental and non-continental Celtic samples, and 4) there is a comparably significant difference among the Celtic, proto-Celtic and comparative samples. Simply put, the comparative results suggest that these groups represent biologically distinct populations. These findings were compared with published cultural, linguistic, genetic and bioarchaeological information to test for concordance between dental analysis and other lines of evidence. Several previous studies defined the Celts linguistically, using languages to link all the populations. The present study does not support these findings, and suggests there is more genetic diversity than previously assumed under this linguistic hypothesis. Thus, it appears that the transition from proto-Celtic to Celtic culture in these regions, and the subsequent spread of Celtic culture to Britain during the La Tène period, may have been primarily a cultural transition. The present study comprises the most comprehensive dental morphological analysis of the Celts to date, contributes to an improved understanding of Celtic tribal relationships and microevolution, and provides an initial impression of Celtic relationships to other European populations during the Iron Age.

Gioiello said...

@ Nirjhar007

I found the link on Anthrogenica, that I am not able to read, only the Activity streaming. You can. They are discussing a lot about that, but no one understands this matter like me, neither for genetics, linguistics, history and much more. I print a paper and after I study it. I am reading and studying these pretty 100 pages... Or perhaps I found the link here...

Olympus Mons said...

Gioiello,
Maybe. but at least is Shit in sentences that form axioms. So either you proof or context them wrong or clearly the characterization of what comes out of each other mouth is misplaced, wouldn't you say so?

Gioiello said...

What does that paper on Celts demonstrate? That Celt Language doesn't exist? Only that those peoples were a mixing of many people as any other people. I spoke about Celt Language, and I gave a sample above, and the close link with Latin and also Samskrit at least in the postponed conjunction. These are facts, demonstrable, and not "shit".

Gioiello said...

@ Olympis Montibus

For answering and demonstrating false what you say I should write papers or books and in a Language which isn't mine. Let's wait for aDNA (aslo from Shulaveri or India as it is right) and after we'll speak again.

Olympus Mons said...

@ Nirjhar007,
I have read it.
And pretty much is consistent with the notion that Celts were an overall characterization of people into cultural traits, not genetics per se.

Actually like the romans see them. Celts were those not Aquitaine (france) or belgae (that the romans actually they thought were part of UK tribes) but were further northeastern savages. However cultural traits and language connect them all.

It all boils to what someone with an IQ over 99 can figure out:
After the embroilment of Bell beakers that were up to Aquitaine and to britanny ant actually were closer to cluster with their main group (Portugal south France, Italy, Switzerland) and the CWC/Unetice and Eastern bell beaker reaching up to the UK and Baltic as well (sampling UK bell beakers will be fun because it will show up Southern BB and Eastern BB).
Then came Iron age and all that structure broke up with the bronze age collapse. and lots of those groups found cultural diffusion of some traits we today call Celtic culture, albeit being different genetic groups. It must have been an hectic period.
Culturally the Romans (prob remains of bell beakers, turned into Villanovans and Etruscan) Just erupted and brought some order to that wild world and made the Celtic classification. But might be meaningless for the purpose most like to evoke the name for.




Colin Welling said...

OM

"MALES - What Desideri shows it that bell beakers in the Bohemia actually showed males from the BB package (IE IBERIA males traits) and also males from CWC that do appear int the Bell Beaker package. So half breeds. Otherwise it made no point on making the distinction of CWC males and BB males, which she clearly does. It goes on to say that those BB MALES traits do not show at all in the Unetice Males, but CWC nm dental traits do indeed show up in Unetice."

She never said that western beaker males migrated into Czech republic. She said that local men adopted some western beaker traditions. You are getting desperate and trying to use teeth to disprove the idea that r1b came through beaker people from the east.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 236 of 236   Newer› Newest»