GEDMatch Gedmatch: high hunter gatherer real or bias!?

Who can make me any wiser with some GedMatch results? First I want to state that GedMatch is wonderful tool for analyzing aDNA. Fascinating! But when I look at the results for the mesolithic Hunter Gatherer component in my aDNA i became sceptic. Up to 2/3 of my aDNA is Hunter Gartherer? For someone from a North-Dutch stock? Is this real or bias? Anyone a clue? I will not overload you with facts and figures (although I can give you my kit nr). Just two examples the ANE 7 results : * WHG-UHG 66.77% 2. Eurogenes Hunter gatherer vs Farmer Population:* Baltic Hunter Gatherer 61.83 %. See illustustrations for the details. Thanks in advance!

There could be more farmer, the Iranian Neolithic Farmer, hidden in ANE, UHG, South Asian and Baltic Hunter Gatherer. I would guess from 5 to 10%. Run something to show you your Iranian Neolithic admixture. It was a part of IE heritage. They brought it into entire Europe.

LeBrok said:

There could be more farmer, the Iranian Neolithic Farmer, hidden in ANE, UHG, South Asian and Baltic Hunter Gatherer. I would guess from 5 to 10%. Run something to show you your Iranian Neolithic admixture. It was a part of IE heritage. They brought it into entire Europe.

Click to expand...

Thanks Le Brok, Iranian Neolithic only 2,25% I thought that CHG-EEF 43% may be the clue. But reconsidering this I think that this is a part of the ENF/Farmers component......or?And may be CGH is partly equal to EHG they have the same roots, later one they split off.http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms9912

Northener, in one sense, 100%, or ALL of your ancestry is hunter-gatherer, because every human was a hunter-gatherer before becoming a farmer. Also, only a minute percentage of any human beings every alive has no "farmer" ancestry. Europeans have been farmers for thousands of years. In addition, these older calculators were done before we got some very informative ancient samples and the newer statistical tools to analyze them. This particular one is meaningless as far as I'm concerned. You can turn to academic papers for more accurate analyses. This one uses the Stuttgart early farmer as one of the samples, along with WHG, and then Yamnaya, to show the major demographic turnovers in Europe.As someone who is mostly of northern German ancestry, I would think that the Norwegian numbers or something slightly more "southern" would be accurate for you.https://f.hypotheses.org/wp-content...h-Linguistic-and-Historical-Origins-Added.png Of course, if you peel back the onion Stuttgart had about 7% WHG picked up in Europe, and the rest is composed of an Unknown Hunter Gatherer perhaps related to WHG, and Basal Eurasian hunter-gatherers, both of whom inhabited the Near East. Yamnaya is composed of Eastern Hunter Gatherer stock along with something Near Eastern like which contains a lot of CHG ancestry (60/40 ?) and so on. WHG is a Mesolithic hunter-gatherer, different from the Paleolithic hunter-gatherers and even the Gravettians to some extent. They may have come originally from the Middle East as well. And so on and so on. Before making these kinds of distinctions you have to choose the time period and the area.

Thank you Angela! My GedMatch results come indeed more nearby Denmark, Orkney, Norway....sometimes more than the Nothern Netherlands.Wat may be the case is that my region (and especially Drenthe the region of my mother) was a stronghold, a hot spot of HG (just like the Baltics): From around 8,500 BP, these hunter-fisher-gatherers of the North Sea and the Baltic began to achieve ever higher levels of population density and social complexity that would put them on a par with farming peoples farther south. They were thus able to stop the advance of farming for two to three thousand years:After a rapid spread across Central Europe, […] farming communities came to a halt in the North European Plain, leaving the coastal areas of the North Sea occupied by hunter-gatherers. […]This could not have been due to ecological conditions. The frontier extends across a uniform geographical area, and the soils of southern Scandinavia are, in many places, light, fertile, and favorable for cultivation […]. The reason for the delay must be sought in the late Mesolithic communities of the region. Although regional differences exist […], hunter-gatherers in the southern Baltic region are likely to have had a greater population density than central European foragers […], larger and more permanent settlements […], and a complex economic pattern involving specialized extraction camps, seasonal scheduling, and seasonally intensive use of specific resources […] (Zvelebil and Dolukhanov, 1991)These North Sea and Baltic peoples were semi-sedentary. Most of them lived from spring to fall in large coastal agglomerations where they fished, sealed, and collected shellfish. They then dispersed to small inland hunting stations (Price, 1991). Johansen (2006) has argued for a higher degree of mobility: “a number of small groups rotating between sites on a seasonal basis within a confined territory, but perhaps periodically aggregating at key localities.” Bang-Andersen (1996) states: “In certain areas such as the seaboard of central West Norway, particularly resource-rich marine and terrestrial environments may have made it possible to stay within restricted parts of the region all the year round on a diffuse sedentary basis.” Most areas, however, had “a permanent or semi-permanent base camp on the coast, a certain number of extended extraction sites for seasonal hunting, gathering and fishing activities, a larger amount of transitory sites, and an almost indefinite number of special purpose sites or single-activity loci.”see: http://evoandproud.blogspot.nl/2013...h-Linguistic-and-Historical-Origins-Added.png Of course, if you peel back the onion Stuttgart had about 7% WHG picked up in Europe, and the rest is composed of an Unknown Hunter Gatherer perhaps related to WHG, and Basal Eurasian hunter-gatherers, both of whom inhabited the Near East. Yamnaya is composed of Eastern Hunter Gatherer stock along with something Near Eastern like which contains a lot of CHG ancestry (60/40 ?) and so on. WHG is a Mesolithic hunter-gatherer, different from the Paleolithic hunter-gatherers and even the Gravettians to some extent. They may have come originally from the Middle East as well. And so on and so on. Before making these kinds of distinctions you have to choose the time period and the area.[/QUOTE]

Northener said:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=8237&d=1479925570

Click to expand...

Wow, your ANE K7 results are almost identical as mine. What are your exact percentages?:

Interesting, we also share 15 segments >3 cM long with total length of 53,6 cM (in Multiple Kit Analysis). I think this is quite a lot.

Northener said:

Thanks Le Brok, Iranian Neolithic only 2,25% I thought that CHG-EEF 43% may be the clue. But reconsidering this I think that this is a part of the ENF/Farmers component......or?And may be CGH is partly equal to EHG they have the same roots, later one they split off.http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms9912

Click to expand...

If you sum up all the farmer from this run it comes to 57%. Though I'm not sure what the heck is the mix of CHG_EEF? How much is Caucasian Hunter Gatherer and how much Early European Farmer in this admixture?

CHG-EEF should be counted separately because they were very different groups.

CHG accumulated a lot of CHG-specific drift during thousands of years of isolation.

My parents and I came out with between 50-52% of WHG-UHG in ANE K7. It doesn't seem to make sense, indeed.

Take 2! You are right all people have 100% HG ancestry. So let me be more precise. Quote from the article mentioned above:'The expansion of early farmers (EF) out of the Levant during the Neolithic transition led to major changes in the European gene pool, with almost complete replacement in the south and increased mixing with local WHG further north.' So I'am interested if I can detect the the local WHG component. What is mesolithic (HG) and what is neolithic (EEF)? The suggestion of the Ged Match results is very high HG up to 2/3. May be this is overrated?Are to use an old EEF verb how can I separate the wheat from the chaff? On the one hand 2/3 HG in the aDNA look high but on the other hand some parts along the North Sea were, like the Balticum, HG strongholds, this is a HG well for the formation of the modern people along the North Sea and with a random factor in my ancestors more than 50% HG origin in my ancestry could be the case.....

Angela said:

Northener, in one sense, 100%, or ALL of your ancestry is hunter-gatherer, because every human was a hunter-gatherer before becoming a farmer. Also, only a minute percentage of any human beings every alive has no "farmer" ancestry. Europeans have been farmers for thousands of years. In addition, these older calculators were done before we got some very informative ancient samples and the newer statistical tools to analyze them. This particular one is meaningless as far as I'm concerned. You can turn to academic papers for more accurate analyses. This one uses the Stuttgart early farmer as one of the samples, along with WHG, and then Yamnaya, to show the major demographic turnovers in Europe.As someone who is mostly of northern German ancestry, I would think that the Norwegian numbers or something slightly more "southern" would be accurate for you.https://f.hypotheses.org/wp-content...h-Linguistic-and-Historical-Origins-Added.png Of course, if you peel back the onion Stuttgart had about 7% WHG picked up in Europe, and the rest is composed of an Unknown Hunter Gatherer perhaps related to WHG, and Basal Eurasian hunter-gatherers, both of whom inhabited the Near East. Yamnaya is composed of Eastern Hunter Gatherer stock along with something Near Eastern like which contains a lot of CHG ancestry (60/40 ?) and so on. WHG is a Mesolithic hunter-gatherer, different from the Paleolithic hunter-gatherers and even the Gravettians to some extent. They may have come originally from the Middle East as well. And so on and so on. Before making these kinds of distinctions you have to choose the time period and the area.

Click to expand...

Tomenable said:

CHG-EEF should be counted separately because they were very different groups.CHG accumulated a lot of CHG-specific drift during thousands of years of isolation.

Click to expand...

LeBrok said:

If you sum up all the farmer from this run it comes to 57%. Though I'm not sure what the heck is the mix of CHG_EEF? How much is Caucasian Hunter Gatherer and how much Early European Farmer in this admixture?

Click to expand...

I think this contains the clue. From the information I quickly gathered basically all the HG are from the same trunk with different branches WHG, SHG, ECG, CHG. The problem is that I can't see which CHG-EEF is HG from the trunk, spread in the mesolithic, or from the branch which came via the EEF in (Northern) Europe. Makes it difficult to consider if it is Mesolithic HG or the HG component in Neolithic EEF.

Tomenable said:

Interesting, we also share 15 segments >3 cM long with total length of 53,6 cM (in Multiple Kit Analysis). I think this is quite a lot.

Click to expand...

Nice!! My Polish cousin?

Eurogene Farmer vs Hunter/Gatherers is not one of Davidski's newest admixture test, in fact the test is 4 years old predating the discovery of CHG. And on the K7 admixture, Davidski admitted that the test is a little noisy. The way I determine if the admixture results are biased is to find out what Temrta IV's admixture results are.

Northener, I made a PCA based on Eurogenes K15 scores, comparing some Ancient DNA samples from Europe. This includes 6 ancient Germanic genomes from Scandinavia (Battle Axe, Bronze Age, Iron Age), 12 ancient Celtic genomes (Unetice, Hinxton-4) and 6 European Iranics (Srubna, Sintashta, Iron Age Scythian, Kyjatice). "Celtic" = average for 12 Celts; "Germanic" = average for 6 Germanics:

I added you as "North Dutch", I also added an American and one Swede with two kits - from 23andMe and from Ancestry:

You plot on my PCA very close to "Germanic" average as well as to RISE174 (Iron Age Sweden), RISE61 (Early Bronze Denmark) and RISE94 (Early Bronze Sweden). In fact you plot closer to Early Bronze Age Swedes, than that modern Southern Swede.

Tomenable said:

You plot on my PCA very close to "Germanic" average as well as to RISE174 (Iron Age Sweden), RISE61 (Early Bronze Denmark) and RISE94 (Early Bronze Sweden). In fact you plot closer to Early Bronze Age Swedes, than that modern Southern Swede.

Click to expand...

Tomenable many many thanks!! Today I came here with a question to you; are my aDNA similarities with Denmark, Norway, Schotland/Orkney due to genetic kinship and or are they due to the higher HG component?

You were already a step further, I will have a look at it!

Tomenable said:

You plot on my PCA very close to "Germanic" average as well as to RISE174 (Iron Age Sweden), RISE61 (Early Bronze Denmark) and RISE94 (Early Bronze Sweden). In fact you plot closer to Early Bronze Age Swedes, than that modern Southern Swede.

Click to expand...

Fantastic thanks! Is this a kinship result and/or is due to my higher HG component? Although you have similar HG; so it's kinship?

It is due to overall similarity of admixture proportions in Eurogenes K15.

BTW - I added also an Ashkenazi Jewish person, and this is how it looks now:

Large size: https://i.imgur.com/K9cS0UU.png



I will add some more ancient and modern guys later.