PDA

View Full Version : Ancient Australian DNA



Tomenable
28-11-16, 22:23
I've uploaded to GEDmatch a genome of an Australian Aboriginal who lived in the 19th century.

Source: http://gigadb.org/dataset/100010

GEDmatch kit number: Z905945

And here are his results in MDLP K23b Oracle calculator:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent

1 Australoid 51.38
2 Melano_Polynesian 39.18
3 South_Indian 4.35
4 South_East_Asian 2.58
5 Archaic_Human 1.86
6 Archaic_African 0.65

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance

1 Australian ( ) 4.6
2 Australian_ECCAC ( ) 25.13
3 Alorese ( ) 41.71
4 Lembata ( ) 50.3
5 Lamaholt ( ) 51.8
6 Manggarai ( ) 59.37
7 Ayta_AE ( ) 60.25
8 Naasioi ( ) 61.45
9 Mamanawa ( ) 65.33
10 Kambera ( ) 65.4
11 Papuan ( ) 65.96
12 Ati ( ) 67.43
13 Kosipe ( ) 67.58
14 Koinanbe ( ) 67.63
15 Agta_AG ( ) 70.14
16 Tongan ( ) 71.09
17 Aeta ( ) 73.45
18 Agta ( ) 73.54
19 Saami ( ) 74.27
20 Kensiu ( ) 74.82

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance

1 97.5% Australian ( ) + 2.5% Paniya ( ) @ 3.65
2 96.7% Australian ( ) + 3.3% Onge ( ) @ 3.68
3 97.5% Australian ( ) + 2.5% Malayan ( ) @ 3.69
4 97.6% Australian ( ) + 2.4% Pulliyar ( ) @ 3.69
5 97.4% Australian ( ) + 2.6% Santhal ( ) @ 3.69
6 97.4% Australian ( ) + 2.6% Nihali ( ) @ 3.7
7 97.4% Australian ( ) + 2.6% Dhurwa ( ) @ 3.71
8 97.4% Australian ( ) + 2.6% Bhunjia ( ) @ 3.72
9 97.5% Australian ( ) + 2.5% TN_Dalit ( ) @ 3.73
10 97.5% Australian ( ) + 2.5% Hallaki ( ) @ 3.73
11 97.4% Australian ( ) + 2.6% Kurumba ( ) @ 3.73
12 97.5% Australian ( ) + 2.5% Madiga ( ) @ 3.73
13 97.5% Australian ( ) + 2.5% Mala ( ) @ 3.74
14 97.5% Australian ( ) + 2.5% Chamar ( ) @ 3.75
15 97.5% Australian ( ) + 2.5% Hakkipikki ( ) @ 3.75
16 97.4% Australian ( ) + 2.6% Kharia ( ) @ 3.75
17 97.5% Australian ( ) + 2.5% Sakilli ( ) @ 3.76
18 96.2% Australian ( ) + 3.8% Papuan ( ) @ 3.78
19 96.3% Australian ( ) + 3.7% Koinanbe ( ) @ 3.78
20 96.3% Australian ( ) + 3.7% Kosipe ( ) @ 3.78

What is rather surprising is that even his genetic distance to Papuans was as high as 65.96.

Probably because Australian Aborigines split from New Guineans some 37,000 years ago.

See "A genomic history of Aboriginal Australia":

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v538/n7624/full/nature18299.html

Tomenable
28-11-16, 23:12
So it seems that Ancestral South Indians (ASI) = basically Proto-Australians:

Here are this Native Australian's results in Ancient Eurasia K6 calculator:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent

1 Ancestral_South_Eurasian 90.27
2 East_Asian 5.69
3 Sub_Saharan 3.24
4 Natufian 0.42
5 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 0.39

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance

1 Onge 8.46
2 Australian 11.34
3 Andamanese 11.34
4 Papuan 11.34
5 Paniyas 50
6 Palliyar 55.51
7 Kharia 59.47
8 Bengali 71.01
9 Punjabi_PJL 73.41
10 GujaratiD 75.01
11 GujaratiC 76.65
12 GoyetQ116 81.42
13 GujaratiB 82.13
14 GujaratiA 83.5
15 Punjabi 85.48
16 Burusho 86.43
17 Sindhi 86.64
18 Kusunda 89.35
19 Pathan 89.43
20 Kalash 90.08

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance

1 90.9% Andamanese + 9.1% Altaian @ 3.77
2 90.9% Australian + 9.1% Altaian @ 3.77
3 90.9% Papuan + 9.1% Altaian @ 3.77
4 90.7% Andamanese + 9.3% Kyrgyz @ 3.78
5 90.7% Australian + 9.3% Kyrgyz @ 3.78
6 90.7% Papuan + 9.3% Kyrgyz @ 3.78
7 91.3% Andamanese + 8.7% Kalmyk @ 3.84
8 91.3% Australian + 8.7% Kalmyk @ 3.84
9 91.3% Papuan + 8.7% Kalmyk @ 3.84
10 89.4% Andamanese + 10.6% Kusunda @ 3.97
11 89.4% Australian + 10.6% Kusunda @ 3.97
12 89.4% Papuan + 10.6% Kusunda @ 3.97
13 90.3% Andamanese + 9.7% Sherpa @ 4.02
14 90.3% Australian + 9.7% Sherpa @ 4.02
15 90.3% Papuan + 9.7% Sherpa @ 4.02
16 91.6% Andamanese + 8.4% Eskimo @ 4.12
17 91.6% Australian + 8.4% Eskimo @ 4.12
18 91.6% Papuan + 8.4% Eskimo @ 4.12
19 90.5% Andamanese + 9.5% Cambodian @ 4.12
20 90.5% Australian + 9.5% Cambodian @ 4.12

Tomenable
29-11-16, 02:09
MDLP World-22 Oracle:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent

1 Austronesian 50.34
2 Melanesian 23.69
3 Indian 12.19
4 East-South-Asian 6.39
5 East-Siberean 2.44
6 Sub-Saharian 1.48
7 South-African 1.18
8 Pygmy 1.04
9 North-Siberean 0.85
10 North-European-Mesolithic 0.36
11 Paleo-Siberian 0.02

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance

1 Australian (derived) 28.03
2 Papuan (derived) 59.4
3 Austronesian (ancestral) 62.2
4 Ste7 (derived) 66.82
5 Hazara (derived) 68.26
6 Uzbek (derived) 68.45
7 Uygur (derived) 68.67
8 Karakalpak (derived) 69.19
9 Kazakh (derived) 70.12
10 Bashkir (derived) 70.29
11 Turkmen (derived) 70.42
12 Hakas (derived) 70.63
13 Shor (derived) 70.94
14 Roma (derived) 71.3
15 Kyrgyz (derived) 71.31
16 Altaic (derived) 71.48
17 Burusho (derived) 71.71
18 Tatar_Lithuania (derived) 72.8
19 Tadjik (derived) 72.92
20 Nogai (derived) 72.93

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance

1 77% Australian (derived) + 23% Papuan (derived) @ 22.76
2 78.2% Australian (derived) + 21.8% Austronesian (ancestral) @ 22.96
3 64.5% Papuan (derived) + 35.5% Melanesian (ancestral) @ 23.01
4 63.3% Austronesian (ancestral) + 36.7% Melanesian (ancestral) @ 23.95
5 93.2% Australian (derived) + 6.8% Melanesian (ancestral) @ 27.1
6 96.4% Australian (derived) + 3.6% Indian (ancestral) @ 27.8
7 96% Australian (derived) + 4% Indian (derived) @ 27.87
8 96.5% Australian (derived) + 3.5% Hindu (derived) @ 27.91
9 97.2% Australian (derived) + 2.8% Jew_India (derived) @ 27.96
10 98.2% Australian (derived) + 1.8% Burusho (derived) @ 28
11 98.7% Australian (derived) + 1.3% Burma (derived) @ 28.01
12 99.3% Australian (derived) + 0.7% South-African (ancestral) @ 28.01
13 98.6% Australian (derived) + 1.4% Pathan (derived) @ 28.01
14 98.9% Australian (derived) + 1.1% Khmer (derived) @ 28.01
15 99% Australian (derived) + 1% Indian_East (derived) @ 28.02
16 99% Australian (derived) + 1% Roma (derived) @ 28.02
17 99.2% Australian (derived) + 0.8% Parsi (derived) @ 28.02
18 99.3% Australian (derived) + 0.7% Indian-East (derived) @ 28.02
19 99.4% Australian (derived) + 0.6% Pashtun (derived) @ 28.02
20 99.5% Australian (derived) + 0.5% Oroqen (derived) @ 28.02

Joey D
29-11-16, 09:12
40,000 years of relative isolation is going to create a pretty big gap between you and the next closest population.

Tomenable
29-11-16, 12:49
40,000 years of relative isolation is going to create a pretty big gap between you and the next closest population. True, but he has 2 matching segments >3cM long with Ust'-Ishim man (in GEDmatch Archaic Matches):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ust'-Ishim_man

He has no any close matches with modern customers of GEDmatch, though:

"No matches were found for kit Z905945 in the one-to-many results database."

Which means that probably he is the only Australian Aboriginal on GEDmatch.

====================

BTW - his results in this calculator are also quite interesting:

Eurasia K9 ASI calculator:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent

1 SE_Asian 32.94
2 Ancestral_South_Indian 28.99
3 Caucausus_Hunter_Gatherer 16.47
4 W_African 10.15
5 Siberian_E_Asian 5.26
6 SW_Asian 3.34
7 WHG 1.75
8 Eastern_Hunter_Gatherer 1.11

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance

1 Papuan 11.16
2 Ust_Ishim 15.99
3 Kharia 17.87
4 Ho 18.24
5 Paniyas 28.73
6 Kusunda 31.15
7 Bengali 34.03
8 Puliyar 34.9
9 Hazara 37.33
10 Uygur 37.61
11 Sherpa 38.95
12 Hazara_Afghan 38.98
13 Uzbek 40.33
14 Uzbek_Afghan 42.83
15 Tajik_Afghan 42.83
16 Turkmen 43.17
17 Great_Andamanese 43.62
18 Turkmen_Afghan 43.79
19 Burusho 45.4
20 Kyrgyz 46.26

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance

1 82.4% Papuan + 17.6% Kyrgyz @ 5.26
2 84.1% Papuan + 15.9% Altaian @ 5.54
3 79.6% Papuan + 20.4% Uygur @ 5.78
4 85.9% Papuan + 14.1% RISE_irRus @ 6.24
5 80% Papuan + 20% Hazara @ 6.34
6 88.6% Papuan + 11.4% Ulchi @ 6.53
7 85.9% Papuan + 14.1% Mongola @ 6.65
8 81.9% Papuan + 18.1% Uzbek @ 6.92
9 85.9% Papuan + 14.1% Tibet-refugees @ 7.39
10 82.3% Papuan + 17.7% Sherpa @ 7.52
11 84% Papuan + 16% Turkmen_Afghan @ 7.56
12 83.8% Papuan + 16.2% Turkmen @ 7.57
13 63.6% Papuan + 36.4% Ust_Ishim @ 7.79
14 87.7% Papuan + 12.3% Naga @ 7.91
15 87.1% Papuan + 12.9% RISE_irAltai @ 7.92
16 88.8% Papuan + 11.2% RISE_baKarasuk @ 7.97
17 83% Papuan + 17% Hazara_Afghan @ 7.98
18 93.7% Papuan + 6.3% Nganasan @ 8.22
19 88.2% Papuan + 11.8% Tatars @ 8.36
20 89.4% Papuan + 10.6% Yemen @ 8.59

Tomenable
29-11-16, 12:58
I am really surprised that he has no any modern matches in GEDmatch database.

Does it mean that there are no any people with Australian Aboriginal ancestry among GEDmatch customers ???

So how do you determine who is Aboriginal and who isn't? I thought that genetic tests were required as a proof:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5YZlypz9E0


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5YZlypz9E0

Joey D
29-11-16, 14:07
Doesn't it take a few days before you can do a one-to-many match on GEDMatch?

And no, an indigenous Australian would not need to submit himself or herself to a genetic test to prove that they are indigenous (it's not as if there are pots of gold awaiting those who identify themselves as such).

Tomenable
29-11-16, 14:25
Doesn't it take a few days before you can do a one-to-many match on GEDMatch?

It takes between one and few days.

I uploaded four samples yesterday, and 3 are still being processed. Only this one is already finished.

Angela
29-11-16, 17:32
In the U.S. Native Americans were registered in the 19th century on things like the Dawes Rolls. That's how you "prove" that you're Native American. Native Americans are on the whole very resistant to the whole idea of dna testing. They also usually strenuously object to the testing of ancient remains.

Tomenable
03-12-16, 18:11
In the U.S. Native Americans were registered in the 19th century on things like the Dawes Rolls. That's how you "prove" that you're Native American. Native Americans are on the whole very resistant to the whole idea of dna testing. They also usually strenuously object to the testing of ancient remains.

In Australia there were cases in which lack of records could make DNA tests useful, but mostly before 1998:


In 1983 the High Court of Australia[139] defined an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander as "a person of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent who identifies as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander and is accepted as such by the community in which he or she lives".

The ruling was a three-part definition comprising descent, self-identification and community identification. The first part – descent – was genetic descent and unambiguous, but led to cases where a lack of records to prove ancestry excluded some. Self- and community identification were more problematic as they meant that an Indigenous person separated from her or his community due to a family dispute could no longer identify as Aboriginal.

As a result, there arose court cases throughout the 1990s where excluded people demanded that their Aboriginality be recognised. In 1995, Justice Drummond ruled "either genuine self-identification as Aboriginal alone or Aboriginal communal recognition as such by itself may suffice, according to the circumstances." This contributed to an increase of 31% in the number of people identifying as Indigenous Australians in the 1996 census when compared to the 1991 census.[140]

Judge Merkel in 1998 defined Aboriginal descent as technical rather than real – thereby eliminating a genetic requirement. This decision established that anyone can classify him or herself legally as an Aboriginal, provided he or she is accepted as such by his or her community.[141]

As there is no formal procedure for any community to record acceptance, the primary method of determining Indigenous population is from self-identification on census forms.

Until 1967, official Australian population statistics excluded "full-blood aboriginal natives" in accordance with section 127 of the Australian Constitution, even though many such people were actually counted. The size of the excluded population was generally separately estimated. "Half-caste aboriginal natives" were shown separately up to the 1966 census, but since 1971 there has been no provision on the forms to differentiate 'full' from 'part' Indigenous or to identify non-Indigenous persons who are accepted by Indigenous communities but have no genetic descent.[142]

In the recent 2011 Census, there was 20% rise in people who identify as Aboriginal. One explanation for this is: "the definition being the way it is, it's quite elastic. You can find out that your great-great grandmother was Aboriginal and therefore under that definition you can identify. It's that person's right to identify so [...] that's what explains the large increase."[143]

Tomenable
24-03-17, 04:16
Aboriginal Australian in MDLP K16:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Australian 46.98
2 Oceanic 31.02
3 Indian 8.49
4 SouthEastAsian 7.02
5 Ancestor 2.13
6 Siberian 2.03
7 Subsaharian 1.13
8 EastAfrican 0.72
9 Amerindian 0.47

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Australian 9.29
2 Kosipe 36.03
3 Koinanbe 39.91
4 Papuan 59.05
5 Onge 60.96
6 Great_Andamanese 66.27
7 Melanesian 69.84
8 Aeta 71.18
9 Hazara 71.9
10 Gadaba 71.96
11 Mawasi 72.1
12 Roma 72.16
13 Uzbek 72.4
14 Uygur 72.47
15 Bonda 72.51
16 Kharia 72.55
17 Bhunjia 72.55
18 Turkmen 72.63
19 Turkmen 72.65
20 Juang 72.85

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 66.2% Kosipe + 33.8% Melanesian @ 6.31
2 63.9% Koinanbe + 36.1% Melanesian @ 7.41
3 89.6% Australian + 10.4% Koinanbe @ 8.1
4 88.6% Australian + 11.4% Kosipe @ 8.12
5 93.2% Australian + 6.8% Papuan @ 8.25
6 54.3% Papuan + 45.7% Melanesian @ 9.19
7 98.8% Australian + 1.2% Atajal @ 9.2
8 98.8% Australian + 1.2% Ami @ 9.2
9 98.8% Australian + 1.2% Igorot @ 9.2
10 98.9% Australian + 1.1% Dai @ 9.21
11 98.6% Australian + 1.4% Bajo @ 9.22
12 98.9% Australian + 1.1% Luzon @ 9.22
13 99% Australian + 1% Murut @ 9.23
14 99% Australian + 1% Kinh @ 9.23
15 99% Australian + 1% Lahu @ 9.23
16 98.9% Australian + 1.1% Lebbo @ 9.23
17 99% Australian + 1% She @ 9.23
18 99% Australian + 1% Dusun @ 9.24
19 99.1% Australian + 0.9% Vietnamese @ 9.24
20 99.1% Australian + 0.9% Miao @ 9.24

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Australian +50% Australian @ 9.177765

Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% Australian +25% Melanesian +25% Papuan @ 7.701647

Using 4 populations approximation:
1 Australian + Melanesian + Kosipe + Kosipe @ 5.876226
2 Australian + Melanesian + Koinanbe + Kosipe @ 6.089095
3 Australian + Melanesian + Koinanbe + Koinanbe @ 6.490455
4 Australian + Australian + Melanesian + Papuan @ 7.701647
5 Australian + Melanesian + Kosipe + Papuan @ 8.005060
6 Australian + Melanesian + Koinanbe + Papuan @ 8.725091
7 Australian + Australian + Australian + Australian @ 9.177765
8 Australian + Australian + Australian + Kosipe @ 9.306406
9 Australian + Australian + Australian + Koinanbe @ 9.740891
10 Melanesian + Kosipe + Kosipe + Kosipe @ 10.023243
11 Australian + Australian + Melanesian + Koinanbe @ 10.039388
12 Melanesian + Koinanbe + Onge + Papuan @ 10.319992
13 Melanesian + Melanesian + Papuan + Papuan @ 10.346553
14 Melanesian + Koinanbe + Koinanbe + Onge @ 10.466957
15 Australian + Australian + Melanesian + Kosipe @ 10.582585
16 Melanesian + Kosipe + Onge + Papuan @ 10.659161
17 Melanesian + Koinanbe + Kosipe + Kosipe @ 10.808974
18 Melanesian + Koinanbe + Kosipe + Onge @ 11.118822
19 Melanesian + Great_Andamanese + Koinanbe + Papuan @ 11.215261
20 Melanesian + Great_Andamanese + Koinanbe + Koinanbe @ 11.585567

BalkanPower
07-05-17, 05:33
they probably had similiar dna to polynesians, who knows ?

BalkanPower
07-05-17, 05:34
ancient australians had ti suffer a lot after british explorationof the continent

Dinarid
28-05-17, 21:35
The Central Asian matches are interesting.

JAR
01-09-17, 06:58
Hello,
I am of Aboriginal (Australian) descent. I have run my DNA through Gedmatch and am very new to this, but interested. My mother's DNA has also been run through and I would like to know more about our results in comparison with the ancient DNA. Below are the results from MDLP K16 Modern

My results



Population



Amerindian
-


Ancestor
-


Steppe
21.26


Indian
3.37


Arctic
0.38


Australian
0.68


Caucasian
14.78


EastAfrican
-


NorthEastEuropean
27.69


NearEast
-


Neolithic
31.83


NorthAfrican
-


Oceanic
-


Siberian
-


SouthEastAsian
-


Subsaharian
-



My Mothers results:


Population



Amerindian
-


Ancestor
-


Steppe
24.70


Indian
-


Arctic
-


Australian
0.39


Caucasian
15.04


EastAfrican
-


NorthEastEuropean
27.25


NearEast
1.04


Neolithic
31.57


NorthAfrican
-


Oceanic
-


Siberian
-


SouthEastAsian
-


Subsaharian
-



Ancient Ancestor results:


Population



Amerindian
0.47


Ancestor
2.13


Steppe
-


Indian
8.49


Arctic
-


Australian
46.98


Caucasian
-


EastAfrican
0.72


NorthEastEuropean
-


NearEast
-


Neolithic
-


NorthAfrican
-


Oceanic
31.02


Siberian
2.03


SouthEastAsian
7.02


Subsaharian
1.13






Can anyone translate our results in comparison to the Old Ancestor DNA you discuss in this thread?
Thanks

LeBrok
01-09-17, 22:28
Hello,
I am of Aboriginal (Australian) descent. I have run my DNA through Gedmatch and am very new to this, but interested. My mother's DNA has also been run through and I would like to know more about our results in comparison with the ancient DNA. Below are the results from MDLP K16 Modern

My results



Population



Amerindian
-


Ancestor
-


Steppe
21.26


Indian
3.37


Arctic
0.38


Australian
0.68


Caucasian
14.78


EastAfrican
-


NorthEastEuropean
27.69


NearEast
-


Neolithic
31.83


NorthAfrican
-


Oceanic
-


Siberian
-


SouthEastAsian
-


Subsaharian
-



My Mothers results:


Population



Amerindian
-


Ancestor
-


Steppe
24.70


Indian
-


Arctic
-


Australian
0.39


Caucasian
15.04


EastAfrican
-


NorthEastEuropean
27.25


NearEast
1.04


Neolithic
31.57


NorthAfrican
-


Oceanic
-


Siberian
-


SouthEastAsian
-


Subsaharian
-



Ancient Ancestor results:


Population



Amerindian
0.47


Ancestor
2.13


Steppe
-


Indian
8.49


Arctic
-


Australian
46.98


Caucasian
-


EastAfrican
0.72


NorthEastEuropean
-


NearEast
-


Neolithic
-


NorthAfrican
-


Oceanic
31.02


Siberian
2.03


SouthEastAsian
7.02


Subsaharian
1.13





Can anyone translate our results in comparison to the Old Ancestor DNA you discuss in this thread?
Thanks
Where this Ancient Ancestor results come from? Who are they based on?
Looking at yours and your mother results, your ancestors are at least 95% European, with only some trace of Aboriginal Australian (~7 generations ago). On other hand these Ancient Ancestors results are like from different person, probably 100% aboriginal.

Can you run your kit in Gedmatch - HarappaWorld?

Tomenable
11-12-17, 12:07
Australian Aborigines on GEDmatch (all mixed with Euro, but some are even 1/2 Native):

T937735
M882187
T027283
T562249
A486849
A790363
A678769
A919887
A773539
M783585
H329101
T844915
T712007
A154870
A549410

Alulkoy
03-01-20, 22:36
Hello,
I am of Aboriginal (Australian) descent. I have run my DNA through Gedmatch and am very new to this, but interested. My mother's DNA has also been run through and I would like to know more about our results in comparison with the ancient DNA. Below are the results from MDLP K16 Modern

My results



Population



Amerindian
-


Ancestor
-


Steppe
21.26


Indian
3.37


Arctic
0.38


Australian
0.68


Caucasian
14.78


EastAfrican
-


NorthEastEuropean
27.69


NearEast
-


Neolithic
31.83


NorthAfrican
-


Oceanic
-


Siberian
-


SouthEastAsian
-


Subsaharian
-



My Mothers results:


Population



Amerindian
-


Ancestor
-


Steppe
24.70


Indian
-


Arctic
-


Australian
0.39


Caucasian
15.04


EastAfrican
-


NorthEastEuropean
27.25


NearEast
1.04


Neolithic
31.57


NorthAfrican
-


Oceanic
-


Siberian
-


SouthEastAsian
-


Subsaharian
-



Ancient Ancestor results:


Population



Amerindian
0.47


Ancestor
2.13


Steppe
-


Indian
8.49


Arctic
-


Australian
46.98


Caucasian
-


EastAfrican
0.72


NorthEastEuropean
-


NearEast
-


Neolithic
-


NorthAfrican
-


Oceanic
31.02


Siberian
2.03


SouthEastAsian
7.02


Subsaharian
1.13






Can anyone translate our results in comparison to the Old Ancestor DNA you discuss in this thread?
Thanks
Dude, you and your mom are less than 1% aboriginal, the rest is European. You are not aboriginal simply because you had one lone ancestor 200 years ago. It’s not like you are Aboriginal, but you are a descendant of an aboriginal from 200 years ago. Why do you say YOU ARE Aboriginal? We have people like you called the 1% percenters who claim to be Native American Cherokees when they are not, just because they take a DNA test and find noise level Native American DNA. All of a sudden add water and you have an instant Indian!! Nope!