West Eurasian admixture

[Angela]

Dienekes has posted a new calculator for west Eurasians on his dodecad blog.

It shows the cline between an Atlantic/Baltic component and a Near Eastern component.

Fascinating and extremely informative. How nice to see actual data, and not endless speculation, although I'm sure the speculation will come.

[Angela]

[Angela]

Here is the spreadsheet with the actual figures.

Population Sample Size Atlantic-Baltic Near-East Far-East Africa
Armenian_D 20 30.4 67.9 1.7 0
Armenians 16 31.8 66.6 1.6 0
Ashkenazi_D 33 43.3 54.6 1.5 0.6
Ashkenazy_Jews 21 44.8 53 1.5 0.7
Assyrian_D 12 26.7 71.6 1.8 0
Balkans_D 13 73.1 25.3 1.6 0
Baltic_Various_D 8 95.7 2.5 1.8 0
Bedouin 46 8.9 81 0.8 9.3
Belorussian 9 89.9 7.6 2.6 0
British_D 23 84.1 15.6 0.2 0.1
Bulgarian_D 7 64.3 34.3 1.4 0
C_Italian_D 12 52 47.6 0.1 0.2
CHB 25 0 0 100 0
Chuvashs 16 69.8 3.9 26.2 0
Cypriots 12 32.6 67 0.1 0.2
Druze 42 23.1 74.7 1 1.3
Dutch_D 8 82.8 17.1 0.1 0
Egyptans 12 12.8 69.3 0.7 17.1
Ethiopian_Jews 11 0 53.1 0.8 46.1
Ethiopians 19 0 51.8 1 47.1
Finnish_D 15 90.1 0.8 9.1 0
French 28 76.1 23.8 0.1 0.1
French_D 12 76.3 23.6 0.1 0
German_D 15 83.7 15.9 0.4 0
Greek_D 17 50.4 49.4 0.3 0
Hungarians 19 78.4 19.9 1.7 0
Iranian_Jews 4 22.5 74.3 3 0.1
Iraq_Jews 10 22.5 75.8 1.7 0
Irish_D 20 85.1 14.6 0.2 0
Jordanians 19 20.4 71 1.9 6.7
Kurd_D 6 31.5 61.8 6.6 0.1
Lebanese 7 24.8 67.7 2.6 4.9
Lithuanians 10 96.5 1.7 1.8 0
Mandenka 22 0 0.2 0 99.8
Moroccans 10 18.7 52.9 0 28.5
Morocco_Jews 15 35.4 61.2 0 3.3
N_Italian_D 5 64.1 35.9 0 0
North_Italian 12 63.1 36.9 0 0
Norwegian_D 10 88.9 9.6 1.4 0
Palestinian 46 18.4 73.3 1.1 7.2
Polish_D 17 88.3 10.2 1.5 0
Portuguese_D 9 65 32.6 0 2.4
Romanians 14 66.3 31.8 1.9 0
Russian 25 85.9 3.9 10.2 0
Russian_D 23 86.7 6.8 6.5 0
S_Italian_D 6 43.4 55.6 0.1 0.9
S_Italian_Sicilian_D 9 45.2 54.1 0 0.7
Samaritians 3 18.4 80.7 0.2 0.7
Saudis 20 8.1 83.8 1.5 6.6
Selkup 10 37.2 0 62.8 0
Sephardic_Jews 19 37.4 60.7 0.2 1.6
Sicilian_D 12 44.9 53.4 0.2 1.6
Spaniards 12 67.9 31.3 0 0.8
Spanish_D 17 67.6 31.2 0 1.1
Swedish_D 12 89.2 9 1.8 0
Syrians 16 23.9 68.8 2.8 4.6
Turkish_D 23 36.9 55.9 6.7 0.4
Turks 19 35.9 55.1 8.9 0.1
Tuscan 8 56.9 43 0.1 0
Uygur 10 25.9 18.7 55.3 0
Uzbeks 15 32.2 23.1 44.6 0.1
Yakut 25 8.5 0 91.4 0
Yemen_Jews 12 7.4 87.7 0.4 4.5
Yemenese 7 9.7 64 3.5 22.8
Yoruba 21 0 0 0 100

[Knovas]

This are simply not real analysis. Very few clusters and a lot of information missing then. More or less the same as the EuroDNACalc or the 600 member milestone (even more similar). It only shows different variations among West Eurasians in a simple way.

Good to see wich populations are closer to each other, but nothing else. It tells very little in regards of full acenstry.

[Wilhelm]

The lower K's are, the more blurry and ambiguous. In this case, a Balkan, North-Italian and Spaniard look pretty much the same.

[Angela]

How totally, absolutely, perfectly predictable! (In hindsight I have to admit.)

I won't be posting a response to the two prior posters as they are at the top of my personal ignore list, but I'd be happy to discuss the findings with other posters.

[Knovas]

For the moment, I rescue the post, since nobody is paying any minimal atention.

You're welcome ;)

[Alan]

Shows very well that there is no "magical" border separating Europeans from Near Eastern population. Rather a continuum.

[Maciamo]

Dienekes has posted a new calculator for west Eurasians on his dodecad blog.

It shows the cline between an Atlantic/Baltic component and a Near Eastern component.

Fascinating and extremely informative. How nice to see actual data, and not endless speculation, although I'm sure the speculation will come.

It's nothing revolutionary. The Atlantic-Baltic admixture is just the sum of the former West and East European. West Asian and Southwest Asian were combined into Near East, Far East is Northeast Asia + Southeast Asia, while Africa is the same compilation as I did for the African admixture map.

The only interesting point is that the Mediterranean admixture seems to have been split in two.

[Maciamo]

Shows very well that there is no "magical" border separating Europeans from Near Eastern population. Rather a continuum.

There is obviously no such border, but the chart above gives a false impression that there is a progressive gradient between Europe and the Middle East, while in fact all the populations are mixed up geographically. It's much easier to visualise all this on maps.

[Knovas]

There is obviously no such border, but the chart above gives a false impression that there is a progressive gradient between Europe and the Middle East, while in fact all the populations are mixed up geographically. It's much easier to visualise all this on maps.

+1

Is not bad for a general idea to see who is closer. To understand full ancestry is not particulary informative, too simple.

[Alan]

It's nothing revolutionary. The Atlantic-Baltic admixture is just the sum of the former West and East European. West Asian and Southwest Asian were combined into Near East, Far East is Northeast Asia + Southeast Asia, while Africa is the same compilation as I did for the African admixture map.

The only interesting point is that the Mediterranean admixture seems to have been split in two.

My point since the beginning. The Mediterranean element seems t be a universal one and not only European.

[Knovas]

Not much more universal than it was the Southern European cluster (K=10 run). Quite curious nobody said nothing before, it's just the "power" of the name.

[Alan]

Not much more universal than it was the Southern European cluster (K=10 run). Quite curious nobody said nothing before, it's just the "power" of the name.

Indeed. If I knew it before, I would have said the same about the South European too.

[Knovas]

The Northern European (the same as the East and West European) had more Asian affinities, while the Southern European more African affinities. The fact is why don't you wonder the same about the others, it's impossible to understand this if we don't recognize that it's just because of the name.

Also, West and East European (the same for the Northern European from K=10), are not less widespread than Mediterranean or Southern European. Just less present, wich is a very different thing. There's simply no reason to say one is "universal" and the others not.

[Wilhelm]

It's nothing revolutionary. The Atlantic-Baltic admixture is just the sum of the former West and East European. West Asian and Southwest Asian were combined into Near East, Far East is Northeast Asia + Southeast Asia, while Africa is the same compilation as I did for the African admixture map.

The only interesting point is that the Mediterranean admixture seems to have been split in two.

No at all. For example the West-Asian + Southwest Asian in iberians is just 4%, less than Scandinavians, while here the near-east is 30%, I suppose these near-east includes mediterranean components, otherwise Greeks would be half-European half-Neareast, since they show 50% for each. I repeat, the lower the K's are, the less useful and less real. As an example of that, so anyone can't say im biased, see this other low K admixture run made by Dienekes himself, where Orcadians or French get 20-25% of Central-Asian :

[oreo_cookie]

Some of the Mediterranean component probably went into "Near East".

[Knovas]

Very clear Wilhelm. The way one decides to name the component, of course, influences a lot the opinion too. The best is check the distances when it's possible, that's what really don't lie.

Obviously, there are no distances available in both analysis. Not enough important to do so.

[Angela]

It's nothing revolutionary. The Atlantic-Baltic admixture is just the sum of the former West and East European. West Asian and Southwest Asian were combined into Near East, Far East is Northeast Asia + Southeast Asia, while Africa is the same compilation as I did for the African admixture map

Sorry, that's incorrect, as even a cursory glance at the two sets of data would show.

Also, "Mediterranean" is not, and has never been solely "European". Nor is it mid-eastern. If people in this hobby were really interested in discovering the truth, instead of trying to interpret every piece of data to support their pet, often jingoistic theory, maybe some contribution to this science might actually be made.

[Antigone]

Well said Angela.

[Alan]

edit: wrong thread.