Makin a map of EEF, WHG and ANE admixtures in Europe. Please post your data.


That's 10 days old. I get annoyed when people who aren't the authors of the paper miss interprit what the authors say. They act as if the discover of ANE ancestry and 3 ancestors for Europeans is brand new, when it's been almost a year. They treat ANE as something east Asian, when it wasn't at all. Plus, they mostly only mention ANE ancestry in northern Europeans(assuming becaue their closer to Siberia or whatever). They need to understand that what we think of as Siberian, west Asian, European, etc. took time to devlop, mix, etc, so ancient populations who lived in those geographical areas are usually not going to be the same as the modern people living there.
 
Hi I'm a southern Moroccan Berber (100km near Marrakesh).

Here my results:


EEF: 49.78%
WHG: 28.48%
ANE: 0.12%


 
Hi I'm a southern Moroccan Berber (100km near Marrakesh).

Here my results:


EEF: 49.78%
WHG: 28.48%
ANE: 0.12%



ASE: 0%
East Eurasian: 2.99%
East African: 18.62%
 
Here my Eurogenes K13:

 
Venet ancestors

My results based on Eurogenes K13 and that Excel file:
EEF: 68.142275
WHG: 21.004465
ANE: 10.85326

Based on Eurogenes ANE K7:
ANE: 12.16
ASE: 0.50
WHG-UHG: 50.70
East_Eurasian: 0.18
West_African 0.16
East_African: -
ENF: 36.29

Based on Eurogenes Hunter_Gatherer vs. Farmer:
Anatolian Farmer: 16.18%
Baltic Hunter Gatherer: 34.78%
Middle Eastern Herder: 7.54%
East Asian Farmer: -
South American Hunter Gatherer: -
South Asian Hunter Gatherer: -
North Eurasian Hunter Gatherer: -
East African Pastoralist: -
Oceanian Hunter Gatherer: -
Mediterranean Farmer: 41.50%
Pygmy Hunter Gatherer: -
Bantu Farmer: -
 
My results based on Eurogenes K13 and that Excel file:
EEF: 68.142275
WHG: 21.004465
ANE: 10.85326

Based on Eurogenes ANE K7:
ANE: 12.16
ASE: 0.50
WHG-UHG: 50.70
East_Eurasian: 0.18
West_African 0.16
East_African: -
ENF: 36.29

Based on Eurogenes Hunter_Gatherer vs. Farmer:
Anatolian Farmer: 16.18%
Baltic Hunter Gatherer: 34.78%
Middle Eastern Herder: 7.54%
East Asian Farmer: -
South American Hunter Gatherer: -
South Asian Hunter Gatherer: -
North Eurasian Hunter Gatherer: -
East African Pastoralist: -
Oceanian Hunter Gatherer: -
Mediterranean Farmer: 41.50%
Pygmy Hunter Gatherer: -
Bantu Farmer: -

I am Venet in ancestory

my numbers
EEF 69
WHG 22
ANE 10


UHG 49.96
ENF 35.92
ANE 11.49


What town in Italy was your family from?
 
Hello, i'm almost 100% french (1/32 polish) my father is from languedoc , and my mother is from the north of the country. My results based on eurogenes k13:
EEF:58,012
WHG:29,61722
ANE:12,37078
 
Eurogenes_ANE K7 Results:

ANE
13.58%
ASE2.74%
WHG-UHG59.88%
East_Eurasian0.58%
West_African-
East_African
0.79%
ENF22.43%

Eurogenes K13 Results through the Excel sheet:

EEF54.04838423
WHG32.00556804
ANE13.94604773

Ethnicity is French, the whole family being from the German border, with additions from Northern Italy and Poland dating from late 19th - early 20th century.
 
Eurogenes_ANE K7 Results:


Eurogenes K13 Results through the Excel sheet:


Ethnicity is French, the whole family being from the German border, with additions from Northern Italy and Poland dating from late 19th - early 20th century.

That's typical of France, west Germany, Belgium, and South Dutch. All samples from those regions I've seen kind of cluster together. Germans outside of that region cluster more so with Scandinavians and British-Irish, and in Southwest French they're very similar to Basque.

France has always been genetically diverse, because it formed out of a multi-ethnic Roman province. Although West Germans look like they could mostly be from Gauls(under Rome) who became Germanic-speakers. I fit in this cluster, but not because I'm French or something but because I'm a mixture of very northern, very southern, and intermediate(West German) European elements.
 
That's typical of France, west Germany, Belgium, and South Dutch. All samples from those regions I've seen kind of cluster together. Germans outside of that region cluster more so with Scandinavians and British-Irish, and in Southwest French they're very similar to Basque.

France has always been genetically diverse, because it formed out of a multi-ethnic Roman province. Although West Germans look like they could mostly be from Gauls(under Rome) who became Germanic-speakers. I fit in this cluster, but not because I'm French or something but because I'm a mixture of very northern, very southern, and intermediate(West German) European elements.

France is as "multi ethnic" as any country in this world. The French people cluster generally with Central and Northwest Europeans. Even the South French cluster closer to North French. Basques are compared to other Iberians significantly closer to French but yet not "extraordinary" more.

The difference between South France and North France is not bigger as the difference between North Germany-South Germany or North Iberia and South Iberia.
 
Last edited:
The difference between South France and North France is not bigger as the difference between North Germany-South Germany or North Iberia and South Iberia.

You can look at any admixture results with samples from differnt regions in France. There's a lot of variation. They vary from almost British-like to Basque-like. Those are the two extremes.

France is multi-ethnic in the ancient sense. Rome brought together various Gaulish and non-Gaulish tribes in a huge area to make provinces which eventually became France. The foundation of France is not the same as in all countries, and it covers a huge area, so we should expect variation.

SouthWest French used to speak Basque(ancestral form), so it makes sense they're so similar to Basque.
 
These are very blunt tools looking at total affinity to very ancient population groups.Going by IBD analysis there are differences within Europe in terms of substructure..

Ralph and Coop et al
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001555

"One of the striking patterns we see is the relatively high level of sharing of IBD between pairs of individuals across eastern Europe, as high or higher than that observed within other, much smaller populations. This is consistent with these individuals having a comparatively large proportion of ancestry drawn from a relatively small population that expanded over a large geographic area. The “smooth” estimates of Figure 4 (and more generally Figures 5 and S17) suggest that this increase in ancestry stems from around 1,000–2,000 ya, since during this time pairs of eastern individuals are expected to share a substantial number of common ancestors, while this is only true of pairs of noneastern individuals if they are from the same population. The eastern populations with high rates of IBD are highly coincident with the modern distribution of Slavic languages, so it is natural to speculate that much of the higher rates were due to this expansion."


"On the other hand, we find that France and the Italian and Iberian peninsulas have the lowest rates of genetic common ancestry in the last 1,500 years (other than Turkey and Cyprus), and are the regions of continental Europe thought to have been least affected by the Slavic and Hunnic migrations. These regions were, however, moved into by Germanic tribes (e.g., the Goths, Ostrogoths, and Vandals), which suggests that perhaps the Germanic migrations/invasions of these regions entailed a smaller degree of population replacement than the Slavic and/or Hunnic, or perhaps that the Germanic groups were less genealogically cohesive. This is consistent with the argument that the Slavs moved into relatively depopulated areas, while Gothic “migrations” may have been takeovers by small groups of extant populations [54],[55].

In addition to the very few genetic common ancestors that Italians share both with each other and with other Europeans, we have seen significant modern substructure within Italy (i.e., Figure 2) that predates most of this common ancestry, and estimate that most of the common ancestry shared between Italy and other populations is older than about 2,300 years (Figure S16). Also recall that most populations show no substructure with regards to the number of blocks shared with Italians, implying that the common ancestors other populations share with Italy predate divisions within these other populations. This suggests significant old substructure and large population sizes within Italy, strong enough that different groups within Italy share as little recent common ancestry as other distinct, modern-day countries, substructure that was not homogenized during the migration period. These patterns could also reflect in part geographic isolation within Italy as well as a long history of settlement of Italy from diverse sources.
In contrast to Italy, the rate of sharing of IBD within the Iberian peninsula is similar to that within other populations in Europe. There is furthermore much less evidence of substructure within our Iberian samples than within the Italians, as shown in Figure S2. This suggests that the reduced rate of shared ancestry is due to geographic isolation (by distance and/or the Pyrenees) rather than long-term stable substructure within the peninsula."


Unfortunately, they didn't go into great detail about the Germans. As to them, I think I would tend to agree with Fire Haired's speculations. Also, this doesn't specifically address how much substructure there is in France compared to Germany or compared to Spain. The amount of substructure in Italy is of another order. They go into detail about it in the paper.
 
Unfortunately, they didn't go into great detail about the Germans. As to them, I think I would tend to agree with Fire Haired's speculations. Also, this doesn't specifically address how much substructure there is in France compared to Germany or compared to Spain. The amount of substructure in Italy is of another order. They go into detail about it in the paper.
I find it a little vague too. I wish they put some harder numbers into population replacement/mixing by region. From what they wrote and admixtures levels by country I gather that Slavs could count for around 50 percent of genetic material in Balkans, except Greece and Albania. On other hand Germanic genetic influence is not bigger than 5 to 10% in regions of Western Europe, not including Germanic speaking nations. Linguistic patterns also point to similar conclusions in my opinion.
 
You can look at any admixture results with samples from differnt regions in France. There's a lot of variation. They vary from almost British-like to Basque-like. Those are the two extremes.

France is multi-ethnic in the ancient sense. Rome brought together various Gaulish and non-Gaulish tribes in a huge area to make provinces which eventually became France. The foundation of France is not the same as in all countries, and it covers a huge area, so we should expect variation.

SouthWest French used to speak Basque(ancestral form), so it makes sense they're so similar to Basque.



My friend there are dozens of autosomal analysis of French people. Even if they are not divided by regions chances are high that many of them are mixed from different regions. And they always cluster next by each other building a fluent transition. Most of France and the French people re in general descend of pre Roman/Germanic Celtic tribes with allot of Germanic and Roman admixture.

All I am saying is the genetic diversity in France is not bigger as the genetic diversity in many other parts of Europe.
 
Last edited:
I find it a little vague too. I wish they put some harder numbers into population replacement/mixing by region. From what they wrote and admixtures levels by country I gather that Slavs could count for around 50 percent of genetic material in Balkans, except Greece and Albania. On other hand Germanic genetic influence is not bigger than 5 to 10% in regions of Western Europe, not including Germanic speaking nations. Linguistic patterns also point to similar conclusions in my opinion.

I agree, far-eastern Slavs are included. Russians and Ukrainians are probably mostly Central-European Slavic. They're far more similar to Poles than to their Finno-Urgic and Turkic neighbors, who are more similar to Bronze age Samara Yamna(and therefore more native to the region). Lots of Balkan Slavs also obviously have a lot of Polish-like Slavic input to. Most Serbians and Bosnians are closer to Poles than to Albanians and Greeks.
 
Fire-Haired you're dead wrong and stop trying to become an expert on everything. Northern Russians are way closer to Uralic populations than they are to Poles. Serbians and Bosnians also are 1/4th-1/3rd Slavic at the most. Only Slovenians get anywhere more than 50% Slavic. There was already plenty of Central and Eastern European-like DNA in the Balkans from pre-Slavic IE groups.
 
All i know is that according to GEDmatch, i always end up clustered very close to West Germans (3.41) and South Dutchs (4.3), and much much farther (almost twice as far according to the least square method) from French (7.78) per se. This is probably because most of my family comes from the Rhine valley (the Rhine having been the main trade route) and hasn't moved much in the last centuries (except for additions from afar at the time of the industrial revolution.

As for French admixtures, i've always read that there was a slow admixture gradient from Portugal to Poland, and that French and German in particular often clustered together (with people from, say, Southwest France clustering a bit farther from Germans and a bit closer to Spaniards, etc.), but i suppose the same can probably be said about pretty much every other European country.
 
In order to make such maps we need a lot of data from all over the Europe. By the nature of this data collection it will be a self reporting project. It is not the best way, but it might be the only way to gather data for these maps. Please post your EEF, WHG, EEF numbers with place of birth, or place of birth of your parents if they came from different region than you were born in.

Little explanation of these admixtures:

These admixtures can roughly tell you about your origin.
WHG - West Hunter Gatherers, were the Mesolithic Europeans spread pretty much all over the Europe around 10 to 5 thousand BCE.
EEF - Early European Farmers, were the Neolithic inhabitants of Europe, the first farmers who came 10 thousand years ago from Near East and first settled in Balkans and the rest of South Europe. In next 5 thousand years they've spread to every corner of Europe.
ANE - Ancient North Eurasians, the hunter-gatherers and nomads from far East Europe and Central Asia. Latest research papers point to Indo-Europeans bringing ANE to every place in Europe.

Example:
Poland, Siedlce (country, city or region)
EEF - 45
WHG - 39
ANE - 16

One can say that I'm 39% very ancient European, 45% farmer from Near East, and 16% Indo-European. Or that I'm 55% Hunter-Gatherer and 45% Farmer.

More information:
http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/ancient-human-genomes-suggest-three.html

Some data from the paper by Lazaridis:
EEF WHG ANE
0.781 0.092 0.127 -- Albanian
0.931 0 0.069 -- Ashkenazi_Jew
0.593 0.293 0.114 -- Basque
0.418 0.431 0.151 -- Belorussian
0.715 0.177 0.108 -- Bergamo
0.712 0.147 0.141 -- Bulgarian
0.561 0.293 0.145 -- Croatian
0.495 0.338 0.167 -- Czech
0.495 0.364 0.141 -- English
0.322 0.495 0.183 -- Estonian
0.554 0.311 0.135 -- French
0.675 0.195 0.13 -- French_South
0.792 0.058 0.151 -- Greek
0.558 0.264 0.179 -- Hungarian
0.394 0.456 0.15 -- Icelandic
0.364 0.464 0.172 -- Lithuanian
0.932 0 0.068 -- Maltese
0.411 0.428 0.161 -- Norwegian
0.457 0.385 0.158 -- Orcadian
0.713 0.125 0.163 -- Pais_Vasco
0.817 0.175 0.008 -- Sardinian
0.39 0.428 0.182 -- Scottish
0.903 0 0.097 -- Sicilian
0.809 0.068 0.123 -- Spanish
0.746 0.136 0.118 -- Tuscan
0.462 0.387 0.151 -- Ukrainian



Here is the explanation how you can calculate your admixtures:
http://bga101.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/eef-whg-ane-test-for-europeans.html

On EEF the paper states: Early European Farmer (EEF): apparently this is a hybrid component, the result of mixture between "Basal Eurasians" and a WHG-like population possibly from the Balkans. (possibly from Balkans) how do you know it came from near east (does it say on a paper?).

This might correlates with Maciamo arguing about E-V13 (10,000 ybp), as its peak or roots is south east balkans. And before that its a subclade of M-78 (south east Africa). And M-78 might have crossed (before 10,000 ybp) straight to south east balkans (or even Iberia) and not through Levant and Anatolia.
It also correlates with I2a1...So only possible early Neolithic in Europe I2a1 and E-V13?....Then I2a1 and E-V13 has nothing to do with near east farmers nor even migrating from the near east

Haplogroup E-V13 is the only lineage that reaches the highest frequencies out of Africa. In fact, it represents about 85% of the European E-M78 chromosomes with a clinal pattern of frequency distribution from the southern Balkan peninsula (19.6%) to western Europe (2.5%). The same haplogroup is also present at lower frequencies in Anatolia (3.8%), the Near East (2.0%), and the Caucasus (1.8%). In Africa, haplogroup E-V13 is rare, being observed only in northern Africa at a low frequency (0.9%).
Cruciani et al. (2007)

On the other side looks like its pretty complicated, if we can say the more Yanmaya R* (4,500) from the graph the less Mesolithic or Neolthic, and more the WHG and EEF then more Mesolithic and early Neolithic. Credit goes to Sardinains and Bulgarians with pretty high I2a1 and Albanians and Greeks with E-V13
How come then Spain, tuscany, basques, Bergamo has one of the highest EEF and its very very high in R1b?....
 
Last edited:

This thread has been viewed 152282 times.

Back
Top