Autosomal analysis of the genomes of Iron Age Britons and Anglo-Saxons

**joeyc** · 13-10-14, 12:48

Originally Posted by ElHorsto

@Angela,@FireHaired

No, that's not what I meant. To the contrary.
What I meant: There can be no ancient population which scores more "West-Euro" than modern Britons, because:
1. "East" and "West" are recent and non-"pure" categories
2. WHG is already the largest admixture in both
3. WHG (Loschbourg) scores equally in both, "East" and "West", so WHG can not be unique to either West or East, but at best must have drifted over time into "West" and "East", if at all.
4. If WHG differentiation is not responsible for most "East" and "West" differentiation, then it must be due to the minor admixtures. But they are too minor in order to increase "West-Euro" percentage up-to or above today Britain's. Hence I conclude that "East" and "West" separation is based on post-Loschbourg events. And if I recall correctly, north-western-like (f.i. "North-Sea") and north-eastern-like (f.i. Baltic, East-Euro, ...) are often very close in terms of FST distances (but I don't have them at hand to be sure right now).

So, if you Angela believe there once was a population scoring even higher in "West-Euro" than today West-Europeans, then I doubt this hypothesis. It is possible that one minor admixture is responsible for the emergence of a "West-Euro" cluster, but this admixture alone would never score higher in "West-Euro", but would be something different like Gedrosia+Atlantic_med (particular EEF+ANE-variant for instance) or something else.

Hunther Gatherers were not a homogeneous bunch. The ones from Eastern Europe were more mixed with ANE and mongol shifted. Malt'a scores 40% Baltic, 30% Amerindian and 30% South Asian. La Brana scores 50% Baltic and 50% North Atlantic, but he was from Spain. The North Atlantic component is clearly more Mesolitich than the Baltic one, which is mixed with North Asian and Mongoloid elements.

**ElHorsto** · 13-10-14, 13:35

Originally Posted by joeyc

Hunther Gatherers were not a homogeneous bunch. The ones from Eastern Europe were more mixed with ANE and mongol shifted. Malt'a scores 40% Baltic, 30% Amerindian and 30% South Asian. La Brana scores 50% Baltic and 50% North Atlantic, but he was from Spain. The North Atlantic component is clearly more Mesolitich than the Baltic one, which is mixed with North Asian and Mongoloid elements.

I'm not aware of any ancient sample which is "North Atlantic". AFAIK it is a calculated cluster based on contemporary peoples. Ancient categories I know are for instance WHG, ANE, EEF,...
Also the ANE admixture is not lower in contemporary North-West europeans, it's even a bit higher than in North-East europeans (except Saami and Finns). For instance compare Scotts with Belarussians in Lazaridis et al.
And it seems that you are confusing ANE with mongoloids.

**ElHorsto** · 13-10-14, 15:56

Originally Posted by ElHorsto

Therefore I think it is generally impossible to find any ancient sample with such high "West European" percentage like contemporary west Europeans.

I have to correct myself a bit: Maybe it is possible, if the Iron Age sample would have 0% Caucasus and instead 10% Gedrosian. This could result in similar "West European" scores like a modern Briton, but not significantly higher. The continental celtic origin idea make much sense afterall.

**joeyc** · 13-10-14, 17:59

Originally Posted by ElHorsto

I'm not aware of any ancient sample which is "North Atlantic". AFAIK it is a calculated cluster based on contemporary peoples. Ancient categories I know are for instance WHG, ANE, EEF,...
Also the ANE admixture is not lower in contemporary North-West europeans, it's even a bit higher than in North-East europeans (except Saami and Finns). For instance compare Scotts with Belarussians in Lazaridis et al.
And it seems that you are confusing ANE with mongoloids.

Modern North Western Europeans are mixed with Indo Europeans (Corded Ware/Battle Axe). R* haplogroups are tied with the ANE like ancestry.

I was talking about Western and Eastern Hunther Gatherers anyway. You have misunderstood.

**ElHorsto** · 13-10-14, 18:42

Originally Posted by joeyc

Modern North Western Europeans are mixed with Indo Europeans (Corded Ware/Battle Axe). R* haplogroups are tied with the ANE like ancestry.

Yes, probably.

I was talking about Western and Eastern Hunther Gatherers anyway. You have misunderstood.

You were postulating that NW europeans are most mesolithic or are descentent from a different ancient HG-people. I said that evidence (WHG="West European Hunter Gatherer"; Loschbour, La Brana) so far does not support this claim. The possible sources of other admixtures like ANE is a different question. Finns and Saami have a peak ANE in Europe, but at the same time also peak in WHG, so they still are the most mesolithic people today, regardless of ANE (which is also mesolithic).

**Maciamo** · 13-10-14, 19:23

Originally Posted by joeyc

Using Dodecad is useless because of the calculator effect.

On the Eurogenes they are both closest to modern Orcadians but with less West Med, East Med, West Asian and Red Sea than modern Britons.

Why on earth would an Anglo-Saxon be close to a modern Orcadian ? Modern Orcadians are the most Celtic/Brythonic looking population in the British Isles.

The Dodecad results make much more sense. I shows that the Anglo-Saxon is closer to assorted populations around the Baltic Sea, be them Scandinavians, northeast Germans, northern Poles, Balts or Finns. That is consistent with an ancient Germanic population.

**Sile** · 13-10-14, 20:37

Originally Posted by Maciamo

Really ? 1% of African Pygmy, 0.8% of Amerindian, 0.7% of Melano-Polynesian, and you think that's reliable ?

he uses k23b and the other because they are the most reliable. below is his summary on how

http://www.fc.id.au/2014/10/convert-...-reads-to.html

**Fire Haired14** · 13-10-14, 21:27

Originally Posted by Maciamo

Why on earth would an Anglo-Saxon be close to a modern Orcadian ? Modern Orcadians are the most Celtic/Brythonic looking population in the British Isles.

The Dodecad results make much more sense. I shows that the Anglo-Saxon is closer to assorted populations around the Baltic Sea, be them Scandinavians, northeast Germans, northern Poles, Balts or Finns. That is consistent with an ancient Germanic population.

Felix and David show with admixture, F-statistics, and PCAs the two Hinxton samples are extreme NW Europeans, and closest to Orcadians, Irish, and west Norwegian. He could be Germanic(who fall under the same trend as British Celts) and maybe apart of an ethnic group who was beyond the modern NW extreme, and who later admixed with populations more eastern and SW.

**John Doe** · 13-10-14, 21:38

Originally Posted by Sile

he uses k23b and the other because they are the most reliable. below is his summary on how

http://www.fc.id.au/2014/10/convert-...-reads-to.html

Reliable in determining what?

**Sile** · 14-10-14, 07:07

Originally Posted by John Doe

Reliable in determining what?

because all others suffer from calculaor effect except the latest MDLP K23b, which was designed to get around this problem.

**John Doe** · 14-10-14, 07:34

Originally Posted by Sile

because all others suffer from calculaor effect except the latest MDLP K23b, which was designed to get around this problem.

So what is it good at determining?

**Sile** · 14-10-14, 08:30

Originally Posted by John Doe

So what is it good at determining?

I do not understand your question, but my K23b below is accurate as far as I know

MDLP K23b Oracle Rev 2014 Sep 16

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 European_Early_Farmers 29.03
2 Caucasian 27.88
3 European_Hunters_Gatherers 25.56
4 South_Central_Asian 5.03
5 Near_East 4.22
6 North_African 4.16
7 Ancestral_Altaic 3.18

Finished reading population data. 620 populations found.
23 components mode.

--------------------------------

Least-squares method.

Using 1 population approximation:
1 Italian_North @ 1.625069
2 Italian_Piedmont @ 10.729018
3 German-Volga @ 10.739352
4 Kosovar @ 10.752990
5 Italian_Bergamo @ 11.048033
6 Greek_Northwest @ 11.196579
7 Italian_Tuscan @ 11.663836
8 French @ 12.118893
9 Bulgarian @ 13.362114
10 South_German @ 13.639461
11 Albanian_Tirana @ 13.643938
12 Greek_Thessaly @ 13.652842
13 Belgian @ 14.084169
14 Greek_Thessaloniki @ 14.171048
15 English_Cornwall_GBR @ 14.256066
16 English @ 14.320354
17 Greek_Peloponnesos @ 14.361881
18 English_Kent_GBR @ 14.460760
19 Irish @ 14.469301
20 Spanish_Baleares_IBS @ 14.495005

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Italian_North +50% Italian_North @ 1.625069

**John Doe** · 14-10-14, 08:46

Originally Posted by Sile

I do not understand your question, but my K23b below is accurate as far as I know

MDLP K23b Oracle Rev 2014 Sep 16

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 European_Early_Farmers 29.03
2 Caucasian 27.88
3 European_Hunters_Gatherers 25.56
4 South_Central_Asian 5.03
5 Near_East 4.22
6 North_African 4.16
7 Ancestral_Altaic 3.18

Finished reading population data. 620 populations found.
23 components mode.

--------------------------------

Least-squares method.

Using 1 population approximation:
1 Italian_North @ 1.625069
2 Italian_Piedmont @ 10.729018
3 German-Volga @ 10.739352
4 Kosovar @ 10.752990
5 Italian_Bergamo @ 11.048033
6 Greek_Northwest @ 11.196579
7 Italian_Tuscan @ 11.663836
8 French @ 12.118893
9 Bulgarian @ 13.362114
10 South_German @ 13.639461
11 Albanian_Tirana @ 13.643938
12 Greek_Thessaly @ 13.652842
13 Belgian @ 14.084169
14 Greek_Thessaloniki @ 14.171048
15 English_Cornwall_GBR @ 14.256066
16 English @ 14.320354
17 Greek_Peloponnesos @ 14.361881
18 English_Kent_GBR @ 14.460760
19 Irish @ 14.469301
20 Spanish_Baleares_IBS @ 14.495005

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Italian_North +50% Italian_North @ 1.625069

Well, I suppose my question is, is it accurate? All 4 of my grandparents were AJs, and here are my results, should they be considered accurate?

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent

1 Caucasian 37.34

2 European_Early_Farmers 22.63

3 European_Hunters_Gatherers 13.20

4 Near_East 10.51

5 North_African 6.86

6 South_Central_Asian 6.36

Finished reading population data. 620 populations found.
23 components mode.

--------------------------------

Least-squares method.

Using 1 population approximation:
1 Ashkenazi_Jew @ 2.929181
2 Sicilian_East @ 3.546232
3 Sicilian_West @ 3.845939
4 Sicilian_Siracusa @ 3.939226
5 Ashkenazi @ 4.350750
6 Sicilian_Trapani @ 5.250281
7 Sicilian_Agrigento @ 5.379285
8 Romanian_Jew @ 5.465404
9 Maltese @ 6.141469
10 Cretan @ 6.226387
11 Italian_South @ 6.639791
12 Sicilian_Center @ 6.905343
13 French_Jew @ 6.983124
14 Greek_Athens @ 7.279214
15 Greek @ 7.755960
16 Central_Greek @ 8.582447
17 Greek_Phokaia @ 8.734240
18 Greek_Peloponnesos @ 8.993840
19 Italian_Abruzzo @ 9.110687
20 Greek_Smyrna @ 9.649567

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Greek_Thessaloniki +50% Sephardic_Jew @ 2.126260

Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% French_Jew +25% Gagauz +25% Sicilian_West @ 1.580894

Using 4 populations approximation:
1 Bulgarian + Greek_Smyrna + Moroccan_Jew + Sicilian_Trapani @ 1.525548
2 Bulgarian + Greek_Smyrna + Moroccan_Jew + Sicilian_Agrigento @ 1.550738
3 French_Jew + French_Jew + Gagauz + Sicilian_West @ 1.580894
4 French_Jew + Greek_Smyrna + Montenegrian + Moroccan_Jew @ 1.606388
5 Bulgarian + French_Jew + Sephardic_Jew + Sicilian_East @ 1.619343
6 Kosovar + Kosovar + Moroccan_Jew + Syrian_Jew @ 1.620502
7 Bulgarian + Greek_Smyrna + Maltese + Moroccan_Jew @ 1.645095
8 Bulgarian + Greek_Smyrna + Moroccan_Jew + Sicilian_West @ 1.648538
9 Bulgarian + Greek_Smyrna + Moroccan_Jew + Sicilian_East @ 1.667099
10 Bulgarian + Greek_Smyrna + Libyan_Jew + Sicilian_West @ 1.681815
11 French_Jew + Gagauz + Sephardic_Jew + Sicilian_West @ 1.692104
12 Bulgarian + Greek_Smyrna + Maltese + Sephardic_Jew @ 1.719078
13 Greek_Smyrna + Macedonian + Moroccan_Jew + Sicilian_Agrigento @ 1.749767
14 Bulgarian + Greek_Smyrna + Libyan_Jew + Sicilian_Trapani @ 1.789046
15 French_Jew + Greek_Smyrna + Moroccan_Jew + Serb_Serbia @ 1.797865
16 Cretan + Kosovar + Moroccan_Jew + Sicilian_West @ 1.803889
17 Greek + Sicilian_East + Sicilian_West + Sicilian_West @ 1.804704
18 Bulgarian + French_Jew + French_Jew + French_Jew @ 1.805862
19 French_Jew + French_Jew + Gagauz + Sicilian_Agrigento @ 1.820195
20 Italian_North + Italian_South + Sicilian_East + Syrian_Jew @ 1.824458

**Sile** · 14-10-14, 10:40

Originally Posted by John Doe

Well, I suppose my question is, is it accurate? All 4 of my grandparents were AJs, and here are my results, should they be considered accurate?

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent

1 Caucasian 37.34

2 European_Early_Farmers 22.63

3 European_Hunters_Gatherers 13.20

4 Near_East 10.51

5 North_African 6.86

6 South_Central_Asian 6.36

Finished reading population data. 620 populations found.
23 components mode.

--------------------------------

Least-squares method.

Using 1 population approximation:
1 Ashkenazi_Jew @ 2.929181
2 Sicilian_East @ 3.546232
3 Sicilian_West @ 3.845939
4 Sicilian_Siracusa @ 3.939226
5 Ashkenazi @ 4.350750
6 Sicilian_Trapani @ 5.250281
7 Sicilian_Agrigento @ 5.379285
8 Romanian_Jew @ 5.465404
9 Maltese @ 6.141469
10 Cretan @ 6.226387
11 Italian_South @ 6.639791
12 Sicilian_Center @ 6.905343
13 French_Jew @ 6.983124
14 Greek_Athens @ 7.279214
15 Greek @ 7.755960
16 Central_Greek @ 8.582447
17 Greek_Phokaia @ 8.734240
18 Greek_Peloponnesos @ 8.993840
19 Italian_Abruzzo @ 9.110687
20 Greek_Smyrna @ 9.649567

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Greek_Thessaloniki +50% Sephardic_Jew @ 2.126260

Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% French_Jew +25% Gagauz +25% Sicilian_West @ 1.580894

Using 4 populations approximation:
1 Bulgarian + Greek_Smyrna + Moroccan_Jew + Sicilian_Trapani @ 1.525548
2 Bulgarian + Greek_Smyrna + Moroccan_Jew + Sicilian_Agrigento @ 1.550738
3 French_Jew + French_Jew + Gagauz + Sicilian_West @ 1.580894
4 French_Jew + Greek_Smyrna + Montenegrian + Moroccan_Jew @ 1.606388
5 Bulgarian + French_Jew + Sephardic_Jew + Sicilian_East @ 1.619343
6 Kosovar + Kosovar + Moroccan_Jew + Syrian_Jew @ 1.620502
7 Bulgarian + Greek_Smyrna + Maltese + Moroccan_Jew @ 1.645095
8 Bulgarian + Greek_Smyrna + Moroccan_Jew + Sicilian_West @ 1.648538
9 Bulgarian + Greek_Smyrna + Moroccan_Jew + Sicilian_East @ 1.667099
10 Bulgarian + Greek_Smyrna + Libyan_Jew + Sicilian_West @ 1.681815
11 French_Jew + Gagauz + Sephardic_Jew + Sicilian_West @ 1.692104
12 Bulgarian + Greek_Smyrna + Maltese + Sephardic_Jew @ 1.719078
13 Greek_Smyrna + Macedonian + Moroccan_Jew + Sicilian_Agrigento @ 1.749767
14 Bulgarian + Greek_Smyrna + Libyan_Jew + Sicilian_Trapani @ 1.789046
15 French_Jew + Greek_Smyrna + Moroccan_Jew + Serb_Serbia @ 1.797865
16 Cretan + Kosovar + Moroccan_Jew + Sicilian_West @ 1.803889
17 Greek + Sicilian_East + Sicilian_West + Sicilian_West @ 1.804704
18 Bulgarian + French_Jew + French_Jew + French_Jew @ 1.805862
19 French_Jew + French_Jew + Gagauz + Sicilian_Agrigento @ 1.820195
20 Italian_North + Italian_South + Sicilian_East + Syrian_Jew @ 1.824458

write to this fellow Australian........with a little bit of luck he might help you out.

http://www.fc.id.au/search/label/Genealogy

**John Doe** · 14-10-14, 10:44

Originally Posted by Sile

write to this fellow Australian........with a little bit of luck he might help you out.

http://www.fc.id.au/search/label/Genealogy

Thanks mate.

**Wilhelm** · 14-10-14, 13:35

Originally Posted by Maciamo

Why on earth would an Anglo-Saxon be close to a modern Orcadian ? Modern Orcadians are the most Celtic/Brythonic looking population in the British Isles.

The Dodecad results make much more sense. I shows that the Anglo-Saxon is closer to assorted populations around the Baltic Sea, be them Scandinavians, northeast Germans, northern Poles, Balts or Finns. That is consistent with an ancient Germanic population.

First, we don't know if he was a racial anglo-saxon, or a cultural anglo-saxon. And second, Orcadian are not the "most Celtic" looking of the British Isles, au contraire, they are the most Nordic/Scandinavian of the British Isles.

**Angela** · 14-10-14, 17:03

OK, if some people think that the MDLP K23b is better, because it's the only one that has no “calculator effect”, let’s look at K23b.

Sample ERS389795-What Genetiker calls the “Anglo-Saxon” sample?:

MDLP K23b

35.13% European_Hunters_Gatherers
31.41% Caucasian
19.44% European_Early_Farmers
6.42% Ancestral-North-Eurasian
2.41% Ancestral-North-Indian
2.24% Archaic-Human
1.29% African-Pygmy
0.75% East-African
0.49% Near-East
0.22% East-Siberian
0.11% Ancestral-South-Indian
0.05% Archaic-African
0.04% North-African

Sample ERS389798-What Genetiker calls the Iron Age Sample?

MDLP K23b

32.46% European_Hunters_Gatherers
31.80% European_Early_Farmers
13.98% Caucasian
6.77% Ancestral-North-Indian
6.56% Ancestral-North-Eurasian
4.69% Subsaharian
1.35% North-African
0.97% East-African
0.54% Arctic
0.29% Ancestral-South-Indian
0.22% Melano-Polinesian
0.16% Austroloid
0.09% Near-East
0.07% Paleo-Siberian

The two samples have approximately the same amount of WHG (although Sample 95-Anglo Saxon? is 3 points higher)

ERS389798-Iron Age Celt sample?- has quite a bit more EEF, 31.80 compared to 19.44 and it also has about 7% African, compared to about 2.5% for 95 Anglo Saxon?, and in addition it has more Ancestral North Indian, which might be associated with Gedrosia? at 6.77, compared to 2.41.

In terms of the Caucasus component it is reversed. Sample ERS389795-Anglo Saxon? has 31.41 Caucasus compared to 13.98 for ERS389798 Iron Age Celt?

They have the same amount of ANE, at a low level of 6-7%

I think it’s noteworthy that the ANE percentages are extremely low(6-7%) compared to the levels in modern northern Europe, where the levels are around 14,15,16%

As for EEF, with Sample ERS389795-Anglo Saxon? the EEF level is 30 points lower than that of modern English people (approximately 20% compared to approximately 50%), while Sample ERS389798 Celt? is about 18 points lower ( 32% versus 50%).

You do get close to 50% for the ERS389795-Anglo Saxon? sample if you add the EEF farmer and Caucasus components. For the ERS389798 Iron Age sample?, you get to 45%.

These are, once again, the WHG/EEF/ANE figures for modern English people:

WHG: .364
EEF: .495
ANE: .141

Sample ERS389795-Anglo Saxon?:

HG: 35.13
EEF + Caucasus: 50-51%
ANE: 6.42

Sample ERS389798-Iron Age Celt?:

WHG:32.46
EEF + Caucasus: 45.78
ANE:6.56

As I said, the ANE is off, and you have to combine EEF and Caucasus to get to the EEF levels of modern English people. (Perhaps the "Caucasus" component on this particular calculator is just an eastern drifted version of EEF?

(For those who still can't seem to grasp that EEF is a "set of genes" from a Stuttgart LBK woman used for comparison, and that according to Lazaridis et al the best estimate right now is probably something around 20% WHG picked up in Europe and 80% genetic material that arrived from the Near East, all I can suggest is a re-reading of Lazaridis et al and every page of the Supplementary material. )

Of the two samples, Sample ERS389795, what Genetiker calls the Anglo Saxon sample?, seems closer to modern English people in terms of the WHG/EEF/ANE formulation, but not by a whole lot. The abstract says the Anglo-Saxon sample is closer to the modern English. Make of it what you will. I’m just trying to think it through, just like everyone else.

Sample ERS389798, which Genetiker calls the Iron Age Celt sample?, has more “African” components, (7% vs. 2.5%) which might, along with 3% less WHG, mean a more Southern? Signature.

That’s what I can see so far. It seems as if Sample ERS389795 is more north, and, if you look at the Caucasus component, more east than the ERS389798 sample. So, aren't I basically where I was after analyzing the data through the prism of the Dodecad runs, only with quite a bit less specificity?

If I made any mistakes, please correct the record. After all the confusion I’m not even sure that I’m attributing Genetiker’s attribution of the samples correctly! Having only Sample numbers is maddening. Also, if anyone has different numbers for a K23b run of these ancient samples, that would be good to know, as would any Oracle results for these samples.

Now, I’m going to leave it until the paper comes out and we know the official attribution of these samples to specific times and archeological contexts.

Oh, and the fact that one or both of these samples might plot near the Orcadians on a PCA plot is singularly unhelpful in terms of figuring out the origins and migration paths of these two ancient samples, as Orcadians are just a mix of "Celt" and Scandinavian.

**John Doe** · 14-10-14, 17:20

Originally Posted by Angela

(For those who still can't seem to grasp that EEF is a "set of genes" from a Stuttgart LBK woman used for comparison, and that according to Lazaridis et al the best estimate right now is probably something around 20% WHG picked up in Europe and 80% genetic material that arrived from the Near East, all I can suggest is a re-reading of Lazaridis et al and every page of the Supplementary material. )

So what you're saying is that EEF is about 20% WHG and 80% material from the near east like basal Eurasian and unknown west Eurasian hunter gatherer?

**Angela** · 14-10-14, 19:18

Originally Posted by John Doe

So what you're saying is that EEF is about 20% WHG and 80% material from the near east like basal Eurasian and unknown west Eurasian hunter gatherer?

We don't know for sure at this point because we don't have an ancient Near Eastern Neolithic sample, nor a hypothetical "UHG" or whatever, but given the extensive modeling in Lazaridis et al, and the uniparental markers, both Ydna, and mtDna studied by people like Haak, and papers like Paschou et al, the probability is that the majority of EEF ancestry is Near Eastern in origin.* (I'm not talking here about Basal Eurasian or any of that, nor do I want to get bogged down in that because we know even less about it.**)

Now whether, say, up to 20% of Stuttgart's ancestry was WHG picked up in Europe,( I believe that was the estimate from the preferred model) as was entertained by Lazaridis et al, we don't know. There's also still a slim chance, I suppose, that the EEF signature was present not only in the Near East but in far southeastern Europe, i.e. around the Aegean. We'll have to wait and see.

Regardless, when a test is done using Stuttgart, an LBK person, to represent EEF ancestry, which is what most of these tests do, to my knowledge, and a sample comes up X % EEF, that means that X% of that sample's genome "matches" that of the Stuttgart Neolithic farmer, and most of that Stuttgart person's ancestry probably came from the Near East.

At least, that's my understanding of the matter.

I'll just say again that these admixture components, like "East European", or "North European" or whatever, are just modern geographical clusters or groupings. They are not the actual ancestral populations. The percentages of the three ancient populations that we have are buried in the modern groupings in different proportions.

Ed.* In other words, the majority of the EEF genome is probably the same as that of the Neolithic Near Eastern farmers. Until we get a sample of a Near Eastern farmer we won't know for sure, though, and we won't know the percentage.
**Whether the Ancient Near Eastern farmers were all "Basal Eurasian" is unknown but I doubt it. So, they probably had some "UHG" while they were still in the Near East. Then, they may have picked up some WHG in Europe itself.

**John Doe** · 14-10-14, 19:25

Originally Posted by Angela

We don't know for sure at this point because we don't have an ancient Near Eastern Neolithic sample, nor a hypothetical "UHG" or whatever, but given the extensive modeling in Lazaridis et al, and the uniparental markers, both Ydna, and mtDna studied by people like Haak, and papers like Paschou et al, the probability is that the majority of EEF ancestry is Near Eastern in origin. (I'm not talking here about Basal Eurasian or any of that, nor do I want to get bogged down in that because we know even less about it.)

Now, whether, say, up to 20% of Stuttgart's ancestry was picked up in Europe, as was entertained by Lazaridis et al, we don't know. There's also still a slim chance, I suppose, that the EEF signature was present not only in the Near East but in far southeastern Europe, i.e. around the Aegean. We'll have to wait and see.

Regardless, when a test is done using Stuttgart, an LBK person, to represent EEF ancestry, which is what most of these tests do, and a sample comes up X % EEF, that means that X% of that sample's genome matches that of the Stuttgart Neolithic farmer, and most of that Stuttgart person's ancestry probably came from the Near East.

At least, that's my understanding of the matter.

I'll just say again that these admixture components, like "East European", or "North European" or whatever, are just modern geographical clusters or groupings. They are not the actual ancestral populations. The percentages of the three ancient populations that we have are buried in the modern groupings in different proportions.

Alright, thanks for the clarification. I'd like to ask another thing, the study says that Ashkenazis/Maltese/Sicilians lack WHG ancestry, but in another part of the study they say it's not entirely true, it's just that that WHG component is inside the EEF component, is that confirmed, or perhaps it's just part of their entertainment of the 20% of EEF that was picked up in Europe?

P.S So Gedmatch calculators are ultimately worthless and self defeating because they can't really answer questions of admixture and origin?

**Angela** · 14-10-14, 19:52

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by John Doe

Alright, thanks for the clarification. I'd like to ask another thing, the study says that Ashkenazis/Maltese/Sicilians lack WHG ancestry, but in another part of the study they say it's not entirely true, it's just that that WHG component is inside the EEF component, is that confirmed, or perhaps it's just part of their entertainment of the 20% of EEF that was picked up in Europe?

You're basically saying the same thing twice. Also, they're saying they can be modeled that way. Anyhow, that's a bit off topic, yes?

P.S So Gedmatch calculators are ultimately worthless and self defeating because they can't really answer questions of admixture and origin?

I'm afraid you're putting words in my mouth. I never said they're worthless and I don't think they're worthless. For one thing they can be very valuable if you are comparing your results to someone else of your basic ethnicity. For example, I've found it very interesting and informative to compare my results with those of other people from different regions of Italy. Not, it must be said, my Dodecad results, as I'm part of the project population for that run. FWIW, my results on this K-23b aren't bad, although the FST distances are still quite large. However, at least all my top 5 results are northern and central Italian populations, and those of actual south central Italians and certainly southern Italian populations are quite different. It's informative the way that the 23andme results are informative for that purpose. For example, it was informative for me to compare my results with those of people of 100% Tuscan ancestry, or 100% Ligurian ancestry, or someone almost totally from Emilia etc. etc

I also think that if you're cautious you can get clues about origin of population movements by comparing the results of different samples. That's what I've been trying to do, in fact.

**John Doe** · 14-10-14, 20:12

[QUOTE=Angela;441733]

You're basically saying the same thing twice. Also, they're saying they can be modeled that way. Anyhow, that's a bit off topic, yes?

I'm afraid you're putting words in my mouth. I never said they're worthless and I don't think they're worthless. For one thing they can be very valuable if you are comparing your results to someone else of your basic ethnicity. For example, I've found it very interesting and informative to compare my results with those of other people from different regions of Italy. Not, it must be said, my Dodecad results, as I'm part of the project population for that run. FWIW, my results on this K-23b aren't bad, although the FST distances are still quite large. However, at least all my top 5 results are northern and central Italian populations, and those of actual south central Italians and certainly southern Italian populations are quite different. It's informative the way that the 23andme results are informative for that purpose. For example, it was informative for me to compare my results with those of people of 100% Tuscan ancestry, or 100% Ligurian ancestry, or someone almost totally from Emilia etc. etc

I also think that if you're cautious you can get clues about origin of population movements by comparing the results of different samples. That's what I've been trying to do, in fact.

I apologise for the misunderstanding. Alright, thanks for the clarification. :)

**Drac II** · 15-10-14, 11:35

Originally Posted by Wilhelm

First, we don't know if he was a racial anglo-saxon, or a cultural anglo-saxon. And second, Orcadian are not the "most Celtic" looking of the British Isles, au contraire, they are the most Nordic/Scandinavian of the British Isles.

In British anthropology the Orcadians have indeed usually been deemed to be the lightest pigmented and most Nordic/Germanic influenced people in Scotland.

**joeyc** · 15-10-14, 16:05

Norwegian Vikings in UK

Viking Dna

REGIONS WITH HIGHEST PERCENTAGE OF VIKING DESCENDANTS

1. Shetland - 29.2 per cent
2. Orkney - 25.2 per cent
3. Caithness - 17.5 per cent

4. Isle of Man - 12.3 per cent
5. Western Isles - 11.3 per cent
6. North West Scotland and Inner Hebrides - 9.9 per cent
7. Argyll - 5.8 per cent
8. Yorkshire - 5.6 per cent
9. North East Scotland - 4.9 per cent
10. North England - 4 per cent
11. East England - 3.6 per cent
12. South West Scotland - 3.2 per cent
13. South East Scotland - 2.7 per cent
14. Central England - 2.6 per cent
15. Central Scotland - 2.2 per cent
16. South East England - 1.9 per cent
17. South West England - 1.6 per cent
18. Ireland (Ulster) - 1.4 per cent
19. Ireland (Munster) - 1.3 per cent
20. Ireland (Connacht) - 1.2 per cent
21. Wales - 1 per cent
22. Ireland (Leinster) - 1 per cent

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-warriors.html

**tjlowery87** · 16-10-14, 02:32

So what does all this mean about the extinct of the Anglo Saxon immigration?

Thread: Autosomal analysis of the genomes of Iron Age Britons and Anglo-Saxons

Thread Tools

Display

curious

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

#	Population	Percent
1	Caucasian	37.34
2	European_Early_Farmers	22.63
3	European_Hunters_Gatherers	13.20
4	Near_East	10.51
5	North_African	6.86
6	South_Central_Asian	6.36