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

[Fire Haired14]

I want this to be the sole thread for now on for discussion about the Hinxton genomes, because it's getting way to disorganized and hard to stay updated. I'd also like to ask the moderators if they'd allow me to edit this thread beyond the time limit as new key information comes in the next few weeks.

There's been alot of confusion on whether Hinxton 1 and 2 are Iron age Celts or Medieval Anglo Saxons. As alot of you already know it's been learned through Davidski's analysis of Hinxton-3 that all three are the three Anglo Saxon samples. Some are theorizing that they're mostly descended of early-German speakers, who may have had less east European and Mediterranean-like ancestry than modern German-speakers and Northwest Europeans.

It's a very interesting idea that early Germans may have been very distinct from the Celtic and Eastern European people they encountered. The 1st century Roman historian Tacitus said in his short book "Germania" that the Germans "... appear as a distinct, unmixed race, like none but themselves." Genetically speaking there would have been a huge gap in Tacitus's time between the French-like Gauls and Hinxton-like(?) Germans. People today sometimes laugh at ancient writers like Tacitus for being simplistic and suggesting a population might be something pure, but there may have been some truth in what Tacitus wrote, we can't see today because of later admixture.

Hinxton 1-2-3's results are in the Eurogenes K13 and K15 spreadsheets, which are in the links below. You'd have to dig through Eurogenes blog to find Davidski's analysis of Hinxton-3.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing

Below is a Eurogenes PCA of west Eurasia including Hinxton 3

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o...ew?usp=sharing

There's more on the other two Hinxtons on this Eurogenes thread, which will probably be updated. I only posted Davidski's analysis because I don't trust others like Geneticker.

If anyone has any information on analysis people besides Davidski are doing on the Hinxton genomes please post and discuss, if anyone has any information on the archaeology sites the samples are coming from please post and discuss, if anyone has any information on their cultural and ethnic-affinities please post and discuss.

Felix is the one who started this. His blogs are Felix's Thought logs and Genetic Genealogy Tools.

[Angela]

Well, this is really exciting! You should have posted the news that you had been appointed a moderator with the power to determine where members could post. Have you told the owner of the site yet that you don't want anyone to post on his thread anymore? It might be the polite thing to do.

Oh, and you might want to correct that comment about Tacitus; he didn't know what he was talking about...there are no distinct unmixed races.

ED. I am truly glad all the confusion is over. I follow anthrogenica occasionally, and this is the last thing I saw:

Ok so this is where we stand now:

Hinxton 1 - ERS389795 - M - R1b-L11 - K1a1b1b - Anglo-Saxon 1-4x

Hinxton 2 - ERS389796 - F - - H2a2b1 - Anglo-Saxon low 1-4x

Hinxton 3 - ERS389797 - F - - K1a4a1a2 - Anglo-Saxon low 1-4x

Hinxton 4 - ERS389798 - M - R1b?-(L21?) - H1ag1 - Iron Age (Belgae?) High Coverage 12x

Hinxton 5 - ERS389799 - F - - H2a2a1 - Iron Age (Belgae?) low 1-4x

If there any errors (maybe the whole thing!) please correct.
Your information on ERS389795 contains information from two parties currently in disagreement.

Genetiker: ERS389795 - Unlikely to be R1b - K1a1 - Anglo Saxon - (Low Coverage)

Felix/Eurogenes: ERS389795 - R1b-L11 - K1a1b1b - Iron Age - (High Coverage)

[Fire Haired14]

Well, this is really exciting! You should have posted the news that you had been appointed a moderator with the power to determine where members could post. Have you told the owner of the site yet that you don't want anyone to post on his thread anymore? It might be the polite thing to do.

Oh, and you might want to correct that comment about Tacitus; he didn't know what he was talking about...there are no distinct unmixed races.

ED. I am truly glad all the confusion is over. I follow anthrogenica occasionally, and this is the last thing I saw:

Ok so this is where we stand now:

Hinxton 1 - ERS389795 - M - R1b-L11 - K1a1b1b - Anglo-Saxon 1-4x

Hinxton 2 - ERS389796 - F - - H2a2b1 - Anglo-Saxon low 1-4x

Hinxton 3 - ERS389797 - F - - K1a4a1a2 - Anglo-Saxon low 1-4x

Hinxton 4 - ERS389798 - M - R1b?-(L21?) - H1ag1 - Iron Age (Belgae?) High Coverage 12x

Hinxton 5 - ERS389799 - F - - H2a2a1 - Iron Age (Belgae?) low 1-4x

If there any errors (maybe the whole thing!) please correct.
Your information on ERS389795 contains information from two parties currently in disagreement.

Genetiker: ERS389795 - Unlikely to be R1b - K1a1 - Anglo Saxon - (Low Coverage)

Felix/Eurogenes: ERS389795 - R1b-L11 - K1a1b1b - Iron Age - (High Coverage)

I didn't mean to come off as being arrogant. I made this thread for several reasons none of them because I want to be the center of attention, with everyone on my thread. Maciamo's admixture results are probably full of noise and he falsely labeled one a Celt and one an Anglo Saxon, when now we know they're both Anglo Saxons. He probably won't change his title page. People are throwing out key information and then it gets lost in a jungle of comments and forums. I want a thread where all of the analyzers of Hinxton genomes can have their link at the first page, along with any other key information, where everyone knows where to find them.

Tacitus was an above-average intelligent man. It's very interesting to read his observance of ancient people and the Roman world he lived in. He never said the Germans were a pure-people, he just strongly suggested it. You have to understand that people of his time knew almost nothing about the distant past or how to research history, for all they knew humans had only been around for 2,000 years and the nations were all created separately by the Gods. In terms of 8,000 years sure the Germans had complex ancestry but in terms of 200 years or more they may have been totally pure, and an extreme in European genetics like Basque and Balts.

There's no debate about mtDNA, everyone's on the same page. I know as much as you do, and don't have the time to do the research right now(part of the reason I made this thread, I am tired of going to ten different forums).

[Angela]

O.K. let's move beyond the original tone of the post. (I still think you should clear this with Maciamo and/or the moderators.)

I think the confusion still reigns. The post from Anthrogenica deals with mtDNA, yDNA, and general attribution of culture. Now, I have no personal knowledge of the matter, but it states there, as you can see upthread, that Genetiker claimed that Hinxton 1, ERS389795, was an Anglo-Saxon, and that Felix/Eurogenes held that Hinxton 1 ERS389795 was Iron Age - Celt. I don't if that's correct.

I do know that we on this thread said a few days ago that ERS389795 was probably Anglo Saxon.

Ed. Also from the abstract, "We find in particular that while the Anglo-Saxon samples resemble more closely the modern British population than the earlier samples..."
So, some of those earlier papers based on the analysis of the y chromosome which posited very large amounts of gene flow from the Anglo Saxons into all the British Isles may indeed have been correct.


ERS389798 -Iron Age Kelt R1b
K12b

• 39.04% North_European
• 32.43% Atlantic_Med
• 9.12% Caucasus
• 5.96% Gedrosia
• 3.54% Sub_Saharan
• 2.90% South_Asian
• 2.73% East_African
• 2.63% Northwest_African
• 1.63% Southwest_Asian
• 0.02% Siberian
• 0.00% East_Asian
• 0.00% Southeast_Asian

dv3

• 59.73% West_European
• 24.91% Mediterranean
• 8.22% East_European
• 5.41% Palaeo_African
• 1.69% Neo_African
• 0.03% Northwest_African
• 0.00% East_African
• 0.00% Northeast_Asian
• 0.00% South_Asian
• 0.00% Southeast_Asian
• 0.00% Southwest_Asian
• 0.00% West_Asian

ERS389795-Anglo Saxon
K12b

• 49.89% North_European
• 30.08% Atlantic_Med
• 9.78% Caucasus
• 3.63% East_Asian
• 3.19% Sub_Saharan
• 1.31% Northwest_African
• 1.16% Siberian
• 0.79% East_African
• 0.08% Gedrosia
• 0.07% South_Asian
• 0.00% Southeast_Asian
• 0.00% Southwest_Asian

dv3

• 41.46% West_European
• 24.44% East_European
• 17.31% Mediterranean
• 5.55% Northwest_African
• 3.17% South_Asian
• 2.69% Palaeo_African
• 1.70% West_Asian
• 1.21% Northeast_Asian
• 0.99% Southeast_Asian
• 0.85% Southwest_Asian
• 0.63% Neo_African
• 0.00% East_African
• Ed. to change the K-12b results for the Iron Age Celt. While I can see why, in the abstract, the authors said the samples are all broadly north European, I think there are come significant differences.

I later went on to say:
As I said, it now seems pretty clear that ERS389797 and ERS389798 are Iron Age, and ERS389795, 389796 and 389799 are from the Anglo-Saxon period.The 798 Iron Age male was probably R1b, and possibly belonged to R1b1a2a1a2c1g2-FGC3903/S5201/Y2890.T
There is some debate about the 795 Anglo Saxon period male, and Genetiker may have been wrong here. The Anglo-Saxon period male may have carried an upstream branch of R1b.

So, to recap:
ERS389798 -Iron Age Kelt R1b- L21, possibly R1b1a2a1a2c1g2-FGC3903/S5201/Y2890.T
K12b

• 39.04% North_European
• 32.43% Atlantic_Med
• 9.12% Caucasus
• 5.96% Gedrosia
• 3.54% Sub_Saharan
• 2.90% South_Asian
• 2.73% East_African
• 2.63% Northwest_African
• 1.63% Southwest_Asian
• 0.02% Siberian
• 0.00% East_Asian
• 0.00% Southeast_Asian

ERS389795-Anglo Saxon Period Male-possibly R1b L11+
K12b

• 49.89% North_European
• 30.08% Atlantic_Med
• 9.78% Caucasus
• 3.63% East_Asian
• 3.19% Sub_Saharan
• 1.31% Northwest_African
• 1.16% Siberian
• 0.79% East_African
• 0.08% Gedrosia
• 0.07% South_Asian
• 0.00% Southeast_Asian
• 0.00% Southwest_Asian

The Anglo-Saxon period male has approximately the same amount of "Caucasus" as the Iron Age Celt, and only 2.5 points less Atlantic Med. However, he is 11 points more "North European". He also has 3.63% East Asian, and 1.16% Siberian, none of which show up in the Iron Age Celt.

The Iron Age Celt has 2.63% Northwest African, compared to 1.31%, he has 2.73% East African, compared to .79%, and he has 5.96% Gedrosia and 2.90% South Asian, compared to virtually none for the Anglo-Saxon.

No wonder we can find the following statement in the abstract:
the Iron Age samples share more low frequency variation than the later ones with present day samples from southern Europe, in particular Spain (1000GP IBS). In addition the Anglo-Saxon period samples appear to share a stronger older component with Finnish (1000GP FIN) individuals.

The more northern, more northeastern "tilt" of the Anglo-Saxon sample seems pretty clear.

I'm not comfortable with placing the Iron Age samples within a specific archaeological context until we get the paper. All that the abstract says is that the samples came from five individuals that were found in archaeological excavations at the Wellcome Trust Genome Campus near Cambridge (UK), There seems to be some confusion about whether they are indeed Belgae related samples.

I would still like to see an EEF/WHG/ANE read on the Iron Age sample if anyone has it. Although I don't have a lot of confidence in that blogger calculator, it is at least based on actual ancient genomes. I have even less confidence in his later efforts.

Please correct if necessary...it seems to be a moving target. :)


On Maciamo's thread, I analyzed the data using the k-23b numbers from Genetiker:

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.

I'm too tired to go through all of the other analysis, but just from this, I think we did pretty well in attribuing ERS389795 to the Anglo Saxon period. not for genetics analysis.

My dear Fire Haired, I yield to none in my respect for the Roman authors; however, my point was precisely that they knew nothing of genetics, and so their comments about any group being a "pure, distinct, race" are useless. It's like expecting them to be right about the form of the universe. You read them for what they can contribute, not for genetics analysis.

[Sile]

I didn't mean to come off as being arrogant. I made this thread for several reasons none of them because I want to be the center of attention, with everyone on my thread. Maciamo's admixture results are probably full of noise and he falsely labeled one a Celt and one an Anglo Saxon, when now we know they're both Anglo Saxons. He probably won't change his title page. People are throwing out key information and then it gets lost in a jungle of comments and forums. I want a thread where all of the analyzers of Hinxton genomes can have their link at the first page, along with any other key information, where everyone knows where to find them.

Tacitus was an above-average intelligent man. It's very interesting to read his observance of ancient people and the Roman world he lived in. He never said the Germans were a pure-people, he just strongly suggested it. You have to understand that people of his time knew almost nothing about the distant past or how to research history, for all they knew humans had only been around for 2,000 years and the nations were all created separately by the Gods. In terms of 8,000 years sure the Germans had complex ancestry but in terms of 200 years or more they may have been totally pure, and an extreme in European genetics like Basque and Balts.

There's no debate about mtDNA, everyone's on the same page. I know as much as you do, and don't have the time to do the research right now(part of the reason I made this thread, I am tired of going to ten different forums).

don't mix up arrogrant with direct..................I did not see it as arrogant

[Angela]

Fire-haired: Maciamo's admixture results are probably full of noise and he falsely labeled one a Celt and one an Anglo Saxon, when now we know they're both Anglo Saxons.

To correct the record, I don't know if you came to this conclusion from reading Maciamo's thread, or you were told this, but it is absolutely incorrect, as any close reading of the thread would reveal.

Maciamo clearly attributed Sample ERS389798 to the Iron Age period (Celt).

It was ERS389795 (Hinxton 1) which he and others on this site attributed to the Anglo Saxon period.

You are now saying, if I understand you correctly, that everyone has come around to the conclusion that ERS389795 was probably Anglo-Saxon and that ERS389798 was probably Iron Age Celt. Well, that's great, but no one here ever reached any contrary conclusion.

Of course, the academics have still not spoken. I know we're all terribly brilliant, but perhaps we should wait to make any final judgments about these samples until we actually have the paper and any supplementary materials.

One final note, I have not myself analyzed the samples using the Eurogenes numbers. However, from what I can see of the analysis of others, it seems that the patterns are less obvious in them. I am not going to get sucked into another general discussion about them, but I will say that the clusters used in them are all so similar that it wouldn't at all surprise me if that is "confusing" rather than elucidating the patterns.

[T101]

The Hinxton 4 - ERS389798 sample has been confirmed as positive for R1b-L21 by Felix Chandrakumar (Felix's Thought Logs.)

Other markers as follows: P312+ S424-, L746/S310-, L563-, L679-, Z2961-, Z2534-, S425-, L658-, CTS7030-.

[Dubhthach]

Norwegian Vikings in UK

<---snip--->

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

Here's another image from Scotlandsdna with regards to these precentages which are based on Y-Chromosome lineages only:


I ask them over twitter what Haplogroups did they considered to be "Viking" in a Ireland/Britain context the answer was:

"R1a-S200, R1a-S201, R1a-S223*, R1a-S443*, R1b-S182 and R1b-S375*"

So going on that there is significant male lineage flow into northern Scotland (Caithness as well) from Scandinavia. Given that Norse survived in the form of Norn (closely related to Faroese) in Orkney/Shetland until the 18th century it's hardly surprising.

[Aberdeen]

Any attempt to estimate the percentage of "Viking" DNA in modern British and Irish populations will be too low unless at least part of the folks with Y haplotype I1 are considered to be "Viking".

[Dubhthach]

Any attempt to estimate the percentage of "Viking" DNA in modern British and Irish populations will be too low unless at least part of the folks with Y haplotype I1 are considered to be "Viking".

Indeed, well it was one of reasons I put the question to them, as you can see they only really cosidered clades of R1a and R1b, no doubt there are subclades of I1 that have quite localised scandinavian origin, adding these in would get a better picture.

[MOESAN]

If "West European" and "East European" are defined by contemporary people and assuming that both categories are essentially descendants of the same old WHG, then it is impossible that there once was a heavily ancient "West European" population. The older a sample, the more evenenly his WHG will be divided in "West European" and "East European", because WE and EE are the result of recent differentiation due to geographic separation. The iron age sample is closer to Loschbour in terms of time scale and Loschbour is about equally East and West. Therefore I think it is generally impossible to find any ancient sample with such high "West European" percentage like contemporary west Europeans.

EDIT: Maybe the same reasoning can also explain the general tendency towards exotic admixtures in ancient samples (which is incomplete differentiation)!?

Hello! I'm late but I understand your reasoning even if it is not sure 100% two stocks already were present among the HG's of W-Europe -

[Aberdeen]

Indeed, well it was one of reasons I put the question to them, as you can see they only really cosidered clades of R1a and R1b, no doubt there are subclades of I1 that have quite localised scandinavian origin, adding these in would get a better picture.

If they can decide which subclades of R1b they think are "Viking", they should be able to take the same in-depth approach to I1, considering how much work has been done on tracing the probable origins of various I1 subclades.

[MOESAN]

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

it is not the very center of this thread but yes, I find these results sensible (in Britain DNA Askhenaze are very close to greeks and Southern Italians, Sicilians, a bit more remote from Cyprians and Armenians what can reflect their European admixture ?)

[John Doe]

it is not the very center of this thread but yes, I find these results sensible (in Britain DNA Askhenaze are very close to greeks and Southern Italians, Sicilians, a bit more remote from Cyprians and Armenians

That makes sense.

what can reflect their European admixture ?)

I'm not certain, I suppose it would mainly be southeastern European, Greek like.

[Angela]

It's difficult to know how seriously to take all the various figures that are floating around, but...

I saw this breakdown for Hinxton 4: (It would be nice if people kept the sample numbers so there is no confusion, but I am assuming this is the tentatively attributed Iron Age sample.)

Hinxton 4: 44.8%EEF 39.6%WHG 15.6%ANE

Now for the Scottish and English numbers from the Lazaridis paper:
Scottish: .39EEF/.428WHG/.18ANE
English: .495EEF/.364/WHG/.14ANE

Hinxton 4 Iron Age male seems to be right in between the Scots and the English.

I do realize the sample from the Iron Age was tested using a different calculator than the one used by Lazaridis et al, but I don't have the calculator averages for the two national groups from the program used to analyze Hinxton 4. Still, the general pattern may be correct. I'm sure people are checking it.

[T101]

The Hinxton 4 - ERS389798 sample has been confirmed as positive for R1b-L21 by Felix Chandrakumar (Felix's Thought Logs.)

Other markers as follows: P312+ S424-, L746/S310-, L563-, L679-, Z2961-, Z2534-, S425-, L658-, CTS7030-.

Now also confirmed as DF21+, Z246+, and DF25+.

[Angela]

"Felix" has given his version of the percentages for Hinxton 4 ERS389798 for Dodecad v3, VVK23b and one of the Eurogenes runs.
K23b:
Ancient Altaic 8.50
South Central Asian 6.92
Arctic .91
Caucasus 19.49
EEF 27.86
Hunter Gatherer
SSA .69

Altaic, S.C.Asian, Arctic 16.33
EEF + Caucasus 47.35
Hunter Gatherer 35.64

On the Dodecad v3
E.Euro 10.62
W.Euro 53.13
Med 25.96
W.Asian 6.95
S.Asian 2.19
NWAfrican .29
Paleo, Neo, E.African .86

I never bothered to load this new computer with the Oracle program, but I'm sure people are doing it or have done it. Just eyeballing the v3 Spreadsheet, this sample isn't far from the Argyl one or the Orcadian one. It's just a little more Med and a little less West European. Interestingly enough, CEU looks like an even better fit, which you could describe I suppose as general British Isles with some German?At least I think that's how you could describe the Mormons.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...COCa89AJ#gid=0

I would take a shot at the Eurogenes run but I don't have any idea where the national averages are to be found. I'm sure someone is doing it.

Now we'll see what the paper says...

[LeBrok]

I would take a shot at the Eurogenes run but I don't have any idea where the national averages are to be found. I'm sure someone is doing it.

Now we'll see what the paper says...

Angela, you are in avant garde with these runs. Just patiently explain (as you usually do) what it means to the rest of us otherwise we are lost with these numbers.

[Angela]

Both "Genetiker" and "Felix" and perhaps "Eurogenes" have run the ancient genomes in question through various calculators and programs including Oracle to get a handle on the similarity of these genomes to modern populations.

Predictably enough, the percentages differ depending on who did the analysis. Instead of trying to come to some degree of consensus, they just seem to be engaging in a *******contest.

Using the percentages for the K23b and v3 (Dodecad K-12) runs provided by Genetiker (along with the results from the Dodecad K12b run) Maciamo analyzed the data and concluded that ERS389798, Hinxton 4, was more likely to be one of the Iron Age "Celts", and Hinxton 1 was more likely to be from the Anglo-Saxon period.

On the thread started by Fire Haired I took the attribution given in other places, looked at the same percentages that Maciamo had looked at, and concluded that those percentages supported an attribution of Hinxton 4 to the Iron Age Celtic period more so than did the data for Hinxton 1.

I said the following:
"The more northern, more northeastern "tilt" of the "Anglo-Saxon" sample seems pretty clear."

I also said that I would find it surprising that the AngloSaxons would turn out to be the more western and southern shifted group.
This was my reasoning based on those runs:

"The Anglo-Saxon period male has approximately the same amount of "Caucasus" as the Iron Age Celt, and only 2.5 points less Atlantic Med. However, he is 11 points more "North European". He also has 3.63% East Asian, and 1.16% Siberian, none of which show up in the Iron Age Celt.

The Iron Age Celt has 2.63% Northwest African, compared to 1.31%, he has 2.73% East African, compared to .79%, and he has 5.96% Gedrosia and 2.90% South Asian, compared to virtually none for the Anglo-Saxon.

So, once again, of the two, and taking into account the abstract of the paper, the Hinxton 4 sample seemed to be the likelier candidate for an Iron Age Celt.

Who knows, maybe they were both from the Iron Age. The authors will tell us. Maybe Hinxton 1 was of mixed ancestry. I don't know.

That's it...that's what drew the fire storm. Apparently, just using a Dodecad calculator is enough to draw the ire and insults of a certain group of posters, even to the point of calling this site a joke.

As I stated upthread, new percentages have now been provided by "Felix" for Hinxton 4. I don't have the data for Hinxton 1 so I can't do the same kind of comparison. What I can do, and did, is look at the percentages in the v3 spreadsheet. (As I said, I no longer have DIY or the Oracle set up on my computer.) Anyone can do the same by clicking on the link. So far as I can see, the ancient sample is pretty close to the western Scots (Argyle and Orkney), except that it is 2-3% more Med than the modern populations, and 2-3% less West Euro. Considering the documented population movements into those areas since the Iron Age, I don't think that's surprising.

Since then I've seen a post on another site to the effect that the sample is closest to the Irish. That may or may not be an accurate description of the results. I also don't know if that's based on an Oracle run or shared drift analysis. I have no way of knowing. This must be from a Eurogenes analysis, because in the Dodecad runs, the Irish do not seem to be as close to the ancient sample as the Scots, probably because they have less "Eastern European." (3% to 11%, with the sample having 11%) I don't know what the population averages for these modern groups are in the Eurogenes K-13 run which does have Western European and Eastern European clusters.

I also think that I saw a Eurogenes K13 analysis of some of these ancient samples, perhaps on Anthrogenica, but I don't remember precisely where. If I have time I will check to see how much Eastern Euro each one had.

At any rate, what I don't understand is why the abstract implied that the Anglo Saxon period people were more like modern Brits than the Iron Age people. If Hinxton 4 is indeed Iron Age, he looks pretty darn close to modern Brits, at least of the Scots variety.

Ed. Using the K23b percentages provided by "Felix", which are different than the ones provided by "Genetiker", and if you add what he calls EEF and Caucasus together, (Caucasus being, perhaps an eastern drifted from of EEF) you get an EEF/WHG/ANE set of numbers for Hinxton 4 which are only a few points off from the numbers in the Lazaridis et al paper. (For example, you get an EEF approximation of 47% compared to 49.5%) It would be nice if the authors used the Lazaridis algorithm on these samples so we can make a real comparison.

[T101]

Charleston Chiang (@cwkchiang) reports from ASHG 2014 the following:

Schiffels: Older Iron age samples more like present British samples, while younger AS samples left little imprint on modern GBR. #ASHG14

[Angela]

Charleston Chiang (@cwkchiang) reports from ASHG 2014 the following:

Schiffels: Older Iron age samples more like present British samples, while younger AS samples left little imprint on modern GBR. #ASHG14

My dear T101, thank you, but I think we both have to turn off our phones.

I just got this set of re-tweets from Razib Khan:

#ASHG14 Britain Finland diverges 6k BP. iron age clusters with modern Britains anglosaxon different. sounds like little German pop movement

#ASHG14 Cornwall less Finnish. Saxon cline

#ASHG14 modern British more rare variant with Spanish affinity vs Finn. Anglo Saxon more with Finn. Iron Age more affinity Spanish

#ASHG14 modern British more rare variant with Spanish affinity vs Finn. Anglo Saxon more with Finn. Iron Age more affinity Spanish
#ASHG14 old samples cluster sort of with modern British. anglosaxon Finn shifted iron age Spain shiftef


I particularly like the "sort of". :) Of course, we then have the abstract, which says that " We find in particular that while the Anglo-Saxon samples resemble more closely the modern British population than the earlier samples,."It's all about as clear as mud.

Hopefully, the full paper makes everything as clear as the water from a fresh, bubbling stream...:)

[Sile]

confirmed markers for these ancients

Hinxton-1

Cambridgshire, UK

Male

R-L151

K1a1b1b

2500-1800 years

Hinxton-2	Cambridgshire, UK	F999921	Female		H2a2b1	2500-1800 years	Hinxton-2 Analysis
Hinxton-3	Cambridgshire, UK	F999922	Female		K1a4a1a2b	2500-1800 years	Hinxton-3 Analysis
Hinxton-4	Cambridgshire, UK	F999925	Male	R-DF25	H1ag1	2500-1800 years	Hinxton-4 DNA Analysis
Hinxton-5	Cambridgshire, UK				H2a2a1	2500-1800 years	Pending

[Aaron1981]

Since then I've seen a post on another site to the effect that the sample is closest to the Irish. That may or may not be an accurate description of the results. I also don't know if that's based on an Oracle run or shared drift analysis. I have no way of knowing. This must be from a Eurogenes analysis, because in the Dodecad runs, the Irish do not seem to be as close to the ancient sample as the Scots, probably because they have less "Eastern European." (3% to 11%, with the sample having 11%) I don't know what the population averages for these modern groups are in the Eurogenes K-13 run which does have Western European and Eastern European clusters.

Angela, I believe the data supplied by Kit #F999925 at Gedmatch (loaded by Felix Chandrakumar), and independently by Eurogenes/Davidski on his K=15 calculator point to the closest population being Irish. The tweets are bloody confusing and we need to wait and see what additional information can be provided.

[T101]

My dear T101, thank you, but I think we both have to turn off our phones.

Haha... You are so right!!

I particularly like the "sort of". :) Of course, we then have the abstract, which says that " We find in particular that while the Anglo-Saxon samples resemble more closely the modern British population than the earlier samples,."It's all about as clear as mud.

Hopefully, the full paper makes everything as clear as the water from a fresh, bubbling stream...:)

Yeah, I can't believe they would contradict their abstract like that. I haven't seen confusion like this since... I don't know when! Can you remember anything like this? Wow...

[tjlowery87]

If there gonna compare them to all of britain then of course the iron age Celt is going to be closer to britain...UK is mostly Celtic countries and england is a celto Germanic country DNA wise.the Anglo Saxon would have more in common with Finland,not the mostly Celtic UK,with celto Germanic england.take care