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

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.
 
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?:

[FONT=&quot]MDLP K23b[/FONT]

  • [FONT=&quot]35.13% European_Hunters_Gatherers[/FONT]
  • [FONT=&quot]31.41% Caucasian[/FONT]
  • [FONT=&quot]19.44% European_Early_Farmers[/FONT]
  • [FONT=&quot]6.42% Ancestral-North-Eurasian[/FONT]
  • [FONT=&quot]2.41% Ancestral-North-Indian[/FONT]
  • [FONT=&quot]2.24% Archaic-Human[/FONT]
  • [FONT=&quot]1.29% African-Pygmy[/FONT]
  • [FONT=&quot]0.75% East-African[/FONT]
  • [FONT=&quot]0.49% Near-East[/FONT]
  • [FONT=&quot]0.22% East-Siberian[/FONT]
  • [FONT=&quot]0.11% Ancestral-South-Indian[/FONT]
  • [FONT=&quot]0.05% Archaic-African[/FONT]
  • [FONT=&quot]0.04% North-African[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Sample [/FONT]ERS389798-What Genetiker calls the Iron Age Sample?[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]MDLP K23b[/FONT]

  • [FONT=&quot]32.46% European_Hunters_Gatherers[/FONT]
  • [FONT=&quot]31.80% European_Early_Farmers[/FONT]
  • [FONT=&quot]13.98% Caucasian[/FONT]
  • [FONT=&quot]6.77% Ancestral-North-Indian[/FONT]
  • [FONT=&quot]6.56% Ancestral-North-Eurasian[/FONT]
  • [FONT=&quot]4.69% Subsaharian[/FONT]
  • [FONT=&quot]1.35% North-African[/FONT]
  • [FONT=&quot]0.97% East-African[/FONT]
  • [FONT=&quot]0.54% Arctic[/FONT]
  • [FONT=&quot]0.29% Ancestral-South-Indian[/FONT]
  • [FONT=&quot]0.22% Melano-Polinesian[/FONT]
  • [FONT=&quot]0.16% Austroloid[/FONT]
  • [FONT=&quot]0.09% Near-East[/FONT]
  • [FONT=&quot]0.07% Paleo-Siberian[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
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 [FONT=&quot]Sample [/FONT]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.
 
(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?
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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?
 
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.
 
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. :)
 
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.
 
Norwegian Vikings in UK

200352731.jpg


Viking Dna

article-2577003-1C26285800000578-560_634x898.jpg


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/art...-claim-direct-descendants-Norse-warriors.html
 
curious

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

map-custom-size-250-158.jpg
map.jpg

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/d/1Oz6P5-SVEJciPX1TciGe-zoqA5JtOGIMG7nh-rCOj0c/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19c_bZjUV_RouKyGyLHmMDw57WwAVabXFJOaso_gcuRE/edit?usp=sharing

Below is a Eurogenes PCA of west Eurasia including Hinxton 3

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQLWlWTzJpWDF2MXM/view?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.
 
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)
 
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).
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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-.
 
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/art...-claim-direct-descendants-Norse-warriors.html

Here's another image from Scotlandsdna with regards to these precentages which are based on Y-Chromosome lineages only:
c75e6d64-b463-4db6-9e6b-3f216a4daa89.png


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.
 
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".
 
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.
 

This thread has been viewed 133561 times.

Back
Top