New map of West European Hunter-Gatherer (WHG) admixture

[Maciamo]

The reason Near eastern vs WHG and ANE ancestry in Europe doesn't follow the spread of farming is because later genetic turnovers occurred.

Neolithic farmers in Spain(abstract of new study which sampled genomes, says most similar to Sardinians), Hungary, North Italy, Germany(Reich-Laz sampled them), and Sweden were all basically Sardinian or Basque with a 0 ANE, just 5,000 years ago.

Suddenly during the bronze age in Germany and Hungary ANE pops up, WHG rises, and Near eastern decreases, and the people basically become modern Europeans. This was mostly caused by IEs from the steppe, who made a bigger effect on northern Europe than southern Europe, which is why southern Europeans are more closely related to Neolithic farmers.

I agree with that explanation.

[Aberdeen]

The reason Near eastern vs WHG and ANE ancestry in Europe doesn't follow the spread of farming is because later genetic turnovers occurred.

Neolithic farmers in Spain(abstract of new study which sampled genomes, says most similar to Sardinians), Hungary, North Italy, Germany(Reich-Laz sampled them), and Sweden were all basically Sardinian or Basque with a 0 ANE, just 5,000 years ago.

Suddenly during the bronze age in Germany and Hungary ANE pops up, WHG rises, and Near eastern decreases, and the people basically become modern Europeans. This was mostly caused by IEs from the steppe, who made a bigger effect on northern Europe than southern Europe, which is why southern Europeans are more closely related to Neolithic farmers.

Poor reading comprehension, as usual. Your comment does not in any way address what I actually said. I was talking about the genetic makeup of Europeans prior to the introduction of ANE in Europe. I think that, regardless of where Basal Eurasian came from originally, it could have reached some parts of Europe from North Africa, rather than coming through the Balkans, just as was likely the case for some of the Paleolithic and Mesolithic European population. And of course what people generally seem to forget is that there's been repeated and massive population turnovers in North Africa, so even if we had better information about North African DNA, we wouldn't expect to find too much evidence of some of the migrations that passed through North Africa over the centuries. And yes, some of it came from Europe and a bit from Subsaharan Africa (probably quite a bit during the Paleolithic and Mesolithic) but most of it came from the Middle East in modern times and probably also during the Neolithic.

Edit: To spell out what I thought was already clear, I was talking about the percentage of WHG to Basal Eurasian. I hope nobody is arguing that the IE expansion is the reason Sicilians have more Basal Eurasian than is found in Neolithic EEF samples. And while it's always dangerous to use modern populations to try to trace ancient population movements, some aspects of modern populations can only be explained in terms of Neolithic or earlier populations. If that wasn't true, there would be no point in these maps.

[Fire Haired14]

Aberdeen, it isn't good to lie to make someone else look like a fool when they correct your mistakes.

You mentioned how EEF ancestry in Europe doesn't follow how farming spread and that some EEF likely comes from North Africa.

Have have no idea how you life with yourself. You've lied several times on this forum, and snobbishly insulted people, to simply look smart. I'm sure you do worse offline. Do you have a conscious? I'm sure you'll respond to this with another one of your arrogant insults, which you think makes you look smart, but really reveals what a dark person you are.

[Aberdeen]

Aberdeen, it isn't good to lie to make someone else look like a fool when they correct your mistakes.

You mentioned how EEF ancestry in Europe doesn't follow how farming spread and that some EEF likely comes from North Africa.

Have have no idea how you life with yourself. You've lied several times on this forum, and snobbishly insulted people, to simply look smart. I'm sure you do worse offline. Do you have a conscious? I'm sure you'll respond to this with another one of your arrogant insults, which you think makes you look smart, but really reveals what a dark person you are.

I love you too, sweety. LOL.

[John Doe]

I'm Ashkenazi Jewish and on ANE K7 i GET 33% WHG:

Population
ANE	8.38%
ASE	1.83%
WHG-UHG	32.72%
East_Eurasian	0.14%
West_African	0.57%
East_African	0.91%
ENF	55.44%

[Hauteville]

A friend of mine has passed me this map based on Eurogenes K8.
Click for full resolution

http://i.imgur.com/njXse27.png

[Moor]

Thanks for sharing. However, the ANE K7 is only useful for calculate the ANE percentage. The WHG is completely different from the one used for this map. With the ANE K7, Northwest Europeans get between 60 and 70% of WHG, which is about twice higher than on this map. I am not sure if it is twice higher in every region though or if it varies a lot. If it is approximately the same everywhere, then you could be in the 10-15% range on this map, like Tuscans and Sardinians.

What is your ANE percentage ?

Thank you for the infos, I'm 0.12 ANE
0% ASE
about 50% EEF
I have 18% East African and 3% East eurasian.

[Alan]

A friend of mine has passed me this map based on Eurogenes K8.
Click for full resolution

http://i.imgur.com/njXse27.png

Use this newer version. some percentages recalculated.
Update: Jews, Samaritans and Palestinians added. Samaritans best proxy for ENF with 87.5%
http://img5.fotos-hochladen.net/uplo...gjpclfv1a0.png

[Hauteville]

Now i have read the update.

[Fire Haired14]

I love you too, sweety. LOL.

Burn in Hell!!!!

[John Doe]

Use this newer version. some percentages recalculated.
Update: Jews, Samaritans and Palestinians added. Samaritans best proxy for ENF with 87.5%
http://img5.fotos-hochladen.net/uplo...gjpclfv1a0.png

Where is K8? It's not on Gedmatch.

Oh... You have to pay for it.

P.S Which Jewish group are you using? Ashkenazis or Sephardis? In either case it should be noted.

[Angela]

Use this newer version. some percentages recalculated.
Update: Jews, Samaritans and Palestinians added. Samaritans best proxy for ENF with 87.5%
http://img5.fotos-hochladen.net/uplo...gjpclfv1a0.png

I just took a closer look at the percentages. Well, we'll see how the analysis holds up once we have an actual early near eastern farmer genome. Assuming, for the moment, that it's generally correct, or at least that the relationships between the countries are correct, it confirms some of my speculations, particularly about the Samaritans. It has always made sense to me that a group that has been endogenous for about 3,000 years might very well tell us a lot about ancient genomes in the Near East. (Of course, that's created huge problems for them as a people.) Also, as I've been yammering about for years, south-eastern Anatolia, northern Syria, the homeland of the Neolithic farmers who went to Europe, is a different place today than it was in 8-9,000 BC.

Somewhere I saw a speculation that the Yamnaya people will turn out to be about 50% ENF, 30%ANE, and 20%WHG. Maybe it will be more like 45/30/25, who knows, but still those North Caucasus populations, especially the Lezghins, might be pretty close if those turn out to be the final figures. Additional flow south/north in subsequent years might have changed their proportions around somewhat. I remember all those posts on the Dienekes blog about the Lezghins, and whether they might provide a clue about all of this. (Speculation alert! :))

The SSA numbers are interesting as well. I've tended to rely on the Globe 13 run for those figures in the past. Compared to that, the figures here seem a bit low for Europe and a bit high for the Near East. (Of course, there are no figures for Portugal, where I think the SSA would be higher.) I think it might be because in Europeans a chunk of the "East African" goes into ENF. That's not necessarily incorrect, as "East African" seems to be close to half West Eurasian if the latest papers are to be believed. What's left here is really "West and South SSA". (I think the sliver of SSA or W.African along the Atlantic seaboard probably owes something to post colonial back flow and modern slavery, although I'm sure some of it is ancient, part of long term gene flow south/north across Gibraltar from the Mesolithic all the way through the Islamic era.) I'm not sure why the "East African" break out into "African" and West Eurasian, if that's what happened here, didn't operate in the Near East.
See Globe 13 data:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...t?pli=1#gid=24

The SEA which still remains is pretty interesting as well. I'm assuming this was dragged along with what we used to call "Gedrosia" and so is part of the "Indo-European" profile in Europeans.

Also of interest is the East Eurasian figure. I'm a bit surprised that even a sliver was passed to North Africans by way of the Arab invasions, I'm assuming, or perhaps it's more of a diffusion from the Ottomans. Speaking of Ottomans I'm a little surprised at the 5% EEA in the Turks. I thought it would be higher, but of course they were probably admixed when they arrived.

A question about the Greek data, if you don't mind. Are those figures based on Thessaly alone, or Thessaly and Attica, or does it also include the Peleponnese? (The data for Greece is skewed, in my opinion, if you use only that. It would be like using the data for Bergamo to represent the entire Italian peninsula. Italy and Greece are not like Spain, which is largely homogenous.) If it's an average, do you have the break out for the Peleponese? Given the number of colonies in Sicily which were started by cities in the Peleponnese, that would be interesting for comparison. Or, rather than make you look at it, could you direct me to the spread sheet you used to compute these percentages? I'd also like to see the figures for Toscana, and whether there are any regional differences in Sicily.

Which brings me back to the ANE figures. On balance, I'm still not convined by them, either as absolute numbers or as relative proportions among the groups. They're too different from the Lazardis numbers, which work better for Italy anyway, showing, for example, a slight uptick for ANE among the Tuscans, which would make sense if they had a little Iron Age input from ANE rich Anatolia, even if it turns out to be just an elite migration. I don't see why there would be such a descrepancy in the figures for the areas which were in both the Lazardis run and this one.

[Goga]

I'm Ashkenazi Jewish and on ANE K7 i GET 33% WHG:

Population
ANE	8.38%
ASE	1.83%
WHG-UHG	32.72%
East_Eurasian	0.14%
West_African	0.57%
East_African	0.91%
ENF	55.44%

My K7 results :

[Sile]

Is Eurogenes giving away his recent ANE k7 tests ( which reminds me of a similar Dodecad k7 data ) and using K8 ..........from MDLP?

my sons K8 below ...............K8 has far more east-european bias along with ancient /"paleo" med . numbers than K7 has

MDLP K=8 Oracle results:

Admix Results (sorted):

#	Population	Percent
1	Paleo_Mediterranean	29.19
2	East_European	25.94
3	West_European	22.7
4	Caucasian	16.96
5	Volga_Finnic	2.43
6	South_Central_Asian	2.1
7	Paleo_Scandinavian	0.69

[Alan]

Also, as I've been yammering about for years, south-eastern Anatolia, northern Syria, the homeland of the Neolithic farmers who went to Europe, is a different place today than it was in 8-9,000 BC.

The whole World was in change of autosomal DNA. Certanly there was some "unfortune" change in Southern Anatolia and the northern Levant but still 65-80% of ENF DNA is still quite large majority. There are other regions in Eurasia which were more "unfortune" in this issue. For example there is no modern population which reaches above 50% WHG or ANE. So we could still say that Early Neolithic farmer DNA was very sucessfull.

Somewhere I saw a speculation that the Yamnaya people will turn out to be about 50% ENF, 30%ANE, and 20%WHG. Maybe it will be more like 45/30/25, who knows, but still those North Caucasus populations, especially the Lezghins, might be pretty close if those turn out to be the final figures. Additional flow south/north in subsequent years might have changed their proportions around somewhat. I remember all those posts on the Dienekes blog about the Lezghins, and whether they might provide a clue about all of this. (Speculation alert! :))

There was definitely more variation with some Yamnaya samples but I think 50/30/20 is a good quess. North Caucasian specifically Dagestani Lezgians are the closest to these figures but we still need to double the WHG and go down some ~10% of ENF: So we could say Yamnaya would have been genetically a more "northern" extension of North Caucasians, Which quite frankly fits their position.

The SSA numbers are interesting as well. I've tended to rely on the Globe 13 run for those figures in the past. Compared to that, the figures here seem a bit low for Europe and a bit high for the Near East. (Of course, there are no figures for Portugal, where I think the SSA would be higher.) I think it might be because in Europeans a chunk of the "East African" goes into ENF.

Thats most likely how it is. Good observation.

The SEA which still remains is pretty interesting as well. I'm assuming this was dragged along with what we used to call "Gedrosia" and so is part of the "Indo-European" profile in Europeans.

Yes SEA seems to be 3/4 ANI which was part of the Gedrosia component (8% of it) and 1/4 ASI.

Also of interest is the East Eurasian figure. I'm a bit surprised that even a sliver was passed to North Africans by way of the Arab invasions, I'm assuming, or perhaps it's more of a diffusion from the Ottomans. Speaking of Ottomans I'm a little surprised at the 5% EEA in the Turks. I thought it would be higher, but of course they were probably admixed when they arrived.

The same what happened with the SSA figures, happened also with the East Eurasian. I don't know if you remember me writing some time ago. That I am in some calculators only 1% East Asian admixed but in calculators where there is an "Amerindian" component, I suddenly turn out as almost zero East Asian but 3% Amerindian. In other calculators Kurds turn usually out as 1 to 2% East Eurasian but here as close to zero. This is because the East Eurasian in Kurds is ANE derived. So I pretty convinced that the East Asian figures are lower for all because the Amerindian derived "East Asian" of other components get eaten up by ANE, because at the end of the day it is ANE. This is why Turks who on average turn out as 7 to 8% are suddenly around 5% EEA.

A question about the Greek data, if you don't mind. Are those figures based on Thessaly alone, or Thessaly and Attica, or does it also include the Peleponnese? (The data for Greece is skewed, in my opinion, if you use only that.

I only used the "Greek" samples for the Greek figures because I didn't wanted to include regional samples exactly for this reason and I hadn't much time. But when I compared the "Greek" samples to the other regional samples they were quite similar. So I don't think it play a big role there.

Which brings me back to the ANE figures. On balance, I'm still not convined by them, either as absolute numbers or as relative proportions among the groups. They're too different from the Lazardis numbers, which work better for Italy anyway, showing, for example, a slight uptick for ANE among the Tuscans, which would make sense if they had a little Iron Age input from ANE rich Anatolia, even if it turns out to be just an elite migration. I don't see why there would be such a descrepancy in the figures for the areas which were in both the Lazardis run and this one.

I didn't use any of the Tuscan samples because this would have been too regional and too much work at once to be honest. I am still updating from time to time. I used the North_Italy samples for North Italy, I used the South_Italy and Sicily samples for South_Italy and I used Abruzzo for South_Central Italy because I didn't had any Central Italian samples to use. This is why the frequencies are listed slighty more South than really Central.

[Angela]

[QUOTE=Alan;447548]

The whole World was in change of autosomal DNA. Certanly there was some unfortune change in Southern Anatolia and Northern Syria but still 70% of ENF DNA is still quite large majority. There are other regions in Eurasia which were more "unfortune" in this issue. For example there is no modern population which reaches above 50% WHG or ANE. So we could still say that Early Neolithic farmer DNA was very sucessfull.

Yes, looking at it that way, it has indeed been the most successful of these three groups. That makes perfect sense, of course, because they had the large expansion brought about by the shift to agriculture much earlier than the other groups.

The same what happened with the SSA figures, happened also with the East Eurasian. I don't know if you remember me writing some time ago. That I am in some calculators only 1% East Asian admixed but in calculators where there is an "Amerindian" component, I suddenly turn out as almost zero East Asian but 3% Amerindian. In other calculators Kurds turn usually out as 1 to 2% East Eurasian but here as close to zero. This is because the East Eurasian in Kurds is ANE derived. So I pretty convinced that the East Asian figures are lower for all because the Amerindian related "East Asian" gets eaten up by ANE, because at the end of the day it is ANE. This is why Turks who on average turn out as 7 to 8% are suddenly around 5% EEA.

Makes sense. That's how I have been explaining my .1 East Asian and .1 Amerindian on 23andme to myself. That's my only "exotic" ancestry. If it's real and not just noise, I think it's from my ANE ancestors. I certainly don't have family myths about Pocahontas making a detour to Emilia, Liguria, or Toscana. :) (For what it's worth, I've seen it in Tuscans and Ligurians but nowhere else, at least not among my shares.) Yes, I certainly was expecting about 8% East Eurasian for the Turks, and I still think that's closer to the actual number. It almost seems as if all the European figures are "white-washed" generally, compared to other analyses, i.e. less East Asian and SSA all around.

I only used the "Greek" samples for the Greek figures because I didn't wanted to include regional samples exactly for this reason and I hadn't much time. But when I compared the "Greek" samples to the other regional samples they were quite similar. So I don't think it play a big role there.

I took a look at the figures for the specific areas. Greece Thessaly, the most northern area, is just about equivalent to Toscana. (except for a slight difference in ANE) The Central Greece and "Greece" data (which seem to be almost identical) shows that they fall southeast of Toscana, which is what I thought all along, and which was pretty clear from the Paschou et al plots. (pretty near the Abruzzi figures) Once you get to the Abruzzi you're into southern Italy culturally, and pretty much genetically as well, in my opinion. Pity that there's no data from most of the Peloponnese or Crete, given how much of Magna Graecia was settled from the Peloponnese (and Ionia, of course.)

There's virtually no difference between the different areas of Sicily, which I always believed would be the case. What I didn't expect and what looks strange to me is that southern Italy should be more ENF than Sicily, although I suppose that could be down to all the "Lombards" from Lombardia, Piemonte, Liguria, etc. who were brougt in to 'pacify" Sicily after the expulsion of the Muslims and to turn the "Eastern" Catholics "Latin". (I have actually met a Sicilian on line whose male line ancestors came from my area in the early Middle Ages.) Still, it doesn't look quite right. I realize that 23andme doesn't have a representative sample, and my shares are not necessarily representative even of the people on 23andme, but for what it's worth, I share with quite a few Calabresi, and their "Middle East" scores (and SSA scores) are quite a bit lower than those of the the Sicilians with whom I share. (Or maybe we just shouldn't take those 23andme breakdowns all that seriously.)

Unless, of course, that hint we got from the as yet unpublished mtDna from mesolithic Greece turns out to be meaningful, and the genetic cluster that Eurogenes is calling ENF was already in the Greek Islands, perhaps the southern Peleponnese and southern Italy before Neolithic technology actually arrived...cousins meeting long lost cousins, as it were, following ancient migration routes.

See:
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/12...poulou-on.html

On balance, I still wouldn't bet the farm on these figures being totally accurate. We don't have an actual ancient dna genome of an early neolithic farmer from the Near East. Nor do we have any from the southern Gravettian in southern Greece and Italy, not to mention the fact that in every single analysis this blogger's results have higher WHG and higher ANE in certain areas than were found by academicians. Especially in terms of ANE, I don't see why that would be the case as we have the actual ANE genome and there wasn't any ANE in either La Brana or Loschbour or in the Near East if the EEF are any indication. I'm not saying there isn't an explanation, I'm just saying that I haven't heard it.

There was definitely more variation with some Yamnaya samples but I think 50/30/20 is a good quess. North Caucasian specifically Dagestani Lezgians are the closest to these figures but we still need to double the WHG and go down some ~10% of ENF: So we could say Yamnaya would have been genetically a slightly more Northern Extension of North Caucasians, Which quite frequently fits their position.

We'll soon see how close that is to the actual figures. If it is close, and if those low 7 or 8% figures for ANE from this algorithm are correct, it doesn't seem that there was any major impact from the Indo Europeans in the southwest, for example, no matter what language they speak. Even in the northeast, how much of the ANE is from SHG's? Is there any way to disentangle it, even from the Corded Ware genomes?

[Sile]

Use this newer version. some percentages recalculated.
Update: Jews, Samaritans and Palestinians added. Samaritans best proxy for ENF with 87.5%
http://img5.fotos-hochladen.net/uplo...gjpclfv1a0.png

a few questions

1- who produced this newer version and for what reason?

2 - why is germany, switzerland, netherlands, austria and czech missing?

3 - why 2 southern italy tests when these areas in most testing companies are reffered as "greek" incorpoarting southern italy , albania and greece ?

4 - why no South_france data when Laz clearly seperated it from central and northern france?

[arvistro]

The whole World was in change of autosomal DNA. Certanly there was some unfortune change in Southern Anatolia and Northern Syria but still 70% of ENF DNA is still quite large majority. There are other regions in Eurasia which were more "unfortune" in this issue. For example there is no modern population which reaches above 50% WHG or ANE. So we could still say that Early Neolithic farmer DNA was very sucessfull.

Lithuanians have 52% WHG :) But I got your point.

[Angela]

a few questions

1- who produced this newer version and for what reason?

2 - why is germany, switzerland, netherlands, austria and czech missing?

3 - why 2 southern italy tests when these areas in most testing companies are reffered as "greek" incorpoarting southern italy , albania and greece ?

4 - why no South_france data when Laz clearly seperated it from central and northern france?

You would have to ask Eurogenes...these numbers come from his ANE8 data spreadsheet.) I think the samples are from academic sources. I'd actually be interested to know which lab(s) provided access to the data, and the specific locale where some of the samples were taken. Lazardis et al used a different data set, which may explain some of the discrepancies.

As to the averaging that Alan did, he explained his method upthread.

See the following link to the data spreadsheet provided by Kefter:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...1#gid=74932529

[LeBrok]

North West Africa is very interesting. It has substantial WHG with O% ANE. If the numbers are reliable, it would mean that WHG component couldn't have come to Africa within last 3 thousand of years. If numerous migrations of Europeans would have happened in historical times bringing WHG component, it would have increased ANE to at least 3% in the process. Surprisingly there is almost 0% ANE there. It is a surprising phenomenon knowing that the NW African coast belonged to Roman Emprire for 500 years and experienced migrations of Goths and Vandals, and also recent European colonization. It looks like all Europeans, of known historical presence, didn't mingle much with locals and all eventually left. Really surprising indeed, because we are talking about 700 years of cumulative European presence there.

Going back to WHG issue in NW Africa. It is not recent for sure, probably not Neolithic either. It leaves two options on the table. WHG in NWAfrica could have come from European WHG hiding there in Africa during severe cold of Ice Age. In this case WHG component became also NW African component and shows on many plots and runs of ancient europeans and modern population. Or Hunter Gatherers from NW Africa crossed Gibraltar during Paleolithic, mixed with European HGs, and became a part of WHG component.

I remember coming to similar conclusions, discovering and musing about different components pulling vectors on PCA plots, at Hungarian Neolithic thread.

[Sile]

the grouping attached for K8

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthre...ll=1#post63540

french with bosnians

north-italians with canary islands

kosovar with tuscany

[mihaitzateo]

A friend of mine has passed me this map based on Eurogenes K8.
Click for full resolution

http://i.imgur.com/njXse27.png

Thank you very much for posting this map!
So, Balkanics, Italians, Greeks ,Spaniards, people from Turkey are mostly related to Ancient Middle-Easterner people!
Very nice.

[binx]

Thank you very much for posting this map! So, Balkanics, Italians, Greeks ,Spaniards, people from Turkey are mostly related to Ancient Middle-Easterner people! Very nice.

That map is obsolete, according to your argument all Europeans are mostly related to Ancient Middle-Easterner people, the ENF component is anywhere in Europe (Romania 52%, Bulgaria 52%, Norway 36%, Scotland 38%, England 40%...).

[Alan]

That map is indeed slightly obsolete. The Near Eastern admixture in Europe is even significantly higher. The reason for that is because the map predates Anatolian_Neo samples and allot of the "WHG" is actually Anatolian_Neo derived. And allot of the "ENF" and "ANE" is actually CHG/Iran_Neo derived while there isn't even an EHG component.

[Northener]

Thanks Hautteville, what about the figures of the central European countries, Denmark and the BENELUX? Very curious about that!

A friend of mine has passed me this map based on Eurogenes K8.
Click for full resolution

http://i.imgur.com/njXse27.png