To what archaeological culture or movement of people is this supposed to be tied, and based on what evidence? Ibero-Maurisian? What y dna? Has any basal "I2a" or "C" been found in North Africa? Or are people basing it on mtDNA? Those early studies on Mesolithic Iberian mtDna are pretty dodgy, in my opinion.

Or is the speculation that the gene flow went in the other direction? That would certainly explain that "African" that showed up in some analyses of La Brana, and some of the mtDna L3 in Iberia, but again, with what migration and where is the archaeological trail?

I don't mean to put you personally on the spot. I just want to know if any attempt is being made to put "components" like this in an archaeological or even anthropological context.

I'd be willing to bet money on at least some of the WHG and EEF coming from Africa. If we look at EEF, which actually has more WHG than it does Basal Eurasian, the cline in Europe is not northwest to southeast, as it would be if the entry point for EEF was through the Balkans but simply north to south, with Sicily having more Basal Eurasian than is found in EEF.
 
I'd be willing to bet money on at least some of the WHG and EEF coming from Africa. If we look at EEF, which actually has more WHG than it does Basal Eurasian, the cline in Europe is not northwest to southeast, as it would be if the entry point for EEF was through the Balkans but simply north to south, with Sicily having more Basal Eurasian than is found in EEF.

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.
 
My only concern is that the Eurogenes analysis may have produced an "ANE" component which may not be precisely equivalent to that of Lazardis et al.

Whenever there was a discrepency between Lazaridis and Eurogenes I have used the Eurogenes data, so the map is consistent overall. I did it for WHG, ANE and EEF.
 
I'm Moroccan from the south (chleuh berber) I have 28% WHG according to Eurogenes ANE K7.

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 ?
 
To what archaeological culture or movement of people is this supposed to be tied, and based on what evidence? Ibero-Maurisian? What y dna? Has any basal "I2a" or "C" been found in North Africa? Or are people basing it on mtDNA? Those early studies on Mesolithic Iberian mtDna are pretty dodgy, in my opinion.

Considering that Berbers are almost exclusively E-M81 (with just a bit of G and R1b-V88), and Arabs brought only some J1, J2 and T, I'd say that all trace of Palaeolithic Y-DNA has been wiped out from Northwest Africa, and only 5-10% of Palaeolithic mtDNA survives. Let's keep in mind that Northwest Africa is still a very undersampled region, so it wouldn't impossible to stumble on some rare C or I2a once more people are tested. After all how many Europeans do you know that belong to hg C1a2 ? The FTDNA project has only 14 of them (if we exclude recurring surnames with identical haplotypes). That's not even 0.1% of the European population. So if any survive in the Maghreb, we could only find one every 50,000 people or so (if any survive at all).

Or is the speculation that the gene flow went in the other direction? That would certainly explain that "African" that showed up in some analyses of La Brana, and some of the mtDna L3 in Iberia, but again, with what migration and where is the archaeological trail?

In the sparsely populated world of Palaeolithic or Mesolithic hunter-gatherers, I don't see why migrations couldn't have happened both ways between NW Africa and Iberia. There is enough evidence from mtDNA and autosomal DNA anyway.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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, 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.
 
I'm Ashkenazi Jewish and on ANE K7 i GET 33% WHG:

Population
ANE8.38%
ASE1.83%
WHG-UHG32.72%
East_Eurasian0.14%
West_African0.57%
East_African0.91%
ENF55.44%
 
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.
 
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/uploads/blankmapeuropegjpclfv1a0.png

blankmapeuropegjpclfv1a0.png
 
Last edited:
Now i have read the update.
 
Last edited:
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/uploads/blankmapeuropegjpclfv1a0.png

blankmapeuropegjpclfv1a0.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/spreadsheet...9aHzr7DLEnVq5q-wnTsfpe2a9Jg/edit?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.
 
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 :

image.jpg
 
Last edited:
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

[h=2]MDLP K=8 Oracle results:[/h]Admix Results (sorted):

#PopulationPercent
1Paleo_Mediterranean29.19
2East_European25.94
3West_European22.7
4Caucasian16.96
5Volga_Finnic2.43
6South_Central_Asian2.1
7Paleo_Scandinavian0.69
 
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.
 
Last edited:

This thread has been viewed 56465 times.

Back
Top