GEDMatch HarappaWorld Gedmatch, post and compare your admixtures to ancient and contemporary.

[Joey D]

Without getting into detail (which I might not know, lol) they both have similar source populations, like Levant Neolithic, EEF, some ANE to start with, plus Ashkenazy "formulated" some of their genome in Southern Europe, probably during Roman Empire. With all of this they should fit closer to Turkish Jews, to the right of their current position. However, because they had spent some time in Eastern Europe they got a bit of their genetics and this pulled them more to the left towards Ukraine and Belarus, placing them accidently where Sicilians are.
Populations don't need to be 100% identical to plot in the same place, sometimes it is accidental. We know that Spanish or Sardinians are not exactly EEF, but they plot like they were.

So you have touched on a few possible, inter-related theories:
1. similar source populations, from the Near East, Levant, etc (a bit to that I think)
2. Jewish migrations during the Roman epoch (hmmm, maybe)
3. Coincidental plotting, an historical quirk, different bits of DNA have accidentally pulled them close together (a possibility, except for the myriad opportunities which have existed to cross paths, except for the last 4 or 5 centuries).

On the coincidental plotting, and I have come across this elsewhere doing my own amateur research, would the various GEDMatch tests be able to recognise bits of DNA which are only superficially similar to Ashkenazi? Why do these tests keep throwing up Ashkenazi, not just me, but other Sicilians, in fact, often putting Ashkenazi before Sicilian/Sth Italian/Greek, etc.

So, to my mind, none of this is explaining it all well enough (unless the simple answer is that these tests are not very accurate, in which case, it becomes all a pointless discussion).

 

[LeBrok]

So you have touched on a few possible, inter-related theories:
1. similar source populations, from the Near East, Levant, etc (a bit to that I think)
2. Jewish migrations during the Roman epoch (hmmm, maybe)
3. Coincidental plotting, an historical quirk, different bits of DNA have accidentally pulled them close together (a possibility, except for the myriad opportunities which have existed to cross paths, except for the last 4 or 5 centuries).

On the coincidental plotting, and I have come across this elsewhere doing my own amateur research, would the various GEDMatch tests be able to recognise bits of DNA which are only superficially similar to Ashkenazi? Why do these tests keep throwing up Ashkenazi, not just me, but other Sicilians, in fact, often putting Ashkenazi before Sicilian/Sth Italian/Greek, etc.

So, to my mind, none of this is explaining it all well enough (unless the simple answer is that these tests are not very accurate, in which case, it becomes all a pointless discussion).

Found few genomes to compare. Unfortunately I don't have European populations yet except mine. Nobody cares doing it for Europe I guess.

Polish Joey D Ashkenazy Palestinian Population Population Population Population S-Indian 1 S-Indian S-Indian 1 S-Indian 1 Baloch 7 Baloch 9 Baloch 7 Baloch 7 Caucasian 10 Caucasian 38 Caucasian 34 Caucasian 39 NE-Euro 57 NE-Euro 15 NE-Euro 16 NE-Euro 1 SE-Asian 1 SE-Asian SE-Asian 0 SE-Asian 0 Siberian 1 Siberian Siberian 1 Siberian 0 NE-Asian 0 NE-Asian NE-Asian 0 NE-Asian 0 Papuan - Papuan 1 Papuan 0 Papuan 0 American - American American 0 American 0 Beringian 0 Beringian Beringian 0 Beringian 0 Mediterranean 22 Mediterranean 25 Mediterranean 24 Mediterranean 12 SW-Asian 1 SW-Asian 11 SW-Asian 15 SW-Asian 31 San - San San 0 San 0 E-African - E-African 1 E-African 1 E-African 5 Pygmy - Pygmy Pygmy 0 Pygmy 0 W-African - W-African 1 W-African 0 W-African 0

 

[Joey D]

^ Very close fit, I have 4% more Caucasian, the Ashkenazi has 4% more SW-Asian, no wonder I keep returning high Ashkenazi in all these various tests, especially Harappa:

#	Population (source)	Distance
1	ashkenazy-jew (behar)	5.34
2	ashkenazi (harappa)	6.68
3	sephardic-jew (behar)	9.31
4	morocco-jew (behar)	12.1
5	turk-aydin (hodoglugil)	12.89
6	tuscan (1000genomes)	13.74
7	tuscan (hgdp)	14.33
8	tuscan (hapmap)	14.98
9	cypriot (behar)	15.52
10	turk-istanbul (hodoglugil)	17.03

#		Primary Population (source)	Secondary Population (source)	Distance
1		65.8%	tuscan (1000genomes)	+	34.2%	azerbaijan-jew (behar)	@	1.83
2		65.1%	tuscan (1000genomes)	+	34.9%	georgia-jew (behar)	@	2.07
3		65.8%	tuscan (1000genomes)	+	34.2%	assyrian (harappa)	@	2.13
4		63.6%	tuscan (1000genomes)	+	36.4%	lebanese-druze (haber)	@	2.48
5		66.2%	tuscan (1000genomes)	+	33.8%	armenian (yunusbayev)	@	2.55
6		71%	cypriot (behar)	+	29%	french (hgdp)	@	2.56
7		53.4%	italian (hgdp)	+	46.6%	azerbaijan-jew (behar)	@	2.6
8		52.6%	italian (hgdp)	+	47.4%	georgia-jew (behar)	@	2.78
9		67.1%	tuscan (1000genomes)	+	32.9%	iranian-jew (behar)	@	2.8
10		61.7%	tuscan (hapmap)	+	38.3%	lebanese-christian (haber)	@	2.99

 

[Hauteville]

Just wanted to get this map up again from the previous page, has anyone here ever discussed why Sicilian, Maltese and Ashkenazi plot so close together?

On this map, Sicilians are plotting closer to Ashkenazi than Greek (Sicilian mid-way between Greek and Turkish Jew).

Why do they plot so closely together?

In this map the Greeks were from the North of the country, if they use Southern Greeks and Islander they plot very similar of us, you should see it in this map.

image hosting

 

[LeBrok]

Please post your HarappaWorld admixtures. I'm going to compile a table for European countries.

 

[clarbg]

1 NE-Euro 48.21
2 Mediterranean 33.12
3 Baloch 9.66
4 Caucasian 5.36
5 S-Indian 1.75
6 American 0.86
7 NE-Asian 0.46
8 SE-Asian 0.4
9 Papuan 0.18

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 utahn-white (1000genomes) 2.93
2 british (1000genomes) 3.78
3 utahn-white (hapmap) 4.8
4 n-european (xing) 5.26
5 orcadian (hgdp) 6.38
6 french (hgdp) 7.77
7 hungarian (behar) 12.33
8 slovenian (xing) 13.54
9 ukranian (yunusbayev) 18.91
10 spaniard (behar) 19.52
11 spaniard (1000genomes) 20.39
12 belorussian (behar) 22.51
13 romanian-a (behar) 23.81
14 mordovian (yunusbayev) 23.83
15 italian (hgdp) 24.17
16 russian (behar) 25.03
17 russian (hgdp) 25.8
18 spain-basc (henn2012) 26.18
19 bulgarian (yunusbayev) 26.18
20 lithuanian (behar) 27.26

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 93.6% utahn-white (1000genomes) + 6.4% puerto-rican (1000genomes) @ 1.98
2 93.3% british (1000genomes) + 6.7% romanian-b (behar) @ 1.99
3 97.5% utahn-white (1000genomes) + 2.5% kharia (reich) @ 2.01
4 97.6% utahn-white (1000genomes) + 2.4% santhal (reich) @ 2.01
5 97.5% utahn-white (1000genomes) + 2.5% ho (chaubey) @ 2.01
6 97.2% utahn-white (1000genomes) + 2.8% onge (reich) @ 2.02
7 97.5% utahn-white (1000genomes) + 2.5% kharia (chaubey) @ 2.02
8 97.5% utahn-white (1000genomes) + 2.5% savara (chaubey) @ 2.02
9 97.7% utahn-white (1000genomes) + 2.3% pulliyar (metspalu) @ 2.02
10 97.6% utahn-white (1000genomes) + 2.4% asur (chaubey) @ 2.02
11 97.8% utahn-white (1000genomes) + 2.2% paniya (chaubey) @ 2.02
12 97% utahn-white (1000genomes) + 3% great-andamanese (reich) @ 2.04
13 97.7% utahn-white (1000genomes) + 2.3% irula (xing) @ 2.04
14 97.5% utahn-white (1000genomes) + 2.5% juang (chaubey) @ 2.04
15 97.5% utahn-white (1000genomes) + 2.5% bonda (chaubey) @ 2.04
16 97.5% utahn-white (1000genomes) + 2.5% nihali (metspalu) @ 2.06
17 97.4% utahn-white (1000genomes) + 2.6% sahariya (reich) @ 2.07
18 95% utahn-white (1000genomes) + 5% colombian (1000genomes) @ 2.07
19 90.7% utahn-white (1000genomes) + 9.3% spaniard (1000genomes) @ 2.08
20 97.5% utahn-white (1000genomes) + 2.5% gond (metspalu) @ 2.11

 

[Joey D]

what does utahn mean? is that referring to the state of Utah?

 

[Angela]

what does utahn mean? is that referring to the state of Utah?

Yes. Years ago, a sample was taken from the Mormon community in Utah, and was often used as a surrogate for "European" ancestry. It's actually a good surrogate for northwestern European ancestry, as the Mormons are basically of British Isles descent, along with some more minor German and Scandinavian ancestry.

 

[Joey D]

Yes. Years ago, a sample was taken from the Mormon community in Utah, and was often used as a surrogate for "European" ancestry. It's actually a good surrogate for northwestern European ancestry, as the Mormons are basically of British Isles descent, along with some more minor German and Scandinavian ancestry.

But the original population can be what, 200 years old?

 

[Angela]

But the original population can be what, 200 years old?

That's right. It's a modern sample. It's included in the 1000 genomes set.

Ed.
I'll walk that back a bit. Mormonism came into being in the mid 19th century, but the "colonial" Americans who converted to it had been in the New World from the late 1600s to the mid 1700s.

Then, in the mid-to-late 19th century the Mormons went on missions to the British Isles and Scandinavia and made converts there. That's a more minor element from what I remember.

Since then, the ones in Utah have been isolated in terms of intermarriage.

 

[Joey D]

It just seems odd to me that we would bother labelling a community maybe a few hundred years old, when clearly, they have all come from the British Isles and Northern Europe.

I know there's always a temporal question involved with these sorts of tests, whether you go back to pre-history or medieval times, etc, but 2 or 3 centuries when there is a very obvious backstory which predates that period doesn't really make a lot of sense to me.

 

[Azzurro]

My Results

#PopulationPercent
1 Caucasian29.78
2 Mediterranean28.81
3 NE-Euro18.17
4 SW-Asian14.68
5 Baloch7.08
6 W-African1.13

Using 1 population approximation:
1 ashkenazi @ 6.947908
2 ashkenazy-jew @ 7.312261
3 tuscan @ 9.810319
4 tuscan @ 10.379184
5 tuscan @ 10.957203
6 morocco-jew @ 11.819502
7 sephardic-jew @ 12.251520
8 italian @ 18.351109
9 turk-aydin @ 20.673489
10 bulgarian @ 20.816389


Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% morocco-jew +50% tuscan @ 3.031924


Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% italian +25% morocco-jew +25% syrian @ 1.758904


Using 4 populations approximation:
1 french + sephardic-jew + sephardic-jew + sephardic-jew @ 1.490275
2 ashkenazy-jew + samaritian + spaniard + tuscan @ 1.740170
3 italian + italian + morocco-jew + syrian @ 1.758904
4 ashkenazy-jew + samaritian + spaniard + tuscan @ 1.766780
5 french + morocco-jew + sephardic-jew + sephardic-jew @ 1.769253
6 ashkenazy-jew + samaritian + spaniard + tuscan @ 1.790575
7 italian + italian + lebanese + morocco-jew @ 1.799032
8 ashkenazy-jew + samaritian + spaniard + tuscan @ 1.808096
9 french + morocco-jew + samaritian + tuscan @ 1.857893
10 ashkenazy-jew + samaritian + spaniard + tuscan @ 1.892028

 

[Angela]

^^
Wow, this calculator gives you very poor fits. (Plus, I've never seen a Tuscan reference population show up anywhere near Ashkenazim, much less in between Ashkenazim and Moroccan Jews. Very odd. )

Do other Europeans get such bad "fit" numbers and such an inconsistent gradient of populations ?

Is this calculator better for Near Easterners and Indians than for Europeans?

 

[New Englander]

Edit, this was a double post. Not sure how it happened.

 

[New Englander]

Why is it strange? He is about half way between Jews and Tuscan, although a bit closer to Jews. He is closer to Tuscan than Moroccan Jews though. All this means is that he has a bit higher SW Asian, and a bit lower Caucasian than other Italians, but thats just regional.

 

[Pax Augusta]

^^
Wow, this calculator gives you very poor fits. (Plus, I've never seen a Tuscan reference population show up anywhere near Ashkenazim, much less in between Ashkenazim and Moroccan Jews. Very odd. )

Because of the lack of samples. I mean, not all the populations are covered. His first population ashkenazi is @ 6.947908. So not a best fit.

Tuscan is @ 9.810319, @ 10.379184, @ 10.957203, they are all considerable distances.

In fact using 2 populations approximation, in the same results he is modelled as 50% morocco-jew +50% tuscan @ 3.031924.

While using 3 populations approximation, he is modelled as 50% italian +25% morocco-jew +25% syrian @ 1.758904 (Italian in this calculator is North Italian from Bergamo HGDP).

Do other Europeans get such bad "fit" numbers and such an inconsistent gradient of populations ?

Is this calculator better for Near Easterners and Indians than for Europeans?

Likely, it was made by Zack Ajmal.

 

[LeBrok]

Because of the lack of samples. I mean, not all the populations are covered. His first population ashkenazi is @ 6.947908. So not a best fit.

Tuscan is @ 9.810319, @ 10.379184, @ 10.957203, they are all considerable distances.

In fact using 2 populations approximation, in the same results he is modelled as 50% morocco-jew +50% tuscan @ 3.031924.

While using 3 populations approximation, he is modelled as 50% italian +25% morocco-jew +25% syrian @ 1.758904 (Italian in this calculator is North Italian from Bergamo HGDP).




Likely, it was made by Zack Ajmal.

Good observation. He's best fit is obviously missing.

 

[Azzurro]

Thanks for your feedbacks everyone!

@Angela, yes it is off, I believe you are right that it is more catered to Near Easterners, Gedrosia gives me similar results. For me personally I think MDLP is the best calculator, they have K11 and K16 coming out soon should be interesting.

@NewEnglander, my results are always a little bit skewed because my direct paternal line is Jewish-Convert (Neofiti), I am rare for Southern Italians and Sicilians in the sense that I have actual IBD matches with Jews.

@Pax Augusta, I agree with you 100% on this one, too little reference populations and samples used without Southern Italian or Sicilian used it is impossible to give me the best fit.

@Lebrok, like I told Pax, not having Southern Italian or Sicilian is tough to give an accurate prediction.

 

[Northener]

Found few genomes to compare. Unfortunately I don't have European populations yet except mine. Nobody cares doing it for Europe I guess.

Polish Joey D Ashkenazy Palestinian Population Population Population Population S-Indian 1 S-Indian S-Indian 1 S-Indian 1 Baloch 7 Baloch 9 Baloch 7 Baloch 7 Caucasian 10 Caucasian 38 Caucasian 34 Caucasian 39 NE-Euro 57 NE-Euro 15 NE-Euro 16 NE-Euro 1 SE-Asian 1 SE-Asian SE-Asian 0 SE-Asian 0 Siberian 1 Siberian Siberian 1 Siberian 0 NE-Asian 0 NE-Asian NE-Asian 0 NE-Asian 0 Papuan - Papuan 1 Papuan 0 Papuan 0 American - American American 0 American 0 Beringian 0 Beringian Beringian 0 Beringian 0 Mediterranean 22 Mediterranean 25 Mediterranean 24 Mediterranean 12 SW-Asian 1 SW-Asian 11 SW-Asian 15 SW-Asian 31 San - San San 0 San 0 E-African - E-African 1 E-African 1 E-African 5 Pygmy - Pygmy Pygmy 0 Pygmy 0 W-African - W-African 1 W-African 0 W-African 0

And a NW European Result (mine):

# Population Percent
1 NE-Euro 55.26
2 Mediterranean 28.6
3 Baloch 8.79
4 Caucasian 6.09
5 Papuan 0.77
6 S-Indian 0.49

Ok it are just four figures, but it looks like if in Northern Europe, the HG component is about 55%. To the west the Caucasian component drops down. In my case even below Baloch! Why does the Baloch component pops up higher than the Caucasian? And wat is very remarkable that my Med. is percentages higher than that of Joey (Sicily) or the Ashkenazim! Any explanations? Guesses?

 

[New Englander]

^ I would say you are either Basque or Corsican?

But your clearly not, so maybe Western Europe is classed "Med" in this calculator. I would need to look at the spread sheet. I think it peaks in North Italians and Sardinia.

Meaning R1b Celts = Med