African admixture in ancient Germanic/Scandinavian people

[New Englander]

Might be the remnants of the first WHGs Out of Africa connection.

[Expredel]

I1 is quite obviously originally from north Africa. So we can expect to find pre-I1 in north Africa.

[Seanp]

I1 is quite obviously originally from north Africa. So we can expect to find pre-I1 in north Africa.

Source? I shares origins with J haplogroup and the proto ancestor was IJ which originated from the Near East - Mesopotamia region.

[Expredel]

Source? I shares origins with J haplogroup and the proto ancestor was IJ which originated from the Near East - Mesopotamia region.

Scandinavian skulls resemble north African skulls, common knowledge for anyone familiar with anthropology. 1

[Seanp]

Scandinavian skulls resemble north African skulls, common knowledge for anyone familiar with anthropology. 1

Y-DNA is just one factor and it doesn't have effect on phenotype, there are other genetic markers responsible for physical appearance.

[I1a3_Young]

What about older Iberian samples? Do they show any African %?

[LeBrok]

What about older Iberian samples? Do they show any African %?

It is hard to say at the moment if 1% African admixtures in older samples is the noise, old artifact, or some new flow.

[MOESAN]

Scandinavian skulls resemble north African skulls, common knowledge for anyone familiar with anthropology. 1

too common knowledge?
Scandinavian skulls are inherited from diverse stocks: you thinkin old anthropo 'nordic' dolicho type? they show only some common basis to a lot of europoid dolichocephalic subtypes, whose prototypes were surely bred around Northern Near East at some stage of History before differentiations; I should think the incomplete isolation of future 'nordic' types took place in Northern Steppes South Finland and around not without some input of 'brünnoids' partly evolved descendants; whatever the error I can do here (uneasy to be sure on this ground, it's rather personal guesses) this genesis don't need at all a direct route from Northwest Africa - concerning Y-haplos we know all of us how uneasy it is to link old haplo's with phenotypes, even in far past - concerning I, it seems it's still considered it comes from IJ whose place of development would be around Near-East/Anatolia rather than in North Africa -
if we consider the allover auDNA of Scandinavian, it's "african" part was and is still very low, and I think that statistically phenotypes have still links with auDNA more than Y-haplo's so to try to compare well represented skulls to a marginal part of auDNA and to Y-haplo's so volatile is a bit weird, IMO.
the between types could maybe be found already among some Paleo clans of Southeastern Europe ?

[MOESAN]

I thought in relatively recent Upper Paleo people (15000 BC? a bit older?) wandering at some stage between Southern and Central Europe and the Steppes, not in first Western Paleo people of the 40000/25000's BC before LGM and partly jammed by it)

[Mark]

This is bad “science.” You cannot determine ancestry of an archaic sample relative to modern samples, especially if the archaic samples are over 5000 years old. Why? Africans today are not what they were > 5000 years ago and, if anything, should be analyzed the other way around. Descendant populations from a man in Siberia 20k years ago will not all be identical, obviously. Some populations (Finnish or Ural) descended of him will show some grouping of his genes whilst still other descended populations will not. This is to say that Eurasian groups introgressed into Africa (V88 being one bit of evidence of it) and it is obviously more likely that modern Africans are partly descended of ancient Europeans than it is that ancient Europeans are descended from modern Africans (the samples used for such admixture analyses).

[Maciamo]

This is bad “science.” You cannot determine ancestry of an archaic sample relative to modern samples, especially if the archaic samples are over 5000 years old. Why? Africans today are not what they were > 5000 years ago and, if anything, should be analyzed the other way around. Descendant populations from a man in Siberia 20k years ago will not all be identical, obviously. Some populations (Finnish or Ural) descended of him will show some grouping of his genes whilst still other descended populations will not. This is to say that Eurasian groups introgressed into Africa (V88 being one bit of evidence of it) and it is obviously more likely that modern Africans are partly descended of ancient Europeans than it is that ancient Europeans are descended from modern Africans (the samples used for such admixture analyses).

Do you understand how population admixture are used? Every scientific paper on ancient DNA compares prehistoric populations to modern ones (as well as to other ancient samples). That's how we know which ancient population contributed genetically to which modern one. Besides, the Dodecad admixture used here do not represent real present-day populations but phantom (or zombie as Dienekes said) populations that potentially existed in the past and were labelled with terms such as East European, Mediterranean or Northwest African. These are neither ancient nor modern, but theoretical model populations.

[Mark]

Do you understand how population admixture are used? Every scientific paper on ancient DNA compares prehistoric populations to modern ones (as well as to other ancient samples). That's how we know which ancient population contributed genetically to which modern one. Besides, the Dodecad admixture used here do not represent real present-day populations but phantom (or zombie as Dienekes said) populations that potentially existed in the past and were labelled with terms such as East European, Mediterranean or Northwest African. These are neither ancient nor modern, but theoretical model populations.

Please refrain from trying to speak down to me. Thanks!

That tells you about modern populations based on ancient. You learn significantly LESS about ancient populations based on modern.

EDIT: what’s meant here is those “Zombie populations” are inferences of careful study in modern populations. They are constructs. By attempting to claim they are real rather than they are constructs extracted from inferences made about modern populations, you engage in simple reification. Those “zombie populations” are not complete pictures, by any stretch of the imagination, and they, more often than not, likely represent even more ancient admixture. I.e. those zombie populations are not real, they are reassembled from pieces supposed to fit. You cannot take those populations, assign them a real place in our ancestry and then extrapolate their introgression into a more ancient population based purely upon percentages retrieved from a tool meant for modern people to test their ancestry.

Try running the Euro J-Test at Gedmatch on ancient Eurasian DNA samples, see how much “Ashkenazi” they have, you’d be surprised. Does that mean they were part Ashkenazim? No, Ashkenazim did not exist back then so it’s impossible. What is more likely is these types of tests are extremely inferential. That’s the first take away. The second takeaway is trying to determine the ancestry of somebody based on the DNA of their descendants is more valuable than trying to do so with an extrapolation of the DNA of other supposed ancestors based on those descendants. This becomes less true with more distant ancestry but on an overall declining arch of utility. It’s all the more the case if you try to take what you learn from that study and apply it to someone that isn’t related to any of them.