African admixture in ancient Germanic/Scandinavian people

According to Davidski:
Perhaps, but here is another view:
When I look at admixture samples there always was SS African in them from way back, Oasis and Kostenki, or SE Asian. It was noticeably diminishing through ages till completely disappeared today in Northern Europe. Well, except Papuan (in Harappa). It is still there. Looks like slow changes due to mutations. Slowly getting away from African base to modern varieties.
 
Perhaps, but here is another view:
When I look at admixture samples there always was SS African in them from way back, Oasis and Kostenki, or SE Asian. It was noticeably diminishing through ages till completely disappeared today in Northern Europe. Well, except Papuan (in Harappa). It is still there. Looks like slow changes due to mutations. Slowly getting away from African base to modern varieties.

I agree - Surely one of the most evident causes -
the longer lasting old forms could be due to selective advantage in some conditions -
 
I agree - Surely one of the most evident causes -
the longer lasting old forms could be due to selective advantage in some conditions -
Yes, I imagine some genes can persist much longer, because are "perfect" for existing conditions. It is almost impossible to improve them.
 
I uploased all Motala, Ajvide and Gokhem smaples (some of them were before on Gedmatch).

For me all "SSA: among them is due to contamination and low coverage. Results in K36 Eurogenes.


F999917 Z455526 Z116076 Z974364 Z151696 Z937642Z466794

Motala012Motala01, SwedenMotala02, SwedenMotala04, SwedenMotala06, SwedenMotala09, SwedenStora Forvar 11
Amerindian0000000
Arabian0000000
Armenian0000000
Basque0000001,15
Central_African000007,80
Central_Euro00004,1807,3
East_African0000000
East_Asian0000000
East_Balkan0000000
East_Central_Asian0000000
East_Central_Euro20,39238,619,0341,768,4314,79
East_Med0000000
Eastern_Euro19,458,254,785,316,1510,0230,05
Fennoscandian33,335,542,3149,6619,0652,1918,48
French003,90015,920
Iberian0000000
Indo0Chinese0000000
Italian0000000
Malayan0000000
Near_Eastern0000000
North_African0000000
North_Atlantic9,7909,1111,834,86016,27
North_Caucasian0000000
North_Sea17,0831,7231,2919,08245,6410,13
Northeast_African0000000
Oceanian0000000
Omotic0000000
Pygmy01,5300000
Siberian0000000
South_Asian0000000
South_Central_Asian0000000
South_Chinese0000000
Volga0Ural0000000
West_African0005,07001,84
West_Caucasian0000000
West_Med0000000



Pitted Ware, Gotland


F999924Z191490[FONT=Cumberland,Cumberland AMT,Courier New,Cousine,Liberation Mono,Nimbus Mono L,DejaVu Sans Mono,Bitstream Vera Sans Mono,Courier,Lucida Sans Typewriter,Lucida Typewriter,Monaco,Monospaced]Z977196 [/FONT]T109642T577284T529074

Ajvide58 [FONT=Cumberland,Cumberland AMT,Courier New,Cousine,Liberation Mono,Nimbus Mono L,DejaVu Sans Mono,Bitstream Vera Sans Mono,Courier,Lucida Sans Typewriter,Lucida Typewriter,Monaco,Monospaced] Ajvide53 [/FONT][FONT=Cumberland,Cumberland AMT,Courier New,Cousine,Liberation Mono,Nimbus Mono L,DejaVu Sans Mono,Bitstream Vera Sans Mono,Courier,Lucida Sans Typewriter,Lucida Typewriter,Monaco,Monospaced]Ajvide59 [/FONT]Ajvide70Ajvide52Ire8
Amerindian0,722,770000
Arabian000000
Armenian000000
Basque4,3212,44003,249,59
Central_African01,550000
Central_Euro3,670,55002,370
East_African000,73000
East_Asian000000
East_Balkan00009,840
East_Central_Asian000000
East_Central_Euro17,8107,2632,7326,7710,38
East_Med000000
Eastern_Euro14,421,1157,996,252,858,89
Fennoscandian26,1931,5514,0123,619,2229,46
French5,51006,0705,4
Iberian000000
Indo0Chinese000000
Italian000000
Malayan000000
Near_Eastern000000
North_African000000
North_Atlantic7,890020,111316,94
North_Caucasian000000
North_Sea19,4925,8913,2910,5220,714,87
Northeast_African000000
Oceanian00,590000
Omotic005,47004,47
Pygmy001,2402,010
Siberian000000
South_Asian000000
South_Central_Asian000000
South_Chinese000000
Volga0Ural03,540000
West_African0000,7200
West_Caucasian000000
West_Med000000
 
Gokhem, Sweden

[FONT=Cumberland,Cumberland AMT,Courier New,Cousine,Liberation Mono,Nimbus Mono L,DejaVu Sans Mono,Bitstream Vera Sans Mono,Courier,Lucida Sans Typewriter,Lucida Typewriter,Monaco,Monospaced]Z070134 [/FONT][FONT=Cumberland,Cumberland AMT,Courier New,Cousine,Liberation Mono,Nimbus Mono L,DejaVu Sans Mono,Bitstream Vera Sans Mono,Courier,Lucida Sans Typewriter,Lucida Typewriter,Monaco,Monospaced]Z867326 [/FONT]F999934T742920
[FONT=Cumberland,Cumberland AMT,Courier New,Cousine,Liberation Mono,Nimbus Mono L,DejaVu Sans Mono,Bitstream Vera Sans Mono,Courier,Lucida Sans Typewriter,Lucida Typewriter,Monaco,Monospaced]Gokhem4 [/FONT][FONT=Cumberland,Cumberland AMT,Courier New,Cousine,Liberation Mono,Nimbus Mono L,DejaVu Sans Mono,Bitstream Vera Sans Mono,Courier,Lucida Sans Typewriter,Lucida Typewriter,Monaco,Monospaced]Gökhem7 [/FONT]Gökhem2 Gokhem5
Amerindian4,34000
Arabian0000
Armenian1,97000
Basque2,4927,031,789,45
Central_African4,5001,15
Central_Euro000,557,85
East_African0000
East_Asian2,14000
East_Balkan013,073,7711,36
East_Central_Asian0001,16
East_Central_Euro0000
East_Med0000
Eastern_Euro0000
Fennoscandian0000
French006,830
Iberian15,8326,7139,357,37
Indo0Chinese0000
Italian32,27014,7837,94
Malayan0000
Near_Eastern0000
North_African1,110,181,345,34
North_Atlantic9,1200,130
North_Caucasian0000
North_Sea006,860
Northeast_African0000
Oceanian000,190,11
Omotic04,2500
Pygmy0000
Siberian0,77000
South_Asian0000
South_Central_Asian0000
South_Chinese0000
Volga0Ural0000,32
West_African00,8300
West_Caucasian0000
West_Med25,4627,9324,417,96
 
Might be the remnants of the first WHGs Out of Africa connection.
 
I1 is quite obviously originally from north Africa. So we can expect to find pre-I1 in north Africa.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
What about older Iberian samples? Do they show any African %?
 
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.
 
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 ?
 
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)
 
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).
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 

This thread has been viewed 143204 times.

Back
Top