Genome of an Iron age Briton

Fire Haired14 said:
Gedorsia doesn't equal R1b. Components from admixtures are just allele frequencies. If you made me an admixture people all over west Eurasia would score in it, that doesn't mean I'm an ancient population. That guy who didn't score in Gedorsia when Geneticker tested him belonged to R1b-L11, his Y SNPs speak for themselves. Don't take Geneticker's theories seriously.
Click to expand...

Eurogenes says L11+, Genetiker says not R1b

Eurogenes is calling 95 an Iron age Briton, Genetiker calls him an Anglo Saxon

Genetiker has a lot better analysis though, I hope we get a definitive haplotype soon

http://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-an-ancient-english-genome/



OK EDIT:

I think Eurogenes is talking about ERS389798, but saying that it is ERS389795.

He mentions that the sample is high coverage, and that only the Iron age samples are high coverage. Genetiker refers to only 98/97 as iron age and high coverage and 95 as low coverage.
 
motzart said:
Eurogenes says L11+, Genetiker says not R1b

Eurogenes is calling 95 an Iron age Briton, Genetiker calls him an Anglo Saxon

Genetiker has a lot better analysis though, I hope we get a definitive haplotype soon

http://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-an-ancient-english-genome/



OK EDIT:

I think Eurogenes is talking about ERS389798, but saying that it is ERS389795.

He mentions that the sample is high coverage, and that only the Iron age samples are high coverage. Genetiker refers to only 98/97 as iron age and high coverage and 95 as low coverage.
Click to expand...

Don't take eurogenes seriously , they are claiming anglo-saxon :shocked:or even argyll:startled:...............the body is from the period 500BC to 200AD ...the earliest the anglo-saxons entered England was 450AD....thats at best 250 years after of at worst 950 years after.
As for Argyll, it in west scotland, migrated by gaelic people from ireland.....east scotland was the picts

Also remeber, that iron-age england finished in 50 AD according to English scholars.
IIRC, some even say Norman :confused2:
 
Fire Haired14 said:
Gedorsia doesn't equal R1b. Components from admixtures are just allele frequencies. If you made me an admixture people all over west Eurasia would score in it, that doesn't mean I'm an ancient population. That guy who didn't score in Gedorsia when Geneticker tested him belonged to R1b-L11, his Y SNPs speak for themselves. Don't take Geneticker's theories seriously.
Click to expand...

why.............where do you think gedrosia is?

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...in-of-R1b-M269?p=394454&viewfull=1#post394454
 
@Motzart

Malta boy is not R1 ....don't take eurogenes seriously...he is R* ( neither R1 nor R2 )
 
motzart said:
So ERS389795 was not R1b or admixed with R1b people. This basically has to be our Anglo-Saxon then and gives us a lot of interesting implications about Anglo-Saxon genetic heritage. Looks like that Anglo-Saxon mask might need to come off the R1b page.
Click to expand...

I don't underestand your point here...
this man had NO Y-DNA??? If he pertained not to the cited haplo's, to which pertained he? I deduce it was an Y-R1b, or I missed something...
 
It's a lot easier to make sense of the percentages now we know that two of the results are from the pre-Roman period (2200 years BP) and three are from the Anglo-Saxon period (1300 years BP). And it sort of confirms my suspicion that the modern population of the Scotttish lowlands are a lot more Germanic, genetically speaking, than they like to think they are.
 
Aberdeen said:
It's a lot easier to make sense of the percentages now we know that two of the results are from the pre-Roman period (2200 years BP) and three are from the Anglo-Saxon period (1300 years BP). And it sort of confirms my suspicion that the modern population of the Scotttish lowlands are a lot more Germanic, genetically speaking, than they like to think they are.
Click to expand...

we have to precise what we think when we say Lowlands:
when I say Lowlands I think: Glasgow great area (+ Renfrew, North Lanark,) plus Stirling, so a s whoel the more industrial area - the Edinburgh region Lothians) is already different, more Anglo-Saxon heritage, as in TODAY Grampians (Eatsern Highlands, around Aberdeen far away): old Aberdeensh, Angus, Kincardine, where Picts were replaced partly by newcomers until recently, from England (+ a new light wave after petrol discoveries) -
the West and the east doesn't present the same types (external), nor the same %s of surnames, and surely not the exactly same genetics -
Glasgow area presents an heavy enough 'mediterranean' (anthropo) impact easy to check at first sight, and too an heavy enough all-celtic imput - the Gaelic Highlands emigrees went rather to Glasgow than to Edinburgh region - (and I recall that Western Scotland spoke gaelic long enough, unti) XVIII° century, South to Glasgow, as in Ayrsh and Galloway!!!) -
so yes Glasgow region shows (for me) more Anglo-Saxon or generally Germanics imput than Ireland, Cornwall or Wales, even than Black Country West of England, but in moderate proportions - East Borders, Edinburgh and East grampians show more Germanics imput
as always I speak here of original People of the 1950's but they have not been suddenly swept out.
just my thought, according to readings but to personal (scarce but in accord) observations too
 
motzart said:
So ERS389795 was not R1b or admixed with R1b people. This basically has to be our Anglo-Saxon then and gives us a lot of interesting implications about Anglo-Saxon genetic heritage. Looks like that Anglo-Saxon mask might need to come off the R1b page.
Click to expand...

No it should not. They were both R1b. One was AT LEAST L11+, may have been P312 or U106 positive but we may never know. The other was apparently L21+.
 
Wouldn't the world be a much better place if people would just admit it when they screw up?

Clearly, for reasons that are beyond me, the release of the genomes did not include an attribution to culture or time period for any of the numbered samples. Now that results are available for all the genomes, and given the description in the abstract, it would seem that Genetiker was correct and that the first genome we were discussing is that of someone from the Anglo Saxon period.

To clear up some obvious confusion, five samples were analyzed, two from the pre-Roman British Iron Age, and three from the Anglo Saxon period.

From the Abstract:
We present whole genome sequences generated from five individuals that were found in archaeological excavations at the Wellcome Trust Genome Campus near Cambridge (UK), two of which are dated to around 2,000 years before present (Iron Age), and three to around 1,300 years before present (Anglo-Saxon period). I.E. 700 AD.


As I said, it now seems pretty clear that ERS389797 and ERS389798 are Iron Age, and ERS389795, 389796 and 389799 are from the Anglo-Saxon period.The 798 Iron Age male was probably R1b, and possibly belonged to R1b1a2a1a2c1g2-FGC3903/S5201/Y2890.T
There is some debate about the 795 Anglo Saxon period male, and Genetiker may have been wrong here. The Anglo-Saxon period male may have carried an upstream branch of R1b.

So, to recap:
ERS389798 -Iron Age Kelt R1b- L21, possibly R1b1a2a1a2c1g2-FGC3903/S5201/Y2890.T
K12b


  • 39.04% North_European
  • 32.43% Atlantic_Med
  • 9.12% Caucasus
  • 5.96% Gedrosia
  • 3.54% Sub_Saharan
  • 2.90% South_Asian
  • 2.73% East_African
  • 2.63% Northwest_African
  • 1.63% Southwest_Asian
  • 0.02% Siberian
  • 0.00% East_Asian
  • 0.00% Southeast_Asian

ERS389795-Anglo Saxon Period Male-possibly R1b L11+
K12b


  • 49.89% North_European
  • 30.08% Atlantic_Med
  • 9.78% Caucasus
  • 3.63% East_Asian
  • 3.19% Sub_Saharan
  • 1.31% Northwest_African
  • 1.16% Siberian
  • 0.79% East_African
  • 0.08% Gedrosia
  • 0.07% South_Asian
  • 0.00% Southeast_Asian
  • 0.00% Southwest_Asian


The Anglo-Saxon period male has approximately the same amount of "Caucasus" as the Iron Age Celt, and only 2.5 points less Atlantic Med. However, he is 11 points more "North European". He also has 3.63% East Asian, and 1.16% Siberian, none of which show up in the Iron Age Celt.

The Iron Age Celt has 2.63% Northwest African, compared to 1.31%, he has 2.73% East African, compared to .79%, and he has 5.96% Gedrosia and 2.90% South Asian, compared to virtually none for the Anglo-Saxon.

No wonder we can find the following statement in the abstract:
the Iron Age samples share more low frequency variation than the later ones with present day samples from southern Europe, in particular Spain (1000GP IBS). In addition the Anglo-Saxon period samples appear to share a stronger older component with Finnish (1000GP FIN) individuals.

The more northern, more northeastern "tilt" of the Anglo-Saxon sample seems pretty clear.

I'm not comfortable with placing the Iron Age samples within a specific archaeological context until we get the paper. All that the abstract says is that the samples came from five individuals that were found in archaeological excavations at the Wellcome Trust Genome Campus near Cambridge (UK), There seems to be some confusion about whether they are indeed Belgae related samples.

I would still like to see an EEF/WHG/ANE read on the Iron Age sample if anyone has it. Although I don't have a lot of confidence in that blogger calculator, it is at least based on actual ancient genomes. I have even less confidence in his later efforts.

Please correct if necessary...it seems to be a moving target. :)


Ed. Also from the abstract, "[FONT=&quot]We find in particular that while the Anglo-Saxon samples resemble more closely the modern British population than the earlier samples[/FONT]..."
So, some of those earlier papers based on the analysis of the y chromosome which posited very large amounts of gene flow from the Anglo Saxons into all the British Isles may indeed have been correct.
 
Angela said:
Wouldn't the world be a much better place if people would just admit it when they screw up?

Clearly, for reasons that are beyond me, the release of the genomes did not include an attribution to culture or time period for any of the numbered samples. Now that results are available for all the genomes, and given the description in the abstract, it would seem that Genetiker was correct and that the first genome we were discussing is that of someone from the Anglo Saxon period.

To clear up some obvious confusion, five samples were analyzed, two from the pre-Roman British Iron Age, and three from the Anglo Saxon period.

From the Abstract:
We present whole genome sequences generated from five individuals that were found in archaeological excavations at the Wellcome Trust Genome Campus near Cambridge (UK), two of which are dated to around 2,000 years before present (Iron Age), and three to around 1,300 years before present (Anglo-Saxon period). I.E. 700 AD.


As I said, it now seems pretty clear that ERS389797 and ERS389798 are Iron Age, and ERS389795, 389796 and 389799 are from the Anglo-Saxon period.The 798 Iron Age male was probably R1b, and possibly belonged to R1b1a2a1a2c1g2-FGC3903/S5201/Y2890.T
There is some debate about the 795 Anglo Saxon period male, and Genetiker may have been wrong here. The Anglo-Saxon period male may have carried an upstream branch of R1b.

So, to recap:
ERS389798 -Iron Age Kelt R1b- L21, possibly R1b1a2a1a2c1g2-FGC3903/S5201/Y2890.T
K12b


  • 39.04% North_European
  • 32.43% Atlantic_Med
  • 9.12% Caucasus
  • 5.96% Gedrosia
  • 3.54% Sub_Saharan
  • 2.90% South_Asian
  • 2.73% East_African
  • 2.63% Northwest_African
  • 1.63% Southwest_Asian
  • 0.02% Siberian
  • 0.00% East_Asian
  • 0.00% Southeast_Asian

ERS389795-Anglo Saxon Period Male-possibly R1b L11+
K12b


  • 49.89% North_European
  • 30.08% Atlantic_Med
  • 9.78% Caucasus
  • 3.63% East_Asian
  • 3.19% Sub_Saharan
  • 1.31% Northwest_African
  • 1.16% Siberian
  • 0.79% East_African
  • 0.08% Gedrosia
  • 0.07% South_Asian
  • 0.00% Southeast_Asian
  • 0.00% Southwest_Asian


The Anglo-Saxon period male has approximately the same amount of "Caucasus" as the Iron Age Celt, and only 2.5 points less Atlantic Med. However, he is 11 points more "North European". He also has 3.63% East Asian, and 1.16% Siberian, none of which show up in the Iron Age Celt.

The Iron Age Celt has 2.63% Northwest African, compared to 1.31%, he has 2.73% East African, compared to .79%, and he has 5.96% Gedrosia and 2.90% South Asian, compared to virtually none for the Anglo-Saxon.

No wonder we can find the following statement in the abstract:
the Iron Age samples share more low frequency variation than the later ones with present day samples from southern Europe, in particular Spain (1000GP IBS). In addition the Anglo-Saxon period samples appear to share a stronger older component with Finnish (1000GP FIN) individuals.

The more northern, more northeastern "tilt" of the Anglo-Saxon sample seems pretty clear.

I'm not comfortable with placing the Iron Age samples within a specific archaeological context until we get the paper. All that the abstract says is that the samples came from five individuals that were found in archaeological excavations at the Wellcome Trust Genome Campus near Cambridge (UK), There seems to be some confusion about whether they are indeed Belgae related samples.

I would still like to see an EEF/WHG/ANE read on the Iron Age sample if anyone has it. Although I don't have a lot of confidence in that blogger calculator, it is at least based on actual ancient genomes. I have even less confidence in his later efforts.

Please correct if necessary...it seems to be a moving target. :)
Click to expand...

Great analysis. The fact that there is lower coverage on the Anglo-Saxons results leads me to believe they are much noisier. Probably too high North European, and phantom East Asian and SSA results.
 
Aaron1981 said:
No it should not. They were both R1b. One was AT LEAST L11+, may have been P312 or U106 positive but we may never know. The other was apparently L21+.
Click to expand...

there was no L11 that I can see, it was L151 ...............same branch of the R1b tree

This is for ERS389795
 
One of many questions that remains open for me is whether this ancient Briton is representative of all the Pre-Roman Iron Age inhabitants of the British Isles.

Once again, these are the results for what is probably a "Briton" or Iron Age Celt from what is now East Anglia:
K12b


  • 39.04% North_European
  • 32.43% Atlantic_Med
  • 9.12% Caucasus
  • 5.96% Gedrosia
  • 3.54% Sub_Saharan
  • 2.90% South_Asian
  • 2.73% East_African
  • 2.63% Northwest_African
  • 1.63% Southwest_Asian
  • 0.02% Siberian
  • 0.00% East_Asian
  • 0.00% Southeast_Asian

Now let's look at the Cornish sample:
North European 42.8
Atlantic Med 43.8
Caucasus 2
Gedrosia 11.4

The North Euro component is only 3 points higher, which one could say might be the result of internal migration and intermarriage over the centuries.

However, how did the Cornish go from 32.43% Atlantic Med (if our ancient sample was representative of all the pre-Roman Iron Age Britons) to 43.8% Atlantic Med? Their Atlantic Med numbers are pretty "French" looking. Even the Argyl (41.2), English (41.5), and Orcadian (42.4) Atlantic Med numbers are substantially higher than those of our ancient Briton.

So, I'm still left wondering if there were populations in Britain at that time that were substantially more EEF than the sample we have, either because of differential gene flow over the centuries into the east coast that made them different, or because this sample also came from a relatively more recent migration.
 
Angela said:
Wouldn't the world be a much better place if people would just admit it when they screw up?
Click to expand...

The samples aren't labeled so its hard to know who they represent, but it doesn't hurt to speculate as long as the analysis is correct.

You're the one screwing up, because you don't understand that the results you're analyzing are biased.

It's basic high school science. You should try and understand it, for your own good.
 
You should try not being such a bully. I have read your argument that the Dodecad runs are defective because of the "calculator effect", and yours are not, many times. It did not convince me when you made it years ago on the Dienekes site, revealing a lack of familiarity with statistical analysis and logical argument in the process, by the way, and it doesn't convince me now. Repeating it over and over again will not make it true.

In fact, I don't think you exhibit any understanding of the "calculator effect", and neither do the people who quote you. For anyone who is actually interested in the topic, please see the following written by someone who actually understands statistics and these programs:
http://dodecad.blogspot.com/2012/08/on-so-called-calculator-effect.html
The comments section provides additional information.

Since you insist upon being rude, in my opinion your calculators are seriously flawed, as anyone who followed the posts that explained how they were created would know. The inconsistent results even within the individual runs themselves are just further proof. In the world as it still is, I am entitled to that opinion.

Your analytical ability in terms of academic papers was on display on this site just recently. I also found that unimpressive. In addition, although everyone has been wrong at one point or another, if the list of your totally inaccurate opinions and conclusions over the years were written down they would fill a city phone book. I know you have deleted pages of them from the internet but some people know how to take screenshots and keep files.

Oh, and I sincerely hope you are not threatening me in some way. It is very unwise to do such a thing without knowing the cards the other person may be holding. At any rate, I am not intimidated.

Now you go to the top of the ignore list.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top