Makin a map of EEF, WHG and ANE admixtures in Europe. Please post your data.

Greeks and Italians are not over 70% EEF, some of it is post-Neolithic middle eastern ancestry. Just because Greeks live in "Europe" does not mean all of their middle eastern ancestry is of the same source as middle eastern ancestry for the first farmers in Germany(LBK culture).

Once again, the data from the updated Lazaridis et al paper as per Nobody One's post:

EEF/WHG/ANE-Also known as Stuttgart/Loschbour/Mal'ta

Bergamo 71.5/17.7/10.8
Toscana 74.6/13.6/11.8
Sicilia 90.3/0/9.7

N.Spain: 71.3/12.5/16.3
Spain: 80.9/5.8/12.3

Greek mainland: 79.2/5.8/15.1
Bulgaria: 71.2/14.7/14.1
 
Gedmatch is working now.

Albanian from Kosova.

EEF74.94463
WHG15.44501
ANE9.610351
 
That's a bummer.
Does anyone know if other websites run K13 calculator?

Why don't you just use the K13 population averages by turning them into WHG/ANE/EEF ratios?

If it gets too tiresome just quit;
And obviously you seriously think that the "data" you and your expert Blog create are on par with data from academic sources and proper institutions; funny or sad;

You seem extremely butthurt about something, so any discussion based on logic is pointless.

But yes, the Eurogenes EEF/WHG/ANE scores do make more sense than those from the paper in some ways, like the fact that they show lower ANE among Basques. This actually agrees better with the modelling in the paper, where Basques are one of the few European populations that can be modelled as a two way mixture of EEF and WHG, with 0% ANE.

How did you not notice this? Nevermind, that was a rhetorical question.
 
You seem extremely butthurt about something, so any discussion based on logic is pointless.

But yes, the Eurogenes EEF/WHG/ANE scores do make more sense than those from the paper in some ways, like the fact that they show lower ANE among Basques. This actually agrees better with the modelling in the paper, where Basques are one of the few European populations that can be modelled as a two way mixture of EEF and WHG, with 0% ANE.

How did you not notice this? Nevermind, that was a rhetorical question.

Well it is not about what makes more sense to you and whatever iffy data your blog than creates; It is about what is more credible i.e. data from academic studies/institutions or data from issy hobby blogs (like Eurogense); Thats all;

But i dont even actually mind the data you produce at your Hobby Blog for it is as harmless as it is worthless im just reminding you to pull your head out of your ass and acknowledge a little bit of reality i.e. the diff. between academic and hobby blog and if you dont get that difference....sad, funny, pathetic you pick the attribute;

PS: if one usually disagrees with academic data one usually just voices their opinion and refer to other academic studies; One does not go off and create an own blog and produce ones own "fitting" data; and worst of all trying to pass that iss of as on par with academia; But your obviously special in that regard;
 
Well it is not about what makes more sense to you and whatever iffy data your blog than creates; It is about what is more credible i.e. data from academic studies/institutions or data from issy hobby blogs (like Eurogense); Thats all;

But i dont even actually mind the data you produce at your Hobby Blog for it is as harmless as it is worthless im just reminding you to pull your head out of your ass and acknowledge a little bit of reality i.e. the diff. between academic and hobby blog and if you dont get that difference....sad, funny, pathetic you pick the attribute;

PS: if one usually disagrees with academic data one usually just voices their opinion and refer to other academic studies; One does not go off and create an own blog and produce ones own "fitting" data; and worst of all trying to pass that iss of as on par with academia; But your obviously special in that regard;
There is plenty of bullshit studies out there also...I wouldn't understimate those genetic blogs, they produce better stuff than many studies.
 
Ethnicity: Ashkenazi Jewish
K13:
Admix Results (sorted):


# Population Percent
1 East_Med 33.95
2 North_Atlantic 21.11
3 West_Med 19.23
4 West_Asian 13.53
5 Baltic 5.45
6 Red_Sea 4.46
7 Northeast_African 0.86
8 East_Asian 0.86
9 Oceanian 0.33
10 Sub-Saharan 0.22

Closest K13 DNA match:

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:


# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 55.1% Lebanese_Druze + 44.9% Spanish_Valencia @ 2.25


EEF-WHG-ANE results (rounded to full numbers):

EEF 88
WHG 5
ANE 7




Any interpretation will be welcomed.
 
Last edited:
Well it is not about what makes more sense to you and whatever iffy data your blog than creates; It is about what is more credible i.e. data from academic studies/institutions or data from issy hobby blogs (like Eurogense); Thats all;

But i dont even actually mind the data you produce at your Hobby Blog for it is as harmless as it is worthless im just reminding you to pull your head out of your ass and acknowledge a little bit of reality i.e. the diff. between academic and hobby blog and if you dont get that difference....sad, funny, pathetic you pick the attribute;

PS: if one usually disagrees with academic data one usually just voices their opinion and refer to other academic studies; One does not go off and create an own blog and produce ones own "fitting" data; and worst of all trying to pass that iss of as on par with academia; But your obviously special in that regard;

Polako is more legit than you think, and how is anyone on this forum at the level to judge his blogs credibility.
 
Polako is more legit than you think, and how is anyone on this forum at the level to judge his blogs credibility.

Absolutely; For he is a real expert and a very special mind;

But ultimately one only knows what a BS academic study is by reading other academic studies and not by smothering in whatever a blogger and his expert blog squeezes out; But to each his own FireHaired;

PS: everyone is on the level to judge the credibility (or lack of) amateur hobby blogs even you;
 
I don't want to get in the middle of another fight, but just on general principles, I don't personally place much faith in any results where the exact samples and the precise methodology used to generate the results are not provided in precise detail. That's why papers have such a long methodology section, even if most hobbyists either skip it or don't understand the math or the programs used. It's there so that people with the necessary skills can run the analysis themselves to see if the stated results can be verified, or if they have been "tweeked" to reflect the biases of the authors.

This is the case whether the analysis is by a "blogger" or an academic. That's over and above any specific, personal knowledge one might have of questionable practices engaged in not only by bloggers but by academic authors occasionally as well.
 
Absolutely; For he is a real expert and a very special mind;

But ultimately one only knows what a BS academic study is by reading other academic studies and not by smothering in whatever a blogger and his expert blog squeezes out; But to each his own FireHaired;

PS: everyone is on the level to judge the credibility (or lack of) amateur hobby blogs even you;

Many theories which today are mainstream Polako believed in when they were not backed up by academic papers. He is looking at real modern and ancient people's DNA, making real tests, has experience, etc. He doesn't claim to be the hurting yourself because papers about a single subject don't come out oftenly, and they are restricted from coming up with new ideas. A blog like Polako's allows constant exchange of ideas, constant experimentation, and is less restricted than the academic world but probably isn't much less equipped.
 
Many theories which today are mainstream Polako believed in when they were not backed up by academic papers. He is looking at real modern and ancient people's DNA, making real tests, has experience, etc. He doesn't claim to be the hurting yourself because papers about a single subject don't come out oftenly, and they are restricted from coming up with new ideas. A blog like Polako's allows constant exchange of ideas, constant experimentation, and is less restricted than the academic world but probably isn't much less equipped.

No its complete shizz;
 
I have been busy lately, but managed time to make a map of the EEF.

Neolithic_farmer_admixture.png



It would be nice to have some data for North Africa (besides Egypt) and Kazakhstan.


There is some conflicting data between the Lazaridis paper and the Eurogenes data based on the K13 admixtures. For example Lazaridis found that the Spaniards and the Basques had respectively 80% and 71% of EEF, while Eurogenes has 66-69% and 59%. Another odd difference is for Sardinians who have respectively 81% and 90%.

Percentages for other regions seem much more similar in the two sets of data though (e.g. Orcadians are both at 45%, Belarussians are at 40% vs 42%, Estonains at 32% vs 33%, Tuscans at 75% vs 78%, Hungarians 56% vs 52%, etc.).

I had to split some countries in two regions when the data was borderline between Lazaridis and Eurogenes. For example Bulgaria has values of 71% and 68%, Greece 79% and 82%, Scotland 39% and 45%...


I had to extrapolate a bit for some regions based on other data (Dodecad, Y-DNA).

There was no data for Montenegro or Macedonia, so I used to the same average as for Albania, Kosovo and southern Bulgaria.

In the Volga region, I assumed that the Tatars had more Neolithic farmer ancestry than their Chuvash and Mordvin neighbours, because they have considerably higher Near Eastern Y-DNA and Dodecad admixture.

In Scandinavia, individual data showed less than 40% of EEF in northern Sweden. Since the mountainous border between Norway and Sweden has substantial levels of mixed Saami-Scandinavian ancestry, it makes more sense if that region is more similar to northern Sweden.

I am not going to explain my reasoning for every single region, but nothing is arbitrary.
 
Last edited:
I have been busy lately, but managed time to make a map of the EEF.




It would be nice to have some data for North Africa (besides Egypt) and Kazakhstan.

There is some conflicting data about Spain (67-69% or 80% ?) and the Basques (59% or 71% ?). I had to extrapolate a bit for some regions based on other data (Dodecad, Y-DNA).
Looks great. I was going to buy decent drawing/graphics program to make nice maps. At the moment I have only Windows 7 Paint to use, good only for something crud like in post #2.
 
I have been busy lately, but managed time to make a map of the EEF.

Neolithic_farmer_admixture.png



It would be nice to have some data for North Africa (besides Egypt) and Kazakhstan.

There is some conflicting data about Spain (67-69% or 80% ?) and the Basques (59% or 71% ?). I had to extrapolate a bit for some regions based on other data (Dodecad, Y-DNA).

I may be reading the map incorrectly because I am slightly color blind, but the colors don't seem to correspond to the peer reviewed, published academic data from Lazaridis et al.

If the academic data isn't used then perhaps, since it will undoubtedly be picked up by the internet, it might be a good idea to provide information on it stating that it is based on a blogger's data and not that from an academic paper.
 
I have been busy lately, but managed time to make a map of the EEF.

Neolithic_farmer_admixture.png



It would be nice to have some data for North Africa (besides Egypt) and Kazakhstan.

There is some conflicting data about Spain (67-69% or 80% ?) and the Basques (59% or 71% ?). I had to extrapolate a bit for some regions based on other data (Dodecad, Y-DNA).

It is a very nice looking map, but I think people on this forum should make their own personal maps with written down percentages. Much of this is pure guessing, and people need to understand EEF absorbs related forms of middle eastern ancestry and is about 20% WHG.
 
Last edited:
Please check again my post with the map above. I have explained in more details how I made the map. I have also modified a bit the hues for Iberia using averages of Lazaridis et al. and Eurogenes.
 
EEF-WHG-ANE results (rounded to full numbers):

EEF 88
WHG 5
ANE 7




Any interpretation will be welcomed.


This calculator is obsolete for West Asians (such as N. Caucasians, Druze or Cypriots) and the Jewish, Eastern Mediterranean and Iberian (non-Basque) scores are quite off as well.

MfA, at anthrogenica, optimised the excel file, the results are more in line with those the authors obtained (you can compare with the paper's extended data file).

You can download it here:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...ZHF1OVNJOEtrcVpyLXVmd1QzeEE&usp=sharing#gid=0
 
This calculator is obsolete for West Asians (such as N. Caucasians, Druze or Cypriots) and the Jewish, Eastern Mediterranean and Iberian (non-Basque) scores are quite off as well.

MfA, at anthrogenica, optimised the excel file, the results are more in line with those the authors obtained (you can compare with the paper's extended data file).

You can download it here:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...ZHF1OVNJOEtrcVpyLXVmd1QzeEE&usp=sharing#gid=0


Alright, here are my results from that:

Results (rounded):
Near East 84
ANE 16
 

This thread has been viewed 156354 times.

Back
Top