Use this newer version. some percentages recalculated.
Update: Jews, Samaritans and Palestinians added. Samaritans best proxy for ENF with 87.5%
http://img5.fotos-hochladen.net/uploads/blankmapeuropegjpclfv1a0.png
I just took a closer look at the percentages. Well, we'll see how the analysis holds up once we have an actual early near eastern farmer genome. Assuming, for the moment, that it's generally correct, or at least that the relationships between the countries are correct, it confirms some of my speculations, particularly about the Samaritans. It has always made sense to me that a group that has been endogenous for about 3,000 years might very well tell us a lot about ancient genomes in the Near East. (Of course, that's created huge problems for them as a people.) Also, as I've been yammering about for years, south-eastern Anatolia, northern Syria, the homeland of the Neolithic farmers who went to Europe, is a different place today than it was in 8-9,000 BC.
Somewhere I saw a speculation that the Yamnaya people will turn out to be about 50% ENF, 30%ANE, and 20%WHG. Maybe it will be more like 45/30/25, who knows, but still those North Caucasus populations, especially the Lezghins, might be pretty close if those turn out to be the final figures. Additional flow south/north in subsequent years might have changed their proportions around somewhat. I remember all those posts on the Dienekes blog about the Lezghins, and whether they might provide a clue about all of this. (Speculation alert!
)
The SSA numbers are interesting as well. I've tended to rely on the Globe 13 run for those figures in the past. Compared to that, the figures here seem a bit low for Europe and a bit high for the Near East. (Of course, there are no figures for Portugal, where I think the SSA would be higher.) I think it might be because in Europeans a chunk of the "East African" goes into ENF. That's not necessarily incorrect, as "East African" seems to be close to half West Eurasian if the latest papers are to be believed. What's left here is really "West and South SSA". (I think the sliver of SSA or W.African along the Atlantic seaboard probably owes something to post colonial back flow and modern slavery, although I'm sure some of it is ancient, part of long term gene flow south/north across Gibraltar from the Mesolithic all the way through the Islamic era.) I'm not sure why the "East African" break out into "African" and West Eurasian, if that's what happened here, didn't operate in the Near East.
See Globe 13 data:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...9aHzr7DLEnVq5q-wnTsfpe2a9Jg/edit?pli=1#gid=24
The SEA which still remains is pretty interesting as well. I'm assuming this was dragged along with what we used to call "Gedrosia" and so is part of the "Indo-European" profile in Europeans.
Also of interest is the East Eurasian figure. I'm a bit surprised that even a sliver was passed to North Africans by way of the Arab invasions, I'm assuming, or perhaps it's more of a diffusion from the Ottomans. Speaking of Ottomans I'm a little surprised at the 5% EEA in the Turks. I thought it would be higher, but of course they were probably admixed when they arrived.
A question about the Greek data, if you don't mind. Are those figures based on Thessaly alone, or Thessaly and Attica, or does it also include the Peleponnese? (The data for Greece is skewed, in my opinion, if you use only that. It would be like using the data for Bergamo to represent the entire Italian peninsula. Italy and Greece are not like Spain, which is largely homogenous.) If it's an average, do you have the break out for the Peleponese? Given the number of colonies in Sicily which were started by cities in the Peleponnese, that would be interesting for comparison. Or, rather than make you look at it, could you direct me to the spread sheet you used to compute these percentages? I'd also like to see the figures for Toscana, and whether there are any regional differences in Sicily.
Which brings me back to the ANE figures. On balance, I'm still not convined by them, either as absolute numbers or as relative proportions among the groups. They're too different from the Lazardis numbers, which work better for Italy anyway, showing, for example, a slight uptick for ANE among the Tuscans, which would make sense if they had a little Iron Age input from ANE rich Anatolia, even if it turns out to be just an elite migration. I don't see why there would be such a descrepancy in the figures for the areas which were in both the Lazardis run and this one.
