Eurogenes: Iron Age Briton Results

[Graham]

Analysis of an Iron Age Briton from Hinxton (http://eurogenes.blogspot.co.uk/)
Wednesday, October 8, 2014


Here are the preliminary results for ERS389795, an Iron Age genome from Hinxton, Cambridgeshire, UK. This is just a teaser; I'll update this post with the full analysis tomorrow.

Eurogenes K15

North_Sea 43.19
Atlantic 28.88
Baltic 6.46
Eastern_Euro 11.98
West_Med 6.71
West_Asian 1.74
East_Med 0.01
Red_Sea 1.01
South_Asian 0
Southeast_Asian 0
Siberian 0
Amerindian 0
Oceanian 0
Northeast_African 0
Sub-Saharan 0

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQcWR0SGlMM2lmb2s/view

Eurogenes K13

North_Atlantic 54.62
Baltic 26.12
West_Med 11.3
West_Asian 5.22
East_Med 0.07
Red_Sea 2.29
South_Asian 0
East_Asian 0
Siberian 0
Amerindian 0
Oceanian 0.01
Northeast_African 0.38
Sub-Saharan 0

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQYzYzVXdyazRfUTA/view


More details about this sample can be found here and here. Thanks to Felix C. for breaking the news.

[Graham]

My results are really close! :P

K15 w/o noise

1 North_Sea 42.98
2 Atlantic 28.72
3 Eastern_Euro 10.07
4 Baltic 7.46
5 West_Med 6.63
6 West_Asian 1.87

K13 w/o noise
1 North_Atlantic 54.84
2 Baltic 23.71
3 West_Med 10.83
4 West_Asian 4.57
5 East_Med 3.57

[Jackson]

Eurogenes K15 shows up something interesting. His Baltic is really low compared to eastern Euro - a pattern which you see in many other British people. Although overall it looks just like a more unusual result for a modern day British person. He looks more extremely northwestern Euro, which is interesting. Apparently closest to West Scottish and Irish using Euclidean distance, according to a poster on ABF.

Edit: Wow your results are really close, that's pretty awesome.

Edit edit: Also interesting how he has basically no east med, but low levels of red sea.

[Kale]

Was this the Celt or Saxon?

[Anglojew]

My results are really close! :P

K15 w/o noise

1 North_Sea 42.98
2 Atlantic 28.72
3 Eastern_Euro 10.07
4 Baltic 7.46
5 West_Med 6.63
6 West_Asian 1.87

K13 w/o noise
1 North_Atlantic 54.84
2 Baltic 23.71
3 West_Med 10.83
4 West_Asian 4.57
5 East_Med 3.57

That's amazing

[Anglojew]

Was this the Celt or Saxon?

Clearly a Jute

[Prisoner Of Ice]

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/10/3d-laser-scan-of-stonehenge-reveals.html




Stonehenge up close: digital laser scan reveals secrets of the past

The first complete 3D laser scan of the stone circle has also revealed tool marks made 4,500 years ago, scores of little axehead graffiti added when the enormous slabs were already 1,000 years old, and damage and graffiti contributed by Georgian and Victorian visitors.

...


Long after the monument was built, when Bronze Age burial mounds rich in grave goods began to be scattered across the plain around Stonehenge, and the archaeological evidence suggests those who could make or trade in metal goods had an almost shamanic status, people carved little images of daggers and axes, many now invisible to the naked eye, into the stones. Scores more have been revealed by the scan, including 71 new axe heads, bringing the total to 115 – doubling the number ever recorded in Britain.

"It is wonderful to have discovered so many more, but what is fascinating is that they are carved without regard to the importance or the siting of the stones – almost as if the people who carved them could no longer quite remember the significance of the monument and how it worked," Greaney said.

They probably could no longer remember, because they were Indo-European newcomers, and not the same people as the Megalithic folk who built Stonehenge.

A little history:

Craniologists of the time used a ratio based on length and width measurements, known as the cranial index, to divide skulls into two basic types: 'dolichocephalic', long and narrow in shape, and 'brachycephalic', broad and round in shape. Based on his observations at sites like Belas Knap, Thurnam established his famous axiom, 'long barrows, long skulls; round barrows, round skulls'. The long skulls were found in long barrows and never in association with metallic artefacts, while round skulls were found in round barrows sometimes with metalwork.

...

Thurnam's and Rolleston's theories gained considerable credibility in the late Victorian period and survived well into the earlier 20th century. Such racist theories failed to stand up, however, in the face of Gordon Childe's arguments for the definition of an archaeological culture based on shared social characteristics and material culture rather than race or biological type. In addition, the considerable moral repugnance felt towards Victorian anthropology and its role in the rise of fascist ideology in the 1930s caused the argument over long and round skulls to be sidelined and eventually dismissed. The identification of the Bronze Age incomers based on their material culture, including metalwork and Beaker pottery vessels, remained a more acceptable alternative.
In the 1990s, however, the archaeologist Neil Brodie took a fresh look at the craniological evidence and concluded that there was undeniably a difference between the shape of skulls from Neolithic long barrows and Bronze Age round barrows. A trend from long to round skull shape was clearly shown.


The differences, he argued, could be caused by cultural practices, such as the binding of infants' heads, as well as by diet and a range of climatic or environmental factors. Looking at the totality of human history, he showed that head shape fluctuates in populations over long periods of time, and that extremes of head types occur in successive prehistoric populations as a matter of historical chance.

We don't have DNA evidence from British round barrows yet, but Beaker burials from Germany show the first R1b ever found, while Neolithic Western Europe shows a mix of I2a and G2a. Difference in material culture? check. Difference in physical anthropology? check. Difference in time of appearance? check. Difference in genetics? preliminary check.

So, it seems like a good bet that the people who carved axehead graffiti on Stonehenge were simply invaders who took over the site from the previous inhabitants, and, as is so often the case, used it for their own purposes.

[noricum]

Was this the Celt or Saxon?

British iron age is the new term for the older slightly misleading term "Celtic". It covers the timeframe between the end of Bronze age and the Christianisation during Roman times.

[Black Wolf]

Was this the Celt or Saxon?

This is the ancient Celtic sample.

[Black Wolf]

Clearly a Jute

No this sample is a Celt.

[Graham]

Could be from the...

Catuvellauni (Britons)


The Celtic tribe of the Catuvellauni emerged in the late first century BC to become one of the most powerful tribes in southern Britain. They were bordered to the north by the Corieltavi, to the east by the Iceni and Trinovantes, to the south by the Atrebates, and to the west by the Dobunni and Cornovii. Like many of their neighbours in the south-east, they were probably a Belgic tribe from the North Sea or Baltics, part of the third wave of Celtic settlers in Britain. They may have been related to the Catalauni, a Belgic tribe of Gaul.

more...
http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsBritain/BritainCatuvellauni.htm

[Graham]

I had some results from English. Scots & irish members.. From the ones I took anyway.
Eurogenes
Eurogenes V2 K15North_Sea
43.19% Iron Age Briton
42.98% Graham
41.00% Jaxman Aunt
39.61% Orcadian
39.41% Catkin
37.51% Jaxman Mum
37.33% West Scottish
37.04% Alice
36.38% Irish
36.09% Albannach
35.72% South East English
35.22% South West English
34.34% Jackson
32.50% Caismeachd

Atlantic
32.33% Albannach
30.66% Irish
30.46% West Scottish
30.38% Caismeachd
29.88% Alice
29.86% South East English
29.36% Jaxman Mum
29.00% Orcadian
28.94% South West English
28.88% Iron Age Briton
28.72% Graham
26.83% Jaxman Aunt
26.40% Catkin
24.73% Jackson

Baltic
12.09% Albannach
11.89% Alice
11.82% Jackson
11.69% Catkin
11.15% Irish
10.34% West Scottish
9.89% South East English
9.69% South West English
8.92% Caismeachd
8.61% Orcadian
8.07% Jaxman Aunt
7.75% Jaxman Mum
7.46% Graham
6.46% Iron Age Briton

Eastern_Euro
13.12% Caismeachd
11.98% Iron Age Briton
10.90% Jaxman Mum
10.07% Graham
9.66% Jaxman Aunt
9.06% Catkin
8.91% Jackson
8.90% West Scottish
8.75% Alice
8.40% Albannach
8.12% Irish
8.08% Orcadian
8.36% South East English
8.02% South West English

West_Med
11.16% South West English
9.66% Jaxman Aunt
9.06% Catkin
8.77% South East English
8.71% Jaxman Mum
8.52% Jackson
8.38% Caismeachd
7.37% Orcadian
6.98% Irish
6.71% Iron Age Briton
6.70% West Scottish
6.63% Graham
4.95% Alice
4.25% Albannach

West_Asian
5.60% Albannach
5.42% Catkin
5.16% Alice
4.16% Jaxman Aunt
4.01% Jaxman Mum
3.67% Jackson
3.67% Orcadian
3.55% South West English
3.35% South East English
3.34% Irish
3.07% West Scottish
2.94% Caismeachd
1.87% Graham
1.74% Iron Age Briton

East_Med
4.31% Jackson
2.50% South East English
1.82% South West English
1.77% Alice
1.43% Caismeachd
1.24% Irish
1.17% West Scottish
0.99% Graham
0.65% Orcadian
0.35% Jaxman Aunt
0.10% Catkin
0.00% Jaxman Mum
0.00% Iron Age Briton
0.00% Albannach

[Merida]

This is very interesting!! Subscribed :D.

[Black Wolf]

You can add my aunt and mother's results to this if you would like Graham. They are both of 100% Irish/British Isles ancestry.

Aunt's K15:

Population
North_Sea 41.00%
Atlantic 26.83%
Baltic 8.07%
Eastern_Euro 9.66%
West_Med 8.10%
West_Asian 4.16%
East_Med 0.35%
Red_Sea 0.76%
South_Asian 0.11%
Southeast_Asian 0.13%
Siberian -
Amerindian -
Oceanian -
Northeast_African -
Sub-Saharan 0.81%


Mom's K15:

Population
North_Sea 37.51%
Atlantic 29.36%
Baltic 7.75%
Eastern_Euro 10.90%
West_Med 8.71%
West_Asian 4.01%
East_Med -
Red_Sea -
South_Asian 0.70%
Southeast_Asian -
Siberian 0.15%
Amerindian 0.42%
Oceanian 0.37%
Northeast_African -
Sub-Saharan 0.11%

[Smeagol]

Why does he have more North Sea component than modern British? And why do modern British have some East Med, but this Celt doesn't?

[Black Wolf]

Why does he have more North Sea component than modern British? And why do modern British have some East Med, but this Celt doesn't?

Because he came form a different time period than modern people. Later migrations ie. Roman mainly probably brought some East Med to Britain. Germanic migrations probably brought some too.

[Graham]

East med is higher in the 'invaded' Brits. Perhaps the Saxon Farmer and the Norman-Breton Noble took an influence in Modern England. Germans score more Med than Brits.

North Sea scores high in East Brits. Could be a Belgic influence thing. Perhaps the East-West split goes back as far as the Iron age. Before written records. It has been mentioned before.

[Smeagol]

Because he came form a different time period than modern people. Later migrations ie. Roman mainly probably brought some East Med to Britain.

I know he's from a different time period obviously, but I doubt Romans had any significant impact on England. Maybe they did have a bigger impact than I thought, although we should keep in mind that many or most "Romans" in Britain were either Romanized natives or from the provinces. Also Iron Age Brits having more North Sea admixture than before Anglo-Saxon invasions doesn't make much sense, but it's not a significant difference maybe, and I assume the Anglo-Saxons, and Iron Age Brits probably would both have similar levels of that component anyway.

[cally]

Roman influence is clearly evident in modern populations.

[Black Wolf]

I know he's from a different time period obviously, but I doubt Romans had any significant impact on England. Maybe they did have a bigger impact than I thought, although we should keep in mind that many or most "Romans" in Britain were either Romanized natives or from the provinces. Also Iron Age Brits having more North Sea admixture than before Anglo-Saxon invasions doesn't make much sense, but it's not a significant difference maybe, and I assume the Anglo-Saxons, and Iron Age Brits probably would both have similar levels of that component anyway.

It could come from later Germanic invaders as well the East Med. Yes overall the Iron Age Brits and later Germanic invaders overall were probably quite similar. The differences would have been small.

[Anglojew]

No this sample is a Celt.

It was my idea of a joke.

[Jackson]

East med is higher in the 'invaded' Brits. Perhaps the Saxon Farmer and the Norman-Breton Noble took an influence in Modern England. Germans score more Med than Brits.

North Sea scores high in East Brits. Could be a Belgic influence thing. Perhaps the East-West split goes back as far as the Iron age. Before written records. It has been mentioned before.

Reading the description of the results in the abstract and seeing them first hand to me suggests that the Anglo-Saxon sample will probably only be more eastern/Baltic and less NW Euro, and probably not more Mediterranean than this sample, or not by a great deal i would have thought. Although it's worth remembering this is only one sample as well, so he may or may not be close to the modal values for his group - but i guess we can't know this until we have more samples (I think one or two of the other ones are also British Iron Age?).

[Prisoner Of Ice]

I know he's from a different time period obviously, but I doubt Romans had any significant impact on England. Maybe they did have a bigger impact than I thought, although we should keep in mind that many or most "Romans" in Britain were either Romanized natives or from the provinces. Also Iron Age Brits having more North Sea admixture than before Anglo-Saxon invasions doesn't make much sense, but it's not a significant difference maybe, and I assume the Anglo-Saxons, and Iron Age Brits probably would both have similar levels of that component anyway.

Well, I posted what I did to make clear that the iron age people we are talking about are recent newcomers in this time.

Romans could have brought some 'east med' content. It might actually have been stronger BEFORE the Iron Age invaders came, though. There was much more advanced farming in the isles before they show up, and after that they go from farmers to pastoralists for a long time.

It's interesting to me because it shows that there was some big discontinuity in much of England and Scotland, if Graham's scores match the Iron Age invader so closely, but also quite a bit of continuity to go back that far in the first place.

[Black Wolf]

It will be interesting to compare this sample to the Anglo-Saxon once Polako gets a hold of that genome as well.

[safinator]

ANE K7 results for the Iron Age Briton

ANE 16.04
ASE 0.02
WHG-UHG 66.95
East_Eurasian 0
West_African 0.23
East_African 0
ENF 16.76

[Hevo]

Could be from the...

Catuvellauni (Britons)


The Celtic tribe of the Catuvellauni emerged in the late first century BC to become one of the most powerful tribes in southern Britain. They were bordered to the north by the Corieltavi, to the east by the Iceni and Trinovantes, to the south by the Atrebates, and to the west by the Dobunni and Cornovii. Like many of their neighbours in the south-east, they were probably a Belgic tribe from the North Sea or Baltics, a typicval Belgicpart of the third wave of Celtic settlers in Britain. They may have been related to the Catalauni, a Belgic tribe of Gaul.

more...
http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsBritain/BritainCatuvellauni.htm

If this guy was a fresh Belgic guy from the Low Countries/Northern France then we could say that the Belgic tribes were rather Celtized and they were a distinct people.(NorthWestBlock culture?)

[Graham]

http://bga101.blogspot.com.au/2014/07/model-yourself-as-mixture-of-ancient.html

Polako added Iron Age Briton to ancient genomes.

Using 1 population approximation:
1 Iron_Age_Briton @ 2.941211
2 Ajvide70 @ 27.453387
3 Ajvide58 @ 27.748502
4 La_Brana-1 @ 27.804632
5 Loschbour @ 28.429751

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 Iron_Age_Briton+Iron_Age_Briton @ 2.941211
2 Ajvide70+Iron_Age_Briton @ 13.63099
3 Iron_Age_Briton+La_Brana-1 @ 13.812079


Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% Iron_Age_Briton +25% Iron_Age_Briton +25% Loschbour @ 6.758911
2 50% Iron_Age_Briton +25% Ajvide70 +25% Iron_Age_Briton @ 6.955996
3 50% Iron_Age_Briton +25% Iron_Age_Briton +25% La_Brana-1 @ 7.048899


Using 4 populations approximation:
1 Iron_Age_Briton+Iron_Age_Briton+Iron_Age_Briton+Ir on_Age_Briton @ 2.941211
2 Iron_Age_Briton+Iron_Age_Briton+Iron_Age_Briton+Lo schbour @ 6.758911
3 Ajvide70+Iron_Age_Briton+Iron_Age_Briton+Iron_Age_ Briton @ 6.955996

[Graham]

If this guy was a fresh Belgic guy from the Low Countries/Northern France then we could say that the Belgic tribes were rather Celtized and they were a distinct people.(NorthWestBlock culture?)

Perhaps a relation to these folk. It just shows that the North Sea has its closeness going back before the Medieval ages. We even have the Doggerland folk going back further.

Reckon an East Coast Pict would be close to this Iron age fella..


I'd like to see an Ancient Welsh and the Anglo Saxon, Norman etc..

[Hevo]

Perhaps a relation to these folk. It just shows that the North Sea has its closeness going back before the Medieval ages. We even have the Doggerland folk going back further.

Reckon an East Coast Pict would be close to this Iron age fella..


I'd like to see an Ancient Welsh and the Anglo Saxon, Norman etc..

Yeah and an ancient Hallstatt Celt.

[Trail-Runner]

Roman influence is clearly evident in modern populations.

There wasn't any Romans in Scotland though

Anyway, cool thread! I'm getting tested soon and I will see how close mine matches up to this.

[Trail-Runner]

If this guy was a fresh Belgic guy from the Low Countries/Northern France then we could say that the Belgic tribes were rather Celtized and they were a distinct people.(NorthWestBlock culture?)

No, Belgae were Celts.

[Jackson]

http://bga101.blogspot.com.au/2014/07/model-yourself-as-mixture-of-ancient.html

Polako added Iron Age Briton to ancient genomes.

Using 1 population approximation:
1 Iron_Age_Briton @ 2.941211
2 Ajvide70 @ 27.453387
3 Ajvide58 @ 27.748502
4 La_Brana-1 @ 27.804632
5 Loschbour @ 28.429751

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 Iron_Age_Briton+Iron_Age_Briton @ 2.941211
2 Ajvide70+Iron_Age_Briton @ 13.63099
3 Iron_Age_Briton+La_Brana-1 @ 13.812079


Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% Iron_Age_Briton +25% Iron_Age_Briton +25% Loschbour @ 6.758911
2 50% Iron_Age_Briton +25% Ajvide70 +25% Iron_Age_Briton @ 6.955996
3 50% Iron_Age_Briton +25% Iron_Age_Briton +25% La_Brana-1 @ 7.048899


Using 4 populations approximation:
1 Iron_Age_Briton+Iron_Age_Briton+Iron_Age_Briton+Ir on_Age_Briton @ 2.941211
2 Iron_Age_Briton+Iron_Age_Briton+Iron_Age_Briton+Lo schbour @ 6.758911
3 Ajvide70+Iron_Age_Briton+Iron_Age_Briton+Iron_Age_ Briton @ 6.955996

Here is mine, might add some other populations into the file as well for interests sake:
Using 1 population approximation:

1 Iron_Age_Briton @ 12.535034
2 La_Brana-1 @ 21.767629
3 Ajvide58 @ 22.160058
4 Ajvide70 @ 22.26488
5 Loschbour @ 23.262099
6 Motala12 @ 29.951714
7 StoraFörvar11 @ 34.094471
8 Gokhem7 @ 39.360465
9 Gokhem2 @ 39.719112
10 AG-2 @ 47.721328

Edit: La_Brana and the other hunter-gatherers seem eerily close now that i have a person from a similar place to me 2000 years ago filling the gap. o.O

[Hevo]

No, Belgae were Celts.

They were a mixed bunch actually. Especially the Belgic tribes in Belgium/Southern Netherlands.

[Graham]

Celtic culture, related to the Germanic tribes, perhaps more alike to the proper Hallstatt and La Tene Celts. Different from the Gauls & the Iberian-Celts.

[Grace O'Malley]

Apparently this is an Anglo-Saxon sample looking at the updated Eurogenes Blog. Well that's really confusing. Why are they so close to West Scots and Irish? I suppose we'll just have to wait for more updates.

[Jackson]

Apparently this is an Anglo-Saxon sample looking at the updated Eurogenes Blog. Well that's really confusing. Why are they so close to West Scots and Irish? I suppose we'll just have to wait for more updates.

Yeah it is confusing, apparently there are 2 Iron Age and 3 Anglo-Saxon samples, so there must be one other that is comparable to these two - and god knows what the results of the Iron Age British ones are by comparison. It's odd because it seems way too western (I would have thought) to be Anglo-Saxon, yet too northern to be the British Iron-age Celts according to the description in the abstract, who are supposed to be more southern than the Anglo-Saxon ones. So if these are Anglo-Saxon ones then perhaps all of northwest Europe has drifted away from where they used to be at a similar rate? So the Irish and Scots have picked up the position of the Anglo-Saxons, as modern day English, north Germans etc have moved south and east or something?

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Yeah it is confusing, apparently there are 2 Iron Age and 3 Anglo-Saxon samples, so there must be one other that is comparable to these two - and god knows what the results of the Iron Age British ones are by comparison. It's odd because it seems way too western (I would have thought) to be Anglo-Saxon, yet too northern to be the British Iron-age Celts according to the description in the abstract, who are supposed to be more southern than the Anglo-Saxon ones. So if these are Anglo-Saxon ones then perhaps all of northwest Europe has drifted away from where they used to be at a similar rate? So the Irish and Scots have picked up the position of the Anglo-Saxons, as modern day English, north Germans etc have moved south and east or something?

Yeah, I am guessing that populations have changed a lot in the last few centuries. Also, you are comparing them based off of modern populations so it is sort of nonsensical anyway. You need to find the ancient populations and then determine the differences, then apply them to the modern populations not the other way around. So if they don't show any differences, it doesn't mean they don't exist. The differences are likely wholly contained in current larger modern populations, or don't exist in them at all.

Just one more reason looking at the autosomal stuff can be completely pointless.

[Jackson]

Yeah, I am guessing that populations have changed a lot in the last few centuries. Also, you are comparing them based off of modern populations so it is sort of nonsensical anyway. You need to find the ancient populations and then determine the differences, then apply them to the modern populations not the other way around. So if they don't show any differences, it doesn't mean they don't exist. The differences are likely wholly contained in current larger modern populations, or don't exist in them at all.

Just one more reason looking at the autosomal stuff can be completely pointless.

Well yeah of course, that is what they are doing after all. :P

It's not completely pointless at all, but very useful.

Not entirely sure what you mean in the last couple of sentences, but i think comparing ancient to modern both in terms of admixture and actual shared ancestry would be useful to determine the changes that have taken place. Will be interesting to see the other three results so far.

Also i think this is greater than a few hundred years, or you would see that new-worlders of various sorts would be out of step with modern populations from their source countries - but they aren't. So most of these changes must have occurred between the Medieval and Early Modern Periods.

[Hevo]

Holy shit look at these updated results of Hinxton2. I have never seen such high North Sea score.



K13

North_Atlantic 62.5
Baltic 25.06
West_Med 7.47
West_Asian 4.66
East_Med 0.02
Red_Sea 0
South_Asian 0
East_Asian 0
Siberian 0
Amerindian 0
Oceanian 0.29
Northeast_African 0
Sub-Saharan 0

K15

North_Sea 45.05
Atlantic 31.08
Baltic 7.2
Eastern_Euro 12.1
West_Med 4.19
West_Asian 0.4
East_Med 0
Red_Sea 0
South_Asian 0
Southeast_Asian 0
Siberian 0
Amerindian 0
Oceanian 0
Northeast_African 0
Sub-Saharan 0

K7

ANE 17.42
ASE 0.62
WHG-UHG 70.72
East_Eurasian 0
West_African 0.27
East_African 0.19
ENF 10.78

[Jackson]

Holy shit look at these updated results of Hinxton2. I have never seen such high North Sea score.

Very similar to the other one but even more NW Euro lol

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Well yeah of course, that is what they are doing after all. :P

It's not completely pointless at all, but very useful.


It's only useful for certain things, this isn't one of them.



Not entirely sure what you mean in the last couple of sentences, but i think comparing ancient to modern both in terms of admixture and actual shared ancestry would be useful to determine the changes that have taken place.

It won't tell you that.




Will be interesting to see the other three results so far.

Also i think this is greater than a few hundred years, or you would see that new-worlders of various sorts would be out of step with modern populations from their source countries - but they aren't.

This is a bad conclusion.

I had this conversation many times with grace o'malley. This stuff looks simple on the surface but is actually extremely complicated and can only be used in certain ways to get a result that makes any sense at all.

You are DEFINING colonial populations in terms of modern european populations so you are THROWING AWAY any real differences in them. That doesn't mean they don't exist!

Likewise with this comparison you are DEFINING ancient DNA in terms of modern DNA however THE INFORMATION WE CARE ABOUT is not contained in these modern populations!!!

The ONLY way to say something like "Irish people are the same as english" is to sequence some ancient DNA from Ireland and compare it to that of England but ONLY on a low level NOT by comparing to modern population guestimates!

What you need to do is look at the ancient DNA and analyze the differences, and then you split away the composite nature of modern populations and decompose them into their original components. That is the ONLY way you can get a sensible answer. You could easily find that all ancient DNA in UK shows about the same in terms of this test but it means absolutely nothing.

That is one reason why haplogroups are often much better for looking at differences in racial ethnogenesis. Not to mention issues like positive and negative selection on genes that can lead to autosomal differences being very misleading.

[Jackson]

It's only useful for certain things, this isn't one of them.


It won't tell you that.


This is a bad conclusion.

I had this conversation many times with grace o'malley. This stuff looks simple on the surface but is actually extremely complicated and can only be used in certain ways to get a result that makes any sense at all.

You are DEFINING colonial populations in terms of modern european populations so you are THROWING AWAY any real differences in them. That doesn't mean they don't exist!

Likewise with this comparison you are DEFINING ancient DNA in terms of modern DNA however THE INFORMATION WE CARE ABOUT is not contained in these modern populations!!!

The ONLY way to say something like "Irish people are the same as english" is to sequence some ancient DNA from Ireland and compare it to that of England but ONLY on a low level NOT by comparing to modern population guestimates!

What you need to do is look at the ancient DNA and analyze the differences, and then you split away the composite nature of modern populations and decompose them into their original components. That is the ONLY way you can get a sensible answer. You could easily find that all ancient DNA in UK shows about the same in terms of this test but it means absolutely nothing.

That is one reason why haplogroups are often much better for looking at differences in racial ethnogenesis. Not to mention issues like positive and negative selection on genes that can lead to autosomal differences being very misleading.

If you mean we should only compare ancient DNA to ancient DNA, and make a data set of a variety of populations by period then i agree that would be very useful. What do you mean that the information we care about is not carried in a modern population? A population is itself by definition...

I'm not sure entirely what you are talking about with regards to throwing away differences in colonial populations, and differences not existing, sounds like you made half this up on the spot. If Colonial person A is descended of almost entirely British ancestors with some Germans or Swiss or French from a couple of centuries prior to now - they are tested and fall very close to a modern British population with a pull towards French, German or Swiss people from a similar area - then it's pretty likely that their ancestors that came from those areas a couple of centuries earlier were very similar to those living in those locations in modern periods. As far as I've seen, that's pretty much always the case. I haven't seen any new-worlders who are particularly different from the sum of their ancestral parts when it comes to them being compared to modern populations. If they were that different it'd be clearly visible. Thats not to say the populations are exactly the same, sure, but they are extremely similar.

What appears to be the case with this scenario is that occupants of the British Isles 1300-2000 years ago are noticeably different from both the modern populations in that area, and other closely related populations. This means that if it is the modern population that has drifted away from them, it has also happened to other related populations to varying degrees.

Both haplogroups and autosomal DNA are very important in determining origins. Say for example that i die, and i am buried next to another person of my ethnicity, and we are excavated some time later and have our DNA tested, but only for haplogroups. If i have haplogroup I1 on the y side and U5a1b on the mtDNA side and the other guy has E1b on the paternal side and J1c on the mtDNA side, a person could conclude - hey these people were apparently genetically quite different, despite the fact that we might be very similar autosomally and share a lot of ancestry, but our paternal and maternal lines are descended from individuals who were once genetically quite different. You could easily come to dodgy conclusions based just on mtDNA and yDNA, which is why i think it's better to include autosomal DNA as well, and perhaps soon X DNA as well.

Really, the fact that Americans are the sum of their parts in regards to modern populations (I haven't seen any exceptions yet, (i suppose the only unusual thing is sometimes when people have Native American or Sub-Saharan ancestry, but it's usually not very much) leads to the conclusion that their source populations were very similar to the modern populations from those areas. If North America was conquered and settled by people from eastern Britain 2000-1300 years ago and hadn't seen much in the way of migration from later Britain, there would be a significant difference i'm sure - but it aint the case.

[Hevo]

Very similar to the other one but even more NW Euro lol

Yes. It's still not clear if these 2 samples were either Anglo-Saxons or Ancient Britons right?

They are suprising results in both cases. Especially Anglo-Saxons because i expected that the Anglo-Saxons would be Northern Dutch/Northern German like and have more Eastern European admixture.

[LightHouse89]

Roman influence is clearly evident in modern populations.

:rolleyes: dont flatter yourself.:p

[Prisoner Of Ice]

If you mean we should only compare ancient DNA to ancient DNA, and make a data set of a variety of populations by period then i agree that would be very useful. What do you mean that the information we care about is not carried in a modern population? A population is itself by definition...

I'm not sure entirely what you are talking about with regards to throwing away differences in colonial populations, and differences not existing, sounds like you made half this up on the spot. If Colonial person A is descended of almost entirely British ancestors with some Germans or Swiss or French from a couple of centuries prior to now - they are tested and fall very close to a modern British population with a pull towards French, German or Swiss people from a similar area - then it's pretty likely that their ancestors that came from those areas a couple of centuries earlier were very similar to those living in those locations in modern periods. As far as I've seen, that's pretty much always the case. I haven't seen any new-worlders who are particularly different from the sum of their ancestral parts when it comes to them being compared to modern populations. If they were that different it'd be clearly visible. Thats not to say the populations are exactly the same, sure, but they are extremely similar.

What appears to be the case with this scenario is that occupants of the British Isles 1300-2000 years ago are noticeably different from both the modern populations in that area, and other closely related populations. This means that if it is the modern population that has drifted away from them, it has also happened to other related populations to varying degrees.

Both haplogroups and autosomal DNA are very important in determining origins. Say for example that i die, and i am buried next to another person of my ethnicity, and we are excavated some time later and have our DNA tested, but only for haplogroups. If i have haplogroup I1 on the y side and U5a1b on the mtDNA side and the other guy has E1b on the paternal side and J1c on the mtDNA side, a person could conclude - hey these people were apparently genetically quite different, despite the fact that we might be very similar autosomally and share a lot of ancestry, but our paternal and maternal lines are descended from individuals who were once genetically quite different. You could easily come to dodgy conclusions based just on mtDNA and yDNA, which is why i think it's better to include autosomal DNA as well, and perhaps soon X DNA as well.


The part you are missing is that they are not looking at the whole genome. The only parts they look at are genes that appear to be specific to populations.

This makes it totally invalid to try to look at ancient DNA using modern definitions because these are just guesses which have nothing to do with reality.

If we compare UK as a whole to germany maybe we get this:

ABCDE are either unique or ubiquitous to UK but not to Germany.

FGHIJ are either unique to germany or ubiquitous and seem to have german origin.

Then we take some ancient samples and this is the real data:

Saxons:
ABC X
Jutes:
ABC Y
Celts:
ABC Z

All the samples seem to be exactly the same, but that's because we are looking at them in terms of modern samples so they are lost.

Now imagine americans have the following:

ABCDE XYZ

They show up as being exactly the same as modern UK people because all we are looking at is ABCDE.

However it's very possible they have some genes no longer common in UK, or that we can prove through them that some other genes are associated with certain groups.

A good example is we because sure that red hair is associated with r1b-ydna because or finding most of the redheads in sweden had this clade in their family.



Really, the fact that Americans are the sum of their parts in regards to modern populations (I haven't seen any exceptions yet, (i suppose the only unusual thing is sometimes when people have Native American or Sub-Saharan ancestry, but it's usually not very much) leads to the conclusion that their source populations were very similar to the modern populations from those areas. If North America was conquered and settled by people from eastern Britain 2000-1300 years ago and hadn't seen much in the way of migration from later Britain, there would be a significant difference i'm sure - but it aint the case.

They aren't necessarily. There is no way to tell that because the colonial populations are not what the categories are defined with. The population in europe has changed since we left, so it's very hard to tell what is native and what's not.

[Graham]

Telomere Length
The average telomere length from all sequence read runs gives 1.42. This means, the Hinxton-2 sample which belongs to a lady who lived 2500-1800 years back, died at the age of 65.

Polako has his dates wrong, for thinking they're all anglo-Saxon. Bit of guess work.

Too old to be an Anglo-Saxon from in England. Saxons hadn't arrived yet.

[Graham]

Holy shit look at these updated results of Hinxton2. I have never seen such high North Sea score.
It's not that far from my dads. He's Cumbrian and Scottish in ancestry.

1 North_Sea 43.13
2 Atlantic 29.51
3 Eastern_Euro 9.14
4 West_Med 6.55
5 Baltic 5.27
6 East_Med 4.61

[Jackson]

Polako has his dates wrong, for thinking they're all anglo-Saxon. Bit of guess work.

Too old to be an Anglo-Saxon from in England. Saxons hadn't arrived yet.

Hmm, cool - at least that clears that up, so Hinxton 1 and 2 are actually Britons...

[Grace O'Malley]

It's not that far from my dads. He's Cumbrian and Scottish in ancestry.

1 North_Sea 43.13
2 Atlantic 29.51
3 Eastern_Euro 9.14
4 West_Med 6.55
5 Baltic 5.27
6 East_Med 4.61

That's quite high North Sea. I also think West Irish would have a reasonably high North Sea because my brother and me have a slightly higher North Sea than my mother who is from Tipperary and my father was from Roscommon. I bet someone from Donegal would have a high score but not as high as your Dad.

[Graham]

The kit number of the second individual is F999921. Have fun with it. :)

Kit F999921

Dodecad V3
Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 West_European 57.86
2 Mediterranean 20.61
3 East_European 12.39
4 West_Asian 5.18
5 South_Asian 1.17
6 Northeast_Asian 1.08

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Argyll (1000 Genomes) 4.4
2 Orkney (1000 Genomes) 4.46
3 Orcadian (HGDP) 4.87
4 N._European (Xing) 5.21
5 CEU (HapMap) 6.46
6 German (Dodecad) 6.82
7 Mixed_Germanic (Dodecad) 8.02
8 Dutch (Dodecad) 8.76
9 Swedish (Dodecad) 10.09
10 Kent (1000 Genomes) 10.27

My Results

1 West_European 72.53
2 Mediterranean 17.97
3 West_Asian 5.29
4 Southwest_Asian 4.09

Single Population Sharing:

1 Irish (Dodecad) 5.53
2 Cornwall (1000 Genomes) 8.28
3 British_Isles (Dodecad) 8.49
4 British (Dodecad) 8.53
5 Norwegian (Dodecad) 10.16
6 Kent (1000 Genomes) 10.45
7 Dutch (Dodecad) 12.27
8 Mixed_Germanic (Dodecad) 13.62
9 Swedish (Dodecad) 13.88
10 Orkney (1000 Genomes) 18.85

[gold_fenix]

i am Spaniard and my North atlantic is 42.91

[Graham]

Hmm, cool - at least that clears that up, so Hinxton 1 and 2 are actually Britons...
Nobody knows for sure yet. It could well be either. Funnily enough.

[Jackson]

The kit number of the second individual is F999921. Have fun with it. :)

Kit F999921

Dodecad V3
Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 West_European 57.86
2 Mediterranean 20.61
3 East_European 12.39
4 West_Asian 5.18
5 South_Asian 1.17
6 Northeast_Asian 1.08

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Argyll (1000 Genomes) 4.4
2 Orkney (1000 Genomes) 4.46
3 Orcadian (HGDP) 4.87
4 N._European (Xing) 5.21
5 CEU (HapMap) 6.46
6 German (Dodecad) 6.82
7 Mixed_Germanic (Dodecad) 8.02
8 Dutch (Dodecad) 8.76
9 Swedish (Dodecad) 10.09
10 Kent (1000 Genomes) 10.27

My Results

1 West_European 72.53
2 Mediterranean 17.97
3 West_Asian 5.29
4 Southwest_Asian 4.09

Single Population Sharing:

1 Irish (Dodecad) 5.53
2 Cornwall (1000 Genomes) 8.28
3 British_Isles (Dodecad) 8.49
4 British (Dodecad) 8.53
5 Norwegian (Dodecad) 10.16
6 Kent (1000 Genomes) 10.45
7 Dutch (Dodecad) 12.27
8 Mixed_Germanic (Dodecad) 13.62
9 Swedish (Dodecad) 13.88
10 Orkney (1000 Genomes) 18.85

The results for Dodecad will still be inaccurate btw.

[Grace O'Malley]

Here's my Dodecad V3.

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 West_European 55.75
2 Mediterranean 22.7
3 East_European 12.84
4 West_Asian 7.79
5 Southwest_Asian 0.44
6 Northeast_Asian 0.33
7 South_Asian 0.15

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Argyll (1000 Genomes) 1.47
2 Orkney (1000 Genomes) 2.56
3 Orcadian (HGDP) 2.63
4 N._European (Xing) 2.92
5 CEU (HapMap) 3.59
6 German (Dodecad) 4.88
7 Mixed_Germanic (Dodecad) 7.83
8 Dutch (Dodecad) 9.17
9 Kent (1000 Genomes) 11.04
10 British_Isles (Dodecad) 12.39
11 British (Dodecad) 12.81
12 Swedish (Dodecad) 12.81
13 French (HGDP) 13.51
14 Cornwall (1000 Genomes) 13.51
15 French (Dodecad) 13.82
16 Norwegian (Dodecad) 14.12
17 Irish (Dodecad) 15.06
18 Slovenian (Xing) 16.83
19 Hungarians (Behar) 20.99
20 FIN (1000Genomes) 22.14

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 96.2% Argyll (1000 Genomes) + 3.8% Finnish (Dodecad) @ 0.78
2 94.7% Argyll (1000 Genomes) + 5.3% FIN (1000Genomes) @ 0.78
3 97.9% Argyll (1000 Genomes) + 2.1% Lithuanian (Dodecad) @ 0.94
4 97.8% Argyll (1000 Genomes) + 2.2% Lithuanians (Behar) @ 0.94
5 81.3% Argyll (1000 Genomes) + 18.7% German (Dodecad) @ 0.98
6 97.6% Argyll (1000 Genomes) + 2.4% Russian (HGDP) @ 1.03
7 97.9% Argyll (1000 Genomes) + 2.1% Belorussian (Behar) @ 1.09
8 97.3% Argyll (1000 Genomes) + 2.7% Polish (Dodecad) @ 1.1
9 97.4% Argyll (1000 Genomes) + 2.6% Mixed_Slav (Dodecad) @ 1.12
10 62% German (Dodecad) + 38% Mixed_Germanic (Dodecad) @ 1.17
11 98.4% Argyll (1000 Genomes) + 1.6% Chuvashs_16 (Behar) @ 1.24
12 94.3% Argyll (1000 Genomes) + 5.7% Swedish (Dodecad) @ 1.25
13 79.7% Dutch (Dodecad) + 20.3% Mixed_Slav (Dodecad) @ 1.26
14 69.9% German (Dodecad) + 30.1% Kent (1000 Genomes) @ 1.26
15 58.3% Irish (Dodecad) + 41.7% Hungarians (Behar) @ 1.26
16 93.2% Orcadian (HGDP) + 6.8% Finnish (Dodecad) @ 1.27
17 65.8% German (Dodecad) + 34.2% Dutch (Dodecad) @ 1.29
18 93.5% Orkney (1000 Genomes) + 6.5% Finnish (Dodecad) @ 1.35
19 79.4% Dutch (Dodecad) + 20.6% Polish (Dodecad) @ 1.36
20 97.6% Argyll (1000 Genomes) + 2.4% Hungarians (Behar) @ 1.38

[Graham]

Ya, looking at my results your results, & the Irish average for West Euro, The calculator doesn't work. I'd ignore it.

[Grace O'Malley]

i am Spaniard and my North atlantic is 42.91

North Sea and North Atlantic are different. I get over 52 for North Atlantic.

[gold_fenix]

North Sea and North Atlantic are different. I get over 52 for North Atlantic.

i read it bad, hahahah i think he said north atlantic

[Grace O'Malley]

i read it bad, hahahah i think he said north atlantic

Haha no worries. It can be confusing.

[Graham]

If this woman turns out to be anglo saxon. Losing a referendum and then this! Am gonna kill myself. lol Though the ae date is out for them.

My MDLP 23b

1 European_Hunters_Gatherers 37.51
2 European_Early_Farmers 28.9
3 Caucasian 20.2
4 South_Central_Asian 6.3
5 Ancestral_Altaic 5.08

Hinxton2
1 European_Hunters_Gatherers 37.98
2 European_Early_Farmers 28.41
3 Caucasian 19.23
4 South_Central_Asian 6.45
5 Ancestral_Altaic 4.77

[Graham]

http://www.fc.id.au/2014/10/hinxton-2-analysis.html

Hinxton-2 Analysis

Hinxton-2 refers to an ancient sample ERS389796 (http://sra.dnanexus.com/samples/ERS389796) which was provided by the authors of yet to be published paper. I was able to upload to GEDMatch as kit# F999921. Below is what I found based on my initial analysis.

Admixture
<tbody>
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-mjWPXKx1st0/VDk_6gKkAsI/AAAAAAAAeSc/Iy1hRoDiKsI/s1600/MLDP_K23b.PNG (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-mjWPXKx1st0/VDk_6gKkAsI/AAAAAAAAeSc/Iy1hRoDiKsI/s1600/MLDP_K23b.PNG)


MLDP K23b Admixture Calculator for Hinxton-2 sample

</tbody>


<tbody>
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-6bKScsKvXMg/VDlAGtDfYKI/AAAAAAAAeSk/K-vz2Uo6hLM/s1600/Eurogenes_K13.PNG (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-6bKScsKvXMg/VDlAGtDfYKI/AAAAAAAAeSk/K-vz2Uo6hLM/s1600/Eurogenes_K13.PNG)


Eurogenes K13 Calculator for Hinxton-2 sample

</tbody>

ParentsRuns of Homozygosity reveals the Hinxton-2 sample's parents are first cousins.


Mt-DNAMt-Haplogroup is H2a2b1


Telomere LengthThe average telomere length from all sequence read runs gives 1.42. This means, the Hinxton-2 sample which belongs to a lady who lived 2500-1800 years back, died at the age of 65.


<tbody>
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-UWPyoXS14BA/VDlFzTuKeuI/AAAAAAAAeS0/GSkIW7MavYk/s1600/telomere_length.png (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-UWPyoXS14BA/VDlFzTuKeuI/AAAAAAAAeS0/GSkIW7MavYk/s1600/telomere_length.png)


Telomere length for 1.42
(Image adapted from http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/chromosomes/telomeres/)

</tbody>

Eye Color

<tbody>
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-QaA_AWpiqFM/VDlHJhMbJNI/AAAAAAAAeTA/feBDbfgqAGg/s1600/eye_color.PNG (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-QaA_AWpiqFM/VDlHJhMbJNI/AAAAAAAAeTA/feBDbfgqAGg/s1600/eye_color.PNG)


Eye color from GEDMatch

</tbody>

ComparisonThe kit# F999921 is available for 1-to-1 comparison in GEDMatch. For 1-to-many, please wait a couple of days for batch processing.


<tbody>
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-TX-jQjFIfwU/VDlMZ2GR3aI/AAAAAAAAeTQ/0QAs2D6Jans/s1600/diag.PNG (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-TX-jQjFIfwU/VDlMZ2GR3aI/AAAAAAAAeTQ/0QAs2D6Jans/s1600/diag.PNG)


GEDMatch Diagnostic Utility

</tbody>
Please take caution for matching segments at chromosome 21 since there are less SNPs in it.

Let me know what you find.

Posted by Felix Chandrakumar (https://plus.google.com/106386678699213610357)at <a class="timestamp-link" href="http://www.fc.id.au/2014/10/hinxton-2-analysis.html" rel="bookmark" title="permanent link" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(125, 24, 30);"><abbr class="published" itemprop="datePublished" title="2014-10-12T01:52:00+10:30" style="border: none;">1:52 AM</abbr> http://img1.blogblog.com/img/icon18_email.gif (http://www.blogger.com/email-post.g?blogID=3066630264206503608&postID=8633152856277397781)

[Grace O'Malley]

If this guy turns out to be anglo saxon. Losing a referendum and then this! Am gonna kill myself. lol

My MDLP 23b

1 European_Hunters_Gatherers 37.51
2 European_Early_Farmers 28.9
3 Caucasian 20.2
4 South_Central_Asian 6.3
5 Ancestral_Altaic 5.08

Hinxton2
1 European_Hunters_Gatherers 37.98
2 European_Early_Farmers 28.41
3 Caucasian 19.23
4 South_Central_Asian 6.45
5 Ancestral_Altaic 4.77

You are very close. It shows that our populations haven't really that much. Never mind Graham just give it another 15 years and the Scots might come to their senses. :D

[Jackson]

If this woman turns out to be anglo saxon. Losing a referendum and then this! Am gonna kill myself. lol Though the ae date is out for them.

My MDLP 23b

1 European_Hunters_Gatherers 37.51
2 European_Early_Farmers 28.9
3 Caucasian 20.2
4 South_Central_Asian 6.3
5 Ancestral_Altaic 5.08

Hinxton2
1 European_Hunters_Gatherers 37.98
2 European_Early_Farmers 28.41
3 Caucasian 19.23
4 South_Central_Asian 6.45
5 Ancestral_Altaic 4.77

Lol yeah that would be a bummer, although judging by your other post here taken from Felix's blog, if it's 1800-2500 years ago and that is certain then it must be Iron Age surely, so you'd be in safe waters then? :P

Edit: I'm not too far off either, it looks a bit more inline with modern results now, only thing i have extra is Near East and North African which must have entered my genome in the last couple of thousand years, probably more recently i would have thought though. I'd have thought if that 4% or so was distributed among my other main components it would make up pretty well for the 2% discrepancy in Farmer and 1% in Hunter Gatherer, although our Caucasian and South Central Asian are remarkably similar. It's weird how i'm close in this run but not in the others - i thought the MDLP K23 had pretty much eliminated problems in calibration?

European_Hunters_Gatherers 36.81%
European_Early_Farmers 26.86%
Caucasian 19.73%
South_Central_Asian 6.43%
Ancestral_Altaic 4.81%
North_African 2.62%
Near_East 2.02%
Archaic_African 0.45%
Amerindian 0.25%

[Oneeye]

It's not that far from my dads. He's Cumbrian and Scottish in ancestry.

1 North_Sea 43.13
2 Atlantic 29.51
3 Eastern_Euro 9.14
4 West_Med 6.55
5 Baltic 5.27
6 East_Med 4.61


Not too far from my wife's either:

North_Sea 43.55%
Atlantic 20.58%
Baltic 10.41%
Eastern_Euro 10.06%
West_Med 8.59%
West_Asian 1.70%
East_Med 1.87%
Red_Sea -
South_Asian 1.62%
Southeast_Asian -
Siberian -
Amerindian 1.11%
Oceanian 0.51%

[Hevo]

Not too far from my wife's either:

North_Sea 43.55%
Atlantic 20.58%
Baltic 10.41%
Eastern_Euro 10.06%
West_Med 8.59%
West_Asian 1.70%
East_Med 1.87%
Red_Sea -
South_Asian 1.62%
Southeast_Asian -
Siberian -
Amerindian 1.11%
Oceanian 0.51%

North Sea Facade ftw!