Result of my Autosomale Test

[decordoba]

Now I have the result of my AncestryDNA Test:

99 % european
45 % Europe west (included France, Germany, Switzerland, Austria,...
26 % Great Britain (England, Wales, Scotland)
20 % Italy/Greece
4 % Europe East
2 % Finland/Northwest Russia
others regions less than 1 %.

my Y-DNA is R1a1 - Z280 - Baltic Carpathian (tested by IGENEA)
my mt-DNA is U4 - northeast european

[decordoba]

My ancestors, who gave me the Y-DNA R1a1, came from the Baltic Sea (Poland, Baltic States, Belorus, Ukraine,...?) I guess they came in a small number of men, cause I have just 4 % DNA (autosomal) from Eastern europe.

I have no information how many R1a1 descendants in Upper Austria have Z280. I think, most of them are Western Slavic (M-458) like Czech, Slovak, Slovenians, other Polish,...).

Most people in Central Europe are not interested in DNA test, they dont spend much money about that.

Does anyone of the forists have any informations how to split R1a1 in Austria into the different subgroups?

[decordoba]

26 % DNA of Great Britain is high for Central Europe. I guess a large number of Imigrants from the British Islands came to the Region south of the river Danube. The time is unknown; maybe at the end of the roman empire the romans and their celtic soldiers removed from Great Britain, and they came to Central Europe - river Danube was border of the roman empire (not sure).

My grandfather of mothers side had the Y-DNA R1b1. He had a lot of matches in GB and the USA, just 2 matches in mainland europe (1 Germany, 1 Spain).

[Neon Knight]

Another Austrian on 23andMe got about 1/3 Northern, 1/3 Eastern and 1/3 Southern European.

Are you going to do GEDmatch with your data?

gedmatch.com

[Dick]

yes

[XenophobicPrussian]

lol, no one is 99% European. The closest people to that are Basques at 92% European.

If you're Austrian you're more than likely 70-75% European at best.

[Neon Knight]

lol, no one is 99% European. The closest people to that are Basques at 92% European.

If you're Austrian you're more than likely 70-75% European at best.
It means his ancestry is European from the last few hundred to a thousand years, which is a meaningful standard from a modern point of view. DNA doesn't contain European soil or anything.

[decordoba]

Autosomal DNA results dedpends on the standards they use to compare.

I am not sure, but I guess, they use the average DNA of - Great Britain, Western Europe, Italy-Greek,... - as standard. I mean the population living now and not the population living 2000 years ago.

The result shows that you are related to the - Italians, to the Britains,.... and to people of the region you come from - this is simple. But you cannot be sure about the migrations, can be but need not be.

[decordoba]

Another Austrian on 23andMe got about 1/3 Northern, 1/3 Eastern and 1/3 Southern European.

Are you going to do GEDmatch with your data?

gedmatch.com

my autosomal DNA was tested by AncestryDNA. I didnot get the raw-data of the DNA-test, so I cannot compare using other calculating software.

[Neon Knight]

my autosomal DNA was tested by AncestryDNA. I didnot get the raw-data of the DNA-test, so I cannot compare using other calculating software.
You can use AncestryDNA data with GEDmatch. Can you not down-load the raw data from your Ancestry account?

[decordoba]

lol, no one is 99% European. The closest people to that are Basques at 92% European.

If you're Austrian you're more than likely 70-75% European at best.

If you are sure that I have just 75 % European, what ist the rest? In this case I have (middle eastern, north african, north Eurasian,...) total 25 %. This is simple calcualtion.

[decordoba]

You can use AncestryDNA data with GEDmatch. Can you not down-load the raw data from your Ancestry account?

AncestryDNA - this company is not interested in conversation with customers using email. They submit the result you can see in #1 of this thread, and nothing else. They are interested in making money, the customers should look for cousins 4.range and so on (family-tree), and customers have to pay 100 USD a year for that service.

[XenophobicPrussian]

If you are sure that I have just 75 % European, what ist the rest? In this case I have (middle eastern, north african, north Eurasian,...) total 25 %. This is simple calcualtion.
I mean, you got it pretty spot on.

In the case of you/Austrians(assuming you're around the Austrian average), 12% will be Ancient North Eurasian(which is pretty much right inbetween European and Amerindian, so maybe that makes you 81% Euro but still, I like to treat it as a fully foreign component), the rest will be MENA stuff(stuff that peaks in modern MENA people), yes. I'm not calling out Austrians as particularly non-European, Swedes for example are at most 86% European.

[Myanthropologies]

I mean, you got it pretty spot on.

In the case of you/Austrians(assuming you're around the Austrian average), 12% will be Ancient North Eurasian(which is pretty much right inbetween European and Amerindian, so maybe that makes you 81% Euro but still, I like to treat it as a fully foreign component), the rest will be MENA stuff(stuff that peaks in modern MENA people), yes. I'm not calling out Austrians as particularly non-European, Swedes for example are at most 86% European.

There was a new discovery of farmers in Iran called "Zagros Farmers." They were different from the farmers that came from the levant apparently, which most Europeans grab farmer ancestry from. According to Petalpusher, a Finn has more Anatolian Neotholic than Lebanese and Turks do, so we don't know if it was levant influenced or not. Petalpusher claims that we cannot claim ANF were "semitic like" anymore, but I don't get his statement because it isn't like he can call Zagros farmers semitic like either, they were very CHG like.

Zagros farmers were extremely identical to CHG, and contributed to modern Persian, Afghan, and Pakistani ancestry, and contributed to Europeans in chunks indirectly.

[Sebastianus Rex]

I mean, you got it pretty spot on.

In the case of you/Austrians(assuming you're around the Austrian average), 12% will be Ancient North Eurasian(which is pretty much right inbetween European and Amerindian, so maybe that makes you 81% Euro but still, I like to treat it as a fully foreign component), the rest will be MENA stuff(stuff that peaks in modern MENA people), yes. I'm not calling out Austrians as particularly non-European, Swedes for example are at most 86% European.

By Ancient North-Eurasian you mean wich components ? The so called Eastern European and Siberian ones. For instance using the K15 methodology they show up like this:

http://gen3553.pagesperso-orange.fr/ADN/K15V3.png

[XenophobicPrussian]

By Ancient North-Eurasian you mean wich components ? The so called Eastern European and Siberian ones. For instance using the K15 methodology they show up like this:

http://gen3553.pagesperso-orange.fr/ADN/K15V3.png
ANE is Eastern/Eastern_Euro on K15. It peaks in the ANE samples like Mal'ta and Afontova Gora. As you can see in that plot, it's actually closer to Amerindian by fst distance than it is to say, North Sea or Atlantic, the main components of western Euros and WHGs. I have no reason to consider it a European component because of this, along with the fact that Afontova Gora/Mal'ta skulls were described as looking Amerindian like, and people today that have a lot of this component look exotic as fuck.

Austrians have 12% of this component, which isn't too bad. Among contemporary Europeans in peaks in Samis at 27%, Kargopol Russians at 26%, then Lithuanians/Belarussians at 21%. Among other populations in peaks in Uralic people like the Mari at 35%+, but unfortunately these people are also heavily Mongoloid admixed(which ANE itself was not, btw) so it's really hard to determine whether their exotic look is coming from the Mongoloid or the ANE. I think exotic looks in eastern Europeans without any Mongoloid admixture is proof enough, though.

[XenophobicPrussian]

There was a new discovery of farmers in Iran called "Zagros Farmers." They were different from the farmers that came from the levant apparently, which most Europeans grab farmer ancestry from. According to Petalpusher, a Finn has more Anatolian Neotholic than Lebanese and Turks do, so we don't know if it was levant influenced or not. Petalpusher claims that we cannot claim ANF were "semitic like" anymore, but I don't get his statement because it isn't like he can call Zagros farmers semitic like either, they were very CHG like.

Zagros farmers were extremely identical to CHG, and contributed to modern Persian, Afghan, and Pakistani ancestry, and contributed to Europeans in chunks indirectly.
Well, CHG were very semetic like themselves, but still distinct as CHG and Natufian like people had split up likely around 30k BC or so(the paleolithic Euro/WHG/ANE split with CHG/Nafutian likely happened around 50k-70k BC). The Basal Eurasian/Crown Eurasian split was even earlier, but that predates anything we can categorize into modern race. We knew this a long time ago, people just loved pushing the idea that 40% of European genetics are Middle-Eastern. That may have been the case geographically, but to call Anatolian farmers racially MENA is ridiculous, they were more northern shifted than modern Sicilians.

[decordoba]

I mean, you got it pretty spot on.

In the case of you/Austrians(assuming you're around the Austrian average), 12% will be Ancient North Eurasian(which is pretty much right inbetween European and Amerindian, so maybe that makes you 81% Euro but still, I like to treat it as a fully foreign component), the rest will be MENA stuff(stuff that peaks in modern MENA people), yes. I'm not calling out Austrians as particularly non-European, Swedes for example are at most 86% European.

I agree.

But your calculation depends on ancient DNA from stone age. And you need old standards for that to compare any new DNA profile with the DNA of old bones (man of Loschbour or the iceman and so on).

I would like to compare my DNA profile with ancient DNA from stone age - and I asked 23andME if they can check it out - I sent an email to this company:

text:
I am interested, how many % DNA I have:
* of Westeuropean Hunters and Gatherers
* of Neolithic Farmers
* of Ancient North Eurasians
Are you able to check the result of my DNA and answer these questions ?

I got answer - "The 23andMe Personal Genome Service does not currently have reports on the topics you have mentioned".

Any user of this forum wrote, that 23andME accept you to download the raw-data of your DNA profile. So you can compare using other DNA-software and other standards.

Does anyone of the forists have an idea - what to do - to get the reports I would like to know?

[Petalpusher]

There was a new discovery of farmers in Iran called "Zagros Farmers." They were different from the farmers that came from the levant apparently, which most Europeans grab farmer ancestry from. According to Petalpusher, a Finn has more Anatolian Neotholic than Lebanese and Turks do, so we don't know if it was levant influenced or not. Petalpusher claims that we cannot claim ANF were "semitic like" anymore, but I don't get his statement because it isn't like he can call Zagros farmers semitic like either, they were very CHG like.

Zagros farmers were extremely identical to CHG, and contributed to modern Persian, Afghan, and Pakistani ancestry, and contributed to Europeans in chunks indirectly.

It's not exactly what im saying, and it's not me it's admixture and dstats. The best proxy we have for early farmer is something Sardinian-like or early-middle neolithic cultures such as LBK and similar. It doesn't mean they were exactly made of the same thing but they average at the same spot in the grand scheme of things (namely on a pca), cause different admixture proportions can end up in the same place. So that's not mideastern, actually that's almost as far as it can get to the mideast, but you can see it the other way it's the mideast that changed over time, maybe.

The Zagros farmers didn't contribute much to modern Euro, what did contribute is CHG via the steppes, which is still something similar to the Iran_N farmers but with more EHG (WHG+ANE) or CHG with more Basal, and a different Caucasus lineage. There s just too much overlap between CHG and Iran_n so likely won't see both in the same admixture calculators.

Eurogenes is working on a very promising K7 3way model based on Villabruna (WHG) <- Basal -> AfantovaGora (ANE), which is stripping every last drop of overlap in everything. The farmers found in Europe come up halfway Villabruna from the basal split which is something i ve been predicting for some time, there is only two spheres of influences from basal and they already had WHG-like admixture before they even put a foot in Greece. Everything ancestral is on two clines from the same source/split of basal (everything is basal or ENA at some point). The test is revealing a lot of interesting things.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQT1BsNEJFc0hVMFU/view

https://i.imgsafe.org/a9c54bdfe4.png

Spreadsheet
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tFAa7oxWpcNN-OdMMjBdb4NeWKG7EkpKMzZJVW2_MME/edit#gid=551297409






Does anyone of the forists have an idea - what to do - to get the reports I would like to know?
You need this up there, any decent gedmatch will do too for a start. The new Gedrosia K6 is similar although not as refined.

Your only problem is you have tested with Ancestrydna which is honestly garbage for autosomal, you are always gonna be missing 1/3 of your admixture in every test that are now all optimized for 23andme panel.

[XenophobicPrussian]

It's not exactly what im saying, and it's not me it's admixture and dstats. The best proxy we have for early farmer is something Sardinian-like or early-middle neolithic cultures such as LBK and similar. It doesn't mean they were exactly made of the same thing but they average at the same spot in the grand scheme of things (namely on a pca), cause different admixture proportions can end up in the same place. So that's not mideastern, actually that's almost as far as it can get to the mideast, but you can see it the other way it's the mideast that changed over time, maybe.

The Zagros farmers didn't contribute much to modern Euro, what did contribute is CHG via the steppes, which is still something similar to the Iran_N farmers but with more EHG (WHG+ANE) or CHG with more Basal, and a different Caucasus lineage. There s just too much overlap between CHG and Iran_n so likely won't see both in the same admixture calculators.

Eurogenes is working on a very promising K7 3way model based on Villabruna (WHG) <- Basal -> AfantovaGora (ANE), which is stripping every last drop of overlap in everything. The farmers found in Europe come up halfway Villabruna from the basal split which is something i ve been predicting for some time, there is only two spheres of influences from basal and they already had WHG-like admixture before they even put a foot in Greece. Everything ancestral is on two clines from the same source/split of basal (everything is basal or ENA at some point). The test is revealing a lot of interesting things.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQT1BsNEJFc0hVMFU/view

https://i.imgsafe.org/a9c54bdfe4.png

Spreadsheet
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tFAa7oxWpcNN-OdMMjBdb4NeWKG7EkpKMzZJVW2_MME/edit#gid=551297409





You need this up there, any decent gedmatch will do too for a start. The new Gedrosia K6 is similar although not as refined.

Your only problem is you have tested with Ancestrydna which is honestly garbage for autosomal, you are always gonna be missing 1/3 of your admixture in every test that are now all optimized for 23andme panel.
That new Basal K7 isn't accurate at all either. I mean, it's accurate for what it attempts to do, but it serves no purpose in terms of modern race/ethnicity. It basically shows which paleolithic populations we come from, but that doesn't account for extra drift/evolution later populations had from them. The "Villabruna" cluster is misleading because Villabruna still didn't have a lot of shared DNA with Anatolian farmers(he should have used Goyet, Kostenki, Vestonice, El Miron precisely because they do and hadn't drifted away from it like Villabruna did), they just have high affinity because of more shared/closer paleolithic ancestors they split from than Anatolian farmers and CHG/Natufians, a split that happened much earlier. Just too much stuff with a lot of differences lumped in together, anything that tests for less than atleast 3-4 components of a similar thing(like how K15 breaks down WHG into 3 components, and the Basal K7 Villabruna component into 4, because assuming all WHGs were the same is wrong) won't tell much of anything.

That spreadsheet pretty much says the only difference between western Europeans like the British and eastern Europeans like Russians is 4% more AG3-MA1 for Russians and it has Poles and Swedes exactly the same, which is obviously not the case. Basques also obviously aren't the closest population to Villabruna as per that spreadsheet, Scandinavians/Irish/Scots or Balts would be as per every other calc, but if you basically lump all close components up together and treat them equally, they will show the most affinity to Villabruna specifically, which is what lower K calcs like this do. Basques are clearly the most paleolithic European and pre-Anatolian farmer/WHG split ancestor descended, though. There's also the issue of ANE(as in Afontova Gora/Ma'lta) itself having some WHG/Villabruna affinity and/or admixture and vice versa(Ma'lta had mtDNA U so it shouldn't seem that surprising), which a lower K calc won't break down. There's too much human mixing and shared/undrifted from ancestry to have really homogenous components that can be put together with only one population.

It's like Basal Eurasian vs Crown Eurasian. It exists, but it has absolutely no meaning in terms of modern race/ethnicity. It's about as relevant as which specific group of homo erectus our homo sapien ancestors descended from, it was too long ago. CHG/Neolithic Iran were half Basal half Crown, but of course we consider both to be a pretty homogenous, seperate race/genetic cluster with distinct features, responsible for most of the ancestry of modern Caucasus people, Iranians, etc. Low K calcs pretty much only account for differences seperated by tens of thousands of years, while significant drift can occur in a matter of thousands, making higher K calcs and having more components more accurate.


WHG-like admixture before they even put a foot in Greece.
On an off-topic note, there's still no evidence of them having to put a foot in Greece, as there is no evidence of Loshbour-type WHGs in the Balkans. The most southeasternly presence of Loshbour-like WHGs was in Hungary. They were already there, likely from the middle paleolithic, when something Kostenki-like(well, before then, because Kostenki already had Basal) mixed with something Basal and then drifted into those Anatolian farmers. Assuming that because a few were found in western/central Europe, the same Loshbour-type people would be native to Greece is just that, an assumption, mostly for the political implications of a historic Middle-Eastern invasion/ancestry. It's really more like southern European invasion/ancestry.

[cosmoo]

lol, no one is 99% European. The closest people to that are Basques at 92% European.

Basques are clearly the most paleolithic European and pre-Anatolian farmer
How can they be most paleolithic Euro when they look absolutely nothing like UP Europeans? They are predominantly of Mediterranean phenotypes.

On the whole, these craniological data indicate three facts: (1) the Basques are basically Mediterranean (in the wider sense) racially, with some brachycephalic accretion. (2) This accretion is for the most part Dinaric and only to a minor extent directly Alpine. Morphologically the Basque crania show many resemblances to those of Serbo-Croats and of some South Germans. Collignon's comparison between French Basques and the southwestern French makes this distinction clear. (3) The Basques, through inbreeding, ethnic solidarity, and the possession of a recognized national ideal type, have developed a character istic physiognomy, the essential features of which are nasal prominence and a narrowness of the median sagittal facial segment, and of the mandible.
(TRoE, chapter XI, section 17)

Their characteristic narrowness of mandible and face (totally opposite of UP Europeans, who had them very broad) mentioned here just adds further confirmation to already known fact that they do not look UP at all.

Their language was never connected to UP Europeans either.

Since Indo-European languages were unquestionably late to arrive in southwestern Europe, and since Hamitic languages were apparently not indigenous to northwestern Africa, it is not unreasonable that some pre-Indo-European, pre-Hamitic language should survive somewhere on either side of the Straits of Gibraltar. Basque is probably the modern descendant of (a) a language or languages brought by foodproducing Mediterraneans into Spain during the Early Neolithic period; or (b) a language or languages brought from western Asia by seafaring peoples in pre-Phoenician times; or (c) a blend of languages from both sources. Other explanations seem, in the light of present knowledge, fantastic.

[Petalpusher]

That new Basal K7 isn't accurate at all either. I mean, it's accurate for what it attempts to do, but it serves no purpose in terms of modern race/ethnicity. It basically shows which paleolithic populations we come from, but that doesn't account for extra drift/evolution later populations had from them. The "Villabruna" cluster is misleading because Villabruna still didn't have a lot of shared DNA with Anatolian farmers(he should have used Goyet, Kostenki, Vestonice, El Miron precisely because they do and hadn't drifted away from it like Villabruna did), they just have high affinity because of more shared/closer paleolithic ancestors they split from than Anatolian farmers and CHG/Natufians, a split that happened much earlier. Just too much stuff with a lot of differences lumped in together, anything that tests for less than atleast 3-4 components of a similar thing(like how K15 breaks down WHG into 3 components, and the Basal K7 Villabruna component into 4, because assuming all WHGs were the same is wrong) won't tell much of anything.

That spreadsheet pretty much says the only difference between western Europeans like the British and eastern Europeans like Russians is 4% more AG3-MA1 for Russians and it has Poles and Swedes exactly the same, which is obviously not the case. Basques also obviously aren't the closest population to Villabruna as per that spreadsheet, Scandinavians/Irish/Scots or Balts would be as per every other calc, but if you basically lump all close components up together and treat them equally, they will show the most affinity to Villabruna specifically, which is what lower K calcs like this do. Basques are clearly the most paleolithic European and pre-Anatolian farmer/WHG split ancestor descended, though. There's also the issue of ANE(as in Afontova Gora/Ma'lta) itself having some WHG/Villabruna affinity and/or admixture and vice versa(Ma'lta had mtDNA U so it shouldn't seem that surprising), which a lower K calc won't break down. There's too much human mixing and shared/undrifted from ancestry to have really homogenous components that can be put together with only one population.

It's like Basal Eurasian vs Crown Eurasian. It exists, but it has absolutely no meaning in terms of modern race/ethnicity. It's about as relevant as which specific group of homo erectus our homo sapien ancestors descended from, it was too long ago. CHG/Neolithic Iran were half Basal half Crown, but of course we consider both to be a pretty homogenous, seperate race/genetic cluster with distinct features, responsible for most of the ancestry of modern Caucasus people, Iranians, etc. Low K calcs pretty much only account for differences seperated by tens of thousands of years, while significant drift can occur in a matter of thousands, making higher K calcs and having more components more accurate.


On an off-topic note, there's still no evidence of them having to put a foot in Greece, as there is no evidence of Loshbour-type WHGs in the Balkans. The most southeasternly presence of Loshbour-like WHGs was in Hungary. They were already there, likely from the middle paleolithic, when something Kostenki-like(well, before then, because Kostenki already had Basal) mixed with something Basal and then drifted into those Anatolian farmers. Assuming that because a few were found in western/central Europe, the same Loshbour-type people would be native to Greece is just that, an assumption, mostly for the political implications of a historic Middle-Eastern invasion/ancestry. It's really more like southern European invasion/ancestry.

Why would you take Goyet or Vestonice as reference? They would be major mongrels, of course they were as it gets older. Today Goyet would be a southernmost European with an Andamanese grand parent.

He and others didn't survive into the mesolithic anyway so they are irrelevant, the lineage that survived from the paleo to meso is the Villabruna cluster. What's important is what was there just before the neolithic. Everybody was very Villabruna like or Villabruna like + a ANE in the east. You can tell by the simple fact the middle and late neolithic goes right in the direction of Villabruna. For sure the farmers didn't meet mickey mouse when they got into Europe, they met Villabruna, which is a cluster all around Europe, not an individual, it includes Loschbour, KO1 and dozens of others since the blowout of ice age genomes. The farmers have a common ancestor with Villabruna that's basically what the test shows us, it's so profound they are roughly half WHG. Even natufians have, but much less (1/4).

The basic of admixture is testing stuff against SSA and E_Asian, in the form of Yoruba;x;y or Han;x;y etc.. Villabrunians are simply the most removed from them, therefore the reference for indigenous European, it's that simple. If we had something more distant it would be the new 100% WHG. Then you can test for more specific sub structures but that's the basic of dstats and admixture.

Running at higher K with LESS distance between components like in K15 actually create something less precise in what you would call race/ethnicity. It's like if im creating a calculator with 19 components based on each regions of Hungary. Some will get close to 100% of a region but it doesn't have any ethnic reality that one Hungarian from the next region is 100% different to its neighbour, it creates artificial differences, why, because everything overlap a lot more.

In a test like this K7 you don't have overlap, at least it isn't significant anymore, you actually see how ethnically everything is made based on 3 big Eurasian groups, and of course the usual ssa, east asian, etc..
You say Russian only shows + 4% ANE than English but that's a lot, and they also have E_Asian, at least some. It's like everybody always forget the E_Asian, it's not more European than SSA, it's the same distance to Europe, you can prefer it but still the same gigantic distance. In the same way everything more East is more Amerindian in a way as ANE goes into that direction. Everybody seems surprised that south Americans with real Amerindian score massive ANE and always end up somewhere in the middle of Eurasia or East Europe, it's what ANE is, it's at the very least 1/3 Mongoloid or half Amerindian. You said it yourself and it's true. If you don't have ANE or not much you are going to show more Basal or more WHG, like Basques. It's up to anyone to define what indigenous Europe is, but very arguably it's WHG, everything else is litterature.

[XenophobicPrussian]

How can they be most paleolithic Euro when they look absolutely nothing like UP Europeans? They are predominantly of Mediterranean phenotypes.

On the whole, these craniological data indicate three facts: (1) the Basques are basically Mediterranean (in the wider sense) racially, with some brachycephalic accretion. (2) This accretion is for the most part Dinaric and only to a minor extent directly Alpine. Morphologically the Basque crania show many resemblances to those of Serbo-Croats and of some South Germans. Collignon's comparison between French Basques and the southwestern French makes this distinction clear. (3) The Basques, through inbreeding, ethnic solidarity, and the possession of a recognized national ideal type, have developed a character istic physiognomy, the essential features of which are nasal prominence and a narrowness of the median sagittal facial segment, and of the mandible.
(TRoE, chapter XI, section 17)

Their characteristic narrowness of mandible and face (totally opposite of UP Europeans, who had them very broad) mentioned here just adds further confirmation to already known fact that they do not look UP at all.

Their language was never connected to UP Europeans either.

Since Indo-European languages were unquestionably late to arrive in southwestern Europe, and since Hamitic languages were apparently not indigenous to northwestern Africa, it is not unreasonable that some pre-Indo-European, pre-Hamitic language should survive somewhere on either side of the Straits of Gibraltar. Basque is probably the modern descendant of (a) a language or languages brought by foodproducing Mediterraneans into Spain during the Early Neolithic period; or (b) a language or languages brought from western Asia by seafaring peoples in pre-Phoenician times; or (c) a blend of languages from both sources. Other explanations seem, in the light of present knowledge, fantastic.
Keep your pseudo-science to yourself. We're talking actual genetics here. Looks can likely change within a very short period of time especially with changing climate and diet. None of this is relevant. Also, your "Mediterranean", whatever that means, skulls, did infact exist in paleolithic Europe and your contention that all paleolithic Europeans had broad heads is ridiculous. Many Combe Capelle, Vestonice, Goyet skulls are listed as Mediterranean and are definitely not uniformly broad headed. Brno is also arguably a Mediterranean. Not to mention, eastern European UP skulls were majority long/dochy, not broad/brachy.

You can keep thinking Montenegrins, a group with more actual Mediterranean genetics than a gracile Mediterranean Englishman are Upper Paleolithic survivors, it's about as true as black Egypt though.

Also, no language is linked to the UP. -_-





Why would you take Goyet or Vestonice as reference? They would be major mongrels, of course they were as it gets older. Today Goyet would be a southernmost European with an Andamanese grand parent. He and others didn't survive into the mesolithic anyway so they are irrelevant, the lineage that survived from the paleo to meso is the Villabruna cluster.
People like Villabruna didn't exist in the early/mid paleolithic. They were all like Goyet/Vestonice. Villabruna isn't a surviving lineage or one group of hunter gatherers that conquered the rest, it's Goyet after drift. It's amazing how no one gets this(I'm not referring to you, more the people who released the original paper saying the Villabruna cluster replaced the Goyet/Vestonice cluster, rather than descending from it). Every paleolithic sample around the world whether it be Ma'lta, Tianyuan, Ust'Ishim, all the paleolithic European samples have this mongrel South Asian tribal or Andamanese w/e admixture. It isn't a coincidence. We don't have it anymore because of drift, not because they were distinct populations different from our ancestors.

I brought up Goyet and Vestonice because they still actually had the actual neolithic farmer components on K15(West Med), as well as them having Basal admixture, Villabruna didn't. As long as ASI is included as a component in the calc the Andamanese/etc affinity of paleolithic samples shouldn't mess things up.


Everybody was very Villabruna like or Villabruna like + a ANE in the east.
and this is the problem with lumping everything together. No, all of KO1, Loshbour, La Brana, Villabruna were not the same. Loshbour, KO1 and La Brana seem to be right inbetween the eastern European specific WHG ancestry and NW European specific ancestry, while Villabruna, Bichon seemed to be closer to the Scandinavian/Western European WHG like ancestry. There are also phenotype differences, as Villabruna was the only WHG(not counting SHGs) so far that had light brown hair rather than black, and KO1 also was the only WHG(again, not counting SHG/EHG) that had full derived alleles for SLC24A5(light skin) despite being the least ANE/farmer shifted of the WHGs. There's also one more, El Miron was closest to the WHG admixture in Basques, French, Bell Beakers, Iberians. When people were so isolated you can't have expected them to be so genetically uniform, just like Europeans aren't today, and it isn't just simple WHG/ANE/Anatolian farmer/Natufian differences.

Based on K15, we still have no WHG proxy for the WHG ancestors of Balto-Slavs. Actually, right now the only ancient sample we have that even resembles Balto-Slavs is a late bronze age Lithuanian(RISE598). I'm guessing the new paper that's coming out with lots of Baltic/east Baltic genomes will finally answer that. We're also missing the WHG proxy that added extra WHG affinity to middle-neolithic Iberian farmers and Basques. Again, WHGs were a pretty diverse group, they spanned an entire continent and perhaps even North Africa.


Even natufians have, but much less (1/4).
Again, Natufians being 1/4 Villabruna makes no sense. You'd think they'd have some light eyes then like a person who was 1/4 European in the modern sense, but no, they had a whopping rate of 0%. The higher K calcs show Natufians with 0% shared components with Villabruna, and that's what makes the most sense. Low K calcs like this show distant, distant affinity, it doesn't mean anything.


Running at higher K with LESS distance between components like in K15 actually create something less precise in what you would call race/ethnicity. It's like if im creating a calculator with 19 components based on each regions of Hungary. Some will get close to 100% of a region but it doesn't have any ethnic reality that one Hungarian from the next region is 100% different to its neighbour, it creates artificial differences, why, because everything overlap a lot more.
Okay, maybe race because race is usually pretty broad and only pretty much covers the basic Mongoloid/Caucasoid/Negroid/Australoid, maybe Amerindian/MENA, but ethnicity? No. Just look at PCA plots of Europeans. The difference and distance(and just the dang looks of them) between Lithuanians and English people on those plots seem bigger than just "Lithuanians have 4% more ANE and 4% less Basal rich". I mean, that spreadsheet pretty much shows 90% of European groups being around the same 60% Villabruna. That doesn't reflect the actual diversity Europeans have. I'd argue people also care more about ethnicity.


In a test like this K7 you don't have overlap, at least it isn't significant anymore, you actually see how ethnically everything is made based on 3 big Eurasian groups, and of course the usual ssa, east asian, etc..
You say Russian only shows + 4% ANE than English but that's a lot, and they also have E_Asian, at least some. It's like everybody always forget the E_Asian, it's not more European than SSA, it's the same distance to Europe, you can prefer it but still the same gigantic distance.
What about Lithuanians(no Mongoloid) vs Scandos/British Isles people, etc? The difference in broad Villabruna/ANE/farmer etc is not big enough(atleast on that spreadsheet/specific calc) to justify the actual genetic differences between them, look at European PCA plots, it hardly looks like 4-8%. On PCA plots the distance between a Lithuanian and a Brit is about the same as a Brit to an Iberian.

Low K calcs like Eurogenes K7 or K8 rarely actually get a person's region/ancestry right. Higher K calcs like K15 do. I think it's pretty clear which is more accurate.

[Myanthropologies]

Well, CHG were very semetic like themselves, but still distinct as CHG and Natufian like people had split up likely around 30k BC or so(the paleolithic Euro/WHG/ANE split with CHG/Nafutian likely happened around 50k-70k BC). The Basal Eurasian/Crown Eurasian split was even earlier, but that predates anything we can categorize into modern race. We knew this a long time ago, people just loved pushing the idea that 40% of European genetics are Middle-Eastern. That may have been the case geographically, but to call Anatolian farmers racially MENA is ridiculous, they were more northern shifted than modern Sicilians.

I thought CHG/West Asian was the closest to the North European component genetically? And yeah, ANF may have been dark skinned, based on where they lived, but idk if "semitic like" is the best term.

[decordoba]

I think - standard/reference of:

* Westeuropean Hunters and Gatherers
* Neolithic Farmers
* Ancient North Eurasians

should be enough to define the genetic ancestry of the europeans.

I know that the Indoeuropeans are part of the european ancestors, but their DNA cannot be used as standard or reference together with the 3 topics of stone-age. This is not compareable.
The Indoeuropeans are an admixture of WHG + ANE + Neolithic Farmers + a few South Asian,...

[cosmoo]

Keep your pseudo-science to yourself. We're talking actual genetics here. Looks can likely change within a very short period of time especially with changing climate and diet. None of this is relevant. Also, your "Mediterranean", whatever that means, skulls, did infact exist in paleolithic Europe and your contention that all paleolithic Europeans had broad heads is ridiculous. Many Combe Capelle, Vestonice, Goyet skulls are listed as Mediterranean and are definitely not uniformly broad headed. Brno is also arguably a Mediterranean. Not to mention, eastern European UP skulls were majority long/dochy, not broad/brachy.

You can keep thinking Montenegrins, a group with more actual Mediterranean genetics than a gracile Mediterranean Englishman are Upper Paleolithic survivors, it's about as true as black Egypt though.

Also, no language is linked to the UP. -_-


"Muh genetics, muh calculators, muh WHG!"
Looks can change without admixture very fast, you say?
Then how you explain the fact that hunter-gatherers of Europe (not counting easternmost Europe on border with Asia) looked essentially same for 30.000 years, all the way from Upper Palaeolithic, up until Late Mesolithic, when new, invading peoples started to settle en-masse in Europe? It's about three times more than total time which has passed since then up until present, to give you the idea of how big that period was. How did they manage to stay same, with multiple climate changes in so big period? How come there was much less variation for 30.000 years among UP Europeans than among skeletons buried in London plague pits in 17th century?

You again show how bad knowledge of anthropology you have. Where did I say all UP Europeans had broad and brachy heads? Cephalic index in UP western Europe ranged from 67 to 85, that is, from extreme dolichocephaly to significant brachycephaly.
I said UP Europeans had characteristically broad faces and mandibles, not skulls, and those are traits that are found in exactly opposite form in Basques.

Now about Mediterranean skulls. First of all, most of so called "UP Med skulls" are outliers, and 95% of UP Europeans looked nothing like them. Second, most of these skulls actually aren't Upper Palaeolithic at all. For example, recent radiocarbon dating of Combe Capelle skull dated it to around 7000 B.C, therefore clearly making it Mesolithic, and definitely not Upper Palaeolithic: http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/mensch/alter-schaedel-neu-datiert-forscher-entzaubern-steinzeitmann-a-744424.html
Second of all, as I already said, you either deliberately misinterpreted what I said, or you don't have a clue about anthropology. Cephalic index doesn't determine if someone is Mediterranean or not, and it was variable within UP Europeans. Traits which were quite consistent regarding their skulls were massive cranial vaults, heavy muscular insertions, and flattening of lambdoidal area. C.I. was variable.

Now, there were some skulls in easternmost European Russia that had long and narrow faces (and other non-CM traits), but those were unconnected to other Europeans of CM type at the time, and represented skulls of proto-Nordid hunter-gatherers, which eventually became main type among invading IEs.


Your oh-so-dear "genetics" say that UP Europeans are not similar at all to Mesolithic hunter-gatherers, even though they look exactly the same and share same y-DNA and mtDNA lineages. It also basically says that UP Europeans are wogs, even though Mesolithic HG "100% Euros" are wholly descended from them. To me, this speaks enough about fallacy of those "genetics".

About Montenegrins: I stated multiple times earlier that people who manage Dodecad databases said themselves that they don't have a single sample from Montenegro where the man actually identified as being Montenegrin. Most tested men (autosomally) from Montenegro are Albanians from eastern parts by far, and most of ethnic Montenegrins simply test at lab in Belgrade, because they only seem to care for Y-DNA.


[...]But the Montenegrin of distinctive type is a very tall, large-bodied man, with a large, full-vaulted head abbreviated at the rear; his face is very broad, his jaw heavy, his brows overhanging, and his nose large and thick-tipped. It is this type which bears the rufosity in hair color, the freckling, and a tendency to light-mixed eye color.
[...]
The Old Montenegrin type, concentrated in the southwestern mountain fringe of Montenegro, just north of the Lake of Scutari, in the most conservative part of the kingdom culturally, and the ethnic center of the Montenegrin nation, is nothing more nor less than a local unreduced brachycephalized Upper Palaeolithic survival or reemergence...

-TRoE, chapter XII, section 12

But hey, believe what you want. If you believe that tallest, heaviest Europeans, with broadest faces in Europe measured, CM-characteristic pigmentation, and plenty of other UP European features are not their descendants, while people who look nothing like UP Euros are, because of pseudo-genetics, then you are lost case. Ditto if you believe that UP and Mesolithic hunter-gatherers of Europe are genetically distant.
Now go and wank it off to your Dodecad/Euroganes/whatever calculators
http://static1.fjcdn.com/comments/The+aryan+master+race+_110ad8e121c75d721609e07055e 3102e.png

[Petalpusher]

People like Villabruna didn't exist in the early/mid paleolithic. They were all like Goyet/Vestonice. Villabruna isn't a surviving lineage or one group of hunter gatherers that conquered the rest, it's Goyet after drift. It's amazing how no one gets this(I'm not referring to you, more the people who released the original paper saying the Villabruna cluster replaced the Goyet/Vestonice cluster, rather than descending from it). Every paleolithic sample around the world whether it be Ma'lta, Tianyuan, Ust'Ishim, all the paleolithic European samples have this mongrel South Asian tribal or Andamanese w/e admixture. It isn't a coincidence. We don't have it anymore because of drift, not because they were distinct populations different from our ancestors.

It's the surviving group that matters for us since it was found all around Europe right at the end of the mesolithic. It's what "we" were 15 000 years ago to a portion of what we are now. Of course there is a part of drift when dealing with 50k, which is really selection/evolution. Everything goes OoA then settle in a new environement with possibly a lot of pressures, then comes mutation, acquiring/loosing genes, that's "drift" genetically, like supposedly Neanderthal admixture was selected negatively in Europeans, but everything is not all drift. A Maltese is not an Icelandic who drifted towards MENA in the last 10 000 years, that's for sure. The drift is rarely in this direction btw, which already should tell us something in itself.

There is a turnover in the paleo to late paleo, the HG's all have something new that make them drift AWAY from Africans (and everything else non Euro) compared to the previous HG's, maybe a cousin branch evolved differently over a long period of time, maybe Villabruna was always there we just didn't find older remains, it's still debatable at this point. The result anyway is the final form of WHG ended up being like Villabruna like for us with a real continuity from the late paleo to the late meso, there is already a lot of time between Villabruna and KO1 for example, yet he still belongs to the Villabruna cluster.

https://i.imgsafe.org/304637fbe3.jpg

https://i.imgsafe.org/304f6614b3.png



I brought up Goyet and Vestonice because they still actually had the actual neolithic farmer components on K15(West Med), as well as them having Basal admixture, Villabruna didn't. As long as ASI is included as a component in the calc the Andamanese/etc affinity of paleolithic samples shouldn't mess things up.

There is an Andamanese component in K7. David knows what he is doing, and Reich, Fu, Lazaridis,... Again we shouldn't worry about Goyet or Vestonice, they contributed somehow to the final model of WHG but they didn't survive in their original form. More importantly we don't share anything directly with them, Europeans share a lot with Loschbour in IBD on the other hand, that's one of our real ancestor along with his relatives, for all Europeans. Those old pre Villabruna folks are only interesting to model the evolution and possibly admixture of WHG's through the ages, not for us directly today.

Villabruna from northern Italy is just one of a kind, you can check for example Rochedane found in Jura, he is the second oldest (13k) of the bunch after Vilalbruna/Bichon, and the same as the other Villabrunians. Theses genomes confirms there is a continuity in what we now call the Villabruna cluster. It's not drift, if it was you would have some erratic plotting all over the place they wouldn't form clusters. The last Goyet that survive is only 1k older than Villabruna, yet distinct enough to belong to another cluster.



and this is the problem with lumping everything together. No, all of KO1, Loshbour, La Brana, Villabruna were not the same. Loshbour, KO1 and La Brana seem to be right inbetween the eastern European specific WHG ancestry and NW European specific ancestry, while Villabruna, Bichon seemed to be closer to the Scandinavian/Western European WHG like ancestry. There are also phenotype differences, as Villabruna was the only WHG(not counting SHGs) so far that had light brown hair rather than black, and KO1 also was the only WHG(again, not counting SHG/EHG) that had full derived alleles for SLC24A5(light skin) despite being the least ANE/farmer shifted of the WHGs. There's also one more, El Miron was closest to the WHG admixture in Basques, French, Bell Beakers, Iberians. When people were so isolated you can't have expected them to be so genetically uniform, just like Europeans aren't today, and it isn't just simple WHG/ANE/Anatolian farmer/Natufian differences.

They are genetically almost indistinguishable, you already know my take on these phenotype differences, it's a dozen SNP's, out of millions... that's not what makes people Europeans. A blonde or blue eye Papuan is not European, neither a Japanese with white like skin. Even if we were selecting all of them for that trait and make millions of blonde Papuans, it wouldn't make them more European or less Papuans for that matters, just because they have one variant of it to produce the same thing, still not ethnically European as a whole, it takes the whole genes to apply, at least a decently sized sample. It's like siblings showing "phenotypic" differences, they are 99,9..% the same ethnically and therefore have virtually identical results, the minor differences often found is more genotyping errors off 100$ services and garbage datas for autosomal like ancestry/ftdna. If you want physical clones you need twins.

K7 isn't different than all other calculators and studies, pca positions and distances ever moved so slightly, those are minor adjustements, of course interesting ones but fundamentally you are always looking at the same thing, you ll see the distance are larger than what you are counting in the spreadsheet. You simply now see the WHG branch's admixture as it is truely, not shattered everywhere in a dozen of components embedding a soup of things, like a mediterranean component, what is "mediterranean", someone from Saint-Sebastian or a Maltese with half the WHG? it has no ground genetically, neither "northern Europe", is it a Belgian, a Finn or an Icelandic? (at least they are a bit closer). Im sorry to say this but if people are surpised by these results it means they are reading studies and pca wrong since the beginning or rather how they want them to be based on 1900 anthropology.

Anyone who were able to read a pca and admixture could already see for example Basques had the most WHG (and low ANE, therefore more Basal as well). It's not the news of the year and it shouldn't be very surprising, the region was the core of epipaleolithic cultures that stretched from the Basque country to East Germany, it was also the biggest refuge for Europeans HG at the LGM before the re expansion, everywhere (yes up to Baltic and Scandinavia which didn't even exist in the LGM, it was under ice sheet). The oldest reference of Cromag was found in Dordogne, in the "Abri Cro-Magnon", self explanatory... after LGM they didn't re expand very far, they didn't mix with anything else, they certainly managed to retain their original admixture of hunters, in isolation up to the neolithic and remained as this simple mix. Northern Europe were also neolithized later with pops that already acquired more local WHG (Nordic_LN is still close to the Villabruna cline)

Yet nobody is much more than 60% WHG but 60% of the most distant thing to Africans and E_Asians, which is also the case of several northern Euro groups and some middle neolithic cultures. Something i also tried to explain for a long time. Most middle/late neolithic are more European than present day Europeans. The farmers that are described as "near eastern migrants" are more European like than plenty of modern south Europeans, so much for the neolithic invaders...it's what came afterwards that pushed south Europe closer to modern mideast, not the early neolithic per say.


One way or another it's apparently the WHG's around the Alps who came up on top of the food chain and we find them everywhere from the late upper paleolithic to the neolithic. They may have had superficial differences locally later but im not interested by that, they were ethnically identicals, as much as two countrymen from the same region are today (who are neither all clones physically, let's keep in mind)