Eurogenes Biogeographic Ancestry Project

[Polako]

Genetic substructures across Europe, part 1 - preliminary run (http://bga101.blogspot.com/2011/06/genetic-substructures-across-europe.html)

[poiuytrewq0987]

Genetic substructures across Europe, part 1 - preliminary run Sub-Saharan = 0% North Sea = 15.2% North + East Eurasian = 0.007% North Atlantic = 0% North-Central European = 11.5% Eastern European = 28% Southern European = 44.3%

[Imperivm]

Sub-Saharan African = 0%
North Sea 34%
North + East Eurasian = 0%
North Atlantic = 38%
North-Central European = 21%
Eastern European = 2%
Southern European = 5%

Does anyone know what the difference is between North Sea and North Atlantic on Eurogenes?

[Polako]

Does anyone know what the difference is between North Sea and North Atlantic on Eurogenes?

I usually name the clusters that peak in the Irish as "North Atlantic", and those that peak in Scandinavians as "North Sea".

[Frederick]

Lets see.
Me in this run, compared to the average countrymen of mine.

Subsaharan: 0% (German average: 0%)
North Sea: 43.37% (German average: 25.43%)
North/East Euroasian: 0% (average: 0%)
North Atlantic: 0.8% (German average: 26.36%)
North-Central European: 20.11% (German average: 27.35%)
Eastern European: 20.74% (German Average: 14.56%)
Southern European: 14.97% (German Average: 11.26%)

[Olavsson]

Genetic substructures across Europe, part 1 - preliminary run

- NO8 -

(roughly)

64,39% Yellow / North Sea
21,73% AquaGreen / North Atlantic
13,48% DarkBlue / Eastern European
0,37% Green / North + East Eurasian
0,00% Blue / North-Central European
0,00% Pink / Southern European
0,00% Red / sub-Saharan African

[Graham]

41.88% North-Central European
35.04% North Sea
22.81% North Atlantic
00.26% Southern European
00.00% Sub-Saharan African
00.00% North + East Eurasian
00.00% Eastern European

Scored the highest out of the Uk/Ireland folk for north central Europe. Ma North Atlantic is diminution. :D

[Pallantides]

44.56% North Sea
28.2% North Atlantic
14.01% Eastern European
12.6% North-Central European
0.6% North + East Eurasian
0.00% Sub-Saharan African
0.00% Southern European

[Rochefaton]

Here are my new scores, US5:

41.0% North Sea
6.5% North Atlantic
0% Eastern European
49.2% North-Central European
0% North + East Eurasian
0.% Sub-Saharan African
3.3% Southern European

My North Atlantic is lower than expected, but my North-Central Euro score is very high. Polako, what group does the North-Central component peak in?

[Olavsson]

My "North-Central European" scores are 0.00%, just like my "Baltic" scores in many of the intra-North European runs.

[Loki]

This one makes more sense to me.

49.86% North Sea
20.99% Southern European
11.34% North-Central European
08.68% North Atlantic
05.95% Eastern European
02.14% Sub-Saharan African
01.04% North + East Eurasian

I find it interesting that my North Sea component is higher than all the Dutch and German samples, and even several Scandinavians! And the lower SE looks way more realistic than before.

[Barreldriver]

Recent results for mwa:

Sub-Saharan African: 0%
North Sea: 21.6032%
North+East Eurasian: 0%
North Atlantic: 45.974%
North-Central European: 19.3393%
Eastern European: 3.9876%
Southern European: 9.5704%S

[Grumpy Cat]

0.00001 Sub-Saharan African

0.218539 North Sea

0.00001 North + East Eurasian

0.49188 North Atlantic

0.131511 North-Central European

0.033219 Eastern European

0.124831 Southern European

[Barreldriver]

0.00001 Sub-Saharan African

0.218539 North Sea

0.00001 North + East Eurasian

0.49188 North Atlantic

0.131511 North-Central European

0.033219 Eastern European

0.124831 Southern European

Our scores are quite similar. You're half Faroes half Acadian correct?

Reckon that blend would come out similar to someone who has predominate British Isle's ancestry given the proposed invasion histories.

[Rochefaton]

My "North-Central European" scores are 0.00%, just like my "Baltic" scores in many of the intra-North European runs.

My Baltic score was 0.5% on the last run, but my North-Central European score is 49.2%. :confused: I'm about to check the spreadsheet and see which population the North-Central component peaks in.

[Loki]

My Baltic score was 0.5% on the last run, but my North-Central European score is 49.2%. :confused: I'm about to check the spreadsheet and see which population the North-Central component peaks in.

Highest North-Central:


CA6 99.99
NL2 99.99
US159 99.99
US85 99.99
GSM536619 58.05
US24 57.85
US184 55.34
US171 51.62
US5 49.19
DKUS1 46.43
SE8 45.49
US129 44.93
US201 44.42
DE5 43.21

I'll run some pivots, US excluding

[Rochefaton]

Highest North-Central:


CA6 99.99
NL2 99.99
US159 99.99
US85 99.99
GSM536619 58.05
US24 57.85
US184 55.34
US171 51.62
US5 49.19
DKUS1 46.43
SE8 45.49
US129 44.93
US201 44.42
DE5 43.21

I'll run some pivots, US excluding

Thanks, man. :) Looks like I am in 9th place right now. I was looking over the spreadsheet, and it appears that the North-Central component has a wide range, and reaches high frequencies in individuals from various European countries. It doesn't seem to be concentrated in any single ethnicity.

[Loki]

I assigned nationalities to those individuals who were not mixed (i.e. IEUK or whatever), and added averages in the spreadsheet.

[Grumpy Cat]

Our scores are quite similar. You're half Faroes half Acadian correct?

Reckon that blend would come out similar to someone who has predominate British Isle's ancestry given the proposed invasion histories.

Yeah. Seems Doug MacDonald thinks I'm English.

[Rochefaton]

Thanks, Loki. You just saved me some time.

The North-Central European component is most common in the Belgians at 35%, followed by the Dutch at 34%, and then the Estonians at 29%. Strange to see the Estonians coming in third behind the first two groups.

[Barreldriver]

Thanks, Loki. You just saved me some time.

The North-Central European component is most common in the Belgians at 35%, followed by the Dutch at 34%, and then the Estonians at 29%. Strange to see the Estonians coming in third behind the first two groups.

Napoleon maybe? :D

[Frederick]

Those 2 Estonians must be unusual for Estonians.
In the last run, they also had been a shining outpost of ATLANTIC in Eastern Europe. ;)

Here is a map of your "North_Central"

Green numbers mean: only 2 or 1 sample = Questionable

[Rochefaton]

Those 2 Estonians must be unusual for Estonians.
In the last run, they also had been a shining outpost of ATLANTIC in Eastern Europe. ;)

Here is a map of your "North_Central"

Green numbers mean: only 2 or 1 sample = Questionable

Thank you. :)

The 2 Estonian's scores look very questionable after looking at their neighbors' scores. I guess the label "North-Central European" fits the component rather well, judging from your map.

[poiuytrewq0987]

Highest North-Central:


CA6 99.99
NL2 99.99
US159 99.99
US85 99.99
GSM536619 58.05
US24 57.85
US184 55.34
US171 51.62
US5 49.19
DKUS1 46.43
SE8 45.49
US129 44.93
US201 44.42
DE5 43.21

I'll run some pivots, US excluding

How come I'm not near to 100% on anything... damn Balkans. :P

[Barreldriver]

DayTripper at ABF did an updated chart for me based on this latest run, reckon I'm a Canadian in disguise with an Australian alter ego:

http://i326.photobucket.com/albums/k438/ragnarok1227/US83Chartupdate.jpg

[Rochefaton]

Day Tripper made me another similarity chart for this run. My top five most similar groups are:

1) Dutch
2) Swedish
3) Danish
4) German
5) American

Sweetness. :)

[Frederick]

Hmm. How can him get them to make one for me? :)

[Rochefaton]

Hmm. How can him get them to make one for me? :)

Yeah. All you have to do is ask him. If you are not a member of ABF, I will ask Day Tripper for you, if you will give me your project ID.

[Loki]

And here's mine:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=11217&stc=1&d=1308177583

My closest:

1. Switzerland
2. Denmark
3. Norway
4. Sweden
5. US
6. UK
7. Netherlands
8. Germany

[Grumpy Cat]

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=11218&stc=1&d=1308178357

I'm guessing IE is Ireland?

Ireland
Australia
France
Canada
UK

[poiuytrewq0987]

Yeah. All you have to do is ask him. If you are not a member of ABF, I will ask Day Tripper for you, if you will give me your project ID.

Can you ask for me? I'm not a member on that forum. My ID is RS1. Much appreciated.

[Frederick]

Yeah. All you have to do is ask him. If you are not a member of ABF, I will ask Day Tripper for you, if you will give me your project ID.

Since anyone can guess it already by looking at my numbers.... hehe...

I am DE8

Thanks in advance. :)

[Efim45]

My results from this first Intra-European run:
0.00% Nigger (Sub-Saharan African)
11.35% Scandinavian (North Sea)
2.81% Chink (North+West Eurasian)
4.52% Celt (North Atlantic)
12.07% American (North-central European)
47.21% Slav (Eastern European)
22.05% Wog (Southern European)

[Frederick]

I did maps from the averages.

Explanation of the colors:
red = this component is the largest component in this country.
green = Only 1 or 2 samples, possibly not relyable because of that
green/red mixed numbers: Component is the largest here, but low number of samples.

All numbers base on rounding to full percent.


North Sea
(me: 43%)
http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/1590/northsea.gif

Eastern European
(me 21%)
http://img840.imageshack.us/img840/7155/easterneuropean.gif

North-Central
(me: 20%)
http://img860.imageshack.us/img860/1252/northcentral.gif

Southern European
(me: 15%)
http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/5467/southerneuropean.gif

North Atlantic
(me: 1%)
http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/1585/northatlantic.gif

North-East Euroasian
(me: 0%)
http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/9783/northeasteurasian.gif

Sub Saharan
(me: 0%)
http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/1886/subsaharan.gif

[Efim45]

Thanks, Frederick. So it looks like African admixture is in the Southwest and Asian in the Northeast, no surprises there!

[poiuytrewq0987]

My results from this first Intra-European run:
0.00% Nigger (Sub-Saharan African)
11.35% Scandinavian (North Sea)
2.81% Chink (North+West Eurasian)
4.52% Celt (North Atlantic)
12.07% American (North-central European)
47.21% Slav (Eastern European)
22.05% Wog (Southern European)

are you retarded bro

[Rochefaton]

Since anyone can guess it already by looking at my numbers.... hehe...

I am DE8

Thanks in advance. :)

Alrighty. I have sent him a request. I will post your chart, if and when Day Tripper replies to my PM.

[Rochefaton]

Can you ask for me? I'm not a member on that forum. My ID is RS1. Much appreciated.

Sure. Once he replies back to my message, I will ask him for you.

[Polako]

^ Frederick, the Komi has 15% North + East Eurasian, not 35%.

[Imperivm]

Can the ABF chap do a chart for me if it's not too much trouble? My username is UK35.

[Frederick]

^ Frederick, the Komi has 15% North + East Eurasian, not 35%.

Oh.
Ah, I see what happend. The 35% is still the Northsea level. I missed to change this number when I copied the map. :redface_002:

[Rochefaton]

Alright, gents. Here are three of the four charts requested. The first chart is UK20, the second is RU19, and the third is DE8. I am still waiting on the last chart requested, but he just received the request today, so it may take a few hours or so.

@ Impervim, I will ask him once he replies back to my last request. :)

[Olavsson]

I just sent Day_Tripper a PM on ForumBiodiversity, so hopefully he will make one of these charts for me as well... :)

[Efim45]

Top 5 for me:
PL-don't know what that is
Ukraine
BY-don't know what this is
Hungary
Russia

[Barreldriver]

Top 5 for me:
PL-don't know what that is
Ukraine
BY-don't know what this is
Hungary
Russia

PL is Poland and BY is Belarus.

[Osweo]

So! Many Thanks, Alabama!

1. Australia - land of English/Irish mixes...
2. Ireland - land of my fathers
3. Canada - see Oz.
4. France -------------- :eek: :eek: :eek: ... :suomut: ... Mais, ... COMME!??!
5. UK - :o so low down. :cry2
6. USA - see Oz.
7. Germany - Anglo-Saxon Germanic input in the Isles ftw.
8. The Netherlands - ditto.
9. Spain - wow. Higher than the Nordics! Celtic commonality, and Atlantic substrata.
10. Portugal - ditto.
11. Norway - surprisingly low.
12. Denmark
13. North Italians
14. Hungary
15. Sweden
16. Switzerland
17. Rumania
18. Poland
19. The Ukraine
20. Russia
21. Belarus
22. North Russian
23. Estonia
24. Lithuania
25. Italy
26. Greece

(Sorry. I started typed, and just couldn't stop myself till I got to the end. :p )

[Frederick]

:coffee: Interesting

http://th1092.photobucket.com/albums/i409/Tawhid_Rezai/th_smiley_viking.gif
1. Sweden
2. Denmark
3. Hungary
4. Norway
5. Finland
6. Germany <----- Homecountry on 6, I am "special" :D
7. Serbia
8. Switzerland
9. USA
10. Netherland
11. UK
12. Poland
13. Ukraine
14. French
14. Romania
15. Canada
16. Estonia
17. Portugal
18. North Russian
19. Russian
20. Spanish
21. Belarussian
22. North Italian
23. Irish
24. Australian
25. Lithuania
26. Italy
27. Greece

Tell Day Tripper my thanks!
And thank you too. :)

[Electronic God-Man]

I'm US2...I'd like to get this comparison done, too. :)

[Rochefaton]

Here is your chart, ForgetMeNot. I have put in requests for Imperivm and EGM, too.

[poiuytrewq0987]

Here is your chart, ForgetMeNot. I have put in requests for Imperivm and EGM, too.

According to the graph

1. Romania
2. Serbia
3. Hungary
4. Greece
5. Italy
6. Switzerland
7. Portugal
8. Poland
9. North Italy
10. Ukraine

The results actually kind of correspond to what I have found on 23andme's relative finder.

[Sikeliot]

9. Spain - wow. Higher than the Nordics! Celtic commonality, and Atlantic substrata.
10. Portugal - ditto.



Awesome! :D :thumb001:

[Olavsson]

My chart from Day_Tripper:

https://www.forumbiodiversity.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=89066&d=1308277523

[Loki]

And here's mine:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=11217&stc=1&d=1308177583

My closest:

1. Switzerland
2. Denmark
3. Norway
4. Sweden
5. US
6. UK
7. Netherlands
8. Germany

It should be noted that the Swiss average is based on only two samples, so not too much should be read into that.

[Pallantides]

Mine:

http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/1958/no2chart.jpg

My closest:

1. Norway
2. Denmark
3. United Kingdom
4. United States
5. Sweden
6. Germany
7. Netherlands
8. Ireland

[Electronic God-Man]

New results: Genetic Substructures Across Europe (http://bga101.blogspot.com/2011/07/genetic-substructures-across-europe.html)

SE Baltic - 10.55%
N. Euro - 29.6%
N. Atlantic - 41.82%
E + N Eurasian - 0%
SS African - 0%
S. Euro - 9.65%
W. Euro - 8.36%

[Kadu]

PT1:


Western European (peaks in the Pyrenees and Catalonia): 42.97%
Northern Europe (peaks in the shores of the North sea): 30.47%
Southern Europe (peaks in Calabria and Greece): 25.03%
SSA: 1.52%
East/North Eurasian: 0.38%
North Atlantic ( peaks in the western shores of Britain and in Ireland): 0%
Southeast Baltic (peaks in Lithuania): 0%

[Barreldriver]

I got this:

Southeast Baltic: 3.5055%
Northern European: 33.4939%
North Atlantic European: 36.9695%
East/North Eurasian: 0%
Sub-Saharan African: 0%
Southern European: 9.8863%
Western European: 16.1428%

[poiuytrewq0987]

My results:

Southern European: 41.4%
Southeast Baltic: 26.6%
Northern European: 22.1%
Western European: 0.08%
Eurasian: 0.007%
North Atlantic: 0%
Sub-Saharan: 0%

I googled Southeast Baltic and I got this (http://www.peakbagger.com/range.aspx?rid=350). It seems like it stretches all the way from East Germany to Estonia.

[Imperivm]

South-East Baltic= 3.7%
North European= 58.7%
North Adlantic= 9.1%
South European= 0%
West European= 28.5%

This is really quite different to all of the other tests. It's due to the following-


" note that I'm now using selected samples from the 1000 Genomes, courtesy of the Magnus Ducatus Lituaniae Project."... " Let me also stress, once again, that even though some of the clusters here have the same names as clusters in previous analyses, they are not the same clusters. Due to different samples present in this run, they are based on somewhat different allele frequencies."

[Kadu]

South-East Baltic= 3.7%
North European= 58.7%
North Adlantic= 9.1%
South European= 0%
West European= 28.5%


Are you sure you the "W" in Wessex is not a typo?!:D J/K

[Imperivm]

Are you sure you the "W" in Wessex in not a typo?!:D J/K

And thank god I'm not from Essex. The working classes there rape the English language every time they speak. :mad:

[poiuytrewq0987]

My results:

Southern European: 41.4%I assume my predominant Southern European ancestry is from old Paleobalkan populations such as Hellenes, Illyrians and Thracians. Really nothing new as it is just more concrete proof that we are not foreign Slavic invaders of the Balkans.


Southeast Baltic: 26.6%I assume the 26% Baltic is from Slavic influence resulting from Serbian migration into the peninsula. It is a pretty good example of how large of an influence the Slavic Serbs had on indigenous Balkan peoples. They certainly contributed a lot but never completely replaced us.


Northern European: 22.1%I'm not sure where I'm getting this from but perhaps it could be considered a component of Slavic influence or even Gothic?


Western European: 0.08%This could be from one of my distant Celtic ancestors who migrated to the Balkans.


Eurasian: 0.007%I assume this is from one Turkish ancestor from way back. Obviously his influence was negligible.

[Amapola]

My results (lower North Atlantic than average, as far as I see)

Southern European: 33, 40
More or less average for a Spaniard. It peaks in Calabria and Greece, so I relate it with a Mediterranean and Iberian component.

Northen European: 33,27 (it peaks in the Northern Sea)
As usual, the highest amongst Spaniards except one who scores 50 per cent and I suppose he's mixed. I relate it with Germanic invasions like Goths, or perhaps some medieval settlers from the western parts of the Low countries?

Western European: 32,91 (it peaks in Catalonia and the Pyrnees)
Lower than the average Spaniard.

North Atlantic: 0,00 (it peaks in Britain and Ireland)
Quite under the average of a Spaniard.

[Kadu]

Northen European: 33,27 (it peaks in the Northern Sea)
As usual, the highest amongst Spaniards except one who scores 50 per cent and I suppose he's mixed. I relate it with Germanic invasions like Goths, or perhaps some medieval settlers from the western parts of the Low countries?


He's not mixed, he's a Galician from Ourense.

[Amapola]

He's not mixed, he's a Galician from Ourense.

He is a direct gothic descendant then! :D

[Loki]

Me:


54.51 Northern European
18.37 Southern European
9.73 Western European
7.09 Southeast Baltic
7.08 North Atlantic
2.12 Sub-Saharan African
1.11 East and/or North Eurasian

[Loki]

By the way, I see the French have a relatively high Northern European component, comparable to that of Germans (but German samples are far fewer). It would be interesting to see where in France those samples are from, mostly.

[Electronic God-Man]

SE Baltic - 10.55%
N. Euro - 29.6%
N. Atlantic - 41.82%
E + N Eurasian - 0%
SS African - 0%
S. Euro - 9.65%
W. Euro - 8.36%

Decided to make a chart:


http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=12038&d=1309892561

[Loki]

Me:


54.51 Northern European
18.37 Southern European
9.73 Western European
7.09 Southeast Baltic
7.08 North Atlantic
2.12 Sub-Saharan African
1.11 East and/or North Eurasian

Ok a chart to go along with it as well then.

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=12039&stc=1&d=1309893570

[Pallantides]

Southeast Baltic 13.39
Northern European - 16.7 (:confused::eek:)
North Atlantic - 69.0 (Watch out for the Picts!)
East and/or North Eurasian - 0.88
Sub Saharan African - 0
Southern European - 0
Western European - 0


Only NO7 have a lower Northern European and a higher North Atlantic score than me.

[Rochefaton]

Here are my new scores, US5:

SE Baltic - 1.8%
N European - 55.8%
N Atlantic - 26.0%
E a/o N EurAsi - 0%
SSA - 0%
S European - 2.5%
W European - 13.9%

I'm more Nordic than Pallantides?! LOL Right...

[d3cimat3d]

MD1:

SE Baltic: 26.5%

N European: 0.001%

N Atlantic: 26.3%

E a/o N EurAsi: 1.9%

SSA: 0.001%

S European: 45.2%

W European: 0.001%

[Grumpy Cat]

Southeast Baltic: 5.3902
Northern European: 23.4675
North Atlantic: 30.3407
East Eurasian: 0.001
Sub-Saharan African: 0.001
Southern European: 5.4037
Western European: 35.3959

[Beorn]

Where are you all getting this from? I know you send this off to Polako and Co, but where from there?

[Rochefaton]

Where are you all getting this from? I know you send this off to Polako and Co, but where from there?

He posts results at his blog.

http://bga101.blogspot.com/

[Beorn]

He posts results at his blog.

http://bga101.blogspot.com/

How long does it take from being assigned a reference number to 'the team' posting the results?

[Hussar]

FIRST PLOT :

46.9 % North-atlantic

6.1 % North-european

3 % east-european

43.3 % Mediterranean


SECOND PLOT (the last) :


41.7 % North-atlantic

14.7 % West-european

43.3 % south-european

[Rochefaton]

How long does it take from being assigned a reference number to 'the team' posting the results?

I'm sure the time varies, but from what I understand, he generally adds new participants before he does a new run. Right now he is on holiday and has stated that updates will be few and far between for awhile, though.

[Trog]

I'm UK39, how does this get done?

[Loki]

I'm UK39, how does this get done?

This is you from the spreadsheet:


59.09 Green (North Atlantic)
22.56 Pink (Western European)
16.66 Yellow (Northern European)
1.68 Red (Southeast Baltic)
0.00 Aqua (East and/or North Eurasian)
0.00 Light Blue (Sub-Saharan African)
0.00 Dark Blue (Southern European)

[Loki]

The Crow (UK40):


58.26 Green (North Atlantic)
27.10 Pink (Western European)
8.17 Yellow (Northern European)
6.46 Red (Southeast Baltic)
0.00 Aqua (East and/or North Eurasian)
0.00 Light Blue (Sub-Saharan African)
0.00 Dark Blue (Southern European)

[Odoacer]

This is the first run I've been in; I'm US239.

Southeast Baltic: 0.022854
Northern European: 0.320468
North Atlantic: 0.37594
East and/or North Eurasian: 0.00001
Sub-Saharan African: 0.00001
Southern European: 0.280708
Western European: 0.00001

[Frederick]

Havnt been here for some while.
But here are maps for the latest run.

Except for Subsaharan and North-East Asian. I am a little bit lazy right now and with the exception of some tiny numbers here and there, it will be zeros all over those maps anyways.

My own:

Northern European: 54% (German average is 29%)
South-East Baltic: 21% (my Silesian, East Prussian and Lithuanian anchestors all have a possibility to be a source for this) German average is 16%
Southern European: 11% (German average: 11%)
Western European: 10% (German average is 12%)
North Atlantic: 3% (German average is 33%, wich is the German main anchestry)

I really wonder how Northern European and North Atlantic spread INSIDE of Germany. Are my Westphalian anchestors possibly responsable for the extreme over average Northern European? Westphalia is the Westpart of the old Saxon realm. ("Eastphalia" was the East part and "Engern" the center)

But then again is that North-Atlantic increadable low. Hm.

HOwever.... here are the maps:

[Trog]

How can you calculate how near or far you are from other populations? How are people able to do that?

[Odoacer]

How can you calculate how near or far you are from other populations? How are people able to do that?

Well, you first have to calculate the averages for the different populations. Fortunately, Frederick has done that work for us with his maps above. :wink

Scottish Averages vs. Trog (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=459432&postcount=581)
North Atlantic: 48% | 59%
Northern European: 30% | 17%
Western European: 17% | 23%
Southeast Baltic: 4% | 2%
Southern European: 0% | 0%

[Trog]

That's useful, seems I'm higher on the North Atlantic and western European side, but lower on northern European and SE Baltic. My results are more reflective of the Irish averages, but I'm still somewhat higher in terms of being more western European. Hmm, can north Atlantic also be called "Celtic"? If so, what does that make western European?

[Rochefaton]

That's useful, seems I'm higher on the North Atlantic and western European side, but lower on northern European and SE Baltic. My results are more reflective of the Irish averages, but I'm still somewhat higher in terms of being more western European. Hmm, can north Atlantic also be called "Celtic"? If so, what does that make western European?

Western European peaks in the Pyrenees, so maybe some type of pre-IE component?

[Trog]

Yeah, Polako seems to consider it as north west Iberian/South west French, so maybe an ancient link to the Basques, which would explain my rhesus negative blood type too.

[Pallantides]

NO2(me)/NO7/Scottish average - North Atlantic

69.0%/76.21%/48%


NO2(me)/NO7/Scottish average - North European

16.7%/ 1.8%/30%


I'm more North Atlantic than the Scottish average and less North European...

[poiuytrewq0987]

NO2(me)/NO7/Scottish average - North Atlantic

69.0%/76.21%/48%


NO2(me)/NO7/Scottish average - North European

16.7%/ 1.8%/30%


I'm more North Atlantic than the Scottish average and less North European...

Oh hmm... it seems I have more Nordic ancestry than you do. :D

Northern European:
RS1(me) 22.1%
RS2(another Serb) 39.8%

[Agrippa]

The distribution of Northern European vs. North Atlantic in some people makes little sense, even in some from the same population.

I just wonder how the program keeps such obviously very closely related components apart in detail...

[poiuytrewq0987]

Ok a chart to go along with it as well then.

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=12039&stc=1&d=1309893570

One for me too! :D

http://i415.photobucket.com/albums/pp231/innocent456/pie_21FE9654.png

[poiuytrewq0987]

The distribution of Northern European vs. North Atlantic in some people makes little sense, even in some from the same population.

I just wonder how the program keeps such obviously very closely related components apart in detail...

Well, it wasn't uncommon for Vikings to take British Isles wives during the Viking Age. So maybe they did take a lot of British wives that replaced a lot of original Norwegians?

[Frederick]

Hm. Hmmm.

Lets not forget the F-Distances between the components.
North-European and North Atlantic are VERY closely "related".

Distance between North-Europe and North Atlantic: 0.015
Thats the smallest distance between any 2 of these components.

The second closest pair is North-Europe and South East Baltic, with a distance of 0.024 to each others.

The next pairing is North Atlantic and South-East baltic with 0.025 distance.

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/45/eu7bfst.png

Looking at the British isles alone, its really suggestive of

North Atlantic = Island Celts
North-European = Germanic peoples

But outside of the British Isles this crashes into some strange things:

It makes Germany apear more Celtic than Germanic. This IS imaginable, after all what is now Germany, had only the northern most 1/3 with Germanic tribes and the southern 2/3 Celts. And who knows how much Celts have been Germanized in the Germanic-Celtic wars, 3th-2th century BC.
The southern most third of the country was even not Germanic settled before AD times.

But Norway.... a country, also believed to be Germanic and NEVER, even in parts, to be Celtic, has more North Atlantic than Northern European.

Also looking at France in this run. Much more "Northern European" than "North Atlantic". The run before this run, Ireland centered "North Atlantic" had even be the leading component in France. But from run to run, the algorythm assignes the same alleles to different clusters.

All this makes the above mentioned connection of the components to antique people questionable. It seems, its not that easy.

EDIT:

I also realised that a lot of people have EITHER huge amounts of NOrthern European with almost no North-Atlantic or the other way around.

Thats also the case with the Germans.
There are 13 Germans. 3 of those have "Northern European" at Scandinavian levels (one of those is me). And ALL of them have almost zero North-Atlantic in return.

[Turkophagos]

Southeast Baltic: 0.106729

Northern European: 0.00001

North Atlantic: 0.122683

East and North Eurasian: 0.00001

Sub-Saharan African: 0.00001

Southern European: 0.770548

Western European: 0.00001



No nig, no chink, no cracker, no paella nig. Life is so beautiful!

[poiuytrewq0987]

Southeast Baltic: 0.106729http://www.rastko.rs/arheologija/tstefanovicova-greece_e.html


North Atlantic: 0.122683http://www.lwcag.org/european-peoples/the-celtic-invasion-of-greece.html


Southern European: 0.770548http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greeks

[Pallantides]

Well, it wasn't uncommon for Vikings to take British Isles wives during the Viking Age. So maybe they did take a lot of British wives that replaced a lot of original Norwegians?

nah...It wouldn't make any sense in my case, I'm a ür-Scandinavian after all;)

http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showpost.php?p=369546&postcount=3997

[Frederick]

The 3 Germans wich have Northern European at Scandinavian (or Dutch) levels and the background I know of them:

Me: (54%)
1 Grandmother born the borderegion Germany/Netherland <----North European from here?
2 Grandparents born in Silesia
1 Grandparent born in East Prussia

German No7: (63%)
2 Grandparents from the German Baltic coast. <----Northern European from here?
1 Grandparent from Baden Würthemberg
1 Grandparent Hessia/Switzerland mix

German No 14: (73%)
Unknown to me

No other surpasses 31%.

[Agrippa]

I also realised that a lot of people have EITHER huge amounts of NOrthern European with almost no North-Atlantic or the other way around.

Thats also the case with the Germans.
There are 13 Germans. 3 of those have "Northern European" at Scandinavian levels (one of those is me). And ALL of them have almost zero North-Atlantic in return.

That's what make me wonder too, it is true for some Germans and Dutch in particular and it makes no sense at all.

There are some which have ZERO of the other component, even though being part of that population and showing no other deviations. Therefore it must be something about the method, rather than real ancestral components alone - after all this method has limited capabilities for detecting real ancestry anyway, even though it is surely useful in this respect as well.

Something similar can be observed in some people with Southern and Western European btw.

North Euro and North Atlantic is also practicaly equidistant to Southern and Western European, unlike the Baltic component.

Again, it is suggestive of Northern Europeans having a huge South Eastern European-West Asian component OF AGE in the genpool, actually the distance of Western European vs. Southern European makes that clear.

But for the distance between Northern European vs. North Atlantic, I'm not sure about how real this is at all, though the main difference I see is that Northern Euro is even closer, even if just somewhat, to both Southern and Western European and Baltic, so closer to those elements which most likely colonised the area from 3 direction, before the regional population was formed.

So if at all, North Atlantic is the even older colonisation event, if one wants to use imagination and overstretch things somewhat. This would coincide with the "more Nordoid Sweden vs. the more old Atlantic Norway" in comparison.

The oldest European components being Western European (~Basque-Sardinian ~ Mediterranean in Dodecad 12) and Baltic (~Eastern European in Dodecad 12). The rest is much more late Mesolithic-Neolithic-Metal Age-recent influenced and closer related to each other, uniting different influences, including those older European ones.

[Frederick]

Therefore it must be something about the method, rather than real ancestral components alone

This method doesnt detect any "real" anchestral components, I am sure.

Its told: look at these people. ASSUME they all made of 7 archetypes. Tell me those archetypes and how much of each, everyone is.

I am absolutely sure, the archetypes it finds, are modern, not ancient and not neolithic.

And those archetypes can be mixed too.

An AMERICAN (US234) reflects the "Northern European Archetype" by 97%
That a problem already. An American is THE "Northern European" Archetype....
REALLY? ;)

From all countries, the Swedes match, by average, that "ideal Northern European" best (51% by average). But the best matching Swede starts at 83% match only.

And besides taking an American as the model for "Northern European", its also MODERN Northern European. Not the Northern European of 2000 years ago.

To do something like this, we would need the aDNA of people who lived back then and make THEM anchors for the clusters.

But even thorugh all the problems... I still trust more into DNA technology than into phenotyping.

Phenotyping bases on maybe 0.1% of the DNA/anchestry of a man. If at all.

[Pallantides]

http://i911.photobucket.com/albums/ac316/Pallantides/graph.png

[Frederick]

I would like to know how people look like, who get those 97%+ matches for the aDNA archetypes.

[Frederick]

@Agrippa

Havnt you tested your DNA already? Or too much fear that it could claim you an Arab? ;)

[Agrippa]

@Agrippa

Havnt you tested your DNA already? Or too much fear that it could claim you an Arab? ;)

Whether I've done it or not, I think such things are a privacy issue. You have to decide for yourself which data you give to other people.

[Trog]

There's a dark influence running through my family and it's been speculated as being many things. Even I personally disclosed to someone that I secretly suspected some East Asian lurking in the wood pile based on our traits. When all along it's simply been evidence of what the most ancient British population looked like.

[Trog]

The distribution of Northern European vs. North Atlantic in some people makes little sense, even in some from the same population.

I just wonder how the program keeps such obviously very closely related components apart in detail...

I think it makes sense to have a distinction between, say Irish and populations like Swedes. Indeed, it seems obvious to expect differences between both populations.

[Frederick]

Whether I've done it or not, I think such things are a privacy issue. You have to decide for yourself which data you give to other people.

Well, you seem to have one typical German trait running your venes: German Angst.

Germans are the most fearfull people on the planet.:D

Problem is, they try to kill whatever makes them afraid.

[Agrippa]

But even thorugh all the problems... I still trust more into DNA technology than into phenotyping.

Phenotyping bases on maybe 0.1% of the DNA/anchestry of a man. If at all.

Obviously the goal is unite these two approaches and one thing is for sure, in real life, the phenotype and the genetic factors behind it are crucial, not neutral genetic variation, which is interesting for geneaology and certain scientific questions, but not the real people.

I mean if you have genes which make you look alike in a group, more attractive, make you physically superiour or more intelligent and the like, this matters most.

And the genotype issue is also insofar problematic, as there were selection and chance involved in forming phenotypes - but selection being based on traits of phenotypical relevance, not variation by chance.

Anyway, we are coming closer and closer to bringing the genotype-phenotype issue to an end - once more and more genetic variants of phenotypical importance being detected.

[Frederick]

in real life, the phenotype and the genetic factors behind it are crucial

Uttery nonsense.
If this ancient nonsense is really what people here believe, this is no place for ME.

good bye :P

[Pallantides]

Whether I've done it or not, I think such things are a privacy issue. You have to decide for yourself which data you give to other people.

Now you sound like some of the Saami on 23andMe:p


I had a Saami relative stop sharing with me because I revealed only his ancestry painting on a forum. Guess I shouldn't expect others to be as open as me with my results.(these days I ask premission before posting others ancestry information)



Uttery nonsense.
If this ancient nonsense is really what people here believe, this is no place for ME.

good bye :P

There is room for more than one opinion here.

[Loki]

These genetic analyses challenge accepted stereotypes and beliefs. But genes don't lie. I think Polako has done an excellent job. What our genes reveal is definitely more accurate than our (lacking and incomplete) knowledge of history and people movements, and should help us to understand it more and fill in the gaps we are missing.

I don't find these results surprising at all.


Hm. Hmmm.

Lets not forget the F-Distances between the components.
North-European and North Atlantic are VERY closely "related".


"Northern European" and "North Atlantic" are undoubtedly closely related, but it's good work from Polako to separate them in order for us to understand more about, in this case, ancient Germanic settlements and in the genetic impact of the volkerwanderung.



Looking at the British isles alone, its really suggestive of

North Atlantic = Island Celts
North-European = Germanic peoples

But outside of the British Isles this crashes into some strange things:

It makes Germany apear more Celtic than Germanic. This IS imaginable, after all what is now Germany, had only the northern most 1/3 with Germanic tribes and the southern 2/3 Celts. And who knows how much Celts have been Germanized in the Germanic-Celtic wars, 3th-2th century BC.
The southern most third of the country was even not Germanic settled before AD times.


About Norway - do some of these high North Atlantic percentages not in a way explain the stereotype-challenging images Pallantides have been posting for so long? Not all Norwegians are tall blond Nordids.



Also looking at France in this run. Much more "Northern European" than "North Atlantic". The run before this run, Ireland centered "North Atlantic" had even be the leading component in France. But from run to run, the algorythm assignes the same alleles to different clusters.


I have always said France's Germanic influence has been downplayed. France has had loads of Germanic tribes settle there - it even got its name from one! Franks, Goths, Burgundians, Normans, and more. We shouldn't be surprised at all. The Frankish Empire was the strongest Germanic kingdom in Europe and dominated Europe for a long time.

As for some Americans showing very high NE - again, it shouldn't be a surprise. America had high numbers of immigration from all over Northern Europe, especially in the northern parts of the US, which is - in parts - almost exclusively Norwegian-German. If successive generations then pair with others who are similar, it yields this result.

By the way, isn't Diogenes Artemis even using White Utahns as the sample population for Europeans?

[Aino]

I had a Saami relative stop sharing with me because I revealed only his ancestry painting on a forum. Guess I shouldn't expect others to be as open as me with my results.(these days I ask premission before posting others ancestry information)


I would do the same thing. That is, stop sharing with anyone who posted my info without permission. And I have done that.

[d3cimat3d]

My results are strange, for example my North Atlantic score is 26.3% but my ancestry is around the European part of Black Sea. :confused: How can a easterner get such high North Atlantic?

If I had "26% North European" it would make more sense due to Varangians and what not, but I have 0%. Anyways I'm not criticizing it but it probably reflects some very ancient pre-Neolithic migrations or something.

[poiuytrewq0987]

My results are strange, for example my North Atlantic score is 26.3% but my ancestry is around the European part of Black Sea. :confused: How can a easterner get such high North Atlantic?

If I had "26% North European" it would make more sense due to Varangians and what not, but I have 0%. Anyways I'm not criticizing it but it probably reflects some very ancient pre-Neolithic migrations or something.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/Celts_in_Europe.png

Maybe you're related to those Celts in Ukraine? :D

[d3cimat3d]

[IMG]
Maybe you're related to those Celts in Ukraine? :D

http://cadair.aber.ac.uk/dspace/bitstream/handle/2160/282/FalileyevMap.pdf;jsessionid=2A8A41C32C185B74151B3F D21D2CA19D?sequence=12

^Looking at this Celtic place names map, it seems possible.

..But if I was really was Celtish I would have to have some "western European" to go along with the Atlantic, but I don't... I think it would all make perfect sense if my Atlantic was swapped for North European instead.. but my North Eurasian and South European scores were dead on, so I can't complain.

Anyways, I declare myself semi-Celtic from now on...

http://i51.tinypic.com/10po75d.jpg

[Pallantides]

I would do the same thing. That is, stop sharing with anyone who posted my info without permission. And I have done that.

So you'd stop sharing with someone who said 'I have Finnish 5th cousin, their ancestry painting is 99%, 1% Asian'?


Some people have posted some of my 23andMe information in public without asking me first or putting my results up on various spreadsheets, If something happened to be to private(wich quite frankly is very little for me, when it come to my ancestry as I have nothing to hide) I'd ask them politly to remove it but I'll not act like an ass over it and I'll continue sharing with them as they will probably remember to ask next time.



The info I posted was hardly very revaling (Saami 5th cousin, ancestry precentages)

[Frederick]

There is room for more than one opinion here.

Well, thats a "German" trait in me. I am the owner of the ultimative truth. :wink

[Frederick]

I appretice what Polako does.

But lets say, for matching language groups, we had better runs than this one.
On the other hand, it was Intra-Northern European. And it used random SNP instead of selected ones.

It reproduced Romance, Germanic and Balto-Slavic language groups almost perfect, I was amazed.

It looked like this:
(I used a different style to make the maps back then. But it was like this, that all language groups shared one "leading cluster".
The try to make this stabile and repeatable, by the use of dummies for the components, led to the components strongly bleed out into the surounding terretories (the component that apeared to be the lead component in Germanic speaking countries, doubled, sometimes trippled in the far way regions)

Wlel, it looked like this:

[Hussar]

My results are strange, for example my North Atlantic score is 26.3% but my ancestry is around the European part of Black Sea. :confused: How can a easterner get such high North Atlantic?


I had the same curiousity once i had seen my results. My north-atlantic component is almost 42% ; ok, i'm from a western sector of European continent and i can't compare my case with yours, but still i'm quite distant from the (supposed) cradle of N-A in the british isles.
Looks like this "north-atlantic" is the revelation of this plot. But it's obvious we will see a long serie of progresses and little revolutions of intepretation.

Anyway.....for the moment, seems that the "celts" have travelled through Europe more than the bravest germanic horde ;)

[Pallantides]

Scandinavian Eurogenes participants EU7b scores, from highest to lowest.

Southeast Baltic:

SE9 - 32.37
SE12 - 26.18
SE16 - 22.94
SE4 - 19.34
SE7 - 18.83
NO7 - 18.12
SE11 - 16.53
SE2 - 16.33
SE5 - 15.83
NO6 - 15.48
SE1 - 15.47
SE14 - 14.06
NO8 - 13.45
NO2 - 13.39
NO10 - 13.08
SE10 - 13.06
SE13 - 12.73
SE6 - 12.05
NO5 - 11.76
DK4 - 11.16
SENO1 - 9.73
SE15 - 9.28
NO3 - 7.93
DK3 - 7.79
NO9 - 7.29
DK2 - 6.46
SENO2 - 6.45
SE8 - 5.25
NO4 - 5.01

Northern European:

SENO2 - 92.1
SE5 - 83.15
DK2 - 81.95
SE4 - 80.49
SE8 - 75.99
SE10 - 71.97
SENO1 - 71.92
SE1 - 64.38
NO3 - 62.28
NO10 - 61.86
SE14 - 58.59
SE6 - 56.63
NO4 - 56.55
SE11 - 56.55
NO8 - 52.52
NO6 - 49.24
DK3 - 44.53
SE7 - 44.44
SE9 - 41.84
NO9 - 41.39
SE15 - 37.34
SE16 - 34.17
SE13 - 32.43
NO5 - 27.13
NO2 - 16.7
SE12 - 15.13
DK4 - 6.56
SE2 - 5.49
NO7 - 1.18

North Atlantic:


NO7 - 76.21
SE2 - 73.71
DK4 - 70.1
NO2 - 69.0
NO5 - 56.53
SE12 - 56.25
SE13 - 51.49
NO9 - 45.15
SE15 - 41.69
NO4 - 37.22
SE16 - 34.83
NO8 - 33.1
NO6 - 32.66
NO3 - 28.93
SE6 - 27.24
DK3 - 26.68
SE7 - 26.32
SE9 - 24.99
NO10 - 24.91
SE14 - 22.76
SE11 - 18.85
SE8 - 18.45
SENO1 - 17.8
SE1 - 14.88
SE10 - 14.75
DK2 - 4.51
SENO2 - 0.0
SE4 - 0.0
SE5 - 0.0

East and/or North Eurasian:

SE16 - 4.22
SE7 - 2.81
SE2 - 1.68
NO7 - 1.63
SE12 - 1.27
SE5 - 1.0
NO4 - 0.98
NO6 - 0.94
NO8 - 0.91
NO2 - 0.88
NO3 - 0.83
SE9 - 0.78
SENO2 - 0.66
NO5 - 0.59
SENO1 - 0.53
SE8 - 0.30
SE10 - 0.19
SE4 - 0.15
SE13 - 0.13
NO10 - 0.13
DK3 - 0.03
NO9 - 0.01
DK2 - 0.0
DK4 - 0.0
SE1 - 0.0
SE6 - 0.0
SE11 - 0.0
SE14 - 0.0
SE15 - 0.0

Sub-Saharan African:

All zero

Southern European:

DK4 - 12.16
SE1 - 5.25
SE6 - 4.06
SE12 - 3.19
SE2 - 2.77
SE15 - 1.21
NO6 - 1.0
NO4 - 0.21
DK2 - 0.2
SE16 - 0.15
DK3 - 0.0
NO2 - 0.0
NO3 - 0.0
NO5 - 0.0
NO7 - 0.0
NO8 - 0.0
NO9 - 0.0
NO10 - 0.0
SENO1 - 0.0
SENO2 - 0.0
SE4 - 0.0
SE5 - 0.0
SE7 - 0.0
SE8 - 0.0
SE9 - 0.0
SE10 - 0.0
SE11 - 0.0
SE12 - 0.0
SE14 - 0.0

Western European:

DK3 - 20.62
SE15 - 10.45
SE11 - 8.05
SE7 - 7.57
DK2 - 6.86
NO9 - 6.13
SE14 - 4.56
NO5 - 3.86
SE16 - 3.66
NO7 - 2.83
SE12 - 1.14
SENO2 - 0.77
NO6 - 0.65
DK4 - 0.0
NO2 - 0.0
NO3 - 0.0
NO4 - 0.0
NO8 - 0.0
NO10 - 0.0
SENO1 - 0.0
SE1 - 0.0
SE2 - 0.0
SE4 - 0.0
SE5 - 0.0
SE6 - 0.0
SE8 - 0.0
SE9 - 0.0
SE10 - 0.0
SE13 - 0.0

[Frederick]

Interesting idea ;)

Germans, Austrians and Swiss
I add German/Polish mixes for comparation, because of my 2/3 "Eastern Terretories" anchestry.

Southeast Baltic:

DEPL2 - 34%
DEPL1 - 32%
DE1 - 24%(Thuringia, Saxony, Silesia)
DE5 - 23% (100% eastern terretories, now Poland)
DE8 - 21% (25% Westphalia, 50% Silesia, 25% East Prussia)
DE11 - 20% (50% Rhineland Palatinate, 50% Eastern Terretories)
DE16 - 20%
DE15 - 15%
DE12 - 15%
DE9 - 14%
DE10 - 13% (Bavaria, Hessia, Alsace (now France) )
DE17 - 12%
DE13 - 11%
DE7 - 10% (50% German baltic coast, 25% Baden Würthemberg, 12,5% Hessian, 12,5% Swiss)
AT1 - 8%
CH1 - 7%
DE14 - 6%
CH3 - 2%

Northern European

DE14 - 73%
DE7 - 63% (50% German baltic coast, 25% Baden Würthemberg, 12,5% Hessian, 12,5% Swiss)
DE8 -54% (25% Westphalia, 50% Silesia, 25% East Prussia)
CH3 - 38%
CH1 - 36%
AT1 - 33%
DE5 - 31% (100% eastern terretories, now Poland)
DE10 - 27% (Bavaria, Hessia, Alsace (now France)
DE17 - 27%
DE12 - 23%
DE11 - 21% (50% Rhineland Palatinate, 50% Eastern Terretories)
DEPL2 - 19%
DE13 - 16%
DE9 - 16%
DE16 - 14%
DE1 - 8% (Thuringia, Saxony, Silesia)
DE15 - 2%
DEPL1 - 0%

North Atlantic

DE15 - 56%
DE13 - 56%
DE1 - 52% (Thuringia, Saxony, Silesia)
DE9 - 49%
DE17 - 44%
DEPL1 - 40%
DE16 - 37%
DE12 - 35%
DE11 - 30% (50% Rhineland Palatinate, 50% Eastern Terretories)
DE5 - 30% (100% eastern terretories, now Poland)
DE10 - 30% (Bavaria, Hessia, Alsace (now France)
AT1 - 28%
CH1 - 24%
DEPL2 - 24%
DE8 - 3% (25% Westphalia, 50% Silesia, 25% East Prussia)
DE7 - 2% (50% German baltic coast, 25% Baden Würthemberg, 12,5% Hessian, 12,5% Swiss)
CH3 - 1%
DE14 - 0%

African and Asian all zero

Southern European

CH3 - 39%
DE12 - 26%
CH1 - 18%
DE11 - 17% (50% Rhineland Palatinate, 50% Eastern Terretories)
AT1 - 17%
DE14 - 16%
DE1 - 15% (Thuringia, Saxony, Silesia)
DE16 - 14%
DE10 - 14% (Bavaria, Hessia, Alsace (now France)
DE7 - 12% (50% German baltic coast, 25% Baden Würthemberg, 12,5% Hessian, 12,5% Swiss)
DEPL2 - 11%
DE8 - 11% (25% Westphalia, 50% Silesia, 25% East Prussia)
DE13 - 8%
DE5 - 8% (100% eastern terretories, now Poland)
DE9 -1%
DE15 - 0%
DE17 - 0%

Western European:

DE15 - 27%
DEPL1 - 25%
DE9 - 21%
CH3 - 20%
DE17 - 17%
DE10 - 17% (Bavaria, Hessia, Alsace (now France)
DE16 - 16%
CH1 - 15%
AT1 - 14%
DE7 - 13% (50% German baltic coast, 25% Baden Würthemberg, 12,5% Hessian, 12,5% Swiss)
DE11 - 12% (50% Rhineland Palatinate, 50% Eastern Terretories)
DE8 - 10% (25% Westphalia, 50% Silesia, 25% East Prussia)
DEPL2 - 12%
DE13 - 9%
DE5 - 8% (100% eastern terretories, now Poland)
DE14 - 5%
DE12 -0%
DE1 - 0% (Thuringia, Saxony, Silesia)

[Graham]

Don't know how this compares to the averages. Anyway there's my scores.


01.61% South East Baltic
40.65% Norn European
46.42% Norn Atlantic
00.00% Eas/Norn Euroasian
00.00% Sub Saharan Africa
03.89% South European
07.43% Western European

[Frederick]

Don't know how this compares to the averages. Anyway there's my scores.


01.61% South East Baltic
40.65% Norn European
46.42% Norn Atlantic
00.00% Eas/Norn Euroasian
00.00% Sub Saharan Africa
03.89% South European
07.43% Western European

I did maps of the averages:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=459481&postcount=584

I compare it for you:

01.61% (Scottish Average: 4%) South East Baltic (Lithuania centered)
40.65% (Scottish Average: 30%) Norn European (Sweden centered)
46.42% (Scottish Average: 48%) Norn Atlantic (Ireland centered)
00.00% Eas/Norn Euroasian
00.00% Sub Saharan Africa
03.89% (Scottish Average: 0%) South European (Greece centered)
07.43% (Scottish Average: 17%) Western European (Spain centered)

[Pallantides]

Seems You to are also more Northern European than me and less North Atlantic.


Graham/Pallantides/Scottish average - North Atlantic

46.42%/69.0%/48%


Graham/Pallantides/Scottish average - North European

40.65%/16.7%/30%

[Agrippa]

I like graphical depictions, so I made some to support my claims made already, namely that Northern European-North Atlantic and Western European-Southern European are split in a strange way individually, without a meaningful pattern, just compare for the Contintental Germanics (Dutch, German, Austrian, Swiss), Northern Europeans (DK, SE, NO, FI) and the Italian sample:


http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=12147&stc=1&d=1310165595
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=12148&stc=1&d=1310165600
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=12149&stc=1&d=1310165600

At least in this Central parts of Europe (but pretty much the rest too), from North to South, the components Northern-North Atlantic and Western-Southern are practically indistinguishable, if you sum them up to "Northern vs. Southern", the distribution makes sense, there is a logical pattern, otherwise not, if looking at individuals in which only one of the related components being counted at all!

If you sum them up, there is a logical and pretty much natural, biologically meaningful pattern, especially if comparing Northern Europe - Contintental Germanics - Italians in a row.

The only other important and as it seems independent 3rd component is Southern Baltic, as a clear indicator of Eastern-North Eastern ancestry - probably even "old Mesolithic" (?) ancestry.

How the related to identical components (Northern+North Atlantic vs. Western+Southern) being split individually is a methodological problem obviously and one might question whether it makes sense at all, if looking at the patterns.

Now I add the Spaniards and French - again, North vs. South makes sense, the split of the related components IN MOST individuals not:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=12153&stc=1&d=1310167085

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=12154&stc=1&d=1310167108

I'm pretty sure the reason for this pattern for Western vs. Southern is that there were Basques or genetically closely related people included in the sample!

It is pretty obvious if looking at the French and Spaniards - most split up, in many ways, but some are just "Western European" and that Basque component is not easily to transmit into something meaningful for the rest of Europe.

[Frederick]

Its what Polako already said.

Especially the North-West is genetically extremly homogenious, wich makes it hard to find a meaningfull split.

But he still tries.

But I am still sure in the end it will be much better than measuring shapes of noses and theeth. ;)

[Osweo]

nah...It wouldn't make any sense in my case, I'm a ür-Scandinavian after all;)

:p I've perhaps asked before, but is/are the home territory/ies of your ancestors in a particularly remote or inaccessible valley?

[Pallantides]

:p I've perhaps asked before, but is/are the home territory/ies of your ancestors in a particularly remote or inaccessible valley?


I have put down my ancestry here:
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&source=embed&oe=UTF8&msa=0&msid=206229773377001645297.0004a2eabba7a0f4c6d96

Norwegian, with ancestry from Oppland, Buskerud, Akershus, Hedmark, Sogn og Fjordane, Trøndelag, Nordland, Västra Götaland(Sweden) and 17th century Savonia(Finland)


*There have been a lot of migration within Norway over the years but the core area of my ancestry lies in Oppland... I guess it wasn't inaccessible enough.:)

[Frederick]

On the other hand....

Repeatedly we had a mysterious connection between Ireland and Norway now.
Also Dienekes "Western European" has a double center Ireland/Norway.

When I checked where exactly in Norway it centeres (not in this run but one of the INtra North ones), then Scandinavian North-Atlantic centered at the most western Coast of Norway and dropped like a stone at the border to Sweden.

While in Ireland it centered at the Western coast too.

If one digs one of those Anthrophology cave monkeys maps about "phenotypes" out of the shit, the "North Atlantic" of that (not this) run kind of correlated with the Trönder terretory or Ireland and Norway.

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=12159&stc=1&d=1310167393

[Agrippa]

I edited my post above, I'm now pretty sure that the Western-Southern dichotomy is the result of Basques being included in this run and that the program had a problem to attribute that category to the rest, if looking through the samples, it is pretty obvious in my opinion.

Or has anybody else a better idea?

The Northern vs. North Atlantic split will be based on something similar one might call a distortion.

There is no meaningful explanation for the pattern.


On the other hand....

Repeatedly we had a mysterious connection between Ireland and Norway now.
Also Dienekes "Western European" has a double center Ireland/Norway.

When I checked where exactly in Norway it centeres (not in this run but one of the INtra North ones), then Scandinavian North-Atlantic centered at the most western Coast of Norway and dropped like a stone at the border to Sweden.

While in Ireland it centered at the Western coast too.

If one digs one of those Anthrophology cave monkeys maps about "phenotypes" out of the shit, the "North Atlantic" of that (not this) run kind of correlated with the Trönder terretory or Ireland and Norway.


Some of the Finns have a pred. "North Atlantic" component in their "Northern components" make up too, in Norway itself it is RANDOM!

You just try to make sense out of it, like some others did, when there is non, at least not on an individual basis, at least not for the populations/individuals I made the graphs of.

I made a graph of some British individuals, note the random pattern in the related components:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=12161&stc=1&d=1310168563

[Frederick]

There is no meaningful explanation for the pattern.

Except for Britain on the averages basis.

In the British Isles the "Northern European" is clearly higher in the "Germanic settled" terretory.

While "North Atlantic" is clearly higher in the Celtic dominated ones.

So, there IS a meaning full pattern. If not on individual base, but on average base.

[Frederick]

"Some of the Finns have a pred. "North Atlantic" component in their "Northern components" make up too, in Norway itself it is RANDOM!"

I didnt mean THIS RUN man!

I meant one of the older runs.

You make me fuckign anrgy with your false believe in your strange fashist religion!

[Frederick]

War and dead for them anthrophologists!
Kill them all and take their women as whores!

[Pallantides]

You make me fuckign anrgy with your false believe in your strange fashist religion!


War and dead for them anthrophologists!
Kill them all and take their women as whores!


:confused::blink:

[Frederick]

I was fucking talking about 200k random SNP Intra northern European run.
In that motherfucking damn run, wich was one of the nicest I ever fucking saw!!

*Beats down on the fucking table*

There was a smooth decline of "NOrth Atlantic" inside of Scandinavia from the Coast to the center.

[Agrippa]

I was fucking talking about 200k random SNP Intra northern European run.
In that motherfucking damn run, wich was one of the nicest I ever fucking saw!!

*Beats down on the fucking table*

There was a smooth decline of "NOrth Atlantic" inside of Scandinavia from the Coast to the center.

I'm obviously talking about the current run, so what's the fuzz about?

Polako himself noticed rightly that he kept some designations, but because of the new runs frame it is not really the same component any more.

I'm not saying that you can't distinguish Irish from Swedish and so on, I'm just saying that the related components of this run (Northern+North Atlantic vs. Western+Southern) make no sense for the vast majority of individuals and are often randomly distributed.

Not every component of an admixture run is supposed to make sense or "showing something real", especially not on an individual level...


"Some of the Finns have a pred. "North Atlantic" component in their "Northern components" make up too, in Norway itself it is RANDOM!"

I didnt mean THIS RUN man!

I meant one of the older runs.

You make me fuckign anrgy with your false believe in your strange fashist religion!


War and dead for them anthrophologists!
Kill them all and take their women as whores!

As an answer to what I actually said, that sounds pretty much psychotic. Did you forget to take some pills tonight or have you taken too many? :coffee:

[Pallantides]

I was fucking talking about 200k random SNP Intra northern European run.
In that motherfucking damn run, wich was one of the nicest I ever fucking saw!!

*Beats down on the fucking table*

There was a smooth decline of "NOrth Atlantic" inside of Scandinavia from the Coast to the center.

You mean this one:
https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ato3EYTdM8lQdERGMzBXTk4wem81bWZhSDJIUWpyQ kE&hl=en_US&authkey=CL3V9_sL#gid=0

My North Sea was 42.17 and North Atlantic was 40.62.
A fairly even split.

[Frederick]

As an answer to what I actually said, that sounds pretty much psychotic. Did you forget to take some pills tonight or have you taken too many? :coffee:

Berserks dont need pills to become enraged.

[Agrippa]

Berserks dont need pills to become enraged.

But probably to calm down :D

[Curtis24]

On the other hand....

Repeatedly we had a mysterious connection between Ireland and Norway now.
Also Dienekes "Western European" has a double center Ireland/Norway.

When I checked where exactly in Norway it centeres (not in this run but one of the INtra North ones), then Scandinavian North-Atlantic centered at the most western Coast of Norway and dropped like a stone at the border to Sweden.

While in Ireland it centered at the Western coast too.

If one digs one of those Anthrophology cave monkeys maps about "phenotypes" out of the shit, the "North Atlantic" of that (not this) run kind of correlated with the Trönder terretory or Ireland and Norway.

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=12159&stc=1&d=1310167393

Off-topic, but Coon's racial map is incredibly hard to read. Seriously, why couldn't he have made it color-coded or something?

[Ibericus]

According to that map, North-Africans are predominantly Atlanto-Med.

[Pallantides]

That map isn't accurate, there have been migrations between western and eastern Norway for centuries so there would definitely be a more fluid overlap.
All phenotypes of Norway can be found pretty much in every region, at a higher or lower frequency.

[Sikeliot]

According to that map, North-Africans are predominantly Atlanto-Med.


And not only that but it has Spaniards and Portuguese as just "Mediterranean" but North Africans as Atlanto-Meds. :eek::rolleyes:

[Ibericus]

And not only that but it has Spaniards and Portuguese as just "Mediterranean" but North Africans as Atlanto-Meds. :eek::rolleyes:
Which is what Egyptians and Arabians show also. Hard to think some still believe in this shit.

[Sikeliot]

And it has Greece as Alpinized Atlanto-Meds.

[Frederick]

Here is another of those maps, this time by a German Anthropologican of the 1930:
(Note, how on GERMAN maps, the Germans claim themself "Nordic", at least in Northern Germany. While English anthropolgicans claim them Borreby or Faelic. ;)

But identically to his English comrade, he claims North-Western Africa to be the same phenotype as southwestern Europe...

Didnt they travel around in those 1930?

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=12170&stc=1&d=1310174551

[poiuytrewq0987]

And it has Greece as Alpinized Atlanto-Meds.

Atlanto-Med type isn't exclusive to Atlantic countries. You can find Atlanto types all over Europe but it's more common in Western Europe.

[Rochefaton]

I have calculated the RMS distance between my results and the other populations and have produced a chart:

http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk159/R1bman/US5RMS.jpg

My closest 10 populations are:

England: 1.42
Denmark: 1.86
Netherlands: 1.88
Wales: 3.83
Scotland: 4.29
Austria: 4.76
Ireland: 4.83
Sweden: 4.89
Belgium: 5.29
France: 5.80

My most distant 10 populations are:

Greece: 28.16
S. Italy: 22.83
Lithuania: 22.53
Belarus: 22.28
N. Russia: 20.07
Ukraine: 18.84
Russia: 18.76
Serbia: 17.77
Estonia: 16.71
Poland: 16.60

I have developed a spreadsheet calculator using Open Office that will calculate the RMS distance for other Eurogenes members for this particular run, but I need to check it's accuracy before uploading it. My results look accurate but I would like to test a few others, just to be safe.

If you are interested in being a one of my guinea pigs, please send me a PM with your results from this latest run.

[Rochefaton]

Here is your chart, Loki:

http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk159/R1bman/LokiChart.jpg

Your closest 5 populations are:

Switzerland: 2.42
Netherlands: 3.98
Austria: 4.40
Hungary: 5.25
France: 6.14

Does that seem about right to you?

[Frederick]

xxx

[Rochefaton]

Here is your chart, Pallantides:

http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk159/R1bman/US5RMS.jpg

Your closest 5 are:

Norway:4.14
Scotland: 6.56
Ireland: 7.01
Wales: 7.98
Germany: 8.72

[Loki]

Here is your chart, Loki:

http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk159/R1bman/LokiChart.jpg

Your closest 5 populations are:

Switzerland: 2.42
Netherlands: 3.98
Austria: 4.40
Hungary: 5.25
France: 6.14

Does that seem about right to you?

Absolutely :thumb001: Thanks :)

[Sikeliot]

I want to see the chart for a Portuguese or Spanish person.. anyone have an example of one?

[Pallantides]

Here is your chart, Pallantides:

http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk159/R1bman/US5RMS.jpg

Your closest 5 are:

Norway:4.14
Scotland: 6.56
Ireland: 7.01
Wales: 7.98
Germany: 8.72


Thank you. :thumb001:

Maybe I should change my identity to Norse-Gael.:D

[Rochefaton]

I want to see the chart for a Portuguese or Spanish person.. anyone have an example of one?

Well, it is your lucky day then. :)

Kadu, here is your chart:

http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk159/R1bman/Kaduchart.jpg

Your closest 5 are:

Spain: 2.21
Portugal: 2.98
N. Italy: 5.08
France: 5.57
Switzerland: 6.24

Ok, this thing is accurate. No more requests after this post. I'll upload the spreadsheet shortly, and then you all can checkout the results of whoever you wish.

[Rochefaton]

Your voice did not go unheard, Federick! Here is your chart:

http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk159/R1bman/FredChart.jpg

Your closest 5 are:

Hungry: 3.84
Serbia: 5.29
Switzerland: 6.98
Ukraine: 7.02
Netherlands: 7.06

Germany edges out Sweden for 6th place with 7.43. That's the last one. The spreadsheet is next.

I'm a little behind on my planned schedule, but bear with me, folks. Photobucket has not been playing nice with me.

[Rochefaton]

Hey, guys, on second thought, I'm going to recheck my calculations before going any further. Although everyone seems to be falling into groups that seem realistic, some of the values (particularly mine) seem a bit low.

Also, Pallantides, I somehow posted my chart instead of yours. I will fix that for you at a later time. *face palms self* Meh, I blame it on the Photobucket fiasco.

[Agrippa]

Here is another of those maps, this time by a German Anthropologican of the 1930:
(Note, how on GERMAN maps, the Germans claim themself "Nordic", at least in Northern Germany. While English anthropolgicans claim them Borreby or Faelic. ;)

But identically to his English comrade, he claims North-Western Africa to be the same phenotype as southwestern Europe...

Didnt they travel around in those 1930?

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=12170&stc=1&d=1310174551

Some of those maps being made after the basic trait combinations, so f.e. tall+longheaded+light = Nordic, probably adding (if being more accurate) narrow face and nose, leptomorphic-rangy build.

The same goes for "Atlanto-Mediterranean" just with "dark".

That's why they found Atlantomediterranids and Nordoids in North Africa, as well as Alpinoids. Essentially, these variants are indeed present there, in a local-regional form and often as the result of mixture (especially the Nordoids as the result of longer term mixture between light Berberid and Atlanto-like variants), but their frequency is much lower in comparison to other regional-specific Mediterranid and Cromagnoid variants.

Also, they noted Orientalid (Arabid) and Negroid (mostly Sudanid) influences, which of course further change the populations in question.

They were just more lax then with their definitions quite often and if looking at what they described in detail, it is more accurate most of the time.

As for the traveling, just to mention it, v. Eickstedt made no big deal about the Northern Near East and in most maps, he colored the Western part just Armenid (Anatolia to Western Iran), based on what others wrote about that part of the world.

When he finally, after being virtually everywhere else before, made a scientific journey into the area, he immediately corrected his false ideas from before, further distinguishing the Armenoid spectrum with the Anadolid type and noting the many Mediterranid and East-/Asian-Alpinoid influences, as well as the Iranid racial type.

It was as pity he died too early, but this might serve as an example, as he was a great typologist and usually, when he was wrong, there was an acceptable reason for that.

[Frederick]

lets not fill this thread with off topic stuff. ;)

This is about Eurogenes admixture analysis of aDNA and not NAZI voodoo magic.

[Libertas]

lets not fill this thread with off topic stuff. ;)

This is about Eurogenes admixture analysis of aDNA and not NAZI voodoo magic.

I for one am none too trusting of these recent amateur (and professional) genetic studies which seem to claim that a dozen or two dozen often self-reporting individuals truly represent populations running into millions of people.:lightbul:

[Pallantides]

NAZI voodoo magic.




:icon_cheesygrin::love:

[Loki]

I for one am none too trusting of these recent amateur (and professional) genetic studies which seem to claim that a dozen or two dozen often self-reporting individuals truly represent populations running into millions of people.:lightbul:

The sample sizes are obviously a problem at this stage. This should improve as time goes by, but already we can see patterns emerging that seem to make sense from a historical point of view. Not perfect yet, but amazingly insightful - even at this early stage.

[Frederick]

If samplesizes are large enough to allow it, one could analyse the results for the gaussian norm.

(rough version: In any natural number series are 1/3 who are outside the norm and 2/3 who represent the norm.

So, theoretically, a sample size of 12 should contain 4 freaks and the other 8 beeing inside of the norm fluctuation range.:coffee:

Its often claimed, results that do not follow a gaussian norm bell, cant be right or are man made. (checking the size of Yeti feet and all that ha ha)

[Sikeliot]

I for one am none too trusting of these recent amateur (and professional) genetic studies which seem to claim that a dozen or two dozen often self-reporting individuals truly represent populations running into millions of people.:lightbul:

But when you get enough people and start to see trends, you can begin to see beyond reasonable doubt that a real discovery has been made.

[Agrippa]

lets not fill this thread with off topic stuff. ;)

This is about Eurogenes admixture analysis of aDNA and not NAZI voodoo magic.

First of all, like Polako said and corrected us, aDNA is not the correct term for autosomal DNA but ancient DNA.

Secondly typology has nothing to do with "Nazi" per se and obviously phenotypes are of great importance and it is interesting to compare genetic results with the phenotypical variation, because after all, like I said before, what really matters are phenotypical traits and especially qualities, the rest is scientific-genealogical playgrounds.

Thirdly, I don't know what's up with you, as you can see and I have proven, if you rely blindly on results of a program, results you can't even prove by yourself, you are the last to talk about scientific purity and truth.

You are just mad at me, because you were so deeply into the speculation of what this components might be, when there was in reality a methodological problem.

Also, phenotypical studies and racial studies are not voodoo but science too, you can only question something specific, but hardly if I say something which was proven by anthropometric or other phenotypical studies.

Calm down and don't piss me off with your lowest level comments.

What you are doing is actually trolling, because I didn't introduce Coon's map here to explain the random distribution of the related components. Now you are done with it, you want me to shut up, when I just explain the misinterpretation of the maps made?

Bad behaviour of yours, nothing else.


I for one am none too trusting of these recent amateur (and professional) genetic studies which seem to claim that a dozen or two dozen often self-reporting individuals truly represent populations running into millions of people.:lightbul:

The point is, the results make perfect sense for the populations in question, if you put in the latest run Northern + North Atlantic and Western + Southern together.

Then you see a clear gradient from Northern Europe to Southern Europe, with the additional third Baltic/North Eastern component.

The deviations inside of the samples are, if you sum those related components up and reduce everything to 3, in the range of what should be expected.

If you count the related components on their own, everything is spoiled. There is virtually no population in which it isn't random, with the exception of some individuals which seem to make up a component of their own, like the Basques for Western.

Actually it is EXTREMELY UNLIKELY that especially populations like the Swedes and Norwegians, but also the others, vary THAT MUCH, in the sense of one individual having 70 percent of A and zero of B, another component common in the population and again another individual has 70 percent of B and zero of A.

That is, to say it blunt, absurd, especially for smaller and rather homogeneous populations.

If it happens in more than one individual, it's against the experience of population genetics, one has always to question the method first!

That's a golden rule.


I still trust physical anthro more than genetics when it comes to personality and psychology.

One has to combine both approaches, but right not genetics is just making baby steps to say it that way and unless you have concrete genetic variants for concrete genetic traits, it is largely pointless if you want to grasp the variation of phenotypes, but can only help to understand how phenotypes came up - f.e. through mixture/genflow.

[Loki]

The point is, the results make perfect sense for the populations in question, if you put in the latest run Northern + North Atlantic and Western + Southern together.


But you do believe that a Northern east-west split could be achieved? There has to be some difference between a Swede and an Irishman somewhere. We know it.

[Agrippa]

But you do believe that a Northern east-west split could be achieved? There has to be some difference between a Swede and an Irishman somewhere. We know it.

Yes, but my guess is, like for the Southern-Western, that a specific component which is more regional but dominant, spoiled all the results and led to a distortion.

I don't know if something went wrong with the program, or one would have to exclude the individuals which caused it, but obviously these very strong components of specific individuals are not suitable for differentiating the rest of the sample.

It really seems to me as if the program didn't knew what to do and therefore put some individuals completely in one category, which is in no way representative.

You just have to look at the results, a natural population can't have such, especially not if there was a longer term genflow which surely was present, because there can't have been the same isolates EVERYWHERE with some Italians having just Southern, some just Western, some just Northern, some just North Atlantic - same for Swedes, Norwegians etc.

Its not that such a component can't be found, I guess, but in this run something went wrong, that's it.

[Loki]

Off-topic discussion of phenotype vs genotype moved here (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=29832).

[Turkophagos]

Spaniards don't like this analysis because it gives them 1% nig. :laugh:

[Agrippa]

Spaniards don't like this analysis because it gives them 1% nig. :laugh:

If you sum it up, it is one percent in the Dodecad analysis too, so this seems to be a constant:

Behar study in Dodecad Neo-African 0,4, East African 0,4 and Palaeo-African 0,2 - in the Dodecad participants the same, just Paleo-African down to 0,1.

But that's really unimportant, one percent is close to nothing, unless selection would have been involved to promote certain traits, like in some Uralic variants like Lappid and Eastbaltid for the Mongolid inspired context, which is not likely nor visible.

[Ibericus]

The west-african at Dodecad is 0.1% which is the same as the east-asian score, and is what the Brits have also. On the other hand, Greeks are only about 68% european while Spaniards 90% (same as French or Dutch) and Basques 98%. The Greeks have like 25% anatolian/caucasus (West-Asian) and 5% arabian (southwest asian).

[Agrippa]

The west-african at Dodecad is 0.1% which is the same as the east-asian score, and is what the Brits have also. On the other hand, Greeks are only about 68% european while Spaniards 90% (same as French or Dutch) and Basques 98%. The Greeks have like 25% anatolian/caucasus (West-Asian) and 5% arabian (southwest asian).

In the last K-12 run, the results were as I stated:
http://dodecad.blogspot.com/2011/06/dodecad-v3-results-are-rolling-in.html

I wouldn't count East African as simply Negrid though and the rest of 0,6 is close to noise in some individuals...

Also, you can't really compare Europid influences, including North Western African by the way, with extra-Europid racial influences, with West Asian being closest to the more exclusively (but not fully exclusively neither quite often) European components from all.

Typically European are rather the proportions of components it seems, rather than one (or more) specific components.

[Loki]

In the last K-12 run, the results were as I stated:
http://dodecad.blogspot.com/2011/06/dodecad-v3-results-are-rolling-in.html


Somewhat off-topic, but I can't understand one thing. In the Dodecad run, I have 26.6% "Mediterranean" and 10.8% "West Asian" ... but in Polako's run I only register 18% Mediterranean, which supposedly INCLUDES the West Asian. :confused:

[Ibericus]

In the last K-12 run, the results were as I stated:
http://dodecad.blogspot.com/2011/06/dodecad-v3-results-are-rolling-in.html

I wouldn't count East African as simply Negrid though and the rest of 0,6 is close to noise in some individuals...

Also, you can't really compare Europid influences, including North Western African by the way, with extra-Europid racial influences, with West Asian being closest to the more exclusively (but not fully exclusively neither quite often) European components from all.

Typically European are rather the proportions of components it seems, rather than one (or more) specific components.
The unique european compoments are West, East euro and Med. In the standard K=10 run it's only North and South euro. It all makes sense. Add them and see the european score. Basques/Lithuanians are at the top, and Sicilians/Greeks at the bottom. Obviously West-Asian is Cacuasoid, but not european. Otherwise Turks, Iranians, Lebanese, Georgians,etc would be as much european as any Western-European, which doesn't make any sense, considering they don't cluster with euros, and these components doesn't peak in Europe.

[poiuytrewq0987]

West Asians:

http://pastmist.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/_pamiri-girls-in-vanj1.jpg

[Ibericus]

West Asians:

http://pastmist.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/_pamiri-girls-in-vanj1.jpg
The one in the left looks russian admixed. Would be interesting too see how much East and North euro she has.

[poiuytrewq0987]

The one in the left looks russian admixed. Would be interesting too see how much East and North euro she has.

West Asia used to be inhabited by Scythians and they were much alike to Europeans. I think you are just putting off West Asian as non-European to make yourself feel better since this type is lacking in Spain.

[Ibericus]

West Asia used to be inhabited by Scythians and they were much alike to Europeans. I think you are just putting off West Asian as non-European to make yourself feel better since this type is lacking in Spain.
Do you realize that Iranians, Assyrians, Turks, Lebanese, etc are more than 50 % West-Asia ? Do you really believe these populations are half european ? Without it, they are only 20-30% euroepan, makes much more sense. Btw it's not just spaniards who have very low, Lithuanians, Polish, Scandinavians have also low levels of it. The Basques without it are already 99% European.

[Kadu]

Somewhat off-topic, but I can't understand one thing. In the Dodecad run, I have 26.6% "Mediterranean" and 10.8% "West Asian" ... but in Polako's run I only register 18% Mediterranean, which supposedly INCLUDES the West Asian. :confused:


Every West Asian component that I've seen so far seems to be closely related with Northern European and specifically with NW European components. Your West Asian affinity is probably being represented and included in your Northern European affinity.

[Loki]

Do you realize that Iranians, Assyrians, Turks, Lebanese, etc are more than 50 % West-Asia ? Do you really believe these populations are half european ? Without it, they are only 20-30% euroepan, makes much more sense. Btw it's not just spaniards who have very low, Lithuanians, Polish, Scandinavians have also low levels of it. The Basques without it are already 99% European.

How do you assign the quality "European" to these groups? Obviously, it's not as simple as that. There are overlaps, and West Asian is present in most of Europe as a minority element, so it's nothing strange or foreign really. It is common knowledge that other Caucasoids like Iranians, Assyrians etc are closely related to Europeans - and one can see it phenotypically in many of them as well. Overall they are all part of the Caucasoid race, including Europeans.

[Loki]

Every West Asian component that I've seen so far seems to be closely related with Northern European and specifically with NW European components. Your West Asian affinity is probably being represented and included in your Northern European affinity.

That sounds bizarre. Any evidence to back this up? We are talking about two different corners of the continent here. Maybe you confuse it with North Asian (Siberian) that Finns have?

[Ibericus]

How do you assign the quality "European" to these groups?
Because of where they peak.


Obviously, it's not as simple as that. There are overlaps, and West Asian is present in most of Europe as a minority element, so it's nothing strange or foreign really. It is common knowledge that other Caucasoids like Iranians, Assyrians etc are closely related to Europeans - and one can see it phenotypically in many of them as well. Overall they are all part of the Caucasoid race, including Europeans.
Well, but Caucasoid is much broader than European. Im talking about the specific european components, such as West Euro, East Euro, South Euro,etc. they all peak in European populations.

[Loki]

Because of where they peak.


So if the R1a haplogroup peaks in India, it is Asian? Or E necessarily African? It's not as simple as that, merely convenient for you to assert this.

[Kadu]

That sounds bizarre. Any evidence to back this up? We are talking about two different corners of the continent here. Maybe you confuse it with North Asian (Siberian) that Finns have?

No, no, just look the fst distances of the last Dodecad runs

V3
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Pw7x-HD7ON0/TgJS__AvriI/AAAAAAAAAiU/44-iorvZqS0/s1600/fst.png

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-P2GJvQzlQWA/TgDqQ9lKHzI/AAAAAAAAD2E/3_6Fsr3HAYE/s1600/1_2.png


V2
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PmjCGIHFtiY/Te948Mt7kBI/AAAAAAAAAhM/YRfr_IW3j2s/s1600/Fst.png

[Ibericus]

So if the R1a haplogroup peaks in India, it is Asian? Or E necessarily African? It's not as simple as that, merely convenient for you to assert this.
Yes, the R1a was born in Central Asia actually.

[Loki]

No, no, just look the fst distances of the last Dodecad runs

V3
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Pw7x-HD7ON0/TgJS__AvriI/AAAAAAAAAiU/44-iorvZqS0/s1600/fst.png


That doesn't even have Northern European.

[Kadu]

That doesn't even have Northern European.

The Western European component peaks in Ireland and Norway, that's pretty much Northern Europe to me.

[Loki]

The Western European component peaks in Ireland and Norway, that's pretty much Northern Europe to me.

I see what you mean now, but it still seems bizarre to me.

Conversely, if West Asian is so closely related to Northern European, it weakens Iberia's argument.

[Ibericus]

It's very clear the pattern followed :

http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg42/scaled.php?server=42&filename=westasian.gif&res=medium

[Loki]

It's very clear the pattern followed :

http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg42/scaled.php?server=42&filename=westasian.gif&res=medium

Thus, part and parcel of what we know as Europe. Without it Europeans wouldn't exist, save for perhaps the Basques.

[Ibericus]

Thus, part and parcel of what we know as Europe. Without it Europeans wouldn't exist, save for perhaps the Basques.
Norwegians, Finnish, Lithuanians, Polish, Belarussians, etc. have also less than 4% of WA

[Kadu]

Conversely, if West Asian is so closely related to Northern European, it weakens Iberia's argument.

I wasn't trying to strenghten his argument but to help you understand your results. Regarding the closeness between the North European and West Asian components it's just a pattern that I've been seeing in every single run.

From "how to create zombies"

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YzwPd_v6xNI/TeKaEFJ0jpI/AAAAAAAADyA/riFLbtHorMM/s1600/1_2.png


"K=12 for selected participants"
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-po3ry04KyLo/TbniIYg6VbI/AAAAAAAAAco/a4_OF8k5gGk/s1600/ADMIXTURE_12.png

"K=11 for selected participants"
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2cIeCsZrY6Q/TbKunUvPEII/AAAAAAAAAcQ/kMygKCwU7yI/s1600/ADMIXTURE_11.png


Or even the basic Dodecad V1
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_UOHFTxL-bOA/TMnGIgsXaTI/AAAAAAAAAB8/n0HE-zNRNBw/s1600/dist.png

[Loki]

Norwegians, Finnish, Lithuanians, Polish, Belarussians, etc. have also less than 4% of WA

It doesn't mean a thing. The Scandinavians have 0% Southern European. They're more isolated. But the majority of Europeans have a WA component that is larger than that. They're still Europeans.

[Loki]

I wasn't trying to strenghten his argument but to help you understand your results. Regarding the closeness between the North European and West Asian components it's just a pattern that I've been seeing in every single run.


Yes I know, thanks. It's just a coincidence that it weakens Iberia's argument on West Asians. :p

[Ibericus]

It doesn't mean a thing. The Scandinavians have 0% Southern European. They're more isolated. But the majority of Europeans have a WA component that is larger than that. They're still Europeans.
Im not saying they are not europeans. They are still 80-90% european without west-asian.


Yes I know, thanks. It's just a coincidence that it weakens Iberia's argument on West Asians. :p
No, it still doesn't establish where the origin of west-asian is. But it's pretty clear looking at the map I posted.

[Loki]

No, it still doesn't establish where the origin of west-asian is. But it's pretty clear looking at the map I posted.

Where the geographical origin is doesn't really matter. If it did, we are all Africans since humans originated there.

The fact that West Asian is close to Northern European (as Kadu coincidentally pointed out) should tell you something.

[Ibericus]

Ok, let's imagine now for a moment that West-Asian is European. That would mean, doing a (West Euro + East Euro + West Asia + Med) score that :

- Georgians more european than Germans, British, French, Dutch, Scandinavians, Irish, Hungarians, Finnish, etc.

But, oh !, surpisingly Georgians they don't even cluster with europeans on genetic PCA plots, they cluster with Turks, Iranians, Armenians,etc :

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_6XAIk6ygtg/Tcqj7WCS_jI/AAAAAAAADsU/WJDG6R2XnH0/s1600/waeu.png

[Loki]

Ok, let's imagine now for a moment that West-Asian is European. That would mean, doing a (West Euro + East Euro + West Asia + Med) score that :

- Georgians more european than Germans, British, French, Dutch, Scandinavians, Irish, Hungarians, Finnish, etc.


How does this logic work? I don't see the implication.



But, oh !, surpisingly Georgians they don't even cluster with europeans on genetic PCA plots, they cluster with Turks, Iranians, Armenians,etc :

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_6XAIk6ygtg/Tcqj7WCS_jI/AAAAAAAADsU/WJDG6R2XnH0/s1600/waeu.png

They are still closely related to Europeans on this plot. For example, Georgians seem as far away to Spaniards as Spaniards are away from Russians.

[Ibericus]

Where the geographical origin is doesn't really matter. If it did, we are all Africans since humans originated there.

The fact that West Asian is close to Northern European (as Kadu coincidentally pointed out) should tell you something.
Human DNA today is different that when humans came out of Africa, otherwise all these autosomal differences between populations wouldn't exist, So it's irrelevant to the matter.

[Ibericus]

How does this logic work? I don't see the implication.

They are still closely related to Europeans on this plot. For example, Georgians seem as far away to Spaniards as Spaniards are away from Russians.
But if you see the european scores inlcuding West-Asian that I made above, they should be clustering with Germans or Polish, since they have more European than them (if we consider West Asian as European, that is).

[Loki]

Human DNA today is different that when humans came out of Africa, otherwise all these autosomal differences between populations wouldn't exist, So it's irrelevant to the matter.

You are aware of the fact that Georgia is technically in Europe geographically (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe#Political_geography)? Thus, this West Asian element is found in highest proportions within Europe!

[poiuytrewq0987]

It's very clear the pattern followed :

http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg42/scaled.php?server=42&filename=westasian.gif&res=medium

It's far too easy for you to plainly categorise West Asian as automatically non-European. A lot of West Asian types came to Europe a long time ago before the Arabs expanded outside their peninsula. Undoubtedly, modern Syrians and others who peak in West Asian absorbed the original West Asians.

I think West Asian can be separated into two categories. One old pre-Islam, pre-Turkic West Asia and other post-Turkic, post-Islam West Asia. If we go by this system then we can confirm Europeans who carry some West Asian belong to the pre-Islam, pre-Turkic West Asia category and others such as Syrians, Turks, Iranians and Azeris belong to the latter category.

Paleo-West Asians clearly was much more similar to current Europeans in genes and phenotypical makeup otherwise we'd see a lot more foreign-looking Europeans today alike to modern West Asians that are largely composed of Arabs and Turkics. I think we can recognise West Asian as something that is much older with Iranian origins since the areas West Asian peaks in used to be dominated by various Iranian peoples such as Scythians, Persians, etc.

[Ibericus]

You are aware of the fact that Georgia is technically in Europe geographically (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe#Political_geography)? Thus, this West Asian element is found in highest proportions within Europe!
No, the highest proportions are not within Europe, more likely in the
Iranian Plateau :

http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg42/scaled.php?server=42&filename=westasian.gif&res=medium

[Loki]

No, the highest proportions are not within Europe, more likely in the
Iranian Plateau :

http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg42/scaled.php?server=42&filename=westasian.gif&res=medium

If my eyes are not failing me yet, Iran shows 49% ... whereas 63%, 65% and 72% seem to be north of the Caucasus.

[Agrippa]

Somewhat off-topic, but I can't understand one thing. In the Dodecad run, I have 26.6% "Mediterranean" and 10.8% "West Asian" ... but in Polako's run I only register 18% Mediterranean, which supposedly INCLUDES the West Asian. :confused:

I'm not sure you can compare it directly anyway and as you can see, the "West Asian" in the Dodecad runs varies a lot as well, depending on reference, samples, admixture program mode etc.


The unique european compoments are West, East euro and Med.

These components appear out of Europe too and are closest related to West Asian, especially West European, which is probably, if there is something real behind it, the "colonisation event" from different directions.

So there would be a more ancient (included in West European) and a more recent (independent) West Asian influence, since the West Asian core region is also part of the Europid core per se.

This makes it even more important and closer related, because of this colonisation eventS.

Also, like I said, the other components ARE NOT exclusively European, they appear in various other populations too.

The Lebanese for example have 28,8 "Mediterranean" and West-East is present too. "Mediterranean" is therefore the 2nd biggest (after WA) component in them.

Jordanians have 26,9 too, it is the biggest component in Morocco Jews with 35,4 - even the Yemenese have it at 15,7.


Do you realize that Iranians, Assyrians, Turks, Lebanese, etc are more than 50 % West-Asia ? Do you really believe these populations are half european ? Without it, they are only 20-30% euroepan, makes much more sense. Btw it's not just spaniards who have very low, Lithuanians, Polish, Scandinavians have also low levels of it. The Basques without it are already 99% European.

The biggest difference between some of this populations as West Asians and Europeans is rather not the ancestry primarily, but the time in between, because after the colonisations eventS there came both new migrations/genflow AND different selective regimes.

For example I wouldn't wonder if the remains of Çatalhöyük would be closest to the West Asian component, but also very close to Western European.

Now if looking at the remains of some of the Tells related to this movements and influences, what you see are quite often (Proto-)Mediterranoid variants, sometimes Alpinoid in between.

That's what dominated the region for quite some time, until new migrations, changing climates and selective trends changed the racial character of the regions in question, I'm speaking primarily of the "Armenoidisation". If you look at what is left of regional Mediterranids and Alpinoids f.e., they look often quite European/Euro-like. The main difference, racially, is the "Armenoidisation" and secondly new foreign influences, especially Orientalid and Mongoloid.

The Lebanese, Turks and Georgians which are not affected by this newer influences, look often quite European - racially, typologically, they are European actually.

So it is not the origin, but what happened AFTER that, which made the difference. Those going to Europe mixed with European locals and had a different development, including Nordisation and Dinarisation for example, those staying behind came under the influences mentioned for the region...


Yes, the R1a was born in Central Asia actually.

Parts of Central Asia were, that's the opinion of various authors at least and mine too, earlier inhabited by fully Europid people than most of Europe.

After all, one should keep in mind that ALL European elements had to enter the continent at some point of time, and most did so over Anatolia-Caucasus-Central Asia obviously...

Northern Europe, to point that out, was largely uninhabited during the last Ice Age, so the question always remains when and from where the new colonisers came after it. From what we know there were waves of colonisers from DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS at DIFFERENT TIMES and the position of Western European would reflect that perfectly, again, like mentioned before, with a major more ancient WA-related component INCLUDED.


Norwegians, Finnish, Lithuanians, Polish, Belarussians, etc. have also less than 4% of WA

A lot of other Europeans have practically no Eastern European...

Notice that these two components are pretty much some of the most distant ones in the European context and among the major components.


But, oh !, surpisingly Georgians they don't even cluster with europeans on genetic PCA plots, they cluster with Turks, Iranians, Armenians,etc

The question remains how old this differences are. Obviously there was relative isolation for thousands of years, after the colonisation events took place.

Now look at where the Basques or Sardinians are, because of their isolation and now add to that different developments and later influences - and you get what we have.


Human DNA today is different that when humans came out of Africa, otherwise all these autosomal differences between populations wouldn't exist, So it's irrelevant to the matter.

Genetically humans are still very closely related to each other, but nevertheless in the time IN BETWEEN many changes took place, which can't be all seen if looking at neutral percentages only, and ignoring the results of selection (!) and gendrift (!).

Similar to the case we are talking about.

By the way, that a component peaks NOW in a specific region, doesn't have to mean it originated there!

For example some regions in which NOW R1b or R1a and their variants peak, are not the cradle of that haplogroups.

Also, if you look at Western European, Eastern European, Mediterranean, you don't know for sure where they originated, but only where they peak today and not even that is always so clear, if looking at the distribution.

Probably some later expansions of different components and people carrying it eliminated original cradles of haplotypes and components visible in such admixture-results, you don't know that for sure.

To me the West Asian component of this latest K-12 run of Dienekes is indeed somewhat "less European" but not "non-European", if you get the difference.

That is like it is with blond hair and blue eyes, which is more frequent and exclusive in Europe and insofar dark hair and brown eyes could be considered "less European", since they are shared with non-Europeans to a greater extend, yet it is for sure, without any doubt and for all good reasons surely not "non-European", just less "Europe-specific".

[Ibericus]

These components appear out of Europe too and are closest related to West Asian, especially West European, which is probably, if there is something real behind it, the "colonisation event" from different directions.

Of course they appear out of Europe, but they peak in Europe, the South European component in the K=10 peaks in Sardinians and Basques, and the mediterranean in the K=12 peaks in Sardinians and North-Italians, there is nothing more european than that. Also, it's important the routes. Was this Southern-Euro imported from outside or exported outside ? The west-asian component seems clearly to have been introduced in Europe from the Caucasus/Iranian Plateau.


The Lebanese for example have 28,8 "Mediterranean" and West-East is present too. "Mediterranean" is therefore the 2nd biggest (after WA) component in them.

Jordanians have 26,9 too, it is the biggest component in Morocco Jews with 35,4 - even the Yemenese have it at 15,7.


yes, but that's the only european part they have. Otherwise, Lebanese would be 70% european, which is ridiculous. There has never been a massive presence of Europeans in the Levant. Also, the Morocco Jews have REAL european admixture, since some of them were sephardites expelled from Iberia.


The Lebanese, Turks and Georgians which are not affected by this newer influences, look often quite European, racially, typologically, they are European actually.
Caucasian you mean, not European. Genetically they don't cluster with Europeans.


The question remains how old this differences are. Obviously there was relative isolation for thousands of years, after the colonisation events took place.
Now look at where the Basques or Sardinians are, because of their isolation and now add to that different developments and later influences - and you get what we have. That's not true, there is no isolation. See the surrounding areas of the Caucasus (Iranian plateau) have also very high levels of WA. And the surrounding areas of Basques, are genetically similar to them.

[d3cimat3d]

The one in the left looks russian admixed. Would be interesting too see how much East and North euro she has.

It's even more interesting to see the Kazakh persons results in Eurogenes:

NE Baltic: 32.4%

N Atlantic: 22.4%

S European: 11%



But, oh !, surpisingly Georgians they don't even cluster with europeans on genetic PCA plots, they cluster with Turks, Iranians, Armenians,etc :


That's because Georgians & Europeans have been in isolation after the ancient west Asian/North European split. Since then, both west Asians & North Europeans have drifted away from each other and formed their own distinct genetic groups - groups that Dodecad & Eurogenes still have trouble differentiating because they are so similar to one another.


I think we can recognize West Asian as something that is much older with Iranian origins since the areas West Asian peaks in used to be dominated by various Iranian peoples such as Scythians, Persians, etc.

Yes but most west Asian in central Asia came via. Neolithic farmers like the BMAC and after that with the Islamic expansions into the area. It's difficult to say how much west Asian the original Indo-European invaders into Asia carried, but looking at Mongolia is a good clue, since neither Neolithic farmers or Arabs could or would want to penetrate that far into barren Mongolia. Also, Mongols still have more east + west European than they do west Asian, so the Afanasevo people were largely east + west European with some west Asian.

[Ibericus]

It doesn't mean a thing. The Scandinavians have 0% Southern European. They're more isolated. But the majority of Europeans have a WA component that is larger than that. They're still Europeans.
Polish are isolated ? Spaniards isolated ? Lithuanians ? Geographically British or Irish are more isolated.

[Loki]

Otherwise, Lebanese would be 70% european, which is ridiculous.


That's not so ridiculous at all, many Lebanese could pass for Southern Europeans. 70% is a low figure.



There has never been a massive presence of Europeans in the Levant.


Irrelevant, because Indo-Europeans themselves (or their forebears) migrated from Asia into Europe anyway. So we are talking about progenitors of Europeans, not necessarily modern Europeans who have settled there.

[Ibericus]

That's because Georgians & Europeans have been in isolation after the ancient west Asian/North European split. Since then, both west Asians & North Europeans have drifted away from each other and formed their own distinct genetic groups - groups that Dodecad & Eurogenes still have trouble differentiating because they are so similar to one another.
So ? You are telling me the reason we are genetically different, but it's not the point, Africans are also different because of thousands of years of isolation. The point is that difference, and why West-Asia can't be considered as European.

[Loki]

Polish are isolated ? Spaniards isolated ? Lithuanians ? Geographically British or Irish are more isolated.

All these are on either the western or northern fringes of Europe, so yes they are isolated from the West Asian component. Just as Spaniards have almost no Eastern European component because they're too far away from them.

[Agrippa]

Also, it's important the routes. Was this Southern-Euro imported from outside or exported outside ? The west-asian component seems clearly to have been introduced in Europe from the Caucasus/Iranian Plateau.

Everything "was imported", the question is not whether it came from outside, but WHEN!

And you can't know for sure when "Mediterranean" came from outside - always thinking about the fact, that this is the result of an admixture run, probably there is something like ancestral component behind it, probably NOT.

Or probably a component which peaks now in Georgians or Iran, but came from somewhere else and transformed in Europe in something different for the most part, like "Western European".


yes, but that's the only european part they have. Otherwise, Lebanese would be 70% european, which is ridiculous. There has never been a massive presence of Europeans in the Levant. Also, the Morocco Jews have REAL european admixture, since some of them were sephardites expelled from Iberia.

You see it the wrong way, because the pre-Semitic Eastern Mediterranean people in ancient times were MUCH CLOSER to Europeans by default and elements related to them entered Europe on a most likely MASSIVE SCALE in Neolithic times.

If they wouldn't have changed that much in between or changed in a simlar way as Europeans, they would still be Europeans - but as things are, they did change, racially, genetically, culturally - for various reasons, some mentioned above, yet individually many still prove the now more distant, but still present, relatedness.


That's not true, there is no isolation. See the surrounding areas of the Caucasus (Iranian plateau) have also very high levels of WA. And the surrounding areas of Basques, are genetically similar to them.

Yet the Basques and Sardinians often get their own distant clusters, sometimes even further aways from other Europeans than some non-Europeans, in various genetic analysis.

And of course, I spoke of relative isolation, which means there was no constant genflow going from the Caucasus-Anatolia to Northern Europe. There was most likely one or more MAJOR events of such kinds, during the Mesolithic and Neolithic colonisation periods in particular, but afterwards the isolation by distance worked out and from a certain time on, other factors, including languages and culture, helped to increase the distance.

Isn't it interesting that the Basques are often in their own cluster and being oftentimes used as reference for "the West" - now the Caucasians are linguistically largely isolated too, some even proposed ancient links to the Basques, but the crucial point is: They were not part of the later Indo-European story.

I wouldn't wonder if a major reason for the West Asian component as it is visible especially in the latest runs is the prominent position of the Caucasian relative isolates as representative of a more general West Asian base.

These relative isolates seem to define themselves, whereas others being defined BY THEM in such admixture runs.

That is often a problem it seems...

Here is an example of how extremes can affect the whole result:

However, I then also removed one of the original western Irish samples (IE12), because he seemed to be skewing the results for everyone else. Indeed, he appeared to be so extremely western Irish, that he pushed all the other samples slightly, but noticeably, closer together. I double checked his data, and it looks free of errors, so I'm almost certain this phenomenon is tied to his ancestry.

http://bga101.blogspot.com/2011/06/east-and-west-of-north-sea-update-1.html

The WA in the Dodecad K-12 results seems to be pretty balanced, but still one has to keep in mind their special history and I really doubt the origin was in the Caucasus anyway, but rather it is where it was best preserved...

[Ibericus]

That's not so ridiculous at all, many Lebanese could pass for Southern Europeans. 70% is a low figure.
well, that's your opinion, they don't look european to me, but that's irrelevant now. Being 70% european is equivalent of having a full european father and a half european mother. I don't see all that europeanness honestly. Where are all the most frequent european haplogroups ? I think we are confusing term, european with Caucasoid. Are they Caucasoid ? Sure, and probably more than 95%, but european-wise they are about 30%, mostly from the Mediterranean component, which peaks in North-Italians and Sardinians.


Irrelevant, because Indo-Europeans themselves (or their forebears) migrated from Asia into Europe anyway. So we are talking about progenitors of Europeans, not necessarily modern Europeans who have settled there.
We don't even know if the indo-european presence was MASSIVE in Europe.

[Ibericus]

Everything "was imported", the question is not whether it came from outside, but WHEN!

And you can't know for sure when "Mediterranean" came from outside - always thinking about the fact, that this is the result of an admixture run, probably there is something like ancestral component behind it, probably NOT.
It's irrelevant the When. What it's important, is the alleles frequency which peak in certain populations, see the Europeans at Behar et al. :
http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/2415/behar.jpg



You see it the wrong way, because the pre-Semitic Eastern Mediterranean people in ancient times were MUCH CLOSER to Europeans by default and elements related to them entered Europe on a most likely MASSIVE SCALE in Neolithic times.

What pre-Semitic people ? What makes you believes the populations have changed in the now semitic areas ? Sounds to me like a fairy tale.

If they wouldn't have changed that much in between or changed in a simlar way as Europeans, they would still be Europeans - but as things are, they did change, racially, genetically, culturally - for various reasons, some mentioned above, yet individually many still prove the now more distant, but still present, relatedness.

Sorry, that's all fantasy. There is no reason to believe that Ancient West-Asians where a different population than now.


Yet the Basques and Sardinians often get their own distant clusters, sometimes even further aways from other Europeans than some non-Europeans, in various genetic analysis.
That's because we don't have in-between populations to fill the gaps, that's why they seem to look isolated. If we were to include surrounding areas we would see a continuum.

[Transhumanist]

Do you realize that Iranians, Assyrians, Turks, Lebanese, etc are more than 50 % West-Asia?

Lebanese, and other predominantly Muslim Levantine populations, have the least West Asian scores in the entire Near East, Caucasus, and surrounding areas, excluding Arabians (eg Yemeni, Saudis, etc.):

Population West_Asian
1 Georgians 72.3
2 Lezgins 64.6
3 Adygei 62.9
4 Armenian_D 54
5 Assyrian_D 50.6
6 Iranian_D 49.3
7 Urkarah 47.2
8 Azerbaijan_Jews 43.4
9 Kalash 42.9
10 Kurd 41.8
11 Iraq_Jews 41.3
12 Turkish_D 41.1
13 Druze 40.7
14 Iranian_Jews 40.6
15 Georgia_Jews 38.9
16 Stalskoe 38.9
17 Uzbekistan_Jews 38.4
18 Makrani 35.5
19 Samaritans 35.2
20 Cypriots 35.1
21 Brahui 34.8
22 Balochi 33.6
23 Syrians 33.6
24 Lebanese 32.4
25 Palestinian 30.6
26 Jordanians_19 29.3

[Ibericus]

Lebanese, and other predominantly Muslim Levantine populations, have the least West Asian scores in the entire Near East, Caucasus, and surrounding areas, excluding Arabians (eg Yemeni, Saudis, etc.):

Population West_Asian
1 Georgians 72.3
2 Lezgins 64.6
3 Adygei 62.9
4 Armenian_D 54
5 Assyrian_D 50.6
6 Iranian_D 49.3
7 Urkarah 47.2
8 Azerbaijan_Jews 43.4
9 Kalash 42.9
10 Kurd 41.8
11 Iraq_Jews 41.3
12 Turkish_D 41.1
13 Druze 40.7
14 Iranian_Jews 40.6
15 Georgia_Jews 38.9
16 Stalskoe 38.9
17 Uzbekistan_Jews 38.4
18 Makrani 35.5
19 Samaritans 35.2
20 Cypriots 35.1
21 Brahui 34.8
22 Balochi 33.6
23 Syrians 33.6
24 Lebanese 32.4
25 Palestinian 30.6
26 Jordanians_19 29.3
Well, im not a robot I was talking out of memory. But yes, the West-Asian is most frequent in the Iranian plateau, as seen in the list.

[Kadu]

It's irrelevant the When. What it's important, is the alleles frequency which peak in certain populations, see the Europeans at

Yes, but what good are genetics for if you can't infer historical processes from it. E.g. how informative is to know that you have some north African, eastern European affinity or whatever if you can't correlate it to a specifical historical period of time.

[Transhumanist]

What pre-Semitic people ? What makes you believes the populations have changed in the now semitic areas ? Sounds to me like a fairy tale.



POP Eeuro Weuro Medit NeoAfr WeAsi Sasian NEAsia SEAsia Eafrica SwAsia NwAfric PalAfri

Dhimmi* populations for ~ 1500 years, save for the Druze
Levant through Mesopotamia
ASY 0.6 0.7 26.7 0.0 49.1 2.9 0.1 0.2 0.0 19.5 0.3 0.0
MAN 0.8 2.4 27.4 0.3 43.0 6.4 0.6 0.0 0.0 19.2 0.0 0.0
IQJ 0.4 2.1 28.2 0.1 41.3 4.4 0.0 0.1 0.7 22.0 0.8 0.0
DRZ 0.4 2.6 31.5 0.4 40.7 0.6 0.1 0.2 1.8 20.0 1.4 0.2
IRJ 0.9 2.7 26.9 0.0 40.6 5.9 0.2 0.2 1.0 20.5 1.0 0.0
SAM 0.1 1.6 32.2 0.2 35.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.9 25.9 2.8 0.0

Levantine Arab Muslims
Levant
SYR 2.3 1.8 23.8 2.2 33.6 3.3 0.5 0.5 1.9 28.4 0.9 0.9
LEB 2.5 1.2 28.8 1.9 32.4 1.4 0.7 1.0 3.1 23.9 2.2 0.9
PAL 0.3 2.3 27.4 2.4 30.6 1.0 0.2 0.3 5.5 24.7 3.9 1.5
JOR 1.0 0.7 26.9 2.3 29.3 1.6 0.4 0.6 4.7 28.7 2.5 1.3


*The Status of Non-Muslim Minorities Under Islamic Rule

Dhimmitude: the Islamic system of governing populations conquered by jihad wars, encompassing all of the demographic, ethnic, and religious aspects of the political system. The word "dhimmitude" comes from dhimmi, an Arabic word meaning "protected". Dhimmi was the name applied by the Arab-Muslim conquerors to indigenous non-Muslim populations who surrendered by a treaty (dhimma) to Muslim domination. Islamic conquests expanded over vast territories in Africa, Europe and Asia, for over a millennium (638-1683). The Muslim empire incorporated numerous varied peoples which had their own religion, culture, language and civilization. For centuries, these indigenous, pre-Islamic peoples constituted the great majority of the population of the Islamic lands. Although these populations differed, they were ruled by the same type of laws, based on the shari'a.

[Ibericus]

Yes, but what good are genetics for if you can't infer historical processes from it. E.g. how informative is to know that you have some north African, eastern European affinity or whatever if you can't correlate it to a specifical historical period of time.
Im not saying it's irrelevant from a historical point of view, im saying irrelevant to determine wether something is European or not (European as in a component that peaks in Europe, as in the dark-blue in Behar et al.)

[Loki]

Im not saying it's irrelevant from a historical point of view, im saying irrelevant to determine wether something is European or not (European as in a component that peaks in Europe, as in the dark-blue in Behar et al.)

West Asian seems to peak just north of the Caucasus, which is technically Europe - by your own map that you posted.

[Ibericus]

POP Eeuro Weuro Medit NeoAfr WeAsi Sasian NEAsia SEAsia Eafrica SwAsia NwAfric PalAfri

Dhimmi* populations for ~ 1500 years, save for the Druze
Levant through Mesopotamia
ASY 0.6 0.7 26.7 0.0 49.1 2.9 0.1 0.2 0.0 19.5 0.3 0.0
MAN 0.8 2.4 27.4 0.3 43.0 6.4 0.6 0.0 0.0 19.2 0.0 0.0
IQJ 0.4 2.1 28.2 0.1 41.3 4.4 0.0 0.1 0.7 22.0 0.8 0.0
DRZ 0.4 2.6 31.5 0.4 40.7 0.6 0.1 0.2 1.8 20.0 1.4 0.2
IRJ 0.9 2.7 26.9 0.0 40.6 5.9 0.2 0.2 1.0 20.5 1.0 0.0
SAM 0.1 1.6 32.2 0.2 35.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.9 25.9 2.8 0.0

Levantine Arab Muslims
Levant
SYR 2.3 1.8 23.8 2.2 33.6 3.3 0.5 0.5 1.9 28.4 0.9 0.9
LEB 2.5 1.2 28.8 1.9 32.4 1.4 0.7 1.0 3.1 23.9 2.2 0.9
PAL 0.3 2.3 27.4 2.4 30.6 1.0 0.2 0.3 5.5 24.7 3.9 1.5
JOR 1.0 0.7 26.9 2.3 29.3 1.6 0.4 0.6 4.7 28.7 2.5 1.3
Actually they look extremy similar. What's more, the levantine arabs have more Eastern-European, contrary to these fairy tales which say ancient levantines where supposedly more european looking and closer to Europeans, than modern ones.

[Ibericus]

West Asian seems to peak just north of the Caucasus, which is technically Europe - by your own map that you posted.
Well, I was talking about the area where the West-Asia is the first component, that's the area in the red numbers in the map, the Iranian Plateau.

[Loki]

Well, I was talking about the area where the West-Asia is the first component, that's the area in the red numbers in the map, the Iranian Plateau.

Me too, can you not see that the highest three red numbers are north of the Caucasus, and not on the Iranian plateau?

[Ibericus]

Yet the Basques and Sardinians often get their own distant clusters, sometimes even further aways from other Europeans than some non-Europeans, in various genetic analysis.

n was in the Caucasus anyway, but rather it is where it was best preserved...
Btw, basques and Sardinians were NOT used in this run. They were included AFTER the run, which means after the components were already settled based on the populations included. And you cannot talk of the mediterranean component as isolated, since it peaks in North-Italians and Spaniards. Once the sardinians were inlcuded after the initial run, they showed the highest frequency.

[Ibericus]

Me too, can you not see that the highest three red numbers are north of the Caucasus, and not on the Iranian plateau?
Yes, the ones who barely make it into Europe :

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/5092/europedec82010.png

[Transhumanist]

The fact that West Asian is close to Northern European (as Kadu coincidentally pointed out) should tell you something.

Yes, Loki. I think it not a coincidence a great many European Y-DNA lines had their likely origins in West Asia. And, in particular, the area where "West Asian" is at least ~50%. The Caucasus, E Anatolia, N Iran, and N Mesopotamia. Many varieties of J1, J2, R1b, T, G2a, and other European haplogroups have their greatest diversity in the area. Basically, the region in varying shades of blue, on simranjits' Jatt Gene "West Asian" map:

http://blog.jattdna.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/DOD-v3-West-Asian1.jpg

http://blog.jattdna.org/

[Ibericus]

Anyways, the West-Asian component is minoritary in Europe, the average is about 8% for all Europe.

[Transhumanist]

Anyways, the West-Asian component is minoritary in Europe, the average is about 8% for all Europe.

Yes. It most certainly is a minority element in today's Europeans. I do not believe the other gentlemen were arguing that it was not a minority element, however.

[Ibericus]

Also the program of professor Dr. McDonald doesn't count the Georgians/Caucasus as European, they have their own genetic group, I beleive it's something like Antaolian/Caucasus

[Rochefaton]

Ok. I have worked out the kinks in my spreadsheet and have double checked the calculations of my personal results with Day Tripper. Here are the new charts:

Mine:

http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk159/R1bman/MyRMSDchart.jpg

Loki:

http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk159/R1bman/LokiesChart.jpg

Pallantides:

http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk159/R1bman/NO2Chart.jpg

Kadu:

http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk159/R1bman/KadusChart.jpg

Frederick:

http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk159/R1bman/DE8Chart.jpg

Bastarnae:

http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk159/R1bman/BastarnaeChart.jpg

Barreldriver:

http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk159/R1bman/US83Chart.jpg

The spreadsheet will be up next after I make it idiot proof.

Loki and I are Germanic, Kadu is a Med, Frederick is a Hunnic Viking, Pallantides is a Kelt incognito, Barrel is so Keltic it is ridiculous, and Bastarnae is a gypsy. :)

[Rochefaton]

I somehow forgot about a certain request so here it is, Ms. Fresa Salvaje.

http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk159/R1bman/ES6Chart.jpg

[Rochefaton]

If you click here (http://www.megaupload.com/?d=FHMGQE8E) you will find the spreadsheet that acts as a RMSD calculator for this latest run of the Eurogenes project. It is pretty self explanatory once you look at it and pretty easy to use. All you have to do is place your values into the designated cells and your chart will be produced at the bottom along with your numerical distances from each population. You will need Open Office to use this.

Let's see those charts, people. :)

[Graham]

:thumb001: cheers! got it working

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=12247&stc=1&d=1310291532

[Rochefaton]

While Graham's results look to be what one would expect from a Brit, Impervim, your chart is not, bro. You're lack of North Atlantic and relatively high West Euro on this run seems to seperate you from the pack. Your closest matches are the Netherlands and then France.

http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk159/R1bman/Impervimchart.jpg

[Barreldriver]

Barreldriver:

http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk159/R1bman/US83Chart.jpg

The spreadsheet will be up next after I make it idiot proof.

Loki and I are Germanic, Kadu is a Med, Frederick is a Hunnic Viking, Pallantides is a Kelt incognito, Barrel is so Keltic it is ridiculous, and Bastarnae is a gypsy. :)

All hail AlabamaMan!

Keltic? Germans on the graph look closer to me than the Irish no? A measure in between the Scottish and Cornish bars, the Netherlands and Denmark don't seem to be all that distant either, suggestive of Kelto-Germanic blend methinks, would make sense with the UK and "Kent" being closest to myself.

I'm curious how Kent was able to be separated from the UK category? Maybe some day a sub-regional England genetic comparison? :D

[Rochefaton]

Keltic? Germans on the graph look closer to me than the Irish no?

I meant British, my mistake! I was posting that @ 2:30 AM, bro. Give me a break. :D


A measure in between the Scottish and Cornish bars, the Netherlands and Denmark don't seem to be all that distant either, suggestive of Kelto-Germanic blend methinks, would make sense with the UK and "Kent" being closest to myself.

I'm curious how Kent was able to be separated from the UK category? Maybe some day a sub-regional England genetic comparison? :D

Polako used samples from S.W. Scotland, Cornwall, Kent, and the usual UK participants in this run. My calculations did not seperate them into distinct clusters. What you are seeing in your results is that you are most similar to the folks from Kent followed by the average Brit that has joined the Eurogenes Project.

[Agrippa]

It's irrelevant the When. What it's important, is the alleles frequency which peak in certain populations, see the Europeans at Behar et al. :
http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/2415/behar.jpg

Of course, but how does that relate to the issue in question?

As you can see in this run, there are relatively clear borders, what is West Asian in Dodecad is not clear at all.

I just see that the shades of red and yellow are foreign, dark green largely so as extra-European Europid.

The other components are all quite European, like dark blue, light blue and green here. They being shared to a greater extend with extra-European Europids than dark blue, but are nevertheless a constitutive part of the European genetic and racial make up, only the proportions vary somewhat geographically.


What pre-Semitic people ? What makes you believes the populations have changed in the now semitic areas ? Sounds to me like a fairy tale.

We have the remains, we have the ancient depictions, we have the genetic comparisons and we have history.

There were the Sumerians, various Indo-Europeans and of course Caucasian and related people.

In many of those areas Semitic influences were significant and virtually low to non-existent before.

Just read up the anthropological and historical facts of the Near East.


Sorry, that's all fantasy. There is no reason to believe that Ancient West-Asians where a different population than now.

We have the remains, we have the archaeology, we have the typological comparisons to this day, what are you saying?

If they were pred. long headed Mediterranoids then, but are now short headed Armenoids, what do you need?

There are many sources, but here is one available online:
http://dergiler.ankara.edu.tr/dergiler/26/1049/12664.pdf

Some quotations:


Hacılar: This is the earliest-known agricultural settlement in Anatolia.
It is located 25 km west of Burdur. The skulls of the Eurafrican and
Proto-Mediterranean types of the Mediterranean race were found here at
a level dated to approximately the first half of the seventh millennium and
the skeletons of the same types, though in limited numbers, came from a
level dated ca. 5400-5050/5000 B.C. (Mellaart, 1975).

Çatal Höyük: This, the largest known Neolithic site in the Near-
East, is located 11 km north of Çumra in Konya. 81 percent of the 268 skeletons found here belong to a period between ca 6200 and 5830 B.C. 59
percent of these skeletal remains represent the Eurafrican type and 17
percent of them are of the Proto-Mediterranean type, while 24 percent
represent that of the Alpine (Mellaart, 1975; Angel, 1971).

Eurafrican ~ robust Mediterranoids.

And so on. What you find are primarily Mediterranoids, some Alpinoids.

You find similar variants up to the North in the LBK-group, with a fluent border over time and space even to the Nordoids (process of Nordisation).

Also, the European Neolithic culture bearers were closest to the Çatal Höyük and similar variants, not other Neolithic groups of the Near East.

So the main genflow happened from certain parts of the Neolithic World in the Near East, not undifferentiated and by bringing all elements into Europe (!), with selective processes and local mixture further shaping what came onto the continent.


That's because we don't have in-between populations to fill the gaps, that's why they seem to look isolated. If we were to include surrounding areas we would see a continuum.

Right, there are however studies done on surrounding populations...


Btw, basques and Sardinians were NOT used in this run. They were included AFTER the run, which means after the components were already settled based on the populations included. And you cannot talk of the mediterranean component as isolated, since it peaks in North-Italians and Spaniards. Once the sardinians were inlcuded after the initial run, they showed the highest frequency.

Basques or Basque like individuals were included though, as the Spaniard and French samples prove, just look at my graphics.

Also, I don't question Sardinians being largely unaltered Mediterraneans, what I questioned is when did this component come to the island and from where?

Interestingly, there were two Neolithic routes into Europe, one coming over land, probably related to Proto-Proto-Indo-Europeans even, going from the South East along the open lands and rivers, forming the LBK-group and the other jumping around the Mediterranean, expanding by sea, forming the Cardium Pottery group.

Look here:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/Cardial_map.png

Compare with the Mediterranean component in Dodecad 12-K:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=12249&stc=1&d=1310306607

Look at the Levantine samples!

And look at the distribution in Europe!

How can you be sure, that it wasn't spread that way, while the WA and related Western European was spread ON LAND and BOTH during the Neolithic period?!

How can you know that?

That would also explain, why some Mediterranean people have virtually nothing West Asian, even little Western European (Dod run), because they were part of the other route.

I highly doubt however, that the Sardinians were unchanged since Mesolithic times, that is very unrealistic. But it seems the biggest change they made in time, was with the Neolithic colonisation and Cardium Pottery culture, after that, not much.

Actually it would fit perfectly, if being true and not just fantasy of mine :)


Anyways, the West-Asian component is minoritary in Europe, the average is about 8% for all Europe.

The biggest impact further North West might have been transformed and included into the West European component - in which there were other influences too however, probably from the Southern route (Med) and pre-Neolithic (East), which is the reason, why it is so close to WA, but essentially "close to all".

I wouldn't wonder, honestly, if the WA you see in certain runs, especially if reaching the lower levels, is actually past the initial Neolithic expansions, probably even Metal Age - or just what stood behind and wasn't transformed.


Also the program of professor Dr. McDonald doesn't count the Georgians/Caucasus as European, they have their own genetic group, I beleive it's something like Antaolian/Caucasus

Me neither.

They are somewht borderline though and one has to distinguish between ancient and modern populations.

I mean the ancient population of Central Asia is different from the modern one too - for example.

[Ibericus]

Of course, but how does that relate to the issue in question?
How not ? The behar et al. shows clearly a dark-blue European component, since it's highest frequencies is found in Europeans (except Cyprus which is genetically closer to levantines).


As you can see in this run, there are relatively clear borders, what is West Asian in Dodecad is not clear at all.
Actually the equivalent of the West-Asian in the Behar would be the light-green, as you can see it also peaks in Georgians and Middle-easterns.


I just see that the shades of red and yellow are foreign, dark green largely so as extra-European Europid.
Caucasoid yes, but not European. In europeans is a sign of gypsy ancestry (see the two gypsy Romanians, are the ones who show high dark-green levels).


The other components are all quite European, like dark blue, light blue and green here.
They are caucasoid, but not European. Caucasoid populations have the same skull, like Europeans, any scientists can agree, but genetically we are different, Europeans create their own cluster, like the dark-blue component.



We have the remains, we have the ancient depictions, we have the genetic comparisons and we have history.
There were the Sumerians, various Indo-Europeans and of course Caucasian and related people.
In many of those areas Semitic influences were significant and virtually low to non-existent before.
What are you talking about ? The haplogroups J, J1 and J2 were born THERE, and are STILL TODAY the majority of haplogropus in those areas. What makes you think they were genetically different ??



We have the remains, we have the archaeology, we have the typological comparisons to this day, what are you saying?
If they were pred. long headed Mediterranoids then, but are now short headed Armenoids, what do you need?
Im talking about genetics, not pseudoscience from Coon, the same who considered Egyptians and Arabs the same type as Iberians.



Eurafrican ~ robust Mediterranoids.

And so on. What you find are primarily Mediterranoids, some Alpinoids.
This is IRRELEVANT to the matter now. This thread is about SCIENCE, and GENETICS, not about pseudoscience and typology, who varies a lot depending on who does it.



Interestingly, there were two Neolithic routes into Europe, one coming over land, probably related to Proto-Proto-Indo-Europeans even, going from the South East along the open lands and rivers, forming the LBK-group and the other jumping around the Mediterranean, expanding by sea, forming the Cardium Pottery group.
Do you realize that if we were to consider West-Asian as a European component, we should also consider the Southwest-Asian, South-Asian, and all the Caucasoid component ?? Actually the Southwest-Asian surely entered in Europe in the Neolithic waves, just like the West-Asian component. See, we are turning around in circles, you are confusing caucasoid with specific-european Alleles.

[Barreldriver]

Finally got Open Office downloaded and installed, these are the numbers to go with the graph for my ID:

1. Kent 3.13
2. UK 3.62
3. Cornwall 5.15
4. Germany 5.46
5. Scotland 5.66

Though on the graph Scotland and Denmark are close Scotland is the more close of the two and thus took the #5 spot kicking Denmark out of the top 5.

What I found interesting about these results is they mirror some recent revelations in my traditional genealogy work, previously I had grossly over estimated the number of Northern English ancestors as I assumed all Appalachians had to be either Northern English, Borders, or Scots-Irish folks, however the parts of Appalachia that go into Eastern Middle Tennessee via the Cumberland Plateau are less harsh and more fertile than the Blue Ridge for comparison and thus was more suitable for plantation lifestyle that frequented Eastern Virginia and Eastern North Carolina and as such attracted settlers from those parts who were of a strong Southeastern English stock, despite my lineage being Northern from Yorkshire most of the other families in the genealogy are from the Southeast and had rather wealthy properties in Eastern Middle Tennessee, nothing compared to the disgusting wealth of some South Carolinians but wealthy enough to set them apart from someone from the Blue Ridge. This is not to neglect great grandma who's half East Anglian half Hampshirite or however a person from Hampshire would be called, Kent a Southeastern region would be a naturally close match to someone with recent East Anglian ancestry as East Anglia is also Southeastern or so I would think.

[Agrippa]

How not ? The behar et al. shows clearly a dark-blue European component, since it's highest frequencies is found in Europeans (except Cyprus which is genetically closer to levantines).

The only Europeans which don't have it are non-Indo-Europeans btw.


Caucasoid yes, but not European. In europeans is a sign of gypsy ancestry (see the two gypsy Romanians, are the ones who show high dark-green levels).

I never said dark green is European...


They are caucasoid, but not European. Caucasoid populations have the same skull, like Europeans, any scientists can agree, but genetically we are different, Europeans create their own cluster, like the dark-blue component.

Well, how many European populations are just "dark blue"?

Let's count them - oh its none!


What are you talking about ? The haplogroups J, J1 and J2 were born THERE, and are STILL TODAY the majority of haplogropus in those areas. What makes you think they were genetically different ??

Not all are that different, but many are in particular those shown as deviating form European phenotypes more strongly, for example Turkish people with foreign/new influences:

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/04/variation-in-four-central-anatolian.html

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/04/variation-in-four-central-anatolian.html

The Western Turkish people without strong foreign/Eastern admixture are phenotypically often rather European too...


Im talking about genetics, not pseudoscience from Coon, the same who considered Egyptians and Arabs the same type as Iberians.

And I'm not just talking about Coon, but all anthropologists which dealt with the samples, from the time they were found to now.

So is talking crap, me, if I rely on GENERATIONS of anthropologists and anthropometric, with practically all coming to THE SAME RESULTS - only the interpretation in detial varied, or you, if just dismiss this facts?!

Here is a newer study for example:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Ish7688voT0/SqELPEpUR2I/AAAAAAAAB_U/LbAll98Nybo/s1600-h/journal.pone.0006747.g003.png


Moreover, the results highlight the utility of craniometric data for assessing patterns of past population dispersal and gene flow.

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2009/08/demic-diffusion-of-agriculture-into.html

Genetic perspective is on-line with what physical anthropologists SINCE GENERATIONS already knew, if being more competent in their field.

I'm just waiting for the first data from Kurgan groups remains and that of Anatolian-South Eastern European Neolithics...


This is IRRELEVANT to the matter now. This thread is about SCIENCE, and GENETICS, not about pseudoscience and typology, who varies a lot depending on who does it.

Nonsense. The intepretation in detail varies, but how can it vary if comparing Mediterranoids with Armenoids?

You don't even need to measure to see the difference, what you say is ridiculous.

Do you think all the generations of anthropologists were not capable of measuring the skull? Even if they would have measured wrong, some militers, in the larger samples this doesn't change the whole result.

You are in denial...


Do you realize that if we were to consider West-Asian as a European component, we should also consider the Southwest-Asian, South-Asian, and all the Caucasoid component ??

To begin with, West Asian is much stronger in Europe than the other components, to go on, it also depends on the runs, because the same names might not mean the same thing in any case.

But while South West Asian and South Asian is surely less European than WA, just look at the Fst-distance, which is as important as the distribution almost, especially if considering the make up of the West-North West, you can't really say that A CERTAIN AMOUNT of SWA or SA makes somebody less European, because these components are present up to the North, in the East, among various obviously very European populations.

Fact is, there are rather limits for the proportions, so making up a border for European or not makes more sense if using proportions, rather than excluding components which are in Europe since ages and a constitutive part of the European genpool.


Actually the Southwest-Asian surely entered in Europe in the Neolithic waves, just like the West-Asian component. See, we are turning around in circles, you are confusing caucasoid with specific-european Alleles.

Well, I'm not even 100 percent sure all of WA entered Europe in early Neolithic times, SWA even less sure - it seems most likely by now, but it might have entered later (Late Neolithic to Metal Ages) too.

That's like saying the only real Europeans are European Neandertalers and the few percentages Europeans have are "real European", while all the rest isn't.

There are only older and younger, more or less related, more or less European components, if they being distributed so evenly in most European populations.

Also, the Fst distance is crucial:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Pw7x-HD7ON0/TgJS__AvriI/AAAAAAAAAiU/44-iorvZqS0/s1600/fst.png

If you make West European "the golden standard", which is reasonable, you get see who's closer...

Below 0,1 is Europid one could say for example.

Mediterranean is not even closer to West European than West Asian, but equidistant (almost) to all the other main components of Europe (including WA and SWA).

[Ibericus]

Well, how many European populations are just "dark blue"?

Let's count them - oh its none!
And ? It doesn't change the fact that the most allele frequencies of this component is found in Europeans. It's a European component.


And I'm not just talking about Coon, but all anthropologists which dealt with the samples, from the time they were found to now.

So is talking crap, me, if I rely on GENERATIONS of anthropologists and anthropometric, with practically all coming to THE SAME RESULTS - only the interpretation in detial varied, or you, if just dismiss this facts?!

Here is a newer study for example:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Ish7688voT0/SqELPEpUR2I/AAAAAAAAB_U/LbAll98Nybo/s1600-h/journal.pone.0006747.g003.png
Well, I am relying to genetics not pseudoscience. Fact is, all scientist agree that haplogorups J, and it's subclades J1 and J2, are of Middle-Eastern origin, are still today the majoritarian haplogroups in those areas.


But while South West Asian and South Asian is surely less European than WA, just look at the Fst-distance, which is as important as the distribution almost, especially if considering the make up of the West-North West, you can't really say that A CERTAIN AMOUNT of SWA or SA makes somebody less European, because these components are present up to the North, in the East, among various obviously very European populations.
I am not saying europeans who have it are less europeans, im saying it is not a European component, since the average in Europe is only 8% while in the Iranian plateau is over 40%.


Fact is, there are rather limits for the proportions, so making up a border for European or not makes more sense if using proportions, rather than excluding components which are in Europe since ages and a constitutive part of the European genpool.
Since ages ? So what ? The southwest-asian component probable entered right at the SAME TIME than West-Asian. What's more, im sure some parts of Europe (Greece, SouthItaly) the West-Asian entered by people who had already southwest-asian.
And so, are Basques and Iberians not European ? And Polish, Lithuanians ? The west-asian is very low in these areas, to be a specific-european allele agroupation.


That's like saying the only real Europeans are European Neandertalers and the few percentages Europeans have are "real European", while all the rest isn't.
We are not talking about real or not real europeans. We are talking about the specific-european components, such as West European, East European, etc.


Mediterranean is not even closer to West European than West Asian, but equidistant (almost) to all the other main components of Europe (including WA and SWA).
Mediterranean peaks in North-Italians, Iberians and Sardinians. That's as West-Europeans as it gets. The fact that Fst distances shows West-Asia closer to West-Europeans, doesn't tell you the whole story, I've seen many Fst distance tables from many differents studies, and a lot of the results are very weird.

[Agrippa]

Well, I am relying to genetics not pseudoscience. Fact is, all scientist agree that haplogorups J, and it's subclades J1 and J2, are of Middle-Eastern origin, are still today the majoritarian haplogroups in those areas.

As if haplogroups explain everything?

Some Negrids which are pred. R1b are still pred. Negrid by the way.

And anthropometry-physical anthropology is no "pseudoscience" - if you don't like it, just don't talk about it, but what you are saying makes you look ignorant only, because like I said, even if typology is being questioned, anthropometry isn't and it is in proper scientific use for many generations already!


I am not saying europeans who have it are less europeans, im saying it is not a European component, since the average in Europe is only 8% while in the Iranian plateau is over 40%.

That makes no sense, because if you say it is not European, someone having it is partially non-European, that's what you are saying.

If you say the component is "less European", you can say someone having a strong WA-SWA component is "less European-specific", that's ok, but you said "non-European" to this component which is practically everywhere in Europe, which is a difference.


Since ages ? So what ? The southwest-asian component probable entered right at the SAME TIME than West-Asian.

SWA in the latest run is different from the ones before and the strong presence even in the North makes clear, that it is a constitutive part of the European genpool too, just less than WA, which has a lower Fst-distance to the other European components and is more widespread.

You could make a list of "more or less European" components, but "non-European" is just too much, that's all I'm saying.


What's more, im sure some parts of Europe (Greece, SouthItaly) the West-Asian entered by people who had already southwest-asian.
And so, are Basques and Iberians not European ? And Polish, Lithuanians ? The west-asian is very low in these areas, to be a specific-european allele agroupation.

East European is low in other parts of Europe, so what? Also, it is present in all Indo-Europeans, even in the Baltic and Eastern countries, as you can see.


We are not talking about real or not real europeans. We are talking about the specific-european components, such as West European, East European, etc.

You could make a list of Europe specific components, starting with either West European or East European, depending on your exact perspective and then moving on to the less Europe-specific components, which are still a constitutive part of the European genetic make up, until you come to the totally foreign and not wider distributed elements.


Mediterranean peaks in North-Italians, Iberians and Sardinians. That's as West-Europeans as it gets.

But as I said, that it peaks there NOW doesn't mean it originated there - at least not fully and necessarily.

Some of the higher Mediterranean numbers for comparison by the way:

Cypriots: 42,9 (one of the highest!)
Druze: 31,5
French Basque: 45,6 (note how small the difference to the Cypriots is!)
Greek: 43,6
Morocco Jews: 35,4
North Italian_D: 44,7 (just 1-2 percent more than the Cypriots and Greeks!)
Southern Italian_D: 46,8
Samaritians: 32,2
Sicilian_D: 46,4
Spanish_D: 48,3
Sardinian: 55,5

Do you see? That is obviously not "as West European as it gets".

The distribution reminds me of a better preservation scenario, rather than origin!

The correlation of the higher numbers with the Cardium Pottery culture is intriguing.


The fact that Fst distances shows West-Asia closer to West-Europeans, doesn't tell you the whole story, I've seen many Fst distance tables from many differents studies, and a lot of the results are very weird.

So you want to dismiss this important aspect of the results, without which they make much less sense, just like physical anthropology?

Better not :)

[Ibericus]

As if haplogroups explain everything?
No, but you said those "pre-Semitic" populations were European-like in appearance and other fairy tales, how could they be so drastically different than today's Semitic populations, when these haplogroups have always been there ? Did the Southwest-asian appear from thin air ?


Some Negrids which are pred. R1b are still pred. Negrid by the way.
But they have a different subclade of R1b than the European one, they are the branch V88 while European the M269, which differs in a certain thousands of years. Plus, autosomally, they are a whole different story.


And anthropometry-physical anthropology is no "pseudoscience" - if you don't like it, just don't talk about it, but what you are saying makes you look ignorant only, because like I said, even if typology is being questioned, anthropometry isn't and it is in proper scientific use for many generations already!
How can't it be pseudoscience when Coon in his maps describes the Egyptians and Arabians the same as Iberians ?? Nonsense. Plus, it's not that I don't like it, is that this thread is about GENETICS.



SWA in the latest run is different from the ones before and the strong presence even in the North makes clear, that it is a constitutive part of the European genpool too, just less than WA, which has a lower Fst-distance to the other European components and is more widespread.
Being part of euroepan gene-pool doesn't mean it's specific of Europe, since it is found in very low levels, while it reaches 70% in Arabians. Forget the idea of 'pureness' there are no pure europeans. The fact that these components are present, even if at low levels, in europeans, doesn't mean they are specific of Europe.



You could make a list of "more or less European" components, but "non-European" is just too much, that's all I'm saying.
It is a non-european component. But Caucasoid , that's what im saying. Scientists also use these same methods, to determine specific ancestry. If you have a certain group of alleles that peak outside of Europe, then they are considerd non-european, regardless of europeans having it at low levels or the age at which they entered. Simple as that. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to determine if a European person has gypsy ancestry or not, or if he has Levantine ancestry. How would you know if a person is 1/2 European and 1/2 Levantine when doing an admixture run ? If you consider them as european. That's the point.


East European is low in other parts of Europe, so what? Also, it is present in all Indo-Europeans, even in the Baltic and Eastern countries, as you can see.
It peaks in Europe.


Some of the higher Mediterranean numbers for comparison by the way:

Cypriots: 42,9 (one of the highest!)
Druze: 31,5
French Basque: 45,6 (note how small the difference to the Cypriots is!)
Greek: 43,6
Morocco Jews: 35,4
North Italian_D: 44,7 (just 1-2 percent more than the Cypriots and Greeks!)
Southern Italian_D: 46,8
Samaritians: 32,2
Sicilian_D: 46,4
Spanish_D: 48,3
Sardinian: 55,5

Do you see? That is obviously not "as West European as it gets".
I don't know what is wrong, these populations have european ancestry to a more or less degree, altough some of these populations like Druze or Samaraitians it's as far as the only European component they have, the Med one. Also, note that this mediterranean component not only peaks in Europe, but is also found in much higher percentages all around Europe, reaching considerable percentages also in Easter and Northern Europe, like 17% in Poland, 14% in Scandinavians, etc. It is certainly a paleollithic South-European component, that reached northern-european after the Ice age expansion.



So you want to dismiss this important aspect of the results, without which they make much less sense, just like physical anthropology?
So, if the West-Asian component is closer to West-European, how is that Georgians and Iranians don't cluster with Europeans, or better said, West-Euroepans, but instead they cluster with Iranians, Assyrians and Turks on genetic PCA plots ?

[Agrippa]

No, but you said those "pre-Semitic" populations were European-like in appearance and other fairy tales, how could they be so drastically different than today's Semitic populations, when these haplogroups have always been there ? Did the Southwest-asian appear from thin air ?

The main reason is what happened in between, both admixture and, even more important, selective trends.


But they have a different subclade of R1b than the European one, they are the branch V88 while European the M269, which differs in a certain thousands of years. Plus, autosomally, they are a whole different story.

Yet by yDNA they are closer to European R1b's than to non-R1b's...


How can't it be pseudoscience when Coon in his maps describes the Egyptians and Arabians the same as Iberians ?? Nonsense.

First of all, Coon is not the end of things, secondly, ancient Egyptians were largely Mediterranoid, not of the same subtype as Iberians, but nevertheless.


Plus, it's not that I don't like it, is that this thread is about GENETICS.

And what genetic results mean or might mean.


Being part of euroepan gene-pool doesn't mean it's specific of Europe, since it is found in very low levels, while it reaches 70% in Arabians. Forget the idea of 'pureness' there are no pure europeans. The fact that these components are present, even if at low levels, in europeans, doesn't mean they are specific of Europe.

But they are constitutive, which is crucial.


It is a non-european component. But Caucasoid , that's what im saying. Scientists also use these same methods, to determine specific ancestry. If you have a certain group of alleles that peak outside of Europe, then they are considerd non-european, regardless of europeans having it at low levels or the age at which they entered. Simple as that. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to determine if a European person has gypsy ancestry or not, or if he has Levantine ancestry. How would you know if a person is 1/2 European and 1/2 Levantine when doing an admixture run ? If you consider them as european. That's the point.

You do that by comparing proportions, not by saying "A is here or B is here" - at least not in comparison with such Europids/Caucasoids.

I
don't know what is wrong, these populations have european ancestry to a more or less degree, altough some of these populations like Druze or Samaraitians it's as far as the only European component they have, the Med one. Also, note that this mediterranean component not only peaks in Europe, but is also found in much higher percentages all around Europe, reaching considerable percentages also in Easter and Northern Europe, like 17% in Poland, 14% in Scandinavians, etc. It is certainly a paleollithic South-European component, that reached northern-european after the Ice age expansion.

Possible, but how can you know that for sure, without having ancient remains tested?

There were many theories about haplogroups, but some are now gone, because the tests falsified them.


So, if the West-Asian component is closer to West-European, how is that Georgians and Iranians don't cluster with Europeans, or better said, West-Euroepans, but instead they cluster with Iranians, Assyrians and Turks on genetic PCA plots ?

Because of the proportions and other influences primarily I guess.

Also, these component analysis don't tell you the full story anyway.

[Ibericus]

Yet by yDNA they are closer to European R1b's than to non-R1b's...
And ? I don't know what is the point you are trying to make. Your analogy with pre-semitics makes no sense, because the R1b is not indigenous of Africa, while the J, J1 and J2 of Mesopotomian area is indigenous.



You do that by comparing proportions, not by saying "A is here or B is here" - at least not in comparison with such Europids/Caucasoids.
Of course you do it by saying "A is here". How do you think the two Romanian gypsies were detected in the Behar sample ? Because they had 'A', that, is, a South-Asian component, abnormally high.

[Rochefaton]

Here is a link (http://www.megaupload.com/?d=28C27JRQ) to another OpenOffce spreadsheet that will calculate the RMSD for participants of the NEU6g run. Same format as last time. Plug in your values, get a chart.

My results have changed considerably compared to the last chart, but they match the chart Day Tripper came up with months ago, so I'm assuming they are accurate. The same populations are my closest maches as before, just in a dfferent order. I'm much closer to ze Germans in this run, too.

http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk159/R1bman/MyNEU6gChart.jpg

[Boudica]

Alabaman do I still get a chart :D?

[Rochefaton]

Alabaman do I still get a chart :D?

You're not part of the Eurogenes Project yet are you?

[Boudica]

You're not part of the Eurogenes Project yet are you?

The guy (I think his name is Polako? Can't remember) said that he was going away for holidays and that he would post an update when he's back.

[Rochefaton]

The guy (I think his name is Polako? Can't remember) said that he was going away for holidays and that he would post an update when he's back.

Then you will have to wait until the Soul Pole gets back from holiday and adds you to a run, Ms. Boadicea. I'll be more than happy to make you a chart then. ;)