The European Populations

[Neon Knight]

The populations in the table below are ranked in order from most to least European. 'Most European' means 'least Asian and least African'.

The populations with a Europic score => 2/3 (=> 66.66 r) the French Basque score are classed as European.

https://i62.servimg.com/u/f62/19/71/28/23/the_eu10.png

METHOD
Using the significant components for geographical Europeans in the Eurogenes K13 analysis ( https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Oz6P5-SVEJciPX1TciGe-zoqA5JtOGIMG7nh-rCOj0c/edit?pli=1#gid=804264822 ), I gave each component a weighting according to how exclusively European it is:

Highest score in a European population x
+ highest score in a non-European population = total
then x / total for the European weighting.

Nth.Atlntc: 53.18 (W.Scottish) + 10.96 (Algerian) = 64.14; 53.18 / 64.14 = 0.83 weighting
Baltic: 53.89 (Lithuanian) + 25.06 (Selkup Siberian) = 78.95; 53.89 / 78.95 = 0.68 weighting
W.Med: 35.86 (Fr.Basque) + 25.34 (Moroccan) = 61.20; 51.87 / 103.74 = 0.59 weighting *
E.Med: 31.82 (S.Italian) + 52.36 (Yemeni) = 84.18; 31.82 / 84.18 = 0.38 weighting
W.Asian: 15.44 (C.Greek) + 54.31 (Abkhasian) = 69.75; 15.44 / 69.75 = 0.22 weighting
Siberian: 21.77 (Sami) + 80.94 (Evens) = 102.71; 21.77 / 102.71 = 0.21 weighting
Red Sea: 6.26 (E.Sicilian) + 34.19 (Saudi) = 40.45; 6.26 / 40.45 = 0.15 weighting

* The West Med component is highest in Sardinians but since Sardinia is geographically neutral (inbetween European and Africa) that score was not used in calculating the weighting.

For this purpose, the European populations were considered to be those indigenous to the European Continent with an eastern border running approximately from the White Sea in the north to the Sea of Azov in the south (the black line on the map below). The Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jewish populations were not counted as indigenous due to their relatively recent Near Eastern origins.

https://i62.servimg.com/u/f62/19/71/28/23/europe12.jpg

I then added together the weighted percentage scores for each popultion included. (Note that the table is not primarily intended to show how closely the populations are related because each region is genetically European in a different way.) Since the French Basque are most European they are considered the 'ultimate' modern Europeans and so 100% Europic.

[Neon Knight]

If you know your GEDmatch results for the K13 you can calculate your personal Europic % in the same way. Mine, for example:

N.Atlntc 46.85 x 0.83 = 38.89
Baltic 25.14 x 0.68 = 17.10
W.Med 16.78 x 0.67 = 11.24
E.Med 1.17 x 0.38 = 0.44
W.Asian 7.05 x 0.22 = 1.55
Siberian 0
Red Sea 0

These three reults added together = 67.88 then / 70.29 = 96.57 % Europic

[Aren]

Seems logical.

[Petalpusher]

The simpliest way is to consider a solid ancient calculator and just look at the WHG/SHG, which is in reality what you are trying to do with the weighting. It's anyway very similar to this because they are still to this day the most removed groups from Africans and Asians at the same time (as well as ASE), so well if you don't have any of this, or furthermore for Europeans how weak our relationship is with these groups, then more mesolithic can only make you more European.

[Jack_vorobey]

Is West med a european component? Peaks in spaniards and moroccans.

[AtlantoMediterranean]

# Population Percent
1 North_Atlantic 30.41 * 0.83 = 25.24
2 West_Med 19.77 * 0.67 = 13.25
3 East_Med 17.78 * 0.38 = 11.91
4 Red_Sea 9.68
5 Baltic 7.54 * 0.68 = 5.13
6 Sub-Saharan 6.89
7 Northeast_African 5.23
8 West_Asian 1.46 * 0.22 = 0.32
9 East_Asian 0.51
10 Oceanian 0.45
11 Siberian 0.29

European Total = 55.85
Europic = 79.46 %

[Neon Knight]

The simpliest way is to consider a solid ancient calculator and just look at the WHG/SHG, which is in reality what you are trying to do with the weighting. It's anyway very similar to this because they are still to this day the most removed groups from Africans and Asians at the same time (as well as ASE), so well if you don't have any of this, or furthermore for Europeans how weak our relationship is with these groups, then more mesolithic can only make you more European.

It would be interesting to compare this table with a list based on that. But do we know if the Hunter Gatherer DNA had elements shared with the West Asians and North Africans of that time in history? Also, they said modern Britons only have 10% DNA in common with Cheddar Man, so would comparing modern pops. with HGs be accurate enough?

[RN97]

100% scientific

[Aren]

The simpliest way is to consider a solid ancient calculator and just look at the WHG/SHG, which is in reality what you are trying to do with the weighting. It's anyway very similar to this because they are still to this day the most removed groups from Africans and Asians at the same time (as well as ASE), so well if you don't have any of this, or furthermore for Europeans how weak our relationship is with these groups, then more mesolithic can only make you more European.

Even SHG with their ANE?

[Leto]

88% but I don't think this method is very reliable.

[Oneeye]

Natl 46.78 x 0.83
Balt 23.29 x 0.68
Wmed 13.15 x 0.67
Wasian 7.82 x 0.22
Emed 5.64 x 0.32
Redsea 0.48 x 0.15


38.8274 + 15.8372 + 8.8105 + 1.7204 + 1.8048 + 0.072

67.0723


0.9542225068

[QUICAS]

I never expected Sami to plot so high. They are really inside the european nations.

[alnortedelsur]

Mine (Ancestry DNA):

# Population Percent
1 North_Atlantic 31.95 x 0.83 = 26.51
2 West_Med 22.01 x 0.67 = 14.74
3 East_Med 15.7 x 0.38 = 5.96
4 Baltic 8.88 x 0.68 = 6.04
5 Amerindian 6.66
6 Sub-Saharan 5.34
7 West_Asian 4.2 x 0.22 = 0.92
8 Red_Sea 3.12
9 Northeast_African 1.4
10 Siberian 0.75

European Total = 54.17

Europic = 77.06%

[Petalpusher]

I got 69.98346 > 99,56%


It would be interesting to compare this table with a list based on that. But do we know if the Hunter Gatherer DNA had elements shared with the West Asians and North Africans of that time in history? Also, they said modern Britons only have 10% DNA in common with Cheddar Man, so would comparing modern pops. with HGs be accurate enough?Do you mean if WHG/SHG had a relationship with CHG? In fst it's relatively related but considering there s not a huge gap of time and they were both HGs, not as much as we could expect. About N.Africa not at all since again it's the most distant thing to Africa, so in turn also to N.Africans (which isn't contradictory with the fact N.African do have some WHG from the neolithic much later)

As far as im aware Cheddar man's autosomal profile hasn't been published yet, he could well come up as something else than WHG or indeed a regular one, i don't know what they are basing their assumption with these 10%. It always depends if you consider a general HG admixture or a specific one with this guy in particular. It's like saying we are only 5% La Brana or whatever ancient HG because he didn't have much descendants while in reality we more likely to have around at least 50-60% WHG in Europe but from different sources of people who carried hunter gatherers ancestry + the local ones.

I dit it based on K10 with 30 samples, instead of doing an arbitrary weighting, i used the fst so everything you score is indexed on how it is related to indigenous European . It came out this way:

SHG
Lithuanian
Icelandic
Norwegian
Finnish
Karelian
Scottish
English
Russian
Hungarian
French
Croatian
French_South
Bulgarian
Spanish
Tuscan
Albanian
Greek
Lezgin
Sardinian
Adygei
Sicilian
Maltese
Cypriot
Armenian
Lebanese
Bedouin
Saudi
Syrian
Somali
Nganassan
Yoruba

WHG
Lithuanian
Icelandic
Norwegian
English
Scottish
French_South
Karelian
Finnish
French
Hungarian
Russian
Croatian
Spanish
Sardinian
Bulgarian
Tuscan
Albanian
Greek
Sicilian
Maltese
Cypriot
Adygei
Lezgin
Armenian
Lebanese
Bedouin
Saudi
Syrian
Somali
Nganassan
Yoruba

A couple of differences, altough top 3 remains the same. People can still use the the calculator embedded in the page if you still have your score (the calculator isn't on gedmatch anymore for some reasons)
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14raDu1IyRzrl22tj0N1kwQ2BiE4BSZytw4AWoeMm7mU/edit#gid=1917015797


Even SHG with their ANE?

It's still mostly WHG, if we consider SHG is 25% ANE and ANE is 2/3 West Eurasian that's not much non West Eurasian overall but arguably the fact SHG is as removed from Africans than WHG is also because of the relationship it got with east Eurasian due to the ANE. In the same way, for example a half English half Japanese would be more distant to Africans than any European but in the meantime he would also be less European and closer to like Australoids, Amerindans and obviously East Asians. Everything except WHG becomes a tradeoff, with SHG it's just not a huge one. Ultimately it's even Villabruna and KO1 (Hungarian HG) the most distants but it's like 1% more distant than the others.

[firemonkey]

North atlantic 52.73 *83 = 43.77
West Med 11.90 *67 = 7.97
East Med 2.51 *38 = 0.95
Baltic 23.57 *68 = 16.03
West Asian 4.17 *22 = 0.92

69.64/70.29 = 99.08


Father

North Atlantic 51.39 *83 = 42.65
West Med 12.89 *67 = 8.64
East Med 3.81 *38 = 1.45
Baltic 23.28 *68 = 15.83
West Asian 5.51 *22 = 1.21

69.78/70.29 = 99.27

[de Burgh II]

Population
North_Atlantic 50.64 * .83 (weighting) = 42.03
Baltic 19.98 * .68 (weighting) = 13.59
West_Med 15.56 * .59 (weighting) = 9.18
West_Asian 5.99 * .22 (weighting) = 1.32
East_Med 4.30 * .38 (weighting) = 1.63
Red_Sea 1.00 * .15 (weighting) = .15
South_Asian 1.05
East_Asian -
Siberian -
Amerindian 1.20
Oceanian -
Northeast_African 0.23
Sub-Saharan -
_________________________________ +

Total = 67.9
/ 70.29
_____________________

Europic: 96.6 %

[XenophobicPrussian]

As far as im aware Cheddar man's autosomal profile hasn't been published yet, he could well come up as something else than WHG or indeed a regular one, i don't know what they are basing their assumption with these 10%.
Pretty sure it's from that study really old that showed modern British people as 90% Bell Beaker, which obviously ignores Bell Beakers, and then populations that made up Bell Beakers had WHG admixture themselves.

@Neon Knight

This is decent, but I'd say Basques are overinflated and NE Europeans under(as much as I'd like it to be the opposite). This(that is, calcs based on modern components) at most shows the populations with the least post-neolithic admixture, indeed probably literally no one has mixed with the Basques outside of the main Anatolian farmer, WHG, Yamnaya components.

Pretty similar to this map someone else made based on one of Deinekes' calcs:

http://i.imgur.com/T2Df1za.png

Overall, Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians are probably the most European HG, Basques, Scandos, British Isles people just have their non-Euro admixture less recent.

You might wonder how Basques would have less post-neolithic admixture than Lithuanians, but Lithuanians actually share some IBD with Ashkenazis, much more than other n. Euros. Was also Tatar migrations there, and they have high y-dna N which probably only came in the iron age.

The best way to do this would be properly modelling ANE on how much WHG/East Asian it has, which is hard to do because Mal'ta is too old(shows too much noisey OoA related admixture) and Afontova Gora is very different to Mal'ta(more shifted toward WHG) and isn't used as the proxy for ANE in any calcs. Then use Eurogenes Basal-rich K7 and combine Villabruna-related with the WHG related part of ANE and you probably have the most accurate number to date.

Then again, neither are based on actual populations. A calc based on WHG, Natufian, and Nganasan is probably the best possible thing anyone could do, even though Natufian did probably have WHG related admixture and I'm not sure if Nganasan would take out all the East Eurasian in ANE.

[frankhammer]

North_Atlantic 46.12 = 38.27
Baltic 25.09 = 17.06
West_Med 16.12 = 9.51
West_Asian 5.50 = 1.21
East_Med 3.08 = 1.17
Red_Sea 1.94 = .29

68.80 / 70.29 = 96.04%

[AtlantoMediterranean]

I find the method a little particular because it means that if we apply it to other regions we could be both 80% European and 70% from another region.

[Neon Knight]

One question, why do you count Baltic as so much less European than North Atlantic ???Because the Baltic component is quite high in the Selkup Siberians, giving it a non-European shift, whereas the NA is significantly lower outside Europe (Algeria).

[Neon Knight]

Is West med a european component? Peaks in spaniards and moroccans.It peaks in the Basques. It would have a higher European weighting if Sardinia is counted as European but I think it is pretty clear that Sardinia lies almost exactly between Europe and Africa. That's why I skipped it.

[Neon Knight]

I never expected Sami to plot so high. They are really inside the european nations.The Sami's Mongoloid admixture is exaggerated - they have virtually no East Asian influence. Same with Finns and Swedes.

I expected the Portuguese to come a bit higher, given their western edge location.

[Neon Knight]

It's still mostly WHG, if we consider SHG is 25% ANE and ANE is 2/3 West Eurasian that's not much non West Eurasian overall but arguably the fact SHG is as removed from Africans than WHG is also because of the relationship it got with east Eurasian due to the ANE. In the same way, for example a half English half Japanese would be more distant to Africans than any European but in the meantime he would also be less European and closer to like Australoids, Amerindans and obviously East Asians. Everything except WHG becomes a tradeoff, with SHG it's just not a huge one. Ultimately it's even Villabruna and KO1 (Hungarian HG) the most distants but it's like 1% more distant than the others.But does basing modern European genetic identity on ancient HG DNA alone not ignore about 5000 years of genetic mutation? We know that even after 1000 years, Icelanders are not simply Norwegian + Scottish/Irish but a bit 'Icelandic' as well.

Also, if I understand correctly, population modelling only shows us the DNA matches between the individual and the populations it is looking at and ignores the DNA that does not match. So a modern Briton could be 10% HG, 10% ANE and 30% Yamnaya but the model would show these components as 20%, 20% and 60%, excluding the 'empty' half left by the DNA which did not match the ancient stuff.

[AK-47]

No way dude.:)
Stormfront has assured me that all European ethnic groups are of "wholly European ancestry."
This chart must be a Zionist conspiracy to make Europeans look admixed.
Good luck getting this chart posted on Stormfront, their cross-dressing mods will shit in their panties.

[Graham]

Natl 54.84 x 0.83 = 45.517
Balt 23.7 x 0.68 = 16.123
Wmed 10.8 x 0.67 = 6.3897
Wasian 4.6 x 0.22 = 1.3566
Emed 3.57 x 0.32 = 1.0054
Redsea 0 x 0.15 = 0
Siberian 0.10 * 0.21 = 0.021

= 70.413/70.29 = 100.17%

different idea. :)

[Petalpusher]

But does basing modern European genetic identity on ancient HG DNA alone not ignore about 5000 years of genetic mutation? We know that even after 1000 years, Icelanders are not simply Norwegian + Scottish/Irish but a bit 'Icelandic' as well.

Also, if I understand correctly, population modelling only shows us the DNA matches between the individual and the populations it is looking at and ignores the DNA that does not match. So a modern Briton could be 10% HG, 10% ANE and 30% Yamnaya but the model would show these components as 20%, 20% and 60%, excluding the 'empty' half left by the DNA which did not match the ancient stuff.

That's precisely why you need to base it off Fst instead, this is the actual main postulat of Fst : migration counters drift, roughly in equal measure (check Wright (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucbhdjm/courses/b242/MigEvol/Fst=1over1+4Nm.html)'s model of fst) However a lot of migration has happened in the past 5-10k so the difference between populations aren't mostly due to drift.


I think a Scot just broke your calculator.

[Peterski]

Because the Baltic component is quite high in the Selkup Siberians, giving it a non-European shift, whereas the NA is significantly lower outside Europe (Algeria).

Isn't this due to recent (Medieval and later) Russian admixture though?

For example ancient Proto-Saami (Bolshoy Oleni Ostrov, Kola Peninsula, 1500 BC) were like modern Yukagirs and Mansi - whereas modern Saami are more European, due to recent mixing with Finns, Russians and Scandinavians:

https://d8v5jhqx5tv4l.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/fennoscandia-pca.png

https://d8v5jhqx5tv4l.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/fennoscandia-pca.png

[Bobby Martnen]

So I'd be about 65% Euro by these standards (because I cluster with Austrians)

[Peterski]

It peaks in the Basques. It would have a higher European weighting if Sardinia is counted as European but I think it is pretty clear that Sardinia lies almost exactly between Europe and Africa. That's why I skipped it.

Sardinians are the most unmixed descendants of Middle Neolithic farmers in Europe.

They are like living fossils of Western Europeans before the Indo-European expansion.

Other Western Europeans have been altered by Indo-European admixture.

[Leto]

Isn't this due to recent (Medieval and later) Russian admixture though?

For example ancient Proto-Saami (Bolshoy Oleni Ostrov, Kola Peninsula, 1500 BC) were like modern Yukagirs and Mansi - whereas modern Saami are more European, due to recent mixing with Finns, Russians and Scandinavians:

https://d8v5jhqx5tv4l.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/fennoscandia-pca.png

https://d8v5jhqx5tv4l.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/fennoscandia-pca.png
I don't think that's recent Russian admixture. I think it's more ancient and Steppe-related.

[Peterski]

I don't think that's recent Russian admixture. I think it's more ancient and Steppe-related.

Okay but it ultimately came from Europe. So it should not be counted as Non-European.

[Peterski]

The Sami's Mongoloid admixture is exaggerated

Ancient Saami (Kola Peninsula, 1500 BC) were more Mongoloid than modern ones.

[Dick]

Sardinians are the most unmixed descendants of Middle Neolithic farmers in Europe.

They are like living fossils of Western Europeans before the Indo-European expansion.

Other Western Europeans have been altered by Indo-European admixture.

This from my Livingdna on gedmatch genesis. It must be wrong.


# Population Percent
1 W_Eurasian 98.44
2 SSA 1.56


Finished reading population data. 129 populations found.
3 components mode.

--------------------------------

Least-squares method.

Using 1 population approximation:
1 Sardinian @ 0.403510


Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Sardinian +50% Sardinian @ 0.403510

[Mens-Sarda]

It peaks in the Basques. It would have a higher European weighting if Sardinia is counted as European but I think it is pretty clear that Sardinia lies almost exactly between Europe and Africa. That's why I skipped it.

Sardinia is European since the dawn of time, the geographical position means nothing.

[Neon Knight]

Isn't this due to recent (Medieval and later) Russian admixture though?

For example ancient Proto-Saami (Bolshoy Oleni Ostrov, Kola Peninsula, 1500 BC) were like modern Yukagirs and Mansi - whereas modern Saami are more European, due to recent mixing with Finns, Russians and ScandinaviansIt is the current positions of the components that counts. The modern Sami are concentrated in Europe and nowhere else.


Sardinia is European since the dawn of time, the geographical position means nothing.Oh, it means everything :) Philosophy time. Europe is primarily a geographic concept. A racial European is a person who is (at a fine scale) genetically very similar to a population which is concentrated in Europe. And in modern Europe, not yonks ago. Who lived where when Satan roamed the earth is irrelevant to modern European genetic identities.

[Neon Knight]

That's precisely why you need to base it off Fst instead, this is the actual main postulat of Fst : migration counters drift, roughly in equal measure (check Wright (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucbhdjm/courses/b242/MigEvol/Fst=1over1+4Nm.html)'s model of fst) However a lot of migration has happened in the past 5-10k so the difference between populations aren't mostly due to drift.Using FST is obviously a more accurate way of doing it, but we cannot use the HGs to represent the ultimate Europeans. There is no point having a skeleton on the throne, if you see what I mean.


I think a Scot just broke your calculator.A barbarian outlier :p GEDmatch works well with averaged results but can be erratic for individuals.

[Mens-Sarda]

It is the current positions of the components that counts. The modern Sami are concentrated in Europe and nowhere else.

Oh, it means everything :) Philosophy time. Europe is primarily a geographic concept. A racial European is a person who is (at a fine scale) genetically very similar to a population which is concentrated in Europe. And in modern Europe, not yonks ago. Who lived where when Satan roamed the earth is irrelevant to modern European genetic identities.

In this case Sardinians can be considered more Europeans than all the others, because Sardinian people is like a living fossil, the living continuation of those peoples who lived in Europe in a remote past, all "the others", are just newcomers. :drink

[Peterski]

It is the current positions of the components that counts. The modern Sami are concentrated in Europe and nowhere else.

If current positions count then please add all of North Atlantic admixture that Mestizos in Latin America score. :)

These guys in Australia also tend to score quite a lot of North Atlantic, together with Oceanian / Australoid: :)

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?229881-Australian-GEDmatch-kits


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5YZlypz9E0

Siberia was a Russian colony and Russians mixed with locals, just like Latin America was an Iberian colony.

[Petalpusher]

Using FST is obviously a more accurate way of doing it, but we cannot use the HGs to represent the ultimate Europeans. There is no point having a skeleton on the throne, if you see what I mean.


This is almost a philosophical question, to me it's clear European means the indigenous people who live there for maybe 20-30k, we don't even know exactly but long enough. If Europe had been populated by Africans or Asians they would be the "Europeans", these HG people were the most different from both, so i don't know how we could base it on something supposed to be more European if it's either closer to African and/or Eastern Eurasians (since anything more modern is closer), that would be weird, and wrong, i think. Also for most of us except if you really go at the extreme end of the European spectrum, it is our dominant type of ancestry.

[Neon Knight]

This is almost a philosophical question, to me it's clear European means the indigenous people who live there for maybe 20-30k, we don't even know exactly but long enough. If Europe had been populated by Africans or Asians they would be the "Europeans", these HG people were the most different from both, so i don't know how we could base it on something supposed to be more European if it's either closer to African and/or Eastern Eurasians (since anything more modern is closer), that would be weird, and wrong, i think. Also for most of us except if you really go at the extreme end of the European spectrum, it is our dominant type of ancestry.I can see your point of view but it is a very academic one and we do not ordinarily think so far back in time when we identify with ancestors. Vikings/Saxons/Celts/Romans etc. are the usual references. Could Neanderthals not be considered the true Europeans?

On the subject of inheritance from ancient populations, this was the quote about Cheddar Man:

"Tests on the DNA of modern Britons reveal we have around 10 per cent of our DNA in common with Cheddar Man and his tribe."

Also, there is this from the Irish DNA Atlas study:

"The team did compare the modern group with two ancient genomes from Ireland. One came from a person who lived near Belfast during the Neolithic, around 5,000 years ago. The other was from a person who lived on Rathlin Island in the late Bronze Age, from 2000 to 1500 B.C. The scientists were hopeful they’d find genetic affinity, or relatedness, between the Bronze Age genome and modern inhabitants of the region where those bones had been found. No dice. The ancient genomes mainly served as a nice background reference to highlight variances between the modern groups."

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/12/irish-ancestry-dna-map-ireland-vikings-genetics-science/

These statements appear to contradict the idea that we have inherited a lot of DNA from the ancient populations.

[ovidiu]

I think this is also taking into account ancient Near Eastern/Middle Eastern/West Asian influence, which is Caucasian, as non-Euro, and not just Asian and African. Because Finns, Russians, Samis, etc. are surprisingly high here compared to some others. Ukraine, particularly going eastward, has some assimilated Turkic and Uralic influence but shows up as more European than even Northern Italy. Finns and Russians are higher here than France even, which seems dubious. Also explains why South Italy/Sicily is pulled so low, even more than the Uralic Mari people. It's not African influence but some MENA I think. Southern Italians are certainly more Caucasoid than Maris as a whole, but that's not what's being measured here.

[Neon Knight]

If current positions count then please add all of North Atlantic admixture that Mestizos in Latin America score. :)

These guys in Australia also tend to score quite a lot of North Atlantic, together with Oceanian / Australoid: :)

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?229881-Australian-GEDmatch-kits

Siberia was a Russian colony and Russians mixed with locals, just like Latin America was an Iberian colony.
I'm assuming there can only be one indigenous population per area/nation. Mixed race people are not the most populous by % anywhere that I know of. But if a particular mix has become the dominant norm in an area and is more concentrated there than anywhere else, then that population must be considered native.

That could happen in Brazil if all the pardos had very similar admixture proportions.

[Petalpusher]

I can see your point of view but it is a very academic one and we do not ordinarily think so far back in time when we identify with ancestors. Vikings/Saxons/Celts/Romans etc. are the usual references. Could Neanderthals not be considered the true Europeans?

On the subject of inheritance from ancient populations, this was the quote about Cheddar Man:

"Tests on the DNA of modern Britons reveal we have around 10 per cent of our DNA in common with Cheddar Man and his tribe."

Also, there is this from the Irish DNA Atlas study:

"The team did compare the modern group with two ancient genomes from Ireland. One came from a person who lived near Belfast during the Neolithic, around 5,000 years ago. The other was from a person who lived on Rathlin Island in the late Bronze Age, from 2000 to 1500 B.C. The scientists were hopeful they’d find genetic affinity, or relatedness, between the Bronze Age genome and modern inhabitants of the region where those bones had been found. No dice. The ancient genomes mainly served as a nice background reference to highlight variances between the modern groups."

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/12/irish-ancestry-dna-map-ireland-vikings-genetics-science/

These statements appear to contradict the idea that we have inherited a lot of DNA from the ancient populations.

It sounds a lot like "Cyan people have little blue, just cyan/yellow and cyan/magenta.."

If you look at Rathlin and Ballynhatty, you ll see they both score around 60% HG in something like a K7, mix them together you get some basic Euro, then you don't need to add much HG from the actual mesolithic era, and yet the very predominant bulk of their ancestry is HG. So it really comes down to how you model things and what's already embbeded in it