northern/northwestern europeans are the same people

[Borealis]

There is practically no difference between various northern and northwest Europeans, they are practically identical:

Watch how the English fit with the various people across northern and western Europe:

1 English Dutch:Average 0.9316 Open Map 100
2 English German:Average 1.2289 Open Map 100
3 English Irish:Average 0.8686 Open Map 100
4 English Norwegian:Average 1.7953 Open Map 100
5 English Swedish:Average 2.1706 Open Map 100

These are very low fits.

Biggest difference is between Swedes. Meanwhile the fit between me and people who have origins in the same region of the same country is UPWARDS of 2.5, often much higher.

[Dna8]

To be sure, broadly writing, they constitute one of the major aesthetic groups in Europe, but distinctions can be observed, IMO.

[Ibericus]

Well, they descend mostly from the same source populations, like the northern Bell Beakers, and CWC (or CWC offshots, like the Single Grave culture) But what makes the difference from each other, is that Scandinavians have retained a bit more hunter-gatherer ancestry, whereas British/Irish and Dutch have more neolithic. Also the Drift of many thousands of years, has created the modern differences.

[Borealis]

Well, they descend mostly from the same source populations, like the northern Bell Beakers, and CWC (or CWC offshots, like the Single Grave culture) But what makes the difference from each other, is that Scandinavians have retained a bit more hunter-gatherer ancestry, whereas British/Irish and Dutch have more neolithic. Also the Drift of many thousands of years, has created the modern differences.

The difference still appears to be very minor even in the context of Europe as a whole, let alone other regions of the world.

[Cristiano viejo]

Well, if you think British look and are the same than Russians/Finns... whatever makes you happy...

[Borealis]

Well, if you think British look and are the same than Russians/Finns... whatever makes you happy...

Russians are not northern Europeans. They are eastern Europeans. Finns can be considered northeastern Europeans but I would consider them unique.

[Bellbeaking]

cool thread op:

whats the english-belgian, and english-danish distance?

[Borealis]

cool thread op:

whats the english-belgian, and english-danish distance?
1 English Belgian:Average 1.6645 Open Map 100
There no danes on monte but Im assuming they'd be very similar considering all the surrounding pops. are also very similar.

[Leto]

Russians are not northern Europeans. They are eastern Europeans. Finns can be considered northeastern Europeans but I would consider them unique.
Russians are Northeastern too, at least Northern Russia.
Finns are much more Scando-ish, particularly Southern and Southwestern Finland. I1 is at 40% or so in Southwestern Finland.

[Borealis]

Russians are Northeastern too, at least Northern Russia.
Finns are much more Scando-ish, particularly Southern and Southwestern Finland. I1 is at 40% or so in Southwestern Finland.

Finns have a large Siberian component which is lacking in Scandinavians. Yes northern Russians are similar to Finns.

[Leto]

Finns have a large Siberian component which is lacking in Scandinavians. Yes northern Russians are similar to Finns.
Well, it's 5-6% in the aforementioned parts of the country and also keep in mind that Northern Sweden (Norrland) has a bit of Sami/Finnish like ancestry as well.

[Grace O'Malley]

I've done this with Irish and populations from Northwestern Europe.

http://i64.tinypic.com/317ee03.png

I've also done a comparison with one country Spain as there are a lot of regions for Spain in the G25. So it is interesting to compare Northwestern Europe with one population.

http://i63.tinypic.com/kbbpxx.jpg

[Leto]

Eurogenes K15 (sorry, I'm too lazy to create a proper table)

Pop. North_Sea Atlantic Baltic Eastern_Euro West_Med West_Asian East_Med Red_Sea
West_Scottish 37.33 30.46 10.34 8.90 6.70 3.07 1.17
Irish 36.38 30.66 11.15 8.12 6.98 3.34 1.24
Orcadian 39.61 29.01 8.61 8.08 7.37 3.67 0.65
Southwest_English 35.22 28.94 9.69 8.02 11.16 3.55 1.82
Southeast_English 35.52 29.86 9.89 8.36 8.77 3.35 2.50
North_Dutch 37.62 27.09 12.32 9.19 6.80 3.69 1.51
South_Dutch 29.95 26.93 10.50 9.05 11.43 4.74 4.52 1.40
North_German 33.08 27.46 13.41 9.95 6.11 5.24 2.50
West_German 34.00 21.84 10.46 8.06 11.13 5.00 6.33 1.02
East_German 26.64 21.71 18.07 13.28 10.36 5.16 2.80
Austrian 20.59 23.17 18.31 13.24 8.86 6.16 7.21 1.25
Danish 36.57 27.76 11.59 10.71 5.99 3.34 2.04
Norwegian 39.73 23.47 13.26 11.48 6.36 2.24 0.80
West_Norwegian 42.41 24.22 12.26 10.67 6.09 2.26 0.63
Swedish 39.32 22.58 15.55 10.95 5.23 2.54 1.06
North_Swedish 36.66 21.00 15.78 15.37 4.02 1.35 0.68
French 28.25 26.05 8.22 6.32 15.53 4.66 6.72 2.83
Southwest_French 18.23 33.82 8.51 5.22 23.54 1.68 6.12 1.97
Spanish_Cantabria 19.95 32.02 5.93 4.22 23.95 2.17 6.59 2.68
Spanish_Aragón 18.12 35.04 5.17 2.95 23.35 2.00 8.96 2.85
Spanish_Cataluña 21.75 29.63 6.92 4.00 20.70 3.10 9.73 1.88
North_Italian 17.15 23.60 7.11 3.72 21.63 7.02 15.83 3.17

[J. Ketch]

The Bell Beaker race, for want of a much better name. Forget Celt and German. Can anyone think of a better name?

https://www.mupload.nl/img/fw3uskon.21.22.png

[Token]

Northwestern Europeans are like brothers separated at birth. They are biologically identical to each other, but went different ways since the beginning.

[J. Ketch]

How about borrowing from redundant Anthropology and calling it the Nordic race? Bell Beakers were proto-Nords, Scandinavians/North Dutch etc are the modern Nords, British Isles and the coastal NW are Atlantic Nords, South & West Germans are Alpinic Nords perhaps.

[Seya]

I've done this with Irish and populations from Northwestern Europe.

http://i64.tinypic.com/317ee03.png

I've also done a comparison with one country Spain as there are a lot of regions for Spain in the G25. So it is interesting to compare Northwestern Europe with one population.

http://i63.tinypic.com/kbbpxx.jpg

So, north-west europeans are more similar to each other than people from different regions of spain?

[Token]

How about borrowing from redundant Anthropology and calling it the Nordic race? Bell Beakers were proto-Nords, Scandinavians/North Dutch etc are the modern Nords, British Isles and the coastal NW are Atlantic Nords, South & West Germans are Alpinic Nords perhaps.

What about Iberians and North Italians who are also predominantly Northern Bell Beaker, what are they? Southern Nords? Bastards?

[1] "distance%=1.6547"
Italian_Bergamo

Beaker_The_Netherlands,53.6
Barcin_N,46.2
Iberomaurusian,0.2

[1] "distance%=2.484"
Irish

Beaker_The_Netherlands,85.8
Barcin_N,13.2
WHG,1

I see Bell Beakers as something like Proto-Western Europeans, associating them with modern populations is problematic. Not even Scandinavians are purely Beaker today.

[Leto]

How about borrowing from redundant Anthropology and calling it the Nordic race? Bell Beakers were proto-Nords, Scandinavians/North Dutch etc are the modern Nords, British Isles and the coastal NW are Atlantic Nords, South & West Germans are Alpinic Nords perhaps.
How about calling them true white people? :) I've come to realize that Northwestern Europeans are the true whites. Not that the other Europeans are not (to be clear - I'm not talking about peripheral or transitional groups) but the Northwest is really the benchmark.

[Bellbeaking]

php

[Bellbeaking]

How about borrowing from redundant Anthropology and calling it the Nordic race? Bell Beakers were proto-Nords, Scandinavians/North Dutch etc are the modern Nords, British Isles and the coastal NW are Atlantic Nords, South & West Germans are Alpinic Nords perhaps.

Nordic is already in use as a cultural term for fennoscandia + iceland etc. How about the cheeky beaky boys?

[J. Ketch]

What about Iberians and North Italians who are also predominantly Northern Bell Beaker, what are they? Southern Nords? Bastards?

[1] "distance%=1.6547"
Italian_Bergamo

Beaker_The_Netherlands,53.6
Barcin_N,46.2
Iberomaurusian,0.2

[1] "distance%=2.484"
Irish

Beaker_The_Netherlands,85.8
Barcin_N,13.2
WHG,1

I see Bell Beakers as something like Proto-Western Europeans, associating them with modern populations is problematic. Not even Scandinavians are purely Beaker today.
Because they're not part of the same genetic cluster. SW Europeans are a clear subrace of Europe, distinct from NW Europeans. Now we know that Northern Beakers were most similar to Scandinavians and they're the least removed, why not call them proto-Nordics? And if they were proto-Nordics and NW Europeans alone are descended almost entirely from them...

[Leto]

Because they're not part of the same genetic cluster. SW Europeans are a clear subrace of Europe, distinct from NW Europeans. Now we know that Northern Beakers were most similar to Scandinavians and they're the least removed, why not call them proto-Nordics? And if they were proto-Nordics and NW Europeans are descended almost entirely from them...
Would you accept Austrians and Saxon/Brandenburg Germans into that subrace? Austrians speak German and culturally identify with so called Western Europe (Cold War-era term, unrelated to genetics).

[J. Ketch]

Would you accept Austrians and Saxon/Brandenburg Germans into that subrace? Austrians speak German and culturally identify with so called Western Europe (Cold War-era term, unrelated to genetics).
I don't know, I'm just spitballing my friend. I think we ought to have a better name for the founders of Western Europe by now than those people known for rudimentary pots.

[Token]

Because they're not part of the same genetic cluster. SW Europeans are a clear subrace of Europe, distinct from NW Europeans. Now we know that Northern Beakers were most similar to Scandinavians and they're the least removed, why not call them proto-Nordics? And if they were proto-Nordics and NW Europeans are descended almost entirely from them...

Southern and West Germans aren't part of this Northern European cluster either, with a good amount of them being closer to SW Europeans than to Scandinavians or Brits. And genetic similarity doesn't always equate to direct descent. Chances are that Scandinavians are as much directly descended from Beakers as Iberians are, the closeness comes from similar ratios of ancient components.

[Joso]

What about Iberians and North Italians who are also predominantly Northern Bell Beaker, what are they? Southern Nords? Bastards?

[1] "distance%=1.6547"
Italian_Bergamo

Beaker_The_Netherlands,53.6
Barcin_N,46.2
Iberomaurusian,0.2

[1] "distance%=2.484"
Irish

Beaker_The_Netherlands,85.8
Barcin_N,13.2
WHG,1

I see Bell Beakers as something like Proto-Western Europeans, associating them with modern populations is problematic. Not even Scandinavians are purely Beaker today.

Yeah, Iberians are probably bastards with North Africans, that would explain why they don't look anything ike Northern Italians even If they are supposed to be close to them.

[Joso]

So, north-west europeans are more similar to each other than people from different regions of spain?

Yes. For an example, Basques are pure Europeans, while other Spaniards all have varying degree of MENA admixture, even If distant.
That also explains why Basques are so much lighter than Spaniards.

[Dacul]

I think what is known as Britain Bell Beakers,are some Nordic ProtoCelts.
These Nordic ProtoCelts might have expanded later in Netherlands.
Simple proof:
The Celtic Ox/Cattle ( "Bos longifrons") is suggested to have come with the Bell Beakers in England, in this study, based on archaeological findings:
https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/342334/1/2011_RDRS_29-2011_WEB_REPORT.pdf

http://i64.tinypic.com/317ee03.png

I've also done a comparison with one country Spain as there are a lot of regions for Spain in the G25. So it is interesting to compare Northwestern Europe with one population.

http://i63.tinypic.com/kbbpxx.jpg[/QUOTE]

[Seya]

Yes. For an example, Basques are pure Europeans, while other Spaniards all have varying degree of MENA admixture, even If distant.
That also explains why Basques are so much lighter than Spaniards.

Speniards are very homogeneous compared to other european populations. Basques are unique, same as Sardinians...i wouldn’t include them into discussion. It’s interesting how the whole North and NW are closer to eachother then the people of the same ethnicity from any orher big european country. Especially is u compare NW with SE europe )))

[Brás Garcia de Mascarenhas]

Yeah, Iberians are probably bastards with North Africans, that would explain why they don't look anything ike Northern Italians even If they are supposed to be close to them.

Native North African haplogroups represent 6% of the whole Iberian Peninsula, so how are Iberians bastards? The Iberian peninsula has the biggest prevalence of R1b after Ireland, U.K. and Belgium with more than 70% of the population carrying this y-chromosome. You are perpetually butthurt with Iberians because most likely you are a carrier of chromosome 21.

[Brás Garcia de Mascarenhas]

Speniards are very homogeneous compared to other european populations. Basques are unique, same as Sardinians...i wouldn’t include them into discussion. It’s interesting how the whole North and NW are closer to eachother then the people of the same ethnicity from any orher big european country. Especially is u compare NW with SE europe )))

There's virtually no difference among Basques and the rest of the population that can be noticed at eye-sight. One just has to look at the Etarras that were arrested throughout the years.

http://www.diarioya.es/store/Etarras%202007.jpg

[J. Ketch]

[1] "distance%=3.4683"

jketch_scaled

Beaker_The_Netherlands,85.6
Barcin_N,12.6
WHG,1.8

85.6% Proto-Nordic > 85.6% Pot

[Dacul]

They are not.
There are 2 Northern components, NE European component and NW European component.
If you take these 2 components, they are not close at all.
Only SW Norway got more of that NW European component.
If you model with only 1 Northern component, normally they are being close, but that is not correct.

There is also a Baltic genetics component and if you take NE Genetics (peaks at Finns), Baltic component (peaks in Latvia and Lithuania) and NW Component (peaks in people from the Republic of Ireland) things will get even more, more complicated.

Is very simple, Baltic component is associated with Baltid race, NE Component, with East Baltid and East Nordids, NW Component, with Keltic Nordid race.
Think is quite easy to make a difference between Scando Nordids and East Nordids on one side and Keltic Nordids on the other side, without the need to see the hair color, just the facial features.
If you take a side/profile picture, the difference is very clear, flattened forehead at KN , prominent foreheads at East Nordids and Scando Nordids.

Scando Nordid race come from mixing with Sami people.
Did NW people, meaning Dutch, North French, British and Irish people mixed to the Samis?
No.
Scandos mixed also with Greenlanders, from there their 3-4-5% Q paternal line comes.


Anyone seen a Keltic Nordid native to Sweden or even Norway?
I doubt.
Lol.

[Seya]

There's virtually no difference among Basques and the rest of the population that can be noticed at eye-sight. One just has to look at the Etarras that were arrested throughout the years.

http://www.diarioya.es/store/Etarras%202007.jpg

i meant genetically of course

[Leto]

They are not.
There are 2 Northern components, NE European component and NW European component.
If you take these 2 components, they are not close at all.
Only SW Norway got more of that NW European component.
If you model with only 1 Northern component, normally they are being close, but that is not correct.

There is also a Baltic genetics component and if you take NE Genetics (peaks at Finns), Baltic component (peaks in Latvia and Lithuania) and NW Component (peaks in people from the Republic of Ireland) things will get even more, more complicated.

Is very simple, Baltic component is associated with Baltid race, NE Component, with East Baltid and East Nordids, NW Component, with Keltic Nordid race.
Think is quite easy to make a difference between Scando Nordids and East Nordids on one side and Keltic Nordids on the other side, without the need to see the hair color, just the facial features.
If you take a side/profile picture, the difference is very clear, flattened forehead at KN , prominent foreheads at East Nordids and Scando Nordids.

Scando Nordid race come from mixing with Sami people.
Did NW people, meaning Dutch, North French, British and Irish people mixed to the Samis?
No.
Scandos mixed also with Greenlanders, from there their 3-4-5% Q paternal line comes.


Anyone seen a Keltic Nordid native to Sweden or even Norway?
I doubt.
Lol.
Please keep this taxonomy autism out of this discussion.

[Dacul]

Please keep this taxonomy autism out of this discussion.

Is not autism, are just scientific facts.
Have anyone seen Baltids in Ireland?
Or in Wales?
:)
But I think are plenty of Baltids in Sweden.

[Leto]

Is not autism, as just scientifical facts.
Have anyone seen Baltids in Ireland?
Or in Wales?
:)
But I think are plenty of Baltids in Sweden.
Those classifications are flawed and obsolete. We're talking about population genetics. Phenotypical differences may exist even between closely related populations. For example there are stereotypical Georgian, Armenia, Russian, Polish, German, Spanish, Italian, Irish faces and so on.

[Brás Garcia de Mascarenhas]

[1] "distance%=3.4683"

jketch_scaled

Beaker_The_Netherlands,85.6
Barcin_N,12.6
WHG,1.8

85.6% Proto-Nordic > 85.6% Pot

Is that calculator on Poi server?

[J. Ketch]

Is that calculator on Poi server?
No, you can just choose those populations from the droplist. The webrunner however gives different results to R, what I used. In the webrunner I'm 89% Dutch Beaker.

[Dacul]

Just writing here this and after, will not add other things in this thread to bother people:
Scandos, Finns have high cold resistance,compared to the Dutch,Northern French, Brits and Irish.
They cluster at this cold resistance with plenty of Germans, with most if not all Russians and Belarus people and also with some other Eastern Europeans, as Poles ,plenty of Romanians :) .
No idea how cold resistant are Ukrainians or Austrians.

[Token]

No, you can just choose those populations from the droplist. The webrunner however gives different results to R, what I used. In the webrunner I'm 89% Dutch Beaker.

Poi's calculator runs with limited cycles, so it is generally less accurate.

[Brás Garcia de Mascarenhas]

No, you can just choose those populations from the droplist. The webrunner however gives different results to R, what I used. In the webrunner I'm 89% Dutch Beaker.

Thank you. I am still a noob when it comes to Global 25. I am not entirely sure if I did everything correctly but these were my results:


Fit 3.5587

Viriato_scaled

Beaker The Netherlands 56.67%
Barcin N 41.67%
WHG 1.67%

[Token]

Thank you. I am still a noob when it comes to Global 25. I am not entirely sure if I did everything correctly but these were my results:


Fit 3.5587

Viriato_scaled

Beaker The Netherlands 56.67%
Barcin N 41.67%
WHG 1.67%

Your fit is too bad, you need to add something to handle the North African admixture, preferably an ancient proximate source (i generally use Iberomaurusian).

[Brás Garcia de Mascarenhas]

Your fit is too bad, you need to add something to handle the North African admixture, preferably an ancient proximate source (i generally use Iberomaurusian).

I can only pick 3 reference populations. Which ones then?

[Token]

I can only pick 3 reference populations. Which ones then?

I recommend you downloading R, 3 references isn't enough for Iberians. Replacing WHG for Iberomaurusian would give equally bad fits, because Iberians have excess WHG admixture.

[Brás Garcia de Mascarenhas]

I recommend you downloading R, 3 references isn't enough for Iberians. Replacing WHG for Iberomaurusian would give equally bad fits, because Iberians have excess WHG admixture.

Downloading R is not the problem for me but to find a good step to step tutorial on how to run it with Global 25. Do you know one by any chance? Thank you.

[Token]

Downloading R is not the problem for me but to find a good step to step tutorial on how to run it with Global 25. Do you know one by any chance? Thank you.

- Unpack all of the attached files into your working directory (usually My Documents).

- Install the R program

https://cloud.r-project.org/

- Copy paste into the R window...

source('nMonte3.R')

- HIT ENTER

- Copy paste...

getMonte('data.txt', 'target.txt', pen=0)

- HIT ENTER

Wait for the results.

You should copy and paste all the references coordinates that you want to use in your model to data.txt, here is the relevant spreadsheet:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bPt1Xqy0HwXpJFcug3vaC3MBqFTMvj5A/view

Put your scaled coordinates in target.txt.

[Vasconcelos]

Don't use pen=0 unless you are sure the populations in the dataset are distinct enough, or if you're using archaeological samples which have extra noise in higher dimensions

[Gründig]

Downloading R is not the problem for me but to find a good step to step tutorial on how to run it with Global 25. Do you know one by any chance? Thank you.

Using Poi's tool is absolutely fine and much more convenient.

[Brás Garcia de Mascarenhas]

- Unpack all of the attached files into your working directory (usually My Documents).

- Install the R program

https://cloud.r-project.org/

- Copy paste into the R window...

source('nMonte3.R')

- HIT ENTER

- Copy paste...

getMonte('data.txt', 'target.txt', pen=0)

- HIT ENTER

Wait for the results.

You should copy and paste all the references coordinates that you want to use in your model to data.txt, here is the relevant spreadsheet:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bPt1Xqy0HwXpJFcug3vaC3MBqFTMvj5A/view

Put your scaled coordinates in target.txt.


Thank you but I can not even get past this step without getting error :confused:

- Copy paste into the R window...

source('nMonte3.R')

[Token]

Thank you but I can not even get past this step without getting error :confused:

- Copy paste into the R window...

source('nMonte3.R')

First go to Archive at the top left corner of the window -> Change dir. -> Open the nMonte folder -> OK. Now see if it works.

[Brás Garcia de Mascarenhas]

First go to Archive at the top left corner of the window -> Change dir. -> Open the nMonte folder -> OK. Now see if it works.

There was no nMonte3.R file on the folder, so there would be no way for me to make this work out, lol. I managed to download it and add it anyway.

Unsure if I did everything right once again but this is what I got. I used the entire spreadsheet that you gave me.

[1] "distance%=0.9783"

Viriato_scaled

Spanish_Pais_Vasco,28.8
Nordic_IA,17.8
Remedello_BA,10.4
Beaker_Italy_North_no_steppe,9.2
Hungary_Medieval_Szolad_o1,8
Parkhai_MBA,6.8
Iberomaurusian,5.6
Maros,5.6
Wales_CA_EBA,2.8
Basque_French,2.6
Lithuanian,1.2
Jordanian,0.8
Satan_MLBA_Alakul,0.4

[Token]

There was no nMonte3.R file on the folder, so there would be no way for me to make this work out, lol. I managed to download it and add it anyway.

Unsure if I did everything right once again but this is what I got. I used the entire spreadsheet that you gave me.

[1] "distance%=0.9783"

Viriato_scaled

Spanish_Pais_Vasco,28.8
Nordic_IA,17.8
Remedello_BA,10.4
Beaker_Italy_North_no_steppe,9.2
Hungary_Medieval_Szolad_o1,8
Parkhai_MBA,6.8
Iberomaurusian,5.6
Maros,5.6
Wales_CA_EBA,2.8
Basque_French,2.6
Lithuanian,1.2
Jordanian,0.8
Satan_MLBA_Alakul,0.4

Run one with Barcin_N, WHG, Iberomaurusian and Beaker_The_Netherlands.

[Brás Garcia de Mascarenhas]

Run one with Barcin_N, WHG, Iberomaurusian and Beaker_The_Netherlands.

[1] "distance%=3.1041"

Viriato_scaled

Beaker_The_Netherlands,52.4
Barcin_N,39
Iberomaurusian,6.2
WHG,2.4

Warning messages:
1: In read.table(file = file, header = header, sep = sep, quote = quote, :
incomplete final line found by readTableHeader on 'data.txt'
2: In read.table(file = file, header = header, sep = sep, quote = quote, :
incomplete final line found by readTableHeader on 'target.txt'
> getMonte('data.txt', 'target.txt', pen=1)



Are these warning messages normal or I did something wrong?

[Token]

[1] "distance%=3.1041"

Viriato_scaled

Beaker_The_Netherlands,52.4
Barcin_N,39
Iberomaurusian,6.2
WHG,2.4

Warning messages:
1: In read.table(file = file, header = header, sep = sep, quote = quote, :
incomplete final line found by readTableHeader on 'data.txt'
2: In read.table(file = file, header = header, sep = sep, quote = quote, :
incomplete final line found by readTableHeader on 'target.txt'
> getMonte('data.txt', 'target.txt', pen=1)

Are these warning messages normal or I did something wrong?
Look if there are spaces between the numbers of the coordinates, but the results looks normal. The distance is unusually high though, try to replace Iberomaurusian for Moroccan. Here is the Portuguese average for comparison.

[1] "distance%=1.9156"
Portuguese

Beaker_The_Netherlands,51
Barcin_N,40
Iberomaurusian,5.8
WHG,3.2

[Vasconcelos]

Look if there are spaces between the numbers of the coordinates, but the results looks normal. The distance is unusually high though, try to replace Iberomaurusian for Moroccan. Here is the Portuguese average for comparison.

[1] "distance%=1.9156"
Portuguese

Beaker_The_Netherlands,51
Barcin_N,40
Iberomaurusian,5.8
WHG,3.2

A lot of people get worse fits in general, that's just the way it is. His is not unusually high, especially consideirng you're using ancient samples

[Brás Garcia de Mascarenhas]

Distance was even higher with the Moroccan sample. I am curious about the Portuguese average with all the populations on the spreadsheet, I will try to calculate it.

[Aren]

[1] "distance%=3.1041"

Viriato_scaled

Beaker_The_Netherlands,52.4
Barcin_N,39
Iberomaurusian,6.2
WHG,2.4

Warning messages:
1: In read.table(file = file, header = header, sep = sep, quote = quote, :
incomplete final line found by readTableHeader on 'data.txt'
2: In read.table(file = file, header = header, sep = sep, quote = quote, :
incomplete final line found by readTableHeader on 'target.txt'
> getMonte('data.txt', 'target.txt', pen=1)



Are these warning messages normal or I did something wrong?

Put pen=0 since you are using four very different ancient populations. I would also use Mozabite Berber rather than Iberomaurusian for Iberians.

Don't bother about the warning messages, as long as R produces a result it means you did it right.

A lot of people get worse fits in general, that's just the way it is. His is not unusually high, especially consideirng you're using ancient samples

Exactly. Averages produce generally much better fits than individual results.

[Brás Garcia de Mascarenhas]

Put pen=0 since you are using four very different ancient populations. I would also use Mozabite Berber rather than Iberomaurusian for Iberians.

Don't bother about the warning messages, as long as R produces a result it means you did it right.


Exactly. Averages produce generally much better fits than individual results.

Those results are the ones I got with 0 penalty. Afterwards I tried with 1 penalty (hence why the command appears, I accidentaly copy\pasted it along with the warning messages) but the distance was even higher.

[Vasconcelos]

Those results are the ones I got with 0 penalty. Afterwards I tried with 1 penalty (hence why the command appears, I accidentaly copy\pasted it along with the warning messages) but the distance was even higher.

Just remove "pen=0" from the command, nMonte will set standard penalty then, which is 0.001. I suggest keeping it on when dealing with ancient samples (particularly if you're using unscaled coordinates), but the results will vary slightly between runs

[Aren]

Those results are the ones I got with 0 penalty. Afterwards I tried with 1 penalty (hence why the command appears, I accidentaly copy\pasted it along with the warning messages) but the distance was even higher.

It's a decent run. But if you want to find out more precisely your Beaker/Indo-European input I would suggest doing a run with these populations.

Beaker_The_Netherlands
Iberia_Central_CA(or Iberia_MN, Iberia_SW_CA)
Anatolia_BA(or Minoan)
Mozabite

[Vasconcelos]

It's a decent run. But if you want to find out more precisely your Beaker/Indo-European input I would suggest doing a run with these populations.

Beaker_The_Netherlands
Iberia_Central_CA(or Iberia_MN, Iberia_SW_CA)
Anatolia_BA(or Minoan)
Mozabite

I use a similar one, but with an older East Med sample, with higher CHG-related ancestry (like Armenia_EBA) and Iberomaurussian instead of Mozabite. This with unscaled and standard penalty, although I also ran it with no penalty just to compare results between different Iberian regions as to avoid variarion between results, with a Levantine pop included (Levant_BA_S)


Mine is:
Beaker_Britain (virtually the same as Beaker_Nl)
Iberia_Central_CA
Armenia_EBA (Chl is good too)
Levant_BA_S
Iberomaurussian

Here's a sample result

fit 1,2046
Population Portugal
Beaker_Britan 44,4
Iberia_CA 33,0
Armenia_EBA 12,8
Levant_BA_S 5,2
Iberomaurussian 4,6

[Aren]

I use a similar one, but with an older East Med sample, with higher CHG-related ancestry (like Armenia_EBA) and Iberomaurussian instead of Mozabite. This with unscaled and standard penalty, although I also ran it with no penalty just to compare results between different Iberian regions as to avoid variarion between results.


Mine is:
Beaker_Britain (virtually the same as Beaker_Nl)
Iberia_Central_CA
Armenia_EBA (Chl is good too)
Iberomaurussian

The issue I have with using Armenia_EBA is that it wasn't Kura–Araxes people who brought this CHG/Iran_N-East Med farmer admixture to southern Europe but rather it entered Europe from Western Anatolia and the Aegan sea. Which is why I think using Anatolia_BA is a more accurate choice.
Ofc in the case of Iberians this admixture probably came via Italy with a population I think is gonna resemble modern Central Italians(who score high Anatolia_BA).

[Vasconcelos]

The issue I have with using Armenia_EBA is that it wasn't Kura–Araxes people who brought this CHG/Iran_N-East Med farmer admixture to southern Europe but rather it entered Europe from Western Anatolia and the Aegan sea. Which is why I think using Anatolia_BA is a more accurate choice.
Ofc in the case of Iberians this admixture probably came via Italy with a population I think is gonna resemble modern Central Italians(who score high Anatolia_BA).

Sure, but we still have no idea which group did. It will probably give you a higher score then, because Anatolia_BA is much more on the EEF side than Armenia_EBA is (https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-3UGAgYDjd-s/Wp57VggEapI/AAAAAAAAGgE/UZnK4WUUDhsztF9F9LQ7l7Vxg6lRFab_wCLcBGAs/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/Precursors_of_Proto-Greeks.png), but I specifically wanted a pop with higher CHG-related ancestry that the model would otherwise lack

[Brás Garcia de Mascarenhas]

I use a similar one, but with an older East Med sample, with higher CHG-related ancestry (like Armenia_EBA) and Iberomaurussian instead of Mozabite. This with unscaled and standard penalty, although I also ran it with no penalty just to compare results between different Iberian regions as to avoid variarion between results, with a Levantine pop included (Levant_BA_S)


Mine is:
Beaker_Britain (virtually the same as Beaker_Nl)
Iberia_Central_CA
Armenia_EBA (Chl is good too)
Levant_BA_S
Iberomaurussian

Here's a sample result

fit 1,2046
Population Portugal
Beaker_Britan 44,4
Iberia_CA 33,0
Armenia_EBA 12,8
Levant_BA_S 5,2
Iberomaurussian 4,6


Penalty = 0

[1] "distance%=3.2913"

Viriato_scaled

Beaker_Britain,38.4
Iberia_Central_CA,37
Armenia_EBA,18.6
Iberomaurusian,5.6
Levant_BA_South,0.4

Penalty = 0.001

[1] "distance%=3.3775"

Viriato_scaled

Beaker_Britain,43.6
Iberia_Central_CA,32.6
Armenia_EBA,12
Levant_BA_South,7.2
Iberomaurusian,4.6

[Vasconcelos]

[1] "distance%=3.2913"

Viriato_scaled

Beaker_Britain,38.4
Iberia_Central_CA,37
Armenia_EBA,18.6
Iberomaurusian,5.6
Levant_BA_South,0.4

Penalty = 0.001

[1] "distance%=3.3775"

Viriato_scaled

Beaker_Britain,43.6
Iberia_Central_CA,32.6
Armenia_EBA,12
Levant_BA_South,7.2
Iberomaurusian,4.6

Yeah you're a bit SE-shifted, but you ran with scaled coordinates, whereas I did with unscaled ones.
I have quite a few Iberian regions on an excel sheet I did months ago

fit [%] 2,7534
Population Vasconcelos
Beaker_Britain 48,2
Iberia_CA 33,8
Armenia_EBA 11,8
Levant_BA_S 1,6
Iberomaurussian 4,6


fit [%] 1,7880
Population MrsVasconcelos
Beaker_Britain 43,0
Iberia_CA 35,4
Armenia_EBA 9,0
Levant_BA_S 6,6
Iberomaurussian 6,0




fit [%] 1,7388
Population Castilla y León
Beaker_Britain 48,2
Iberia_CA 32,4
Armenia_EBA 10,0
Levant_BA_S 4,8
Iberomaurussian 4,6


fit [%] 1,5032
Population Andalucia
Beaker_Britain 41,0
Iberia_CA 35,4
Armenia_EBA 17,4
Levant_BA_S 3,4
Iberomaurussian 2,8


fit [%] 1,1700
Population Extremadura
Beaker_Britain 42,6
Iberia_CA 33,0
Armenia_EBA 12,0
Levant_BA_S 7,8
Iberomaurussian 4,6


fit [%] 1,5226
Population Cantabria
Beaker_Britain 48,2
Iberia_CA 38,0
Armenia_EBA 9,6
Levant_BA_S 2,4
Iberomaurussian 1,8

[Brás Garcia de Mascarenhas]

Yeah you're a bit SE-shifted, but you ran with scaled coordinates, whereas I did with unscaled ones.
I have quite a few Iberian regions on an excel sheet I did months ago


How can you run with unscaled and not get crazy distances? With unscaled I get [1] "distance%=12.9394"

[Borealis]

How can you run with unscaled and not get crazy distances? With unscaled I get [1] "distance%=12.9394"

You have to use the scaled coordinates with scaled and unscaled with unscaled. You must have switched them up.

[Vasconcelos]

How can you run with unscaled and not get crazy distances? With unscaled I get [1] "distance%=12.9394"

You need to use the data.txt and yourown.txt with unscaled coordinates instead of scaled ones

,PC1,PC2,PC3,PC4,PC5,PC6,PC7,PC8,PC9,PC10,PC11,PC1 2,PC13,PC14,PC15,PC16,PC17,PC18,PC19,PC20,PC21,PC2 2,PC23,PC24,PC25
Iberia_Central_CA,0.0111333,0.0168667,0.0148333,-0.0099,0.0328667,-0.0084333,-0.0032,-5e-04,0.0350667,0.0522667,-0.005,0.0092,-0.0226667,-0.0113333,-0.0033667,0.0049,0.0136667,0.0016,0.0009667,0.0007 333,0.0124333,3.33e-05,-0.0097667,-0.0259333,-0.0002333
Armenia_EBA,0.0094667,0.0126667,-0.0173,-0.0139667,-0.0159,-0.0012333,0.0040333,-0.0022333,-0.0275,-0.0093,0.0019333,0.0061,-0.0095667,0.0023,0.0039333,-0.0003333,0.0094,-0.0007667,-0.0020667,0.0002333,0.0060333,-0.0033333,0.0037667,-0.0019667,-0.0013333
Iberomaurusian,-0.01714,0.00826,-0.00584,-0.02664,0.00976,-0.02054,-0.03164,0.00778,0.07716,0.00198,0.01144,-0.0217,0.0526,-0.0366,0.05234,-0.02976,0.00404,-0.0527,-0.11352,0.02766,-0.03172,-0.09958,0.05776,-0.01104,0.01498
Beaker_Britain,0.0111828,0.012131,0.0166793,0.0207 345,0.0087621,0.008031,0.0010724,0.0013034,-0.0010517,-0.0056241,-0.0022517,0.0026207,-0.0075138,-0.0109034,0.0194207,0.0072345,-0.0047103,0.0009345,0.0014138,0.0042138,0.0048828, 0.0028517,0.0001138,0.0035241,-0.0010655
Levant_BA_South,0.0066667,0.0145667,-0.0159,-0.0353,-0.0018333,-0.0170667,-0.0046667,-0.0057333,0.0165333,0.0041333,0.0096667,-0.0131333,0.0279667,-6e-04,-0.0023333,0.0172333,0.0013667,0.0007667,-0.0024333,0.0137,0.0040667,0.0095333,-0.0031333,0.0035667,-0.0059333


pen=0.001:

[1] "distance%=2.7654"

Vasconcelos

Beaker_Britain,51.2
Iberia_Central_CA,31.4
Armenia_EBA,9.6
Iberomaurusian,4
Levant_BA_South,3.8


[1] "distance%=1.2259"

Portuguese

Beaker_Britain,46.8
Iberia_Central_CA,30.6
Armenia_EBA,11.4
Levant_BA_South,7
Iberomaurusian,4.2

[Brás Garcia de Mascarenhas]

You need to use the data.txt and yourown.txt with unscaled coordinates instead of scaled ones

You sure the values you sent me are correct? I am getting Error in check_formats(myData, myTarget) : Colnames input not identical

[Vasconcelos]

You sure the values you sent me are correct? I am getting Error in check_formats(myData, myTarget) : Colnames input not identical

Yes, I just copied from my own .txt
Make sure the copy+paste didn't ruin the formatting, you're supposed to keep each pop and its coordinates in a single line separated by commas only

[Brás Garcia de Mascarenhas]

pen=0.001

[1] "distance%=2.478"

Viriato

Beaker_Britain,47.4
Iberia_Central_CA,30.8
Armenia_EBA,13.8
Iberomaurusian,5
Levant_BA_South,3




pen=0.001

[1] "distance%=1.2261"

Portuguese

Beaker_Britain,46.8
Iberia_Central_CA,30.6
Armenia_EBA,11.2
Levant_BA_South,7.2
Iberomaurusian,4.2

[Vasconcelos]

Interesting, you actually score pretty low Levant_BA, it's the Armenia_EBA type of ancestry that drags you to the SE of the Iberian cluster. You might have a bit more CHG-like ancestry than most, otherwise it's all rather average

[Brás Garcia de Mascarenhas]

Interesting, you actually score pretty low Levant_BA, it's the Armenia_EBA type of ancestry that drags you to the SE of the Iberian cluster. You might have a bit more CHG-like ancestry than most, otherwise it's all rather average

Is the Iberian sample Beaker/Indo-European or is it prior to that?

[Lemgrant]

How can you run with unscaled and not get crazy distances? With unscaled I get [1] "distance%=12.9394"

you need datasheet with unscaled coordinates
http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/02/unleash-power-global-25-test-drive.html

[Vasconcelos]

Is the Iberian sample Beaker/Indo-European or is it prior to that?

Before, it's basically EEF+WHG without any steppe ancestry. It's a pretty good pre-Steppe-ancestry proxy from before the Bronze Age BB migrations

[Brás Garcia de Mascarenhas]

Before, it's basically EEF+WHG without any steppe ancestry. It's a pretty good pre-Steppe-ancestry proxy from before the Bronze Age BB migrations

So on this run I am 47.4% Beaker/Indo-European basically?

[Token]

So on this run I am 47.4% Beaker/Indo-European basically?

Beaker_Britain is slightly mixed with British Neolithic, use Beaker_The_Netherlands instead.

[Vasconcelos]

So on this run I am 47.4% Beaker/Indo-European basically?

Pretty much, but keep in mind all these models are a bit simple and it all depends on what populations you're using on the dataset. If you use a Bell Beaker population with less steppe ancestry your result will increase quite a bit. Also keep in mind that we didn't get this type of ancestry with Bell Beakers alone, people kept moving from beyond the Pyrenees for millenia, BB_Britain is a proxy for all that type of ancestry in general



Beaker_Britain is slightly mixed with British Neolithic, use Beaker_The_Netherlands instead.
They are very similar, it's irrelevant whether you use one or the other. Besides the samples from the NL are actually from a very late BB period. You can even use BB_Hungary, whatever, it depends on what you're trying to model anyway. Besides it's very unlikely people like BB_Britain or BB_Netherlands were the ones who crossed the Pyrenees, it was likely others with higher amounts of EEF-like ancestry anyway, which would rise the score from his 47 to something else

http://www.r1b.org/imgs/David_Reich_Lecture.png

[Brás Garcia de Mascarenhas]

Beaker_Britain is slightly mixed with British Neolithic, use Beaker_The_Netherlands instead.

Pen: 0.001

[1] "distance%=2.5004"

Viriato

Beaker_The_Netherlands,44.2
Iberia_Central_CA,33.2
Armenia_EBA,15.2
Iberomaurusian,5
Levant_BA_South,2.4

Pen: 0

[1] "distance%=2.4734"

Viriato

Beaker_The_Netherlands,39.8
Iberia_Central_CA,35.6
Armenia_EBA,18.8
Iberomaurusian,5.8

[Token]

They are very similar, it's irrelevant whether you use one or the other. Besides the samples from the NL are actually from a very late BB period. You can even use BB_Hungary, whatever, it depends on what you're trying to model anyway. Besides it's very unlikely people like BB_Britain or BB_Netherlands were the ones who crossed the Pyrenees, it was likely others with higher amounts of EEF-like ancestry anyway, which would rise the score from his 47 to something else

http://www.r1b.org/imgs/David_Reich_Lecture.png
It is very likely that a population still similar to Netherlands Beakers crossed the Pyrenees due to the fact that you can still find individuals identical or almost identical to them among the early Iberian Beakers, as shown by your image. By the way, they are using Netherlands Beakers as a reference for the 'eastern' ancestry in these replacement estimates. You either use the original, unmixed Beakers as reference or just pick the most proximate reference (Southern France Beakers or whatever), using British_Beakers is non sense because they are mixed with British Neolithic.

[Vasconcelos]

It is very likely that a population still similar to Netherlands Beakers crossed the Pyrenees due to the fact that you can still find individuals identical or almost identical to them among the early Iberian Beakers, as shown by your image. By the way, they are using Netherlands Beakers as a reference for the 'eastern' ancestry in these replacement estimates. You either use the original, unmixed Beakers as reference or just pick the most proximate reference (Southern France Beakers or whatever), using British_Beakers is non sense because they are mixed with British Neolithic.

As I said, it depends on what you want, you're making a big deal out of something as trivial as a simple model lol
The image shows the earliest Iberian samples with Yamnaya ancestry were actually somewhat low on Yamnaya ancestry when compared to Britain, suggesting that the populations that first moved here carried higher amounts of EEF-related ancestry. The ones who had higher amount were likely later migrants, I still remember those being discussed in eurogenes and people were speculating they were originally from central Europe or Britain.

None of this matters, I built the models just as a means to compare ancient ancestry within different regions of Iberia and see who had most one type or another, and it gets the job done, whether you use BB_A or BB_B

Edit: I remember why I chose Britain over Netherlands, it provided better fits. But as I said tanto monta, monta tanto, Isabel como Fernando


[1] "distance%=2.478"

Viriato

Beaker_Britain,47.4
Iberia_Central_CA,30.8
Armenia_EBA,13.8
Iberomaurusian,5
Levant_BA_South,3

[1] "distance%=2.5004"

Viriato

Beaker_The_Netherlands,44.2
Iberia_Central_CA,33.2
Armenia_EBA,15.2
Iberomaurusian,5
Levant_BA_South,2.4

[Token]

As I said, it depends on what you want, you're making a big deal out of something as trivial as a simple model lol
The image shows the earliest Iberian samples with Yamnaya ancestry were actually somewhat low on Yamnaya ancestry when compared to Britain, suggesting that the populations that first moved here carried higher amounts of EEF-related ancestry. The ones who had higher amount were likely later migrants, I still remember those being discussed in eurogenes and people were speculating they were originally from central Europe or Britain.

None of this matters, I built the models just as a means to compare ancient ancestry within different regions of Iberia and see who had most one type or another, and it gets the job done, whether you use BB_A or BB_B. Use whatever the heck you want
I'm not making a big deal, i'm just pointing out that using British Beakers makes no sense if your goal is to isolate Beaker/IE admixture as much as possible. There are unmixed samples that can be used instead, so why use the mixed ones? I see three Iberian samples with +80% Rhenish Beaker admixture at a very early period and there is no objective reason to conclude that they were migrants from somewhere else. The earliest British Beaker sample is among the ones that have the least amount of eastern admixture but we can still conclude that the Beakers that entered Britain were initially identical to Netherlands Beakers by looking at the few early samples of full 'eastern' stock.

[Vasconcelos]

I'm not making a big deal, i'm just pointing out that using British Beakers makes no sense if your goal is to isolate Beaker/IE admixture as much as possible. There are unmixed samples that can be used instead, so why use the mixed ones? I see three Iberian samples with +80% Rhenish Beaker admixture at a very early period and there is no objective reason to conclude that they were migrants from somewhere else. The earliest British Beaker sample is among the ones that have the least amount of eastern admixture but we can still conclude that the Beakers that entered Britain were initially identical to Netherlands Beakers by looking at the few early samples of full 'eastern' stock.

Better fit, if you want to make your own models go ahead and knock yourself out. For my objective it worked very well

[Aren]

Pretty much, but keep in mind all these models are a bit simple and it all depends on what populations you're using on the dataset. If you use a Bell Beaker population with less steppe ancestry your result will increase quite a bit. Also keep in mind that we didn't get this type of ancestry with Bell Beakers alone, people kept moving from beyond the Pyrenees for millenia, BB_Britain is a proxy for all that type of ancestry in general



They are very similar, it's irrelevant whether you use one or the other. Besides the samples from the NL are actually from a very late BB period. You can even use BB_Hungary, whatever, it depends on what you're trying to model anyway. Besides it's very unlikely people like BB_Britain or BB_Netherlands were the ones who crossed the Pyrenees, it was likely others with higher amounts of EEF-like ancestry anyway, which would rise the score from his 47 to something else

http://www.r1b.org/imgs/David_Reich_Lecture.png

Actually several of the Beakers from southern France are almost identical to the Dutch Beakers. And the oldest Steppe Beaker is from the Netherlands. The Lower Rhine so far seems to be ground zero.

[Aren]

There’s no direct iberomaurusian admixture in modern nor in prehistoric Iberia so I would drop that and use maybe the Guanche samples or modern Berbers. There’s almost no doubt that the NA admixture arrived during or after the Roman era.
Also using Levant_BA_North(Canaanite) makes much more sense than using the older southern samples from Jordan.

[Vasconcelos]

Actually several of the Beakers from southern France are almost identical to the Dutch Beakers. And the oldest Steppe Beaker is from the Netherlands. The Lower Rhine so far seems to be ground zero.

Maybe, but VNSP near Lisbon only changed from Iberian Beaker to Kurgan Beaker by 2200, and I'd bet whatever you want they were not like AOC Beakers/CWC from the Rhein, much like Reich's graph shows. Pointless discussion for what was done here anyway, I'm done.


There’s no direct iberomaurusian admixture in modern nor in prehistoric Iberia so I would drop that and use maybe the Guanche samples or modern Berbers. There’s almost no doubt that the NA admixture arrived during or after the Roman era.
Also using Levant_BA_North(Canaanite) makes much more sense than using the older southern samples from Jordan.

BA_North are about 50% BA_South plus other source of ancestry, closer related to Armenia_EBA, it's pointless using both BA_North AND Armenia_EBA. But whatever, make your own model/calc and make a thread about it, if you have time and better ideas. Bye bye

[Insuperable]

No shit.

[Borealis]

No shit.

You probably didn't know that.

[Insuperable]

You probably didn't know that.

I am glad I had you to point this out to me.

[Borealis]

I am glad I had you to point this out to me.

If you don't care, you don't need to comment.

[TeutonicBoyars]

I really hate these threads that try to conjoin x group together, often without citing any real purpose of doing so. First you allow that Northern Europeans are so close there's practically no difference, then you move that benchmark a little more until it's southern europe, then the entire population of eurasia, and then pretty soon "humans share 99.9% of their ancestry so there's literally no difference, no matter where you go".

My people are different enough historically, culturally, and genetically from Germans, British people, and even Swedes, and whatever this thread is trying to advocate by using DNA testing tools to compare populations using flawed methodology, I'm not buying it, thnx.

[Leto]

My people are different enough historically, culturally, and genetically from Germans, British people, and even Swedes, and whatever this thread is trying to advocate by using DNA testing tools to compare populations using flawed methodology, I'm not buying it, thnx.
Who are your people? Danes? Are you Danish on your paternal side?

[Aren]

Maybe, but VNSP near Lisbon only changed from Iberian Beaker to Kurgan Beaker by 2200, and I'd bet whatever you want they were not like AOC Beakers/CWC from the Rhein, much like Reich's graph shows. Pointless discussion for what was done here anyway, I'm done.

It's quite likely that they were still very similar to the Dutch Beakers once they entered Iberia, but mixed much more so with the local Copper Age farmers obviously shortly after their arrival. In fact in the upcoming Reich paper you mentioned, one of the Iberian Beakers scored very high Yamnaya, similar to the more northerly Beakers.


BA_North are about 50% BA_South plus other source of ancestry, closer related to Armenia_EBA, it's pointless using both BA_North AND Armenia_EBA. But whatever, make your own model/calc and make a thread about it, if you have time and better ideas. Bye bye
What does it matter that it's "mixed"? All of the populations you are using are mixed. The fact is that if Iberians have BA admixture from the Levant it surely came with a population similar to the Canaanite samples rather than to the earlier ones from Jordan. So if you want to find out the Levantine admixture in your runs then why not use the more proper sample? Same applies to using BA samples from Armenia rather than Western Anatolia or the Aegan.

[Vasconcelos]

What does it matter that it's "mixed"? All of the populations you are using are mixed. The fact is that if Iberians have BA admixture from the Levant it surely came with a population similar to the Canaanite samples rather than to the earlier ones from Jordan. So if you want to find out the Levantine admixture in your runs then why not use the more proper sample? Same applies to using BA samples from Armenia rather than Western Anatolia or the Aegan.

It means the two are closely related, something I did not want as I wanted to keep the variables relatively independent from each other as possible, within a reasonable close timeframe (which is why I opted for BA samples from the Levant, and not Natufian or Levant_N/Chl - people shouldn't use pops from different timeframes unless they are using them as a proxy, like Iberomaurusian was). The point was to avoid overfitting and having nMonte having trouble picking between the two as it does that quite a lot, and why Huijbregts recomends people to do that, at least amateurs/begginers like everyone here is. And the model was just to compare differences between non-Basque Iberian regions, it does that just fine. Now go make your own calculators and leave me alone

[Aren]

It means the two are closely related, something I did not want as I wanted to keep the variables relatively independent from each other as possible, within a reasonable close timeframe (which is why I opted for BA samples from the Levant, and not Natufian or Levant_N/Chl). The point was to avoid overfitting and having nMonte having trouble picking between the two as it does that quite a lot, and why Huijbregts recomends people to do that, at least amateurs. And the model was just to compare differences between Iberian regions, it does that just fine. Now go make your own calculators and leave me alone

Well, I think it's far more interesting and accurate to use samples who very well could've directly contributed to the Iberian genepool rather than using far away samples who hardly spread outside their own region. It's not overfitting at all. Overfitting would be using similar, overlapping samples in the same run.
But that's just my opinion. If you disagree then that's fine.

And oh, you do realize that you can simply just not answer people if you want to be left alone on an online forum?

[Finnish Swede]

Well, it's 5-6% in the aforementioned parts of the country and also keep in mind that Northern Sweden (Norrland) has a bit of Sami/Finnish like ancestry as well.

Exactly. That only partly explains Finns uniques among of Europeans (how ''distant'' they are).

Another matter is that Finns only have small amount of all different Europeans genes ... opposite to rest of Europeans which shares most of those.

[Vasconcelos]

Introduction nMonte3

I have introduced two important modifications in nMonte. The new version is called nMonte3 and can be found in my dropbox at:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/1iaggxyc2...oKME_3XHa?dl=0
THE REFERENCE DATA SHOULD BE RAW DATA, NOT AVERAGES OR MEDIANS.

While working with the North_European dataset, I realized that that German admixture is severely underestimated by nMonte.
Thinking about this phenomenon, I realized that the way we average populations is not unproblematic and should be improved.
Secondly I decided that it I should finally adress the problem of overfitting.

(...)

2. The nMonte results are overfitted models. In the first place the populations are related and therefore share common DNA. Secondly, nearly all populations are genetically equivalent to a mixture of other populations. For instance:
German <- fp*French + (1-fp)*Polish. Because nMonte can itself choose the mixing parameter fp, this mixture will nearly always be preferred above true German.

Which is why Ger Huijbregts advises begginers and amateurs in nMonte to keep using populations that are as distinct as possible, they don't simply need to not overlap. You can, of course, but I wanted "independed" pops, and my model works fine given what it was designed for - intra-Iberian trends are easy to read and I'm happy with that.
If you want to make some really historically accurate models, knock yourself out, but that was not my point (which you clearly didn't read, as you brought back Anatolia_BA again). And I know how forums work, thank you, I've been a moderator here.

[Aren]

Which is why Ger Huijbregts advises begginers and amateurs in nMonte to keep using populations that are as distinct as possible, they don't simply need to not overlap. You can, of course, but I wanted "independed" pops, and my model works fine given what it was designed for - intra-Iberian trends are easy to read and I'm happy with that.

This scenario above doesn't apply to our discussion. If someone knows that he has French, German and Polish ancestry but the nMonte gives him only a mix of Polish and French, then he knows that's false. However in our scenario the opposite is true. It's highly unlikely, close to impossible that Iberians have direct Iberomaurusian or Kura-Araxes input. One obviously should also pick logical and historically accurate samples, not just going by how distinct they are from one and other. So when you use Iberomaurusian instead of Berbers you force the nMonte to give Iberians some BA Levantine input(which does not exist) due to the fact that modern North Africans are shifted towards the Levant in comparison to the earlier Iberomaurusians.

[Vasconcelos]

So when you use Iberomaurusian instead of Berbers you force the nMonte to give Iberians some BA Levantine input(which does not exist) due to the fact that modern North Africans are shifted towards the Levant in comparison to the earlier Iberomaurusians.

I know.

[Joso]

Speniards are very homogeneous compared to other european populations. Basques are unique, same as Sardinians...i wouldn’t include them into discussion. It’s interesting how the whole North and NW are closer to eachother then the people of the same ethnicity from any orher big european country. Especially is u compare NW with SE europe )))

True, Spaniards are very homogeneous, that is what makes them to be different of Northern Italians

[Mortimer]

I have feeling most of you know much more then me. Lately I just take a glance at new genetic threads, but dont read them really. Also I dont use nmonte or create PCA maps. Many of you are experts to me.

[Grace O'Malley]

So, north-west europeans are more similar to each other than people from different regions of spain?

Yes. Northwest Europeans are the closest genetically to each other. You can also see this on Gedmatch results. A Spanish person will have higher genetic distances between Spanish regions than a lot of North-Westerners have between countries. On Gedmatch it is common to get another Northwestern country as your no 1 over your own country.

[Vasconcelos]

Yes. Northwest Europeans are the closest genetically to each other. You can also see this on Gedmatch results. A Spanish person will have higher genetic distances between Spanish regions than a lot of North-Westerners have between countries. On Gedmatch it is common to get another Northwestern country as your no 1 over your own country.

It depends on what you consider NW Euro, those Gedmatch calculators are dated

https://i.postimg.cc/37VLMHsk/europe-legendas.png

https://i.postimg.cc/dsmZkg7t/G25-unscaled.jpg

[Grace O'Malley]

It depends on what you consider NW Euro, those Gedmatch calculators are dated

https://i.postimg.cc/37VLMHsk/europe-legendas.png

The Gedmatch calcs might be dated but they were still very accurate for populations. I mean Eurogenes still showed the same position for myself as the G25 does.

[Vasconcelos]

The Gedmatch calcs might be dated but they were still very accurate for populations. I mean Eurogenes still showed the same position for myself as the G25 does.

I'm not sure they had many references to begin with. Even G25 has limited samples in many populations, masking a lot of variation within certain groups (edit: some regional spanish groups only have 3 samples). Gedmatch Eurogenes calculators were were made by the same person some 5 years ago, so don't expect them to have had more. NW Euros are an homogenous group, but likely not more homogenous than Spaniards.

[Grace O'Malley]

I'm not sure they had many references to begin with. Even G25 has limited samples in many populations, masking a lot of variation within certain groups (edit: some regional spanish groups only have 3 samples). Gedmatch Eurogenes calculators were were made by the same person some 5 years ago, so don't expect them to have had more. NW Euros are an homogenous group, but likely not more homogenous than Spaniards.

Yes definitely. That's the reason why my no 1 match isn't Ireland in the G25. I know people use the word homogenous but all it means is that there is a similarity. On the G25 there are only 3 Welsh samples so a lot of areas need more samples. The Irish set is 64 so that's a big difference.

[Vasconcelos]

Yes definitely. That's the reason why my no 1 match isn't Ireland in the G25. I know people use the word homogenous but all it means is that there is a similarity. On the G25 there are only 3 Welsh samples so a lot of areas need more samples. The Irish set is 64 so that's a big difference.

Yeah but that's not unusual, it's just a reference, and there's both personal and regional variation that can make people deviate from it. The reference itself can be rather poor it it was built with few samples (again, certain Spanish regions) so drawing conclusions form it can potentially be fallacious. I'm not really close to the Portuguese reference either, and I always get Spanish regions before it, for example Gedmatch calculators (K13 and K15) set me closer to Cantabria than Portugal, but that's the consequence of limited references (and the PCA itself, which is not as good as G25)