Prehistoric Romanian (~40,000 years old) in GEDmatch

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Rethel of Retheley

I only said, that they look like. Negrito from the photo
does not have such flat face and nose and is more round.

---

Except Oase doesn't look anything like a Bantu or a Papuan. One of the most distinctive traits of Negritos/Papuans/Bantu is their vertical, convex foreheads. Oase 2 is the exact opposite.

Oase 2
http://i.imgur.com/bC14yEz.png?1

Bantu
http://i.imgur.com/F7n29eK.jpg?1

Papuan
http://i.imgur.com/8PBnh72.jpg?1

Oase 2 is more like an Amerindian:


http://i.imgur.com/bC14yEz.png?1

http://i.imgur.com/WPx7yu6.jpg?1

The skull is also similar to a Shanidar Neanderthal in this regard:


http://i.imgur.com/FPRbH4G.jpg?1

Quote:

---

Oase 2 also presents apparently independent features that are, at best, unusual for a modern human, whether the reference sample is of preceding MPMH or EUP and MUP modern humans.

Despite the high and rounded sagittal parietal arc, the sagittal frontal arc is long and exceptionally flat. The Oase 2 frontal bone arc versus chord residual is below those of all of the early modern human crania; it falls in the middle of the Neandertal range of variation despite the absence of a supraorbital torus (Fig. 5). In combination with its highly curved parietal arc, it is exceptional for an early modern human and is closest to the Shanidar 1 Neandertal. No deformational process can explain this pattern because no postdepositional distortion was observed on any part of the cranium, all of the cranial vault fragments fit perfectly, and no trace of artificial deformation was noticed. Among the early modern humans, Oase 2 is most closely approached by Cioclovina 1 (frontal arc/chord residual: −5.6) and secondarily by Nazlet Khater 2 (−4.3) and Skhul 5 (−4.3, although it has a supraorbital torus)

---

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/4/1165.full


So sorry to burst your bubble but Oase 2 was the opposite of a Negrito (Polack) and was more similar to an IndoEuropean (Amerindian/Borreby) in this regard. Oase 2's physical type was among the original Indo-Europeans who destroyed your Polack ancestors in a cannibalistic rape attack of genocide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grab the Gauge

type was among the original Indo-Europeans who destroyed your Polack ancestors in a cannibalistic rape attack of genocide.

---

Fine, but:

1) At that time here was no Polacks at all.
2) I have no polish ancestors (at least I do not know about them).
3) So, how they could destroy them, the more: ate them? :picard2:

Quote:

---

"The specimens suggest that there have been clear changes in human anatomy since then," said Trinkaus. "The bones are also fully compatible with the blending of modern human and Neandertal populations. Not only is the face very large, but so are the jaws and the teeth, particularly the wisdom teeth. In the human fossil record, you have to go back a half-million years to find a specimen that has bigger wisdom teeth."

---

http://donsmaps.com/romaniancaveskull.html

https://boneclones.com/images/store-...1415043068.jpg

35,000 years BP: Oase 1 (mandible) and Oase 2 (cranium) were both discovered in the Peştera cu Oase, Romania. The mandible was found first, in 2002, by speleologists Milota, Bîlgăr and Sarcină. The cranium, which is from a different individual, was found by a team led by Trinkaus and Zilhão between 2003-2005. BH-048, which has a sagittal cut revealing details of the endocranium, is an exact cast of a 3D scan printed output provided to Bone Clones by Racoviță Institute of Speleology. From there Bone Clones cleaned up the scan lines and reconstructed the missing details and elements in consultation with Erik Trinkaus and Hélène Rougier and producedBH-049. These are the earliest and among the most complete anatomically modern human remains found to date from this period in Europe. The Bone Clones® Hominid line is composed of discoveries from anatomically modern humans, archaic humans, early Homo, early hominins, and other hominids. The majority of the casts in this line have been recreated by our team of anatomical sculptors. Some are reconstructions made by anthropology professionals using fragmentary elements from original discoveries and extrapolating the missing parts from those (i.e. Neanderthal skeleton).

http://donsmaps.com/images8/oasetooth.jpg

The biting surface of a third molar tooth from a Homo sapiens specimen found in a Romanian cave exhibits a curious welter of protrusions, which raises questions about its evolutionary heritage.

Photo: Romanian Academy in http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20040522/bob8.asp

Yet the Romanian fossil also flaunts some strikingly primitive traits. Its molar teeth are considerably larger than those of European H. sapiens that lived 30000 to 20000 years ago. In fact, Trinkaus says, the chewing surfaces of the Oase skull's molars are wider than those of the generally bulkier Neandertals.

Moreover, at the back of the Oase individual's mouth, a welter of bumps tops its third molars. No fewer than 11 protrusions of various sizes jut up from each chewing surface. Corresponding H. sapiens molars are far smoother.

A third-molar tooth from another human ancestor, which was recently unearthed in the central Asian nation of Uzbekistan, also displays nearly a dozen bumps. Preliminary work suggests that this tooth belonged to a Neandertal that lived at least 40000 years ago. Michelle Glantz of Colorado State University in Ft. Collins described that find at the Paleoanthropology Society meeting.

Bump-covered third molars appear in some current species of mammals and may evolve as a by-product of genetic mechanisms that promote larger teeth, Trinkaus speculates.

Aside from the Oase specimen's teeth, the heft of its jaw and the shape of parts of its braincase also hark back to H. sapiens that lived 100000 years ago or more, he says.

The mix of old and new features on the Romanian fossils adds to suspicion that, on the evolutionary path toward today's people, interbreeding occurred among H. sapiens, Neandertals, and other ancient Homo species to varying extents in different regions, according to Trinkaus and a colleague in the Oase project, Joao Zilhao of Cidade University in Lisbon, Portugal.

That theory previously received a boost with the discovery in Portugal of a 24500-year-old skeleton that Trinkaus and Zilhao view as a prime example of interbreeding between modern H. sapiens and Neandertals. The child's bones display a potpourri of traits from both species, in the researchers' view.

The Oase fossils contain a different mosaic of characteristics, with more pieces from archaic H. sapiens than from Neandertals. If human evolution hinged on groups of various Stone Age species moving from place to place and interbreeding to some extent along the way, then unpredictable mixes of anatomical features would have been generated in any locality that attracted prehistoric crowds, Trinkaus contends.

He thus takes a skeptical view of traditional efforts to reconstruct neatly branching evolutionary trees of human ancestors by determining whether fossils contain predominantly primitive or advanced traits. Analyses of modern and ancient DNA are also incapable of unraveling the extent to which Neandertals and other Homo species interbred with H. sapiens, in Trinkaus' opinion.

That leaves a big evolutionary question mark punctuating the Romanian discoveries. "We don't fully understand what's going on with the combination of features on these bones," the St. Louis researcher says.

Again Kostenki. Boring.

PDF http://www.booksite.ru/etnogr/1955/1955_1.pdf (since 43 page)

This is Kostenki skull in three views, not only frontal.
https://s30.postimg.org/peig3od75/kostenki14_skull.jpg

It's clearly visible thaht such alveolar proghantism (alveolar angle 70) isn't Neanderthal or Western Euro Cromagnon trait. Maybe Gtg think in another way. I don't care. Coon said [1962] that Neanderthals were proghnatic in middle facial region, not in jaw region.

https://s28.postimg.org/ljv4orlt9/possibly_Kostenki.jpg

Also it's fully concordant with Gerasimov reconstruction. Look at jaw and nose.

Debec (renowned Soviet anthropologist cited also in Coon'w works) who discovered Kostenki skull wrote that it was similar to Veddoid or Australoid, not African Negroid, nor Mongoloid.

Some measurements. So Kostenki XIV wasn't robust as some people say... Compare this tiny skull to CMs or Neanderthals. Now you understand why it was classified as non-Europen?

https://s30.postimg.org/sziczn1tt/kostenki14.jpg
https://s27.postimg.org/ckui4kzj7/kostface.jpg

Now I finally get, why in the 10,000 BC film is such guy: :rolleyes:

http://www.aveleyman.com/Gallery/Act...9147-27785.gif :)

;)

Get lost Polak monkey brains. The wise man cares not about Polakstan bullshit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by physical-anthro

It's clearly visible thaht such alveolar proghantism (alveolar angle 70) isn't Neanderthal or Western Euro Cromagnon trait. Maybe Gtg think in another way. I don't care. Coon said [1962] that Neanderthals were proghnatic in middle facial region, not in jaw region.

---

You are wrong, as usual. Coon did not say that, and European Neanderthals exhibited monstrous alveolar prognaghism.

This photo demonstrates the outline of the La Chapelle aux Saints Neanderthal next to ths very orthognathic Skhul IV. As you can see, La Chapelle looks like a crocodile compared to Skhul IV.

http://i.imgur.com/AYaX0xU.jpg


From the Stone Age of Mount Carmel by Dorothy Garrod ^


http://i.imgur.com/YYO9dXd.jpg


Several other Upper Paleolithic skulls exhibit this animalistic prognathism. Predmost 3 compared to a modern Czech skull (white outline):


http://i.imgur.com/8iaMmU2.jpg?1

Quote:

---

]Also it's fully concordant with Gerasimov reconstruction. Look at jaw and nose.

Debec (renowned Soviet anthropologist cited also in Coon'w works) who discovered Kostenki skull wrote that it was similar to Veddoid or Australoid, not African Negroid, nor Mongoloid.

---

Mikhail Gerassimov is a fraud and all of his reconstructions are worthless, but that still doesn't look like a Papuan or Australoid.

Quote:

---

Some measurements. So Kostenki XIV wasn't robust as some people say... Compare this tiny skull to CMs or Neanderthals. Now you understand why it was classified as non-Europen?

---

He was born with congenital microcephaly. The other remains at Kostenki aren't as small.

♬ ♬ It's a new day, it's a new dawn...
Another Polack is in the wrong. ♬ ♬

Quote:

---

Coon did not say that, and European Neanderthals exhibited monstrous alveolar prognaghism.

---

You're lying intentionally, or you are just not well informed:)

Coon, Origin of races, 1962 :)
https://s9.postimg.org/gteetiinj/prg.jpg

About LaChapelle. He is indeed proghnatous (I know you like it) but what Coon said about this proto-Negro:) Shanidar is fully neanderthaloid and is orthognatous.
https://s27.postimg.org/6po383of7/chap.jpg

Quote:

---

Mikhail Gerassimov is a fraud and all of his reconstructions are worthless, but that still doesn't look like a Papuan or Australoid.

---

You are nothing to real anthropoloogists and you are worthless:) And he looks like Veddoid.

Quote:

---

The other remains at Kostenki aren't as small.

---

Oh really?You probaly thought about this babyfaced Kostenki II. But browrigdes and nasal bones indicates he was adult. Interesting he isn't proghnatous as Kostenki XIV...

https://s10.postimg.org/dqkpljkyh/kostenki2.jpg


Kostenki XIV was an exception, yes. Buty he looks as he looks. Certainly not Caucasoid.

Attachment 64062

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/att...2&d=1486927801

Papuo-Amerindiano-Asiano-Veddo-Natufiano-WHGbrowno-ME-African

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Rethel of Retheley

Attachment 64062

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/att...2&d=1486927801

Papuo-Amerindiano-Asiano-Veddo-Natufiano-WHGbrowno-ME-African

---

Rethel, nie spodziewałem się autosomalnego rejszyzmu po tobie... :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by physical-anthro

You're lying intentionally, or you are just not well informed:)

Coon, Origin of races, 1962 :)
https://s9.postimg.org/gteetiinj/prg.jpg

About LaChapelle. He is indeed proghnatous (I know you like it) but what Coon said about this proto-Negro:) Shanidar is fully neanderthaloid and is orthognatous.
https://s27.postimg.org/6po383of7/chap.jpg


You are nothing to real anthropoloogists and you are worthless:) And he looks like Veddoid.

---

Well, Coon was wrong in this regard. Pretty much everything written on that page is wrong. He is not incapable of being wrong. Also, Shanidar 1 is not considered fully Neanderthaloid. He is, like other late West Asian Neanderthals, intermediate between Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens. Shanidar 1 differs from the other Shanidar skulls in many regards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by physical-anthro

Oh really?You probaly thought about this babyfaced Kostenki II. But browrigdes and nasal bones indicates he was adult. Interesting he isn't proghnatous as Kostenki XIV...

https://s10.postimg.org/dqkpljkyh/kostenki2.jpg


Kostenki XIV was an exception, yes. Buty he looks as he looks. Certainly not Caucasoid.

---

Kostenki was Caucasoid and genetically is European (Northern European):


http://sciencenordic.com/scandinavia...iest-europeans

Quote:

---

An international team of scientists have sequenced the genome of a 37,000-year-old male skeleton found in Kostenki in Russia.

The study, which was recently published in Science, sheds entirely new light on who we are as Europeans.

"From a genetic point of view he's an European," says Professor Eske Willerslev, Director of the Centre for GeoGenetics at the University of Copenhagen, who was involved in the new study, and adds:

“Actually, he is closer to Danes, Swedes, Finns and Russians than to Frenchmen, Spaniards and Germans”.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Litvin

Rethel, nie spodziewałem się autosomalnego rejszyzmu po tobie... :p

---

Ja uźywam autosomalu tam gdzie to jest potrzebne.
Każde dane są ważne, ale w ramach rozsądku.
Autosomal jest wazny przy ocenie wyglądu a
także w dedukcjach historycznych migracji gdy
debile badając szczątki zapomniały rutynowo
zbadać Y, ale nie zapomniały zbadać dzisiątek
mt - ergo jedynym ratunkim jest wówczas aDNA.

Do tego służy autosomal.

Z pewnością nie służy do określania pochodzenia
per se ani do określania przynależności trybalnej,
tudzież tożsamości idywidua, a już na pewno nie
do dewaluacji genealogii i historycznych korzeni,
a do tego tu w większości jest używane, często
będąc zupełnie olewanem w aspekcie właściwym
tj pierwszym o którym pisałem powyżej.

Quote:

---

https://s27.postimg.org/6po383of7/chap.jpg

---

Coon makes yet another error in the 1960s. Skhul IV is as low headed, if not lower-headed, than La Chapelle. Their auricular head height is the same. These skulls are additionally not accurate to scale.

https://ia600503.us.archive.org/Book...ale=2&rotate=0

http://i.imgur.com/T0xgrZJ.jpg?1

The Shanidar 1 Neanderthal had a higher cranial vault than Skhul IV. It is also certain now, that they aren't contemporaneous. Skhul IV is roughly 90,000 years old. La Chapelle is 55,000 years old.


I think it is safe to say that by the 1960s Coon was perhaps in the early stages of Alzheimer's and had bit off a bit more than he could chew, with his multi-regional evolution theory. Later on he would promote the existence of Bigfoot.

Coon even noted in the 1930s that Skhul IV was low headed:

Quote:

---

In the skull, Skhul man is definitely intermediate between the Neanderthal and sapiens groups, but much closer to the latter, so that its inclusion in the living species cannot be denied. The skulls of the three males are extremely large. In length, they equal Galley Hill, but far exceed it in breadth; the vault height of two specimens, #5 and #9, measured from the ear holes, is equal to that of Galley Hill, but the third, #4, is as low as with true Neanderthals, while the extreme breadth of this specimen acts as a compensatioi, permitting a greater capacity than with the other two. In vault form, then, two are mainly sapiens, while one appears, from the measuremenis, to be largely Neanderthaloid

---

http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/chapter-II05.htm


So yeah, everything Coon wrote from the 1960s can be disregarded as the Alzheimer's ramblings of a senile old man.

https://anthropology.net/2008/10/17/...e-prognathism/

Quote:

---

Some researchers, like Milford Wolpoff, have suggested that there’s a growth and development reason to why we don’t see narrow Neandertal noses. For example, the effects of large teeth and broad palates could have affected the reduction of the nasal aperture, and were most likely inherited traits from Pleistocene ancestors. In a new Journal of Human Evolution paper that Dienekes pointed out this week, researchers from the University of Iowa have investigated the relationships between nasal breadth, intercanine breadth, and facial prognathism. The paper is titled, “The paradox of a wide nasal aperture in cold-adapted Neandertals: a causal assessment.” They tested variants of the following hypothesis: Does the distance between the two upper canines correlated with nasal breadth in modern and archaic Homo?

]Their sample set of modern humans included 119 crania of Bantu people and 112 crania of Western Europeans. The sample of human ancestors included 11 from the early Upper Paleolithic, 9 from the late Upper Paleolithic all coming from Eurasia. They also included 15 samples from the late Stone Age in Africa, and 14 Pleistocene Homo. Like I mentioned earlier, they measured the distance between the two canines, known as the ICB. In anatomical terms that’s the distance between the lingual tubercles of the maxillary canines, or the pointy parts of your vampire teeth. The lower facial prognathism (BPL) is a measurement of basion to prosthion. Upper facial prognathism (BNL) is a measurement of basion to nasion. Of course some fossils didn’t have all the measurements so predictions were made by least squares regression.

The authors conclude that intercanine breadth cannot fully explain nasal breadth from their sample set, which goes against what anatomist Gustav Schwalbe said in the later 1800’s and what E.V. Glanville reconfirmed in the late ’60s. They also note that the development of the anterior palatine bone does not affect the growth trajectory of the breadth of the nose. While, they do suggest that nasal breadth is affected by the ICB, the lower facial prognathism impacts nasal breadth more than any other trait.

---

It doesn't matter if some Neanderthals had proghnatism or not, because Kostenki wasn't Neanderthal, but human with little archaic admix

Quote:

---

The Kostenki genome also contained, as with all people of Eurasia today, a small percentage of Neanderthal genes,

---

But it's huge proghnatism was one of the many factors of skull build which led Debec to clasiffy this fossil as non-european.
Everyting is in this PDF in my previous post, later I will try to translate it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by physical-anthro

It doesn't matter if some Neanderthals had proghnatism or not, because Kostenki wasn't Neanderthal, but human with little archaic admix

---

Wrong. It matters because Kostenski wasn't Veddoid, Australoid, Papuan or any such nonsense. He was a modern European. He lived at the same time Neanderthals did. He did not live anywhere near Veddoids or Australoids, who did not even exist. His Neanderthal admixture was large (equivalent of a great-great-great grandparent) and it was inherited at an earlier period of time, meaning he had larger mB portions of Neanderthal ancestry. All signs point to Neanderthals as the source of Kostenki's prognathism, as well as his broad nose, his protruding maxillary region, etc.

Quote:

---

But it's huge proghnatism was one of the many factors of skull build which led Debec to clasiffy this fossil as non-european.
Everyting is in this PDF in my previous post, later I will try to translate it.

---

Debec is a fool like the rest of these Eastern European anthropologists who know nothing. Prognathism is as European as it gets, as are broad noses. Narrow noses and orthognathism came to Europe from east Africa. It is ancient east African crania that are actually orthognathic and have a narrow nasal index:


Kabwe:

http://www.ancient-origins.net/sites...like-holes.jpg



Herto:


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/herto.jpg


Ancient European skull:

http://image.slidesharecdn.com/sima-...?cb=1428319010



You will never be able to enter Nirvana until you realize that you are wrong, and that anthropology isn't suited for you.

No broad nose = not European.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grab the Gauge

No broad nose = not European.

---

;)

Yes Grab, of course, you are right. You convinced me.

I have ideal example of 100% broad-nosed proto-European with proghnatism.


http://realhistoryww.com/world_histo...d_albino_3.JPG

Yamnaya skull:


https://www.sciencenews.org/sites/de...?itok=ztnNmxSN

European old-blood:


http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/bilder/troe042.jpg

http://www.nordish.org/bilder/troe041.jpg


http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/bilder/troe064.jpg

http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/bilder/troe065.jpg

Ivar the Boneless:

http://www.englishmonarchs.co.uk/ima...tn_warrior.jpg

Robert the Bruce:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/d...6bHu2jJnT8.png

Brymbo Man:


http://www.wrexham.gov.uk/images/city/brymboman.jpg

No broad nose = not European

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grab the Gauge

Ivar the Boneless:

---

I saw him alive, in TV and he looked like that:

http://cdn.breathecast.com/data/imag...in-vikings.jpg

Quote:

---

Robert the Bruce:

---

These one too I saw in TV:

https://cinemaedebate.files.wordpres...-the-bruce.jpg


:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

MDLP K16 Modern Oracle results of Oase-1:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Indian 32.15
2 SouthEastAsian 19.94
3 Neolithic 10.5
4 Subsaharian 9.48
5 Steppe 7.46
6 Australian 6.69
7 NorthAfrican 4.58
8 NorthEastEuropean 3.92
9 Oceanic 2.79
10 Arctic 1.55
11 Ancestor 0.94

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Onge 19.07
2 Great_Andamanese 20.61
3 Gadaba 24.04
4 Brahmin 24.09
5 Bhunjia 24.27
6 Munda 24.37
7 Mawasi 24.39
8 Kharia 24.62
9 Savara 24.65
10 Ho 24.68
11 Bonda 24.75
12 Dhurwa 25.28
13 Juang 25.7
14 Sahariya 25.98
15 Dhaka 26.68
16 Santhal 26.93
17 Gond 27.01
18 Asur 28.07
19 Satnami 28.51
20 Jew 28.73

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 67.9% Gadaba + 32.1% Spanish @ 11.6
2 67.3% Kharia + 32.7% Spanish @ 11.87
3 67.3% Ho + 32.7% Spanish @ 11.94
4 70.9% Gadaba + 29.1% French @ 11.94
5 69.7% Gadaba + 30.3% Spanish @ 11.94
6 67.6% Munda + 32.4% Spanish @ 12.01
7 70.3% Kharia + 29.7% French @ 12.06
8 68.3% Mawasi + 31.7% Spanish @ 12.09
9 69.1% Kharia + 30.9% Spanish @ 12.1
10 69.4% Mawasi + 30.6% Spanish @ 12.11
11 70.6% Mawasi + 29.4% French @ 12.12
12 70.3% Ho + 29.7% French @ 12.12
13 68% Gadaba + 32% Portuguese @ 12.15
14 69.1% Ho + 30.9% Spanish @ 12.16
15 67.7% Mawasi + 32.3% Spanish @ 12.19
16 69.4% Gadaba + 30.6% Spanish @ 12.21
17 69.5% Mawasi + 30.5% Spanish @ 12.25
18 67.9% Bhunjia + 32.1% Spanish @ 12.28
19 66.2% Juang + 33.8% Spanish @ 12.28
20 66.7% Dhurwa + 33.3% Spanish @ 12.28

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Dhurwa +50% Spanish @ 17.215548

Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% Ho +25% Siddi +25% Spanish @ 9.415039

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Litvin

MDLP K16 Modern Oracle results of Oase-1:

---

Does it has some Y?

Bump

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Litvin

Either they got extinct, or maybe they went to India ???

---

maybe gypsies are longer in europe then previously thought?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mortimer

maybe gypsies are longer in europe then previously thought?

---

Or maybe modern Europeans came from other places of the world

Interesting, so pre-historic Europe was like super-mixed?

I'm making Aliyah to Romania btw, Bengalis are original Romanians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shah-Jehan

Interesting, so pre-historic Europe was like super-mixed?

I'm making Aliyah to Romania btw, Bengalis are original Romanians.

---

You are the original Britons actually. It is a known fact that Bengalis came from ancient England.

Bump for Ancient Gipsis

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Piotraschke

Oase-1 GEDmatch kit T732095
Native Australian kit Z905945

Gedrosia K6 calculator:

1) Oase1 Romania 41,640-37,580 ybp:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Ancestral_South_Eurasian 28.53
2 East_Asian 18.24
3 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 16.79
4 Natufian 15.61
5 Sub_Saharan 11.06
6 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 9.77

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Bengali 22.31
2 Palliyar 22.38
3 Kharia 25.02
4 Paniyas 25.5
5 Punjabi_PJL 27.6
6 GujaratiD 28.6
7 GoyetQ116 29.96
8 GujaratiC 30.08
9 Burusho 31.11
10 GujaratiB 33.04
11 GujaratiA 33.24
12 Turkmen 33.25
13 Uzbek 34.35
14 Tajik 34.38
15 Punjabi 34.72
16 Pashtun_Afghan 35.02
17 Sindhi 36.71
18 Pathan 36.77
19 Kalash 37.56
20 Steppe_IA 37.87

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 66% Kharia + 34% Moroccan @ 6.97
2 66.5% Kharia + 33.5% Algerian @ 7.51
3 67.5% Kharia + 32.5% Saharawi @ 7.76
4 66.1% Paniyas + 33.9% Moroccan @ 9.44
5 66.5% Paniyas + 33.5% Algerian @ 9.44
6 67.5% Paniyas + 32.5% Saharawi @ 9.69
7 67.1% Kharia + 32.9% Libyan @ 9.76
8 69.8% Palliyar + 30.2% Moroccan @ 10.09
9 70.1% Palliyar + 29.9% Algerian @ 10.12
10 71% Palliyar + 29% Saharawi @ 10.15
11 67.6% Kharia + 32.4% Egyptian @ 10.64
12 66.2% Kharia + 33.8% Yemeni @ 10.8
13 59.1% Palliyar + 40.9% GoyetQ116 @ 11.69
14 75.8% Palliyar + 24.2% Somali @ 11.96
15 55.6% Kharia + 44.4% GoyetQ116 @ 12.08
16 68.7% Kharia + 31.3% BedouinA @ 12.09
17 69.6% Kharia + 30.4% Jew_Libyan @ 12.17
18 70.4% Kharia + 29.6% Spanish @ 12.18
19 67.5% Paniyas + 32.5% Libyan @ 12.19
20 73.1% Kharia + 26.9% Somali @ 12.39

2) Native Australian 1850-1900 AD:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Ancestral_South_Eurasian 90.27
2 East_Asian 5.69
3 Sub_Saharan 3.24
4 Natufian 0.42
5 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 0.39

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Onge 8.46
2 Australian 11.34
3 Andamanese 11.34
4 Papuan 11.34
5 Paniyas 50
6 Palliyar 55.51
7 Kharia 59.47
8 Bengali 71.01
9 Punjabi_PJL 73.41
10 GujaratiD 75.01
11 GujaratiC 76.65
12 GoyetQ116 81.42
13 GujaratiB 82.13
14 GujaratiA 83.5
15 Punjabi 85.48
16 Burusho 86.43
17 Sindhi 86.64
18 Kusunda 89.35
19 Pathan 89.43
20 Kalash 90.08

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 90.9% Andamanese + 9.1% Altaian @ 3.77
2 90.9% Australian + 9.1% Altaian @ 3.77
3 90.9% Papuan + 9.1% Altaian @ 3.77
4 90.7% Andamanese + 9.3% Kyrgyz @ 3.78
5 90.7% Australian + 9.3% Kyrgyz @ 3.78
6 90.7% Papuan + 9.3% Kyrgyz @ 3.78
7 91.3% Andamanese + 8.7% Kalmyk @ 3.84
8 91.3% Australian + 8.7% Kalmyk @ 3.84
9 91.3% Papuan + 8.7% Kalmyk @ 3.84
10 89.4% Andamanese + 10.6% Kusunda @ 3.97
11 89.4% Australian + 10.6% Kusunda @ 3.97
12 89.4% Papuan + 10.6% Kusunda @ 3.97
13 90.3% Andamanese + 9.7% Sherpa @ 4.02
14 90.3% Australian + 9.7% Sherpa @ 4.02
15 90.3% Papuan + 9.7% Sherpa @ 4.02
16 91.6% Andamanese + 8.4% Eskimo @ 4.12
17 91.6% Australian + 8.4% Eskimo @ 4.12
18 91.6% Papuan + 8.4% Eskimo @ 4.12
19 90.5% Andamanese + 9.5% Cambodian @ 4.12
20 90.5% Australian + 9.5% Cambodian @ 4.12

MDLP K23b calculator:

1) Oase1 Romania 41,640-37,580 ybp:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 South_Indian 22.92
2 European_Early_Farmers 12.52
3 Austronesian 11.88
4 Subsaharian 9.73
5 South_Central_Asian 8.73
6 Melano_Polynesian 7.48
7 Australoid 6.62
8 Paleo_Siberian 4.32
9 African_Pygmy 4.22
10 Archaic_African 3.69
11 European_Hunters_Gatherers 3.42
12 North_African 2.15
13 Khoisan 1.39
14 Ancestral_Altaic 0.74
15 Archaic_Human 0.19

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Ayta_AE ( ) 28.13
2 Kensiu ( ) 34.58
3 Mamanawa ( ) 34.92
4 Nepalese ( ) 35.11
5 Tamil_Singapore ( ) 37.3
6 Ati ( ) 38.9
7 Jatt_Haryana ( ) 38.99
8 Hindi ( ) 39
9 Jatt_Muslim ( ) 39.17
10 Cochin_Jew ( ) 39.26
11 Tiwari ( ) 39.54
12 Marathi ( ) 39.9
13 Agta_AG ( ) 40.02
14 Uygur-Han ( ) 40.03
15 Jehai ( ) 40.05
16 Burusho ( ) 40.24
17 GujaratiA_GIH ( ) 40.32
18 Pahari ( ) 40.46
19 Aeta ( ) 40.88
20 Agta ( ) 41.17

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 50.2% Onge ( ) + 49.8% Puerto_Rican ( ) @ 20.75
2 76% Ayta_AE ( ) + 24% Spanish_Pais_Vasco_IBS ( ) @ 20.81
3 78.4% Ayta_AE ( ) + 21.6% Basque_French ( ) @ 20.94
4 78.2% Ayta_AE ( ) + 21.8% Basque_Spanish ( ) @ 20.99
5 66.3% Ayta_AE ( ) + 33.7% Puerto_Rican ( ) @ 21.09
6 74.8% Ayta_AE ( ) + 25.2% French_South ( ) @ 21.2
7 74.3% Ayta_AE ( ) + 25.7% Spanish_Cantabria_IBS ( ) @ 21.46
8 74.4% Ayta_AE ( ) + 25.6% Spanish_Aragon_IBS ( ) @ 21.47
9 74.6% Ayta_AE ( ) + 25.4% Spanish_Castilla_la_Mancha_IBS ( ) @ 21.63
10 57.2% Tamil_Singapore ( ) + 42.8% Australian_ECCAC ( ) @ 21.67
11 74.8% Ayta_AE ( ) + 25.2% Spanish_Valencia_IBS ( ) @ 21.77
12 54.5% Tamil_Singapore ( ) + 45.5% Puerto_Rican ( ) @ 21.78
13 73.7% Ayta_AE ( ) + 26.3% Spanish_Castilla_y_Leon_IBS ( ) @ 21.79
14 72.5% Ayta_AE ( ) + 27.5% Spanish_Canarias_IBS ( ) @ 21.8
15 69.4% Ayta_AE ( ) + 30.6% Orcadian ( ) @ 21.81
16 73.6% Ayta_AE ( ) + 26.4% Spanish_Galicia_IBS ( ) @ 21.83
17 74.7% Ayta_AE ( ) + 25.3% Spanish_Andalucia_IBS ( ) @ 21.84
18 73.6% Ayta_AE ( ) + 26.4% Spanish_Extremadura_IBS ( ) @ 21.87
19 74.3% Ayta_AE ( ) + 25.7% Spanish_Murcia_IBS ( ) @ 21.91
20 69.6% Ayta_AE ( ) + 30.4% Scottish_Argyll_Bute_GBR ( ) @ 21.94

2) Native Australian 1850-1900 AD:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Australoid 51.38
2 Melano_Polynesian 39.18
3 South_Indian 4.35
4 South_East_Asian 2.58
5 Archaic_Human 1.86
6 Archaic_African 0.65

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Australian ( ) 4.6
2 Australian_ECCAC ( ) 25.13
3 Alorese ( ) 41.71
4 Lembata ( ) 50.3
5 Lamaholt ( ) 51.8
6 Manggarai ( ) 59.37
7 Ayta_AE ( ) 60.25
8 Naasioi ( ) 61.45
9 Mamanawa ( ) 65.33
10 Kambera ( ) 65.4
11 Papuan ( ) 65.96
12 Ati ( ) 67.43
13 Kosipe ( ) 67.58
14 Koinanbe ( ) 67.63
15 Agta_AG ( ) 70.14
16 Tongan ( ) 71.09
17 Aeta ( ) 73.45
18 Agta ( ) 73.54
19 Saami ( ) 74.27
20 Kensiu ( ) 74.82

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 97.5% Australian ( ) + 2.5% Paniya ( ) @ 3.65
2 96.7% Australian ( ) + 3.3% Onge ( ) @ 3.68
3 97.5% Australian ( ) + 2.5% Malayan ( ) @ 3.69
4 97.6% Australian ( ) + 2.4% Pulliyar ( ) @ 3.69
5 97.4% Australian ( ) + 2.6% Santhal ( ) @ 3.69
6 97.4% Australian ( ) + 2.6% Nihali ( ) @ 3.7
7 97.4% Australian ( ) + 2.6% Dhurwa ( ) @ 3.71
8 97.4% Australian ( ) + 2.6% Bhunjia ( ) @ 3.72
9 97.5% Australian ( ) + 2.5% TN_Dalit ( ) @ 3.73
10 97.5% Australian ( ) + 2.5% Hallaki ( ) @ 3.73
11 97.4% Australian ( ) + 2.6% Kurumba ( ) @ 3.73
12 97.5% Australian ( ) + 2.5% Madiga ( ) @ 3.73
13 97.5% Australian ( ) + 2.5% Mala ( ) @ 3.74
14 97.5% Australian ( ) + 2.5% Chamar ( ) @ 3.75
15 97.5% Australian ( ) + 2.5% Hakkipikki ( ) @ 3.75
16 97.4% Australian ( ) + 2.6% Kharia ( ) @ 3.75
17 97.5% Australian ( ) + 2.5% Sakilli ( ) @ 3.76
18 96.2% Australian ( ) + 3.8% Papuan ( ) @ 3.78
19 96.3% Australian ( ) + 3.7% Koinanbe ( ) @ 3.78
20 96.3% Australian ( ) + 3.7% Kosipe ( ) @ 3.78

---

Piotraschke
Bump,the kit Is Replaced,anyone has the k13 runs or the kit of oase? I want to extract it's g25 coordinates

Based on reconstructions he looked somewhat similar to certain Moluccans: a mix of australoid and proto-mongoloid. Totally alien face here...

Interesting how these ancient europeans were substantially black africans.

Was it just retention of original OOA or did they acquire it later and after?

Neanderthal admix also comes out SSA in calculators, but really what it means, is more genetically archaic/older, so it has to choose something. SSA and Oceanians nowadays are the closest to that. In the same even more extreme way, Chimps score full SSA as well. It needs to show 100% of something regardless if it's that close or not.

[QUOTE=Piotraschke;4221524]Oase-1 GEDmatch kit T732095
Native Australian kit Z905945

Who is Sarah Fezio? That kit # says her name.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Piotraschke

Oase-1 GEDmatch kit T732095
Native Australian kit Z905945

Gedrosia K6 calculator:

1) Oase1 Romania 41,640-37,580 ybp:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Ancestral_South_Eurasian 28.53
2 East_Asian 18.24
3 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 16.79
4 Natufian 15.61
5 Sub_Saharan 11.06
6 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 9.77

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Bengali 22.31
2 Palliyar 22.38
3 Kharia 25.02
4 Paniyas 25.5
5 Punjabi_PJL 27.6
6 GujaratiD 28.6
7 GoyetQ116 29.96
8 GujaratiC 30.08
9 Burusho 31.11
10 GujaratiB 33.04
11 GujaratiA 33.24
12 Turkmen 33.25
13 Uzbek 34.35
14 Tajik 34.38
15 Punjabi 34.72
16 Pashtun_Afghan 35.02
17 Sindhi 36.71
18 Pathan 36.77
19 Kalash 37.56
20 Steppe_IA 37.87

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 66% Kharia + 34% Moroccan @ 6.97
2 66.5% Kharia + 33.5% Algerian @ 7.51
3 67.5% Kharia + 32.5% Saharawi @ 7.76
4 66.1% Paniyas + 33.9% Moroccan @ 9.44
5 66.5% Paniyas + 33.5% Algerian @ 9.44
6 67.5% Paniyas + 32.5% Saharawi @ 9.69
7 67.1% Kharia + 32.9% Libyan @ 9.76
8 69.8% Palliyar + 30.2% Moroccan @ 10.09
9 70.1% Palliyar + 29.9% Algerian @ 10.12
10 71% Palliyar + 29% Saharawi @ 10.15
11 67.6% Kharia + 32.4% Egyptian @ 10.64
12 66.2% Kharia + 33.8% Yemeni @ 10.8
13 59.1% Palliyar + 40.9% GoyetQ116 @ 11.69
14 75.8% Palliyar + 24.2% Somali @ 11.96
15 55.6% Kharia + 44.4% GoyetQ116 @ 12.08
16 68.7% Kharia + 31.3% BedouinA @ 12.09
17 69.6% Kharia + 30.4% Jew_Libyan @ 12.17
18 70.4% Kharia + 29.6% Spanish @ 12.18
19 67.5% Paniyas + 32.5% Libyan @ 12.19
20 73.1% Kharia + 26.9% Somali @ 12.39

2) Native Australian 1850-1900 AD:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Ancestral_South_Eurasian 90.27
2 East_Asian 5.69
3 Sub_Saharan 3.24
4 Natufian 0.42
5 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 0.39

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Onge 8.46
2 Australian 11.34
3 Andamanese 11.34
4 Papuan 11.34
5 Paniyas 50
6 Palliyar 55.51
7 Kharia 59.47
8 Bengali 71.01
9 Punjabi_PJL 73.41
10 GujaratiD 75.01
11 GujaratiC 76.65
12 GoyetQ116 81.42
13 GujaratiB 82.13
14 GujaratiA 83.5
15 Punjabi 85.48
16 Burusho 86.43
17 Sindhi 86.64
18 Kusunda 89.35
19 Pathan 89.43
20 Kalash 90.08

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 90.9% Andamanese + 9.1% Altaian @ 3.77
2 90.9% Australian + 9.1% Altaian @ 3.77
3 90.9% Papuan + 9.1% Altaian @ 3.77
4 90.7% Andamanese + 9.3% Kyrgyz @ 3.78
5 90.7% Australian + 9.3% Kyrgyz @ 3.78
6 90.7% Papuan + 9.3% Kyrgyz @ 3.78
7 91.3% Andamanese + 8.7% Kalmyk @ 3.84
8 91.3% Australian + 8.7% Kalmyk @ 3.84
9 91.3% Papuan + 8.7% Kalmyk @ 3.84
10 89.4% Andamanese + 10.6% Kusunda @ 3.97
11 89.4% Australian + 10.6% Kusunda @ 3.97
12 89.4% Papuan + 10.6% Kusunda @ 3.97
13 90.3% Andamanese + 9.7% Sherpa @ 4.02
14 90.3% Australian + 9.7% Sherpa @ 4.02
15 90.3% Papuan + 9.7% Sherpa @ 4.02
16 91.6% Andamanese + 8.4% Eskimo @ 4.12
17 91.6% Australian + 8.4% Eskimo @ 4.12
18 91.6% Papuan + 8.4% Eskimo @ 4.12
19 90.5% Andamanese + 9.5% Cambodian @ 4.12
20 90.5% Australian + 9.5% Cambodian @ 4.12

MDLP K23b calculator:

1) Oase1 Romania 41,640-37,580 ybp:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 South_Indian 22.92
2 European_Early_Farmers 12.52
3 Austronesian 11.88
4 Subsaharian 9.73
5 South_Central_Asian 8.73
6 Melano_Polynesian 7.48
7 Australoid 6.62
8 Paleo_Siberian 4.32
9 African_Pygmy 4.22
10 Archaic_African 3.69
11 European_Hunters_Gatherers 3.42
12 North_African 2.15
13 Khoisan 1.39
14 Ancestral_Altaic 0.74
15 Archaic_Human 0.19

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Ayta_AE ( ) 28.13
2 Kensiu ( ) 34.58
3 Mamanawa ( ) 34.92
4 Nepalese ( ) 35.11
5 Tamil_Singapore ( ) 37.3
6 Ati ( ) 38.9
7 Jatt_Haryana ( ) 38.99
8 Hindi ( ) 39
9 Jatt_Muslim ( ) 39.17
10 Cochin_Jew ( ) 39.26
11 Tiwari ( ) 39.54
12 Marathi ( ) 39.9
13 Agta_AG ( ) 40.02
14 Uygur-Han ( ) 40.03
15 Jehai ( ) 40.05
16 Burusho ( ) 40.24
17 GujaratiA_GIH ( ) 40.32
18 Pahari ( ) 40.46
19 Aeta ( ) 40.88
20 Agta ( ) 41.17

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 50.2% Onge ( ) + 49.8% Puerto_Rican ( ) @ 20.75
2 76% Ayta_AE ( ) + 24% Spanish_Pais_Vasco_IBS ( ) @ 20.81
3 78.4% Ayta_AE ( ) + 21.6% Basque_French ( ) @ 20.94
4 78.2% Ayta_AE ( ) + 21.8% Basque_Spanish ( ) @ 20.99
5 66.3% Ayta_AE ( ) + 33.7% Puerto_Rican ( ) @ 21.09
6 74.8% Ayta_AE ( ) + 25.2% French_South ( ) @ 21.2
7 74.3% Ayta_AE ( ) + 25.7% Spanish_Cantabria_IBS ( ) @ 21.46
8 74.4% Ayta_AE ( ) + 25.6% Spanish_Aragon_IBS ( ) @ 21.47
9 74.6% Ayta_AE ( ) + 25.4% Spanish_Castilla_la_Mancha_IBS ( ) @ 21.63
10 57.2% Tamil_Singapore ( ) + 42.8% Australian_ECCAC ( ) @ 21.67
11 74.8% Ayta_AE ( ) + 25.2% Spanish_Valencia_IBS ( ) @ 21.77
12 54.5% Tamil_Singapore ( ) + 45.5% Puerto_Rican ( ) @ 21.78
13 73.7% Ayta_AE ( ) + 26.3% Spanish_Castilla_y_Leon_IBS ( ) @ 21.79
14 72.5% Ayta_AE ( ) + 27.5% Spanish_Canarias_IBS ( ) @ 21.8
15 69.4% Ayta_AE ( ) + 30.6% Orcadian ( ) @ 21.81
16 73.6% Ayta_AE ( ) + 26.4% Spanish_Galicia_IBS ( ) @ 21.83
17 74.7% Ayta_AE ( ) + 25.3% Spanish_Andalucia_IBS ( ) @ 21.84
18 73.6% Ayta_AE ( ) + 26.4% Spanish_Extremadura_IBS ( ) @ 21.87
19 74.3% Ayta_AE ( ) + 25.7% Spanish_Murcia_IBS ( ) @ 21.91
20 69.6% Ayta_AE ( ) + 30.4% Scottish_Argyll_Bute_GBR ( ) @ 21.94

2) Native Australian 1850-1900 AD:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Australoid 51.38
2 Melano_Polynesian 39.18
3 South_Indian 4.35
4 South_East_Asian 2.58
5 Archaic_Human 1.86
6 Archaic_African 0.65

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Australian ( ) 4.6
2 Australian_ECCAC ( ) 25.13
3 Alorese ( ) 41.71
4 Lembata ( ) 50.3
5 Lamaholt ( ) 51.8
6 Manggarai ( ) 59.37
7 Ayta_AE ( ) 60.25
8 Naasioi ( ) 61.45
9 Mamanawa ( ) 65.33
10 Kambera ( ) 65.4
11 Papuan ( ) 65.96
12 Ati ( ) 67.43
13 Kosipe ( ) 67.58
14 Koinanbe ( ) 67.63
15 Agta_AG ( ) 70.14
16 Tongan ( ) 71.09
17 Aeta ( ) 73.45
18 Agta ( ) 73.54
19 Saami ( ) 74.27
20 Kensiu ( ) 74.82

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 97.5% Australian ( ) + 2.5% Paniya ( ) @ 3.65
2 96.7% Australian ( ) + 3.3% Onge ( ) @ 3.68
3 97.5% Australian ( ) + 2.5% Malayan ( ) @ 3.69
4 97.6% Australian ( ) + 2.4% Pulliyar ( ) @ 3.69
5 97.4% Australian ( ) + 2.6% Santhal ( ) @ 3.69
6 97.4% Australian ( ) + 2.6% Nihali ( ) @ 3.7
7 97.4% Australian ( ) + 2.6% Dhurwa ( ) @ 3.71
8 97.4% Australian ( ) + 2.6% Bhunjia ( ) @ 3.72
9 97.5% Australian ( ) + 2.5% TN_Dalit ( ) @ 3.73
10 97.5% Australian ( ) + 2.5% Hallaki ( ) @ 3.73
11 97.4% Australian ( ) + 2.6% Kurumba ( ) @ 3.73
12 97.5% Australian ( ) + 2.5% Madiga ( ) @ 3.73
13 97.5% Australian ( ) + 2.5% Mala ( ) @ 3.74
14 97.5% Australian ( ) + 2.5% Chamar ( ) @ 3.75
15 97.5% Australian ( ) + 2.5% Hakkipikki ( ) @ 3.75
16 97.4% Australian ( ) + 2.6% Kharia ( ) @ 3.75
17 97.5% Australian ( ) + 2.5% Sakilli ( ) @ 3.76
18 96.2% Australian ( ) + 3.8% Papuan ( ) @ 3.78
19 96.3% Australian ( ) + 3.7% Koinanbe ( ) @ 3.78
20 96.3% Australian ( ) + 3.7% Kosipe ( ) @ 3.78

---

Does this mean Gypsies are from Romania originally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oszkar07

Does this mean Gypsies are from Romania originally.

---

Romania is also the center for Eastern wisdom. Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism started in Romania land and went east back to India.