It makes one wonder if the UHG part of the WHG-UHG component came from Southeast European Mesolithic hunter-gatherer populations?Quote:
Originally Posted by Solin
Printable View
It makes one wonder if the UHG part of the WHG-UHG component came from Southeast European Mesolithic hunter-gatherer populations?Quote:
Originally Posted by Solin
Almost certainly. Maybe some contribution from Anatolia or nearby, but I don't think there's any debating some of the UHG has to be Balkan.
..Also I think someone forgot to feed the hamsters...this site is slow as shit right now.
Polako has said that he thinks the WHG-UHG component may have been present among the earliest farmers of the Fertile Crescent in minority amounts. This would be from the UHG part of this composite component of course. I don't know about this though as UHG could have come to these West Asian and Middle Eastern populations later with migrations from west Anatolia or the Balkans. It is not really high at all in any groups native to that area of the world. Of course we need ancient DNA from the Middle East to prove any of this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kale
WHG-UHG 54.51%
ENF 28.03%
ANE 14.09%
ASE 1.62%
East_African 0.83%
East_Eurasian 0.53%
West_African 0.38%
That's not correct for you. I got a 1% something East African which was absent totally on every other calculator except for this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by karen1300
ANE 16.23%
ASE 1.53%
WHG-UHG 61.80%
East_Eurasian 0.63%
West_African 0.49%
East_African 0.24%
ENF 19.09%
This calculator is more ancient and you could pick up stuff that aren't on other calculators.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielJ1eH
Typical British.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneeye
If it's that ancient it had to be before East Africa became mong rilzed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham
Also North African isn't present on these calculators so that would probably be the reason. Whenever North African is an option East African always disappears so I doubt it.