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

[Peterski]

Oase-1 (facial reconstruction):

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 50.2% Onge ( ) + 49.8% Puerto_Rican ( ) @ 20.75

Versus modern Onge people:

https://www.google.pl/search?q=Onge+...ih=658#imgrc=_

100.0% Onge

so Australian aborigine = south Eurasian?

Ancestral South Eurasians were ancestors of:

- Australian Aborigines
- Papuans, Melanesians
- Negrito populations
- South Indians

Etc.

[Grab the Gauge]

Calculators like GEDmatch cannot be used on fossil humans and they were not made for this. GEDmatch bills Neanderthal admixture as Sub-Saharan African admixture in fossil samples. Oase had nothing whatever to do with Indians.

[Grab the Gauge]

Oase-1 (facial reconstruction):

This is actually a reconstruction of the Oase 2 skull, which has never yielded a DNA profile. Oase 1 was just a mandible.


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

[Grab the Gauge]

Neither Oase 1 nor Oase 2 has any similarities with the modern Onge. The Oase 1 mandible is metrically comparable to a Neanderthal or even a Heidelbergensis mandible. Oase 2 had as flat of a frontal bone as the Shanidar 1 Neanderthal, which is one of the flattest of all Neanderthals. They had lots of similarities with EUP Aurignacians and Skhul-Qafzeh as well. But nothing in common with the Onge. These were a Neanderthal-like people with more admixture than was the norm even in those days.

[Peterski]

GEDmatch bills Neanderthal admixture as Sub-Saharan African admixture in fossil samples.

Not true (at least not in case of calculators which include Archaic admixtures).

This is Altai Neanderthal in MDLP K23b calculator (no Sub-Saharan, just Archaic):

MDLP K23b Oracle results:

Kit F999902

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Archaic_Human 64.47
2 Archaic_African 34.51
3 Khoisan 0.58
4 Ancestral_Altaic 0.27
5 European_Early_Farmers 0.08
6 Australoid 0.05
7 Caucasian 0.02
8 Melano_Polynesian 0.01

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 BiakaPygmy ( ) 70.7
2 Saami ( ) 71.13
3 Saami_Finland ( ) 71.98
4 Bashkir ( ) 73.58
5 Saami_Kola ( ) 73.59
6 Karelian ( ) 73.63
7 Finn ( ) 73.81
8 MbutiPygmy ( ) 73.95
9 Sandawe ( ) 74
10 Tatar-Siberian ( ) 74.01
11 Uygur-Han ( ) 74.07
12 Ayta_AE ( ) 74.32
13 Mari ( ) 74.56
14 Finn_East ( ) 74.65
15 Finnish-East ( ) 74.76
16 Pygmy ( ) 74.77
17 Kazahs ( ) 74.78
18 Vepsa ( ) 74.84
19 Finnish_FIN ( ) 74.87
20 Hema ( ) 75.11

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 54% Saami ( ) + 46% Pygmy ( ) @ 60.55
2 53.2% Saami ( ) + 46.8% MbutiPygmy ( ) @ 60.58
3 53% Saami_Finland ( ) + 47% Pygmy ( ) @ 60.83
4 52.2% Saami_Finland ( ) + 47.8% MbutiPygmy ( ) @ 60.85
5 51.3% Bashkir ( ) + 48.7% Pygmy ( ) @ 61.33
6 50.4% Bashkir ( ) + 49.6% MbutiPygmy ( ) @ 61.33
7 51.3% Saami_Kola ( ) + 48.7% Pygmy ( ) @ 61.35
8 50.4% Saami_Kola ( ) + 49.6% MbutiPygmy ( ) @ 61.35
9 51.2% Karelian ( ) + 48.8% Pygmy ( ) @ 61.37
10 50.4% Karelian ( ) + 49.6% MbutiPygmy ( ) @ 61.38
11 51% Finn ( ) + 49% Pygmy ( ) @ 61.43
12 50.1% Finn ( ) + 49.9% MbutiPygmy ( ) @ 61.43
13 50.1% MbutiPygmy ( ) + 49.9% Tatar-Siberian ( ) @ 61.44
14 50.8% Tatar-Siberian ( ) + 49.2% Pygmy ( ) @ 61.44
15 50.1% MbutiPygmy ( ) + 49.9% Uygur-Han ( ) @ 61.49
16 50.7% Uygur-Han ( ) + 49.3% Pygmy ( ) @ 61.5
17 50.7% MbutiPygmy ( ) + 49.3% Mari ( ) @ 61.65
18 50.2% Mari ( ) + 49.8% Pygmy ( ) @ 61.66
19 50.8% MbutiPygmy ( ) + 49.2% Finn_East ( ) @ 61.67
20 50.1% Finn_East ( ) + 49.9% Pygmy ( ) @ 61.68

[Peterski]

Denisova Hominin (kit number F999903) in MDLP K23b calculator:

MDLP K23b Oracle results:

Kit F999903

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Archaic_Human 93.43
2 Archaic_African 5.15
3 Khoisan 1.39
4 North_African 0.02
5 Melano_Polynesian 0.01

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Saami ( ) 88.97
2 Saami_Finland ( ) 89.63
3 Bashkir ( ) 90.9
4 Saami_Kola ( ) 90.92
5 Karelian ( ) 90.96
6 Finn ( ) 91.11
7 Tatar-Siberian ( ) 91.2
8 Uygur-Han ( ) 91.27
9 Ayta_AE ( ) 91.67
10 Mari ( ) 91.72
11 Finn_East ( ) 91.79
12 Finnish-East ( ) 91.88
13 Kazahs ( ) 91.9
14 Vepsa ( ) 91.93
15 Finnish_FIN ( ) 91.97
16 Aleut ( ) 92.24
17 Udmurd ( ) 92.28
18 Uygur ( ) 92.44
19 Komi ( ) 92.45
20 Chuvash ( ) 92.6

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 61.9% Saami ( ) + 38.1% Ayta_AE ( ) @ 87.27
2 58.4% Saami_Finland ( ) + 41.6% Ayta_AE ( ) @ 87.5
3 66.9% Saami ( ) + 33.1% Mamanawa ( ) @ 87.69
4 74.7% Saami ( ) + 25.3% Khwe ( ) @ 87.76
5 73.6% Saami ( ) + 26.4% Agta ( ) @ 87.76
6 73.4% Saami ( ) + 26.6% Sandawe ( ) @ 87.77
7 74.1% Saami ( ) + 25.9% Aeta ( ) @ 87.79
8 75.5% Saami ( ) + 24.5% Shua ( ) @ 87.79
9 77.8% Saami ( ) + 22.2% BiakaPygmy ( ) @ 87.82
10 74.4% Saami ( ) + 25.6% Hema ( ) @ 87.82
11 75.3% Saami ( ) + 24.7% Kikuyu ( ) @ 87.88
12 52.8% Saami_Kola ( ) + 47.2% Ayta_AE ( ) @ 87.89
13 71.9% Saami ( ) + 28.1% Ati ( ) @ 87.89
14 75.5% Saami ( ) + 24.5% Masai_Ayodo ( ) @ 87.9
15 77.3% Saami ( ) + 22.7% Alur ( ) @ 87.9
16 52.7% Karelian ( ) + 47.3% Ayta_AE ( ) @ 87.91
17 52.1% Finn ( ) + 47.9% Ayta_AE ( ) @ 87.91
18 78.2% Saami ( ) + 21.8% Tshwa ( ) @ 87.91
19 78.8% Saami ( ) + 21.2% !Kung ( ) @ 87.91
20 78.1% Saami ( ) + 21.9% Kgalagadi ( ) @ 87.92

[Grab the Gauge]

Litvin, you cannot run archaic humans thougn GEDmatch. It isn't designed to work with fossil profiles. The calculator can only spit out answers it's programmers have designed it to spit out. IT WAS NEVER INTENDED TO WORK WITH FOSSIL HUMANS. You are accomplishing nothing here. No archaic African fossil has ever yielded a DNA profile.

[XenophobicPrussian]

That's quite crazy. Where did they go then? Were they exterminated or something?

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

Oase1's line was exterminated, but other paleolithic Europeans like Kostenki14 also had a lot of ASI/Andamanese.

They didn't go anywhere, they evolved. When you look at a person from the Andamans(Australia/Papau New Guinea too, but they have extra Denisovan admixture we don't have), you are pretty much looking back in time. Of course, we wouldn't have been exactly like them, but closer to that, just like the pre-chimp/human ancestor would've still looked closer to a chimp.

[Grab the Gauge]

Oase1's line was exterminated,

LMFAO. There is no evidence for that whatsoever.

[XenophobicPrussian]

Prehistoric Europeans were more mixed than I thought

so Australian aborigine = south Eurasian?

They were not "mixed". There was no such thing as a pure genetic "European", "East Asian", etc in 40k BC to mix with.