# Population Genetics > Autosomal Genetics > Dodecad >  Autosomal map : African admixture (from Dodecad)

## Maciamo

After the Mediterranean admixture, here is the map of the African admixture, using the total of the Northwest African, East African, Neo-African and Paleo-African elements from the Dodecad Project.

I wish I could have data for the following regions of Spain to confirm the shade : Asturias, Cantabria, Extremadura, Castille, Andalusia, and Murcia. I already have data for the other regions.

----------


## Taranis

Very interesting. The east-west gradient in Iberia kind of proves that this cannot be an artifact of the Moorish period, where we would expect a north-south gradient. Also, we see east-west gradients with several Y-Haplogroups in Iberia as well, in particular E1b, but to a lesser degree the tendency towards a match is also with J1 and T.

I think, the conclusion is that we definitely need Neolithic Y-DNA from Iberia. This might definitely solve the origin of some European Haplogroups, and verify the possibility that these entered from North Africa during the Neolithic.

----------


## Knovas

It's pretty obvious most of the African scores reported between Iberians are very old. The Moorish period did not affect the regions in equal degree, and most of them were simply expulsed or killed (natives converted to Muslim included, so the thing was quite serious). The Catholic Kings were very hard in that issue as historical papers report.

Totally agree we need Neolithic Y-DNA from Iberia, and also France would be interesting since there are some North African haplogroups between them too.

----------


## sparkey

> It's pretty obvious most of the African scores reported between Iberians are very old. The Moorish period did not affect the regions in equal degree, and most of them were simply expulsed or killed (natives converted to Muslim included, so the thing was quite serious). The Catholic Kings were very hard in that issue as historical papers report.


Hm, I'm not sure why that's obvious. Haven't most attempts to give percentages of Moorish influence on Iberia placed it in the low single-digits? And what we're seeing on the map is low single-digits. Perhaps the distribution pattern suggests that it isn't 100% Moorish period, but these numbers aren't huge to begin with (nothing over 10% in Europe), so I can't imagine the Moorish period _not_ being a significant component of the little that's there.

The lack of data for Andalusia could really throw off this map.

----------


## Knovas

Galicia is one of the zones with more African admixture, you can check it in the Dodecad participants: 081, 392, 393,614.

Never conquered by Moorish, if that's not obvious...enough said.

----------


## LeBrok

Portugal was huge in slave trade from Africa. Map shows maximum of admixture where Portugal is in Iberia.

----------


## sparkey

> Galicia is one of the zones with more African admixture, you can check it in the Dodecad participants: 081, 392, 393,614.
> 
> Never conquered by Moorish, if that's not obvious...enough said.


It's one of the highest zones tested, so it could give us a good upper limit for the influence of pre-Moorish (and/or post-Moorish) African admixture. But without Andalusia we can't really get a similar value for the Moorish admixture.

Given the Italian distribution I'm guessing that more of what we see in Iberia is pre-Moorish than not, I'm just arguing that we don't know that for sure yet.

----------


## Knovas

Portugal has the highest frequency. However It doesn't appear too much different from Galicia, with no significant tradition of what you say as far as I know.

Portuguese are very homogeneous and mostly Northwest African focussing on the African admixture, not probable slave trade is related. Between the British you have a perfect example (056), who is clearly the product of some kind of salve trade in comparisson with the rest. The difference is notable.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> Portugal was huge in slave trade from Africa. Map shows maximum of admixture where Portugal is in Iberia.


I highly doubt the Atlantic Slave Trade had any real impact on Portugal's African haplogroup or autosomal frequencies. Let's not fall victim to faulty historiography and anecdotal accounts without basis in fact.

At it's highest point, the African salve population in Portugal was ~ 1.5% nationwide (Saunders, 1982). The greatest numbers by far were recorded in Lisbon and a few areas further south, such as Evora. Slaves in central and northern Portugal were practically non-existent. 

I would be curious to see what the average Black African (as well as other African) slave percentages were for cities like Liverpool, Cardiff, Bristol and even Rotterdam, as these towns were major players in the Atlantic Slave Trade. Liverpool, for instance, has a significant mixed-race community that stretches back to the early 1700s (Brown, 2005). At the Trade's zenith, Liverpool was Europe's largest slave port with respect to volume.

----------


## Wilhelm

> The lack of data for Andalusia could really throw off this map.


 Bullshit. The Behar sample includes 6 andalusians.

----------


## Wilhelm

Edit. I don't see the point in grouping Berbers with the rest of Africa, when Berbers are a caucasoid population.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> Bullshit. The Behar sample includes 6 andalusians.


Sure, Andalusian autosomal scores are quite similar to other Spaniards. No great mystery.

----------


## Wilhelm

Also, the Basque-Navarrese-North Aragon-etc all this region is at 0%. Basques are 0%

----------


## sparkey

> Bullshit. The Behar sample includes 6 andalusians.


OK then instead of cursing at me, give them to Maciamo, he says:




> I wish I could have data for the following regions of Spain to confirm the shade : Asturias, Cantabria, Extremadura, Castille, Andalusia, and Murcia. I already have data for the other regions.

----------


## Knovas

> Also, the Basque-Navarrese-North Aragon-etc all this region is at 0%. Basques are 0%


Not exactly 0%, the average should be around 1%, althought it's difficult to say. But I highly doubt North Italy is 0% as the map shows for the same reason (Southern influence).

If we take the Autosomal data available, both Basques and North Italians must appear with 0%

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> Also, the Basque-Navarrese-North Aragon-etc all this region is at 0%. Basques are 0%


Other than NW African, aren't African autosomal frequencies below noise levels (i.e., less than 2%) in all of Europe?

----------


## Maciamo

It is impossible that the African admixture in Portugal come from the slave trade because the biggest part of the African admixture is Northwest African (=Maghreban) then East African (Ethiopia, Somalia, etc.). Only a tiny fraction is Neo-African or Paleo-African. 

Another reason it is impossible is the timeframe. The African admixture is present in virtually every individual from Western Iberia, and the vast majority of all Iberians. It means that this is a quite ancient admixture, not one from the Renaissance, and probably not from the medieval Moorish period either. 

That's why I think we have to look at a much older migration, any time between 20,000 and 4,000 years ago.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> It is impossible that the African admixture in Portugal come from the slave trade because the biggest part of the African admixture is Northwest African (=Maghreban) then East African (Ethiopia, Somalia, etc.). Only a tiny fraction is Neo-African or Paleo-African. 
> 
> Another reason it is impossible is the timeframe. The African admixture is present in virtually every individual from Western Iberia, and the vast majority of all Iberians. It means that this is a quite ancient admixture, not one from the Renaissance, and probably not from the medieval Moorish period either. 
> 
> That's why I think we have to look at a much older migration, any time between 20,000 and 4,000 years ago.


I fully agree. It's what human population geneticists have been stating for quite some time - nearly all African DNA in Portugal (all Iberia) is likely Neolithic or even Mesolithic.

----------


## Knovas

> Edit. I don't see the point in grouping Berbers with the rest of Africa, when Berbers are a caucasoid population.


Berbers are clearly different, yes. Would be good to have results from different ethnic Berber tribes. Also, East African as component, is quite far from Negroids, since it's even closer to Europe than Southeast and Northeast Asian. If Ethiopians and other East Africans have black skin is because they also carry around 16% Neo African + Paleo African.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> Berbers are clearly different, yes. Would be good to have results from different ethnic Berber tribes. Also, East African as component, is quite far from Negroids, since it's even closer to Europe than Southeast and Northeast Asian. If Ethiopians and other East Africans have black skin is because they also carry around 16% Neo African + Paleo African.


Indeed, it would quite useful to have samplings from N. African individuals who are fully Kaybel (sp?) Amazigh, since they would be closest genetically to the original Berbers, particularly those who have practiced strict tribal endogamy.

----------


## Wilhelm

> Not exactly 0%, the average should be around 1%, althought it's difficult to say. But I highly doubt North Italy is 0% as the map shows for the same reason (Southern influence).
> 
> If we take the Autosomal data available, both Basques and North Italians must appear with 0%


 I have checked and Basques have 0.3%. That's less than what French have. Probably the surrounding regions have about the same (Navarra, Aragon, etc). So the map is wrong.

Edit: Also Tuscany has 1%, and is not in the map.

----------


## oreo_cookie

Going by haplogroup frequencies it surprises me Greece has no autosomal North African component at all.

----------


## Knovas

They have substantial West Asian and Southwest Asian that can perfectly be associated to the migration of some E subclade peoples.

----------


## Wilhelm

> They have substantial West Asian and Southwest Asian that can perfectly be associated to the migration of some E subclade peoples.


 A middle-eastern map would be interesting (West Asian + Southwest-Asian)

PD: Greeks have 32% mid-east/caucasus autosomal, and 58% by paternal line.

----------


## Wilhelm

I have modified a bit the map. Added Vasco-Navarres, and also the 100 Tuscans (1% African) :

----------


## Knovas

Greeks: E + G2a + J1 + J2 + T = 58%

Most J2 (23%) must be J2b, more likely Southeast Mediterranean. A core of the rest is what makes Greeks 32% Mideast/Cucasus, with a residual 0.5% Northwest African. There is 41% of other haplogroups that probably replaced African autosomes and reduced others.

----------


## oreo_cookie

There should be a Middle Eastern map like the one above that combines West and SW Asian.

----------


## zanipolo

Carthigian empire ruled Iberia with it north africans people, numidians, libyans and carthigians ( pre-roman).

They also ruled majorca, sicily and sardinia

----------


## Wilhelm

> Carthigian empire ruled Iberia with it north africans people, numidians, libyans and carthigians ( pre-roman).
> 
> They also ruled majorca, sicily and sardinia


 Guys we are talking about percentages bordering the noise levels ~0.5% african.

----------


## zanipolo

> Guys we are talking about percentages bordering the noise levels ~0.5% african.


I do not understand this comment, clearly if the celtic, gothic and vandal invasion did not occur and dilute the percentages , they percentages would have been higher.

Maybe you should drirect you comment to maciano and tell him to not place and figures less the 5% fro any map

----------


## Wilhelm

> I do not understand this comment, clearly if the celtic, gothic and vandal invasion did not occur and dilute the percentages , they percentages would have been higher.
> 
> Maybe you should drirect you comment to maciano and tell him to not place and figures less the 5% fro any map


 You clearly have no idea of history. These percentages were already present in times of the Celts or Goths. Why you think Galicia has more E-M81 than Andalusia.

----------


## oreo_cookie

So the varieties of E1b1b in Iberia (unlike those in the Balkans) are of the North African variety?

----------


## Knovas

Almost all E subclades you can find in Europe originated in North Africa. What essentially changes is the migration way those peoples followed (crossing the sea to get into Iberia or going through the Near East).

I'm not sure, but probably the vast majority of E sublclades you can find in Iberia are E-M81 and variants, as for example E-M165. This ones should crossed the sea a very long time ago, of course.

----------


## oreo_cookie

> Almost all E subclades you can find in Europe originated in North Africa. What essentially changes is the migration way those peopples followed.


But how then in places like Greece and southern Italy, would you associate E1b1b with something from the Middle East proper and not North African components?

----------


## Knovas

Checking the subclade is the best way. The two I mentioned are clearly associated with sea migrants, and have almost all presece in North Africa. But if you check for example E-M78, you can find this one in Northeast Africa, the Near East, Anatolia, The Balkans...so yes, it's possible to make the atributions with very low margin of error, althouth it's also possible some of the others could get to Greece via sea too...who knows.

----------


## zanipolo

> You clearly have no idea of history. These percentages were already present in times of the Celts or Goths. Why you think Galicia has more E-M81 than Andalusia.


You did not understand what I meant. Maciano claims that these percentages in iberia are from ancient times and not medieva/renaissance times. I said that if the invasions ( celt ,goth and vandal) from the north did not occur, then the likelyhood of these current percentages would have been higher than what they are today. 

Unless you mean that the celt in iberia where always there and did not come from gallic lands.

but then again. in ancient times I agree with many scholars that indicate that the celts meant a linguistic associated people and not always a migratory one. So, you have, gallic-celtic, iberic-celtic, italic-celtic, germanic-celtic etc etc.
I do beleive in time they ( celts ) developed there own culture, But I think that is only where they are present at the moment.

Tartessains where in the south, be them phoenicians or north africans, and some say they originated in modern romania from the black sea
http://www.pelasgians.org/website5/32_06.htm

----------


## Knovas

I personally think the first inhabitants of Iberia came from North Africa a very long time ago. Or, at least, they entered the Peninsula more or less at the same time the Megalithic Builders went down the Pyrenees.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> I do not understand this comment, clearly if the celtic, gothic and vandal invasion did not occur and dilute the percentages , they percentages would have been higher.
> 
> Maybe you should drirect you comment to maciano and tell him to not place and figures less the 5% fro any map


You have to remember that the Iberian Peninsula had hugely significant Paleolithic influences well before the great Neolithic migrations occurred. Therefore, it's not all a simple matter of Celts and Germanics diluting North African DNA.

----------


## Dorianfinder

> You have to remember that the Iberian Peninsula had hugely significant Paleolithic influences well before the great Neolithic migrations occurred. Therefore, it's not all a simple matter of Celts and Germanics diluting North African DNA.


Other than Iberia's apparent geographic location which lends itself nicely to a pre-IE LGM refuge, its proximity, or rather distance from the Middle East and Anatolia, suggests North African genetic input since the earliest migrations took place. The word 'diluted' is perhaps condescending but it could explain high R1b penetration with certain isolated regions suggesting elevated levels of pre-IE haplogroups. African genetic input may include introductions from long before the introduction of Celtic influences to more recent times. We should expect some diffusion from North African Muslim invaders but also remember that a large section of the Iberian population converted to Islam. Portuguese diffusion into Spain is also a factor throughout recent times. Many an Angolan and Mozambican with mixed ancestry have integrated themselves into the Iberian community. The relative strength of the region lies in its heterogeneity, this has provided Iberia with a low-cost labor force. As the endemic increasingly began to resist being exploited by the wealthier classes so more South American and African migrants were being used to fill these basic functions. Roman societies used local servants from surrounding areas, we can expect Iberia to have been no different. These may have been to some extent from North African Roman colonies.

----------


## Maciamo

> I have modified a bit the map. Added Vasco-Navarres, and also the 100 Tuscans (1% African) :


I have modified the map too for Tuscany too. I was the first map on the Tuscan samples from Dodecad members, but it's true that the HapMap TSI is more representative as there are over 100 samples.

The few Spanish Basque members I know from the Dodecad Project have over 1% of African admixture. Which members did you take into account ?

----------


## Maciamo

> Greeks: E + G2a + J1 + J2 + T = 58%
> 
> Most J2 (23%) must be J2b, more likely Southeast Mediterranean. A core of the rest is what makes Greeks 32% Mideast/Cucasus, with a residual 0.5% Northwest African. There is 41% of other haplogroups that probably replaced African autosomes and reduced others.


E1b1b falls under Mediterranean, otherwise nothing makes sense in the comparison between Dodecad admixtures and Y-DNA frequencies. J1 probably should be divided in J1c3 and JxJ1c3, but overall J1 and T are better classified as Southwest Asian. 

For the Greeks, G2a + J2 = 29.5%, much closer to the 26% West Asian admixture. You can't expect a perfect match because these are rough averages. J1 + T = 7.5%, a very good match to the 6.8% Southwest Asian.

----------


## Knovas

I don't see the point in putting all J2 to get the West Asian admixture, when most J2 must be J2b in Greece (in my opinion an Eastern Mediterranean marker, nothing to do with the rest). I don't know the percent, but must be significant.

E1b1b's migrated from North Africa crossing the Near East and Anatolia to get into Greece, almost sure, in a very important number. So they brought quite of the influences they got in their migration way. No way it's likely the original Mediterranean component was "started" by E1b1b peoples, since it doesn't peak in North Africa or neither the Near East. And we must assumne, if you are right, the most part got into Greece via sea (preserving the suposed Mediterranean autosomes)...not probable checking the E-M78 distribution (the main one). It's more likely the African autosomes got diluted and were replaced by West Asian and Southwest Asian, althought haplogroups still survived.

----------


## Maciamo

> I don't see the point in putting all J2 to get the West Asian admixture, when most J2 must be J2b in Greece (in my opinion an Eastern Mediterranean marker, nothing to do with the rest). I don't know the percent, but must be significant.


All J2 originated in West Asia, even J2b. 




> E1b1b's migrated from North Africa crossing the Near East and Anatolia to get into Greece, almost sure, in a very important number. So they brought quite of the influences they got in their migration way. No way it's likely the original Mediterranean component was "started" by E1b1b peoples, since it doesn't peak in North Africa or neither the Near East. And we must assumne, if you are right, the most part got into Greece via sea (preserving the suposed Mediterranean autosomes)...not probable checking the E-M78 distribution (the main one). It's more likely the African autosomes got diluted and were replaced by West Asian and Southwest Asian, althought haplogroups still survived.


Don't think in terms of present distribution but ancient ones. Take out all the J1, J2 and G2a from North Africa and Europe, all the R1a and R1b from Europe. 

Get rid even of E-M81 everywhere, as I think it migrated to Northwest Africa and Iberia well after* the "original" E-M78 people colonised the Mediterranean region and mixed with the indigenous I2a1 people. 

Once you have computed the new frequencies in your head, try to imagine the new map of how the Mediterranean looked like 10,000 years ago (assuming that E-M78 was already in southern Europe). I will help you : E-M78 is everywhere in North Africa (close to 100% frequency) and Northern Europe (variable frequency depending on local I2 communities, but let's keep in mind that Paleolithic/Mesolithic people were mostly nomads or semi-nomads, so the map wouldn't be "frozen" like today).


*maybe only 5000 or 6000 years ago

----------


## Knovas

Absolutly unclear where J2b as clade originated. Pretending to put J2b at the same level of J2 it's not reasonable in any case, there must be an autosomal difference like it or not, the same happens in ALL subclades...this haplogroup is not different from the rest, another thing is you just want to ignore the fact. I know you don't think so, but in my opinion J2b originated in Western Anatolia, or the zones around Macedonia and Greece. That's what makes more sense according to the distribution, it's likely it originated in a "circle" having inside the regions I mention (Western Anatolia-Greece-Macedonia).

Precisely think in ancient terms is what makes no sense, since those "pure" ethnicities were mixed and almost totally replaced in some regions. With the modern distribution you can see the different migration ways humans followed, but at many points (specially Anatolia and other East Mediterranean populations), you can't expect your "exact" estimations because the contact with many different peoples was very significant. What you obtain is a core of all wich recombines in ALEATORY terms, that simple.

West European and East European are quite widespread according to the last data too. There's a portrait of the Nepalese showing substantial West and East European...so the argument to atribute such influences to the Mediteranean component because it's widespread and must match somewhere (E haplogroup for example), it's simply not valid. West and Southwest Asian together are very widespread too, and we can continue with similar assumptions all day trying to match results. However, no need to say this, since the distances are very clear in the Dodecad run, and Mediterranean it's enough removed to match Southern Europe, even more than it was before at K=10 as I posted in other threads. So if that's the thought and want to match Mediterranean with haplogroup E, you must accept the distances doesn't support the argument since both West Asian and Southwest Asian are closer to North/East Africa as whole (_everywhere in North Africa_), and the Middle East (of course), than the Mediterranean actually is.

Sorry, but the insurmountable incoherence it's perfectly noticeable: http://dodecad.blogspot.com/search?u...max-results=12

----------


## Wilhelm

> You did not understand what I meant. Maciano claims that these percentages in iberia are from ancient times and not medieva/renaissance times. I said that if the invasions ( celt ,goth and vandal) from the north did not occur, then the likelyhood of these current percentages would have been higher than what they are today. 
> 
> Unless you mean that the celt in iberia where always there and did not come from gallic lands.
> 
> but then again. in ancient times I agree with many scholars that indicate that the celts meant a linguistic associated people and not always a migratory one. So, you have, gallic-celtic, iberic-celtic, italic-celtic, germanic-celtic etc etc.
> I do beleive in time they ( celts ) developed there own culture, But I think that is only where they are present at the moment.
> 
> Tartessains where in the south, be them phoenicians or north africans, and some say they originated in modern romania from the black sea
> http://www.pelasgians.org/website5/32_06.htm


WRONG !!! Tartessians spoke an Indo-European language, is impossible the came from Phoenicians or North-Africans.




> I have modified the map too for Tuscany too. I was the first map on the Tuscan samples from Dodecad members, but it's true that the HapMap TSI is more representative as there are over 100 samples.
> 
> The few Spanish Basque members I know from the Dodecad Project have over 1% of African admixture. Which members did you take into account ?


 The bigger sample : French Basques. They have 0.3% african. I imagine pure spanish-basques and navarrese are the same, on average.

----------


## Knovas

The French Basques sample comes from the frontier, so they are neither "French" or "Spanish". Perhaps it's good to keep this in mind.

----------


## Goga

> you must accept the distances doesn't support the argument since both *West Asian* and Southwest Asian are closer to *North/East Africa* as whole (_everywhere in North Africa_), and the Middle East (of course), than the Mediterranean actually is.


?
What are you talking about?

Do you ever know where West Asian is, do you even know the capital cities of West Asian countries? Sorry but you are ignorant as hell... 

Egypt is in Norhteast Africa. You can't get a more Northeastern African country.
Greece and Italy are in South Europe.
Armenia, Azarbajdjan, Gerogia etc. are in West Asia.

The distance between Egypt is closer to Italy and Greece than between Egypt and Armenia-Azarbajdjan.

----------


## Knovas

Check the GENETIC distance I posted Goga. Geographic assumptions have nothing to do here, so if you are not agree you should go and reply Dienekes'.

----------


## Goga

> Check the GENETIC distance I posted Goga. Geographic assumptions have nothing to do here, so if you are not agree you should go and reply Dienekes'.


You're talking about geography. And you're spreading lies!

Genetic distance between the Medittearean and *North* Africa is closer to each other than distance between West Asia and *North* Africa.

While the GENETIC distance between West Asia and *East* Africa is closer to each other than distance between *East* Africa and the Mediterranean!

----------


## Goga

Btw., West Asia don't have any 'African admixture' (as you can see on the map), while the Medittearean especially in West (Southwest Europe & Northwest Africa) has a lot!

----------


## Knovas

Med vs N. Africa = 0.067 (0.001 closer)
W. Asia vs N. Africa = 0.068 (0.001 far)

Med vs E. Africa = 0.117 (0.006 far)
W. Asia vs E. Africa = 0.111 (0.006 closer)

North/East Africa (everywhere in North Africa) = West Asian is 0.005 *closer*

No need to put a Word about Southwest Asian.

----------


## Knovas

> Btw., West Asia don't have the 'pure' African admixture, while the Medittearean especially in West has a lot!


Not a lot guy. With more than 90% European the distance is huge compared with West Asians. I showed you the example of a non mixed Georgian, and he was closer than any Spaniard to Africa., specially East Africa. Comparing with several Italians and Greeks, he was more or less the same, or showed less similarity. So wrong in your thoughts about Southwest Europe, but not about the rest.

----------


## Goga

> Med vs N. Africa = 0.067 (0.001 closer)
> W. Asia vs N. Africa = 0.068 (0.001 far)
> 
> Med vs E. Africa = 0.117 (0.006 far)
> W. Asia vs E. Africa = 0.111 (0.006 closer)
> 
> North/East Africa (everywhere in North Africa) = West Asian is 0.005 *closer*
> 
> No need to put a Word about Southwest Asian.


You ARE ignorant as hell!

North and East Africans are different folks.
Just face it that the Medittearean are very close to NORTH Africans, and they even share the same DNA with each other. There's Southwest European DNA in North Africa and there's North African DNA in Southwest Europe!

Why can't you just accept that!

----------


## Goga

> Not a lot guy. With more than 90% European the distance is huge compared with West Asians. I showed you the example of a non mixed Georgian, and he was closer than any Spaniard to Africa., specially East Africa. Comparing with several Italians and Greeks, he was more or less the same, or showed less similarity. So wrong in your thoughts about Southwest Europe, but not about the rest.


We are talking about the African admixture right? 

As you can see on this map SothWest Europe HAS African admixture, while West Asia don't have any African admixture.

And please don't start with genetic distances again, because many Europeans are actually West Asian. I mean many Europeans with West Asian roots (R, G & IJ) migrated out of Africa *at the same time* as the current West Asians did...

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> You ARE ignorant as hell!
> 
> North and East Africans are different folks.
> Just face it that the Medittearean are very close to NORTH Africans, and they even share the same DNA with each other. There's Medittearean DNA in North Africa and there's North African DNA in Southwest Europe!
> 
> Why can't you just accept that!


Because all other Iberian genetic affinities (West, North, N. Atlantic, etc.) overwhelm anything African. Not to mention that the African influences are very ancient and are not meaningful. N. African DNA is also present in many other regions of Europe. Why don't YOU accept the (obvious) facts. Enough codswallop already.

----------


## Knovas

You are the only ignorant here who hasn't read the full post to understand why I put this together. Check carefully to get in discussion if you want, because I'll only repeat this one time: http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/conten...0/F2.large.jpg

We were talking about to include E-M78 as Mediterranean, for this reason it was relevant to talk about East Africans, since as you can see the distribution includes East Africa. Also Egypt has 12.5% East African, with one of the individuals scoring more than 20%. So yes, IT'S SIGNIFICANT ACCORDING TO THE DISCUSSION BEFORE YOUR INTROMISSION.

Got it guy?


An having little admixture does not make Spaniards closer, since Gerogians have a huge amont of West Asian and almost absent Northern European. Not the case of Spaniards, so stop with the nonsense, impossible they are closer than Georgians and similars.

----------


## Goga

> Because all other Iberian genetic affinities (West, North, N. Atlantic, etc.) overwhelm anything African. Not to mention that the African influences are very ancient and are not meaningful. N. African DNA is also present in many other regions of Europe. Why don't YOU accept the (obvious) facts. Enough codswallop already.


Which facts? There is *NO* African DNA in West Asia *AT ALL*!

----------


## Goga

> You are the only ignorant here who hasn't read the full post to understand why I put this together. Check carefully to get in discussion if you want, because I'll only repeat this one time: http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/conten...0/F2.large.jpg
> 
> We were talking about to include E-M78 as Mediterranean, for this reason it was relevant to talk about East Africans, since as youcan see the distribution includes East Africa. Also Egypt has 12.5% East African, with one of the individuals socring more than 20%. So yes, IT'S SIGNIFICANT ACCORDING TO THE DISCUSSION BEFORE YOUR INTROMISSION.
> 
> Got it guy?
> 
> 
> An having little admixture does not make Spaniards closer, since Gerogians have a huge amont of West Asian and almost absent Northern European. Not the case of Spaniards, so stop with the nonsense, impossible they are closer than Georgians and similars.


*SouthWest Europeans are MORE African. FACT!*




> We are talking about the African admixture right? 
> 
> As you can see on this map SothWest Europe HAS African admixture, while West Asia don't have any African admixture.
> 
> And please don't start with genetic distances again, because many Europeans are actually West Asian. I mean many Europeans with West Asian roots (R, G & IJ) migrated out of Africa *at the same time* as the current West Asians did...

----------


## Goga

This map doesn't lie!





>

----------


## Knovas

But not genetically closer, that's the fact you don't seem to understand. West Asians are much more intermediate population, like it or not. At least, I hope you got the reason why I used the other figures, since I see in the second issue it's impossible we agree with your behaviour.

----------


## Goga

> But not genetically closer, that's the fact you don't seem to understand. West Asians are much more intermediate population, like it or not. At least, I hope you got the reason why I used the other figures, since I see in the second issue it's impossible we agree with your behaviour.


Cool, whatever you say boy. But you can't hide the fact that SouthWest Europeans have African DNA / GENES *directly* from Africa!

----------


## Knovas

One thing is deny facts, and another one put in order the exagerations about the African ancestry.Spaniards are more than 90% European, and Portuguese are quite near of this (86% aprox). How do you pretend there can be a significant genome similarity with such figures between African and Iberian populations?

Quote one post where this has been hide as you say. Come on, I'm wainting.

----------


## Wilhelm

> One thing is deny facts, and another one put in order the exagerations about the African ancestry.Spaniards are more than 90% European, and Portuguese are quite near of this (86% aprox). How do you pretend there can be a significant genome similarity with such figures between African and Iberian populations?
> 
> Quote one post where this has been hide as you say. Come on, I'm wainting.


 Which is the same as the rest of Europe. Spaniards average 91% european, just like British, French, Irish, Dutch, etc.

----------


## Goga

> One thing is deny facts, and another one put in order the exagerations about the African ancestry.Spaniards are more than 90% European, and Portuguese are quite near of this (86% aprox). How do you pretend there can be a significant genome similarity with such figures between populations?
> 
> Quote one post where this has been hide as you say. Come on, I'm wainting.


I'm not saying that SouthWest Euro's are Africans. According to me they're 100% Europeans, but I just don't understand why people like you deny any geneflow from other parts of the world?
I don't have anything against you personal. But according to me racial 'purists' are just *ridiculous* & *pathetic* folks!


Why? I don't get. And I don't like that!

----------


## Knovas

We haven't deny it man, please read the thread. Being honest, I'm really tired discussing the same things all days with you. 

Most African ancestry in Iberia looks quite old as has been pointed in the post, and does not represent a drastic percent. So as you can imagine, the Genome wide similarity between Spaniards an Africans is very low, much lower than the one showed by more intermediate populations, even if the don't have African ancestry. And yes, you can include West Asians there, even if they don't get such reports.

----------


## Goga

Scandinavians & Eastern Europeans don't deny any gene flow from Turkic people (N & Q folks). 
But you guys deny any gene flow from Africa. Aren't you tired???

That's why you get so much resistance!

----------


## Wilhelm

> Scandinavians & Eastern Europeans don't deny any gene flow from Turkic people (N & Q folks). 
> But you guys deny any gene flow from Africa. Aren't you tired???
> 
> That's why you get so much resistance!


 We are talking about genetic distances here, not admixture. A person without african admixture can be closer to Africans than a european with minor admixture, which is the case with West-Asians.

----------


## Goga

> We are talking about genetic distances here, not admixture. A person without african admixture can be closer to Africans than a european with minor admixture, which is the case with West-Asians.


WHAT??? Dude, you have some serious issues / mental problems.

READ the name of this thread!!! This thread is all about the AFRICAN ADMIXTURE!!!!!

*"Thread: Autosomal map : African ADMIXTURE (from Dodecad)"*


There's a gene flow *detected* from NorthWest Africa to SouthWest Europe. FACT!

----------


## Angela

> I have modified the map too for Tuscany too. I was the first map on the Tuscan samples from Dodecad members, but it's true that the HapMap TSI is more representative as there are over 100 samples


The fact that the TSI sample is much larger (102) than the HGDP sample(8) does not necessarily mean that it is more representative of Tuscany as a whole, as the entire TSI sample was taken from one small village outside Florence, and genetic variation does exist within Tuscany. For example, the HGDP sample, (which shows .3% North African) lists the Mediterranean component as 47.8% versus 37.6% in the TSI sample. There are other differences as well.

The 25 person Zing sample is only based on 13,000 snps so I understand why that would not be factored into the computation. The Henn et al study, however, uses 195,000 snps, which should give a certain amount of confidence. That provides a figure of l.l % for north west African, and again 0 for the sub-Saharan and East African groups.

In the case of Tuscany then, an approximately 1% figure for North West African seems reasonable. 

However, more generally, I am uncomfortable with a methodology for the making of maps (which are then widely distributed) which picks which studies to include strictly based on sample size. Indeed, I think that barring some generally acknowledged problem with a particular academic study, no such results should be excluded. For me, it calls into question the reliability of the maps in general. 

I

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> *SouthWest Europeans are MORE African. FACT!*


What you don't understand is that *it does not matter* since the major genetic components (West, North, South, N. Atlantic European) dominate in Iberia. As a consequence, Iberians are far, far closer genetically to other Europeans than are West Asians. North Africans cluster nowhere near Iberians. What is the point of harping on a very minor (and essentially ancient) contribution from NW Africa, unless you are motivated by unreasonable / illogical thought processes?

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> The fact that the TSI sample is much larger (102) than the HGDP sample(8) does not necessarily mean that it is more representative of Tuscany as a whole, as the entire TSI sample was taken from one small village outside Florence, and genetic variation does exist within Tuscany. For example, the HGDP sample, (which shows .3% North African) lists the Mediterranean component as 47.8% versus 37.6% in the TSI sample. There are other differences as well.
> 
> The 25 person Zing sample is only based on 13,000 snps so I understand why that would not be factored into the computation. The Henn et al study, however, uses 195,000 snps, which should give a certain amount of confidence. That provides a figure of l.l % for north west African, and again 0 for the sub-Saharan and East African groups.
> 
> In the case of Tuscany then, an approximately 1% figure for North West African seems reasonable. 
> 
> However, more generally, I am uncomfortable with a methodology for the making of maps (which are then widely distributed) which picks which studies to include strictly based on sample size. Indeed, I think that barring some generally acknowledged problem with a particular academic study, no such results should be excluded. For me, it calls into question the reliability of the maps in general. 
> 
> I


These maps are useful only in a very general sense. Autosomal DNA research is becoming more are more refined by the day and the map figures currently presented are unlikely to hold.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> WHAT??? Dude, you have some serious issues / mental problems.
> 
> READ the name of this thread!!! This thread is all about the AFRICAN ADMIXTURE!!!!!
> 
> *"Thread: Autosomal map : African ADMIXTURE (from Dodecad)"*
> 
> 
> There's a gene flow *detected* from NorthWest Africa to SouthWest Europe. FACT!


So??? Any number of people here have stated many times that it does not impact genetic distances / clustering because the admixture is too minor and too ancient. Why is it so hard for you for to grasp this fundamental fact?

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> I'm not saying that SouthWest Euro's are Africans. According to me they're 100% Europeans, but I just don't understand why people like you deny any geneflow from other parts of the world?
> I don't have anything against you personal. But according to me racial 'purists' are just *ridiculous* & *pathetic* folks!
> 
> 
> Why? I don't get. And I don't like that!



No one is denying N. African gene flow into Iberia. Have you been selectively tuning out?

The essential point is that the gene flow is ancient and too insignificant to have any impact on genetic distance and clustering. Autosomally, Spaniards and Portuguese have scores well within the range of other Western European countries. That is abundantly clear.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> Other than Iberia's apparent geographic location which lends itself nicely to a pre-IE LGM refuge, its proximity, or rather distance from the Middle East and Anatolia, suggests North African genetic input since the earliest migrations took place. The word 'diluted' is perhaps condescending but it could explain high R1bpenetration with certain isolated regions suggesting elevated levels of pre-IE haplogroups. African genetic input may include introductions from long before the introduction of Celtic influences to more recent times. We should expect some diffusion from North African Muslim invaders but also remember that a large section of the Iberian population converted to Islam. Portuguese diffusion into Spain is also a factor throughout recent times. Many an Angolan and Mozambican with mixed ancestry have integrated themselves into the Iberian community. The relative strength of the region lies in its heterogeneity, this has provided Iberia with a low-cost labor force. As the endemic increasingly began to resist being exploited by the wealthier classes so more South American and African migrants were being used to fill these basic functions. Roman societies used local servants from surrounding areas, we can expect Iberia to have been no different. These may have been to some extent from North African Roman colonies.


First of all mixed Africans from the old Portuguese colonies are obviously not a component of the Iberian genome, for obvious reasons. Such individuals are never (or never should) be included in indigenous genetic studies. If they ever are, the research becomes invalid, as has been the case in a handful of ostensibly political motivated efforts - there have been several in Iberia and at least one or two in other areas of Europe.

Also, there is no evidence suggesting that the Iberian Paleolithic genome had any DNA directly associated with NW Africa. If you take a close look at the autosomal percentages (see Maciamo's comments on this thread) you will realize that practically all African DNA present in Iberia is ancient, and not the result of Muslim invasions or anything else.

----------


## Goga

> No one is denying N. African gene flow into Iberia. Have you been selectively tuning out?
> 
> The essential point is that the gene flow is ancient and too insignificant to have any impact on genetic distance and clustering. Autosomally, Spaniards and Portuguese have scores well within the range of other Western European countries. That is abundantly clear.


Ok, now we are getting somewhere!

I do believe that a gene flow between the Mediterranean countries in Africa & Europe is a natural process. Even 100 Adolf Hitler's together can't stop that. The only 'final' solution is to kill / genocide all Africans, and even then I'm not sure that there will never be any gene flow from Africa!

There always has been an interaction between the 2 continents and there always will be an interaction between the 2 continents!

You can also move to the Moon, but I truly believe that Africans will go after you too. I don't know why but they like your kinsmen very much.

----------


## Taranis

> WRONG !!! Tartessians spoke an Indo-European language, is impossible the came from Phoenicians or North-Africans.


Actually, Tartessisan was a non-Indo-European language.

----------


## Wilhelm

> Actually, Tartessisan was a non-Indo-European language.


 Wrong. Specialists have classified as Indo-European, some even as Celtic.

----------


## Taranis

> Wrong. Specialists have classified as Indo-European, some even as Celtic.


I have yet to see convincing evidence of that...

----------


## Wilhelm

> I have yet to see convincing evidence of that...


 For example : 

Guerra, Amilcar (2010). _Celtic from the West Chapter 3: Newly Discovered Inscriptions from the South-West of the Iberian Peninsula_. 

Koch, John (2009). _Tartessian: Celtic from the Southwest at the Dawn of History in Acta Palaeohispanica X Palaeohispanica 9 (2009)_. Palaeohispanica. pp. 339–351

----------


## Taranis

> For example : 
> 
> Guerra, Amilcar (2010). _Celtic from the West Chapter 3: Newly Discovered Inscriptions from the South-West of the Iberian Peninsula_. 
> 
> Koch, John (2009). _Tartessian: Celtic from the Southwest at the Dawn of History in Acta Palaeohispanica X Palaeohispanica 9 (2009)_. Palaeohispanica. pp. 339–351


Yes, I'm aware of that. We've been there like a year ago. My opinion hasn't changed in the slightest.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

The jury is still out on classification as Celtic but the evidence points to Tartessian as having, at the very least, Celtic influences. Let's see what the next round of the Celtic from the West project shows us.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> Which facts? There is *NO* African DNA in West Asia *AT ALL*!


Big deal, there is no African DNA in West Asia. Who cares?

I was referring to the comments you made regarding SW African DNA in Iberia. Please, at least try to follow the discussion and be cognizant of what you write.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> Ok, now we are getting somewhere!
> 
> I do believe that a gene flow between the Mediterranean countries in Africa & Europe is a natural process. Even 100 Adolf Hitler's together can't stop that. The only 'final' solution is to kill / genocide all Africans, and even then I'm not sure that there will never be any gene flow from Africa!
> 
> There always has been an interaction between the 2 continents and there always will be an interaction between the 2 continents!
> 
> You can also move to the Moon, but I truly believe that Africans will go after you too. I don't know why but they like your kinsmen very much.


Hitler by the way was E3b (Y-DNA), apparently. He hardly looked like a Moroccan or Algerian.

----------


## Wilhelm

> Berbers are clearly different, yes. Would be good to have results from different ethnic Berber tribes. Also, East African as component, is quite far from Negroids, since it's even closer to Europe than Southeast and Northeast Asian. If Ethiopians and other East Africans have black skin is because they also carry around 16% Neo African + Paleo African.


 Yes, is like mixing apples with oranges.

----------


## zanipolo

> The jury is still out on classification as Celtic but the evidence points to Tartessian as having, at the very least, Celtic influences. Let's see what the next round of the Celtic from the West project shows us.


Thats rubbish, that only influence would be much later............its like saying spain and/or Italy is influenced by english because spain say the word OK and weekend now

How can it be classified Celtic if Tartessian is older ? .........Besides I was referring to the southern part not all of iberia

Hope this is not another nationalistic rubbish that most place in eupedia!

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

Not rubbish at all.

According to Koch, Villar, Untermann and any number of others, Tartessian is part of the Celtic family of languages. It has aspects similar to Old Irish and Gaulish. The Atlantic School claims that Tartessian is 500 years older than any Celtic language from the putative Celtic cradle (Central Europe). Like I said, the jury is still out, but a growing number of experts find the evidence accumulated thus far compelling.

Celtic culture apparently developed as early as the Bronze Age throughout the Iberian Atlantic from Algarve / Andalusia to Galicia, N. Portugal and Asturias.

Actually, it is possible that Celticity progressed on two fronts, Central Europe and the Atlantic Facade (SW Iberia to Orkney).

Ref: Cunliff and Koch: Celtic from the West (2010)

Koch: Tartessian (2009) and Tartessian 2 (2011)

----------


## zanipolo

> Not rubbish at all.
> 
> According to Koch, Villar, Untermann and any number of others, Tartessian is part of the Celtic family of languages. It has aspects similar to Old Irish and Gaulish. The Atlantic School claims that Tartessian is 500 years older than any Celtic language from the putative Celtic cradle (Central Europe). Like I said, the jury is still out, but a growing number of experts find the evidence accumulated thus far compelling.
> 
> Celtic culture apparently developed as early as the Bronze Age throughout the Iberian Atlantic from Algarve / Andalusia to Galicia, N. Portugal and Asturias.
> 
> Actually, it is possible that Celticity progressed on two fronts, Central Europe and the Atlantic Facade (SW Iberia to Orkney).
> 
> Ref: Cunliff and Koch: Celtic from the West (2010)
> ...


so if Tartessian is 500 years older, then the celtic in Spain is classified tartessian and not celtic

is this it
http://ifc.dpz.es/recursos/publicaci.../54/26koch.pdf

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=...ulture&f=false

accepting celtic words or sentences does not make the language celtic.......no language had a full vocabulary in their own language.

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=...ulture&f=false

seems still to be Phoenician to me

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> so if Tartessian is 500 years older, then the celtic in Spain is classified tartessian and not celtic
> is this it
> http://ifc.dpz.es/recursos/publicaci.../54/26koch.pdf
> 
> http://books.google.com.au/books?id=...ulture&f=false
> 
> accepting celtic words or sentences does not make the language celtic.......no language had a full vocabulary in their own language.
> 
> http://books.google.com.au/books?id=...ulture&f=false
> ...


The ancient Greeks (Heradotus) referred to population groups in Southern Portugal and SW Spain as "Celtoi" (Celtic), because of their distinctive cultural practices. These are the very first written references to Celtic peoples. Tartessians used the Phoenician alphabet but their language was NOT related to Phoenician. You should read the Cunliff and Koch material. Go to Amazon for reviews. There are also in depth discussions on a number of sites, including Wikipedia.

Actually, this conversation belongs in the "Celts of Iberia" thread.

----------


## Taranis

> The ancient Greeks (Heradotus) referred to population groups in Southern Portugal and SW Spain as "Celtoi" (Celtic), because of their distinctive cultural practices. These are the very first written references to Celtic peoples.


This is incorrect. Herodotus refers to the population of Southern Portugal as "Kynetes", and he mentions them as distinct from the Keltoi. The problem is that Herodotus was geographically challenged. He claims that the Danube (Istros) originates in the lands of the Keltoi (a statement which by _itself_ is correct), but he somehow seems to assume that it flew across all the length of Europe.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...erodoti-sb.jpg

However, one has to add that Herodotus lived in the 5th century BC and by that time, the knowledge of the Greeks of the real extend of Western Europe was probably limited.




> Tartessians used the Phoenician alphabet but their language was NOT related to Phoenician. You should read the Cunliff and Koch material. Go to Amazon for reviews. There are also in depth discussions on a number of sites, including Wikipedia.
> 
> Actually, this conversation belongs in the "Celts of Iberia" thread.


Well, let me say that I agree that Tartessian wasn't related with Phoenician, but I don't think it was Celtic, either. There are considerable concentrations of E1b, G, J1, J2 and T in the Southwest, and from that perspective I find it very compelling they were a non-Indo-European people.

----------


## Wilhelm

> so if Tartessian is 500 years older, then the celtic in Spain is classified tartessian and not celtic
> 
> is this it
> http://ifc.dpz.es/recursos/publicaci.../54/26koch.pdf
> 
> http://books.google.com.au/books?id=...ulture&f=false
> 
> accepting celtic words or sentences does not make the language celtic.......no language had a full vocabulary in their own language.
> 
> ...


 I can't be phoenocian, since it was at least Indo-European.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> This is incorrect. Herodotus refers to the population of Southern Portugal as "Kynetes", and he mentions them as distinct from the Keltoi. The problem is that Herodotus was geographically challenged. He claims that the Danube (Istros) originates in the lands of the Keltoi (a statement which by _itself_ is correct), but he somehow seems to assume that it flew across all the length of Europe.
> 
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...erodoti-sb.jpg
> 
> However, one has to add that Herodotus lived in the 5th century BC and by that time, the knowledge of the Greeks of the real extend of Western Europe was probably limited.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, let me say that I agree that Tartessian wasn't related with Phoenician, but I don't think it was Celtic, either. There are considerable concentrations of E1b, G, J1, J2 and T in the Southwest, and from that perspective I find it very compelling they were a non-Indo-European people.


Yes, Herodotus did say that the Keltoi were neighbors of the "Kynetes" who occupied the far south-west of the Iberian Peninsula.

----------


## Taranis

> Yes, Herodotus did say that the Keltoi were neighbors of the "Kynetes" who occupied the far south-west of the Iberian Peninsula.


The critical point is that the Kynetes were _distinct_ from the Keltoi, and that fits with the general idea that the Tartessians were a non-Indo-European people.

----------


## Dorianfinder

> I wish I could have data for the following regions of Spain to confirm the shade : Asturias, Cantabria, Extremadura, Castille, Andalusia, and Murcia. I already have data for the other regions.


Medical studies have concluded that genetic traits found primarily in Africa (>80%) can be found at up to 20% of the Sardinian population [see A30-B18-DR3 haplotype] [1][2] and that there is a cline of African genetic input decreasing as one moves away from Iberia in a north easterly direction [3]. 

1. Sanchez-Velasco P, Gomez-Casado E, Martinez-Laso J, _et al._ (May 2003). "HLA alleles in isolated populations from North Spain: origin of the Basques and the ancient Iberians"

2. Choukri F, Chakib A, Himmich H, Raissi H, Caillat-Zucman S (June 2002). "HLA class I polymorphism in a Moroccan population from Casablanca". _European Journal of Immunogenetics_ 29 (3): 205–11.

3. Gómez-Casado E, del Moral P, Martínez-Laso J, _et al._ (March 2000). "HLA genes in Arabic-speaking Moroccans: close relatedness to Berbers and Iberians". _Tissue Antigens_ 55 (3): 239–49.

Thus, there is medical evidence that suggests Sardinia and Iberia share significantly higher levels of gene flow from Africa, perhaps as high as 20% in some areas. However, the relative isolation and European genetic influx into these areas has decreased the total African admixture to some degree.

----------


## Knovas

Actually, only Canarians can show 20% of African admixture. Impossible to find something like this between mainland Iberians. The most "similar" thing taking such levels of admixture as reference, are the Gipsies. And of course, they are usually separated inmediatly from the native samples (not only in Spain, everywhere in Europe).

Genetic traits found in Africa? wich part of Africa?...ejem.

PD: Thanks for using Wikipedia, the site no one can alter the information. Truly reliable LOL

----------


## Bodin

What suprises me that there is no African genes in Balkans - it is very close to Africa , Study of HTLM genes shows influence from Ethiopia in Greece , and Balkans and Italy are only in Europe wherewe can find African R1b-V88

----------


## Dorianfinder

> Actually, only Canarians can show 20% of African admixture. Impossible to find something like this between mainland Iberians. The most "similar" thing taking such levels of admixture as reference, are the Gipsies. And of course, they are usually separated inmediatly from the native samples (not only in Spain, everywhere in Europe).


No Canarians were tested. :Laughing: 

And the Gypsies are not to blame either. In fact, Spanish Gypsies were found to have 3.9% A30-B18 whereas Basques have 8.1% and Sardinians 17% in general.

The frequency of this allele is highest in Zambia's Lusaka (23.3%) and Zimbabwe Harare Shona (14.7%) but is also high in Senegal, Cameroon, Moroccan Berber's, Kenya and indigenous South Africans. However, the specific A30-Cw5-B18-DR3-DQ2 haplotype exists primarily among the indigenous populations of the Western Mediterranean and super-Equatorial West Africa.




> Genetic traits found in Africa? wich part of Africa?...ejem.


A30-B18 is found in significant levels from Senegal to Morroco. The initial study in 1995 found it in Algerian Berbers. Following the initial study it was found to be common (<80%) in the region of Northwest Africa.




> PD: Thanks for using Wikipedia, the site no one can alter the information. Truly reliable LOL


Wikipedia will only allow changes that reflect accepted scientific inquiry. Anybody may change erroneous info on Wikipedia.

----------


## Dorianfinder

> What suprises me that there is no African genes in Balkans - it is very close to Africa , Study of HTLM genes shows influence from Ethiopia in Greece , and Balkans and Italy are only in Europe wherewe can find African R1b-V88


The Balkans are by no means devoid of all African influence, the African elements in the Balkans are very different to those found in Iberia though. It is likely that the R1b-V88 in Africa may have come from the same stock as that which is found in Italy and Greece suggesting European gene flow to Africa. 

Northeast Africa has a very West and Southeast Asian composite, in addition one should also note its illustrious history that differs a great deal from West and Central Africa. Not that West and Central African civilization was any less illustrious, however East Africa can be divided into a predominantly Bantu zone from Central Africa to the Southern tip of Africa and a predominantly Med-Southwest Asian zone covering most of Egypt's area as well as Sudan and Ethiopia's coast. 

One may say that Egypt has more South West Asian and Mediterranean admixture than the rest of Africa bearing in mind the history of its many kingdoms. It is important to emphasize that the pre-Roman East African civilization expressed a rigid form of governance unlike the West African Berbers and the Medieval Saracens who were more mobile and therefore more effective in spreading their genes. Sicily suggests later Saracen influence that was more Berber-like in organizational structure and hence more genetic flow was carried over from African bands there.

----------


## Knovas

Northwest Africa is mainly Caucasoid. Keep this in mind, because if you talk about "traits", some of them are common in different European populations (not only in Southern Europe). No need to say nobody in Spain looks negroid...LOL. And of course, Wikipedia proves absolutely nothing, we had several examples here of t.r.o.l.l users who changed percents and other informations with vandal accounts there. So what you say about wikipedia (only accepting scientific inquiry) it's plain false.

I wasn't telling Gipsies have blame or not (I don't really care with such sources), just they are simply the most mixed people in Iberia (the only ones who can get 20% non European or more like you said) Another thing perhaps you don't know (or just want to ignore) is that of course there are Canarians tested (yes, it was false too). The IBS sample surely includes 2 or 3, but you are free to think what you want. Even if you don't think so, I let you know there's a thing called DIYDODECAD, and there are Canarians who performed the analysis with this tool. It's very accurate, since I am a project member and also tried DIYDODECAD, and results were almost the same.

Here you have the results of a Canarian, first of all what Doug McDonald said (he was even generous):

80% - All Western Europe
20% - All North Africa

"Basically a mix of Spanish and Moorish" - He clearly separates both populations.

DODECAD (DIY)

 East_European 4.22%
West_European 32.99%
Mediterranean 35.87%
Neo_African 1.41%
West_Asian 9.00%
South_Asian 0.23%
Northeast_Asian 0.14%
Southeast_Asian 0.43%
East_African 2.11%
Southwest_Asian 4.30%
Northwest_African 8.63%
Palaeo_African 0.66%


 Wich is: 12.81% Africa, 13.3% W+SW Asia, 0.8% little bits. Total European = 73.08%


Nothing to do with Spanish_D sample, Behar Spaniards sample (6 Catalans and *6 Andalusians*), and the IBS average. All of them,, excepting 2-3 in the IBS sample (Canarian profile), score more than 80% European. The average is near 91%, so take your own conclusions...although I don't expect a huge effort xd.

----------


## Dorianfinder

73.08% seems more reasonable for a Spanish sample. I appreciate you coming down to earth and seeing things from a more realistic perspective, good job. The 90+ percent that floats around is not accurate.

No sample from the Canary Isles has undergone testing for the specific A30-B18 haplotype as far as I know. I doubt if this haplotype has been included in Dodecad or any other admixture analysis.

The better defined admixture results become the more likely these percentage will drop rather than rise. The Spanish Gypsies should not have much more if any additional African admixture compared to an average Spaniard. What do you base this on except off-course likely preconceptions and prejudice.




> Northwest Africa is mainly Caucasoid.


Is a glass half empty or half full? I am not concerned where Caucasoid traits or African traits can be found in Africans, it concerns me that some people insist on believing that gene-flow was a purely one-sided affair, as if there had been a membrane allowing European genes out but no African genes in. Caucasoid is a stretch though, you have to admit that saying Northwest Africans are mainly Caucasoid is like saying Iberians are mainly African. Both statements are based on rhetoric.

ps. Africans do not all look typically Bantu. This is based on Walt Disney's stereotypical depiction of a native with a bone through his nose, not based on reality.

----------


## Knovas

Guy, I'm telling you this results come from a CANARIAN MAN joining 23andme. He posted the results claiming even he was happy to be DIFFERENT from Spaniards, because most Canarians don't consider themselves Spanish. So not from mainland Iberia, since those are represented in the other samples you now say aren't accurate. Of course, you must say such thing simply because you have absolutely no reason XD

Believe it or not, only Gipsies in Spain could get 73% European (doesn't matter the amount of African admixture), any of the maindland Spaniards tested is near of this (all score more than 80%). I think you are the one who should come down to earth...

PD1: Now is when you go and say I'm lying, and the sample is from Spain, not Canarian LOL.

PD2: Check the North African, Mozabite, Moroccan etc. averages. And Check the component distances. They are of course mainly Caucasoid, nothing to do with Negroids (phenotypically and genetically speaking) and they simply don't cluster with them for obvious reasons (Neo and Paleo African are very far from a Northwest African component). Now, call me racist if you want to complete the series XD

PD3: Keep trusting Wikipedia, keep.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

[QUOTE=Knovas;381750]Actually, only Canarians can show 20% of African admixture. Impossible to find something like this between mainland Iberians. The most "similar" thing taking such levels of admixture as reference, are the Gipsies. And of course, they are usually separated inmediatly from the native samples (not only in Spain, everywhere in Europe).

Genetic traits found in Africa? wich part of Africa?...ejem.

It's generally recognized that Canary Island natives are very much different than mainland Iberians. The Canaries have a history that is far different than the rest of Spanish territory and are usually treated separately in genetic research. 

BTW, the Wikipedia site on Spanish people has many inaccuracies and embarrassing exaggerations. The section is apparently run by several LatAms and afrocentrists. Pathetic.

----------


## Dorianfinder

> any of the maindland Spaniards tested is near of this (all score more than 80%). I think you are the one who should come down to earth...


Have you run Spaniards against typically North Eurpeans yet? Let me know when you do.




> PD1: Now is when you go and say I'm lying, and the sample is from Spain, not Canarian LOL.


I don't think you are lying, to lie you would have to know what you are talking about. You appear to lack basic statistical knowledge. As more runs are made comparing different population groups prepare yourself for more confusion, you don't appear to understand how admixtures are formed, what is used to form them, and what parameters effect the results. 




> PD2: Check the North African, Mozabite, Moroccan etc. averages. And Check the component distances. They are of course mainly Caucasoid, nothing to do with Negroids (phenotypically and genetically speaking) and they simply don't cluster with them for obvious reasons (Neo and Paleo African are very far from a Northwest African component). Now, call me racist if you want to complete the series XD


Component distances from what constituent components exactly? You don't know and you claim to understand the results. Have you miraculously added a phenotype analysis to the Dodecad admixture series or are you just trying to force your point into a hole.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> 73.08% seems more reasonable for a Spanish sample. I appreciate you coming down to earth and seeing things from a more realistic perspective, good job. The 90+ percent that floats around is not accurate.
> 
> No sample from the Canary Isles has undergone testing for the specific A30-B18 haplotype as far as I know. I doubt if this haplotype has been included in Dodecad or any other admixture analysis.
> 
> The better defined admixture results become the more likely these percentage will drop rather than rise. The Spanish Gypsies should not have much more if any additional African admixture compared to an average Spaniard. What do you base this on except off-course likely preconceptions and prejudice.
> 
> 
> 
> Is a glass half empty or half full? I am not concerned where Caucasoid traits or African traits can be found in Africans, it concerns me that some people insist on believing that gene-flow was a purely one-sided affair, as if there had been a membrane allowing European genes out but no African genes in. Caucasoid is a stretch though, you have to admit that saying Northwest Africans are mainly Caucasoid is like saying Iberians are mainly African. Both statements are based on rhetoric.
> ...


73%? 

Another poster has already made it abundantly clear that Canarian samples are viewed as separate from mainland Iberia, for obvious reasons. 

The mainland autosomal average for Spain going by Dodecad, Eurogenes, McDonald, etc. is slightly over 90% Euro and Portugal 86%. It's impossible, given Iberia's geographical location, history and low Near Eastern influences that, any genetically indigenous Iberian would score in the 70s. If you disagree take it up with the researchers.

----------


## Dorianfinder

> 73%? 
> 
> Another poster has already made it abundantly clear that Canarian samples are viewed as separate from mainland Iberia, for obvious reasons. 
> 
> The mainland autosomal average for Spain going by Dodecad, Eurogenes, McDonald, etc. is slightly over 90% Euro and Portugal 86%. It's impossible, given Iberia's geographical location, history and low Near Eastern influences that, any genetically indigenous Iberian would score in the 70s. If you disagree take it up with the researchers.


No academic studies have been done on these admixture analyzes to date as they are based on unproven correlations between autosomal markers and bio-geographical ancestry. No academic institution would risk being ridiculed in such a manner.

The only links between Iberia and Africa documented in peer-reviewed academic studies are based on specific medically researched haplotypes found in autosomal dna. They say you are wrong.

----------


## Knovas

Man, Dodecad uses the same patter for all people, and Eurogenes is running intra-European analysis, so it's the same pattern for Southern Euros and Norethern Euros. Go en check the blog, for the moment near eastern clusters were not usually included, but in the next one you'll see how the thing works (the same as Dodecad). You are the only one who doesn't know what is saying XD

The Canarian sample si different because they have Berber admixture from the Canary Islands, so stop twisting things because you have no reason here. Doug McDonald (University Professor), knows perfectly the difference between a Canarian man and a Spanish one. Nothing to argue here, it's a lost battle.

Of course I understand the results, it must consider the distances from a single cluster to the 11 restant, and repeting the same pattern exaclty 12 times in this case. There's a table I posted everyone with little knowledge on Maths can understand. The fact you want to ignore the numbers is very significant.

I don't force anything, you are the only one who pretends to show things in a more difficult way than they really are. More or less showing you are the only person able to understand distances and results, when the table is posted by Dienekes' to make it easy for ALL people (no sense to post something people can't understand). So let me laugh with a childish argument like this XD

----------


## Knovas

> No academic studies have been done on these admixture analyzes to date as they are based on unproven correlations between autosomal markers and bio-geographical ancestry. No academic institution would risk being ridiculed in such a manner.


DOUG MCDONALD: UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR.

http://chemistry.illinois.edu/facult..._McDonald.html

Time to go.

----------


## Dorianfinder

> the table is posted by Dienekes' to make it easy for ALL people


Do you know the difference between a differential and an absolute value? Obviously not.

These are estimates not absolute values, and what's more is they are estimates to a mean which is even more precarious. This is not what you believe it to be. It's an average estimate of a predicted ideal based on real samples that have been hand-picked. You need to do a double-blind control to get unbiased data. There is a thing called unintentional sample bias, these admixtures are fraught with it.

----------


## Knovas

The table shows who is closer and far, it's that simple to understand. For more you post and try to hide reality going through other ways, it doesn't change anything.

Have a nice day.

PD: All is based in academical studies, I showed you a representative person from an academical insititution based exactly on the same things. So pretending to be "academic", you are the only one who deviates from the way in a very silly manner. Keep trying.

----------


## Dorianfinder

> it doesn't change anything.


If you change the ancestral markers or add new ones, alter their relative percentages within a specific admixture category, or alter your selection criteria; expect very different results. The sad thing is you believe these admixtures to be 'pure' science and that is simply not the case. Statistics will never be able to substitute good data and good data is hard to come by.

In actual fact I suppose that you and others like yourself go around recruiting more 'pure' Iberian individuals with German and British ancestry to do autosomal admixture analyzes, this is silly as you will never know the truth as long as you continue to influence the scientific process.

----------


## Knovas

Yes man, I see you are specially concerned to keep the reason, so don't worry, I give you the reason even when it's clear you are the only one against academical studies (not me), wich are not perfect, but enough accurate to get a realistic idea. All people is under the same conditions, just think about it.
You beat me, hope you are happy now with your truth  :Laughing: 

_In actual fact I suppose that you and others like yourself go around recruiting more 'pure' Iberian individuals with German and British ancestry to do autosomal admixture analyzes, this is silly as you will never know the truth as long as you continue to influence the scientific process._

If you really think an stupidity like this, you have a very serious problem. It's very easy to catch fraudsters, anyways, I'll take this amusingly XD

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> No academic studies have been done on these admixture analyzes to date as they are based on unproven correlations between autosomal markers and bio-geographical ancestry. No academic institution would risk being ridiculed in such a manner.
> 
> The only links between Iberia and Africa documented in peer-reviewed academic studies are based on specific medically researched haplotypes found in autosomal dna. They say you are wrong.


Think whatever you like.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> If you change the ancestral markers or add new ones, alter their relative percentages within a specific admixture category, or alter your selection criteria; expect very different results. The sad thing is you believe these admixtures to be 'pure' science and that is simply not the case. Statistics will never be able to substitute good data and good data is hard to come by.
> 
> In actual fact I suppose that you and others like yourself go around recruiting more 'pure' Iberian individuals with German and British ancestry to do autosomal admixture analyzes, this is silly as you will never know the truth as long as you continue to influence the scientific process.


Your last statement is strange. Recruitment? LOL. What's next, a great Spanish and Portuguese conspiracy theory aimed at altering Iberian genetics? The autosomal facts are quite clear on a number of levels. But, feel free to doubt all you want. 

BTW, what is so troubling about Iberians being predominately Western Euro? Quite odd.

----------


## Knovas

> Your last statement is strange. Recruitment? LOL. What's next, a great Spanish and Portuguese conspiracy theory aimed at altering Iberian genetics? The autosomal facts are quite clear on a number of levels. But, feel free to doubt all you want. 
> 
> BTW, what is so troubling about *Iberians being predominately Western Euro*? Quite odd.


Really funny XD

A new Eurogenes spreadsheet is coming soon. Very interesting in relation with this, no doubt about it ;)

----------


## Wilhelm

> In actual fact I suppose that you and others like yourself go around recruiting more 'pure' Iberian individuals with German and British ancestry to do autosomal admixture analyzes, this is silly as you will never know the truth as long as you continue to influence the scientific process.


German and British ancestry ?  :Laughing:  Why need to do that when Iberia has purer peoples like Basques and Catalans  :Laughing:  By the way the *Behar* sample was recruited by a scientific team, haha, and what a casuality, the dodecad spanish sample looks extremely similar, and clusters with it.
Funny guy  :Grin:

----------


## Knovas

Actually, the lower European percent between the Dodecad Spanish, is DOD419 from *Granada*, the place with more significant muslim occupation, and probably the only region with substantial recent Moorish influence due to historical reasons. However, it still has 82.3% total European, and only 5.4% is African admixture. Galicians who were never conquered show more African admixture than this one, so it's quite curious.

----------


## Wilhelm

> Actually, the lower European percent between the Dodecad Spanish, is DOD419 from *Granada*, the place with more significant muslim occupation, and probably the only region with substantial recent Moorish influence due to historical reasons. However, it still has 82.3% total European, and only 5.4% is African admixture. Galicians who were never conquered show more African admixture than this one, so it's quite curious.


 Andalusia is a curious case, it has shown as low as 1.6% of north-african E-M81, less than Galicia and parts of France. Well now going back to the topic, I would like to say that mixing sub-saharan with Berber would be like mixing West-Asian with East-Asian. Completely different things from an anthropological point of view.

----------


## julia90

i think this maps reflects more prehistoric migrations, than a recent arab occupation (north african in sicily and moors in spain).. this is proven also by the fact that Sardinia has this influence too, and in sardina islam never arrived.

Certanly the islamic empire might have played a role in strenghthen this genes in Sicily and Iberia.

Chartaginians, can be seen as candidates for this genes maybe, because they founded some colonies also in southern sardinia

----------


## julia90

althought rethinking of this... i don't know about chartagineans, this genes peak in Morocco, and Chartagine was a bit more in the east

Crossing Iberia from Morocco is easy, also Sicily and Sardinia are quite near to Tunisia

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> i think this maps reflects more prehistoric migrations, than a recent arab occupation (north african in sicily and moors in spain).. this is proven also by the fact that Sardinia has this influence too, and in sardina islam never arrived.
> 
> Certanly the islamic empire might have played a role in strenghthen this genes in Sicily and Iberia.
> 
> Chartaginians, can be seen as candidates for this genes maybe, because they founded some colonies also in southern sardinia


Julia, you are embarrassingly obvious in your agenda. The autosomal DNA scores from the McDonald project at U. Illinois, the Baher efforts, Eurogenes, Dodecad etc. are most clear and consistent. The map is supposed to reflect Dodecad research and the examination of alleles from entire genomes. Easy enough to understand, yes? If you have issues with the results and updates feel free to contact the researchers. Good luck.

You remind me of the character at DNA-Forums who was posting all kinds of inaccurate information on a number of ethnic groups, until a member who was a tenured genetics professor at Johns Hopkins called him / her out. The person was basically humiliated off the thread. Have a great life, Julia.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> althought rethinking of this... i don't know about chartagineans, this genes peak in Morocco, and Chartagine was a bit more in the east
> 
> Crossing Iberia from Morocco is easy, also Sicily and Sardinia are quite near to Tunisia


Have you read the recent research that clearly shows that North African gene flow was significantly hampered by the strong and unpredictable currents in the Straights of Gibraltar? Perhaps one of the Spaniards can give you some guidance on that.

Think carefully before you write. As I said before, your agenda is embarrassingly obvious.

----------


## julia90

???? What i said wrong, that map wasn't posted by me, and wasn't created by me.

And i haven't said anything the other people have said yet.. 

I've also included sicilians and sardinians saying that they have some north west african admixture, i haven't said only iberians.
If this feel to you better, ok?

and beside that I consider pure north west african, (Berbers), europoid looking

Chill Out!

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> ???? What i said wrong, that map wasn't posted by me, and wasn't created by me.
> 
> And i haven't said anything the other people have said yet.. 
> 
> I've also included sicilians and sardinians saying that they have some north west african admixture, i haven't said only iberians.
> If this feel to you better, ok?
> 
> Chill Out!


Julia, cut it out already. Don't try and play people for fools.

Read the research, check the autosomal scores. You will easily see that the SW Asian (Arabian Peninsula) score for Spain and Portugal averages out to 2% and N. African is between 2.5 to 6%. based on the latest results from Eurogenes, Dodecad and other relevant autosomal studies. Not only that, North African frequencies according to a majority of population geneticists are ancient, Neolithic or perhaps even Mesolithic. Some things are as plain as day.

----------


## julia90

Infact i've saied that earlier, you didn't read with attenction:




> i think this maps reflects more prehistoric migrations, than a recent arab occupation (north african in sicily and moors in spain).. this is proven also by the fact that Sardinia has this influence too, and in sardina islam never arrived.

----------


## Knovas

It's true she said at the begining this was mainly pre-historic. Although something like this sounds a bit contraditctory: _certanly the islamic empire might have played a role in strenghthen this genes in Sicily and Iberia.

_Well, doesn't matter. There might be som recent genes, but the most likely is the vast majority it's incredibly old. It's the most accepted conclusion in the thread and between researchers.

----------


## julia90

I agree with you

----------


## julia90

> It's true she said at the begining this was mainly pre-historic. Although something like this sounds a bit contraditctory: _certanly the islamic empire might have played a role in strenghthen this genes in Sicily and Iberia.
> 
> _Well, doesn't matter. There might be som recent genes, but the most likely is the vast majority it's incredibly old. It's the most accepted conclusion in the thread and between researchers.


I agree with you, on this

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> Infact i've saied that earlier, you didn't read with attenction:


That's not what I'm saying. This is autosomal DNA and it includes the FULL genome, all ancient and recent influences are included in the analysis. Looks like you need to make some conceptual adjustments. Think before you write.

----------


## julia90

??? I don't have a clue, with what you are saying.

And i'm not the only person who have said that, all the other posters have speculated it's pehistoric.. so? what's the matter with me?

Obviously the prehistoric people of north africa, looked europoid, moroccans today have many other influence than north-west-african, whic is still high in them, but they have other different genes, and only a minority of them look nowdays europoid and therefore pure berber

----------


## julia90

these are Kabyles, i think they are the candidate of being north western african

ofcourse, still they have some extra north-west african influence, so it's impossible to find a pure look.

the man in the centre, the europoid looking one, in this picture i think is the most similar to pure prehistoric berbers (even if he has a non north west african admixture, but probably it's the closest look you can have at those pure berbers)

the picture is from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabyles


another Kabyle, europoid looking



she's of French and Kabyle origin
absolutely europoid

----------


## Dorianfinder

> PD: All is based in academical studies


What do you mean? Where are all these academic articles you are basing everything on?




> I showed you a representative person from an academical insititution


Where is his peer-reviewed paper on the subject of admixture analyzes?

I will admit you are wrong in making these claims until you prove to me that academic studies back your claims, if you can miraculously find a peer-reviewed study indicating that bio-geographical admixtures have been scientifically proven and accepted by a peer-reviewed board I will apologize and give you positive rep, go ahead and make my day. :Useless:

----------


## Wilhelm

Please Dorian stop embarassing yourself. You said the spanish samples was made of British and Germans because of how "pure" they looked, but the spanish sample is from a peer-reviewd study of Behar et al. 2010 that included 6 andalusians and 6 catalans.

----------


## Knovas

There are Doug McDonald plots posted in several threads, as well as chromosome paintings. I have to go now, If nobody provides paintings I'll try to post some of them if you have never seen one. Doug McDonald is perfectly known to provide analysis and he is University Professor as I showed you.

If a Cathedratic is not enough academic for you...don't know what really is man XD

----------


## Knovas

> Please Dorian stop embarassing yourself. You said the spanish samples was made of British and Germans because of how "pure" they looked, but the spanish sample is from a peer-reviewd study of Behar et al. 2010 that included 6 andalusians and 6 catalans.


 Thanks.

Also AnthroScape shows different clustering studies and global admixture (with authors listed): http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/index/

----------


## Dorianfinder

> Yes man, I see you are specially concerned to keep the reason, so don't worry, I give you the reason even when it's clear you are the only one against academical studies (not me)


No peer-reviewed papers exist on the subject so how can I be against studies that do not exist?




> All people is under the same conditions, just think about it.


I don't believe you are so naive or uneducated to believe that all Europeans have the same degree of access to these admixture products as we do. You influence people on this forum and everywhere you spread your opinion, just think about that. 

I do not see people making the same claims you do based on commercial and pilot studies that have not been published in a scientific journal.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

He just gave you Behar and McDonald. Behar has certainly been peer reviewed and probably McDonald as well. I'm sure you will shortly see any number of peer reviewed articles coming out with autosomal scores very similar to Eurogenes, etc. I'm certain you'll doubt those as well.

p.s. go ask all the Brits, French and Scandis about the claims they are making regarding their Dodecad and Eurogenes scores. There are plenty of people doing just that on various athro boards. And their claims are very valid.

----------


## Dorianfinder

> He just gave you Behar and McDonald. Behar has certainly been peer reviewed and probably McDonald as well.


No, McDonald has not published a scientific paper using admixture percentages. 

Behar et al 2010 did not include the bio-geographical admixture analyzes in the paper, these were supplements and admixture percentages were not published for the reasons I have already mentioned.

Is this all you can come up with, a single article by Behar et al written more that a year ago that had to include the admixtures without any percentages in their supplementary data due to the scientific controls placed by the review board. Again, nothing has been published. No interpretations or percentages claiming so much of this that and the other.

----------


## zanipolo

> p.s. go ask all the Brits, French and Scandis about the claims they are making regarding their Dodecad and Eurogenes scores. There are plenty of people doing just that on various athro boards. And their claims are very valid.


what are you saying .............they are all lies ? 

claims or facts ...........or guess work

----------


## Knovas

> No peer-reviewed papers exist on the subject so how can I be against studies that do not exist?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe you are so naive or uneducated to believe that all Europeans have the same degree of access to these admixture products as we do. You influence people on this forum and everywhere you spread your opinion, just think about that. 
> 
> I do not see people making the same claims you do based on commercial and pilot studies that have not been published in a scientific journal.


 There is a criteria to access, there must be if you want to have representative samples. So they prefer samples with 4 grandparents from the same country or region, that's basic if want to obtain realistic results. Some people of mixed ancestry has get into the projects, but they are not listed in the population portraits, they are all separated. ¿What else did you expect? it doesn't make the thing less scientific, just the opposite as you pretend.

Dodecad and Eurogenes are not comercial, none of the participants had to pay nothing to get into the projects. The results simply match what clustering studies say, it's what you can see at AnthroScape or here, since there are different of this plots and also admixtures in different threads.

For the rest, I see you desperately try to deny facts saying results are dubious bla bla. Believe or not, Doug McDonald does not hide he provides admixture analysis and plots, it seems he doesn't care about he's own image for this, since he know's what he is doing goes in consonance with all is accepted at the moment. If you don't like it, that's another issue, for this reason I'll take you from now till the end as "plain impossible".

Be happy in wonderland.

PD: Here is an African American painting and one of the maps he provides to have an idea. He also provides a message with percents like the Canarian I repeated, but I don't have this one. It's just for you to see, although you must have seen several of this. The plot is included too.
Attachment 5190Attachment 5191

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> what are you saying .............they are all lies ? 
> 
> claims or facts ...........or guess work


Not lies, real research truths. Not guesswork.

I responded to Dorian who was suggesting that Spaniards and other Iberians make certain claims based on autosomal scores. What Iberians are doing is presenting their personal results grouped with others from the region. The results clearly show that indigenous Iberians are no less than 86% Euro (in the case of Spain near 91%) and above 50% western, northern / north-Atlantic, averaging the latest results. Other ethnicities also present their results showing geographical percentages for discussion.

These are autosomal DNA facts. Researchers are certainly not making things up and they all use the same cutting edge software for analysis. Some people, for whatever reason, will never accept the genetic reality of certain groups. Just plain crazy.

It seems that there are still people running around who just can't deal with the idea that Iberians are very much Western Euro, very much like other W. Euro ethnicities. They can't seem to let go of absurd nations like, Spaniards are half-Moors or half-Arabs. LOL! Quite silly, isn't it? I guess reality shocks take their toll in some individuals. Very, very primal.

----------


## Wilhelm

> No, McDonald has not published a scientific paper using admixture percentages.


No, but he is a professor PhD, he uses scientific tools, he same which are used by scientists, to make the BGA plots and Admixture analysises, and uses the samples available from studies (such as the HGDP, Behar, etc.) .




> Behar et al 2010 did not include the bio-geographical admixture analyzes in the paper, these were supplements and admixture percentages were not published for the reasons I have already mentioned.


They didn't come up with percentages, they could have, but they did come with an admixture colored graphic, you could make an idea already with this. What Dodecad has done is exactly the same as Behar, in fact he uses the same software, the difference is that Dodecad has labeled the components, and has publisehd the exact figures, instead of just the graphics, which is not difficult to do, is automatically done by the software.

----------


## Knovas

Here you have for comparison:

Dodecad Spanish
ADMIXTURE%2BSpanish_D_12.jpg

Behar Spaniards
ADMIXTURE%2BSpaniards_12.jpg

All of them with 4 grandparents from different parts of Iberia. Both paintings are averaged here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...COCa89AJ#gid=0

You can also check DOD217 (Nº3) and DOD725 (Nº14) to verify that I'm not lying and the painting match the results. Both mostly Catalans, no British ancestry my friend.

PD: One of the Dodecad Spanish (DOD628 - Nº12) was removed from the average. It seems it was fraudulent, possibly half Canarian. The average contains exactly 14 (the rest).

----------


## Dorianfinder

*The following K runs were used by Dienekes to uncover the various admixture components:*

K=3 uncovered the *West Eurasian, Sub-Saharan, and East/South Asian* components.

K=4 uncovered a split of Caucasoid into a component centered on *Europe* and *West/South Asia*. 
Result: Established sufficient distance between South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa.

K=5 uncovered the *Mediterranean* component.

*K=6* uncovered the *North African* component.

K=7 uncovered the *Southwest Asian* component. [Caucasoid component in East Africa and Arabia] [Recent introduction to Northern Europe]

K=8 uncovered the *South Asian* component. This component removes the common variable found in South Asians and East Asians. The South Asian component represents the Caucasus. The rest of the Caucasus not included is split between West Asian and North/Central European components.

K=9 uncovered the *Sardinian* and *Basque* components of the West Mediterranean component.

*K=10* uncovered the *Northwestern* and *Northeastern* divide of the *North/Central European* component. This Northwest component is a poor marker as it's highest in Orcadians, the British Isles, Scandinavia, France, Iberia, and Italy. Furthermore, balanced ratios of this Northwest/Northeast European dividing component is found among Greeks, Lezgins, Turks, and Iranians. 

*K=11* uncovered an *Ethiopian/East African* component.

*Unfinished categorization:*
- Uncover a component that puts more distance between Mediterranean and Southwest Asian.
- Establish a Western Mediterranean group that does not include the Sardinian component.
- Establish a component based on commonalities found in Northwest Africa and Iberia. [Berber]
- Establish a component based on commonalities found in North Africa and Sicily. [Saracen]
- Establish a component that puts more distance between the K=10 NW Europe and South Asia [Caucasus]. There is clearly an overlap that shows as NW European in Iran.
- Rename the South Asia and Southwest Asia components to better express their Caucasoid affinity.

----------


## LeBrok

> *The following K runs were used by Dienekes to uncover the various admixture components:*
> 
> K=3 uncovered the *West Eurasian, Sub-Saharan, and East/South Asian* components.
> 
> K=4 uncovered a split of Caucasoid into a component centered on *Europe* and *West/South Asia*. 
> Result: Established sufficient distance between South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa.
> 
> K=5 uncovered the *Mediterranean* component.
> 
> ...


Thanks for unraveling the human judgment behind admixture issue. 




> - Establish a component that puts more distance between the K=10 NW Europe and South Asia [Caucasus]. There is clearly an overlap that shows as NW European in Iran.


That's interesting. From all the recent documentaries and demonstrations in Iran I noticed a big drive toward western culture and way of life among young educated generation in Iran. The young of big cities, look fairly european, they act european, they want same freedoms. I have felt really drawn to their cause.
Don't take me wrong, I love the free, just, cooperative human spirit anywhere in the world, but there was something special in these young, educated, smart Iranians to grab my heart.
I think there is a very strong genetic connection between many Iranians and Europeans.

----------


## Wilhelm

> T
> That's interesting. From all the recent documentaries and demonstrations in Iran I noticed a big drive toward western culture and way of life among young educated generation in Iran. The young of big cities, look fairly european, they act european, they want same freedoms. I have felt really drawn to their cause.
> Don't take me wrong, I love the free, just, cooperative human spirit anywhere in the world, but there was something special in these young, educated, smart Iranians to grab my heart.
> I think there is a very strong genetic connection between many Iranians and Europeans.


 You seem very eurocentric, why do you want them to adopt european lifestyle and culture ? Anyways, there is not such "strong genetic connection" with Europe that you speak of, autosomally.

----------


## zanipolo

> You seem very eurocentric, why do you want them to adopt european lifestyle and culture ? Anyways, there is not such "strong genetic connection" with Europe that you speak of, autosomally.



very strange comment

----------


## Knovas

> *The following K runs were used by Dienekes to uncover the various admixture components:*
> 
> K=3 uncovered the *West Eurasian, Sub-Saharan, and East/South Asian* components.
> 
> K=4 uncovered a split of Caucasoid into a component centered on *Europe* and *West/South Asia*.
> Result: Established sufficient distance between South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa.
> 
> K=5 uncovered the *Mediterranean* component.
> 
> ...


Pretty pathetic message again. The tittle gives an idea how absurd is the claim all runs were made "to uncover ancestries". You must have serious issues to say such thing, it's time to be resonable and stop acting like insane when all academic comunity is telling you are wrong.

First of all, the lower K's are simply minor experiments to separate populations in a simple way, nothing significant in regards of full ancestry. Dienekes' precisely mentioned what I say in the 600 member milestone run, and he always explains the objective of a run...no need to use much brain to know wich analysis are relevant in terms of full ancestry, and wich are simply experiments with a concrete objective, very different from trying to find an accurate definition for individuals. So first point, don't be demagogic with the meaning of the lower K's, and don't forget the introduction of a new cluster does not mean this was the objective of the run.

And second, the higher K's, specially K=10, did not say any lie while scoring Northern European and Southern European, the data was quite aproximate. The separation between Northeast and Northwest does not imply a huge change, the same as the Mediterranean (Southern Europe). It is only a bit more regional, the same as the other K=12 with the Sardinian and Basque components, with very similar total European/African/Asian scores, but just in different regional categories. Slightly different results is what you obtain going from K=10 to K=12's (both higher K's, not minor experiments), nothing drastic as you dishonestly try to show alluding the more or less regional character of the analysis (determined by the Nº of clusters, the distances, and the way components are named).

Very soon, there'll be a K=14 run at Eurogenes (some people has made the DIY Teaser, me included) with the components already described in the blog. I guess you'll have a very hard work trying desperately to show masked ancestries there. Come on, it's time to move.

PD:Now some comments:_

Uncover a component that puts more distance between Mediterranean and Southwest Asian._
- Actually the distance is enough to note what Mediterranean really means. West Asian is closer to Southwest Asain in the last run, so the pretension to put more distance has been acomplished comparing with the previous K=10 run. No significant change in any European population, except for Sardinians, who were nearly 98% European in the K=10 run (almost entirely Southern European), and now they score 85% (-13%). It clearly means this Mediterranean is a very good representation of the Southern European ancestry as whole, much better than the previous K=10. Absolutely nothing to argue here.
*
Establish a component based on commonalities found in Northwest Africa and Iberia. [Berber]* 
- That's nothing but your sick agenda, any normal researcher would think to do so, since the North African admixture between Iberians is perferctly listed and easy to see how low it is. The same is valid for Sicily, the distinction between African and other ancestries has been clarified exceedingly well. Perfectly clear wich are the common aspects, since actually North Africans as whole have more Euro and Asian (Caucasoid) ancestry than any European has African ancestry. Or perhaps you simply ignore the fact ethnic Berbers belong almost entirely to the Northwest African component, remaining distant from all Europeans. Plain silly pretension and, again, trying to go against all stated by clustering studies. 

· Houston, we have a problem...LOL

----------


## Dorianfinder

> how absurd is the claim all runs were made "to uncover ancestries".


Admixture components are not to be used to infer ancestry. Nowhere will you find the word ancestry in post #141. You are misusing or rather abusing the components to further your twisted agenda. Dienekes states categorically, and I quote: '_As I said countless times, I never identify DODs with ethnic groups as per the Project's policy._'
http://dodecad.blogspot.com/2011/04/...-selected.html




> the lower K's are simply minor experiments *to separate populations* in a simple way, nothing significant in regards of full ancestry.


You are contradicting yourself. Why if the components have already been scientifically proven etc. etc. as you claim _ad infinitum_ would experiments still be necessary to separate populations? 




> don't forget the introduction of a new cluster does not mean this was the objective of the run.


Enlighten all of us and tell us what the objective was, lets have some fun.




> Slightly different results is what you obtain going from K=10 to K=12's ... Sardinians, who were nearly 98% European in the K=10 run (almost entirely Southern European), and now they score 85% (-13%).


You said it not me! Do you see what I see?

----------


## Knovas

When you understand the difference between more regional and general (what makes results slightly different, but not precisely in essence), we can continue the conversation. But I don't expect nothing from you reading such things.

The Sardinian example I showed is a very clear one, and it doesn't affect the whole populations drastically in comparison with the previous run as you pretend to say. You claimed the need of an adjustment, and I showed perfectly this has already been done with no catastrophe in the general results. So no contradiction guy, the problem is you need things very well explained, and it's not even enough for what I see.

For the rest, read the posts, Dienekes' gives an explanation in all, don't pretend I'll be doing the job for you all times.

Hope you still happy in wonderland, ¡bye!

PD: Components represent ancestry, call it as you want, doesn't matter. The project name is Dodecad Ancestry Project. Don't tell me I contradict myslef...you are the only who really does xd

_Admixture components are not to be used to infer ancestry_ LOL

----------


## Wilhelm

Of course they are used to infer ancestry...for example if an American has 5% sub-saharan it's clear he has african ANCESTRY or a mulatto person will show roughy 50/50 african/caucasoid components, because that's his ANCESTRY. It's not clear ?

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> Of course they are used to infer ancestry...for example if an American has 5% sub-saharan it's clear he has african ANCESTRY or a mulatto person will show roughy 50/50 african/caucasoid components, because that's his ANCESTRY. It's not clear ?


Don't waste your time. Some people have such primal complexities they will only believe their own constructed "realities". Just take a look at the Celts of Iberia thread. Some of the comments posted there are insanely embarrassing, severely going against all known facts in archaeology, history and genetics.

----------


## Knovas

Give it up, nothing is clear for him. 

He uses the most insignificant details to keep the reason going against all things widely accepted. Just wish good luck for him in such desperate crusade.

----------


## Knovas

Going back to the thread, I noticed there's an interesting sample from the Azores isles: DOD816

It shows slightly higher East African compared to the Portuguese, but the rest of African ancestry is even lower. What it's really high in comparison is the West Asian and Southwest Asian admixture. Don't know too much history about this place, I supose population could be quite hetergeneous there.

----------


## Wilhelm

> Going back to the thread, I noticed there's an interesting sample from the Azores isles: DOD816
> 
> It shows slightly higher East African compared to the Portuguese, but the rest of African ancestry is even lower. What it's really high in comparison is the West Asian and Southwest Asian admixture. Don't know too much history about this place, I supose population could be quite hetergeneous there.


 Interesting. The high West-Asian and Southwest is possibly because of all the Jewish settlers in Azores,

----------


## Knovas

I didn't know there was significant Jewish presence there. The explanation makes sense, because both admixtures are present in the individual at substantial levels.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

The Azores had Jewish migration - mainly people escaping persecution from mainland Portugal and Spain. Both the Azores and Madeira are treated as genetically separate from continental Portugal since their histories are quite different.

----------


## Drac II

> Medical studies have concluded that genetic traits found primarily in Africa (>80%) can be found at up to 20% of the Sardinian population and that there is a cline of African genetic input decreasing as one moves away from Iberia in a north easterly direction [3]. 
> 
> 1. Sanchez-Velasco P, Gomez-Casado E, Martinez-Laso J, _et al._ (May 2003). "HLA alleles in isolated populations from North Spain: origin of the Basques and the ancient Iberians"
> 
> 2. Choukri F, Chakib A, Himmich H, Raissi H, Caillat-Zucman S (June 2002). "HLA class I polymorphism in a Moroccan population from Casablanca". _European Journal of Immunogenetics_ 29 (3): 205–11.
> 
> 3. Gómez-Casado E, del Moral P, Martínez-Laso J, _et al._ (March 2000). "HLA genes in Arabic-speaking Moroccans: close relatedness to Berbers and Iberians". _Tissue Antigens_ 55 (3): 239–49.
> 
> Thus, there is medical evidence that suggests Sardinia and Iberia share significantly higher levels of gene flow from Africa, perhaps as high as 20% in some areas. However, the relative isolation and European genetic influx into these areas has decreased the total African admixture to some degree.


HLA genes? Is this a joke? According to these same hardly reliable markers that you are trying to use for your strange little agenda against Spaniards, Greeks, unlike other Europeans from the Mediterranean area, are related to sub-Saharan Africans like Ethiopians:

"Greeks seem to share genetic HLA features (Chr 6) with Sub-Saharans. The relatedness of Greeks to Sub-Saharans has been confirmed by other studies based on chromosome 7 genetic markers." (Hajjej et al. 2011. "HLA class I and class II polymorphisms in Tunisian Berbers")

There is a reason why the majority of population geneticists have shun HLA genes: they can be very misleading. This has been known since a long time ago:

"Along this slippery way, also the work of A. Mourant et al: "The distribution of human blood groups and other polymorphisms", University of Oxford, 1976, pp 1055, is missing from their bibliography. In this edition it is referred that the HLA gene is an unreliable basis to exact conclusions on such matters, since it makes the inhabitants of Basque, Iceland and Congo to have … bonds of kinship." (Aris N. Poulianos, "The Origins of the Greeks")

----------


## Dorianfinder

I have done some studies using 'byseg' and 'progress' modes to view the convergence of different admixture elements within Northwest Africans and Southwest Asians. I am open to discussion but will not answer to rude replies. What I found appeared to suggest the following:

NW African elements seem to converge with West Asian and Mediterranean elements with traces of Neo African (West Africa) being a unique trait of the NW African admixture signature. 

In Northeast African populations there appears to be significant Southwest Asian, which as an admixture converges in progressive iterations with West Asian and Mediterranean respectively but also includes some convergence with East African admixture components. Interestingly, these East African components together with Southwest Asian elements appear to converge with Mediterranean in the North and minute traces of Palaeo-African in the South. Whereas Northwest African appears to converge with West European and West Asian elements in the north and traces of Neo African elements in the south. 

This is interesting as it differentiates Northeast Africa as having traces of Palaeo-African ancestry from the Sub-Saharan hunter-gatherer populations such as the Khoisan bushmen whereas Northwest Africa shows traces of Neo African and West African ancestry from the Sub-Saharan Negroid populations such as the Herero and Ovambo found in Angola who have approx. 100% Neo African admixture.

Just a thought: There may be Neo African elements from back-migrations that left West Europe/Mediterranean for West African many moons ago. This could potentially explain some of the high West European admixture scores in West African individuals. On second thought, the desert slave route ran through this area too. Finally it is worth mentioning the relatedness of mtdna L1, L2 and L3 and the elevated frequency of mtdna L in the Iberian peninsula and Sub-Saharan Southwest Africa.

----------


## Knovas

There's no such elevated MtDNA L in Iberia. The most elevated figures were got in a study in Alcacer do Sal (Portugal) including only 50 samples, which is pure joke. 0 evidence to make a claim like this.

The Eupedia "others" category say 7% for Spain, and icludes the following: The "Other" category includes mostly the older haplogroups N, R, pre-HV and HV, but also occasionally *a few African (L)* or Asian haplogroups (A, B, C, D, M, Z).

It worth to add that the Mediterranean component found in Iberia is mostly Southwestern, being specially dominant in the Northeast side sometimes, which is the most removed from Sub-Saharan Africans as the Euro7 Calculator shows in the Fst distances: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...hl=en_US#gid=1

In short: I don't see a significant connection for remarking this. It is obviously not important, without denying some minor admixture could exist.

----------


## Dorianfinder

> There's no such elevated MtDNA L in Iberia. The most elevated figures were got in a study in Alcacer do Sal (Portugal) including only 50 samples, which is pure joke. 0 evidence to make a claim like this.
> 
> The Eupedia "others" category say 7% for Spain, and icludes the following: The "Other" category includes mostly the older haplogroups N, R, pre-HV and HV, but also occasionally *a few African (L)* or Asian haplogroups (A, B, C, D, M, Z).
> 
> It worth to add that the Mediterranean component found in Iberia is mostly Southwestern, being specially dominant in the Northeast side sometimes, which is the most removed from Sub-Saharan Africans as the Euro7 Calculator shows in the Fst distances: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...hl=en_US#gid=1
> 
> In short: I don't see a significant connection for remarking this. It is obviously not important, without denying some minor admixture could exist.


I was thinking more in the range of 2-3% mtdna L in Iberia with about double that on the West coast, but I would not get too excited if higher frequencies were reported as this may be due to isolated cases of sampling bias as you correctly mention. Elevated frequencies, again no more than 3%, were found in specific parts of Italy (Latium, Basilicata and Sicily) that give us a further indication of Sub-Saharan gene-flow to Southern Europe. 

Concerning the Euro7 Fst distances, the African component does not incorporate all Sub-Saharan admixture elements. I am sure the Northwest African went to Southwestern. Sub-Saharan in general refers to the Capoid Palaeo-African and Negroid Neo-African elements. Northwest African admixture is a complex mix of Neo-African, Mediterranean, West Asian/Caucasus and IMHO a bit of East African originating quite possibly from the Arab sub-structure within Berber ancestry.

----------


## Knovas

North Africans were more Southeastern than Southwestern as I showed in the Euro7 post, and according to what you write: _NW African elements seem to converge with West Asian and Mediterranean elements with traces of Neo African (West Africa) being a unique trait of the NW African admixture signature._ 

That means the Southeastern is the one including Northwest African and also Southwest Asian (see Turks, Armenians, etc.). Southeastern is the closest one to Caucasian (West Asian) and the closest one to Africans (Sub-Saharan), so following your argument the match is there, not in the Southwestern.

Also, the Southeastern I got (4.91%) more or less corresponded to the non European I usually get, from 0 to 10% depending on the level of resolution. However, it's the worst defined component, and it must be interpreted carefully. For example, it's obvious that the Armenian Southeastern includes more non European element than in Greeks, but it's difficult to determine the exact percent.

In a K=12 style including the Northwest African component, we'll see if it reduces a lot the Iberian Southwestern if the incoming v4 is based on this. I personally don't expect nothing drastic considering the mentioned points.

----------


## Dorianfinder

> North Africans were more Southeastern than Southwestern


NW and NE African admixture differ as to the TYPE of African components they carry, Southeastern has traces of Neo-African elements found in what we have traditionally come to understand as NW African (without the West Asian/Caucasian and Med. components). On the flipside, Northeast African and East African have more Southwest Asian but East African has traces of Palaeo-African elements which is NOT the same as the Neo-African found in NW Africa.

Neo-African is primary Negroid (Ovambo, Herero, Bantu etc) whereas Palaeo-African is Sanid (Khoisan). More importantly though, the Palaeo-African seems to converge with the Afrasian elements unique to South Asia, this is interesting and warrants further investigation I should think. I always thought the bushmen resembled East Asians rather than Negroid populations. 

This is also interesting in that the Neo-West African component (Negroid), has less SW Asian and more Central African elements (eg. Senegalese/Congolese) in general when compared to East African and SW Asian populations with Palaeo-African admixture. 

This means that the African in euro7 is Palaeo-African and East African NOT the Neo-African found in the Southwestern component of the euro7 that is better known as Northwest African (without non-African components). This difference is significant as it gives us an indication of the time of introduction and the route followed from Southwest Africa to Northeast and Northwest Africa. The further one travels to the East in Northern Africa the less Neo-African one encounters! The African one finds in the Northeast Africans is more ancient than the Neo-African in the Northwest of Africa.

Hopefully the v4 calculator will provide us with better resolution wrt Palaeo-African and the ancient traces of Palaeo-African found throughout the Middle-East (1-5% in parts of Italy/Greece/Palestine/Jordan/Yemen etc.) that appear to have a very different story to that of the Sanid hunter-gatherers of Southern Africa. To resolve this Pygmy and San control groups would have to be included in a Middle-Eastern and Eastern Mediterranean population group, with primary components being Mediterranean, SW Asian, W Asian, Neo African, East African and Palaeo-African. 

Similarly, it would be great to see some more resolution of the Northwest African into 'purely' Afrasian and 'newly' introduced Eurasian elements.

----------


## Knovas

What you say makes no sense. The Palaeo African is the most Negroid component clearly attested by the v3 distances. The most removed from Europe, and not closer to West Asian, Southwest Asian and South Asian than the Neo African is, since this one is REALLY the component which deviates a little towards Eurasia, although it's almost entirely Negroid. Even comparing with Northeast and Southeast Asian, Neo African it's still closer...impossible to sostain such thing about Palaeo African.

100% sure: no convergence between Palaeo African and Eurasia. Please, re-check again: http://dodecad.blogspot.com/search?u...max-results=12

It's a true Negroid component with independence of the populations having such admixture. FACT.

The Southeastern is clearly the component absorbing the mentioned elements, since it's the worst defined between all; Dienekes' must fix it in next runs. And for the moment, in regards for the Southwestern component, the only clear match looking at ancient populations is haplogroup I2a1a* and similars, which has absolutely nothing to do with Africa. That explains perfectly the evident drift showed in the Fst distances while checking the component in comparison with the others.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> There's no such elevated MtDNA L in Iberia. The most elevated figures were got in a study in Alcacer do Sal (Portugal) including only 50 samples, which is pure joke. 0 evidence to make a claim like this.
> 
> The Eupedia "others" category say 7% for Spain, and icludes the following: The "Other" category includes mostly the older haplogroups N, R, pre-HV and HV, but also occasionally *a few African (L)* or Asian haplogroups (A, B, C, D, M, Z).
> 
> It worth to add that the Mediterranean component found in Iberia is mostly Southwestern, being specially dominant in the Northeast side sometimes, which is the most removed from Sub-Saharan Africans as the Euro7 Calculator shows in the Fst distances: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...hl=en_US#gid=1
> 
> In short: I don't see a significant connection for remarking this. It is obviously not important, without denying some minor admixture could exist.


Indeed, the Alcacer do Sal study leaves much to be desired. If one understands the history of this particular village, from the late 1400s on, he would realize instantly that Sal's genetics are not representative of the Portuguese population. You see, Alcacer do Sal was a socially isolated community made up mainly of Morrish / N. African, Arab and negroid slaves / ex-slaves along with people who had been ostracized due to certain diseases (e.g., leprosy). Adding to that, the area was a malaria zone. Alcacer had little to do with surrounding communities for long periods of time. Geneticists who examined the 2005 study commented that samplings from Alcacer do Sal should have been segregated or not used at all since they do not accurately reflect indigenous Portuguese types.

----------


## Knovas

And I add:

The Euro7 Calculator includes Mandenka and Yoruba, characterized for their strong Neo African admixture. They become 99-100% African.

No problem to read it.

----------


## Wilhelm

> Finally it is worth mentioning the relatedness of mtdna L1, L2 and L3 and the elevated frequency of mtdna L in the Iberian peninsula and Sub-Saharan Southwest Africa.


Elevated frequency of mtDNA L in Iberia ?  :Laughing:  In a sample of 686 spaniards there was 0% of mtDNA L (Rhouda et al. 2006)

----------


## Vallicanus

> Elevated frequency of mtDNA L in Iberia ?  In a sample of 686 spaniards there was 0% of mtDNA L (Rhouda et al. 2006)


Then how do you explain these Achilli et alia's* 2007 figures* for subsaharan African mtDNA:

Spanish Galicia...3.7pc
NE Spain...1.68pc
Central Spain...0.68pc
Basque Country...0.64pc

The latest Dienekes and Eurogenes surveys also show some SS African mixture in Spain.

----------


## Knovas

It's called noise. Most of this scores are less than 0.5% and, specially in the last Eurogenes K=10, the Sub-Saharan cluster showed some of this figures even in Russians.

For more you repeat, it won't never be relevant.

----------


## Dorianfinder

> What you say makes no sense. The Palaeo African is the most Negroid component clearly attested by the v3 distances. The most removed from Europe, and not closer to West Asian, Southwest Asian and South Asian than the Neo African is, since this one is REALLY the component which deviates a little towards Eurasia, although it's almost entirely Negroid. Even comparing with Northeast and Southeast Asian, Neo African it's still closer...impossible to sostain such thing about Palaeo African.
> 
> 100% sure: no convergence between Palaeo African and Eurasia. Please, re-check again: http://dodecad.blogspot.com/search?u...max-results=12
> 
> It's a true Negroid component with independence of the populations having such admixture. FACT.
> 
> The Southeastern is clearly the component absorbing the mentioned elements, since it's the worst defined between all; Dienekes' must fix it in next runs. And for the moment, in regards for the Southwestern component, the only clear match looking at ancient populations is haplogroup I2a1a* and similars, which has absolutely nothing to do with Africa. That explains perfectly the evident drift showed in the Fst distances while checking the component in comparison with the others.


It does make sense, you don't understand it that's all. The components used to form the components known as Palaeo-African and Neo-African do not make a difference as we are talking convergence during progressive iterations during the admixture calculator's search for best fit. Change 'verbose' in the dv3.par file to 'progress' and look at the progress of your admixture percentages. You will see Southwestern increase as African decreases to end at 0%. The same is true for Palaeo-African and Southeastern. The convergence criteria are good so no significant statistical noise to blame for the progression.

You are very defensive and quick to criticize, have you been right your entire life? It's okay to be wrong sometimes, your attitude is almost teenager like sometimes. Anyhow, you don't have to feel threatened by what other people say, it's just a discussion forum.

----------


## Wilhelm

> Then how do you explain these Achilli et alia's* 2007 figures* for subsaharan African mtDNA:
> 
> Spanish Galicia...3.7pc
> NE Spain...1.68pc
> Central Spain...0.68pc
> Basque Country...0.64pc
> 
> The latest Dienekes and Eurogenes surveys also show some SS African mixture in Spain.


WRONG. The last Eurogenes run (WE_10) shows *0%* of SSA in spaniards.

----------


## Knovas

> It does make sense, you don't understand it that's all. The components used to form the components known as Palaeo-African and Neo-African do not make a difference as we are talking convergence during progressive iterations during the admixture calculator's search for best fit. Change 'verbose' in the dv3.par file to 'progress' and look at the progress of your admixture percentages. You will see Southwestern increase as African decreases to end at 0%. The same is true for Palaeo-African and Southeastern. The convergence criteria are good so no significant statistical noise to blame for the progression.
> 
> You are very defensive and quick to criticize, have you been right your entire life? It's okay to be wrong sometimes, your attitude is almost teenager like sometimes. Anyhow, you don't have to feel threatened by what other people say, it's just a discussion forum.


What you say is simply wrong and I must tell it. I f you don't like it it's not my problem.

What you told about Palaeo African using the "Sanid" term and linking it with Eurasia (similarity with East Asians) it's plain false as attested by the Fst distances. Even a child could be aware of this looking a few seconds to the table.

It's a true negroid component, and it's Neo African the one deviating towards Eurasians just a little, again, attested by the Fst distances. So if you are not agree with this, I think you should tell Dienekes' since he is the one who calibrates the instrumental and names the clusters.

What is a teenager attitude is to deny such obvious thing. Just see the noise scores reported in Madenka, being first Northeastern (0.5), Northwestern (0.4) and finally Southwestern (0.1), all of them with peaks in mainland Europe. And curiously, Southestern with the highest peak in Armenians, tended to an absolute 0 in a mostly Neo African population when this should happen, according to you, in a mostly Palaeo African population. So no sorry, the correlation you mention it does not exist.

The Southeastern appears as an ambiguous cluster valid to absorve different elements in THIS calculator, while it cannot be said about the three others having such distances, much less considering the huge drift in the Southwestern (the best defined of ALL West Eurasian components). So as Dienekes' intruduces them again in a K=12 style, surely a "pure" form of Southeastern would appear. I think it's clearly the main thing to improve in the mentioned run, since the rest seems to work fine in general terms.

----------


## Vallicanus

> WRONG. The last Eurogenes run (WE_10) shows *0%* of SSA in spaniards.


Believe your fantasies if they help you get up in the morning. :Laughing:

----------


## Knovas

> Believe your fantasies if they help you get up in the morning.


Keep thinking scores listed as less than 1% are relevant if this helps you to wake up in the morning.

Empty discussion.

----------


## Dorianfinder

> What you say is simply wrong and I must tell it. I f you don't like it it's not my problem.
> 
> What you told about Palaeo African using the "Sanid" term and linking it with Eurasia (similarity with East Asians) it's plain false as attested by the Fst distances. Even a child could be aware of this looking a few seconds to the table.
> 
> It's a true negroid component, and it's Neo African the one deviating towards Eurasians just a little, again, attested by the Fst distances. So if you are not agree with this, I think you should tell Dienekes' since he is the one who calibrates the instrumental and names the clusters.
> 
> What is a teenager attitude is to deny such obvious thing. Just see the noise scores reported in Madenka, being first Northeastern (0.5), Northwestern (0.4) and finally Southwestern (0.1), all of them with peaks in mainland Europe. And curiously, Southestern with the highest peak in Armenians, tended to an absolute 0 in a mostly Neo African population when this should happen, according to you, in a mostly Palaeo African population. So no sorry, the correlation you mention it does not exist.
> 
> The Southeastern appears as an ambiguous cluster valid to absorve different elements in THIS calculator, while it cannot be said about the three others having such distances, much less considering the huge drift in the Southwestern (the best defined of ALL West Eurasian components). So as Dienekes' intruduces them again in a K=12 style, surely a "pure" form of Southeastern would appear. I think it's clearly the main thing to improve in the mentioned run, since the rest seems to work fine in general terms.


I will explain it a different way. First-off, Fst distances are simply distances from a manufactured mean, they should not be taken literally as admixture percentages or real value norms, the concept of a PCA (principle component analysis) is something one should understand first before being able to interpret Fst distances. More importantly though, if one understands the constructs in statistics then the norms are seen as facilitative approximations to a mean that for all intents and purposes has very little value other than that it helps to fix one's conceptualization mathematically. 

The Sanid-Capoid bushmen and Sandawe are grouped as Palaeo-African. This means that they have much less Afrasian admixture than the Congolid populations classified phenotypically as Negroid. The latter have up to 80% Afrasian admixture whereas the Palaeo-African populations have less that 20%. Southwest Asian in Africa converges with a small but significant Palaeo-African component. The Sanid-Capoid bushmen are the only group in Africa to display epicantic eye-lids such as we find in East Asian populations. Similarly, Sanid-Capoid ydna haplogroups are the most diversified and are mostly HGs A and B. Interestingly, other first nation peoples from Eurasia belong to HG C1 and carry the same gene for epicantic eye-lids.

In Northeast Africa, the Middle-East and Southeast Med. small amounts of Palaeo-African are common and point to a different origin of Sub-Saharan ancestry than the Northwest African Congolid elements found primarily in West African Neo-Africans.

African admixture is more complex than Negroid FACT! Find the Fst distances for the various components that make up African admixture so we can discuss this properly using population groups and their respective admixture of East African, Neo-African and Palaeo-African. 

Remember that different dodecad calculators have different constituent components for Sub-Saharan and South African.

----------


## Knovas

Well Dorian, I don't pretend to hurt you first of all, but I think you are complicating the argument to keep the reason when the discussion is over. The distances are perfectly clear, there's nothing more to understand in regards for the Palaeo African position.

The features that you identify as "East Asian" in the Bushmen have really NOTHING to do with Asia. Palaeo African populations have usually a curious diversity in the facial traits, but it's just due to this: they are very Paleolithic and have retained most of the "original modern human seed" to make it easy to understand. In other words, they are more related to the "homos" who evolved in different forms all over the world.

I mean, this features (doesn't matter if "Asian looking" or something else) are absolutely native to Africa, hence, associated to Negroids. It's not the same, even not slightly close in no way, to what you find among any Mongoloid population in genetic terms. They are *Pre*-Asian.

My English vocabulary perhaps is not enough rich to explain it in a more proper way, but I think the idea it's clear. Palaeo Africans are true negroids with independence of their strange (or not) appearence. But if you prefer to avoid the term Negroid: Palaeo Afrians are more African genetically speaking than Neo Africans.

----------


## Wilhelm

> Believe your fantasies if they help you get up in the morning.


It's not my fantasies, you can see the percentages here, West-Eurasia K=10 (the last Eurogenes run) : 

http://bga101.blogspot.com/2011/09/g...ross-west.html

Sub-Saharan for Spaniards : 0%

----------


## Wilhelm

> Well Dorian, I don't pretend to hurt you first of all, but I think you are complicating the argument to keep the reason when the discussion is over. The distances are perfectly clear, there's nothing more to understand in regards for the Palaeo African position.
> 
> The features that you identify as "East Asian" in the Bushmen have really NOTHING to do with Asia. Palaeo African populations have usually a curious diversity in the facial traits, but it's just due to this: they are very Paleolithic and have retained most of the "original modern human seed" to make it easy to understand. In other words, they are more related to the "homos" who evolved in different forms all over the world.
> 
> I mean, this features (doesn't matter if "Asian looking" or something else) are absolutely native to Africa, hence, associated to Negroids. It's not the same, even not slightly close in no way, to what you find among any Mongoloid population in genetic terms. They are *Pre*-Asian.
> 
> My English vocabulary perhaps is not enough rich to explain it in a more proper way, but I think the idea it's clear. Palaeo Africans are true negroids with independence of their strange (or not) appearence. But if you prefer to avoid the term Negroid: Palaeo Afrians are more African genetically speaking than Neo Africans.


Very well explained.

----------


## Dorianfinder

> Well Dorian, I don't pretend to hurt you first of all, but I think you are complicating the argument to keep the reason when the discussion is over. The distances are perfectly clear, there's nothing more to understand in regards for the Palaeo African position.
> 
> The features that you identify as "East Asian" in the Bushmen have really NOTHING to do with Asia. Palaeo African populations have usually a curious diversity in the facial traits, but it's just due to this: they are very Paleolithic and have retained most of the "original modern human seed" to make it easy to understand. In other words, they are more related to the "homos" who evolved in different forms all over the world.
> 
> I mean, this features (doesn't matter if "Asian looking" or something else) are absolutely native to Africa, hence, associated to Negroids. It's not the same, even not slightly close in no way, to what you find among any Mongoloid population in genetic terms. They are *Pre*-Asian.
> 
> My English vocabulary perhaps is not enough rich to explain it in a more proper way, but I think the idea it's clear. Palaeo Africans are true negroids with independence of their strange (or not) appearence. But if you prefer to avoid the term Negroid: Palaeo Afrians are more African genetically speaking than Neo Africans.


I appreciate your reply as you appear to have expressed yourself better, thanks for trying Knovas. The Palaeo-African components are not less or more Asian, if you think I meant that Palaeo-African is more East Asian then I apologize. I thought I made myself clear but apparently my words don't make sense to you. 

I said that there are commonalities in East Asia that relate to the phylogeny and certain dna traits as a result of ancient out of Africa migrations. These early migrations may or may not be responsible for the very small but commonly observed traces of Palaeo-African admixture found in Southwest Asian populations, or populations with significant amounts of SW Asian admixture.

There is no Asian in Palaeo-African components, you have it backwards, there is rather Palaeo-African elements that are still visible in East Asians and Southwest Asian admixture.

----------


## Knovas

Ok, we can partly agree. However, even having this shared elements, Neo Afrian it's still closer to Eurasia, so my point from the beggining is that Palaeo African populations in the most purest form, are the "real" Sub-Saharans, Africans, or Negroids. Doesn't matter how you call it.

The Euro7 Calculator does not include any of these populations, there only appear Neo Africans and the lecture is succesful (99-100%). I don't see any problem to read it, and I personally expect the same for Palaeo Africans.

----------


## Vallicanus

> It's not my fantasies, you can see the percentages here, West-Eurasia K=10 (the last Eurogenes run) : 
> 
> http://bga101.blogspot.com/2011/09/g...ross-west.html
> 
> Sub-Saharan for Spaniards : 0%


The Dodecad Project does not agree.

In addition are you implying that studies like Achilli et alia are wrong or malicious or incompetent?

----------


## Dorianfinder

> Ok, we can partly agree. However, even having this shared elements, Neo Afrian it's still closer to Eurasia, so my point from the beggining is that Palaeo African populations in the most purest form, are the "real" Sub-Saharans, Africans, or Negroids. Doesn't matter how you call it.
> 
> The Euro7 Calculator does not include any of these populations, there only appear Neo Africans and the lecture is succesful (99-100%). I don't see any problem to read it, and I personally expect the same for Palaeo Africans.


Are you familiar with SNP Map? It's a useful tool if you want to know whether a small amount of any admixture is due to statistical noise. I have been using it for a while now and have improved my understanding ten fold by playing around with the settings and comparing snp frequencies of various populations.

----------


## Franco

> Actually, Tartessisan was a non-Indo-European language.


Some reputed linguists would say the contrary. The correct answer right now is filiation of Tartessian is unknown. My guess is Tartessos was a heavily orientalised Celtic society.

----------


## Knovas

> Are you familiar with SNP Map? It's a useful tool if you want to know whether a small amount of any admixture is due to statistical noise. I have been using it for a while now and have improved my understanding ten fold by playing around with the settings and comparing snp frequencies of various populations.


I'm not familiar with it. Thanks for showing it to me, I'll keep it in mind ;)

----------


## Dorianfinder

> I'm not familiar with it. Thanks for showing it to me, I'll keep it in mind ;)


It's my pleasure, let me know what you think.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

It's quite strange how some agenda driven forum members keep on posting material clearly geared to exaggerating certain DNA admixtures. Over and over, the same tired, outdated and sometimes plainly erroneous or compromised data, most of the time focused on haplogroup frequencies rather than autosomal DNA which, of course, provides a much more accurate portrait of a given population group's genome components. Such individuals are just intent (pathologically driven, it seems) on producing annoyance in their audience. I's beyond pathetic. Don't you people have a life? :Useless:

----------


## Knovas

It's really boring to read posts about Sub-Saharan ancestry in both Spain and Portugal, trying to show how "relevant" it is. Just now, a few hours ago, a known t.r.o.l.l. spamming about the brotherhood between North Africans and Iberians...and we can go on again and again. No need to say, I understand what you mean.

In the last days the Forum remained calmly, but it's impossible to have the same everyday. This thread has different moments: some posts where, in fact, no way useful, but worth to mention that a serious discussion was also possible. No problem if the dinamic is the last one, and all reasonable points of view are Welcomed.

----------


## Wilhelm

By the way, Slovenians have exactly the same sub-sharan as Spaniards at Dodecad, 0.5%, but obviously nobody talks about it, very curious. Oh, and the African map of Maciamo should be updated, the total African for Slovenians is 1%

----------


## Taranis

> Some reputed linguists would say the contrary. The correct answer right now is filiation of Tartessian is unknown. My guess is Tartessos was a heavily orientalised Celtic society.


Why should Tartessos have been a "heavily orientalized Celtic society"? It doesn't really make sense to expect a 'advanced' Celtic language as Tartessian is supposed to be, this far south and as early on the Iberian penninsula. Besides, I haven't seen any convincing evidence published thus far (including the works by Koch et al.- which you properly refer to) that would have persuaded me otherwise.

As others have noted, the writing system is hardly suitable for writing an Indo-European language at all.

----------


## MINDustry

> Very interesting. The east-west gradient in Iberia kind of proves that this cannot be an artifact of the Moorish period, where we would expect a north-south gradient. Also, we see east-west gradients with several Y-Haplogroups in Iberia as well, in particular E1b, but to a lesser degree the tendency towards a match is also with J1 and T.
> 
> I think, the conclusion is that we definitely need Neolithic Y-DNA from Iberia. This might definitely solve the origin of some European Haplogroups, and verify the possibility that these entered from North Africa during the Neolithic.


Not really. J1 is Western Asian in origin. The map looks way more E1b situated.

----------

