# Population Genetics > Autosomal Genetics >  Gedmatch: high hunter gatherer real or bias!?

## Northener

Who can make me any wiser with some GedMatch results? First I want to state that GedMatch is wonderful tool for analyzing aDNA. Fascinating! But when I look at the results for the mesolithic Hunter Gatherer component in my aDNA i became sceptic. Up to 2/3 of my aDNA is Hunter Gartherer? For someone from a North-Dutch stock? Is this real or bias? Anyone a clue? I will not overload you with facts and figures (although I can give you my kit nr). Just two examples the ANE 7 results : * WHG-UHG 66.77% 2. Eurogenes Hunter gatherer vs Farmer Population:* Baltic Hunter Gatherer 61.83 %. See illustustrations for the details. Thanks in advance!

----------


## LeBrok

There could be more farmer, the Iranian Neolithic Farmer, hidden in ANE, UHG, South Asian and Baltic Hunter Gatherer. I would guess from 5 to 10%. Run something to show you your Iranian Neolithic admixture. It was a part of IE heritage. They brought it into entire Europe.

----------


## Northener

> There could be more farmer, the Iranian Neolithic Farmer, hidden in ANE, UHG, South Asian and Baltic Hunter Gatherer. I would guess from 5 to 10%. Run something to show you your Iranian Neolithic admixture. It was a part of IE heritage. They brought it into entire Europe.


Thanks Le Brok, Iranian Neolithic only 2,25% I thought that CHG-EEF 43% may be the clue. But reconsidering this I think that this is a part of the ENF/Farmers component......or?And may be CGH is partly equal to EHG they have the same roots, later one they split off.http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms9912

----------


## Angela

Northener, in one sense, 100%, or ALL of your ancestry is hunter-gatherer, because every human was a hunter-gatherer before becoming a farmer. Also, only a minute percentage of any human beings every alive has no "farmer" ancestry. Europeans have been farmers for thousands of years. In addition, these older calculators were done before we got some very informative ancient samples and the newer statistical tools to analyze them. This particular one is meaningless as far as I'm concerned. You can turn to academic papers for more accurate analyses. This one uses the Stuttgart early farmer as one of the samples, along with WHG, and then Yamnaya, to show the major demographic turnovers in Europe.As someone who is mostly of northern German ancestry, I would think that the Norwegian numbers or something slightly more "southern" would be accurate for you.https://f.hypotheses.org/wp-content/...gins-Added.png Of course, if you peel back the onion Stuttgart had about 7% WHG picked up in Europe, and the rest is composed of an Unknown Hunter Gatherer perhaps related to WHG, and Basal Eurasian hunter-gatherers, both of whom inhabited the Near East. Yamnaya is composed of Eastern Hunter Gatherer stock along with something Near Eastern like which contains a lot of CHG ancestry (60/40 ?) and so on. WHG is a Mesolithic hunter-gatherer, different from the Paleolithic hunter-gatherers and even the Gravettians to some extent. They may have come originally from the Middle East as well. And so on and so on. Before making these kinds of distinctions you have to choose the time period and the area.

----------


## Northener

Thank you Angela! My GedMatch results come indeed more nearby Denmark, Orkney, Norway....sometimes more than the Nothern Netherlands.Wat may be the case is that my region (and especially Drenthe the region of my mother) was a stronghold, a hot spot of HG (just like the Baltics): From around 8,500 BP, these hunter-fisher-gatherers of the North Sea and the Baltic began to achieve ever higher levels of population density and social complexity that would put them on a par with farming peoples farther south. They were thus able to stop the advance of farming for two to three thousand years:After a rapid spread across Central Europe, […] farming communities came to a halt in the North European Plain, leaving the coastal areas of the North Sea occupied by hunter-gatherers. […]This could not have been due to ecological conditions. The frontier extends across a uniform geographical area, and the soils of southern Scandinavia are, in many places, light, fertile, and favorable for cultivation […]. The reason for the delay must be sought in the late Mesolithic communities of the region. Although regional differences exist […], hunter-gatherers in the southern Baltic region are likely to have had a greater population density than central European foragers […], larger and more permanent settlements […], and a complex economic pattern involving specialized extraction camps, seasonal scheduling, and seasonally intensive use of specific resources […] (Zvelebil and Dolukhanov, 1991)These North Sea and Baltic peoples were semi-sedentary. Most of them lived from spring to fall in large coastal agglomerations where they fished, sealed, and collected shellfish. They then dispersed to small inland hunting stations (Price, 1991). Johansen (2006) has argued for a higher degree of mobility: “a number of small groups rotating between sites on a seasonal basis within a confined territory, but perhaps periodically aggregating at key localities.” Bang-Andersen (1996) states: “In certain areas such as the seaboard of central West Norway, particularly resource-rich marine and terrestrial environments may have made it possible to stay within restricted parts of the region all the year round on a diffuse sedentary basis.” Most areas, however, had “a permanent or semi-permanent base camp on the coast, a certain number of extended extraction sites for seasonal hunting, gathering and fishing activities, a larger amount of transitory sites, and an almost indefinite number of special purpose sites or single-activity loci.”see: [url]http://evoandproud.blogspot.nl/2013/12/origins-of-northwest-european-guilt.html/url] Tomorrow I will read your posting again! So may be take 2 (I will now watch with the family, the magnificent serie The Crown!)


> Northener, in one sense, 100%, or ALL of your ancestry is hunter-gatherer, because every human was a hunter-gatherer before becoming a farmer. Also, only a minute percentage of any human beings every alive has no "farmer" ancestry. Europeans have been farmers for thousands of years. In addition, these older calculators were done before we got some very informative ancient samples and the newer statistical tools to analyze them. This particular one is meaningless as far as I'm concerned. You can turn to academic papers for more accurate analyses. This one uses the Stuttgart early farmer as one of the samples, along with WHG, and then Yamnaya, to show the major demographic turnovers in Europe.As someone who is mostly of northern German ancestry, I would think that the Norwegian numbers or something slightly more "southern" would be accurate for you.https://f.hypotheses.org/wp-content/...gins-Added.png Of course, if you peel back the onion Stuttgart had about 7% WHG picked up in Europe, and the rest is composed of an Unknown Hunter Gatherer perhaps related to WHG, and Basal Eurasian hunter-gatherers, both of whom inhabited the Near East. Yamnaya is composed of Eastern Hunter Gatherer stock along with something Near Eastern like which contains a lot of CHG ancestry (60/40 ?) and so on. WHG is a Mesolithic hunter-gatherer, different from the Paleolithic hunter-gatherers and even the Gravettians to some extent. They may have come originally from the Middle East as well. And so on and so on. Before making these kinds of distinctions you have to choose the time period and the area.

----------


## Tomenable

> http://www.eupedia.com/forum/attachm...7&d=1479925570


Wow, your ANE K7 results are almost identical as mine. What are your exact percentages?:

----------


## Tomenable

Interesting, we also share 15 segments >3 cM long with total length of 53,6 cM (in Multiple Kit Analysis). I think this is quite a lot.

----------


## LeBrok

> Thanks Le Brok, Iranian Neolithic only 2,25% I thought that CHG-EEF 43% may be the clue. But reconsidering this I think that this is a part of the ENF/Farmers component......or?And may be CGH is partly equal to EHG they have the same roots, later one they split off.http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms9912


 If you sum up all the farmer from this run it comes to 57%. Though I'm not sure what the heck is the mix of CHG_EEF? How much is Caucasian Hunter Gatherer and how much Early European Farmer in this admixture?

----------


## Tomenable

CHG-EEF should be counted separately because they were very different groups.

CHG accumulated a lot of CHG-specific drift during thousands of years of isolation.

----------


## Regio X

My parents and I came out with between 50-52% of WHG-UHG in ANE K7. It doesn't seem to make sense, indeed.

----------


## Northener

Take 2! ;)You are right all people have 100% HG ancestry. So let me be more precise. Quote from the article mentioned above:'The expansion of early farmers (EF) out of the Levant during the Neolithic transition led to major changes in the European gene pool, with almost complete replacement in the south and increased mixing with local WHG further north.' So I'am interested if I can detect the the local WHG component. What is mesolithic (HG) and what is neolithic (EEF)? The suggestion of the Ged Match results is very high HG up to 2/3. May be this is overrated?Are to use an old EEF verb ;) how can I separate the wheat from the chaff? On the one hand 2/3 HG in the aDNA look high but on the other hand some parts along the North Sea were, like the Balticum, HG strongholds, this is a HG well for the formation of the modern people along the North Sea and with a random factor in my ancestors more than 50% HG origin in my ancestry could be the case.....


> Northener, in one sense, 100%, or ALL of your ancestry is hunter-gatherer, because every human was a hunter-gatherer before becoming a farmer. Also, only a minute percentage of any human beings every alive has no "farmer" ancestry. Europeans have been farmers for thousands of years. In addition, these older calculators were done before we got some very informative ancient samples and the newer statistical tools to analyze them. This particular one is meaningless as far as I'm concerned. You can turn to academic papers for more accurate analyses. This one uses the Stuttgart early farmer as one of the samples, along with WHG, and then Yamnaya, to show the major demographic turnovers in Europe.As someone who is mostly of northern German ancestry, I would think that the Norwegian numbers or something slightly more "southern" would be accurate for you.https://f.hypotheses.org/wp-content/...gins-Added.png Of course, if you peel back the onion Stuttgart had about 7% WHG picked up in Europe, and the rest is composed of an Unknown Hunter Gatherer perhaps related to WHG, and Basal Eurasian hunter-gatherers, both of whom inhabited the Near East. Yamnaya is composed of Eastern Hunter Gatherer stock along with something Near Eastern like which contains a lot of CHG ancestry (60/40 ?) and so on. WHG is a Mesolithic hunter-gatherer, different from the Paleolithic hunter-gatherers and even the Gravettians to some extent. They may have come originally from the Middle East as well. And so on and so on. Before making these kinds of distinctions you have to choose the time period and the area.

----------


## Northener

> CHG-EEF should be counted separately because they were very different groups.CHG accumulated a lot of CHG-specific drift during thousands of years of isolation.





> If you sum up all the farmer from this run it comes to 57%. Though I'm not sure what the heck is the mix of CHG_EEF? How much is Caucasian Hunter Gatherer and how much Early European Farmer in this admixture?


I think this contains the clue. From the information I quickly gathered basically all the HG are from the same trunk with different branches WHG, SHG, ECG, CHG. The problem is that I can't see which CHG-EEF is HG from the trunk, spread in the mesolithic, or from the branch which came via the EEF in (Northern) Europe. Makes it difficult to consider if it is Mesolithic HG or the HG component in Neolithic EEF.

----------


## Northener

> Interesting, we also share 15 segments >3 cM long with total length of 53,6 cM (in Multiple Kit Analysis). I think this is quite a lot.


Nice!! My Polish cousin? ;)

----------


## Twilight

Eurogene Farmer vs Hunter/Gatherers is not one of Davidski's newest admixture test, in fact the test is 4 years old predating the discovery of CHG. And on the K7 admixture, Davidski admitted that the test is a little noisy. The way I determine if the admixture results are biased is to find out what Temrta IV's admixture results are.[img]

----------


## Tomenable

*Northener*, I made a PCA based on Eurogenes K15 scores, comparing some Ancient DNA samples from Europe. This includes 6 ancient Germanic genomes from Scandinavia (Battle Axe, Bronze Age, Iron Age), 12 ancient Celtic genomes (Unetice, Hinxton-4) and 6 European Iranics (Srubna, Sintashta, Iron Age Scythian, Kyjatice). "Celtic" = average for 12 Celts; "Germanic" = average for 6 Germanics:

----------


## Tomenable

I added you as "North Dutch", I also added an American and one Swede with two kits - from 23andMe and from Ancestry:

----------


## Tomenable

You plot on my PCA very close to "Germanic" average as well as to RISE174 (Iron Age Sweden), RISE61 (Early Bronze Denmark) and RISE94 (Early Bronze Sweden). In fact you plot closer to Early Bronze Age Swedes, than that modern Southern Swede.

----------


## Northener

> You plot on my PCA very close to "Germanic" average as well as to RISE174 (Iron Age Sweden), RISE61 (Early Bronze Denmark) and RISE94 (Early Bronze Sweden). In fact you plot closer to Early Bronze Age Swedes, than that modern Southern Swede.



Tomenable  :Good Job:  :Good Job:  :Good Job:  many many thanks!! Today I came here with a question to you; are my aDNA similarities with Denmark, Norway, Schotland/Orkney due to genetic kinship and or are they due to the higher HG component?

You were already a step further, I will have a look at it!

----------


## Northener

> You plot on my PCA very close to "Germanic" average as well as to RISE174 (Iron Age Sweden), RISE61 (Early Bronze Denmark) and RISE94 (Early Bronze Sweden). In fact you plot closer to Early Bronze Age Swedes, than that modern Southern Swede.


Fantastic thanks! Is this a kinship result and/or is due to my higher HG component? Although you have similar HG; so it's kinship?

----------


## Tomenable

It is due to overall *similarity of admixture proportions* in Eurogenes K15.

BTW - I added also an Ashkenazi Jewish person, and this is how it looks now:

*Large size:* https://i.imgur.com/K9cS0UU.png



I will add some more ancient and modern guys later.  :Smile:

----------


## Tomenable

> Although you have similar HG so it's kinship?


Yeah, I would say that it is kinship during the last 2000-4000 years. Not *before* that.

So HG is not important because it tells what was happening like 9000-5000 years ago.

We have similar scores in ANE K7, but in Eurogenes K15 we have quite different scores:

North Sea / Atlantic / Baltic / East Euro / West Med / West Asian / South Asian / Sub-Saharan / Amerind / Oceanian / Siberian / East Med / NE African / Red Sea / SE Asian

*You - 39,01 / 27,71 / 12,19 / 10,2 / 5,86 / 2,8 / 1,02 / 0 / 0 / 0,48 / 0 / 0,51 / 0,22 / 0 / 0

Me - 22,24 / 19,65 / 25,41 / 18,22 / 5,35 / 6,36 / 0,07 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 2,70 / 0 / 0 / 0
*
I have relatively more of "Baltic" and "Eastern Euro", you have relatively more of "North Sea" and "Atlantic".

=====================

BTW, none of 24 ancient guys scored any "East Mediterranean" admixture.

And moderns score it (I have 2,7%, American has 1,66% you have 0,51%). 

Ashkenazi Jewish guy scores 27,25% (!) East Med and also 8,02% Red Sea.




> are my aDNA similarities with Denmark, Norway, Orkney due to genetic kinship


Yes, I would say that these similarities are due to kinship. You are of Germanic descent.

I think that already if we look at *Southern* Dutch, they are of partially Celtic ancestry.

You are *Northern* Dutch and it seems that people in your region are very Germanic.

----------


## Northener

> Yeah, I would say that it is kinship during the last 2000-4000 years. Not *before* that.
> 
> So HG is not important because it tells what was happening like 9000-5000 years ago.
> 
> We have similar scores in ANE K7, but in Eurogenes K15 we have quite different scores:
> 
> North Sea / Atlantic / Baltic / East Euro / West Med / West Asian / South Asian / Sub-Saharan / Amerind / Oceanian / Siberian / East Med / NE African / Red Sea / SE Asian
> 
> *You - 39,01 / 27,71 / 12,19 / 10,2 / 5,86 / 2,8 / 1,02 / 0 / 0 / 0,48 / 0 / 0,51 / 0,22 / 0 / 0
> ...


Thanks! A clear story! 

There are two periodes of Nordic influences in the North. Dutch:
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jastorf_culture 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jastor...750BC-1AD).png
Looking at my ancestors, and region, these influx had the greatest impact!

2. And may be in a lesser extent the Volkerwanderung:
http://www.medievalchronicles.com/wp...and.jpg?737143
The angles and Saxon didn't passed Frisia (on to England) but settled there on the Frisian terps!

I guess the biggest impact, also because of the link you made with the Nordic Bronze age is influx 1 !? Don't you think?

----------


## Tomenable

I plotted a Croatian person and she plots just next to me, and next to IR1.

IR1 is Mezocsast culture, not Kyjatice culture. I confused these two before:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...quest#Iron_Age




> In the Carpathian Basin, *the Iron Age commenced around 800 BC, when a new population moved into the territory and took possession of the former population’s centers fortified by earthworks.[17][18] The new population may have consisted of ancient Iranian tribes that had seceded from the federation of the tribes living under the suzerainty of the Cimmerians.[17][18]* *They were equestrian nomads and formed the people of the Mezőcsát culture who used tools and weapons made of iron.* They extended their rule over what are now the Great Hungarian Plain and the eastern parts of Transdanubia.[18]


Ecuadorian is ~30% Amerindian and ~70% European (Spanish, Basque, German):

*Updated PCA:* https://i.imgur.com/QPuUpxI.png



Bronze Age Hungarians are very close to modern Iberia/France.

I added six Bronze Age Hungarians to that PCA posted above:

RISE349 = Middle Bronze Age Hungary (years 2034-1748 BC)
RISE374 = Maros culture, Hungary (years 1866-1619 BC)
RISE373 = Maros culture, Hungary (years 1886-1696 BC)
BR2 = Kyjatice culture, Hungary (years 1270-1110 BC)
I1502 = Mako culture, Hungary (years 2190-1980 BC)
RISE479 = Vatya culture, Hungary (years 2000-1500 BC)

----------


## Tomenable

This is what happens when I add Clovis Anzick (Paleo-Indian from Montana) to the graph:

All of Europeans suddenly start to cluster closer together (because Anzick is so far away):

I also added ATP2 (Copper Age Iberian) and it shows how different modern Iberians are. I can model modern Spanish person as a mixture of 55% Copper Age Iberian (ATP2) and 45% Ancient Celt (RISE139, Unetice culture). I can also model a modern Ecuadorian person as ca. 70% Spanish + 30% Clovis Anzick (Paleo-Indian who lived 12,500 years ago). And the latter model is actually confirmed because this Ecuadorian lady tested her DNA and she is 30% Amerindian, 70% European (Spanish, Basque plus some German).

*1) Modern Spaniard* (he plots roughly halfway between Copper Age Iberian ATP2 and Unetice Celt RISE139):

http://i.imgur.com/RTbUfjZ.png



*2) Ecuadorian* (if I draw a straight line connecting Spaniard with Clovis, she plots in 1/3 way from Spaniard):

http://i.imgur.com/pWAZMD5.png



Copper Age Iberians plot very far away from modern Iberians.

This shows that there were large scale migrations into Iberia after the Copper Age.

Celticization was a large migration - not just a cultural process.

----------


## Northener

> You plot on my PCA very close to "Germanic" average as well as to RISE174 (Iron Age Sweden), RISE61 (Early Bronze Denmark) and RISE94 (Early Bronze Sweden). In fact you plot closer to Early Bronze Age Swedes, than that modern Southern Swede.


Can you make a relationship with this DNA from the Jastorf culture Tomenable? See: https://sites.google.com/site/haplog...htenstein-cave

----------


## Northener

> You plot on my PCA very close to "Germanic" average as well as to RISE174 (Iron Age Sweden), RISE61 (Early Bronze Denmark) and RISE94 (Early Bronze Sweden). In fact you plot closer to Early Bronze Age Swedes, than that modern Southern Swede.


A closer link:
https://blogs.biomedcentral.com/on-b...n-family-tree/

----------


## Northener

> Interesting, we also share 15 segments >3 cM long with total length of 53,6 cM (in Multiple Kit Analysis). I think this is quite a lot.


Could it be a relationship trough the Unetice culture? A part of this was the so called Sögel-Wolhde Kreis, in a place called Drouwen where my mothers family is originated there a findings of a chieftain.....  and a 'princess' of this group.

----------


## Joey D

Would there truly be that much genetic variation between the North and South of the Netherlands?

----------


## Northener

> Would there truly be that much genetic variation between the North and South of the Netherlands?


Yes, researchers suggest differences in genotype, phenotype, even into differences in brainfunction 
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v...hg201348a.html


Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum

----------


## Joey D

That study appears to accept as a starting premise that the population is relatively homogenous.

But then, the study finds a correlation between the distinctions observable within the North and South of the Netherlands and the North and South of Europe, and then goes onto say (and this bit I find quite speculative): Southern Europeans migrated more to the South of the Netherlands, while Northern Europeans migrated more to the Northern parts of the country, maintaining the North–South distribution within the country (admittedly, I once had a very nice pizza in Maastricht, in a restaurant run by Italians).

The main reason why we have to view that as a pretty speculative statement is because the Randstad area is included in the North, and you'd have to think that would take a pretty high percentage of all immigrants to the Netherlands (regardless of where they come from).

----------


## Northener

> That study appears to accept as a starting premise that the population is relatively homogenous.
> 
> But then, the study finds a correlation between the distinctions observable within the North and South of the Netherlands and the North and South of Europe, and then goes onto say (and this bit I find quite speculative): Southern Europeans migrated more to the South of the Netherlands, while Northern Europeans migrated more to the Northern parts of the country, maintaining the North–South distribution within the country (admittedly, I once had a very nice pizza in Maastricht, in a restaurant run by Italians).
> 
> The main reason why we have to view that as a pretty speculative statement is because the Randstad area is included in the North, and you'd have to think that would take a pretty high percentage of all immigrants to the Netherlands (regardless of where they come from).


@ Joey I'am not one of the researchers but I think they have taken in account the effects of the immigrants after the sixties, because that would make the Randstad, the cities in the Western part, I think more Mediterranean than the South, and that's not how they pictured it.....

I think the researchers are right when they describe the difference, but their history knowledge could be sharper. The Northern parts of the Netherlands are a part of population devolvement since the mesolithic up to the iron age which is, thanks to Caesar ;) called "Germanic". The Southern Netherlands have never been explicit German (tough influenced by it!), more a kind of "Celtic" development, very integrated into the developments of more "Central Europe". The Rhine river was in the Roman period a kind of frontier, called the Limes. If you want to see the difference than visit not only the obvious Amsterdam ;) but also Maastricht in outmost South and Groningen in the outmost North, you can see and feel the 'atmospheric' differences...

----------

