Autosomal analysis of the genomes of Iron Age Britons and Anglo-Saxons

ElHorsto said:
If "West European" and "East European" are defined by contemporary people and assuming that both categories are essentially descendants of the same old WHG, then it is impossible that there once was a heavily ancient "West European" population. The older a sample, the more evenenly his WHG will be divided in "West European" and "East European", because WE and EE are the result of recent differentiation due to geographic separation. The iron age sample is closer to Loschbour in terms of time scale and Loschbour is about equally East and West. Therefore I think it is generally impossible to find any ancient sample with such high "West European" percentage like contemporary west Europeans.

EDIT: Maybe the same reasoning can also explain the general tendency towards exotic admixtures in ancient samples (which is incomplete differentiation)!?
Click to expand...

Why there is a west-east differentiation in admixtures is up to debate. It certainly isn't as simple as geography, and recent splits. Don't take admixture results to literally. Components aren't ancient populations they're just just clusters. If I was made into a component compared to east Asian components, you would probably score 100% in it, that doesn't mean I'm and ancient population and you're 100% me. Ancient samples of good quality don't score in exotic components. Have you seen updated Eurogenes K13-15 results for Loschbour, Stuttgart, Motala-12, La Brana-1, and Otzi? They literally score 0 in just about every non-west Eurasian components. The hunter gatherers don't score 0 in Mediterranean and near eastern components. Don't take HGs scores in regional clusters too seriously either, but do take note of them.
 
ElHorsto said:
If "West European" and "East European" are defined by contemporary people and assuming that both categories are essentially descendants of the same old WHG, then it is impossible that there once was a heavily ancient "West European" population. The older a sample, the more evenenly his WHG will be divided in "West European" and "East European", because WE and EE are the result of recent differentiation due to geographic separation. The iron age sample is closer to Loschbour in terms of time scale and Loschbour is about equally East and West. Therefore I think it is generally impossible to find any ancient sample with such high "West European" percentage like contemporary west Europeans.

EDIT: Maybe the same reasoning can also explain the general tendency towards exotic admixtures in ancient samples (which is incomplete differentiation)!?
Click to expand...


I don't have the time right now to give your points the attention required, as I'm about to run out the door, so I may revisit this later. I just didn't want you to think I'm not going to respond to your post.

So, a quick note. I'm not sure that I would assume that "East" and "West European" are any more "pure" components than any of the others in admixture analyses, and that therefore they represent "pure" WHG groups.

I know you're aware of those 2012 threads on the Dienekes site which examined the components in terms of one another. I think we've even discussed them?

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/08/inter-relationships-of-dodecad-k12b-and.html

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/09/inter-relationships-between-dodecad-k7b.html

Southwest Asian is Caucasus
Atlantic Med is Caucasus and some North European
North Euro is Atlantic Med plus Gedrosia and a slice of North European
Atlantic Baltic on World 9 is not a "pure" WHG component either

These are geographical groupings and nothing more, not "pure" ancestral populations. Their only usefulness is in drawing comparisons between different populations and trying to infer clues from that about ancient populations.

So, in the case of my example, all that I meant was that in order to reach the "West European" levels of the modern English, given the lower levels in both the ancient samples, one hypothesis might be that there was another, perhaps geographically more western population, which, had we an ancient sample, would score higher in "West European".
 
Angela said:
I

These are geographical groupings and nothing more, not "pure" ancestral populations. Their only usefulness is in drawing comparisons between different populations and trying to infer clues from that about ancient populations.
Click to expand...
This should be reminded to all from time to time. I always look at this as statistical averaging and classification of genome and population comparison-pooling (or was it pulling?)

So, in the case of my example, all that I meant was that in order to reach the "West European" levels of the modern English, given the lower levels in both the ancient samples, one hypothesis might be that there was another, perhaps geographically more western population, which, had we an ancient sample, would score higher in "West European".
Click to expand...
We also have to remember that populations in the past were not nicely mixed as of today. People were not very mobile, more insulated, more traditional, more inbred.
East Anglia is special place, it is one of first places to see more newcomers from continental Europe (celtic or germanic influence in this case) than the rest of British Isle. I'm sure we are going to find more populations of EEF Neolithic descendants in rest of Britain, who gave more Mediterranean, Atlantic and less East Euro admixture to modern English demographics.
 
Last edited:
@Angela,@FireHaired

No, that's not what I meant. To the contrary.
What I meant: There can be no ancient population which scores more "West-Euro" than modern Britons, because:
1. "East" and "West" are recent and non-"pure" categories
2. WHG is already the largest admixture in both
3. WHG (Loschbourg) scores equally in both, "East" and "West", so WHG can not be unique to either West or East, but at best must have drifted over time into "West" and "East", if at all.
4. If WHG differentiation is not responsible for most "East" and "West" differentiation, then it must be due to the minor admixtures. But they are too minor in order to increase "West-Euro" percentage up-to or above today Britain's. Hence I conclude that "East" and "West" separation is based on post-Loschbourg events. And if I recall correctly, north-western-like (f.i. "North-Sea") and north-eastern-like (f.i. Baltic, East-Euro, ...) are often very close in terms of FST distances (but I don't have them at hand to be sure right now).

So, if you Angela believe there once was a population scoring even higher in "West-Euro" than today West-Europeans, then I doubt this hypothesis. It is possible that one minor admixture is responsible for the emergence of a "West-Euro" cluster, but this admixture alone would never score higher in "West-Euro", but would be something different like Gedrosia+Atlantic_med (particular EEF+ANE-variant for instance) or something else.
 
ElHorsto said:
@Angela,@FireHaired

No, that's not what I meant. To the contrary.
What I meant: There can be no ancient population which scores more "West-Euro" than modern Britons, because:
1. "East" and "West" are recent and non-"pure" categories
2. WHG is already the largest admixture in both
3. WHG (Loschbourg) scores equally in both, "East" and "West", so WHG can not be unique to either West or East, but at best must have drifted over time into "West" and "East", if at all.
4. If WHG differentiation is not responsible for most "East" and "West" differentiation, then it must be due to the minor admixtures. But they are too minor in order to increase "West-Euro" percentage up-to or above today Britain's. Hence I conclude that "East" and "West" separation is based on post-Loschbourg events. And if I recall correctly, north-western-like (f.i. "North-Sea") and north-eastern-like (f.i. Baltic, East-Euro, ...) are often very close in terms of FST distances (but I don't have them at hand to be sure right now).

So, if you Angela believe there once was a population scoring even higher in "West-Euro" than today West-Europeans, then I doubt this hypothesis. It is possible that one minor admixture is responsible for the emergence of a "West-Euro" cluster, but this admixture alone would never score higher in "West-Euro", but would be something different like Gedrosia+Atlantic_med (particular EEF+ANE-variant for instance) or something else.
Click to expand...

Hunther Gatherers were not a homogeneous bunch. The ones from Eastern Europe were more mixed with ANE and mongol shifted. Malt'a scores 40% Baltic, 30% Amerindian and 30% South Asian. La Brana scores 50% Baltic and 50% North Atlantic, but he was from Spain. The North Atlantic component is clearly more Mesolitich than the Baltic one, which is mixed with North Asian and Mongoloid elements.
 
joeyc said:
Hunther Gatherers were not a homogeneous bunch. The ones from Eastern Europe were more mixed with ANE and mongol shifted. Malt'a scores 40% Baltic, 30% Amerindian and 30% South Asian. La Brana scores 50% Baltic and 50% North Atlantic, but he was from Spain. The North Atlantic component is clearly more Mesolitich than the Baltic one, which is mixed with North Asian and Mongoloid elements.
Click to expand...

I'm not aware of any ancient sample which is "North Atlantic". AFAIK it is a calculated cluster based on contemporary peoples. Ancient categories I know are for instance WHG, ANE, EEF,...
Also the ANE admixture is not lower in contemporary North-West europeans, it's even a bit higher than in North-East europeans (except Saami and Finns). For instance compare Scotts with Belarussians in Lazaridis et al.
And it seems that you are confusing ANE with mongoloids.
 
ElHorsto said:
Therefore I think it is generally impossible to find any ancient sample with such high "West European" percentage like contemporary west Europeans.
Click to expand...

I have to correct myself a bit: Maybe it is possible, if the Iron Age sample would have 0% Caucasus and instead 10% Gedrosian. This could result in similar "West European" scores like a modern Briton, but not significantly higher. The continental celtic origin idea make much sense afterall.
 
ElHorsto said:
I'm not aware of any ancient sample which is "North Atlantic". AFAIK it is a calculated cluster based on contemporary peoples. Ancient categories I know are for instance WHG, ANE, EEF,...
Also the ANE admixture is not lower in contemporary North-West europeans, it's even a bit higher than in North-East europeans (except Saami and Finns). For instance compare Scotts with Belarussians in Lazaridis et al.
And it seems that you are confusing ANE with mongoloids.
Click to expand...

Modern North Western Europeans are mixed with Indo Europeans (Corded Ware/Battle Axe). R* haplogroups are tied with the ANE like ancestry.

I was talking about Western and Eastern Hunther Gatherers anyway. You have misunderstood.
 
joeyc said:
Modern North Western Europeans are mixed with Indo Europeans (Corded Ware/Battle Axe). R* haplogroups are tied with the ANE like ancestry.
Click to expand...

Yes, probably.

I was talking about Western and Eastern Hunther Gatherers anyway. You have misunderstood.
Click to expand...

You were postulating that NW europeans are most mesolithic or are descentent from a different ancient HG-people. I said that evidence (WHG="West European Hunter Gatherer"; Loschbour, La Brana) so far does not support this claim. The possible sources of other admixtures like ANE is a different question. Finns and Saami have a peak ANE in Europe, but at the same time also peak in WHG, so they still are the most mesolithic people today, regardless of ANE (which is also mesolithic).
 
joeyc said:
Using Dodecad is useless because of the calculator effect.

On the Eurogenes they are both closest to modern Orcadians but with less West Med, East Med, West Asian and Red Sea than modern Britons.
Click to expand...

Why on earth would an Anglo-Saxon be close to a modern Orcadian ? Modern Orcadians are the most Celtic/Brythonic looking population in the British Isles.

The Dodecad results make much more sense. I shows that the Anglo-Saxon is closer to assorted populations around the Baltic Sea, be them Scandinavians, northeast Germans, northern Poles, Balts or Finns. That is consistent with an ancient Germanic population.
 
Maciamo said:
Why on earth would an Anglo-Saxon be close to a modern Orcadian ? Modern Orcadians are the most Celtic/Brythonic looking population in the British Isles.

The Dodecad results make much more sense. I shows that the Anglo-Saxon is closer to assorted populations around the Baltic Sea, be them Scandinavians, northeast Germans, northern Poles, Balts or Finns. That is consistent with an ancient Germanic population.
Click to expand...

Felix and David show with admixture, F-statistics, and PCAs the two Hinxton samples are extreme NW Europeans, and closest to Orcadians, Irish, and west Norwegian. He could be Germanic(who fall under the same trend as British Celts) and maybe apart of an ethnic group who was beyond the modern NW extreme, and who later admixed with populations more eastern and SW.
 
John Doe said:
Reliable in determining what?
Click to expand...

because all others suffer from calculaor effect except the latest MDLP K23b, which was designed to get around this problem.
 
Sile said:
because all others suffer from calculaor effect except the latest MDLP K23b, which was designed to get around this problem.
Click to expand...

So what is it good at determining?
 
John Doe said:
So what is it good at determining?
Click to expand...

I do not understand your question, but my K23b below is accurate as far as I know

MDLP K23b Oracle Rev 2014 Sep 16

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 European_Early_Farmers 29.03
2 Caucasian 27.88
3 European_Hunters_Gatherers 25.56
4 South_Central_Asian 5.03
5 Near_East 4.22
6 North_African 4.16
7 Ancestral_Altaic 3.18


Finished reading population data. 620 populations found.
23 components mode.

--------------------------------

Least-squares method.

Using 1 population approximation:
1 Italian_North @ 1.625069
2 Italian_Piedmont @ 10.729018
3 German-Volga @ 10.739352
4 Kosovar @ 10.752990
5 Italian_Bergamo @ 11.048033
6 Greek_Northwest @ 11.196579
7 Italian_Tuscan @ 11.663836
8 French @ 12.118893
9 Bulgarian @ 13.362114
10 South_German @ 13.639461
11 Albanian_Tirana @ 13.643938
12 Greek_Thessaly @ 13.652842
13 Belgian @ 14.084169
14 Greek_Thessaloniki @ 14.171048
15 English_Cornwall_GBR @ 14.256066
16 English @ 14.320354
17 Greek_Peloponnesos @ 14.361881
18 English_Kent_GBR @ 14.460760
19 Irish @ 14.469301
20 Spanish_Baleares_IBS @ 14.495005

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Italian_North +50% Italian_North @ 1.625069
 
Sile said:
I do not understand your question, but my K23b below is accurate as far as I know

MDLP K23b Oracle Rev 2014 Sep 16

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 European_Early_Farmers 29.03
2 Caucasian 27.88
3 European_Hunters_Gatherers 25.56
4 South_Central_Asian 5.03
5 Near_East 4.22
6 North_African 4.16
7 Ancestral_Altaic 3.18


Finished reading population data. 620 populations found.
23 components mode.

--------------------------------

Least-squares method.

Using 1 population approximation:
1 Italian_North @ 1.625069
2 Italian_Piedmont @ 10.729018
3 German-Volga @ 10.739352
4 Kosovar @ 10.752990
5 Italian_Bergamo @ 11.048033
6 Greek_Northwest @ 11.196579
7 Italian_Tuscan @ 11.663836
8 French @ 12.118893
9 Bulgarian @ 13.362114
10 South_German @ 13.639461
11 Albanian_Tirana @ 13.643938
12 Greek_Thessaly @ 13.652842
13 Belgian @ 14.084169
14 Greek_Thessaloniki @ 14.171048
15 English_Cornwall_GBR @ 14.256066
16 English @ 14.320354
17 Greek_Peloponnesos @ 14.361881
18 English_Kent_GBR @ 14.460760
19 Irish @ 14.469301
20 Spanish_Baleares_IBS @ 14.495005

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Italian_North +50% Italian_North @ 1.625069
Click to expand...

Well, I suppose my question is, is it accurate? All 4 of my grandparents were AJs, and here are my results, should they be considered accurate?

Admix Results (sorted):

Population

[TD="align: center"] # [/TD]

[TD="align: right"] Percent [/TD]

[TD="align: center"]1[/TD]
[TD="width: 120"]Caucasian[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]37.34[/TD]

[TD="width: 30, align: center"]2[/TD]
[TD="width: 120"]European_Early_Farmers[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]22.63[/TD]

[TD="width: 30, align: center"]3[/TD]
[TD="width: 120"]European_Hunters_Gatherers[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]13.20[/TD]

[TD="width: 30, align: center"]4[/TD]
[TD="width: 120"]Near_East[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]10.51[/TD]

[TD="width: 30, align: center"]5[/TD]
[TD="width: 120"]North_African[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]6.86[/TD]

[TD="width: 30, align: center"]6[/TD]
[TD="width: 120"]South_Central_Asian[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]6.36[/TD]


Finished reading population data. 620 populations found.
23 components mode.

--------------------------------

Least-squares method.

Using 1 population approximation:
1 Ashkenazi_Jew @ 2.929181
2 Sicilian_East @ 3.546232
3 Sicilian_West @ 3.845939
4 Sicilian_Siracusa @ 3.939226
5 Ashkenazi @ 4.350750
6 Sicilian_Trapani @ 5.250281
7 Sicilian_Agrigento @ 5.379285
8 Romanian_Jew @ 5.465404
9 Maltese @ 6.141469
10 Cretan @ 6.226387
11 Italian_South @ 6.639791
12 Sicilian_Center @ 6.905343
13 French_Jew @ 6.983124
14 Greek_Athens @ 7.279214
15 Greek @ 7.755960
16 Central_Greek @ 8.582447
17 Greek_Phokaia @ 8.734240
18 Greek_Peloponnesos @ 8.993840
19 Italian_Abruzzo @ 9.110687
20 Greek_Smyrna @ 9.649567

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Greek_Thessaloniki +50% Sephardic_Jew @ 2.126260


Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% French_Jew +25% Gagauz +25% Sicilian_West @ 1.580894


Using 4 populations approximation:
1 Bulgarian + Greek_Smyrna + Moroccan_Jew + Sicilian_Trapani @ 1.525548
2 Bulgarian + Greek_Smyrna + Moroccan_Jew + Sicilian_Agrigento @ 1.550738
3 French_Jew + French_Jew + Gagauz + Sicilian_West @ 1.580894
4 French_Jew + Greek_Smyrna + Montenegrian + Moroccan_Jew @ 1.606388
5 Bulgarian + French_Jew + Sephardic_Jew + Sicilian_East @ 1.619343
6 Kosovar + Kosovar + Moroccan_Jew + Syrian_Jew @ 1.620502
7 Bulgarian + Greek_Smyrna + Maltese + Moroccan_Jew @ 1.645095
8 Bulgarian + Greek_Smyrna + Moroccan_Jew + Sicilian_West @ 1.648538
9 Bulgarian + Greek_Smyrna + Moroccan_Jew + Sicilian_East @ 1.667099
10 Bulgarian + Greek_Smyrna + Libyan_Jew + Sicilian_West @ 1.681815
11 French_Jew + Gagauz + Sephardic_Jew + Sicilian_West @ 1.692104
12 Bulgarian + Greek_Smyrna + Maltese + Sephardic_Jew @ 1.719078
13 Greek_Smyrna + Macedonian + Moroccan_Jew + Sicilian_Agrigento @ 1.749767
14 Bulgarian + Greek_Smyrna + Libyan_Jew + Sicilian_Trapani @ 1.789046
15 French_Jew + Greek_Smyrna + Moroccan_Jew + Serb_Serbia @ 1.797865
16 Cretan + Kosovar + Moroccan_Jew + Sicilian_West @ 1.803889
17 Greek + Sicilian_East + Sicilian_West + Sicilian_West @ 1.804704
18 Bulgarian + French_Jew + French_Jew + French_Jew @ 1.805862
19 French_Jew + French_Jew + Gagauz + Sicilian_Agrigento @ 1.820195
20 Italian_North + Italian_South + Sicilian_East + Syrian_Jew @ 1.824458
 
John Doe said:
Well, I suppose my question is, is it accurate? All 4 of my grandparents were AJs, and here are my results, should they be considered accurate?

Admix Results (sorted):

Population
Caucasian

[TD="align: center"] # [/TD]

[TD="align: right"] Percent [/TD]

[TD="align: center"]1[/TD]

[TD="width: 50, align: right"]37.34[/TD]

[TD="width: 30, align: center"]2[/TD]
[TD="width: 120"]European_Early_Farmers[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]22.63[/TD]

[TD="width: 30, align: center"]3[/TD]
[TD="width: 120"]European_Hunters_Gatherers[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]13.20[/TD]

[TD="width: 30, align: center"]4[/TD]
[TD="width: 120"]Near_East[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]10.51[/TD]

[TD="width: 30, align: center"]5[/TD]
[TD="width: 120"]North_African[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]6.86[/TD]

[TD="width: 30, align: center"]6[/TD]
[TD="width: 120"]South_Central_Asian[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]6.36[/TD]


Finished reading population data. 620 populations found.
23 components mode.

--------------------------------

Least-squares method.

Using 1 population approximation:
1 Ashkenazi_Jew @ 2.929181
2 Sicilian_East @ 3.546232
3 Sicilian_West @ 3.845939
4 Sicilian_Siracusa @ 3.939226
5 Ashkenazi @ 4.350750
6 Sicilian_Trapani @ 5.250281
7 Sicilian_Agrigento @ 5.379285
8 Romanian_Jew @ 5.465404
9 Maltese @ 6.141469
10 Cretan @ 6.226387
11 Italian_South @ 6.639791
12 Sicilian_Center @ 6.905343
13 French_Jew @ 6.983124
14 Greek_Athens @ 7.279214
15 Greek @ 7.755960
16 Central_Greek @ 8.582447
17 Greek_Phokaia @ 8.734240
18 Greek_Peloponnesos @ 8.993840
19 Italian_Abruzzo @ 9.110687
20 Greek_Smyrna @ 9.649567

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Greek_Thessaloniki +50% Sephardic_Jew @ 2.126260


Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% French_Jew +25% Gagauz +25% Sicilian_West @ 1.580894


Using 4 populations approximation:
1 Bulgarian + Greek_Smyrna + Moroccan_Jew + Sicilian_Trapani @ 1.525548
2 Bulgarian + Greek_Smyrna + Moroccan_Jew + Sicilian_Agrigento @ 1.550738
3 French_Jew + French_Jew + Gagauz + Sicilian_West @ 1.580894
4 French_Jew + Greek_Smyrna + Montenegrian + Moroccan_Jew @ 1.606388
5 Bulgarian + French_Jew + Sephardic_Jew + Sicilian_East @ 1.619343
6 Kosovar + Kosovar + Moroccan_Jew + Syrian_Jew @ 1.620502
7 Bulgarian + Greek_Smyrna + Maltese + Moroccan_Jew @ 1.645095
8 Bulgarian + Greek_Smyrna + Moroccan_Jew + Sicilian_West @ 1.648538
9 Bulgarian + Greek_Smyrna + Moroccan_Jew + Sicilian_East @ 1.667099
10 Bulgarian + Greek_Smyrna + Libyan_Jew + Sicilian_West @ 1.681815
11 French_Jew + Gagauz + Sephardic_Jew + Sicilian_West @ 1.692104
12 Bulgarian + Greek_Smyrna + Maltese + Sephardic_Jew @ 1.719078
13 Greek_Smyrna + Macedonian + Moroccan_Jew + Sicilian_Agrigento @ 1.749767
14 Bulgarian + Greek_Smyrna + Libyan_Jew + Sicilian_Trapani @ 1.789046
15 French_Jew + Greek_Smyrna + Moroccan_Jew + Serb_Serbia @ 1.797865
16 Cretan + Kosovar + Moroccan_Jew + Sicilian_West @ 1.803889
17 Greek + Sicilian_East + Sicilian_West + Sicilian_West @ 1.804704
18 Bulgarian + French_Jew + French_Jew + French_Jew @ 1.805862
19 French_Jew + French_Jew + Gagauz + Sicilian_Agrigento @ 1.820195
20 Italian_North + Italian_South + Sicilian_East + Syrian_Jew @ 1.824458
Click to expand...

write to this fellow Australian........with a little bit of luck he might help you out.

http://www.fc.id.au/search/label/Genealogy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top