Friday, November 12, 2010

Results for DOD183 to DOD196 posted (Updated)

If you have not participated, read about the current 48-hour submission opportunity.
If you have submitted your sample, you can add (voluntarily) any information you want to reveal about your ancestry and origins in this thread.

NOTE: DOD194 is related to DOD191, DOD192, and DOD193, but this was not communicated to me; therefore, I am scrapping the results of this run, and repeating it.

Check back this post to see when updated results are posted. Most participants will probably not get radically different results, but DOD193 and DOD194's very high "Northern European" score is spurious.

I urge all project participants not to send me samples of relatives, but if they insist on doing so, to clearly indicate the relationship. This not only saves me time, but also ensures that the results are valid not only for yourself, but for all project participants in your run.

Results have been Updated:

Admixture proportions can be found in the spreadsheet

All populations:
Individual bars:


  1. It would be interesting to know the ethnic background as well as the geographic origin of DODO193 and DODO194 (interestingly both have east Asian rather than NE asian[charachteristic of the Uralic speaking Finns]and one of them do have some Arabian admixture[I think Arabian is more accurate than southwesteren Asia since southeastern asian populations such as Jordanians seem rather mixed whereas amongst Arabian Saudis there was many individuals who ended up 100% southwestern Asian])

    Indeed, the non presence of the south european and west asian component amongst both could be a clue about north European component being connected with old north european language that only survived as a substratum of words (with no known/attested language phylum's etymology) please see below

    "according to Sammallahti(1998: 125) about 550 proto-saami word stems i.e more than 30% of the total number of the approximately 1500 reconstructed proto-saami stems, are with uncertain origin. Lehtiranta (1989: 8) gives the number of 43%. These words have neither a loan etymology nor cognates in other Uralic languages. Some scholars have assumed that these words originate from an unknown northern European substrate language (among others Saarikvi 2004; Aikio 2004,2006)"

  2. DOD188 is 50% Sicilian (Palermo area)/50% Polish (Poznan area)

  3. pconroy, you might want to write that in the dedicated thread

    ashraf, see updated post

  4. I stay with my previous thought that spaniards have too much african admixture to be considered only an ancestral heritage of past times, otherwise many other S.Europeans should have the same amount.

  5. Artu', you seem to have ignored Southern Italians/Sicilians

    It may like be ancestral hertiage of past times, or it may not be, but both areas are close to North Africa and it 's worth considering.

  6. What do you mean? You should be to the point. From what I see of Dienekes' results for the Spanish group, they do have much African admixture, and I mean sub Saharan African which Dienekes labels as West and East African. Now if you mean North African, you should know but I will tell you, the North Africans are overwhelmingly Caucasoid and have been for thousands of years. Now looking at the French, I see three have North African admixture and 7 South Asian admixture. Now most modern day South Asians in most dna tests come out Caucasoid, but they too today are mixed with non Caucasoid admixture, Mongoloid mostly but with some sub Saharan African. So who is the most Colored, Spanish or French?

    Not much difference from what I see.

    I am not French or Spanish, and frankly do not like either of those nationalities.

  7. It's hardly "much" at average, at this point, of 0.2 West African and 0.5 East African. I don't think there is one individual that passes 2% when you combine the two. East African comes in with the North African, I suspect, because Southern Italians/Sicilians have 0.3% East African. The West African, which effects a few individuals, most likely comes from the Atlantic Slave trade.

  8. I don't know why you get that like a personal insult.
    France as a longer tradition of colonies than Spain has and self reported ancestry in France is more problematic than Spain is.
    Then i don't get why you say that S.Asians are mixed with non-caucasoid and sub-saharan, when east african and west african is basically absent from the french samples in the rar to download so it's make no sense talking about those very samples.

    The northafrican-caucasoid or not- admixture in french is not even comparable to the spanish samples as well.

    Anyway i still don't get why all this mess about my comment, if we are here to understand admixtures from a genetic point of view what's the deal to reply with "yes but you have more south Asian" as if it was a bad thing?
    Maybe you are too sensitive about some matters.

  9. Dostoyevsky, South Italy and Sicily are not a country, are parts of Italy who show more N.African admixture(with virtually no east and west african admixture)wich is almost absent in the rest of Italians and that is comparable only with Spain.
    The Spanish samples for what i know are from all over Spain, so i would like to know where this admixture come from.

    That's all;
    If everytime we speak about african admixture somebody has to whine about, we will never know the real path and source of the various african admixture in Europe.

  10. Artu',

    I'm quite aware that southern Italy and Sicily are not a country. However, we're speaking of African admixture, are we not? The Italians are broken up into three groups in these runs, are they not? The Southern Italian and Sicilian population in Dienekes run shows slightly more North African admixture than Spaniards and almost the same amount of East African among Southern Italian/Sicily. The West African is a blank for that group. This contradicts your claim that no southern European population has much of this African admixture. It's obvious the Italian population, from north to South, can be differentiated by all except you, apparently. I was simply correcting you claim, which was not correct, and leaves open a possibility that it's older than the Moorish expansion.

    Personally, I think most of that admixture came during the Moorish period but I keep an open mind.

    It's not "whining" to correct an obvious error on your part and it certainly isn't hard to notice that there are only two possible reasons for this African admixture. Both of which I noted.

  11. The spanish african admixture is very small, less than 1% together. What I find surprising is the South Asian component in other europeans and the Northeast asian in Northern europeans. I have noticed also the absence of North African component in the Catalan samples.

  12. Artu',

    I should have mentioned this before: I just find your language strange. You say Southern Italy and Sicily show "virtually no East and West African." The difference is 0.3% to 0.5% on average and with regards to West Africa it's 0% to 0.2% on average. I already on the mostly likely reasons why this would be the case.

  13. Dostoyevsky, can you read or not by any chance?
    Who has ever said that Italy can't be differentiated?
    Tuscans and N.Italians are there to testify that african admixture there is almost absent.

    Southern Italy and Sicily have more,Spain too, and if you mind to dowload the rar kindly offered by Dienekes you will see that between the southern italians\sicilians samples only one has some east african admixture, the rest is N.african and more or less at the same % of Spain.
    All the rest of your posts don't say anything that i didn't already know.

  14. Spaniards

    Southern Italians/Sicilians

    I would like to know what i have said so weird and where the sicilian\southern italian samples show more west and east african than Spain's samples.
    African admixture is larger in the spaniash samples, want it or not and sincerely i could care less if people make an issue of it.
    This is genetic not a pure race championship.

  15. Artu',

    I was being sarcastic since it was clear you didn't both to differentiate when you made your initial comment.

    I have downloaded the RAR file. That speaks of individuals. However, I've asked you take a look at averages, which you, for whatever reason, refuse to do. It's a a question of wanting or not wanting but of correcting you on your initial claim. I already addressed it and you simply reply that I'm telling you something you already know. I find that questionable since in your own response you stated there was "virtually no east and west african admixture" in Southern Italian and Sicilian population. I find it odd that 0.3% is not worth mentioning in contrast to the Spanish 0.5% and only a few Spaniards show West Africa (0.2% on average). If we are going to whine whenever we are corrected tehn we will never find the right path on how African admixture arrived in particular areas of Europe.

  16. Artu',

    No one is denying African admixture in Spaniards or "whining" about it. You seem to have gone down that road regardless of what has been said by me. I personally don't care, although not for the same reason as Ponto. I have a preference for people speaking correctly about a situation and your claim was flawed, in particular by ignoring the North African influence. You quickly tried to distance yourself from that by focusing on East and West African admixture. Ironically you fall into the same trap you accused others of falling into.

    That being said, I wonder about that East African admixture. The West African is too obvious. You're correct that only one Southern Italian/Sicilian in the sample has it in excess. I think this undermines my belief, at this point, that the East African comes through with the North African expansion into southern Europe. Although I'd like to see more samples. So it is rather strange.

    I'm not here to fight with you, Artu', and nor am I hear to be accused of anything when I attack someone's claim.

  17. Artu'

    The 0.2% african in spaniards is just noise, the same way the 0.2 % South Indian in Orcadians is noise, or you are just picking up what should be real and what not ? Are you saying Orcadians have Indian ancestry ? Because the percentages are exactly the same. Why you refuse to watch the percentages ?