>>12603816>P2As for comparisons of ancient populations and modern peoples using "autosomal calculators", I think they are inherently flawed. They ignore many phenomena, most important one being genetic drift. To put it shortly: settled, stable populations with big effective population size (not to be confused with total population size) will have more similarity to an ancient group, even if they don't really descend much from it, than partitioned, unstable, quarrelsome populations who migrate often, who, although closer to a certain ancient group by descendance, experience much higher genetic drift than former, and hence appear more genetically removed from their predominant ancestral population.
That's why, for example, some non-European populations score "highest IE" (even though Europeans look the most like IE, and those non-Euro populations don't). Or that's why, for example, Balts and Basques score "most WHG", despite both of them looking nothing like Cro-Magnons.
And that's exactly why I think that physical anthropology is best tool in determining from which ancient group do we have highest amount of descent. "If it looks like a dog, walks like a dog, and barks like a dog- then it is a dog". Those researches are useful for tracking direct lineages (Y-DNA and mtDNA) and determining some phenotypical traits (such as pigmentation), but, at least currently, not for comparing them autosomally with modern populations.
Lastly, I would like to ask you to watch video I have uploaded (intended as VR to Varg), as I have talked quite a bit about European descent from these three fundamental groups in it.
