D(Yoruba,Iran_Neolithic)(Villabruna,AfontovaGora3) 0.0223 Z 2.812On the other hand, the Basal-rich K7 models the early Zagros farmers as 39.05% Ancient North Eurasian and 56.67% Basal-rich (which is probably a composite of Basal Eurasian and something Villabruna-related). To me this appears to be the more sensible solution. Moreover, Lazaridis et al. 2016 characterized South Caspian forager Iran_HotuIIIb as more Basal Eurasian than the early Zagros farmers (Supplementary Information 4). The Basal-rich K7, on the other hand, shows the opposite. The D-stat below suggests that the Basal-rich K7 is closer to the truth.
D(Chimp,Ust_Ishim)(Iran_Neolithic,Iran_Hotu) 0.0156 Z 1.337There are other such examples, and I might post them in the comments. In any case, the point I'm making is that the Basal-rich K7 is a solid piece of work and it's likely to remain relevant for a long time. Indeed, I'll be updating the Basal-rich K7 spreadsheet regularly as new ancient samples roll in, which means that you'll be able to model yourself as newly sampled ancient populations using the Basal-rich K7 ancestry proportions (for instance, see here). The only problem with this test is that it's optimized for Eurasians. As a result, it might be sensible for anyone with significant (>5%) Sub-Saharan ancestry to skip the Basal-rich K7 and just ask for the Global 10 genetic map and coordinates. Global 10 coordinates to model your ancient and recent fine-scale ancestry, just as you would using mixture proportions. In fact, I'd say the Global 10 coordinates are more useful in this respect than any mixture test, including the Basal-rich K7. Thanks in advance for your support. Keep in mind that the more cash I raise the busier things will be on this blog in 2017, which, by all accounts, is shaping up to be the year for ancient DNA.