
Here are their results:
To investigate the genetic ancestry of the Afrikaner population today (11–13 generations after initial colonization), we genotyped approximately five million genome-wide markers in 77 Afrikaner individuals and compared their genotypes to populations across the world to determine parental source populations and admixture proportions. We found that the majority of Afrikaner ancestry (average 95.3%) came from European populations (specifically northwestern European populations), but that almost all Afrikaners had admixture from non-Europeans. The non-European admixture originated mostly from people who were brought to South Africa as slaves and, to a lesser extent, from local Khoe-San groups. Furthermore, despite a potentially small founding population, there is no sign of a recent bottleneck in the Afrikaner compared to other European populations. Admixture amongst diverse groups from Europe and elsewhere during early colonial times might have counterbalanced the effects of a small founding population.

The individual with the most non-European admixture had 24.9% non-European admixture, and only a single Afrikaner individual (out of 77) had no evidence of non-European admixture…Amongst the 77 Afrikaners investigated, 6.5% had above 10% non-European admixture, 27.3% between 5 and 10%, 59.7% between 1 and 5% and 6.5% below 1%.
So about 87% of Afrikaners in their sample had between 1 to 10 percent non-European ancestry. As suggested by genealogical evidence, genetics indicates this is a relatively recent admixture, occurring during the 17th and 18th-century. The early decades of the Cape Colony. It’s a mix of diverse Asian and African components. In some ways, it seems that the non-European ancestry in modern Afrikaners is just the same phenomenon which gave rise to the Cape Coloured population, which is a mix of European, Asian (Indian and Austronesian) and African (Bantu and Khoisan).
Honestly, I think the individuals with more than 10% non-European ancestry, or 0% non-European ancestry, may have recent non-Afrikaner ancestry, and so are not representative (Hendrik Verweord was Dutch and immigrated to South Africa, so he would not have had non-European ancestry). Arguably, the fact that Afrikaners are only ~5% non-European is rather surprising in light of the conditions of the Cape Colony during its early years.

And yet unlike the Afrikaners or the whites of Latin America, the scions of New England have no non-European ancestry. One might argue here that this is due to the lack of opportunity, as the number of slaves in New England was always very low, and there were no native peoples. King Philip’s War falsifies the latter contention. There were numerous native people. At least initially. But the New Englanders were very efficient and effective at marginalizing and exterminating the native peoples of the region. To a far greater extent than occurred in the South.
There was no New England “Trail of Tears,” because New Englanders eliminated most of the local tribes. There are even records New England militias in the 17th-century drowning native children in the Connecticut River as an ultimate solution (to the chagrin and concern of some ministers who wished these children to be baptized and raised as Christians).

The lack of any local imprint on New England’s genetics, in contrast with almost all other settler and colonial societies, is in keeping with the other peculiarities of the region’s cultures. By the latter portion of the 18th-century New England was unique because it was beginning to see itself as not just a complement of the metropole, but a potential rival.* A potential that would be realized with the intellectual (the emergence of Harvard) and economic (industrialization) developments of the 19th-century.

* The South was a traditional commodity-exporting colony. The Mid-Atlantic, focused on New York City, was the center of mercantile activity that operated as a transaction hub of a global trade system.








kan




