How to read these maps: pale yellow means little or none of the selected ancestry, orange a medium share and deep red the highest values. Each dot is the average of a modern population: hover or tap it to see its numbers. Areas with no samples nearby stay blank.

Far West African (Gambian)

Senegambia (modern reference)

Scale
Loading the map…
Share of Far West African (Gambian-like) ancestry, world scale
0.0% 4.7% 9.3% 14.0% 18.6%+

Faded dots are populations the model fits less well: read their values with care. Click the map to zoom with your mouse wheel.

Why a Gambian reference for far West Africa

The Gambian reference comes from people living in The Gambia, a narrow country along the Gambia River in the far west of Africa, sampled for the 1000 Genomes Project. It includes Mandinka, Fula, Wolof and Jola individuals, peoples whose homelands stretch across Senegal, Gambia, Guinea and Mali.

Genetically, this far western end of West Africa differs a little from the Nigerian and Cameroonian region represented by the Yoruba, reflecting long local histories, trade along the Sahel and contact with North Africa across the Sahara. Using both sources lets the model tell Senegambian and Upper Guinean ancestry apart from ancestry closer to the Gulf of Guinea.

This matters for the African diaspora: many people taken in the transatlantic slave trade came from Senegambia, so a share of this component also appears in the Americas.

In our model, Far West African (Gambian-like) ancestry peaks today in Gambian, at 100.0%, followed by Swahili Kenya Jomvu (51.5%) and Wolof Gambia (50.4%). The ten highest values come from Gambia, Kenya, Guinea-Bissau, Senegal and other countries. It reaches at least 5% in 56 of the 1,998 populations on the map, and at least 20% in 39 of them. On the world scale the colours run from 0 to 18.6%, the level reached by the top 2% of populations, so the deepest red marks the real hot spots.

Where Far West African (Gambian-like) ancestry peaks today

#PopulationShare
1 Gambian Gambia 100.0%
2 Swahili Kenya Jomvu Kenya 51.5%
3 Wolof Gambia Gambia 50.4%
4 Manjak Gambia Guinea-Bissau 47.0%
5 Bedik Senegal 46.4%
6 Wasambaa Tanzania 45.1%
7 Kenyan Bantu Kenya 45.0%
8 Fulani Gambia A Gambia 44.9%
9 Bantu Kenya Kenya 43.4%
10 Luhya Kenya 42.0%

Averages of modern populations, modelled with 17 reference sources. Tap a name to find it on the map.

About these numbers

These maps show model estimates for population averages, not ethnic labels and not the result of any one person. Each source stands in for a wider ancestral population, and ancestries that have no source of their own in this set, such as Oceanian or Khoe-San ancestry, are absorbed by their closest relatives among the 17. Populations the model fits less well are shown with faded dots and count less in the colour surface.

Method: Each population average (Global25 coordinates) is modelled as a mix of 17 ancient and modern reference groups with non-negative least squares, shares adding up to 100%. Fit is the distance between the population and its best mix: the lower the better, above 0.06 the mix explains the population poorly. Top lists leave out the few populations these 17 groups cannot model at all (fit above 0.15). Data generated 1 October 2026, 1,998 populations on the map.

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between the Gambian and Yoruba components?

Both are West African. The Gambian component reflects the far west of the region, Senegambia and Upper Guinea, while the Yoruba component reflects the Gulf of Guinea and the area around Nigeria. Having both helps the model place West African ancestry more precisely.

Where is Far West African (Gambian-like) ancestry highest today?

In our model it is highest in Gambian (100.0%), Swahili Kenya Jomvu (51.5%) and Wolof Gambia (50.4%). These are averages of modern populations modelled with 17 reference sources, so individuals within each population can differ.

How are these ancient ancestry maps made?

Each modern population average, taken from published G25 coordinates, is modelled as a mix of the same 17 ancient and modern reference sources with a non-negative least-squares fit, the same family of method our reports use. The map then interpolates the share of the selected source between the sampled places and leaves areas with no nearby samples blank.

Does a high value mean direct descent from these people?

No. Each source stands in for a broader ancestral population, and the 17 sources are fitted together, so closely related sources can trade shares between them. Read a value as how much of this kind of ancestry the model needs to describe a population average, not as a family tree.

Why are some areas of the map blank?

The colour surface is only drawn within a few hundred kilometres of real samples. Oceans and regions without data stay empty instead of showing invented values. Each dot on the map is a real population average.

We use cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing to visit this site you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more

🧭 Find your report
📬 Stay in the loop

New tools and new reports, straight to your inbox. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.