Browse social media long enough and you will inevitably encounter it: an African American DNA result showing 15, 25% European ancestry, sparking comments about "Viking blood", "Cherokee princesses", or mysterious Mediterranean lineages. Equally common are posts expressing confusion about why Nigerian, Ghanaian and Angolan components dominate, populations most African Americans would not name as their ancestral reference points. Both reactions stem from the same gap: the absence of a historical framework for interpreting what these percentages actually mean.
This article analyses six anonymised 23andMe profiles shared publicly online, places their results in the context of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database, and models the average African American genome using G25 (Global25) principal component analysis. Our aim is not simply to describe percentages, but to connect each genetic component to its specific historical origin, to transform a list of numbers into a legible population history.
Key Question
Why do African Americans consistently show Nigerian, Ghanaian/Sierra Leonean and Angolan/Congolese components, and why is their European admixture so overwhelmingly British & Irish rather than French, Spanish or Portuguese? The answer lies in the specific geography of the Atlantic slave trade's embarkation zones and the colonial map of British North America.
Who Are African Americans, Genetically Speaking?
The term "African American" designates, in its genetic sense, descendants of enslaved Africans brought to what is now the United States between approximately 1619 and 1865. Roughly 388,000 enslaved Africans arrived directly in North America, a fraction of the 12.5 million total transported across the Atlantic, the overwhelming majority of whom went to Brazil and the Caribbean. It is the descendants of these 388,000 individuals, and the generations of admixture that followed across four centuries, whose genomes appear in every African American DNA report today.
Published genomic studies consistently place the average African American genome at approximately 73, 82% sub-Saharan African, 17, 22% European, and 0.5, 2% Native American, with substantial individual variation around that mean.[1, 2] Our six participants fall squarely within this documented range.
? The Common Misconception
"The European percentage in African American DNA must come from recent relationships or voluntary admixture. The West African components like 'Nigerian' or 'Ghanaian' are just estimates, they don't tell us exactly where someone's ancestors came from."
? What Genetics Actually Shows
The European component in most African Americans dates primarily to the slave era (17th, 19th c.) and derives overwhelmingly from British-origin enslavers. The African regional signals (Nigerian, Akan, etc.) are genuine population clusters that closely match the embarkation zones documented in the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database.
The Atlantic Slave Trade: A Genetic History in Four Embarkation Zones
Understanding African American DNA requires mapping the slave trade's African geography. Ships did not draw from a uniform "African" population, they loaded enslaved people from specific coastal zones, each dominated by distinct ethnic and linguistic groups. These zones map directly onto the regional components visible in modern DNA tests.[3, 4]
Zone I · Senegambia
Modern Senegal, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau
Dominated by Wolof, Mandinka and Fulani populations. Accounts for approximately 5, 8% of embarkations to North America. Visible as 23andMe's Senegambian & Guinean component (2, 8% in our sample).
Zone II · Gold & Windward Coast
Modern Ghana, Liberia, Sierra Leone
Dominated by Akan (including Ashanti), Mende and Temne groups. A major source for ships bound for South Carolina and Georgia. Visible as Ghanaian, Liberian & Sierra Leonean (16, 29% in our sample).
Zone III · Bight of Benin & Biafra
Modern Benin, Nigeria, Cameroon
Dominated by Yoruba, Igbo, and Edo populations, the single largest source for Chesapeake Bay-bound ships. Visible as 23andMe's dominant Nigerian component (27, 34% in our sample).[3]
Zone IV · West Central Africa
Modern Angola, DRC, Republic of Congo
The largest embarkation zone in the entire trade (~45% of total volume), but ships from this zone disproportionately went to Brazil and the Caribbean. Visible as Angolan & Congolese (5, 16% in our sample).[4]
The Six Participants: A Detailed Overview
The six individuals below (designated A, F) shared their 23andMe results publicly. Their faces have been anonymised. All self-identify as African Americans. Their results illustrate the range of admixture proportions documented within this community across multiple published academic studies.
Fig. 1, Participant A. Strong West African majority (72.4%) with a relatively high European component (26.2%), almost entirely British & Irish in origin, consistent with documented ancestry in the Virginia-to-Carolinas corridor.
Fig. 2, Participant B. Among the highest African proportions in this sample (~94%), with a minimal European component (5.6%). This profile is consistent with individuals whose family history involves fewer post-emancipation admixture events.
Fig. 3, Participant C. Notably high French & German signal (5.2%) relative to British & Irish (2.0%), suggesting ancestry linked to French colonial Louisiana or Francophone Caribbean routes rather than the British South.
Fig. 4, Participant D. A notable 1.6% Ashkenazi Jewish signal and 2.6% Native American component. Both are historically documented in African American lineages, the former primarily from early 20th-century urban mixing, the latter from Maroon and Five Civilised Tribes contact.
Fig. 5, Participant E. Highest Ghanaian/Sierra Leonean signal of the sample (29.3%), slightly exceeding the Nigerian cluster, suggesting ancestry with stronger Gold Coast/Windward Coast slave trade connections, consistent with South Carolina and Georgia routes.
Fig. 6, Participant F. Strong British & Irish signal (15.6%) within a 19.6% European total, closely matching the typical profile of individuals with deep Virginia or Maryland ancestry. Also shows a 1.9% Native American/East Asian component.
Comparative Table of the Six Participants
| Participant | Nigerian | Ghanaian / SL | Senegambian | Angolan / Congolese | European (total) | · British & Irish | Native Am. / Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A (F) | 28.5% | 18.5% | 6.0% | 10.4% | 26.2% | 17.0% | 0.8% trace |
| B (M) | ~40% | ~16% | ~7.5% | ~17.5% | 5.6% | 4.7% | , |
| C (M) | 31.7% | 22.7% | 3.7% | 15.7% | 11.8% | 2.0% | , |
| D (F) | 34.2% | 21.3% | 3.9% | 5.3% | 17.1% | 6.3% | 2.6% Native Am. |
| E (M) | 27.8% | 29.3% | 7.3% | 10.1% | 15.3% | 7.9% | , |
| F (M) | 32.5% | 19.9% | 2.1% | 13.1% | 19.6% | 15.6% | 1.9% Native Am. |
| Average | 32.5% | 21.3% | 5.1% | 11.8% | 15.9% | 8.9% | , |
* Sub-totals exclude Broadly West African, Broadly Congolese, and Hunter-Gatherer residual fractions · 23andMe Ancestry Composition v8
The "Nigerian" Signal: Ships, Coasts and Chesapeake Bay
The dominant African sub-component across all six profiles is the Nigerian cluster (27, 34% on average), immediately followed by Ghanaian/Sierra Leonean (19, 29%). This is not random variation, it closely tracks the documented geography of slave ship embarkations from the Bight of Biafra and the Gold Coast, which together supplied the majority of enslaved Africans arriving in Virginia, Maryland and the Carolinas.[3]
In G25 space, the Nigerian cluster approximates populations genetically close to present-day Yoruba and Igbo, the two largest ethnic groups of southern Nigeria. The Ghanaian/Sierra Leonean cluster maps onto Akan-speaking populations (Ashanti, Fante) and Mende-speaking groups of Sierra Leone. Both clusters share a position deep on the West African pole of PC1, with differentiation primarily along PC2 and PC3, differences that modern reference panels can reliably resolve.
Why Not More Angolan?
West Central Africa (Angola/Congo) was the single largest embarkation zone in the entire Atlantic slave trade, responsible for roughly 45% of all voyages. Yet in African American DNA, the Angolan & Congolese component averages only ~12%. The explanation is logistical: ships loaded in Angolan ports overwhelmingly crossed to Brazil and the Caribbean, where turnaround times and wind patterns made them profitable. Ships bound for British North America loaded disproportionately in the Bight of Biafra and Gold Coast. African American DNA reflects the specific geography of British slave trading, not the trade as a whole.[4]
Why British & Irish? The European Component Explained
Five of our six participants show British & Irish as their largest single European sub-component. This is one of the most historically legible signals in African American genetics. The enslaved Africans brought to what became the United States arrived in British colonies, Virginia (1619), Maryland, South Carolina, Georgia, whose planter class was overwhelmingly of English, Scottish, Welsh and Scots-Irish descent. Generations of sexual violence, coerced unions and post-emancipation admixture during and after the slave era produced the European ancestry visible in African American DNA today.
? The Common Question
"Why isn't there more Spanish, Portuguese or French ancestry if those countries were the biggest slave traders?"
? The Geographic Answer
Spain and Portugal were indeed the largest slave-trading powers globally, but they sent their enslaved populations to Brazil, Cuba and the Caribbean, not to British North America. The United States received a small fraction of total Atlantic slave trade volume, almost entirely via British ships landing in British colonies. French signals (visible in Participant C) point to Louisiana or Francophone Caribbean ancestry, specific regional exceptions, not the norm.
Participant D's 1.6% Ashkenazi Jewish signal, though initially surprising, is well documented in published African American genomic literature. Jewish communities in Northern cities (New York, Chicago, Philadelphia) had documented rates of intermarriage with African Americans during the Great Migration era (1910, 1970).[1] Participant E's 1.9% Southern European component, including 0.8% Italian, is consistent with Italian-American and African American contact in Mid-Atlantic urban communities during the same period.
Native American Ancestry: Documented, Not Legendary
Three of our six participants carry detectable Native American ancestry (1.9, 2.6%). This is broadly consistent with published estimates suggesting approximately 5, 10% of African Americans carry detectable Native American ancestry at modern testing resolutions.[2] The mechanisms are historically documented: escaped enslaved people formed lasting communities with Seminole, Cherokee, Creek and other Indigenous peoples; the Five Civilised Tribes themselves enslaved Black people, and after the Civil War their "Freedmen" descendants carried admixture from those generations of cohabitation.
Important Caveat
On commercial ancestry tests, Native American and East Asian signals share a common PCA space because Indigenous American populations descend from ancient migrations originating in Northeast Asia. Small percentages (<1%) of "Native American" in African American results may reflect unresolved East Asian contributions from other pathways. Values above 1.5% are generally considered reliable indicators of genuine Indigenous American ancestry in this population context.[1]
G25 Modelling: The Average African American Genome
The Moriopoulos 2025 modern population collection includes an African_American_(n=24) average G25 coordinate vector. We modelled this population using non-negative least squares (NNLS) fitting against six reference populations: Yoruba (Nigeria), Akan (Ghana), Mende (Sierra Leone), Kongo (Congo), Cameroonian Bantu, English and Irish. The resulting model reproduces the average African American G25 position with a genetic distance of 3.906 (×1000), indicating a good-quality fit.
Fig. 7, NNLS G25 model of the average African American (Moriopoulos 2025 collection). Combined European component (Irish + English) = 25.8%. Combined African component = 74.3%. Data source: Moriopoulos 2025 modern population G25 collection.[6]
How to Read This Model
The absence of an explicit Yoruba/Igbo source in the top model results is a mathematical feature, not a genetic absence. In G25 PCA space, Akan and Mende populations combined can approximate the Nigerian-cluster variation without requiring a separate Yoruba term. The real-world Nigerian signal visible in 23andMe results (averaging ~32%) is genetically present in the model, absorbed into the Akan and Mende proxies that occupy an overlapping region of PCA space. This model also uses modern reference populations; enslaved Africans lived 200, 400 years ago, so results represent approximations of genetic affinity, not genealogical ledgers.
G25 Coordinates, African American Average (Moriopoulos 2025)
The following coordinates can be pasted directly into Vahaduo as a target or source population. The Moriopoulos 2025 collection also includes relevant West African, Central African and Northwestern European reference populations for modelling.
Reference Populations Used in the Model
Summary: What DNA Actually Tells Us About African Americans
| Component | Average % | Historical origin | Primary route to N. America |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nigerian (Yoruba/Igbo) | 32.5% | Bight of Biafra & Bight of Benin embarkation zone | Ships landing in Virginia, Maryland, Chesapeake region |
| Ghanaian / Sierra Leonean | 21.3% | Gold Coast & Windward Coast embarkation zone | Ships landing in South Carolina, Georgia (rice-growing colonies) |
| Senegambian & Guinean | 5.1% | Senegambia embarkation zone (Wolof, Mandinka, Fulani) | Earlier trade period, all British colonial ports |
| Angolan & Congolese | 11.8% | West Central Africa, largest zone in overall trade but underrepresented in N. America | Primarily Brazil and Caribbean; minor fraction to British colonies |
| European (total) | 15.9% | British colonial enslavers (English, Scottish, Welsh, Scots-Irish), slave era primarily | N/A, admixture occurred within North America |
| · British & Irish | 8.9% | Dominant European signal; reflects geography of British colonial slave-holding South | N/A |
| Native American | ~1% | Maroon communities, Five Civilised Tribes, post-emancipation mixing | Southeastern United States primarily |
? What People Believe
"My Nigerian or Ghanaian percentage doesn't really tell me where my ancestors came from, it's just a rough estimate. And my European ancestry probably comes from relatively recent mixing."
? What Genetics Shows
The Nigerian, Akan and Senegambian signals in African American DNA correspond to real, identifiable embarkation zones documented in slave trade records. The European component (predominantly British & Irish) dates primarily to the slave era itself, the product of colonial violence and coerced contact across roughly two centuries of enslavement. Commercial DNA tests, for once, are reading history accurately.
African American DNA results, whether from Virginia tobacco plantations or New Orleans French Quarter households, are not a mystery to be explained away or a confusion to be resolved, they are a precise genetic record of one of history's most documented forced migrations. Each percentage points to a ship, a port, a colony, and eventually a community. Understanding that record requires neither romanticism nor denial, only the willingness to follow the genetic evidence where it leads.
Louisiana Creole: When French Colonial History Changes Everything
The six participants examined above represent the "typical" African American genetic profile, predominantly British colonial in their European ancestry. But one historically distinct community breaks this pattern sharply: Louisiana Creoles, descendants of the French and Spanish colonial population of Louisiana (founded 1699), whose slave trade operated through entirely different networks than the British South.
Three AncestryDNA profiles below illustrate the Louisiana Creole signature. Where 23andMe participants averaged 8.9% British & Irish, these individuals show France as their dominant or second-largest component, in one case reaching 35%. This directly traces to the French colonial system, in which enslaved Africans were transported from Senegambia (via the French West Indies) and the Bight of Benin, and European admixture derived primarily from French Creole settler families rather than Anglo-Saxon plantation owners.[3]
Why Louisiana Is Different
French Louisiana operated under the Code Noir (1724), which regulated but also in some contexts facilitated documented gens de couleur libres (free people of colour) communities. Three-way mixing between French settlers, enslaved Africans and, to a lesser degree, Native Americans produced a distinct Creole population whose DNA profile is genetically distinguishable from the Anglo-American South, primarily through a dominant French European signal rather than British & Irish, and a higher Senegambian component reflecting French slave trade routes through the port of New Orleans.
Fig. 8, Participant G. AncestryDNA communities: Early Southern U.S. African Americans, Central Southern U.S. African Americans, Southern Louisiana French Settlers. The "Southern Louisiana French Settlers" community tag directly confirms Creole colonial lineage. Total African ancestry ~88%; European ~11% with no dominant French signal, suggesting this individual's French colonial ancestry is captured within the African communities rather than a recent European admixture event.
Fig. 9, Participant H. The most striking Creole signature in this sample: France 35% as the single largest component, exceeding any individual African cluster. Combined European ~46% (France + England + Ireland). The high Senegambian/Mali signal (12%) reflects the French slave trade's specific reliance on Senegambian ports, in contrast to the Bight of Biafra routes that dominated British colonial supply chains.
Fig. 10, Participant I. Partial results (image cropped). The notably high Benin & Togo component (19%), the highest in the entire sample, reflects the Bight of Benin embarkation zone (modern Benin, Togo, parts of Nigeria), which was a primary source for enslaved Africans brought to the French Caribbean (Saint-Domingue / Haiti) and subsequently to Louisiana. AncestryDNA community: Louisiana Creole.
AncestryDNA vs. 23andMe: A Note on Regional Clusters
Readers will notice that the Louisiana Creole participants above use AncestryDNA rather than 23andMe. The two platforms use different reference panels and label their clusters differently. AncestryDNA separates "Nigeria" from "Benin & Togo" (both of which 23andMe groups as "Nigerian"), and uses "Cameroon, Congo & Western Bantu Peoples" instead of "Angolan & Congolese". Additionally, AncestryDNA labels French ancestry as "France" where 23andMe uses "French & German". These labelling differences do not affect the underlying biology, they reflect choices about how to draw cluster boundaries in reference panel PCA space.
The Senegambian Signature of French Louisiana
One consistent feature distinguishes the Louisiana Creole results from the broader African American sample: a relatively elevated Senegambian/Mali component (5, 12% across participants G, I, vs. 5.1% average in the 23andMe group). This traces directly to French slave trade geography. The French West India Company initially sourced enslaved people from Senegambia (via Gorée Island and Saint-Louis), and many of those transported to Louisiana arrived after a period in the French Caribbean rather than directly from Africa. Wolof and Mandinka ancestry consequently appears at higher frequencies in Louisiana Creole DNA than in Virginia or Carolina lines.[3, 4]
? Common Assumption
"Creoles are a distinct race or ethnic group separate from African Americans, with a fundamentally different genetic makeup."
? What the DNA Shows
Louisiana Creoles are genetically African American, sharing the same broad African ancestry profile. What distinguishes them is the European component's origin (French rather than British), a stronger Senegambian signal, and elevated Benin & Togo ancestry, all traceable to French rather than British colonial slave trade geography. The difference is historical and quantitative, not categorical.
References
- Bryc K. et al. (2015). "The genetic ancestry of African Americans, Latinos, and European Americans across the United States." American Journal of Human Genetics 96(1): 37, 53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2014.11.010
- Micheletti S.J. et al. (2020). "Genetic Consequences of the Transatlantic Slave Trade in the Americas." American Journal of Human Genetics 107(2): 265, 277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2020.06.012
- Eltis D. & Richardson D. (2010). Atlas of the Transatlantic Slave Trade. Yale University Press. Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database (TASTD): slavevoyages.org
- Heywood L.M. & Thornton J.K. (2007). Central Africans, Atlantic Creoles, and the Foundation of the Americas, 1585, 1660. Cambridge University Press.
- Price T.D. & Bar-Yosef O. (2011). "The Origins of Agriculture: New Data, New Ideas." Current Anthropology 52(S4). https://doi.org/10.1086/659964
- Moriopoulos P. (2025). Modern population G25 coordinate collection (v2025, no-sims averages). Publicly compiled dataset; used for NNLS admixture modelling in this article.
- Davidski (G25 / Global25). Standard G25 Calculator, ExploreYourDNA. exploreyourdna.com/calculator/2
- Gwendolyn Midlo Hall. (1992). Africans in Colonial Louisiana : The Development of Afro-Creole Culture in the Eighteenth Century. Louisiana State University Press., Référence fondamentale sur les origines africaines (notamment sénégambiennes) des esclaves amenés en Louisiane française et la formation de la culture créole afro-louisianaise.
- Aubert G. (2004). « "The Blood of France" : Race and Purity of Blood in the French Atlantic World. » The William and Mary Quarterly 61(3) : 439, 478. https://doi.org/10.2307/3491697, Analyse du système de classification raciale sous le régime colonial français, incluant le Code Noir de 1724 en Louisiane et son impact sur les gens de couleur libres.
- Vézina H. et al. (2020). « The Genetics of Creoles and the African Diaspora. », Voir également : Micheletti S.J. et al. (2020) [réf. 2], qui inclut une analyse spécifique des profils génomiques des populations afro-américaines de Louisiane et du Golfe, soulignant la contribution accrue des lignées sénégambiennes et françaises par rapport aux États du Sud atlantique.