You could always just ask me, instead.
That's just Eurogenes' dat file that I ran in Past3 myself, after group-labeling a few relevant populations. So credit goes to Eurogenes really, I only did the easy part.
Now, how could I ask you, LatGal, since I didn't remember that it was you who provided it?
Sorry about that.
It's amazing to me, I must say, that amateurs can do PCAs that aren't projected, while academics from the finest labs in the world, can't, according to the amateur community.
Now, if this is the most "correct" version:
ItalyNorth (modern), is very far "north" of Vucedol, contrary to what Matt saw with neighbor joining tree? It's even further north than Balkans Bronze Age, which makes sense, perhaps, given first millenium BC Gallic migrations and the Langobard influence.
Tuscans are just a bit south and east of Balkan Bronze Age, toward Albanians and Greek Peloponnese.
Balkan Iron Age is just a bit north of Mycenaeans.
Southern Italians, Sicilians, etc. are actually a bit "north" of Mycenaeans.
That ties in with this comment from "Matt":
"Matt:
"From visual analysis, it looks like to get to Sicilians, the easiest ancient model is Mycenaean+Central_European (though this may or may not be most historically and linguistically sensible). For Balkans it's Mycenaean+Slavic. The Balkans BA populations don't seem quite right as ancestral without extensive Anatolia_BA like ancestry.
To get to the Mycenaeans themselves, it seems like Tepecik_Ciftlik+Balkans_BA or Anatolia_BA+Balkans_BA either work, depending on whether we pick more or less Anatolian-like Balkans_BA."
As I've also been speculating for years, Southern Italians and Sicilians, however it happened, are closer "genetically", if not "ancestrally" to the Mycenaeans than are the mainland Greeks, to the usual vituperative denial by the usual suspect(s), of course.
As to when this shift to more "Iran Chl like/Iran Neo" ancestry began, I notice that the more responsible and objective posters have the grace to admit that they missed some signs that the shift might have begun very early indeed. (The others either ignore it or pretend that they knew that all along.)
We didn't miss it here. I noticed the more "CHG" like ancestry in Otzi as soon as his genome was analyzed.
[/IMG]
Since then I have consistently said that his Copper Age genome showed that there might have been different waves of the Neolithic which might have carried more of that ancestry. I also speculated that genomic material similar to that which created the Minoans might have continued on into southeastern Europe and perhaps Italy.
Now, voila!
Roy King: The late Neolithic Peloponnese samples are shifted toward BA Anatolia and Chalcolithic Anatolia with presumptive CHG input. The
earlier Neolithic sample from the Peloponnese aligns with the early Greek Neolithic samples. The later samples are about 4000 BCE in dating and also cluster with Minoan Crete samples. The one Minoan--I9130--who is G2a in Y chromosome looks like the Early Greek Neolithic samples; the rest cluster with the late Peloponnese and the late Anatolian (Chalcolthic/BA) samples. The
data strongly suggest a movement circa 4000 BCE from Anatolia to mainland Greece, perhaps associated with J2a1 and the pre-Greek substrate languages (-ss- and -nth1 toponyms)."
Otzi, of course, is dated to around 3000 BCE. Plenty of time for that ancestry to have made it even to the Alps.
Now, did some also arrive with the Bronze Age? Absolutely. Did some arrive later? Probably. I just don't know how much, and neither does anyone else.
As for "Levant" showing up, some of it may be more recent. However, "Levant" ancestry was a big part of Anatolian farmer ancestry, and some modeling shows it in Anatolia Bronze Age for example, so it could have entered then.
What some people are doing, trying to model Sicilians with Nordic Bronze Age, for example, of all things, is going to force the algorithm to add some additional "Levantine" to the mix. The insanity that goes on with some of this modeling is beyond belief, imo. I saw someone tried to model Sicilians with Tunisian Jews. I can't imagine why, unless it was to try to prove that Sicilians are Jews or North Africans. They're neither. However, similar proportions of the same kind of ancestry means that some Jews and Sicilians cluster together, which any PCA will show. If you put Tunisian Jews, who are just Sephardim with a bit of North African, into the mix, you're going to come up runs that are just going to lead to really false conclusions.
[/IMG]
