Genetic Origins of Minoans and Mycenaeans

If you mean that last Haak graphic, I've posted it before:

Norway - 30, 16, 54
Lithuania - 18, 30, 52
Estonia - 12, 37, 51
Iceland - 32, 19, 49
Scotland - 28, 23, 49
Czech - 35, 16, 49
Belarus - 25, 28, 47
Hungary - 39, 16, 45
Ukraine - 28, 27, 44
England - 44, 14, 42
Orkney - 34, 25, 41
South French - 57, 4, 39
Croatia - 44, 17, 37
French - 51, 12, 37
North Spanish - 59, 10, 31
Bulgaria - 55, 14, 31
Tuscany - 72, 0, 28
Basque - 54, 19, 27
Bergamo - 63, 13, 24
Spain - 78, 0, 22
Greece - 66, 14, 20
Albania - 65, 18, 17
Sardinia - 88, 7, 5

To get the entire "Southern" component you'd have to take 40% of the last number and add it to the first number.

Later papers have put it higher.

This is only part of the story. You have to read the entire supplement.
You're welcome.

what would that "southern" component be? near eastern? if we assume that EEF and natufians already had eurasian HG admixture it is not that clear anymore. where is the caucasus admixture that did not come from the steppe? is it included in the yamna part? is there a similar more accurate graphic somewhere?
 
what would that "southern" component be? near eastern? if we assume that EEF and natufians already had eurasian HG admixture it is not that clear anymore. where is the caucasus admixture that did not come from the steppe? is it included in the yamna part? is there a similar more accurate graphic somewhere?

I don't understand your confusion. The "southern component" is the Anatolian farmers plus the people of the Caucasus region, populations which both carry a lot of Basal Eurasian. Calling it "Near Eastern" is a political or geographical description which is just as misleading as calling western hunter gatherers "European" although we do it for convenience.

The Caucasus admixture that did not come from the steppe is in the EEF, of course.

Oetzi already had some.
kpXYjR7.png
[/IMG]

As for being hunter-gatherer, the Natufians were hunter-gatherers too, before they "invented" farming. Did you think farmers dropped out of a spaceship? :)
 
ok thanks. the thing i am concerned a bit is that the graphic shows "early neolithic" admixture (LBK_EN). but ötzi for example is "middle neolithic".
i have to check how many samples and from where exactly he used. as far as i read until now it seems like he only used samples from early neolithic from halberstadt and stuttgard. it would be interesting to know now how many of these samples were included and also what their genetic composition was. according to this :https://www.eupedia.com/europe/autosomal_maps_dodecad.shtml#West_Asian
it seems like west asian for example was absent. so it can't be included in your graphic with early neolithc EEF admixture. at least not in EEF. the same is probably also the case with the north west african admixture that is found in middle neolithic ötzi.
 
ok thanks. ill have to read a bit more into this study from haak who made these graphics. the thing i am concerned a bit is that the graphic shows "early neolithic" admixture. but ötzi for example is "middle neolithic".
i also have to check how many samples and from where exactly he used. as far as i read until now it seems like he only used samples from early neolithic from halberstadt and stuttgard. it would be interesting to know now how many of these samples were included and also what their genetic composition was. according to this :https://www.eupedia.com/europe/autosomal_maps_dodecad.shtml#West_Asian
it seems like west asian for example was absent. so it can't be included in your graphic. at least not in EEF. the same is probably also the case with the north west african admixture that is found in middle neolithic ötzi.

Otzi plots very, very close to the EEF farmers, despite the fact that he comes from the Chalcolithic period. That's precisely my point.
nature13673-f2.jpeg



If you give an algorithm three ancient samples, as in this case, and say, divide up the genes, it's going to apportion all the alleles to the MOST likely samples. It's not going to leave some hanging in limbo. EVERYTHING is going to be apportioned. Caucasus like genes that aren't swept up by the steppe sample are going to go into EEF. So are North African like genes, because, of course, a big chunk of their ancestry is from the Neolithic farmers from the Levant who settled North Africa, yes?
 
ok understood. so we actually have no idea how much of it is in the yamna or EEF category?
 
ok understood. so we actually have no idea how much of it is in the yamna or EEF category?

It's difficult to determine in the case of the EEF, but we have more data on Yamnaya. We know, from all the samples that have been analyzed, that 40-50% of their ancestry was from the Caucasus.

That's why I initially said that to determine the entire "southern ancestry" (or you can call it "Near Eastern" if you want) in these modern population groups, you could take 40-50% of the Yamnaya percentage (take your choice) and add it to EEF.
 
sorry i formulated my question a bit stupid. what i meant was that we can't say in which category we find the caucasus admixture that was not present in yamna and also not in early neolithic EEF. it could be in the EEF number but also in the yamna one right? if this was the case it would be extremely inaccurate to determine the "southern" ancestry with the numbers of this graphic.

i'm assuming this admixture wasn't present in early farmers. though ötzi is clustering really close to early farmers so it might have already been there? or is this just because the pca isn't capturing this admixture really good?

or maybe its because this caucasus admixture was closer to neolithic farmer dna than it was to the caucasus admixture the yamna got.
 
sorry i formulated my question a bit stupid. what i meant was that we can't say in which category we find the caucasus admixture that was not present in yamna and also not in early neolithic EEF. it could be in the EEF number but also in the yamna one right? if this was the case it would be extremely inaccurate to determine the "southern" ancestry with the numbers of this graphic.

i'm assuming this admixture wasn't present in early farmers. though ötzi is clustering really close to early farmers so it might have already been there? or is this just because the pca isn't capturing this admixture really good?

Some of the more sophisticated methods are indeed finding a bit of Caucasus in the EEF, and not just in Otzi, but it's a very minor component. The major mixing that took place in the Near East hadn't totally gotten underway by the time the first ANF headed off to Europe.

There are no "Caucasus" alleles hanging out in Limbo somewhere. ALL the CAUCASUS alleles, as well as all the other alleles are all apportioned according to the three references here. So, ALL the Caucasus alleles are either in EEF or the 40-50% of Yamnaya which is Caucasus, so yes, adding EEF and the 40-50% of Yamnaya which is Caucasus will give you a ROUGH estimate of the "SOUTHERN" as in coming from the Near East starting with the Neolithic revolution.

I'm sorry, but that's said as clearly as possible.
 
"There are no "Caucasus" alleles hanging out in Limbo somewhere." i believe you. i did not want to argue against that anymore. my question was regarding the distribution of this admixture, which is probably also the one in ancient minoans, over the EEF and yamna category.
https://www.eupedia.com/europe/autosomal_maps_dodecad.shtml#West_Asian
"So, ALL the Caucasus alleles are either in EEF or the 40-50% of Yamnaya which is Caucasus, so yes, adding EEF and the 40-50% of Yamnaya which is Caucasus will give you a ROUGH estimate of the "SOUTHERN" as in coming from the Near East starting with the Neolithic revolution."
you probably can do that. but it also depends on where this west asian admixture that was not present in early EEF and also not in Yamna was placed by the algorithm. if it was placed in the EEF than this calculation works. but if its in the yamna its not working really well anymore because then you can't just divide the yamna number by 2. well you still could but its going to be even more rough. this is my question. could it be possible that a part of this other caucasus admixture was actually falsly placed in the yamna part? or is it placed correctly because this new west asian admixture was closer to early neolithic farmer dna than it was to the caucasus admixture the yamna got, so the algorithm put it to the EEF?

if i look at the pca plot this is not the case since the yamna actually plot closer to iran than eef.
 
"There are no "Caucasus" alleles hanging out in Limbo somewhere." i believe you. i did not want to argue against that anymore. my question was regarding the distribution of this admixture, which is probably also the one in ancient minoans, over the EEF and yamna category.
https://www.eupedia.com/europe/autosomal_maps_dodecad.shtml#West_Asian
"So, ALL the Caucasus alleles are either in EEF or the 40-50% of Yamnaya which is Caucasus, so yes, adding EEF and the 40-50% of Yamnaya which is Caucasus will give you a ROUGH estimate of the "SOUTHERN" as in coming from the Near East starting with the Neolithic revolution."

you probably can do that. but it also depends on where this west asian admixture that was not present in early EEF and also not in Yamna was placed by the algorithm. if it was placed in the EEF than this calculation works. but if its in the yamna its not working really well anymore because then you can't just divide the yamna number by 2. well you still could but its going to be even more rough. this is my question. could it be possible that a part of this other caucasus admixture was actually falsly placed in the yamna part? or is it placed correctly because this new west asian admixture was closer to early neolithic farmer dna than it was to the caucasus admixture the yamna got, so the algorithm put it to the EEF?

if i look at the pca plot this is not the case since the yamna actually plot closer to iran than eef.

There is no West Asian which is not present in EEF and/or steppe.
 
Ok I think a Minoan is an EEF with more Caucasus, hopefully that helps. I'm a bit shaky so I'll have to re check things
 
then the description here is lying?
https://www.eupedia.com/europe/autosomal_maps_dodecad.shtml#West_Asian
this is the additional admixture that was found in minoans isn't it? this was not present in the EEF that were used to produce the graphic here.
nature14317-f3.jpg
so isn't it possible that it was placed, at least parts of it, on the yamna side since they also have caucasus related admixture?

What's this nonsense about lying? First of all, that comment and graphic are based on calculators using modern population clusters. Haak et al and all these more recent papers are based on a comparison with actual ancient samples.

West Asian is a modern cluster containing EEF or ANF like alleles, CHG or Iran CHL like alleles, and even some steppe alleles. Some of those alleles would go into the EEF column and some into the Yamnaya column.

I don't get what is so hard to understand.

I'm not going to repeat myself over and over. Also, that wasn't the focus of this paper. Let's get back on topic.

Minoans were overwhelmingly EEF like, with some CHG, Iran CHL. like additions.

Please go back and re-read this paper, incl. the supplement.
 
"West Asian is a modern cluster containing EEF or ANF like alleles, CHG or Iran CHL like alleles, and even some steppe alleles."

yes and its distribution suggests that there is a varying number of caucasus like alleles in modern europeans that could have been attributed to yamna or eef by the algorithm that made this graphic.

"Haak et al and all these more recent papers are based on a comparison with actual ancient samples."
and thats the problem. there are admixtures not present in EEF and were not brought with yamna. so according to you the algorithm just placed them where they most likely come from. you said it placed them to EEF. but what makes you so sure about that?

"Some of those alleles would go into the EEF column and some into the Yamnaya column. "

thanks for actually finally answering the question. this means we do not know if we can just divide the yamna number by 2 because its composition changes depending on what geographical region you are looking.
a spanish mighht have more EHG in his yamna than a greek or italian.
 
yes and its distribution suggests that there is a varying number of caucasus like alleles in modern europeans that could have been attributed to yamna or eef by the algorithm that made this graphic.

"Haak et al and all these more recent papers are based on a comparison with actual ancient samples."
and thats the problem. there are admixtures not present in EEF and were not brought with yamna. so according to you the algorithm just placed them where they most likely come from. you said it placed them to EEF. but what makes you so sure about that?

"Some of those alleles would go into the EEF column and some into the Yamnaya column. "

thanks for actually finally answering the question. this means we do not know if we can just divide the yamna number by 2 because its composition changes depending on what geographical region you are looking.
a spanish mighht have more EHG in his yamna than a greek or italian.

You better watch your manners. Consider this a warning.
 
"West Asian is a modern cluster containing EEF or ANF like alleles, CHG or Iran CHL like alleles, and even some steppe alleles."

yes and its distribution suggests that there is a varying number of caucasus like alleles in modern europeans that could have been attributed to yamna or eef by the algorithm that made this graphic.

"Haak et al and all these more recent papers are based on a comparison with actual ancient samples."
and thats the problem. there are admixtures not present in EEF and were not brought with yamna. so according to you the algorithm just placed them where they most likely come from. you said it placed them to EEF. but what makes you so sure about that?

"Some of those alleles would go into the EEF column and some into the Yamnaya column. "

thanks for actually finally answering the question. this means we do not know if we can just divide the yamna number by 2 because its composition changes depending on what geographical region you are looking.
a spanish mighht have more EHG in his yamna than a greek or italian.

Is what you are trying to say that the CHG or Iranian_Chalcolithic admixture may have arrived in Europe by itself independently without any Yamnaya influence? Well, that situation has already been demonstrated for some ancient individuals even using those ancient population-based admixtures like EEF and Steppe Bronze Age. This is all of course not a supernatural oracle, but a scientific endeavour based, as everything in science, on higher probabilities. If you have a CHG introgression happening simultaneously with some Yamnaya-like admixture into the local gene pool it is most probable that it's not another independent migration wave. If you have lots of new CHG without any new EHG or, more specifically, any Yamnaya-like admixture, then it may have come with another people. These situations can be clarified by looking at the data closely without just relying on the literal meaning of the labels given to ease the analysis.
 
No, it's an autosomal study based on ancient genomes.

Sorry, but I'm unlearned when it comes to reading these scientific papers. All I see is references to mitochondrial DNA. Where do they mention autosomal DNA?
 
Sorry, but I'm unlearned when it comes to reading these scientific papers. All I see is references to mitochondrial DNA. Where do they mention autosomal DNA?

Here is the link to the paper:

Lazaridis et al:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nat...Mrq8WVAMpP-SfGerriklOb5-JK4PQu2o4hKeBf7fel4E9

I should have said that the heart of the paper is autosomal analysis, but they do give uniparental data as well.

Here's where they describe what they're doing...
"We generated genome-wide data from 19 ancient samples"

It will become clear as you read the paper how they use PCAs, Admixture, formal stats, etc. to analyze that genome wide data.
 

This thread has been viewed 1161815 times.

Back
Top