Eupedia Ancient Ethnicities Checker: reliably compare your DNA to ancient populations

me and Kit TX8387837 (I4332 Ancient Dalmatia) [-]



Total Half-Match segments (HIR) 205.1cM (5.726 Pct)

53 shared segments found for this comparison.

265764 SNPs used for this comparison.

53.982 Pct SNPs are full identical

Comparing Kit TX8387837 (I4332 Ancient Dalmatia) [-] and Kit SZ6386770 (I3313 Dalmatia Bronze Age) [-]

Largest segment = 6.6 cM

Total Half-Match segments (HIR) 63.6cM (1.776 Pct)

17 shared segments found for this comparison.

313574 SNPs used for this comparison.

60.027 Pct SNPs are full identical

one to one: me vs I4332:
(... I also have “deep dive” results with it.)

K1k36zj.jpg
 
I started making maps to visualise the admixtures by period.

Mesolithic_K12b.jpg



Early_Neolithic_K12b.jpg



I did not include the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Levant, Iran and Anatolia as it would require a separate map for this period only (9000-6500 BCE).

I also split the data for Pre-Pottery Neolithic Anatolia (samples from 8300-7800 BCE) and Early Neolithic Anatolia (samples from 6800-6200 BCE). There is actually a big difference between the two periods. We can see that there was a large migration from the Fertile Crescent to western Anatolia once pottery started spreading. Atlantic Med fell from 50% to 40%, North European fell from 3.7% to 0%, whereas the Caucasus, SW Asia and NW Africa increased in total by 14%. Pre-Pottery Neolithic Anatolia was in fact closer to Mesolithic Anatolia.



Thank you. Very interesting map. just a question: what the red color in the european clusters stand for exactly? Only WHG or WHG+EHG or maybe Common West Eurasian?
 
Three new maps.

Middle_Neolithic_K12b.jpg


Late_Neolithic_K12b.jpg


Bell_Beaker_K12b.jpg
 
Last edited:
one to one: me vs I4332:
(... I also have “deep dive” results with it.)

K1k36zj.jpg


Interesting is that you have only 3 shared segments with Dalmatian I4332 , while I have 53 shared segments .............................maybe your line was further north or already in italy
 
Interesting is that you have only 3 shared segments with Dalmatian I4332 , while I have 53 shared segments .............................maybe your line was further north or already in italy

... a bit off topic: I posted more conservative results.
I get 53+ shared segments too if I change the settings from 25 3 to 25 3 3 :

824Mtem.jpg
 
... a bit off topic: I posted more conservative results.
I get 53+ shared segments too if I change the settings from 25 3 to 25 3 3 :

824Mtem.jpg


ok

with 25 and 3 only ...1 get


Largest segment = 4.4 cM

Total Half-Match segments (HIR) 43.8cM (1.222 Pct)

12 shared segments found for this comparison.

265764 SNPs used for this comparison.

53.982 Pct SNPs are full identical
 
Here is the map of the Bronze Age period.

Bronze_Age_K12b.jpg
 
Excellent maps, it is easy to see why modern Southern Europeans have admixture components from the Caucasus in Dodecad K12b modeling. Since it was already present in Minoans at 41.3% and Mycenaean at 37.1%. Also in Bronze Age Sicily at 27.5%, and respectable amounts in MBA Croatia, MBA North Italy, into the surrounding areas.
 
Excellent maps, it is easy to see why modern Southern Europeans have admixture components from the Caucasus in Dodecad K12b modeling. Since it was already present in Minoans at 41.3% and Mycenaean at 37.1%. Also in Bronze Age Sicily at 27.5%, and respectable amounts in MBA Croatia, MBA North Italy, into the surrounding areas.

Including relatively high amounts in the Neolithic era.
 
Excellent maps, it is easy to see why modern Southern Europeans have admixture components from the Caucasus in Dodecad K12b modeling. Since it was already present in Minoans at 41.3% and Mycenaean at 37.1%. Also in Bronze Age Sicily at 27.5%, and respectable amounts in MBA Croatia, MBA North Italy, into the surrounding areas.

I remember pointing out long ago how Otzi, a Copper Age Italian, already had SW Asian and Caucasus. Now, looking at Maciamo's graph you can see they're at substantial percentages not only in Mycenaean Greece, but at lower levels in Italy, Sardinia, the Balkans, Iberia, and lower but still significant percentages across the Alps in the North Alpine Bronze Age and Unetice.

If the Bronze Age Indo-European speaking people came by way of those two areas and then intermingled with Neolithic and Chalcolithic Italians, no wonder the percentages didn't go down very much.

I'm reminded of the conversation you had the other day on another thread and the insistence all this ancestry arrived in the Iron Age and especially the Empire; not going by this they didn't.

Even some of the academics and Khan ought to look more closely at the Bronze Age samples. Let's hope there are a lot more soon.

As for my own results they're always the same, either 65% Latin and the rest Italian-Greek in Iron Age terms, or 75% Villanovan and 25% Mycenaean in Bronze Age terms. It all makes perfect sense.

I
 
After the end of Chalcolithic, in Central and Northern Europe, in the Bell Beaker and Corded Ware cultures it seems that there is a significant increase in the Gedrosia component. Posteriorly in the Bronze Age this component is reduced a little in these areas, but it still remains significant and, in the Bronze Age Iberia and Mycenaean civilization there is already a small emergence of Gedrosia.
 
Last edited:
I remember pointing out long ago how Otzi, a Copper Age Italian, already had SW Asian and Caucasus. Now, looking at Maciamo's graph you can see they're at substantial percentages not only in Mycenaean Greece, but at lower levels in Italy, Sardinia, the Balkans, Iberia, and lower but still significant percentages across the Alps in the North Alpine Bronze Age and Unetice.

If the Bronze Age Indo-European speaking people came by way of those two areas and then intermingled with Neolithic and Chalcolithic Italians, no wonder the percentages didn't go down very much.

I'm reminded of the conversation you had the other day on another thread and the insistence all this ancestry arrived in the Iron Age and especially the Empire; not going by this they didn't.

Even some of the academics and Khan ought to look more closely at the Bronze Age samples. Let's hope there are a lot more soon.

As for my own results they're always the same, either 65% Latin and the rest Italian-Greek in Iron Age terms, or 75% Villanovan and 25% Mycenaean in Bronze Age terms. It all makes perfect sense.

I

Looking at the maps, I can easily see how I can be modeled as Minoan 70.60% + Yamna 29.40%, compared to my own pie chart:

rxTnKPV.png
 
I remember pointing out long ago how Otzi, a Copper Age Italian, already had SW Asian and Caucasus. Now, looking at Maciamo's graph you can see they're at substantial percentages not only in Mycenaean Greece, but at lower levels in Italy, Sardinia, the Balkans, Iberia, and lower but still significant percentages across the Alps in the North Alpine Bronze Age and Unetice.

If the Bronze Age Indo-European speaking people came by way of those two areas and then intermingled with Neolithic and Chalcolithic Italians, no wonder the percentages didn't go down very much.

I'm reminded of the conversation you had the other day on another thread and the insistence all this ancestry arrived in the Iron Age and especially the Empire; not going by this they didn't.

Even some of the academics and Khan ought to look more closely at the Bronze Age samples. Let's hope there are a lot more soon.

As for my own results they're always the same, either 65% Latin and the rest Italian-Greek in Iron Age terms, or 75% Villanovan and 25% Mycenaean in Bronze Age terms. It all makes perfect sense.

I

naLPcPt.jpg


Also looking at these Neolithic populations, I see they also have a "southwest Asian" component in all of the populations. So I don't think it is indicative of recent populations, but simply how Dodecad is interpreting some part of Anatolian_N ancestry.
 
naLPcPt.jpg


Also looking at these Neolithic populations, I see they also have a "southwest Asian" component in all of the populations. So I don't think it is indicative of recent populations, but simply how Dodecad is interpreting some part of Anatolian_N ancestry.

Also, we know that Minoan, and Anatolian_ChL can be modeled with just CHG/IN and Anatolian_N. So we can assume that "southwest Asian" in Dodecad is actually not indicative of Levantine ancestry. Rather, it may just be picking up a common ancestry that is prevalent in that area, that came from the north, rather than a native component.

PDgWcUS.jpg

Qc4CjnW.jpg


ZURyWYB.png
 
I would say, Anatolian_N is subsumed into various components. Which is why Neolithic populations are so seemingly diverse. Since modern Southwest Asians, Atlantic Med, Caucasus, and north african, have Anatolian_N in them. Northern European maybe perfect for whg/ehg combo, since Yamnaya is perfectly 60% of this ancestry; the rest can be considered chg.
 

This thread has been viewed 143798 times.

Back
Top