G25 G25 Central, Eastern and South Eastern Europe Iron Age Calculator

Jovialis’ model G25 ancient samples as sources. Modern Vahaduo G25 scaled samples, as target. Iberians with fit < 0.0300 that obtained Iberomaurisians >=5.0

Mainland
nr5oNyp.png


Canaries
g6JaMCa.png


Me(Brazilian)
viRr638.png


Post Scriptum:

stiBJHL.png
 
Last edited:
Jovialis said:
^^It is actually not that much more than the Portuguese average.
Click to expand...
Portuguese (and Galician) would be about 11% Moorish (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-08272-w) on average. The Moorish would not have been 100% Iberomaurusian though, meaning generally less than 10% of Iberomaurusian-like ancestry in modern Portuguese.

@Duarte
Try to add SSA and NA sources, in order to see how the model behaves.
 
^^Yes, that's true, but it could have come from other sources and that is the cumulative amounts.


Migrations during the Roman Empire, Carthage, as well as the Moors. Possibly prior as well, going into prehistory.


For Sicily and South Italy, I think it could have come predominately from the Moors. But also from perhaps from Imperial era immigration, as well as some input from Aegean Islanders during the Greek colonies, as the Roman_Greek sample shows some affinity to the Levant in it.
 
Regio X said:
Portuguese (and Galician) would be about 11% Moorish (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-08272-w) on average. The Moorish would not have been 100% Iberomaurusian though, meaning generally less than 10% of Iberomaurusian-like ancestry in modern Portuguese.

@Duarte
Try to add SSA and NA sources, in order to see how the model behaves.
Click to expand...

Adding ancient samples from Marocco_EN/LN, Guanche, Cameroon, Kenya, Malawi, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, South Africa. Distance between columns = 0.25x, not to get too pulverized.

xYMi2pf.png


hPn2KzM.png
 
Regio X said:
Portuguese (and Galician) would be about 11% Moorish (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-08272-w) on average. The Moorish would not have been 100% Iberomaurusian though, meaning generally less than 10% of Iberomaurusian-like ancestry in modern Portuguese.

@Duarte
Try to add SSA and NA sources, in order to see how the model behaves.
Click to expand...


The Moors where initially the indigenous Maghrebine Berbers who became Arabanized.

They would have same Ydna as non-arabanized berbers
 
wouldn't call ANA or Siberian exotic to europe. ANA could be present since neolithic and siberian like ancestry is also present in europe for a few thousand years possibly.
 
Jovialis said:
Natufians did not, they had 27% according to the Lazaridis model.

Natufians are intermediate between TAF (Iberomarusian) and Levant_N on PCAs I have created. This is consistent with the Lazaridis Pre-Print. That takes a lot more than just trace amounts.

What makes the Levant unique is that they have this critical mass of ANA.

Also, I am not understanding the standard you are going by, "usual European range" we are talking about ultimate source populations, so I don't see why you're hung up on this.
Click to expand...

i think Lazaridis modeled Natufians with 12% ANA
 
Riverman said:
Its just lne of many possible models at the moment. Without new samples and methods, we don't know which one is real.
Click to expand...

Looking forward for the samples of this pre-print to be released. As of now, those other models are based on the lack of this data.
 
Jovialis said:
27% Taforalt-like (Iberumaurusian) , take a look at the chart.
Click to expand...

Taforlat was only half ANA according to Lazaridis. that would mean Natufians were something between 12-13% ANA and in modern Levantines it would be around 6%. if Lazaridis is right of course. in that new study from Patterson they modeled Anatolia neolithic as a mix of anatolian HG and levantine neolithic. there seems to be some scope of interpretation.
 
Ailchu said:
Taforlat was only half ANA according to Lazaridis. that would mean Natufians were something between 12-13% ANA and in modern Levantines it would be around 6%. if Lazaridis is right of course. in that new study from Patterson they modeled Anatolia neolithic as a mix of anatolian HG and levantine neolithic. there seems to be some scope of interpretation.
Click to expand...

I made another thread based on the question, it seems that it depends on the existence of Basal Eurasians.

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...al-Eurasians-or-No-Basal-Eurasians-)?p=639997

Patterson makes no mention of them in his pre-print, so maybe he is just operating with what is currently available, as no one has found basal Eurasians yet. If they do exist.

From my recollection, Marchi et al. 2021 pre-print is the study that puts forward the model without Basal Eurasians. I have linked it in the other thread.
 
Jovialis said:
I made another thread based on the question, it seems that it depends on the existence of Basal Eurasians.

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...al-Eurasians-or-No-Basal-Eurasians-)?p=639997

Patterson makes no mention of them in his pre-print, so maybe he is just operating with what is currently available, as no one has found basal Eurasians yet. If they do exist.

From my recollection, Marchi et al. 2021 pre-print is the study that puts forward the model without Basal Eurasians. I have linked it in the other thread.
Click to expand...

Well, we have physical phenotype continuity in the Near East, by and large, from the earlier period into Natufians. There are so far no samples at all from much of the Near East and North West Africa, especially not from areas of Egypt, Sinai, Southern Levante and Arabia, especially Yemen. Like some papers argued, the Persian Gulf and/or Southern Arabia are prime areas to look at for Basal Eurasians. If they exist, the very admixture of ANA proper into Natufians might go down to sheer trace levels, which was my point all the time. We need actual samples from the candidate regions for Basal Eurasians in pre-Natufian times. Anything else won't really solve this once and for all.
 
Riverman said:
Well, we have physical phenotype continuity in the Near East, by and large, from the earlier period into Natufians. There are so far no samples at all from much of the Near East and North West Africa, especially not from areas of Egypt, Sinai, Southern Levante and Arabia, especially Yemen. Like some papers argued, the Persian Gulf and/or Southern Arabia are prime areas to look at for Basal Eurasians. If they exist, the very admixture of ANA proper into Natufians might go down to sheer trace levels, which was my point all the time. We need actual samples from the candidate regions for Basal Eurasians in pre-Natufian times. Anything else won't really solve this once and for all.
Click to expand...

I responded in the other thread. Please do not make duplicate posts.
 
Duarte said:
Adding ancient samples from Marocco_EN/LN, Guanche, Cameroon, Kenya, Malawi, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, South Africa. Distance between columns = 0.25x, not to get too pulverized.

xYMi2pf.png


hPn2KzM.png
Click to expand...
Morocco EN is almost entirely Iberomaurusian-like, but not the Morocco LN.
Canary itself would have Iberomaurusian.

These models may be "sensible". :) When I try to isolate the Iberomaurusian component using other old components such EHG, WHG, AHG, CHG, Natufian, Iran Meso, Shum Laka 8000 ybp, Kenya Pastoral Neo etc., the Iberomaurusian % in Portuguese (modern average) becomes 3.4.
Moroccan South gets 33%; Moroccan North, 28.4%. If Portuguese do have about 11% of Moorish on average, as that paper suggests, and if the Moorish were similar to modern Moroccan, then the 3.4% seem coherent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 27637 times.

Back
Top