HarappaWorld Gedmatch, post and compare your admixtures to ancient and contemporary.

I added a lot of ancient samples to the PCA

PCA_Minoans_and_Mycenaeans.jpg



Changing perspective


PCA_Minoans_and_Mycenaeans.jpg

Interesting split between South Germany and North Germany. Also interesting how close, using this calculator, France is to Hungary BA. Greece Ionian is very close indeed to the Ashkenazim.

As for Maros Culture, have you seen this?
https://www.academia.edu/2100199/20...during_the_Early_Bronze_Age_of_Central_Europe
 
Pratt, i was also surprised at the variation. The only two Mycenaeans that group tightly are great friends with the South Italians. As for the one far to the left near the neolithic groups...why is it plotting so far out? I'm beginning to question whether he/she's an actual mycenaean and not just a foreign visitor. I know they are mostly Anatolian, but that one plots too far from the rest.

Were the Mycenaens this diverse?
 
Three of the Mycenaeans group roughly together. Only one is more Neolithic Anatolian and EEF like. Plus, this is a calculator based on modern clusters. It's interesting but by no means definitive. Do I really have to repeat this ad nauseam?

@Pratt,
I read somewhere that only one of the Mycenaean samples is of really good quality. Do you happen to know which one it was?
 
Lets use average Mycenaean. The last, far right numbers.

M209270I9006M472594I9010M665102I9033M866617I9041, J2a1Average
GreeceMycenaeanGreeceMycenaeanGreeceMycenaeanGreeceMycenaeanGreeceMycenaean
Run time 4.43Run time 4.434.1Run time 4.433.4Run time 4.434.87Total run time12.37
S-Indian0S-Indian0S-Indian0S-Indian0S-Indian0
Baloch2.89Baloch0Baloch4.34Baloch2.66Baloch2
Caucasian45.1Caucasian35.14Caucasian37.45Caucasian39.9Caucasian39
NE-Euro10.44NE-Euro11.1NE-Euro16.58NE-Euro13.12NE-Euro13
SE-Asian0SE-Asian0SE-Asian0SE-Asian0SE-Asian0
Siberian0Siberian0Siberian0Siberian0Siberian0
NE-Asian0NE-Asian0NE-Asian0NE-Asian0NE-Asian0
Papuan0Papuan0Papuan0Papuan0Papuan0
American0.31American0American0American0American0
Beringian0Beringian0Beringian0Beringian0Beringian0
Mediterranean31.21Mediterranean43Mediterranean35.17Mediterranean34.44Mediterranean36
SW-Asian9.97SW-Asian10.75SW-Asian6.15SW-Asian9.88SW-Asian9
San0.07San0San0San0San0
E-African0E-African0E-African0E-African0E-African0
Pygmy0Pygmy0Pygmy0Pygmy0Pygmy0
W-African0W-African0W-African0.31W-African0W-African0


Can we add Natufian. I have a feeling that Minoans are on a cline exactly between Greek Neolithic and Natufians. If it is true, it would mean that Minoans had nothing to do with Anatolian Chalcolithic/BA, but could be a product of Natufian Neolithic 1/3 and mixed with Later Greek Neolithic 2/3. Though 2/3 Anatolian EN and 1/3 Jordan Neolithic fits the bill too. Anyway, they really look like a mixture of EN populations.
 
No, thanks.

Is there a lot of work to flip the first PCA left-right, so the samples will agree geographically with typical PCA charts that we are used to? Will be less confusing for inexperienced peole.
 
I think Maros is composition of 2 lesser quality samples. Here it is, plus Iron Age Hungarian.

M974598RISE374 and 373F999929IR1, N-M231
Maros Hungary [1866-1619 BC] T2 G2a-P287>P15>PF3178IR Hungary900 BC
Run time5.26Run time 6.96
S-Indian-S-Indian-
Baloch-Baloch14.83
Caucasian18.58Caucasian15.12
NE-Euro39.65NE-Euro43.91
SE-Asian-SE-Asian-
Siberian-Siberian2.97
NE-Asian-NE-Asian-
Papuan-Papuan-
American-American2.03
Beringian-Beringian-
Mediterranean40.09Mediterranean21.14
SW-Asian0.98SW-Asian-
San0.17San-
E-African-E-African-
Pygmy0.15Pygmy-
W-African0.39W-African-


Ed. I see there are both samples on PCA.

Interestingly Modern Spaniards are exactly in straight line, and two thirds of the way, between Spain LN and Hungarian BA (Baden Culture?), with Moros samples close by.
Anyway, extending this line even farther leads us North to half the way between Yamnaya and Armenia Chl.
 
Three of the Mycenaeans group roughly together. Only one is more Neolithic Anatolian and EEF like. Plus, this is a calculator based on modern clusters. It's interesting but by no means definitive. Do I really have to repeat this ad nauseam?

@Pratt,

I read somewhere that only one of the Mycenaean samples is of really good quality. Do you happen to know which one it was?

Whatever the quality of the more "Neolithic" southern Mycenaean sample, I guarantee you the usual suspects will attempt to us it so that the corresponding percentage of more "northern" groups will go up, i.e. Corded Ware, Sintashta.

Btw, why would anyone attempt to model modern Tuscans by using Corded Ware when later Bell Beaker samples are available?
 
Whatever the quality of the more "Neolithic" southern Mycenaean sample, I guarantee you the usual suspects will attempt to us it so that the corresponding percentage of more "northern" groups will go up, i.e. Corded Ware, Sintashta.

Btw, why would anyone attempt to model modern Tuscans by using Corded Ware when later Bell Beaker samples are available?
Westernmost Corded Ware and Northern BB should be very similar genetically. Definitely more mixing with farmers in the West than in East Corded Ware.
 
Last edited:
Which Mycenaen is the best one?

@Angela
I read some of the thread regarding the Mycenaen study on Anthrogenica (I don't often go there, it seems questionable) and I've seen attempts at modeling Tuscans as a mixture of Mycenaen and other groups. I saw one result that gave 68 percent Mycenaen. Anyone who isn't completely clueless or stupid would find that surprising and highly dubious. Maybe there's a Mycenaen-Tuscan connection I'm unaware of :p .

I still wonder why people were trying to model Tuscans to begin with...they don't seem relevant to the study.
 
Corded Ware were Westernmost Corded Ware and Northern BB should be very similar genetically. Definitely more mixing with farmers in the West than in East Corded Ware.


I made the comment because in the analyses I've seen, Bell Beaker has quite a bit more "southern" ancestry than the Corded Ware samples, but I guess it depends on which Corded Ware sample is being used.

When doing an analysis of southern Europeans, using a sample very shifted toward the south and east is going to require a more northern and eastern shifted admixture, and vice versa. You could get a decent fit in something like nmonte that doesn't reflect what actually happened at all.

@Davef, Tuscans can be modeled as 68% Mycenaean because that's a stand in for lots of Early Neolithic Farmer admixed with some eastern farmer and some steppe. Then the algorythm will pull in other samples to get the total to fit modern Tuscans. It doesn't mean a mass migration of Mycenaeans arrived in Tuscany. On the other hand, I'm sure some Mycenaeans and Minoans did migrate to Italy.

People have to stop being so literal and figure out how to interpret these kinds of results.
 
I still wonder why people were trying to model Tuscans to begin with...they don't seem relevant to the study.

Because someone is trying, desperately, to prove something about the origins of the Etruscans, and at the same time, to overstimate the Slavic influence in the Greeks. And it's funny, because they are producing in this way contradictory results. The Greeks, if you consider the average, are always more eastern/southern-eastern than Tuscans (the sample usually used for Tuscans are southern Tuscans, who are to the west of Greek Thessalians). As you have noticed, they've tried to involve the Tuscans at all costs in that discussion. But Gravetto-Danubian is a good and capable poster. On others I'm not so sure.

There were Mycenaeans in Italy, especially in southern Italy, but also in central Italy (nortern Lazio and southern Tuscany) and in some ports of the Adriatic coast like Spina or Adria. Mycenaean pottery have been found not only in Italy, Sicily and Sardinia, but even in France and Spain (and according to an old book, also in Great Britain and Germany. I don't know if it's accurate). Although it was more often the result of trade rather than settlements.

The Mycenaeans have, without shadow of doubt, played an important role, especially in Italy. Some Italians could even descend from the Mycenaeans, but Mycenaeans were never in such a large number that it could have completely changed the entire genome of the local population.
 
I made the comment because in the analyses I've seen, Bell Beaker has quite a bit more "southern" ancestry than the Corded Ware samples, but I guess it depends on which Corded Ware sample is being used.

When doing an analysis of southern Europeans, using a sample very shifted toward the south and east is going to require a more northern and eastern shifted admixture, and vice versa. You could get a decent fit in something like nmonte that doesn't reflect what actually happened at all.

@Davef, Tuscans can be modeled as 68% Mycenaean because that's a stand in for lots of Early Neolithic Farmer admixed with some eastern farmer and some steppe. Then the algorythm will pull in other samples to get the total to fit modern Tuscans. It doesn't mean a mass migration of Mycenaeans arrived in Tuscany. On the other hand, I'm sure some Mycenaeans and Minoans did migrate to Italy.

People have to stop being so literal and figure out how to interpret these kinds of results.

Thanks! Not to worry, I wasn't taking it literally. Is d stats just some glorified oracle that bases it's predictions on results from a gedmatch calculator?
 
Because someone is trying, desperately, to prove something about the origins of the Etruscans, and at the same time, to overstimate the Slavic influence in the Greeks. And it's funny, because they are producing in this way contradictory results. The Greeks, if you consider the average, are always more eastern/southern-eastern than Tuscans (the sample usually used for Tuscans are southern Tuscans, who are to the west of Greek Thessalians). As you have noticed, they've tried to involve the Tuscans at all costs in that discussion. But Gravetto-Danubian is a good and capable poster. On others I'm not so sure.

There were Mycenaeans in Italy, especially in southern Italy, but also in central Italy (nortern Lazio and southern Tuscany) and in some ports of the Adriatic coast like Spina or Adria. Mycenaean pottery have been found not only in Italy, Sicily and Sardinia, but even in France and Spain (and according to an old book, also in Great Britain and Germany. I don't know if it's accurate). Although it was more often the result of trade rather than settlements.

The Mycenaeans have, without shadow of doubt, played an important role, especially in Italy. Some Italians could even descend from the Mycenaeans, but Mycenaeans were never in such a large number that it could have completely changed the entire genome of the local population.

Thanks! Yeah I guess they shoot themselves in the foot using south Tuscans given where they "plot" .
I appreciate the history lesson with regards to Mycenaeans in Italy, very interesting!
 
Because someone is trying, desperately, to prove something about the origins of the Etruscans, and at the same time, to overstimate the Slavic influence in the Greeks. And it's funny, because they are producing in this way contradictory results. The Greeks, if you consider the average, are always more eastern/southern-eastern than Tuscans (the sample usually used for Tuscans are southern Tuscans, who are to the west of Greek Thessalians). As you have noticed, they've tried to involve the Tuscans at all costs in that discussion. But Gravetto-Danubian is a good and capable poster. On others I'm not so sure.

There were Mycenaeans in Italy, especially in southern Italy, but also in central Italy (nortern Lazio and southern Tuscany) and in some ports of the Adriatic coast like Spina or Adria. Mycenaean pottery have been found not only in Italy, Sicily and Sardinia, but even in France and Spain (and according to an old book, also in Great Britain and Germany. I don't know if it's accurate). Although it was more often the result of trade rather than settlements.

The Mycenaeans have, without shadow of doubt, played an important role, especially in Italy. Some Italians could even descend from the Mycenaeans, but Mycenaeans were never in such a large number that it could have completely changed the entire genome of the local population.

I agree with everything you've posted.

Another thing to consider in the discussion about genetic continuity in terms of modern Greeks is that I think the Greek modern samples used are still overwhelmingly from Thessaly (if the PCA is any guide), and therefore probably higher in "Slavic" ancestry than, say, samples from the Peloponnese. (If the Peloponnese samples and others were included, perhaps someone could correct the record.)

I don't know why, given that the author of the paper on the modern Peloponnese is a cited author here, they didn't do an analysis of the Mycenaean samples they have from the Peloponnese versus modern Greeks strictly from the Peloponnese. Perhaps they didn't do that because the emphasis was on ancient samples?

What people have to understand about programs like nmonte is how sensitive they are to the populations chosen. If you're picking very northern shifted admixture groups, the algorithm may pick a very "southern" population to get to "modern" levels. None of the groups may have actually migrated to the subject area. This makes the program highly susceptible to either just mistakes or abuse.
 
What people have to understand about programs like nmonte is how sensitive they are to the populations chosen. If you're picking very northern shifted admixture groups, the algorithm may pick a very "southern" population to get to "modern" levels. None of the groups may have actually migrated to the subject area. This makes the program highly susceptible to either just mistakes or abuse.

Exactly so.
 
Guys, is there a way I could figure out, who my ancestors were, just by looking at the ancestry admixtures?
 
Guys, is there a way I could figure out, who my ancestors were, just by looking at the ancestry admixtures?
In the future yes, but currently there has been not much research done of modern and ancient samples in your area. The best bet for you is through 23andMe and alike to find your matches.
 
In the future yes, but currently there has been not much research done of modern and ancient samples in your area. The best bet for you is through 23andMe and alike to find your matches.

I hope to see in the near future.
I did my test from 23andme. I am fine with it, but I would like to go for Living DNA. A lot of people are appreciating the results.
 
Because someone is trying, desperately, to prove something about the origins of the Etruscans, and at the same time, to overstimate the Slavic influence in the Greeks. And it's funny, because they are producing in this way contradictory results. The Greeks, if you consider the average, are always more eastern/southern-eastern than Tuscans (the sample usually used for Tuscans are southern Tuscans, who are to the west of Greek Thessalians). As you have noticed, they've tried to involve the Tuscans at all costs in that discussion. But Gravetto-Danubian is a good and capable poster. On others I'm not so sure.

There were Mycenaeans in Italy, especially in southern Italy, but also in central Italy (nortern Lazio and southern Tuscany) and in some ports of the Adriatic coast like Spina or Adria. Mycenaean pottery have been found not only in Italy, Sicily and Sardinia, but even in France and Spain (and according to an old book, also in Great Britain and Germany. I don't know if it's accurate). Although it was more often the result of trade rather than settlements.

The Mycenaeans have, without shadow of doubt, played an important role, especially in Italy. Some Italians could even descend from the Mycenaeans, but Mycenaeans were never in such a large number that it could have completely changed the entire genome of the local population.

The palace at the Pantalica Necropolis in Sicily was, at the very least, inspired by the Mycenaeans if not actually built by them.
 

This thread has been viewed 335354 times.

Back
Top