Which Italian regions or provinces have the most Italic ancestry?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajeje Brazorf
Printable View
Which Italian regions or provinces have the most Italic ancestry?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajeje Brazorf
That Italic average by Brazorf is only 23.8% Yamnaya on the Davidski gold standard calculator. That's pretty low if you ask me. Some modern Southern Europeans would score more. Swarthy Italics :D
Honestly, it's hard to quantify because models are almost always overfitted and do not make sense historically. Of all the Italians, the most akin are those in the north, particularly those with more EEF like the Lombards, although North Italians looks more like the Croatian Iron Age samples since they score a bit more Steppe and CHG/Iran_N than the Italics. The most related are instead the Iberians, although they are not descended from the Italics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leto
https://i.imgur.com/pIMBxDa.png
It has high WHG, around duble than modern northern Italians. But lower steppe and modern north Italians have extra "east med". Yamnaya were swarthy pigmented btw.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leto
Target: Italy_IA
Distance: 2.8135% / 0.02813454
65.0 TUR_Barcin_N
23.8 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
11.2 WHG
Target: Italian_Lombardy
Distance: 3.0906% / 0.03090624
50.4 TUR_Barcin_N
32.4 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
11.2 TUR_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N
6.0 WHG
Target: Italian_Piedmont
Distance: 2.0752% / 0.02075196
40.2 TUR_Barcin_N
33.6 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
21.4 TUR_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N
4.8 WHG
Italics were more Anatolian farmer (*"proto southern Europeans"), and Anatolian farmers had loads of WHG in them as well. As you can see, Italics lacked Tepecik Ciftlik neolithic like ancestry, which is between anatolian farmers and levantine farmers, brought by imperial Romans from near east/anatolia during imperial times.
Croatian IA Illyrians also totally lacked east med Tepecik Ciftlik like ancestry.
Target: Croatia_IA_average
Distance: 2.2851% / 0.02285136
57.4 TUR_Barcin_N
34.8 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
7.8 WHG
here are Austrian Celts, very similar to Illyrians with bit higher WHG
Target: Austria_IA_average
Distance: 3.3566% / 0.03356621
54.4 TUR_Barcin_N
33.6 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
12.0 WHG
Anatolian Farmers had 0%, the ones with WHG were Pinarbasi_HG (6%) and Boncuklu_N (5%). As a component EEF has little connection to the WHGs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stearsolina
Code:Distance to: ITA_Grotta_Continenza_Meso:RMPR15
0.48572899 Ajeje_Brazorf_scaled
0.48600365 TUR_Pinarbasi_HG
0.48871596 TUR_Boncuklu_N
0.52049839 TUR_Barcin_N
If I had to guess, I'd say the East Med stuff came in the first two centuries before Christ and not just in the Imperial Age. This period coincides with the highest wrecks in the Mediterranean.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stearsolina
https://www.researchgate.net/profile...KHt3Dl1R_zzacQ
Also, Tepecik_Ciftlik_N is redundant, since as you also specified it is an almost perfect mix of different components.
Code:Target: TUR_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N
Distance: 1.8855% / 0.01885526
64.6 TUR_Barcin_N
18.2 Levant_PPNB
17.2 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
Are your sure? I've read very different take on that but never fully understood it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajeje Brazorf
Wow, your mother is Germanic shifted as f**K. Btw, in case you are wondering sample size for both Westphalia and lower Saxony south is decent, especially for Westphalia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Creoda
incredibly tight fit towards Germans! :o
Yes, I'm sure. Do you mean deep-ancestry or something like that? Global25 is not the best tool but I get this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Stearsolina
Target: TUR_Barcin_N
Distance: 19.0669% / 0.19066918
76.2 MIDDLE_EAST
12.0 WHG
11.8 CHG
Target: TUR_Barcin_N
Distance: 27.2112% / 0.27211197
56.0 CHG
24.2 TAFORALT
19.8 WHG
I watched and all points do make sense imo. The somewhat "Balkan" shift of County Glatz is unexpected to me, but it was also already visible in some results.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajeje Brazorf
The fact that all averages do have a meaningful relation to each other on the PCA (showing a bio-geographic cline) confirms that also averages that are based on low sample sizes seem valid, if they are based on deeply rooted samples (like here). Of course nevertheless more samples are much appreciated.