101 Ancient Eurasian Genomes Available Online

[arvistro]

Btw, we have Yamna mtdna. Do they look Caucasian?

 

[Alan]

That certainly seems suggestive to me. If we get similar or even better fits with dna from Maykop or perhaps from older Neolithic era dna from Armenia (which we should be getting soon,yes?) then it will seal the deal, as we say. If that earlier dna or Maykop dna is also an upstream form of R1b then it would validate hypotheses proposed on this site for a very long time.

I suppose that would mean the end of the saga of the overwhelmingly attractive south Caucasus women and the incredible allure that drove steppe men to either steal them or madly round up every horse in sight in order to buy them. I guess we'll soon know the answer.

Btw, what is the closest modern population to the earliest ancient Armenian samples?

The Bronze Age Armenian samples looks like a cross of North Caucasians, Iranic groups and South Europeans (Italians, Bulgarians, Iberians etc).


With time southern shift happenes and an Eastmed/Red Sea component ( I am so convinced it is Semite signal) replaces the West Mediterranean ancestry.

This are the closest populations to the Late Bronze Age Armenian.

# Population (source) Distance
1 Turkmens (Yunusbayev) 18.6
2 Lezgins (Behar) 18.72
3 Tajiks (Yunusbayev) 19.18
4 Kumyks (Yunusbayev) 20.32
5 Iranian (Dodecad) 21.6
6 Kurd (Dodecad) 22.07
7 Kurds (Yunusbayev) 22.15
8 Iranians (Behar) 22.35
9 Chechens (Yunusbayev) 23.96
10 Turks (Behar) 24.65
11 Nogais (Yunusbayev) 24.85
12 Turkish (Dodecad) 25.18
13 Uzbekistan_Jews (Behar) 27.71
14 Bulgarian (Dodecad) 27.72
15 Adygei (HGDP) 28.54
16 O_Italian (Dodecad) 28.64
17 Romanians (Behar) 28.72
18 Greek (Dodecad) 28.95
19 Bulgarians (Yunusbayev) 29.6
20 Balkars (Yunusbayev) 29.85



A Kurdish user on Anthrogenica build a tool which compares your genome to that of the Armenian samples. And you know what Angela? An Italian user (Passa) is the closest (slightly closer than Kurd, Azeri and Iranian users) to the older Bronze Age sample from Armenia of all the West Asian groups


http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthr...ans-quot-Lecture&p=89690&viewfull=1#post89690

 

[Angela]

Zoomed in Armenian sample. Plots near modern Ossetian/Georgian region.

SAMEA3325367

RISE397

Kapan

LBA

Armenia

Male

1048 BC

855 BC

R1b1a2a2

R1b

RISE397 Armenia LBA R1b1a2a2-Y4371/Z8128

View attachment 7300

Thanks. Was one done for Middle Bronze Age?

 

[arvistro]

Btw, we have Yamna mtdna. Do they look Caucasian?

U4, U5 and T.
I am not strong in mtdna, I know that 1/4 of Latvian mtdna consists of those, but where they are originally from no idea.

 

[Alan]

Zoomed in Armenian sample. Plots near modern Ossetian/Georgian region.

SAMEA3325367

RISE397

Kapan

LBA

Armenia

Male

1048 BC

855 BC

R1b1a2a2

R1b

RISE397 Armenia LBA R1b1a2a2-Y4371/Z8128

View attachment 7300

But it's not exactly like modern Ossetians, Georgians just that the overal ancestry makes them plot. The Armenian samples are something in between modern Iranic groups (Turkmens/Tajiks), modern North Caucasians, and South Europeans. That doesn't mean the Bronze Age samples are a mix of them, rather that those groups received admixture similar to that what is found among the ancient Armenian samples.

 

[arvistro]

U4, U5 and T.
I am not strong in mtdna, I know that 1/4 of Latvian mtdna consists of those, but where they are originally from no idea.

Maciamo in Eupedia links U4 to R1a, in general Meso. U5 is meso Euro.
T is Meso and maybe Neo, in modern map T1 hotspot is West of Yamna, Cucuteni?

 

[Alan]

Maciamo in Eupedia links U4 to R1a, in general Meso. U5 is meso Euro.
T is Meso and maybe Neo, in modern map T1 hotspot is West of Yamna, Cucuteni?

U4,U5 Mesolithic

T Neolithic

 

[arvistro]

U4,U5 Mesolithic

T Neolithic

Am I right to assume that no Caucasian haplo woman was found in Yamna?
T seems to come from Cucuteni, based on modern distribution.

 

[Alan]

Am I right to assume that no Caucasian haplo woman was found in Yamna?
T seems to come from Cucuteni, based on modern distribution.

In this new bunch of samples, yes. Seems no Caucasus type mtDNA.

 

[arvistro]

In this new bunch of samples, yes. Seems no Caucasus type mtDNA.

If we count together all mtdna we know from Yamna, do we get Caucasus type? If yes, then what % approximately?

 

[Angela]

The Bronze Age Armenian samples looks like a cross of North Caucasians, Iranic groups and South Europeans (Italians, Bulgarians, Iberians etc).


With time southern shift happenes and an Eastmed/Red Sea component ( I am so convinced it is Semite signal) replaces the West Mediterranean ancestry.

This are the closest populations to the Late Bronze Age Armenian.

# Population (source) Distance
1 Turkmens (Yunusbayev) 18.6
2 Lezgins (Behar) 18.72
3 Tajiks (Yunusbayev) 19.18
4 Kumyks (Yunusbayev) 20.32
5 Iranian (Dodecad) 21.6
6 Kurd (Dodecad) 22.07
7 Kurds (Yunusbayev) 22.15
8 Iranians (Behar) 22.35
9 Chechens (Yunusbayev) 23.96
10 Turks (Behar) 24.65
11 Nogais (Yunusbayev) 24.85
12 Turkish (Dodecad) 25.18
13 Uzbekistan_Jews (Behar) 27.71
14 Bulgarian (Dodecad) 27.72
15 Adygei (HGDP) 28.54
16 O_Italian (Dodecad) 28.64
17 Romanians (Behar) 28.72
18 Greek (Dodecad) 28.95
19 Bulgarians (Yunusbayev) 29.6
20 Balkars (Yunusbayev) 29.85



A Kurdish user on Anthrogenica build a tool which compares your genome to that of the Armenian samples. And you know what Angela? An Italian user (Passa) is the closest (slightly closer than Kurd, Azeri and Iranian users) to the older Bronze Age sample from Armenia of all the West Asian groups


http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthr...ans-quot-Lecture&p=89690&viewfull=1#post89690

I just peeked in over there. I see where "Passa", who claims to be Italian said that, but then he posted these results:

Passa

Ok I fixed the problem. Here are my results with Eurogenes K15:

Armenia MBA 35.1831985145
Armenia LBA 40.4991004432
Sintashta M690970 41.7221206704

These aren't very close at all, are they? Or are you taking about some other calculator whose results he posted?
​

Amazing, isn't it, if the flow goes from south to north, how Dienekes was pointing to Lezghins years ago as providing a clue, and all without any ancient dna?

 

[Alan]

I just peeked in over there. I see where "Passa", who claims to be Italian said that, but then he posted these results:

Passa

Ok I fixed the problem. Here are my results with Eurogenes K15:

Armenia MBA 35.1831985145
Armenia LBA 40.4991004432
Sintashta M690970 41.7221206704

These aren't very close at all, are they? Or are you taking about some other calculator whose results he posted?
​

Amazing, isn't it, if the flow goes from south to north, how Dienekes was pointing to Lezghins years ago as providing a clue, and all without any ancient dna?

That is a different calculator. The first one uses Dodecad K12b. He had some issues with the Eurogenes k15 tool but was able to fix it. And yes this is still very close. Depending on the calculator results can differ bit.

The significant thing is, that Italian, Bulgarian and Greek turns up in the top 20 fst distances of the Late Bronze Age Armenian, which is even less "South European" shifted than Middle Bronze Age Armenian. But there is no Levantine/Assyrian in that top 20 list.

 

[Alan]

And yes the geneflow went from South to North. Mark my words ancient North Caucasians will turn out more EHG (probably 50/50 EHG/EEF) compared to modern once. What seems to have happened is what linguists and archeologist have been saying also for long time. Proto Caucasians were living further South (Hurrians are believed to have been related to them) and migrated North. While Semites (with the expansion of Assyrians and later the Abrahamic religions) expanded towards North and East.

 

[Angela]

That is a different calculator. The first one uses Dodecad K12b. He had some issues with the Eurogenes k15 tool but was able to fix it. And yes this is still very close if you compare to the K15 results of the other users.

Ok, let me see if I've got it.

These are the similarities with Armenian ancient dna (I hope it's Middle and not Late.) based on Dodecad?
# Population (source) Distance
1 Turkmens (Yunusbayev) 18.6
2 Lezgins (Behar) 18.72
3 Tajiks (Yunusbayev) 19.18
4 Kumyks (Yunusbayev) 20.32
5 Iranian (Dodecad) 21.6
6 Kurd (Dodecad) 22.07
7 Kurds (Yunusbayev) 22.15
8 Iranians (Behar) 22.35
9 Chechens (Yunusbayev) 23.96
10 Turks (Behar) 24.65
11 Nogais (Yunusbayev) 24.85
12 Turkish (Dodecad) 25.18
13 Uzbekistan_Jews (Behar) 27.71
14 Bulgarian (Dodecad) 27.72
15 Adygei (HGDP) 28.54
16 O_Italian (Dodecad) 28.64
17 Romanians (Behar) 28.72
18 Greek (Dodecad) 28.95
19 Bulgarians (Yunusbayev) 29.6
20 Balkars (Yunusbayev) 29.85

I see Other Italians on there at #16, 28.64. (I'm never sure what to make of where that small group scores because they're a mix of people from all over Italy, and it includes one member with outlier amounts of SSA and West Asian if I remember my e-mails with Dienekes correctly.) Does this "Passa" score near them, or is he an outlier? Did he post his scores for it? Is there a longer version of the list so that I could see where the different groups of Italians score?

Also, is there a list like this based on the K15?

Thanks for the help.

 

[Alan]

Ok, let me see if I've got it.

These are the similarities with Armenian ancient dna (I hope it's Middle and not Late.) based on Dodecad?

It is late unfortunately. Middle Bronze Age was even more shifted towards "Europe".


I aways thought O-Italian means "overall" in from all parts of Italy. And no it can't have to do with SSA, because SSA shift was weaker in the ancient samples as nowadays.

When it comes to fst Distances the calculators don't matter. FST distances are always the "best" way to see actual relationship.

I don't know if Passa has any other known ancestry.

 

[Angela]

It is late unfortunately. Middle Bronze Age was even more shifted towards "Europe".


I aways thought O-Italian means "overall" in from all parts of Italy. And no it can't have to do with SSA, because SSA shift was weaker in the ancient samples as nowadays.

When it comes to fst Distances the calculators don't matter. FST distances are always the "best" way to see actual relationship.

I don't know if Passa has any other known ancestry.

No, it means "Other Italian". I misremembered; the outlier in that group had strangely high northeast Asian not SSA, so obviously admixed to some degree. Imo that group and its scores should be disregarded in any analysis of Italians.

Dodecad ProjectJune 22, 2011 at 1:34 AM
"O_Italian is Other Italian, and that is all due to a single individual that I am waiting to hear from to see whether he/she has any explanation for these results. I will also carry another data cleanup once I'm done with this, to detect submitted relatives or outliers that likely misreported their ancestry. This is part of the reason why I am not reporting raw averages at this time, as I have not cleaned up all the latest submissions.

Part of the (to be continued) involves visually inspecting the population portraits to catch outliers such as the one contributing the "Northeast Asian" in the O_Italian sample."


Makes sense now why "Other Italians" landed where they did.

Did they go beyond 20 populations on that list?

 

[Alan]

No, it means "Other Italian". I misremembered; the outlier in that group had strangely high northeast Asian not SSA, so obviously admixed to some degree. Imo that group and its scores should be disregarded in any analysis of Italians.

Dodecad ProjectJune 22, 2011 at 1:34 AM
"O_Italian is Other Italian, and that is all due to a single individual that I am waiting to hear from to see whether he/she has any explanation for these results. I will also carry another data cleanup once I'm done with this, to detect submitted relatives or outliers that likely misreported their ancestry. This is part of the reason why I am not reporting raw averages at this time, as I have not cleaned up all the latest submissions.

Part of the (to be continued) involves visually inspecting the population portraits to catch outliers such as the one contributing the "Northeast Asian" in the O_Italian sample."


Makes sense now why "Other Italians" landed where they did.

Did they go beyond 20 populations on that list?

It doesn't seem to have to do with the one Northeast Asian admixed Italian.

I found the fst distances of some of the Middle Bronze Age Armenians. Unfortunately not the oldest Middle Bronze Age Armenian sample.

Here they are

RISE416 MBA (

1643 BC​

):

1 16.8 O_Italian_D
2 18.4 TSI30
3 18.5 N_Italian_D
4 18.9 Tuscan
5 19.3 C_Italian_D
6 20.5 North_Italian
7 22.7 S_Italian_Sicilian_D
8 23.2 Greek_D
9 23.4 Sicilian_D
10 24.7 Baleares_1KG

two population mixed mode

Oracle K12B:

# Distance
1 7.2386 75.3% N_Italian_D + 24.7% Balochi
2 7.4475 74.6% N_Italian_D + 25.4% Makrani
3 7.6021 77% N_Italian_D + 23% Brahui
4 7.6188 77% TSI30 + 23% Brahui
5 7.6521 52.4% Lezgins__ + 47.6% Pais_Vasco_1KG
6 7.6804 55% Kurds_Y___ + 45% Pais_Vasco_1KG
7 7.6909 73.3% North_Italian + 26.7% Balochi
8 7.8920 75.5% TSI30 + 24.5% Balochi
9 7.9160 55.2% Iranian_D + 44.8% Pais_Vasco_1KG
10 7.9334 72.6% North_Italian + 27.4% Makrani

RISE413 MBA (1906 BC):
TOP reference populations based on Dodecad K12b:

1 19.6 Turkmens_Y
2 20.2 Turkish_Aydin_Ho
3 20.7 Zaza_Kurd
4 21.0 Turkish_Istanbul_Ho
5 21.3 Turkish_Kayseri_Ho
6 21.4 Tajiks_Y
7 21.7 Iranians
8 21.9 Iranian_D
9 22.1 Kurd_D
10 22.5 Kurds_Y

Oracle K12B:

# Distance
1 7.2639 69.1% Iranians + 30.9% Orcadian
2 7.2701 69.2% Iranians + 30.8% Orkney_1KG
3 7.2770 69% Iranians + 31% Irish_D
4 7.3007 68% Iranians + 32% CEU30
5 7.3294 68.1% Iranians + 31.9% English_D
6 7.3327 67.9% Kurd_D___ + 32.1% Argyll_1KG
7 7.3436 66.4% Iranians + 33.6% Mixed_Germanic_D
8 7.3579 68.4% Iranians + 31.6% Cornwall_1KG
9 7.3697 67.9% Iranians + 32.1% Kent_1KG
10 7.4109 68.1% Iranian_D + 31.9% Argyll_1KG


RISE423 MBA (

1402 ​

BC)​

:
1 14.8 Kumyks_Y
2 15.5 Turkish_Istanbul_Ho
3 16.1 Lezgins__
4 16.5 Turkish_Aydin_Ho
5 16.8 Turkish_Kayseri_Ho
6 16.9 Zaza_Kurd
7 18.5 Turks___
8 18.9 Turkish_D
9 19.0 Kurds_Y___
10 19.1 Chechens_Y



Oracle K12B:
# Distance
1 4.6697 73.6% Kurds_Y___ + 26.4% Belorussian
2 4.6825 72.5% Kurds_Y___ + 27.5% Mixed_Slav_D
3 4.7566 72.7% Kurds_Y___ + 27.3% Polish_D
4 4.7988 71.3% Kurds_Y___ + 28.7% Ukranians_Y
5 4.8007 73.2% Kurds_Y___ + 26.8% Russian_D
6 4.9732 75.6% Kurds_Y___ + 24.4% Lithuanian_D
7 4.9897 73.2% Kurd_D___ + 26.8% Belorussian
8 5.0133 76.7% Kurds_Y___ + 23.3% Lithuanians
9 5.0365 70.9% Kurd_D___ + 29.1% Ukranians_Y
10 5.0987 72.1% Kurds_Y___ + 27.9% Mordovians_Y



What we see here is one people which are seperated into two groups just based on very little different propotions of DNA. ne group with little more EEF(farmer more Atlantic_Med and Caucasus) shifted one and a slightly more Caucasic/Iranic shifted one (herders more Gedrosia and North Euro).


But take in mind all of them are genetically very similar, just that they stay at "no mens land" because they are a genetic group which doesn't exist in our modern time. And with slightly more Gedrosia and Central Asian ASI they have Iranic and Caucasus groups in their top ten fits, yet it doesn't mean they were very similar, just the most similar still existing group, even if it's "only" 70% genetic overlap. And with slightly more Atlantic_Med they have Italians and other South Euros in their top list just for the same reason.

 

[Angela]

It doesn't seem to have to do with the one Northeast Asian admixed Italian.

I found the fst distances of some of the Middle Bronze Age Armenians. Unfortunately not the oldest Middle Bronze Age Armenian sample.

Here they are

RISE416 MBA (

1643 BC​

):

1 16.8 O_Italian_D
2 18.4 TSI30
3 18.5 N_Italian_D
4 18.9 Tuscan
5 19.3 C_Italian_D
6 20.5 North_Italian
7 22.7 S_Italian_Sicilian_D
8 23.2 Greek_D
9 23.4 Sicilian_D
10 24.7 Baleares_1KG

two population mixed mode

Oracle K12B:

# Distance
1 7.2386 75.3% N_Italian_D + 24.7% Balochi
2 7.4475 74.6% N_Italian_D + 25.4% Makrani
3 7.6021 77% N_Italian_D + 23% Brahui
4 7.6188 77% TSI30 + 23% Brahui
5 7.6521 52.4% Lezgins__ + 47.6% Pais_Vasco_1KG
6 7.6804 55% Kurds_Y___ + 45% Pais_Vasco_1KG
7 7.6909 73.3% North_Italian + 26.7% Balochi
8 7.8920 75.5% TSI30 + 24.5% Balochi
9 7.9160 55.2% Iranian_D + 44.8% Pais_Vasco_1KG
10 7.9334 72.6% North_Italian + 27.4% Makrani

RISE413 MBA (1906 BC):
TOP reference populations based on Dodecad K12b:

1 19.6 Turkmens_Y
2 20.2 Turkish_Aydin_Ho
3 20.7 Zaza_Kurd
4 21.0 Turkish_Istanbul_Ho
5 21.3 Turkish_Kayseri_Ho
6 21.4 Tajiks_Y
7 21.7 Iranians
8 21.9 Iranian_D
9 22.1 Kurd_D
10 22.5 Kurds_Y

Oracle K12B:

# Distance
1 7.2639 69.1% Iranians + 30.9% Orcadian
2 7.2701 69.2% Iranians + 30.8% Orkney_1KG
3 7.2770 69% Iranians + 31% Irish_D
4 7.3007 68% Iranians + 32% CEU30
5 7.3294 68.1% Iranians + 31.9% English_D
6 7.3327 67.9% Kurd_D___ + 32.1% Argyll_1KG
7 7.3436 66.4% Iranians + 33.6% Mixed_Germanic_D
8 7.3579 68.4% Iranians + 31.6% Cornwall_1KG
9 7.3697 67.9% Iranians + 32.1% Kent_1KG
10 7.4109 68.1% Iranian_D + 31.9% Argyll_1KG


RISE423 MBA (

1402 ​

BC)​

:
1 14.8 Kumyks_Y
2 15.5 Turkish_Istanbul_Ho
3 16.1 Lezgins__
4 16.5 Turkish_Aydin_Ho
5 16.8 Turkish_Kayseri_Ho
6 16.9 Zaza_Kurd
7 18.5 Turks___
8 18.9 Turkish_D
9 19.0 Kurds_Y___
10 19.1 Chechens_Y



Oracle K12B:
# Distance
1 4.6697 73.6% Kurds_Y___ + 26.4% Belorussian
2 4.6825 72.5% Kurds_Y___ + 27.5% Mixed_Slav_D
3 4.7566 72.7% Kurds_Y___ + 27.3% Polish_D
4 4.7988 71.3% Kurds_Y___ + 28.7% Ukranians_Y
5 4.8007 73.2% Kurds_Y___ + 26.8% Russian_D
6 4.9732 75.6% Kurds_Y___ + 24.4% Lithuanian_D
7 4.9897 73.2% Kurd_D___ + 26.8% Belorussian
8 5.0133 76.7% Kurds_Y___ + 23.3% Lithuanians
9 5.0365 70.9% Kurd_D___ + 29.1% Ukranians_Y
10 5.0987 72.1% Kurds_Y___ + 27.9% Mordovians_Y



What we see here is one people which are seperated into two groups just based on very little different propotions of DNA. ne group with little more EEF(farmer more Atlantic_Med and Caucasus) shifted one and a slightly more Caucasic/Iranic shifted one (herders more Gedrosia and North Euro).


But take in mind all of them are genetically very similar, just that they stay at "no mens land" because they are a genetic group which doesn't exist in our modern time. And with slightly more Gedrosia and Central Asian ASI they have Iranic and Caucasus groups in their top fits, yet it doesn't mean they were very similar, just the most similar still existing group, even if it's "only" 70% genetic overlap. And with slightly more Atlantic_Med they have Italians and other South Euros in their top list just for the same reason.

I'm just trying to see the pattern of where all the populations fall on one sample versus the other samples before I even get to drawing conclusions about it.

These are the results for the Late Bronze/Iron Age, yes?
1 Turkmens (Yunusbayev) 18.6
2 Lezgins (Behar) 18.72
3 Tajiks (Yunusbayev) 19.18
4 Kumyks (Yunusbayev) 20.32
5 Iranian (Dodecad) 21.6
6 Kurd (Dodecad) 22.07
7 Kurds (Yunusbayev) 22.15
8 Iranians (Behar) 22.35
9 Chechens (Yunusbayev) 23.96
10 Turks (Behar) 24.65
11 Nogais (Yunusbayev) 24.85
12 Turkish (Dodecad) 25.18
13 Uzbekistan_Jews (Behar) 27.71
14 Bulgarian (Dodecad) 27.72
15 Adygei (HGDP) 28.54
16 O_Italian (Dodecad) 28.64
17 Romanians (Behar) 28.72
18 Greek (Dodecad) 28.95
19 Bulgarians (Yunusbayev) 29.6
20 Balkars (Yunusbayev) 29.85

O_Italian are at 28.64 (# 16)

Do you know the next ten or twenty populations for this ancient sample? Where would North Italians, Tuscans, Southern Italians fall? Even if they start to appear at #21, the O_Italian group is different, and I think they're different because of the northeast Asian.

Now I see these results for
RISE413 MBA (1906 BC):
TOP reference populations based on Dodecad K12b:

1 19.6 Turkmens_Y
2 20.2 Turkish_Aydin_Ho
3 20.7 Zaza_Kurd
4 21.0 Turkish_Istanbul_Ho
5 21.3 Turkish_Kayseri_Ho
6 21.4 Tajiks_Y
7 21.7 Iranians
8 21.9 Iranian_D
9 22.1 Kurd_D
10 22.5 Kurds_Y

and here are the results for this group
RISE423 MBA (

1402 ​

BC)​

:
1 14.8 Kumyks_Y
2 15.5 Turkish_Istanbul_Ho
3 16.1 Lezgins__
4 16.5 Turkish_Aydin_Ho
5 16.8 Turkish_Kayseri_Ho
6 16.9 Zaza_Kurd
7 18.5 Turks___
8 18.9 Turkish_D
9 19.0 Kurds_Y___
10 19.1 Chechens_Y

There are slight changes in order, but basically the same general results as for Late Bronze, yes, in the sense that it is either Anatolia or Caucasus populations who are most related? Or do you disagree? Do you think the changes in order are significant?

Regardless, do you know if Europeans start to come in at around the same time and in approximately the same order for Middle Bronze Age as for the first Late Bronze Age results? In other words, Romanians, Greeks, Bulgarians, then at some point the regular Italian populations?

Now you list some numbers for Italians in terms of different ancient samples.
RISE416 MBA (

1643 BC​

):

1 16.8 O_Italian_D
2 18.4 TSI30
3 18.5 N_Italian_D
4 18.9 Tuscan
5 19.3 C_Italian_D
6 20.5 North_Italian
7 22.7 S_Italian_Sicilian_D
8 23.2 Greek_D
9 23.4 Sicilian_D
10 24.7 Baleares_1KG

Are you saying that for this one ancient Armenian sample, Europeans, especially Italians, are the closest population? In other words, for this sample from 1643 BC the progression of similarity is totally different from that of samples both older (1900 BC) and younger ( and all of a sudden Europeans are closest? Or are the usual Anatolia related and Caucasus related samples still the closest? It's labeling these 1-10 that is confusing me.

Now as to what it means, I'm not sure yet. I do know that North Italians and Tuscans are, according to Haak et al, about 25-30%, or from 1/4 to 1/3 Yamnaya, so I suppose one way of interpreting this is that there are similarities because that's what some of these ancient Armenian samples are as well.

 

[Regio X]

Does this "Passa" score near them, or is he an outlier? Did he post his scores for it? Is there a longer version of the list so that I could see where the different groups of Italians score?

Based on those spreadsheets, Dodecad K12b and Eurogenes K15 averages:

K12b (Armenia MBA, Armenia LBA, Sintashta M690970)

North_Italian
25.2292801185
34.9491817848
42.5481177368

N_Italian_D
23.7751361482
33.5081850801
40.5810220113

Tuscan
21.9717794775
29.7938279555
46.7315709435

C_Italian_D
21.3930312338
28.2686680108
48.4320914628

S_Italian_Sicilian_D
21.977495787
26.4278968007
53.4916239577

Sicilian_D
22.517268849
26.9366685492
53.5321040908

K15

North_Italian
41.0688536651
43.1908960849
35.9819965932

Tuscan
37.3780983737
41.6436802323
38.7979186958

Italian_Abruzzo
31.5187752158
38.7306078466
40.8363750983

South_Italian
33.1731236935
40.7923320233
43.9406060809

 

[Alan]

I'm just trying to see the pattern of where all the populations fall on one sample versus the other samples before I even get to drawing conclusions about it.

These are the results for the Late Bronze/Iron Age, yes?
1 Turkmens (Yunusbayev) 18.6
2 Lezgins (Behar) 18.72
3 Tajiks (Yunusbayev) 19.18
4 Kumyks (Yunusbayev) 20.32
5 Iranian (Dodecad) 21.6
6 Kurd (Dodecad) 22.07
7 Kurds (Yunusbayev) 22.15
8 Iranians (Behar) 22.35
9 Chechens (Yunusbayev) 23.96
10 Turks (Behar) 24.65
11 Nogais (Yunusbayev) 24.85
12 Turkish (Dodecad) 25.18
13 Uzbekistan_Jews (Behar) 27.71
14 Bulgarian (Dodecad) 27.72
15 Adygei (HGDP) 28.54
16 O_Italian (Dodecad) 28.64
17 Romanians (Behar) 28.72
18 Greek (Dodecad) 28.95
19 Bulgarians (Yunusbayev) 29.6
20 Balkars (Yunusbayev) 29.85

O_Italian are at 28.64 (# 16)

Do you know the next ten or twenty populations for this ancient sample? Where would North Italians, Tuscans, Southern Italians fall? Even if they start to appear at #21, the O_Italian group is different, and I think they're different because of the northeast Asian.

Now I see these results for
RISE413 MBA (1906 BC):
TOP reference populations based on Dodecad K12b:

1 19.6 Turkmens_Y
2 20.2 Turkish_Aydin_Ho
3 20.7 Zaza_Kurd
4 21.0 Turkish_Istanbul_Ho
5 21.3 Turkish_Kayseri_Ho
6 21.4 Tajiks_Y
7 21.7 Iranians
8 21.9 Iranian_D
9 22.1 Kurd_D
10 22.5 Kurds_Y

and here are the results for this group
RISE423 MBA (

1402 ​

BC)​

:
1 14.8 Kumyks_Y
2 15.5 Turkish_Istanbul_Ho
3 16.1 Lezgins__
4 16.5 Turkish_Aydin_Ho
5 16.8 Turkish_Kayseri_Ho
6 16.9 Zaza_Kurd
7 18.5 Turks___
8 18.9 Turkish_D
9 19.0 Kurds_Y___
10 19.1 Chechens_Y

There are slight changes in order, but basically the same general results as for Late Bronze, yes, in the sense that it is either Anatolia or Caucasus populations who are most related? Or do you disagree? Do you think the changes in order are significant?

Regardless, do you know if Europeans start to come in at around the same time and in approximately the same order for Middle Bronze Age as for the first Late Bronze Age results? In other words, Romanians, Greeks, Bulgarians, then at some point the regular Italian populations?

Now you list some numbers for Italians in terms of different ancient samples.
RISE416 MBA (

1643 BC​

):

1 16.8 O_Italian_D
2 18.4 TSI30
3 18.5 N_Italian_D
4 18.9 Tuscan
5 19.3 C_Italian_D
6 20.5 North_Italian
7 22.7 S_Italian_Sicilian_D
8 23.2 Greek_D
9 23.4 Sicilian_D
10 24.7 Baleares_1KG

Are you saying that for this one ancient Armenian sample, Europeans, especially Italians, are the closest population? In other words, for this sample from 1643 BC the progression of similarity is totally different from that of samples both older (1900 BC) and younger ( and all of a sudden Europeans are closest? Or are the usual Anatolia related and Caucasus related samples still the closest? It's labeling these 1-10 that is confusing me.

Now as to what it means, I'm not sure yet. I do know that North Italians and Tuscans are, according to Haak et al, about 25-30%, or from 1/4 to 1/3 Yamnaya, so I suppose one way of interpreting this is that there are similarities because that's what some of these ancient Armenian samples are as well.

I will try to explain it.

Look see it that way. From ancient Armenia perspective (in the middle)

Those ancient samples on the more on the left side of the "ancient Armenia" cirlcle will have Italians/Greeks/Bulgarians as their top 10 fit. But the following ten (11-20) are the North Caucasian/Iranic groups.

Those ancient samples who are more on the eastern part of the circle will have NorthCaucasians/Iranic groups as their top 10 fit but the following ten will be the South Euros.

The ancient samples are very similar just that their genetic make up position them in between modern South Euros and North Caucasians/Iranics. And depending on a few percentage more in one or the other component some will have South Euros in their top ten followed by North Caucasus/Iranics and vice versa.

If the table were going further down to top 20 we would see this as in the one Iron Age Armenian sample. Unfortunately I don't have the following 10. The person who made this admixture Oracle did not list the top 20.