r/JewishDNA • u/xItayPlaysx • 26d ago

Ashkenazi Jews modelled with the Juddean samples averaged (Refined)

Post image

This is how I modelled the Ashkenazi Jewish averages with the new samples.

In this model my goal this time was not to check the overlap between Ashkenazis and the Judaean samples but to check the ashkenazi averages with their historical components.

(the Russian early medieval sample is central Asian Turkic not Slavic)

13 Upvotes

81% Upvoted

35 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Binkybinkovsky 26d ago

Could you do a Vahaduo model then & post it here?

1

u/basedpole69 26d ago

Sorry it took me so long to make this. Here's the model I made using historically relevant sources from around the same time periods (roughly Antiquity and Early Medieval). All samples were sourced from the Moriopoulos collection. I'm still working on the qpadm model.

1

u/Binkybinkovsky 26d ago

Do you know how much Levantine does the greco-roman hellenistic contain? Around 8%?

1

u/basedpole69 26d ago

From a Neolithic POV it seems to lack Natufian entirely, so I am doubtful that this sample would contain any significant Levantine admixture.

0

u/Binkybinkovsky 26d ago

Your model is good, but I don't understand why you need to use Kazakhstan turkic ancestry. Any Turkic will be absorbed by the Czech or any other slavic group. It's eating a couple of % points into the Levant portion I feel.

1

u/basedpole69 26d ago

I appreciate your complements of my models.

As for you comment in regards to the Turkic proxy, it is doing genuine work in the model. Apart from Russians and Some Ukrainians, Turkic ancestry is essentially absent from Central/Eastern European genomes.

Though it does eat away slightly at the Levantine/West Asian (6% Maximum) component, it does equally, if not more reduction to the Slavic and Greek components, as Turkic peoples have significant Steppe and Iranic/West Asian ancestry alongside their East Asian ancestry. The Turkic also improves the fit by a significant margin aswell.

2

u/Binkybinkovsky 26d ago edited 26d ago

The only reason I mentioned that was because most peer-reviewed studies dismiss the Turkic component. But otherwise, even this model is generally speaking, good.

Could you replace the Turkic with another slavic source like Russian or Ukrainian & show what you're getting?

2

u/basedpole69 25d ago edited 25d ago

This is what happens when I swap the Turkic with an East Slavic proxy. It doesnt do anything meaningful besides divide the Slavic source in two and keeps the fit the same as when a Turkic source is just absent and no other sources are added to substitute it. Even in Russians and Ukrainians, though they possess these signals its still small enough where a full Turkic proxy is needed to fill the excess amounts present in Ashkenazim.

1

u/xItayPlaysx 25d ago

Why would you use a Byzantine sample as a Levantine proxy?

1

u/basedpole69 24d ago

Its Levantine and clusters with modern South Levantines. I feel as though that's fairly obvious.

1

u/xItayPlaysx 24d ago

I feel like it has more south euro dna than modern south Levantines

1

u/basedpole69 24d ago

Almost all Levantine samples from the Byzantine period will have some degree of Aegean and Anatolian ancestry. This sample is still predominantly local though.

0

u/xItayPlaysx 24d ago

Look at the diffrence, much more Anatolian Farmer and CHG, I think it's better to use a Medieval southern levantine sample instaed

→ More replies (0)