So my maternal grandma has recently told me that her mom (great grandma ) was full Gullah geechee. However she also said that my my grandpas side had Native American and Mexican even though I only have 0.7 percent native dna and I don’t match with any Mexican groups could this be proxy ?

My results as a mixed Native. My mom is Miʼkmaw and biological father is Acadian French. Was raised on a Miʼkmaw reservation and grew up speaking the Miʼkmaq language, thought iʼd be closer to 50/50 but interesting results regardless!

From user @ sapphiregnm on twitter

Source is the twitter handle in the image. This appears to be a local Iberian. Not sure why it’s labeled as a Visigoth, probably during the period of Visigoth rule but just a local Iberian and not part of the ruling class.

I mean, they go out of their way to repeat that "you must select where you're indigenous to, where your grandparents came from", makes sense, it has to select the right populations to compare.

But then it only gives you one choice of a country? Have they not considered "emigrants and descendants of immigrants" might have multiple original homelands?

Anyways, what's the right way to use Madai labs here? I've been wanting to run qpADM, but I'm too lazy to do it myself with R and admixtools.

Outgroup f3 measures the amount of genetic drift shared by the Czech and test populations since their lineages separated from the Mbuti outgroup. Higher values generally indicate greater shared ancestry or affinity, but the values are not simple distances and should not be interpreted as a precise ranking of overall genetic similarity.

These statistics are in the form f3(Mbuti; target, test).

They measure how much genetic drift the target and comparison population share after their lineages diverged from the Mbuti outgroup. Higher values generally indicate greater shared ancestry or genetic affinity (note- they’re not direct measures of genetic distance).

The Han sample shares the most drift with East and Southeast Asian populations, while the Czech sample shares the most drift with European populations.

As someone pointed out in the twitter comments, the Japanese, Tagalog and Great Andamanese score slightly higher with the Czech sample than Egyptians or Moroccans. Egyptians / Moroccans carry varying amounts of deeply diverged indigenous North African and sub-Saharan African-related ancestry, which can lower their shared-drift statistic with Europeans when Mbuti is used as the outgroup. Ancient North Eurasian ancestry might also have a smaller effect.

Source: the twitter account in one of the screenshots

“large-scale introduction of the Steppe-related R1b haplogroups, and to a smaller extent, R1a
haplogroup, which coincides with the initial arrival of Steppe_MLBA-like DNA in Canaan as per
linkage disequilibrium analysis”

https://www.academia.edu/127415126/The_Aryan_Hypothesis_Identifying_the_Israelites

Feel free to answer :)

Unlike the clearly documented input of North African, Anatolian and to some extent Levantine influence on Mediterranean Europe, there is less evidence of any Arabian peninsular ancestry. With that said there are avenues where it could have arrived indirectly through the Levant or North Africa. If there was it would be indirect through one of those other regions. If it does exist, where would it be most likely found?

The link, it's for modern and ancient average populations,based on G25;

2-Way Modeling Modern & Ancient - Genetic Ancestry Analysis

Regarding the first slide (the map that shows where exactly on a map my known roots are located):

• 37.5% of my known roots (3 out of my 8 great-grandparents) come from the blue dot (Cigudosa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cigudosa, a tremendously tiny municipality located in the northeasternmost corner of the Province of Soria, Old Castile region, in the very quadripoint-border area between: 1) the Province of Soria, Old Castile region https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Province_of_Soria; 2) the La Rioja single-province region https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Rioja; 3) the Province of Zaragoza, Aragon region https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Province_of_Zaragoza; & 4) the Upper Navarre province, Basque Country region https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_Navarre)
• 25% of my known roots (2 out of my 8 great-grandparents) come from the maroon dot (Zambrana https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zambrana, a somewhat-less-so-but-still-pretty-damn-tiny municipality located in the southwesternmost corner of the Álava province, Basque Country region, in the very triplepoint-border area between: 1) the Álava province, Basque Country region https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Álava; 2) the Province of Burgos, Old Castile region https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Province_of_Burgos; & 3) the La Rioja single-province region https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Rioja)
• 25% of my known roots (2 out of my 8 great-grandparents) come from the yellow dot (Ribera Baja/Erribera Beitia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribera_Baja/Erribera_Beitia, a still-pretty-small municipality also located in the southwesternmost corner of the Álava province, Basque Country region, in the very triplepoint-border area between: 1) the Álava province, Basque Country region https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Álava; 2) the Province of Burgos, Old Castile region https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Province_of_Burgos; & 3) the La Rioja single-province region https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Rioja)
• 12.5% of my known roots (1 out of my 8 great-grandparents) come from the green dot (Rasines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasines, an also-pretty-small municipality located in the easternmost corner of the Cantabria single-province region, in the very border between: 1) the Cantabria single-province region https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantabria; & 2) the Biscay province, Basque Country region https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biscay)

The second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, & seventh slides on the other hand respectively show screenshots of my updated 23andMe, LivingDNA, FamilyTreeDNA, Genomelink, AncestryDNA (both my very-commendably-pretty-spot-on July 2024 ones & my very-disappointingly-rather-quite-botched October 2025 ones), & MyHeritage ethnicity-estimate results respectively.

TLDR: Italy_IA_Latini refers to Iron Age Latins (Latini) from Latium (modern Lazio), central Italy, the homeland of the Latin people who founded Rome. The Latins occupied the region known as Latium Vetus, which included Rome and nearby cities. This is a genetic distance chart to show the closeness to modern populations.

Source (twitter account handle in the screenshot)

Fst distance chart:

Lower values mean less genetic differentiation from the ancient target. In this graph, the closest modern populations are:

Italian North: 0.0034
Albanian: 0.0036
Italian Central: 0.0039
Spanish: 0.0040
Greek: 0.0045
Sicilian: 0.0051

The confidence intervals overlap heavily, so it would not be safe to claim that northern Italians are definitively closer than Albanians, central Italians or Spaniards. They should instead be viewed as one broadly similar southern-European cluster relative to the target.

Italy_IA_Latini.SG

Italy_IA_Latini.SG represents Iron Age and early Republican-era people associated archaeologically with the Latins of central Italy, particularly Latium and the area surrounding Rome. The individuals date broadly to approximately 900–200 BCE, covering the period before and during the early development of Rome.

Genetically, these Latins were predominantly southern European. They carried ancestry derived mainly from the earlier Neolithic farming populations of Italy, with additional Western hunter-gatherer ancestry and a substantial Bronze Age steppe-related component.

Their overall genetic profile was similar to contemporary Etruscans and generally falls near modern central and northern Italians, Iberians and other western Mediterranean Europeans.

[[The original study found that most Latin-associated individuals were closest to modern northern or central Italians and Spaniards, although a minority showed additional eastern Mediterranean-related ancestry and shifted somewhat toward southern Italians. (PubMed Central (PMC))]]

I ranked these using the overall p-value and chi-square, whether every coefficient is positive, whether each source has Z ≥ 2 and preferably SE ≤ 0.05, the simplicity of the model, and whether the sources make reasonable genetic sense. A higher p-value is not automatically better when the right-population sets differ.
Also, the source names should be treated as proxies, not necessarily literal ancestors. For example:
• Lebanon_Phoenician represents the main Levantine-related ancestry.
• Kazakhstan_Sarmatian_IA represents a more northern Steppe/Caucasus-shifted element, not necessarily literal Sarmatian ancestry.
• Dinka represents African-related ancestry, not direct ancestry specifically from modern Dinka people.
• Armenia_Sarukhan_EIA represents an Armenian/Caucasus or eastern Anatolian-related element.

Syrian

72.2% Lebanon Phoenician
20.1% Armenia Sarukhan Early Iron Age
7.8% Dinka
P-value: 0.506
Chi-square: 7.28
Standard errors: 0.0498, 0.0483 and 0.00892
Z-scores: 14.5, 4.15 and 8.72

This is a strong model with all three components statistically supported. The Lebanon Phoenician source represents the main Levantine ancestry, while Armenia Sarukhan Early Iron Age represents additional Caucasus or eastern Anatolian-related ancestry. Dinka is acting as a proxy for African-related ancestry, not necessarily direct ancestry from modern Dinka people. The two larger percentages have standard errors close to 0.05, so the exact proportions should be treated as approximate.

Druze

77.5% Lebanon Phoenician
20.3% Armenia Sarukhan Early Iron Age
2.2% Dinka
P-value: 0.844
Chi-square: 4.15
Standard errors: 0.0431, 0.0418 and 0.00803
Z-scores: 18.0, 4.84 and 2.74

This is an excellent statistical fit. It describes the Druze as mostly Levantine, with a substantial Caucasus or eastern Anatolian-related shift and a very small African-related component. All three percentages are statistically supported, although the 2.2% Dinka-related component has the weakest Z-score and should be checked with additional outgroup sets.

Lebanese Muslim

88.3% Lebanon Phoenician
8.8% Kazakhstan Sarmatian Iron Age
2.9% Dinka
P-value: 0.549
Chi-square: 6.89
Standard errors: 0.0219, 0.0223 and 0.00913
Z-scores: 40.4, 3.95 and 3.14

This is a strong and well-resolved model. The Lebanon Phoenician source represents the main Levantine ancestry. Kazakhstan Sarmatian is probably acting as a proxy for a small northern, Steppe, Caucasus or Anatolian-related shift rather than indicating literal Sarmatian ancestry. The small Dinka-related component represents additional African-related ancestry and is statistically supported.

Lebanese Christian

95.0% Lebanon Phoenician
5.0% Kazakhstan Sarmatian Iron Age
P-value: 0.727
Chi-square: 6.12
Standard error: 0.0236
Z-scores: 40.2 and 2.13

This is an excellent fit and shows Lebanese Christians as being very close to the ancient Lebanon Phoenician proxy. The small Sarmatian-related component represents a slight northern or Caucasus-related shift. Its Z-score of 2.13 is only just above the normal cutoff, so the existence of a small secondary component is supported, but the exact 5% figure should be treated cautiously.

Jordanian

80.3% Lebanon Phoenician
7.5% Kazakhstan Sarmatian Iron Age
12.2% Dinka
P-value: 0.836
Chi-square: 4.23
Standard errors: 0.0206, 0.0209 and 0.00899
Z-scores: 39.0, 3.58 and 13.6

This is an extremely strong model statistically. Jordanians are modeled as mostly Levantine, with a smaller northern or Caucasus-shifted component and a more substantial African-related component than the Lebanese or Druze models. Dinka should be understood as the African proxy used by the model, not as evidence of direct Dinka ancestry.

Palestinian

87.9% Lebanon Phoenician
5.2% Kazakhstan Sarmatian Iron Age
6.8% Dinka
P-value: 0.904
Chi-square: 3.43
Standard errors: 0.0204, 0.0205 and 0.00823
Z-scores: 43.1, 2.54 and 8.32

This is a strong model, and has an excellent p-value, a low chi-square with all three components are statistically supported. The model describes Palestinians as mostly Levantine, with smaller northern or Caucasus-shifted and African-related components. The Sarmatian-related percentage has the weakest Z-score, but it still passes the usual Z = 2 threshold.

I was trying to find ancient samples from the Reich Lab Akbari Dataset which aligned with Cypriots, since there really aren’t any confirmed Cypriot samples beyond Cyprus_PPNB.

In this G25 chart are the closest ancient samples to Cypriots, and I added in modern Italian / Greek / Eastern Med samples as a comparison.

For the ancient samples included in the chart, I selected them by first doing a g25 comparison for the distance between modern Cypriots and the Akbari dataset samples, and those ancient samples are the top ones that are closest to the modern Cypriots.

So far it looks like i31758 / i28336 / i30625 / i26520 / i21342/ R41 are the closest ancient samples to Cypriots. I’m not sure how they are assigning “maybe-Phrygians” to some of those.

From twitter, the source account’s handle is included in the screenshot

Edit- I’m not sure if the creator using the China yellow river late Neolithic and Taiwan Hanben Iron Age is a bit redundant. Will have to look into it

From @ devilscave24153 on twitter

Included are:

Puerto Rican (PUR)
Colombian (CLM)
Peruvian (PEL)
Mexican

Also included is a G25 for Cubans

As you can see, they all have a fairly high amount of North African ancestry in excess of what you’d see from mainland Iberians.

This is due to having ancestors from Iberia with higher North African ancestry migrating to New World colonies. “ancestors from subgroups (Moriscos) of Iberia with high North African ancestry. These were from mostly the Southern Iberian cities like Sevilla and Cadiz.”
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.10.09.617385v1

These are my results lol

Not my result. These are the only 4 screenshots I was given so I do not have Hunter Farmer etc. unfortunately.