Ygorcs
Active member
- Messages
- 2,259
- Reaction score
- 812
- Points
- 0
- Ethnic group
- Multiracial Brazilian
The Moroccan_EN used in the paper I think, as virtually every other do, was "found quite Greek-like" but there must have been a mistake, and was used just to capture the small north african in Sicilians.
About Iran_N, I don't think that it came from a pure source, but that it came with Anatolian mixed with it, with no additional Lavant_N, because the latest study modelled Anatolian since the calcolithic as a two way mixture, and they did check whether using Levant_N gives better results.
As for your model, still I have my issues: talking precisely about Sicilians, the samples is ridicolously small ( six, but three per group) and I don't know where those are from ( I asked this question also in the other thread), and the big variability of Levant_N ( there are one with 0 or 3 and other with 10) makes me wonder even more, because as far as I know there hasn't been found such a hetereogenity in the Sicilian gene pool. As long as you use them as " a guesswork", you can't do better because you can't work with what you don't have, but when you suggest that these are better than professional studies that used dozens if not hundreds of samples, then I find it hard to accept such a suggestion.
You're being a bit too optimistic if you really think all professional studies use dozens if not hundreds of samples, but okay, at least a few do.
And, no, the variation is actually just because not all samples pick ancestry from Tepecik_Citflik and Kumtepe instead of Levant_N. Besides, 0-3% to 10-12% is not that much structure at all when you consider this is Levant_N (which is already much closer to Anatolia_N than Natufian), so it won't make individuals drift too much from each other in such low proportions, let alone entire populations (because genetic structure mainly considers average regional or at least social e.g. caste samples, not individual variation).
Also the paper about Crete, or their position on a PCA, suggests that they do not have more Levant_N ancestry than their ancestors since the neolithic, since they fall west of the straight line that runs from Greece_N and Iran_N, in fact they are either closer to Europe and to the caucasus compared to their Minoan ancestors, not closer to the Levant.
Of course that will not appear on a PCA. It's pretty minor ancestry and mostly offset by the much higher CHG/Iran_N and ANF ancestries. PCA is not everything. It's part of the evidences and will only show the broad and really significant trends.
In any case, I didn't say Minoans had significantly more Levant_N than previous samples from Greece, so I don't know what you are arguing about. I only mentioned Cypriots and Anatolian Greeks in later, post-Minoan times.
And frankly, I do not think that unsubstantiated opinions can play any role in a discussion about the best interpretation of the data we have: when we have new samples that support your opinion, than we might start to give it weight or even be "obliged to accept it in the face of evidence".
Okay, then end of discussion. I'm out. Too many lines have already been written, too many opinions have already been extensively explained (though you may say all the both amateurish AND professional models, graphs, PCAs and excerpts of published studies I included in my posts are totally unsubstantiated), and after all is said and done there are so many other even more interesting subjects to keep reading and writing about! We'll see what future holds for us.