Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 175 of 240

Thread: The Arrival of Steppe & Iranian Related Ancestry in Islands of West Mediterranean

  1. #151
    Moderator Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    2,219
    Points
    35,697
    Level
    58
    Points: 35,697, Level: 58
    Level completed: 21%, Points required for next Level: 953
    Overall activity: 12.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    I still don't believe this is the case, considering the authors are very explicit to say that Anatolian-Caucasians have genetic continuity, with very small random contributions.They even have a graphic that shows zero, Levant_N ancestry in those samples
    That's what necessarily happens when you define ANF as the sum of all the individuals from Neolithic Anatolia, which will obviously include more CHG/Iran and Levant-shifted Anatolians as well as the "core" Anatolian cluster still overwhelmingly derived from earlier Anatolian HGs. Anatolia clearly had a relatively minor but relevant genetic structure even back in the Neolithic (look the west-east e.g. more EEF-like to more Levant-like axis in the Anatolia_N individuals' clusters on PCAs) – and within that regional structure you already had more Levant_N/Natufian-shifted individuals, though the proportion of such individuals with minor but significant Levant_N/Natufian admixture may have increased later, thus a matter of different quantity (thus and of course changing the average), but not of different quality.

    It says, "In order to model Ebla_EMBA and Alalakh_MLBA withBüyükkaya_EC and Iran_N extra contribution from a source like Levant_N isnecessary." meaning only those two samples, that are geographically in the Northern Levant.
    Yes, in order to model those Northern Levantine models with Büyükkaya_EC and Iran_N as the 2 main sources they need to add Levant_N to make the models have a better fit. That's their premise: they can model those target samples only with those 2 source samples that work for other post-EC samples, but only if they add some extra Levant_N.
    Again I repeat: that doesn't mean at all that CHG/Iran_N and Levant_N weren't already a part of Büyükkaya_EC as they were a non-negligible part of some Neolithic Anatolian individual samples (actually even more so in the case of CHG/Iran_N admixture), so that model will necessarily need Levant_N and/or Iran_N if and exclusively if the target sample has extra CHG/Iran_N and/or Levant_N in addition to what was already merged and admixed into Büyükkaya_EC.

    I think there is no other logical interpretation for what the authors are really saying there, unless they also claimed that Büyükkaya_EC was almost the same as the average Anatolia_N or even, to be more certain of no or negligible prior Levant_N contribution, Barcin_N. It's the same thing as with Levant_N: saying there is Levant_N gene flow into some population already implies also a flow of Natufian + AHG imbued into that source population. Same with these EC Anatolian samples: having that already implies having not just "unmixed" (AHG) Anatolian ancestry, so whatever appears from other sources is just what is extra to those.

    Also, I think using PPNB_Levant maybe be misleading, considering the levant was already being shifted towards Anatolia-Caucuses, because of migrations to the region associated with those areas. For example, the sample of Peqi'in ChL demonstrate this.
    Well, that would be a bit like saying that we can't use North African sources to model their contribution to the gene pool of some place because they won't be 100% made by indigenous components. By that token, even Natufian would be "misleading", because it was also ~70% directly related to the Anatolian HGs further back. PPNB is the earliest Neolithic culture in the region. Nonetheless, the picture won't change if you use Natufian instead. Since Natufians were long gone (or rather changed into something else) by the time of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic expansion, if you use Natufian admixture you will get lower percentages, but no realistic interpretation of such a model would consider that there was actually direct Natufian contribution to Neolithic or Chalcolithic populations, that'd be totally anachronistic, so you would have to consider at least 2x the amount of Natufian to have a realistic estimate of the Levantine-related gene flow into some population compared to some earlier period.

  2. #152
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered

    Join Date
    12-11-19
    Posts
    51


    Country: Italy



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    ""That finally explains perfectly well why the authors do not identify much or even minimally significant Levant_N in places like Sicily and Greek islands: some Levant_N-shifted individual samples of the Anatolia_N pool of samples is already taking whatever little proportions of it there may be. Models using the entire pool of Anatolia_N samples under the label Anatolia_N will always hide any minor Levant_N and CHG/Iran_N and will show them only if they're in excess of what already existed in some part of Neolithic Anatolia."

    Glory Hallelujah; finally.

    This is what I have been saying in other words for years, i.e. that much of the "Levant Neolithic" found in Sicilians and Southern Italians might have been there since various stages of the Neolithic.

    My point in the current thread was that at least one of the samples in that pool used by Fernandes, Tepecik, and perhaps also Kumtepe, do contain enough Levant like ancestry that it could be "pulled" out if someone wanted to do it.

    As to the following, when we have more proximate sources maybe we'll be able to tell what percentage, if any, was already present before the Iron Age.

    "Now that I'm finally proving that Anatolia_N is indeed a pool of many Neolithic Anatolian samples (actually the Fernandes et al. supplement explicitly says that, though they don't specify which individual samples they're using and from where they are), I'm getting results that do not look that different from what previous studies have asserted, with the caveat that doing so will hide a bit of the CHG/Iran and Levant_N that may be there not because it arrived with ANF farmers, but due to later admixtures blended into a more unmixed Barcin-N population."



    We have sharpened enough the discussion to continue pursuing the original question of the other thread (which we can continue here because it has to do with the caucasus/iran gene flow that hit south east Europe): was there any post neolithic migration that brought additional Levant admixture in south east Europe? At least is that hinted by the data?
    I, as Jovialis and Angela, side with the side that answers negatively.
    We have learnt that different amounts of Levant_N appears depending on the Anatolian samples used, and if we use the all range no additional Levant_N is needed. However, if what is suggested, as it seems to me, is that all the Neolithic farmers in Europe were Barcin_like, and thus we need additional Levant_N that must've be brought by other post-neolithic migrations, then I must say that it is simply wrong. The reason is the empirical fact that we have neolithic samples from Greece and the Balkan that are already slightly "levant_shifted" compared to Barcin, and Minoans fall exactly in a straight line between Greece and Balkan neolithic and Iran neolithic, in accordance with Lazaridis 2017. That explains both why you need no additional Levant_N if you use the appropriate neolithic samples (and surely it's why there are no professional papers that use Levant_N to model south east Europeans), and also why you do need minor additional Levant_N if you use barcin_N as a target ( as for Italy, judging from the Antonio 2019, a gene flow probably from the Balkan brought this ancestry to Italy, more strongly to southern Italy).
    Only( as far as you can draw from the data) Iranian ancestry was brought after the neolithic, in accordance with the paper and the vast majority of the literature.

  3. #153
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Master Tagger
    Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    4,018
    Points
    160,176
    Level
    100
    Points: 160,176, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.3%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1a2b1 (R-F1794)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    That's what necessarily happens when you define ANF as the sum of all the individuals from Neolithic Anatolia, which will obviously include more CHG/Iran and Levant-shifted Anatolians as well as the "core" Anatolian cluster still overwhelmingly derived from earlier Anatolian HGs. Anatolia clearly had a relatively minor but relevant genetic structure even back in the Neolithic (look the west-east e.g. more EEF-like to more Levant-like axis in the Anatolia_N individuals' clusters on PCAs) – and within that regional structure you already had more Levant_N/Natufian-shifted individuals, though the proportion of such individuals with minor but significant Levant_N/Natufian admixture may have increased later, thus a matter of different quantity (thus and of course changing the average), but not of different quality.



    Yes, in order to model those Northern Levantine models with Büyükkaya_EC and Iran_N as the 2 main sources they need to add Levant_N to make the models have a better fit. That's their premise: they can model those target samples only with those 2 source samples that work for other post-EC samples, but only if they add some extra Levant_N.
    Again I repeat: that doesn't mean at all that CHG/Iran_N and Levant_N weren't already a part of Büyükkaya_EC as they were a non-negligible part of some Neolithic Anatolian individual samples (actually even more so in the case of CHG/Iran_N admixture), so that model will necessarily need Levant_N and/or Iran_N if and exclusively if the target sample has extra CHG/Iran_N and/or Levant_N in addition to what was already merged and admixed into Büyükkaya_EC.

    I think there is no other logical interpretation for what the authors are really saying there, unless they also claimed that Büyükkaya_EC was almost the same as the average Anatolia_N or even, to be more certain of no or negligible prior Levant_N contribution, Barcin_N. It's the same thing as with Levant_N: saying there is Levant_N gene flow into some population already implies also a flow of Natufian + AHG imbued into that source population. Same with these EC Anatolian samples: having that already implies having not just "unmixed" (AHG) Anatolian ancestry, so whatever appears from other sources is just what is extra to those.



    Well, that would be a bit like saying that we can't use North African sources to model their contribution to the gene pool of some place because they won't be 100% made by indigenous components. By that token, even Natufian would be "misleading", because it was also ~70% directly related to the Anatolian HGs further back. PPNB is the earliest Neolithic culture in the region. Nonetheless, the picture won't change if you use Natufian instead. Since Natufians were long gone (or rather changed into something else) by the time of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic expansion, if you use Natufian admixture you will get lower percentages, but no realistic interpretation of such a model would consider that there was actually direct Natufian contribution to Neolithic or Chalcolithic populations, that'd be totally anachronistic, so you would have to consider at least 2x the amount of Natufian to have a realistic estimate of the Levantine-related gene flow into some population compared to some earlier period.
    I think once Lazaridis' pre-print on Dzudzurna finally comes out, there are going to be some rethinking of these models. Considering that Dzudzurna is very similar to Anatolian_N. While Natufian is Dzudzurna, plus Ancestral North African. Perhaps Anatolian_N is an isolated Dzudzurna-like population, and not necessarily a mixture of WHG and Natufian.
    There can be no covenants between men and lions

  4. #154
    Moderator Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    2,219
    Points
    35,697
    Level
    58
    Points: 35,697, Level: 58
    Level completed: 21%, Points required for next Level: 953
    Overall activity: 12.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Leopoldo Leone View Post



    We have sharpened enough the discussion to continue pursuing the original question of the other thread (which we can continue here because it has to do with the caucasus/iran gene flow that hit south east Europe): was there any post neolithic migration that brought additional Levant admixture in south east Europe? At least is that hinted by the data?
    I, as Jovialis and Angela, side with the side that answers negatively.
    We have learnt that different amounts of Levant_N appears depending on the Anatolian samples used, and if we use the all range no additional Levant_N is needed. However, if what is suggested, as it seems to me, is that all the Neolithic farmers in Europe were Barcin_like, and thus we need additional Levant_N that must've be brought by other post-neolithic migrations, then I must say that it is simply wrong. The reason is the empirical fact that we have neolithic samples from Greece and the Balkan that are already slightly "levant_shifted" compared to Barcin, and Minoans fall exactly in a straight line between Greece and Balkan neolithic and Iran neolithic, in accordance with Lazaridis 2017. That explains both why you need no additional Levant_N if you use the appropriate neolithic samples (and surely it's why there are no professional papers that use Levant_N to model south east Europeans), and also why you do need minor additional Levant_N if you use barcin_N as a target ( as for Italy, judging from the Antonio 2019, a gene flow probably from the Balkan brought this ancestry to Italy, more strongly to southern Italy).
    Only( as far as you can draw from the data) Iranian ancestry was brought after the neolithic, in accordance with the paper and the vast majority of the literature.
    But then you think the Morocco_EN (the quintessential signal of North African ancestry) and Iran_N arrived in parts of Southeastern Europe in totally unmixed "pure" form even way after the Neolithic times when those clusters still existed "undisturbed" without the profound reciprocal admixing processes that shook West Eurasia between the EN and the BA? I find that hard to believe. Iran_N couldn't have traversed the Caucasus, Asia Minor em maybe northern Mesopotamia all the way to Europe as far as Italy without having admixed along the way with the people that already lived in those areas and more probably than not carried at least some bit of Levant_N.

    Also, Iran_N was actually already present in Italy in the Neolithic, though you could also perhaps hypothesize it was only the arrival of some particular Aegean EEF people (for IIRC Pelopponese_G actually had more CHG/Iran_N-like admixture than Levant_N).

    Morever, just a final note: for Sicilians and especially for Greek islanders (Crete, Kos) you still need some extra Levant_N to model them best even if you include all the distinct samples of the Anatolia_N cluster. In Sicily, just a little bit (3.5%), which I think is totally consistent with the known history of the region, but quite a bit more in the Greek islands (not surprising given their geographical location, if you ask me). Personally I also think the Greek colonization may have brought higher Levant_N than was previously found, because the Hellenic world also encompassed Cyprus and the Anatolian coast, no to mention at least for some time the more "exotic" colonialist endeavors like the Philistines.

  5. #155
    Moderator Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    2,219
    Points
    35,697
    Level
    58
    Points: 35,697, Level: 58
    Level completed: 21%, Points required for next Level: 953
    Overall activity: 12.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    I think once Lazaridis' pre-print on Dzudzurna finally comes out, there are going to be some rethinking of these models. Considering that Dzudzurna is very similar to Anatolian_N. While Natufian is Dzudzurna, plus Ancestral North African. Perhaps Anatolian_N is an isolated Dzudzurna-like population, and not necessarily a mixture of WHG and Natufian.
    Do you mean the entire cluster of Anatolia_N or AHG (Anatolia_HG), the main genetic basis of those varied Anatolia_N samples? Since we already have an example of AHG before post-Epipaleolithic samples, I think the Natufian and the CHG/Iran_N in there, deviating a bit from Pinarbasi_HG, suggests that there were indeed post-Epipaleolithic gene flows into (and out of) Anatolia.

    I never bought this idea that AHG were basicall WHG+Natufian. It makes very little sense, and especially WHG is very divergent from AHG. I think Lazaridis et al.'s remark on the Dzudzuana pre-print that the Neolithic Anatolians (I assume he means the average typically Anatolian ancestry) resulted from a Dzuduana-like source added to something more WHG-like (but not WHG) and more Basal Eurasian is more credible.

    What I'm really intrigued about is what Lazaridis et al. defined as "deep" ancestry in their pre-print, what it actually means:
    https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1...079v1.full.pdf

    Western PGNE populations, including Neolithic Anatolians, pre-pottery Neolithic farmers186 from the Levant (PPNB), Natufians, and Taforalt, can all be modeled as a mixture of187 Dzudzuana and additional ‘Deep’ ancestry that may represent an even earlier split than the188 Basal Eurasians.

  6. #156
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered

    Join Date
    12-11-19
    Posts
    51


    Country: Italy



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    But then you think the Morocco_EN (the quintessential signal of North African ancestry) and Iran_N arrived in parts of Southeastern Europe in totally unmixed "pure" form even way after the Neolithic times when those clusters still existed "undisturbed" without the profound reciprocal admixing processes that shook West Eurasia between the EN and the BA? I find that hard to believe. Iran_N couldn't have traversed the Caucasus, Asia Minor em maybe northern Mesopotamia all the way to Europe as far as Italy without having admixed along the way with the people that already lived in those areas and more probably than not carried at least some bit of Levant_N.

    Also, Iran_N was actually already present in Italy in the Neolithic, though you could also perhaps hypothesize it was only the arrival of some particular Aegean EEF people (for IIRC Pelopponese_G actually had more CHG/Iran_N-like admixture than Levant_N).

    Morever, just a final note: for Sicilians and especially for Greek islanders (Crete, Kos) you still need some extra Levant_N to model them best even if you include all the distinct samples of the Anatolia_N cluster. In Sicily, just a little bit (3.5%), which I think is totally consistent with the known history of the region, but quite a bit more in the Greek islands (not surprising given their geographical location, if you ask me). Personally I also think the Greek colonization may have brought higher Levant_N than was previously found, because the Hellenic world also encompassed Cyprus and the Anatolian coast, no to mention at least for some time the more "exotic" colonialist endeavors like the Philistines.
    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.

    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.
    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".

  7. #157
    Moderator Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    2,219
    Points
    35,697
    Level
    58
    Points: 35,697, Level: 58
    Level completed: 21%, Points required for next Level: 953
    Overall activity: 12.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Leopoldo Leone View Post
    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.
    That would be Morocco_LN, not Morocco_EN, which is basically 100% Taforalt.

    And Morocco_LN was not quite Greek-like at all. See the PCA I posted above as well as the K= admixture models of the paper on ancient North African DNA where those samples were published. There is nothing Greek-like about them at all except the fact they both carried much ANF.

  8. #158
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    10-05-19
    Posts
    681
    Points
    8,229
    Level
    27
    Points: 8,229, Level: 27
    Level completed: 14%, Points required for next Level: 521
    Overall activity: 11.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2-M223
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H2A3

    Ethnic group
    Italian-Siicly-South
    Country: United States



    Leopoldo: I agree with you the use of that Morroco_LN sample only works if it can be modeled admixture wise the way is shown in the Fernandes et al 2020 paper. No way that works if that sample is 30% Native Berber or Ancient NA. So if the Morroco_LN is "not" 90% Neolithic_EEF+WHG+CHG/IRAN_NEO, as Fernandes et al 2020 model it, it can't work and is not plausible.

    As for the other Eastern sources, such as Iran_NEO, coming in with Antaolian Neolithic, rather than pure direct source, do the results from the Vandeloosdrecht paper on the Grotta Del Uzzo samples suggest this perhaps? The Antonio et al 2019 results for the Neolithic Romans find the same admixture that the the pre-print paper on the Grotta Del Uzzo samples has. Maybe someone with all the relevant G25 coordinates can run the models for the Neolithic Romans and see if they can be modeled similar to the Grotta Del Uzzo, Trapani, Neolithic Sicilians.

  9. #159
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    10-05-19
    Posts
    681
    Points
    8,229
    Level
    27
    Points: 8,229, Level: 27
    Level completed: 14%, Points required for next Level: 521
    Overall activity: 11.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2-M223
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H2A3

    Ethnic group
    Italian-Siicly-South
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    That would be Morocco_LN, not Morocco_EN, which is basically 100% Taforalt.

    And Morocco_LN was not quite Greek-like at all. See the PCA I posted above as well as the K= admixture models of the paper on ancient North African DNA where those samples were published. There is nothing Greek-like about them at all except the fact they both carried much ANF.
    YGORCS: I think you and do agree, that if Morocco_LN can't be modeled admixture wise the way it is shown in Fernandes et al 2020 to model modern Sicilians, it is totally not a plausible source. That was the point I was making when I commented when it was at bioRxiv. So if it is roughly 30% Ancient Berber or Ancient NA, no way it works.

  10. #160
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered

    Join Date
    12-11-19
    Posts
    51


    Country: Italy



    Quote Originally Posted by Palermo Trapani View Post
    Leopoldo: I agree with you the use of that Morroco_LN sample only works if it can be modeled admixture wise the way is shown in the Fernandes et al 2020 paper. No way that works if that sample is 30% Native Berber or Ancient NA. So if the Morroco_LN is "not" 90% Neolithic_EEF+WHG+CHG/IRAN_NEO, as Fernandes et al 2020 model it, it can't work and is not plausible.

    As for the other Eastern sources, such as Iran_NEO, coming in with Antaolian Neolithic, rather than pure direct source, do the results from the Vandeloosdrecht paper on the Grotta Del Uzzo samples suggest this perhaps? The Antonio et al 2019 results for the Neolithic Romans find the same admixture that the the pre-print paper on the Grotta Del Uzzo samples has. Maybe someone with all the relevant G25 coordinates can run the models for the Neolithic Romans and see if they can be modeled similar to the Grotta Del Uzzo, Trapani, Neolithic Sicilians.
    I also want to make clear that I am NOT saying that Morocco_LN is really similar to Myceneans, but that it was treated/modelled as such by the authors of the papers, otherwise it wouldn't have worked to model Sicilians and it wouldn't plot so close to Myceneans in the PCA they used. In short it was a mistake.

  11. #161
    Moderator Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    2,219
    Points
    35,697
    Level
    58
    Points: 35,697, Level: 58
    Level completed: 21%, Points required for next Level: 953
    Overall activity: 12.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Leopoldo Leone View Post
    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.

  12. #162
    Moderator Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    2,219
    Points
    35,697
    Level
    58
    Points: 35,697, Level: 58
    Level completed: 21%, Points required for next Level: 953
    Overall activity: 12.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Palermo Trapani View Post
    YGORCS: I think you and do agree, that if Morocco_LN can't be modeled admixture wise the way it is shown in Fernandes et al 2020 to model modern Sicilians, it is totally not a plausible source. That was the point I was making when I commented when it was at bioRxiv. So if it is roughly 30% Ancient Berber or Ancient NA, no way it works.
    Yes, of course.

  13. #163
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    18,072
    Points
    395,965
    Level
    100
    Points: 395,965, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    It's still the same thing, though. It's just that the Levant_N is now subsumed into Anatolia_N, because in the second model it includes all the somewhat Levant-shifted Neolithic Anatolian individuals. Two different ways to show the very same thing, nothing else. Now, what really needs to be investigated is when, where and if EEF became more Tepecik-Ciftlik (that is, with extra Levant_N and CHG/Iran_N) instead of overwhelmingly Barcin_N as most of the early samples are.
    No, not the same thing at all, because your hypothesis, to which you held in the face of all the academic papers finding no such "Levantine" component, and everyone here pointing out of the flaws in your argument, has always been that the "Levantine" you found in Southern Italians and Sicilians was from a specific gene flow sometime between the end of the Bronze Age and into the Iron Age.

    Now it's obvious that you were wrong, and what you found is at least in part just the variation in the Anatolian Neolithic which arrived in Europe, with perhaps part of it arriving in a later gene flow which arrived just before the Chalcolithic, as we can see in "The Iceman" and Remedello, which I've been pointing out for ten years, for all the good it did me.

    It's so insignificant that the researchers don't give it head room, but it seems to be of extreme importance to you.

    If there was indeed some additional "extra" Levantine admixture, the only way we'll really know is when we have proximate samples from the relevant time periods.

    Otherwise, it was "much ado about nothing".

    Sometimes, when you've been wrong, it's best to just admit you were wrong. All the verbiage in the world isn't going to change that.


    Non si fa il proprio dovere perchè qualcuno ci dica grazie, lo si fa per principio, per se stessi, per la propria dignità. Oriana Fallaci

  14. #164
    Moderator Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    2,219
    Points
    35,697
    Level
    58
    Points: 35,697, Level: 58
    Level completed: 21%, Points required for next Level: 953
    Overall activity: 12.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    No, not the same thing at all, because your hypothesis, to which you held in the face of all the academic papers finding no such "Levantine" component, and everyone here pointing out of the flaws in your argument, has always been that the "Levantine" you found in Southern Italians and Sicilians was from a specific gene flow sometime between the end of the Bronze Age and into the Iron Age.

    Now it's obvious that you were wrong, and what you found is at least in part just the variation in the Anatolian Neolithic which arrived in Europe.

    It's so insignificant that the researchers don't give it head room, but it seems to be of extreme importance to you.

    Sometimes, when you've been wrong, it's best to just admit you were wrong. All the verbiage in the world isn't going to change that.
    You clearly misinterpreted what I was saying all this time just like others here. So, I won't admit I am wrong since in the end you yourself and several others conceded that, indeed, a gene flow from a source with more Levant_N, even if already heavily diluted amongst other ancestral components. If the change was from more Barcin-like to Tepecik-like, well, then some non-negligible change did happen after all, and that minor Levant_N signal was onto something, which obviously never had to have come straight from the Levant.
    You and others seem to think that by acquiring more Levant_N-related ancestry (as I worded my understanding several times) I was necessarily implying direct gene flow from the Levant. But if you could only think of that possibility, then it's your problem, not mine, because a change did happen, and it may have involved a lot of different scenarios, one of which I specifically and explicitly suggested could be simply an EEF-like source with more Levant_N since the beginning of this discussion hundreds of posts earlier. So, no, I was not wrong. You and other Eupedia members simply didn't want to understand what I was saying because apparently you were all too focused on the "Levantine people" part of the subject, instead of the Levant_N-related admixture, which is obviously not the same thing (and obviously thousands of years earlier than the much more mixed and dynamic Bronze Age) and simply pointed to some kind of change that involved a slightly more Levant-shifted source. Some kind of change, not necessarily one only admixture event, not necessarily from the Levant. If you thought that could only have come via Levantines in some massive flow, then that's with you and your preconceptions about what other people must be "reeeeally" aiming to say, because I explicitly hypothesized several different (and maybe even cumulative) population sources since the start of this.

    And I also must say: so kind of you to describe my effort to write substantiated and well explained posts here as "verbiage". I'll keep that sarcastic advice in further activity in this forum, as it seems it's not worth the time to try to explain in detail what I think and why I think. Good to know it, as time is always precious.

  15. #165
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered

    Join Date
    12-11-19
    Posts
    51


    Country: Italy



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    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).




    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.



    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.
    OK, I agree: we have all learnt something from this discussion, we haven't found a "common ground" but it is always a possibility when debating, and I also think that the last word will come when we have more samples and papers.
    However, I used "unsubstantiated" to refer specifically to the idea that the Greek colonization brought significant Levant_N, because we do not have any indication of that (from accademic paper, and I also think that they would have pointed to such a possibility if they had any ground).

  16. #166
    Moderator Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    2,219
    Points
    35,697
    Level
    58
    Points: 35,697, Level: 58
    Level completed: 21%, Points required for next Level: 953
    Overall activity: 12.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Leopoldo Leone View Post
    OK, I agree: we have all learnt something from this discussion, we haven't found a "common ground" but it is always a possibility when debating, and I also think that the last word will come when we have more samples and papers.
    However, I used "unsubstantiated" to refer specifically to the idea that the Greek colonization brought significant Levant_N, because we do not have any indication of that (from accademic paper, and I also think that they would have pointed to such a possibility if they had any ground).
    We only have Mycenaean and Minoan samples. Wait till we have Anatolian Greek and Cypriot samples and we'll see. Also, you're contradicting yourself quite a bit: first you say minor Levant_N probably came via more Levant-shifted Anatolian-derived farmers like those in Neolithic Greece and Pelopponese (also Greece, but more specific group), then you claim it's impossible that population movements from Greece brought part of the minor Levant_N admixture we see in some models when using Barcin_N only. You need to decide what you really think, unless that is a way to imply that Mycenaeans, Minoans and especially later Greeks had nothing to do with the slightly more varied Neolithic Anatolian farmers that settled in the Aegean area since the Neolithic (which I don't think you want to do).

  17. #167
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    18,072
    Points
    395,965
    Level
    100
    Points: 395,965, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    You clearly misinterpreted what I was saying all this time just like others here. So, I won't admit I am wrong since in the end you yourself and several others conceded that, indeed, a gene flow from a source with more Levant_N . You and others seem to think that by acquiring more Levant_N-related ancestry (as I worded my understanding several times) I was necessarily implying direct gene flow from the Levant. But if you could only think of that possibility, then it's your problem, not mine, because a change did happen, and it may have involved a lot of different scenarios, one of which I specifically and explicitly suggested could be simply an EEF-like source with more Levant_N since the beginning of this discussion hundreds of posts earlier. So, no, I was not wrong. You and other Eupedia members simply didn't want to understand what I was saying because apparently you were all too focused on the "Levantine" part of the subject, instead of the Levant_N-related admixture, which is obviously not the same thing and simply pointed out to some kind of change that involved a slightly more Levant-shifted source. If you thought that could only have come via Levantines, then that's with you, because I explicitly hypothesized several different (and maybe even cumulative) population sources.

    And I also must say: so kind of you to describe my effort to write substantiated and well explained posts here as "verbiage". I'll keep that sarcastic advice in further activity in this forum, as it seems it's not worth the time to try to explain in detail what I think and why I think. Good to know it, as time is always precious.
    Do I really have to go back through the other thread and pull out where you specifically said there was a gene flow sometime between the Bronze Age and the Iron Age?

    You saw it as a separate arrival, separate from the Neolithic, and held that it accounted for 10% of the ancestry of Southern Italians and Sicilians, which is no big whoops and undeserving of all this attention, but whatever.

    Have the honesty to admit you were wrong for God's sake.

    People respect that.

  18. #168
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered

    Join Date
    12-11-19
    Posts
    51


    Country: Italy



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    We only have Mycenaean and Minoan samples. Wait till we have Anatolian Greek and Cypriot samples and we'll see. Also, you're contradicting yourself quite a bit: first you say minor Levant_N probably came via more Levant-shifted Anatolian-derived farmers like those in Neolithic Greece and Pelopponese (also Greece, but more specific group), then you claim it's impossible that population movements from Greece brought part of the minor Levant_N admixture we see in some models when using Barcin_N only. You need to decide what you really think, unless that is a way to imply that Mycenaeans, Minoans and especially later Greeks had nothing to do with the slightly more varied Neolithic Anatolian farmers that settled in the Aegean area since the Neolithic (which I don't think you want to do).
    From Antonio 2019 we know that some "south east european" ancestry made its way into Italy, and you yourself said that the BA Sicilian samples can be quite well be modelled with Tepecik( and had already some Iran_N), so I doubt by the time of the Greek colonization south Italy's gene pool was much diverse from Crete/Greece. Still we agree we can only be sure with other samples.

  19. #169
    Moderator Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    2,219
    Points
    35,697
    Level
    58
    Points: 35,697, Level: 58
    Level completed: 21%, Points required for next Level: 953
    Overall activity: 12.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    Do I really have to go back through the other thread and pull out where you specifically said there was a gene flow sometime between the Bronze Age and the Iron Age.

    Have the honesty to admit you were wrong for God's sake.

    People respect that.
    I keep saying that, Angela. Never denied it, so your rant about it is honestly unnecessary. What part of my post didn't you understand? We were not discussing the entirety of Europe. We were discussing possible changes in genetic makeup shown by comparing the AVAILABLE (obviously, we're not fortune-tellers) aDNA from Sicily between the Neolithic and the IA. Europe may have seen gene flow from different kinds of Anatolian farmers, more specifically parts of the Balkans, but what is ACTUALLY shown by the AVAILABLE aDNA samples from Sicily indicates gene flow after the BA pulling it closer to Tepecik-Ciftlik/Tepecik ANF than Barcin ANF. Did I say that came from the Levant and could only come via Levantine migrations? No, I didn't. Did I say parts of South Italy and Sicily just couldn't have had that more "eastern" kind of ANF since a long time before those samples show? No, I didn't. I simply said that genetic makeup seems to have expanded more to show in all later samples. Can I be any clearer than that for you, or are you keeping your judgemental and higher-than-thou tone as if my entire character and reputation were at stake in this simple conversation? You really should avoid that, just saying.

  20. #170
    Moderator Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    2,219
    Points
    35,697
    Level
    58
    Points: 35,697, Level: 58
    Level completed: 21%, Points required for next Level: 953
    Overall activity: 12.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Leopoldo Leone View Post
    From Antonio 2019 we know that some "south east european" ancestry made its way into Italy, and you yourself said that the BA Sicilian samples can be quite well be modelled with Tepecik( and had already some Iran_N), so I doubt by the time of the Greek colonization south Italy's gene pool was much diverse from Crete/Greece. Still we agree we can only be sure with other samples.
    Yes, as I said before more than twice: the difference was one of quantity, not one of quality. Simply the mostly Barcin-like ANF became mostly or at least much more Tepecik-like. I don't think people should be that surprised by it considering everything we know about Sicily during and after the BA.

  21. #171
    Moderator Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    2,219
    Points
    35,697
    Level
    58
    Points: 35,697, Level: 58
    Level completed: 21%, Points required for next Level: 953
    Overall activity: 12.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    You saw it as a separate arrival, separate from the Neolithic, and held that it accounted for 10% of the ancestry of Southern Italians and Sicilians, which is no big whoops and undeserving of all this attention, but whatever.
    Yes, a separate arrival of population, though of course not completely unrelated to the already settled EEF, in comparison with the earliest Neolithic samples from Sicily itself and Italy more broadly, which were far less Tepecik/Kumtepe-like and, using Barcin_N, had less Levantine affinity (as well as CHG/Iran_N too, of course). More Tepecik-like admixture already increases by the BA and becomes much more significant even in later South Italian-like samples as well as modern Sicilians. Maybe you took the conversation to be about Europe as a whole. No, it was always about Sicily's genetic history specifically. No, I never saw it as a separate arrival of people who were pretty much like Levant_N even in the BA and IA (that's so obvious, frankly). If you've been reading attentively enough, you know that, and if you didn't then you should before laying illegitimate accusations based on your misinterpretations.

    Now I'm out of this. Unlike you think, I think you all seem a lot more emotional about this than me, and you definitely do show a much greater concern about the implications of these interpretation than me. I just don't like to keep people who posted replies to me waiting while I silence and don't address their questions and criticisms. That's all. Honestly I don't really care, I just find it a very interesting history topic that I have some opinions about and don't think we should be dogmatic nor get too self-righteous about it especially based on a tiny handful of (often misinterpreted, as I have seen here multiple times) past studies published by an extremely new science that is still developing.

    Cheers and take care you all!

  22. #172
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    18,072
    Points
    395,965
    Level
    100
    Points: 395,965, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    I think once Lazaridis' pre-print on Dzudzurna finally comes out, there are going to be some rethinking of these models. Considering that Dzudzurna is very similar to Anatolian_N. While Natufian is Dzudzurna, plus Ancestral North African. Perhaps Anatolian_N is an isolated Dzudzurna-like population, and not necessarily a mixture of WHG and Natufian.
    I would also ask who the hell decided Barcin was the "CORE" of the Anatolian Neolithic?

    If you read Kilinc et al you certainly don't get that impression AT ALL.

    Boncuklu, the "original" HG who adopted farming are described as a primitive group, highly inbred and drifted, and it is pointed out that the trend of the Neolithic was increasing diversification, caused in all likelihood by people bringing in more advanced technology.

    For goodness' sakes, when are people going to go back and read the papers before making statements like that.

  23. #173
    Moderator Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    2,219
    Points
    35,697
    Level
    58
    Points: 35,697, Level: 58
    Level completed: 21%, Points required for next Level: 953
    Overall activity: 12.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    I would also ask who the hell decided Barcin was the "CORE" of the Anatolian Neolithic?

    If you read Kilinc et al you certainly don't get that impression AT ALL.

    Boncuklu, the "original" HG who adopted farming are described as a primitive group, highly inbred and drifted, and it is pointed out that the trend of the Neolithic was increasing diversification, caused in all likelihood by people bringing in more advanced technology.

    For goodness' sakes, when are people going to go back and read the papers before making statements like that.
    They're the closest to AHG. I explicitly explained in my post what I meant by "core" in that sense, since it allows us to distinguish how other Anatolian samples differ and why. Read, preferably with some good will and attention, before criticizing.

  24. #174
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    18,072
    Points
    395,965
    Level
    100
    Points: 395,965, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    @Palermo Trapani,

    You've been reading too much of Sikeliot. If Ygorcs' "latest" model is correct, there's 3% "additional" "Levantine like" ancestry in Sicilians, so I guess all those "Phoenicians/Carthaginians", and Syrian slaves, and whomever else he loves to talk about didn't make a hell of an impact.

  25. #175
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    18,072
    Points
    395,965
    Level
    100
    Points: 395,965, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    They're the closest to AHG. I explicitly explained in my post what I meant by "core" in that sense, since it allows us to distinguish how other Anatolian samples differ and why. Read, preferably with some good will and attention, before criticizing.
    WHO CARES?

    The Anatolian Neolithic which went to Europe was not Boncuklu. They died out, probably because they didn't keep up.

    They're irrelevant by every paper ever published.

Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •