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

Let me make a correction: actually Sicily BA samples can be modelled with Tepecik-Ciftlik/Kumtepe-type ANF instead of Barcin/Boncuklu-type ANF, but at the same time that causes "independent" CHG/Iran_N arrivals during the BA in Sicily to disappear or decrease very much (not necessarily a problem, I think everyone already suspected that ancestry actually arrived there with ANF-majority people who had some relevant amount of CHG/Iran_N). But it does seem that in earlier samples only Greece and Pelopponese_N were partly Tepecik/Kumtepe-like. The rest of the EN and MN EEF all lack it (no surprise, too, because they never found any CHG/Iran and Levant in most of the rest of Europe that early).
Target
Distance
Barcin+Boncuklu
GEO_CHG
IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
Kumtepe+Tepecik_Ciftlik
Levant_PPNB
MAR_EN
RUS_Karelia_HG
RUS_Khvalynsk_En
WHG
GRC_Peloponnese_N:I3709
0.01906830
73.6
1.6
5.6
19.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
ITA_Sicily_EBA:I7807
0.03183282
76.2
0.0
0.0
18.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.6
ITA_Sardinia_C_o:I15940
0.05754695
24.6
0.0
0.8
12.0
8.8
53.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
ITA_Sicily_LBA:I3876
0.01939249
69.6
5.0
0.4
10.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
8.2
5.8
HUN_ALPc_Szatmar_MN:I3537
0.02355012
83.0
0.0
0.0
8.0
0.0
1.2
2.6
0.0
5.2
ITA_Sicily_EBA:I11442
0.02301666
73.8
0.0
0.0
7.8
0.0
1.4
0.0
9.2
7.8
ITA_Sicily_LBA:I3878
0.01981521
75.4
0.6
0.6
7.8
0.0
0.8
0.0
8.4
6.4
ITA_Sicily_LBA:I10372
0.02945781
79.4
0.8
1.0
6.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.0
5.8
GRC_Peloponnese_N:I3920
0.01539880
78.0
3.6
11.4
5.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.6
0.0
ITA_Sicily_EBA:I3124
0.02316934
72.6
0.0
0.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
13.6
8.8
ITA_Sicily_EBA:I3123
0.02596206
75.8
0.0
4.2
4.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.2
9.2
HRV_Sopot_MN:I5077
0.02598122
93.8
0.0
0.0
4.2
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
1.8
HRV_Starcevo_LN:I5079
0.02111517
93.4
0.0
0.0
1.8
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.2
4.4
Beaker_Sicily
0.04369792
82.0
8.6
3.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.2
1.8
ITA_Sicily_EBA:I3122
0.02602178
90.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.8
ITA_Sicily_EBA:I8561
0.03025767
70.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
19.0
10.2
ITA_Sicily_EBA:I11443
0.03275741
53.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
37.4
8.8
ITA_Sicily_MBA:I3125
0.01675506
84.2
5.4
4.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.2
ITA_Sicily_MBA:I4109
0.02619713
85.6
0.2
5.2
0.0
0.0
1.2
0.0
2.4
5.4
ITA_Sicily_MN:I4062
0.02229716
93.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.4
ITA_Sicily_MN:I4063
0.02319391
90.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.8
ITA_Sicily_MN:I4064
0.02117002
91.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.2
ITA_Sicily_MN:I4065
0.01697702
85.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
13.6
GRC_N:I5427
0.01907510
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
GRC_Peloponnese_N:I2318
0.02092921
99.2
0.6
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
GRC_Peloponnese_N:I2937
0.01881666
98.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
GRC_Peloponnese_N:I3708
0.01524697
95.6
0.8
3.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
ITA_Sardinia_C:I14675
0.04260361
84.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
15.8
ITA_Sardinia_C:I14676
0.04486347
82.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
18.0
ITA_Sardinia_C:I14677
0.05147605
87.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.4
ITA_Sardinia_C:I14678
0.04032455
84.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
15.8
ITA_Sardinia_C:I15941
0.04997405
85.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
14.6
ITA_Sardinia_C:I15942
0.04976082
87.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.4
ITA_Sardinia_C:I16164
0.05003885
86.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
14.0
ITA_Sardinia_C:I16165
0.05047690
84.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
15.6
ITA_Sardinia_LCA:SEC001
0.05288762
84.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
15.6
ITA_Sardinia_LCA:SEC002
0.03972897
84.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
15.6
ITA_Sardinia_LCA:SEC004
0.04943807
85.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
14.8
ITA_Sardinia_LCA:SEC005
0.04695579
85.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
14.6
ITA_Sardinia_LCA:SEC006
0.04340357
83.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
16.8
ITA_Sardinia_N:I15945
0.04335844
84.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
15.2
ITA_Sardinia_N:I15946
0.04693790
84.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
15.2
ITA_Sardinia_N:LON003
0.04586901
82.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
17.2
ITA_Sardinia_N:MA79
0.03645601
82.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.8
0.0
0.0
16.2
ITA_Sardinia_N:SUC008
0.04187046
84.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
15.4
HRV_Cardial_N:I3433
0.02348760
97.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.6
HRV_Cardial_N:I3947
0.02606408
97.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.8
HRV_Cardial_N:I3948
0.02334717
99.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
HRV_Sopot_MN:I3498
0.02394983
93.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
HRV_Sopot_MN:I4168
0.03175214
95.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.2
HRV_Sopot_MN:I5078
0.02300658
96.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.2
HUN_ALPc_I_MN:I4188
0.02583364
89.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.4
HUN_ALPc_III_MN:I2384
0.02111136
91.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.2
HUN_ALPc_III_MN:I3535
0.02866979
88.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.8
0.0
6.6
HUN_ALPc_MN:I1498
0.01272456
88.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.4
0.0
9.6
HUN_ALPc_MN:I1500
0.01998383
93.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.8
HUN_ALPc_MN:I1505
0.01984877
91.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.6
HUN_ALPc_Szakalhat_MN:I2743
0.03028108
89.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
1.0
0.0
8.8
HUN_ALPc_Szakalhat_MN:I2744
0.02638052
87.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.8
HUN_ALPc_Szakalhat_MN:I2745
0.03106530
88.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.6
HUN_ALPc_Szatmar_MN:I2380
0.01925504
91.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.8
HUN_ALPc_Tiszadob_MN:I2375
0.04366903
91.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.2
HUN_ALPc_Tiszadob_MN:I2376
0.03018380
86.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
0.8
0.0
11.2
HUN_ALPc_Tiszadob_MN:I2377
0.02378379
85.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
14.6
HUN_ALPc_Tiszadob_MN:I2379
0.01987108
92.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.0
HUN_ALPc_Tiszadob_MN:I4199
0.02786140
88.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.6
Average
0.03071598
85.4
0.4
0.6
1.7
0.3
0.9
0.2
1.8

8.7
 
sZLxty4.png


@Ygorcs, regarding "History of Neolithic to Bronze Age Anatolia, Northern Levant, and Southern Caucasus", only two levantine samples require Levant_N. It is not due to only using a two-way admixture modeling, because they test for Levant_N in all the samples.

It seems as though there was certainly a lot of admixture from east to west, between Anatolia and Iran. But Levantines were only on the receiving end of gene-flow.

https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092...m/retrieve/pii/S0092867420305092?showall=true
 
""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."
 
""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."

Angela/Ygorcs/Jovialis: Since all 3 of you are in the thread, have any of you taken a look at the pre-print paper "Genomic and dietary transitions during the Mesolithic and Early Neolithic in Sicily" by Vandeloosdrecht et al 2020 (With Haak and Krause on the paper). The Models are presented on Page 24 and the authors reject any 2 way-admixture models, but 3-way admixture models can fit all the Sicilian samples fro the Grotta Del Uzzo Site. The authors note that one of several near eastern sources works for the Mesolithic Grotta Del Uzzo samples (Iran_NEO and Levant/Natufian) both are used and for the Neolitics, Iran_NEO is used to proxy for the near eastern Sources (could be Levant or some of both). So this paper Angela in my view, supports your statement "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." So all this mass migration post Roman empire, etc, does not hold, some has been there a long time. I don't think anyone suggest the Neolithic migration into Sicily was different than the mainland, I think that video from this recent paper, which escapes me, had the Neolithic farmers going to Puglia around 6,500 BC and spreading up the peninsula and Sicily from there. Had to be the same peoples.

YGORCS, I don't think this paper rejects what you are trying to do as well, that some Levant/Eastern ancestry was in Sicily, South Italy throughout the Neolithic period. I just think the issue for me at least is what is the best way to capture that. Like the Morroco_LN, if the admixture is what Fernandes et al 2020 showed, then it works since there is very little Berber ancestry and once you fit it in the model, you get close to what every other paper estimates is the average Berber_North African DNA, some which also maybe Levant related as well. On the other hand, if Morroco_LN is 30% native Berber or ANA, then no way it can be used.

Avhh7E3.jpg


k3EQv8E.jpg
 
sZLxty4.png


@Ygorcs, regarding "History of Neolithic to Bronze Age Anatolia, Northern Levant, and Southern Caucasus", only two levantine samples require Levant_N. It is not due to only using a two-way admixture modeling, because they test for Levant_N in all the samples.

https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092...m/retrieve/pii/S0092867420305092?showall=true

Yes, but notice carefully what is written in the description of the figure 6-B:
"LC-LBA can be modeled as the geographically proximal source Büyükkaya_EC from Central Anatolia, with contibution from Iran_N that ranges from 0% in GonrdürleHöyük_EBA from Western Anatolia and ~30% in Caucasus_lowlands_LC. In order to model Ebla_EMBA and Alalakh_MLBA with Büyükkaya_EC and Iran_N extra contribution from a source like Levant_N is necessary."


In other words: they're saying that the Late Chalcolithic to Late Bronze Age samples from Anatolia, Northern Levant and Southern Caucasus are either Iran-shifted or Levant & Iran-shifted variants of Büyükkaya_EC from Central Anatolia, which is the most proximate source population of the "typical" and "average" Early Chalcolithic Anatolia-Caucasus-Northern Levant structure according to them.

Therefore, that says nothing about the Neolithic Anatolians from different archaeological sites having no Levant_N or Iran_N/CHG affinities since the beginning. It's rather talking about ADDITIONAL Levant_N and Iran_N contributions after the Early Chalcolithic, for which they took as the best sample Büyükkaya_EC.


But the thing is that Büyükkaya_EC was not nearly unmixed Anatolian like Barcin_N, but quite a bit more mixed than that and far more like Tepecik-Ciftlik, i.e. with some Levant_N and CHG/Iran_N already embedded into it, causing it to diverge less from Iran_N and Levant_N than the western/northwestern Neolithic Anatolians. In any case, they are modelling an early Chalcolithic sample (not Neolithic) from Anatolia + extra amounts of other admixtures. Of course that will hide anything that was there before the EC sample (or even after the date of that sample, provided that those levels of admixture didn't already exist in all places at that time). Anything that came after the Neolithic and more specifically after the EC into those areas from Anatolia, South Caucasus and North Levant only added more or even much more Levant_N and CHG/Iran_N to that already mixed basis.

USING NEOLITHIC SAMPLES

TargetDistanceGEO_CHGIRN_Ganj_Dareh_NLevant_PPNBTUR_Barcin_N
TUR_Buyukkaya_EC:CBT0180.0177901916.68.213.062.2

Target
Distance
GEO_CHG
IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
Levant_PPNB
TUR_Barcin_N
TUR_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N:Tep002
0.02155057
0.0
7.6
11.8
80.6
TUR_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N:Tep003
0.02682033
9.0
9.0
20.6
61.4
TUR_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N:Tep004
0.02592336
8.2
1.2
27.8
62.8
TUR_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N:Tep006
0.03285568
11.4
0.0
26.4
62.2
Average
0.02678748
7.1
4.5
21.6
66.8

USING MOSTLY MESOLITHIC SAMPLES


TargetDistanceGEO_CHGIRN_Ganj_Dareh_NLevant_NatufianTUR_Pinarbasi_HG
TUR_Buyukkaya_EC:CBT0180.0547261216.012.87.863.4
Average0.0547261216.012.87.863.4

Target
Distance
GEO_CHG
IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
Levant_Natufian
TUR_Pinarbasi_HG
WHG
TUR_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N:Tep002
0.04644274
0.0
11.6
5.6
82.8
0.0
TUR_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N:Tep003
0.05916530
10.2
10.8
12.2
66.8
0.0
TUR_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N:Tep004
0.06495017
9.4
4.2
18.8
67.6
0.0
TUR_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N:Tep006
0.06586560
12.2
2.6
18.8
66.4
0.0
Average
0.05910595
8.0
7.3
13.9
70.9
0.0


Compare for instance to the almost unadmixed LBK samples from Germany, which can be basically "explained" by Barcin_N with totally negligible extra Near Eastern sources:

COMPARED TO MESOLITHIC SAMPLES

TargetDistanceGEO_CHGIRN_Ganj_Dareh_NLevant_NatufianTUR_Pinarbasi_HGWHG
DEU_LBK_N:I00220.050423370.03.04.892.20.0
DEU_LBK_N:I00250.047554901.20.02.096.40.4
DEU_LBK_N:I00260.039431461.20.01.697.20.0
DEU_LBK_N:I00460.053711440.00.00.0100.00.0
DEU_LBK_N:I00480.052596744.00.03.492.60.0
DEU_LBK_N:I00540.041624261.40.00.098.60.0
DEU_LBK_N:I00560.056065361.80.02.494.41.4
DEU_LBK_N:I00570.045848122.40.02.295.40.0
DEU_LBK_N:I01000.039055211.00.00.099.00.0
DEU_LBK_N:I06590.051428460.00.03.696.40.0
DEU_LBK_N:I07950.074799990.00.01.298.80.0
DEU_LBK_N:I08210.062614200.40.01.498.20.0
DEU_LBK_N:I15500.044397221.60.00.098.40.0
DEU_LBK_N:I20080.063738420.00.01.898.20.0
DEU_LBK_N:I20260.068181960.04.20.095.80.0
DEU_LBK_N:I20290.045041220.04.81.893.40.0
DEU_LBK_N:I20300.043051320.00.01.498.60.0
DEU_LBK_N:I20320.046198860.00.04.895.20.0
DEU_LBK_N:I20360.064472890.03.21.095.80.0
DEU_LBK_N:I20370.059615750.00.03.097.00.0
DEU_LBK_N:I20380.050062500.00.00.0100.00.0
Average0.052376840.70.71.796.70.1

COMPARED TO NEOLITHIC SAMPLES

TargetDistanceGEO_CHGLevant_PPNBTUR_Barcin_NWHG
DEU_LBK_N:I00220.021141650.02.691.26.2
DEU_LBK_N:I00250.021093850.00.092.27.8
DEU_LBK_N:I00260.015358230.00.097.03.0
DEU_LBK_N:I00460.024487370.00.094.06.0
DEU_LBK_N:I00480.014112810.80.097.61.6
DEU_LBK_N:I00540.023976780.00.094.45.6
DEU_LBK_N:I00560.026777820.00.091.88.2
DEU_LBK_N:I00570.022618040.00.094.25.8
DEU_LBK_N:I01000.023537920.00.094.65.4
DEU_LBK_N:I06590.024478520.00.095.44.6
DEU_LBK_N:I07950.053392770.00.093.07.0
DEU_LBK_N:I08210.022840450.00.095.44.6
DEU_LBK_N:I15500.018124650.00.093.07.0
DEU_LBK_N:I20080.041513420.00.098.21.8
DEU_LBK_N:I20260.041189490.60.097.61.8
DEU_LBK_N:I20290.016389580.00.492.47.2
DEU_LBK_N:I20300.026280410.00.096.83.2
DEU_LBK_N:I20320.022213740.03.092.05.0
DEU_LBK_N:I20360.019648770.00.096.23.8
DEU_LBK_N:I20370.037412880.00.094.65.4
DEU_LBK_N:I20380.030620750.00.096.63.4
Average0.026057610.10.394.75.0
 
@Jovialis, while I was reading here, I found this: https://imgur.com/a/z2SJ7wd
I think this PCA in Antonio et al.'s paper on Italy and especially Rome is really useful to show what I and you have been discussing here:

1) Notice how far apart from each other Mycenaeans and Morocco_LN are. Instead Morocco_LN are closer to Levant_N and the very Berber-like Iberia_CA_Afr. That once again demonstrates how those models using Morocco_LN to model Ibiza_Phoenician and Sicilian with very high proportions make little sense.
2) Notice how Anatolia_C is already pretty distinct from Anatolia_Kumtepe (which was already more mixed with other Near Eastern clusters) and especially from Boncuklu (and that difference would be even higher if they had included Barcin in the PCA too).
3) Remedello_BA in this PCA appears very much similar to Iberia_MLN, Ireland_MN and Iberia_CA, so I don't quite understand why Kilinc 2016 concluded it was more Tepecik-Ciftlik-like, because, though this PCA doesn't include those, it includes Kumtepe, which is the 2nd closest sample (actually Tepecik would probably plot even more to the east of Remedello_BA in this PCA).
4) Minoan_Lassithi were noticeably east and a bit south of Boncuklu/Barcin-type ANF and early EEF.
 
I am not sure
Sicilians do score 8-16% WHG👍
in mdlp k11 vadim masterpiece😉
 
I am not sure
Sicilians do score 8-16% WHG������
in mdlp k11 vadim masterpiece������

If this example of how it works (https://forums.familytreedna.com/fo...gy-for-beginners/20760-gedmatch-mdlp-k11-test) is any indication, the it seems this tool is overestimating the true WHG in the population A LOT. I mean, a person who descends from Poles, Ukrainians and Swedes getting 38.14% WHG? That's nearly impossible, particularly if he is indeed most closely related to Alberstedt_LN and Bell Beaker Germany. Another negative example (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?13368-MDLP-K11-Modern/page3) that immediately makes me suspect this tool is inflating WHG levels very much: a man of Dutch origins with only 35.46% Neolithic and a whoopping 33.47% WHG? No way, either. These models are contradicting almost everything we now from other sources. :confused::petrified:

There must be some big problem in the genetic coordinates used as a source to compare the target samples with. Also, what's "Neolithic"? There wasn't one homogeneous Neolithic population in West Eurasian.

Anyway, I think I'll stuck with my own G25 and published qpAdm results... :unsure::unsure:
 
If this example of how it works (https://forums.familytreedna.com/fo...gy-for-beginners/20760-gedmatch-mdlp-k11-test) is any indication, the it seems this tool is overestimating the true WHG in the population A LOT. I mean, a person who descends from Poles, Ukrainians and Swedes getting 38.14% WHG? That's nearly impossible, particularly if he is indeed most closely related to Alberstedt_LN and Bell Beaker Germany. Another negative example (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?13368-MDLP-K11-Modern/page3) that immediately makes me suspect this tool is inflating WHG levels very much: a man of Dutch origins with only 35.46% Neolithic and a whoopping 33.47% WHG? No way, either. These models are contradicting almost everything we now from other sources. :confused::petrified:
There must be some big problem in the genetic coordinates used as a source to compare the target samples with. Also, what's "Neolithic"? There wasn't one homogeneous Neolithic population in West Eurasian.
Anyway, I think I'll stuck with my own G25 and published qpAdm results... :unsure::unsure:
Its ok
I will give vadim credit...
By the way in 4 populations
Southern italians need lavant_BA
Or british roman ( yes the middle easteen gladiator)
I saw it again and again wether people
Here like it or not.... didn't saw it
When i put iberian ...
Don't think it inflated poles and eastern europeans from ukraine north have huge whg
Ancestery...
Latvians and lithaunians in the baltic
Even higher....
 
Yes, but notice carefully what is written in the description of the figure 6-B:
"LC-LBA can be modeled as the geographically proximal source Büyükkaya_EC from Central Anatolia, with contibution from Iran_N that ranges from 0% in GonrdürleHöyük_EBA from Western Anatolia and ~30% in Caucasus_lowlands_LC. In order to model Ebla_EMBA and Alalakh_MLBA with Büyükkaya_EC and Iran_N extra contribution from a source like Levant_N is necessary."


In other words: they're saying that the Late Chalcolithic to Late Bronze Age samples from Anatolia, Northern Levant and Southern Caucasus are either Iran-shifted or Levant & Iran-shifted variants of Büyükkaya_EC from Central Anatolia, which is the most proximate source population of the "typical" and "average" Early Chalcolithic Anatolia-Caucasus-Northern Levant structure according to them.

Therefore, that says nothing about the Neolithic Anatolians from different archaeological sites having no Levant_N or Iran_N/CHG affinities since the beginning. It's rather talking about ADDITIONAL Levant_N and Iran_N contributions after the Early Chalcolithic, for which they took as the best sample Büyükkaya_EC.


But the thing is that Büyükkaya_EC was not nearly unmixed Anatolian like Barcin_N, but quite a bit more mixed than that and far more like Tepecik-Ciftlik, i.e. with some Levant_N and CHG/Iran_N already embedded into it, causing it to diverge less from Iran_N and Levant_N than the western/northwestern Neolithic Anatolians. In any case, they are modelling an early Chalcolithic sample (not Neolithic) from Anatolia + extra amounts of other admixtures. Of course that will hide anything that was there before the EC sample (or even after the date of that sample, provided that those levels of admixture didn't already exist in all places at that time). Anything that came after the Neolithic and more specifically after the EC into those areas from Anatolia, South Caucasus and North Levant only added more or even much more Levant_N and CHG/Iran_N to that already mixed basis.

USING NEOLITHIC SAMPLES

TargetDistanceGEO_CHGIRN_Ganj_Dareh_NLevant_PPNBTUR_Barcin_N
TUR_Buyukkaya_EC:CBT0180.0177901916.68.213.062.2

TargetDistanceGEO_CHGIRN_Ganj_Dareh_NLevant_PPNBTUR_Barcin_N
TUR_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N:Tep0020.021550570.07.611.880.6
TUR_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N:Tep0030.026820339.09.020.661.4
TUR_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N:Tep0040.025923368.21.227.862.8
TUR_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N:Tep0060.0328556811.40.026.462.2
Average0.026787487.14.521.666.8

USING MOSTLY MESOLITHIC SAMPLES


TargetDistanceGEO_CHGIRN_Ganj_Dareh_NLevant_NatufianTUR_Pinarbasi_HG
TUR_Buyukkaya_EC:CBT0180.0547261216.012.87.863.4
Average0.0547261216.012.87.863.4

TargetDistanceGEO_CHGIRN_Ganj_Dareh_NLevant_NatufianTUR_Pinarbasi_HGWHG
TUR_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N:Tep0020.046442740.011.65.682.80.0
TUR_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N:Tep0030.0591653010.210.812.266.80.0
TUR_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N:Tep0040.064950179.44.218.867.60.0
TUR_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N:Tep0060.0658656012.22.618.866.40.0
Average0.059105958.07.313.970.90.0


Compare for instance to the almost unadmixed LBK samples from Germany, which can be basically "explained" by Barcin_N with totally negligible extra Near Eastern sources:

COMPARED TO MESOLITHIC SAMPLES

TargetDistanceGEO_CHGIRN_Ganj_Dareh_NLevant_NatufianTUR_Pinarbasi_HGWHG
DEU_LBK_N:I00220.050423370.03.04.892.20.0
DEU_LBK_N:I00250.047554901.20.02.096.40.4
DEU_LBK_N:I00260.039431461.20.01.697.20.0
DEU_LBK_N:I00460.053711440.00.00.0100.00.0
DEU_LBK_N:I00480.052596744.00.03.492.60.0
DEU_LBK_N:I00540.041624261.40.00.098.60.0
DEU_LBK_N:I00560.056065361.80.02.494.41.4
DEU_LBK_N:I00570.045848122.40.02.295.40.0
DEU_LBK_N:I01000.039055211.00.00.099.00.0
DEU_LBK_N:I06590.051428460.00.03.696.40.0
DEU_LBK_N:I07950.074799990.00.01.298.80.0
DEU_LBK_N:I08210.062614200.40.01.498.20.0
DEU_LBK_N:I15500.044397221.60.00.098.40.0
DEU_LBK_N:I20080.063738420.00.01.898.20.0
DEU_LBK_N:I20260.068181960.04.20.095.80.0
DEU_LBK_N:I20290.045041220.04.81.893.40.0
DEU_LBK_N:I20300.043051320.00.01.498.60.0
DEU_LBK_N:I20320.046198860.00.04.895.20.0
DEU_LBK_N:I20360.064472890.03.21.095.80.0
DEU_LBK_N:I20370.059615750.00.03.097.00.0
DEU_LBK_N:I20380.050062500.00.00.0100.00.0
Average0.052376840.70.71.796.70.1

COMPARED TO NEOLITHIC SAMPLES

TargetDistanceGEO_CHGLevant_PPNBTUR_Barcin_NWHG
DEU_LBK_N:I00220.021141650.02.691.26.2
DEU_LBK_N:I00250.021093850.00.092.27.8
DEU_LBK_N:I00260.015358230.00.097.03.0
DEU_LBK_N:I00460.024487370.00.094.06.0
DEU_LBK_N:I00480.014112810.80.097.61.6
DEU_LBK_N:I00540.023976780.00.094.45.6
DEU_LBK_N:I00560.026777820.00.091.88.2
DEU_LBK_N:I00570.022618040.00.094.25.8
DEU_LBK_N:I01000.023537920.00.094.65.4
DEU_LBK_N:I06590.024478520.00.095.44.6
DEU_LBK_N:I07950.053392770.00.093.07.0
DEU_LBK_N:I08210.022840450.00.095.44.6
DEU_LBK_N:I15500.018124650.00.093.07.0
DEU_LBK_N:I20080.041513420.00.098.21.8
DEU_LBK_N:I20260.041189490.60.097.61.8
DEU_LBK_N:I20290.016389580.00.492.47.2
DEU_LBK_N:I20300.026280410.00.096.83.2
DEU_LBK_N:I20320.022213740.03.092.05.0
DEU_LBK_N:I20360.019648770.00.096.23.8
DEU_LBK_N:I20370.037412880.00.094.65.4
DEU_LBK_N:I20380.030620750.00.096.63.4
Average0.026057610.10.394.75.0

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.

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.

Also, I think using PPNB_Levant maybe be misleading, considering the levant was already being shifted towards Anatolia-Caucuses:

RRkYnot.png


@Jovialis, while I was reading here, I found this:
https://imgur.com/a/z2SJ7wd
I think this PCA in Antonio et al.'s paper on Italy and especially Rome is really useful to show what I and you have been discussing here:

1) Notice how far apart from each other Mycenaeans and Morocco_LN are. Instead Morocco_LN are closer to Levant_N and the very Berber-like Iberia_CA_Afr. That once again demonstrates how those models using Morocco_LN to model Ibiza_Phoenician and Sicilian with very high proportions make little sense.
2) Notice how Anatolia_C is already pretty distinct from Anatolia_Kumtepe (which was already more mixed with other Near Eastern clusters) and especially from Boncuklu (and that difference would be even higher if they had included Barcin in the PCA too).
3) Remedello_BA in this PCA appears very much similar to Iberia_MLN, Ireland_MN and Iberia_CA, so I don't quite understand why Kilinc 2016 concluded it was more Tepecik-Ciftlik-like, because, though this PCA doesn't include those, it includes Kumtepe, which is the 2nd closest sample (actually Tepecik would probably plot even more to the east of Remedello_BA in this PCA).
4) Minoan_Lassithi were noticeably east and a bit south of Boncuklu/Barcin-type ANF and early EEF.


Anatolia_C was about 40% CHG-like 60% Anatolian_N, so I think it makes sense that it is pulled east of the Neolithic samples.
 
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.
 
""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."

anatolia-caucasus-levant-pca.png

41467_2019_9209_Fig1_HTML.jpg

bvfg7bM.png

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.
 
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.
 
anatolia-caucasus-levant-pca.png

41467_2019_9209_Fig1_HTML.jpg

bvfg7bM.png

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.
 
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/10.1101/423079v1.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.
 
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.
iu

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".
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 

This thread has been viewed 103510 times.

Back
Top