Sicilians pre-Greek colonization

Based on, that Lazaridis did not confirm steppe ancestry for Mycenaean and left the door open for Anatolian route.


From the Lazaridis 2017 supplementary material:


“populations of (Middle/Late Bronze Age) Armenia themselves have some EHG-related ancestry, so it is possible that Mycenaeans received both the Iran-related and EHG related ancestry together from a population similar to that which inhabited Armenia. Thus, it is possible that Mycenaeans received ancestry from these sources separately (from the north and the east), or in a population that had ancestry from both, as in the populations of Armenia. (p.35)

Note that when modeling Mycenaeans as a mixture of Anatolian Neolithic- and Armenia-related populations we infer that they have ~56-63% Anatolian Neolithic-related ancestry, which is smaller than the ~74-80% of such ancestry when modeling them without the later populations as a source. This is due to the fact that populations from Armenia themselves have Anatolian Neolithic-related ancestry. Since such ancestry existed in both Anatolia and Neolithic Europe, it is likely that any migrations from either east or north would introduce some of it into the Aegean; thus some Anatolian Neolithic-related ancestry may correspond to the pre-Mycenaean inhabitants of Greece, while some of it may have arrived together with later migrations from the north or east from populations that already possessed some of it. (p.36)

The two alternative scenarios differ in their derivation of the northern (steppe) / eastern (Near East) non-Anatolian Neolithic ancestry in Mycenaeans. In the first one, Anatolian Neolithic first admixed with an eastern population in the Aegean, with subsequent admixture from a northern population. In the second one, the eastern/northern populations admixed east of Greece (in a population related to Middle/Late Bronze Age Armenia), and then the aggregate population admixed into the Aegean. (p.45)

The simulation framework also allows us to compare different models directly. … we observe that none of them clearly outperforms the others as there are no statistics with |Z|>3. However, we do notice that the model 79%Minoan_Lasithi+21%Europe_LNBA tends to share more drift with Mycenaeans (at the |Z|>2 level). Europe_LNBA is a diverse group of steppe-admixed Late Neolithic/Bronze Age individuals from mainland Europe, and we think that the further study of areas to the north of Greece might identify a surrogate for this admixture event. (p.47)

The existence of Eurasian steppe ancestry in Mycenaeans (either directly from the north, or indirectly from the east) suggests the possibility that the Indo-European linguistic ancestors of the Greeks also came from the Eurasian steppe as was likely for central/northern Europe. The finding that up to ~1/2 of the ancestry of some populations of south Asia could also be derived from steppe populations provides a unifying factor for the dispersal of a substantial subset of Indo-European languages.” (p.49)



Lazaridis et al. 2017, Supplementary Material



"Late Neolithic/Bronze Age Europeans [Europe_LNBA] most resemble present-day northern/central Europeans, as do Early/Middle Bronze Age steppe populations, who also resemble populations of the northeast Caucasus, while Middle/Late Bronze Age steppe populations resemble central/northern Europeans."


Lazaridis et al. 2017, Extended Data Figure 7
 



From the Lazaridis 2017 supplementary material:


“populations of (Middle/Late Bronze Age) Armenia themselves have some EHG-related ancestry, so it is possible that Mycenaeans received both the Iran-related and EHG related ancestry together from a population similar to that which inhabited Armenia. Thus, it is possible that Mycenaeans received ancestry from these sources separately (from the north and the east), or in a population that had ancestry from both, as in the populations of Armenia. (p.35)

Note that when modeling Mycenaeans as a mixture of Anatolian Neolithic- and Armenia-related populations we infer that they have ~56-63% Anatolian Neolithic-related ancestry, which is smaller than the ~74-80% of such ancestry when modeling them without the later populations as a source. This is due to the fact that populations from Armenia themselves have Anatolian Neolithic-related ancestry. Since such ancestry existed in both Anatolia and Neolithic Europe, it is likely that any migrations from either east or north would introduce some of it into the Aegean; thus some Anatolian Neolithic-related ancestry may correspond to the pre-Mycenaean inhabitants of Greece, while some of it may have arrived together with later migrations from the north or east from populations that already possessed some of it. (p.36)

The two alternative scenarios differ in their derivation of the northern (steppe) / eastern (Near East) non-Anatolian Neolithic ancestry in Mycenaeans. In the first one, Anatolian Neolithic first admixed with an eastern population in the Aegean, with subsequent admixture from a northern population. In the second one, the eastern/northern populations admixed east of Greece (in a population related to Middle/Late Bronze Age Armenia), and then the aggregate population admixed into the Aegean. (p.45)

The simulation framework also allows us to compare different models directly. … we observe that none of them clearly outperforms the others as there are no statistics with |Z|>3. However, we do notice that the model 79%Minoan_Lasithi+21%Europe_LNBA tends to share more drift with Mycenaeans (at the |Z|>2 level). Europe_LNBA is a diverse group of steppe-admixed Late Neolithic/Bronze Age individuals from mainland Europe, and we think that the further study of areas to the north of Greece might identify a surrogate for this admixture event. (p.47)

The existence of Eurasian steppe ancestry in Mycenaeans (either directly from the north, or indirectly from the east) suggests the possibility that the Indo-European linguistic ancestors of the Greeks also came from the Eurasian steppe as was likely for central/northern Europe. The finding that up to ~1/2 of the ancestry of some populations of south Asia could also be derived from steppe populations provides a unifying factor for the dispersal of a substantial subset of Indo-European languages.” (p.49)



Lazaridis et al. 2017, Supplementary Material



"Late Neolithic/Bronze Age Europeans [Europe_LNBA] most resemble present-day northern/central Europeans, as do Early/Middle Bronze Age steppe populations, who also resemble populations of the northeast Caucasus, while Middle/Late Bronze Age steppe populations resemble central/northern Europeans."


Lazaridis et al. 2017, Extended Data Figure 7


And at the end Lazaridis 2017 said, I quote:

“Two key questions remain to be addressed by future studies. First, when did the common ‘eastern’ ancestry of both Minoans and Mycenaeans arrive in the Aegean? Second, is the ‘northern’ ancestry in Mycenaeans due to sporadic infiltration of Greece, or to a rapid migration as in Central Europe? Such a migration would support the idea that proto-Greek speakers formed the southern wing of a steppe intrusion of Indo-European speakers. Yet, the absence of ‘northern’ ancestry in the Bronze Age samples from Pisidia, where Indo-European languages were attested in antiquity, casts doubt on this genetic– linguistic association, with further sampling of ancient Anatolian speakers needed”


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum
 
Its not true about Greeks. Greeks have fought once under Alexander the Great. Even then they were conquered and forced to fight by Macedonians who were not Helens. Greeks were not a unified entity fighting for expansion. They were organized in competing city states who fought among themselves but had no military power to wage campaigns in other countries or territories. Their colonies were created not from military campaigns but through their ability to convince the hosts to accept them (tricks). They radiated their know how rather than imposing it through force, because they had no force., and were a costal people. Greeks never build anything out of sea sight.
Romans were a formidable fighting force for the time, and Carthaginians

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicil...s, or Greco,Mediterranean between 580–265 BC.

Did you ever in your life actually take an ancient history course??? Just asking.
 
i was referring to you and Dupidh. i won't deny there have been changes, but why mention SSA admixture which is probably one of the least important ones in iran? why not anatolian neolithic or steppe? Do you have numbers for SSA in iran or for the other admixtures in modern iranians? why are you so sure that iranian jews were able to conserve the iranian pre-medieval ancestry better than the iranian population at large? you make it sound as if that is because of SSA admixture in iranians that is absent in iranian jews. imo in the end the iranian population at large doesn't matter but specific subpopulations and even the most conserved ones will be shifted. But still, do you have a source for these claims?

The Middle East had Sub-Saharan African slavery for centuries, including Iran. The existence of Afro-Iranians is a testament to this legacy.

The Indian Ocean slave trade begun in the 6th century BC and was multi-directional and changed over time. To meet the demand for menial labor, black slaves captured by Arab slave traders were sold in cumulatively large numbers over the centuries to the Persian Gulf, Egypt, Arabia, India, the Far East, the Indian Ocean islands and Ethiopia.[2]Others came as immigrants throughout the centuries or from Portuguese slave traders who had conquered southern Iran.

During the Qajar dynasty, many wealthy households imported Black African women and children as slaves to perform domestic work along side Eastern European Circassian slaves. This slave labor was drawn largely from the Zanj, who were Bantu-speaking peoples that lived along the coast of the Southeast Africa, in an area roughly comprising modern-day Tanzania, Mozambique and Malawi.[3][4] However, Mohammad Shah Qajar, under British pressure, issued a firman suppressing the slave trade in 1848.[5]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro-Iranians

Judging from the trend we see throughout the Middle East, SSA increased after the post-medieval period. Moreover, we see that Jewish populations, in the admixture chart, tend to have little to no SSA, compared to non-Jewish populations from the same countries. Perhaps it reflects Jewish endogamy, which many religious and ethnic groups around the world are known for practicing. Or perhaps it is also driven by preferring higher classes, which would not tend to include former-slaves.

I sincerely doubt the dynamic is not the same, as virtually all the other groups represented in the region.

rLzrc6C.png

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15694
 
Last edited:
Who is saying that? I am not saying that?

Edit, sorry, I see who you are referring. I haven't heard any such thing nor I have I seen a paper other than the Lazaridis et al 2017 study, which clearly did not say that. It clearly states that for both Minoans and Myceneans, 75% of their ancestry is from the first Neolithic Farmers from Anatolia and Aegean, the remainder from Caucus and Iran, but Myceneans have some additional EHG type ancestry, minimum of 4% but no more than 16% if I remember correctly from the paper.

About Mycenaeans we actually read they have additional ancestry from eastern Europe and Siberia. The fact is that it is talking about a far more eastern region than Armenia and Iran, this eastern European land was not Bulgaria or Romania but a region near to Siberia:

drxo_siberia.gif


Minoans and Mycenaeans seem to be the same people but from two different periods, there is nothing which can prove one person who lived in 1,600 BC in Greece spoke Minoan or Mycenaean Greek, some additional ancestry from Siberia couldn't be related to an Indo-European migration to Greece, in fact there is no reason that we want to assume that there was a migration which caused cultural change in this land, we know about 1,600 BC different Indo-European cultures (Hittite, Indo-Iranian, Luwian, ...) spread in the east of Greece, Mycenaeans were the same Minoans who adopted another Indo-European culture.
 
Not steppe ancestry but EHG (East European Hunter-Gatherer) ancestry which dates back to 7000 BC.


"Individuals of the Late North Caucasus post-Catacomb horizon from Kabardinka (ca. 2200–2000 BC), one of hg. R1b1a1b-Z2103, show typical Steppe ancestry profile ... Armenia MLBA samples show an increase in EHG (ca. 10%) and Anatolia Neolithic ancestry [ca. 35%] relative to previous Kura–Araxes and Chalcolithic samples, with an intermediate position between both in the PCA (Allentoft et al. 2015). The diversity of haplogroups and the presence of certain clear outliers of steppe origin suggests close interactions between peoples of the southern and the northern Caucasus."

https://indo-european.info/indo-europeans/viii_14_the_caucasus-.htm


Lazaridis 2016:

Bronze Age Armenia: Armenia_EBA and Armenia_MLBA:

"during the Early Bronze Age there is an “eastward” shift away from Europe; and during the Middle/Late Bronze Age a partial “westward” counter-shift in the opposite direction. … We can model Armenia_EBA as a 2-way mixture of 60.3±3.0% CHG and 39.7±3.0% Anatolia_N … We cannot model the Middle/Late Bronze Age population of Armenia as a 2-way mixture. The 3-way mixture model with 10.5±2.0% EHG, 55.3±3.5% CHG, and 35.4±2.9% Anatolia_N fails marginally (P=0.0328) when several ancient outgroups are introduced to the Right set. This suggests added complexity in this population, although it suggests an increase in European hunter-gatherer-related ancestry during the Middle/Late Bronze Age, consistent with the observed “westward” shift.” "

Lazaridis et al. 2016, p.97


Eurogenes:

"Armenia_EBA or Kura-Araxes shows strong affinity to Caucasus populations, particularly those from the Northeast Caucasus. ... Clearly, someone from the north, closely related to present-day people from around the Baltic Sea, moved into the Armenian Plateau during or just before the Middle Bronze Age. ... f4-stats suggest that they may have been closely related to the Sintashta people of the Middle Bronze Age Ural steppes, who do appear very Northern European in terms of genome-wide genetic structure."

Armenia_MLBA
Armenia_EBA 0.799±0.069
Sintashta 0.201±0.069
chisq 7.181
tail prob 0.618257


http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2016/10/hurrians-and-others.html



Armenia_MLBA
Catacomb 0.234±0.028
Kura-Araxes_Kaps 0.766±0.028
chisq 10.723
tail prob 0.826248
Full output

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/02/catacomb-armeniamlba.html


"A couple of months ago I suggested that populations associated with the Early to Middle Bronze Age (EMBA) Catacomb culture were the vector for the spread of steppe ancestry into what is now Armenia during the MLBA. After taking a closer look at the Lchashen Metsamor samples, I now think that the peoples of the Sintashta and related cultures were also important in this process."

Armenia_MBA_Lchashen
Kura-Araxes_Kaps 0.788±0.043
Sintashta_MLBA 0.212±0.043
chisq 14.871
tail prob 0.315451

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/04/early-chariot-drivers-of-transcaucasia.html
 
About Mycenaeans we actually read they have additional ancestry from eastern Europe and Siberia. The fact is that it is talking about a far more eastern region than Armenia and Iran, this eastern European land was not Bulgaria or Romania but a region near to Siberia

No, what the paper says is Mycenaeans had ancestry from "a ‘northern’ ultimate source related to the hunter-gatherers of eastern Europe and Siberia".

'Hunter-gatherers of Siberia' is a reference to 'Ancient North Eurasian' (ANE) ancestry found in Upper Palaeolithic samples from Siberia such as 'Mal'ta boy' (MA1) dated to 24,000 years BP, and 'Afontova Gora 3' dated to 16,000 years BP.

EHG (Eastern European hunter-gatherers) had ANE ancestry.

Obviously Palaeolithic mammoth hunters from 16,000 years ago didn't invade Greece in 1700 BC.


"
We can model Mycenaeans as a 3-way mixture of Anatolian Neolithic, Iran Neolithic or Caucasus hunter-gatherers, and Eastern European hunter-gatherers (EHG) or Upper Paleolithic Siberians (MA1 or AfontovaGora3). This is not surprising as CHG can be modelled as a mixture of primarily Iran Neolithic and European hunter-gatherers and EHG as a mixture of primarily “Ancient North Eurasians” from Upper Paleolithic Siberia (like MA1) and western European hunter-gatherers. Eastern European hunter-gatherers and Neolithic people from Iran represent two ends of a “northeastern interaction sphere” whose deep history is unclear but which is formed by increased affinity to Upper Paleolithic Siberians in eastern Europe and Basal Eurasian admixture in the Caucasus and Iran."

Lazaridis 2017, Supplementary Material p.28

 
Last edited:
About Mycenaeans we actually read they have additional ancestry from eastern Europe and Siberia. The fact is that it is talking about a far more eastern region than Armenia and Iran, this eastern European land was not Bulgaria or Romania but a region near to Siberia.

Minoans and Mycenaeans seem to be the same people but from two different periods, there is nothing which can prove one person who lived in 1,600 BC in Greece spoke Minoan or Mycenaean Greek, some additional ancestry from Siberia couldn't be related to an Indo-European migration to Greece, in fact there is no reason that we want to assume that there was a migration which caused cultural change in this land, we know about 1,600 BC different Indo-European cultures (Hittite, Indo-Iranian, Luwian, ...) spread in the east of Greece, Mycenaeans were the same Minoans who adopted another Indo-European culture.


Lazaridis 2017 models the Mycenaean samples as either 13.2% Steppe_EMBA (Steppe Early/Middle Bronze Age), or 17.5% Steppe_MLBA (Steppe Middle/Late Bronze Age), or 19.8% Europe_LNBA (Europe Late Neolithic/Bronze Age), and the rest as 'Minoan'. (Table 1 'Proximate Sources')

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5565772/table/T3/?report=objectonly


From the supplementary material:

"in our previous analysis using hunter-gatherer and Neolithic source populations we showed that Eastern European hunter-gatherer/Upper Paleolithic Siberian admixture was present in Mycenaeans but not in Minoans. Steppe populations of the Bronze Age have substantial such ancestry, as do Late Neolithic/Bronze Age populations that were influenced by them. Thus, the discovery that Mycenaeans can be modelled as a mixture of Minoans and Bronze Age steppe populations can explain the presence of this type of ancestry in them. The amount of steppe ancestry is about ~13% when the Early/Middle Bronze Age group (“Yamnya/Afanasievo/Poltavka-related”) is used as a source (Steppe_EMBA) … The proportion is slightly higher when the Middle/Late Bronze Age (Steppe_MLBA) group (“Srubnaya/Andronovo/Sintashta-related”) is used as a source, and higher still when the Late Neolithic/Bronze Age populations from mainland Europe (Europe_LNBA) are used as a source … We cannot distinguish which of these populations was a source for Mycenaeans (whether there was a migration directly from the steppe, from populations related to the Early, Middle/Late Bronze Age steppe, or an indirect migration from central Europe from steppe-influenced populations that were formed there during the Late/Neolithic Bronze Age). (p.40)

The simulation framework also allows us to compare different models directly. … we observe that none of them clearly outperforms the others as there are no statistics with |Z|>3. However, we do notice that the model 79%Minoan_Lasithi+21%Europe_LNBA tends to share more drift with Mycenaeans (at the |Z|>2 level). Europe_LNBA is a diverse group of steppe-admixed Late Neolithic/Bronze Age individuals from mainland Europe, and we think that the further study of areas to the north of Greece might identify a surrogate for this admixture event." (p.47)

Lazaridis et a. 2017 Supplementary Material


"Late Neolithic/Bronze Age Europeans [Europe_LNBA] most resemble present-day northern/central Europeans, as do Early/Middle Bronze Age steppe populations, who also resemble populations of the northeast Caucasus, while Middle/Late Bronze Age steppe populations resemble central/northern Europeans."

Lazaridis et al. 2017, Extended Data Figure 7


"The existence of Eurasian steppe ancestry in Mycenaeans (either directly from the north, or indirectly from the east) suggests the possibility that the Indo-European linguistic ancestors of the Greeks also came from the Eurasian steppe as was likely for central/northern Europe. The finding that up to ~1/2 of the ancestry of some populations of south Asia could also be derived from steppe populations provides a unifying factor for the dispersal of a substantial subset of Indo-European languages.” (p.49)

Lazaridis et al. 2017, Supplementary Material
 
there is nothing which can prove one person who lived in 1,600 BC in Greece spoke Minoan or Mycenaean Greek, some additional ancestry from Siberia couldn't be related to an Indo-European migration to Greece, in fact there is no reason that we want to assume that there was a migration which caused cultural change in this land, we know about 1,600 BC different Indo-European cultures (Hittite, Indo-Iranian, Luwian, ...) spread in the east of Greece, Mycenaeans were the same Minoans who adopted another Indo-European culture.

The Mycenaeans left tablets written in Greek, using the Linear B script.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_B

Minoans also left writings in the Linear A script, in a language not considered to be Greek or Indo-European (though Linear A hasn't been deciphered).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_A
 

Lazaridis 2017 models the Mycenaean samples as either 13.2% Steppe_EMBA (Steppe Early/Middle Bronze Age), or 17.5% Steppe_MLBA (Steppe Middle/Late Bronze Age), or 19.8% Europe_LNBA (Europe Late Neolithic/Bronze Age), and the rest as 'Minoan'. (Table 1 'Proximate Sources')

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5565772/table/T3/?report=objectonly


From the supplementary material:

"in our previous analysis using hunter-gatherer and Neolithic source populations we showed that Eastern European hunter-gatherer/Upper Paleolithic Siberian admixture was present in Mycenaeans but not in Minoans. Steppe populations of the Bronze Age have substantial such ancestry, as do Late Neolithic/Bronze Age populations that were influenced by them. Thus, the discovery that Mycenaeans can be modelled as a mixture of Minoans and Bronze Age steppe populations can explain the presence of this type of ancestry in them. The amount of steppe ancestry is about ~13% when the Early/Middle Bronze Age group (“Yamnya/Afanasievo/Poltavka-related”) is used as a source (Steppe_EMBA) … The proportion is slightly higher when the Middle/Late Bronze Age (Steppe_MLBA) group (“Srubnaya/Andronovo/Sintashta-related”) is used as a source, and higher still when the Late Neolithic/Bronze Age populations from mainland Europe (Europe_LNBA) are used as a source … We cannot distinguish which of these populations was a source for Mycenaeans (whether there was a migration directly from the steppe, from populations related to the Early, Middle/Late Bronze Age steppe, or an indirect migration from central Europe from steppe-influenced populations that were formed there during the Late/Neolithic Bronze Age). (p.40)

The simulation framework also allows us to compare different models directly. … we observe that none of them clearly outperforms the others as there are no statistics with |Z|>3. However, we do notice that the model 79%Minoan_Lasithi+21%Europe_LNBA tends to share more drift with Mycenaeans (at the |Z|>2 level). Europe_LNBA is a diverse group of steppe-admixed Late Neolithic/Bronze Age individuals from mainland Europe, and we think that the further study of areas to the north of Greece might identify a surrogate for this admixture event." (p.47)

Lazaridis et a. 2017 Supplementary Material


"Late Neolithic/Bronze Age Europeans [Europe_LNBA] most resemble present-day northern/central Europeans, as do Early/Middle Bronze Age steppe populations, who also resemble populations of the northeast Caucasus, while Middle/Late Bronze Age steppe populations resemble central/northern Europeans."

Lazaridis et al. 2017, Extended Data Figure 7


"The existence of Eurasian steppe ancestry in Mycenaeans (either directly from the north, or indirectly from the east) suggests the possibility that the Indo-European linguistic ancestors of the Greeks also came from the Eurasian steppe as was likely for central/northern Europe. The finding that up to ~1/2 of the ancestry of some populations of south Asia could also be derived from steppe populations provides a unifying factor for the dispersal of a substantial subset of Indo-European languages.” (p.49)

Lazaridis et al. 2017, Supplementary Material

How do they know that someone is either Minoan or Mycenaean? It is possible that Minoan was an aboriginal language in Greece which was spoken there from more than 7,000 years ago, but from about 2,000 BC Indo-Europeans gradually migrated there and some centuires later they became dominant culture in Greece.

This thing that Linear B which was used for writing Mycenaean Greek dates back to 1500 BC doesn't mean that Mycenaean Greek also belonged to this period, after the Islamic conquest of Iran, for about 400 years Arabic script was used for just writing Arabic in Iran but then Persians used the same script with some changes for writing Persian, it doesn't mean that in the first 400 years all Persians spoke Arabic.
 
The Middle East had Sub-Saharan African slavery for centuries, including Iran. The existence of Afro-Iranians is a testament to this legacy.



Judging from the trend we see throughout the Middle East, SSA increased after the post-medieval period. Moreover, we see that Jewish populations, in the admixture chart, tend to have little to no SSA, compared to non-Jewish populations from the same countries. Perhaps it reflects Jewish endogamy, which many religious and ethnic groups around the world are known for practicing. Or perhaps it is also driven by preferring higher classes, which would not tend to include former-slaves.

I sincerely doubt the dynamic is not the same, as virtually all the other groups represented in the region.

rLzrc6C.png

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15694

so you have no source and it's just speculation. and i don't think it's true. when looking at myheritage dna results on youtube then palestinians for example get a few% SSA. syrians get arond 2% too, some have already nothing like syrian kurds. but in iraq it is not there anymore. and in all of iraq not just in jews. in iran it is also not detected. in your chart it is also almost nonexistent in Saudis. so my guess is that this SSA is present in the levant/north africa and in yemen but further inland it is absent. it is not spread throughout the middle east like you say it is. and even if there was like 2% SSA in iran it would still be one of the least important admixtures to the region. besides couldn't part of that SSA we see in the levant and north africa be from taforalt and not from slave trade?
 
^my speculation is absolutely sound, and you don't think it is viable, because you want to be contraian. Because it pleases your idealistic proclivity. The legacy of slavery in Iran is absolutely true, as are the trends we see in genetics. There is likely some SSA subsumed in the brown component, because of taforalt. But obviously the excess is evident in later periods.
 
FYI it is verifiable that some SSA exists in Iranians (and Saudis). It is not a important factor in their genetics for some. Though some are small, yet significant contributions. Some Iranians have as much SSA as Egyptians. Some Saudis have more than anyone else. I think that's significant. But it was one of a few changes that have occurred in Iranians, since the Neolithic, which was the original point I was making.:
lcAzzHy.png
 
Futhermore, early Iranian populations would not have talforat admixed into them yet. Which is another facet of the changes that occurred in Iran, with the arrival of Levantine-like people:

The earliest ancient DNA data of modern humansfrom Europe dates to 40thousand years ago1-4, but that from the Caucasus and the Near East to only 14 thousand years ago5,6, from populations wholived long after the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) 26.5-19 thousand years ago7. To address thisimbalance and to better understand the relationship of Europeans and NearEasterners, we report genome-wide data from two 26 thousand year old individuals from DzudzuanaCave in Georgia in the Caucasus from around the beginning of the LGM.Surprisingly, the Dzudzuana population was more closely related to earlyagriculturalists from western Anatolia 8thousand years ago8 than to the hunter-gatherers of the Caucasus from the sameregion of western Georgia of 13-10thousand years ago5. Most of the Dzudzuana population’s ancestry was deeplyrelated to the post-glacial western European hunter-gatherers of the‘Villabruna cluster’3, but it also had ancestry from a lineage that hadseparated from the great majority of non-African populations before theyseparated from each other, proving that such ‘Basal Eurasians’6,9 were presentin West Eurasia twice as early as previously recorded5,6. We document major population turnover in the Near East after the time of Dzudzuana, showing that the highly differentiated Holocene populations of the region6 were formed by ‘Ancient North Eurasian’3,9,10 admixture into the Caucasus and Iran and North African11,12 admixture into the Natufians of the Levant. We finally show thatthe Dzudzuana population contributed the majority of the ancestry of post-IceAge people in the Near East, North Africa, and even parts of Europe, therebybecoming the largest single contributor of ancestry of all present-day WestEurasians.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/423079v1
 
Last edited:
that some iranians have as much SSA as egyptians in your graphic should ring a bell. those individuals also seem to be different in the rest of their ancestry. we know the iranian population consists of several different subpopulations and my guess is that those individuals are persian gulf islanders which showed pull towards SSA in previous studies. but they don't represent whole iran. as already said there is not a sinlge iranian on youtube that gets sub saharan ancestry. though there are also no sicilians who get SSA so maybe this argumentation doesn't work. in spain it is detected.
i know your point was to show changes in iran but again why SSA, when the bigger changes came from anatolia/levant/steppe?

according to table 3 here https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/059311v1.supplementary-material

Fst iran neo/iranian jewish: 0.043
Fst iran neo/iranian: 0.029

Fst iran ChL/iranian jewish:0.013
Fst iran ChL/iranian 0.007

so no, lack of SSA in iranian jews that is supposedly present in other iranians can't have such a strong effect. the biggest change happened before the bronze age and after that the change was like 3 times smaller.

Fst iran neo/iran ChL:0.021
Fst iran neo/iranian: 0.029
Fst iran ChL/iranian:0.007
 
Its not true about Greeks. Greeks have fought once under Alexander the Great. Even then they were conquered and forced to fight by Macedonians who were not Helens. Greeks were not a unified entity fighting for expansion. They were organized in competing city states who fought among themselves but had no military power to wage campaigns in other countries or territories. Their colonies were created not from military campaigns but through their ability to convince the hosts to accept them (tricks). They radiated their know how rather than imposing it through force, because they had no force., and were a costal people. Greeks never build anything out of sea sight.
Romans were a formidable fighting force for the time, and Carthaginians

You forgot that they managed to beat the snot out of the Persians in 490 to 480. Athens had a formidable navy.

BTW, is it a national sport in Albania and Northern Macedonia to discredit anything Greek and trying to claim Alexander the Great? Why don't you go pick a fight with the Romanian historians that think that Albanian originated somewhere in Western Romanian?
?
 
Last edited:
that some iranians have as much SSA as egyptians in your graphic should ring a bell. those individuals also seem to be different in the rest of their ancestry. we know the iranian population consists of several different subpopulations and my guess is that those individuals are persian gulf islanders which showed pull towards SSA in previous studies. but they don't represent whole iran. as already said there is not a sinlge iranian on youtube that gets sub saharan ancestry. though there are also no sicilians who get SSA so maybe this argumentation doesn't work. in spain it is detected.
i know your point was to show changes in iran but again why SSA, when the bigger changes came from anatolia/levant/steppe?

according to table 3 here https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/059311v1.supplementary-material

Fst iran neo/iranian jewish: 0.043
Fst iran neo/iranian: 0.029

Fst iran ChL/iranian jewish:0.013
Fst iran ChL/iranian 0.007

so no, lack of SSA in iranian jews that is supposedly present in other iranians can't have such a strong effect.

There are indeed more significant changes, as you have stated. I also mentioned the changes from the Levant, as well.
 
The Middle East had Sub-Saharan African slavery for centuries, including Iran. The existence of Afro-Iranians is a testament to this legacy.



Judging from the trend we see throughout the Middle East, SSA increased after the post-medieval period. Moreover, we see that Jewish populations, in the admixture chart, tend to have little to no SSA, compared to non-Jewish populations from the same countries. Perhaps it reflects Jewish endogamy, which many religious and ethnic groups around the world are known for practicing. Or perhaps it is also driven by preferring higher classes, which would not tend to include former-slaves.

I sincerely doubt the dynamic is not the same, as virtually all the other groups represented in the region.

rLzrc6C.png

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15694

@Alichu

My speculation has been verified in this chart. Iranian Jews, do tend to have different autosomal genetics from the non-Jewish Iranian population. Some of which have non-trivial amounts of SSA:

Xx70hLo.png


https://www.nature.com/articles/nature09103
 
You forgot that they managed to beat the snot out of the Persians in 490 to 480. Athens had a formidable navy.

BTW, is it a national sport in Albania and Northern Macedonia to discredit anything Greek and trying to claim Alexander the Great? Why don't you go pick a fight with the Romanian historians that think that Albanian originated somewhere in Western Romanian?
?

No sport, just allergies from lies. As for Romanians they claim descendance from Romanized Dacian that survived after Aurelian left the province in the III century....


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum
 

This thread has been viewed 85739 times.

Back
Top