Genetic and Cultural Differences between Jews and Greeks

I'm just defending the position I deem to be right, as long as I don't have the proof for it being wrong - in case of which I would change my opinion.

You said one cannnot work with the Imperial Roman sample, which is questionable, even if I agree that improvements and more samples would be - of course - just preferable and better. I also used the calculator in samples which are more straight up and you see all the results make perfect sense and align well with the results from the scientic studies which provided them. I mean up to the exact percentage and position on the PCA everything is right. And you get these "Imperial_Roman" profile not just in Italy and the city of Rome, you have it in Pannonia/Szolad, in Collegno/Northern Italy and many other places. It was spread in Imperial Roman times.


Imperial Roman is not a sample is just an average of a few different samples from the imperial era, which for 70-80% is made up of components that are ancestral to all modern Europeans.


3zf1V9j.png
 
My models are not based on averages, but on the sum of all individual samples. Or are you saying he also deliberately changes the coordinates of individual samples just to fit his ideas? We could easily test this. If some South Italian member of this or other forums got his/her G25 coordinates, we could easily run the same models and see if it deviates strongly from the South Italian samples in G25 spreadsheets.

Yes I confirm it, I see it in the various datasheets of the past that I keep on my computer.

However, I notice that you are also a Davidski defense attorney. How strange all these defenders of a Nordicist.
 
Levant_PPNB is almost 50% Anatolia_Barcin, so using Levant_PPNB in models could almost double what is the true value of Levant.

2lQfnS1.png

The conclusions won't change if you use Natufian instead. Unless you are claiming some pocket of pure Natufian gene pool remained somewhere in Asia or North Africa up to the IA and then migrated straight to South Italy and some other parts of Southeastern Europe like Crete, or alternatively Natufians migrated very early to South Italy and remained in isolation there for a long time (2 completely fanciful scenarios), if you have e.g. ~5% Natufian you can be roughly sure that actual Levant_N contribution was ~10% and even more than that if contribution came via Levant_BA and Anatolia_BA. Natufian ancestry diminished continuously since the very onset of the early Neolithic, except in Arabia (and I'm sure you won't be arguing that the minor Levant signal in South Italy came from Yemen or something, right?).

Natufians were distinct enough to be easily distinguishable from Anatolia_N in these calcualtors... and yet it's consistently being picked up ONLY in the parts of Europe that were historically and unquestionably more linked to the East Mediterranean region. You all may have criticisms against these amateur calculators, but a hint is there and it must have an explanation. And it doesn't exist only in Davidski's G25, mind you, so it's not some big conspiracy theory against Italians, either (it's also present in Greek, Cypriot and even Bulgarian samples).

I also like to interpret results of hypothetical models using common sense and historical knowlege to determine if some result hints at a believable gene flow or not: post-Mesolithic Siberian ancestry in Scandinavia is realistically plausible, Siberian ancestry in Portugal is not; SSA ancestry in Palestine is plausible, SSA ancestry in Norway is not; East Asian ancestry in Bulgaria or Russia is plausible, East Asian ancestry in Britain is not... and Levant_N ancestry is at least plausible in South Italy, Greece, Cyprus, Malta, but Levant_N ancestry in Finland, Ireland or Poland is not.
 
Imperial Roman is not a sample is just an average of a few different samples from the imperial era, which for 70-80% is made up of components that are ancestral to all modern Europeans.

The main differences between most West Eurasians are the ancestral proportions, not the basic ancestral components, especially if you take this very basic components as a reference. An "Imperal_Roman-like" ancestry is fairly widespread in the Imperial Roman time. Its just there. I know its just an approximation, and we can model the same profile differently. But its just more comfortable to use, because it captures and ancestral profile of importance probably the best - so far and until better samples are out there. You just find that profile again and again, even in the samples from Szolad and Collegno.
 
The conclusions won't change if you use Natufian instead.

Conclusions is too general a term.

My point is that it is not true that Levant PPNB gives the same results as Levant Natufian. Levant PPNB comes out with almost double the percentage and it influences the rest of the results, being almost 50% Anatolia Barcin. The rest of the components used in the "source" are the same.


Levant PPNB

RrEy6Vd.png



Levant Natufian

dsoHTQW.png
 
The main differences between most West Eurasians are the ancestral proportions, not the basic ancestral components, especially if you take this very basic components as a reference. An "Imperal_Roman-like" ancestry is fairly widespread in the Imperial Roman time. Its just there. I know its just an approximation, and we can model the same profile differently. But its just more comfortable to use, because it captures and ancestral profile of importance probably the best - so far and until better samples are out there. You just find that profile again and again, even in the samples from Szolad and Collegno.

For the last time, there is no such thing as "Imperial Roman-like" ancestry. It is a false construct. No where in the study that the samples are from say that it is. It is something made up by laymen on the internet.
 
However, I notice that you are also a Davidski defense attorney. How strange all these defenders of a Nordicist.

Ridiculous assumptions and irresponsible accusations. Please avoid these ad hominem fallacies.

Use other calculators, not the one made by Davidski. It won't change. All the tools used by amateurs indicate the very same thing, a few percents more, a few percents less, but since these percentages must not be interpreted literally, rather they must be understood as clues to the approxiate truth about the genetic history of a people, that ultimately doesn't change the big picture. Maybe they all are a bunch of Nordicist conspirationists with a huge number of defense attorneys to hide their evil misdoings.
 
Conclusions is too general a term.

My point is that it is not true that Levant PPNB gives the same results as Levant Natufian. Levant PPNB comes out with almost double the percentage and it influences the rest of the results, being almost 50% Anatolia Barcin. The rest of the components used in the "source" are the same.


Levant PPNB

RrEy6Vd.png



Levant Natufian

dsoHTQW.png

Nobody claimed that Levant_N was the same thing as Natufian. Otherwise we wouldn't be stressing that we're talking about Levant_N or even Levant_BA, not unmixed Levantine ancestry (Natufian). Nonetheless, my point stands: unless you consider one of those 2 hypotheses that I find totally untenable, a certain amount of Natufian in a European population probably means 2x or even 3x times as much actual contribution from the Levant either directly or indirectly through intermediary mixed groups.
 
Yes I confirm it, I see it in the various datasheets of the past that I keep on my computer.

Only in Italian samples or in samples as a whole? Individual DNA coordinates or the population averages? All?
 
why should other europeans matter? or why do you not include the other europeans into the other group that is different from the native brits and french too?
the media wanted to cloud the "europeanness" of the romans? what is "europeanness"? actually it doesn't matter because you know its quite relative, the romans themselves were "exotic" in germania or in gaul even without additional ancestry from levant. there is no such thing as "europeaness" especially back then. if the media wants to push diversity it just has to show the remnants of the roman culture, a completely foreign culture to most parts of the european continent back then.


Of course there was such a thing as European in the times of ancient Rome. Besides, native Romans and Gauls were both Indo-European people who were linguistically connected. Italics derive 50% of their ancestry from the Bell Beaker folks which hailed from Central Europe/South Germany. The fact that a Roman would be an exotic sight in Gaul doesn't negate the notion that Romans and Gauls were both European. People back then even when they were basically the same people were tribalistic, clannish and territorial where the tribe or direct kinship comes first. However, I know from another thread that you are person who attacks the European identity by denying it. From what I recall you've claimed that black or Indo- Brits which are descendants of recent African or Indian migrants are as English as the native white English. That's plain and simple BS. A black woman with a Nigerian accent insisted of being as English as any Anglo-Saxon. She was very offended by the claim of an English actor that London is no longer an English city anymore. Pfff. Another example were West African migrants/refugees who lived for 6 months in Germany and a black female politician from the Social Democrat party who said that Germans don't own the German identity and that the old Germans must accept that they (black Africans) are the NEW Germans. LOL. Nobody on his right mind would claim that the Boers who live now for 300 years in South Africa are as native as the Zulus or even the San to South Africa. On the contrary people like you would fall over themselves to scream white supremacy, racism to shut down this claim.

In my opinion you display anti-European antics as those who say there is not such as thing as English, French, Italian, Scandinavian, etc to push their forced diversity agenda. I'm sure that you wouldn’t dare to claim that there is not such a thing as Native American and that Euro-Americans are as native as the Cherokee or Sioux to America. Come on!

To illustrate my point. Here is a West African looking man in a Scandinavian commercial talking about his Viking ancestors. The message says that "Scandinavian" doesn't exist.

It appears that the original ad was removed, though.



Screenshot_1-23.jpg


https://sputniknews.com/viral/20200...-ad-from-youtube-after-public-outrage--video/

“Nothing is Truly Scandinavian” – Historian Reacts to Scandinavian Airlines Commercial:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4UF40bGotk&feature=emb_logo

A WHG aka the first Scandinavian was portrayed by a black African man with blue eyes in a historical documentary
:petrified: in Sweden.

viking1.png


An African newspaper has the audacity to call people who were outraged about the misrepresentation of WHGs in Scandinavia as black Africans as ignorant racists. :annoyed: West African refugees who were not granted asylum in Sweden took this so called historical docu to claim that they are native to Scandinavia since they were the original Scandinavians. Therefore they are basically back to their motherland and have the right to stay and can't be expelled out of Sweden. This is madness!


Anyway, white people who appreciate other cultures are or emulate them are being constantly attacked and accused by white leftists, SJWs and non-Whites of cultural appropriation. The argument is that white people can't adopt aspects of a culture that's not their own. So Non-whites have all the right to protect their heritage by claiming it's theirs but white people who do the same are labeled as racist. The double standard is typical for the anti-European leftists.
 
For the last time, there is no such thing as "Imperial Roman-like" ancestry. It is a false construct. No where in the study that the samples are from say that it is. It is something made up by laymen on the internet.

It is no construct but a sample and the genetic profile, the general position of this Imperial_Roman sample approaches something which seems to have been present in the Empire. If you don't use it, the components get more variable and harder to grasp, but they are basically the same and a lot of it is simply Anatolian Bronze Age like ancestry, like you said yourself. I played around with individual ancient and modern Italian results in between, and what I saw is that they have the tendency to split up or take Imperial_Roman as a whole of about 50:50. So either they take Imperial Roman as a source, or they take what this sample consists of. I'm missing something, I know, but its worthwhile to check for it, wouldn't say anything else.
 
Not my term Ailchu, you said there was no europeanness. That was your statement, my question was why did't you say the same thing about any other continent and peoples from those continents. As for genetic continuity with politics. I am in my 50's, when I visited Sicily and Rome last summer, I made sure to spend at least 1 day in each of the following places, the Cathederals in Palermo Province at Cefalu and Monreale. I also spent a day at Saint Peters. So to me, the bedrock of European civilization in general, Italian in particular is a 3 legged stool, Roman/Greco/Christendom. The 3rd one tend to piss off the modern secular marxist, but that is my view. So hypothetically, if in 30 years if I am still here, and I visit those same places and they now are the same as the Hagia Sophia, then from my perspective, that is no longer Italy. It is now just a building that has been transformed because the cultures that build those cathederals, both ethnically and theologically no longer exist. It is just museum on the map, no longer a living visible tangible object that one can look back in time, in continuity to the culture that produced those buildings. The entire EU narrative, with their UN backers is to deconstruct European history, in my view. One only needs to look at the Cathederal in Paris at Notre Dame. The EU and secularist want to build it to reflect modern secular France and disconnect it from the native French and the Culture that built it. In my view, it is because the entire EU/UN/NGO project is exactly that, an attempt separate peoples from their ancestral culture and "disconnect them from it". So whenever I see these notions of total ethnic discontinuity from the Iron Age till today, I ex ante reject it as part of broader political philosophy rooted in cultural marxism. And before someone says, well before the Bronze Age, there was discontinuity across Europe, yes i am well aware of that, J. Krause did a lecture on that at the University of California in August of 2016, which is still on Youtube. Nobody today is 100% WHG, nobody today is 100% EHG, nobody today is 100% EEF, etc, etc, etc, However, by the Bronze Age, not later than the Iron Age, modern European Ethnic groups and peoples were pretty well what they are today, based on all what I have read. So Ailichu, you may not agree with my political philosophy, and you may not like that I maintain Christendom was part of the foundation that build European Civilization, but I have believed that as a Kid, young adult, believe it now and will go to my grave holding to that view. And I understand that you disagree with my views that I hope Italy does a Italian version of Brexit and reclaims political control over all matters that are internal to Italian politics. That does not mean I reject International cooperation, NATO has worked well since WW2 and Italy has been a very loyal NATO ally to the USA, in fact, along with the UK, probably the best. Bilateral trade deals with USA and Italy, all for them, maybe trilateral and bring the UK in, great. But Italian border policies, speech codes, marriage laws being dictated by the EU and Macron and Ms. Merkel, if I were an Italian citizen, not no but hell no. Those are my views and I probably said more on a tangential issue to the thread than I normally do, but to me there is some connection. Best Regards to you and yours, PT
didn't i say there was no europeanness? then you said there is and i asked what it means. you are probably evading because you don't know yourself. if you think there is and you obviously do then explain. and don't say it's not your term. can you be more or less asian or european? if it's just a geographical description what kind of relevance does it have especially when we look at antiquity? sry but roman ruins in britain or france or switzerland are remnants of a "romanization", a FOREIGN and completely different culture taking over.
as for your concerns about the italian ethnicity, cultures and ethnics change, that's just how it is. you probably won't find many swiss who do not have recent foreign ancestry. if you think the culture needs to be preserved then i don't understand what's the deal with genetic contiunity.
 
Of course there was such a thing as European in the times of ancient Rome. Besides, native Romans and Gauls were both Indo-European people who were linguistically connected. Italics derive 50% of their ancestry from the Bell Beaker folks which hailed from Central Europe/South Germany. The fact that a Roman would be an exotic sight in Gaul doesn't negate the notion that Romans and Gauls were both European. People back then even when they were basically the same people were tribalistic, clannish and territorial where the tribe or direct kinship comes first. However, I know from another thread that you are person who attacks the European identity by denying it. From what I recall you've claimed that black or Indo- Brits which are descendants of recent African or Indian migrants are as English as the native white English. That's plain and simple BS. A black woman with a Nigerian accent insisted of being as English as any Anglo-Saxon. She was very offended by the claim of an English actor that London is no longer an English city anymore. Pfff. Another example were West African migrants/refugees who lived for 6 months in Germany and a black female politician from the Social Democrat party who said that Germans don't own the German identity and that the old Germans must accept that they (black Africans) are the NEW Germans. LOL. Nobody on his right mind would claim that the Boers who live now for 300 years in South Africa are as native as the Zulus or even the San to South Africa. On the contrary people like you would fall over themselves to scream white supremacy, racism to shut down this claim.

In my opinion you display anti-European antics as those who say there is not such as thing as English, French, Italian, Scandinavian, etc to push their forced diversity agenda. I'm sure that you wouldn’t dare to claim that there is not such a thing as Native American and that Euro-Americans are as native as the Cherokee or Sioux to America. Come on!

To illustrate my point. Here is a West African looking man in a Scandinavian commercial talking about his Viking ancestors. The message says that "Scandinavian" doesn't exist.

It appears that the original ad was removed, though.



Screenshot_1-23.jpg


https://sputniknews.com/viral/20200...-ad-from-youtube-after-public-outrage--video/

“Nothing is Truly Scandinavian” – Historian Reacts to Scandinavian Airlines Commercial:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4UF40bGotk&feature=emb_logo

A WHG aka the first Scandinavian was portrayed by a black African man with blue eyes in a historical documentary
:petrified: in Sweden.

viking1.png


An African newspaper has the audacity to call people who were outraged about the misrepresentation of WHGs in Scandinavia as black Africans as ignorant racists. :annoyed: West African refugees who were not granted asylum in Sweden took this so called historical docu to claim that they are native to Scandinavia since they were the original Scandinavians. Therefore they are basically back to their motherland and have the right to stay and can't be expelled out of Sweden. This is madness!


Anyway, white people who appreciate other cultures are or emulate them are being constantly attacked and accused by white leftists, SJWs and non-Whites of cultural appropriation. The argument is that white people can't adopt aspects of a culture that's not their own. So Non-whites have all the right to protect their heritage by claiming it's theirs but white people who do the same are labeled as racist. The double standard is typical for the anti-European leftists.

Don't waste your time arguing with these type of peoples. They do their best to try to deny European culture. Minorities culturally appropriate every day. They use English, the internet, electricity, modern medicine, refrigeration, air conditioning, cars, trains, planes. But if a European or white person borrows something (usually insignificant and generally useless anyways) from minorities they go crazy.
 
It is no construct but a sample and the genetic profile, the general position of this Imperial_Roman sample approaches something which seems to have been present in the Empire. If you don't use it, the components get more variable and harder to grasp, but they are basically the same and a lot of it is simply Anatolian Bronze Age like ancestry, like you said yourself. I played around with individual ancient and modern Italian results in between, and what I saw is that they have the tendency to split up or take Imperial_Roman as a whole of about 50:50. So either they take Imperial Roman as a source, or they take what this sample consists of. I'm missing something, I know, but its worthwhile to check for it, wouldn't say anything else.

I recommend letting it go, because it is not a real component.
 
Conclusions is too general a term.

My point is that it is not true that Levant PPNB gives the same results as Levant Natufian. Levant PPNB comes out with almost double the percentage and it influences the rest of the results, being almost 50% Anatolia Barcin. The rest of the components used in the "source" are the same.


Levant PPNB

RrEy6Vd.png



Levant Natufian

dsoHTQW.png



There we go:unsure:
even if you use levant natufian
Instead of levant ppnb
Still sicilians score 10% of it and not shy 8% score
For campanians... :cool-v:

The question we need to ask why south italians
score it more than iberian and mainland greeks(cretans do score it though)
They could get it from greek islanders colonies in italy....
 
@Ygorcs,

If Levant_N was such a good component, than why was it not used in Raveane et al 2019? They had it their disposal, but Anatolian_BA was a better fit. take a look at figure G.

Yes, but Anatolia_BA is a BA admixture, Levant_N is thousands of years earlier, and I still think it is highly unlikely that Anatolia_BA virtually lacked Levant_N when the Pinarbasi_HG paper claimed (I can't judge how credibly) they found significant Levant_N admixture even in the later period of Anatolia_N (Ceramic AF).
I personally find it little recommended, unless you are only looking for very general patterns of genetic distribution in broader clusters, to use widely separate population samples (chronologically), though I agree that sometimes it is just impossible to avoid that due to lack of more proximate samples and/or due to excessively mixed and thus less easily distinguishable samples in later periods.

However, I maintain that if they are still making models based on such early admixtures such as WHG and Anatolia_Barcin, they should add Levant_N or at least Natufian if they think Levant_N is not distinct enough from Anatolia_Barcin (which is a bit arguable, but I can see why they'd think so).
 
There we go:unsure:
even if you use levant natufian
Instead of levant ppnb
Still sicilians score 10% of it and not shy 8% score
For campanians... :cool-v:
The question we need to ask why south italians
score it more than iberian and mainland greeks(cretans do score it though)
They could get it from greek islanders colonies in italy....

Just a speculation for fun: where did Philistines go for their genetic footstep to vitually disappear in Ashkelon_IA2 compared to the earlier (Philistine) Ashkelon_IA1? Did they simply get genocided? Did they vanish into thin air? Did they assimilate so much that their strongly Greek-like (~47%) genetic signal disappeared? Or did they migrate to some Greek Aegean islands and their colonies?
 
@Ygorcs,

If Levant_N was such a good component, than why was it not used in Raveane et al 2019? They had it their disposal, but Anatolian_BA was a better fit.

X5FQhf9.jpg


take a look at figure G.

About Sicilu2 in figure G, why do you think it scores A LOT less ratio of residuals with ABA than the SItaly samples?
 
About Sicilu2 in figure G, why do you think it scores A LOT less ratio of residuals with ABA than the SItaly samples?

I'm not sure, but medieval Sicily had a lot of resettlement, I believe a lot via north Italy. In addition to other influences as well.

The Lombards of Sicily are a linguistic minority living in Sicily who speak an isolated variety of Gallo-Italic dialects, the so-called Gallo-Italic of Sicily. The Gallo-Italic of Sicily is a group of Gallo-Italic languages found in about 15 isolated communities of central eastern Sicily. Forming a language island in the Sicilian language,[99][100] it dates back to migrations from Northern Italy during the era of Roger I of Sicily[101] and his successors. The Lombards of Sicily, who originally hailed from Northern Italy, settled the central and eastern part of Sicily about 900 years ago, during the Norman conquest of Sicily. Because of linguistic differences among the Gallo-Italic dialects of Sicily, it is supposed that there were different immigration routes. From Piedmont, Liguria, Emilia, and Lombardy they began to spread south between the 11th and 14th centuries. The most important areas where the Gallo-Italic of Sicily is spoken are Acquedolci, Montalbano Elicona, Novara di Sicilia, Fondachelli-Fantina San Fratello and San Piero Patti (Province of Messina), Aidone, Nicosia, Piazza Armerina and Sperlinga (Province of Enna).

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

This thread has been viewed 188536 times.

Back
Top