Genetic and Cultural Differences between Jews and Greeks

For what it can be worth, according to this study, https://www.cell.com/ajhg/fulltext/S0002-9297(17)30276-8, it is north Italians and Sardinians that share more ancestry in common with the Levant, "When we substituted present-day Near Easterners with a panel of 150 present-day populations available in the Human Origins dataset, we found that only Sardinians and Italian_North shared significantly more alleles with Sidon_BA compared with the Lebanese (Figure S8). Sardinians are known to have retained a large proportion of ancestry from Early European farmers (EEFs) and therefore the increased affinity to Sidon_BA could be related to a shared Neolithic ancestry.". It could be wrong, but imo it's worth entertaining, given that it is consistent with the idea that the Iran-neolithic gene flow dilutated the EEFs component and with it the Levant it carried.

I find this result really weird, considering that the Levant since the EBA at least was characterized by a high CHG and Iran_N input just like the you will find more in South Italy than in North Italy, whereas North Italians have more steppe ancestry than South Italians (though not by a very large margin at all). So, considering what we know about BA Levantines, and the results indicating that South Italians are related to ABA, which was certainly more related to Levant_BA than the more "Bell Beaker-like" people of North Italy is, I found that finding of that study really surreal, I honestly don't know how to explain it and doubt it's only because of shared EEF, particularly when EEF actually had very divergent WHG admixture.

I also don't think I'm getting Levant_N exclusively because of shared ancestry with ANF (EEF = ANF + WHG), because that would mean I'd get some Levant_N in virtually all samples from all parts of Europe, since almost all of them stillhave +35-60% of ANF nowadays. When the Natufian-like admixture is already built into Anatolia_N, it will only pick up Levant_N if it is somehow extra Levant-related ancestry for whatever reason. Or it might also, as you say, that when that Levant-related part of Anatolia_N is combined with some other component (I don't think Iran_N, it's far too divergent and not present in any appreciable frequency in Levant_N to heavily skew results and confuse the algorithms, but maybe something else)...
 
TargetDistanceGEO_CHGIRN_Tepe_Abdul_Hosein_NLevant_PPNBMAR_ENRUS_Karelia_HGTUR_Barcin_NWHGYamnaya_RUS_Samara
Italian_Abruzzo0.008868100.07.810.00.00.052.00.230.0
Italian_Aosta_Valley0.021731620.00.00.00.00.051.88.639.6
Italian_Apulia0.010489092.07.411.00.00.051.80.027.8
Italian_Basilicata0.009258722.28.211.80.00.050.80.027.0
Italian_Bergamo0.015822060.00.00.00.00.058.86.434.8
Italian_Calabria0.011980192.810.810.80.80.052.60.022.2
Italian_Campania0.009858712.09.413.40.00.050.00.025.2
Italian_Jew0.009872810.412.425.61.80.039.60.020.2
Italian_Lazio0.011974710.06.611.20.00.051.42.028.8
Italian_Liguria0.020014220.80.00.02.20.056.05.635.4
Italian_Lombardy0.016245190.00.00.00.60.058.65.435.4
Italian_Marche0.011398870.04.25.40.00.055.61.233.6
Italian_Molise0.009132190.27.26.40.00.054.80.031.4
Italian_Northeast0.017359950.00.00.00.02.254.26.836.8
Italian_Piedmont0.012389740.01.40.00.40.058.24.036.0
Italian_Trentino-Alto-Adige0.014025870.00.00.00.00.056.28.035.8
Italian_Tuscany0.009999790.03.42.00.20.057.63.033.8
Italian_Umbria0.010572450.25.03.20.40.057.61.432.2
Italian_Veneto0.014433490.00.00.00.00.056.66.636.8
Sicilian_East0.011542032.28.614.20.60.048.41.824.2
Sicilian_West0.012281340.010.29.82.20.049.84.024.0
Average0.012821480.64.96.40.40.153.43.131.0
WITH 0.25x HIGHER DISTANCE

TargetDistance | ADC: 0.25xGEO_CHGIRN_Tepe_Abdul_Hosein_NLevant_PPNBTUR_Barcin_NWHGYamnaya_RUS_Samara
Italian_Abruzzo0.015333740.04.43.862.60.029.2
Italian_Aosta_Valley0.023888290.00.00.053.46.839.8
Italian_Apulia0.015632941.84.84.462.80.026.2
Italian_Basilicata0.015576211.46.05.062.40.025.2
Italian_Bergamo0.019072460.00.00.061.04.634.4
Italian_Calabria0.017378793.07.68.060.00.021.4
Italian_Campania0.015809410.87.26.861.40.023.8
Italian_Jew0.016769012.08.622.648.60.018.2
Italian_Lazio0.018003670.02.45.860.40.031.4
Italian_Liguria0.023476240.00.00.059.63.437.0
Italian_Lombardy0.019351630.00.00.060.83.635.6
Italian_Marche0.016723670.00.43.261.80.034.6
Italian_Molise0.015746630.04.61.864.00.029.6
Italian_Northeast0.019784770.00.00.055.25.439.4
Italian_Piedmont0.016443120.00.00.060.81.637.6
Italian_Trentino-Alto-Adige0.017323390.00.00.057.66.236.2
Italian_Tuscany0.015312740.00.00.063.20.036.8
Italian_Umbria0.017244210.00.80.864.60.033.8
Italian_Veneto0.017955490.00.00.057.64.837.6
Sicilian_East0.016264642.44.611.655.60.025.8
Sicilian_West0.020242440.04.812.054.40.828.0
Average0.017777790.52.74.159.41.831.5

What are you using?

these based on vahaduo.

Italians

47o7z51.png


Balkans

k7KXKhz.png



Jewish people

qEdGaWl.png
 
I understand where you’re coming from. After I have read the comments from anthrogenica on the ancient Roman study, I also got the impression that many wanted to Levantize the original ancient Romans as much as possible. The media for instance, took this study to cloud the Europeanness of ancient Romans in order to promote diversity. The title: Study reveals huge genetic diversity among ancient Romans, who had more in common with people from Greece, Syria and Lebanon than western Europeans
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-7666029/New-study-reveals-incredible-genetic-diversity-ancient-Romans.html#comments.

Well if you go to certain areas in London or Paris today, you will also find out that the residents there have more in common with, Nigerians/West Africans, Middle Easterners, South Asians etc. than with the native French or Brits or any European.

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.
 
Why south italians score between 18-20 % basal
in mdlp k11 in gedmatch
?:unsure:

P.s
for the record i score 23% basal in mdlp k11:cool-v:
 
^^Again, some of these figures for particular source populations for Italians look off based on what I've seen from studies. For example, there should be more CHG rather than IN, there should be more WHG, and less Steppe.


These are inaccurate tools that should not be taken literally.
 
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 "europeaness" of the romans? what is "europeaness"? 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.

There was no such thing as Europeaness back then. I disagree. But for the sake of your argument, was there "Asianess" back then? Was there "Africaness" back then? I think it is pretty clear that European Ethnic Groups were pretty well formed by circa 1,000 BC. No I am not saying there could have been a wiggle here, and a wiggle there, but I don't think your statement is correct?

From Antonio et al 2019, and I quote

"By 900 BCE at the latest, the inhabitants of central Italy had begun to approximate the genetics of modern Mediterranean populations."

8 of 11 the Iron Age Romans plot within the range of Tuscany/Nothern Italy to Southern France/Iberia, 3 Central Italy to Southern Italy, with some Drift towards Sardinia for 1 of them If I remember correctly (Figure 2)

For Imperial Romans

"Notably, only 2 out of 48 Imperial-era individuals fall in the European cluster (C7) to which 8 out of 11 Iron Age individuals belong. Instead, two thirds of Imperial individuals (31 out of 48) belong to two major clusters (C5 and C6) that overlap in PCA with central and eastern Mediterranean populations, such as those from southern and central Italy, Greece, Cyprus,and Malta (Fig. 4B)."

"An additional quarter (13 out of 48) of the sampled Imperial Romans form a cluster (C4) defined by high amounts of haplotype sharing with Levantine and Near Eastern populations, whereas no pre-Imperial individuals appear in this cluster"

So who were the natives and who were the newcomers, I think the 31 that are part of C5/C6 are the natives, the C4 cluster are the immigrants from the Eastern Empire.

By medieval period and I quote

"The Medieval population is roughly centered on modern-day central Italians"

So the distribution of ancient Romans seems to, big surprise have Central Italy as its anchor point, the distribution went from there to Northern Italy with some linkage to Iberia to Southern Italy. By Imperial period, the Anchor was still "Central Italy and the distribution went to Syria (13 Imperial Romans have ancestry not in Iron Age) then by Medeival period it anchors where, right on top Central Italy.

With all disrespect, one can respect other cultures and history but to say that there was no such thing as an Italian Europe in the 1st millennium BC represented by the 11 Iron Age Samples and 31 of the 48 Imperial ones is not correct.

I am not going to post the results here, because they are tangential to the thread, but I will clearly repeat, of the 127 Ancient Roman samples, me and many other of the people here with 100% of our ancestry from somewhere in Modern Italy share DNA segments (Deep Dive Chroma analysis) using the models and work from the site NyTrueAncestry, which is not some amateur reporting his or her own results, it is independent company reporting those results. I personally have some chroma matches with 33 of the 127.
 
Last edited:
There was no such thing as Europeaness back then. I disagree. But for the sake of your argument, was there "Asianess" back then? Was there "Africaness" back then? I think it is pretty clear that European Ethnic Groups were pretty well formed by circa 1,000 BC. No I am not saying there could have been a wiggle here, and a wiggle there, but I don't think your statement is correct?

From Antonio et al 2019, and I quote

"By 900 BCE at the latest, the inhabitants of central Italy had begun to approximate the genetics of modern Mediterranean populations."

8 of 11 the Iron Age Romans plot within the range of Tuscany/Nothern Italy to Southern France/Iberia, 3 Central Italy to Southern Italy, with some Drift towards Sardinia for 1 of them If I remember correctly (Figure 2)

For Imperial Romans

"Notably, only 2 out of 48 Imperial-era individuals fall in the European cluster (C7) to which 8 out of 11 Iron Age individuals belong. Instead, two thirds of Imperial individuals (31 out of 48) belong to two major clusters (C5 and C6) that overlap in PCA with central and eastern Mediterranean populations, such as those from southern and central Italy, Greece, Cyprus,and Malta (Fig. 4B)."

"An additional quarter (13 out of 48) of the sampled Imperial Romans form a cluster (C4) defined by high amounts of haplotype sharing with Levantine and Near Eastern populations, whereas no pre-Imperial individuals appear in this cluster"

So who were the natives and who were the newcomers, I think the 31 that are part of C5/C6 are the natives, the C4 cluster are the immigrants from the Eastern Empire.

By medieval period and I quote

"The Medieval population is roughly centered on modern-day central Italians"

So the distribution of ancient Romans seems to, big surprise have Central Italy as its anchor point, the distribution went from there to Northern Italy with some linkage to Iberia to Southern Italy. By Imperial period, the Anchor was still "Central Italy and the distribution went to Syria (13 Imperial Romans have ancestry not in Iron Age) then by Medeival period it anchors where, right on top Central Italy.

With all disrespect, one can respect other cultures and history but to say that there was no such thing as an Italian Europe in the 1st millennium BC represented by the 11 Iron Age Samples and 31 of the 48 Imperial ones is not correct.

I am not going to post the results here, because they are tangential to the thread, but I will clearly repeat, of the 127 Ancient Roman samples, me and many other of the people here with 100% of our ancestry from somewhere in Modern Italy share DNA segments (Deep Dive Chroma analysis) using the models and work from the site NyTrueAncestry, which is not some amateur reporting his or her own results, it is independent company reporting those results. I personally have some chroma matches with 33 of the 127.

if there was "europeaness" back then then please define it and please also give me the reaon for why it should be relevant. i mean, if you just think "europenness" means beeing from a population that is located on the piece of land called europe, since cultures were obviously quite different, then i really wonder why this term should be important when it's just a geographical grouping. and then you could just say european, why use "europeaness"? that sounds as if you can be more or less european. if so can you explain to me how someone can be less european and why it should matter for example for someone in germany? a german/near east mix probably also falls in that european cluster within and has probably no ancestry that is not already present among europeans. is he european or is he more or less european. does he have enough europeanness? and look at the title of the article that real expert posted. they seem to make a difference between greece and western europe too. those evil agenda driven british diversity pushers don't seem to care about "europeanness" either it seems.
 
I think we have reached a point where we shalln't be able to reach a consensus; in my humble opinion, the accademic results are our best models, and overall give the best global picture, and I do not think that we can prove them wrong with simple models done with hobbist softwares. Should new papers come out and support the thesis here put forward, I'll change my ideas, but untill then I am not convinced.
 
Europe is Europe, but yes, Europe is not a monolith. Do you actually not believe that by the 1st millenium BC, Germans were not Germans, Italians were not Italians, Greeks were not Greeks, Iberians were not Iberians, Brits were not Brits, Scandinavians were not, etc. The British doing Brexit does not say politically they are not European, it means they want to be European the consistent with English rule of Law, English tradition, English customs, not some imposed set of laws from Brussels and the EU and their allies in the UN.

You refused to answer my question, was there no such thing as Native Americaness in South and North America back then, Africaness in various places in Africa (Central, West, East, etc), Asianess in India, China, etc.

Real experts statement is not what I was concerned with, what I am concerned with is that modern Italians aren't really tied to the ancestors of their homeland and that for that reason, they should not control their own borders, have immigration policies that are based on what is best for Italy, not the EU or the UN.

In my view, you are very predictable, in that anytime there is any discussion about people talking about genetic continuity with their ancestral homeland, you chime in? Why does it bother you? The reason for this entire thread, or part of it, is the suggestion that there is discontinuity between Iron Age_Republican Rome and Imperial Rome, down through today, etc or even discontinuity between West_Sicily and East_Sicily, which the person who argued that revised his statement when presented with the evidence.
 
Europe is Europe, but yes, Europe is not a monolith. Do you actually not believe that by the 1st millenium BC, Germans were not Germans, Italians were not Italians, Greeks were not Greeks, Iberians were not Iberians, Brits were not Brits, Scandinavians were not, etc. The British doing Brexit does not say politically they are not European, it means they want to be European the consistent with English rule of Law, English tradition, English customs, not some imposed set of laws from Brussels and the EU and their allies in the UN.

You refused to answer my question, was there no such thing as Native Americaness in South and North America back then, Africaness in various places in Africa (Central, West, East, etc), Asianess in India, China, etc.

Real experts statement is not what I was concerned with, what I am concerned with is that modern Italians aren't really tied to the ancestors of their homeland and that for that reason, they should not control their own borders, have immigration policies that are based on what is best for Italy, not the EU or the UN.

In my view, you are very predictable, in that anytime there is any discussion about people talking about genetic continuity with their ancestral homeland, you chime in? Why does it bother you? The reason for this entire thread, or part of it, is the suggestion that there is discontinuity between Iron Age_Republican Rome and Imperial Rome, down through today, etc or even discontinuity between West_Sicily and East_Sicily, which the person who argued that revised his statement when presented with the evidence.

what kind of value does the "europeanness" of the ancient romans have? see, i really don't care about the continuity between modern italians and ancient romans. they are european no matter what, they could all have migrated to italy in the last 100 years. my comment was going towards "real expert". i don't know why you always come with italian politics. the only answer i have is that you connect your issue with genetic continuity with politics.
was there asianess or africaness or whatever? i'm asking you how you define those terms. i already told you how i understand them and questioned their relevance.
 
Europe is Europe, but yes, Europe is not a monolith. Do you actually not believe that by the 1st millenium BC, Germans were not Germans, Italians were not Italians, Greeks were not Greeks, Iberians were not Iberians, Brits were not Brits, Scandinavians were not, etc. The British doing Brexit does not say politically they are not European, it means they want to be European the consistent with English rule of Law, English tradition, English customs, not some imposed set of laws from Brussels and the EU and their allies in the UN.

You refused to answer my question, was there no such thing as Native Americaness in South and North America back then, Africaness in various places in Africa (Central, West, East, etc), Asianess in India, China, etc.

Real experts statement is not what I was concerned with, what I am concerned with is that modern Italians aren't really tied to the ancestors of their homeland and that for that reason, they should not control their own borders, have immigration policies that are based on what is best for Italy, not the EU or the UN.

In my view, you are very predictable, in that anytime there is any discussion about people talking about genetic continuity with their ancestral homeland, you chime in? Why does it bother you? The reason for this entire thread, or part of it, is the suggestion that there is discontinuity between Iron Age_Republican Rome and Imperial Rome, down through today, etc or even discontinuity between West_Sicily and East_Sicily, which the person who argued that revised his statement when presented with the evidence.

Even if there was discontinuity the people of Italy have the right to decide what is best for them not dumb institutions like the UN.
 
I find this result really weird, considering that the Levant since the EBA at least was characterized by a high CHG and Iran_N input just like the you will find more in South Italy than in North Italy, whereas North Italians have more steppe ancestry than South Italians (though not by a very large margin at all). So, considering what we know about BA Levantines, and the results indicating that South Italians are related to ABA, which was certainly more related to Levant_BA than the more "Bell Beaker-like" people of North Italy is, I found that finding of that study really surreal, I honestly don't know how to explain it and doubt it's only because of shared EEF, particularly when EEF actually had very divergent WHG admixture.

I also don't think I'm getting Levant_N exclusively because of shared ancestry with ANF (EEF = ANF + WHG), because that would mean I'd get some Levant_N in virtually all samples from all parts of Europe, since almost all of them stillhave +35-60% of ANF nowadays. When the Natufian-like admixture is already built into Anatolia_N, it will only pick up Levant_N if it is somehow extra Levant-related ancestry for whatever reason. Or it might also, as you say, that when that Levant-related part of Anatolia_N is combined with some other component (I don't think Iran_N, it's far too divergent and not present in any appreciable frequency in Levant_N to heavily skew results and confuse the algorithms, but maybe something else)...


The explanation given in the paper is that ANF ( and later EEF ) share more direct ancestry with Levant_N because, as you will know, Ceramic Anatolian farmers were around 20% natufian. This is consistent with the scenario that consequent broadly caucasus/iran admixture carried no detectable extra Levant-related ancestry. They did not talk of of actual similarity. But let's put it aside, because it's not a fundamental element in the discussion.
You are convinced that your models described reality, or at least give a better picture of what happened in the ethnogenesis of Italians, and you explain the fact that the majority of the papers do not support your thesis by claiming that a major fault in these papers is that they have not used Levant_N as a possible donor. Again, I find that hard to believe, but let's assume it for the sake's of argument. What I ask is this: why do you think that no archegenetist thought about what you thought about and did try and analyse the data using a method that distinguishes as much as possible Levant_N from Anatolian_N? And why do you think that G25, a tool developed especially for people of north European heritage, and also not by a very honest broker, actually is able to do this work? What makes you think that it is likelier that you are right and many other professional genetists are wrong?
It might be that you have really good points, but I hope you see that the onus of proof falls on you, and I hope to better understand what your points are ( well, apart from the models you bring and the accusation that the aforementioned studies are lacking in validity because they did not use Levant as a possible donor, or because they did not proved that the two way models are the best).
 
what kind of value does the "europeanness" of the ancient romans have? see, i really don't care about the continuity between modern italians and ancient romans. they are european no matter what, they could all have migrated to italy in the last 100 years. my comment was going towards "real expert". i don't know why you always come with italian politics. the only answer i have is that you connect your issue with genetic continuity with politics.
was there asianess or africaness or whatever? i'm asking you how you define those terms. i already told you how i understand them and questioned their relevance.

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
 
The explanation given in the paper is that ANF ( and later EEF ) share more direct ancestry with Levant_N because, as you will know, Ceramic Anatolian farmers were around 20% natufian. This is consistent with the scenario that consequent broadly caucasus/iran admixture carried no detectable extra Levant-related ancestry. They did not talk of of actual similarity. But let's put it aside, because it's not a fundamental element in the discussion.

Where did you take that 20% Natufian from? What were the other components comprising the remaining 80%? If it's one of those models WHG+Natufian that have been done, they're obviously very approximate and with a large margin of error, for none of those two are really good proxies for the actual populations that created the bulk of the AHG ancestry still dominant in later ANF. What I read in the Pinarbasi_HG AHG paper is this:

Likewise, qpAdm modeling suggests that the AAF gene pool still constitutes more than 3/4 of the ancestry of ACF 2000 years later (78.7 ± 3.5%; Supplementary Tables 4 and 7) with additional ancestry well modeled by the Neolithic Levantines (χ2p = 0.115) but not by the Neolithic Iranians (χ2p = 0.076; the model estimated infeasible negative mixture proportions) (Supplementary Tables 4 and 7). These results suggest gene flow from the Levant to Anatolia during the early Neolithic. In turn, Levantine early farmers (Levant_Neol) that are temporally intermediate between AAF and ACF could be modeled as a two-way mixture of Natufians and AHG or AAF (18.2 ± 6.4% AHG or 21.3 ± 6.3% AAF ancestry; Supplementary Tables 4 and 8 and Supplementary Data 4), confirming previous reports of an Anatolian-like ancestry contributing to the Levantine Neolithic gene pool6.

That would ultimately (considering they claim no Levantine link was found in the AAF) cause somewhat less than 15% Natufian at most. That's assuming this model is correct of course. I find 20% Natufian more unlikely considering that even Levant_N already had a quite diminished amount of Natufian ancestry, with significant dilution in relation to the earlier (Epipaleolithic) period mainly due to Anatolian gene flow.

Anyway, later Levantines had and have a lot of non-Anatolian_N ancestry, so Levant_N might have a closer relationship to EEF, but later Levantines, with so much Iran_N, CHG and even other admixtures, certainly did much less.

And, again, I stress: if that shared ancestry between Levant_N and Anatolia_N was really the responsible for amateur ancestry models picking Levant_N preferentially over simply more Anatolia_N, we'd be totally correct in expecting that artificial and misleading Levant_N admixture all over Europe at least everywhere where EEF is in the clear majority of the genetic makeup even today. But no, we only find it in places that are geographically and historically much more plausibly subjected to frequent contacts with the East Mediterranean, including historically documented migrations of Levantines and Anatolians to them. Is it just a coincidence? I'd really like to know what you think might be causing it to happen only in places like Crete, Sicily, South Italy and (a tiny bit) in Portugal and parts of Spain, but not in all the other parts of Europe (and beyond) where ANF admixture is found in very relevant proportions. Was there genetic substructure in the ANF groups that migrated to Europe, with some of them having more Levant_N-like ancestry built into their gene pool than others? Perhaps.

You are convinced that your models described reality, or at least give a better picture of what happened in the ethnogenesis of Italians, and you explain the fact that the majority of the papers do not support your thesis by claiming that a major fault in these papers is that they have not used Levant_N as a possible donor. Again, I find that hard to believe, but let's assume it for the sake's of argument.
When many studies usually test several hypotheses and determine which of them fits best (if you look at their supplementary materials), but the studies we are talking about didn't, we both will never know what they really found and even if they really tried different models or just the ones that were both more simple, more parsimonious explanations, and also having still good fits.

What I ask is this: why do you think that no archegenetist thought about what you thought about and did try and analyse the data using a method that distinguishes as much as possible Levant_N from Anatolian_N? And why do you think that G25, a tool developed especially for people of north European heritage, and also not by a very honest broker, actually is able to do this work? What makes you think that it is likelier that you are right and many other professional genetists are wrong?

No archaoegeneticist? Well, maybe no archaeogeneticts that you guys decide to heed to, because I have already quoted 2 studies and I found at least another one that also hypothesized some post-Neolithic Levantine gene flow, apart from all those that use ABA as a good fit for the non-EEF in South Italy, and simultaneously ABA had been modelled with a bit of Levantine_N even by Lazaridis.

Maybe what we don't have is archaeogeneticists that you decide are good enough and say exactly and ipsis litteris what I am saying, with no need for interpretation at all. Also it's honestly a bit fruitless to expect them to devote much time to a minor part of the South Italian and Aegean genetic makeup when it is by far more defined by EEF and Iran/Caucasian sources.

It might be that you have really good points, but I hope you see that the onus of proof falls on you, and I hope to better understand what your points are ( well, apart from the models you bring and the accusation that the aforementioned studies are lacking in validity because they did not use Levant as a possible donor, or because they did not proved that the two way models are the best).

I have already presented some reasons why I interpret the PUBLISHED DATA to have something going on that has not been adequately analyzed in detail so far by professional archaoegeneticsts. Did you take a look at the PCA chart I posted above (imgur link)? There is no way Anatolia_C and especially Anatolia_BA would plot that way, slightly shifted outside a straight ANF-CHG cline, if they were a simple and direct mix of ANF+CHG and nothing else. You may find them implausible or insufficient, and that's fine for me, but the way you're talking it seems I have just stated what I think without substantiating it at all, and that's simply unfair.
 
I will say this however, considering that we do have some samples from the Roman paper, I can broadly speculate that an Anatolian_ChL/Anatolian_BA-like ancestry, mixing with incoming Italics is plausible. The fact that the Sicily Beaker can be modeled as 95% Anatolian_BA/ 5% Steppe, and R850 can be modeled as Anatolian_ChL, forming a clade with it; leads me to believe that this kind of ancestry was formative, and is pre-Italic. Furthermore, Northern Italian Beakers being modeled as ABA+SBA+AN+WHG, also demonstrates that this ancestry was being mixed around throughout the peninsula.

Moreover, modeling with these samples make sense, considering they are far more local:

e1aDWHe.png

Do you use Dodecad? Where can I get the DNA coordinates to test ancestry models using it, too?
 
Well, at least 6% in southwestern Anatolia, in the late bronze age.

Also, I don't know if that is just an average of all of them, but at least one of them, is a bit distant from the others. One of which plots right on top of Southern Italians, from Raveane et al 2019:

qZewmh7.png
 

This thread has been viewed 188613 times.

Back
Top