Genetic and Cultural Differences between Jews and Greeks

That's of course nonsense, most of the times, but it doesn't mean, to come back to the original debate, that he couldn't have had a Thracian, Greek, Roman or even Levantine ancestor from Roman times. Or alternatively some earlier spread in the metal ages, we simply do not know. And every lineage and branch has to be looked up individually.

I say R850 was Italic! ... some of the Italics must have been close to his genetic makeup.

R850 was in Italy when Rome was more or less just Rome, ... bunch of local tribes, No Foreign Conquest, ... and it wasn’t important enough to justify big import-export of goods and people from far away Lands.
 
*"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; tables S4 and S8 and data table S4), confirming previous reports of an
Anatolian-like ancestry contributing to the Levantine Neolithic gene pool."
The same paper talks about a cline:
"Thus, Villabruna→Dzudzuana/Anatolia_N→PPNB→Natufian→Taforalt represents a cline of increasing deep ancestry (and decreasing Villabruna-related ancestry) in what was previously termed the South/West West Eurasian interaction sphere."
Feldman et al. and Lazaridis et al. possibly agree on this, i.e., on some contribution of AHG/AAF for PPNB, given the way the cline is represented.
 
I say R850 was Italic! ... some of the Italics must have been close to his genetic makeup.

R850 was in Italy when Rome was more or less just Rome, ... bunch of local tribes, No Foreign Conquest, ... and it wasn’t important enough to justify big import-export of goods and people from far away Lands.

Sure, that's possible, but the argument you make is probably no safe one. Because artisans, traders, warriors and other people, whole clans and small tribes, moved around far and wide latest since the Middle Bronze Age between other groupings. Single individuals could make it to the North of Europe, surely they could make it to Italy from other places as well. I'm agnostic to individuals as long as we don't have a solid reference.
 
R850 is like Thomas Jefferson, both Ts, both genetically controversial to the Conformists.

... many had a similar reaction when they found out that the Founding Father’s paternal line wasn’t what they expected ... they said that his roots weren’t British, or European, ... an outlier, ... and so on.
Well, if the frequency of a given Y hg is, say, ~3% in certain relevant context, and keeps this way for long, after some time it should be expected an average of one president belonging to it each ~33 male presidents. In theory.
But what about Obama's Y? The odds are his father, ethnic Luo, belongs to E1b1a or B, probably rare in USA. Nice. :)
 
the Levant post "fill in your period" that supposedly shifted Italian populations from modern Central Italy as far as Lazio and Abruzzo to Sicily significantly from what Rome was during the Iron Age and Republican Rome period. The Antonio et al 2019 paper and the 11 Iron Age_Republican Rome samples already had 3 of the 11 that were Southern Italian shifted. There is no way people here at Eupedia whose ancestors are all 100% from regions in Modern Italy south of Lazio on the Southern peninsula (Campania, Puglia, Calabria, Basilicata) and yes, sorry to disappoint some, Sicily as well, are that close to Iron Age Romans unless there were Iron Age Romans that were genetically no different that modern Southern Italians.

Well, Palermo Trapani, that doesn't really mean much to the discussion here, because those 3 IA Romans were exactly the ones who were much more East Mediterranean-shifte and require some additional Anatolian and (North) Levantine earlier DNA samples to be best modeled. Besides, the change towards a higher Levant affinity that is being picked up in some calculators happened (in Sicily, which is the best studied South Italian region so far) AFTER the MLBA, so Republican Romans are far too late and would rather indicate that that change happened in different places sometime between the MLBA and the Late Antiquity. If calculators like G25 were strangely inflating the Levant_N at the expense of ANF in Italy, we'd expect (assuming there was indeed a reasonably high genetic continuity in Italy since the BA) the same phenomenon to happen in the Italian samples from up to the early IA, wouldn't we? But that doesn't happen at all. It's all perfectly modeled just with Barcin_N, Steppe_EMBA, CHG and Iran_N.
 
According to this study, https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(16)30850-8, early farmers from Europe were more similar to samples from Tepecik-�iftlik and Barcın taht to ones from Boncuklu.

Very interesting. Then if that is true and Ötzi the Ice Man and the Remedello belonged to a kind of ANF that was much more similar to Tepecik-Ciftlik and Kumtepe than to the much less Levant and CHG-shifted Barcin_N, then it seems that the Anatolian farmer expansion into Europe indeed involved at least two different though closely related populations, and the one most linked to Kumtepe and Tepecik-Ciftlik was least successful in almost all the continent but ultimately managed to survive and thrive in some parts of the Italian peninsula, especially the south (pushed southward by more Barcin_N-like CA and BA individuals?). Just speculating, but the study says that only the Ice Man and Remedello were closer to Kumtepe, which suggests they were different from the rest of pre-IE Europeans analyzed so far.
 
This post sums it up exactly. They are trying to justify illegal immigration from populations not indigenous to Europe. They are also trying to destroy European identity and sovereignty. In addition I think a large factor with people who are high in Levant_N I is jealousy. They want to claim the accomplishments of Rome but also modern Italians and Europeans. The Islamic Golden Age is long gone and since then most accomplishments in math, science, engineering, medicine, technology, and architecture belong to Europeans.
I do not think that it helps forwarding the discussion making these "Europe vs Middle east" arguments. Let's keep it about " not dismissing accademic papers because amateurish models obtained from a doubtful software known to create this exact kind of problems tell otherwise and then trying to speculate ridicolous historical events based on these models".
 
According to this study, https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(16)30850-8, early farmers from Europe were more similar to samples from Tepecik-�iftlik and Barcın taht to ones from Boncuklu.

But it should be important to add that they say EEF look closer to Tepecik-Ciftlik and Barcin only because of strong drift and genetic homogeneity (inbred population samples?) in Boncuklu, and the same results do not appear when they use mean f3 statistics. As a whole, in terms of ancestral admixture makeup, I think Boncuklu is much closer to Barcin than Tepecik-Ciftlik and Kumtepe are.

A multidimensional scaling (MDS) plot summarizing pairwise F[SUB]st[/SUB] values revealed clustering of Tepecik-�iftlik and Barcın with European Neolithic populations, whereas Boncuklu attained a peripheral location (Figure 2C). This peripheral location is most likely due to high genetic homogeneity and drift in Boncuklu, as such a pattern was not observed in an MDS analysis of mean f[SUB]3[/SUB] statistics (Figure S3C).
 
That's exactly what I want to capture: The Roman Imperial era migrations! Like you said, they came to this place from different parts of the empire and approach the "Imperial_Roman" profile. That's why the Imperial_Roman sample is useful, even as an average, because its close to the usual "colonial" admixture in many parts of the empire and of course, Italy and Rome itself.

Honestly I think that obfuscates more than it illuminates. If you want to measure how impacted by Roman Imperial Era migrations the genetic makeup of later samples was, why not analyze all the individuals and see which of them were apparently local Italians (most of them quite similar to modern South Italians), and which of them were likely foreigners, determine where they probably came from in their majority and then use the closest aDNA sample that might represent those distinct migration waves in your models? As far as I can see, having analyzed all those samples, most of the immigrants came from the Aegean area (either Greece or Western Anatolia) and the Northern Levant (Lebanon/Syria), but there were also a variety of other immigrations expected in such a large empire: Maghrebi, Gaulish, Iberian, Black Sea Anatolian/Caucasian.

Averaging them all may be a mistake particulatly because all those migrants may have actually been present in a totally different proportion than what we see in those 48 samples from the Imperial Era due to random chance, and the later inhabitants of Central Italy may have descended from those earlier migrants in a completely different proportion in relation to the actual proportion of migrants from each place that lived in Imperial Era Italy (some had higher fertility than others, some were more usually slaves than others, some had higher death rates than others etc.).
 
I checked both "Prenestini tribe" samples and its amazing how different they are. ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA:RMPR435b is rather Northern-Western shifted and closest to Basque/Southern French on the PCA. These are really completely different people. Same for the ITA_Ardea_Latini_IA sample. So its not just Imperial_Roman being a wild mix, but the other Italic and Etruscan samples to a large degree as well.

Yes, that's a fact. The Prenestini, Ardea and Etruscan sample all have 1 individual that will skew the averages completely because of very high likelihood of relatively recent migration between the people similar to the other samples and some external source, which may be as "exotic" as the significant North African ancestry in the Etruscan outlier. I think those samples just prove that there was indeed much more heterogeneity even in the same places than we'd expect if IA Italy even before Rome had been a region without a very dynamic movement of people and close interaction with foreigners from much more distant places. The admixtures are not "evened", even in a very small set of samples individuals vary too much in comparison with others, and that to me suggests quite a bit of migration and exogamy, though the burials those DNA samples were extracted from are probably not representative of the more isolated parts of the peninsula.
 
I have no problem with Levantine ancestry. It was probably there in Crete in 2000BC and earlier. Except the Philistines were in the Levant between 1200BC and 600BC and then we don't hear about them anymore so Crete of 2000BC did not owe their Levantine ancestry to the Philistines. Could there have been additional influx from the Philistines? Sure but we don't have any samples to prove or disprove it. So you're totally speculating with no history, no archaeology and no genetics.

Are you crazy, angry, frustrated or what else, man? I made QUESTIONS about what people might know about the topic that could help clarify what happened. There is no speculation at all, I didn't even state anything, just questioned what other people thought about it.

You people are too easily triggered when something that you all say you have no problem with is even mentioned as a possibility and proposed as QUESTIONS to be discussed and hopefully answered by other people. It's so funny you guys really think you sound convincing when you say you are totally fine with that Levantine ancestry, when the fact is that such aggressive replies NEVER come about when we're talking about higher or lower CHG or steppe contribution. Please, I'm no naive child anymore, okay? Maybe even you yourselves do not notice that because it is a too deep-seated, already subconscious pattern of thought, but we out here definitely can.
 
Very interesting. Then if that is true and Ötzi the Ice Man and the Remedello belonged to a kind of ANF that was much more similar to Tepecik-Ciftlik and Kumtepe than to the much less Levant and CHG-shifted Barcin_N, then it seems that the Anatolian farmer expansion into Europe indeed involved at least two different though closely related populations, and the one most linked to Kumtepe and Tepecik-Ciftlik was least successful in almost all the continent but ultimately managed to survive and thrive in some parts of the Italian peninsula, especially the south (pushed southward by more Barcin_N-like CA and BA individuals?). Just speculating, but the study says that only the Ice Man and Remedello were closer to Kumtepe, which suggests they were different from the rest of pre-IE Europeans analyzed so far.

It makes total sense that one wave took the northern route and one the southern route since between the two there are a lot of hills and mountains. Examination of Turkey's topographic structure on a physical map of the world shows clearly the country's high elevation in comparison to its neighbors, half of the land area being higher than 1000 meters (3281 feet) and two thirds higher than 800 meters. Turkey has one peak of over 5000 meters in altitude (Mt. Ararat), three over 4000 meters and 129 peaks exceeding 3000 meters.
 
jews( aschenazi and sefhardi)
from ancients
We cluster closest with late antiquity romans 🤔
(In k7b, k12b, eurogenes k13, eurogenes k15 where i am closer to villa magna though)
I think the source of the pre-botlneck southern european genetic markers is south italy and not greece
Like the guys in anthrogenica think)🤔
 
Very good post. In the past I have done various tests with G25 and I also have had the impression that G25 overestimates certain contributions, including Levant Natufian, compared to academic studies.

So, if the G25 results are not exactly accurate, it goes without saying that with the G25 results it is not possible to build hypotheses that can be taken as absolute truths.

ALL calculators may overestimate or underestimate some admixtures. Why do you think even the peer-reviewed genetic papers present completely different estimates of ancestry even when they're using the same samples? I have noticed that multiple times, and they never give an explanation for such high discrepancies in comparison with earlier studies. What really matters is the general conclusion you can take from those results, I think you yourself said those results should never be interpreted literally. Unless, of course, it matters a lot to you if some given place got, say, precisely 5% East Asian admixture or 12% East Asian admixture or whatever. The thing that really matters is: the signals of migration and admixture are there, a little more or a little less. If you think the models given by professional geneticists are also without a margin of error, actually sometimes a pretty wide margin of error when you take other very similar or even apparently identical models (e.g. Anatolia_N + Steppe + WHG + CHG), you haven't been paying attention very carefully. What really matters, though, is that in almost all cases, despite pointing to different proportions, the basic results always point to the same truth about past demographic events.
 
Very interesting. Then if that is true and Ötzi the Ice Man and the Remedello belonged to a kind of ANF that was much more similar to Tepecik-Ciftlik and Kumtepe than to the much less Levant and CHG-shifted Barcin_N, then it seems that the Anatolian farmer expansion into Europe indeed involved at least two different though closely related populations, and the one most linked to Kumtepe and Tepecik-Ciftlik was least successful in almost all the continent but ultimately managed to survive and thrive in some parts of the Italian peninsula, especially the south (pushed southward by more Barcin_N-like CA and BA individuals?). Just speculating, but the study says that only the Ice Man and Remedello were closer to Kumtepe, which suggests they were different from the rest of pre-IE Europeans analyzed so far.
There would be indeed evidences of different routes and waves in Neo Europe. I quoted something about it in another thread time ago. IIRC, one "Mediterranean" route/wave and two "Danubian" waves, or something like this. Additionally, perhaps even a wave/route through Caucasus (not sure what are the evidences for this - more speculative - one).
 
jews( aschenazi and sefhardi)
from ancients
We cluster closest with late antiquity romans ������
(In k7b, k12b, eurogenes k13, eurogenes k15 where i am closer to villa magna though)
I think the source of the pre-botlneck southern european genetic markers is south italy and not greece
Like the guys in anthrogenica think)������

Isn't it kind of bizarre that, as far as I have seen here before and now, most people don't seem to deny the genetic closeness between Asheknazi and Sefardic Jews and South Italians and Sicilians, though not because of a common genetic history, but just because of a relatively similar comination of ancestral components that ended up creating a similar overall genetic makeup, but at the same time they are mostly adamant that there is no or only totally negligible, nearly zero Natufian or even Levant_N in their genetic makeup? Perhaps are they also indirectly telling us that Ashkenazi and Sefardic Jews are actually not Jewish at all in origins, because, after all, having significant Levantine ancestry would cause them to plot much more distantly from South Italians and Sicilians, so they must actually have insignificant Levantine ancestry related to the Israelites? Hmmm...

Now I'm glad people find it more comforting if that gene flow actually come a from Tepecik-Ciftlik source than straight from the Levant... never mind that Tepecik-Ciftlik was the most CHG/Iran as well as Levant-shifted sample of Neolithic Anatolia...

33016272762_2f3e139a15_b.jpg
 
Given that we are using G25, apart from the problem of overblown Levant_N ancestry showed by Regio X, I think it is important to call attention to the genuinity of the samples for Sicily: http://g25vahaduo.genetics.ovh/G25modern-scaled.htm, if that is the complete list of the samples used in the G25 program, why are there only SIX samples for Sicily? There are hundreds of samples from Sicily from accademic papers, I think(somebody knows where those are from?). Even if they wanted to use samples to divide between "east" and "west" Sicily and thus use the only samples they were sure about the provenence of, there are many samples that even tell the city they were taken from, as the ones used in this study, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ahg.12328. Also, even if genuine, I really doubt that any statistical significant inference can be drawn with only three samples per group. To be honest something seems fishy to me.

aaara.PNG
 
Ygorcs: In theory, wouldn't everything in Italy already be "Eastern Med" shifted before the MLBA given the Neolithic migration from Anatolia had already reached Italy by 6,500 BC as this recent paper with the slide show documented. The only major sources of ancestry in Italy before Steppe would be WHG+EEF+ some early Iran_Neolithic or CHG type ancestry. Antonio et al 2019 Admixture graph is pretty clear on that. Correct? Or am I misinterpreting Antonio et al 2019 Figure 2 admixture graph.

Just as an FYI, the reason I ran the model fit using Iron Age Roman samples only is because of the earlier discussion about the Imperial Romans and drawing inferences from them. So using the Iron Age Romans, I can still get good fits as documented in my post 137 and 274. So how people want to model those Samples using G25 is not pertinent to me personally. The fact is that there were 3 of the Iron Age Romans that were Southern Shifted. For me that is all I care about. That alone is enough to piss off the usual suspects.

Next, since everyone is playing around with models, I wanted to see what my fit looks like using only R1, who is the oldest Iron_Age Republican Roman/Late Bronze sample and I think the least Southern Shifted, and all the Chalcolithic, Neolithic and Mesolithic samples, I can get distances from 10% to 18%, depending obviously on the Calculator and source sample data.

Dodecad K7 using R1 plus all Roman samples from Chalcolithic to Mesolithic.

Target: PalermoTrapani
Distance: 13.1542% / 13.15415094 | ADC: 0.25x
53.2R18_Neolithic_Ripabianca_di_Monterado
46.8R1_Iron_Age_Protovillanovan_Martinsicuro

Dodecad K7 using same sample as above, but excluding R1

Target: PalermoTrapani
Distance: 17.3235% / 17.32345868 | ADC: 0.25x
89.4R18_Neolithic_Ripabianca_di_Monterado
10.6R15_Mesolithic_Grotta_Continenza

Eurogenes K13 same sample as K7 with Iron Age R1

Target: PalermoTrapani
Distance: 10.4111% / 10.41110892 | ADC: 0.25x
68.8R1_Abruzzo_Teramo_Late_Bronze_Age_Italy
31.2R9_Abruzzo_Neolithic_Farmer_Italy

Eurogenes K13, same sample as K7 model 2, no R1 in Source data

Target: PalermoTrapani
Distance: 17.4502% / 17.45015358 | ADC: 0.25x
73.0R9_Abruzzo_Neolithic_Farmer_Italy
27.0R11_Abruzzo_Mesolithic_Hunter-Gatherer_Italy

Dodecad 12B, sample same as Dodecad K7 model1 and Eurogenes K13 model 1 (included R1)

Target: PalermoTrapani
Distance: 13.0751% / 13.07509661 | ADC: 0.25x
66.4R1_Iron_Age_Protovillanovan_Martinsicuro
33.6R9_Neolithic_Grotta_Continenza

Dodecad 12B, no R1 in Source data.

Target: PalermoTrapani
Distance: 18.9304% / 18.93041390 | ADC: 0.25x
79.4R9_Neolithic_Grotta_Continenza
20.6R15_Mesolithic_Grotta_Continenza

Now I know those are not great for Modern Populations, but we are using samples from a long, long, long time ago. However, it is not like you have to sing David Bowie's Space Odyssey line "Ground Control to Major Tom" to find me. So using an "Independent" criteria to evaluate model fit distances from samples that old, I will use MyTrueAncestry's definitions, those are not mine, its MTA's. I quote


"Genetic distance measures how close you are to a given sample.
10 means this is your ancient ancestry
20 means this is part of your ancestral link
30 means possibly related to your ancestry"

So what ever was in Rome before the MLBA, according to MTA is is part of my ancestral link. Whatever happened in the MLBA happened, doesn't change that I have an ancestral link with Neolithic Rome up to the period of R1, which is around 950BC, some calculators call R1 Late Bronze age, but I am not going to split hairs. As for Sicily and Rome, yes, starting in Sicily by around 900 BC, the Phoenicians settled some cities on the NW coast and founded and built ports, I know the history, obviously sometime during the Imperial period, people from the Levant, Syrians, Jews moved into Rome and as far South as Sicily, mostly on the East Coast if Saint Paul's Letters are accurate as to where the major Jewish Settlements were.
 
It makes total sense that one wave took the northern route and one the southern route since between the two there are a lot of hills and mountains. Examination of Turkey's topographic structure on a physical map of the world shows clearly the country's high elevation in comparison to its neighbors, half of the land area being higher than 1000 meters (3281 feet) and two thirds higher than 800 meters. Turkey has one peak of over 5000 meters in altitude (Mt. Ararat), three over 4000 meters and 129 peaks exceeding 3000 meters.

A very recent study published here by Angela estimated the spread of Neolithic farmers in Europe, based on topography and the chronological succession of datings of the earliest Neolithic settlements in Europe, but it either assumed a priori or concluded that there was one wave that then split in two directions somewhere in the Balkans. I'm not sure that is the correct interpretation, though. Are Cardial Ware samples throughout the Mediterranean coast of Europe substantially different from other EEF samples?
 
Given that we are using G25, apart from the problem of overblown Levant_N ancestry showed by Regio X, I think it is important to call attention to the genuinity of the samples for Sicily: http://g25vahaduo.genetics.ovh/G25modern-scaled.htm, if that is the complete list of the samples used in the G25 program, why are there only SIX samples for Sicily? There are hundreds of samples from Sicily from accademic papers, I think(somebody knows where those are from?). Even if they wanted to use samples to divide between "east" and "west" Sicily and thus use the only samples they were sure about the provenence of, there are many samples that even tell the city they were taken from, as the ones used in this study, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ahg.12328. Also, even if genuine, I really doubt that any statistical significant inference can be drawn with only three samples per group. To be honest something seems fishy to me.

View attachment 12250

As I said before it'd be really excellent if some Italian members of this forum got their G25 coordinates so we could compare their results to the samples already included in the spreadsheet. That would be the best test. I must say, though, that from geography and historical dynamics I wouldn't expect average Sicilians to have any less than ~5% Levant_N+North African_EN ancestry, considering how close they plot to Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews as well as Cypriots.
 

This thread has been viewed 188589 times.

Back
Top