Genetic and Cultural Differences between Jews and Greeks

Sure, I understand what you mean and if the genealogy is trustworthy and the results reflect the genealogy, I don't see why we couldn't trust these results. What I meant is that in case of Italian-Americans with Italian ancestry dating back to the beginning of the 20th century, a lot of things can ''happen''. Within regions in Italy not much can happen that could change the results all that much if you know what I mean. Personally I prefer good genetic genealogical data before using individuals as a proxy for a given region in Italy. My family would be a good representative for an area in Naples, due to the fact we have very deep ancestry which is proven through genealogical records and lots of confirmed DNA-matches which can assure the paternal line if you're lucky, as this is the most sensitive one for NPE scenarios and the likes.

Your results are interesting because your ancestors are from Trapani right?- and similar to mine, while there is quite a distance between Trapani and Napoli however we're both close to the same side of the sea where there's lots of shared activity, i.e. trade through sea.

Ok, I understand, In Italy lots of time people stay in towns and regions that there, Great, Great, Great Grandparents live and it is probably easier for Italians to go back in time once the civil records stop. For me, 2 Great Grandparents born in Trapani, but also some ancestors from Palermo Province, but 1 town is actually right on the border with Trapani. 1 Great grandfather born in Agrigento. I have records for all most of my Grandparents family history going back to late 1700's early 1800's, At this point, I am going to have to go and hope the local parish priest or Bishop will allow me to go through the Sacrament Records (Baptism, First Communion, Matrimony, etc) to go any further.

I understand those 11 samples are just 11 individuals and don't represent population averages.
 
Ok, I understand, In Italy lots of time people stay in towns and regions that there, Great, Great, Great Grandparents live and it is probably easier for Italians to go back in time once the civil records stop. For me, 2 Great Grandparents born in Trapani, but also some ancestors from Palermo Province, but 1 town is actually right on the border with Trapani. 1 Great grandfather born in Agrigento. I have records for all most of my Grandparents family history going back to late 1700's early 1800's, At this point, I am going to have to go and hope the local parish priest or Bishop will allow me to go through the Sacrament Records (Baptism, First Communion, Matrimony, etc) to go any further.

I understand those 11 samples are just 11 individuals and don't represent population averages.

Yes, this is pretty much the situation I'm in as well. I have most lines worked out back to the end of the 18th century, but I can't go much further due to a lack of publicly available records (got most from Family Search actually). I also have to go to the local parish priest, to extend certain lines of interest and I'm planning to do that on my next visit in Italy, even though I'm aware of the mess these books are to decipher hence I'm going to focus mostly on my direct paternal line and that of my maternal side. I don't have much recent ancestry from other area's besides one ancestor who was born in the city which is very close to our town of origins.
 
Ailchu;608293 [COLOR=#000000 said:
Of course Europeanness doesn't apply to Persians and Indians. Firstly Persians and Indians don't consider themselves as Europeans, and they are also geographically speaking not European because they‘re from Asia. Besides, Indians vehemently deny that they have any connection to Europe. They reject the fact that there was a migration from the Russian steppe and that those migrants brought the Indo-European culture and language, genes to India. According to Indians Aryan people and culture are homegrown. However, Gauls and Italics/early Romans both lived in Europe, were Indo-Europeans that were connected via Beaker folk. So an Italic had more in common with a Gaul than with an Indian or a Persian.[/COLOR]



Stop putting words in my mouth, please and don‘t quote me out of context. You pretended that between Gauls and Romans there were no connections, whatsoever. Therefore, I brought the Beaker people up.




Uhm yeah.

Black Brits (from Africa or the Caribbeans), Indo- or Pakistani- Brits or Brits of Middle Eastern origin are not mere English by culture, they have their own subcultures too. Get real!


If you think that people from a totally different culture and mentality will be just mere English by culture or even go so far to assert that they are as English as the white ones, then you're either trolling or in denial. You can't pretend and treat foreign people from another continent and with completely distinct culture, traditions that move to Europe as empty vessels with no content. You can label non- white English as native English all you want't but you can't make the genetic and cultural ties to their ancestral homes disappear and change the fact that the original English were white and European. Liberals like you are attacking the fact that the original English were real, white people to a point where historical docus cast black actors to portray medieval or Tudor English as black in order to make black Brits not feel hurt and left out. Hilarious. Besides, claiming that there is not such a thing as English, Scandinavian, etc. is racist. Furthermore, the English actor was spot on. London is indeed not an English town anymore but a globalist and hyper multicultural city. The term multiculturalism exists for a reason and describes modern London. It’s rather the outraged and offended black British woman with the heavy Nigerian accent that insisted on that she is English as any white Anglo and London still being English, who was wrong and trolling. How can she be as English as the white English when she speaks English with a strong foreign accent, in the first place? Here the thing she is Nigerian by ethnicity, by mentality and culture. Speaking English or residing in England won't make her native English. Period. In addition to that there are tons of people who live in London that are neither born there nor identify as English. Having said that I don't begrudged any non-white to identify as English. What I criticize are culture vultures and the refusal of facing the fact that being original English means being European and so-called white.


For instance, British Caribbeans who live now for some generations in Britain still display different customs, traditions and so forth from Jamaica or Trinidad and Tobago. Therefore, in the UK there is the recognition of Commonwealth Caribbean cultural identities. Another example. The Indo- or Pakistani communities in Britain are still connected with the culture and traditions of their ancestral home. Many Indo- Brits have their Indian cuisine, music, dances and Hindu-Religion and display values that developed in India. The same goes for Afro- or Middle Eastern Brits. So much for your notion for being merely English by culture. When you go to certain places in the UK or France it looks like little Africa, little Middle East/North Africa or little India/ Pakistan. Plenty of Chinese and Japanese tourists who went to Paris complained about going to France to see and explore French culture for ending up feeling being in the Middle East or Africa. They were pretty disappointed. The problem with ideological, liberal progressive people like you is that they look at the world with their liberal out of touch with reality- lenses. Hence they live in their liberal bubble. Left wing folks think they are wiser and smarter than others, and therefore are ordained to lecture people about reality by redefining it.

People believe some weird shit. There was a comment on Eurogenes that Europeans are just Middle Easterners mixed with East Asians. There's idiots who also think that about our culture too.
 
Your directly insulting me very moderator friendly of you, you come all the way to AG to stir a argument, you think nobody realizes what you are doing?

Ask your self which populations were heavy in Iran_Neo?

Have you familiarized yourself with Uniparentals at all? It was blatantly obvious from when I was 20 (5 years ago) that I first took a dna test and transferred my results to ftdna and saw all the projects that there is huge diversity in Italy, especially in South.

We are (Southern Italians) primarily 90% (85-95 range) identical to Late Antiquity Italians, no one is here to deny it, my point was always and still is Iron Age and Roman Age Italy was a Genetic Sink, the results from the Antonio et al. paper might as well been written by the crowd from AG because it pretty much vindicated what we've all been saying for years. The only thing I was wrong about and admit I was wrong was the origins of the Etruscans.

@Azzurro, what does this even mean? Because there is no such thing as Late Antiquity Italian as an ancestral component. Is that some false constructed invented for G25? It doesn't say that anywhere in the study. It is as nonsensical as Riverman's "Imperial Roman" ancestry.

It has vindicated absolutely nothing for you, or anyone there. There are indeed Italians from the Iron age to the Medieval period that consistently plot in the range of Southern Italians. Therefore, your point is false, and dishonest.

5rT1g8u.png


Also, southern Italians are not all the same; the north African-like ancestry you have are small but significant levels of Moorish contributions:

OuozOmC.png


Also, from the looks of it, 69% Greeks would not appreciate Erikl86's thread over at AG:

XLiYlnb.png
 
I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say about culture. I was actually stating something you and I seem to be in agreement with, that being culture and specifically English culture, is more than the obnoxious, globalized stereotypes of a people, such as the Queen and Doctor Who phone booths. As for the Roman issue, I am not sure where that came from, I was just in disagreement that someone from say Barbados, can immigrate to the UK and be “English,” that’s not how it works. The various ethnic groups of Humans on this planet share a common ethno-cultural ancestry and history with other members of the same group generally speaking, though this is not always 100% clear cut, the Anatolian Turks come to mind for instance, however, documents of citizenship will never change someone from being ethno-culturally Korean to being Hungarian. This is something that is understood by virtually every other people on Earth except Westerners who have for lack of a better term, become passive, having allowed their culture and heritage to be appropriated on mass by the rest of the globe. As for “Europeaness,” I’d say the philosophical, scientific, mathematical, theological, and linguistic traditions of Ancient Greece and Rome, along with later European people’s such as the Italians, French, Germans, Dutch, English and Scottish, makes Europe and Europeans a distinct entity from the rest of the world. Greek philosophers and thinkers knew there was a difference between themselves and those neighbors to the East, though they felt the same towards the “barbarians” to the North as well. As for being more or less Roman, I am not sure, though it clearly was an issue for ethnic Romans of more “academic” status at the time. One can find commentary from Ancient Roman authors on the influx of foreigners into large Roman cities, and their strong dislike of it. There was clearly a distinct Roman ethno-cultural identity rooted in the Italic Latin people, along with the influence of other closely related people’s such as the various Italic tribes of the Italian peninsula, the Ancient Greeks, Etruscans, Celts, and Illyrians.
 
@Azzurro, what does this even mean? Because there is no such thing as Late Antiquity Italian as an ancestral component. Is that some false constructed invented for G25? It doesn't say that anywhere in the study. It is as nonsensical as Riverman's "Imperial Roman" ancestry.
It has vindicated absolutely nothing for you, or anyone there. There are indeed Italians from the Iron age to the Medieval period that consistently plot in the range of Southern Italians. Therefore, your point is false, and dishonest.
5rT1g8u.png

Also, southern Italians are not all the same; the north African-like ancestry you have are small but significant levels of Moorish contributions:
OuozOmC.png

Also, from the looks of it, 69% Greeks would not appreciate Erikl86's thread over at AG:
XLiYlnb.png
Very sad for me to see the 44% in bulgaria
I still remember to them the fact thay saved
The 50,000 bulgarian jews... :unsure:
about france it is expected :rolleyes:
P.s
And yes most greeks will laugh at erikl86
Greece aegean theory:LOL:
 
I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say about culture. I was actually stating something you and I seem to be in agreement with, that being culture and specifically English culture, is more than the obnoxious, globalized stereotypes of a people, such as the Queen and Doctor Who phone booths.
i'm not sure if we are in agreement here. did you mean that someone who is culturally english in every way is english? in that case yes but didn't you want to make the point that culture alone is not enough?
As for the Roman issue, I am not sure where that came from, I was just in disagreement that someone from say Barbados, can immigrate to the UK and be “English,” that’s not how it works. The various ethnic groups of Humans on this planet share a common ethno-cultural ancestry and history with other members of the same group generally speaking, though this is not always 100% clear cut, the Anatolian Turks come to mind for instance, however, documents of citizenship will never change someone from being ethno-culturally Korean to being Hungarian.
can it make a hungarian into an ethno-cultural english? i assume here the group you are looking at would be european, there i don't only see anatolian turks, what about armenians, georgians, hell almost all of the near east. why do you always come with east asians btw? is it because with others it is way less clear?
This is something that is understood by virtually every other people on Earth except Westerners who have for lack of a better term, become passive, having allowed their culture and heritage to be appropriated on mass by the rest of the globe.
i disagree not every other people on earth thinks like this and those who do all have their own ideas of who is their group and who isn't.
As for “Europeaness,” I’d say the philosophical, scientific, mathematical, theological, and linguistic traditions of Ancient Greece and Rome, along with later European people’s such as the Italians, French, Germans, Dutch, English and Scottish, makes Europe and Europeans a distinct entity from the rest of the world.
that would be entirely cultural.
Greek philosophers and thinkers knew there was a difference between themselves and those neighbors to the East, though they felt the same towards the “barbarians” to the North as well.
there you have it. there was no such thing as "europeanness".
As for being more or less Roman, I am not sure, though it clearly was an issue for ethnic Romans of more “academic” status at the time. One can find commentary from Ancient Roman authors on the influx of foreigners into large Roman cities, and their strong dislike of it. There was clearly a distinct Roman ethno-cultural identity rooted in the Italic Latin people, along with the influence of other closely related people’s such as the various Italic tribes of the Italian peninsula, the Ancient Greeks, Etruscans, Celts, and Illyrians.
but that had nothing to do with europeanness. or did those ancient romans who disliked the foreigners somehow like the barbarians more? and why do you only mention influence from other tribes of the italian peninsula, greeks, etruscans illyrians and even celts? i mean you include celts but leave out all the others who did not happen to live on what we know call the european continent? really?
 
Very sad for me to see the 44% in bulgaria
I still remember to them the fact thay saved
The 50,000 bulgarian jews... :unsure:
about france it is expected :rolleyes:
P.s
And yes most greeks will laugh at erikl86
Greece aegean theory:LOL:

The figures are somewhat skewed in the western countries because of the high numbers of Muslims.

There's no such excuse for the eastern countries or the Balkans.

There are no Jews left and it still goes on. So sad.
 
@Azzurro, what does this even mean? Because there is no such thing as Late Antiquity Italian as an ancestral component. Is that some false constructed invented for G25? It doesn't say that anywhere in the study. It is as nonsensical as Riverman's "Imperial Roman" ancestry.

It has vindicated absolutely nothing for you, or anyone there. There are indeed Italians from the Iron age to the Medieval period that consistently plot in the range of Southern Italians. Therefore, your point is false, and dishonest.

5rT1g8u.png


Also, southern Italians are not all the same; the north African-like ancestry you have are small but significant levels of Moorish contributions:

OuozOmC.png


Also, from the looks of it, 69% Greeks would not appreciate Erikl86's thread over at AG:

XLiYlnb.png

Yes, the late antiquity Romans among whom Maciamo found travelers from England, Scandinavia, France etc. Of course there couldn't be travelers from the east.

The stupidity and blind agenda driven lens would be funny if it weren't so pathetic. There's no point trying to have rational discussions with people like that. You might as well try to debate someone who thinks the earth was created 6,000 years ago.
 
The figures are somewhat skewed in the western countries because of the high numbers of Muslims.

There's no such excuse for the eastern countries or the Balkans.

There are no Jews left and it still goes on. So sad.

Indeed, and I am happy to say that Italians are among the lowest in regards to antisemitism. It must be our humanistic, and compassionate disposition.
 
@Azzurro, what does this even mean? Because there is no such thing as Late Antiquity Italian as an ancestral component. Is that some false constructed invented for G25? It doesn't say that anywhere in the study. It is as nonsensical as Riverman's "Imperial Roman" ancestry.

It has vindicated absolutely nothing for you, or anyone there. There are indeed Italians from the Iron age to the Medieval period that consistently plot in the range of Southern Italians. Therefore, your point is false, and dishonest.

5rT1g8u.png


Also, southern Italians are not all the same; the north African-like ancestry you have are small but significant levels of Moorish contributions:

OuozOmC.png


Also, from the looks of it, 69% Greeks would not appreciate Erikl86's thread over at AG:

XLiYlnb.png

The average based off the Late Antiquity samples that you see in G25, Roman Imperial works too, its an average of samples. The average of Late Antiquity Italians is very close to modern Southern Italian populations. If you choose not believe them or trust them its on you.

Sure whatever you want to believe, there are three Iron Age samples that are part foreign. You hate on G25 but you understand because of G25 people on the forum were able to see/get an idea where people were born during the Imperial era which is pretty cool if you ask me, and there were individuals who plotted nearly identical to modern Southern Italians, anyways autosomal isn’t my strength, Y dna is and I along with other manually looked at all the Y lines of the samples. Trust me its clear there was a genetic shift, you have no idea how happy am I lol, this paper disproves the Italicroots and the Italian crowd of “its all Neolithic” Middle Eastern dna.

Of course were all not the same but we are close enough to be consider one ethnic unit.

Only somebody who is mentally disturbed would go through all those pages and come up pulling out stats like that. There are several Greek posters who have posted on that thread. Its always civil, its just when you come there is any kind of arguing, we are all proud of our East Mediterranean group.
 
Tarnto puglia🤔
T980215
 
@Azzurro, There was Iran-like ancestry that entered into Southern Europe, that has been trickling into the region since the Neolithic, and perhaps more significantly in the early Bronze Age. J2 exists in Neolithic Central Italy. I have had correspondence with Hannah Moots, co-author of Antonio M. et al 2019, and she holds the Raveane et al 2019 paper in high regard. R850, and R437, are not "foreign", because they have components that pre-date the steppe-like ancestry in Italy. Sicily Beakers can be modeled as 95% similar to Anatolian_BA I2683 (only about 2% Levant_N, according to G25), which is what ABA is based upon. R850 forms a clade with Anatolian_ChL, which is similar to Anatolian_BA. Neolithic Central Italy can be modeled as 95% Greece_N, due to some Iran_N-like admixture. None of that is foreign. All of the Iron Age samples have relatively-higher levels of Iran_N compared to other populations in Europe in that time period. Italy, Albania, and Greece, share this legacy between each other.

tusYboG.png


There is a fundamental issue with G25 making inferences based on broad components that are arbitrarily thrown together, simply based on the time period they are in. Especially considering the deep demographic changes that happened in late antiquity. Like I said back thread, you will not see a component that has WASPs, Jews, African-Americans, and Puerto-Ricans thrown together, and be called a "20th century US" autosomal component.

Another example of G25 getting it wrong is the Ashkelon_Levant_IronAge1 component. Only one sample, ASH068, is a true Philistine, who is indeed Mycenean-like. ASH067 is half-Philistine/half-Levant_BA. The others are Levant_BA natives to the Levant. How does throwing them in all together make sense, and what could it possibly tell you? That is superficial and plain wrong, for genetic analysis. Doing so completely ignores the archeological and social context of the samples being used.

Moreover, even as Ygorc pointed out with G25, all of the Imperial samples I and other Southern Italians here are closest too are close to Italians, because they were natives, unlike the immigrant samples I am quite far from.
 
Incidentally, I've been reading again the supplementary material of Lazaridis' 2017 study on Mycenaeans, Minoans and BA Anatolians, and I found this interesting to our disussion, since we've been discussing whether close affinities to Anatolia_BA indicate non-negligible Levantine ancestry (Natufian, Levant_N and/or Levant_BA) or not. This is what the authors conclude in the supplementary material:


Bronze Age southwestern Anatolians do not form a clade (N=1) with any populations of the All++ set(p-value for rank=0 < 1e-13), with the most plausible single source being Chalcolithic northwesternAnatolians (p=0.036); the relationship between the two populations has been discussed above. Whenwe model them as 2-way mixtures (N=2) (Table S2.23) they derive virtually all (~97%) their ancestryfrom the Chalcolithic Anatolians in the only feasible (p=0.0746) model(Anatolia_ChL+Minoan_Lasithi). When we model them as 3-way mixtures (N=3) (Table S2.24) they can be modelled with ancestry from both Minoans and the Levant in addition to ChalcolithicAnatolians. The three feasible models (Table S2.24) all involve some Levantine ancestry (fromNatufians, Neolithic or Bronze Age Levant), confirming our previous modeling of this population that suggested they could be a mixture of Anatolian, Levantine Neolithic and Caucasus hunter-gatherers42(CHG) (Table S2.9) and that the Levantine affinity differentiates them from the populations of the Aegean.


I don't know why I'm still unable to post pictures here, it always gets barred because they're read as if they were a lot of characters, and I get a warning that the message is too long. So again I will post the picture using Imgur. These are the 3 3-way models that are feasible according to that paper. I find it very intriguing and honestly incomprehensible that the model with Natufian assigns more Natufian ancestry (9.5%) than the one with already diluted Natufian, Levant_N (4%) and, particularly considering that the one even more diluted in Natufian ancestry gets a lot more (17.3%).

That Levant_N percentage looks very contrary to expectation given the other models and what we know about Natufians, Neolithic and BA Levantines from other studies. If a feasible model is adding 9.5% Natufian to Anatolia_Chl + Minoan_Lassithi, then considering Levant_N was already depleted of some of its Natufian we'd think the Levant_N proportion would be at least ~14-15%, closer to the 17.3% of Levant_BA in the 3rd model. But I'm digressing... lol.


Imgur link: https://imgur.com/a/kba5n38
Very interesting, Ygor. Shared ancestry may be an issue, and the complexity of the models can be well observed for example in parts of the text regarding Mycenaeans, such in pages 35, 36, 40 and 41. It's a good reading.
The table you posted also evidence it. We see an even higher p-value for the mixture involving Levant BA, which would not necessarily imply an actual contribution for SW Anatolia EBA.
So, not sure how to conciliate the models you posted. The one involving Natufians gets a higher p-value (than the Levant Neo one), so it's a good start. Either the actual Levant Neo is higher than 4%, as you said, or there is another source of Natufian ancestry, or both, and the latter will determine how much higher the former really was. Anatolia Tepecik Ciftlik + Boncuklu is modeled in the same paper as having some Natufian ancestry, 24.6% - too low p-value though -, or 9.4% Levant Neo(-like) - better p-value. Also Feldman et al. found this Early Holocene Levantine input already in ACF period, if my memory serves. So, this model would show us that the % we see for Anatolia Tepecik supposedly include already some Levant Neo-like ancestry (~10%). If we go back to table S2.9, which models SW Anatolia BA as 6% Levant Neo (with a decent p-value), we'd have something like 6% Levant Neo plus ~6% of Levant Neo-like (10% of 62%), resulting in ~12%, "if" Anatolia_N, specifically here, corresponds to this "Anatolia Tepecik" (they could have been more clear about sources). Of course, some variations would be expected. I don't know exactly how much Natufian the Levant Neo had. But if it's, say, ~60%, it'd mean something about ~7% of Natufian for SW Anatolia BA, at least in this approach.
However, they used Anatolia ChL in the model you posted, not Neo, and Barcin_C and Barcin_N seem to be similar when it comes to Natufian contribution. So, if this Anatolia_ChL already included the "Natufian" from Neolithic, the remaining Natufian would be mostly from Levant Neo, in theory, possibly meaning a higher actual Levant Neo input. However, this Anatolia_ChL seems to be Barcin_C, then it would descend from another Anatolian Neo source such Barcin_N, rather than Tepecik. From the paper:
"Bronze Age Anatolians do not form a clade (N=1) with any population of the All+ set (p-value for rank=0 < 1e-17), except with a Chalcolithic northwestern Anatolian13 (p=0.072)."


This is also interesting:
"We were intrigued by the fact that the central Anatolian Neolithic population from Tepecik-Çiftlik19appears at the edge of the cluster of ancient Anatolian/European farmers in the PCA (Fig. 1b), and also appears to possess some of the “pink” component maximized in Neolithic Iran and hunter-gatherers from the Caucasus and Iran (Extended Data Fig. 1) that is shared with Bronze Age populations from the Aegean and southwestern Anatolia. This suggests that the excess of CHG-related ancestry in the Bronze Age populations (relative to the Anatolia_N northwestern Anatolian baseline) we have just described could in fact be mediated by a population such as the Tepecik-Çiftlik population. We first tested whether the Tepecik-Çiftlik population did in fact have CHG-related ancestry relative to the Anatolia_N population, by modeling as having ancestry from N=1, 2, 3 sources in the same manner as the Bronze Age populations; no feasible models were discovered for N=1, 2, and the population could be modelled as a having ~19-24% CHG-related ancestryin the feasible N=3 models (Table S2.10).

(...)
We also formed the set AllA = All ∪ (Anatolia_Tepecik_Ciftlik, Anatolia_Boncuklu), which includes both the Tepecik-Çiftlik population and the earlier Aceramic Neolithic population from Boncuklu and tried to model the Bronze Age populations as derived from N=1, 2, 3 sources of this set, thus not assuming that the Anatolia_N population from northwestern Anatolia is the source.
(...)"

Comparing qpAdm and G25 when modelling SW Anatolia EBA:


qpAdm
62% Anatolia N, 32% CHG and 6% Levant N. Good p-value (>0.05).

G25 (scaled and pen = 0), using as source Barcin and Isparta average as target
TUR_Barcin_N,53
GEO_CHG,28.6
Levant_PPNB,18.4

Using Tepecik and Boncuklu as source
TUR_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N,74.2
GEO_CHG,21.4
Levant_PPNB,4.4


Boncuklu is ignored by the model. If the paper used Tepecik (not sure), then G25 doesn't inflate PPNB after all.

Modelling Anatolia Tepecik

qpAdm
66.8% Anatolia N (Barcin?), 23.8% CHG and 9.4% Levant Neo. Good p-value.

G25, using Barcin as source and Tepecik average as target
TUR_Barcin_N,63.2
Levant_PPNB,25.2
GEO_CHG,11.6

qpAdm
56.3% Anatolia N (Barcin?), 24.6% Natufian and 19.1% CHG. Not so good p-value (< 0.05).

G25
TUR_Barcin_N,75.8
GEO_CHG,12.4
Levant_Natufian,11.8

Back to SW Anatolia EBA

qpAdm
90.8% Anatolia ChL and 9.2% Natufian. Good p-value.

G25
TUR_Barcin_C,94.4
Levant_Natufian,5.6

qpAdm
85.8% Anatolia ChL, 8,3% Natufian and 5.9% Anatolia N. Good p-value. Curiously, when Mota is used instead Anatolia N, the p-value gets even higher:
88.9% Anatolia ChL, 10.5% Natufian and 0.5% Mota.

G25 (using Barcin)
TUR_Barcin_C,76.6
TUR_Barcin_N,21
Levant_Natufian,2.4

G25 (using Tepecik for Anatolia N instead Barcin N)
TUR_Barcin_C,67.2
TUR_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N,32.8

Curiously, no Natufian contribution in G25 when average Isparta is modeled as Barcin Chalco plus Tepecik Neo.

Finally (the one you posted)

qpAdm
83.5% Anatolia ChL, 9.5% Natufian and 7% Minoan. Good p-value. When Levant BA is used instead Natufian, the p-value gets even higher.
65.9% Anatolia ChL, 17.3% Levant BA and 16.8 Minoan.

G25
TUR_Barcin_C,65.6
GRC_Minoan_Lassithi,31.4
Levant_Natufian,3

At the end, G25 doesn't seem to inflate Natufian, compared to qpAdm.

I could have missed something in all this analysis. We never know. :)

By the way, this seems an interesting paper on qpAdm:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.09.032664v1.full
 
Not sure if you are understanding what I’m saying here so okay. On the example of English culture, what is again “culturally English?” The people migrating to Britain from elsewhere in the last 60 years have distinct cultures of their own that reflect their own roots and ethnicity. Multiculturalism is a failure, no one moves to another land where they are the minority, and 100% becomes the native of the land they came too, and this is only exasperated when the unnatural act of mass migration takes place, along with the migrating peoples being so ethno-culturally alien to the peoples of the lands they migrated to. Take a trip to Malmö, Paris or London sometime. Are you actually going to argue that the non-native “Britons,” “Swedish,” or “French” praying to Allah in the middle of the street blocking off traffic, are just as culturally English, Swedish, and French as the indigenous natives? Answer me this, do you believe French, English, and German people exist? Are they not genetically and culturally distinct from the rest of the world? It may make you uncomfortable but the fact of the matter is ancestry, race and ethnicity are important to people across the globe. That is what makes someone Chinese or English, a common and shared history/heritage. That is why a Hungarian has more in common with an Englishman than he ever would with a Persian, Turk, Iraqi or a Moroccan. A common Christian and European history stemming from shared ancestry and culture. This is how nations and peoples survive. If “Europeaness” doesn’t exist what does exactly? Does being Mexican, Chinese, or Middle Eastern exist? Or does this only apply to evil Europeans? You didn’t answer my question by the way, if I move to China and raise my kids in China, does that make me Han Chinese? I will tell you this, I would never be considered Chinese by the actual natives that live there, and rightfully. Side note, the reason I mentioned other Italics, Celts, Greeks, Illyrians, and Etruscans, in relation to the Latins (the founders of Rome), is simply because these are the closest neighbors and influences to the Latins. They are also all similar genetically, granted they all have a varying Steppe/Beaker component. The Etruscans and Greeks had a heavy influence on the Latins, while the Celts influenced Roman military tactics and weapons, the longer Roman shields were developed due to Celtic influences. These are the peoples that would have had the most contact and influence on them, you know because they are the closest to them.
 
@Azzurro, There was Iran-like ancestry that entered into Southern Europe, that has been trickling into the region since the Neolithic, and perhaps more significantly in the early Bronze Age. J2 exists in Neolithic Central Italy. I have had correspondence with Hannah Moots, co-author of Antonio M. et al 2019, and she holds the Raveane et al 2019 paper in high regard. R850, and R437, are not "foreign", because they have components that pre-date the steppe-like ancestry in Italy. Sicily Beakers can be modeled as 95% similar to Anatolian_BA I2683 (only about 2% Levant_N, according to G25), which is what ABA is based upon. R850 forms a clade with Anatolian_ChL, which is similar to Anatolian_BA. Neolithic Central Italy can be modeled as 95% Greece_N, due to some Iran_N-like admixture. None of that is foreign. All of the Iron Age samples have relatively-higher levels of Iran_N compared to other populations in Europe in that time period. Italy, Albania, and Greece, share this legacy between each other.

tusYboG.png


There is a fundamental issue with G25 making inferences based on broad components that are arbitrarily thrown together, simply based on the time period they are in. Especially considering the deep demographic changes that happened in late antiquity. Like I said back thread, you will not see a component that has WASPs, Jews, African-Americans, and Puerto-Ricans thrown together, and be called a "20th century US" autosomal component.

Another example of G25 getting it wrong is the Ashkelon_Levant_IronAge1 component. Only one sample, ASH068, is a true Philistine, who is indeed Mycenean-like. ASH067 is half-Philistine/half-Levant_BA. The others are Levant_BA natives to the Levant. How does throwing them in all together make sense, and what could it possibly tell you? That is superficial and plain wrong, for genetic analysis. Doing so completely ignores the archeological and social context of the samples being used.

Moreover, even as Ygorc pointed out with G25, all of the Imperial samples I and other Southern Italians here are closest too are close to Italians, because they were natives, unlike the immigrant samples I am quite far from.

@Jovalis happy to see you brought in J2, this is where I am the most informed, just letting you know that the two J2a samples found aren't really common today, but at least one of them seems to survive today and it is possible that it is common in Central Italy today (as we know the region is severely undertested), and to your point sure some of the Iran Neo came in during Neolithic but was already diluted by the time of the Chalcolithic, there was a Iran Neo like movement in the Early Bronze Age in Crete and the Aegean islands (Minoan and Cycladic Cultures). One of the outliers is half North African, and the one who is Anatolian like was likely from Anatolia, no reason not assume that Greeks and Anatolians could have not been there.

The premise is easy, all of Italy shares a Neolithic/Bronze Age base, then you have the Greeks mixing with the natives forming Southern Italians and the Italics mixing natives forming Central and Northern Italians, of course there is a cline and Roman Italy was more fluid as people from all over the Peninsula moved up and down, now with those foundations set you have the immigrants who came and further played a role in the gene pool such as more Greeks, Anatolians, peoples from the Balkans, Levantines, and Celts.
 
The average based off the Late Antiquity samples that you see in G25, Roman Imperial works too, its an average of samples. The average of Late Antiquity Italians is very close to modern Southern Italian populations. If you choose not believe them or trust them its on you.

Sure whatever you want to believe, there are three Iron Age samples that are part foreign. You hate on G25 but you understand because of G25 people on the forum were able to see/get an idea where people were born during the Imperial era which is pretty cool if you ask me, and there were individuals who plotted nearly identical to modern Southern Italians, anyways autosomal isn’t my strength, Y dna is and I along with other manually looked at all the Y lines of the samples. Trust me its clear there was a genetic shift, you have no idea how happy am I lol, this paper disproves the Italicroots and the Italian crowd of “its all Neolithic” Middle Eastern dna.

Of course were all not the same but we are close enough to be consider one ethnic unit.

Only somebody who is mentally disturbed would go through all those pages and come up pulling out stats like that. There are several Greek posters who have posted on that thread. Its always civil, its just when you come there is any kind of arguing, we are all proud of our East Mediterranean group.
So, the same paper that also shows a drammatic downfall of J1 haplogroups, that showed that there were Latins that autosomally were similar to modern day south Italians( but they of course were foreigners!1! It's not more likely that they were the substrate populations the proto-italic mixed with after they migrated from the Po valley, the most parsimonious explanation is that all Italy was north-Italian like and that Greeks and Semites created south Italians!), the words of genetist such as Razib Khan that it was overwhelmingly native Italians that repopulated Rome ( because, you know, the paper was about Rome or Latium, and it makes no sense to draw inferences for all Italy, or south Italy), the fact that Davidsky has always had this obsession of proving south Italians half levantine, the fact that on G25 there are only six samples ( which I do not even know are accademic) to model the population of a island that has around 5 milion inhabitants, or the fact that maybe there are not official samples (Italic roots might be a sewer forum but they might have a point if true that 10 Campanian samples are from God knows where, and that is an issue given the amount of fake south Italian ancestries posted by the likes of Sikeliot), the fact that G25, if not properly used, OVER-OVERblows the amount of Levantine ancestry ( as Regio X showed), or the very simple fact that G25 models often are in contradiction with professional studies ( but, as Davidsky said, " if they go against G25 models it's their problems being wrong"), or the fact that the Myceneans were modelled with 0% Levante_neolithic, or that the ABA used to model south Italians in Raveanne 2019 had at most 6% Levant_neolithic (as for Lazaridis, but maybe it was the one with the less Levant ancestry, as it was pointed in this thread), all this proves you are right, of course! And please don't throw the ridicolous accusation that we can't accept "the truth shown by Anthrogenica" because we are antisemitic in disguise; this site is not Italic Roots and we just ( at least I) do not buy into the ungrounded theories presented on a forum on the internet.
 
So, the same paper that also shows a drammatic downfall of J1 haplogroups, that showed that there were Latins that autosomally were similar to modern day south Italians( but they of course were foreigners!1! It's not more likely that they were the substrate populations the proto-italic mixed with after they migrated from the Po valley, the most parsimonious explanation is that all Italy was north-Italian like and that Greeks and Semites created south Italians!), the words of genetist such as Razib Khan that it was overwhelmingly native Italians that repopulated Rome ( because, you know, the paper was about Rome or Latium, and it makes no sense to draw inferences for all Italy, or south Italy), the fact that Davidsky has always had this obsession of proving south Italians half levantine, the fact that on G25 there are only six samples ( which I do not even know are accademic) to model the population of a island that has around 5 milion inhabitants, or the fact that maybe there are not official samples (Italic roots might be a sewer forum but they might have a point if true that 10 Campanian samples are from God knows where, and that is an issue given the amount of fake south Italian ancestries posted by the likes of Sikeliot), the fact that G25, if not properly used, OVER-OVERblows the amount of Levantine ancestry ( as Regio X showed), or the very simple fact that G25 models often are in contradiction with professional studies ( but, as Davidsky said, " if they go against G25 models it's their problems being wrong"), or the fact that the Myceneans were modelled with 0% Levante_neolithic, or that the ABA used to model south Italians in Raveanne 2019 had at most 6% Levant_neolithic (as for Lazaridis, but maybe it was the one with the less Levant ancestry, as it was pointed in this thread), all this proves you are right, of course! And please don't throw the ridicolous accusation that we can't accept "the truth shown by Anthrogenica" because we are antisemitic in disguise; this site is not Italic Roots and we just ( at least I) do not buy into the ungrounded theories presented on a forum on the internet.

J1 is not the only Middle Eastern Y line, J2 is as well, E non V13, etc... Who ever said Native Italians were Northern Italian like? The Italic speakers were Northern Italian like, Southern Italy if BA Sicily is representative was Sardinian like with a bit of an Eastern pull, quite a distance from modern Sicilians, I’m pretty sure the LBA Sicilian is proto Sicani, also the Y chromosome of the BA Sicilians G-Z1903 is still very common in Southern Italy today. No one bats an eye when people suggest Southern Italy is Native plus Italic but saying we are primarily Greek+Native is considered heresy? Common man, I think we can argue how much Levantine actually made into our genome fine could be discussed.
 

This thread has been viewed 188604 times.

Back
Top