Genetic and Cultural Differences between Jews and Greeks

This is a free and open discussion. I think the thread has some very good information in it. Though I am concerned, because you are addressing people in all caps, and making a lot of accusations yourself. This is a subject I'm invested in, and we were having a discussion. We can agree to disagree.

One word in all capital letters does not mean "virtual screaming" at all. It's just a way to put emphasis on one particular word in the text. That's why I use capital letters in bold and sometimes italic, too, since we have no voice here to put entonation in your voice to make sure people understand that the keyword in the argument is this or that word.
 
But rather inferences made by G25 that uses broad components of samples that should be analysed individually or with fully disclosed caveats that should be considered. Pointing out that aspect is not meant as an affront.

I already pointed out before in this thread that my analysis are based on individual analysis of the samples, averaging them later, and the models use individual source aDNA samples, summing up their total afterwards. I'm avoiding averages because they can be deceiving if the population in question was not very homogeneous with an even distribution of admixtures.
 
Ok, then the average Sicilian not having less than 5% is not 100% correct, wouldn't you agree, 2/3 will be +/- 1 Standard deviation, 95% will be +/- 2 Standard deviations, so for the sake of discussion, lets say Mean=5, SD=1, then 2/3 will be 4-6, 95$ will be 3 to 7% and still be an average Sicilian. 99% will be plus/minus 3 SD's so 2 to 8 would get all non-outliers, so what would really be the statisical outlier is someone with less than 2% North African/Levant or > 8% North African_Levant. Again just for argument, a Mean of 5 and SD of 1.5, would get you to .5 and 9.5 covering 99% of the distribution and admixture < 0.5 on the left tail and > 9.5 on the right tail would be the statistical outlier.

Yes, that will happen to all populations that are not very homogeneous and lack a large and diverse enough (in terms of locations and distinct communities) sample. But that's also likely to happen with all populations sufficiently large and expansive in the entire world, and in all databases and calculators if they're under those same circumstances. That's one of the reasons we repeatedly say that all these models provide hints​, not definite truths. Ultimately, as Angela already pointed out, it doesn't matter much or at all if the true mean is 3%, 6% or 10%. It's just a few percents more or less. What matters is the historical movements and social circumstances that most probably explain that signal. Genetics theoretically should serve us particularly as another piece of evidence to reconstruct the history of populations. History won't be dramatically different if the actual contribution was generally 4-6% or 10-12%.
 
The discussion is about Levant_N, because your thesis is that there was a gene flow rich in Levant_N that hit south east Europe and south and central Italy; we already know that there is around 5% north-african in Sicilians, so it's not the point of the discussion. Also, as others have already pointed out, I think that the best way to explain way "west jews" can be modelled similar to Greeks and south Italians is that the former started out as pure levantine population and later they picked up much ancestry both from south Europe and (ashkenazis)north Europe ( I don't know about Sephardis, but they don't appear in the PCA). Now it's implausible to think that south Italians and Greeks have similar levels of north European ancestry. From the supplements of this paper, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ahg.12328, the PCAs and the admixtures models seem consistent with the thesis that there is not a significant share of admixture from "ancestral populations" (I guess Anatolian vs Levant, who were not tremendously different, though). At least that's how I make sense of it, but whoever has other interpretations is invited to share them.



View attachment 12251View attachment 12252
View attachment 12253


I think that it is also interesting to take a look at the admixture chart of Cretans and Armenians and west asian/levant populations:
View attachment 12254View attachment 12255
How I make sense of the last tabel is that Kurds capture better Cretan ancestry because they themselves have more ancestry from the caucaus/iran-anatolian gene flow that hit south east Europe, followed by Syrians because they also derive a good chunk of their ancestry from this gene flow (as the last paper about the history of the near east supports, the one that has found [a result found in another paper if I am not mistake] a very significant gene flow from Anatolia and the Caucasus to the north Levant). It's true that it depends a lot from the K used, and the fact that the Syrians get overall a better median value is also consistent with Ygorcs's thesis, to be honest, but the fact that the two other Levantine populations get much worse results coupled with the other charts/PCAs gives me the impression it overall better supports the "classical" two way model between Anatolians and Caucasus/Iran, and a subsequent migration of such a mixture to the Levant.
That PCA shows that Askenazis are not that close to the Southerns Italians or the Greeks or am I reading this wrong?
 
Ok, so let me follow your line of reasoning, lets take the CHG/Iran_NEO that came in after the Neolithic period, and leave out the Levant admixture. I don't have the paper in front of me but didn't one of the papers in the last few years model the Steppe Herders as something like 60% EHG + 40% CHG/Iran_NEO, etc. And off the top of my head, I don't remember the author and no sure I have that paper on my hard drive or paper copy handy to look it up, but I think those figures from memory are reasonably accurate. So could it be that the Steppe Herders that came into Rome had proportionally, more CHG/Iran_NEO than EHG, whereas the Steppe Herders that went into Central Europe, and even more so into Northern Europe were in terms of admixture, more EHG? For the record, I am only proposing a question here, again not making a dogmatic statement of fact.

So in other words, maybe during the period of the Bronze Age some of that further Eastward drift you are indicating was at least partially related to the Steppe migration people that came into Italy being more on the Southern flank of the Steppe migration and while yes they spoke a PIE, there admixture components had higher percentages of CHG/Iran_NEO vs. EHG?

Does any of your G25 models provide results that might suggest, not prove, that what I am saying is a plausible explanation?

It's a possibility, perhaps even a bit likely, but I don't think it explains the whole history, because the continuous spread of CHG/Iran in Central-East Mediterranean Europe predates the spread of Steppe ancestry in it and has a different and independent pattern of territorial expansion. I mean: if we assume the increased CHG/Iran later came from Steppe_EMBA-rich populations then automatically that'd mean the spread of Anatolia_BA and Minoan-like people in Italy was much more insignificant than we'd thought. Is that the best scenario? I don't know, but I doubt it a bit.

But you may have some vague hint of such a hypothesis in my G25 models, because North Italians usually get more proximate (EBA/MBA) steppe-admixed source populations from Bell Beaker groups (ultimately of North-Central European origin), whereas South Italians get more of that steppe from BA Balkans (HRV_EBA, BGR_IA, Mycenaean).

But, of course, that result could be nothing but an artifact caused by the fact that, lacking much extra CHG/Iran admixture, North Italians can be fit well enough with BB-related samples, whereas the extra CHG/Iran in South Italy may prompt the calculator to try to find a more CHG-enriched but also steppe-admixed source population to account for that, and finds it in the BA and IA Balkans.

So, I confess I'm not sure how it can be best interpreted. Is it really plausible that steppe admixture arrived in North Italy and South Italy from populations thousands of km apart, considering that at least by the Early Roman Era Italic languages were also spoken deep south in the peninsula and even (probably) in Sicily?
 
That PCA shows that Askenazis are not that close to the Southerns Italians or the Greeks or am I reading this wrong?

They're heavily drifted just like Finns. Some PCAs can capture that, some others don't, I wish I could understand why.
 
That PCA shows that Askenazis are not that close to the Southerns Italians or the Greeks or am I reading this wrong?
That is another dimension in the PCA that shows that Ashkenazi and other south(East) europeans populations can be very easily differentiated (not only thanks to inbreeding and/or drift, but because of the different ancestral origins of the two sets of populations). Yet, when Europeans, jews and other (semitic) near easterns are plotted in the same PCA from the same study Europeans and near Easterns are clearly separated and the jews cluster with Europeans (again thanks to their consistent European admixture, I guess).
 
Ygorcs: I agree with you when your dealing with academics who are trying to reconstruct history of populations, a few percents here or there will not matter. For me personally, I think research should strive as we get more and more data to as accurately measure historical populations as they can, given the data available at that point in time. However, I think you would agree that there indeed or some in the amateur community who take samples and produce results that are used to push certain troll, and/or political agendas. Can we perhaps agree on that point as well.

So speaking for me, and only me, what is/are the "magic number(s)" that those amateurs with said troll and political agendas are looking for, and what admixture proportions from population X, vs Y, vs Z, etc to tell me well the ancestors of Republican Rome, Imperial Rome, pre Republican Rome, whatever, are not yours, it is really ours, etc and you can fill in the blank who ours is.

So you see the context of where I am coming from, which is the context of a statement in one of my earlier posts about using only the 11 Iron Age samples I can model me quite well, even though R437 and the other southern Shifted ones for the most part are the ones that fit me.
 
Ygorcs: I agree with you when your dealing with academics who are trying to reconstruct history of populations, a few percents here or there will not matter. For me personally, I think research should strive as we get more and more data to as accurately measure historical populations as they can, given the data available at that point in time. However, I think you would agree that there indeed or some in the amateur community who take samples and produce results that are used to push certain troll, and/or political agendas. Can we perhaps agree on that point as well.

So speaking for me, and only me, what is/are the "magic number(s)" that those amateurs with said troll and political agendas are looking for, and what admixture proportions from population X, vs Y, vs Z, etc to tell me well the ancestors of Republican Rome, Imperial Rome, pre Republican Rome, whatever, are not yours, it is really ours, etc and you can fill in the blank who ours is.

So you see the context of where I am coming from, which is the context of a statement in one of my earlier posts about using only the 11 Iron Age samples I can model me quite well, even though R437 and the other southern Shifted ones for the most part are the ones that fit me.

Yes, I definitely understand your point. I just stress that what I am discussing here has nothing to do with the insane and over the top claims made by those trolls and agenda-driven people, who are usually people with some deep down frustrated ethnic pride, a complex of inferiority that only disguises itself as a seeming complex of superiority. But that's not the case here. Not all claims made by trolls are a priori an in re ipsa totally incorrect, many times they take a grain of truth, exaggerate and twist it and transform truth into some dishonest agenda. But that is not a reason for us to let them appropriate the topic and the discussion entirely. There's a whole world beyond them.

Anyway, if they believe Levant_N and extra Iran_N/CHG ancestry means modern Italians are less closely related to . Mind you, even if they had mixed much more than they almost certainly did in reality, they would still be the direct descendants of Roman Era Italians, unlike so many others. It's the same as with Ancient Egypt or Ancient Greece: it doesn't matter if 15%, 30% or even more of the local gene pool was not there 2,000 or 3,000 years ago, the remaining large majority is directly related to the ancient inhabitants of the same land, unlike those other peoples who, even if they mixed less with "exotic" populations, are only indirectly related to those ancients. Let me explain what I'm saying: let's just hypothesize that "unmixed" Republican South Italians had been ~65% EEF + ~30% Steppe + ~5% CHG/Iran, without much more CHG/Iran nor any North African_EN and/or Levant_N ancestry. So what? Other people formed mainly by EEF + Steppe would have only a very indirect link to those Republican South Italians. Most of their EEF and Steppe wouldn't have arrived from there or even passed through that land at all, while the EEF and Steppe and much of the CHG/Iran in South Italians would come directly from those ancient people of the Roman civilization in South Italy. It baffles me that some people can't see something that is so obvious as if they are still thinking on a "one drop rule" mindset.
 
It's a possibility, perhaps even a bit likely, but I don't think it explains the whole history, because the continuous spread of CHG/Iran in Central-East Mediterranean Europe predates the spread of Steppe ancestry in it and has a different and independent pattern of territorial expansion. I mean: if we assume the increased CHG/Iran later came from Steppe_EMBA-rich populations then automatically that'd mean the spread of Anatolia_BA and Minoan-like people in Italy was much more insignificant than we'd thought. Is that the best scenario? I don't know, but I doubt it a bit.

But you may have some vague hint of such a hypothesis in my G25 models, because North Italians usually get more proximate (EBA/MBA) steppe-admixed source populations from Bell Beaker groups (ultimately of North-Central European origin), whereas South Italians get more of that steppe from BA Balkans (HRV_EBA, BGR_IA, Mycenaean).

But, of course, that result could be nothing but an artifact caused by the fact that, lacking much extra CHG/Iran admixture, North Italians can be fit well enough with BB-related samples, whereas the extra CHG/Iran in South Italy may prompt the calculator to try to find a more CHG-enriched but also steppe-admixed source population to account for that, and finds it in the BA and IA Balkans.

So, I confess I'm not sure how it can be best interpreted. Is it really plausible that steppe admixture arrived in North Italy and South Italy from populations thousands of km apart, considering that at least by the Early Roman Era Italic languages were also spoken deep south in the peninsula and even (probably) in Sicily?

Very reasonable post. I actually had a hint about the differences in Steppe populations based on that paper that modeled Steppe EHG about 60% and CHG/Iran_NEO about 40%. One only look at the Populations say from Germany North to Scandanavia and see EHG levels way higher than anywhere in Italy, even the Northern Most regions.

Then when the paper earlier this year documented Steppe ancestry into Sicily around 2,200 BC (Fernandes et al 2020) paper and the same Iran_NEO/CHG that Raveane et al 2019 documented in Lazio was appearing in West Sicily as well. In addition, the Steppe ancestry that came into Sicily came from Iberia according to the authors. I don't think Antonio et al 2019 said where the CHG/Iran_NEO came from to Lazio, only that it is there.

Now your question about languages is interesting? That indeed would likely support a common source, but the Steppe coming to Sicily via Iberia is kind of interesting, don't you think. And it got there I would think alot earlier than many thought before the recent paper by the Reich team earlier this year. The Elymians are thought to have spoken a PIE language in Western Sicily, that could be related to Italic, or Anatolian Hittites, both Indo-European. Based on my travels to Sicily and spending a day at Segesta, and purchasing some of the official books about the park, the Ligurian/Elymian connection seems more plausible but DNA data from a clear Elymian site is the only way to show that. I don't know what the Sicani spoke, and to this day, their language is unclassified. The Siculi clearly spoke Italic, as did the other Italic tribes in Sicily, Morgante, Mammertini and Ausones.

So in light of what I wrote above, has anyone documented when and where did the Steppe migration peoples that went into Iberia came from and that then went into Sicily. What was there admixture with respect to EHG/CHG/Iran_NEO. Have you run the Sicilian Bronze Age samples with Steppe ancestry? and compared them to similar Iberian samples with Steppe ancestry? (If such exists as I freely admit I don't know off the top of my head what periods all the ancient Iberians come from?)
 
Yes, I definitely understand your point. I just stress that what I am discussing here has nothing to do with the insane and over the top claims made by those trolls and agenda-driven people, who are usually people with some deep down frustrated ethnic pride, a complex of inferiority that only disguises itself as a seeming complex of superiority. But that's not the case here. Not all claims made by trolls are a priori an in re ipsa totally incorrect, many times they take a grain of truth, exaggerate and twist it and transform truth into some dishonest agenda. But that is not a reason for us to let them appropriate the topic and the discussion entirely. There's a whole world beyond them.

Anyway, if they believe Levant_N and extra Iran_N/CHG ancestry means modern Italians are less closely related to . Mind you, even if they had mixed much more than they almost certainly did in reality, they would still be the direct descendants of Roman Era Italians, unlike so many others. It's the same as with Ancient Egypt or Ancient Greece: it doesn't matter if 15%, 30% or even more of the local gene pool was not there 2,000 or 3,000 years ago, the remaining large majority is directly related to the ancient inhabitants of the same land, unlike those other peoples who, even if they mixed less with "exotic" populations, are only indirectly related to those ancients. Let me explain what I'm saying: let's just hypothesize that "unmixed" Republican South Italians had been ~65% EEF + ~30% Steppe + ~5% CHG/Iran, without much more CHG/Iran nor any North African_EN and/or Levant_N ancestry. So what? Other people formed mainly by EEF + Steppe would have only a very indirect link to those Republican South Italians. Most of their EEF and Steppe wouldn't have arrived from there or even passed through that land at all, while the EEF and Steppe and much of the CHG/Iran in South Italians would come directly from those ancient people of the Roman civilization in South Italy. It baffles me that some people can't see something that is so obvious as if they are still thinking on a "one drop rule" mindset.

Ok, I appreciate your response. So again, the context I laid out above is is the major context of my post when you get down to it. As I have noted several times, My Ancestry DNA results says 97% Italian, 3% Middle_East (Levant centered). NAT GENO 71% Italian, 14% West_MED, 7% Northwest European and 8% Asia Minor. My top 2 reference populations at NAT GENO are 1) Italian, 2) Greek, which makes 100% perfect sense.

Now as for Levant admixture, I have posted my DNA results from both Ancestry and NAT GENO in the past. If you take my Ancestry DNA results and my NAT GENO, which ASIA Minor in their population reference is defined as Northern Levant to Armenia. Then 3% on low end to 8% on high end, if all 8% from NATGENO is from Syria/Levant, and some is not from ancient Armenia, East Anatolia, or Iran is a reasonable to me. So I also want to add that I am not here stating that I don't have some Levant type admixture that impacted Sicilian genetics via the Phoenicians are during the Imperial Roman period when peoples from the Levant (Syrians,Lebanese,Jews) arrived in the Roman empire from the East.
 
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.

you think you are agnostic :) ... You expressed your opinion based on speculations just like I did.

It’s way safer to say that R850 was an Italic, than fantasizing whatever...
 
R850 - R437 - R436 - R56 - CL36 - SZ40 - SZ1 - R56 - R1544 - R973 - more ... all share some of my chromosomes positions,

R850 is connected to a variety of samples, and if he was an Outlier, he was a lousy one, ...

PrKgS5m.jpg


https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/38222-Mytrueancestry-com?p=607799&viewfull=1#post607799
 
R850 - R437 - R436 - R56 - CL36 - SZ40 - SZ1 - R56 - R1544 - R973 - more ... all share some of my chromosomes positions,

R850 is connected to a variety of samples, and if he was an Outlier, he was a lousy one, ...

PrKgS5m.jpg


https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/38222-Mytrueancestry-com?p=607799&viewfull=1#post607799

Outlier compared to whom? I'm not sure we can talk about outliers when all we have is 2 individuals from IA Ardea, so how can we be totally sure who of the individuals represented the average of the population? We don't. But we can be quite sure that the 2 individuals were pretty distinct in genetic makeup, with R850 being much more "east-shifted" towards Iran/Caucasus than the other individual (R851). R850 can be understood, I think, as an Italian from other part of the peninsula or maybe Sicily, or as a local individual descending from a more recent mixture of "R851-type" people with some people who were much more Mycenaean-like and Anatolian_BA-like (Greeks from Anatolia or Aegean islands?). We only have Sicilian samples from the MLBA, and AFAIK no Sicilian and South Italian samples from the early IA, so this Mycenaean+Anatolia_BA genetic makeup may just be what South Italy and Sicily were like in the mid 1st millennium B.C. I think that's more likely, because the fits using those 2 proxies are not very good (>4%). So, my guess (totally open to re-evaluation) is that R850 was a South Italian or Sicilian or a recent descendant of these, not locals from Ardea or Lazio.

Target
Distance
Beaker_Sicily_no_steppe
GRC_Mycenaean
ITA_Etruscan
ITA_Rome_Latini_IA
ITA_Sicily_LBA
ITA_Sicily_MBA
TUR_Isparta_EBA
ITA_Ardea_Latini_IA:RMPR851
0.02539621
0.0
0.0
64.8
35.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
ITA_Ardea_Latini_IA_o:RMPR850
0.04512289
0.0
41.0
17.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
41.6
Average
0.03525955
0.0
20.5
41.1
17.6
0.0
0.0
20.8

But both possibilities are not unrealistic and would both create someone similar to a South Italian. But were most people in Ardea like R851 or like R850? If it was indeed initially an Etruscan city that was later Latinized, I think R851 makes more sense as the average individual, but who knows if that might have already changed in the later Iron Age?
 
Ygorcs: I was just experimenting with some samples from Eurogenes K13 Ancient. I just used 64 samples from Mesolithic and Neolithic, no Roman Samples, except the WHG, and wanted to see what model fit I could get. I included Keb_4 for North African Late Neolithic, all the Levant and Jordan Neolithic samples in K13, 4 WHG from Italy, 3 from Lazio, 1 from Sicily, all of the Anatolian Neolithic samples and 4 of the TEP, along with several of the Iran_NEO. I also included Sicilian Bell Beaker I4390, which is not in K13 (I used the kit number at GEDMATCH and estimated the coordinates) and included Otzi the Iceman since I have DEEP Dive Chroma match with Otzi (MTA) by estimating his K13 coordinates. I can get a distance with just 2 Anatolian Neolithic samples, Otzi and the Sicilian_WHG from Favignana (My Y-DNA is I-M223, not that Y Haplogroups explain the whole story. But the it seems that I can be modeled quite well without significant steppe, as I think what is going on with R851 and R850. From what is clearly present in Antonio et al 2019 Figure 2, Lazio was made up of people whose genetic makeup with significantly predominnatly Anatolian Neolilthic, with some WHG, and/or Iran_NEO. In my case, I don't require direct source from anything about Anatolian Neolithic and WHG. Now, I recognize that some of those samples in the model fit below could, and likely, have some Iran_Neo or Levant_Neolithic, or CHG type ancestry as part of their genetic makeup, but since we are just looking at models and how we can model folks, a distance of 2.49 I think would meet your definition of a very good fit.

Target: PalermoTrapani
Distance: 2.4985% / 2.49849989 | ADC: 0.25x
45.6I1584_Anatolia_C_5776_ybp
34.6Tep002_Tepecik_Ciftlik_level_5_c_6500_BCE_8500_BP_
16.2I2158_Late_Upper_Paleolithic_Sicilian_hunter_gatherer_
3.6Otzi

If I drop I2158 from source Data, R11 from Central Italy works just as well. So not just some local effect due to the Sicilian_WHG, if there even was such a thing (I think there as research indicates not the case).

Target: PalermoTrapani
Distance: 2.7756% / 2.77555812 | ADC: 0.25x

45.4I1584_Anatolia_C_5776_ybp
34.2Tep002_Tepecik_Ciftlik_level_5_c_6500_BCE_8500_BP_
16.0R11_Abruzzo_Mesolithic_Hunter-Gatherer_Italy
4.4Otzi


In full disclosure, here are the variables that I used as the source data. Again, I tried to ensure I had a direct source Neolithic source from North Africa, Levant and Iran, and Anatolia. I also wanted to ensure I had a direct source of WHG and Steppe. Since MTA gives me Sicilian_Beaker I4390 as a top archeological match and Otzi as a DEEP DIVE Match, I included them in the sample

KEB_4_(Morocco_5000_BP_keb.4_Morocco_378003650y.old,10.50,0.00,44.08,0.00,21.54,15.76,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,6.67,1.45
I2158_Late_Upper_Paleolithic_Sicilian_hunter_gatherer_,51.12,43.75,3.37,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,1.75,0.00,0.00
R11_Abruzzo_Mesolithic_Hunter-Gatherer_Italy,49.48,44.93,2.68,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,2.41,0.00,0.51
R15_Abruzzo_Mesolithic_Hunter-Gatherer_Italy,43.95,50.44,3.82,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.05,0.00,0.00,1.54,0.00,0.20
R7_Abruzzo_Mesolithic_Hunter-Gatherer_Italy,50.03,45.63,2.52,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,1.82,0.00,0.00
Bar31_Anatolia_Early_Neolithic_,16.28,0.00,41.45,0.00,34.40,6.14,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.44,1.29
Bar8_Anatolia_N.SG_8071_ybp,10.93,0.00,45.07,0.00,40.17,3.82,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00
Bon002_Anatolia_N_Boncuklu.SG_10078_ybp,17.64,0.40,44.91,0.00,33.21,2.73,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,1.12,0.00,0.00
I0707_Anatolia_N_8092_ybp,7.33,0.00,46.18,0.00,41.13,5.35,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00
I0708_Anatolia_N_8097_ybp,7.25,0.00,43.57,0.08,44.29,4.81,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00
I0709_Anatolia_N_8086_ybp,8.75,0.00,46.20,0.00,40.49,4.57,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00
I0723_Anatolia_N_7870_ybp,6.40,0.00,47.49,0.00,41.94,4.11,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.07,0.00,0.00
I0724_Anatolia_N_7950_ybp,12.29,0.00,47.43,0.00,35.97,4.05,0.00,0.00,0.26,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00
I0726_Anatolia_N_7950_ybp,9.55,0.00,46.27,0.00,37.57,6.60,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00
I0727_Anatolia_N_7950_ybp,1.40,0.00,51.31,0.00,41.58,5.70,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00
I0736_Anatolia_N_8300_ybp,9.05,0.00,43.92,0.00,42.32,4.71,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00
I0744_Anatolia_N_8273_ybp,7.26,0.00,47.78,0.00,42.05,2.91,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00
I0745_Anatolia_N_8251_ybp,10.49,0.00,42.35,0.00,39.56,7.54,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.06,0.00,0.00
I0746_Anatolia_N_7930_ybp,12.22,0.00,45.24,0.00,36.49,6.05,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00
I1096_Anatolia_N_8300_ybp,10.55,0.00,43.86,0.00,41.95,3.64,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00
I1097_Anatolia_N_8288_ybp,5.09,0.00,47.04,0.00,44.06,3.82,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00
I1098_Anatolia_N_8288_ybp,8.97,0.00,40.63,0.00,45.08,5.32,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00
I1099_Anatolia_N_8300_ybp,11.33,0.00,44.13,0.00,41.04,3.50,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00
I1100_Anatolia_N_8300_ybp,6.96,0.00,48.01,0.00,40.77,3.84,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.42,0.00,0.00
I1101_Anatolia_N_8300_ybp,10.27,0.00,43.37,0.00,42.30,4.06,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00
I1102_Anatolia_N_8300_ybp,11.70,0.00,45.89,0.00,36.40,5.80,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.11,0.00,0.10
I1103_Anatolia_N_8300_ybp,5.63,0.00,46.90,0.00,39.72,7.71,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.04,0.00,0.00
I1580_Anatolia_N_8195_ybp,7.32,0.00,47.45,0.00,38.61,6.62,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00
I1581_Anatolia_N_8254_ybp,6.99,0.00,48.39,0.00,38.11,6.51,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00
I1583_Anatolia_N_8281_ybp,4.17,0.00,48.75,0.00,41.73,5.35,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00
I1584_Anatolia_C_5776_ybp,9.90,0.00,24.65,25.27,35.62,2.63,1.46,0.00,0.48,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00
I2495_Anatolia_EBA_4377_ybp,5.20,0.00,27.24,21.78,42.47,3.31,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00
I2499_Anatolia_EBA_4604_ybp,5.99,0.16,25.06,24.20,36.91,6.38,0.82,0.16,0.00,0.07,0.24,0.00,0.00
Tep002_Anatolia_N_Tepecik_Ciftlik.SG_8585_ybp,7.21,0.00,41.68,0.00,43.08,8.04,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00
Tep002_Tepecik_Ciftlik_level_5_c_6500_BCE_8500_BP_,12.96,0.00,33.37,1.13,39.75,9.07,0.00,0.00,0.44,0.00,0.00,2.71,0.54
Tep003_Anatolia_N_Tepecik_Ciftlik.SG_8505_ybp,4.96,0.00,32.53,11.24,45.49,5.78,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00
Tep004_Anatolia_N_Tepecik_Ciftlik.SG_8295_ybp,6.08,0.00,34.12,0.84,45.53,13.43,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00
I0231_Russia_Yamnaya_Samara_published_4800_ybp,23.27,37.03,0.00,26.04,0.00,0.00,7.86,0.00,0.15,5.64,0.00,0.00,0.00
I0357_Russia_Yamnaya_Samara_4952_ybp,26.44,33.97,0.00,28.34,0.00,0.00,5.51,0.00,0.00,5.57,0.16,0.00,0.00
I0370_Russia_Yamnaya_Samara_4950_ybp,23.57,38.22,0.00,26.65,0.00,0.00,4.88,0.00,1.46,5.12,0.00,0.00,0.10
I0438_Russia_Yamnaya_Samara_4778_ybp,21.36,38.92,0.00,28.70,0.00,0.00,5.77,0.00,0.00,5.26,0.00,0.00,0.00
I0439_Russia_Yamnaya_Samara_5071_ybp,29.46,35.48,0.00,23.03,0.00,0.00,7.26,0.00,0.00,4.06,0.70,0.00,0.00
SharakhalsunSteppeMaykop_SA6004_,4.00,46.51,0.00,27.30,0.00,0.00,8.92,0.00,0.00,13.26,0.00,0.00,0.00
Sholpan_(CentralSteppe_EMBA)_Yamnaya_,1.04,32.55,0.00,6.60,0.00,0.00,12.19,0.00,26.81,20.60,0.21,0.00,0.00
AY2001_Aygurskiy_2_Steppe_Maykop_5271_5_T2e_,9.61,31.32,0.00,40.91,0.00,0.00,9.21,0.00,0.00,8.94,0.00,0.00,0.00
AY2003_Aygurskiy_2_Steppe_Maykop_5455_H2a1_,7.12,44.77,0.00,22.41,0.00,0.00,10.28,0.00,0.00,15.42,0.00,0.00,0.00
I1699_Jordan_PPNC_8700_ybp,0.00,0.00,23.61,0.00,51.52,21.04,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,3.83,0.00
I1704_Jordan_PPNB_9202_ybp,0.00,0.00,18.15,0.00,51.47,25.50,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,1.45,3.43,0.00
I1705_Jordan_EBA_4032_ybp,0.00,0.00,9.87,8.89,52.19,27.31,0.00,0.00,0.66,0.01,0.97,0.10,0.00
I1706_Jordan_EBA_4345_ybp,0.00,0.00,10.44,5.18,49.64,30.57,0.00,0.89,0.00,1.34,0.19,1.75,0.00
I1707_Jordan_PPNB_9582_ybp,0.00,0.00,20.05,0.00,50.96,23.60,0.00,0.80,0.00,0.00,1.04,3.55,0.00
I1710_Jordan_PPNB_9580_ybp,0.00,0.00,25.36,0.00,53.41,20.63,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.61,0.00
i1722_Unakozovskaya_Eneolithic_Caucasus_6403_F_R1a_,11.55,1.42,9.98,63.67,11.91,1.48,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00
I1730_Jordan_EBA_4344_ybp,0.00,0.00,12.25,6.70,53.95,24.43,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.84,1.84,0.00
I0867_LevantN_,0.00,0.00,26.75,0.00,49.96,23.29,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00
LevantBA_M291439_,0.00,0.00,11.51,7.13,50.13,31.16,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.08,0.00
LevantPPNB_I0867_Israel_730006750,0.00,0.00,24.55,0.00,48.45,21.59,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.15,0.00,5.27,0.00
I0867_Israel_PPNB_8700_ybp,0.00,0.00,24.75,0.00,50.23,23.02,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,2.00,0.00
ChalcolithicIranian_,0.00,0.00,0.00,62.27,29.64,2.19,5.89,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00
I1290_Iran_Ganj_Dareh_N_9846_ybp,0.00,0.00,0.00,68.04,6.02,0.00,20.99,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,4.95
I1293_Iran_HotuIIIb_all_10800_ybp,0.00,0.00,0.00,68.97,0.00,0.00,23.56,0.00,0.00,1.53,1.03,0.00,4.91
I1945_Iran_Ganj_Dareh_N_published_9800_ybp,0.00,0.00,0.00,70.42,0.00,0.00,24.85,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.38,2.19,2.16
Siclian_Beaker_I4930,15.32,6.54,38.77,12.25,22.74,4.38,0,0,0,0,0,0,0
Otzi,16.85,0,39.58,0,25.76,3.26,0,6.28,1.63,0,2.19,4.43,0
 
Firstly, the Ancient Greeks examined in Lazaridis et al 2017, have zero connection to the Levantines of their time. Furthermore, the article asserts that there has been genetic continuity since then, with only some dilution of early neolithic ancestry:

Lazaridis et al. (2017) found that the Mycenaeans mostly carried J2a1 from Anatolia, while J-P58 (J1c3) is the main Y-DNA haplogroup for the Jews, which is associated with the Neolithic expansion of Semitic languages in the Middle East. E-M35 (E1b1b) from the Horn of Africa is prevalent (15-30%) among the Jewish population, which is ancestral to E-V13, the European clade of hg E. E-V13 (E1b1b1a2) from the Balkans is the second most common haplogroup for the Greeks. Overall, the Greeks are much younger than the Jews as a population and the Jews are also more shifted to Arabs and North Africans than to Europeans.

Principal-component-analysis-PCA-of-Jewish-populations-combined-with-other-HGDP-groups.png



 
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
Yes i know the process was diffrent
But the the final result
Is that there is overlapp in genetic markers
..
Who and when could be the source.:unsure:
That is the big question...:)
P.s
And in mdlpk23b( where there is cretan reference) after romanian jews my closest is cretans almost the same distance before sicilians or any other south italian:unsure:

If we speak about ancients though my closest are late antiquity romans :cool-v:
 
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
 
We go around and around and around, but some things are clear:

We've known since the 2016 Kilinc paper often discussed here that if one Anatolian sample is to be used for Southern Europeans, it is the Tepecik one, or perhaps the Kumtepe one.

From Kilinc:
"Previous work [6] had noted genetic affinity between Kumtepe from northwest Anatolia and the Tyrolean Iceman [23] from northern Italy. We found that the three Remedello individuals from Chalcolithic northern Italy [24], largely contemporary and possibly genetically and culturally affiliated with the Iceman, also had high affinity to Kumtepe in D statistics (Figure 3B; Data S3). A similar tendency for Kumtepe allele sharing was seen for a Chalcolithic individual from Hungary, CO1 [7], but was non-significant (Figure S3E; Data S3). Intriguingly, the Iceman/Remedello group was more similar to Kumtepe than to Boncuklu, Barcın, Tepecik-Çiftlik, or European Neolithic individuals. We further found that both Kumtepe and the Iceman/Remedello group carried more CHG alleles than other Neolithic populations (Figure 3C). This pattern of additional CHG allele sharing simultaneously observed in Iceman/Remedello and in Kumtepe is not mirrored in convergent allele sharing with other European hunter-gatherers (Figures S3F and S3G). We also found that Tepecik-Çiftlik individuals were consistently closer to Iceman/Remedello and to Kumtepe than to any other Anatolian or European early Neolithic population, including their contemporary Barcın and the neighboring Boncuklu (Figure 3D). These results point to gene flow from an eastern source into Chalcolithic Kumtepe and later into Europe, which could have crossed central Anatolia already before the Chalcolithic."

"
Nearly 1,500 years later, Tepecik-Çiftlik and Barcın, fully established Neolithic populations practicing mixed farming (and within 200 km east and 400 km northwest of Boncuklu, respectively), were significantly more diverse (Figure 2B). Part of this increased genetic diversity could be linked to (1) putative southern gene flow (Figure 3A) that could be related to the Aceramic Neolithic to Pottery Neolithic transition in the Neolithic Levant or could be related to widespread interactions in the late Aceramic Neolithic between central Anatolia and the Fertile Crescent in the late Pre-Pottery Neolithic B [26]; (2) migration from the east related to similar factors of inter-regional exchanges (Figure S3D); and (3) admixture among local populations. Southern and eastern gene flow into Tepecik-Çiftlik is consistent with the site’s presumed role as an obsidian hub and its cultural links with the Levant and might have started already before the Pottery Neolithic [15, 16]. For Barcın, these results are also in line with archaeological evidence indicating cultural influx from central Anatolia [27]. This diverse Neolithic population most likely served as one of the sources for the well-documented wave of Neolithic migration to Europe [8, 9]."

". Finally, the Tepecik-Çiftlik population shows significant affinity to the Iceman/Remedello group and Kumtepe relative to other Anatolian and European Neolithic populations (Figure 3D); but Tepecik-Çiftlik also predates Iceman/Remedello by approximately 3,000 years. This implies gene flow events from Tepecik-Çiftlik-related populations into the Kumtepe-related west Anatolian populations, as predicted by archaeological evidence [29], and further gene flow that reached northern Italy by the fourth millennium BC. We propose an additional, yet undescribed, gene flow process from Anatolia into Europe as a better explanation than a contribution from a hypothetical third source into Neolithic central Anatolia, Chalcolithic northwest Anatolia, and Chalcolithic central Europe. Thus, Neolithic population dynamics that initiated in the Anatolian region resulted in multiple waves of expansion and admixture in west Eurasia."

From the first analysis of The Iceman by Dienekes, it was clear that he was both more "Southern" and "Eastern" than the other samples, and it was often stated here.

Kilinc explained why. I have no idea why so little attention to this paper was paid in other places. Probably because it had nothing to do with the almighty Indo-Europeans.

My general takeaway from the paper has always been and still is that a slightly more Levantine and perhaps also more CHG like farmer flowed into Europe from the beginning, and that continued into the late Neolithic/early Chalcolithic in some places.

Therefore, it has always been a mystery to me why it was always Barcin which was used.

Another problem, perhaps for other analyses, is what seems to me a total misunderstanding of the nature of the so called "Philistine" samples. There is only one quasi Philistine sample, as Jovialis pointed out, and that is the only one which should be used.

There is absolutely no logical sense in using some mish mash of residents and transients, samples which were not tested for whether they were local as a source for determining the genesis of Southern Italians. People should take a look at how Patrick Geary handled this issue in his work on the Langobards. Now that was exemplary scholarship.

This is all over and beyond the fact that using such ancient sources instead of proximal samples is always fraught with problems.

I've been curious to see, for example, some of the "modeling" done of Tuscans which assumed that there was a folk migration into Tuscany from Anatolia in the first millennium BC. before we discovered that no such thing happened. At least in that case they had the musings of Herodotus to rely on. To my knowledge there is absolutely nothing textual which supports a migration of a specifically Levantine group into Southeastern Europe at the relevant time.

Oh, and there's the fact that Raveane et al's ABA sample is less than 2% Levantine.

That has also not been addressed.

When specific issues are raised about an analysis, it isn't helpful to ignore the issues and go on to collateral matters.

The issues should be addressed and further modeling done to show the changes, if any, in the conclusions.

As for the samples of modern Italians generally for use in these kinds of calculator, when the samples are those volunteered by "hobbyists", I have little faith in them. Even with the best good faith in the world, people don't always know their exact ancestry, and there's too much room for people with bad faith to cherry pick samples, and in a country like Italy there's always enough variation that you can find some outliers. That's why academic samples should be used; there is some attempt in almost all cases to verify the ancestry of all four or at least three out of four grandparents, and there is also an attempt to get a representative sample. Or don't hobbyists believe in the statistical principle of representative testing anymore, or perhaps even know the difference?

In fact, maybe someone with the time and the technical ability should try to create a tool like the G25, but using only academic samples, and publishing a white paper providing clear transparency as to which samples were used.

That was certainly done by Dienekes, who happily let others create calculators using his initial work as a guide. Now, is he just a stalwart believe in free science, or did he have nothing to hide.
 
Lazaridis et al. (2017) found that the Mycenaeans mostly carried J2a1 from Anatolia, while J-P58 (J1c3) is the main Y-DNA haplogroup for the Jews, which is associated with the Neolithic expansion of Semitic languages in the Middle East. E-M35 (E1b1b) from the Horn of Africa

The exact origin of E1b1b is not known. It is as or actually more likely it originated in North Western Africa (Nile valley/Egypt) or the Levante/Southern Near East. The Horn of Africa origin theory is just one and its unproven, like the other possibilities. In my opinion its most likely associated with Basal Eurasian and in Southern Arabia haplogroup J expanded fairly late from the North - with Semites it came back again later, which explains the affiliations of Jewish, Arabian, but also older Semitic branches of J, in contrast to those which stayed in the Northern region of the Near East.

We should wait for more Mesopotamian aDNA in particular, because I think that large scale expansions originated from there at different times.

@Angela:
I'm ok with your post, good points, but one thing:
In fact, maybe someone with the time and the technical ability should try to create a tool like the G25, but using only academic samples, and publishing a white paper providing clear transparency as to which samples were used.

Yes, we all would prefer that, but for many people there are no samples, many academic samples are packed with outliers and bad too and especially for the regional variation there is often just a void. Yet with the samples of G25 you consistently get solid results which make sense for most people. There are some deviations and extremes (like for Austrians too), but all the regional samples appear to be better than the handful of academic samples with their restrictions and failures. Like you can create a consistent PCA, consistent admixture runs with this samples. Probably because the variation in Southern Italy and Sicilia in particular is more extreme than in many other places? I saw some indivduals scoring 8 North African and others almost zero, if you get, and if its just by chance, some individuals from one group of villages you might pull in this or that direction quite hard. Also, the sample sizes are, at worst, mainly too small in my opinion.
Seriously it would be ideal to have tested, verified, academic samples from every region of Europe and the world, but as things are, G25 as it is can be considered the next best thing and of course, he does regularly integrate academic samples! So why not provide them to him and argue with him about that, if he missed one - probably in good faith. I often read about samples being added simply because someone pointed to it and reminded him. This is no bad intention, he does a good job in my opinion.
 

This thread has been viewed 188632 times.

Back
Top