Genetic and Cultural Differences between Jews and Greeks

Don't waste your time arguing with these type of peoples. They do their best to try to deny European culture. Minorities culturally appropriate every day. They use English, the internet, electricity, modern medicine, refrigeration, air conditioning, cars, trains, planes. But if a European or white person borrows something (usually insignificant and generally useless anyways) from minorities they go crazy.

I beg to disagree. My point is not so much about cultural appropriation but what I find unacceptable is the fact that there is an ideological and cultural war against all kinds of European cultures, regardless whether from North or South Europe. When historical documentaries are being used not to inform and educate the public or the masses but rather to indoctrinate, misinform and misled them, it's not a harmless joke but serious. WHGs are not from a science fiction book but real people that should therefore be accurately represented, especially in a so- called documentary. Whether woke folks and diversity fetishists like it or not they were not black Africans with blue eyes. When history is being rewritten to fit the narrative and confirm (liberal) ideologies and people are being told that they don't exist then that's nothing but full-blown fascism. Keep in mind that during the Cultural Revolution Mao almost erased ancient Chinese history for good.

Double standard, hypocrisy, hostility towards and contempt for European cultures in the name of wokeness accompanied by staggering intellectual dishonesty are the demonstration of power from those who control contemporary Western culture. The attitude of the intellectual and liberal elitists is : We do it because we can. This power play has to be addressed and criticized. “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” ― George Orwell, 1984.
 
Just a speculation for fun: where did Philistines go for their genetic footstep to vitually disappear in Ashkelon_IA2 compared to the earlier (Philistine) Ashkelon_IA1? Did they simply get genocided? Did they vanish into thin air? Did they assimilate so much that their strongly Greek-like (~47%) genetic signal disappeared? Or did they migrate to some Greek Aegean islands and their colonies?


Great questions :unsure:
I wish i had the answers:)
 
@Ygorcs

Dodecad K7b gives me R836 as my closest match, which is Italian, in your list. Which is very close to the two-way admixture I get with R1 and R850, when using just the Iron Age samples.

2uUweWw.png


Here is what this calculator gives the Imperial samples I get for modern populations. I am not sure which "Greek" sample it is using, but I am sure if they had a better Italian set, it would put that instead:

Distance to: R836_Imperial_Era_Civitanova_Marche
3.75981383 Greek

It would be like someone using a cemetery in New York City, to determine the ethnic character of the United States.

I determined samples were Italian or not on the basis of a number of factors: how many Italian individuals among the 15 closest modern correspondences to the aDNA sample are found; if some modern Italian regional admixture is needed to best model the aDNA sample; and if the best model using all available (roughly contemporary or earlier) aDNA samples picks some samples that repeatedly appear when I try these models on modern and ancient Italians, but not so much in those samples from the Aegean zone. For example HRV_EBA, Bell Beaker samples (usually Hungary_EBA, Bavaria, Italy and Iberia) aDNA samples from Sardinia. Armenia_Areni_C also appears in Italian samples in higher percentage than in Aegeans' usually. Aegeans instead usually have higher Iberia_Empuries_2, Mycenaean, Ashkelon_IA1, Alalakh_MLBA, Anatolia_Chalcolithic.

You can differentiate Italians from Aegeans reasonably well that way, I think. At least that's how I differentiated South Italian samples from very closely related (in genetic distance, not necessarily as much in actual genetic history) Greeks or ancient Anatolians, and I think it works better than simply looking the closest individual and immediately taking it as the most likely origin of the ancient individual.

For R836 this is how I determined the individual was really Italian:

[FONT=&quot]Target: ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR836[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Distance: 2.5053% / 0.02505265 | ADC: 0.5x[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]27.0[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Scythian_MDA[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]23.6[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]TUR_Ovaoren_EBA[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]18.8[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]BGR_IA[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]13.8[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]HRV_EBA[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]7.4[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]ARM_Areni_C[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3.6[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]TUR_Isparta_EBA[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3.2[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Levant_Ashkelon_IA1[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2.6[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]TUR_IA_low_res[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Target: ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR836[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Distance: 2.6369% / 0.02636937 | ADC: 1x[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]64.4[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Greek_Izmir[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]35.6[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Italian_Abruzzo[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Distance to:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR836[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]0.02865457[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Greek_Izmir:GreeceSmyrna30[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]0.03152810[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Italian_Campania:NaN238DM[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]0.03173231[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Italian_Abruzzo:Alp503[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]0.03191599[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Italian_Apulia:pu7[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]0.03196929[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Italian_Abruzzo:ALP205[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]0.03211102[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Italian_Basilicata:pG22[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]0.03325512[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Italian_Campania:NaN128LA[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]0.03418200[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Italian_Abruzzo:ItalyAbruzzo22[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]0.03454272[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Italian_Abruzzo:Alp162[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]0.03460323[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Italian_Umbria:pG06[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]0.03462561[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Italian_Apulia:pu2[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]0.03491981[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Italian_Apulia:ALP583[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]0.03523100[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Italian_Molise:pG26[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]0.03527997[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Italian_Basilicata:pG17[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]0.03552152[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Italian_Lazio:NOR28[/FONT]
 
Yes, but Anatolia_BA is a BA admixture, Levant_N is thousands of years earlier, and I still think it is highly unlikely that Anatolia_BA virtually lacked Levant_N when the Pinarbasi_HG paper claimed (I can't judge how credibly) they found significant Levant_N admixture even in the later period of Anatolia_N (Ceramic AF).
I personally find it little recommended, unless you are only looking for very general patterns of genetic distribution in broader clusters, to use widely separate population samples (chronologically), though I agree that sometimes it is just impossible to avoid that due to lack of more proximate samples and/or due to excessively mixed and thus less easily distinguishable samples in later periods.

However, I maintain that if they are still making models based on such early admixtures such as WHG and Anatolia_Barcin, they should add Levant_N or at least Natufian if they think Levant_N is not distinct enough from Anatolia_Barcin (which is a bit arguable, but I can see why they'd think so).

Hmm, though according to this admixture chart, from the Post-Roman era Egyptian paper from 2017, it models Anatolian_N separately from from Levant_N. Moreover, Natufian is modeled with have minor Anatolian_N with a distinguished component of their own:

FPp4ixK.jpg
 
.. highlighted in yellow are considered close to Apulian like.

... glad that none of my matches made the @Ygorcs ‘Foreign Tourists’ list :)

And I'm even gladder than you, because that and Jovialis' closest link to M836 must mean I am doing something right in my interpretations of these data. lol
 
There we go:unsure:
even if you use levant natufian
Instead of levant ppnb
Still sicilians score 10% of it and not shy 8% score
For campanians... :cool-v:
The question we need to ask why south italians
score it more than iberian and mainland greeks(cretans do score it though)
They could get it from greek islanders colonies in italy....

If we split up Imperial_Roman it shows Anatolian BA, but also additional Levantine/Near Eastern, North African and Northern European ancestry. Its interesting if you split up the otherwise quite similar positioned Kos sample, you see the difference. Imperial Romans had Northern-Central European (Celtic-Germanic like) admixture, while Kos is more Eastern shifted (Slavic-Scythian like). Also the Greek samples show, unlike the Italian ones, no North African admixture.
This pattern is consistent into modern samples, as far as I can see. This means even at the time of Imperial Rome, this diverse sample, contained a different variation than in Greeks (more Northern Central-European, more North African, more Levantine), but just scores similar overall to Greek islanders. However, this pattern being projected into modern samples, with an additional increase of especially Northern-Central European ancestry in comparison, but otherwise similar basic ancestry proportions. Italian_Campania is a good comparison for Imperial_Rome. The difference is more Italic and NCE for Campania, rest is similar to Imperial_Rome it seems. At least that's my impression.
 
Just a speculation for fun: where did Philistines go for their genetic footstep to vitually disappear in Ashkelon_IA2 compared to the earlier (Philistine) Ashkelon_IA1? Did they simply get genocided? Did they vanish into thin air? Did they assimilate so much that their strongly Greek-like (~47%) genetic signal disappeared? Or did they migrate to some Greek Aegean islands and their colonies?

You do remember the story of David and Goliath, right? There's your answer.

Can you provide a timeline of the Philistines settling down in Ashkelon (1200BC?) then disappearing entirely genetically and then reappearing in the Greek islands and then their colonies and then appearing in Magna Carta and then Rome. Do include historical references and if possible genetic evidence from respectable authors. Make sure to distinguish the reasons why Crete but not mainland Greece has the Levant signal.
 
You do remember the story of David and Goliath, right? There's your answer.

If you believe in ancient sources written by the winners, you will be almost always led to believe that the people they defeated was completely annihilated and nothing remained of them. More often than not we end up finding out there was quite a bit (or a lot) of exaggeration in their claims of glorious, overwhelming victories.

Can you provide a timeline of the Philistines settling down in Ashkelon (1200BC?) then disappearing entirely genetically and then reappearing in the Greek islands and then their colonies and then appearing in Magna Carta and then Rome. Do include historical references and if possible genetic evidence from respectable authors. Make sure to distinguish the reasons why Crete but not mainland Greece has the Levant signal.

No, I can't, and that's exactly the reason I am asking people about their ideas on what happened to them. Are you triggered by it? Why? Is it the aforementioned unexplained fear of having some even tiny ancestral relationship with those "Arab" Levantines?

Oh, and Crete by the IA was also a Greek island, and a very important one at that. Cyprus is another, and the Levantine ancestry is also there in significant percentages.
 
Since some people suggested here that Levant_N may be misleading due to the Anatolia_N-like ancestry in high percentages already embedded into Levant_N, I tried a model with several distinct source populations (including East Asian and African ones), but now using Natufian, and using INDIVIDUAL samples instead of averages. This is what I got (below). I think results are mostly very credible. You find some Natufian in Jews (of course) and Roma (also not surprising, they migrated through the Near East and the Balkans before expanding throughout Europe), and in the regions of West Asia (also not unexpected), Cyprus, Greece (Aegean islands as well as in the mainland), eastern portions of the Balkans (e.g. in some Moldovans and Gagauzes), Italy, surrounding islands around Italy (mainly Malta, Sicily and Corsica), Spain and Portugal.

All of those are not really surprising with so many intense contacts between Mediterranean areas over several millennia. What really surprises me is another cluster with minor Natufian-like admixture that appears quite consistent, because it's very geographically and ethnically well defined: a Northeastern European cluster formed by Uralic-speaking individuals as well as heavily Uralic-admixed Turkic speakers, i.e. Udmurt, Chuvash, Tatar, Karelian, Vepsian, Karelian and East Finnish (very Karelian-like) individuals.

This might be a big finding or just a very fascinating coincidence in that those populations derived from Proto-Uralics always appear to be heavily drifted, calculators always have some trouble finding good enough fits for them, and some of their main ancestral components may have been drifted in the general direction of the Levant (on a PCA) randomly (how likely is that? I don't know). But it's intriguing that if that's just drift why then doesn't it appear in other heavily drifted population with a lot of EHG+WHG like the West Finns, Russians, Latvians, Belarusians and Estonians?
 
@Ygorcs,

I am not familar with that labeling for the Ashkelon samples,

Below are the labels I took from the study, when creating coordinates for Dodecad K12b, on Vahaduo. From what I can remember, only ASH068 was Greek-like, ASH067 was intermediary between Greece, and Levant_BA, and the rest were mostly Levant_BA like. That being said, only ASH068 is representative of an original "pure" Philistine. However, if Levant_Ashkelon_IA1 is an average of all of the Iron Age samples, that is just incorrect as a component imo.

ASH008_Iron_Age2,10.84,0,4.00,0,11.39,0,0,0.63,29.23,0,43.90,0
ASH029_Late_Bronze_Age,8.31,0,9.61,0,12.28,6.19,0,0,27.92,0,35.69,0
ASH033_Late_Bronze_Age,5.83,0,4.07,0,10.30,3.87,0,0,28.76,0,47.17,0
ASH034_Late_Bronze_Age,10.82,0,3.64,0.66,14.01,0,0,0.84,25.02,0,45.01,0
ASH066_Iron_Age1,9.21,0,7.83,0,15.39,0,5.06,0.07,22.99,0.97,37.59,0.90
ASH067_Iron_Age1,9.18,0,3.02,0,23.86,2.30,0,0,19.31,0,42.33,0
ASH068_Iron_Age1,0,0,0,1.65,39.53,8.59,0,0.65,14.61,0,34.97,0
ASH087_Iron_Age2,5.64,1.37,3.88,0,12.66,0,0,2.67,32.15,0,41.63,0
ASH135_Iron_Age2,5.14,0,17.24,0.39,6.20,6.72,0,3.35,27.59,0,33.18,0.18
ASH2-3_Iron_Age1,4.96,0,12.41,0,10.20,0,4.20,0,1.89,0,66.34,0

As for the fate of the philistines, the study demonstrated that they mixed out of existence after settling into the levant, with the local Levantines.
 
Going back to the original question of the thread, culturally Jews and Greeks don't have much in common. In fact, there are so many regional Jewish populations that even Jews don't have much in common with many other Jews apart from their ancestry and religion (if they are religious, which is less and less the case in the West). An Azerbaijani Jew has probably little in common with a French Jew, just like a Yemeni Jew is worlds apart from a New Yorker Jew.

If we only consider Ashkenazi Jews, their original culture owes a lot of Central and Eastern European cultures, but most now live in the USA and have become culturally American. Once again, not much in common with Greece for, well almost anything.

Genetically, Jews and Greeks share some broad Eastern Mediterranean ancestry from the Neolithic and Bronze Age, but so do most Europeans with one another. An Irish, a Swede and a Pole all have predominantly ancestry derived from the Corded Ware and Central European Bell Beaker people. But that doesn't mean they are considered ethnically close today. They are not even classified in the same ethnic groups (Celtic, Germanic and Slavic).

Ashkenazi Jews probably got most of their South European ancestry in Italy during the Roman Imperial period. They are even Jewish Y-DNA clades that are specifically Roman, like R1b-U152>Z56. Greeks also have a bit of Roman ancestry, but so do a lot of Europeans in former parts of the empire.

Ashkenazi Jews also absorbed some German DNA in the Rhineland during the Early Middle Ages, before expanding east and mixing with Central and East Europeans. Greeks have some East European ancestry too, but from the Gothic and Slavic invasions of the Late Antiquity.

So both populations have a combination of very distant ancestry from more or less the same regions. That's why they plot close on a PCA chart. And incidentally that is why I never use PCA charts as they are extremely misleading.

A group of Ashkenazi Jewish males also belongs to a unique haplogroup that is shared exclusively with Greeks and other south Balkan people: I2a-Y18331-A10959. The Balkan-Jewish split happened an estimated 2,100 years ago (YFull). These Jews are from Baltic and Slavic counties, areas to which Jews migrated. There are no non-Jews in the haplogroup from Poland, Lithuania, etc, but there are a a couple of Chuvash, Russians and Ukrainians. The split must have happened a long time ago because there are no Greeks/south Balkans people and Jews in each other’s subbranches, below A10959. The Jews are below Y23115. It’s also very likely that the Jews in A10959 are very different autosomally than their Baltic and Slavic neighbors.
 
Last edited:
If we split up Imperial_Roman it shows Anatolian BA, but also additional Levantine/Near Eastern, North African and Northern European ancestry. Its interesting if you split up the otherwise quite similar positioned Kos sample, you see the difference. Imperial Romans had Northern-Central European (Celtic-Germanic like) admixture, while Kos is more Eastern shifted (Slavic-Scythian like). Also the Greek samples show, unlike the Italian ones, no North African admixture.
This pattern is consistent into modern samples, as far as I can see. This means even at the time of Imperial Rome, this diverse sample, contained a different variation than in Greeks (more Northern Central-European, more North African, more Levantine), but just scores similar overall to Greek islanders. However, this pattern being projected into modern samples, with an additional increase of especially Northern-Central European ancestry in comparison, but otherwise similar basic ancestry proportions. Italian_Campania is a good comparison for Imperial_Rome. The difference is more Italic and NCE for Campania, rest is similar to Imperial_Rome it seems. At least that's my impression.

Riverman: Let's Ignore the Imperial Roman Samples from Antonio et al 2019. I ran my model fits using just the 11 Iron Age Romans from Antonio et al 2019. I presented the model fits using 3 different calculators in post #137 (Dodecad 12B, MDLP16 and Eurogenes K13). The Dodecad 12B and Eurogenes K13 has the Roman samples there. Jovialis and the Eupedia Team produced the MDLP16 and I think also the Dodecad K7 coordinates for the 127 ancient Roman samples in the Antonio et al 2019 paper.

I am curios what your distances would be using the Iron Age samples only since you are so adamant about the Imperial Roman Samples and inferences being drawn from them, which I don't agree with.
 
Riverman: As an addendum to my Post #137, here is my model fit using the more parsimonious Dodecad K7. Just to reiterate, the 3 models in my post 137 and the one in this thread are only using the 11 Iron Age Roman samples to estimate the distances between Me and Iron Age Rome.

Target: PalermoTrapani
Distance: 0.5866% / 0.58658612 | ADC: 0.25x

95.4R437_Iron_Age_Palestrina_Selicata
3.0R475_Iron_Age_Civitavecchia
1.6R850_Iron_Age_Ardea
 
Regarding G25 PCA, perhaps a way of "judging" it is comparing its results to those from researchers?
By the way, afaik the author of the G25 PCA himself sometimes uses qpAdm to reinforce certain results, to see if the different tools "agree" in something, and researchers may do the same.

From the paper Genetic origins of the Minoans and Mycenaeans (if you guys know about a better one for this purpose, please tell me), from 2017 - as the G25 PCA release, if I'm not mistaken:
https://static-content.springer.com...jects/41586_2017_BFnature23310_MOESM1_ESM.pdf
"In this section, we model these populations using the qpWave/qpAdm framework1 which allows us to model a Left set consisting of a Test population (whose history of admixture we are investigating) and Reference populations (potential sources of ancestry) in relation to a Right set of outgroups.
(...)
We test for rank=N-1 using qpWave and estimate mixture proportions using qpAdm1 . We report only feasible mixture proportions (in interval [0, 1]). We use a significance level of p=0.05 for rejecting models and mark p-values greater than 0.05 (that represent feasible models) in red.
(...)
We test the robustness of the qpAdm estimates by plotting populations with the inferred mixture proportions (Table S2.26) in the weighted average position of their source populations in PCA space. The results (Extended Data Fig. 5) indicate a close correspondence between the two in all models considered.
(...)
The population from Bronze Age southwestern Anatolia does not form a clade with any single (N=1) population of the All set (p-value for rank=0 < 1e-25). It cannot be modelled as any 2-way mixture (Table S2.8), with the best ones involving a mixture of Anatolian Neolithic and either Iran Neolithic or Caucasus hunter-gatherers. This population can be modelled as a 3-way mixture (Table S2.9) of ~62% Neolithic Anatolian, ~32% Caucasus hunter-gatherer (CHG), and ~6% Levantine Neolithic ancestry. This extra Levantine Neolithic ancestry parallels the PCA (Fig. 1b) that shows that the Bronze Age Anatolian sample is to the “east” (towards the Levant) relative to the Minoans and Mycenaeans."

So, according to this tool, the best 3-way mixture for SW Anatolian BA is ~62% Neolithic Anatolian, ~32% CHG and ~6% Levantine Neolithic.

I checked G25 results using R, and supposedly using the same components.
The target is the average for SW Anatolia EBA (Isparta).

Using individuals as source / Using Averages

Scaled and penalty = 0 (default in Vahaduo)
TUR_Barcin_N,53 / 53.4
GEO_CHG,28.6 / 29.6
Levant_PPNB,18.4 / 17

Scaled and penalty = 0.001 (as some people prefer)
TUR_Barcin_N,71.4 / 53.8
GEO_CHG,18.2 / 29
Levant_N,10.4 / 17.2

Unscaled and penalty = 0
Anatolia_Barcin_N,52.2 / 54.6
GEO_CHG,25.8 / 25.2
Levant_PPNB,22 / 20.2

Unscaled and penalty = 0.001
Anatolia_Barcin_N,72.2 / 55
Levant_PPNB,15.2 / 20.2
GEO_CHG,12.6 / 24.8

Substantial differences between the results using individuals (rather than averages) and different penalties.
Vahaduo scaled would return 17-18.4% for Levant_PPNB in SW Anatolia EBA average then. Considering samples from Isparta individually as target (rather than the average), the variation would be something like 14-20.6 in Vahaduo scaled (pen = 0), against those 6% from qpAdm.

Conclusion is: The reference samples are supposedly the same, but for whatever reason there's no agreement between that qpAdm's and G25's regarding proportions. If we use researchers' tools as reference, the Levant Neo contribution for SW Anatolia EBA is possibly overestimated by G25. Whilst using pen = 0.001 may decrease the difference in Levant Neo %, it'd affect negatively the other two, especially CHG.
 
Regarding G25 PCA, perhaps a way of "judging" it is comparing its results to those from researchers?
By the way, afaik the author of the G25 PCA himself sometimes uses qpAdm to reinforce certain results, to see if the different tools "agree" in something, and researchers may do the same.

From the paper Genetic origins of the Minoans and Mycenaeans (if you guys know about a better one for this purpose, please tell me), from 2017 - as the G25 PCA release, if I'm not mistaken:
https://static-content.springer.com...jects/41586_2017_BFnature23310_MOESM1_ESM.pdf

Very clever and useful analysis, Regio. Thank you very much! I wonder what proxy samples they used to represent Anatolia_N. Only Barcin ones, some Barcin ones, or all published Anatolia_N samples, including Tepecif Ciftlik, Kumtepe and Boncuklu as well? If you include the latter in your model using individuals, not averages, and applying 0 higher distance, you get much lower Levant_N (because Kumtepe and Tepecik-Ciftlik had more Natufian IIRC) in a similar proportion to the one estimated in Lazaridis' model, but CHG is what is really underestimated:

TargetDistanceGEO_CHGLevant_PPNBTUR_Barcin_NTUR_Kumtepe_NTUR_Kumtepe_N_low_resTUR_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N
TUR_Isparta_EBA:I24950.0247523722.89.429.45.40.033.0
TUR_Isparta_EBA:I24990.0418861626.412.416.60.01.443.2
TUR_Isparta_EBA:I26830.0317493720.42.00.03.00.074.6
Average0.0327959723.27.915.32.80.550.3
 
The population from Bronze Age southwestern Anatolia does not form a clade with any single (N=1) population of the All set (p-value for rank=0 < 1e-25). It cannot be modelled as any 2-way mixture (Table S2.8), with the best ones involving a mixture of Anatolian Neolithic and either Iran Neolithic or Caucasus hunter-gatherers. This population can be modelled as a 3-way mixture (Table S2.9) of ~62% Neolithic Anatolian, ~32% Caucasus hunter-gatherer (CHG), and ~6% Levantine Neolithic ancestry. This extra Levantine Neolithic ancestry parallels the PCA (Fig. 1b) that shows that the Bronze Age Anatolian sample is to the “east” (towards the Levant) relative to the Minoans and Mycenaeans."


Don't you guys find it a bit weird that, as per Lazaridis' qpAdm model, Isparta_EBA had only 6% Levantine Neolithic ancestry, but it is unmistakably shifted eastward towards the Levant? I mean, if Levant_N was extremely divergent from Anatolia_N, any even reasonably small percentage of that admixture would really cause a quite significant shift, but that usually doesn't happen in any non-negligible way when the additional admixture is from a not so distant source, not in very low proportions.


This is what I'm trying to say:


https://imgur.com/a/BGTB4Ox
 
@Ygorcs

I checked the supplement of Raveane et al 2019, they only use I2683_Anatolia_BA for ABA. Thus it actually has the least amount of Levantine admixture among them. Moreover, If G25 is inflating it, which it seems so, then it truly negligible. Especially, by the time it mixed with other source populations in Italy.

Take a look at the excel sheet: Data file S1 (Microsoft Excel format). Modern and ancient samples used in this study.

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2019/08/30/5.9.eaaw3492.DC1
 
@Ygorcs

I checked the supplement of Raveane et al 2019, they only use I2683_Anatolia_BA for ABA. Thus it actually has the least amount of Levantine admixture among them. Moreover, If G25 is inflating it, which it seems so, then it truly negligible. Especially, by the time it mixed with other source populations in Italy.

Take a look at the excel sheet: Data file S1 (Microsoft Excel format). Modern and ancient samples used in this study.

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2019/08/30/5.9.eaaw3492.DC1

No doubt, I2683 is the one that overlaps with modern SItaly1.

SaOtiQo.png


qZewmh7.png
 
Very clever and useful analysis, Regio. Thank you very much! I wonder what proxy samples they used to represent Anatolia_N. Only Barcin ones, some Barcin ones, or all published Anatolia_N samples, including Tepecif Ciftlik, Kumtepe and Boncuklu as well? If you include the latter in your model using individuals, not averages, and applying 0 higher distance, you get much lower Levant_N (because Kumtepe and Tepecik-Ciftlik had more Natufian IIRC) in a similar proportion to the one estimated in Lazaridis' model, but CHG is what is really underestimated:

TargetDistanceGEO_CHGLevant_PPNBTUR_Barcin_NTUR_Kumtepe_NTUR_Kumtepe_N_low_resTUR_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N
TUR_Isparta_EBA:I24950.0247523722.89.429.45.40.033.0
TUR_Isparta_EBA:I24990.0418861626.412.416.60.01.443.2
TUR_Isparta_EBA:I26830.0317493720.42.00.03.00.074.6
Average0.0327959723.27.915.32.80.550.3
I've tried something similar, using other ANFs (don't remember if all), with the difference I grouped them in only one cluster (TUR_N or something). Since the results were similar to those using Barcin only, I used just this one (Barcin) to make it easier to reproduce. But seeing the numbers you posted, it looks like keeping them divided is better for that purpose. Thank you!

As for the other issue, well, that paper on Epipaleo Anatolian showed that ANF, while mostly AHG (~80%?), already had a bit of Iran Neo and Early Holocene Levantines, and Levant Neo itself had AHG or AAF*, so it can help to explain perhaps? Also, AHG could be modeled as half WHG-like and half Natufian-like:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2018/09/20/422295.full.pdf

*"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."
 

This thread has been viewed 188604 times.

Back
Top