What does "Iranian related ancestry" mean?

[ratchet_fan]

Migration and invasion are two very different things, I certainly don't believe that in the Bronze Age some people from Iran invaded and conquered Greece and Italy but they migrated, it is possible that they were forced to migrate and some other people occupied their land.

The most important point is that it is "Iranian related ancestry", not "Anatolian related ancestry" or "Steppe related ancestry" and I don't know why you want to read it another thing, one thing is certainly true and that it is, unlike Mesopotamia, Egypt, ..., in the 3rd, 2nd and 1st millennium BC different people lived in Iran, for example we read about Parhasi (Marhasi) in the east of Elam just in the 3rd millennium BC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marhasi), Sumerian, Akkadian and Elmaite sources say nothing about it in the 2nd millennium, in fact another people live in this region in this period, but Strabo mentions the people of Parrhasii in the northeast of Iran, near to Mukana (Mugan plain) in the southeast Caspian region: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Strabo/11G*.html and then we see Parrhasia, form ancient Greek πᾶς (pâs, “all, every”) +‎ ῥῆσις (rhêsis, “speech”) +‎ -ῐ́ᾱ (-íā), as ancient region in south Arcadia, Greece: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parrhasia_(Arcadia)

What don't you get that it is impossible for Iranian related ancestry to have migrated without being accompanied by Anatolian related ancestry. The two populations were heavily mixed by then.

 

[Shahmiri]

I can't be sure because we don't even know much about what those languages were like. But I do think some languages spoken from the Central-Eastern Mediterranean all the way to South Asia were originally spoken by Iran_Neolithic populations, however I do not think they all belonged to the same language family. My idea is that the Iranian Plateau of the early Neolithic era had a lot of linguistic diversity in consonance with its geographical diversity and very large territory. Among modern language families my main bets for language families derived from some initially mostly Iran_N people would be Dravidian (Eastern Neolithic Iranians) at least 1 of the Caucasian language families from Western Neolithic Iranians (I'd guess Northeast Caucasian, because it is the most likely to be distantly related to Hurrian-Urartian, which also had a reach that correlates strongly with the spread of Iran_N admixture in Anatolia and the Levant).

Homer claimed that besides the obviously Hellenic Achaeans and Dorians Crete had 2 indigenous populations: the Eteocretans (probably the descendants of the decadent Minoan society) and the Kydonians. Were they perhaps not just different ethnic groups, but different linguistically too, even speaking different language families? Crete seems to have received Bronze Age Anatolia influence (with much more CHG and Iran_N embedded into its genetic structure) via the Dodecanese islands, and Minoans had only a minority of that kind of ancestry. Who knows if they shifted their originally EEF language or not? I'd say it's definitely possible and plausible, but we can't say anything else.

I think it's likely that some Iran_N-related languages were spoken in the Mediterranean basin, but they had become mostly extinct by the Early Iron Age when most written documents started to be made.

Look at Figure 5 in this study: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-49901-8

I don't know why this Iran_N which exists in all ancient and modern Indo-European lands in India, Iran, Anatolia, Central Asia and Europe should be source of all diverse languages in these lands, from Dravidian to Minoan and probably also Etruscan and Basque, but not what they have in common!
You talk about indigenous populations and then you say they were those who actually migrated from Iran, it seems you believe there were just two languages in all Indo-European lands, Indo-European and Iran_N-related languages but almost all Iranian ones became extinct when their speakers adopted Indo-European languages!

 

[Shahmiri]

What don't you get that it is impossible for Iranian related ancestry to have migrated without being accompanied by Anatolian related ancestry. The two populations were heavily mixed by then.

In the genetic study that I mentioned in my previous post, we read "Iranian Neolithic could have arrived to Western Mediterranean with different migrations.", other than Anatolia, these migrations could be also through the Caucasus, Levant and even Central Asia to Europe.

 

[Ygorcs]

The problem is that for me, there were surely few pure "Iran Neol" auDNA people in Iran at Bronze Age and Later: the concerned paper about "Iranian Neol" in Western Mediterranea seems very weird to me: it seems they tried absolutely to distinguish Anatolian and Iranian later heritages as components, spite it seems that at Bronze and even before, there was an autosomal cline between West Anatolia and Iran, being no pop purely Anatolian Neol or Iran Neol, only some dominance of one of them at the extremities of the cline. My believing to date is that this famous "Iranian Neol" was send to Western Mediterranea by one or more ethny of Anatolia North Middle East, via Egea or Greece or CYprus (choice), not real geographic Iran. Maybe I am wrong?

Indeed. When you model those Italian and Greek aDNA samples with Iran_N, and CHG including mixed intermediate sources like Tepecik Ciftlik.Pelopponese_N and Anatolia_EBA, the Iran_N and CHG virtually disappear. There is little sense in believing that it is more likely that what happened was a direct migration all the way from the Iranian Plateau to Greece and Italy than a migration of people from the Aegean zone itself to nearby areas. Material culture evidences also indicate an Anatolian influence on the Dodeccanese and via there on Crete, too, roughly during the EBA.

 

[Ygorcs]

Look at Figure 5 in this study: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-49901-8

I don't know why this Iran_N which exists in all ancient and modern Indo-European lands in India, Iran, Anatolia, Central Asia and Europe should be source of all diverse languages in these lands, from Dravidian to Minoan and probably also Etruscan and Basque, but not what they have in common!
You talk about indigenous populations and then you say they were those who actually migrated from Iran, it seems you believe there were just two languages in all Indo-European lands, Indo-European and Iran_N-related languages but almost all Iranian ones became extinct when their speakers adopted Indo-European languages!

This model clearly does not include CHG,which is a better proxy than Iran_N for the admixture found in all populations with steppe admixture, and is using Iran_N+EHG as separate proxies instead of the CA/BA Steppe admixture. Also, Iran_N-like admixture only appears in most of Europe together with EHG, which of course is just because it was in fact Yamnaya-like admixture with a certain ratio of EHG:CHG, that is, the result of migrations from the Pontic-Caspian zone.

No, I don't think there were just "two languages" in all "Indo-European lands". Indo-European expansion reached lands from Scandinavia all the way down to South Asia and to China. Many languages certainly had origins in other ancestral population groups, particularly Anatolia_N-related, Botai/WSHG-related and EHG-related. Also,you seem to be assuming that ALL the Iran_N-related cluster spoke just one language. That's of course extremely unlikely.

Also, it seems you are ignoring the results from Narasimhan et al.'s study on the IVC sample from Rakhigarhi, in which they demonstrate that the Iran_N-related admixture that spread to South Asia was pretty divergent from the Iran_N-related admixture in the Western and Central Iranian plateau which spread to most other areas, having split from it more than 10,000 years ago. So, it's extremely unlikely they would all speak the same language just 5,000 years ago.

 

[Shahmiri]

This model clearly does not include CHG,which is a better proxy than Iran_N for the admixture found in all populations with steppe admixture, and is using Iran_N+EHG as separate proxies instead of the CA/BA Steppe admixture. Also, Iran_N-like admixture only appears in most of Europe together with EHG, which of course is just because it was in fact Yamnaya-like admixture with a certain ratio of EHG:CHG, that is, the result of migrations from the Pontic-Caspian zone.
No, I don't think there were just "two languages" in all "Indo-European lands". Indo-European expansion reached lands from Scandinavia all the way down to South Asia and to China. Many languages certainly had origins in other ancestral population groups, particularly Anatolia_N-related, Botai/WSHG-related and EHG-related. Also,you seem to be assuming that ALL the Iran_N-related cluster spoke just one language. That's of course extremely unlikely.
Also, it seems you are ignoring the results from Narasimhan et al.'s study on the IVC sample from Rakhigarhi, in which they demonstrate that the Iran_N-related admixture that spread to South Asia was pretty divergent from the Iran_N-related admixture in the Western and Central Iranian plateau which spread to most other areas, having split from it more than 10,000 years ago. So, it's extremely unlikely they would all speak the same language just 5,000 years ago.

As several scholars have also said, the original land of Indo-Europeans was in the northwest of Iran and south of Caucasus, it seems to be clear that those who lived in the east of Iran more than 10,000 years ago were not Indo-European.
Narasimhan has actually proved that the steppe ancestry reached South Asia about 1,000 BC but we know an Indo-Iranian culture existed in Mitanni in the west of Iran from at least 1,600 BC, it is possible that these steppe people who came to India had adopted an Indo-Iranian culture but it doesn't matter because the older one existed in the west of Iran, where Hittite, Luwian and other old IE cultures existed.

 

[Ygorcs]

It just seems like the cline between Anatolia_N and Iran_N extended further east than Western Iran. I think it makes sense tbh.

No, it is not just that. They're saying that the Iran_N already had ancient genetic structure before admixing with other very distinct admixtures like Anatolia_N. They assert that according to their analysis the Iran_N-related admixture that spread throughout South Asia had diverged from the similar admixture in Iran_Mesolithic (Belt Cave), still unmixed (almost entirely Iran_N-related) Ganj Dareh herders and ANF-mixed Hajji Firuz and Tepe Hissar farmers before all the latter diverged from each other, suggesting that the Iran-N-related cline had a split between the "eastern" branch that spread to South Asia and the "western" (Ganj Dareh and Hajji Firuz) and "central" (Tepe Hissar) populations even before the advent of farming and herding in the Iranian Plateau, before 10,000 B.C.E.

They are arguing that in the Iranian Plateau different hunter-gatherer populations must have transitioned to herding and later to farming independently, without massive population replacement. If I had to bet, I'd say that the Iran_N farmers that expanded into South Asia lived in what is now Afghanistan, the Pashtun lands of Pakistan and easternmost Iran. Too bad that they didn't test the Central Asian/Turan and Eastern Iran Neolithic to Bronze Age samples to assess if their Iran_N-related admixture was more of the "western/central" kind or of the "South Asian" kind.

Read:
To obtain insight into the origin of the Iranian-related ancestryin the IVC Cline, we co-modeled the highest-coverage individualfrom the IVC Cline, Indus_Periphery_West (who also happens tohave one of the highest proportions of Iranian-related ancestry)with other ancient individuals from across the Iranian plateaurepresenting early hunter-gatherer and food-producing groups:a ~10,000 BCE individual from Belt Cave in the Alborsz Mountains, a pool of ~8000 BCE early goat herders from Ganj Darehin the Zagros Mountains, a pool of ~6000 BCE farmers from HajjiFiruz in the Zagros Mountains, and a pool of ~4000 BCE farmersfrom Tepe Hissar in Central Iran. Using qpGraph (Patterson et al.,2012), we tested all possible simple trees relating the Iranianrelated ancestry component of these groups, accounting forknown admixtures (Anatolian farmer-related admixture into HajjiFiruz and Tepe Hissar and Andamanese hunter-gatherer-relatedadmixture in the IVC Cline) (Figure S3), using an acceptance criterion for the model fitting that the maximum jZj scores betweenobserved and expected f-statistics was <3 or that the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) was within 4 of the best-fit (Burnhamand Anderson, 2004). The only consistently fitting models specified that the Iranian-related lineage contributing to the IVC Clinesplit from the Iranian-related lineages sampled from ancient genomes of the Iranian plateau before the latter separated fromeach other (Figure 3 represents one such model consistentwith our data). We confirmed this result by using symmetry teststhat we applied first to stimulated data (Figure S4) and then evaluated the relationships among the Iranian-related lineages, correcting for the effects of Anatolian farmer-related, Andamanesehunter-gatherer-related, and West Siberian hunter-gathererrelated admixture (STAR Methods). We find that 94% of the resulting trees supported the Iranian-related lineage in the IVCCline being the first to separate from the other lineages, consistent with our modeling results.

Our evidence that the Iranian-related ancestry in the IVCCline diverged from lineages leading to ancient Iranianhunter-gatherers, herders, and farmers prior to their ancestors’separation places constraints on the spread of Iranian-relatedancestry across the combined region of the Iranian plateauand South Asia, where it is represented in all ancient and modern genomic data sampled to date. The Belt Cave individualdates to ~10,000 BCE, definitively before the advent of farminganywhere in Iran, which implies that the split leading to the Iranian-related component in the IVC Cline predates the advent offarming there as well (Figure 3). Even if we do not consider theresults from the low-coverage Belt Cave individual, our analysisshows that the Iranian-related lineage present in the IVC Cline. e predates the advent offarming there as well (Figure 3). Even if we do not consider theresults from the low-coverage Belt Cave individual, our analysisshows that the Iranian-related lineage present in the IVC Clineindividuals split before the date of the ~8000 BCE Ganj Darehindividuals, who lived in the Zagros mountains of the Iranianplateau before crop farming began there around ~7000–6000BCE. Thus, the Iranian-related ancestry in the IVC Cline descends from a different group of hunter-gatherers from the ancestors of the earliest known farmers or herders in the westernIranian plateau.

 

[Ygorcs]

As several scholars have also said, the original land of Indo-Europeans was in the northwest of Iran and south of Caucasus, it seems to be clear that those who lived in the east of Iran more than 10,000 years ago were not Indo-European.
Narasimhan has actually proved that the steppe ancestry reached South Asia about 1,000 BC but we know an Indo-Iranian culture existed in Mitanni in the west of Iran from at least 1,600 BC, it is possible that these steppe people who came to India had adopted an Indo-Iranian culture but it doesn't matter because the older one existed in the west of Iran, where Hittite, Luwian and other old IE cultures existed.

As I already said, you're dishonestly misrepresenting what those scholars think is a plausible scenario: they think the ULTIMATE homeland of PIE may have been in the South Caucasus/Northwestern Iran area, BUT with only the Anatolian branch splitting first and developing in situ or nearby in Anatolia, while ALL the other branches derive from a later stage of the PIE language (or we could say another language still closely related to the Early PIE, usually named Late PIE) that evolved and spread from the Pontic-Caspian zone. They do not negate the steppe hypothesis at all, they are just reviving the old Indo-Hittite hypothesis.

As for those who lived in the east of Iran or nearby (maybe Afghanistan and/or westernmost Pakistan, i.e. Pashtun and Baloch lands), they are the ones that spread the Iran_N ancestry to all of South Asia whether they speak IE languages or not ---- and, as you say, they were most likely not Indo-Europan-speaking, so Indo-European languages are still consistent with having been brought by steppe pastoralists during the Bronze Age. Also, Narasimhan et al. only collected a few LBA-EIA samples from South Asia, and their ~1,000 BCE is clearly a terminus ante quem date, not the earliest possible date. Steppe pastoralist ancestry was definitively present in South Asia by ~1,000 BCE, but who knows when it first arrived there? Certainly not you nor any geneticist, considering how tremendously scarce are the aDNA sample set from ancient South Asia until now.

 

[ratchet_fan]

No, it is not just that. They're saying that the Iran_N already had ancient genetic structure before admixing with other very distinct admixtures like Anatolia_N. They assert that according to their analysis the Iran_N-related admixture that spread throughout South Asia had diverged from the similar admixture in Iran_Mesolithic (Belt Cave), still unmixed (almost entirely Iran_N-related) Ganj Dareh herders and ANF-mixed Hajji Firuz and Tepe Hissar farmers before all the latter diverged from each other, suggesting that the Iran-N-related cline had a split between the "eastern" branch that spread to South Asia and the "western" (Ganj Dareh and Hajji Firuz) and "central" (Tepe Hissar) populations even before the advent of farming and herding in the Iranian Plateau, before 10,000 B.C.E.

They are arguing that in the Iranian Plateau different hunter-gatherer populations must have transitioned to herding and later to farming independently, without massive population replacement. If I had to bet, I'd say that the Iran_N farmers that expanded into South Asia lived in what is now Afghanistan, the Pashtun lands of Pakistan and easternmost Iran. Too bad that they didn't test the Central Asian/Turan and Eastern Iran Neolithic to Bronze Age samples to assess if their Iran_N-related admixture was more of the "western/central" kind or of the "South Asian" kind.

Read:
To obtain insight into the origin of the Iranian-related ancestryin the IVC Cline, we co-modeled the highest-coverage individualfrom the IVC Cline, Indus_Periphery_West (who also happens tohave one of the highest proportions of Iranian-related ancestry)with other ancient individuals from across the Iranian plateaurepresenting early hunter-gatherer and food-producing groups:a ~10,000 BCE individual from Belt Cave in the Alborsz Mountains, a pool of ~8000 BCE early goat herders from Ganj Darehin the Zagros Mountains, a pool of ~6000 BCE farmers from HajjiFiruz in the Zagros Mountains, and a pool of ~4000 BCE farmersfrom Tepe Hissar in Central Iran. Using qpGraph (Patterson et al.,2012), we tested all possible simple trees relating the Iranianrelated ancestry component of these groups, accounting forknown admixtures (Anatolian farmer-related admixture into HajjiFiruz and Tepe Hissar and Andamanese hunter-gatherer-relatedadmixture in the IVC Cline) (Figure S3), using an acceptance criterion for the model fitting that the maximum jZj scores betweenobserved and expected f-statistics was <3 or that the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) was within 4 of the best-fit (Burnhamand Anderson, 2004). The only consistently fitting models specified that the Iranian-related lineage contributing to the IVC Clinesplit from the Iranian-related lineages sampled from ancient genomes of the Iranian plateau before the latter separated fromeach other (Figure 3 represents one such model consistentwith our data). We confirmed this result by using symmetry teststhat we applied first to stimulated data (Figure S4) and then evaluated the relationships among the Iranian-related lineages, correcting for the effects of Anatolian farmer-related, Andamanesehunter-gatherer-related, and West Siberian hunter-gathererrelated admixture (STAR Methods). We find that 94% of the resulting trees supported the Iranian-related lineage in the IVCCline being the first to separate from the other lineages, consistent with our modeling results.

Our evidence that the Iranian-related ancestry in the IVCCline diverged from lineages leading to ancient Iranianhunter-gatherers, herders, and farmers prior to their ancestors’separation places constraints on the spread of Iranian-relatedancestry across the combined region of the Iranian plateauand South Asia, where it is represented in all ancient and modern genomic data sampled to date. The Belt Cave individualdates to ~10,000 BCE, definitively before the advent of farminganywhere in Iran, which implies that the split leading to the Iranian-related component in the IVC Cline predates the advent offarming there as well (Figure 3). Even if we do not consider theresults from the low-coverage Belt Cave individual, our analysisshows that the Iranian-related lineage present in the IVC Cline. e predates the advent offarming there as well (Figure 3). Even if we do not consider theresults from the low-coverage Belt Cave individual, our analysisshows that the Iranian-related lineage present in the IVC Clineindividuals split before the date of the ~8000 BCE Ganj Darehindividuals, who lived in the Zagros mountains of the Iranianplateau before crop farming began there around ~7000–6000BCE. Thus, the Iranian-related ancestry in the IVC Cline descends from a different group of hunter-gatherers from the ancestors of the earliest known farmers or herders in the westernIranian plateau.

Interesting. I'm not sure anymore. On a related note would would ydna H carriers have been like if they have existed for more than 30,000 years in South Asia?

 

[Shahmiri]

As I already said, you're dishonestly misrepresenting what those scholars think is a plausible scenario: they think the ULTIMATE homeland of PIE may have been in the South Caucasus/Northwestern Iran area, BUT with only the Anatolian branch splitting first and developing in situ or nearby in Anatolia, while ALL the other branches derive from a later stage of the PIE language (or we could say another language still closely related to the Early PIE, usually named Late PIE) that evolved and spread from the Pontic-Caspian zone. They do not negate the steppe hypothesis at all, they are just reviving the old Indo-Hittite hypothesis.

As for those who lived in the east of Iran or nearby (maybe Afghanistan and/or westernmost Pakistan, i.e. Pashtun and Baloch lands), they are the ones that spread the Iran_N ancestry to all of South Asia whether they speak IE languages or not ---- and, as you say, they were most likely not Indo-Europan-speaking, so Indo-European languages are still consistent with having been brought by steppe pastoralists during the Bronze Age. Also, Narasimhan et al. only collected a few LBA-EIA samples from South Asia, and their ~1,000 BCE is clearly a terminus ante quem date, not the earliest possible date. Steppe pastoralist ancestry was definitively present in South Asia by ~1,000 BCE, but who knows when it first arrived there? Certainly not you nor any geneticist, considering how tremendously scarce are the aDNA sample set from ancient South Asia until now.

No miracle happens, even in 1,000 BC just a few samples have steppe ancestry in South Asia, there are some points in the map that we see in "The formation of human populations in South and Central Asia" by Narasimhan et al:

It can be said that in Europe steppe ancestry existed before arrival of Indo-European people but in South Asia this about 10 percent steppe ancestry came after the spread of Indo-Iranian culture in this region, so they were probably these newcomers who adopted the culture of majority.

 

[Angela]

Has anyone else noticed that with every iteration of Eurogenes' modeling the "steppe" and "WHG" percentages increase and the Anatolia Neolithic diminishes? He's going to model the "Near or Middle Eastern" out of every single North, Central and Eastern European, maybe from everyone except Italians. His employers must be very happy.


The levels are now completely different from anything published by academics.

And, of course, there's ABSOLUTELY no Siberian in Poles, the gods forbid.

 

[Leopoldo Leone]

Has anyone else noticed that with every iteration of Eurogenes' modeling the "steppe" and "WHG" percentages increase and the Anatolia Neolithic diminishes? He's going to model the "Near or Middle Eastern" out of every single North, Central and Eastern European, maybe from everyone except Italians. His employers must be very happy.


The levels are now completely different from anything published by academics.

And, of course, there's ABSOLUTELY no Siberian in Poles, the gods forbid.

Given that you bring up this topic, I want also to point out to the fact that the obsession with Levant ancestry in south Italians and Sicilians is getting worse and worse ( and when what interests you is only ONE component, one aspect, then it is not just neutral "intellectual inquisitivity" but there are other reasons): the old models had 22% Britain gladiator, now there would be a 33 % EBLA.

Peculiar how many people still waste time with such models to prove God knows what point.

 

[Ygorcs]

Given that you bring up this topic, I want also to point out to the fact that the obsession with Levant ancestry in south Italians and Sicilians is getting worse and worse ( and when what interests you is only ONE component, one aspect, then it is not just neutral "intellectual inquisitivity" but there are other reasons): the old models had 22% Britain gladiator, now there would be a 33 % EBLA.
View attachment 12271View attachment 12271
Peculiar how many people still waste time with such models to prove God knows what point.

That's bad modelling, not a problem of the calculator per se. When you include no multiple sources for the CHG, Iran_N and Levant_N in Sicily and other parts of Italy, the algorithms will find the best proxy that can account for all those admixtures simultaneously, and that will probably be something North Levantine. But the problem is that the actual source populations may be something like North Levant_BA + extra Anatolia_N + extra other admixtures, so something that was originated reasonably close to the North Levant, but not North Levantine and perhaps not even from the BA. Those models are not a waste of time for people who aren't bent on interpreting what their results "say" literally, especially if the models are too generic and vague and end up, of course, having less realistic results.

 

[Ygorcs]

Has anyone else noticed that with every iteration of Eurogenes' modeling the "steppe" and "WHG" percentages increase and the Anatolia Neolithic diminishes? He's going to model the "Near or Middle Eastern" out of every single North, Central and Eastern European, maybe from everyone except Italians. His employers must be very happy.


The levels are now completely different from anything published by academics.

And, of course, there's ABSOLUTELY no Siberian in Poles, the gods forbid.

Didn't that study on Siberian Nganasan-like admixture in Northeastern Europe (sorry, don't remember the authors) fail to find non-insignificant % of Nganasan-like admixture even in Estonians (though Finns had a much more relevant signal)? What study demonstrated Siberian admixture reached even further west than the eastern Baltic countries?

What's the specific percentage of ANF that most studies published by academics find in Northern-Central and Northern-Eastern Europeans? I've read some of them, but generally they just say EEF, without specifying the percentage of WHG:ANF implied in the model.

 

[Leopoldo Leone]

That's bad modelling, not a problem of the calculator per se. When you include no multiple sources for the CHG, Iran_N and Levant_N in Sicily and other parts of Italy, the algorithms will find the best proxy that can account for all those admixtures simultaneously, and that will probably be something North Levantine. But the problem is that the actual source populations may be something like North Levant_BA + extra Anatolia_N + extra other admixtures, so something that was originated reasonably close to the North Levant, but not North Levantine and perhaps not even from the BA. Those models are not a waste of time for people who aren't bent on interpreting what their results "say" literally, especially if the models are too generic and vague and end up, of course, having less realistic results.

I still hold that Greek_N-like samples for the neolithic substratum and later only the caucausus related gene flow are sufficient to model the pre-IE admixed peoples of Italy and other parts of south east Europe, and the similarity with north Levant are explained by the fact that a really great portion of the ancestry of the region in the BA was from the Anatolia-caucasus cline.
I don't think it would help to bring about this discussion again, at least in this thread( and I have serious issues with the fact that only six samples for Sicily are present in G25, and their provenance is not transparent: I searched for it but I didn't find any clue); still, what we could all agree with is that the fact the no one in the comments pointed out to such bad modelling, given also the past "theorising" in that blog, is at best a very telling hint of the abilities of the users as population genetists, and at worst conscientiously misleading.
I am sorry if I may sound a bit annoyed but it is getting very tiresome that there is a bunch of people that have dedicated a great deal of their free time to prove the "alienness" of half my country ( and to be clear, I do not accuse any one here of having such an agenda).

 

[Ygorcs]

I still hold that Greek_N-like samples for the neolithic substratum and later only the caucausus related gene flow are sufficient to model the pre-IE admixed peoples of Italy and other parts of south east Europe, and the similarity with north Levant are explained by the fact that a really great portion of the ancestry of the region in the BA was from the Anatolia-caucasus cline.
I don't think it would help to bring about this discussion again, at least in this thread( and I have serious issues with the fact that only six samples for Sicily are present in G25, and their provenance is not transparent: I searched for it but I didn't find any clue); still, what we could all agree with is that the fact the no one in the comments pointed out to such bad modelling, given also the past "theorising" in that blog, is at best a very telling hint of the abilities of the users as population genetists, and at worst conscientiously misleading.
I am sorry if I may sound a bit annoyed but it is getting very tiresome that there is a bunch of people that have dedicated a great deal of their free time to prove the "alienness" of half my country ( and to be clear, I do not accuse any one here of having such an agenda).

As already discussed in this thread, it's very unlikely that the Caucasian/Iranian-related gene flow arrived in pure/unadmixed form as far west as Italy, instead of through an intermediary population that also had other components and was probably something related to Anatolia_Tepecik-Ciftlik in earlier times (Neolithic/Early Chalcolithic) and to Anatolia_EBA a bit later in the EMBA and MLBA. The CHG/Iran_N almost certainly didn't arrive as such, but as a part of something Anatolian (I say "something" because I'm sure Anatolia had significant genetic structure especially before the BA. Part of it might've been more restricted somewhere in Aegean islands or even in mainland Greece for some time before expanding a lot – that won't change much in the final conclusions, because until the Iron Age (western) Asia Minor and Greece were simply part of the same Aegean cultural and economic zone.

So, I don't think a Greek_N substrate + later direct CHG-like flow will be really close to the truth. There was almost certainly something different and directly or indirectly related to Southern Anatolia in the Neolithic and later Anatolia as a whole from the Chalcolithic era onwards.

There is not any reason to believe that that means "alienness", certainly not any more than all the WSHG and East Asian affinities in many Northeastern Europeans (quite on the contrary, because Anatolia and South Caucasus were a lot less divergent from post-Neolithic Europe than those other influences), except for people who have some ideological and ethnocentric agenda, of course. But, sorry if this is how it comes across, I also think it's a bit biased and at the very least sounds like nationalism to claim that there was absolutely no significant change from people living outside the current borders of the "Europe" concept (it's a fiction after all, Europe is a part of Eurasia with no insurmountable barriers to and from it) after the earliest settlement of Europe by Neolithic farmers, so that everyone could claim they have exclusively veeeeeery old and nearly "untainted" roots in the same land. I still maintain that the best way to deal with bigots is not to fall into their traps and play by the same rules that they want to enforce, instead the best reaction is: "okay, even if that were so, so what? It's much better than descending from a bunch of barbarian latecomers that only appear with something really relevant in history in the last millennium". Period. You deal with them by simply showing you don't care about their biases and prejudices at all, because they're indeed despisable and insignificant to anyone who truly understands History.

 

[ratchet_fan]

As already discussed in this thread, it's very unlikely that the Caucasian/Iranian-related gene flow arrived in pure/unadmixed form as far west as Italy, instead of through an intermediary population that also had other components and was probably something related to Anatolia_Tepecik-Ciftlik in earlier times (Neolithic/Early Chalcolithic) and to Anatolia_EBA a bit later in the EMBA and MLBA. The CHG/Iran_N almost certainly didn't arrive as such, but as a part of something Anatolian (I say "something" because I'm sure Anatolia had significant genetic structure especially before the BA. Part of it might've been more restricted somewhere in Aegean islands or even in mainland Greece for some time before expanding a lot – that won't change much in the final conclusions, because until the Iron Age (western) Asia Minor and Greece were simply part of the same Aegean cultural and economic zone.

So, I don't think a Greek_N substrate + later direct CHG-like flow will be really close to the truth. There was almost certainly something different and directly or indirectly related to Southern Anatolia in the Neolithic and later Anatolia as a whole from the Chalcolithic era onwards.

There is not any reason to believe that that means "alienness", certainly not any more than all the WSHG and East Asian affinities in many Northeastern Europeans (quite on the contrary, because Anatolia and South Caucasus were a lot less divergent from post-Neolithic Europe than those other influences), except for people who have some ideological and ethnocentric agenda, of course. But, sorry if this is how it comes across, I also think it's a bit biased and at the very least sounds like nationalism to claim that there was absolutely no significant change from people living outside the current borders of the "Europe" concept (it's a fiction after all, Europe is a part of Eurasia with no insurmountable barriers to and from it) after the earliest settlement of Europe by Neolithic farmers, so that everyone could claim they have exclusively veeeeeery old and nearly "untainted" roots in the same land. I still maintain that the best way to deal with bigots is not to fall into their traps and play by the same rules that they want to enforce, instead the best reaction is: "okay, even if that were so, so what? It's much better than descending from a bunch of barbarian latecomers that only appear with something really relevant in history in the last millennium". Period. You deal with them by simply showing you don't care about their biases and prejudices at all, because they're indeed despisable and insignificant to anyone who truly understands History.

Do you have the breakdown of later Anatolians?

 

[Ygorcs]

Do you have the breakdown of later Anatolians?

"Later" in what sense? From what historic period?

I don't have the results of the scientific publications here at hand, they came from different papers, so I could only make some G25 models quickly to post here.

 

[Angela]

Given that you bring up this topic, I want also to point out to the fact that the obsession with Levant ancestry in south Italians and Sicilians is getting worse and worse ( and when what interests you is only ONE component, one aspect, then it is not just neutral "intellectual inquisitivity" but there are other reasons): the old models had 22% Britain gladiator, now there would be a 33 % EBLA.
View attachment 12271View attachment 12271
Peculiar how many people still waste time with such models to prove God knows what point.

Leopoldo, I think our discussion and experimentation with modeling moderns using various samples as source populations on the Greek/Ashkenazi thread proved something once and for all: IF you wish to, you can, by the judicious choice of certain samples to represent certain populations, get calculators to prove almost anything you wish them to prove.

I've been saying this for almost ten years about his modeling and that of others.

There's an old American saying: figures (numbers) don't lie, but liars "figure" (or use numbers).

It's a fact. Maybe I've been trained to spot fraud or trickery or patterns suggestive of it, or maybe I'm just naturally skeptical by nature, but it has amazed me that so many people have been so gullible for so long that they didn't see it.

I'm in the mood for quotes. P.T. Barnum, great American showman, once said: "A ******'s born every minute, and two to fleece him."

It fits.

 

[Shahmiri]

What do we know about facial features of Iranian Neolithic people?

Face of Tehran’s 7 millennia old woman reconstructed

I don't know why but I think she doesn't look like Iranians!