| Forum | Europe Travel Guide | Ecology | Facts & Trivia | Genetics | History | Linguistics |
| Austria | France | Germany | Ireland | Italy | Portugal | Spain | Switzerland |
 Eupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
|
Does IBD analyses show high Greek admixture in Western Jews?Originally Posted by Angela
I am aware that Slavic ancestry in Ashkanazi Jews is around 15-20%.
They actually overlap, Moesan, although some Askenazim are north of them.
What pulls Moroccan Jews away a bit is that they have some Berber and a bit of SSA, although much less than the Muslim North Africans as to the latter.
As to how they picked up their 10-15% "Slavic" in some cases, the speculation is that when they fled to the Kingdom of Lithuania from the pogroms of the Crusader Era in eastern France and Germany, some of the tribes in the area were still pagans, and therefore the women were converted and married. That was a crime punishable by death according to Christian authorities, so it does seem like a plausible idea.
The R1a present among Jews, and particularly among Levites, is the "Asian" type, and therefore probably absorbed in the Middle East imo.
The relative scarcity of "Slavic" markers among the Ashkenazim surprised me a bit given what we know happened to Jewish women during pogroms, including Cossack raids. However, I believe Jewish law permits termination of the pregnancy until the child "quickens", so perhaps that was a response to those pogroms. It happened a lot in Europe during the Nazi era and afterwards, even though it was prohibited by the Church and State.
Thanks for precisions. I wasn't a "connoisseur" concerning Jews. WHat I only stated is that Jews stayed in around Middle East among genetically close enough Muslims had a bit more 'Caucasus' and "preserved" themselves as a whole from SSA admixture.
I don't know the samples sizes. What I see on the PCA you provided is that Askhenazes seems less homogenous than Shepharades, and some of them stayed close when others went away a bit. More contacts with more diverse neighbours?
Sephardics didn't pick up the Slavic ancestry because they were in Spain, then some in North Africa, others in Turkey and other places in the Ottoman Empire.
They have a distinct "language" of their own called Ladino, based on Spanish, whereas the Askenazi spoke Yiddish, a dialect of German which they kept even through long centuries in eastern Europe. Even their liturgical rites, foods, etc. are very different.
Despite the fact that the Ashenazim have more variety, they are still all 4th to 5th cousins on sites like 23andme (IBD sharing), because the millions of them all descend from a very small group of survivors from Germany who fled to the east. The difference may just be varying levels of Germanic, Slavic etc., in addition to a big chunk of Southern European.
As you can see from the PCA, most of them are quite removed from the Muslims of the Near East.
It's the same story everywhere. They have picked up local ancestry in every locale in which they sheltered, almost always through the incorporation of women, although it wasn't known by later generations. They practiced strict endogamy, and thought they always had.
I suppose it's somewhat similar to situations like that of the Afrikaners, although they have less "local" ancestry. Some African and Asian women were incorporated very early and then conveniently forgotten. Those not incorporated became the "Coloureds" of Cape Town.
Non si fa il proprio dovere perchè qualcuno ci dica grazie, lo si fa per principio, per se stessi, per la propria dignità. Oriana Fallaci
I read the paper that you mentioned: The place of Armenian in the Indo-European language family: the relationship with Greek and Indo-Iranian
"Armenian, Greek and Indo-Iranian are unified by the *r/n- heteroclitic declination (seen also in Celtic) and the semantics. ... A commonly cited morphological feature found in Armenian, Greek and Indo-Iranian (and also Celtic) is the instrumental marker *bi(s). ..."
He is not wrong.
Are there any cultural (archaeological) similarity between ancient/modern north Iran and the celts?
I think PIE speakers including the celts appeared around 1,600 bc with vajra(or thunderbolt = snake) for the first time. Before that, there seems to be no evidence of any people to speak PIE in ancient Europe. I always think that PIE words carriers are totally different from PIE speakers.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EENEN_LW...jpg&name=small
Actually, the closeness between PIE and american Indian language is claimed, however no archaeological connection:
FrankN said...Since I mentionned possible relations between the PIE and the Proto Nivkh-Algic-Wakashan (PAW) vocabulary in my previous comment, and remember someone having asked about it not too long ago, here follow several examples.
Sources: S. Nikolev 2017 http://www.jolr.ru/files/(232)jlr201...4(250-278).pdf
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appen...n_Swadesh_list
"belly": PAW *ʔVta:gA, PIE *úderos
"big": PA *meʔł (Miami-Peoria mehš-i), PIE *méǵh₂s
"burn": PNA *tu(:)ʁwV, PIE dʰegʷʰ-
"come": PW *Gi:, PIE *gʷeh₂-
"die": PNA *mo:ryV, PIE *mer-
"dog": PAW *q’änV, PIE *ḱwṓ(n) [a Wanderwort]
„drink“: PAW *hək’ʷE (also „water“), PIE *h₁egʷʰ-
"egg": PNA *ʔə:wV, PIE *h₂ōwyóm
"fish": PAW *ǯu: , PIE *dʰǵʰu- (->Balto-Slav. *źū́ˀs)
"good": PA *wal-, *wel- [comp. Engl. "well"]
"hair": PAW *həpV(-lV), PIE *pulh₂-
"I": PAW *ńV, PIE *me (a paleo-word)
"kill" PAW *χVlV ≈ *ʔVlχV (compare to English!)
"to lie": PAW *łi:hV, PIE *légʰyeti
"long": PAW *gɨl’V, PIE *dl̥h₁gʰós (metathesis?)
"man, male": PWN *wi:s-, PIE *wiHrós
"meat": PAW *mi:-, PIE *mḗms (a paleo-word, c.f. Malay makan "to eat)
"moon": PAW *l’u:ŋ’ʒV, PIE *lowksneh₂
"night" PAW *ńä:gʷE ~ *ńä:gʷTV, PIE *nókʷts
"nose": PWS *nic-, PIE *Hnéh₂s
"one": PAW *ń’ə, PIE *(H)óynos
"round" PAW *kOlxV ~ *k’Olk’V [No PIE root given, but compare to "wheel" terminology]
"say": PW *wa:-, PIE *wéwket
"see": PWN *du:qʷ-, PIE *derḱ-
"small": PNi *məc-ki-, PIE *mey-
"this": PAW *gV ~ *gʷV, PIE *koh₂ (a paleo-word)
"warm": PWN *kʷu:xʷ-, PIE *gʷʰer-
"water": PAW *hək’ʷE ≈ *ʔəhk’ʷE, PIE *h₂ekʷeh₂
"what, who": PAW *qV, *gʷV; PIE *kʷis (a paleo-root, equally present in PU)
"Woman": PWN *Gən- ; PIE *gʷḗn
"far (away)": PAlg *wa:ɣl-aw, PIE *wi
„heavy“: PWN *Gʷi:- , PIE *gʷréh₂us
For the record, I believe the Reich Lab will find that the branches like Balto-Slavic, Germanic, Celtic-Italic, spread from the steppe westwards. That's also the hypothesis I've always thought the evidence favored.
Clearly there are people hear who think otherwise. That's fine. However, to post and re-post certain hypotheses when there is no engagement or discussion with others is spamming, an activity for which there are consequences.
That is power I do have, while others I do not.
Did I read somewhere on this thread that the Southern Arc paper will actually be three papers, proceeding chronologically from the oldest period to perhaps the Classical Era?
If that's the case, then with such old samples and their paucity of numbers and limited mobility, the Reich Lab in this first paper will not be tested as to whether they, like other population geneticists, fall prey to the error that every sample in a location means that sample had a significant impact of the genetics of that locale. :)
I "am" interested to see how much "Natufian" the first farmers of the Levant passed to, say, Anatolian farmers and Iranian farmers. and how much, therefore, went into Europe. Seems a strange thing to try to quantify, however. What does it add in place of using Anatolian Neolithic or Iran Neo as we always have? I mean, we get it, this group contributed a lot to the development of civilization in the Near East, but so did the others, and it was, after all, the Anatolian Neolithic farmers who transformed Europe, along with the Iran Neolithic, or CHG people, later on.
It also seems to me that this completely discards the Lazaridis et al. 2018 pre-print. I don't get it, didn't two other papers verify the existence of the Dzudzuana population?
From my recollection it argued that the Paleolithic Caucasus (Dzudzuana) was Anatolian_N-like. Moreover that the Natufians were mostly Dzudzuana plus about a quarter Iberomaurisian. While CHG was ANE enriched Dzudzuana.
Maybe the Reich paper will address that too, and give an explanation, I hope.
That being said, I assumed Anatolian_N was simply a holdover from the Paleolithic Caucasus, rather than a mix of WHG and Levantine sources.
^^Reich is also a co-author of the Lazaridis pre-print so maybe there is something in the new paper that will explain it. Maybe we will finally get to see those samples too.
There are actually huge similarities between them, for example look at this book:
What you see on the cover of this book is a golden Celtic torc which has been found in Gilan and dates back to the second millennium BC (Bronze age).
- Sintashata contacted that area, however, it is a problem to connect sintashta culture to ancient celts:What you see on the cover of this book is a golden Celtic torc which has been found in Gilan and dates back to the second millennium BC (Bronze age).
"The Sintashta fortified settlements (Arkaim and Sintashta) have round walls and moats [8; 9]. The housesare blocked together. Direct analogies with them are known only in Anatolia (Demirchiuyuk, Pulur, Mercin),Syro-Palestine (Rogem Hiri) and the Transcaucasus (Uzerlic-Tepe) [10 – 13]. Sintashta burial traditions areidentical to ones in this region too. Other artefacts (metal, ceramics etc.) have parallels there [14]"
- South caucasus culture reached china bronze where torharian language, celtic symbol and sintashta culture were found. However, seima turbino and karashuk people went down there:
"This horse-drawn chariot is ·a technically sophisticated. artifact requiring special skills and resources for its construction, use, and maintenance. Two specific features of Anyang chariots are the large number of wheel spokes (from eighteen to twenty-six. as compared with four, six, or eight in the Near East) and the mounting of the axle not at the rear edge of the box, but midway between front and back. In western Asia both features are known only from mid second-millennium chariots buried at Lchashen in the Caucasus, and for the moment these are the closest relatives of Anyang chariots, indicating a strong influence from those areas.
- So is there any possibility for scythian to bring the ancient iran culture to ancient celtic people?
"One main line of enquiry is the relationship between the central European Celts and their nomadic Eurasian neighbours (often referred to as Scythians or Sarmatians), who inhabited the European end of a grassland (steppe) corridor that stretched east towards Central Asia and China. Longstanding routes of communication across these semi-deserts and steppes, which later formed part of the Silk Road, are known to have played a significant role in earlier artistic and cultural exchanges between East and West."
Exactly. It's unbelievable that there are still people using the g25.
But this is nothing new, that's basically what he said in the lecture at the israeli Institute: "the steppe served only as a secondary staging area of Indo-European language dispersal".
I'm a descendant of the so-called "Barbarians" and root for advancement and civilization too. However, being the civilized core doesn't always translate into being more humane, peaceful, and less violent or cruel.
It would be a very narrow approach to see only the predators in the "Barbarians" and not also in the "civilized ones". In that regard, it must be pointed out that Roman expansionism was predatory to its core. The Roman Empire was predatory in nature, meaning that it believed in military-based practices and growth. In addition, like many empires in the ancient world, was, at least partially, a system of the predatory type, with an economy widely based on slave labor.
Of course, living under the Romans was way better than living under the Hun, Mongol, Assyrian, or Aztec rule. Nonetheless, the Romans viewed and prided themselves on being Apex predators so to speak: It's for a reason that in Rome several icons such as the Eagle, Wolf, Bear, Minotaur, and later Lion were carried as the symbols of Roman Legions.
Furthermore one of the defining symbols of ancient Rome is a remarkable piece of animal folklore. The image of it is still to be seen everywhere in Rome: The twins Romulus and Remus crouching beneath a she-wolf and suckling her milk. Mythology is a way of understanding the world. It is not always right in all aspects.
The stories people tell about themselves are most revealing. The parts of folklore which appeal to us are deeply revealing. For the Romans wolves played a vital part in their myths, about the world and about themselves.
For the Romans what did they see when they looked at the babies and the she-wolf? The sons of a warlike god and a mortal imbibing animal strength from their adopted mother. Their descendents, those who looked on the statue, would know that they had the best of all worlds – human wit, animal power, and that divine spark which would give them Imperium sine fine – An Empire without end!
Civilization and Advancement came along with lots of suffering and sacrifices. Think of all the millions of slaves who under inhumane conditions worked in mines, in agriculture, or who were forced to build all these impressive huge monuments and buildings. The blood, sweat, and tears of past generations throughout Europe are what gave us the advanced Western societies we enjoy today.Think of all the suffering which could have been avoided.
[QUOTE=Angela.........
The Romans weren't like the steppe people, including the Huns, or even like some of the empires in the east. All they cared about was taxation..............
[/QUOTE]
I see what you’re saying. That said, the Romans were quite a bit like the Steppe people, since they were aggressive expansionists and imperialists that glorified war and conquest. I say that without being disparaging but to set the record straight. According to another origin myth Rea, a Silvia fell pregnant and gave birth to twin boys, Romulus and Remus. When asked who the father was she claimed it was the god Mars. Mars was the Roman god of war and second only to Jupiter in the Roman pantheon. He was said to love violence and conflict. His persona represented military power and the noise and blood of battle. Since he was the father of Romulus and Remus it was believed he would come to the aid of Rome during times of conflict or war. So, the Ancient Romans considered themselves the sons of Mars the God of war.
Here's the thing, the Romans cared a lot about glory and honor too, and thus not only about taxation. That's why Julius Caesar planned to invade the Parthian Empire. And generals like Marcus Crassus, Marcus Antonius, and several Emperors tried to invade Persia. All for the sole purpose of prestige, and glory, and imitating Alexander the Great, who himself imitated the Greatest Greek warrior, Achilles. Besides, why do you think the Romans conquered Britain? Because Emperor Claudius needed a military victory, a successful conquest, to be a legitimate and respected ruler.
The truth of the matter is, that the Romans themselves were a warrior society, prone to war and brutality. Surely, they were not like the Huns or Mongols because they brought some advancement and sophistication with them. Plus, the Romans followed a carrot and stick approach in order to keep the Pax Romana and make their Empire last.
How about the Romans being nice like the Etruscans by staying in their city-state, instead marching with their army to other people's countries to bully them into submission?If you accepted incorporation into the Empire the only real difference was that a portion of your taxes was forwarded to Rome by your elites. You weren't killed or enslaved unless you resisted. You could also keep your own language, customs, religion, and even elites. Even if you were enslaved, you could buy your freedom and build a life for yourself. It wasn't the slavery of the Americas. Was it worth facing annihilation to resist them?
The point is that the Romans thought they were born to conquer and rule others. And thus, if people dared to defend their country against being invaded by them, they were crushed and enslaved.
Tacitus, a critique of Roman imperialism describes in his work this mindset behind the Roman Empire.
It is no use trying to escape their arrogance by submission or good behaviour. They have pillaged the world: when the land has nothing left for men who ravage everything, they scour the sea. If an enemy is rich, they are greedy, if he is poor, they crave glory. Neither East nor West can sate their appetite. They are the only people on earth to covet wealth and poverty with equal craving. They plunder, they butcher, they ravish, and call it by the lying name of “empire”.
They have plundered the world, stripping naked the land in their hunger… they are driven by greed, if their enemy be rich; by ambition, if poor… They ravage, they slaughter, they seize by false pretenses, and all of this they hail as the construction of empire. And when in their wake nothing remains but a desert, they call that peace.
Tacitus, The Agricola and The Germania
Sorry, Angela but I have to be honest here and say, that you have a somewhat romantic view of the Romans. The Romans unlike the Etruscans resembled the "Steppe folks" in how they operated in the world. Plus, it appears as if you're really disgusted by Steppe people and their legacy. Anyway Language transmits culture because language is the generative force that creates culture. That explains why the Indo-European-speaking Romans/Latins were more warlike than the Etruscans who weren't Indo-European speakers.
@real expert
The Romans and Etruscans were pretty similar genetically despite the wide linguistic difference.
Some experts believe that Kimg Servius Tullius who re-organised Roman society in the 6th century BC and made it more militarily efficient was actually an Etruscan adventurer from Vulci called Macstarna.
Rome's material culture was derived from Etruscans and Greeks who were influenced by the Fertile Crescent not the Steppe directly.
The Germans of Agricola's time were as much descended from indigenous hunter-gatherers with some EEF as invaders from the Steppe.
If you read the early history of Rome you will find that Rome started off largely in defensive mode fighting for survival against Etruscans (not so peaceful), various Apennine mountain tribes and the Gauls from the Po Valley who actually sacked the city in 390 BC.
Rome only expanded outside Italy as a result of wars with Carthage and the Hellenistic states.
Better to say the Latins, Romans is a term that later ends up being just a citizenship in the Roman imperial era.
This is the Orientalizing period, but both Etruscans and Greeks are older than Orientalizing. Even the Latins and Italic peoples have their own Orientalizing phase.
In general, no Iron Age people are influenced by the Steppes because the Jamna culture is thousands of years earlier.
The one who has an imaginative view of the ancient world is you. The Romans resembled the "Steppe folks" is indeed an obsolete Romantic idea of the ancient world. What you write are simple platitudes.
The Romans first of all were the fusion of several peoples, although the initial Latin contribution is undeniable. It is the name borrowed from the city of Rome of its citizens, and from the beginning Rome hosts people from at least three different backgrounds, Latins, Etruscans, and Sabines, who will very soon be joined by everyone else. It is worth mentioning that Rome was on the border between the Latin and Etruscan worlds, so on the border that the northern side of the Tiber River, which is now in the historic center of Rome, was Etruscan territory. Even the name Rome itself may be of Etruscan origin.
The Romans borrowed much from the Etruscans, including in the military field. Even gladiatorial games are believed to be of Etruscan origin. The idea that the Etruscans were a peaceful people as opposed to the warlike Romans is another commonplace. The Romans subjugated peoples of all kinds of languages, including Indo-European languages. So the dichotomous idea you present of a connection between language and warlike mentality is again a simplistic idea.
Too bad there is a hypothesis that even the twins' name Romulus and Remus is of Etruscan origin. De Simone's hypothesis reported even by Carandini. It is all much more complicated than the simplistic picture you make.
Last edited by Pax Augusta; 06-08-22 at 13:24.
Global25 is actually perfectly capable of detecting Steppe in the samples that have it. Are you opposed to PIE from Steppe?
Protovillanovan and Villanovan cultures, from wich both Etruscan and Latins facies are derived, are a direct emanation of the urnfield culture. I'm not aware of direct "fertile crescent" influence nor in Etruscans, nor in Greeks, at least not at the start of the Iron age.
Vallicanus is referring to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientalizing_period
It does not entail the newest samples in regards to e. g. J1-CTS1026, like the one from Khvalynsk and others Angela was referring to. Apart from that the nomenclatures in that map are very vague and made by an amateur person, clearly. If one might be interested in certain haplogroups and their aDNA coverage there are plenty of groups on e.g. FTDNA where there are also haplogroup researchers and provide those who are interested in specifics with the correct data. There are also public data bases which portray maps and the location of certain aDNA samples, though not often updated and sometimes also incomplete.
Also, that Iranian HG or CHG was Dzudzuana plus ANE?
It's all very confusing. First, a paper came out proposing that the three "farmer" populations of the Near East were completely different from one another.
Then it turned out that Anatolian Neolithic could be modeled as part Levant Neolithic (plus some WHG like admixture, and a bit of Iran Neo), which would mean it's part Natufian, and Levant Neolithic could be modeled as pLart Anatolian Neolithic, which has Natufian in it. Circular admixture to the nth degree, it would seem. That made sense to me, as agriculture stimulated trade and exchange. That's why I disagreed with that paper which said the movement of agriculture to Anatolia wasn't accompanied by any movement of genes.
As I said, lots of hypotheses but no clarity. The Dzudzuana paper did provide that, although how does that jive with papers showing Anatolian Neolithic contained some Levant Neolithic like ancestry.
Perhaps there's something to the hypothesis that the Anatolian hunter-gatherer was a WHG like hunter-gatherer perhaps differentiated in its refugia, which then absorbed Natufian like ancestry?
When questioned about the Dzudzuana paper not coming out in a journal, didn't Lazaridis say something to the effect that there were a lot of new samples to be included or considered or something?
I would whole heartedly agree that you would need lots more samples from lots more time periods and areas in the Near East to sort it out.
Perhaps that will be what is first addressed in the first "Southern Arc" paper?
Was there a WHG like hunter-gatherer throughout the Near East which then absorbed a Natufian like ancestry, some ancestry from the southwest, to create the Anatolian HG? Did that HG in the northeast then absorb ANE?
After that, there was more admixture from south (the Levant) to north and northeast with the spread of agriculture, and later on the spread of CHG like Iran Neo south with some types of metallurgy? That last migration so changed the Near East that Europeans have more Anatolian Neolithic than the Near East.
I certainly can't wait to see how Reich and Co. address these issues.
Well, it does show that there was ancient J1 and J2 on the steppe, and I'm grateful to Stuvane for providing it.
However, if you have a link or file with a complete list of all such samples further refined, could you provide it? That would be very helpful. Thanks in advance for looking for it if it exists.
Last edited by Angela; 06-08-22 at 19:42.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
