A genetic probe into the ancient and medieval history of Southern Europe and WestAsia

[Salento]

@Salento & Pax,

Are you planning on processing and posting the new samples from these three studies in Dodecad K12b Format?

Hi Pax and Jovialis, I have all the 700+ Coordinates from the Dataset, though when I compared with some of the ENA Bams I got a 0.5 to 2 point distance difference, … I’m not sure which one is more accurate.

All the results that I’ve seen around are from the Dataset, I think.

It would take a long time to process 700+ bams, but if you like I can post the Dod k12b coordinates from the Dataset.

 

[Angela]

Angela: They are in Dodecad12B: I2478 is from the Vahaduo spreadsheet. The Sicilian Beaker I used the Gedmatch kit seen below. The other 2, I ran a while back and I have the coordinates but I don't have the GEDMATCH Kit that I used. Let me dig, or maybe I got the Kit from a post here. Sicilian_Beaker_I4930 (Kit #TZ9503361)

Beaker_Northern_Italy:I2478:Olalde_2018,4.97,0,0,0.15,47.73,28.87,0.74,0,3.49,0.84,12.34,0.86

Siclian_Beaker_I4930,15.32,6.54,38.77,12.25,22.74,4.38,0,0,0,0,0,0,0

Thanks a lot. Just the coordinates for the other two would be great if you have them.

 

[Ralphie Boy]

Dug into samples of personal interest and found that a parent branch of J-70 (L25) was in Halicarnassus in the Hellenistic period. Lazaridis et al. describe this sample (I3303) as heavily Levantine in the supplementals (great read). There is one sample from above L25 in Imperial Rome-era Apollonia, that’s presented as substantial Mesopotamian (I16584). Above/below L70 branches were found in southwest Anatolia, in a historically Carian/Greek/local Anatolian region (I20787, I20144).

This obviously is one path to ancient Greek ancestry for modern Greeks and others who are descendants of people who lived in the ancient Greek world. The Fallmerayer types have the burden of disproving each haplogroup branch and its ancestral region/environment.

 

[johen]

I think the wheels of chariots wiped out the languages of CWC and BB (CWC Bohemia line?) 1,600bc and planted new culture.

south aisa:

Surely chariot migrated from europe to south Caucasus. And then thunderbolt lord seems to appear late bronze age Karashamb also(now with so many yDNA I ).

A dagger of the Late Bronze Age, buttons of a mail (14th-13th century B.C.) About 7-8 tombs of warriors with relative military property were discovered in Karashamb.

Bronze hairpin of the Late Bronze Age; beads bracelet (14th-13th century B.C.)
https://www.panarmenian.net/eng/details/220791/

Apa sword in EUROPE:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EENEN_LWsAIzuj4?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

ST lord dagger:
https://indo-european.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/molodin-seima-turbino-baraba-forest-steppe.jpg

andronovo dagger:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Aleksandr-Pilipenko-2/publication/285639978/figure/fig8/AS:469273610469378@1488894955383/a-Daggers-of-Srubno-Andronovo-form-b-Ceramic-pot-with-specific-ornamentation-of-the.png

 

[Francesco]

As I pointed out in my first post here above to which I am responding, I think it would be crucial to include Aegean Bronze Age samples, and even more importantly, Aegean Iron Age samples, when or if they have them, and certainly the Greek Marathon sample, and the two Empuries samples, to see if they too could possibly be the source of this signal in Imperial Rome. Sicilian Bronze Age should also be in the mix, and, when we have them, samples from Greek colonists to Southern Italy.

I would like to add that, if I remember correctly, few samples from Antonio et al. already plot with modern central - southern Italy, so they should eventually be also compared to an hypothetical Iron Age Southern Italic cluster, which we still lack.

 

[eupator]

Greeks and Anatolians of antiquity were too intertwined, you won't be able to separate them.

 

[Francesco]

Greeks and Anatolians of antiquity were too intertwined, you won't be able to separate them.

As far as I know Bronze and Iron age Greece and Anatolia form two different and distinguishable clusters, though, of course, they may be pretty similar to each other.

 

[ihype02]

From what I've seen on G25 Anatolia did receive European gene flow, quite of it actually; I suspect they missed it because of their focus on modelling with distal ancestries, whereas it's clear that it is better to use proximal ancestries.
Overall Greeks in Caria were around 50% Mycenaean-like and 50% Anatolia_BA
From around the black sea Greeks were 40% Mycenaean-like and 60% Anatolia_BA
As for Gordion samples, if we take them as "Phrygian", many seem to take around 20-25% Logkas-like ancestry, or 40% Mycenaean-like, but since they are dated in the late hellenistic period (150 BC), I am not sure whether it can be attributed to proto-phrygian ancestry from the Balkans or to Greek ancestry.

One sample from Palace of Nestor is heavily Anatolian admixed. I agree that Byzantine Western Anatolians probably has significant European admixture from Greek colonies, Thracians, Slavic transplants, Celts and Italic people. Look at Slavic I2a and R1a in there in Maciamo's maps.

Distance to:	GRC_Mycenaean_Palace_of_Nestor_BA:I13517_d
0.03654511	Greek_Dodecanese
0.04110671	Italian_Calabria
0.04146339	Greek_Kos
0.04271708	Greek_Crete
0.04305058	Italian_Campania
0.04383122	Italian_Apulia
0.04439810	Italian_Basilicata
0.04479746	Sicilian_East
0.04774507	Sephardic_Jew
0.04818263	Italian_Jew
0.04843735	Romaniote_Jew
0.04961611	Italian_Molise
0.04966159	Italian_Abruzzo
0.05024841	Ashkenazi_Germany
0.05034152	Cypriot
0.05158075	Ashkenazi_Poland
0.05229433	Greek_Izmir
0.05296337	Greek_Central_Anatolia
0.05352163	Maltese
0.05395921	Ashkenazi_Ukraine
0.05430721	Greek_Cappadocia
0.05459769	Sicilian_West
0.05466595	Italian_Lazio
0.05499461	Ashkenazi_Lithuania
0.05505034	Ashkenazi_Belarussia

 

[eupator]

You are annoyed because you'd rather have ancient Greeks than Anatolians as ancestors to the imperial Romans but Greeks only separated from Anatolia in the early 20th century, they are intertwined since antiquity and these new samples prove it. The ancient Greeks the West idolizes were in fact Ionics, open a Google map and check were Ionia was.

 

[Er Monnezza]

No, it couldn't. They make the difference clear in the paper on Mesopotamia which we haven't yet explored to any great degree.

For most purposes, CHG and Iran Neo can be used interchangeably. The same is definitely not true of Barcin and Levant PPN.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abq0762

Barcin_N and Levant_PPN are more related to each other than CHG and Iran_N are.

G25 seems biased, when trying to replicate fstat breakdown.

PCA related problem or ... ?

This is copy and paste from the paper.

I guess the percentage of CHG changes significantly (37 to 48%) depending on which EHG component is chosen, whereas on Global25 the percentage of CHG + Iran_N remains steady at 38%.

 

[Francesco]

You are annoyed because you'd rather have ancient Greeks than Anatolians as ancestors to the imperial Romans but Greeks only separated from Anatolia in the early 20th century, they are intertwined since antiquity and these new samples prove it. The ancient Greeks the West idolizes were in fact Ionics, open a Google map and check were Ionia was.

I just said that Anatolia and Greece were, in the Bronze and Iron age, pretty similar, despite being distinguishable from each other (Anatolia lacking the EHG component, for instance). Infact greek colonies on the western coast of Anatolia could have been, as it seems (see the post from Leopoldo Leone), a joining link between the greek world and the Anatolian one, culturally and genetically.

I just wanted to point out, only for the sake of history, that they are not a monolithic anatolian populations. The samples come from different necropolis, encompassing many different social status, from the richer ones to the poorest: http://www.iitaly.org/magazine/focu...cient-roman-slave-cemetery-found-ostia-antica. This difference is reflected by the PCA itself, were the "imperial romans" are infact grouped into different clusters.

 

[eupator]

Barcin_N and Levant_PPN are more related to each other than CHG and Iran_N are.

You didn't read the methodology. PPN had to be added because the p-values w/o it were not robust enough. There was Natufian drift that wasn't captured otherwise and the model failed.

Barcin_N and Levant_PPN are more related to each other than CHG and Iran_N are.

I guess the percentage of CHG changes significantly (37 to 48%) depending on which EHG component is chosen, whereas on Global25 the percentage of CHG + Iran_N remains steady at 38%.

Again you haven't read the methodology, out of the 3 qpAdm models you present only the 3rd one has a robust p-value of 0.221, the middle has 0.0177 and the first barely passable 0.0518. But that's not the point, if you read the supplementary you will see: (We note that the WHG group includes Loschbour, Villabruna, LaBrana1, and Bichon, EHG the two hunter-gatherers from Karelia and one from Samara(2, 18), and CHG two hunter-gatherers from Kotias and Satsurblia caves in Georgia).

This is a attempt for deflection from the fact the g25 fails to reproduce the official stats. As such it cannot be used to substantiate an opposing (or confirming) claim against the paper.

 

[eupator]

I just said that Anatolia and Greece were, in the Bronze and Iron age, pretty similar, despite being distinguishable from each other (Anatolia lacking the EHG component, for instance). Infact greek colonies on the western coast of Anatolia could have been, as it seems (see the post from Leopoldo Leone), a joining link between the greek world and the Anatolian one, culturally and genetically.

I should have made the distinction of "Eastern Romans", I am not referring to the Italian peninsula.

 

[Francesco]

I should have made the distinction of "Eastern Romans", I am not referring to the Italian peninsula.

Ok, There was a misunderstanding. In that case, I agree that anatolians have surely been an important pupulation in the byzantine empire. I don't know if the imperial romans from Antonio couldbe a good proxy for the byzantine empire pupulation, though (maybe yes).

 

[Pax Augusta]

You didn't read the methodology. PPN had to be added because the p-values w/o it were not robust enough. There was Natufian drift that wasn't captured otherwise and the model failed.
Again you haven't read the methodology, out of the 3 qpAdm models you present only the 3rd one has a robust p-value of 0.221, the middle has 0.0177 and the first barely passable 0.0518. But that's not the point, if you read the supplementary you will see: (We note that the WHG group includes Loschbour, Villabruna, LaBrana1, and Bichon, EHG the two hunter-gatherers from Karelia and one from Samara(2, 18), and CHG two hunter-gatherers from Kotias and Satsurblia caves in Georgia).

This is a attempt for deflection from the fact the g25 fails to reproduce the official stats. As such it cannot be used to substantiate an opposing (or confirming) claim against the paper.

I won't go into the rest of the post, I'll just say that there are no official statistics, are not comparable to statistics provided, to give an example in another field, by the ECB or another central bank. They are attempts to provide probable statistics by academic studies (which also often produce different results) and are not supervised by an institution that makes them official. The G25 remains what it is, an amateur tool.

 

[eupator]

I won't go into the rest of the post, I'll just say that there are no official statistics, are not comparable to statistics provided, to give an example in another field, by the ECB or another central bank. They are attempts to provide probable statistics by academic studies (which also often produce different results) and are not supervised by an institution that makes them official. The G25 remains what it is, an amateur tool.

I was referring to this:

F-statistics - Wikipedia

In hindsight, I should have just written fstats.

 

[Pax Augusta]

I was referring to this:

F-statistics - Wikipedia

In hindsight, I should have just written fstats.

Got it, Eupator.

 

[bigsnake49]

I have no idea what that means. The R1b carrying Greek speakers were the steppe "invaders" who came down through the Balkans, although they don't seem to have done much "invading" in the sense of establishing a genetic elite. Rather, it seems that they admixed with the locals in a rather egalitarian manner. The culture was a mix of the local culture and the Yamnaya culture.

It makes sense given the fact that they didn't arrive until after the Early Bronze Age if my memory serves. Greece proper was already highly civilized and densely populated.

So, we can say good-bye to the Drews theory and the ridiculous Corded Ware theory. The yDna is G, I, and R1b.

Didn't you read the paper and the supplement? I know it's a lot with three papers and all the supplements, but the weekend is tomorrow, so we can all catch up.

Getting ready to travel to Greece for my daughter's wedding. Priorities you know...

 

[Ghani]

You didn't read the methodology. PPN had to be added because the p-values w/o it were not robust enough. There was Natufian drift that wasn't captured otherwise and the model failed.





Again you haven't read the methodology, out of the 3 qpAdm models you present only the 3rd one has a robust p-value of 0.221, the middle has 0.0177 and the first barely passable 0.0518. But that's not the point, if you read the supplementary you will see: (We note that the WHG group includes Loschbour, Villabruna, LaBrana1, and Bichon, EHG the two hunter-gatherers from Karelia and one from Samara(2, 18), and CHG two hunter-gatherers from Kotias and Satsurblia caves in Georgia).

This is a attempt for deflection from the fact the g25 fails to reproduce the official stats. As such it cannot be used to substantiate an opposing (or confirming) claim against the paper.

You are one of a handful of people that get why PCA based coordinates G25 is never intended to model or be used for genetic distances. PCA/G25 is used for visualize clustering. Of course with PCA you can only see 2 or 3 PCs at a time. The other 22 or 23 PCs are hidden from view.

That’s why it’s dangerous to put G25 into hands of lay people or amateurs because they either use it to make conclusions or challenge scientific papers and formal statistics. The average Joe is not knowledgeable to know why PCA/G25 can’t be used for genetic distances or modeling so they assume that everything is good especially when they see that PCA/G25 clusters them with their ethnic group. This dupes them into buying into PCA/G25 for modeling and distances and thus a fraud goes undetected!!

Of course G25 doesn’t use outgroups to distinguish similar ancestries like qpAdm and it doesn’t have p-value to reject models. People think G25 distances is similar. What a joke!

 

[Er Monnezza]

You didn't read the methodology. PPN had to be added because the p-values w/o it were not robust enough. There was Natufian drift that wasn't captured otherwise and the model failed.

Again you haven't read the methodology, out of the 3 qpAdm models you present only the 3rd one has a robust p-value of 0.221, the middle has 0.0177 and the first barely passable 0.0518. But that's not the point, if you read the supplementary you will see: (We note that the WHG group includes Loschbour, Villabruna, LaBrana1, and Bichon, EHG the two hunter-gatherers from Karelia and one from Samara(2, 18), and CHG two hunter-gatherers from Kotias and Satsurblia caves in Georgia).

Did they put p-values in the paper? I couldn't find anything when I searched.

This is a attempt for deflection from the fact the g25 fails to reproduce the official stats. As such it cannot be used to substantiate an opposing (or confirming) claim against the paper.

I know they work differently, but at least Global25 (or any other amateur tool) wouldn't be crazy enough to assign 5% Levant_PPN to I0439 or 12% to I0441.