Genetic and Cultural Differences between Jews and Greeks

Ygorcs said:
Not the best argument, because, sorry, but you may have forgotten that Anatolia_N and Levant_N and especially Anatolia_BA and Levant_BA are not "strongly divergent" sources of ancestry at all. They'd still be a lot less mixed than me. I could even add: poor guys! :grin::giggle: Just kidding.
Click to expand...

And what makes them different?

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the latest study; Anatolian_BA, and Levant BA only share a little more than 50% ancestry with one another. The other half of Levant_BA (in the north) is from the previous population, prior to the arrival of Anatolian_BA. Regardless, as I have stated up-thread, the ABA that southern Europeans are modeled with, are based on the sample with the least amount of Levant_N.

Btw, simply finding that there is no Greek-like signature in later Philistines, is the equivalent of them being mixed out of existence.
 
Ygorcs said:
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
Click to expand...

Oh really.
 
Leopoldo Leone said:
now you assume that the Anatolian who migrated in Europe ( or at least in south east Europe) were Barcin-like and not Tepefic-like, even if Kilinc 2016 suggests it was ( and yes, it could also have been that first Barcin-like anatolians migrated, and were later substituted by a more Tepefic mixed with Caucasus admixture, that could have been the case for the post-neolithic caucasus related geneflow that hit southeast europe). Also according to the latest study on AF, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09209-7, the one that migrated to Europe were the CAF, that had already a 20% Levant_N admixture ( and visually on the PCA they fall right on top of the EEF cluster).
Click to expand...

No, please, are you now going to say it is me who is claiming that EEF were mainly Barcin_N-like? Virtually ALL genetic studies published so far (up to 2020, we're way past 2016) assume that as a given and produce all their models based on Barcin_N. If you have a major disagreement with that, which just happens to be shown by hobbyist tools as well, you should contact the majority of geneticists of Europe and elsewhere.

Also, you clearly misread what Kilinc 2016 suggests. The authors in that study suggest that Tepecik-Ciftlik had quite higher affinity to Kumtepe (NEOLITHIC ANATOLIA), Ötzi Ice Man (CHALCOLITHIC) and Remedello (EARLY BRONZE AGE) than to ANY OTHER Anatolian or European Neolithc population sample. They also explicitly claim that Tepecik-Ciftlik-like ancestry (was it because of direct gene flow or just a similar genetic history involving Barcin-N-like, CHG/Iran_N and some Levant_N?) was found in Italy and Greece at least by the Chalcolithic.

By the Chalcolithic. In Italy and Greece. They made no such sweeping claims about all the Neolithic expansion in the entire continent of Europe. Even if they did, why should I give this 2016 study more credit than to age the hundreds of other genetic studies that find Barcin_N a better fit? I shouldn't.

As for the CAF, I think you might be misunderstanding something: if Barcin_N and other Anatolia_N samples already had ~20% Levant_N, the modesl won't pick ANY EXTRA amount of Levant_N unless there is really some additional Levant_N that cannot be accounted for by the much more prevalent Barcin_N. That's a given.
 
Jovialis said:
And what makes them different?

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the latest study; Anatolian_BA, and Levant BA only share a little more than 50% ancestry with one another. The other half of Levant_BA (in the north) is from the previous population, prior to the arrival of Anatolian_BA. Regardless, as I have stated up-thread, the ABA that southern Europeans are modeled with, are based on the sample with the least amount of Levant_N.
Click to expand...

I have, thanks. Virtually all the genetic components in Anatolia_BA and Levant_BA were shared, with proportions varying, and they were much closer than they had been in the Neolithic, even though even by the Neolithic they were far more related to each other than they were to any other surrounding regional population group like WHG, EHG, CHG, Iran_N and so on.

Btw, simply finding that there is no Greek-like signature in later Philistines, is the equivalent of them being mixed out of existence
Click to expand...

Of course it isn't, unless you also call emigration or annihilation "mixing", too. But okay, everyone has a right to choose one's own vaguer or narrower terminology.
 
Ygorcs said:
Exactly. As I said before there are 3 possible implications that do have a lot of historical relevance:
1) South Italy/Sicily was peopled by Pelopponese_N-type people with a bit more Levantine and CHG/Iran_N affintiies, unlike the vast majority of Europe, mainly inhabited by Barcin_N-type people;
2) Sicily_MN, Sicily_EBA and Sicily_MBA are not just minorities or outliers and in fact South Italy as a whole was more "typical" EEF initially, more Barcin_N-like (with minor WHG of course), and a major genetic/ethnic change towards a more Aegean-like EEF happened after the Neolithic;
3) between the MLBA and the IA a minor but notable change happened due to influx of people enriched in Levant_N and, less so (because this kind of ancestry was already expanding there since the Neolithic), CHG/Iran_N-related people.

How does that not matter at all, particularly when other people are not simply saying "I think the actual genetic contribution was lower than that", but that it is totally negligible and the whole matter is not just irrelevant but perhaps even annoying (I really wonder why)? All the 3 possibilities would have significant historical implications.
If researching possible population movements and admixture events doesn't matter at all, we could just as well keep the outdated myths like the Paleolithic Continuity theory or something like that... but now only revamping it to become the Neolithic Continuity theory.
Click to expand...

YGORCS: So lets take your theory as outlined in points 1, 2 and 3 above and these different sources of Neolithic EEF from Pelopponese, vs. Barcin, va Aegean. In post 435, Angela cited the Klinc et al 2016 paper which plotted the various Neolithic sources of EEF ancestry, how they plot, etc. I posted the top 25 distances for Kumteppe006, KumTeppe004, Barcin_8 and Barcin_31 and I1584. Just eyeballing the distances, Sicilian I7996 and Sicilian_Beaker I4930 show up there, KumTeppe004 has the poorest Fits, but they all tend to be some of the various Romans from different periods, I1584 , close to Bronze age Balkans and Imperial Romans. Barcin_8 and Barcin_31, Sicilians I10371, I4109, I3125 both have good distances to. However, with this little exercise, both Kumtepe type ancestry and Barcin seem to have been in Sicily concurrently by the Bronze Age. However, which one was there first. Looking at the Minoans, and other ancient Greeks, they seem to be some closer to Kumtepe, some closer to Barcin samples. Tepecik samples are not in Dodecad, but are in Eurogenes K13, however, Euro K13 does not have the Sicilian samples.

Distance to:Kumtepe006_Anatolian
4.11800923I0074_Bronze_Age_Minoan_Hagios_Charalambos_Cave_Lasithi_Crete
4.81387578I3709_Peloponnese_Neolithic
5.37546277I0071_Bronze_Age_Minoan_Hagios_Charalambos_Cave_Lasithi_Crete
5.40149979I9005_Bronze_Age_Minoan_Hagios_Charalambos_Cave_Lasithi_Crete
5.43020257I8208_NE_Iberia_Hel_Empuries2
6.32490316I0679_Krepost_Neolithic
7.14412346I9129_Bronze_Age_Minoan_Moni_Odigitria_Heraklion_Crete
7.31755424I9006_Bronze_Age_Mycenaean_Agia_Kyriaki_Salamis
7.39129894I7796_Sicily_EBA_Contrada_Paolina_Castellucciana
7.54527667I4930_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Sicily
7.83892212I0073_Bronze_Age_Minoan_Hagios_Charalambos_Cave_Lasithi_Crete
8.01669508I0070_Bronze_Age_Minoan_Hagios_Charalambos_Cave_Lasithi_Crete
9.02403457I2318_Peloponnese_Neolithic
9.17475885I9041_Bronze_Age_Mycenaean_Galatas_Apatheia_Peloponnese
9.18680576I0174_BAM25_Starcevo_EN_Alsónyék-Bátaszék_Mérnöki_telep_Hungary_5710-5530_calBCE
9.59731733I2937_Greece_Neolithic_Diros_Alepotrypa_Cave
9.99891494I3708_Peloponnese_Neolithic
10.28935372I2519_Balkans_Chalcolithic
10.49733299I9130_Bronze_Age_Minoan_Moni_Odigitria_Heraklion_Crete
10.59021718I9010_Bronze_Age_Mycenaean_Galatas_Apatheia_Peloponnese
10.65107506I0795_KAR6_LBK_EN_Karsdorf_Germany_5207-5070_calBCE
10.97971766I3498_Balkans_Neolithic
11.17720895I9131_Bronze_Age_Minoan_Moni_Odigitria_Heraklion_Crete
11.58770038R44_Imperial_Era_Isola_Sacra_Necropolis
11.76604437Anatolia_N_Klei10

Distance to:Kumtepe004_Anatolian
16.27051935Collegno110
16.36334318R30_Late_Antiquity_Mausole_di_Augusto
16.80761435R64_Medieval_Era_Villa_Magna
16.98208468R50_Imperial_Era_Centocelle_Necropolis
17.02373343R137_Imperial_Era_Marcellino_&_Pietro
17.12323860R436_Imperial_Era_Palestrina
17.16999709R136_Imperial_Era_Marcellino_&_Pietro
17.17706319Collegno25
17.21246060Collegno38
17.21254775R133_Imperial_Era_Marcellino_&_Pietro
17.27934605R1544_Imperial_Era_Necropolis_of_Monte_Agnese
17.41122052R65_Medieval_Era_Villa_Magna
17.45640857Collegno30
17.52800616R53_Medieval_Era_Villa_Magna
17.57237320R47_Imperial_Era_Centocelle_Necropolis
17.58694118R54_Medieval_Era_Villa_Magna
17.58996020R117_Late_Antiquity_S_Ercolano_Necropolis_Ostia
17.65172513R35_Late_Antiquity_Celio
17.72271988R123_Imperial_Era_Casale_del_Dolce
17.75531751R73_Imperial_Era_ANAS
17.76695247R51_Imperial_Era_Centocelle_Necropolis
17.81429202R114_Imperial_Era_Via_Paisiello_Necropolis
17.82760780R56_Medieval_Era_Villa_Magna
17.84476674R131_Imperial_Era_Via_Paisiello_Necropolis
17.86009518R134_Imperial_Era_Marcellino_&_Pietro

Distance to:I1584_Barc?n_Höyük_Chalcolithic
3.40822534R43_Imperial_Era_Isola_Sacra_Necropolis
4.07770769I2499_Bronze_Age_Anatolian_Harman?ren-G?ndürleH?yük_Isparta
5.32993433I2683_Bronze_Age_Anatolian_Harman?ren-G?ndürleH?yük_Isparta
5.43111407R78_Imperial_Era_Viale_Rossini_Necropolis
5.94255837I2495_Bronze_Age_Anatolian_Harman?ren-G?ndürleH?yük_Isparta
6.15075605R44_Imperial_Era_Isola_Sacra_Necropolis
6.35583983R72_Imperial_Era_ANAS
7.06982319R128_Imperial_Era_Casale_del_Dolce
7.27723849R40_Imperial_Era_Isola_Sacra_Necropolis
7.31714425R39_Imperial_Era_Isola_Sacra_Necropolis
7.39756041R75_Imperial_Era_Viale_Rossini_Necropolis
7.45646029R1545_Imperial_Era_Necropolis_of_Monte_Agnese
7.59998684R133_Imperial_Era_Marcellino_&_Pietro
7.62692599Collegno38
8.27214603R123_Imperial_Era_Casale_del_Dolce
8.31618903R130_Imperial_Era_Marcellino_&_Pietro
8.63053880Collegno30
8.85453556R66_Imperial_Era_ANAS
8.87245175R134_Imperial_Era_Marcellino_&_Pietro
8.88885819R126_Imperial_Era_Casale_del_Dolce
8.90828828R125_Imperial_Era_Casale_del_Dolce
8.94389177R69_Imperial_Era_ANAS
9.10032966R34_Late_Antiquity_Mausole_di_Augusto
9.12932637R51_Imperial_Era_Centocelle_Necropolis
9.23705581ASH067_Iron_Age1

Distance to:Anatolia_N_Bar8_Barcin
1.13600176I3498_Balkans_Neolithic
1.70669271I2521_Balkans_Neolithic
1.95936214Anatolia_N_Klei10
2.95254128I2519_Balkans_Chalcolithic
3.28048777I2509_Balkans_Chalcolithic
3.49496781I3708_Peloponnese_Neolithic
4.33302435I0795_KAR6_LBK_EN_Karsdorf_Germany_5207-5070_calBCE
4.43994369I0026_LBK2155_LBK_EN_Viesenhäuser_Hof_Stuttgart-Mühlhausen_Germany_5500-4800_BCE
4.43994369I0054_UWS4_LBK_EN_Unterwiederstedt_Germany_5209-5070_calBCE
4.55655572I10371_Sicily_LBA_Marcita
4.56423049I0633_Balkans_Neolithic
4.58845290I3719_Ukraine_Neolithic_outlier
5.01043910I5068_LBK_Austria
5.25980038I2427_Balkans_Chalcolithic
5.27543363I2937_Greece_Neolithic_Diros_Alepotrypa_Cave
5.44593426I9129_Bronze_Age_Minoan_Moni_Odigitria_Heraklion_Crete
5.80431736R9_Neolithic_Grotta_Continenza
6.03033167I0174_BAM25_Starcevo_EN_Alsónyék-Bátaszék_Mérnöki_telep_Hungary_5710-5530_calBCE
6.04297112I4109_Sicily_MBA_Buffa_Cave_II
6.09143661I2532_Balkans_Neolithic
6.29448171I3948_Balkans_Neolithic
6.43255781I3125_Sicily_MBA_Buffa_Cave_II
6.47472779I0785_Balkans_Chalcolithic
6.50121527I0634_Balkans_Neolithic
6.62526226I2526_Balkans_Neolithic

Distance to:Anatolia_N_Bar31_Barcin
1.82669100Anatolia_N_Klei10
2.48036288I3498_Balkans_Neolithic
2.52473761I2521_Balkans_Neolithic
3.05771156I2519_Balkans_Chalcolithic
3.56060388I3708_Peloponnese_Neolithic
3.87313826I0795_KAR6_LBK_EN_Karsdorf_Germany_5207-5070_calBCE
3.97183837I2509_Balkans_Chalcolithic
4.50447555I2937_Greece_Neolithic_Diros_Alepotrypa_Cave
4.77544762I0633_Balkans_Neolithic
4.86713468I3719_Ukraine_Neolithic_outlier
4.88561153I0026_LBK2155_LBK_EN_Viesenhäuser_Hof_Stuttgart-Mühlhausen_Germany_5500-4800_BCE
4.88561153I0054_UWS4_LBK_EN_Unterwiederstedt_Germany_5209-5070_calBCE
5.21027830I2427_Balkans_Chalcolithic
5.26322145I10371_Sicily_LBA_Marcita
5.45624413I5068_LBK_Austria
5.84216569I9129_Bronze_Age_Minoan_Moni_Odigitria_Heraklion_Crete
6.00891005R9_Neolithic_Grotta_Continenza
6.03900654Anatolia_N_Rev5
6.13773574I4109_Sicily_MBA_Buffa_Cave_II
6.15530665I0174_BAM25_Starcevo_EN_Alsónyék-Bátaszék_Mérnöki_telep_Hungary_5710-5530_calBCE
6.18303324I2532_Balkans_Neolithic
6.45536211I3125_Sicily_MBA_Buffa_Cave_II
6.54117726I0785_Balkans_Chalcolithic
6.63449320I0634_Balkans_Neolithic
6.64269524I3948_Balkans_Neolithic

 
Jovialis said:
Oh really.
Click to expand...

Oh God, must I really say that it is obvious that using Tepecik-Ciftlik, the most CHG/Iran and Levant_N-admixed of all samples, will decrease the proportion of Levant_N? I'm sure I mustn't, and you all can interpret these models beyond the literal surface.
 
Ygorcs said:
I have, thanks. Virtually all the genetic components in Anatolia_BA and Levant_BA were shared, with proportions varying, and they were much closer than they had been in the Neolithic, even though even by the Neolithic they were far more related to each other than they were to any other surrounding regional population group like WHG, EHG, CHG, Iran_N and so on.



Of course it isn't, unless you also call emigration or annihilation "mixing", too. But okay, everyone has a right to choose one's own vaguer or narrower terminology.
Click to expand...

Because of Iran-like Admixture into both populations, of course there is going to be overlap. Btw, how the hell do you explain continued genetic continuity in the Anatolian-CHG cline, as stated by the author, and while the Levantines experienced massive change to their admixture levels, as being one in the same. Do you consider mestizos, and "pure" Iberians, as being one in the same? Because it is the same dynamic.
 
Palermo Trapani said:
YGORCS: So lets take your theory as outlined in points 1, 2 and 3 above and these different sources of Neolithic EEF from Pelopponese, vs. Barcin, va Aegean. In post 435, Angela cited the Klinc et al 2016 paper which plotted the various Neolithic sources of EEF ancestry, how they plot, etc. I posted the top 25 distances for Kumteppe006, KumTeppe004, Barcin_8 and Barcin_31 and I1584. Just eyeballing the distances, Sicilian I7996 and Sicilian_Beaker I4930 show up there, KumTeppe004 has the poorest Fits, but they all tend to be some of the various Romans from different periods, I1584 , close to Bronze age Balkans and Imperial Romans. Barcin_8 and Barcin_31, Sicilians I10371, I4109, I3125 both have good distances to. However, with this little exercise, both Kumtepe type ancestry and Barcin seem to have been in Sicily concurrently by the Bronze Age.
Click to expand...

Did you also take a look at the Sicily_MN and other Italian Neolithic samples? Both hypotheses are plausible, but it is far more likely that you simply had Barcin_N-like people with a little WHG arriving first just like almost everywhere else in Europe and simply getting gene flow from CHG/Iran-enriched and even later more CHG/Iran-enched as well as, now, also Levant_N-enriched people over time. Layers of admixture upon earlier layers of admixture. Or do you think two clearly distinct populations settling Europe in the Early Neolithic and living concurrently but with little or no admixture with each other and also with any foreigners up to the Bronze Age is really more realistic?
 
Jovialis said:
Don't get your hopes up, because the modeling in the study doesn't suggest that.
Click to expand...

Of course, why believe one of the authors of the paper, who see him as Crete like when our own hobbyist expert sees it otherwise?
 
Ygorcs said:
No, please, are you now going to say it is me who is claiming that EEF were mainly Barcin_N-like? Virtually ALL genetic studies published so far (up to 2020, we're way past 2016) assume that as a given and produce all their models based on Barcin_N. If you have a major disagreement with that, which just happens to be shown by hobbyist tools as well, you should contact the majority of geneticists of Europe and elsewhere.

Also, you clearly misread what Kilinc 2016 suggests. The authors in that study suggest that Tepecik-Ciftlik had quite higher affinity to Kumtepe (NEOLITHIC ANATOLIA), Ötzi Ice Man (CHALCOLITHIC) and Remedello (EARLY BRONZE AGE) than to ANY OTHER Anatolian or European Neolithc population sample. They also explicitly claim that Tepecik-Ciftlik-like ancestry (was it because of direct gene flow or just a similar genetic history involving Barcin-N-like, CHG/Iran_N and some Levant_N?) was found in Italy and Greece at least by the Chalcolithic.

By the Chalcolithic. In Italy and Greece. They made no such sweeping claims about all the Neolithic expansion in the entire continent of Europe. Even if they did, why should I give this 2016 study more credit than to age the hundreds of other genetic studies that find Barcin_N a better fit? I shouldn't.

As for the CAF, I think you might be misunderstanding something: if Barcin_N and other Anatolia_N samples already had ~20% Levant_N, the modesl won't pick ANY EXTRA amount of Levant_N unless there is really some additional Levant_N that cannot be accounted for by the much more prevalent Barcin_N. That's a given.
Click to expand...

Ok, there I misread the paper and recalled wrongly, no problem for me to admit when I get something wrong. Still, if such ancestry has been found since the calcolithic, why do you propose another significant migration from north Levant (because Anatolian had only a 6% additional Levant_N ancestry, not enough to give an average 10% to Italians and Greeks)? Aren't we talking about an event that you proposed happened between the late bronze age and iron age?
Also, as for tepecik, judging from the PCA, they seem just Anatolian pulled versus the caucasus/iran, so if there's some Levant_N it was not enough to pull significantly southeast visually, and as far as I recall, they aren't modelled with any additional Levant_N ( I might be wrong, though). Let's remember that your thesis is precisely that "there was another migration of Levant_N rich population between the late bronze age and the iron age, and if we take that window of time, Levant-BA was already half Levant_N so in order to give an average 10% at least it ought to have contributed to a 20% to the gene pool of south Italians, and it is implausible that such a massive migration could have left no archeological records ( and that's why I think you speculated about a Philistine back migration into Greece and then Italy).
 
Jovialis said:
Because of Iran-like Admixture into both populations, of course there is going to be overlap. Btw, how the hell do you explain continued genetic continuity in the Anatolian-CHG cline, as stated by the author, and while the Levantines experienced massive change to their admixture levels, as being one in the same. Do you consider mestizos, and "pure" Iberians, as being one in the same? Because it is the same dynamic.
Click to expand...

One and the same? Where did I say that? I said they were not strongly divergent populations mixing unlike my own origins (mostly European + Native American + African), since you thought it necessary to point that out. They weren't. It's not a matter of opinion, really. Natufians and Anatolia_HG were very much related, Levant-N and Anatolia_N were even more related due to strong Anatolia_N introgression in the Levant, Levant_BA and Anatolia_BA were even more related due to receiving similar gene flows from CHG/Iran_N populations, and so on. Comparing this situation with Europeans meeting Native Americans in the colonial era completely miss the point.
 
@Ygorc,

-Lazaridis said 6% is the average of Levant_N for Anatolian_BA.

-I2683 has the least amount of the three samples

-I2683 is used to model southern Europeans

-Ergo, Levant_N is much less than 6% in Southern Europeans.

-Any additional Levant_N ancestry would have come via the North African Moors.
 
Ygorcs said:
One and the same? Where did I say that? I said they were not strongly divergent populations mixing unlike my own origins (mostly European + Native American + African), since you thought it necessary to point that out. They weren't. It's not a matter of opinion, really. Natufians and Anatolia_HG were very much related, Levant-N and Anatolia_N were even more related due to strong Anatolia_N introgression in the Levant, Levant_BA and Anatolia_BA were even more related due to receiving similar gene flows from CHG/Iran_N populations, and so on. Comparing this situation with Europeans meeting Native Americans in the colonial era completely miss the point.
Click to expand...

Even if it was, it is in all Europeans, you are trying to point out excess amounts. Thus, that point is moot.
 
Jovialis said:
Any additional Levant_N ancestry would have come via the North African Moors.
Click to expand...

Why are you always so sure about that? North Africans even in North Africa these days are not very much Levant_N-like at all. They're more ANF+Taforalt than anything else.
 
Leopoldo Leone said:
Ok, there I misread the paper and recalled wrongly, no problem for me to admit when I get something wrong. Still, if such ancestry has been found since the calcolithic, why do you propose another significant migration from north Levant (because Anatolian had only a 6% additional Levant_N ancestry, not enough to give an average 10% to Italians and Greeks)? Aren't we talking about an event that you proposed happened between the late bronze age and iron age?
Also, as for tepecik, judging from the PCA, they seem just Anatolian pulled versus the caucasus/iran, so if there's some Levant_N it was not enough to pull significantly southeast visually, and as far as I recall, they aren't modelled with any additional Levant_N ( I might be wrong, though). Let's remember that your thesis is precisely that "there was another migration of Levant_N rich population between the late bronze age and the iron age, and if we take that window of time, Levant-BA was already half Levant_N so in order to give an average 10% at least it ought to have contributed to a 20% to the gene pool of south Italians, and it is implausible that such a massive migration could have left no archeological records ( and that's why I think you speculated about a Philistine back migration into Greece and then Italy).
Click to expand...

That Anatolia_BA is EARLY Bronze Age, we don't know which parts of Italy were still like Isparta_EBA in the LBA and during the IA. We also don't know how Crete was like genetically at that time. We also don't know exactly what the genetic structure in South Italy was like during the BA. It might have involved one particular population that had more CHG/Iran and Levant_N in comparison with the other populations o. Then there were Phoenicians (already documented in aDNA samples from Sardinia), Jews, Romanzied Eastern Romans as a whole etc. Successive layers of admixture may have caused that increase over centuries or even millennia. Why should we assume just 1 major admixture event once? Some change(s) happened from the Neolithic until the modern era: more steppe ancestry, more Levant_N, more CHG/Iran_N. It may have taken place in many different ways that will only be clarified once we have a lot more aDNA samples.
 
Ygorcs said:
"It is in all Europeans" - so what? Are you really thinking we're discussing the degree of "Europeanness" of South Italians here? Oh, please... I think you people really need to get past your traumatic experiences with racists.
Click to expand...
I think Jovialis pointed that out just to say that it is not necessary to postulate a significant migration of people from the Levant (or that carried Levant_N insuperior quantity than the bronze age anatolians), but we could agree that it is not discussing whether this "extra Levant_N" is really there and there was a yet unadressed donor or if it is just an artefact of your models. According to the current Literature south Italians ( and Greeks, mainlanders and islanders ), can be modelled with Anatolia, Steppe and Iran_neolithic ( and a bit of north african for Sicilians ).
 
Angela said:
Of course, why believe one of the authors of the paper, who see him as Crete like when our own hobbyist expert sees it otherwise?
Click to expand...

Modern Crete or Minoan Crete? That matters.
 
Ygorcs said:
Why are you always so sure about that? North Africans even in North Africa these days are not very much Levant_N-like at all. They're more ANF+Taforalt than anything else.
Click to expand...

North African populations are indeed formative to Levantine ones. Natufians were formed out of Ancestral North Africans Mixing with Dzudzurna in the Levant. Even 23andme lists the southern part of the middle east as North African like. It is the major discernable difference for Jewish, and West Asian populations compared to European ones with ABA in Raveane et al 2019 (NorthAfrica1). It is a fact that North African-like admixture exists in these populations, which is not detectable in every South Italian cohort, or other Southern European populations with ABA (I2683). Ergo, given the history of the Caliphate in Sicily, I think it is more likely that this ancestry arrived with the Moors, that had a more significant impact with them. Rather than arriving much earlier in formative Italian populations, by any significant degree.:


NAfrica1MoroccanFigBerF1
NAfrica1MoroccanFigBerF40
NAfrica1MoroccanFigBerF63
NAfrica1MoroccanFigBerF64
NAfrica1MoroccanFigBerF66
NAfrica1MoroccanFigBerF68
NAfrica1MoroccanFigBerF75
NAfrica1MoroccanFigBerF79
NAfrica1MoroccanFigBerF80
NAfrica1MoroccanFigBerF86
NAfrica1MoroccanFigBerF87
NAfrica1MoroccanFigBerF2
NAfrica1MoroccanFigBerF89
NAfrica1MoroccanFigBerF100
NAfrica1MoroccanFigBerF101
NAfrica1MoroccanFigBerF105
NAfrica1MoroccanFigArF201
NAfrica1MoroccanFigArF206
NAfrica1MoroccanFigArF209
NAfrica1MoroccanFigArF221
NAfrica1MoroccanFigArF243
NAfrica1MoroccanFigArF244
NAfrica1MoroccanFigBerF8
NAfrica1MoroccanFigArF246
NAfrica1MoroccanFigArF256
NAfrica1MoroccanFigArF271
NAfrica1MoroccanFigArF274
NAfrica1MoroccanFigArF314
NAfrica1MoroccanFigArF325
NAfrica1MoroccanFigArF328
NAfrica1MoroccanFigArF331
NAfrica1MoroccanFigArF332
NAfrica1MoroccanFigArF333
NAfrica1MoroccanFigBerF9
NAfrica1MoroccanFigArF334
NAfrica1MoroccanFigArF335
NAfrica1MoroccanFigArF337
NAfrica1MoroccanFigArF346
NAfrica1MoroccanFigArF350
NAfrica1MoroccanFigAsnA1
NAfrica1MoroccanFigAsnA3
NAfrica1MoroccanFigAsnA18
NAfrica1MoroccanFigAsnA19
NAfrica1MoroccanFigAsnA20
NAfrica1MoroccanFigBerF15
NAfrica1MoroccanFigAsnA21
NAfrica1MoroccanFigAsnA22
NAfrica1MoroccanFigAsnA24
NAfrica1MoroccanFigAsnA27
NAfrica1MoroccanFigAsnA29
NAfrica1MoroccanFigAsnA46
NAfrica1MoroccanFigAsnA47
NAfrica1MoroccanFigAsnA50
NAfrica1MoroccanFigAsnA56
NAfrica1MoroccanFigAsnA62
NAfrica1MoroccanFigBerF18
NAfrica1MoroccanFigAsnA75
NAfrica1MoroccanFigAsnA88
NAfrica1MoroccanFigAsnA107
NAfrica1MoroccanFigAsnA113
NAfrica1MoroccanFigAsnA136
NAfrica1MoroccanFigAsnA137
NAfrica1MoroccanFigAsnA143
NAfrica1MoroccanFigBerF19
NAfrica1MoroccanMoroccan2
NAfrica1MoroccanMoroccan7
NAfrica1MoroccanMoroccan9
NAfrica1MoroccanMoroccan10
NAfrica1MoroccanFigBerF23
NAfrica1MoroccanMoroccan12
NAfrica1MoroccanmoroccoA57
NAfrica1MoroccanmoroccoA62
NAfrica1MoroccanmoroccoA98
NAfrica1MoroccanmoroccoB17
NAfrica1MoroccanmoroccoB93
NAfrica1MoroccanFigBerF35
NAfrica1MoroccanmoroccoC60
NAfrica1MoroccanmoroccoE21
NAfrica1MoroccanmoroccoE28
NAfrica1MozabiteHGDP01273
NAfrica1TunisianTUN510
NAfrica1TunisianTunisian10
NAfrica1TunisianTunisian2
NAfrica1TunisianTunisian5
NAfrica1TunisianTunisian6
NAfrica1TunisianTunisian9
NAfrica2MoroccanMoroccan1
NAfrica2MoroccanMoroccan3
NAfrica2MoroccanMoroccan4
NAfrica2MoroccanMoroccan5
NAfrica2MoroccanMoroccan6
NAfrica2MoroccanMoroccan8
NAfrica2MoroccanMoroccan11
NAfrica2MoroccanMoroccan13
NAfrica2MoroccanMoroccan14
NAfrica2MoroccanMoroccan15
NAfrica2TunisianTunisian11
NAfrica2TunisianTunisian12
NAfrica2TunisianTunisian1
NAfrica2TunisianTunisian4
NAfrica2TunisianTunisian8
Nafrica3JordanianJordan444
Nafrica3MoroccanFigAsnA63
Nafrica3MoroccanFigAsnA94
Nafrica3MoroccanmoroccoA121
Nafrica3MoroccanmoroccoC61
Nafrica3MozabiteHGDP01271
Nafrica3MozabiteHGDP01261
Nafrica3YemeniYemen1
NAfrica4MozabiteHGDP01253
NAfrica4MozabiteHGDP01262
NAfrica4MozabiteHGDP01263
NAfrica4MozabiteHGDP01264
NAfrica4MozabiteHGDP01265
NAfrica4MozabiteHGDP01266
NAfrica4MozabiteHGDP01267
NAfrica4MozabiteHGDP01268
NAfrica4MozabiteHGDP01269
NAfrica4MozabiteHGDP01254
NAfrica4MozabiteHGDP01272
NAfrica4MozabiteHGDP01274
NAfrica4MozabiteHGDP01275
NAfrica4MozabiteHGDP01276
NAfrica4MozabiteHGDP01277
NAfrica4MozabiteHGDP01278
NAfrica4MozabiteHGDP01279
NAfrica4MozabiteHGDP01280
NAfrica4MozabiteHGDP01282
NAfrica4MozabiteHGDP01255
NAfrica4MozabiteHGDP01256
NAfrica4MozabiteHGDP01257
NAfrica4MozabiteHGDP01258
NAfrica4MozabiteHGDP01259
NAfrica4MozabiteHGDP01260
NAfrica6BalochiHGDP00076
NAfrica6BalochiHGDP00057
NAfrica6BalochiHGDP00060
NAfrica6BedouinHGDP00620
NAfrica6BedouinHGDP00632
NAfrica6BedouinHGDP00634
NAfrica6BedouinHGDP00638
NAfrica6BedouinHGDP00640
NAfrica6BedouinHGDP00646
NAfrica6BedouinHGDP00611
NAfrica6BrahuiHGDP00029
NAfrica6BrahuiHGDP00013
NAfrica6Egyptian286270_G11_SC_EGYPTLC5515121
NAfrica6Egyptian286271_G02_SC_EGYPTLC5515163
NAfrica6Egyptian286271_H01_SC_EGYPTLC5515147
NAfrica6Egyptian286271_H02_SC_EGYPTLC5515164
NAfrica6EgyptianEgypt1
NAfrica6EgyptianEgypt2
NAfrica6EgyptianEgypt3
NAfrica6EgyptianEgypt4
NAfrica6EgyptianEgypt5
NAfrica6EgyptianEgypt6
NAfrica6EgyptianEgypt7
NAfrica6Egyptian286270_H08_SC_EGYPTLC5515083
NAfrica6EgyptianEgypt8
NAfrica6EgyptianEgypt9
NAfrica6EgyptianEgypt10
NAfrica6EgyptianEgypt11
NAfrica6EgyptianEgypt12
NAfrica6Egyptian286271_C03_SC_EGYPTLC5515174
NAfrica6Egyptian286271_D01_SC_EGYPTLC5515140
NAfrica6Egyptian286271_D03_SC_EGYPTLC5515175
NAfrica6Egyptian286271_E01_SC_EGYPTLC5515141
NAfrica6Egyptian286271_E03_SC_EGYPTLC5515176
NAfrica6Egyptian286271_F01_SC_EGYPTLC5515142
NAfrica6Egyptian286271_F02_SC_EGYPTLC5515160
NAfrica6EthiopianEthiopiaAm78
NAfrica6Iranianiran1
NAfrica6Iranianiran7
NAfrica6MakraniHGDP00130
NAfrica6MakraniHGDP00150
NAfrica6MakraniHGDP00139
NAfrica6PalestinianHGDP00692
NAfrica6PalestinianHGDP00738
NAfrica6PalestinianHGDP00744
NAfrica6SaudiSaudiA2
NAfrica6TunisianTunisian7
NAfrica6EmiratiUAE1
NAfrica6EmiratiUAE125
NAfrica6EmiratiUAE5
NAfrica6EmiratiUAE8
NAfrica6EmiratiUAE9
NAfrica6YemeniYemen4
NAfrica6YemeniYemen5
NAfrica6YemeniYemen6
NAfrica6YemeniYemen7
NAfrica6YemeniYemen8

X5FQhf9.jpg



vl8tToO.png

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

Ergo, ABA+North African = Levant

Why else would it exist in such large amounts in the middle east, by 1/3rd?
 
Ygorcs said:
No, Anatolia_BA, which Lazaridis modelled as having 9.5% Natufian and 17% Levant_BA in feasible models added to Anatolia_Chl and Minoan_Lassithi. Have you missed that post in this thread? And we all also know Levant_N itself was not any higher than 60% Natufian. So, yes, higher Levantine affinity is there in Anatolia_BA. I know, that must sound awful and tragic to some, but I'm sure it's not so bad. In either case, look, there is a great consolation: it's never any more than ~10% in average, so it's all perfectly manageable. :unsure::LOL::LOL:

Well, contrary to what you say, geneticists have already point out the similarities between South Sicily/Sicily and Anatolia_BA. They don't need to be spoon-feeding every detail of what that means.
Click to expand...

I am getting really sick of your virtue signalling and your snide comments about the people here, virtually saying that anyone who disagrees with your analysis is a racist.

I don't give a damn if there's 10% or 20% or more Levant like ancestry in Southern Italians/Sicilians. My main point has always been that I think there's a strong possibility that however much there is it started arriving pretty early, perhaps in the Neolithic, certainly by the Chalcolithic and then in the Bronze.

I see absolutely nothing in the history to indicate a migration specifically from the Levant in the Iron Age, for example.

As an aside, were you one of the "modelers" who was so sure there was a migration from Anatolia to Tuscany a la Herodotus? I think that's important to know. If you went for a job as a population geneticist they'd sure want to know if you were right or wrong about that.

Now, if you don't cut out the insults and the use of the race card just because people disagree with you there are going to be consequences.

It's the last time I'm going to warn you.
 
Leopoldo Leone said:
I think Jovialis pointed that out just to say that it is not necessary to postulate a significant migration of people from the Levant (or that carried Levant_N insuperior quantity than the bronze age anatolians), but we could agree that it is not discussing whether this "extra Levant_N" is really there and there was a yet unadressed donor or if it is just an artefact of your models. According to the current Literature south Italians ( and Greeks, mainlanders and islanders ), can be modelled with Anatolia, Steppe and Iran_neolithic ( and a bit of north african for Sicilians ).
Click to expand...

Of course they CAN. Every time you have only =<10% admixture from some not so strongly divergent source population that was anyway ~50-60% derived from or very simiklar to another source population already included in the model, you will probably get reasonably good fits with a simpler model nonetheless. The fits won't be much worse just because it lacks some specific broadly related reference that is found in minor proportions.

"Significant" is something that often appears here, but I think people should use less vague language. What's "significant" to you, to other people, to me? 5% is not "negligible" (another word often used in this thread) to me, 10% is not insignificant in my book, but it may be so in other people's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 190384 times.

Back
Top