Genetic and Cultural Differences between Jews and Greeks

[kingdavid]

Amen to that.

People don't want anything to do
With the levant ancestery
They preffer to have steppe ancestery more the better
(Davidski propagnda fault )

 

[brick]

Conclusion is: The reference samples are supposedly the same, but for whatever reason there's no agreement between that qpAdm's and G25's regarding proportions. If we use researchers' tools as reference, the Levant Neo contribution for SW Anatolia EBA is possibly overestimated by G25. Whilst using pen = 0.001 may decrease the difference in Levant Neo %, it'd affect negatively the other two, especially CHG.

Very good post. In the past I have done various tests with G25 and I also have had the impression that G25 overestimates certain contributions, including Levant Natufian, compared to academic studies.

So, if the G25 results are not exactly accurate, it goes without saying that with the G25 results it is not possible to build hypotheses that can be taken as absolute truths.

 

[Angela]

I wrote this in 2018. Were Davidski and his cronies at anthrogenica asleep in 2018?

"The Kilinc PCA is very interesting in this regard.

See:

If the epipaleolithic sample is from around Boncuklu, you can see how Tepecik is already pulled both south and toward CHG/Iran Neo type populations. Here, Kumtepe from near the future site of Troy, and Barcin, are slightly "south" (some Levant Neo coming in?), but not pulled as much towards Iran*. Did that Iran Neo like ancestry in the southern areas like Tepecik come perhaps from Mesopotamia area populations?

Do the dates support this?

It will be interesting to see the analysis in this upcoming paper.

For my own pet interests, interesting to me how Sicily and Southern Italy sort of nestle in between Boncuklu and Tepecik. Remedello is really not all that far from Northern Italy today, but what migrations produced that result I'm waiting for more ancient dna to answer.

In this PCA, also, Otzi is NOT pulled more toward CHG/Iran Neo than samples like the Hungarian Neolithic.

One last thing occurs to me. For all that the emphasis is always on the fact that the EEF were descended from the Anatolian Neolithic, they are closer to modern Levantine populations like the Lebanese than they are to the Turks. Of course, that Central Asian ancestry in the Turks may have something to do with that.

Anyone have the data on the Greek Neolithic handy? Weren't they more "south" as well of populations like Boncuklu, or am I misremembering?"

 

[Jovialis]

People don't want anything to do
With the levant ancestery
They preffer to have steppe ancestery more the better
(Davidski propagnda fault )

I have relatively little steppe, especially compared to Northern Europeans, and it makes no difference to me. The facts are the facts however, the Anatolian Bronze Age sample I2683 used to model Italians in Raveane et al 2019, has negligible Levant_N type ancestry. Making further admixture with other source populations dilute it even further, to exceedingly negligible amounts in Southern Europeans. The fact that the same study models Sicily Beaker, as 95% ABA, and the Antonio M. et al 2019 sample R850, as forming a clade with Anatolian_ChL, is telling. We didn't just make this stuff up; so it is not about liking, or not liking. It seems however, that some people want to inflate these negligible amounts of Levant_N, and it is obvious why. Like that stupid Swedish Airlines commercial, they want to make it seem that Europeans have no right to their own countries, because they are cultural Marxists. Or because they are anti-Semitic, and want to point out Semitic influences, in other groups they dislike. Or they are Jewish converts/judeo-philes, and want to prove they have strong Levantine ancestry, so they can feel more Jewish. Or even ethno-chauvinistic tendencies from people with Levant_N, want to find it in other populations, so they could "own" them, or a part of them; that's what some nefarious people do with Steppe ancestry. The agendas are many and obvious, but there is only one truth.

 

[kingdavid]

Could it be that there were many
Ancients south of rome
with the genetic profile of R850 IA-ardea outlier ?


By the way maniotes from deep south mainland greece
Are more in the south italy area genetically ...
(They claim to be descendents from dorians and the spartans):cool-v:

 

[Jovialis]

Could it be that there were many
Ancients south of rome
with the genetic profile of R850 IA-ardea outlier ?


By the way maniotes from deep south mainland greece
Are more in the south italy area genetically ...
(They claim to be descendents from dorians and the spartans):cool-v:

I think it is possible, especially if Sicily Beakers can be modeled so well with ABA (I2683). We need to see a study on the south, with ancient samples to verify it.

Beaker samples from Sicily (2500 to 1900 BCE) were modeled almost exclusively as ABA, with less than 5% SBA (data file S4).

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/9/eaaw3492.full​

 

[kingdavid]

I think it is possible, especially if Sicily Beaker can be modeled so well with ABA (I2683). We need to see a study on the south, with ancient samples to verify it.

Maniots:cool-v:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maniots

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mani_Peninsula

 

[Angela]

Also see,

From other papers I've seen, Tepecek, Kumtepe and Greek Neolithic are all very similar. In PCAs they land on top of one another. My bet is that the migration route went through the area around Kumtepe, and thus the people were more Kumtepe and Tepecek like than Barcin like.

 

[Palermo Trapani]

Really complicated. It's like Taforalt x Natufian x SSA. An older paper stated Taforalt had Natufian and SSA, but an updated one supported the opposite: Taforalt contributing to both Natufian and SSA.

We'll likely learn much more on this subject in the future, with even better tools and morr ancient DNAs.

@Palermo
Regarding G25, see Ygorcs post. Using other Anatolian Neo as sources, the Levant Neo drops even more. So it's possible G25 is not that off. We can get substantially different results depending on how we model.

I confess I haven't followed all the thread due to lack of time. It's growing fast, so I did just "speed reading". I'll try to read it more carefully later, in order to understand better what's being discussed.

@Ygorcs
Ops. Always hurry, I didn't realize it was just for Mycenaeans. Sorry!
In my quoting I assumed they did for others. My bad. Thanks for pointing it out.

Regio_X: thanks for the response. After going through all the posts in the thread, I can agree that as a "statistical Model" G25 is valid. Again as a model. So for example, OLS Regression is a valid Statistical model., but the results from a Regression Model that has correlated omitted variables, your regression Y on a vector of X's, and X1 to X5 are in the model, and X4 has a statistical relationship with Y, but only because X6 is not in the model. When X6 is included, it explains Y better or and X4 goes away. Assuming those 2 variables are not perfectly correlated and don't have high multicollinearity (which is another concern in its own right), then it suggest Correlated omitted variable problem. Errors in in variable measurement (huge problem). The sample selection to run our Regression analysis, is it a sample that is representative of the population you are studying or is the sample from a distribution that is highly skewed. I could go on, but I think the points above will suffice.

So OLS Regression is valid, but incorrect application of it and not taking into account issues that mitigate the ability to draw solid inferences from the model are the issue with respect to what I see in this thread, or more accurately, how folks not here at Eupedia, amateurs on other sites and blogs, apply G25. G25 from what both you and Ygors indicate is a solid statistical model. I can accept that. So if it is a valid Model, then the results amateurs are presenting as "Gospel" from G25, which contradict established published research by the academics and research labs suggest some other issue not related to the validity of G25 as a model.

I will stop there because there are already numerous examples in this thread by people who have dealt with those issues here at Eupedia long before I ever was a Member here.

 

[Philjames100]

However, the woke white morons arguing that some obscure SSA civilization matches Rome, Greece or China are just as bad. As someone with no genetic ties to those civilization I can fully admit they were superior civilization to my barbarian ancestors societies.

What are your barbarian ancestors' societies?

 

[Salento]

Could it be that there were many
Ancients south of rome
with the genetic profile of R850 IA-ardea outlier ?
By the way maniotes from deep south mainland greece
Are more in the south italy area genetically ...
(They claim to be descendents from dorians and the spartans):cool-v:

R850 could easily be Remus or Romulus.
I am a Y T too, ... does that make me an outlier??

 

[Palermo Trapani]

R850 could easily be Remus or Romulus.
I am a Y T too, ... does that make me an outlier??

Salento: Well if someone has the onions to say you are, then using some WW2 analogies call in the B-17's and B-24's (ETO) or the B-29's(PTO) and drop your MTA Deep Dive analysis here.

I think that will answer your question without further words. Cheers

 

[Riverman]

You completely miss the point, again! The point is, should you be using a group of locals plus these Byzantines as a source for the modern Hungarian population. The answer is emphatically NO. When the Byzantines left most of these people undoubtedly fled with them or scattered to safer and more profitable areas.

I agree, most of them yes, but all? That's the question and its no trivial one and being discussed for long. Remember, you get hits in the "Imperial_Roman" direction in most of the Roman provinces, West and East, from Britain to Spain, from France to Croatia. Also in areas in which there was little to no pre-Roman Greek colonisation or anything like that. So its open to debate how much of a legacy this colonial Roman population left. I'm open minded as to how much it really is, but none? Surely not. For Western Germans for example it might be about 1-2 percent on average and you see a constant increase further West and South, a further decrease North and East.
There were Romance speaking islands in Germany for quite a long time into the Medieval Age. Probably, on the long run, we could even test these local populations against others which were known to have a higher number of "new settlers" of Germanic background. I'm pretty optimistic you will find such trends even in modern Germany and Hungary.

 

[Duarte]

Afrocentric revisionism and pseudo-science is becoming an increasingly troublesome matter all over the internet lately, I'm afraid. Quora, where I write very often, is full of their biased and long debunken answers always repeating the same old and lame arguments for the umtpeenth time in the hope that most people won't have seen the many times they were proven completely wrong by commenters and answerers in the same platform (sometimes literally old arguments, using sources that are so outdated that they date from the 19th century or early 1900s, come on!).

But what you wrote amazes me particularly. I mean, sometimes I feel like they are deep down fighting racism coming from racist premises themselves. Why should anyone who is really past racist ideas find it offensive that someone claims (whether correctly or not) that virtually all black African women don't have straight hair? Is straight hair some kind of trophy, a gold standard of genetic superiority? For them to get so triggered by people mentioning the absolute dominance of woolly or extremely curly hair in black Africans, that's what it sounds like they subconsciously think. I also think the same happens when they ignore African cultures and civilizations to keep writing endlessly about the "black origins" of Hebrews, Egyptians, Mesopotamians, Punics, Berbers, Romans, Greeks, Olmecs and any other civilization BUT those located south of Egypt. It's as if they think that blacks will have a lot to gain and will be finally be proven just as good as anyone else if it's proven that some Eurasian or North African civilizations was actually created by them or under their heavy influence. Why does it matter so much? Are they perhaps subconsciously implying that people who developed those well known civilizations were/are inherently superior to others who didn't?

I think it's all very sad, because they don't even notice it, but they're trying to fight racism not destroying the premises and assumptions of a racist system, but simply turning the table and claiming that it is actually they who were historically better, wiser, smarter etc. That won't end racism and will ultimately destroy the credibility of a fair cause.

US Afrocentrists have long tried to make Brazil the country with the largest black population in the world after Nigeria in Africa, which is an cretin lie, as blacks make up only 7% of the country's population. They apply the reverse racism against Brazilians saying , like the white American supremacists, that one drop of black blood is enough to be black and, instantly, as if it were the magic wand of Harry Potter, they transform the entire Brazilian population into blacks and, obviously, ethnic comrades who owe them solidarity. Afrocentrists are not credible. They rape science and distort the facts. In fact, they are pitiful.
Worst of all, whites from other parts of the world fall into this Afrocentric trap that sweeps the internet.

 

[Palermo Trapani]

US Afrocentrists have long tried to make Brazil the country with the largest black population in the world after Nigeria in Africa, which is an cretin lie, as blacks make up only 7% of the country's population. They apply the reverse racism against Brazilians saying , like the white American supremacists, that one drop of black blood is enough to be black and, instantly, as if it were the magic wand of Harry Potter, they transform the entire Brazilian population into blacks and, obviously, ethnic comrades who owe them solidarity. Afrocentrists are not credible. They rape science and distort the facts. In fact, they are pitiful.
Worst of all, whites from other parts of the world fall into this Afrocentric trap that sweeps the internet.

Well said and the fact is they are using Post Civil War Reconstruction period and Jim Crow period laws that were designed to disenfranchise as many people as possible so as to restore the ruling class Pre-Civil War back to being the ruling Class (Economic, Legal, Political, etc) post Civil War up to the Civil rights era. It is purely a social construct using pseudo science, hell how many of you here have Neanderthal DNA? I do as anyone else here whose ancestors are from Europe (Asia, North Africa as well). Does that make you a Neanderthal?

 

[Regio X]

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:

[TABLE="width: 1131"]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"]Target[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]Distance[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]GEO_CHG[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]Levant_PPNB[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]TUR_Barcin_N[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]TUR_Kumtepe_N[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]TUR_Kumtepe_N_low_res[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]TUR_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"]TUR_Isparta_EBA:I2495[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]0.02475237[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]22.8[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]9.4[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]29.4[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]5.4[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]0.0[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]33.0[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"]TUR_Isparta_EBA:I2499[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]0.04188616[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]26.4[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]12.4[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]16.6[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]0.0[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]1.4[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]43.2[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"]TUR_Isparta_EBA:I2683[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]0.03174937[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]20.4[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]2.0[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]0.0[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]3.0[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]0.0[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]74.6[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"]Average[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]0.03279597[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]23.2[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]7.9[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]15.3[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]2.8[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]0.5[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]50.3[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Regio_X: thanks for the response. After going through all the posts in the thread, I can agree that as a "statistical Model" G25 is valid. Again as a model. So for example, OLS Regression is a valid Statistical model., but the results from a Regression Model that has correlated omitted variables, your regression Y on a vector of X's, and X1 to X5 are in the model, and X4 has a statistical relationship with Y, but only because X6 is not in the model. When X6 is included, it explains Y better or and X4 goes away. Assuming those 2 variables are not perfectly correlated and don't have high multicollinearity (which is another concern in its own right), then it suggest Correlated omitted variable problem. Errors in in variable measurement (huge problem). The sample selection to run our Regression analysis, is it a sample that is representative of the population you are studying or is the sample from a distribution that is highly skewed. I could go on, but I think the points above will suffice.

So OLS Regression is valid, but incorrect application of it and not taking into account issues that mitigate the ability to draw solid inferences from the model are the issue with respect to what I see in this thread, or more accurately, how folks not here at Eupedia, amateurs on other sites and blogs, apply G25. G25 from what both you and Ygors indicate is a solid statistical model. I can accept that. So if it is a valid Model, then the results amateurs are presenting as "Gospel" from G25, which contradict established published research by the academics and research labs suggest some other issue not related to the validity of G25 as a model.

I will stop there because there are already numerous examples in this thread by people who have dealt with those issues here at Eupedia long before I ever was a Member here.

Thanks, Palermo.
I was trying to reproduce qpAdm results using this interesting model from Ygorcs, just with little changes, but no, the CHG and ANF would be somewhat "impaired" even with this approach, indeed, so perhaps it's not possible to do it. It gets closer though, which is interesting.
I use G25 as reference many times, since it may provide good clues, but I don't take the results literally, of course. We should take them with a grain of salt, given all limitations involved.

@Palermo @Ygorcs
As for "Steppe" ancestry, it may be inflated in G25 models, indeed. That's my impression as well, and that's why sometimes I use "Steppe" this way, between inverted commas. And sometimes I used the term "Yamnaya-like" thinking the contribution doesn't necessarily come (all) from Yamnaya proper. Apparently it's something still open. That said, when it comes to comparing results from different tools in this regard, it's not just about how much of a component one pop actually has, naturally; it's about the results we may get in different tools using supposedly the same - or very similar - sources and targets.

@Ygorcs
Indeed, two waves such these, in Neolithic, don't seem likely in my humble opinion. Let's see what further data tell us about how and when shifts happened in South Italy. We have just this so far, I guess, and also Moots' (some samples from Iron Age/Republic already resembled modern South Italians).

 

[Salento]

Salento: Well if someone has the onions to say you are, then using some WW2 analogies call in the B-17's and B-24's (ETO) or the B-29's(PTO) and drop your MTA Deep Dive analysis here.

I think that will answer your question without further words. Cheers

R850 is like Thomas Jefferson, both Ts, both genetically controversial to the Conformists.

... many had a similar reaction when they found out that the Founding Father’s paternal line wasn’t what they expected ... they said that his roots weren’t British, or European, ... an outlier, ... and so on.

 

[ratchet_fan]

I have relatively little steppe, especially compared to Northern Europeans, and it makes no difference to me. The facts are the facts however, the Anatolian Bronze Age sample I2683 used to model Italians in Raveane et al 2019, has negligible Levant_N type ancestry. Making further admixture with other source populations dilute it even further, to exceedingly negligible amounts in Southern Europeans. The fact that the same study models Sicily Beaker, as 95% ABA, and the Antonio M. et al 2019 sample R850, as forming a clade with Anatolian_ChL, is telling. We didn't just make this stuff up; so it is not about liking, or not liking. It seems however, that some people want to inflate these negligible amounts of Levant_N, and it is obvious why. Like that stupid Swedish Airlines commercial, they want to make it seem that Europeans have no right to their own countries, because they are cultural Marxists. Or because they are anti-Semitic, and want to point out Semitic influences, in other groups they dislike. Or they are Jewish converts/judeo-philes, and want to prove they have strong Levantine ancestry, so they can feel more Jewish. Or even ethno-chauvinistic tendencies from people with Levant_N, want to find it in other populations, so they could "own" them, or a part of them; that's what some nefarious people do with Steppe ancestry. The agendas are many and obvious, but there is only one truth.

This post sums it up exactly. They are trying to justify illegal immigration from populations not indigenous to Europe. They are also trying to destroy European identity and sovereignty. In addition I think a large factor with people who are high in Levant_N I is jealousy. They want to claim the accomplishments of Rome but also modern Italians and Europeans. The Islamic Golden Age is long gone and since then most accomplishments in math, science, engineering, medicine, technology, and architecture belong to Europeans.

 

[Riverman]

R850 is like Thomas Jefferson, both Ts, both genetically controversial to the Conformists.

... many had a similar reaction when they found out that the Founding Father’s paternal line wasn’t what they expected ... they said that his roots weren’t British, or European, ... an outlier, ... and so on.

That's of course nonsense, most of the times, but it doesn't mean, to come back to the original debate, that he couldn't have had a Thracian, Greek, Roman or even Levantine ancestor from Roman times. Or alternatively some earlier spread in the metal ages, we simply do not know. And every lineage and branch has to be looked up individually.

 

[Regio X]

I know about that model, but I found it really strange though it's of course clear AHG was intermediate between WHG and Natufian, but satisfyingly modeled as half WHG + half Natufian? Did AHG have so much less Basal Eurasian than Natufians (considering WHG lacked it), and conversely did they also have that much Taforalt and therefore ANA ancestry? I have never read any other study claim that. Besides WHG though remotely related to the Common West Eurasian HG that also originated the non-BE portion of AHG, it seems to be very divergent from it, with no recent commonality. I confess I found that claim quite unconvincing at least until I see other studies confirming it.

Indeed, according to Lazaridis et al. 2018, Anatolia_N would be almost fully Dzudzuana-like (~98%), which in turn was supposedly ~72.5 WHG-like.

From the paper:
"We next attempt to fit each Test population from Test as 2-way mixtures of populations of All(Table S3.2). (MA1, AG3) and (Anatolia_N, Dzudzuana) are modeled as having most ancestry from each other (and we cannot reject in the N=1 analysis that they are a simple clade)."

Natufian may not be a good source for AHG after all (it'd be shared ancestry actually), and it's better modeled as ~86% Dzudzuana-like and ~14% Taforalt-like. Taforalt per se could be modeled as 55% Dzudzuana-like. If we assume all the rest is a similar basal component/deep ancestry, given the numbers above, we'd get:
Anatolia_N being ~71% WHG-like plus ~27% of deep ancestry and traces of something else, and Natufian being ~68 of WHG-like plus ~32% of deep ancestry. That would make them somewhat similar to each other, at the same time they would be somewhat similar to WHG as well. Perhaps it explains the "mistake" of the paper I quoted, and it also shows how it may be "tricky".

The same paper talks about a cline:
"Thus, Villabruna→Dzudzuana/Anatolia_N→PPNB→Natufian→Taforalt represents a cline of increasing deep ancestry (and decreasing Villabruna-related ancestry) in what was previously termed the South/West West Eurasian interaction sphere."