• Don't want to see ads? Install an adblocker like uBlock Origin or use a Europe-based privacy-friendly browser like Vivaldi or Mullvad.

Ancient DNA, admx. history and endogamy in the prehistoricAegean Skourtaniotietal2022

Omino said:
He literally wrote about the influx TO Athens from colonies.Athens as far i as i know is neither in Anatolia nor a colony ;)
You should learn to read before you write again such silly things to support your "comrades" my dear
Click to expand...

He talked about two way interaction between them , fact one is we have sources mentioning assimilation at least in Caria , fact two half of Athenians were non-Greek among them again Carians ,I fail to see what's muhbalkanationalism about what he said...dear
 
Jovialis said:
False, they require CHG/Iran-related sources. South Italians and Maniot can be modeled with Minoan. Minoans even using the new Lazaridis paper's model have negligible amount of "Levantine".

Please don't show us a (G)arbage 25 model.
Click to expand...

I don't see how a calculator can confuse Levant_N with CHG/Iran_N but you can also compare eurogenes K13 components and see where each peaks
https://pastebin.com/raw/bwNidkpb
https://pastebin.com/raw/yMt3n75V
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dCZldTIfd-EPjDlpQiFNcHwOtZus9Qdll3pB48zdQG0/edit#gid=0
 
Wasn't the Slavic admixture in Northern Greeks estimated based on the genetic signature of Lazarides'Mycenaeans?

I am starting to consider that the main modern Greek deviation from Bronze Age Greeks and perhaps also later Greeks is the Anatolian component, acquired starting the Iron Age until the 20th century.

This is why some Italians seem closer to some Ancient Greeks.
 
Jovialis said:
Refer to Sarno et al. 2022 and Raveane et al. 2022.
Click to expand...

Jovialis said:
Refer to Sarno et al. 2022 and Raveane et al. 2022.
Click to expand...

The second is this one? https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0888754322001501

Can you post Sarno?
Can you also tell me which points are the relevant ones?


One of the points in the second says "Shared Iran Neolithic-related ancestry suggests gene flows along the Mediterranean Sea shores that started in the Bronze Age."

it says "started" but it's clear that the majority of that component in moderns does not come from that period but from post-Roman ones.

Other than that ,the "professionals" are not infallible and some times they are either lagging behind(they're not as passionate as "amateurs" and don't "update" themselves as much as the later do ,for example there's a geneticist in Greece that until to this day keeps repeating the 75% Mycenaean model) or they are biased/afraid to try something else or they know already that other models are as good as the ones they show but are delaying things until they confirm them with more samples.
 
Dianatomia said:
Wasn't the Slavic admixture in Northern Greeks estimated based on the genetic signature of Lazarides'Mycenaeans?
I am starting to consider that the main modern Greek deviation from Bronze Age Greeks and perhaps also later Greeks is the Anatolian component, acquired starting the Iron Age until the 20th century.
This is why some Italians seem closer to some Ancient Greeks.
Click to expand...
As I was saying to Angela, we need more data, a lot more before we can make this estimation. Especially when Greek speakers of Anatolia (that got exchanged around 1922-23) had been receiving considerable mainland Greek migration input from late 18th until the early 20th. It was particularly pronounced after Greece won its independence in 1831 and the new Greek state was devastated economically.
https://academia.edu/resource/work/31593925

The Aegean islander input was even greater which possibly enhanced the affinity coastal anatolians have to Aegean islanders.
 
Dorian9 said:
The second is this one? https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0888754322001501


One of the points in the second says "Shared Iran Neolithic-related ancestry suggests gene flows along the Mediterranean Sea shores that started in the Bronze Age."

it says "started" but it's clear that the majority of that component in moderns does not come from that period but from post-Roman ones.
Click to expand...

I believe most of the last studies (such as the ones suggested by Jovialis) actually suggest otherwise, with a great deal of "east med" ancestry in Southern Italy being derived from bronze and Iron age Aegean.

That is also perfectly in line with the Greek colonization having been a true folk migration, in contrast with other movement of people (merchant, slaves etc.).

It will be interesting to see, if anything, if the Iron Age Greek samples will somehow differ from the mycenaean ones, even if I don't think there will be much of a difference. Maybe iron age individual could show slightly more EHG and CHG than their bronze age predecessors, even if mycenaeans themselves show some degree of variation in this two components, maybe reflecting influences from the Balkans and from Anatolia.
 
Francesco said:
I believe most of the last studies (such as the ones suggested by Jovialis) actually suggest otherwise, with a great deal of "east med" ancestry in Southern Italy being derived from bronze and Iron age Aegean.
That is also perfectly in line with the Greek colonization having been a true folk migration, in contrast with other movement of people (merchant, slaves etc.).
.
Click to expand...

First greek settlement in italy 740BC

https://www.worldhistory.org/Magna_Graecia/


no bronze age greeks or east meds in italy ............
 
Dorian9 said:
The second is this one? https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0888754322001501

Can you post Sarno?
Can you also tell me which points are the relevant ones?


One of the points in the second says "Shared Iran Neolithic-related ancestry suggests gene flows along the Mediterranean Sea shores that started in the Bronze Age."

it says "started" but it's clear that the majority of that component in moderns does not come from that period but from post-Roman ones.

Other than that ,the "professionals" are not infallible and some times they are either lagging behind(they're not as passionate as "amateurs" and don't "update" themselves as much as the later do ,for example there's a geneticist in Greece that until to this day keeps repeating the 75% Mycenaean model) or they are biased/afraid to try something else or they know already that other models are as good as the ones they show but are delaying things until they confirm them with more samples.
Click to expand...

Are you lazy and incapable of reading the two papers? Just look at the modeling which is the original reason for me suggesting those papers to you. They model them with Iran_N/CHG. No, I'm on vacation, and imgur doesn't allow you to post images via phone.

Give me a break, you think I haven't seen that stupid argument. What I'm supposed to believe the amateur instead? Why? The point was to show you it isn't "tricky" to model without levant_n, because two papers do it successfully.
 
mount123 said:
Likewise for these:

XAN027 G2a2a-PF3147>PF3148>PF3177>L91>PF3233>Z6484>Z6284>Z6128>PF3239>L166
HGC025 G2a2a-PF3147>Z36520>Z36525>Z45700
XAN014 G2a2b2a-P303>CTS796>L140>PF3346>PF3345>Z39367

I am aware of the fact that the coverage for these isn't ideal.
Click to expand...


i think if you are a member in anthrogenica
and want to be completely sure about the terminal snp
of each 1 of the 3 ancient G above
you should ask pribislav to look at there bam files
pribislav is the best because
he combined looking at both yfull + ftdna y tree
so his reading of y calls of each ancient individaul is the most precise
 
@Dorian I'm an "amateur" who conducts my own analysis. I doubt there's many people as passionate about this topic as me, considering the amount of focus I put on it. Does that make me somehow better than others?
 
Turns out I've read Sarno in the past and the truth is I'm indeed lazy to read it again when I know that the professionals themselves will change their models in the future ,I've seen you argue about the subject with others and it's clear that no matter what I'd say it would not change your mind which is fine actually ,let's just leave time show.
 
Jovialis said:
Are you lazy and incapable of reading the two papers? Just look at the modeling which is the original reason for me suggesting those papers to you. They model them with Iran_N/CHG. No, I'm on vacation, and imgur doesn't allow you to post images via phone.
Give me a break, you think I haven't seen that stupid argument. What I'm supposed to believe the amateur instead? Why? The point was to show you it isn't "tricky" to model without levant_n, because two papers do it successfully.
Click to expand...

There is clear 100% confirmed excess Levant_N admix in South Italy. G25 models are consistent with qpAdm models. But you can force Levant N out and just use Iran N as a proxy on qpAdm, that is a forced model. Once you add Levant N it will pick Levant N. Also Iran N was not even close to those numbers in the Bronze Age South Italy.
q2Eg2P8.png


Also you can use academic tools such as qpAdm to make stupid models such as this below. A lot of papers such the one modeling Italians with just Iran N instead of Levant N made mistakes such as this obviously unrealistic model below
vGyjaDx.png
 
Jovialis said:
Are you lazy and incapable of reading the two papers? Just look at the modeling which is the original reason for me suggesting those papers to you. They model them with Iran_N/CHG. No, I'm on vacation, and imgur doesn't allow you to post images via phone.
Give me a break, you think I haven't seen that stupid argument. What I'm supposed to believe the amateur instead? Why? The point was to show you it isn't "tricky" to model without levant_n, because two papers do it successfully.
Click to expand...

When people can't remember or don't have the capacity to understand and retain the information that Himera Greeks are very similar to Mycenaeans, as were the Greek traders in Catalonia, and the Greek settler in first millennium B.C. Naples, it's just impossible to have rational conversations with them.

That's three widely separated areas where we find Iron Age Greeks who are extremely similar to Bronze Age Mycenaeans, yet somehow that's not enough to show that the genetic signature survived. What I don't understand is why they don't want to believe it. Facts don't change because we choose not to believe them: Aldous Huxley.

Instead, the signature somehow disappeared and then Anatolians moved to Greece and re-created it. Yes, there's the Marathon sample, who is a bit more "eastern", but we're talking shades of difference.

Then there's the endless debates on what more "northern" Greeks or Southern Balkanites were like. If you use Mycenaean like peoples + the ancient Slavic samples equals modern day people from Thessaly, for example, you get an admixture rate of about 30-40% Slavic if memory serves. If you use Logkas like people, the % Slavic is going to have to decrease a LOT to produce people from Thessaly. Surely there is archaeological evidence which would inform the discussion as to what percentages make more sense.

What makes no sense is to take a group of samples who aren't very northern at all, being like people of Lazio etc. and adding 30% Slavic and thinking you're going to wind up with northern Greeks. Not possible. Maybe that's the agenda. Some ethnic groups in the Balkans want to lower their % Slavic. On the other hand, there are those who don't want to lower their % Slavic, but also don't want to be descended from Mycenaean like people. Problem is: it's one or the other.
 
Idontknowwhatimdoing said:
There is clear 100% confirmed excess Levant_N admix in South Italy. G25 models are consistent with qpAdm models. But you can force Levant N out and just use Iran N as a proxy on qpAdm, that is a forced model. Once you add Levant N it will pick Levant N. Also Iran N was not even close to those numbers in the Bronze Age South Italy.
q2Eg2P8.png
Click to expand...
Bronze age south Italy? There's no samples yet. Also the opposite can be true. Yet academic prefer Iran_N/CHG. Why is that genius?

Also I've never seen qpadm with Levant, only Iran_N/CHG. Bullshit artist that you are.
 
G25 fails to replicate models in Lazaridis 2022, so no, it's not quite the same thing as qpadm. Another lie.
 
Francesco said:
I believe most of the last studies (such as the ones suggested by Jovialis) actually suggest otherwise, with a great deal of "east med" ancestry in Southern Italy being derived from bronze and Iron age Aegean.

That is also perfectly in line with the Greek colonization having been a true folk migration, in contrast with other movement of people (merchant, slaves etc.).

It will be interesting to see, if anything, if the Iron Age Greek samples will somehow differ from the mycenaean ones, even if I don't think there will be much of a difference. Maybe iron age individual could show slightly more EHG and CHG than their bronze age predecessors, even if mycenaeans themselves show some degree of variation in this two components, maybe reflecting influences from the Balkans and from Anatolia.
Click to expand...

Don't know what to tell you ,all we can do is wait for more stuff.
 
Jovialis said:
Bronze age south Italy? There's no samples yet. Also the opposite can be true. Yet academic prefer Iran_N/CHG. Why is that genius?
Also I've never seen qpadm with Levant, only Iran_N/CHG. Bullshit artist that you are.
Click to expand...

qpAdm also does not prefer Steppe when you use qpAdm wrongly like they did. An example of a stupid qpAdm model below.

vGyjaDx.png

qpAdm is often used wrongly in many papers like this.
 
Jovialis said:
Bronze age south Italy? There's no samples yet. Also the opposite can be true. Yet academic prefer Iran_N/CHG. Why is that genius?
Also I've never seen qpadm with Levant, only Iran_N/CHG. Bullshit artist that you are.
Click to expand...

There are literally Bronze Age samples from Sicily, are you actually denying that they exist?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top