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

[Idontknowwhatimdoing]

Sources please, otherwise this is just unfounded conjecture.

It is a common knowledge in population genetics.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/423079v1.full

 

[Idontknowwhatimdoing]

Also, the paper says Natufian is 72% Dzudzuana, and 27% ANA according to the preprint.

You confused Iberomaurusian Taforalt with Ancestral North African. According to the Paper Taforalt has 45% ANA and Nautifan has 27% Taforalt and not 27% ANA, which means Natufian has 12% ANA.

Pay attention to the graph in the paper and also read the supplementary material models too.

 

[Jovialis]

You confused Iberomaurusian Taforalt with Ancestral North African. According to the Paper Taforalt has 45% ANA and Nautifan has 27% Taforalt and not 27% ANA, which means Natufian has 12% ANA.

Pay attention to the graph in the paper and also read the supplementary material models too.

I'm familiar with the paper, which I read when it came out. I misspoke so sue me. Putting the minutia aside, the point remains that Levant_N is an admixed population, and not exactly as ideal to use for modeling.

You being a polemic for this canard that there is "100% confirmed evidence" or what ever, is simply not true.

The point is, we don't have Dzudzuana to use for modeling.

 

[Idontknowwhatimdoing]

Sarno et al. 2022 modeling:

Where is the Levant_N? Why didn't they choose to model it as such? Maybe because it wasn't as accurate? You people are simply pathetic.

I used Sarno et al.paper's outgroups but i added Taforalt and Anatolian HG in order to help qpAdm tell apart Natufian from Turkey_N easier. I also removed Jordan_PPNB because Natufian used as a left pop and is ancestral to Jordan_PPNB. Those academics by not using Taforalt and Anatolian HG as outgroups they do not allow qpAdm to tell apart Natufian from Anatolia_N which is a very big mistake.

 

[D.L.M]

We don't even know if Marathon is Greek-admixed but let's suppose it is ,it doesn't seem just a bit different.

I doubt he was Greek:

[TH="class: singleheader, colspan: 2, align: left"]Target: Greek_Dodecanese
Distance: 2.8476% / 0.02847602
[/TH]

[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]67.8[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]GRC_Marathon_Rom[/TD]

[TD="class: barchartmode1 nonselectable, colspan: 2"][/TD]

[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]32.2[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]GRC_Mycenaean[/TD]

He works as a great proxy for a pure West Anatolian source as Dodecanese Islanders score roughly 1/3 Ancient Greek admixture without using any other distant source like Armenian which are necessary.

Or it could be that it is a low quality sample.

 

[Idontknowwhatimdoing]

I doubt he was Greek:

[TH="class: singleheader, colspan: 2, align: left"]Target: Greek_Dodecanese
Distance: 2.8476% / 0.02847602[/TH]

[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]67.8[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]GRC_Marathon_Rom[/TD]

[TD="class: barchartmode1 nonselectable, colspan: 2"][/TD]

[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]32.2[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]GRC_Mycenaean[/TD]

He works as a great proxy for a pure West Anatolian source as Dodecanese Islanders score roughly 1/3 Ancient Greek admixture without using any other distant source like Armenian which are necessary.

Or it could be that it is a low quality sample.

Dodecanese have Anatolian-Armenian related stuff, Canaanite related and also some Balkano-Slavic.

 

[D.L.M]

Dodecanese have Anatolian-Armenian related stuff, Canaanite related and also some Balkano-Slavic.

The ancient Greek admixture in Mainland Greeks seems to be 25% minimum to 55% maximum depending on circumstances as I see.
It all depends how much Daco-Thracian related ancestry (probably associated with E-V13) they have.

Those models can be misleading too even if they have a good fit and even if they are done by academics. (whatever tools are used)

 

[Idontknowwhatimdoing]

The ancient Greek admixture in Mainland Greeks seems to be 25% minimum to 55% maximum depending on circumstances as I see.
It all depends how much Daco-Thracian related ancestry (probably associated with E-V13) they have.

Those models can be misleading too even if they have a good fit and even if they are done by academics. (whatever tools are used)

Cyclades Milos seems to be around 40-50%

 

[Dorian9]

I doubt he was Greek:

[TH="class: singleheader, colspan: 2, align: left"]Target: Greek_Dodecanese
Distance: 2.8476% / 0.02847602[/TH]

[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]67.8[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]GRC_Marathon_Rom[/TD]

[TD="class: barchartmode1 nonselectable, colspan: 2"][/TD]

[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]32.2[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]GRC_Mycenaean[/TD]

He works as a great proxy for a pure West Anatolian source as Dodecanese Islanders score roughly 1/3 Ancient Greek admixture without using any other distant source like Armenian which are necessary.

Or it could be that it is a low quality sample.

The only pure West Anatolians we have at the moment are Yassitepe and Degirmendere(and he doesn't look like them) but other than that we have a long way to go until we can model them accurately as the migrations from the east happened in multiple waves ,maybe starting in Hellenistic then Roman and kept going until Ottomans ,so there's a lot to untangle ,it's not so straight-forward.

 

[Dorian9]

I used Sarno et al.paper's outgroups but i added Taforalt and Anatolian HG in order to help qpAdm tell apart Natufian from Turkey_N easier. I also removed Jordan_PPNB because Natufian used as a left pop and is ancestral to Jordan_PPNB. Those academics by not using Taforalt and Anatolian HG as outgroups they do not allow qpAdm to tell apart Natufian from Anatolia_N which is a very big mistake.

 

[D.L.M]

Cyclades Milos seems to be around 40-50%

I meant to say that is nearly 50% Greek admixture in mainland if you ignore other Balkanic sources.
So if you only use Northern Slavic, Armenian and Classical Greek. Then Peloponnesians in particular (as an example) will be around 50% Ancient Greek. If you use other Balkanic components the Mycenaean percentage lowers to 25%-30%(minimum).
So the range of the Greek admixture in Peloponnese must be between 25% and 50%.

 

[Jovialis]

I used Sarno et al.paper's outgroups but i added Taforalt and Anatolian HG in order to help qpAdm tell apart Natufian from Turkey_N easier. I also removed Jordan_PPNB because Natufian used as a left pop and is ancestral to Jordan_PPNB. Those academics by not using Taforalt and Anatolian HG as outgroups they do not allow qpAdm to tell apart Natufian from Anatolia_N which is a very big mistake.

Show me results with Minoan_Lasithi or Greece_N included, and you will see a difference.

The original point was that Southern Italy (specifically Puglia), and Maniot is more related to these groups than other Modern Greek

Minoans, besides Zakros, are negligible in Levantine, btw.

 

[Jovialis]

Modern Italians, with the exception of Sardinians, are very different from the Mesolithic, Neolithic and Bronze Age individuals from the same area, with some resemblance only in Iron Age samples [44]. A notable exception is the fact that the Iron Age Southern Italians here investigated do not overlap with the genetic variation observed in modern-day individuals from the same area, in line with previous observations [35]. Interestingly, three out of the five Neolithic Peloponnesians, together with the totality of Minoans and Mycenaeans included in our dataset, plot towards the genetic variability of people currently inhabiting Southern Peloponnese (Maniots and Tsakonians) and Southern Italian regions (Sicily, Calabria and Apulia) (Fig. 2B). Modern Southern Italians are closer to Southern European Neolithic and Bronze Age samples (Neolithic Peloponnesians and Minoans) than most modern Peloponnesian groups, with the exception of the Deep Mani and Taygetos individuals (Fig. 2B).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0888754322001501?via%3Dihub

 

[Jovialis]

You can find Levantine in anything West Eurasian, even Steppe (as per Lazaridis et al 2022). Does this make it true? Not everyone agrees.

Do I think it exists, maybe. But I am not purporting that it is a significant component, especially when Iran_N/CHG is a more likely candidate.

I could take every single component in existence, and it will produce a model that is completely out of wack, yet the fit would be extremely close. It doesn't mean it is true.

Would it bother me if it was indeed otherwise? No. The Levant is a very interesting place, and I plan on visiting Israel and Egypt sometime in the future on a cruise actually.

 

[Jovialis]

At any rate, the current science (Feldman et al. 2019) suggests the Anatolian HGs were an intermediate between WHG and Natufian, so there you have it.

 

[Idontknowwhatimdoing]

Show me results with Minoan_Lasithi or Greece_N included, and you will see a difference.

The original point was that Southern Italy (specifically Puglia), and Maniot is more related to these groups than other Modern Greek

Minoans, besides Zakros, are negligible in Levantine, btw.

My models prove that the paper is wrong. According to the paper's faulty model South Italians have no excess Natufian admix but that is false because they overinflated Iran Neolithic by not including Natufian or Levant_N. My models which are based on the paper's outgroups clearly show that once you add outgroups that help differentiate Anatolia_N from Natufian then South Italians score both excess Natufian and Iran Neolithic. The Iran Neolithic and Natufian admix in South Italians comes from the Levant and Anatolia. The source of the excess Natufian and Iran Neolithic admix in South Italy is also confirmed by the many Levantine and Anatolian samples found in Imperial Roman Italy later. But Modern South Italians are still not very different to pre Imperial Italians. Keep in mind that Anatolia_N has around 10-14% Natufian and 5-10% Iran N admix.

The problem with qpAdm models here is that South Italians require a North African proxy but qpAdm has high STD errors when using too many proxies, especially ones that have ancestry from each other. Without that very small North African % it just inflates Natufian to compensate for it because Natufian has 27% Taforalt Iberomaurusian admix. Such complicated models though work very well on G25 which is its main strength.

Calabrians on G25 get 8% Natufian and 15,2% Levant_N which is more realistic than 11,8% Natufian in South Italians on qpAdm, 11,8% Natufian would imply around 23% Levant_N since Levant_N is 50% Natufian.

 

[Jovialis]

30% Steppe in South Italians and Sicilians? This is a dubious proposition here at best.

Clearly there's something wrong here.

Also, what I meant was if you use Minoan or Greece_N as a model for ultimate sources of ancestry.

Some results using Dodecad K12b:

 

[Idontknowwhatimdoing]

30% Steppe in South Italians and Sicilians? This is a dubious proposition here at best.

Clearly there's something wrong here.

Also, what I meant was if you use Minoan or Greece_N as a model for ultimate sources of ancestry.

Some results using Dodecad K12b:

Like i've said qpAdm is not perfect. In this case G25 models might be better than qpAdm models due to the limitation of too many proxies. Also Dodecad is an outdated calculator. It makes no sense to use just Minoans as a proxy for Italians when they clearly much more excess Iran N and Levant N stuff relatively to Bronze-Iron age Sicilians-Italians.

 

[Jovialis]

Like i've said qpAdm is not perfect. In this case G25 models might be better than qpAdm models due to the limitation of too many proxies. Also Dodecad is an outdated calculator. It makes no sense to use just Minoans as a proxy for Italians when they clearly much more excess Iran N and Levant N stuff relatively to Bronze-Iron age Sicilians-Italians.

Well, I have cited two studies (Raveane et al. 2022 and Sarno et al. 2021) that suggest that it does make sense. Raveane et al. 2022 particularly with modeling Apulians with Minoans. You can play around with the out groups all you'd like. But I'm more inclined to believe that the authors are competent in coming to their conclusions.


Also, it is an appeal to novelty fallacy to disregard Dodecad as being worse than G25, simply because it is older.


Also, this is a red herring, you are trying to divert attention away from my initial remark that because South Italians and Maniots have more an affinity to Greece_N/Minoans, they are the closest to the ancient Greeks. So now you have to come up with sophistry to try to disprove two academic papers to try to pretend there's all this Levantine in these populations. Come on man, I wasn't born yesterday. Maybe you don't want to produce the model with Greece_N or Minoan because it will prove my point. That's not fair.

 

[Jovialis]

Btw, if you read the supplement from the Fernandes et al. 2020 paper, Minoan_Lassithi is a viable ultimate source population for Bronze-Age Sicilians.