Could Western Jews (Ash. and Seph.) descend from Aegeans and Levantine admixture?

[Erikl86]

The paper is now available through Shai Carmi's website

Not yet, only later on today.

[DudeTheDud]

Not yet, only later on today.

Well there’s a link there to a google drive with a final looking paper so… (and it looks like some small Israeli news site already spilled the beans publishing the press release two days ago)

[Erikl86]

Not yet, only later on today.

It's out now:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....l=1#post893158

[Erikl86]

Something relevant to this thread though.

The model suggested in the premise of this thread, is now, finally, in a peer reviewed paper.

Models with Greek as a source had average ancestry proportions 51% Greek, 32% ME, and 17% East-EU (Table S3)... A model with all Mediterranean populations merged as a single source (Middle Eastern, Greek, and Italian, with East-EU as the other source) fit the data (p = 0.11) with ancestry proportions 89% Mediterranean and 11% East-EU.

[Riverman]

Something relevant to this thread though.

The model suggested in the premise of this thread, is now, finally, in a peer reviewed paper.

Is this ancient Greek/Mediterranean in the model or modern? Makes quite a difference.

[Vinshlusen]

Is this ancient Greek/Mediterranean in the model or modern? Makes quite a difference.

How big of a difference would that be? If modern Greece is used then the biggest most meaningful difference would be the size of the East European component in AJs. I don't think thats an important difference in the big scope of things.

[Riverman]

How big of a difference would that be? If modern Greece is used then the biggest most meaningful difference would be the size of the East European component in AJs. I don't think thats an important difference in the big scope of things.

If you take modern North Italians and modern Greeks, as they did, I looked into it, you miss both the Germanic and the Slavic contribution respectively. Depending on the model this could increase the e.g. Near Eastern-Levantine and especially the more Northern and Eastern European contribution dramatically.

[Vinshlusen]

If you take modern North Italians and modern Greeks, as they did, I looked into it, you miss both the Germanic and the Slavic contribution respectively. Depending on the model this could increase the e.g. Near Eastern-Levantine and especially the more Northern and Eastern European contribution dramatically.

They chose a simple model, as in the preprint. You see this choice again and again in different academic articles. They are not interested in exact or precise models. They quite frequently write this down as well "other models might be appropriate as well" and suggest to take it all with a grain of salt. If they are missing the slavic and germanic contributions to Greek and Italian populations they do this intentionally IMHO. Uncovering the exact contribution of the Eastern/Western European ancestry is simply not the goal of this article and it will trigger more opposition which would be counter productive. The main points of the article if that modern AJs are a result of the admixture of two separate proto-AJs groups and that the bottleneck was longer and started earlier than previously thought and probably happened separately in these different groups.

P.S, at this forum we know how to account for the ME, Slavic & German ancestries found in these modern populations. What would you consider dramatic? I dont think that a missing 5%-10% additions to any of the Slavic/Germanic/ME components would be dramatic. We are not going to find out anytime soon that AJs are 90% Germanic, Slavic or Middle Eastern...

[Riverman]

They chose a simple model, as in the preprint. You see this choice again and again in different academic articles. They are not interested in exact or precise models. They quite frequently write this down as well "other models might be appropriate as well" and suggest to take it all with a grain of salt. If they are missing the slavic and germanic contributions to Greek and Italian populations they do this intentionally IMHO. Uncovering the exact contribution of the Eastern/Western European ancestry is simply not the goal of this article and it will trigger more opposition which would be counter productive. The main points of the article if that modern AJs are a result of the admixture of two separate proto-AJs groups and that the bottleneck was longer and started earlier than previously thought and probably happened separately in these different groups.

P.S, at this forum we know how to account for the ME, Slavic & German ancestries found in these modern populations. What would you consider dramatic? I dont think that a missing 5%-10% additions to any of the Slavic/Germanic/ME components would be dramatic. We are not going to find out anytime soon that AJs are 90% Germanic, Slavic or Middle Eastern...

10-15 % more or less makes a difference imho. Otherwise agreed.

[Vinshlusen]

10-15 % more or less makes a difference imho. Otherwise agreed.

A while back I started taking on a more "binary" approach - if the component is there or not. Doesnt matter if its 3% or 10% or 15%. If its there, I need a historical explanation for it. If its not there, I need a historical explanation for its absence as well. If there is a historical theme that suggests admixture - I expect to simply see that component in the mix, regardless of its exact size.