Page 511 of 511 FirstFirst ... 11411461501509510511
Results 5,101 to 5,106 of 5106

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

  1. #5101
    Registered Users
    Posts
    706

    Quote Originally Posted by Sikeliot View Post
    But if Greek islanders aren't scoring excess West Asian like that we need to look for another explanation I think. That Dodecanese result did but not the other two. Honestly I'd expect Aegean islanders to score it much higher than they are.
    I’ve read quite a few different articles on Muslim Sicily,but I just found a new one.
    Image below,which is worth Googling and having a read.
    It goes into the different politics and potential changing demographics of Muslim Sicily and how they changed,during and after the Conquest,and during the decline of Emirate.
    It gives more the impression of early Conquest demographic settlements being more,Egyptian based Arabs and Mesopotamians,where as only later era being more dominated by Berber North Africans.
    So considering this and Muslim Palermo’s links with Baghdad during both there rich city periods and the subsequent population growth of Palermo maybe this is what’s being reflected in the elevated West Asian,Middle Eastern & Mizrahi scores of West Sicily.
    Look up the Article have a read:45041ED0-8135-46CD-B0EF-FF4D1B6D71CA.jpeg
    Last edited by Claudio; Yesterday at 08:32 PM.

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Claudio For This Useful Post:

     Power77 (Yesterday),  Sikeliot (Yesterday)

  3. #5102
    Registered Users
    Posts
    2,739
    Sex
    Location
    USA
    Nationality
    American
    Y-DNA
    R1a1a
    mtDNA
    H

    United States of America
    Quote Originally Posted by Claudio View Post
    I’ve read quite a few different articles on Muslim Sicily,but I just found a new one.
    Image below,which is worth Googling and having a read.
    It goes into the different politics and potential changing demographics of Muslim Sicily and how they changed,during and after the Conquest,and during the decline of Emirate.
    It gives more the impression of early Conquest demographically being more,Egyptian based Arabs and Mesopotamians,where as only later era being more dominated by Berber North Africans.
    So considering this and Muslim Palermo’s links with Baghdad during both there rich era’s and subsequent population growth maybe this is what’s being reflected in the elevated West Asian,Middle Eastern & Mizrahi scores or West Sicily.
    Look up the Article have a read:45041ED0-8135-46CD-B0EF-FF4D1B6D71CA.jpeg
    That would explain some of it indeed. I think that we should be looking at the Muslim conquest to explain MENA input in parts of Sicily which did not have Phoenicians.

    Here are some southern Italians who are not Sicilian... you can see the difference in the results between Calabria/Sicily and the rest of the south.

    1. Apulia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FXVpHHkQVY

    43.4% Greek
    28.7% Italian
    16.2% Sephardi Jewish North Africa
    6.8% Ashkenazi Jewish
    4.9% West Asian

    2. Calabria: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jpMQPTgyH0

    49.5% Italian
    19.5% Middle Eastern
    18.1% Sardinian
    6.3% West Asian
    6.6% Greek or Ashkenazi

    3. Calabria: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjFXnAdQ0sM

    67.2% Greek
    9% Italian
    6.8% Middle Eastern
    6.5% North African
    10.5% Iberian or Ashkenazi or Nigerian

    4. Calabria: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrStcdykCyI&t=83s

    23.8% West Asian
    18.9% Greek
    15.8% Sardinian
    15.4% Middle Eastern
    26.1% Ashkenazi or Italian or Iberian or North African


    5. Calabria: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmmYUik5Hmk&t=213s

    49% Greek
    36.4% Italian
    10.2% Sephardi Jewish North African
    4.4% West Asian

    6. 50% Abruzzese, 50% Venetian: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bw5Si-JNeOU

    46.9% Italian
    21.4% Greek
    14.6% Iberian
    6.5% Western European
    10.6% Ashkenazi or Middle Eastern or West Asian

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Sikeliot For This Useful Post:

     Claudio (Yesterday),  Power77 (Yesterday)

  5. #5103
    Registered Users
    Posts
    364
    Sex
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Ethnicity
    English & Greek
    Nationality
    British
    Y-DNA
    J2-L397
    mtDNA
    H2a2a1

    United Kingdom England Greece Cyprus
    Quote Originally Posted by Sikeliot View Post
    But if Greek islanders aren't scoring excess West Asian like that we need to look for another explanation I think. That Dodecanese result did but not the other two. Honestly I'd expect Aegean islanders to score it much higher than they are.
    Greek islanders and South Italians are different populations on a fundamental level. Whilst their overall composition and positioning appears quite similar, upon closer inspection it is clear that there exists obvious differences in both populations even if they cluster close on PCA charts. This should not come as a surprise considering the respective histories of both Italy and Greece which are different on a fundamental level. The Aegean islanders are very much like their ancient Greek ancestors which is probably why they score a good chunk of Italian on top of the modern Greek reference as a signal of older Greek admixture without East European admixture. The northern Aegean sample scores zero to unimportant levels of West Asian and Middle Eastern because that region is very close to Greece proper where as the person from Karpathos scores more of these components because they are slightly further away. If you are looking for a concrete 'black and white' explanation as to why certain Italians would score the West Asian in particular I do not have the answer because, as I said, these categories are non specific and could mean anything depending on what references the companies use.

    I have bolded the West Asian specific components below. There is nothing in these models to suggest that this West Asian category in MyHeritage represents a specific migration from the region but rather it represents a general eastern admixture because of it's balanced levels in comparison to Levant_N. Remember that some of the CHG and Iran_N that they score was mediated with European people such as the Bronze Age Greeks and Sicilians and not simply via Near Easterners.

    [1] "distance%=1.018"

    Italian_South

    LBK_N_Austria,30.6
    Yamnaya_Samara,24
    Peloponnese_N,18.4
    Levant_N,13.8
    Iran_N,8
    CHG,4.6

    WHG,0.6

    [1] "distance%=1.0205"

    Sicilian_East

    LBK_N_Austria,41.4
    Yamnaya_Samara,20.8
    Levant_N,12.6
    Peloponnese_N,9.4
    Iran_N,8.2
    CHG,5.6

    Iberomaurusian,1.2
    WHG,0.8

  6. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to LTG For This Useful Post:

     Andrewid (Yesterday),  Claudio (Yesterday),  Power77 (Yesterday),  Sikeliot (Yesterday)

  7. #5104
    Gold Member Class
    Posts
    1,724
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Jewish (Ashkenazi)
    Y-DNA
    Q-YP3924 (Q-M378)
    mtDNA
    K1a1b1a

    Israel
    Quote Originally Posted by LTG View Post
    Greek islanders and South Italians are different populations on a fundamental level. Whilst their overall composition and positioning appears quite similar, upon closer inspection it is clear that there exists obvious differences in both populations even if they cluster close on PCA charts. This should not come as a surprise considering the respective histories of both Italy and Greece which are different on a fundamental level. The Aegean islanders are very much like their ancient Greek ancestors which is probably why they score a good chunk of Italian on top of the modern Greek reference as a signal of older Greek admixture without East European admixture. The northern Aegean sample scores zero to unimportant levels of West Asian and Middle Eastern because that region is very close to Greece proper where as the person from Karpathos scores more of these components because they are slightly further away. If you are looking for a concrete 'black and white' explanation as to why certain Italians would score the West Asian in particular I do not have the answer because, as I said, these categories are non specific and could mean anything depending on what references the companies use.
    Actually - no they aren't. Both historically as well as genetically, these populations share extensive mutual history of geneflow from Greece (and Greek islands) to South Italy. I'm honestly surprised you would say this, considering you are well aware of these facts.

    This also goes into uniparentals - there are a lot of Greek-originated uniparentals among S. Italians (and Sicilians). South Italy has been Greek speaking and has been settled by Greeks for almost 1700 years.

    Even without PCAs, but admixture calculators, these two populations are pretty interchangeable, as Aga showed few months ago.

    If anything, the fact that MyHeritage seem to be in capable to properly tell the difference between Greek ancestry and Italian ancestry makes this even more obvious.

    I have bolded the West Asian specific components below. There is nothing in these models to suggest that this West Asian category in MyHeritage represents a specific migration from the region but rather it represents a general eastern admixture because of it's balanced levels in comparison to Levant_N. Remember that some of the CHG and Iran_N that they score was mediated with European people such as the Bronze Age Greeks and Sicilians and not simply via Near Easterners.

    [1] "distance%=1.018"

    Italian_South

    LBK_N_Austria,30.6
    Yamnaya_Samara,24
    Peloponnese_N,18.4
    Levant_N,13.8
    Iran_N,8
    CHG,4.6

    WHG,0.6

    [1] "distance%=1.0205"

    Sicilian_East

    LBK_N_Austria,41.4
    Yamnaya_Samara,20.8
    Levant_N,12.6
    Peloponnese_N,9.4
    Iran_N,8.2
    CHG,5.6

    Iberomaurusian,1.2
    WHG,0.8
    I have serious problem accepting these models - they seem overfitted and lack historical plausibility. Funnily enough, the balance between Iran_N + CHG vs. Levant_N is almost 50/50, which would suggest the famous qpAdm model for Bronze Age Levant, which after the recent studies and Moot's talk which has been published we have a pretty strong case for post-Bronze Age Levantine admixture in these populations. For example, in Italy, all the way to Abruzzo, there was no Levant_N admixture until the Iron Age. Obviously, during the Iron Age, any Levant_N would be part of a Near Eastern migration, and not EEF-like or Neolithic Levantines.
    Check out my Hidden Content
    My Y-DNA: Q-M242 -> Q-L232 -> Q-L275 -> Q-M378 -> Q-Y2016 -> Q-L245 -> Q-FGC1904 -> Q-Y2209 -> Q-Y2225 -> Q-Y2197 -> Q-Y2750 -> Q-YP1004 -> Q-YP3924;
    My mtDNA: K1a1b1a;

    My dad's mtDNA: K2a2a;

  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Erikl86 For This Useful Post:

     Cascio (Yesterday),  Claudio (Yesterday)

  9. #5105
    Registered Users
    Posts
    706

    Quote Originally Posted by Sikeliot View Post
    Also, which populations are going into "West Asian"? I already established I have seen some Palermitans who score above 20% for this... and I just found one scoring 26.4% West Asian alone, and combined European comes to 60.5%.

    If not Phoenician I have no explanation for this.

    Here is a Syrian scoring almost 70% "West Asian": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLAuAhs7afQ

    This Lebanese scores 27% "Mizrahi Jewish - Iran/Iraq": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mb5GTsFJqGs

    So I do think for Sicilians and Aegean islanders we can interpret "West Asian" as being partly derived from the Levant.

    Considering the elevated West Asian or Middle Eastern is Geographical to Southern Italy & Sicily it could be Combination of later Byzantine and Muslim ancestry.
    We have Already discussed after reading about the demographics of the Byzantine empire that people who were of Caucasus,Persian,Mesopotamian & Levantine Ancestry considered themselves Greeks and would of come to South italy,Sicily. But by the same token 200 years later people of these same locations who now considered themselves Muslim would have also come to Sicily so it’s the same ancestry.

    But saying that,Considering what the recent paper on the Italian Peninsula showed in regards to imperial Roman era Central Italians being closer to modern Southern Italians,this same process must of happened before during the Roman Empire with regard to west Asian & Levantine Admixture coming to Italy & Sicily.

  10. #5106
    Registered Users
    Posts
    364
    Sex
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Ethnicity
    English & Greek
    Nationality
    British
    Y-DNA
    J2-L397
    mtDNA
    H2a2a1

    United Kingdom England Greece Cyprus
    Quote Originally Posted by Erikl86 View Post
    Actually - no they aren't. Both historically as well as genetically, these populations share extensive mutual history of geneflow from Greece (and Greek islands) to South Italy. I'm honestly surprised you would say this, considering you are well aware of these facts.
    I am well aware of the fact that both Greek and South Italian people share mutual ancestry from Greeks. I was referring to the differing layers that fall on top of this 'base' which are observable when you begin to pull them apart. The Italians lean towards Germanic people for their northern admixture whereas Greeks lean towards Slavic people due to the different migrations that both areas experienced. South Italians also have a layer of Northern Italian type ancestry that can probably be attributed to the original Roman peoples of the Republic who would not have had much if any influence in Greece from a genetic standpoint. There is no reason to be surprised at what I am saying as I have always been of the opinion that there exists clear differences between the two groups even if they cluster in a similar fashion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Erikl86 View Post
    This also goes into uniparentals - there are a lot of Greek-originated uniparentals among S. Italians (and Sicilians). South Italy has been Greek speaking and has been settled by Greeks for almost 1700 years.
    Whilst that sort of thing is interesting to know there have since been movements into the region that changed the autosomal profile of South Italians even if they maintained a lot of the original Greek haplogroups. Either way, I cant say that I care for Y-DNA or mtDNA in general. It is the autosomal profile that is king when it comes to genetic descent and I can observe measurable differences between the two groups regarding not only their levels of Greek ancestry, but also ancestry that happens to quite accurately represent the known migrations and peoples that they absorbed be them Germanic, Slavic, Roman and so on. There is no point in going back and forth over this so we will have to agree to disagree.

    Quote Originally Posted by Erikl86 View Post
    I have serious problem accepting these models - they seem overfitted and lack historical plausibility.
    I am sorry to hear that these models are unacceptable. It appears as though I 'lost time', and in my dazed and sweaty 'stream of consciousness' made the fatal error of pasting said populations into the sheet without fully engaging my brain beforehand. I cant think of what to do next other than forget these implausible models ever existed, and willingly relegate them to the annuls of Anthrogenica nMonte history so that they can freely roam the aether for eternity
    Last edited by LTG; Yesterday at 11:05 PM.

Page 511 of 511 FirstFirst ... 11411461501509510511

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 19
    Last Post: 12-07-2018, 12:52 AM
  2. Present-day Lebanese descend from Biblical Canaanites
    By MikeWhalen in forum Ancient (aDNA)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-27-2017, 07:49 PM
  3. Early farmers from across Europe were direct descendants of Aegeans
    By rock hunter in forum Archaeology (Prehistory)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-21-2016, 10:43 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-14-2016, 01:02 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-26-2015, 05:29 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •