Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 72

Thread: Pontic Greek Results

  1. #61
    Gold Member Class
    Posts
    3,569
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Jewish & British
    Y-DNA
    J1-YSC234 (Z18271+)
    mtDNA
    J1c5

    Israel Israel Jerusalem United Kingdom England Scotland Isle of Man
    Quote Originally Posted by LTG View Post
    As bad as this may sound, the West Asian reference which includes Turkey and the Caucasus, Middle East and Iran/Persia, looks as if they literally drew a large circle around what they imagined was the majority of the Muslim world as it even includes large amounts of North Africa. It then appears as though this all encompassing circle was split into three smaller circles. The severe overlap (the 'ripples' you see as you actually click on the regions) between these three regions means that anyone who has been placed as a reference under these regions, or whose nation is in proximity to them, will just be eaten alive by them.

    As I do not totally belong to one all encompassing region, my results were broken up in a genuine component like manner. My mother is English, my father is mainly Greek Cypriot but has some Balkan Greek ancestry. As they are a near perfect 50-50 split, I thought they would be indicative of what you would score if it was like the old tests:

    Mothers split:
    England, Wales & Northwestern Europe 43%
    Germanic Europe 4%
    Baltic States 1%
    Italy 2%

    Fathers split:
    Italy 31%
    Turkey and the Caucasus 16%
    Greece and the Balkans 2%
    Iran/Persia 1%



    That was certainly the trend before, I believe LivingDNA and MyHeritage are the only commercial tests that will continue to actually focus on that type of analysis and breakdown sadly.

    The thing that worries me is that most consumers will walk away from these various commercial tests believing that they are genuinely of Arab descent, or Indian descent, or whatever it may be just because the all encompassing circles on the map overlap with so many regions.



    You have to take into account that the market is overwhelmingly American, many of the people who test want to know where their ancestors came from rather than what they were made of. Unfortunately, some West Eurasian regions get caught in the crossfire. Now Turkey is not the historically accurate amalgamation of Southern European, Central Asian and Caucasian components but 100% 'Turkey and the Caucasus'.
    Isn't your mother part-Greek as well though?
    ᾽Άλλο δέ τοι ἐρέω, σὺ δ᾽ ἐνὶ φρεσὶ βάλλεο σῇσιν:
    κρύβδην, μηδ᾽ ἀναφανδά, φίλην ἐς πατρίδα γαῖαν
    νῆα κατισχέμεναι: ἐπεὶ οὐκέτι πιστὰ γυναιξίν.


    -Αγαμέμνων; H Οδύσσεια, Ραψωδία λ

  2. #62
    Registered Users
    Posts
    160
    Sex
    Location
    UK
    Ethnicity
    English & Greek
    Nationality
    British
    Y-DNA
    J2a-L397
    mtDNA
    H2a2a1

    United Kingdom Greece Byzantine Empire
    Quote Originally Posted by TonyC View Post
    i honestly cannot take Ancestry seriously. What in the name of God is Caucasus in Meds anyway? is it an ancient EHG admixture? i've noticed that mainland Greeks, Albanians, Southern Italians and other Balkanites get varying levels but I'm not sure what it even suggests genetically.
    It simply represents shared markers with Caucasian populations, normally based on Armenians and Georgians in these tests. It doesn't mean that Southern Europeans have a recent ancestor from the Caucasus, just that at some point admixture was mediated to them that was also quite prevalent in the Caucasus. This was likely a long time ago, but will obviously be passed on generation after generation for potentially thousands of years.

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

     Andrewid (11-29-2018),  TonyC (11-29-2018)

  4. #63
    Registered Users
    Posts
    2,539
    Sex
    Location
    USA
    Nationality
    American
    Y-DNA
    R1a1a
    mtDNA
    H

    United States of America
    Quote Originally Posted by Agamemnon View Post
    While I do not want to jump to conclusions, the names of several of the Northern Aegean islands (Lemnos, Samos, etc) do have reliable Phoenician etymologies, other islands such as Kythera also have a history of Phoenician settlement. Even though the inclusion of either Levant_BA_South or Levant_BA_North when modelling the ancestry of Aegean Greeks would not be very informative at this stage, this might still be a factor further contributing to the similarity between Aegean Greeks and Western Jews.
    Interestingly those are the very islands which seem to shift a bit toward mainland Greece. But I definitely think, if you look at Sarno et al and even just the way they score on GEDMatch and various professional tests, that Aegean islanders have varying degrees of Levantine admixture, no different than what Sicilians have.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Sikeliot For This Useful Post:

     Agamemnon (11-29-2018)

  6. #64
    Registered Users
    Posts
    160
    Sex
    Location
    UK
    Ethnicity
    English & Greek
    Nationality
    British
    Y-DNA
    J2a-L397
    mtDNA
    H2a2a1

    United Kingdom Greece Byzantine Empire
    Quote Originally Posted by Agamemnon View Post
    Isn't your mother part-Greek as well though?
    There was theorised Greek ancestry on that side based on some names we found potentially linked to our family, but nothing conclusive. I can trace my maternal line back to the 1700's in England and most names appear to be typical Anglo-Saxon names for my region. I started to believe that the Greek link was real when in some tests I would often get a lot of Southern European admixture; MyHeritage gave me around 60%, my first AncestryDNA gave me 47%, GenePlaza gave me 49%.

    The AncestryDNA and 23andme updates cleared that all up though.

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

     Agamemnon (11-29-2018),  Andrewid (11-29-2018)

  8. #65
    Registered Users
    Posts
    218
    Sex
    Location
    Papantla, Mexico

    Ireland Ireland England England Ireland Munster European Union
    Quote Originally Posted by TonyC View Post
    i honestly cannot take Ancestry seriously. What in the name of God is Caucasus in Meds anyway? is it an ancient EHG admixture? i've noticed that mainland Greeks, Albanians, Southern Italians and other Balkanites get varying levels but I'm not sure what it even suggests genetically.
    There are actually some hints that South-East Europe and Italy received an influx of CHG rich populations related to one of the Tepecik Ciftlik samples. This would be before any Yamnaya incursions and didn't come associated with EHG. May have been around the Chalcolithic (Otzi showed some signs of closer relationship to CHG populations compared to other Neolithic Europeans in D-stats)

    Off the top of my head, Minoans were CHG rich compared to Neolithic Europeans of the same period and there are some theories that this influx may be the origin of languages like Rhaetian and Etruscan.

    This is quite vague though and there are probably other members who can cite exactly which studies cite this D-stat evidence.
    Last edited by Bas; 11-29-2018 at 03:25 AM.

  9. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Bas For This Useful Post:

     alexfritz (11-29-2018),  hartaisarlag (11-29-2018),  PoxVoldius (11-29-2018),  TonyC (11-29-2018)

  10. #66
    Registered Users
    Posts
    88
    Location
    USA
    Ethnicity
    Greek, Peloponnese
    Y-DNA
    G2A2A

    Quote Originally Posted by Bas View Post
    There are actually some hints that South-East Europe and Italy received an influx of CHG rich populations related to one of the Tepecik Ciftlik samples. This would be before any Yamnaya incursions didn't come associated with EHG. May have been around the Chalcolithic (Otzi showed some signs of favouring CHG populations over other Neolithic Europeans in D-stats)

    Off the top of my head, Minoans were CHG rich compared to Neolithic Europeans of the same period and there are some theories that this influx may be the origin of languages like Rhaetian and Etruscan.

    This is quite vague though and there are probably other members who can cite exactly which studies cite this D-stat evidence.
    Wow yes this is the type of insight that I truly appreciate.Thanks!

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

     Bas (11-29-2018),  digital_noise (11-29-2018)

  12. #67
    Registered Users
    Posts
    133
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Turkish
    Y-DNA
    N-P43

    Turkey Great Seljuk Empire
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrewid View Post
    In Anatolia, the arrival of the Turkic tribes probably added about 15% to the genetic gene pool
    That's clearly an underestimation. The Central Asian genetic contribution in present-day Anatolia is still underestimated by many even though we have the genomes of medieval Central Asian Turkic individuals (Göktürk, Karluk, Kipchak, Karakhanid).

    Quote Originally Posted by Andrewid View Post
    though it didn't seem to affect the Cappadocian Rum and the Anatolian northwest coast populations, both Greek and Turkish.
    On the contrary, northwest Anatolian Turks have more Central Asian ancestry than the Turkish average (especially when Eastern Black Sea provinces are included).
     



    Some Global 25 nMonte runs with Turkish_Balikesir (northwest Anatolia).

    Test 1 model:
    Greek
    Greek_Crete
    Karakhanid

    Result:
    74.17% West Anatolian
    25.83% Central Asian



    Test 2 model:
    Greek
    Greek_Crete
    Turk_Medieval (Göktürk)

    Result:
    62.5% West Anatolian
    37.5% Central Asian



    Test 3 model:
    Greek
    Greek_Crete
    Kipchak

    Result:
    66.67% West Anatolian
    33.33% Central Asian



    Test 4 model:
    Greek
    Greek_Crete
    Karluk

    Result:
    71.67% West Anatolian
    28.33% Central Asian



    Fits are even better when the medieval Turkic samples are combined with Turkmens ("Turkmen" on Global K25's spreadsheet is the average of Uzbekistan Turkmens).

    Test 5 model:
    Greek
    Greek_Crete
    Karakhanid
    Turkmen

    Result:
    54.17% West Anatolian
    45.83% Central Asian



    Test 6 model:
    Greek
    Greek_Crete
    Turk_Medieval (Göktürk)
    Turkmen

    Result:
    51.67% West Anatolian
    48.33% Central Asian



    Test 7 model:
    Greek
    Greek_Crete
    Kipchak
    Turkmen

    Result:
    52.5% West Anatolian
    47.5% Central Asian



    Test 8 model:
    Greek
    Greek_Crete
    Karluk
    Turkmen

    Result:
    51.67% West Anatolian
    48.33% Central Asian





    Quote Originally Posted by Andrewid View Post
    Here is a map of Greek-speaking areas of Anatolia around 1910. Some people dispute the map and say it underestimates the Greek concentration. In the late 19thc, the Ottomans tried to conduct their own censuses but many Greeks avoided registration. Conscription had become an issue after the Tanzimat reforms but also the extra taxes on dhimmi such as the cizye. The Greek Government attempted its own census in 1910-1912, which I mentioned on another thread. These numbers had reduced by 75% in 1924.

    The map is so inaccurate that I don't know where to start correcting. The distribution of Laz and Zaza populations are nowhere near the truth for example. What is the source of this map?
    Last edited by Alkaevli; 12-06-2018 at 05:54 PM.

  13. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Alkaevli For This Useful Post:

     Anabasis (12-07-2018),  Andrewid (12-06-2018),  Crimean (Today)

  14. #68
    Registered Users
    Posts
    133
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Turkish
    Y-DNA
    N-P43

    Turkey Great Seljuk Empire
    There is an overlooked detail: Cappadocian Greeks are genetically more "West Asian" than the Hattian and Hittite period individuals. One would expect the opposite after the Hellenization process.
    Last edited by Alkaevli; 12-06-2018 at 06:04 PM.

  15. #69
    Registered Users
    Posts
    190
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Alkaevli View Post
    That's clearly an underestimation. The Central Asian genetic contribution in present-day Anatolia is still underestimated by many even though we have the genomes of medieval Central Asian Turkic individuals (Göktürk, Karluk, Kipchak, Karakhanid).


    On the contrary, northwest Anatolian Turks have more Central Asian ancestry than the Turkish average (especially when Eastern Black Sea provinces are included).
     



    Some Global 25 nMonte runs with Turkish_Balikesir (northwest Anatolia).

    Test 1 model:
    Greek
    Greek_Crete
    Karakhanid

    Result:
    74.17% West Anatolian
    25.83% Central Asian



    Test 2 model:
    Greek
    Greek_Crete
    Turk_Medieval (Göktürk)

    Result:
    62.5% West Anatolian
    37.5% Central Asian



    Test 3 model:
    Greek
    Greek_Crete
    Kipchak

    Result:
    66.67% West Anatolian
    33.33% Central Asian



    Test 4 model:
    Greek
    Greek_Crete
    Karluk

    Result:
    71.67% West Anatolian
    28.33% Central Asian



    Fits are even better when the medieval Turkic samples are combined with Turkmens ("Turkmen" on Global K25's spreadsheet is the average of Uzbekistan Turkmens).

    Test 5 model:
    Greek
    Greek_Crete
    Karakhanid
    Turkmen

    Result:
    54.17% West Anatolian
    45.83% Central Asian



    Test 6 model:
    Greek
    Greek_Crete
    Turk_Medieval (Göktürk)
    Turkmen

    Result:
    51.67% West Anatolian
    48.33% Central Asian



    Test 7 model:
    Greek
    Greek_Crete
    Kipchak
    Turkmen

    Result:
    52.5% West Anatolian
    47.5% Central Asian



    Test 8 model:
    Greek
    Greek_Crete
    Karluk
    Turkmen

    Result:
    51.67% West Anatolian
    48.33% Central Asian







    The map is so inaccurate that I don't know where to start correcting. The distribution of Laz and Zaza populations are nowhere near the truth for example. What is the source of this map?
    Apologies Alkaevli, I did not mean northwest Anatolia but northeast, in other words the areas around Trabzon. What do you believe the Turkish admixture to be approximately in that area?

    As for the map, I was told that it appeared in a publication around 1912.


    In terms of Turkic admixture, it depends which studies we consider. It was Di Benedetto et al. that compared mtDNA control region sequences and some STR Y-chromosome loci. The study suggested a roughly 30% Central Asian admixture, indicating a single admixture event. This would approach your figure.

    However, other studies have not put the admixture so high. The Di Benedetto conclusions contrast with Berkman et al. who investigated Alu insertion polymorphisms and calculated the Central Asian contribution as 13%. At the other extreme of Di Benedetto, we have Cinnioğlu et al. who in their study detected a mere 3.4% of Anatolian haplogroups related to Central Asia.

    In the findings of Hodoğugil and Mahley, only a limited degree of similarity of the Turkish population to Central Asians was established ranging between 9 and 15%. Others such as Quintana-Murci et al. found central Asian admixture to be negligible. Schönberg et al even went so far as to say their study confirmed the "previous estimates of low levels of gene flow from Asia into Anatolia".

    Heraclides et al in their 2017 study on the common pre-Ottoman ancestry of Greek and Turkish Cypriots, reviewed the current state of research on Central Asian Y-haplogroups in Anatolian Turks and stated that it ranged from 3% in south Turks to 15% in central Anatolian Turks (see their s7 table).

    So it looks as if the academic community is not completely in agreement as to the extent of the gene flow.

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to Andrewid For This Useful Post:

     Erikl86 (12-07-2018)

  17. #70
    Registered Users
    Posts
    133
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Turkish
    Y-DNA
    N-P43

    Turkey Great Seljuk Empire
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrewid View Post
    Apologies Alkaevli, I did not mean northwest Anatolia but northeast, in other words the areas around Trabzon. What do you believe the Turkish admixture to be approximately in that area?
    The Central Asian ancestry in Trabzon is negligible, except for the westernmost districts (Beşikdüzü and Şalpazarı) that are basically an extension of the Giresun province to the west. I think the Hellenic ancestry is also negligible, the difference between Pontic Greeks and Lazes is that the former have more affinity to Anatolia_Neolithic, which can be explained with Pontic Greeks being closer to the Anatolian heartland. The very same difference can be observed between Lazes and Georgians from Adjara, Lazes can also be modeled as a mix of a Mycenaean-like population and Georgians.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andrewid View Post
    In terms of Turkic admixture, it depends which studies we consider. It was Di Benedetto et al. that compared mtDNA control region sequences and some STR Y-chromosome loci. The study suggested a roughly 30% Central Asian admixture, indicating a single admixture event. This would approach your figure.
    Those are not "my" figures. Global K25 is created by Davidski, the medieval Central Asian Turkic samples are from a paper named "137 ancient human genomes from across the Eurasian steppes" and the "Turkish_Balikesir" sample is from Hodoğlugil's paper. I merely chose the models, you can also try new models: Global25 nMonte Runner

    Quote Originally Posted by Andrewid View Post
    However, other studies have not put the admixture so high. The Di Benedetto conclusions contrast with Berkman et al. who investigated Alu insertion polymorphisms and calculated the Central Asian contribution as 13%. In the findings of Hodoğugil and Mahley, only a limited degree of similarity of the Turkish population to Central Asians was established ranging between 9 and 15%. Others such as Quintana-Murci et al. found central Asian admixture to be negligible. Schönberg et al even went so far as to say their study confirmed the "previous estimates of low levels of gene flow from Asia into Anatolia". Heraclides et al in their 2017 study on the common pre-Ottoman ancestry of Greek and Turkish Cypriots, reviewed the current state of research on Central Asian Y-haplogroups in Anatolian Turks and stated that it ranged from 3% in south Turks to 15% in central Anatolian Turks (see their s7 table).
    A pile of outdated garbage, I'm sorry.

    We now have the genomes of medieval Turks from Central Asia and hundreds of ethnic Turks from Anatolia. Anatolian Turks have roughly 10% East Eurasian (not to be confused with Central Asian) ancestry on average, we know from the genomes of medieval Central Asian Turks that pre-Mongol Central Asia was not predominantly East Eurasian, so it doesn't take a genius to conclude that Central Asian ancestry was underestimated in these outdated papers. I have no problem with embracing the fact that Anatolian Turks descend primarily from pre-Turkic Anatolians, but the tradition of underestimating the Central Asian genetic contribution in Anatolia has always been annoying.

    https://abload.de/img/hepsit0i0b.png


    Quote Originally Posted by Andrewid View Post
    At the other extreme of Di Benedetto, we have Cinnioğlu et al. who in their study detected a mere 3.4% of Anatolian haplogroups related to Central Asia.
    Of all the papers mentioned in your post, Cinnioğlu's paper is by far the worst. Check this post: https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....l=1#post356203

    Excavating Y-chromosome haplotype strata in Anatolia

    • The samples were included in the study irrespective of their ethnicity.
    • Overwhelming majority of the samples were from blood banks and paternity clinics.
    • The regional weighting of the samples was also not in favor of ethnic Turks. (West Anatolia: n=30/523, South Anatolia: n=33/523, Western Black Sea: n=29/523 -vs- East Anatolia: n=82, Southeast Anatolia: n=43.)

    Haplogroups related to Central Asia according to the paper:
    "...only a minor share of haplogroups related to Central Asian (C, Q and O; 3.4%)..."

    This is beyond ridiculous. The sampling method is terrible, but the method of estimating the Central Asian genetic contribution is even worse. Not even post-Mongol Central Asia is dominated by these three haplogroups, let alone pre-Mongol Central Asia. Distribution of Y-DNA haplogroups among the Hunnic and Medieval Turkic samples:


    Not even the haplogroup N, which seems to be a major Oghuz marker in Anatolia, is considered Central Asian in Cinnioğlu's paper.
    https://www.familytreedna.com/public...frame=yresults


    Here is another tremendous study (Alkan et al. 2014).
    https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.co...71-2164-15-963

    We recruited 16 healthy volunteers from across Turkey (Figure 1A). The individuals were included in the study irrespective of their mother-tongue/ethnicity; we refer to them collectively as “Turkish”.
    >"Irrespective of ethnicity"
    > Estimate the Central Asian genetic contribution (despite the fact that only ethnic Turks trace their origin back to Central Asia)
    Last edited by Alkaevli; 12-07-2018 at 03:42 AM.

  18. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Alkaevli For This Useful Post:

     Anabasis (12-07-2018),  Andrewid (12-07-2018),  Erikl86 (12-07-2018)

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 28
    Last Post: 09-06-2018, 05:18 PM
  2. Replies: 54
    Last Post: 04-26-2018, 07:08 PM
  3. Pontic Greek DNA Results
    By GiourkasNinisiadis in forum AncestryDNA
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-30-2018, 05:05 PM
  4. Greek DNA results.
    By terrakis in forum Autosomal (auDNA)
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 05-14-2017, 02:16 PM
  5. Operation Antioch: Greek Orthodox and Greek Catholic Levantines
    By wandering_amorite in forum Autosomal (auDNA)
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 11-02-2016, 08:50 PM

Posting Permissions

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