# Population Genetics > Autosomal Genetics >  Genetic history of Calabrian Greeks reveals ancient events and long term isolation in

## kingjohn

Genetic history of Calabrian Greeks reveals ancient events and long term isolation in the Aspromonte area of Southern Italy
Stefania Sarno, Rosalba Petrilli, […]Donata Luiselli 
Scientific Reports volume 11, Article number: 3045 (2021) Cite this article
Metricsdetails

Abstract
Calabrian Greeks are an enigmatic population that have preserved and evolved a unique variety of language, Greco, survived in the isolated Aspromonte mountain area of Southern Italy. To understand their genetic ancestry and explore possible effects of geographic and cultural isolation, we genome-wide genotyped a large set of South Italian samples including both communities that still speak Greco nowadays and those that lost the use of this language earlier in time. Comparisons with modern and ancient populations highlighted ancient, long-lasting genetic links with Eastern Mediterranean and Caucasian/Near-Eastern groups as ancestral sources of Southern Italians. Our results suggest that the Aspromonte communities might be interpreted as genetically drifted remnants that departed from such ancient genetic background as a consequence of long-term isolation. Specific patterns of population structuring and higher levels of genetic drift were indeed observed in these populations, reflecting geographic isolation amplified by cultural differences in the groups that still conserve the Greco language. Isolation and drift also affected the current genetic differentiation at specific gene pathways, prompting for future genome-wide association studies aimed at exploring trait-related loci that have drifted up in frequency in these isolated groups.
Source: 
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-82591-9




*a*) Sampling map showing the approximate geographic location of analyzed populations. Sampling points are color-coded according to the province of origin: Benevento (_blue); Castrovillari (purple); Catanzaro (magenta); previously collected samples from Reggio Calabria (orange); newly collected samples from Reggio Calabria (gold). The two enlarged boxes detail the sampling locations of villages in the province of Reggio Calabria (left) and in the province of Catanzaro (right), respectively. (b) Historical map showing the approximate extension of the National Park of the Aspromonte mountain area (in pink) as well as the range of the Greek-speaking area at different time periods as reported in the legend at the top-left. Geographical map has been generated with the package_




and most important  :Cool V: 


https://i.imgur.com/sK0RwhS.png

----------


## Angela

Indeed, most important.:)

Another good Sarno and Boattini paper. Fascinating tree.

So, Southern Italians can be modelled as a simple two way combination of Anatolian farmer and Caucasus Hunter-Gatherer.

Just wish I could post the tree.

----------


## Angela

Another interesting bit from the Supplement:
Supplementary Table S8. Results of four-population scenarios modelled with qpAdmix for the Italian populations using ancient putative sources.


















Population
Ancestral Components
Standard Errors
P-value




Iran_N
WHG
Steppe_EMBA
Anatolia_N
Iran_N
WHG
Steppe_EMBA
Anatolia_N




Sardinian
0.145
0.122
0.075
0.658
0.018
0.007
0.016
0.013
0.4857



North_Italy
0.157
0.079
0.272
0.492
0.016
0.007
0.015
0.013
0.5794



Benevento
0.240
0.039
0.168
0.553
0.019
0.007
0.016
0.014
0.0854



Castrovillari
0.251
0.037
0.161
0.551
0.018
0.007
0.015
0.014
0.2623



Catanzaro
0.278
0.025
0.131
0.566
0.018
0.007
0.015
0.014
0.0262



Aspromonte
0.292
0.024
0.113
0.571
0.022
0.009
0.019
0.017
0.0449



































So annoying when the ads cover the content:

Supplementary Table S8. Results of four-population scenarios modelled with qpAdmix for the Italian populations using ancient putative sources.


















Population
Ancestral Components
Standard Errors
P-value




Iran_N
WHG
Steppe_EMBA
Anatolia_N
Iran_N
WHG
Steppe_EMBA
Anatolia_N




Sardinian
0.145
0.122
0.075
0.658
0.018
0.007
0.016
0.013
0.4857



North_Italy
0.157
0.079
0.272
0.492
0.016
0.007
0.015
0.013
0.5794



Benevento
0.240
0.039
0.168
0.553
0.019
0.007
0.016
0.014
0.0854



Castrovillari
0.251
0.037
0.161
0.551
0.018
0.007
0.015
0.014
0.2623



Catanzaro
0.278
0.025
0.131
0.566
0.018
0.007
0.015
0.014
0.0262



Aspromonte
0.292
0.024
0.113
0.571
0.022
0.009
0.019
0.017
0.0449

----------


## Jovialis

huzzah!

 :Grin:

----------


## Angela

Finally my husband may be interested in something from my hobby. He, like Raoul Bova, has some ancestry from that Greek speaking region in Reggio Calabria, and the rest of his ancestry comes from the area directly east of it still in Reggio Calabria, where they were speaking Greek until way past the Middle Ages. The ancestral villages of two out of his four grandparents come from an area where people fled the coast during Moorish raids to build new villages in the mountains. That coastal town was renowned during Magna Graecia. One other grandparent came from that more isolated region.

The most interesting thing for me will be finding out how long they've been isolated in the Aspromonte Mountains. To when does their original admixture date? Could it possibly be late Bronze Age, or maybe early Iron Age after Greek migration started? When?

They've certainly drifted a lot in the inner mountains.

----------


## kingjohn

> Indeed, most important.:)
> Another good Sarno and Boattini paper. Fascinating tree.
> So, Southern Italians can be modelled as a simple two way combination of Anatolian farmer and Caucasus Hunter-Gatherer.
> Just wish I could post the tree.


Yes 
Cool research :Cool V: 
You can show it to you calabrian husband  :Smile: 

P.s
I know it is autosomal research but i wish 
There they anlaysed the samples for y snp markers 
Isolated communities are fascinating
And because of drift can show surprising results

----------


## Angela

> Yes 
> Cool research
> You can show it to you calabrian husband 
> P.s
> I know it is autosomal research but i wish 
> There they anlaysed the samples for y snp markers 
> Isolated communities are fascinating
> And because of drift can show surprising results


Well, I can tell you that in my husband's paternal villages there's a lot of G2a (his yDna) and the eastern R1a, plus a lot of J2a, so I would think Greece or Anatolia, unless the G2a is REALLY old.

This is from a yDna project for Reggio Calabria. There's certainly E as well, a lot of it just labeled E-M35. How and when it arrived I have no idea, and a lot of these people didn't really get detailed testing done, as I'm sure I don't need to tell you, which makes it difficult to make educated guesses. There's quite a bit of R-M269 as well as some I. Of course, this isn't a random sample. 

There are three Panetta's, like our American politician, all forms of R.

There's one Bova, who is E-M35. I'd guess E-V13, but who knows.

A few family surnames have different yDna. It just goes to show you can't be sure just by surname.

----------


## kingjohn

> Well, I can tell you that in my husband's paternal villages there's a lot of G2a (his yDna) and the eastern R1a, plus a lot of J2a, so I would think Greece or Anatolia, unless the G2a is REALLY old.
> This is from a yDna project for Reggio Calabria. There's certainly E as well, a lot of it just labeled E-M35. How and when it arrived I have no idea, and a lot of these people didn't really get detailed testing done, as I'm sure I don't need to tell you, which makes it difficult to make educated guesses. There's quite a bit of R-M269 as well as some I. Of course, this isn't a random sample. 
> There are three Panetta's, like our American politician, all forms of R.
> There's one Bova, who is E-M35. I'd guess E-V13, but who knows.
> A few family surnames have different yDna. It just goes to show you can't be sure just by surname.


This project ? :Thinking: 
https://www.familytreedna.com/groups...na/dna-results


P.s
About e1b1b people in this project
People should upgrade to 67-111 markers or big-y 
To know there downstream clade better.... :Thinking: 
Most e1b1b1 should be e-v13 but there some 
Other clades e-v22, e-v12, e-m34

----------


## Cato

Who brought Iran Neo in North Italy and Sardinia? Imperial Romans? 

Inviato dal mio POT-LX1T utilizzando Tapatalk

----------


## Jovialis

> Who brought Iran Neo in North Italy and Sardinia? Imperial Romans? 
> 
> Inviato dal mio POT-LX1T utilizzando Tapatalk


Iranian-like ancestry spread to Sardinia in the Bronze-age:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-020-1102-0

I'd imagine much of it coming to the central Mediterranean region is from this time period.

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...-Mediterranean

----------


## Cato

In Sardinia it could also be Phoenician, so Iron Age... But in Northern Italy? 

Inviato dal mio POT-LX1T utilizzando Tapatalk

----------


## Angela

> This project ?
> https://www.familytreedna.com/groups...na/dna-results
> P.s
> About e1b1b people in this project
> People should upgrade to 67-111 markers or big-y 
> To know there downstream clade better....
> Most e1b1b1 should be e-v13 but there some 
> Other clades e-v22, e-v12, e-m34


Yes, I'm sorry, that's it. I did post the link. The site is bugging out on me lately.

----------


## kingjohn

> huzzah!


It is strange  :Thinking: 
That acording to this paper
Sardinians have more whg component 12.2% than north italians 7.9%
Is there explanation to it ?

----------


## Angela

I published a thread on a book called "Northern Italy in the Roman World". It can be found through the search engine. I think it's essential reading for anyone interested in this topic as it covers Northern Italy from the Bronze Age to the Gothic Wars.

One of the points it makes is that starting very early Rome established colonies in Northern Italy. It was a part of Romanization. In my own area the colony was Luni. There were also the colonies along the Po and further north. There are many schematics which show where they were located. Indeed, there's an interactive site dedicated to the location of Roman colonies. 

There was also movement north from Southern Italy I believe as one of the Republican Era Roman samples shows a great deal of Greek/Aegean Sea ancestry.

As for why Northern Italy has less WHG than Sardinia, it probably has a great deal to do with the fact that it was diluted by the steppe ancestry which started arriving with the Italics. Some of the Republican Era Roman samples have more WHG than modern North Italians.


See:
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...ly+Roman+World

----------


## Jovialis

It looks like my assumptions going back to Raveane et al 2018 were correct:

----------


## kingjohn

*Population*
*Language*
*Province*
*Region*
*N* 
*

Southern Italian analyzed populations


Benevento
Romance
Benevento
Campania
20


Castrovillari
Romance
Cosenza
Calabria
26


Pentone
Romance
Catanzaro
Calabria
7


Tiriolo
Romance
Catanzaro
Calabria
11


Jacurso
Romance
Catanzaro
Calabria
6


Girifalco
Romance
Catanzaro
Calabria
14


San Luca
Romance
Reggio Calabria
Calabria
4


Samo
Romance
Reggio Calabria
Calabria
2


Cardeto
Romance
Reggio Calabria
Calabria
6


San Lorenzo
Romance
Reggio Calabria
Calabria
8


Amendolea
Romance
Reggio Calabria
Calabria
4


Africo
Romance
Reggio Calabria
Calabria
5


Bova
Greco°
Reggio Calabria
Calabria
10


Condofuri
Greco°
Reggio Calabria
Calabria
4


Roccaforte del Greco
Greco°
Reggio Calabria
Calabria
6


Gallicianò
Greco°
Reggio Calabria
Calabria
3


Roghudi
Greco°
Reggio Calabria
Calabria
5

Comparison populations


Sardinia



28


North Italy



13


Tuscan



8


French Basque



24


French



28


Orcadian



14


Russia



25


Adygei



17


Druze



40


Palestinians



41

* Number of individuals successfully analyzed after genotyping and quality filtering check

379

° Greek-speaking communities of Southern Italy that still conserved a certain number of Greco speakers

Total




p.s
someone posted it in anthrogenica
just generally speaking to know how much samples they took from each region location

----------


## Anfänger

Wow, very interesting paper ! Thanks for posting kingjohn. 

I am very surprised, Northern Italy has more Iran Neo than Sardinia. I am not an expert on Italy but can someone explain the difference. I think for North Italy there is a little too much Iran Neo.

----------


## Regio X

> Wow, very interesting paper ! Thanks for posting kingjohn. 
> 
> I am very surprised, Northern Italy has more Iran Neo than Sardinia. I am not an expert on Italy but can someone explain the difference. I think for North Italy there is a little too much Iran Neo.


If North Italy is represented by Bergamo, I would expect to get, as (mostly) Northeastern Italian in ancestry, a bit more Iran Neo-like ancestry than that (as well as a bit more Steppe and a bit less WHG and ANF). If I'm not missing something.

----------


## Jovialis

> *Population*
> *Language*
> *Province*
> *Region*
> *N* 
> *
> 
> Southern Italian analyzed populations
> 
> ...


I linked the tree and study in my signature, so it can be juxtaposed to their false claims in response to my posts.

----------


## Angela

> Wow, very interesting paper ! Thanks for posting kingjohn. 
> 
> I am very surprised, Northern Italy has more Iran Neo than Sardinia. I am not an expert on Italy but can someone explain the difference. I think for North Italy there is a little too much Iran Neo.


It's not very much more. The big difference between them, which changes the percentages, is the amount of steppe in Northern Italy, which is even a bit higher in Northeastern Italy, as Regio pointed out. You can see it in the ydna in Sardinia. They do have R1b-U152 in Sardinia, but a lot of it is in the north where a good part of the area speaks a Corsican dialect, not the parts of the island where Sardinian is spoken. 

As I mentioned in another post, the Romans very quickly Romanized Northern Italy, and not just in draining swamps, building roads and settlements etc., or introducing Latin, or educating people, or adding new gods and imposing their political structure, but also genetically through veterans colonies. There was also the natural movement of people from Southern Italy.

----------


## Regio X

@All 
How do you interpret those p-values? They say "we considered a P-value threshold of 0.01 to assess the significance of tested models". We should expect that the p-values were lower than 0.01, shouldn't we? Yet, they're all higher than 0.01. I'm certainly missing something. Anyway, most of them are lower than 0.05. (1)(2)
North Italy and Sardinia get higher p-values; N. Italy's would be supposedly off(?): > 0.05. So I wonder if Tepecik-like ancestry was the one used instead of Barcin-like ancestry, given the focus on Calabria, which could perhaps explain the p-value obtained for N. Italy.

----------


## Angela

> It's not very much more. The big difference between them, which changes the percentages, is the amount of steppe in Northern Italy, which is even a bit higher in Northeastern Italy, as Regio pointed out. You can see it in the ydna in Sardinia. They do have R1b-U152 in Sardinia, but a lot of it is in the north where a good part of the area speaks a Corsican dialect, not the parts of the island where Sardinian is spoken. 
> 
> As I mentioned in another post, the Romans very quickly Romanized Northern Italy, and not just in draining swamps, building roads and settlements etc., or introducing Latin, or educating people, or adding new gods and imposing their political structure, but also genetically through veterans colonies. There was also the natural movement of people from Southern Italy.


I don't want to give the wrong impression here. There was already Iran Neo in central Italy in the Neolithic according to Antonio et al, a little more in the Copper Age, and it was there in the Republican Era Roman samples, and not just in the one sample with high Aegean like ancestry. Jovialis pointed it out by using material from Antonio et al on this page of that dedicated thread, as he recently reminded me.

See:
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...hlight=Antonio

The Empire would just have increased it. 

I think all the confusion arises from the fact that Antonio et al, and a lot of its readers did not take into consideration that some of the "Imperial" and "Post Imperial" samples could have been travelers, traders etc.

To really approach understanding what went on we need North Italian, i.e. North of Rome samples from the Iron Age, and samples from Bronze Age to Iron Age samples from southern Italy. We also need Iron Age samples from, say, the Peloponnese and the Aegean islands.

----------


## Angela

In S7 of the Supplement, all of the Anatolia Neolithic farming samples are included so far as I can tell. I don't know if the following means they used them all.

"To test temporal patterns of genetic relationships, *we finally merged the “modern extended” dataset with genomic data for 1059 ancient samples (Suppl. Table* *S7) extracted from the literature*62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72 and genotyped on the 1240 K panel (V37.2.1240K, https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/), finally obtaining a common “modern-plus-ancient” dataset of 326,832 SNPs. For the genotype-based analyses involving also ancient samples we applied a LD-pruning procedure by excluding one SNP for each pair of loci showing r2 values higher than 0.4 within a 200‐SNPs window, sliding 25 loci at the time (PLINK option _--indep-pairwise 200 25 0.4), for a total of 286,656 SNPs left after pruning."_

----------


## Cato

> Wow, very interesting paper ! Thanks for posting kingjohn. 
> 
> I am very surprised, Northern Italy has more Iran Neo than Sardinia. I am not an expert on Italy but can someone explain the difference. I think for North Italy there is a little too much Iran Neo.


The HGDP Sardinians are from the interior, maybe the ones from the coast are a bit more Iran Neo and Steppe and less WHG. 

Inviato dal mio POT-LX1T utilizzando Tapatalk

----------


## Regio X

> In S7 of the Supplement, all of the Anatolia Neolithic farming samples are included so far as I can tell. I don't know if the following means they used them all.
> 
> "To test temporal patterns of genetic relationships, *we finally merged the “modern extended” dataset with genomic data for 1059 ancient samples (Suppl. Table* *S7) extracted from the literature*62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72 and genotyped on the 1240 K panel (V37.2.1240K, https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/), finally obtaining a common “modern-plus-ancient” dataset of 326,832 SNPs. For the genotype-based analyses involving also ancient samples we applied a LD-pruning procedure by excluding one SNP for each pair of loci showing r2 values higher than 0.4 within a 200‐SNPs window, sliding 25 loci at the time (PLINK option _--indep-pairwise 200 25 0.4), for a total of 286,656 SNPs left after pruning."_


Thanks, Angela.

It seems they didn't use them all for the 4-way mixtures. Notice that S7 includes all kinds of samples: Ust_Ishim, Kostenki, MA1, SHG, Unetice, Bell Beaker, Levant BA and on and on. Apparently they used them all for merging modern and ancient, i.e., for selecting the dataset of SNPs used in their work. And for PCA*. It doesn't mean that all those ancient samples were used in the model.

The p-values for North Italy and Sardinia contrast with the Calabrian, and they seem to point to bad fits. Not sure, but one of the possible explanations is that they used the Anatolian source that makes more sense to Calabria (Tepecik?), and had to use them for North Italy and Sardinia as well, which resulted in those extremely high p-values.

*ED: Based on the next post (thanks, Duarte).

----------


## Duarte

Supllementary figures:

https://static-content.springer.com/...MOESM1_ESM.pdf (good definition).

As example, S8 and S7 (screenshots Low definition):

----------


## Pax Augusta

> Who brought Iran Neo in North Italy and Sardinia? Imperial Romans? 
> 
> Inviato dal mio POT-LX1T utilizzando Tapatalk



I would not swear to the accuracy of Iran_N's percentages in this paper. One has to see what reference ancient samples she exactly used. 

I've checked in the supp info. For example as reference samples to represent Steppe she did not use the usual Yamanya Samara only, but threw in as reference samples also individuals from Potapovka, Afanasievo etc... 

Unfortunately, in the analyzes there are none of the southern European populations genetically close to the Italians, so we cannot have any comparison.




> It is strange 
> That acording to this paper
> Sardinians have more whg component 12.2% than north italians 7.9%
> Is there explanation to it ?


More WHG in Sardinians is not strange, it has always been so. What is strange is Iran_N being inflated everywhere.

----------


## kingjohn

> I would not swear to the accuracy of Iran_N's percentages in this paper. One has to see what reference ancient samples she exactly used. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More WHG in Sardinians is not strange, it has always been so. What is strange is Iran_N being inflated everywhere.


Ok...
I didn't knew the averge sardinian share more allells with the whg reference than averge north italian do  :Cool V:

----------


## Pax Augusta

> Ok...
> I didn't knew the averge sardinian share more allells with the whg reference than averge north italian do


The Sardinians, particularly the HGDP sample, has long been modelled as 85% EEF and 15% WHG. When no one in northern Italy, as I remember, has ever reached 15+% WHG. Now how Sardinians can reach 15% of Iran_N is quite strange.

----------


## Jovialis

> *The Sardinians, particularly the HGDP sample, has long been modelled as 85% EEF and 15% WHG.* When no one in northern Italy has ever reached 15% WHG. Now how Sardinians can reach 15% of Iran_N is quite strange.




Fernandes et al 2020 seems to model Sardinians similarly to the paper, however. In fact, Sardinians seem to have more Iran_N in the Fernandes paper.:

----------


## kingjohn

> The Sardinians, particularly the HGDP sample, has long been modelled as 85% EEF and 15% WHG. When no one in northern Italy has ever reached 15% WHG. Now how Sardinians can reach 15% of Iran_N is quite strange.


Interesting :Thinking: 
How much whg % do spaniards( non basque) have ?
Also significant like sardinian ?

----------


## Jovialis

> Interesting
> How much whg % do spaniards( non basque) have ?
> Also significant like sardinian ?


I am not certain of the percentage, but Spaniards have a relatively large amount of WHG. Portuguese and many Spaniards were also modeled to have respectable amounts of Anatolian_BA, as well, in Raveane et al. 2018. So I would imagine, they would have respectable amounts of Iran_N.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> Fernandes et al 2020 seems to model Sardinians similarly to the paper, however. In fact, Sardinians seem to have more Iran_N in the Fernandes paper.



In fact also the Fernandes 2020 models on modern samples are not very credible. Fernandes is the same who models Sicilians as 46.9% North African using Moroccan Late Neolithic (he literally says that modern Sicilians show a predominant component of North African ancestry). Really? A meaningless model, since Moroccan Late Neolithic are samples that show a strong gene flow from Iberia to Morocco, they cannot be representative samples of the modern populations of North Africa. 


Not to mention yet another confusion made by geneticists. In the table at the top in the Sarno paper it says IRAN_N but in the caption it says CHG/IRAN_N. So, in 2021 the geneticists are still not having a clear idea of what is CHG and what is IRAN_N. Can we really take them seriously?

----------


## Pax Augusta

> Interesting
> How much whg % do spaniards( non basque) have ?
> Also significant like sardinian ?


In the old models, percentages similar to those of Sardinians up to 20% and more (in the Basques). Now who knows, given the latest trend among geneticists, I imagine they will be at 20% Iran_N (I'm joking).

----------


## Regio X

The mixture in G25.

(Scaled)
Target

Distance

IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N

TUR_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N

WHG

Yamnaya_RUS_Samara

Sardinian:HGDP00665

0.04041752

0

85.2

14.8

0

Sardinian:HGDP00671

0.0469156

0

82.8

17.2

0

Sardinian:HGDP00672

0.04612349

0

86.4

13.6

0

Sardinian:HGDP00674

0.0660315

0

83

17

0

Sardinian:HGDP01063

0.04658002

0

84.3

14.6

1.1

Sardinian:HGDP01066

0.06251437

0

84.6

15.4

0

Sardinian:HGDP01067

0.04357858

0

84.7

15.3

0

Sardinian:HGDP01073

0.05871846

0

85.2

14.8

0

Sardinian:HGDP01075

0.05328043

0

85.6

14.4

0

Sardinian:HGDP01078

0.04876746

0

81.9

15.8

2.3

Sardinian:S_Sardinian-2

0.04848495

0

82.2

16.3

1.5

Italian_Bergamo:HGDP01147

0.03288339

0

58.6

9.2

32.2

Italian_Bergamo:HGDP01151

0.04753794

0

62.7

12.9

24.4

Italian_Bergamo:HGDP01152

0.0323124

0

61.6

8.1

30.3

Italian_Bergamo:HGDP01153

0.02962768

0

62.9

9

28.1

Italian_Bergamo:HGDP01155

0.02969563

0

64.1

7.6

28.3

Italian_Calabria:ALP582

0.01828343

9.6

70.9

1.3

18.2

Italian_Calabria:ALP596

0.01664765

7.2

70.7

1.1

21

Italian_Calabria:BEL57

0.02364372

4

70.5

0

25.5

Average

0.04168654

1.1

76.2

11.5

11.2



If we use Barcin:
Target

Distance

IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N

TUR_Barcin_N

WHG

Yamnaya_RUS_Samara

Sardinian:HGDP00665

0.02401309

1.7

82.4

12.1

3.8

Sardinian:HGDP00671

0.02931803

0

80.4

14.1

5.5

Sardinian:HGDP00672

0.02533139

0.1

81.6

11

7.3

Sardinian:HGDP00674

0.03675824

0

79.7

14.7

5.6

Sardinian:HGDP01063

0.02482242

0

81.8

10.8

7.4

Sardinian:HGDP01066

0.0378662

0

83.9

13.6

2.5

Sardinian:HGDP01067

0.0280658

2.8

79.8

14.4

3

Sardinian:HGDP01073

0.03821215

0.5

83.4

13.4

2.7

Sardinian:HGDP01075

0.02786165

0

83.6

11.3

5.1

Sardinian:HGDP01078

0.03350293

0

79.3

12.2

8.5

Sardinian:S_Sardinian-2

0.03436949

0

80.1

12.8

7.1

Italian_Bergamo:HGDP01147

0.01798027

0

55.9

6.7

37.4

Italian_Bergamo:HGDP01151

0.02826248

0

59.1

9.8

31.1

Italian_Bergamo:HGDP01152

0.02391725

0

59.1

5

35.9

Italian_Bergamo:HGDP01153

0.01511783

0

60.1

6.3

33.6

Italian_Bergamo:HGDP01155

0.01692948

0

60

5.3

34.7

Italian_Calabria:ALP582

0.01904166

15.9

64.1

1.5

18.5

Italian_Calabria:ALP596

0.02090649

13.8

64.1

0

22.1

Italian_Calabria:BEL57

0.02692222

12.9

62.1

0

25

Average

0.02679995

2.5

72.7

9.2

15.6



Both:
Target

Distance

IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N

TUR_Barcin_N

TUR_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N

WHG

Yamnaya_RUS_Samara

Sardinian:HGDP00665

0.02401309

1.7

82.4

0

12.1

3.8

Sardinian:HGDP00671

0.02931803

0

80.4

0

14.1

5.5

Sardinian:HGDP00672

0.02533139

0.1

81.6

0

11

7.3

Sardinian:HGDP00674

0.03675824

0

79.7

0

14.7

5.6

Sardinian:HGDP01063

0.02482193

0

81.8

0

10.9

7.3

Sardinian:HGDP01066

0.0378662

0

83.9

0

13.6

2.5

Sardinian:HGDP01067

0.02804244

2.6

77

3.3

14.5

2.6

Sardinian:HGDP01073

0.03821215

0.5

83.4

0

13.4

2.7

Sardinian:HGDP01075

0.02786165

0

83.6

0

11.3

5.1

Sardinian:HGDP01078

0.03350268

0

79.3

0

12.1

8.6

Sardinian:S_Sardinian-2

0.03436949

0

80.1

0

12.8

7.1

Italian_Bergamo:HGDP01147

0.01798027

0

55.9

0

6.7

37.4

Italian_Bergamo:HGDP01151

0.02826248

0

59.1

0

9.8

31.1

Italian_Bergamo:HGDP01152

0.02380149

0

53.8

5.9

5.4

34.9

Italian_Bergamo:HGDP01153

0.01506149

0

57.1

3.2

6.5

33.2

Italian_Bergamo:HGDP01155

0.01692948

0

60

0

5.3

34.7

Italian_Calabria:ALP582

0.01402107

12

29.1

40.1

0.8

18

Italian_Calabria:ALP596

0.01453407

10

27.4

40.9

0.6

21.1

Italian_Calabria:BEL57

0.02247109

7.9

23

43.9

0

25.2

Average

0.02595572

1.8

66.2

7.2

9.2

15.5

----------


## Angela

By all means let's take the findings of a program created by a skinhead instead of results from academics. Makes perfect sense to me.

I'm sure the amount of Levantine is huge in southern Italians according to that.

What else would you expect from a virulent anti-Semite who posted Southern Italians should be kicked out of Europe.

----------


## Angela

Does anyone have to hand a file showing the breakdown based on ancient samples for Northern Italy from Fernandez et al, Raveane et al, and Antonio et al (the Moots paper), for comparison?

----------


## Pax Augusta

Even using program made by others, Sardinians never reach 15% of Iran_N. This of inflating Iran_N is only a recent trend in academic studies. As we have seen so many times in the past, geneticists are anything but infallible, and they are often wrong especially with these very speculative models.

----------


## Regio X

> By all means let's take the findings of a program created by a skinhead instead of results from academics. Makes perfect sense to me.
> 
> I'm sure the amount of Levantine is huge in southern Italians according to that.
> 
> What else would you expect from a virulent anti-Semite who posted Southern Italians should be kicked out of Europe.


I've posted it just for comparison. I also wanted to compare Barcin vs. Tepecik, but I have no idea on how to use other tools such qpAdm. :)

These would be the amounts of Levantine suggested for Southern Italians by the tool (naturally they may vary depending on the references chosen):
Target

Distance

IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N

Levant_PPNB

MAR_EN

TUR_Barcin_N

TUR_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N

WHG

Yamnaya_RUS_Samara

Sardinian

0.0268524

0

0

0

81.8

0

12.2

6

Italian_Abruzzo

0.00768384

7.3

6.7

0

42.9

13.5

0.6

29

Italian_Molise

0.00761903

6.5

4.3

0

44.8

13.5

0.5

30.4

Italian_Campania

0.00787971

9.4

8.4

0

35.8

21.1

0

25.3

Italian_Apulia

0.00818471

7.2

3.2

0.2

33.5

29.2

0.2

26.5

Italian_Basilicata

0.0073524

7.9

4.8

0.1

36.3

24.2

0

26.7

Italian_Calabria

0.00959004

9.8

2

1.5

33.8

30.2

0

22.7

Sicilian_East

0.00960535

7.2

7

1.3

27.6

31.1

1.8

24

Sicilian_West

0.01100361

8.4

6.5

2.6

35.6

19.5

4.4

23

Average

0.01064123

7.1

4.8

0.6

41.3

20.3

2.2

23.7

----------


## Jovialis

> I've posted it just for comparison. I also wanted to compare Barcin vs. Tepecik, but I have no idea on how to use other tools such qpAdm. :)
> 
> These would be the amounts of Levantine suggested for Southern Italians by the tool (naturally they may vary depending on the references chosen):
> Target
> 
> Distance
> 
> IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
> 
> ...


No offense, but G25, and all of the various armature tools used by enthusiasts, really should be taken more seriously than professionals adept in using more sophisticated tools like qpAdm.

----------


## Jovialis

> geneticists are anything but infallible, and they are often wrong especially with these very speculative models.


You trust laymen more?

----------


## Pax Augusta

> You trust laymen more?


There are not only these options. Generally speaking, I trust archaeologists far more than any academic or amateur geneticist.




> No offense, but G25, and all of the various armature tools used by enthusiasts, really should be taken more seriously than professionals adept in using more sophisticated tools like qpAdm.


Professionals adept are not exempt from agendas and mistakes. qpAdm can be used by anyone.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> I've posted it just for comparison. I also wanted to compare Barcin vs. Tepecik, but I have no idea on how to use other tools such qpAdm. :)
> 
> These would be the amounts of Levantine suggested for Southern Italians by the tool (naturally they may vary depending on the references chosen):
> Target
> 
> Distance
> 
> IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
> 
> ...




It would be better to use Levant Natufian rather than Levant_PPNB that has a lot of EEF. Levant_PPNB can be modelled as almost 50% Natufian and 50% Anatolia_Barcin_N

----------


## Jovialis

> There are not only these options. Generally speaking, I trust archaeologists far more than any academic or amateur geneticist.
> 
> 
> 
> Professionals adept are not exempt from agendas and mistakes. *qpAdm can be used by anyone*.


Than maybe people should use that instead of inferior programs like G25.

What agenda are you talking about? You think Harvard, the Max Planck Institute, and various other institutions have an agenda to inflate CHG/Iran_N? Why?

----------


## Pax Augusta

> Than maybe people should used that instead of inferior programs like G25.




Yes but G25 is not a program, G25 is only a set of datasheets based on modern and ancient samples, with scaled or unscaled values. The G25 is used with nMonte which is not so different from qpAdm, often gives very similar results when starting from similar models and values, just much easier to use. With nMonte you can use as many datasheets as you want, not just G25.

----------


## Jovialis

> Yes but G25 is not a program, G25 is only a set of datasheets based on modern and ancient samples, with scaled or unscaled values. The G25 is used with nMonte which is not so different from qpAdm, often gives very similar results when starting from similar models and values, just much easier to use. With nMonte you can use as many datasheets as you want, not just G25.


Pardon me, than I misspoke. Btw, I know how it works, I made many data sheets myself, if you haven't noticed.

But again, what agenda are you talking about? I edited my post above after you answered.

_What agenda are you talking about? You think Harvard, the Max Planck Institute, and various other institutions have an agenda to inflate CHG/Iran_N? Why?_

----------


## Pax Augusta

> Pardon me, than I misspoke. Btw, I know how it works, I made many data sheets myself, if you haven't noticed.
> 
> But again, what agenda are you talking about? I edited my post above after you answered.
> 
> _What agenda are you talking about? You think Harvard, the Max Planck Institute, and various other institutions have an agenda to inflate CHG/Iran_N? Why?_



I'll ask you a question. So according to you Fernandes is right, Sicilians are half North African? As in his models you showed me earlier to make your point.

----------


## Jovialis

> I'll ask you a question. So according to you Fernandes is right, Sicilians are half North African? As in his models you showed me earlier to make your point.


I never said I place total trust in geneticists, sometimes there are studies that I may disagree with. As for the Sicilian modeling, I am on record here, in the dedicated thread taking exception to it. As you said, Morrocan_LN has a lot of Iberian in it. So if you think of it in that way, you understand how it would choose that. Does that mean they are literally that component, of course not. Just like the modeling of Anatolian farmers, and WHG, or Steppe, doesn't mean it was literally from those exact source, but rather carried by intermediary populations.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> I never said I place total trust in geneticists, sometimes there are studies that I may disagree with. As for the Sicilian modeling, I am on record here, in the dedicated thread taking exception to it. As you said, Morrocan_LN has a lot of Iberian in it. So if you think of it in that way, you understand how it would choose that. Does that mean they are literally that component, of course not. Just like the modeling of Anatolian farmers, and WHG, or Steppe, doesn't mean it was literally from those exact source, but rather carried by intermediary populations.


So we agree, we can't place total trust in geneticists. In some cases the errors they make (see Morocco_LN for the Sicilians) are easier to spot, other times they are harder to discover. We'll talk about the rest tomorrow because now I absolutely have to go to sleep, it's 4 a.m. in Italy.

----------


## Jovialis

> So we agree, we can't place total trust in geneticists. In some cases the errors they make (see Morocco_LN for the Sicilians) are easier to spot, other times they are harder to discover. We'll talk about the rest tomorrow because now I absolutely have to go to sleep, it's 4 a.m. in Italy.


I found this old post, which shows the Phoenician sample, which is largely "Morocco_LN" in that modeling. But if you see the alternative modeling, the Morocco_LN is largely replaced by what appears to be Anatolian_N.

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...l=1#post571065

In regards to not totally placing blind trust in every single genetic study, and the case of Morrocco_LN modeling, we do indeed agree. But as for the Iran_N being present, in Sardinia, and Northern Italy, I don't see why it is out of the realm of possibility. The pulse of CHG/IN in the BA, is largely being accepted by the leading geneticists. The fact that the Mycenaeans had it, that the Anatolian in the BA had it, and the discovery of it in the Western Mediterranean, to me, is too compelling to dismiss, in my opinion. It has been found even in central Italy since the Neolithic. The Etruscans, and Latini had it at comparable levels to Steppe, which distinguished them from their contemporaries to the north. I think that was something that was neglected to be mentioned in the Antonio paper, which seemed more focused on putting the spotlight on inconsequential imperial era immigrants that didn't leave a lasting impact. Nevertheless, the hard data, which it provided, was more valuable, than the narrative it was trying to spin.

----------


## Jovialis

> I would not swear to the accuracy of Iran_N's percentages in this paper. One has to see what reference ancient samples she exactly used. 
> 
> I've checked in the supp info. For example as reference samples to represent Steppe she did not use the usual Yamanya Samara only, but threw in as reference samples also individuals from Potapovka, Afanasievo etc... 
> 
> *Unfortunately, in the analyzes there are none of the southern European populations genetically close to the Italians, so we cannot have any comparison.
> *
> 
> 
> More WHG in Sardinians is not strange, it has always been so. What is strange is Iran_N being inflated everywhere.




If you take a look at the Z-axis on this 3D-PCA, you can see it matches the CHG/IN cline.

----------


## Regio X

You guys have already said what I was willing to say: results should not be taken too literally, and they must be discussed and interpreted (which we've been doing here). Taken together, and compared to others, they may provide good clues on ancient movements, as we all know. 

@Jovialis 
As a general rule, professionals should be taken more seriously, of course.

I found the time to revisit those p-values. I missed something, indeed. 
In this case, the higher the p-value the better. Ok then. What I don't understand now is why they used a threshold of 0.01 rather than 0.05, as for example Lazaridis et al. did here and here. Well, details...

At the end they must have used Barcin (predominant in EEF) rather than Tepecik (possibly predominant in ABA). So it'd be supposedly the opposite: Tepecik could have resulted in even better fits for Calabrians (?).

@Pax
Yes, I know. IIRC, we discussed it in a thread regarding Caucasus. Even Barcin itself would have a bit of Natufian, and Tepecik would have more, while PPNB would have something about 40% of ANF, if I'm not mistaken. Adding Natufian and eliminating PPNB could result in part of the former going to Anatolian, indeed; however, as Natufian is so old, this extra Natufian should correspond to some actual Levant Neo-like ancestry in that context, I believe, and Levant Neo (as well as Levant BA) did have Anatolian Neo after all. That's why I preferred PPNB, expecting that the tool would accommodate the extra Natufian into the correspondent pop of Levant in the timeframe chosen. 
Of course, there would be different ways of estimating "Levantine(-like)" ancestry, from more recent pops to more ancient ones. As you know, shared ancestry is frequently an issue, especially when we use more recent pops as sources. 
Apparently one way to estimate/isolate Natufian-like ancestry would be using it with AHG, CHG/Iran Meso etc., but this is another story.

----------


## Cato

Do you think that the percentages of Steppe in South Italians are correct? In Fernandes 2020 Sicilians are 20% yamnaya while in this study nearby Calabrese are less than 15% Steppe emba

Inviato dal mio POT-LX1T utilizzando Tapatalk

----------


## kingjohn

> Fernandes et al 2020 seems to model Sardinians similarly to the paper, however. In fact, Sardinians seem to have more Iran_N in the Fernandes paper.:




thanks for remainding us of this paper :Good Job: 
about steppe and iranian related ancestery in med isalnads 

i12221 the 
one who show show orange steppe in this diagram https://i.imgur.com/PwUuh9d.png
is interesting to me as he was happen to be paternally e-z830 and cluster autosomally with the one of the iron age 
sardinians i16163 who also show this steppe signiture in his autosomal  :Cool V: 

from the paper supplemental :

*Iron Age Sardinians: The two Iron Age individuals from Sardinia (I10366: 391-209 calBCE and I16163: 762-434 calBCE) were not consistent with forming a clade with each other (Supplementary Table 11) or any of the individuals from the Neolithic, Chalcolithic, or Bronze Age Sardinian groups. However, the former was consistent with forming a clade with one of the two individuals from Late Antiquity that was modeled with Iranian-related ancestry (I12220, p=0.146), and the latter with Sardinia_EarlyMedieval who had Steppe ancestry (I12221, p=0.258) (see Fig. 2 or Supplementary Fig. 1). This suggests arrival in Sardinia of new ancestry types at least by the Iron Age, potentially related to the period of Phoenician or Greek settlement. We analyzed I10366 and 16163 separatel*



p.s
it is possible the greeks at least partly brought this steppe ancestery to sardinia :Thinking:

----------


## Jovialis

> thanks for remainding us of this paper
> about steppe and iranian related ancestery in med isalnads 
> 
> i12221 the 
> one who show show orange steppe in this diagram https://i.imgur.com/PwUuh9d.png
> is interesting to me as he was happen to be paternally e-z830 and cluster autosomally with the one of the iron age 
> sardinians i16163 who also show this steppe signiture in his autosomal 
> 
> from the paper supplemental :
> ...


I would say the Greeks indeed contributed some small amounts of Steppe. But whether it be the Mycenaeans, or like people found in Logkas, the amount would still be pretty low overall.

----------


## kingjohn

> I would say the Greeks indeed contributed some small amounts of Steppe. But whether it be the Mycenaeans, or like people found in Logkas, *the amount would still be pretty low overall*.


did the *italic tribes*( might be source for steppe componnent) made it to sardinia ? :Thinking:

----------


## Cato

> did the *italic tribes*( might be source for steppe componnent) made it to sardinia ?


The Romans in 238 BC

Inviato dal mio POT-LX1T utilizzando Tapatalk

----------


## kingjohn

> The Romans in 238 BC
> 
> Inviato dal mio POT-LX1T utilizzando Tapatalk





nice  :Smile: 
but the one of the iron age remains (i16163) already show the steppe signiture 
and he is dated to 762-434 bc  :Thinking: 
maybe the early mediveal individual i12221 which is in later period 892-990 ad
show steppe partly from vandal influence 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandal_Sardinia

----------


## Jovialis

I am sure all of these groups all contributed some amount to the steppe throughout Italy:

----------


## torzio

> I am sure all of these groups all contributed some amount to the steppe throughout Italy:


The turquoise colour needs to be placed on the 2 x Picene areas plus the Messapic area ............then this map is decent

Plus the purple need to go into eastern austria

Umbrian and Oscan separated ? ......maybe it should be joined and called Umbrian-Sabellic group

----------


## Jovialis

Perhaps this is a better map for showing Osco-Umbrian language:



Here is evidence of the Oscan language still being spoken in Pompeii, during the Imperial era.



HAVE is the Oscan equivalent of AVE.

----------


## torzio

> Perhaps this is a better map for showing Osco-Umbrian language:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is evidence of the Oscan language still being spoken in Pompeii, during the Imperial era.
> 
> 
> 
> HAVE is the Oscan equivalent of AVE.



the two maps are different time period

the first is early iron age and 
the second map after the celtic invasion of the Boii and Semnones tribes 

is the first map a linguistic or ethnic map as the second would be considered neither

----------


## Angela

I agree with most of what the map shows, but it may be downplaying the extent of Greek speaking areas a bit.



Others go even further:


In the end, no one today can know how far inland the Greek language spread from the initial settlements. There also is the fact that very few people lived, for example, in the Aspromonte mountains, so the majority of the population probably spoke Greek and did some admixing, imo.

Of course, everything also depends on the time period being represented. At earlier periods, for example, the Ligures extended much further into Emilia-Romagna and down into Toscana, and, of course, all the way down into Spain.



Originally, in fact, they were even above the Apennines.

----------


## Palermo Trapani

Nice maps, very informative (post #59 to #63). Thanks Jovialis, Torzio and Angela.

Any thoughts on the language of the Elymians and Sicani. The Elymians definitely adopted Greek culture as their Temples in Segesta, Trapani suggest but they still wrote in their own language which the Linguistic Scholars are not totally sure on what type of language it is (some scholars suggest Indo-European connected to the Ligurians or Anatolians). Sicani I don't think left any traces of their language or very little and it too is not classified. The Sicels I think it is pretty well agreed spoke a similar language to what was spoken in Southern Italy.

----------


## Jovialis

Here are maps showing the type of Greek dialects being spoken in Magna Graecia





@Angela, great maps,

Here is another also showing Greek influence in Sardinia:

----------


## torzio

> Nice maps, very informative (post #59 to #63). Thanks Jovialis, Torzio and Angela.
> 
> Any thoughts on the language of the Elymians and Sicani. The Elymians definitely adopted Greek culture as their Temples in Segesta, Trapani suggest but they still wrote in their own language which the Linguistic Scholars are not totally sure on what type of language it is (some scholars suggest Indo-European connected to the Ligurians or Anatolians). Sicani I don't think left any traces of their language or very little and it too is not classified. The Sicels I think it is pretty well agreed spoke a similar language to what was spoken in Southern Italy.


I thought Elymian was late Hittite language before it became purely Luwian...........Luwian died out in modern Lebanon circa 600BC

----------


## Palermo Trapani

Torzio: very debated, some say tied to Ligures, some Anatolian Hittite, which is why it is as today the best of my knowledge, unclassified. There is even less known about Sicani. The connection to the Ligures is do to many of the names of towns and cities in the area of the Elymians are also found in modern Liguria. So that is the reason for the hypothesis that the Elymian language is connected to the Ligures.

----------


## Angela

> Here are maps showing the type of Greek dialects being spoken in Magna Graecia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @Angela, great maps,
> 
> Here is another also showing Greek influence in Sardinia:



This is why there's absolutely no surprise for me in the fact that Iran Neo exists in Italians, even without considering that it was already in central Italy, according to Antonio et al, in the Neolithic and Copper Age and Bronze Ages.

The first to colonize Southern Italy were the Euboeans, who with the move to Pithecusae (on the isle of Ischia), founded a series of cities in that region. The second city that they founded was Cumae, nearly opposite Ischia. The colonists from Cumae founded Zancle in on Sicily, and nearby on the opposite coast, Rhegium. Further, the Euboeans founded Naxos, which became the base for the founding of the cities of Leontini, Tauromenion and Catania. In this effort they were accompanied by small numbers of Dorians and Ionians; the Athenians had notably refused to take part in the colonization.[quotes 1]
The strongest of the Sicilian colonies was Syracuse, an 8th-century B.C. colony of the Corinthians. Colonists of that same period from Achaea founded the cities of Sybaris and Croton in the Gulf of Taranto but also in the Metapontum in the same district. In the same area, refugees from Sparta founded Taranto which evolved into one of the most powerful cities in the area. Other Greek states that founded cities in Southern Italy were Megara, which founded Megara Hyblaea, and Selinous; Phocaea, which founded Elea; Rhodes, which founded Gela together with the Cretans and Lipari together with Cnidus, even as the Locrians founded Epizephyrean Locris.[1]
Many cities in the region became in turn metropolis for new colonies such as the Syracusans, who founded the city of Camarina in the south of Sicily; or the Zancleans, who led the founding of the colony of Himera. Likewise Naxos, which we see taking further part in the founding of many colonies while the city of Sybaris founded the colony of Poseidonia to its north. The city of Gela which was a colony of Rhodes and Crete founded its own colony, Acragas.

Gela and Lipari seem to be the only colonies founded by Island Greeks.

----------


## blevins13

> This is why there's absolutely no surprise for me in the fact that Iran Neo exists in Italians, even without considering that it was already in central Italy, according to Antonio et al, in the Neolithic and Copper Age and Bronze Ages.
> 
> The first to colonize Southern Italy were the Euboeans, who with the move to Pithecusae (on the isle of Ischia), founded a series of cities in that region. The second city that they founded was Cumae, nearly opposite Ischia. The colonists from Cumae founded Zancle in on Sicily, and nearby on the opposite coast, Rhegium. Further, the Euboeans founded Naxos, which became the base for the founding of the cities of Leontini, Tauromenion and Catania. In this effort they were accompanied by small numbers of Dorians and Ionians; the Athenians had notably refused to take part in the colonization.[quotes 1]
> The strongest of the Sicilian colonies was Syracuse, an 8th-century B.C. colony of the Corinthians. Colonists of that same period from Achaea founded the cities of Sybaris and Croton in the Gulf of Taranto but also in the Metapontum in the same district. In the same area, refugees from Sparta founded Taranto which evolved into one of the most powerful cities in the area. Other Greek states that founded cities in Southern Italy were Megara, which founded Megara Hyblaea, and Selinous; Phocaea, which founded Elea; Rhodes, which founded Gela together with the Cretans and Lipari together with Cnidus, even as the Locrians founded Epizephyrean Locris.[1]
> Many cities in the region became in turn metropolis for new colonies such as the Syracusans, who founded the city of Camarina in the south of Sicily; or the Zancleans, who led the founding of the colony of Himera. Likewise Naxos, which we see taking further part in the founding of many colonies while the city of Sybaris founded the colony of Poseidonia to its north. The city of Gela which was a colony of Rhodes and Crete founded its own colony, Acragas.
> 
> Gela and Lipari seem to be the only colonies founded by Island Greeks.


This study adds to the Anatolian route of Mycenaeans.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

----------


## Jovialis

> Northern Italy (Etruscan, Raetic and other non-IE people) from Steppe
> Southern Italy (Greek, Oscan and other IE people) from a *non-Steppe* CHG/Iran_N source
> 
> Did I get it correctly?


All of those groups in the south still have still have some Steppe in them though.

My opinion is that after a while, the spread and development of language and culture probably had less to do with genetics and more to do with acculturation. Sort of like how farming was adopted by central Anatolians, via acculturation. (Agricultural origins on the Anatolian plateau | PNAS)

I think this was done more for pragmatic reasons, than romanticized sentimental ones that some hobbyists believe. People needed systems that worked, in order to organize their societies.

----------


## Cato

The Oscan group had to have steppe in their DNA, they came from Central_eastern Italy. According to Giacomo Devoto Oscans were preceded by Latin faliscan people like the Aenotrians, Opici etc. 

Inviato dal mio POT-LX1T utilizzando Tapatalk

----------


## Jovialis

> But I believe there is a strong relation between genetics and culture


To a certain extent imo, I take a middle of the road approach to this.

For example, if have a group that is able to metabolize alcohol better than others, it is more likely you will have a culture that has a tradition of specialized alcohol production.

----------


## Jovialis

> https://www.historyfiles.co.uk/Featu...000-2000BC.htm
> 
> 
> 
> First it was believed that just Anatolians migrated from the south of Caucasus, but genetic studies show this region could be also the source of Indo-Iranians, Hellenic and Italic people too. I don't know why some people don't want to believe it was the original land of Indo-European, as David Reich and some other scholars have said.


I don't rule it out for the PIE. Especially considering David Reich's sentiments in _Who We are and How We Got Here_.

----------


## Jovialis



----------


## Maciamo

Interesting study. This PCA shows that Calabria is most similar to the Copper & Bronze Age Anatolia and Mycenaean Greece.



Did I miss something or did they not provide any Y-DNA data?

----------


## Angela

> https://www.historyfiles.co.uk/Featu...000-2000BC.htm
> 
> 
> 
> First it was believed that just Anatolians migrated from the south of Caucasus, but genetic studies show this region could be also the source of Indo-Iranians, Hellenic and Italic people too. I don't know why some people don't want to believe it was the original land of Indo-European, as David Reich and some other scholars have said.


You seem to be confused. Italic speakers came from Central Europe and were steppe admixed. Etruscans DID NOT come from Anatolia, as recent ancient samples have proved. They are also steppe admixed. Same is almost certainly true for the Ligures.

Iran Neo or Caucasus like ancestry was in Central Italy by at least the Neolithic (in this case perhaps as part of the admixture within Anatolian farmers), in the Copper Age (perhaps for the same reason or because of movement of Copper producers from the Balkans), and certainly from the Bronze Age. It would have come from Anatolia either directly or via Greece and the Balkans or both. Then there is Iron Age settlement by the Greeks of Southern Italy and Sicily. Then we get to the Imperial Age. All of this has to be sorted out with more ancient dna.

What is clear is that Iran Neo started to arrive in the Mediterranean very early. HOWEVER, this has nothing to do with the Italics who are also our ancestors, or the Anatolian farmers who are ancestors of all Europeans to one degree or another.

----------


## Jovialis

> You seem to be confused. Italic speakers came from Central Europe and were steppe admixed. Etruscans DID NOT come from Anatolia, as recent ancient samples have proved. They are also steppe admixed. Same is almost certainly true for the Ligures.
> 
> Iran Neo or Caucasus like ancestry was in Central Italy by at least the Neolithic (in this case perhaps as part of the admixture within Anatolian farmers), in the Copper Age (perhaps for the same reason or because of movement of Copper producers from the Balkans), and certainly from the Bronze Age. It would have come from Anatolia either directly or via Greece and the Balkans or both. Then there is Iron Age settlement by the Greeks of Southern Italy and Sicily. Then we get to the Imperial Age. All of this has to be sorted out with more ancient dna.
> 
> What is clear is that Iran Neo started to arrive in the Mediterranean very early. HOWEVER, this has nothing to do with the Italics who are also our ancestors, or the Anatolian farmers who are ancestors of all Europeans to one degree or another.


Absolutely right, the evidence is clear that the Italics come from central Europe, and Etruscans did not come from Anatolia.

For the record, my comments were more in relation to the possible origin of the first Indo-European speakers.

----------


## kingjohn

> Interesting study. This PCA shows that Calabria is most similar to the Copper & Bronze Age Anatolia and Mycenaean Greece.
> 
> 
> 
> Did I miss something or did they not provide any Y-DNA data?


unfortuntely , not as far as i know :Thinking: 
*griko samples from salento* -had high e-v13 
from what i remember in other paper
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griko_...iesTodayV4.png


p.s
could have been interesting to compare to griko samples from calabria ...

----------


## torzio

> Northern Italy (Etruscan, Raetic and other non-IE people) from Steppe
> Southern Italy (Greek, Oscan and other IE people) from a *non-Steppe* CHG/Iran_N source
> 
> Did I get it correctly?


the oscan group which is mostly the samnites are a branch of the Umbrians , like the Sabines and Sabellic groups are.....all from Umbrian line

----------


## Salento

> unfortuntely , not as far as i know
> *griko samples from salento* -had high e-v13 
> from what i remember in other paper
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griko_...iesTodayV4.png


it could be Medieval, though sometimes I can see Albania and the sea looks like a big lake, ... and if I see it, the Albanians must see Salento too.
... It's only 45 miles away.



https://bari.repubblica.it/cronaca/2...i-159776344/1/

----------


## kingjohn

> it could be Medieval, though sometimes I can see Albania and the sea looks like a big lake, ... and if I see it, the Albanians must see Salento too.
> ... It's only 45 miles away.
> 
> 
> 
> https://bari.repubblica.it/cronaca/2...i-159776344/1/



amazingly beautifull  :Smile: 

here *GS* ( _greek salento sample number 82_ )
besides *e-v13* they also had high * r1a-m17**
and *r1b -m412** haplogroups 

https://i.imgur.com/lcWW0y1.png

----------


## Jovialis

> I have searched about it several times but never found anything, why this very important thing has not been mention in this study and other studies about Sicily, Mycenaeans and etc? 
> Why do we see this map:
>  
> Do you believe Central Italy was the source of Iranian-related ancestry in Bronze Age Europe?


This is unrelated to the Neolithic Iran_N-like ancestry found in central Italy. Also, this came via intermediary sources with CHG, not directly from Iran. But more importantly, it has nothing to do with Italic culture.

----------


## Salento

> amazingly beautifull 
> 
> here *GS* ( _greek salento sample number 82_ )
> besides *e-v13* they also had high * r1a-m17**
> and *r1b -m412** haplogroups 
> 
> https://i.imgur.com/lcWW0y1.png


I don't think I'm a Griko, but who knows for sure.
I’m a y T-SK1480 (same as Torzio).

----------


## Jovialis

> I have searched about it several times but never found anything,


Antonio M. et al 2019 clearly shows Iran_N in the neolithic, in central Italy.






> *The Neolithic transition*The first major ancestry shift in the time series occurred between 7000 and 6000 BCE, coinciding with the transition to farming and introduction of domesticates including wheat, barley, pulses, sheep, and cattle into Italy (Fig. 2) (_6_, _16_).
> Similar to early farmers from other parts of Europe, Neolithic individuals from central Italy project near Anatolian farmers in PCA (_13_, _14_, _17_–_19_) (Fig. 2A). However, ADMIXTURE reveals that, in addition to ancestry from northwestern Anatolia farmers, all of the Neolithic individuals that we studied carry a small amount of another component that is found at high levels in Neolithic Iranian farmers and Caucasus hunter-gatherers (CHG) (Fig. 2B and fig. S9). This contrasts with contemporaneous central European and Iberian populations who carry farmer ancestry predominantly from northwestern Anatolia (fig. S12). Furthermore, _qpAdm_ modeling suggests that Neolithic Italian farmers can be modeled as a two-way mixture of ~5% local hunter-gatherer ancestry and ~95% ancestry of Neolithic farmers from central Anatolia or northern Greece (table S7), who also carry additional CHG (or Neolithic Iranian) ancestry (fig. S12) (_14_). These findings point to different or additional source populations involved in the Neolithic transition in Italy compared to central and western Europe.
> During the late Neolithic and Copper Age, there is a small, gradual rebound of WHG ancestry (Fig. 2B and fig. S24), mirroring findings from ancient DNA studies of other European populations from these periods (_10_, _13_, _18_, _20_). This may reflect admixture with communities that had high levels of WHG ancestry persisting into the Neolithic, locally or in neighboring regions (tables S9 to S11).
> 
> https://science.sciencemag.org/content/366/6466/708

----------


## Jovialis

> Do you mean this *small amount* of admixture in Anatolian ancestry?


What difference does it make? We know there have been subsequent migrations since the Neolithic, which should be obvious. There was most likely a cline with more of it the further south you go. Also, if you actually read the damn book by David Reich, he shows it was also in Greece_N. These were some of the intermediary populations trickling into Italy, bring higher levels of CHG as time went on.



Also, how does it lend any credence to your frankly ignorant argument?

----------


## Regio X

> Antonio M. et al 2019 clearly shows Iran_N in the neolithic, in central Italy.


Indeed. Some Iran Neo-related ancestry was in Barcin already. The arrival of this ancestry into Anatolia at AAF period is well evidenced in Feldman et al. 

Late Pleistocene human genome suggests a local origin for the first farmers of central Anatolia
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09209-7

----------


## Angela

> The difference is that we read other things in this study:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran_N/CHG admixture in Anatolian Neolithic ancestry has been considered but this study talks about further ancestry from Iran_N/CHG-related source.


Excuse me, but have you been following this thread?

Clearly not, or you would know we've been talking about that throughout the thread. There's NOTHING, however, to indicate a migration DIRECTLY from Iran or the Caucasus. It arrived via intermediaries, and therefore MIXED.
Perhaps it would be wise to read a thread before commenting.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> I found this old post, which shows the Phoenician sample, which is largely "Morocco_LN" in that modeling. But if you see the alternative modeling, the Morocco_LN is largely replaced by what appears to be Anatolian_N.



Yes, indeed. On the other hand some of the Phoenicians (that would be more correct to call them in this case Punic) were actually assimilated Sardinian-Nuragics or Iberians.





> In regards to not totally placing blind trust in every single genetic study, and the case of Morrocco_LN modeling, we do indeed agree. But as for the Iran_N being present, in Sardinia, and Northern Italy, I don't see why it is out of the realm of possibility. The pulse of CHG/IN in the BA, is largely being accepted by the leading geneticists. The fact that the Mycenaeans had it, that the Anatolian in the BA had it, and the discovery of it in the Western Mediterranean, to me, is too compelling to dismiss, in my opinion. It has been found even in central Italy since the Neolithic. The Etruscans, and Latini had it at comparable levels to Steppe, which distinguished them from their contemporaries to the north. I think that was something that was neglected to be mentioned in the Antonio paper, which seemed more focused on putting the spotlight on inconsequential imperial era immigrants that didn't leave a lasting impact. Nevertheless, the hard data, which it provided, was more valuable, than the narrative it was trying to spin.



I haven't said that CHG/Iran_N doesn't exist in Italy, I've said that it's inflated in Sarno's paper. However, it is of little importance, other studies will come out soon that may confirm Sarno's values or give other results.

----------


## Angela

> I have read this thread and other ones, like "Moots: Ancient Rome Paper", and I know you have said several times that Iran_N/CHG ancestry in Italy relates to the Neolithic migrations from Anatolia, but the main point is that this ancestry was increased in the South of Italy in the Bronze age from a non-Steppe CHG/Iran_N source, so there were other migrations through Anatolia in the Bronze Age too, is it true?


READ the thread. Of course there were.

How many times do I and others have to repeat ourselves? The Mycenaeans got it from somewhere after all.

----------


## bigsnake49

So how long before these samples are incorporated in the Dodecad files so that we can make our own comparisons between the Calabria Gricos and the Salentine Grikos and modern and ancient Greeks?

----------


## Jovialis

> So how long before these samples are incorporated in the Dodecad files so that we can make our own comparisons between the Calabria Gricos and the Salentine Grikos and modern and ancient Greeks?


From my experience, it is pretty hard to obtain modern DNA. Most of the ones that are publicly available, must be approved before use. They are utilized more for other papers to use.

----------


## torzio

> Interesting study. This PCA shows that Calabria is most similar to the Copper & Bronze Age Anatolia and Mycenaean Greece.
> 
> 
> 
> Did I miss something or did they not provide any Y-DNA data?


The report is basically an extension of Stefania previous report and that also failed to provide ydna

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/210828126.pdf

----------


## Jovialis

Here is a facial reconstruction of a Greek from Magna Graecia

Pre-Socratic Greek philosopher Parmenides of Elea (c. 515 BC-post-450 BC), by Alessandro Tomasi:



Elea was an Ionic-speaking Greek colony in what is now southern Campania:

----------


## davef

Im happy to see this! It strengthens the idea that the extra near eastern affinity found in the south is Caucasus or iranian based.

----------


## Ozzie

I think you are missing the point. The Iranian Farmers and the Caucasus Hunter Gatherers are not Iranians or Caucasians, they are ancient samples found from places called now the Caucasus and Iran and and may have given little ancestry to modern Caucasian groups or Iranian populations. Having affinities is not conclusive of actual ancestry. Also the farmers that went to Europe had livestock that did not originate in Anatolia but much further east. So how did they Anatolian farmers get their sheep and goats? By trading with other Neolithics, of course. And they mixed with each other, that is what humans usually do.

In my Southern European opinion, all these studies are biased by the geneticists' paradigms of what is indigenous, what is European, what is Middle Eastern, and Southern Europeans are always excluded from being the European crowd because they have a lower ancestry from the Eurasian Steppes, and greater Neolithic farmer ancestry. Look at David Reich's clines of European and Near Eastern Ancestry, most Europeans outside the Northern, Western and Central zones are excluded because of the so called extra Near Eastern ancestry. Anyway that is my two cents worth.

----------


## Angela

> I think you are missing the point. The Iranian Farmers and the Caucasus Hunter Gatherers are not Iranians or Caucasians, they are ancient samples found from places called now the Caucasus and Iran and and may have given little ancestry to modern Caucasian groups or Iranian populations. Having affinities is not conclusive of actual ancestry. Also the farmers that went to Europe had livestock that did not originate in Anatolia but much further east. So how did they Anatolian farmers get their sheep and goats? By trading with other Neolithics, of course. And they mixed with each other, that is what humans usually do.
> 
> In my Southern European opinion, all these studies are biased by the geneticists' paradigms of what is indigenous, what is European, what is Middle Eastern, and Southern Europeans are always excluded from being the European crowd because they have a lower ancestry from the Eurasian Steppes, and greater Neolithic farmer ancestry. Look at David Reich's clines of European and Near Eastern Ancestry, most Europeans outside the Northern, Western and Central zones are excluded because of the so called extra Near Eastern ancestry. Anyway that is my two cents worth.


I agree with you except for the fact that Modern Iranians and Caucasians do indeed have a lot of Iran Neo ancestry, along with Anatolian farmer. The gene flow went both ways. The fact is that a wave of that ancestry spread into Anatolia and mixed with the Anatolian farmers living there. Perhaps through Anatolians it spread south into the Levant, eventually even reaching North Africa. It definitely spread into the Central and Western Mediterranean, again, as I've said over and over again, as an admixed group. There is absolutely no evidence from history of a movement to Italy or Greece, for that matter, from the Caucasus itself.

In terms of Italy in, say, the Bronze and Iron Age, I'm not sure if all of it came via the Greeks or if some of it came directly from Anatolia itself. (It certainly didn't go to Etruria, as the Etruscans clearly came from Central Europe, which 90% of the internet said was fantasy when I and a few others insisted on it here and on anthrogenica; one of the many things they and eurogenes got wrong about Southern Europe.) In isolated places like southern and southwestern Sardinia in the Iron Age, some of it may have come with Phoenicians. Perhaps a bit arrived in the same way in Northwestern Sicily. The rest of Sicily and the mainland are different.

The Moots paper, other than providing the ancient samples, tends to confuse rather than clarify the issue of what happened in Imperial Age. Once we get Southern Italian samples and Greek samples from the Iron Age, we'll know better how much Iran Neo/CHG, for example, arrived in Italy with the Greeks and then moved northward.

The problem with Moots is that it assumes every single burial sample is a long term resident of Rome, i.e. Roman or at least Italian. That's manifestly a simplification. Not every person who "looks" like a Levantine or even an Anatolian on a PCA would have become a long time settler whose progeny contributed to the local genomes. We can see that with some of the samples from the post Imperial period whom we've analyzed and who are manifestly northern European visitors to Rome. Had they done some isotopic testing we might have a clearer idea of who was "local" and who was not. Added to all this, in the period in question, some Romans still practiced cremation, so the sample is not representative.

Then, there's the question of the big demographic change even earlier than the end of the Empire. Rome was gradually abandoned as the seat of Empire. Everything shifted either to Constantinople or to Northern Italy. That's why the "tail to the east" ended. The traders left. 

There is indeed also the period of the Germanic invasions. The problem with attributing much of the change to them, the popular back to the beginning scenario particularly in the north, is that every Germanic sample we've found is either I1 or R1b-U106. I can't believe that a paper purporting to deal with Italian genetics totally ignore yDna. The one thing it's really good for is tracking migrations. There's far too little of either, even in the Veneto, much less in Lazio, to account for a change from people with almost no steppe to people with 30% steppe. It doesn't matter how small the "native" population might have been; the "Germanic" ydna would have to be higher than it is. Not to mention that the Langobards numbered around 100,000 people even according to their own scribes, and the Goths were even smaller in number, mimicking what happened in Hungary. 

I really hope the Reich Lab (and Razib Khan in his summary) doesn't make these kind of elementary errors.

Now, if someone shows the Germanics carried a lot of R1b U152 then that's a different story. 

I'd also like to see samples from the Italian countryside and mountains from the Late Imperial and Post Imperial Era. When cities collapse, people from the periphery move down and repopulate them. 

We need more data.

----------


## Jovialis

> I agree with you except for the fact that Modern Iranians and Caucasians do indeed have a lot of Iran Neo ancestry, along with Anatolian farmer. The gene flow went both ways. The fact is that a wave of that ancestry spread into Anatolia and mixed with the Anatolian farmers living there. Perhaps through Anatolians it spread south into the Levant, eventually even reaching North Africa. It definitely spread into the Central and Western Mediterranean, again, as I've said over and over again, as an admixed group. There is absolutely no evidence from history of a movement to Italy or Greece, for that matter, from the Caucasus itself.
> 
> In terms of Italy in, say, the Bronze and Iron Age, I'm not sure if all of it came via the Greeks or if some of it came directly from Anatolia itself. (It certainly didn't go to Etruria, as the Etruscans clearly came from Central Europe, which 90% of the internet said was fantasy when I and a few others insisted on it here and on anthrogenica; one of the many things they and eurogenes got wrong about Southern Europe.) In isolated places like southern and southwestern Sardinia in the Iron Age, some of it may have come with Phoenicians. Perhaps a bit arrived in the same way in Northwestern Sicily. The rest of Sicily and the mainland are different.
> 
> The Moots paper, other than providing the ancient samples, tends to confuse rather than clarify the issue of what happened in Imperial Age. Once we get Southern Italian samples and Greek samples from the Iron Age, we'll know better how much Iran Neo/CHG, for example, arrived in Italy with the Greeks and then moved northward.
> 
> The problem with Moots is that it assumes every single burial sample is a long term resident of Rome, i.e. Roman or at least Italian. That's manifestly a simplification. Not every person who "looks" like a Levantine or even an Anatolian on a PCA would have become a long time settler whose progeny contributed to the local genomes. We can see that with some of the samples from the post Imperial period whom we've analyzed and who are manifestly northern European visitors to Rome. Had they done some isotopic testing we might have a clearer idea of who was "local" and who was not. Added to all this, in the period in question, some Romans still practiced cremation, so the sample is not representative.
> 
> Then, there's the question of the big demographic change even earlier than the end of the Empire. Rome was gradually abandoned as the seat of Empire. Everything shifted either to Constantinople or to Northern Italy. That's why the "tail to the east" ended. The traders left. 
> ...


I absolutely agree, the Moots paper, and many others are a mine field of fudged narratives. After reading the paper, I tend to discard the oversimplified explanation, that give the wrong impression, and just analyze the hard data, coming to my own conclusions. It seems that some of these authors are chasing after fantasies, rather than going by what the evidence is strictly showing. TBH, It is almost as if that paper was tailored to be read by journalists, for exposure. No matter, because even the authors had to concede that the modeling should not be taken seriously. Yet, that seems to be lost on some people, unfortunately.

----------


## Jovialis

> Here is a facial reconstruction of a Greek from Magna Graecia
> 
> Pre-Socratic Greek philosopher Parmenides of Elea (c. 515 BC-post-450 BC), by Alessandro Tomasi:
> 
> 
> 
> Elea was an Ionic-speaking Greek colony in what is now southern Campania:


Parmenides could fit in modern Southern Italy.


Anyone that still denies the Ancient Greeks were not very similar to Southern Italians, is just fooling themselves.

----------


## Jovialis

^^I think it could be said that Greco-Roman civilization, is not only a cultural synthesis, but an ethnic one as well. IMHO The genetic-cline in Italy was primarily formed by the melding of ancient Italic (& Etruscan) and Greek peoples. The rebirth of this high civilization, had become the beacon of ambition, and stirred the hearts of many Italian patriots, thinkers, and artists, of the subsequent eras. In their hearts they knew they were connected to these people by blood.

----------


## Ozzie

I should have been more specific. All the ancients were very divergent from each other, WHG, EHG, CCG, Anatolian farmers, Levantine farmers, Iranian farmers, and so on, more divergent from each other than a general West Eurasian European is from a general East Eurasian. Modern populations in West Eurasia are very genetically close to each other, Europeans, Near Easterners, West Asians, North Africans are much closer to each other than to those Ancients except when you get to the Bronze Age.

----------


## Cato

Northern Apulia, Northern Basilicata, Benevento area and Abruzzo were not colonized by Greeks but if I m not wrong they cluster with Southern Greeks, and Aegean islanders. What's the possible explanation? 

Inviato dal mio POT-LX1T utilizzando Tapatalk

----------


## Ozzie

The trouble with that PCA diagram Maciamo posted from the study is it is really disingenuous. They used a limited number of modern reference samples, and in terms of DNA studies, old hoary ones. Example, the Adeghe, the 8 Tuscans (TSI), the 13 Bergamo Italians and so on. Those samples come from the beginning of those type of dna studies and there are other more up-to-date reference samples. The TSI samples are different from a much larger later Tuscan reference sample, which shows using small number can be unrepresentative of the whole. Also the Adeghe come from Northern part of the Caucasus which is not the Mediterranean just because the Greeks colonized all the Black Sea coast does not make it the Mediterranean, and ancient North Caucasians were more like modern Armenians and Georgians i.e not effected by Russian and Ukrainian admixture. It is better to have a PCA of all Europeans, all Near Easterners (not just the boring Druze, and Palestinians) and all the West Asians. The smaller samples draws the groups closer to each other than in reality.

I consider this study flawed for those reasons, and disingenuous.

----------


## Jovialis

> Northern Apulia, Northern Basilicata, Benevento area and Abruzzo were not colonized by Greeks but if I m not wrong they cluster with Southern Greeks, and Aegean islanders. What's the possible explanation? 
> 
> Inviato dal mio POT-LX1T utilizzando Tapatalk


These people certainly moved around when Italy was unified under the Romans, I doubt they stayed fixed in one place according to where their colonies were.

But also, it is likely that the native population, prior to the arrival of the Greeks, were already very Greek-like. Due to prehistoric migrations from the southern Balkans. These people were also relatively high in CHG.

----------


## Jovialis

> Northern Apulia, Northern Basilicata, Benevento area and Abruzzo were not colonized by Greeks but if I m not wrong they cluster with Southern Greeks, and Aegean islanders. What's the possible explanation? 
> 
> Inviato dal mio POT-LX1T utilizzando Tapatalk




Also, Sicilians are parallel to Southern Greeks, and Aegean Islanders, to the "west" of them.


Apulia, Basilicata, Benevento area and Abruzzo are to the "North" and "West" of them.

----------


## torzio

> Northern Apulia, Northern Basilicata, Benevento area and Abruzzo were not colonized by Greeks but if I m not wrong they cluster with Southern Greeks, and Aegean islanders. What's the possible explanation? 
> 
> Inviato dal mio POT-LX1T utilizzando Tapatalk



and neither was Lucania and Bruttian areas in southern Italy had any Greeks ...................these tribes branched out from southern samnite groups whose origins are umbrian

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucania

The Greeks that came to stay in itlay where mostly corinthian Greeks with their powerful fleet

----------


## Jovialis

> and neither was Lucania and Bruttian areas in southern Italy had any Greeks ...................these tribes branched out from southern samnite groups whose origins are umbrian
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucania
> The Greeks that came to stay in itlay where mostly corinthian Greeks with their powerful fleet


The DNA and Isotopic study on imperial Vagnari stated that the locals, found in the Roman estate were natives to the region. Nevertheless, even if all of these tribes remained in place during that time, they were likely scrambled during the fall of the Roman Empire and resettlement of cities and towns. Greek-like people were all over the Empire, even in Collegno in Late Antiquity.

----------


## Jovialis

> I find very interesting to see how Abruzzo and Molise have a stronger component "mediana" (purple) than what I would have initially thought. Like if they cluster in the middle between Lazio and Campania-Puglia-Lucania. It's one of the first papers that I have read and probably will need to read again and again to be sure that I really got it right.


You could model them as half-Barese/half-Umbrian, according to this paper.

The purple, brown, and yellow components are all considered Southern Italian genetically, in that paper. Which is also consistent with AncestryDNA's broad component for Southern Italians.

----------


## Jovialis

> Interesting!
> 
> I don't know why I remember the purple as southern-central vs the 'tuscan' as northern-central but I may be wrong.
> That's more or less in line with how we consider these areas in Italy (centro-sud at least)


Here is the excerpt from the paper:




> A sharp north-south division in cluster distribution was detected, the separation between northern and southern areas being shifted north along the peninsula (Fig. 1B) (_12_). The reported structure dismissed the possibility that the Central Italian populations differentiated from the Northern and Southern Italian groups (Fig. 1A) (_13_). Individuals from Central Italy were, in fact, assigned mostly to the Southern Italian clusters, except for samples from Tuscany, which grouped instead with the Northern Italian clusters (Fig. 1, A and B) (_12_). Contrary to previous results, no outliers were detected among the Northern Italian clusters (_12_).
> 
> https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/9/eaaw3492


Tuscans are Northerners, the rest of Central Italy is technically Southern.


There is a cline however, central Italy is where Northern Italian and Southern Italian-like DNA intersect. So you could say one is North-Central, and the other is South-Central. But the center is not a cluster, unto itself according to Raveane et al. 2018.

----------


## torzio

> Here is the excerpt from the paper:
> 
> 
> 
> Tuscans are Northerners, the rest of Central Italy is technically Southern.
> 
> 
> There is a cline however, central Italy is where Northern Italian and Southern Italian-like DNA intersect. So you could say one is North-Central, and the other is South-Central. But the center is not a cluster, unto itself according to Raveane et al. 2018.



going by this ............the Umbrians should be classified with the Tuscans and whatever group they are

----------


## Pax Augusta

> going by this ............the Umbrians should be classified with the Tuscans and whatever group they are



As Jovialis explained, those are clusters, it has nothing to do with how one should be classified.

----------


## torzio

> As Jovialis explained, those are clusters, it has nothing to do with how one should be classified.


ok...we all know that the Samnites, Sabellics, Sabines and a few other ancient tribes come via Umbrian stock .................why classify these as Southern when they should be classified Central ?
Lucania another group that came via samnites

There is no Greek association 

I think we are misleading people by calling them southern instead of central

----------


## Jovialis

> ok...we all know that the Samnites, Sabellics, Sabines and a few other ancient tribes come via Umbrian stock .................why classify these as Southern when they should be classified Central ?
> Lucania another group that came via samnites
> 
> There is no Greek association 
> 
> I think we are misleading people by calling them southern instead of central


The map from Raveane et al. 2018 represents modern Italians, not Iron age Italics. As far as I know, we don't know where those particular tribes would end up genetically. Probably similar to Latini, I would guess. Maybe those groups may have been a bit different, IDK.


If you look at the composition of samples found in central Italy during the medieval era, you see a lot of C6 i.e. Mediterranean Southern Italian-like samples, along with C7. So either during the Roman Unification of Italy, or the resettlement of those areas; those areas became Southern Italian-like. I would bet my bottom dollar, it has something to do with the Greek population in the south and/or pre-Italic southerners who may have also been _greek-like_.

----------


## Jovialis

> Interesting study. *This PCA shows that Calabria is most similar to the Copper & Bronze Age Anatolia and Mycenaean Greece*.
> 
> 
> 
> Did I miss something or did they not provide any Y-DNA data?


Indeed, it can be said for all Southern Italians. Here it is from the following excerpt:




> Consistently with previous results3,27, the PCA performed by projecting ancient samples onto the modern genetic variation reveals specific patterns of population relationships (Suppl. Figure S8). *In fact, all the Southern Italian groups, besides showing a general high affinity with Anatolian and European Neolithic farmers, cluster also closely with the Chalcolithic and Bronze Age samples from Anatolian and Aegean (Minoan and Mycenaean) populations.*


I recall, some posters here and from other forums tried to doubt it as a mere coincidence on the PCA. It is nice to see it said here in the study, and that the doubters were wrong.

----------


## torzio

> The map from Raveane et al. 2018 represents modern Italians, not Iron age Italics. As far as I know, we don't know where those particular tribes would end up genetically. Probably similar to Latini, I would guess. Maybe those groups may have been a bit different, IDK.
> 
> 
> If you look at the composition of samples found in central Italy during the medieval era, you see a lot of C6 i.e. Mediterranean Southern Italian-like samples, along with C7. So either during the Roman Unification of Italy, or the resettlement of those areas; those areas became Southern Italian-like. I would bet my bottom dollar, it has something to do with the Greek population in the south and/or pre-Italic southerners who may have also been _greek-like_.


If you are talking about medieval period, then the greek influence in the south is minimum at best............yes, there was some albanian influence after 1500 in the kingdom of Naples as they ( Naples ) became a haven for fleeing albanians from the ottomans

----------


## Jovialis

> If you are talking about medieval period, then the greek influence in the south is minimum at best............yes, there was some albanian influence after 1500 in the kingdom of Naples as they ( Naples ) became a haven for fleeing albanians from the ottomans


I am not speaking particularly about Medieval Greeks, though I am sure they had some influence too. Rather, I am talking about Greeks from Magna Grecia, who have lived in Italy from before the Roman Unification of Italy, and/or Pre-Italic Greek-like Southern Italians. Who ever it was, there is a reason why 60% of the Medieval Central Italians samples fall into the C6 Southern Italian-like cluster:

----------


## Jovialis

> You could model them as half-Barese/half-Umbrian, according to this paper.
> 
> The purple, brown, and yellow components are all considered Southern Italian genetically, in that paper. Which is also consistent with AncestryDNA's broad component for Southern Italians.

----------


## Ozzie

I am indifferent to the ethnogenesis of particular Europeans, I am only interested in the general European genetic tapestry. 

I have problems with a lot of papers on dna and genetics. In that Stanford University, Jonathan Pritchard, paper I feel the paper is mixing apples with oranges. North Africans, Europeans, East Mediterraneans (which is an odd category) and Mediterraneans are all people who were formed in the various periods and are admixed. Think about the Cypriots, Lebanese and Anatolian Turks (the East Mediterranean?), they themselves are admixed, some more recently than others (the Turks), but essentially they are all in the Near Eastern group, and share a lot of ancestry with other Near Eastern groups. Europeans in the report only came into existence in the Bronze Age, thanks to the Yamnaya folk, and are admixed. North Africans of today are not the North Africans before the Islamic push, similar but not identical. I consider the East Mediterranean an artifact, it is just Near Eastern groups closer to Europe. In the report they refer to Bronze Age Iranians, those people are not identical with Iranian farmers of the West Asian Neolithic.

Also the researcher should use graphs, images based on the first three greatest dimensions to produce a 3D image. Why so? Because certain national/ethnic groups are not as close as they appear on two dimensions. Example: the Ashkenazi Jews on 3D are not close to Sicilians, Southern Italians, including Calabrians, and Greeks as they appear on two dimensions. The Basques and Sardinians (and Finnic speaking peoples) are quite removed from other Europeans. In the diagram, they say that the people of the Imperial Age are essentially the same as modern Mediterranean people. So did those Imperial Age Romans decamp Latium and head south around the Mediterrranean?

Anyway that is my thoughts on the paper.

----------


## Jovialis

Here is a good reason why Sarno et al. 2021 is a superior paper to Sarno et al. 2017:

In Sarno et al. 2017, they only use SIMULATIONS of purported unmixed populations to infer ancestry. This particular graphic is very illuminating, considering that it also wrongly infers Near Eastern (Levantine) in ancient population that we know do not have any, especially at such high rates:



Sarno et. al 2021, is indeed a better paper, as it uses actual Ancient DNA with qpadm to determine admixture rates, which don't even pick up this component:

----------


## Jovialis

^^Just an example, POP2 is "Sardinian-like" which is already also a false way to determine so-called "un-mixed" populations, because we know that Sardinians did receive some CHG, WHG, and some small amount of steppe.




Maybe if they used Anatolian_N, instead of a f*ake-population based on MODERN people, it would have saved us all a lot of faulty analysis from amateur-"experts".


EDIT: Why is the word F*ake censored?

----------


## torzio

> ^^Just an example, POP2 is "Sardinian-like" which is already also a false way to determine so-called "un-mixed" populations, because we know that Sardinians did receive some CHG, WHG, and some small amount of steppe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe if they used Anatolian_N, instead of a f*ake-population based on MODERN people, it would have saved us all a lot of faulty analysis from amateur-"experts".
> 
> 
> EDIT: Why is the word F*ake censored?



****book is how I say it

WOW...whats wrong with this site when you cannot use the word **** ( F A K E ) .....................

----------


## ihype02

Interesting Crete Armenio is clustering with Myceneaens too in this PCA.

----------


## Cato

> 


It Is possible to know the actual percentages or we have this graph only?

Edit: apparently the Suppl. Table S8 was not included in the online version

----------


## Jovialis

Going back to re-read this paper.

This part sounds like it could have been written by me :)

Sarno et al. 2021 is consistent with my point of view on this matter.




> Previous surveys on the ancient genetic legacy of Southern Italy pointed to genetic contributions linking Southern Italy and Mediterranean Greek islands with Anatolia and the Caucasus tracing back to migratory events occurred during the Neolithic and the Bronze Age, in which the Mediterranean served as a preferential crossroad3,13,27. *In particular, while the expansion of Anatolian Neolithic farmers significantly impacted all the Peninsula, differential Bronze-Age contributions were observed for Southern Italy with respect to Northern Italian populations. Bronze Age influences in the gene pool of Southern Italians have been in fact associated to a non-steppe Caucasian-related ancestry carried along the Mediterranean shores at the same time, but independently from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe migrations that occurred through Continental Europe. Consistently with this viewpoint, genetic analyses performed by comparing our modern populations with the main ancient ancestral sources have displayed the clustering of analysed Southern Italian groups with Neolithic and Bronze Age samples from Anatolian, Aegean Minoan and Mycenaean populations, as opposed to the affinity of Northern Italy with Late-Neolithic and Bronze-Age samples from continental Europe* (Suppl. Figure S8). Accordingly, both f3-outgroup, qpGraph and qpAdmixture analyses (Fig. 4, Suppl. Figure S9, Suppl. Figure S10) *revealed influences related to a Steppe ancestry in the Northern Italian groups, instead paralleled in Southern Italy by an analogous Caucasian-related contribution from a non-Steppe CHG/Iran_N source.* Importantly, the same ancestral sources are equally shared both by the present-day “open” (i.e. not-isolated) Southern Italian populations of Benevento, Castrovillari and Catanzaro, as well as by the geographically and linguistically-isolated communities of the Aspromonte mountain area (Fig. 4, Suppl. Table S8), thus signaling a common genetic background that possibly predates the linguistic hypotheses originally suggested about the times of formation of the Greco language in Southern Italy. *Accordingly, we hypothesize that the genetic continuity between Southern Italian populations and the other Mediterranean groups may date back to these Neolithic and post-Neolithic events and may have been subsequently maintained and in some cases reinforced by continuous and overlapping gene flows following similar paths of diffusion and interaction between populations, among which the migrations of Greek-speaking people during the classical era (Magna Graecia) and/or in Byzantine and subsequent times.* Therefore, the observed patterns could be linked to a tendency to mobility that has always characterized these populations, resulting in continuous cultural and genetic exchanges over time. That being so, the Calabrian Greek ethno-linguistic minorities of Southern Italy may be interpreted as the remnants of a wider area of Greek influence, that by virtue of their geographic isolation have preserved and evolved a unique variety of Greek which has survived through centuries in the mountains of the Aspromonte area. At this respect, the communities showing higher signatures of genetic isolation (Roghudi, Gallicianò, Condofuri and Roccaforte del Greco; Suppl. Figure S4, Suppl. Figure S5) are also the ones located in the more impervious areas of the Aspromonte, at the same time still conserving a certain number of Greco speakers (Suppl. Table S1)40,41.
> 
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-82591-9

----------


## Jovialis

My official position on Southern Italians, consistent with Sarno et al. 2021's hypothesis:

Genetic continuity with Neolithic/post-Neolithic Mediterranean groups and southern Italians; only re-enforced by subsequent historical events.

----------


## Palermo Trapani

> My official position on Southern Italians, consistent with Sarno et al. 2021's hypothesis:
> 
> Genetic continuity with Neolithic/post-Neolithic Mediterranean groups and southern Italians; only re-enforced by subsequent historical events.


Jovialis: Your last two post are dead on in my view. Have those new Calabrian samples been made available to the public yet?

----------


## Jovialis

Modern samples have a lot of regulations for use, even if they are "public data".

----------


## Palermo Trapani

> Modern samples have a lot of regulations for use, even if they are "public data".


Ok, thanks. I can understand the reason for that given the people are still alive!! Makes sense.

----------


## Jovialis

> My official position on Southern Italians, consistent with Sarno et al. 2021's hypothesis:
> 
> Genetic continuity with Neolithic/post-Neolithic Mediterranean groups and southern Italians; only re-enforced by subsequent historical events.


My official position on the steppe is also the same as the academic consensus. IMHO Southern Italians could be a key group in verifying what the professionals believe

----------


## Malaparte

> My official position on the steppe is also the same as the academic consensus. IMHO Southern Italians could be a key group in verifying what the professionals believe


I agree with the thesis about Southern Italians having genetic continuity with Neolithic & post-Neolithic populations spanning Southern Balkans, Anatolia, and Caucasus, reinforced by Bronze Age and post-Bronze Age movements across the same corridors --->>> but how would this fact, if established, help verify the academic consensus on Steppe ancestry?

----------


## Jovialis

How can HGs invade a mountainous plateau?

----------


## Jovialis

> I agree with the thesis about Southern Italians having genetic continuity with Neolithic & post-Neolithic populations spanning Southern Balkans, Anatolia, and Caucasus, reinforced by Bronze Age and post-Bronze Age movements across the same corridors --->>> but how would this fact, if established, help verify the academic consensus on Steppe ancestry?


Last comment was me musing

But to address your comment, I took it from eurogenes.

----------


## Malaparte

You're losing me. How can HGs invade the high ground held by Iranian farmers? Most likely, they could not. Therefore, the admixture between Iranian farmers and EHG probably took place to the north, on the Pontic Steppe. Is this what you are implying? In which case, the motive force for the twin Bronze Age movements westward came from a single source, the Iranian highland farmers?

----------


## Angela

I have discussed over and over again on this site the hypothesis that people with ancestry from the Hunter-Gatherers of the Caucasus migrated into Europe in a pincer movement; one group admixed with EHG moving across the steppe, and one admixed with Anatolia Neolithic moving south and then across Anatolia into the Aegean and then further west all the way into Spain.

I've always felt that in a way it's a validation of Dienekes' old idea of the Caucasus as the "mother of nations".

You have to remember that the Iranian Neolithic samples and the CHG are almost indistinguishable, which is why academics who don't get the hives thinking Indo-Europeans might have ancestry in any way related to Iranians, call the admixture CHG/Iranian Neolithic when it appears in Europe.

----------


## Malaparte

So how does the one verify the other? That is, Jovialis states that the transmission of CHG across Anatolia and into Southern Italy, starting in the Neolithic and bolstered by subsequent migrations down their ages, could be used to verify the consensus theory that Iranian farmers admixed with EHG on the Steppe? Why are these not independent propositions?

Or might there be a way to compare, with precision, the CHG components in Southern Italians with the alleged CHG/IranNeo in Steppe samples?

----------


## Jovialis

> You're losing me. How can HGs invade the high ground held by Iranian farmers? Most likely, they could not. Therefore, the admixture between Iranian farmers and EHG probably took place to the north, on the Pontic Steppe. Is this what you are implying? In which case, the motive force for the twin Bronze Age movements westward came from a single source, the Iranian highland farmers?


That was me thinking out loud, it was a cross-post. It wasn't a reply to your post. Sorry for the miscommunication.

I am busy at the moment, and can't properly respond

----------


## blevins13

> It looks like my assumptions going back to Raveane et al 2018 were correct:


Which assumptions were correct?


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

----------


## Jovialis

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...l=1#post636285

----------


## Jovialis

> So how does the one verify the other? That is, Jovialis states that the transmission of CHG across Anatolia and into Southern Italy, starting in the Neolithic and bolstered by subsequent migrations down their ages, could be used to verify the consensus theory that Iranian farmers admixed with EHG on the Steppe? Why are these not independent propositions?
> 
> Or might there be a way to compare, with precision, the CHG components in Southern Italians with the alleged CHG/IranNeo in Steppe samples?


They could be independent, but I was actually thinking about how David Reich used the Hittites as his basis to say the PIE homeland could be in Armenia or south of the Caucasus. His reasoning was due to the fact that they didn't have EHG, (they're mostly Anatolian_N + CHG). The pulse of CHG/IN is suggested by Raveane et al. 2018 to have occurred in the EBA. I wonder if this could be somehow related. I also wonder if it could be related to the non-steppe CHG in Myceneans and Minoans.

----------


## Jovialis

I think past I have also made a thread on how the dispersal of the sons of Noah in the region of the Ararat mountains could be a allegory for the pulse of CHG. Basically, this could have been spoken of for thousands of years, but DNA is finally bringing it to light.

----------


## Jovialis

> I think past I have also made a thread on how the dispersal of the sons of Noah in the region of the Ararat mountains could be a allegory for the pulse of CHG. Basically, this could have been spoken of for thousands of years, but DNA is finally bringing it to light.


Japheth /ˈdʒeɪfɛθ/ (Hebrew: יֶפֶת‎ Yép̄eṯ, in pausa יָפֶת‎ Yā́p̄eṯ; Greek: Ἰάφεθ Iápheth; Latin: Iafeth, Iapheth, Iaphethus, Iapetus) is one of the three sons of Noah in the Book of Genesis, in which he plays a role in the story of Noah's drunkenness and the curse of Ham, and subsequently in the *Table of Nations as the ancestor of the peoples of the Aegean Sea, Anatolia, and elsewhere*.[1] In medieval and early modern European tradition he was considered to be the progenitor of the European peoples,[2][3][4] while Islamic traditions also include the Chinese people among his descendants.[5]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japheth

----------


## Jovialis

Shem was probably the "son" whose decedent conquered and mixed with Neolithic/Chalcolithic levantines. There's huge CHG turn over in the BA in the middle east.

Ham of course is the "son" whose decedent's were considered to be the progenitors of blacks. But perhaps they're CHG who were part of the back to Africa Eurasian migrations.

----------


## Jovialis

> Japheth /ˈdʒeɪfɛθ/ (Hebrew: יֶפֶת‎ Yép̄eṯ, in pausa יָפֶת‎ Yā́p̄eṯ; Greek: Ἰάφεθ Iápheth; Latin: Iafeth, Iapheth, Iaphethus, Iapetus) is one of the three sons of Noah in the Book of Genesis, in which he plays a role in the story of Noah's drunkenness and the curse of Ham, and subsequently in the *Table of Nations as the ancestor of the peoples of the Aegean Sea, Anatolia, and elsewhere*.[1] In medieval and early modern European tradition he was considered to be the progenitor of the European peoples,[2][3][4] while Islamic traditions also include the Chinese people among his descendants.[5]
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japheth

----------


## Jovialis

^^I'm kind of surprised that more people haven't noticed the connections. Perhaps it is because a lot of people into genetics aren't very keen on the bible. Which is a shame, because it provides a lot of important context to the ancient world. (Doesn't matter if you believe in God, or not)

----------


## Malaparte

It would be great to see European (and Middle Eastern) populations compared not on the basis of EEF vs. WHG vs Steppe, but rather the components that existed in 10,000 BC

As for Jaspheth, Shem & Ham, it is interesting . . . . But surely we don't want to say that the Aeneid speaks to the Anatolian pulse in Italians

----------


## Malaparte

Why was the Caucasus region the seeming cradle of nations? Yes, it was a refugium during the Last Glacial Maxium, but it wasn't the only refugium, and it takes 8000 years to get from 16,000 BC to 8,000 BC ---> Does the Caucasus region become overpopulated during the time span? And if so, did it become overpopulated relative to other regions? And did its people possess technologies that others did not have?

In short, how does one explain the continual expansion of Caucasian groups? To the south into the Levantine, north onto the Steppe, and west into Anatolia? An expansion sustained across thousands of years . . . . Were other areas much less densely populated than the Caucasus?

Obviously the Neolithic revolution gives rise to massive population expansions, but the CHG seems to have expanded independently of agriculture

----------


## Malaparte

The thread on the 2018 Lazaridis study of Dzudzuana is, for me, both fascinating and very hard to follow. Seems relevant here.

----------


## Angela

> Why was the Caucasus region the seeming cradle of nations? Yes, it was a refugium during the Last Glacial Maxium, but it wasn't the only refugium, and it takes 8000 years to get from 16,000 BC to 8,000 BC ---> Does the Caucasus region become overpopulated during the time span? And if so, did it become overpopulated relative to other regions? And did its people possess technologies that others did not have?
> 
> In short, how does one explain the continual expansion of Caucasian groups? To the south into the Levantine, north onto the Steppe, and west into Anatolia? An expansion sustained across thousands of years . . . . Were other areas much less densely populated than the Caucasus?
> 
> Obviously the Neolithic revolution gives rise to massive population expansions, but the CHG seems to have expanded independently of agriculture


The way I think of it is that they didn't expand out as a "pure" population,but admixed with other groups. North of the Caucasus they moved out as a group of admixed EHG and CHG. South of the Caucasus they expanded as a mixed Anatolia/CHG-IN group. 

It's not clear to me yet, although I keep scouring the archaeology papers, how early the CHG moved into and mixed with EHG and what exactly they brought with them. Was it before the domestication of animals, and therefore herding was borrowed completely from the farmers of "Old Europe", or was it later and they brought both the concept of herding and some domesticated animals? We do know, I think, that Anatolian Neolithic ancestry moved north into the Caucasus before an admixed group moved south.



I have the same questions about metallurgy. It's been difficult for archaeologists to disentangle it because there was constant exchange between the farming groups in "Old Europe" and the Near East, but I think it's pretty settled that the early actual Bronze Age occurred in Mesopotamia, between, say, 3500 and 3300 BCE. (We have no idea what these people were like genetically, fwiw...) Did it move north to just south of the Caucasus and reach higher levels of development because of the copper deposits, and then move south again over time? 



I can't see a connection with the steppe because at that time they barely had even copper metallurgy and all of their products seem to be poor copies of the copper metallurgy of "Old Europe", not Mesopotamia. That would change with time, however. Increasing trade meant very fast adoptions of new technology. Look how relatively quickly chariot technology made it all the way to Egypt.

----------


## Malaparte

> TAnatolian Neolithic ancestry moved north into the Caucasus before an admixed group moved south.


Could you please elaborate on this. I am not familiar with the fact that Anatolian Neolithic moved in this direction. I thought it moved west into Europe, with some of it moving south into the Levant.

----------


## Angela

> Could you please elaborate on this. I am not familiar with the fact that Anatolian Neolithic moved in this direction. I thought it moved west into Europe, with some of it moving south into the Levant.


We knew this all the way back in the days when Dienekes was posting, but it's been confirmed.

See Wang et al:

In contrast, the oldest individuals from the northern mountainflank itself, which are three first-degree-related individuals fromthe Unakozovskaya cave associated with the Darkveti-MeshokoEneolithic culture (analysis label ‘Eneolithic Caucasus’) showmixed ancestry mostly derived from sources related to theAnatolian Neolithic (orange) and CHG/Iran Neolithic (green) inthe ADMIXTURE plot (Fig. 2c). While similar ancestry profileshave been reported for Anatolian and Armenian Chalcolithic andBA individuals9,19, this result suggests the presence of this mixedancestry north of the Caucasus as early as ~6500 years ago

This ancestry persists inthe following centuries at least until ~3100 yBP (1100 calBCE), asrevealed by individuals from Kura-Araxes from both the northeast (Velikent, Dagestan) and the South Caucasus (Kaps, Armenia), as well as MBA/LBA individuals (e.g. Kudachurt,Marchenkova Gora) from the north. Overall, this Caucasusancestry profile falls among the ‘Armenian and Iranian Chalcolithic’ individuals and is indistinguishable from other KuraAraxes individuals (Armenian EBA) on the PCA plot (Fig. 2),suggesting a dual origin involving Anatolian/Levantine and IranNeolithic/CHG ancestry, with only minimal EHG/WHG contribution possibly as part of the AF ancestry9.Admixture f3-statistics of the form f3(X, Y; target) with theCaucasus cluster as target resulted in significantly negative Zscores (Z < −3) when CHG (or AG3 in Late Maykop) were usedas one and Anatolian farmers as the second potential source(Supplementary Table 4). We also used qpWave to determine thenumber of streams of ancestry and found that a minimum of twois sufficient (Supplementary Table 5).

Details on page 5 and subsequent pages
https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/sites/...18-08220-8.pdf

----------


## Jovialis

> The thread on the 2018 Lazaridis study of Dzudzuana is, for me, both fascinating and very hard to follow. Seems relevant here.


Indeed, I hope that paper will finally be fully-published one day, or at least get a chance to see what the samples look like on ENA. Authors have released samples prior to papers being fully-published in the past, so here's hoping.

----------


## Jovialis

If Southern Italians have genetic continuity since the Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age, than perhaps their ethnogenesis was similar to that of the "Northern" model for the Mycenaeans.

An Anatolia_N/CHG related people who were enriched by Steppe admixture.

----------


## Jovialis

> If Southern Italians have genetic continuity since the Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age, than perhaps their ethnogenesis was similar to that of the "Northern" model for the Mycenaeans.
> 
> An Anatolia_N/CHG related people who were enriched by Steppe admixture.






Not to say this was it, end of story. But perhaps it could be largely responsible for their admixture proportions. From the study the thread is based on:




> Previous surveys on the ancient genetic legacy of Southern Italy pointed to genetic contributions linking Southern Italy and Mediterranean Greek islands with Anatolia and the Caucasus tracing back to migratory events occurred during the Neolithic and the Bronze Age, in which the Mediterranean served as a preferential crossroad3,13,27. In particular, while the expansion of Anatolian Neolithic farmers significantly impacted all the Peninsula, differential Bronze-Age contributions were observed for Southern Italy with respect to Northern Italian populations. Bronze Age influences in the gene pool of Southern Italians have been in fact associated to a non-steppe Caucasian-related ancestry carried along the Mediterranean shores at the same time, but independently from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe migrations that occurred through Continental Europe. Consistently with this viewpoint, genetic analyses performed by comparing our modern populations with the main ancient ancestral sources have displayed the clustering of analysed Southern Italian groups with Neolithic and Bronze Age samples from Anatolian, Aegean Minoan and Mycenaean populations, as opposed to the affinity of Northern Italy with Late-Neolithic and Bronze-Age samples from continental Europe (Suppl. Figure S8). Accordingly, both f3-outgroup, qpGraph and qpAdmixture analyses (Fig. 4, Suppl. Figure S9, Suppl. Figure S10) revealed influences related to a Steppe ancestry in the Northern Italian groups, instead paralleled in Southern Italy by an analogous Caucasian-related contribution from a non-Steppe CHG/Iran_N source. Importantly, the same ancestral sources are equally shared both by the present-day “open” (i.e. not-isolated) Southern Italian populations of Benevento, Castrovillari and Catanzaro, as well as by the geographically and linguistically-isolated communities of the Aspromonte mountain area (Fig. 4, Suppl. Table S8), thus signaling a common genetic background that possibly predates the linguistic hypotheses originally suggested about the times of formation of the Greco language in Southern Italy. *Accordingly, we hypothesize that the genetic continuity between Southern Italian populations and the other Mediterranean groups may date back to these Neolithic and post-Neolithic events and may have been subsequently maintained and in some cases reinforced by continuous and overlapping gene flows following similar paths of diffusion and interaction between populations, among which the migrations of Greek-speaking people during the classical era (Magna Graecia) and/or in Byzantine and subsequent times.* (Sarno et al. 2021)

----------


## blevins13

> Not to say this was it, end of story. But perhaps it could be largely responsible for their admixture proportions. From the study the thread is based on:


So basically, this enrichment event or events were big enough to cause language shift in Greece correct? 


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

----------


## Jovialis

I'm not an expert in language, but they do share a lot of cultural similarities. I think the Proto-Greeks and language probably came from the north, and mixed with Minoans and people like the Minoans, to ultimately produce the Mycenaeans

When I use them for modeling with Italian populations, they are more of a proxy in that situation. The Minoans are a good proxy population for the Anatolia/CHG-IN signal that was prevalent the Mediterranean.

----------


## Angela

> Not to say this was it, end of story. But perhaps it could be largely responsible for their admixture proportions. From the study the thread is based on:


Good work, Jovialis. I have two questions, though.

What, given there's a significant amount of R1b U152, for example, in Sicily and Calabria, would explain there's 0 % Beaker in them? 

Also, Tuscans are not very different at all from, say, Emilians or some Ligurians globally. What would explain the drastic shift from Northern Italy to Tuscans?

----------


## brick

> Good work, Jovialis. I have two questions, though.
> 
> What, given there's a significant amount of R1b U152, for example, in Sicily and Calabria, would explain there's 0 % Beaker in them? 
> 
> Also, Tuscans are not very different at all from, say, Emilians or some Ligurians globally. What would explain the drastic shift from Northern Italy to Tuscans?



There are two Tuscan averages on the original Dodecad K12b datasheet: Tuscan HGDP (7 individuals), TSI30 Metspalu/1000Genomes (21 individuals), Jovialis is using only the former. When all averages are included the shift is less drastic.


Dodecad K12b original datasheet

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Udc_oP9yYMZR0RYXLMjP6l60D8k3_0cXny8DzZzx0Co/edit#gid=0

----------


## Malaparte

Between this thread, the Mycenaean thread, and the Daunian thread, I tend to lose track of which issues are relevant where.

First, with regard to Catacomb, what are its components? Is it 50% EHG and 50% CHG, as with Yamnaya, or does it have additional EHG (or ANE)?

Second, although people like Robert Drews have argued for a direct takeover by IE warrior elites of sites in Greece giving rise to Mycenae, with the implication that Catacomb ancestry arrived in Greece directly (without admixture on the way), we have no evidence an unmediated movement into Southern Italy. The Catacomb that reached Italy would have been heavily admixed before arriving.

Third, if Drews is wrong and Catacomb ancestry moved into Greece by gradually working its way down through the Balkans, then is not plausible that this ancestry also moved west through Serbia and across the Adriatic into Central Italy? (And wouldn't the Daunian conversation apply here?)

Fourth, which R1b lineages did Catacomb carry? The Romans appear to descend from Bell Beaker R1b-U152. But maybe it was Catacomb ancestry that brought the IE gods and religion? That is, maybe the Romans got their blood from Bell Beaker, but their religion from Catacomb?

----------


## brick

> Between this thread, the Mycenaean thread, and the Daunian thread, I tend to lose track of which issues are relevant where.
> 
> First, with regard to Catacomb, what are its components? Is it 50% EHG and 50% CHG, as with Yamnaya, or does it have additional EHG (or ANE)?
> 
> Second, although people like Robert Drews have argued for a direct takeover by IE warrior elites of sites in Greece giving rise to Mycenae, with the implication that Catacomb ancestry arrived in Greece directly (without admixture on the way), we have no evidence an unmediated movement into Southern Italy. The Catacomb that reached Italy would have been heavily admixed before arriving.
> 
> Third, if Drews is wrong and Catacomb ancestry moved into Greece by gradually working its way down through the Balkans, then is not plausible that this ancestry also moved west through Serbia and across the Adriatic into Central Italy? (And wouldn't the Daunian conversation apply here?)
> 
> Fourth, which R1b lineages did Catacomb carry? The Romans appear to descend from Bell Beaker R1b-U152. But maybe it was Catacomb ancestry that brought the IE gods and religion? That is, maybe the Romans got their blood from Bell Beaker, but their religion from Catacomb?

----------


## Angela

> There are two Tuscan averages on the original Dodecad K12b datasheet: Tuscan HGDP (7 individuals), TSI30 Metspalu/1000Genomes (21 individuals), Jovialis is using only the former. When all averages are included the shift is less drastic.
> 
> 
> Dodecad K12b original datasheet
> 
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Udc_oP9yYMZR0RYXLMjP6l60D8k3_0cXny8DzZzx0Co/edit#gid=0


Still seems too steep to me for the HGDP sample. It's like they're from completely different provinces. From my own results, yes, I'm always closer to TSI than to the HGDP sample, but the differences aren't huge. Also, where is the Italian_Tuscany sample from? Is it an academic paper? I have the same question for Liguria. Is it the mountain Ligure villages or are those used for Piemonte?

Never have I seen such a big difference between Emilia and Romagna, either; a difference, yes, but not so drastic What paper provides those two samples, and where were they collected?

The biggest question I have is how could Southern Italians have Italic ancestry, which is clear from the yDna as well as other analyses, and yet have no Northern Italian Beaker? I've always thought those samples are a bit problematic, given one has almost no steppe, one a little bit, and one a significant amount. Clearly, at the time they lived there hadn't been a complete homogenization. For this analysis, which samples were used?

----------


## brick

> Still seems too steep to me for the HGDP sample. It's like they're from completely different provinces. From my own results, yes, I'm always closer to TSI than to the HGDP sample, but the differences aren't huge. Also, where is the Italian_Tuscany sample from? Is it an academic paper? I have the same question for Liguria. Is it the mountain Ligure villages or are those used for Piemonte? Never have I seen such a big difference between Emilia and Romagna, either; a difference, yes, but not so drastic What paper provides those two samples, and where were they collected?



These are from the original Dodecad K12b datasheet and are academic samples

North_Italian_HGDP (n = 11)
TSI30_Tuscan (n = 21)
Tuscan_HGDP (n = 7)
Sardinian_HGDP (n = 24)

These are from original Dodecad K12b datasheet and are not academic samples

N_Italian_D (n = 5)
O_Italian_D (n = 5)
C_Italian_D (n = 13)
Sicilian_D (n =15)
S_Italian_Sicilian_D (n = 10)

The rest are from Vahaduo. I don't know what their provenance is. All averages in the same PCA follows a similar pattern though.








> The biggest question I have is how could Southern Italians have Italic ancestry, which is clear from the yDna as well as other analyses, and yet have no Northern Italian Beaker? I've always thought those samples are a bit problematic, given one has almost no steppe, one a little bit, and one a significant amount. Clearly, at the time they lived there hadn't been a complete homogenization. For this analysis, which samples were used?



For this analysis only one Bell Beaker Northern Italy sample have been used, the one with the most Steppe.

----------


## Angela

> These are from the original Dodecad K12b datasheet and are academic samples
> 
> North_Italian_HGDP (n = 11)
> TSI30_Tuscan (n = 21)
> Tuscan_HGDP (n = 7)
> Sardinian_HGDP (n = 24)
> 
> These are from original Dodecad K12b datasheet and are not academic samples
> 
> ...


Yes, I know about the provenance of the Dodecad samples, and trust them. Pity about the rest.

----------


## Jovialis

> Good work, Jovialis. I have two questions, though.
> 
> What, given there's a significant amount of R1b U152, for example, in Sicily and Calabria, would explain there's 0 % Beaker in them? 
> 
> Also, Tuscans are not very different at all from, say, Emilians or some Ligurians globally. What would explain the drastic shift from Northern Italy to Tuscans?


Good observations, I'm not sure why that is so. These calculators also have a tough time assigning the proper amounts of WHG vs Steppe.

----------


## ihype02

> Well, I can tell you that in my husband's paternal villages there's a lot of G2a (his yDna) and the eastern R1a, plus a lot of J2a, so I would think Greece or Anatolia, unless the G2a is REALLY old.
> 
> This is from a yDna project for Reggio Calabria. There's certainly E as well, a lot of it just labeled E-M35. How and when it arrived I have no idea, and a lot of these people didn't really get detailed testing done, as I'm sure I don't need to tell you, which makes it difficult to make educated guesses. There's quite a bit of R-M269 as well as some I. Of course, this isn't a random sample. 
> 
> There are three Panetta's, like our American politician, all forms of R.
> 
> There's one Bova, who is E-M35. I'd guess E-V13, but who knows.
> 
> A few family surnames have different yDna. It just goes to show you can't be sure just by surname.


IMO, G2a will turn out to be a major native South Italian-line. Also Ancient Greek carried this line in good numbers too. Here is a list of Kalymnos. Davidski said that the upcoming R1b in Ancient Greece is not Z2103. (maybe L23?)

Kalymnos (based on 52 matches):

E (5.7%):

E-V13
E-M78
E-L677

G (19.2%):

G-CTS11562 x7
G-PF3345
G-M342 x2

J2a (34.6%):

J2a-M319 x2
J2a-L25 x3
J2a-L26
J2a-M67 x4
J2a-L70 x6
J2a-L24
J2a-M92

J2b (3.8%):

J2b-M12
J2b-M241

J1 (13.4%):

J1a-CTS15/Z1828 x2
J1-Z2215 x5


I2 (3.8%):

I2a-M223
I2a-S12195

I1 (3.8%):

I1-M253
I1-M227

R1b (9.6%):

R1b-BY250
R1b-Z2108
R1b-P297
R1b-L23 x2

R1a (9.6%):

*R1a-Z93 x4
*R1a-M417


This type of R1a has also been seen in Rhodes. How much of this type is in Southern Italy?

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....of-your-region

----------


## bigsnake49

> IMO, G2a will turn out to be a major native South Italian-line. Also Ancient Greek carried this line in good numbers too. Here is a list of Kalymnos. Davidski said that the upcoming R1b in Ancient Greece is not Z2103. (maybe L23?)
> 
> Kalymnos (based on 52 matches):
> 
> E (5.7%):
> 
> E-V13
> E-M78
> E-L677
> ...


Is this from one of the commercial companies or scientific article? Never mind, it is from commercial companies.

----------


## Angela

We need academic samples. Plus,  Rhegion (Reggio Calabria) was founded by the Chalcidese, Sybaris (Sibari) and Kroton (Crotone) by the Achaeans and finally Lokroi Epizephyroi (Locri) by settlers from the ancient Greek region known as Locride.

Why would anyone pick data from Kalymnos for a comparison?

----------

