# Population Genetics > Autosomal Genetics > Dodecad >  Analyzing the Mediterranean Cluster C6 from Antonio M et al. 2019

## Jovialis

This is using the sample averages.

In chronological order:



Highest score for cluster average:

----------


## Jovialis

Here is something interesting that I noticed using the 3D PCA for the Dodecad K12b coordinates. Albeit close, modern Greeks do not overlap with any of the Mediterranean-stock Romans. However, samples from Calabria-to-just a tad south of Romagna fit perfectly in the _cloud_.

----------


## Jovialis

> Here is something interesting that I noticed using the 3D PCA for the Dodecad K12b coordinates. Albeit close, modern Greeks do not overlap with any of the Mediterranean-stock Romans. However, samples from Calabria-to-just a tad south of Romagna fit perfectly in the _cloud_.

----------


## Jovialis

Byzantines from Trogir in modern Croatia were C6.

----------


## Jovialis

^^
One of them is my newest closest match.

Distance to:
Jovialis

2.77221933
HRV_Trogir_Byz:I15744

2.85287574
C6:Medieval_Mediterranean:R973_Tivoli_Palazzo_Cian ti

3.25777531
C6:Medieval_Mediterranean:R54_Villa_Magna

3.26810343
C6:Late_Antiquity_Mediterranean:R121_S_Ercolano_Ne cropolis_Ostia

3.28435686
C6:Imperial_Mediterranean:R835_Civitanova_Marche

3.31691121
HRV_Trogir_Byz:I15462

3.78790179
C6:Medieval_Mediterranean:R60_Villa_Magna

3.80023683
C6:Imperial_Mediterranean:R836_Civitanova_Marche

3.82032721
HRV_Trogir_Byz:I15463

4.00470973
C6:Medieval_Mediterranean:R969_Tivoli_Palazzo_Cian ti

4.06354525
C6:Medieval_Mediterranean:R970_Tivoli_Palazzo_Cian ti

4.21379876
C6:Medieval_Mediterranean:R1290_Villa_Magna

4.31241232
C6:Medieval_Mediterranean:R57_Villa_Magna

4.71858029
C5:Late_Antiquity_Eastern_Mediterranean:R122_S_Erc olano_Necropolis_Ostia

4.83366321
C6:Imperial_Mediterranean:R49_Centocelle_Necropoli s

4.95721696
C6:Medieval_Mediterranean:R56_Villa_Magna

5.01646290
C6:Medieval_Mediterranean:R64_Villa_Magna

5.08145648
HRV_Trogir_Byz:I15741

5.43155595
ALB_Mdv:I14622

5.85387906
C6:Medieval_Mediterranean:R59_Villa_Magna

5.92195914
C6:Late_Antiquity_Mediterranean:R35_Celio

5.92265988
C6:Late_Antiquity_Mediterranean:R117_S_Ercolano_Ne cropolis_Ostia

5.92911461
C6:Medieval_Mediterranean:R52_Villa_Magna

5.95918619
TUR_Marmara_Balıkesir_Byz:I14822

5.99387187
C6:Imperial_Mediterranean:R131_Via_Paisiello_Necro polis

----------


## Jovialis

Just an aside, having recently been to Civitavecchia, all during my cab ride to Rome; I thought of how incredibly stupid it was to assume that some samples from there had any meaningful implication on the genetics of Romans.

In fact, having been to many of the places of which are hot topics in this hobby, greatly reduced my confidence in the conclusions of what many papers and experts say.

I think it is easy for one to minimize the scale of these places when reading a paper. The difficulty of what it must have been like for earlier people to navigate the terrain, and so on.

----------


## Bergin

> Byzantines from Trogir in modern Croatia were C6.


You might want to check with the Venosa samples (which do have quite some J2b L283), I have some kind of hand-waving theory that those samples are probably Byzantines derived. In the historical context, Venosa was on the boundary of byzantine influence (the goths ruled it only in 555 i think) thanks to Justinian. It must have been known somehow this affinity with the eastern empire because 8 centuries later Arberesh settle in its outskirts. 

Anyway, I think Venosa might connect C6 to Tragidium (trogdir). Maybe I am wrong, and would love that someone more experienced gave a quick look at it.

----------


## Jovialis

Out of curiosity I decided to test the C6 cluster against all of the academic samples processed for Dodecad K12b. The closest match modern matches for the C6 cluster are all central and southern Italians. You don't need a stupid and fake "Imperial Roman" aggregate to see where Central and Southern Italians came from. Because these people already existed at the same time the Anatolia and Near eastern immigrants had arrived.




> This is the most important: ‘According to a longstanding historical hypothesis, the *Urban Graveyard Effect*, the influx of migrants in city-centers disproportionately contributed to death rate over birth rate; a process which would contribute to observing individuals as “transient” migrants…’
> 
> https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2022/05/19/cities-are-where-people-go-to-flourish-and-then-die/comment-page-1/


Distance to:
C6_Medieval_Mediterranean:R973_Tivoli_Palazzo_Cian ti

1.73254149
Apulia:Pu45

1.88925911
Apulia:cera2

1.90735419
Apulia:ALP583

2.38413506
Abruzzo:9_Behar_2013

2.54458248
Campania:NaN238DM

2.58021317
Abruzzo:Alp503

2.60397773
Apulia:cera8

2.60451531
Abruzzo:Alp616

2.64289614
Molise:PG26_Molise

2.78348702
Basilicata:PG25



Distance to:
C6_Medieval_Mediterranean:R970_Tivoli_Palazzo_Cian ti

4.35240164
Abruzzo:20_Behar_2013

4.50435345
Abruzzo:15_Behar_2013

4.81255649
Abruzzo:Alp140

4.82554660
Apulia:cera1

5.02570393
Umbria:PG06

5.04917815
Greece_NorthEast:GreeceNE231

5.13157870
Umbria:PG04

5.18619321
Marche:MarABY030D

5.19635449
Abruzzo:16_Behar_2013

5.24240403
Sicily:TP06_Busby_2015



Distance to:
C6_Medieval_Mediterranean:R969_Tivoli_Palazzo_Cian ti

1.79050272
Marche:MarACO100D

1.88997354
Abruzzo:17_Behar_2013

2.32198191
Abruzzo:ALP161

2.44311277
ITS5

2.78680821
Molise:PG27

2.82345533
Molise:PG26_Molise

2.86553660
Marche:MarACY030D

2.92181450
Umbria:PG03

2.93482538
Abruzzo:23_Behar_2013

2.96651310
Abruzzo:Alp162



Distance to:
C6_Medieval_Mediterranean:R65_Villa_Magna

1.81342218
Basilicata:PG25

2.06397674
Apulia:Pu7

2.26141549
Campania:NaN128LA

2.34503731
Basilicata:PG20

2.36613609
Apulia:GS47

2.42520102
Campania:NaN293SF

2.43776537
Apulia:GS32

2.56540445
Abruzzo:ALP205

2.60457290
Piedmont_o:ItalyPiedmont52

2.63717652
Calabria:ALP596



Distance to:
C6_Medieval_Mediterranean:R64_Villa_Magna

2.73662201
ITS2

2.83790416
Sicily:W-Sicily5a_Behar_2013

2.83790416
Sicily:W-Sicily:5a

3.45208633
Abruzzo:Alp503

3.46287453
Campania:NaN293SF

3.54998592
Basilicata:PG17

3.59135072
Campania:NaN58AC

3.92950379
Apulia:ALP583

4.08959656
Basilicata:PG25

4.14493667
Piedmont_o:ItalyPiedmont52



Distance to:
C6_Medieval_Mediterranean:R60_Villa_Magna

2.69775833
Abruzzo:23_Behar_2013

2.74324625
Sicily:TP04_Busby_2015

3.01444854
Abruzzo:16_Behar_2013

3.01572545
Abruzzo:15_Behar_2013

3.06066986
Abruzzo:Alp140

3.10943725
Basilicata:PG21

3.12124975
Abruzzo:20_Behar_2013

3.13847097
Marche:MarABY030D

3.38371098
Abruzzo:17_Behar_2013

3.45253530
Greece_NorthEast:GreeceNE231



Distance to:
C6_Medieval_Mediterranean:R59_Villa_Magna

2.68985130
Apulia:ALP379

2.73181259
Abruzzo:ALP205

3.06298874
Greece_Central:GreeceCentral8

3.07478455
Basilicata:PG19

3.14485294
Apulia:GS47

3.19050153
Campania:NaN43TC

3.21909925
Basilicata:PG25

3.31480014
Sicily:W-Sicily5b_Behar_2013

3.33408158
Basilicata:PG20

3.35423613
Campania:NaN238DM



Distance to:
C6_Medieval_Mediterranean:R58_Villa_Magna

1.95397032
Abruzzo:ALP205

2.25151060
Apulia:GS47

2.36171548
Greece_Central:GreeceCentral8

2.65700960
Basilicata:PG20

2.99008361
Basilicata:PG25

3.00639319
Campania:NaN289RM

3.09226454
Apulia:Pu3

3.22636018
Greece_F:GreeceF51k

3.47000000
Sicily:W-Sicily5b_Behar_2013

3.50015714
Campania:NaN238DM



Distance to:
C6_Medieval_Mediterranean:R57_Villa_Magna

1.66937114
Abruzzo:ALP205

1.71067238
Campania:NaN289RM

1.81218101
Basilicata:PG25

1.85922027
Apulia:ALP379

2.09602004
Greece_Central:GreeceCentral8

2.29259678
Apulia:ALP583

2.29484204
Basilicata:PG20

2.57974805
Apulia:GS47

2.60230667
Basilicata:PG18

2.79973213
Smyrna:GreeceSmyrna30



Distance to:
C6_Medieval_Mediterranean:R56_Villa_Magna

2.03612377
Campania:NaN128LA

2.10983412
Campania:NaN43TC

2.26808289
Campania:NaN212CR

2.37602609
Sicily:Ag-Sicily5_Behar_2013

2.37602609
Sicily:Ag-Sicily:5

2.41422866
Sicily:W-Sicily3_Behar_2013

2.41422866
Sicily:W-Sicily:3

2.46503550
Sicily:W-Sicily1_Behar_2013

2.46503550
Sicily:W-Sicily:1

2.62571895
Campania:NaN293SF



Distance to:
C6_Medieval_Mediterranean:R54_Villa_Magna

2.10430511
ITS2

2.49625720
Abruzzo:9_Behar_2013

2.59262415
Abruzzo:Alp616

2.97223821
Basilicata:PG18

2.97370140
Molise:PG26_Molise

2.98949829
Sicily:W-Sicily5a_Behar_2013

2.98949829
Sicily:W-Sicily:5a

2.99676492
Abruzzo:Alp140

3.12235488
Smyrna:GreeceSmyrna30

3.13840724
Abruzzo:16_Behar_2013



Distance to:
C6_Medieval_Mediterranean:R53_Villa_Magna

1.54712637
Apulia:Pu7

1.93129490
Crete:Crete3

2.14811545
Piedmont_o:ItalyPiedmont52

2.48975902
Basilicata:PG16

2.69814751
Campania:NaN77FAM

2.81471135
ITS4

2.84021126
Basilicata:PG20

2.88157943
Calabria:ALP596

2.91218131
Apulia:GS47

2.92692672
Crete:Crete8



Distance to:
C6_Medieval_Mediterranean:R52_Villa_Magna

1.98206963
Sicily:W-Sicily4_Behar_2013

1.99233531
Sicily:W-Sicily7_Behar_2013

3.21235116
Campania:NaN212CR

3.37253614
Lazio:NOR28

3.54269671
Abruzzo:Alp380

3.68176588
Campania:NaN43TC

3.73946520
Sicily:TP25_Busby_2015

3.76749253
Lazio:NOR24

3.81165318
Apulia:cera9

3.84325383
Abruzzo:14_Behar_2013



Distance to:
C6_Medieval_Mediterranean:R1290_Villa_Magna

1.51917741
Abruzzo:14_Behar_2013

1.78042130
Campania:NaN238DM

2.21366212
Campania:NaN212CR

2.40659511
Molise:PG27

2.65124499
Basilicata:PG19

2.70627050
Molise:PG26_Molise

2.76490506
Abruzzo:Alp616

2.77209307
Apulia:cera8

2.82628732
Abruzzo:9_Behar_2013

3.02231699
Abruzzo:22_Behar_2013



Distance to:
C6_Medieval_Mediterranean:R1287_Cancelleria

2.68747093
TSI:NA20787_SG

3.15582002
Corsica:CorsicaS29908

3.23473337
TSI:NA20529_SG

3.25851193
Corsica:Corsica03708

3.42490876
TSI:NA20800_SG

3.46310554
Corsica:corsica29008

3.57787647
TSI:NA20588_SG

3.65208160
TSI:NA20752_SG

3.76720055
TSI:NA20810_SG

3.79626132
Lazio:PG28



Distance to:
C6_Medieval_Mediterranean:R1285_Cancelleria

2.92849791
TSI:NA20588_SG

2.98464403
Tuscan:HGDP01169

3.15456812
TSI:NA20800_SG

3.44833293
Corsica:corsica29008

3.52309523
Corsica:CorsicaS03308

3.52825736
Corsica:Corsica03708

3.57189026
TSI:NA20787_SG

3.57624104
Tuscan:Tuscan

3.69224864
TSI:NA20586_SG

3.70532050
Tuscan:HGDP01161



Distance to:
C6_Medieval_Mediterranean:R1283_Cancelleria

1.85178292
Lazio:PG28

2.45615553
TSI:NA20786_SG

2.48781028
TSI:NA20797_SG

2.52774603
TSI:NA20800_SG

2.57029181
Marche:MarABQ080D

2.68834522
Umbria:PG03

3.16641753
TSI:NA20585_SG

3.29643747
TSI:NA20753_SG

3.33695969
Abruzzo:21_Behar_2013

3.35068650
TSI:NA20808_SG



Distance to:
C6_Late_Antiquity_Mediterranean:R36_Celio

1.77011299
Marche:MarACW030D

1.81620483
Marche:MarABG010D

1.90073670
Marche:MarADG030D

2.44376758
TSI:NA20822_SG

2.48887525
Umbria:PG11

2.58451156
Marche:MarABU050D

2.60411213
Marche:MarACV100D

2.62868789
TSI:NA20828_SG

2.70828359
TSI:NA20765_SG

2.87189833
TSI:NA20814_SG



Distance to:
C6_Late_Antiquity_Mediterranean:R35_Celio

2.71018450
Sicily:W-Sicily3_Behar_2013

2.71018450
Sicily:W-Sicily:3

2.82031913
Sicily:C-Sicily50_Behar_2013

2.82031913
Sicily:C-Sicily:50

2.86618213
Campania:NaN43TC

2.98610114
Sicily:Ag-Sicily8_Behar_2013

2.98610114
Sicily:Ag-Sicily:8

3.04217028
Apulia:ALP379

3.09234539
Basilicata:PG24

3.22965942
Campania:NaN46TC



Distance to:
C6_Late_Antiquity_Mediterranean:R121_S_Ercolano_Ne cropolis_Ostia

1.57429349
Abruzzo:17_Behar_2013

1.74542258
Marche:MarABY030D

2.12553523
Abruzzo:15_Behar_2013

2.26444254
Abruzzo:19_Behar_2013

2.29930424
Abruzzo:Alp140

2.32965663
Abruzzo:20_Behar_2013

2.44513803
Marche:MarACO100D

2.65966163
Abruzzo:23_Behar_2013

2.69659044
Abruzzo:16_Behar_2013

2.74545078
ITS7



Distance to:
C6_Late_Antiquity_Mediterranean:R120_S_Ercolano_Ne cropolis_Ostia

2.05625874
Lazio:PG28

2.34599659
Marche:MarABQ080D

2.73806501
TSI:NA20786_SG

2.76374746
Marche:MarABG010D

2.87812439
Lazio:PG30

3.03514415
TSI:NA20797_SG

3.05942805
Umbria:PG03

3.06747453
Abruzzo:21_Behar_2013

3.29454094
TSI:NA20808_SG

3.46043350
Marche:MarABP050D



Distance to:
C6_Late_Antiquity_Mediterranean:R118_S_Ercolano_Ne cropolis_Ostia

2.79808863
Abruzzo:21_Behar_2013

3.69858081
Abruzzo:13_Behar_2013

3.80214413
Umbria:PG15

4.13381180
Umbria:PG03

4.39109326
Lazio:NOR28

4.39491752
Umbria:PG07

4.53450108
Marche:MarABP050D

4.69179070
Lazio:NOR24

4.79051145
Marche:MarABI020D

4.83124208
Sicily:W-Sicily4_Behar_2013



Distance to:
C6_Late_Antiquity_Mediterranean:R117_S_Ercolano_Ne cropolis_Ostia

2.37248815
Abruzzo:Alp503

2.71679959
Campania:NaN58AC

3.25410510
Sicily:Ag-Sicily5_Behar_2013

3.25410510
Sicily:Ag-Sicily:5

3.63071618
Campania:NaN293SF

3.75123980
Basilicata:PG17

3.92036988
Sicily:SR64_Busby_2015

3.92036988
Sicily:Siracusa:SR64_LazaridisNat2014

4.02420178
Abruzzo:Alp380

4.20163064
Campania:NaN128LA



Distance to:
C6_Late_Antiquity_Mediterranean:R107_Crypta_Balbi

3.81175812
Apulia:cera9

3.93702934
Basilicata:PG19

4.14395946
Apulia:GS34

4.18424426
ITS5

4.25563156
Abruzzo:14_Behar_2013

4.43296740
Apulia:ALP379

4.47182289
Abruzzo:Alp090

4.48310160
Campania:NaN43TC

4.53683811
Sicily:E-Sicily18_Behar_2013

4.53683811
Sicily:E-Sicily:18



Distance to:
C6_Iron_Age_Mediterranean:R437_(Latin_Prenestini_T ribe)_Palestrina_Selicata

3.60471913
Campania:NaN195ST

3.92443627
Sicily:W-Sicily7_Behar_2013

3.94927842
Campania:NaN43TC

4.15588739
Sicily:W-Sicily4_Behar_2013

4.22236900
Campania:NaN128LA

4.30268521
Sicily:Ag-Sicily5_Behar_2013

4.30268521
Sicily:Ag-Sicily:5

4.42922115
Campania:NaN212CR

4.76162787
Sicily:W-Sicily3_Behar_2013

4.76162787
Sicily:W-Sicily:3



Distance to:
C6_Imperial_Mediterranean:R836_Civitanova_Marche

2.08475418
Apulia:cera2

2.37815054
Apulia:Pu45

2.62598553
Campania:NaN238DM

2.64937729
Abruzzo:Alp616

2.66893237
Lazio:NOR24

2.67828303
Molise:PG26_Molise

2.79259736
Abruzzo:Alp503

2.83667058
Abruzzo:22_Behar_2013

2.91523584
Abruzzo:9_Behar_2013

3.07741775
Umbria:PG06



Distance to:
C6_Imperial_Mediterranean:R835_Civitanova_Marche

2.14340850
Sicily:SR48R_Busby_2015

2.14755675
Lazio:NOR28

2.76528480
Abruzzo:15_Behar_2013

2.83555991
Abruzzo:13_Behar_2013

2.97885884
Abruzzo:19_Behar_2013

2.98023489
Abruzzo:9_Behar_2013

2.99222325
ITS7

2.99551331
Abruzzo:17_Behar_2013

3.03037951
Abruzzo:Alp090

3.04276190
Molise:PG26_Molise



Distance to:
C6_Imperial_Mediterranean:R51_Centocelle_Necropoli s

1.70724925
Kos:GreeceKos5

2.88086792
Kos:GreeceKos7

3.27119244
Kos:GreeceKos2

3.46776585
Kos:GreeceKos1

3.54794307
Crete:Crete6

3.57396139
Kos:GreeceKos6

3.70310680
Campania:NaN77FAM

3.94040607
Crete:Crete10

4.17414662
Crete:Crete7

4.29199254
Crete:Crete5



Distance to:
C6_Imperial_Mediterranean:R49_Centocelle_Necropoli s

1.84048907
Apulia:GS32

2.10054755
Apulia:Pu45

2.32372546
Campania:NaN238DM

2.32673591
Campania:NaN293SF

2.38876537
Basilicata:PG25

2.83559518
Campania:NaN289RM

2.89884460
Apulia:cera2

2.98713910
Abruzzo:ALP205

2.99401069
Campania:NaN128LA

3.15472661
Campania:NaN212CR



Distance to:
C6_Imperial_Mediterranean:R47_Centocelle_Necropoli s

2.65904118
Sicily:TP05_Busby_2015

2.65904118
Sicily:Trapani:TP05_LazaridisNat2014

3.21403174
Sicily:Ag-Sicily5_Behar_2013

3.21403174
Sicily:Ag-Sicily:5

3.98035174
Campania:NaN58AC

4.15956729
Apulia:cera1

4.32443060
Sicily:W-Sicily1_Behar_2013

4.32443060
Sicily:W-Sicily:1

4.37859567
Campania:NaN195ST

4.44230796
Abruzzo:Alp503

----------


## Er Monnezza

> You don't need a stupid and fake "Imperial Roman" aggregate


The Roman Imperial average is not that fake.

If you divide the samples of Imperial and Late Antiquity Rome into 9 clusters, you see that Cluster 1 still looks a lot like the aggregate.

PCA



I divided the samples into these clusters



```
C1:R30,7.67,0,4.51,0.1,27.16,8.93,0.45,0.97,11.77,0.95,37.05,0.45
C1:R34,7.31,0.45,5.18,0.12,24.21,7.63,0,0.82,15.07,0,39.06,0.16
C1:R39,7.32,0.69,3.87,0.29,25.31,7.92,0,0,13.54,0.16,40.39,0.51
C1:R40,7.17,1,0.52,0.04,27.69,5.79,0,0,15.54,0,41.29,0.97
C1:R41,6.8,0,4.58,0.58,22.76,5.5,1.17,0.93,16.28,0.84,40.36,0.19
C1:R43,7.74,0,1.35,0,26.77,3.83,0.51,0,12.69,0,46.89,0.23
C1:R44,5.19,0,2.37,0,29.27,4.24,0,0,12.92,0,45.7,0.31
C1:R50,8.31,0,0.91,0,25.51,11.04,0.37,0,15.34,0.52,36.86,1.15
C1:R51,7.5,0,2.26,0,25.82,10.46,0,0,13.7,1.23,39.03,0
C1:R66,7.41,0,0,0.88,25.05,8.08,0,0,17.27,0,40.91,0.4
C1:R69,7.86,0.81,0.57,0,27.22,11.31,0,0,9.7,0,42.15,0.39
C1:R71,7.22,0,4.51,0,21.22,2.34,0,0,11.39,0,52.86,0.46
C1:R72,8.93,0,0.55,0,23.61,5.18,0,0,16.96,0.36,43.85,0.57
C1:R73,10.71,0,6.38,0,23.57,4.41,0.48,0.11,18.48,0,34.78,1.09
C1:R78,7.22,0,2.96,0,21.74,4.79,0,0.21,13.19,0.38,49.44,0.06
C1:R81,7.2,0,3.08,0,24.47,7.25,1.26,0,16.89,0.24,39.24,0.36
C1:R114,8.42,0,1.52,0,23.81,13.17,0.21,0,15.09,0,37.22,0.57
C1:R115,7.93,0.62,4.33,0,21.69,10.11,0,0,15.87,0,39.44,0
C1:R123,8.53,0,0,1.18,24.75,8.57,0,0,15.64,0,41.02,0.3
C1:R125,8.89,0,2.51,0.08,27.83,9.8,0.09,0,10.91,0,39.46,0.43
C1:R128,8.25,0,1.27,0,20.16,8.57,0.69,0,14.58,0,46.38,0.1
C1:R133,7.2,0.88,3.08,0.32,26.06,7.84,0,0,14.07,0,39.97,0.58
C1:R134,8.11,0,4.64,0.7,23.15,7.79,0,0.89,15.41,0,39.31,0.01
C1:R136,8.45,0.16,4.03,0.38,25.87,13,0,0,12.45,0,35.36,0.28
C1:R137,9.38,0,2.53,0.51,28.21,9.34,0,0.62,11.96,0,37.44,0
C1:R436,9.14,0,1.72,0.34,26.42,13.43,0.32,0,12.19,0.11,35.95,0.38
C1:R1543,8.92,0,5.86,0,21.15,9.11,0.41,0.36,14.95,0,38.92,0.31
C1:R1544,9.52,0.56,2.18,0,26.06,13.98,0,0,12.91,0,34.79,0
C1:R1545,7.65,0,0.11,0,25.35,8.55,0.79,0.23,15.75,0,40.81,0.75
C1:R1548,10.47,0,1.51,0,23.09,11.15,0,0.34,13.95,0,39.5,0
C2:R31,5.84,0.94,0.78,0,36.7,45.57,0,0,1.73,0,8.17,0.27
C2:R106,9.84,0,0.93,0,33.19,39.41,0.75,0,4.06,0,11,0.81
C2:R108,5.73,0,1.77,0.97,35.8,35.18,0,0,4.99,0,15.3,0.26
C3:R32,5.6,0,7.07,0,28.57,13.15,0.57,1.01,7.31,0.73,35.97,0
C3:R35,5.28,0,3.7,0,28.77,13.36,1.53,0.55,12.62,0,33.61,0.59
C3:R36,7.33,0,2.61,0,33.21,19.32,0,0,9.6,0,27.31,0.63
C3:R47,9.26,0.79,5.46,0,30.38,11.55,0,0.1,9.43,0,32.54,0.5
C3:R49,7.88,0,1.68,0.17,29.59,14.37,0,1.09,10.73,0,34.2,0.29
C3:R107,2.97,0.04,2.38,0,29.81,17.06,1.91,0,13.19,0,32.65,0
C3:R111,6.68,0,0.53,0.35,37.36,17.99,0,0,9.6,0,26.98,0.51
C3:R113,8.54,0,3.42,0,34.32,12.61,0.56,0,8.26,0,32.14,0.16
C3:R117,10.46,0,2.59,0,30.04,12.2,0,1.12,11.07,0,32.5,0.03
C3:R118,7.36,0.49,2.14,0,33.89,15.39,0,0,12.08,0,28.35,0.3
C3:R120,5.11,0.47,2.1,0,33.79,17.98,0,1.11,11.27,0,27.96,0.21
C3:R121,7.62,0,2.45,0,30.21,17.77,0.27,0.91,11.55,0,29.22,0
C3:R122,6.92,0,4.28,0,30.91,12.77,0,1.3,9.94,0.63,33.06,0.2
C3:R131,7.3,0.24,0.94,0.57,31.63,13.18,0.27,0,11.79,0,33.23,0.84
C3:R835,8.06,0.47,2.84,1.58,30.3,16.15,0,0,10.89,0,29.71,0
C3:R836,7.99,0,1.59,0,30.78,15.05,0,0,10.14,0,34.45,0
C3:R1549,9.21,0.08,3.15,0,27.32,20.37,0.6,0.6,11.39,0.18,26.54,0.57
C4:R33,3.61,0,0.7,0.17,37.01,26.51,0.61,0.35,7.08,0,23.68,0.28
C4:R105,6.44,0.32,4.78,0.53,36.54,27.56,0,0,5.54,0,17.97,0.32
C4:R109,4.62,0,1.54,0.22,41.49,28.6,0.05,0.93,7.38,0,15.18,0
C4:R110,4.57,1.19,2.38,0.76,41.91,24.74,0.07,0,5.24,0,18.96,0.17
C5:R37,2.14,1,2.7,0,50.7,31.46,0,0,4.24,0,7.65,0.12
C5:R116,5.47,0.42,1.19,0.19,43.87,34.16,0,0,3.74,0,10.63,0.33
C6:R38,11.97,0.24,2.94,0,17.99,1.99,0.16,0.3,18.03,0,46.26,0.13
C6:R42,8.78,0,3.65,0.61,16.08,0,0,1.86,24.68,0.29,43.58,0.49
C6:R70,9.87,0.04,2.27,0,21.13,2.38,0,1.9,20.78,0,41.64,0
C6:R75,7.1,0,4.53,0,21.52,4.26,0.62,1.18,16.8,0.53,43.46,0
C6:R76,7.56,0,3.38,0.5,17.19,5.76,0.79,0,19.2,0.06,45.56,0
C6:R126,8.87,0.13,2.7,0,21.68,1.28,0.37,0,18.5,0.5,45.28,0.69
C6:R130,9.5,0,4.35,0,24.11,2.09,0.93,0,17.15,0,41.34,0.53
C6:R1547,7.68,0,5.24,0.75,16.6,0,0.88,2.25,24.3,0,42.29,0
C6:R1550,12.14,0,7.34,0.46,14.89,1.07,0,1.17,23.92,0.34,38.67,0
C7:R45,5.04,0,9.86,0,27.46,7.12,0.8,0,16.44,0,32.4,0.88
C7:R80,3.6,0,11.4,0,27.69,7.57,0,3.33,16.8,0.28,28.39,0.94
C7:R132,1.24,0,17.94,1.71,24.66,4.24,0,6.41,16.58,0.29,24.91,2.02
C8:R67,18.93,0,4.46,0.81,9.71,3.86,0.41,1.41,17.74,0,42.1,0.57
C8:R68,17.66,0,3.38,0,12.85,0.04,0,1.12,19.87,0,44.63,0.45
C8:R1551,14.51,0,0,0.07,10.96,4.32,0,0,15.15,0,54.02,0.96
C9:R104,0,0,4.78,0.01,59.82,6.86,0,0.35,8.65,0,19.53,0
```

I got the following averages



```
C1,8.0806667,0.17233333,2.6296667,0.184,24.832667,8.437,0.225,0.18266667,14.215333,0.15966667,40.514333,0.367
C2,7.1366667,0.31333333,1.16,0.32333333,35.23,40.053333,0.25,0,3.5933333,0,11.49,0.44666667
C3,7.2688235,0.15176471,2.8782353,0.15705882,31.228235,15.31,0.33588235,0.45823529,10.638824,0.090588235,31.201176,0.28411765
C4,4.81,0.3775,2.35,0.42,39.2375,26.8525,0.1825,0.32,6.31,0,18.9475,0.1925
C5,3.805,0.71,1.945,0.095,47.285,32.81,0,0,3.99,0,9.14,0.225
C6,9.2744444,0.045555556,4.0444444,0.25777778,19.021111,2.0922222,0.41666667,0.96222222,20.373333,0.19111111,43.12,0.20444444
C7,3.2933333,0,13.066667,0.57,26.603333,6.31,0.26666667,3.2466667,16.606667,0.19,28.566667,1.28
C8,17.033333,0,2.6133333,0.29333333,11.173333,2.74,0.13666667,0.84333333,17.586667,0,46.916667,0.66
C9,0,0,4.78,0.01,59.82,6.86,0,0.35,8.65,0,19.53,0
```

The aggregate average and its distance to the clusters above



```
ITA_Rome_Imperial,8.385283,0.15339623,3.3233962,0.24660377,24.988302,8.8569811,0.23943396,0.49830189,14.63717,0.1190566,38.149434,0.40339623

Distance to:    ITA_Rome_Imperial
2.57923195    C1
11.85719629    C6
12.09635867    C3
15.30094411    C7
19.73228403    C8
31.28639474    C4
40.89663860    C9
43.78734699    C2
45.26988777    C5
```

----------


## Jovialis

Why on earth would I we need to do that, when they are already divided into clusters based on haplotypes in the paper?

----------


## Er Monnezza

> Why on earth would I we need to do that, when they are already divided into clusters in the paper?


You may "need" to do that because in the paper to make the clusters they put together samples from every period.

Anyway, what I'm saying is just that one of those clusters is almost equal to the aggregate imperial Roman average.

----------


## Jovialis

> *You may "need" to do that because in the paper to make the clusters they put together samples from every period*.
> 
> Anyway, what I'm saying is just that one of those clusters is almost equal to the aggregate imperial Roman average.


The C6 cluster has existed in every period, since R437 in the Iron Age.

The most likely explanation for the expansion of that group in the imperial era is that southern Italian populations were included into Rome after the unification of the peninsula. The continued existence of it into the present is a testament that. Since foreign populations died away due to the urban graveyard effect.

----------


## Er Monnezza

> The C6 cluster has existed in every period, since R437 in the Iron Age.


I also agree that the first individuals more or less similar to modern southern Italians began to appear in the Iron Age.




> Since foreign populations died away due to the urban graveyard effect.


I wouldn't be so sure that, look at the difference in Levant_PPN/Natufian between R437 and the Basilicata average which is the closest.

*Target: Italian_Basilicata*
Distance: 0.0258% / 0.02577213
54.5 TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N
15.1 RUS_Samara_HG
11.7 GEO_CHG
*11.1 Levant_PPNB*
7.6 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N

*Target: Italian_Basilicata*
Distance: 0.0257% / 0.02572406
59.4 TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N
14.5 RUS_Samara_HG
12.0 GEO_CHG
7.8 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
*6.3 Levant_Natufian_EpiP*

*Target: ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA_o:RMPR437b*
Distance: 0.0281% / 0.02813351
65.3 TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N
13.6 GEO_CHG
11.2 RUS_Samara_HG
*4.8 Levant_PPNB*
4.2 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
0.9 ITA_Villabruna

*Target: ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA_o:RMPR437b*
Distance: 0.0283% / 0.02833805
68.1 TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N
13.3 GEO_CHG
11.1 RUS_Samara_HG
4.6 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
*2.1 Levant_Natufian_EpiP*
0.8 ITA_Villabruna

----------


## Jovialis

Provided the modeling is accurate to use, (I still am skeptical) I think it could have arrived early in the BA. We don't have samples from BA South Italy.
But also, we can see by looking at an individual basis, Southern Italians are heterogeneous. I seriously doubt averages are truly representive. I only have my phone at the moment because I'm busy with my real life, but I can demonstrate that when I have a chance.
Also, that could be Saracen input from the MA
I also have doubts of the reliability of using G25 in modeling. It is not the same as the tool that the Southern Arc paper used to model those source populations.

----------


## Jovialis

Example of heterogeneity, for Puglia, my region, I get 2.89 all the way to 8.99

Distance to:
Jovialis

2.89611809
Apulia:cera1

2.91856129
Apulia:cera2

3.34511584
Apulia:cera8

3.49479613
Apulia:Pu45

3.80621860
Apulia:cera9

3.92572286
Apulia:ALP583

4.45463803
Apulia:ALP379

4.52702993
Apulia:GS34

4.84129115
Apulia:Pu2

5.32649040
Apulia:GS32

6.43630329
Apulia:GS47

6.95402042
Apulia:Pu7

8.27652101
Apulia:Pu3

8.99969444
Apulia:Pu8



"Cera" is likely from _ApuN_

Bari, Foggia, Molise, and Abruzzo form a cluster, based on what I have seen in PCAs and genetic distance.



Distance to:
Jovialis

1.36923336
Abruzzo:15_Behar_2013

1.66129468
Abruzzo:16_Behar_2013

1.71953482
Abruzzo:20_Behar_2013

1.85132385
Molise:PG26_Molise

1.94663813
Abruzzo:9_Behar_2013

2.16529444
Abruzzo:Alp140

2.67432234
Greece_NorthEast:GreeceNE231

2.71775643
Abruzzo:Alp090

2.73558038
Abruzzo:Alp616

2.75210828
Abruzzo:22_Behar_2013

2.82391572
Abruzzo:23_Behar_2013

2.89611809
Apulia:cera1

2.91856129
Apulia:cera2

3.19426048
Umbria:PG06

3.32980480
Molise:PG27

3.34511584
Apulia:cera8

3.38212951
Lazio:NOR28

3.39328749
Marche:MarABY030D

3.41641625
Abruzzo:17_Behar_2013

3.47597468
Marche:MarACO100D

3.49479613
Apulia:Pu45

3.70070264
Abruzzo:Alp503

3.77326119
Abruzzo:ALP161

3.78219513
Sicily:TP04_Busby_2015

3.80215728
Marche:MarACY030D





Here is Basilicata:

Distance to:
Jovialis

4.19687979
Basilicata:PG24

4.30936190
Basilicata:PG21

4.52765944
Basilicata:PG18

4.57330296
Basilicata:PG17

4.62709412
Basilicata:PG19

5.10130375
Basilicata:PG25

6.19121959
Basilicata:PG20

6.35270808
Basilicata:PG16

6.69049326
Basilicata:PG22



Part of the heterogeneity is probably driven by the fact that the Mycenaeans, and more importantly, their substratum of Minoans were heterogenous. You have criticized my models in the past for using Minoan, but to me it makes perfect sense. As it does to the authors of Raveane et al. 2022. Sarno et al. 2022 also shows that Southern Italy has an affinity to the Ancient Greeks. Because perhaps some of the Ancient Greeks of Magna Grecia carried these genes.

----------


## Francesco

> The C6 cluster has existed in every period, since R437 in the Iron Age.
> 
> The most likely explanation for the expansion of that group in the imperial era is that southern Italian populations were included into Rome after the unification of the peninsula. The continued existence of it into the present is a testament that. Since foreign populations died away due to the urban graveyard effect.


Just a random thouth on the C6 cluster: If we assume (and I think it makes sense) that C6 represents the union between southern italics (osci, samniti etc.) + greeks from Magna Graecia, then it probably became progressively more common in the city of Rome well before the Empire: Rome was, at least from a linguistic point of view, an island between a sea of oscan speaking peoples. We know for instance that even during republican time latin language starts to show some kind of oscan influence. Maybe this slight linguistic change could have been matched by a demographic movement as well, with the increase of people resembling the individuals in the C6 cluster. Contamporary romans and inhabitants of Lazio do indeed plot between C7 and C6 clusters.

About this process of "oscanization" of Rome and of the whole Latium, however, I suggest reading the work of Clemente Merlo, provocatively titled "Lazio sannita ed Etruria latina?" (samnitic Latium and latin Etruria?): https://www.studietruschi.org/wp-con...06/SE01_18.pdf

----------


## Leopoldo Leone

> I also agree that the first individuals more or less similar to modern southern Italians began to appear in the Iron Age.
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't be so sure that, look at the difference in Levant_PPN/Natufian between R437 and the Basilicata average which is the closest.
> 
> *Target: Italian_Basilicata*
> Distance: 0.0258% / 0.02577213
> 54.5 TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N
> ...


Since the paper on Anatolia has been published, I can ask this: how on earth do you explain a doubling in Levantine ancestry? Not even Anatolians could cause it, you need a consistent direct gene flow from east Turkey or the Levant; indeed I've seen the minds of Anthrogenica arguing for such a case using G25, but G25 samples look to me fake, and I don't see why I ought to prefer them over the official ones. Furthermore, there is historically no evidence of such a ghost migration from the Levant to Italy, and the theory that it was caused by "east med migrants" during the imperial time doesn't hold water since you'd need a considerably higher input from the Levant in order to explain the "Italians'" result that come out on G25. 
On G25 Sicilians and Campanians come out as having more Levant_PPNB (16-20%) than the peak present in Rome_medievalmodern at 10-12% according to the last paper (as a relative measure)

----------


## Leopoldo Leone

> Just a random thouth on the C6 cluster: If we assume (and I think it makes sense) that C6 represents the union between southern italics (osci, samniti etc.) + greeks from Magna Graecia, then it probably became progressively more common in the city of Rome well before the Empire: Rome was, at least from a linguistic point of view, an island between a sea of oscan speaking peoples. We know for instance that even during republican time latin language starts to show some kind of oscan influence. Maybe this slight linguistic change could have been matched by a demographic movement as well, with the increase of people resembling the individuals in the C6 cluster. Contamporary romans and inhabitants of Lazio do indeed plot between C7 and C6 clusters.
> 
> About this process of "oscanization" of Rome and of the whole Latium, however, I suggest reading the work of Clemente Merlo, provocatively titled "Lazio sannita ed Etruria latina?" (samnitic Latium and latin Etruria?): https://www.studietruschi.org/wp-con...06/SE01_18.pdf


Both Osco-umbrians and Greeks were "invaders" from the perspectives of the people that inhabited south Italy before them, which could have been also Italic speakers but of the latino-falliscan branch. I dare to hypothesise that genetically the were on a cline from Latins to Sicily_BA/IA (themselves likely Italic speakers, at least Sicels), indeed I suspect the "east med" gene flow mentioned in the leaked PCA from the upcoming Campania paper was actually due to pre-existing locals being assimilated by Italic Campanians (who migrated in Campania during the X century).

----------


## Francesco

> Both Osco-umbrians and Greeks were "invaders" from the perspectives of the people that inhabited south Italy before them, which could have been also Italic speakers but of the latino-falliscan branch. I dare to hypothesise that genetically the were on a cline from Latins to Sicily_BA/IA (themselves likely Italic speakers, at least Sicels), indeed I suspect the "east med" gene flow mentioned in the leaked PCA from the upcoming Campania paper was actually due to pre-existing locals being assimilated by Italic Campanians (who migrated in Campania during the X century).



My idea is similar, even if I tend to think that by the Iron age the minoan-like substratum could have already been absorbed by indoeuropean new comers.

My guess is the following: by in the middle_bronze age the genetic make up of southern Italy was still similar to to that of the Sicilian Bell Beaker individual (i.e., a neolithic population with just a tiny bit of steppe ancestry brought by contacts with Bell Beaker cultures):


Then, by the middle bronze age and above all during the bronze age collapse, there may have been two roughly contemporary movemente of peoples: proto-villanovans from the north, maybe bringing oscan languages; and minoan and mycenaean peoples from the Aegean Sea (the appereance of Minoan could have preceded, of course, the proto villanovans and Mycenaeans). This movement from the Aegean Sea is already been reported in Fernandes 2020 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-020-1102-0). The union of this two element could have been the genetic make up of southern italic tribes (on a PCA, they may have plotted near the Crete Armenoi sample).

Finally, in the Iron Age, the Aegean component was furhter increased by the greek colonization of Magna Grecia. Et voilà le C6 cluster.

----------


## Jovialis

^^Don't forget all of the Levantine in *everyone* else, including Yamnaya according to the model Er Monnezz puts forwards by the new paper.



Funny, it seems like ethnicity doesn't exist, except when it comes to finding that one in select groups. At any rate, I digress.

However, that's why I also think the G25 model is erroneous.

----------


## Er Monnezza

> Provided the modeling is accurate to use, (I still am skeptical) I think it could have arrived early in the BA. We don't have samples from BA South Italy.


What arrived in the Bronze Age? The earliest samples similar to southern Italians or their southern/eastern ancestry?

As for the first, again for me it is a flat no. They may even find some vaguely similar samples but they would be outliers and not the majority of the population.

Regarding the second, there is indeed a slight increase in Iran_N and CHG in southern Italy, but still below modern levels.




> But also, we can see by looking at an individual basis, Southern Italians are heterogeneous. I seriously doubt averages are truly representive.


If you look at averages from an individual point of view, then all the peoples of the world are heterogeneous.




> Also, that could be Saracen input from the MA


I honestly don't know, but I doubt that the Saracens in the Middle Ages left much behind, at least in mainland southern Italy.

Venosa samples dated to 700 AD score on average something like 2.1% Taforalt, which is even more than the Campania or Calabria average.




> I also have doubts of the reliability of using G25 in modeling. It is not the same as the tool that the Southern Arc paper used to model those source populations.


Ok, but if Global25 is not reliable, Dodecad K12b is infinitely less so. And the Southern Arc paper not only found Levant_PPN ancestry everywhere, but even exaggerated the amount of it. If I had done something like that, at the very least I would have been called a t-roll.




> Part of the heterogeneity is probably driven by the fact that the Mycenaeans, and more importantly, their substratum of Minoans were heterogenous. You have criticized my models in the past for using Minoan, but to me it makes perfect sense. As it does to the authors of Raveane et al. 2022. Sarno et al. 2022 also shows that Southern Italy has an affinity to the Ancient Greeks. Because perhaps some of the Ancient Greeks of Magna Grecia carried these genes.


The variation that there is between a Calabrian and an Abruzzese, or between an Apulian and a Sicilian has much more recent roots; it has nothing to do with Mycenaeans and Minoans IMO.

The closeness to Mycenaeans is coincidental and is often exaggerated in my opinion, if you look at a PCA you see that the Italians and Mycenaeans are on 2 different clines.

----------


## Jovialis

Nobody has doubted more recent African and Near Eastern admixture into southerners, but not all southerners received more recent admixture; at least not at the same level. There's a slight amount of it in Sicilians and Calabrians according to the Raveane et al. 2022 paper. To me that points to the Moors and Saracens. Also we have cross-posted, because I too mentioned that Levantine was found everywhere according to the new model. But also, why not in the EBA? We know that there has been a CHG related pulse in the Mediterranean during this time. It could have also carried the Anatolia/Levant_PPN genes to southern Italy early on. We don't even have samples from this era in South Italy, so your doubt is just as good as my speculation. Again, this is just going by the model, because as I said earlier, I think once we find Basal Eurasians (verifying Lazaridis et al. 2018 pre-print), it could shake things up again. Levant_PPN is a mixed population. Natufians are a mixed population, that could be conflating with other sources.

----------


## Jovialis

> Example of heterogeneity, for Puglia, my region, I get 2.89 all the way to 8.99
> 
> Distance to:
> Jovialis
> 
> 2.89611809
> Apulia:cera1
> 
> 2.91856129
> ...


Take a look at the dialects on the map, it is not beyond reason to assume that some of the ionic and doric speakers could have brought Anatolian and the _so-called_ Levant PPN ancestry to the south in the Iron Age.

----------


## Francesco

> [...] if you look at a PCA you see that the Italians and Mycenaeans are on 2 different clines.


I think that the shown average of Mycenaeans (Greece_LBA) could be a bit deceptive, since if I'm not mistaken is composed with some sample which are clearly Minoan-like as well (one at least, if I recall correctly). The vast majority of them (and the vast majority of Iron age greeks were probably more close to the southern italian cluster, i.e. more shifted both towards CHG and EHG.

----------


## Poxy

Do you think the upcoming Magna Graecia paper will be helpful in this matter or will it only add to the confusion?

----------


## Jovialis

I think the data will be helpful, but the interpretation will be shotty. Which applies to most papers.

----------


## Er Monnezza

> Nobody has doubted more recent African and Near Eastern admixture into southerners, but not all southerners received more recent admixture; at least not at the same level. There's a slight amount of it in Sicilians and Calabrians according to the Raveane et al. 2022 paper. To me that points to the Moors and Saracens.


Clearly from the Carthaginians onward there is also a North African influence, but this has only minimally impacted the southward shift that southern Italians experience, which is largely Anatolian and Levantine in origin.




> Also we have cross-posted, because I too mentioned that Levantine was found everywhere according to the new model. But also, why not in the EBA? We know that there has been a CHG related pulse in the Mediterranean during this time. It could have also carried the Anatolia/Levant_PPN genes to southern Italy early on. We don't even have samples from this era in South Italy, so your doubt is just as good as my speculation.


There is barely Natufian in Minoans, I doubt it will be found in southern Italy from the same period.




> Levant_PPN is a mixed population. Natufians are a mixed population, that could be conflating with other sources.


EHG is also a mixed population, but that does not detract from the fact that most Europeans today have ancestry derived from them rather than from pure WHGs mixing with pure ANEs.




> I think that the shown average of Mycenaeans (Greece_LBA) could be a bit deceptive, since if I'm not mistaken is composed with some sample which are clearly Minoan-like as well (one at least, if I recall correctly). The vast majority of them (and the vast majority of Iron age greeks were probably more close to the southern italian cluster, i.e. more shifted both towards CHG and EHG.


The average shown as "Greece_LBA" is not composed of Minoan-like samples.



```
Greece_LBA,0.11685827,0.16153687,-0.0058076,-0.062877333,0.024968733,-0.0261414,-0.0013630667,-0.0052459333,0.0069129333,0.0428376,0.0066904,0.0106906,-0.017542,-0.0000091333333,-0.018819933,-0.0084416,0.012403933,0.0023565333,0.0093184,-0.0054525333,-0.0077447333,0.0029512667,-0.0023169333,0.0010362667,-0.00079033333

Distance to:    Greece_LBA
0.01383746    GRC_Mycenaean_Palace_of_Nestor_BA
0.01866719    GRC_Mycenaean
0.02023135    Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2
0.02119921    GRC_Mycenaean_Attica_BA
0.02360507    BGR_KapitanAndreevo_IA
0.03057226    BGR_Anc
0.03125336    GRC_Koufonisi_Cycladic_EBA
0.03189316    BGR_IA
0.03294215    ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA_o
0.03365135    GRC_Mycenaean_Kastrouli_BA
0.03420535    GRC_Kastrouli_Anc
0.03561312    ITA_Tarquinia_Imperial
0.03846649    TUR_Aegean_Izmir_Yassitepe_MBA
0.03886963    BGR_Krepost_N
0.03949905    HUN_MA_Szolad_o1
0.04005372    TUR_Aegean_Mugla_Degirmendere_Anc
0.04056293    HUN_Avar_Early_Kövegy
0.04194656    DEU_MA_Baiuvaric_o
0.04224475    TUR_Aegean_Izmir_Yassitepe_EBA
0.04368538    TUR_Marmara_Iznik_Y.kapi_Byz
0.04426301    Italian_Campania
0.04448837    Greek_Deep_Mani
```




> On G25 Sicilians and Campanians come out as having more Levant_PPNB (16-20%) than the peak present in Rome_medievalmodern at 10-12% according to the last paper (as a relative measure)


These samples (excluding Imperials) score more Levant_PPNB than the Campanian average.



```
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR30,0.101303,0.147252,-0.019987,-0.054264,0.013849,-0.024263,0.000235,-0.008077,0.0045,0.020228,0.000487,0.004196,-0.011447,-0.001514,-0.016558,-0.007027,0.00339,0.003041,0.005028,0.005628,0.001996,0.001237,0.003451,0.002289,-0.003233
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR34,0.101303,0.152329,-0.023381,-0.059432,0.007386,-0.023985,0.001175,-0.000692,-0.003272,0.018406,0.002923,0.005095,-0.002973,0.00289,-0.007465,-0.005834,0.007041,0.004054,-0.002011,0.000125,-0.006364,0.004081,0.003944,-0.003012,-0.001557
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR35,0.103579,0.150298,-0.011314,-0.046189,0.013541,-0.020638,0.00047,-0.008769,0.006954,0.021868,0.00341,0.002847,0.000149,-0.002064,-0.010179,-0.001724,0.008605,0.0019,0.000754,0.000125,-0.008235,-0.00136,0.002711,-0.010965,0.002395
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR107,0.119514,0.149283,-0.004525,-0.031654,0.022773,-0.02008,-0.00893,-0.004615,0.010226,0.021322,-0.000325,0.005545,-0.00223,0.00578,-0.007872,-0.007425,0.009127,-0.00038,-0.000251,0.007504,-0.003993,-0.001607,0.010106,0.00012,-0.00012
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR120,0.108132,0.153345,0.012068,-0.03876,0.016926,-0.011435,-0.0047,-0.010615,0.009613,0.023144,-0.000162,0.005845,-0.005054,0.000413,-0.009908,-0.004508,-0.011995,0.007095,0.001257,-0.000375,0.000374,0.010758,0.002095,-0.003976,0.003233
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR130,0.103579,0.150298,-0.037335,-0.063308,-0.001846,-0.021753,0.00047,-0.010846,0.003681,0.030069,0.008444,-0.001948,-0.003419,-0.002064,-0.00285,-0.009546,0.002868,0.002534,-0.000628,-0.000875,0.004118,0.001855,-0.013557,-0.001325,-0.00455
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR134,0.097888,0.151314,-0.028284,-0.059432,0.008309,-0.020917,-0.0047,-0.006461,-0.004295,0.019681,0.000162,0.004196,0.00446,0.003853,-0.006107,-0.004641,0.000913,-0.002534,-0.005154,0.00025,-0.004243,0.004204,-0.002958,0.001325,-0.002994
ITA_Rome_MA:RMPR53,0.111547,0.147252,-0.011691,-0.041667,0.014156,-0.022032,-0.001645,-0.011538,0.009817,0.020957,0.001461,0.001049,-0.003122,0.008533,-0.011129,-0.0118,-0.009518,-0.00266,-0.000628,-0.005628,0.007986,-0.000124,0.002095,-0.004338,-0.002395
ITA_Rome_MA:RMPR58,0.10927,0.150298,-0.010559,-0.046189,0.016003,-0.016455,-0.00141,-0.006461,0.001227,0.016401,-0.004872,0.001798,-0.013379,-0.006055,-0.001357,0.000796,0.004172,-0.002154,-0.001885,-0.003752,0.004367,0.005935,0.000616,0.005663,0.000718
ITA_Rome_MA:RMPR59,0.10927,0.148267,-0.003771,-0.037468,0.01908,-0.013108,0.002585,-0.003,0.003272,0.02041,0.001299,-0.004946,-0.003122,-0.000275,-0.013708,-0.017767,-0.010952,0.004307,-0.001885,-0.006128,0.005241,0.004699,-0.009737,-0.010483,0.001796
ITA_Rome_MA:RMPR60,0.10927,0.145221,0.00528,-0.028101,0.009848,-0.009761,0.00799,-0.005077,0.012067,0.010023,-0.003573,-0.001948,-0.00446,0.003028,-0.002443,-0.007027,-0.015255,0.002027,-0.00088,-0.004627,-0.00836,-0.00371,-0.002835,0.004699,0.000479
ITA_Rome_MA:RMPR1290,0.108132,0.14319,-0.000377,-0.041667,0.017849,-0.015339,0.000705,-0.003461,0.007976,0.021868,0.006496,0.007943,-0.002825,-0.000138,-0.006107,0.00769,0.001825,-0.00228,-0.004777,-0.001876,-0.002745,0.00779,0.000986,0.010845,0.000599
SIM_Pompeian_f1R,0.09962928310700005,0.148765575639,-0.028586161077999998,-0.06727249235099991,0.004026924972000004,-0.023806605353420003,0.00020630283200002292,-0.002584203909000063,0.0027870365229999833,0.021187147649000065,0.004307607149332,0.0018664388029999736,-0.0004541112019999984,0.005660869962000298,-0.01629041861699998,-0.005764774369000011,0.004970850026999943,0.0003661197659999005,0.002423200694999978,-0.0020963467378999987,-0.001820843546000095,0.001558902375000129,-0.0004008667930000265,-0.005182294423999957,-0.0011583148670002708
```

----------


## Jovialis

Minoans were heterogeneous. Zakros had 30% Levant PPN. Minoans are the substratum of Myceneans. There's also some evidence of Minoans in southern Italy in addition to Magna Graecia. So yes, that makes my Minoans Yamnaya *model* plausible for the south.

----------


## Poxy

> I think the data will be helpful, but the interpretation will be shotty. Which applies to most papers.


Thank you for replying.

----------


## Leopoldo Leone

> These samples (excluding Imperials) score more Levant_PPNB than the Campanian average.


The rectangle whose upper limit is at 10-12% is the centroid with the "average range", but the actual distribution of samples is a bit more heterogeneous, but, you must see, the medieval Roman samples overlap with southern Italians (and that during the medieval period Rome might have been more southern Italian-like is suggested by the history of the dialect, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanesco_dialect#History), so the _average_ for Campanians and other south Italian regions _can't_ be so different from said centroid; 16-20% Levant_neolithic would mean that the _average_ for south Italy is on the upper limit of the Anatolian_Byzantine centroid range, which is just ridiculous. 
Furthermore, which historical evidence is there of a direct Levantine gene flow into south Italy? It is always postulated but never shown; now the appeal to "east med migrants" doesn't cut it since they were mostly Anatolians and you need more direct Levantines than the proportion of Levantine-like samples from Italy (and this always supposing they left a genetic trace at all).




> Minoans were heterogeneous. Zakros had 30% Levant PPN. Minoans are the substratum of Myceneans. There's also some evidence of Minoans in southern Italy in addition to Magna Graecia. So yes, that makes my Minoans Yamnaya *model* plausible for the south.


It doesn't make sense to take _an outlier_ to claim that Minoans themselves were heterogeneous, since that one sample is different from the dozens of other samples we have. The Minoan gene pool was to an extent heterogeneous to the extent the CHG ancestry ranged a bit. but mostly are modelled as a roughly equal mixture of Anatolia_N and Anatolia_calcolithic.

----------


## Jovialis

> The rectangle whose upper limit is at 10-12% is the centroid with the "average range", but the actual distribution of samples is a bit more heterogeneous, but, you must see, the medieval Roman samples overlap with southern Italians (and that during the medieval period Rome might have been more southern Italian-like is suggested by the history of the dialect, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanesco_dialect#History), so the _average_ for Campanians and other south Italian regions _can't_ be so different from said centroid; 16-20% Levant_neolithic would mean that the _average_ for south Italy is on the upper limit of the Anatolian_Byzantine centroid range, which is just ridiculous. 
> Furthermore, which historical evidence is there of a direct Levantine gene flow into south Italy? It is always postulated but never shown; now the appeal to "east med migrants" doesn't cut it since they were mostly Anatolians and you need more direct Levantines than the proportion of Levantine-like samples from Italy (and this always supposing they left a genetic trace at all).
> It doesn't make sense to take _an outlier_ to claim that Minoans themselves were heterogeneous, since that one sample is different from the dozens of other samples we have. The Minoan gene pool was to an extent heterogeneous to the extent the CHG ancestry ranged a bit. but mostly are modelled as a roughly equal mixture of Anatolia_N and Anatolia_calcolithic.


Maybe you're right. I'm inclined to believe the theory you have stated.

----------


## Leopoldo Leone

Deleted post

----------


## Leopoldo Leone

> Maybe you're right. I'm inclined to believe the theory you have stated.


The bit about Minoans isn't my theory but I've seen the models on this paper ( https://www.cell.com/current-biology...all%3Dtrue#%20 ), which already was obvious that the extra CHG in Minoans was due to some gene flow from Anatolia

----------


## Angela

@Monezza,

You have not addressed Leone's salient point:

"Furthermore, there is historically no evidence of such a ghost migration from the Levant to Italy, and the theory that it was caused by "east med migrants" during the imperial time doesn't hold water since you'd need a considerably higher input from the Levant in order to explain the "Italians'" result that come out on G25.
On G25 Sicilians and Campanians come out as having more Levant_PPNB (16-20%) than the peak present in Rome_medievalmodern at 10-12% according to the last paper (as a relative measure)"

----------


## Jovialis

@Leopoldo Leone 

Yes, this was also apparent in the Daunian paper, which uses Minoan as a substratum not only for Ancient Greeks, but for a Mediterranean genetic continuum, based on (Anatolia_N + CHG).

----------


## Er Monnezza

> Minoans were heterogeneous. Zakros had 30% Levant PPN. Minoans are the substratum of Myceneans. There's also some evidence of Minoans in southern Italy in addition to Magna Graecia. So yes, that makes my Minoans Yamnaya *model* plausible for the south.


According to the paper, but a model like this is more realistic. Also, the average consists of only 1 sample.

*Target: GRC_Minoan_Zakros_BA*
Distance: 0.0355% / 0.03546927
78.9 TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N
11.7 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
*7.5 Levant_PPNB*
1.9 GEO_CHG




> Furthermore, which historical evidence is there of a direct Levantine gene flow into south Italy? It is always postulated but never shown; now the appeal to "east med migrants" doesn't cut it since they were mostly Anatolians and you need more direct Levantines than the proportion of Levantine-like samples from Italy (and this always supposing they left a genetic trace at all).


Ok, but with or without historical evidence, that signal is there and remains in our genetics. Also, these people would speak Greek and would almost always be referred to as Greeks by the Romans.




> I cannot stand a Greekified Rome. Yet how few of our dregs are Achaeans? The Syrian Orontes has for a long time now been polluting the Tiber, bringing with it its language and customs, its slanting strings along with pipers, its native tom-toms too, and the girls who are told to offer themselves for sale at the Circus.


This was not limited to Rome. There are cases of Cilicians and Syrians present in southern Italy even before the Romans annexed their territories.

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




> The First Servile War of 135–132 BC was a slave rebellion against the Roman Republic, which took place in Sicily. The revolt started in 135 when *Eunus*, a slave *from Syria* who claimed to be a prophet, captured the city of Enna in the middle of the island with 400 fellow slaves. Soon after, *Cleon, a Cilician* slave, stormed the city of Agrigentum on the southern coast, slaughtered the population, then joined Eunus' army and became his military commander. Eunus even proclaimed himself king, under the name of Antiochus, after the Seleucid emperors of his native Syria.




https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Servile_War




> Another revolt had broken out in western Sicily; there *Athenion, a Cilician* slave with a career analogous to Cleon's, rose in revolt.

----------


## Angela

No Jew or Syrian would ever be referred to as a Greek in Ancient Rome. They would be referred to as Jews or Syrians. Someone from western Asia Minor might be a different story

You are completely misreading Juvenal.

----------


## Jovialis

G25 is less than ideal in determining sources compared to the more sophisticated tools used by the paper. However, I would argue the issue may be with the model itself, rather than the tool. Like I said, if we ever find basal Eurasians, or if they ever allow the world to see the Paleolithic Caucasian (Dzudzuna) samples, it _will_ be a game changer.

Furthermore, we can see from the Magna Grecia map I posted based on dialects where the Greeks may have come from within the Greek speaking world. Based on the map, closest to my region in the province of Bari was populated by Achaean Doric speakers from the northern Peloponnese

----------


## Jovialis

> No Jew or Syrian would ever be referred to as a Greek in Ancient Rome. They would be referred to as Jews or Syrians. Someone from western Asia Minor might be a different story
> 
> You are completely misreading Juvenal.


Even in during Mass on Sunday, the readings make it empathetically clear the distinction between Greeks and Jews. Almost as opposites.

----------


## Angela

Btw, the Syrians of the Imperial Era were famous for producing entertainers of various sorts: magicians, musicians, and dancing girls. Rome was, I am sure, the biggest venue for them.

Ironic, isn't it, given the culture of places like Syria and Palestine today?

----------


## Jovialis

> Following increasing Roman domination of the Eastern Mediterranean, the client kingdom of the Herodian dynasty had been officially merged into the Roman Empire in the year 6 CE with the creation of the Roman province of Judea. The transition of the Tetrarchy of Judea into a Roman province immediately brought a great deal of tensions and a Jewish uprising by Judas of Galilee erupted right away as a response to the Census of Quirinius.
> 
> Although initially pacified (the years between 7 and 26 CE being relatively quiet), the province continued to be a source of trouble under Emperor Caligula (after 37 CE). The cause of tensions in the east of the Empire was complicated, *involving the spread of Greek culture, Roman law, and the rights of Jews in the Empire.* Caligula did not trust the prefect of Roman Egypt, Aulus Avilius Flaccus. Flaccus had been loyal to Tiberius, had conspired against Caligula's mother and had connections with Egyptian separatists.[12][_better source needed_] In 38 CE, Caligula sent Herod Agrippa to Alexandria unannounced to check on Flaccus.[13][_better source needed_] *According to Philo, the visit was met with jeers from the Greek population, who saw Agrippa as the king of the Jews*.[14][15] F*laccus tried to placate both the Greek population and Caligula by having statues of the emperor placed in Jewish synagogues.*[16][17] *As a result, extensive religious riots broke out in the city.*[18] Caligula responded by removing Flaccus from his position and executing him.[19] In 39 CE, Agrippa accused Herod Antipas, the tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, of planning a rebellion against Roman rule with the help of Parthia. Herod Antipas confessed and Caligula exiled him. Agrippa was rewarded with his territories.[20]
> 
> *Riots again erupted in Alexandria in 40 CE between Jews and Greeks.*[21] Jews were accused of not honoring the emperor.[21] Disputes occurred also in the city of Jamnia.[22] Jews were angered by the erection of a clay altar and destroyed it.[22] In response, Caligula ordered the erection of a statue of himself in the Temple of Jerusalem,[23] a demand in conflict with Jewish monotheism.[24] In this context, Philo writes that Caligula "regarded the Jews with most especial suspicion, as if they were the only persons who cherished wishes opposed to his".[24] The governor of Roman Syria, Publius Petronius, fearing civil war if the order were carried out, delayed implementing it for nearly a year.[25] Agrippa finally convinced Caligula to reverse the order.[21] However, only Caligula's death at the hands of Roman conspirators in 41 CE prevented a full-scale war in Judaea, that might well have spread to the entire Eastern Roman Empire.[26]
> 
> Caligula's death did not stop the tensions completely and in 46 CE an insurrection led by two brothers, the Jacob and Simon uprising, broke out in the Judea province. The revolt, mainly in the Galilee, began as sporadic insurgency; when it climaxed in 48 CE it was quickly put down by Roman authorities. Both Simon and Jacob were executed.[27]


The Greeks and Jews hated each other in Roman times. I doubt they would pretend to be one another.

----------


## Leopoldo Leone

> Ok, but with or without historical evidence, that signal is there and remains in our genetics. Also, these people would speak Greek and would almost always be referred to as Greeks by the Romans


What makes you say confidently that "that signal is there and remains in our genetics"? As far as I see, there is no such signal; this new methodology detects Levant_N ancestry across all Europe since the BA, and both you and I get the impression it might inflate it, and personally the evidence leads me to believe that the methodology and models used in this paper are sounder (https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...92867420305092), but for discussion's sake let's use the results of the southern arc paper as a "common metre": in older discussions on the same matter, when presented the fact that up to that point no Levant_N ancestry was used to model either ancient Greeks or modern Italians, it was rebuted that Levantine_N as a source wasn't considered and/or formally used and then rejected; now this methodology does use Levant_N to model Europeans, and uses quite much of it, _yet it assigns a much lower amount of Levant_N to southern Italians compared to G25_, indeed from 1 and a half to twice less. 
The centroid for Levant_PPN in Italy_MedievalModern (actually Rome) is a bit under 10%, and the upper range a bit above (let's say 8% the centroid and 12% the upper limit); since it is a grouping of both medieval samples from Rome (who cluster with modern Sicilians and deep south Italians, and I've given you evidence to think that it isn't just a coincidence) and modern ones (so modern day central Italians), then you could expect the centroid for just Rome_medieval (hence deep southern Italians) to be 10%, with the _upper limit_ at 14%, so how is it possible that the averages, that is where the centroid ought to cluster, for both Campanians and Sicilians are well beyond the _upper limit_ and being 16-20% they have roughly a bit more than 1 and a half and up to twice greater the amount of Levant_PPN ancestry _on average_. How do you explain such a discrepancy? 




> This was not limited to Rome. There are cases of Cilicians and Syrians present in southern Italy even before the Romans annexed their territories.


Seriously? Does the mention of _two (!!!!)_ slaves from the Levant or nearby somehow show that there was a significant gene flow into south Italy from there? Slaves died, they lived a very hard life, often being literally worked to death, so it oughtn't be expected that somehow slaves altered the local gene pool, unless of very specific social dynamics (for example, the Islamic slave trade often revolved around sexual slaves, hence the increase in SSA ancestry in islamic countries, almost only female mediated), and there is no actual evidence of slaves repopulating areas of south Italy (yes, latifundia were common, but the vast majority of the slaves there would not live long enough to reproduce)

----------


## Angela

> Even in during Mass on Sunday, the readings make it empathetically clear the distinction between Greeks and Jews. Almost as opposites.


They were true opposites in almost every way.

While Rome may have been "Greekified" to some extent, the Judeans most definitely were not. Their rejection of Greek culture was the whole basis for the Maccabean revolt against their Greek/Macedonian rulers, and their success in having statues of Greek gods removed from their holy places is marked by the festival of Hannukah. 

No nude sporting exercise or events for them; it was anathema, as circumcision was anathema for the Greeks.

The only Jewish thinker of the time who tried to dialogue with Greek philosophy was Philo, and following the dispersal the Jews turned even more inward. The Sadducees lost and the Pharisees won. It wouldn't be until the Middle Ages with people like Maimonides that such a dialogue began again.

----------


## Leopoldo Leone

ara.PNG
(it didn't allow me to post the image in the previous post)

----------


## Angela

If the results produced by G25 do not match at least approximately the results from formal statistical analysis, then there is something wrong with G25.

It's really that simple. No sophistry is going to change that fact.

----------


## ihype02

Greekified Rome is much more likely to be a reference to cultural impact.
The term "Greek" was *seldom* used for Greek speaking pagans (in the Bible for example) but never to Jews and early Christians as they were Monotheists.

----------


## Er Monnezza

> now this methodology does use Levant_N to model Europeans, and uses quite much of it, _yet it assigns a much lower amount of Levant_N to southern Italians compared to G25_, indeed from 1 and a half to twice less.


No modern South Italians were analyzed in the Southern Arc paper.




> The centroid for Levant_PPN in Italy_MedievalModern (actually Rome) is a bit under 10%, and the upper range a bit above (let's say 8% the centroid and 12% the upper limit); since it is a grouping of both medieval samples from Rome (who cluster with modern Sicilians and deep south Italians, and I've given you evidence to think that it isn't just a coincidence) and modern ones (so modern day central Italians), then you could expect the centroid for just Rome_medieval (hence deep southern Italians) to be 10%, with the _upper limit_ at 14%, so how is it possible that the averages, that is where the centroid ought to cluster, for both Campanians and Sicilians are well beyond the _upper limit_ and being 16-20% they have roughly a bit more than 1 and a half and up to twice greater the amount of Levant_PPN ancestry _on average_. How do you explain such a discrepancy?


The discrepancy is explained by the fact that Medieval Roman averages are Central Italian-like, not deep Southern Italian-like such as Campanians, Calabrians and Sicilians. The average that comes closest is ITA_Tivoli_Renaissance but it has south-central Italian-like results, not true southern results.

Dodecad K12b averages and distances



```
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity,6.5383333,0.20583333,3.1375,0.19958333,32.517917,17.91875,0.2975,0.45541667,10.049167,0.09625,28.33125,0.25333333
ITA_Rome_MA,5.8914286,0.20571429,1.9342857,0.20619048,33.212381,21.69381,0.37,0.39619048,9.0690476,0.24333333,26.332381,0.44904762
ITA_Tivoli_Renaissance,7.5733333,0.01,2.89,0.16333333,29.54,17.21,0.37,0.30333333,9.87,0,31.526667,0.53666667

Distance to:    ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity
1.44311332    Italian_Marche
2.25074718    Italian_Lazio
3.02539456    Italian_Umbria
4.30903060    Italian_Romagna

Distance to:    ITA_Rome_MA
1.98126760    Italian_Romagna
2.54605914    Italian_Umbria
3.71481188    Italian_Lazio
4.03054722    Italian_Tuscany
4.19364892    Italian_Marche
5.35956337    Italian_Emilia

Distance to:    ITA_Tivoli_Renaissance
2.08586229    Italian_Abruzzo
3.90981508    Italian_Molise
4.13406833    Italian_Apulia
4.51109640    Italian_Lazio
4.59542033    Italian_Basilicata
4.65700703    Italian_Marche
5.12143415    Greek_Central
5.19223975    Italian_Campania
5.52201845    Italian_Sicily
```

This is how much Levant_PPNB they score in my model, here too it is less than 10%.



```
GEO_CHG,0.091058,0.102568,-0.083344,-0.00323,-0.08617,0.020638,0.024911,-0.001846,-0.128236,-0.074717,-0.006333,0.023979,-0.054856,0.004404,0.026601,-0.03275,0.02386,-0.013429,-0.022249,0.034767,0.033815,-0.007048,0.006532,-0.025787,-0.002036
IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N,0.0430252,0.0664158,-0.1550722,0.0047158,-0.122669,0.0235384,0.017109,-0.0011998,-0.082546,-0.0544158,-0.0028258,-0.0016186,0.0044896,-0.0062756,0.0316498,0.0561384,-0.0054242,0.0068664,0.0136508,-0.0334162,0.00856,-0.028836,-0.0110678,-0.039331,0.0222254
ITA_Villabruna,0.121791,0.114755,0.18592,0.184111,0.156337,0.060798,0.020211,0.035998,0.092445,0.018041,-0.016239,-0.016186,0.016947,-0.010046,0.054017,0.067356,0.000782,0.005448,-0.008422,0.053526,0.100073,0.010758,-0.048313,-0.163517,0.01928
Levant_PPNB,0.071961667,0.16643389,-0.028954333,-0.13785022,0.030809222,-0.064485778,-0.013317222,-0.011819889,0.077537222,0.037115444,0.015390889,-0.015469444,0.031103111,0.0024313333,-0.021293111,0.002917,0.010749222,-0.001295,-0.007067,0.014951444,-0.0032997778,0.0056882222,0.0018075556,-0.004927,-0.0017695556
MAR_Taforalt,-0.189857,0.0814452,-0.0242866,-0.085595,0.027636,-0.0552202,-0.0705968,0.0184146,0.155397,0.003499,0.0209156,-0.0318316,0.0747168,-0.0513334,0.0711988,-0.0363032,0.0052676,-0.066106,-0.1424162,0.0389938,-0.0376836,-0.1255322,0.0730118,-0.0137606,0.0164534
RUS_Samara_HG,0.119514,0.048745,0.113513,0.206398,-0.008001,0.054384,-0.013161,-0.023537,-0.01309,-0.090936,0.01429,-0.018883,0.026164,-0.03647,0.020629,0.012994,-0.005867,-0.000507,-0.00729,0.009004,-0.011854,0.025102,0.009737,-0.02651,-0.009101
TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N,0.1181049,0.18124781,0.002424381,-0.10048405,0.051848286,-0.046800476,-0.0050917143,-0.007186619,0.036668333,0.081181952,0.0085292857,0.011803762,-0.023290095,0.00094371429,-0.041265429,-0.0091549524,0.022326667,0.00066957143,0.011624095,-0.0095938095,-0.013244429,0.005970619,-0.0044663333,-0.0033968571,-0.0055027619

Target: ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity
Distance: 0.0273% / 0.02730120
58.5    TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N
16.4    RUS_Samara_HG
10.8    GEO_CHG
6.5    Levant_PPNB
5.2    IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
2.6    ITA_Villabruna

Target: ITA_Rome_MA
Distance: 0.0322% / 0.03218180
57.6    TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N
19.2    RUS_Samara_HG
10.4    GEO_CHG
5.5    Levant_PPNB
4.3    IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
3.0    ITA_Villabruna

Target: ITA_Tivoli_Renaissance
Distance: 0.0293% / 0.02934474
55.0    TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N
17.4    RUS_Samara_HG
11.1    GEO_CHG
9.2    Levant_PPNB
6.8    IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
0.5    ITA_Villabruna
```

This is how Campanians and Sicilians score, about 13%.



```
Target: Italian_Campania
Distance: 0.0265% / 0.02654174
53.7    TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N
14.1    RUS_Samara_HG
12.7    Levant_PPNB
10.4    GEO_CHG
9.1    IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N

Target: Sicilian
Distance: 0.0303% / 0.03032642
51.4    TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N
14.1    RUS_Samara_HG
13.2    Levant_PPNB
9.9    GEO_CHG
8.3    IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
2.1    ITA_Villabruna
1.0    MAR_Taforalt
```




> Seriously? Does the mention of _two (!!!!)_ slaves from the Levant or nearby somehow show that there was a significant gene flow into south Italy from there?


And we only know they are Syrians because they rebelled, otherwise we wouldn't know that either haha.

----------


## Leopoldo Leone

> No modern South Italians were analyzed in the Southern Arc paper.
> 
> 
> 
> The discrepancy is explained by the fact that Medieval Roman averages are Central Italian-like, not deep Southern Italian-like such as Campanians, Calabrians and Sicilians. The average that comes closest is ITA_Tivoli_Renaissance but it has south-central Italian-like results, not true southern results.
> 
> Dodecad K12b averages and distances
> 
> 
> ...





1) The bulk of Medieval Romans cluster with deep southern Italians, where you can see the tight clustering, and also a considerable amount of "outliers", so to speak, (though I interpret this as a snapshot of the process that created modern Romans as a mixing of a previous south Italian-like substrate with new comers from Tuscany, as the dialectology and historiography suggest), so they figure out certainly in the average you see (also considering the range). 
2) Southern Italians are very reasonably approximated by Rome_medieval.
3) Anyway, there is no such difference between southern Italians and central Italians, for heaven's sake: how can anybody think that there is almost double the amount of Levantine ancestry in south Italians compared to Central ones. 
4) 13% is still considerably beyond the centroid for Rome medieval, and I recall I saw models on anthrogenica with 16-20% Levant_N.
5) 


> And we only know they are Syrians because they rebelled, otherwise we wouldn't know that either haha


Do you earnestly think this qualifies as an answer? As I read it, it means "actually we can't know the ethnic composition of the slave masses, but they MUST have been also heavily Syrian/Levantine-like because of G25 results for south Italians". You aren't bringing evidence or arguments, you are just postulating a theory that can't be disproven or proven because you already accept G25 as valid; for every one, it is lazy thinking (why weren't the Slaves heavily Celtic as well? Why were Levantines mostly present in south Italy? How, anyway, did slaves impact the local gene pool?, etc... these are answers you aren't even attempting to answer, you just claim "it happened somehow")
6) Ok, for discussion sake, let's take the 13% Levant_N for deep south Italians: it can perfectly well be explained by the Anatolians, so why the insistence on another, different gene flow straight from the Levant or nearby?

----------


## Angela

We all know the answer to that.

----------


## ihype02

*All* of the Northern Italian-like Medieval samples from Rome were from the era of Renaissance the rest plot with deep Southern Italians. It is very probable most EMA Central Italians of Lazio, Marche and Abruzzo were in Southern Italian cluster (maybe slightly north of modern Apulians).

----------


## Er Monnezza

> 1) The bulk of Medieval Romans cluster with deep southern Italians, where you can see the tight clustering


Again? I just posted you the averages that indicate otherwise.




> I interpret this as a snapshot of the process that created modern Romans as a mixing of a previous south Italian-like substrate with new comers from Tuscany, as the dialectology and historiography suggest.


The dialect spoken in Rome in the Middle Ages was not a dialect of the "Neapolitan" or South Italian family; it was part of the central family as is modern Romanesque. The dialects spoken today in the Castelli Romani just 25 km south of Rome look a lot like that medieval speech, and for example they still say "lietto" instead of "letto" (bed) despite being surrounded by people who say "letto" or "liettə" further south.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXTCyHP6aSA

But anyway now everyone speaks either Romanesque or Italian, so the original speech is getting lost.








> 2) Southern Italians are very reasonably approximated by Rome_medieval.


It may approximate central Italians, not southern Italians.




> 3) Anyway, there is no such difference between southern Italians and central Italians, for heaven's sake: how can anybody think that there is almost double the amount of Levantine ancestry in south Italians compared to Central ones.


According to Dodecad K12b averages, the distance between a Campanian and an Umbrian is the same as between an Umbrian and a Venetian. Would you say there is no difference between an Umbrian and a Venetian?




> 4) 13% is still considerably beyond the centroid for Rome medieval, and I recall I saw models on anthrogenica with 16-20% Levant_N.


And in fact Medieval Roman averages score less than 13%.




> 5) Do you earnestly think this qualifies as an answer? As I read it, it means "actually we can't know the ethnic composition of the slave masses, but they MUST have been also heavily Syrian/Levantine-like because of G25 results for south Italians". You aren't bringing evidence or arguments, you are just postulating a theory that can't be disproven or proven because you already accept G25 as valid; for every one, it is lazy thinking (why weren't the Slaves heavily Celtic as well? Why were Levantines mostly present in south Italy? How, anyway, did slaves impact the local gene pool?, etc... these are answers you aren't even attempting to answer, you just claim "it happened somehow")


What I read from you and others on this forum instead is a lot of mental gymnastics to not accept something that, for some strange reason, is not to your liking. Honestly, after a while I get tired of debating what really is in the public eye.




> 6) Ok, for discussion sake, let's take the 13% Levant_N for deep south Italians: it can perfectly well be explained by the Anatolians, so why the insistence on another, different gene flow straight from the Levant or nearby?


TUR_Aegean_Muğla_Değirmendere_Anc dated around 615 BC scores less Levant_PPNB than southern Italy.

*Target: Italian_Campania*
Distance: 0.0265% / 0.02654174
53.7 TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N
14.1 RUS_Samara_HG
*12.7 Levant_PPNB*
10.4 GEO_CHG
9.1 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N

*Target: TUR_Aegean_Mugla_Degirmendere_Anc*
Distance: 0.0209% / 0.02089801
66.5 TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N
15.1 GEO_CHG
12.5 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
*4.2 Levant_PPNB*
1.7 RUS_Samara_HG

----------


## ihype02

> Again? I just posted you the averages that indicate otherwise.


The average of Medieval Rome in G25 plots with Toscana. But in that case Early Medieval samples of Rome were South Italian-like and Renaissance samples were largely Northern Italian-like. North Italian-like Romans were probably recent arrivals there, so probably a selection bias in sample due to archeology so not very representative of the whole city.

----------


## Leopoldo Leone

> Again? I just posted you the averages that indicate otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> The dialect spoken in Rome in the Middle Ages was not a dialect of the "Neapolitan" or South Italian family; it was part of the central family as is modern Romanesque. The dialects spoken today in the Castelli Romani just 25 km south of Rome look a lot like that medieval speech, and for example they still say "lietto" instead of "letto" (bed) despite being surrounded by people who say "letto" or "liettə" further south.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXTCyHP6aSA
> 
> But anyway now everyone speaks either Romanesque or Italian, so the original speech is getting lost.
> ...



1)Do you even read what I post? The dialect/language spoken in Rome during the (at least early) middle ages was part of the Neapolitan branch, unless you know more than Italian scholars on it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanesco_dialect#History , read the sources linked by the way).
2)Also Ihype02 pointed out the same thing I had pointed out: the medieval samples from Rome are those that cluster with southern Italians, the ones from the Renaissance are the north Italian-like 
3) In which universe do central Italians score 5% Levant_N but southern ones 13%, almost three times as much? 
4) At the beginning I said we'd better use the result of the paper as a reference, and ALL Anatolian samples score much more than 4.2 Levant_PPNB there,indeed the centroid is at roughly 20% and the lower limit is at around 15%: again, I don't think it is factually correct and likely the methodology inflates the Levant_N, but we must compare models obtained with the same methodology, and with these methods the centroid for Rome medieval/modern is still below the 13% computed by G25, also the centroid for LATE ANTIQUITY is below 13% (actually both below 10% and the latter just a tiny higher than the former): do also the late antiquity samples "approximate modern central Italians" and not southern? 
5) The only mental gymnastics I read is from you and others that cling to this theory about a significant "east med" shift (not just some Anatolian but a lot of it and a significant amount of Levantine as well) followed by a north one, for example denying that Rome medieval samples approximate south Italians (despite the fact that they do and you can see it on the PCA, and excluding the later _renaissance_ ones), what the heck, even _late antiquity_ samples from Rome aren't still enough Levantine-rich as modern southern Italians are according to G25 (that is compared how they result modelled in this study and how modern south Italians are on G25).

The G25 results for Mugla_antiquity are at around 4.2% Levant_PNP but according to the study it ought to be at the very least 15%, and overall G25 shows much less Levantine than what this study says, which inflates it, BUT "southern Italian" (God knows what they are really) samples from G25 somehow are the only ones that show an excess of Levantine compared to what this study shows relatively to Rome in the medieval period (whose bulk of the samples cluster with southern Italians!) and late antiquity, and your only rebutal is that "they represent central Italians, not southern ones" (again, as if the bulk of medieval Rome samples weren't clustering with southern Italians and if it weren't clear that modern Romans are the result of the mixing of a southern Italian-like population with a northern ones, exactly as it is suggested by dialectology, _historical_ records -contrary to your postulated Levantine migrations that left no traces- of movement of people from the north into Latium after the black plague and the very genetic samples we have). 
Don't mistake the ramblings common in certain anthrofora for what "is in the public eye". 

At this point you're wilfully dismissing all the actual evidence presented by official studies to cling to what G25 shows (_always_ in contradiction with the general literature)

----------


## Angela

> The average of Medieval Rome in G25 plots with Toscana. But in that case Early Medieval samples of Rome were South Italian-like and Renaissance samples were largely Northern Italian-like. North Italian-like Romans were probably recent arrivals there, so probably a selection bias in sample due to archeology so not very representative of the whole city.


This is the problem with so much population genetics commentary: IT SHOWS NO UNDERSTANDING OF ITALIAN HISTORY.

As Rome was the center of the Roman Empire and so not every person buried there during the Imperium was a permanent resident, Rome during the Middle Ages and Renaissance was the center of Christianity, the difference being that while there were pilgrims even in the Middle Ages, with the advent of the Renaissance and the ability to travel now much easier, even more pilgrims flocked to Rome, augmented now also by merchants, artists, artisans not only from abroad, but from the north central Italian city-states. Do you know how many Tuscan artists and artisans worked for the Popes in Rome?

In more recent times, people from the Abruzzi moved into Lazio, as did people from neighboring Campania.

From 1,000,000, the city of Rome in 600 A.D. was 30,000 people. In 1000 A.D. it was 20-30,000 people.

Only two of the eleven aqueducts were open, and the inhabitants lived in a tiny bend made by the Tiber in the west of the city, less than 10% of the whole. 

At times it must have seemed, especially in the Late Middle Ages and Renaissance, as if there were more foreigners than "locals", and without isotope analysis I have no idea how you could be sure of the difference.



That's why, and no offense intended, I frankly never pay much attention to the genetics of Lazio. Now as then people have gone there from everywhere, but mostly, of course, from neighboring regions: Toscana, yes, but also large numbers from Abruzzo and Campania (some parts of Lazio today used to be in Campania) and Umbria.

As the Papacy became more and more a "temporal" power, with more actual territory, the Papal States became an entity onto themselves.

----------


## Er Monnezza

> The average of Medieval Rome in G25 plots with Toscana. But in that case Early Medieval samples of Rome were South Italian-like and Renaissance samples were largely Northern Italian-like. North Italian-like Romans were probably recent arrivals there, so probably a selection bias in sample due to archeology so not very representative of the whole city.


The average of all Central Italian samples from AD 400 to 1650 plots with modern Central Italians, as you stated.



```
ITA_Central_AD_400-1650_(N=63),0.11394959,0.14730008,0.0089432381,-0.024189111,0.024888556,-0.010664222,0.000044777778,-0.0017654603,0.0077134444,0.021431508,0.00048969841,0.0050930635,-0.0094529524,-0.0027022063,-0.0032357302,-0.00061031746,0.0023076032,0.00029760317,0.0024002857,-0.0016436508,-0.00024165079,0.0021354127,-0.00063384127,0.0019738254,0.00013874603

Distance to:    ITA_Central_AD_400-1650_(N=63)
0.00903592    Italian_Marche
0.00970314    Italian_Tuscany
0.01134588    Italian_Umbria
0.01666116    Italian_Lazio
0.01883876    Italian_Abruzzo
0.01960253    Italian_Emilia
0.01977868    Italian_Molise
```

But the same is also true for the Early Middle Ages samples (period from the late 5th or early 6th century to the 10th century).



```
ITA_Central_AD_500-900_(N=22),0.11294359,0.148775,0.0090509545,-0.027176045,0.026606273,-0.0123345,-0.0011643182,-0.0027061818,0.0093430909,0.024121455,0.0007455,0.0057834545,-0.010162955,-0.0028212273,-0.0044048182,-0.0016995909,0.0031411818,0.00020159091,0.0033025455,-0.0010117727,-0.00010213636,0.00092186364,-0.00020168182,-0.00053127273,-0.00033754545

Distance to:    ITA_Central_AD_500-900_(N=22)
0.01146971    Italian_Marche
0.01247169    Italian_Tuscany
0.01254282    Italian_Umbria
0.01615277    Italian_Lazio
0.01915046    Italian_Abruzzo
```




> 1)Do you even read what I post? The dialect/language spoken in Rome during the (at least early) middle ages was part of the Neapolitan branch, unless you know more than Italian scholars on it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanesco_dialect#History , read the sources linked by the way).


If you read the Italian Wikipedia page, it does not tell you that it is part of the Neapolitan group, it simply tells you that it was more akin to Neapolitan and other dialects of Lazio than to modern Florentine or even Romanesque.




> The vernacular that was spoken in Rome in the Middle Ages was much closer to the other dialects of Lazio or Neapolitan than to Florentine.


Which is the same thing I said, citing the case of the Castelli Romani dialects, which are extremely similar to the medieval Roman dialect but still part of the Central group.




> 4) the centroid for Rome medieval/modern is still below the 13% computed by G25, also the centroid for LATE ANTIQUITY is below 13% (actually both below 10% and the latter just a tiny higher than the former): do also the late antiquity samples "approximate modern central Italians" and not southern?


You are getting confused. My model gives 13% to Campanians and Sicilians, not medieval Rome. Actually Global25 shows the same things you said earlier.

You said:




> The centroid for Levant_PPN in Italy_MedievalModern (actually Rome) is a bit under 10%, and the upper range a bit above (let's say 8% the centroid and 12% the upper limit)


The average of all medieval samples is indeed 5.6%.

*Target: ITA_Central_AD_400-1650_(N=63)*
Distance: 0.0304% / 0.03036546
58.1 TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N
17.9 RUS_Samara_HG
10.9 GEO_CHG
*5.6 Levant_PPNB*
4.6 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
2.9 ITA_Villabruna

The average for Late Antiquity samples is 8.2%

*Target: ITA_Central_AD_400-500_(N=24)*
Distance: 0.0277% / 0.02773268
56.4 TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N
17.0 RUS_Samara_HG
11.3 GEO_CHG
*8.2 Levant_PPNB*
5.1 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
2.0 ITA_Villabruna

*Distance to: ITA_Central_AD_400-500_(N=24)*
*0.01011835 Italian_Marche*
0.01124488 Italian_Umbria
0.01147578 Italian_Abruzzo
0.01344580 Italian_Lazio
0.01413269 Italian_Molise
0.01710765 Italian_Tuscany
0.01782361 Italian_Apulia
0.01947895 Italian_Basilicata

Then you also stated:




> You could expect the centroid for just Rome_medieval (hence deep southern Italians) to be 10%, with the upper limit at 14%


This is also what Global25 shows. When I exclude all Northern European and Northern Italian samples from the overall medieval average (but leaving those plotting even further south than southern Italy), I also get about 10% Levant_PPNB. However, this is not a deep southern Italian profile, but more like a southern-shifted south-central Italian profile.

*Target: ITA_Central_(Southern_Profile)_AD_400-1650_(N=44)*
Distance: 0.0264% / 0.02642710
55.4 TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N
14.6 RUS_Samara_HG
12.0 GEO_CHG
*10.6 Levant_PPNB*
6.7 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
0.7 ITA_Villabruna

This is the only thing you did not get right, because in fact they score less.




> The averages, that is where the centroid ought to cluster, for both Campanians and Sicilians are well beyond the upper limit being 16-20%





> 5) The only mental gymnastics I read is from you and others that cling to this theory about a significant "east med" shift (not just some Anatolian but a lot of it and a significant amount of Levantine as well) followed by a north one, for example denying that Rome medieval samples approximate south Italians (despite the fact that they do and you can see it on the PCA, and excluding the later _renaissance_ ones), what the heck, even _late antiquity_ samples from Rome aren't still enough Levantine-rich as modern southern Italians are according to G25 (that is compared how they result modelled in this study and how modern south Italians are on G25).


Lol, who is "denying" what? I'm just telling you that the overall average is not Southern Italian-like, but it's obvious that the samples that make it up will also include Southern Italians.




> The G25 results for Mugla_antiquity are at around 4.2% Levant_PNP but according to the study it ought to be at the very least 15%


You are confusing Mugla_Anc (that would be Iron Age) with Antiquity. Later samples from Mugla obviously show much more than 4% Levant_PPNB.



```
Target: TUR_Aegean_Mugla_Camandras_Dalagöz_Rom
Distance: 0.0315% / 0.03150924
54.5    TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N
17.1    IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
13.6    GEO_CHG
12.9    Levant_PPNB
1.9    RUS_Samara_HG

Target: TUR_Aegean_Mugla_Stratonikeia_Byz
Distance: 0.0225% / 0.02251005
46.8    TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N
17.9    Levant_PPNB
15.6    GEO_CHG
13.1    IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
6.6    RUS_Samara_HG

Target: TUR_Aegean_Mugla_Samantas_Byz
Distance: 0.0188% / 0.01884443
50.6    TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N
16.3    Levant_PPNB
14.3    IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
13.3    GEO_CHG
5.5    RUS_Samara_HG
```




> BUT "southern Italian" (God knows what they are really) samples from G25 somehow are the only ones that show an excess of Levantine compared to what this study shows


They are not aliens; I myself have similar results.

*Target: Ajeje_Brazorf_scaled*
Distance: 0.0279% / 0.02790584
56.1 TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N
12.0 RUS_Samara_HG
*11.3 Levant_PPNB*
10.3 GEO_CHG
8.9 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
0.7 ITA_Villabruna
0.7 MAR_Taforalt




> Rome in the medieval period (whose bulk of the samples cluster with southern Italians!) and late antiquity, and your only rebutal is that "they represent central Italians, not southern ones" (again, as if the bulk of medieval Rome samples weren't clustering with southern Italians
> 
> At this point you're wilfully dismissing all the actual evidence presented by official studies to cling to what G25 shows (_always_ in contradiction with the general literature)


But it is not my fault that the averages, both on Global25 and Dodecad K12b, are more like central Italians than southern Italians  :Sad:

----------


## torzio

> Again? I just posted you the averages that indicate otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> The dialect spoken in Rome in the Middle Ages was not a dialect of the "Neapolitan" or South Italian family; it was part of the central family as is modern Romanesque. The dialects spoken today in the Castelli Romani just 25 km south of Rome look a lot like that medieval speech, and for example they still say "lietto" instead of "letto" (bed) despite being surrounded by people who say "letto" or "liettə" further south.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXTCyHP6aSA
> 
> But anyway now everyone speaks either Romanesque or Italian, so the original speech is getting lost.
> ...



in this period


Rome spoke a Latin/Siena ( tuscan mix ) 

In 1860 when Italy formed ( 70 years later from map above ) there where 22 million italian ( not including the austrian ruled , Lombardy, Veneto, Friuli and Trentino ) ...of these 22 million only 3% spoke or knew Italian language , as stated by the first Italian government...................I cannot see where you draw your conclusion

----------


## Jovialis

> Why on earth would I we need to do that, when they are already divided into clusters based on haplotypes in the paper?


60% of medieval Rome was C6, i.e. Central to South Italians according to the study.

----------


## Jovialis

> This is the problem with so much population genetics commentary: IT SHOWS NO UNDERSTANDING OF ITALIAN HISTORY.
> 
> As Rome was the center of the Roman Empire and so not every person buried there during the Imperium was a permanent resident, Rome during the Middle Ages and Renaisilliterate...
> ance was the center of Christianity, the difference being that while there were pilgrims even in the Middle Ages, with the advent of the Renaissance and the ability to travel now much easier, even more pilgrims flocked to Rome, augmented now also by merchants, artists, artisans not only from abroad, but from the north central Italian city-states. Do you know how many Tuscan artists and artisans worked for the Popes in Rome?
> 
> In more recent times, people from the Abruzzi moved into Lazio, as did people from neighboring Campania.
> 
> From 1,000,000, the city of Rome in 600 A.D. was 30,000 people. In 1000 A.D. it was 20-30,000 people.
> 
> ...


Great insights, the population graph especially.

----------


## Jovialis

Modern Lazio academic at the northern end of the C6 cluster's centrum. Therefore, it is easy to see that Rome was repopulated mostly by people from the surrounding area from the south, with some elements from the north.

----------


## ihype02

> The average of all Central Italian samples from AD 400 to 1650 plots with modern Central Italians, as you stated.
> 
> 
> 
> ```
> ITA_Central_AD_400-1650_(N=63),0.11394959,0.14730008,0.0089432381,-0.024189111,0.024888556,-0.010664222,0.000044777778,-0.0017654603,0.0077134444,0.021431508,0.00048969841,0.0050930635,-0.0094529524,-0.0027022063,-0.0032357302,-0.00061031746,0.0023076032,0.00029760317,0.0024002857,-0.0016436508,-0.00024165079,0.0021354127,-0.00063384127,0.0019738254,0.00013874603
> Distance to:    ITA_Central_AD_400-1650_(N=63)
> 0.00903592    Italian_Marche
> 0.00970314    Italian_Tuscany
> ...


How come? I saw numerous North Italian-like samples after 1300AD. And the average is nearly the same? Try removing outliers there was Germanic outlier plotting with Dutch.

----------


## Jovialis

Haplotype sharing groups organized by time period. C6 MA-Ren and C7 MA-Ren are Medieval to Renaissance samples are from Cancellleria. C6 Ren are Renaissance samples from Tivoli Palazzo Cianti

I myself plot almost right on top of the centrum from the C6 Renaissance Tivoli Palazzo Cianti samples, and it clusters with Abruzzo and Molise, and Northern-shifted Apulians.

----------


## Jovialis

> Haplotype sharing groups organized by time period. C6 MA-Ren and C7 MA-Ren are Medieval to Renaissance samples are from Cancellleria. C6 Ren are Renaissance samples from Tivoli Palazzo Cianti
> 
> I myself plot almost right on top of the centrum from the C6 Renaissance Tivoli Palazzo Cianti samples, and it *clusters with Abruzzo and Molise, and Northern-shifted Apulians.*


Modern Lazio looks like a mix between these people and modern Tuscans and Corsicans. Hence the re-peopling of Rome by native Italians after the Urban Graveyard effect/violent de-population of Rome at the end of the empire. 

Also, ITS5 is from Salerno.

----------


## Leopoldo Leone

@Er Monnezza


1) the wikipedia page (which just reports what is said in the sources linked) says clearly that the language spoken around Rome belonged to the southern group, hence it was NOT part of the central group, and indeed was "much" closer to Neapolitan than to dialects of the central group. Honestly, you're just using sophistry if you're going to debate such a point.
2)Look at the graph from the study I have posted: _also_ Turkey_IA and antiquity centroid is above 20%.
3) The medieval samples from Rome, minus the north Italian-like individuals, clustuer around south Italians (who, I believe, are Sicilian samples), as it has been said many times. 
4)The late antiquity samples are more southern on average than medieval Rome (which remains a better proxy for south Italy),with a good chunk of the samples actually southern of south Italians, I wonder how is it possible that the average still comes out as significantly more northern than southern Italians then on G25 and dodecad12.
5) Anyway, you must keep in mind that the important point is that G25 shows quite lower levels of Levant_N compared to the results shown in this paper, so even if G25 showed the same levels of Levant_N in Italians as shown by this paper, there would still be the discrepancy of why G25 lowers it in everybody else except Italians.
6) Let's follow the line of argument that somehow Rome_medievalmodern and Rome_antiquity can't be used to approximate south Italians (though it is wrong): if we take it that Rome medieval on G25 shows an average of 5% Levant_N, but according to this study it is around 8%, then we can infer that if Campanians and Sicilians were to be analysed with the same methodology they'd have a centroid/average at 16%, which is roughly the centroid for imperial Rome, but since southern Italians cluster quite northern to the centroid of imperial Rome, there must have been another northern gene flow that pulled them to their position, which means that they _must have started with a higher level of Levant_N_ than that of the average for imperial Rome: do you get why it is nonsensical?
7)Notice that according to the data in the paper Anatolia experience and _decrease_ in Levant_N ancestry from the BA to the byzantine period, so the suggestion that western Anatolia overall experienced and increase in levantine ancestry compared to antiquity is debunked. 
8)Though I don't believe the conclusions of the paper(s) are sound, still one of the conclusion is that Anatolia was the source of the gene flow into Italy, so there is no indication of another gene flow directly from the Levant or nearby; ok, it's true that both the imperial age samples and byzantine samples had a portion of Levantine individuals, but they were a minority, and I am not sure whether they alone are enough to explain the amount of Levantine ancestry G25 shows, and my reasonings at point 6) suggest that according to the same methodology used ( it is logically important to be consistent) the imperial Rome average still might not be enough, though it is a good question what G25 would show.
9) Anyway, the Daunian paper and the last paper about southern Italians found no affinities of modern south Italians towards MENA people compared to ancient Mycenaean samples. so I am just arguing to show that there is still a discrepancy (again) between this paper and G25 when it comes to Italians.
ds.PNG

----------


## Er Monnezza

> How come? I saw numerous North Italian-like samples after 1300AD. And the average is nearly the same? Try removing outliers there was Germanic outlier plotting with Dutch.


The samples that cluster closest to northern Italy are dated to 500 AD. However, the problem is that the samples from Rome are a clusterf*ck of different people and this is true for every period, even today.

These are all the Central Italian samples from AD 400 to 1650 divided by cluster.



```
C1:ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR130___AD_400___Coverage_78.50%,0.103579,0.150298,-0.037335,-0.063308,-0.001846,-0.021753,0.00047,-0.010846,0.003681,0.030069,0.008444,-0.001948,-0.003419,-0.002064,-0.00285,-0.009546,0.002868,0.002534,-0.000628,-0.000875,0.004118,0.001855,-0.013557,-0.001325,-0.00455
C2:ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR30___AD_500___Coverage_79.47%,0.101303,0.147252,-0.019987,-0.054264,0.013849,-0.024263,0.000235,-0.008077,0.0045,0.020228,0.000487,0.004196,-0.011447,-0.001514,-0.016558,-0.007027,0.00339,0.003041,0.005028,0.005628,0.001996,0.001237,0.003451,0.002289,-0.003233
C2:ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR32___AD_500___Coverage_53.38%,0.101303,0.155376,-0.007542,-0.044574,0.021542,-0.019243,-0.00376,-0.007154,0.002863,0.023326,-0.001137,0.003297,-0.008028,-0.006331,-0.002036,-0.004773,0.005867,-0.003294,-0.005782,0.003877,0.002121,-0.004081,0.003451,-0.011568,-0.000359
C2:ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR34___AD_500___Coverage_70.78%,0.101303,0.152329,-0.023381,-0.059432,0.007386,-0.023985,0.001175,-0.000692,-0.003272,0.018406,0.002923,0.005095,-0.002973,0.00289,-0.007465,-0.005834,0.007041,0.004054,-0.002011,0.000125,-0.006364,0.004081,0.003944,-0.003012,-0.001557
C2:ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR35___AD_500___Coverage_50.76%,0.103579,0.150298,-0.011314,-0.046189,0.013541,-0.020638,0.00047,-0.008769,0.006954,0.021868,0.00341,0.002847,0.000149,-0.002064,-0.010179,-0.001724,0.008605,0.0019,0.000754,0.000125,-0.008235,-0.00136,0.002711,-0.010965,0.002395
C2:ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR117___AD_500___Coverage_65.46%,0.104717,0.150298,-0.014708,-0.039406,0.011694,-0.015897,-0.00329,-0.01223,0.003272,0.014032,-0.00341,0.010341,-0.013082,0.003853,-0.013843,0.003845,0.004303,0.006841,0.003897,-0.014757,-0.005116,-0.000495,-0.005669,0.005543,-0.00491
C2:ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR133___AD_400___Coverage_82.28%,0.108132,0.14319,-0.023381,-0.056202,0.006463,-0.020638,0.00658,0.000462,-0.005727,0.026971,0.007307,0.005245,-0.006244,-0.001651,-0.010993,0.01127,0.021122,-0.003547,0.003645,-0.005628,-0.006613,-0.003586,-0.003204,0.005422,0.005868
C2:ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR134___AD_400___Coverage_71.86%,0.097888,0.151314,-0.028284,-0.059432,0.008309,-0.020917,-0.0047,-0.006461,-0.004295,0.019681,0.000162,0.004196,0.00446,0.003853,-0.006107,-0.004641,0.000913,-0.002534,-0.005154,0.00025,-0.004243,0.004204,-0.002958,0.001325,-0.002994
C2:ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR136___AD_400___Coverage_86.69%,0.108132,0.149283,-0.013199,-0.040698,0.011079,-0.011435,-0.001645,-0.006,-0.000818,0.018224,0.00747,0.001199,-0.003568,0.004679,-0.008007,-0.001856,0.00339,0,0.005782,-0.005753,0.000125,0.006059,0,0.000964,0.003952
C2:ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR137___AD_400___Coverage_76.65%,0.110408,0.15436,-0.018856,-0.052003,0.010463,-0.008367,0.00047,-0.008538,-0.006954,0.028793,0.005846,0.005845,-0.012785,-0.007019,-0.017372,0.003845,0.007432,0.000887,-0.000126,-0.007629,-0.009483,0.000247,-0.000616,-0.002289,-0.003113
C2:ITA_Rome_MA_RMPR54___AD_1355___Coverage_60.26%,0.113823,0.145221,-0.015839,-0.04199,0.018157,-0.013666,0.003055,-0.005538,0.008999,0.017677,-0.002761,0.004946,-0.005054,-0.000413,-0.004614,0.001856,0.004563,-0.003801,0.010182,-0.007504,0.000125,0.006677,0.001972,0.003253,-0.000718
C2:ITA_Rome_MA_RMPR56___AD_1355___Coverage_62.53%,0.106994,0.14319,-0.006788,-0.051357,0.014156,-0.016733,-0.00094,-0.008307,-0.003272,0.014032,0.001299,0.003897,-0.008176,0.00289,-0.017372,-0.000265,0.004172,-0.00266,0.00088,-0.008129,-0.000749,0,-0.005176,0.00735,0.003592
C2:ITA_Rome_MA_RMPR58___AD_1100___Coverage_81.82%,0.10927,0.150298,-0.010559,-0.046189,0.016003,-0.016455,-0.00141,-0.006461,0.001227,0.016401,-0.004872,0.001798,-0.013379,-0.006055,-0.001357,0.000796,0.004172,-0.002154,-0.001885,-0.003752,0.004367,0.005935,0.000616,0.005663,0.000718
C2:ITA_Rome_MA_RMPR64___AD_1110___Coverage_88.28%,0.105855,0.142174,-0.004148,-0.041344,0.009232,-0.02259,0.004465,-0.005769,-0.000409,0.01877,0.007145,0.008692,-0.005946,-0.006193,-0.006786,0.003182,-0.00326,0.003927,0.000754,-0.007754,0.000998,-0.001237,0.000493,0.003615,-0.002515
C2:ITA_Rome_MA_RMPR65___AD_1110___Coverage_88.58%,0.111547,0.147252,-0.012822,-0.047804,0.013233,-0.02008,0.00188,-0.004384,0.002045,0.020593,0.001137,0.004196,-0.008474,-0.001927,-0.011265,0.012994,0.016298,0.000253,-0.002891,-0.001126,-0.001248,0.00272,0.002342,0.007953,-0.002515
C2:ITA_Rome_MA_RMPR1290___AD_1348___Coverage_70.05%,0.108132,0.14319,-0.000377,-0.041667,0.017849,-0.015339,0.000705,-0.003461,0.007976,0.021868,0.006496,0.007943,-0.002825,-0.000138,-0.006107,0.00769,0.001825,-0.00228,-0.004777,-0.001876,-0.002745,0.00779,0.000986,0.010845,0.000599
C2:ITA_Tarquinia_EMA_TAQ003___AD_841___Coverage_61.68%,0.097888,0.144205,-0.00792,-0.027778,0.013541,-0.017012,0.001175,-0.012692,0.006749,0.018224,0.002761,0.006444,-0.001189,-0.003991,-0.000407,-0.005569,0.005998,0.00266,-0.001508,-0.001251,0.004617,0.002349,-0.006039,0.007109,0.007185
C2:ITA_Tivoli_Renaissance_RMPR973___AD_1650___Coverage_69.60%,0.111547,0.145221,-0.00264,-0.042636,0.010463,-0.018128,-0.0047,-0.002769,0.001432,0.021686,-0.005684,0.005095,-0.011596,-0.00523,-0.004614,0.005304,0.011083,0.004054,0.006662,-0.003752,0.001747,-0.001237,0.004314,0.006627,-0.004431
C3:ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR31___AD_412___Coverage_88.66%,0.137726,0.142174,0.066373,0.047158,0.048317,0.008367,0.00423,0.009923,0.008795,0.004009,0.002273,0.002098,-0.002973,-0.009221,0.016965,0.021612,0.008345,0.002787,0.007793,0.013757,0.008735,0.00779,-0.003944,0.013737,-0.004071
C3:ITA_Rome_MA_RMPR1286___AD_1430___Coverage_69.41%,0.135449,0.13405,0.058454,0.036822,0.033237,0.015618,0.00893,0.007846,-0.002045,-0.001093,-0.009256,0.005095,-0.011744,-0.013625,0.019272,0.018563,0.004955,0.000127,0.000251,0.006378,0.004367,0.010758,-0.007518,0.012652,-0.005987
C4:ITA_Marsiliana_Imperial_MAS003___AD_465___unknown_coverage,0.091058,0.150298,0.004903,-0.050711,0.036314,-0.030957,0.00141,-0.003923,0.028633,0.030069,0.00406,0.003897,-0.008771,-0.002202,-0.007736,-0.001591,0.011995,-0.008235,-0.008045,-0.003752,-0.011105,-0.001731,0.013804,0.001928,0.010179
C5:ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR105___AD_500___Coverage_72.43%,0.122929,0.146236,0.034695,-0.004522,0.040623,-0.00251,-0.00094,0.003231,0.01309,0.016766,0.00341,0.002698,-0.003865,-0.00055,0.003257,-0.004773,-0.012126,-0.006588,-0.000503,-0.001376,0.00025,0.001237,-0.003574,-0.006627,0.004191
C5:ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR108___AD_500___Coverage_70.45%,0.12862,0.140143,0.042615,0.006783,0.043085,0.00502,0.001175,-0.008769,0.003477,0.01385,0.000325,0.002398,-0.001189,-0.008533,0.00475,0.005171,-0.000391,0.000633,0.002765,0,0.001373,0.001237,-0.004437,0.002892,0.00012
C5:ITA_Rome_MA_RMPR61___AD_1355___Coverage_79.69%,0.122929,0.144205,0.037335,0.004845,0.035391,0.000558,0.001645,0.004615,0.016157,0.020957,-0.001299,0.005245,-0.000149,0.004954,-0.004886,-0.009679,-0.006258,0.0019,0.003897,-0.001251,0.000125,-0.006554,0.006286,0.005422,-0.001078
C5:ITA_Rome_Renaissance_RMPR1220___AD_1485___Coverage_66.47%,0.121791,0.145221,0.039598,0.01615,0.034776,0.012829,-0.00752,0.000923,0.007976,0.010752,-0.007795,0.004796,-0.011001,-0.007156,0.013165,0.001458,-0.002477,-0.002534,-0.000628,-0.002251,0.008235,-0.000618,0.004067,0.006627,-0.001796
C5:ITA_Rome_Renaissance_RMPR1221___AD_1485___Coverage_75.67%,0.121791,0.139128,0.026021,0.018088,0.0397,-0.004462,0.001645,0.005769,0.007567,0.01877,-0.005521,0.007194,-0.006392,-0.011285,0.004479,-0.002519,-0.004042,0.007601,0.001131,0.001626,0.000998,0.007419,-0.001109,0.000964,0.002754
C5:ITA_Rome_Renaissance_RMPR1224___AD_1485___Coverage_68.45%,0.129758,0.147252,0.04186,0.022287,0.043085,0.011713,0.00376,0.005538,0.007976,0.016583,-0.008607,0.008692,-0.010704,-0.006331,0.007736,0.005304,-0.001434,0.000633,0.001257,0.001126,0,0.000989,-0.000863,0.002651,-0.001078
C6:ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR106___AD_500___Coverage_68.57%,0.120652,0.136081,0.042992,0.03876,0.038161,0.005299,-0.000235,0.003231,0.002454,0.008383,-0.000487,0.007493,-0.009812,-0.008945,0.010993,0.00358,-0.002477,0.003041,0.014581,-0.006628,0.01148,0.008161,0.001356,0.005543,-0.005389
C6:ITA_Rome_MA_RMPR62___AD_1215___Coverage_83.66%,0.127482,0.137096,0.042992,0.027778,0.037545,0.003068,0.0047,0.007615,0.009408,0.004374,0.000974,0.00045,-0.007582,-0.011698,0.004207,0.007425,0.014733,0.004307,0.005531,-0.007379,0.009234,0.002102,-0.003821,0.007712,0.008023
C6:ITA_Rome_MA_RMPR1288___AD_1425___Coverage_70.88%,0.121791,0.13405,0.055814,0.025517,0.049855,0.006972,0.005875,0.007154,0.006136,0.000911,-0.009419,0.002098,-0.007879,0,0.008686,0.002784,0.004563,-0.00228,0.006411,0.006503,0.004367,0.007048,-0.001232,0.010483,-0.00479
C6:ITA_Rome_Renaissance_RMPR1219___AD_1442___Coverage_81.96%,0.122929,0.142174,0.046763,0.031654,0.036314,0.009761,0.004465,0.008077,0.008795,0.002005,-0.004222,0.001349,-0.015907,0.00812,0.007329,0.002519,0.001956,0.00038,0.004902,0.000375,0.007986,0.007914,0.007518,0.007953,-0.005029
C7:ITA_Chiusi_EMA_ETR003___AD_1073___Coverage_22.58%,0.111547,0.1635,0.008297,-0.026809,0.017542,-0.01757,0,-0.005307,0.000409,0.016583,0.005359,0.005695,-0.004757,-0.009771,0.003664,0.000928,-0.004042,0.009755,0.002011,0.003752,0.003993,-0.000618,-0.005053,-0.007953,0.007544
C7:ITA_Chiusi_EMA_ETR007___AD_862___Coverage_46.76%,0.119514,0.148267,0.005657,-0.012274,0.029852,-0.005578,-0.004935,-0.008077,0.003681,0.010023,0.002598,0.013038,-0.017988,0.00578,-0.000679,-0.000398,0.000391,-0.00114,-0.000503,0.011756,0.004367,-0.004451,0.00493,-0.001084,0.001317
C7:ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR36___AD_500___Coverage_74.85%,0.114961,0.15436,0.003017,-0.022287,0.022773,-0.008925,0.00658,-0.003692,0.001023,0.018224,0.008931,0.001649,-0.008474,-0.009909,-0.001357,0.002784,0.002347,-0.000633,0.002263,-0.003126,0.003119,0.001484,-0.001356,0.005061,-0.000958
C7:ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR107___AD_500___Coverage_80.22%,0.119514,0.149283,-0.004525,-0.031654,0.022773,-0.02008,-0.00893,-0.004615,0.010226,0.021322,-0.000325,0.005545,-0.00223,0.00578,-0.007872,-0.007425,0.009127,-0.00038,-0.000251,0.007504,-0.003993,-0.001607,0.010106,0.00012,-0.00012
C7:ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR118___AD_500___Coverage_51.56%,0.108132,0.145221,0.003771,-0.033915,0.020619,-0.022311,-0.002115,0.003461,0.001227,0.023144,-0.004872,-0.000899,-0.017096,-0.006055,0.000814,0.009016,0.020861,-0.00152,0.006788,0.006128,-0.003369,0.004451,0.001232,0.002771,0.001557
C7:ITA_Tarquinia_EMA_TAQ022___AD_1091___Coverage_51.91%,0.114961,0.150298,0.006411,-0.016473,0.026159,-0.020638,0.003995,-0.005077,0.006545,0.025149,0.00065,0.007943,-0.01665,-0.006055,-0.006107,0.00305,0.011604,-0.006588,0.007919,0.001251,0.004367,0.011005,-0.000986,-0.004097,0.001796
C7:ITA_Tivoli_Renaissance_RMPR969___AD_1650___Coverage_92.48%,0.113823,0.148267,0,-0.0323,0.01231,-0.012271,-0.000705,0.000231,0.006749,0.022962,0.006496,0.004796,-0.008771,-0.012386,-0.004479,0.011933,0.013821,0.004941,-0.000251,0.004377,-0.003369,0.001607,-0.001232,0.005663,-0.001437
C7:ITA_Tivoli_Renaissance_RMPR970___AD_1650___Coverage_49.54%,0.10927,0.14319,0.003394,-0.024225,0.023081,-0.000837,-0.00423,-0.004846,0.007772,0.015308,0.001137,0.001948,-0.007433,-0.005092,-0.00095,0.002387,0.015776,-0.006461,0.000126,0.004752,-0.005615,0.003462,0.000246,0.00494,0.001796
C8:ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR33___AD_500___Coverage_82.11%,0.124067,0.147252,0.024513,-0.012274,0.03416,-0.00251,0.00423,0.003,0.017589,0.026789,-0.003897,0,-0.012933,-0.003303,-0.005565,-0.005304,0.000652,0.00228,0.005656,-0.004252,-0.001872,0.002102,-0.005176,0.007591,-0.011855
C8:ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR109___AD_500___Coverage_42.34%,0.122929,0.147252,0.039598,-0.011628,0.039392,-0.004741,0.000235,0.009692,0.018203,0.02041,-0.002436,0.012889,-0.015758,-0.014726,0.005565,0.000796,0.012126,0.002534,0.006411,-0.004502,0.005615,0.007048,-0.003204,0.011206,-0.004431
C8:ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR110___AD_500___Coverage_54.33%,0.127482,0.141159,0.033564,-0.005814,0.033545,-0.006693,-0.000705,0.001846,0.019225,0.034078,0.003735,0.008842,-0.016799,-0.004954,0.00665,0.002254,0.009388,0.007475,0.010182,0.007629,-0.009733,0.004946,0.001232,-0.000964,0.003712
C8:ITA_Rome_MA_RMPR55___AD_1355___Coverage_80.21%,0.124067,0.137096,0.027907,-0.010982,0.033545,0.002789,-0.000705,0.001615,0.007567,0.022051,-0.000974,0.004046,-0.009812,0.001514,0.000407,0.008353,0.008866,-0.005954,0.010559,-0.001376,-0.008235,-0.001113,-0.00419,0.00723,0.001078
C9:ITA_Chiusi_EMA_ETR010___AD_950___Coverage_57.27%,0.121791,0.152329,0.008297,-0.035853,0.017234,-0.015618,-0.00047,0.000231,0.010226,0.03262,-0.002273,0.012589,-0.014123,-0.004817,-0.002579,-0.013922,-0.007041,0.005701,0.002137,-0.006628,-0.006364,-0.006059,0.006532,0.00964,-0.002515
C9:ITA_Chiusi_EMA_ETR013___AD_968___Coverage_55.68%,0.117238,0.150298,-0.000377,-0.037791,0.022158,-0.01506,0.00188,-0.003,0.008795,0.0277,-0.007307,0.014237,-0.013082,0.000826,-0.010315,-0.013524,-0.003912,0.000253,0.00264,-0.006503,-0.009858,-0.000866,-0.002958,0.007712,0.009221
C9:ITA_PoggioPelliccia_EMA_POP001___AD_861___Coverage_69.71%,0.112685,0.148267,0.009051,-0.029393,0.023389,-0.016733,-0.00705,-0.003,0.013703,0.031527,0.009094,0.004946,-0.013677,0,-0.002307,-0.001591,0.001956,-0.002027,0.006285,-0.002376,-0.000998,-0.002968,-0.001972,-0.005543,0.009221
C9:ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR120___AD_500___Coverage_44.44%,0.108132,0.153345,0.012068,-0.03876,0.016926,-0.011435,-0.0047,-0.010615,0.009613,0.023144,-0.000162,0.005845,-0.005054,0.000413,-0.009908,-0.004508,-0.011995,0.007095,0.001257,-0.000375,0.000374,0.010758,0.002095,-0.003976,0.003233
C9:ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR121___AD_500___Coverage_49.71%,0.112685,0.151314,0.000754,-0.031331,0.020927,-0.007251,0.00235,-0.003692,0.005727,0.024602,-0.004872,0.01079,-0.009663,0.001239,-0.013029,-0.006232,-0.008996,0,0.007668,-0.009004,0.001622,0,0.006039,0.000482,-0.011735
C9:ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR122___AD_500___Coverage_78.75%,0.102441,0.153345,0.000377,-0.044574,0.016003,-0.019801,-0.00235,0.000231,0.004909,0.031891,0.003085,0.006894,-0.013231,0.006331,-0.0095,-0.010077,-0.007432,-0.007601,0.003897,-0.005378,-0.001248,-0.005564,0.003574,0.005784,0.000239
C9:ITA_Rome_MA_RMPR52___AD_1355___Coverage_53.43%,0.102441,0.147252,-0.001508,-0.046189,0.017542,-0.01004,-0.00799,-0.007154,0.004704,0.027882,0.008444,0.000899,-0.009068,-0.007019,-0.01045,-0.016309,-0.008084,0.004561,0.003142,-0.012881,-0.001123,0.011994,-0.00037,-0.010122,0.002275
C9:ITA_Rome_MA_RMPR53___AD_1355___Coverage_75.73%,0.111547,0.147252,-0.011691,-0.041667,0.014156,-0.022032,-0.001645,-0.011538,0.009817,0.020957,0.001461,0.001049,-0.003122,0.008533,-0.011129,-0.0118,-0.009518,-0.00266,-0.000628,-0.005628,0.007986,-0.000124,0.002095,-0.004338,-0.002395
C9:ITA_Rome_MA_RMPR57___AD_1355___Coverage_72.46%,0.112685,0.150298,-0.012822,-0.031008,0.016311,-0.015897,-0.003525,0.000923,-0.000614,0.021868,0.001461,0.003447,-0.011298,-0.001651,-0.012079,-0.00769,-0.007562,-0.001014,0.003645,-0.003001,0.003494,0.003586,-0.003821,-0.002651,0.000718
C9:ITA_Rome_MA_RMPR59___AD_905___Coverage_79.06%,0.10927,0.148267,-0.003771,-0.037468,0.01908,-0.013108,0.002585,-0.003,0.003272,0.02041,0.001299,-0.004946,-0.003122,-0.000275,-0.013708,-0.017767,-0.010952,0.004307,-0.001885,-0.006128,0.005241,0.004699,-0.009737,-0.010483,0.001796
C9:ITA_Rome_MA_RMPR60___AD_905___Coverage_87.24%,0.10927,0.145221,0.00528,-0.028101,0.009848,-0.009761,0.00799,-0.005077,0.012067,0.010023,-0.003573,-0.001948,-0.00446,0.003028,-0.002443,-0.007027,-0.015255,0.002027,-0.00088,-0.004627,-0.00836,-0.00371,-0.002835,0.004699,0.000479
C9:ITA_Rome_MA_RMPR1283___AD_855___Coverage_69.04%,0.108132,0.152329,0,-0.036822,0.028313,-0.009203,0.00141,0.006692,0.01309,0.024966,-0.000162,-0.001199,-0.014866,-0.000688,-0.012622,0.002652,0.001956,-0.007855,0.001131,-0.0005,0.006239,0.003339,-0.003574,-0.000602,-0.00012
C9:ITA_Rome_MA_RMPR1285___AD_1015___Coverage_66.72%,0.112685,0.151314,0.008297,-0.030362,0.027082,-0.011156,-0.004465,-0.004154,0.020248,0.034989,-0.005034,0.004796,-0.015312,0.003991,0,-0.01074,-0.00691,0.005448,0.009176,-0.008504,0.002496,0.010881,-0.003821,-0.004217,-0.001197
C9:ITA_Rome_MA_RMPR1287___AD_1425___Coverage_71.54%,0.118376,0.155376,0.012445,-0.028747,0.031698,-0.01004,-0.002115,-0.002308,0.007567,0.028793,0.004222,0.008243,-0.014866,-0.001651,-0.007465,-0.008221,-0.004824,0.001774,0.004399,-0.011756,0.000873,0.00272,-0.002958,0.006748,0.000479
C9:ITA_Tarquinia_EMA_TAQ009___AD_978___Coverage_73.49%,0.108132,0.137096,0.001508,-0.037791,0.030467,-0.01506,-0.00047,0,0.011044,0.02041,0.007307,0.008542,-0.015461,0.007844,0.002036,-0.011005,-0.013299,0.006714,0.004399,-0.006003,-0.006239,0.007296,-0.004314,0.001325,-0.001676
C9:ITA_Tarquinia_EMA_TAQ011___AD_959___Coverage_66.23%,0.10927,0.157407,0.00792,-0.029393,0.027082,-0.011156,-0.002585,0.006231,0.007567,0.015672,0.006333,0.01154,-0.012339,-0.002202,-0.000271,-0.005436,-0.012126,-0.002534,-0.002514,-0.01038,0.000873,-0.002597,0.001232,-0.00494,0.007903
C10:ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR104___AD_631___Coverage_60.60%,0.121791,0.159438,0.035826,-0.056525,0.073244,-0.022869,-0.00564,0.001154,0.047245,0.085469,-0.002598,0.014087,-0.02438,-0.01679,-0.015608,-0.002254,0.018515,-0.006081,0.004651,-0.011506,-0.004492,-0.011623,-0.013557,-0.023738,0.004071
C11:ITA_Rome_MA_RMPR63___AD_990___Coverage_88.88%,0.120652,0.147252,0.039221,0.007752,0.049548,-0.006693,0.000235,-0.002538,0.028838,0.034625,-0.003735,0.006894,-0.014123,-0.010735,0.006243,0.007027,0.01017,0.00152,-0.005279,0.011005,-0.005241,-0.001113,-0.000986,0.001687,0.006826
C11:ITA_Rome_MA_RMPR1289___AD_1425___Coverage_57.18%,0.122929,0.142174,0.043369,0.006783,0.045239,-0.001673,-0.005875,0.002077,0.030679,0.034807,0,0.009741,-0.024232,-0.012799,0.009636,0.008221,0.013038,-0.006208,0.003645,0.008004,0.005241,0.00507,-0.005053,0.001084,-0.005748
C12:ITA_Chiusi_EMA_ETR014___AD_1006___Coverage_30.15%,0.1161,0.152329,-0.023759,-0.040375,0.014464,-0.022032,0.013161,0.005538,-0.006136,0.024602,0,0.002098,-0.009812,0.008257,-0.018729,0.003978,-0.000391,-0.000633,0.001257,0.007379,-0.012478,0.003586,0.004314,0.01458,-0.001796
```

PCA

----------


## ihype02

> The samples that cluster closest to northern Italy are dated to 500 AD. However, the problem is that the samples from Rome are a clusterf*ck of different people and this is true for every period, even today.
> 
> These are all the Central Italian samples from AD 400 to 1650 divided by cluster.
> 
> 
> 
> ```
> C1:ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR130___AD_400___Coverage_78.50%,0.103579,0.150298,-0.037335,-0.063308,-0.001846,-0.021753,0.00047,-0.010846,0.003681,0.030069,0.008444,-0.001948,-0.003419,-0.002064,-0.00285,-0.009546,0.002868,0.002534,-0.000628,-0.000875,0.004118,0.001855,-0.013557,-0.001325,-0.00455
> C2:ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR30___AD_500___Coverage_79.47%,0.101303,0.147252,-0.019987,-0.054264,0.013849,-0.024263,0.000235,-0.008077,0.0045,0.020228,0.000487,0.004196,-0.011447,-0.001514,-0.016558,-0.007027,0.00339,0.003041,0.005028,0.005628,0.001996,0.001237,0.003451,0.002289,-0.003233
> ...


Some few early Medieval samples do cluster with Northern Italians. But most of Northern Italian-like medieval samples are from late Middle Ages. I will check back when I have time for all this.

----------


## Jovialis

Can you please stop confounding the PCA with these made-up clusters? I have stated before, the paper itself has them divided by haplotype sharing, and they form as clusters.

Dodecad K12b may not be a good calculator for analyzing prehistoric source populations that fall outside of the modern genetic continuum of West Eurasians. But Dodecad is indeed a good calculator for looking at modern populations in Southern Europe that do. Of which these Italian samples fall into.

Also now that we see the difference between G25 and the southern Arc paper's model, we know G25 is also not a good calculator for analyzing prehistoric source populations, given the discrepancy.

That's exactly what I see when comparing the two calculators to the paper.

----------


## Dianatomia

> 


All empires die from within they say. First the city decayed, then it was sacked. Same is true for Constantinople. It was a mere shadow of its former self when it was conquered by the Ottomans.

----------


## Angela

> All empires die from within they say. First the city decayed, then it was sacked. Same is true for Constantinople. It was a mere shadow of its former self when it was conquered by the Ottomans.


This is my whole problem with using samples from a cosmopolitan center of an Empire to make conclusions about source populations for modern countries. That famous "tail" into the Levant in the case of Ancient Rome disappeared because the population steadily declined, and merchants, artisans, and the slaves they used left the city. 

Then, almost from Late Antiquity, to the early Middle Ages, to the 1400s and the Renaissance, when it had a "local" population drawn from who knows where, but probably some "true" locals, but also people from neighboring areas like Campania, the Abruzzo and Toscana, and numbering only 20-30,000 people, it was inundated by pilgrims from all over Christendom, and most particularly from all over Italy, who also, given the diseases prevalent in the city, consisting not only of the plague, but malaria and typhus, promptly died and left their bones to be analyzed as well. 

This is why, as I have said over and over again, you can't just analyze the autosomes of these samples. You have to do an analysis of burial context. Some bone found by who knows who by the side of the road and then left to molder in a museum just won't do. You absolutely must do isotope analysis as well, as was done in the excellent paper on the Lombards, to weed at least some of them out, although some "transients" will slip through. You should also do a uniparental analysis.

Most importantly, it's madness to take averages of such disparate samples. It will completely distort any analysis you're trying to do.

----------


## Angela

> The samples that cluster closest to northern Italy are dated to 500 AD. However, the problem is that the samples from Rome are a clusterf*ck of different people and this is true for every period, even today.
> 
> These are all the Central Italian samples from AD 400 to 1650 divided by cluster.
> 
> 
> 
> ```
> C1:ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR130___AD_400___Coverage_78.50%,0.103579,0.150298,-0.037335,-0.063308,-0.001846,-0.021753,0.00047,-0.010846,0.003681,0.030069,0.008444,-0.001948,-0.003419,-0.002064,-0.00285,-0.009546,0.002868,0.002534,-0.000628,-0.000875,0.004118,0.001855,-0.013557,-0.001325,-0.00455
> C2:ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR30___AD_500___Coverage_79.47%,0.101303,0.147252,-0.019987,-0.054264,0.013849,-0.024263,0.000235,-0.008077,0.0045,0.020228,0.000487,0.004196,-0.011447,-0.001514,-0.016558,-0.007027,0.00339,0.003041,0.005028,0.005628,0.001996,0.001237,0.003451,0.002289,-0.003233
> ...


None of these samples land in Toscana or Emilia, despite your previous calculations. Instead, as the paper stated, the C6 samples cover the area from CENTRAL Italy to Southern Italy. Of course, there are also samples from more northern parts of Italy.

In addition, just looking at your PCA and assuming its accuracy for the moment, how could you possibly think using averages is at all helpful? It's useless and leads to inaccurate conclusions. I might even say it's misinformation.

----------


## Angela

> @Er Monnezza
> 
> 
> 1) the wikipedia page (which just reports what is said in the sources linked) says clearly that the language spoken around Rome belonged to the southern group, hence it was NOT part of the central group, and indeed was "much" closer to Neapolitan than to dialects of the central group. Honestly, you're just using sophistry if you're going to debate such a point.
> 2)Look at the graph from the study I have posted: _also_ Turkey_IA and antiquity centroid is above 20%.
> 3) The medieval samples from Rome, minus the north Italian-like individuals, clustuer around south Italians (who, I believe, are Sicilian samples), as it has been said many times. 
> 4)The late antiquity samples are more southern on average than medieval Rome (which remains a better proxy for south Italy),with a good chunk of the samples actually southern of south Italians, I wonder how is it possible that the average still comes out as significantly more northern than southern Italians then on G25 and dodecad12.
> 5) Anyway, you must keep in mind that the important point is that G25 shows quite lower levels of Levant_N compared to the results shown in this paper, so even if G25 showed the same levels of Levant_N in Italians as shown by this paper, there would still be the discrepancy of why G25 lowers it in everybody else except Italians.
> 6) Let's follow the line of argument that somehow Rome_medievalmodern and Rome_antiquity can't be used to approximate south Italians (though it is wrong): if we take it that Rome medieval on G25 shows an average of 5% Levant_N, but according to this study it is around 8%, then we can infer that if Campanians and Sicilians were to be analysed with the same methodology they'd have a centroid/average at 16%, which is roughly the centroid for imperial Rome, but since southern Italians cluster quite northern to the centroid of imperial Rome, there must have been another northern gene flow that pulled them to their position, which means that they _must have started with a higher level of Levant_N_ than that of the average for imperial Rome: do you get why it is nonsensical?
> ...


If, after looking at Figure S20, people don't get why samples from port cities are problematic for historical analysis, as was also shown by the paper on Carthaginian port cities, and why burial contexts are important, then they just choose not to understand because of their own bizarre agendas.

----------


## Poxy

I have an off-topic question, why does Piedmont plot further south than Liguria? I was a little surprised to see the PCA.

----------


## Jovialis

> I have an off-topic question, why does Piedmont plot further south than Liguria? I was a little surprised to see the PCA.


It is only a single Ligurian sample, so it is not really representative of the population.

----------


## Poxy

> It is only a single Ligurian sample, so it is not really representative of the population.


I didn't know there was only one Ligurian sample. Thanks for the reply.

----------


## Angela

> I have an off-topic question, why does Piedmont plot further south than Liguria? I was a little surprised to see the PCA.


The one sample labeled Liguria is from Genova. The so-called Piedmont sample is actually from an area in the Apennines "recently" incorporated by Piemonte but actually mountain Ligure in origin, as can be seen by the fact that they speak a Ligurian dialect, the towns all have the name "Ligure" in them, and the road used by these villages led to Genova.

Autosomally, I think they're a bit closer to eastern Liguria than western Liguria, although not by much, and they border Piacenza and far western Emilia as well. 

So far as I know there "is" no official Emilia sample, so they've basically "guessed".

----------


## Poxy

> The one sample labeled Liguria is from Genova. The so-called Piedmont sample is actually from an area in the Apennines "recently" incorporated by Piemonte but actually mountain Ligure in origin, as can be seen by the fact that they speak a Ligurian dialect, the towns all have the name "Ligure" in them, and the road used by these villages led to Genova.
> 
> Autosomally, I think they're a bit closer to eastern Liguria than western Liguria, although not by much, and they border Piacenza and far western Emilia as well. 
> 
> So far as I know there "is" no official Emilia sample, so they've basically "guessed".


So the sample named Piedmont is actually the same as the one from Liguria, right? I didn't know that the sample came from the tip of the Apennine Mountains. Thank you for the very interesting information. I wonder what other regions of Piedmont are like.

----------


## Dianatomia

> This is my whole problem with using samples from a cosmopolitan center of an Empire to make conclusions about source populations for modern countries. That famous "tail" into the Levant in the case of Ancient Rome disappeared because the population steadily declined, and merchants, artisans, and the slaves they used left the city.


I think most people left the city, including the people who belonged to the Levant. But they were probably dissolved in Italy. Some elites must have migrated to Constantinople.

----------


## ihype02

> I think most people left the city, including the people who belonged to the Levant. But they were probably dissolved in Italy. Some elites must have migrated to Constantinople.


I mean during the *exact* time of the rise and fall of Rome, Central Italy and Southern Italy shifted towards substantially *exactly* towards West Asia. And Rome having over 1.5M inhabitants and other cities of Italy similar to Rome were populated heavily too for ancient standards. (like the sample town of Pompeii having 12,000 - 20,000 inhabitants)
That would be such a coincidence if the vast majority of them just left. 

Merchants were a small fractions of the overall population. You must consider most of those people that plot near the Levant or Anatolia, slaves or soldiers. And even during the fall of Rome many or most of merchants lost their wealth.

----------


## Angela

> So the sample named Piedmont is actually the same as the one from Liguria, right? I didn't know that the sample came from the tip of the Apennine Mountains. Thank you for the very interesting information. I wonder what other regions of Piedmont are like.


Sorry, no. There is one sample labeled Liguria which is from Genova, the capital city of Liguria.

Then there are a number of samples from an isolated area in the Apennines which are politically part of Piedmont, and are so labeled, but whose people are genetically, linguistically, and culturally Ligurian. They are slightly south of the one sample from Genova.

It's confusing, I know. 

As for the rest of Piemonte, there are French like areas like Valle d'Aosta among others, but within Torino itself locals are almost outnumbered by people from other parts of Italy, especially from the south, who came to work in the Fiat factories, among other places.

----------


## Angela

> I mean during the *exact* time of the rise and fall of Rome, Central Italy and Southern Italy shifted towards substantially *exactly* towards West Asia. And Rome having over 1.5M inhabitants and other cities of Italy similar to Rome were populated heavily too for ancient standards. (like the sample town of Pompeii having 12,000 - 20,000 inhabitants)
> That would be such a coincidence if the vast majority of them just left. 
> 
> Merchants were a small fractions of the overall population. You must consider most of those people that plot near the Levant or Anatolia, slaves or soldiers. And even during the fall of Rome many or most of merchants lost their wealth.


Those who had the means left, many for Constantinople. Those who didn't mostly died. That's true for all the major and minor urban centers not just of Italy but of all of western Europe. That's what happens to the inhabitants of urban centers when their civilization crumbles around them.

You're aware the city was sacked, yes? You know what that means? It means put to the torch. Statues and plinths toppled. Aqueducts closed. Men killed, women raped and killed. Even if you survived that, how were you to live? What were you to eat? City dwellers weren't farmers. They were, yes, merchants and artisans of all sorts, and laborers, or slaves. This was the same story for almost all of the cities not just of Italy but of all western Europe.

Cities don't feed themselves; they exist on food brought in from the countryside, or imported from further afield,like Egypt. However, the Germanic invasions almost completely disrupted trade. The roads weren't kept up, and where passable were crawling with brigands. How was food to get to the city, what food there was, because a change in the climate drastically reduced crop yields, and the granaries of Egypt were a distant memory.

Of course we mustn't forget the plague, and the re-emergent malaria, because no one was keeping up the draining of the swamps, and on and on and on.

Then, of course, the Byzantines decided they wanted to reconquer Italy for the Empire, and what wasn't already destroyed, was destroyed during the war between the Goths and the Byzantines, with Rome being sacked a further five times. 

Italy suffered a drastic reduction in population, quality of life, etc. but so did the rest of western Europe.

The only people who survived were people who lived on fortified farms which would become the nucleus for feudalism, or in small villages which might hold local markets, or in the hills and mountains. 

Honestly, before pontificating it would be nice if you picked up a history book. 

I'd start with "The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization" by Bryan Ward Perkins, one of the books highly recommended by Razib Khan, or a history of The Gothic Wars.

Excerpts from the Ward-Perkins book are available through Google Books:
https://www.google.com/books/edition...9bm268sC?hl=en

----------


## Poxy

> Sorry, no. There is one sample labeled Liguria which is from Genova, the capital city of Liguria.
> Then there are a number of samples from an isolated area in the Apennines which are politically part of Piedmont, and are so labeled, but whose people are genetically, linguistically, and culturally Ligurian. They are slightly south of the one sample from Genova.
> It's confusing, I know. 
> As for the rest of Piemonte, there are French like areas like Valle d'Aosta among others, but within Torino itself locals are almost outnumbered by people from other parts of Italy, especially from the south, who came to work in the Fiat factories, among other places.


It's complicated, but I believe I understand what you mean. I think Piedmont, like the rest of Italy clearly needs more additional samples from other regions Thank you for your kind explanation.

----------


## Francesco

> I mean during the *exact* time of the rise and fall of Rome, Central Italy and Southern Italy shifted towards substantially *exactly* towards West Asia. And Rome having over 1.5M inhabitants and other cities of Italy similar to Rome were populated heavily too for ancient standards. (like the sample town of Pompeii having 12,000 - 20,000 inhabitants)
> That would be such a coincidence if the vast majority of them just left. 
> 
> Merchants were a small fractions of the overall population. You must consider most of those people that plot near the Levant or Anatolia, slaves or soldiers. And even during the fall of Rome many or most of merchants lost their wealth.


The italian cline was already there during the Iron Age (though it could have been slightly augmented by later movements from Anatolia. 

Surely there were not anatolian soldiers in Italy, since Italy was a no go area for any army since the republic, and surely for the alae of auxiliary were an anatolian would have served. You wouldn't have found any auxiliary unit in Imperial Italy. 

The only military units stationed in Italy in the Imperial age were, as far as I know, the cohorts of the pretoriani guard in Rome and some alae of the equites augusti.

----------


## Er Monnezza

> 1) the wikipedia page (which just reports what is said in the sources linked) says clearly that the language spoken around Rome belonged to the southern group, hence it was NOT part of the central group, and indeed was "much" closer to Neapolitan than to dialects of the central group. Honestly, you're just using sophistry if you're going to debate such a point.


The Wikipedia page does not say that, read more:

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetto_romanesco#Storia




> ITA: Il volgare che si parlava a Roma nel Medioevo era assai più vicino agli altri dialetti laziali o al napoletano che al fiorentino.
> 
> ENG: The vernacular that was spoken in Rome in the Middle Ages was much closer to the other dialects of Lazio or Neapolitan than to Florentine.


Perhaps I did not explain myself well. Medieval Romanesco had Samnite metaphony as the Campanian dialects also do, this brings it closer to the Neapolitan group, but not part of said group.

Samnite metaphony is typical of a large part of central and southern Italy. It involves diphthongation, generally resulting in /ié/, /uó/ (letto > lietto "bed", occhio > uocchio "eye"). Rocca di Papa, Nemi and Velletri also present Samnite metaphony. Palestrina, Genazzano and Valmontone have diphthongated Samnite metaphony; Capranica and Cave have monophthongated Samnite metaphony.



This is a Medieval Romanesco text:

http://bepi1949.altervista.org/cronica/cronica1.html




> Quanno Sciarra, lo franco capitanio, sappe che la iente era ionta, non se dubitao niente, anco se armao e fece sonare la campana a stormo. Mesa notte era e forza lo primo suonno. Uno vanno con tromme mannao per la terra, che onne perzona fosse armata, ca·lli nemici erano entrati in Puortica, e che traiessino a Campituoglio. La iente che dormiva subitamente se sviglia. Ciascuno prenne arme. Coscia abbe nome lo vannitore. La campana sonava terribilemente. La iente trasse a Campituoglio. Là traie la baronia e·lli populari. Lo buono capitanio parlao e disse ca venuti erano per entrare in Roma, per mozzare le zinne delli pietti delle donne de Roma.


The dialect spoken by elders in Rocca di Papa (Castelli Romani), 27 km southeast of Rome, is extremely similar to medieval Romanesco. Again, it has very southern features, but I think it is a stretch to ascribe it directly to the southern group.

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialet...astelli_Romani




> ITA: I dialetti dei Castelli romani fanno parte della categoria di dialetti appartenenti alla famiglia marchigiana-umbro-laziale, detta italo-mediana. Inoltre, presentano spesso un caratteristico fenomeno di metafonia (metafonia sannita) che li distingue dai dialetti laziali e li accosta da questo punto di vista ai dialetti meridionali.
> 
> ENG: The dialects of the Castelli Romani belong to the category of dialects belonging to the Marche-Umbro-Latium family, called Central-Italian. In addition, they often exhibit a characteristic phenomenon of metaphony (Samnite metaphony), which distinguishes them from the dialects of Latium and likens them in this respect to southern dialects.


Some poems/stories in the local dialect:




> Chi etè su viecchiu che ranca a zeccà corsu nnazzica a scegnelu straccu ruzzunitu llogratu? So io? Che cazzu dici ma io ieri, proprio ieri currèo, zompèo, giochèo ngima a l’arbori, me rampichèo decco e dello schizzeo. Come passa u tiempu come te scuia, come te prellessa. Quandu si giovine e a cresta è ngrillata nte pò capacità che a viecchiaia è ngomingiata.





> U tiempu cure lestu. Ieri riazzu ciucu e maddomà già viécchiu. Me metto pò da parte chètu giochènno coll’amici a carte, e attuórno attuórno scèrno
> ’a neve dell’immèrno calàne sopre a ’a vita.





> ’N pecoraro d’a Rocca fece po’ la occa storta… Co’tutta chella che m’ajo magnatu tutti li giorni da che so’ natu caru compa’ dào che domanne! Senza menu… tenaràjo e budella tutte bianche!

----------


## Pax Augusta

> The one sample labeled Liguria is from Genova. The so-called Piedmont sample is actually from an area in the Apennines "recently" incorporated by Piemonte but actually mountain Ligure in origin, as can be seen by the fact that they speak a Ligurian dialect, the towns all have the name "Ligure" in them, and the road used by these villages led to Genova.
> 
> Autosomally, I think they're a bit closer to eastern Liguria than western Liguria, although not by much, and they border Piacenza and far western Emilia as well. 
> 
> So far as I know there "is" no official Emilia sample, so they've basically "guessed".



The sample labelled as Liguria comes from an unknown location in Liguria, as far as I know. I could not find any information. The only Ligurian area sampled (autosomal DNA) before Raveane 2019 is Savona, western Liguria. So, it cannot be excluded that it came from there.

In any case, it is clear that one alone cannot represent an average. Both because there is individual variation and because of the complex geography of Liguria, which has many isolated valleys, even a piece of the Alps and many seaside locations.





> So the sample named Piedmont is actually the same as the one from Liguria, right? I didn't know that the sample came from the tip of the Apennine Mountains. Thank you for the very interesting information. I wonder what other regions of Piedmont are like.


The sample named Piedmont on G25 is most likely from Val Borbera. It's Piedmont but being it's area linguistically transitional from Ligurian language to Piedmontese is not really representative of Piedmont. The problem was created by Raveane and Capelli (or Cappelli?) who only released a small part of the samples from northern Italy (and did not release samples from Emilia, Piedmont and just one from Liguria). To solve the problem Davidski a few days later uploaded to the G25 the only set of samples that had previously been released from Piedmont, namely the Val Borbera set. 

Based on the private results I have seen, there are indeed 100 per cent Piedmontese (from eastern Piedmont, usually) who have results like that sample from Val Borbera, and others who go further north genetically and come closer to results more typical of the linguistically Italian northern Alps.

In northern Italy everywhere there is genetically the dichotomy between the Alps and the Po Valley (with the Apennines possibly in between, depending on the area). With those in the Po Valley being underrepresented both in studies and consequently in amateur calculators.





> As for the rest of Piemonte, there are French like areas like Valle d'Aosta among others, but *within Torino itself locals are almost outnumbered by people from other parts of Italy,* especially from the south, who came to work in the Fiat factories, among other places.



This is now true for almost the whole of northern and central Italy. But also southern Italy is changing demographically.





> It's complicated, but I believe I understand what you mean. I think Piedmont, like the rest of Italy clearly needs more additional samples from other regions Thank you for your kind explanation.



Geneticists, and particularly Italian ones, have never shown much capacity for accuracy, unfortunately. I don't think we will have much more accurate samples in the future than we do today. More samples but not necessarily more accurate.

----------


## Er Monnezza

> 3) The medieval samples from Rome, minus the north Italian-like individuals, clustuer around south Italians (who, I believe, are Sicilian samples), as it has been said many times.


If you read toward the end of post #55, I practically said the same thing. However, to what extent is it fair to exclude from the average those who plot with northern Italy and leave those who plot with Italian Jews?

(North European outliers are excluded from PCA below)






> 4)The late antiquity samples are more southern on average than medieval Rome (which remains a better proxy for south Italy),with a good chunk of the samples actually southern of south Italians, I wonder how is it possible that the average still comes out as significantly more northern than southern Italians then on G25 and dodecad12.


This is the full list of Central Italian samples dated from 400 to 500 AD.



```
ITA_Marsiliana_Imperial:MAS003___AD_465___unknown_coverage,0.091058,0.150298,0.004903,-0.050711,0.036314,-0.030957,0.00141,-0.003923,0.028633,0.030069,0.00406,0.003897,-0.008771,-0.002202,-0.007736,-0.001591,0.011995,-0.008235,-0.008045,-0.003752,-0.011105,-0.001731,0.013804,0.001928,0.010179
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR30___AD_500___Coverage_79.47%,0.101303,0.147252,-0.019987,-0.054264,0.013849,-0.024263,0.000235,-0.008077,0.0045,0.020228,0.000487,0.004196,-0.011447,-0.001514,-0.016558,-0.007027,0.00339,0.003041,0.005028,0.005628,0.001996,0.001237,0.003451,0.002289,-0.003233
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR31___AD_412___Coverage_88.66%,0.137726,0.142174,0.066373,0.047158,0.048317,0.008367,0.00423,0.009923,0.008795,0.004009,0.002273,0.002098,-0.002973,-0.009221,0.016965,0.021612,0.008345,0.002787,0.007793,0.013757,0.008735,0.00779,-0.003944,0.013737,-0.004071
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR32___AD_500___Coverage_53.38%,0.101303,0.155376,-0.007542,-0.044574,0.021542,-0.019243,-0.00376,-0.007154,0.002863,0.023326,-0.001137,0.003297,-0.008028,-0.006331,-0.002036,-0.004773,0.005867,-0.003294,-0.005782,0.003877,0.002121,-0.004081,0.003451,-0.011568,-0.000359
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR33___AD_500___Coverage_82.11%,0.124067,0.147252,0.024513,-0.012274,0.03416,-0.00251,0.00423,0.003,0.017589,0.026789,-0.003897,0,-0.012933,-0.003303,-0.005565,-0.005304,0.000652,0.00228,0.005656,-0.004252,-0.001872,0.002102,-0.005176,0.007591,-0.011855
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR34___AD_500___Coverage_70.78%,0.101303,0.152329,-0.023381,-0.059432,0.007386,-0.023985,0.001175,-0.000692,-0.003272,0.018406,0.002923,0.005095,-0.002973,0.00289,-0.007465,-0.005834,0.007041,0.004054,-0.002011,0.000125,-0.006364,0.004081,0.003944,-0.003012,-0.001557
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR35___AD_500___Coverage_50.76%,0.103579,0.150298,-0.011314,-0.046189,0.013541,-0.020638,0.00047,-0.008769,0.006954,0.021868,0.00341,0.002847,0.000149,-0.002064,-0.010179,-0.001724,0.008605,0.0019,0.000754,0.000125,-0.008235,-0.00136,0.002711,-0.010965,0.002395
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR36___AD_500___Coverage_74.85%,0.114961,0.15436,0.003017,-0.022287,0.022773,-0.008925,0.00658,-0.003692,0.001023,0.018224,0.008931,0.001649,-0.008474,-0.009909,-0.001357,0.002784,0.002347,-0.000633,0.002263,-0.003126,0.003119,0.001484,-0.001356,0.005061,-0.000958
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR105___AD_500___Coverage_72.43%,0.122929,0.146236,0.034695,-0.004522,0.040623,-0.00251,-0.00094,0.003231,0.01309,0.016766,0.00341,0.002698,-0.003865,-0.00055,0.003257,-0.004773,-0.012126,-0.006588,-0.000503,-0.001376,0.00025,0.001237,-0.003574,-0.006627,0.004191
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR106___AD_500___Coverage_68.57%,0.120652,0.136081,0.042992,0.03876,0.038161,0.005299,-0.000235,0.003231,0.002454,0.008383,-0.000487,0.007493,-0.009812,-0.008945,0.010993,0.00358,-0.002477,0.003041,0.014581,-0.006628,0.01148,0.008161,0.001356,0.005543,-0.005389
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR107___AD_500___Coverage_80.22%,0.119514,0.149283,-0.004525,-0.031654,0.022773,-0.02008,-0.00893,-0.004615,0.010226,0.021322,-0.000325,0.005545,-0.00223,0.00578,-0.007872,-0.007425,0.009127,-0.00038,-0.000251,0.007504,-0.003993,-0.001607,0.010106,0.00012,-0.00012
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR108___AD_500___Coverage_70.45%,0.12862,0.140143,0.042615,0.006783,0.043085,0.00502,0.001175,-0.008769,0.003477,0.01385,0.000325,0.002398,-0.001189,-0.008533,0.00475,0.005171,-0.000391,0.000633,0.002765,0,0.001373,0.001237,-0.004437,0.002892,0.00012
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR109___AD_500___Coverage_42.34%,0.122929,0.147252,0.039598,-0.011628,0.039392,-0.004741,0.000235,0.009692,0.018203,0.02041,-0.002436,0.012889,-0.015758,-0.014726,0.005565,0.000796,0.012126,0.002534,0.006411,-0.004502,0.005615,0.007048,-0.003204,0.011206,-0.004431
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR110___AD_500___Coverage_54.33%,0.127482,0.141159,0.033564,-0.005814,0.033545,-0.006693,-0.000705,0.001846,0.019225,0.034078,0.003735,0.008842,-0.016799,-0.004954,0.00665,0.002254,0.009388,0.007475,0.010182,0.007629,-0.009733,0.004946,0.001232,-0.000964,0.003712
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR117___AD_500___Coverage_65.46%,0.104717,0.150298,-0.014708,-0.039406,0.011694,-0.015897,-0.00329,-0.01223,0.003272,0.014032,-0.00341,0.010341,-0.013082,0.003853,-0.013843,0.003845,0.004303,0.006841,0.003897,-0.014757,-0.005116,-0.000495,-0.005669,0.005543,-0.00491
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR118___AD_500___Coverage_51.56%,0.108132,0.145221,0.003771,-0.033915,0.020619,-0.022311,-0.002115,0.003461,0.001227,0.023144,-0.004872,-0.000899,-0.017096,-0.006055,0.000814,0.009016,0.020861,-0.00152,0.006788,0.006128,-0.003369,0.004451,0.001232,0.002771,0.001557
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR120___AD_500___Coverage_44.44%,0.108132,0.153345,0.012068,-0.03876,0.016926,-0.011435,-0.0047,-0.010615,0.009613,0.023144,-0.000162,0.005845,-0.005054,0.000413,-0.009908,-0.004508,-0.011995,0.007095,0.001257,-0.000375,0.000374,0.010758,0.002095,-0.003976,0.003233
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR121___AD_500___Coverage_49.71%,0.112685,0.151314,0.000754,-0.031331,0.020927,-0.007251,0.00235,-0.003692,0.005727,0.024602,-0.004872,0.01079,-0.009663,0.001239,-0.013029,-0.006232,-0.008996,0,0.007668,-0.009004,0.001622,0,0.006039,0.000482,-0.011735
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR122___AD_500___Coverage_78.75%,0.102441,0.153345,0.000377,-0.044574,0.016003,-0.019801,-0.00235,0.000231,0.004909,0.031891,0.003085,0.006894,-0.013231,0.006331,-0.0095,-0.010077,-0.007432,-0.007601,0.003897,-0.005378,-0.001248,-0.005564,0.003574,0.005784,0.000239
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR130___AD_400___Coverage_78.50%,0.103579,0.150298,-0.037335,-0.063308,-0.001846,-0.021753,0.00047,-0.010846,0.003681,0.030069,0.008444,-0.001948,-0.003419,-0.002064,-0.00285,-0.009546,0.002868,0.002534,-0.000628,-0.000875,0.004118,0.001855,-0.013557,-0.001325,-0.00455
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR133___AD_400___Coverage_82.28%,0.108132,0.14319,-0.023381,-0.056202,0.006463,-0.020638,0.00658,0.000462,-0.005727,0.026971,0.007307,0.005245,-0.006244,-0.001651,-0.010993,0.01127,0.021122,-0.003547,0.003645,-0.005628,-0.006613,-0.003586,-0.003204,0.005422,0.005868
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR134___AD_400___Coverage_71.86%,0.097888,0.151314,-0.028284,-0.059432,0.008309,-0.020917,-0.0047,-0.006461,-0.004295,0.019681,0.000162,0.004196,0.00446,0.003853,-0.006107,-0.004641,0.000913,-0.002534,-0.005154,0.00025,-0.004243,0.004204,-0.002958,0.001325,-0.002994
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR136___AD_400___Coverage_86.69%,0.108132,0.149283,-0.013199,-0.040698,0.011079,-0.011435,-0.001645,-0.006,-0.000818,0.018224,0.00747,0.001199,-0.003568,0.004679,-0.008007,-0.001856,0.00339,0,0.005782,-0.005753,0.000125,0.006059,0,0.000964,0.003952
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR137___AD_400___Coverage_76.65%,0.110408,0.15436,-0.018856,-0.052003,0.010463,-0.008367,0.00047,-0.008538,-0.006954,0.028793,0.005846,0.005845,-0.012785,-0.007019,-0.017372,0.003845,0.007432,0.000887,-0.000126,-0.007629,-0.009483,0.000247,-0.000616,-0.002289,-0.003113
```

This is the average, regardless of outliers.



```
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity,0.11173633,0.14839421,0.004447,-0.029594875,0.022337417,-0.012736,-0.00015666667,-0.0028748333,0.0060164583,0.021594958,0.0016779167,0.0046021667,-0.007699375,-0.002500125,-0.0042242917,-0.00046408333,0.0040147917,0.00044875,0.0027444583,-0.0011671667,-0.0012685833,0.0020197083,0.00022083333,0.0013305,-0.000992875

Distance to:    ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity
0.01011835    Italian_Marche
0.01124488    Italian_Umbria
0.01147578    Italian_Abruzzo
0.01344580    Italian_Lazio
0.01413269    Italian_Molise
0.01710765    Italian_Tuscany
0.01782361    Italian_Apulia
0.01947895    Italian_Basilicata
```

This is the average composed of samples clustering south of Tuscany, including those clustering with Jews.



```
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_(Southern_Profile),0.10572159,0.15065671,-0.010448353,-0.04522,0.015224412,-0.018111529,-0.00069117647,-0.0053617647,0.0036212941,0.023176118,0.0021968824,0.0043549412,-0.0071444706,-0.00057476471,-0.0084704706,-0.0020278824,0.0047551765,-0.000081882353,0.0011165882,-0.00192,-0.0027231765,0.00093835294,0.0013557059,-0.000085058824,-0.00035917647

Distance to:    ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_(Southern_Profile)
0.00822864    Italian_Campania
0.01264317    Italian_Basilicata
0.01278914    Italian_Calabria
0.01313426    Italian_Apulia
0.01412605    Greek_Deep_Mani
0.01683126    Sicilian_East
0.01870609    Italian_Abruzzo
0.01963122    Greek_Crete
```

This is the average composed of samples that fall inside of Italian variation, but excluding Jews.



```
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_(Italian_Profile),0.11443013,0.148335,0.011389067,-0.020672,0.024845533,-0.010337533,-0.00072066667,-0.0021229333,0.0070766,0.020653467,0.0008768,0.0045759333,-0.0084439333,-0.0019358,-0.0028411333,-0.00023873333,0.0019906,0.0007602,0.0042654667,-0.00077526667,-0.00038266667,0.0022587333,0.00080513333,0.00089973333,-0.0013412

Distance to:    ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_(Italian_Profile)
0.00884804    Italian_Tuscany
0.01161248    Italian_Marche
0.01418676    Italian_Umbria
0.01744924    Italian_Piedmont
0.01899658    Greek_Thessaly
0.01982194    Italian_Lazio
```




> 6) Let's follow the line of argument that somehow Rome_medievalmodern and Rome_antiquity can't be used to approximate south Italians (though it is wrong)


Their overall AVERAGES cannot represent southern Italy, but if you extrapolate various clusters within them, they can.




> if we take it that Rome medieval on G25 shows an average of 5% Levant_N, but according to this study it is around 8%, then we can infer that if Campanians and Sicilians were to be analysed with the same methodology they'd have a centroid/average at 16%, which is roughly the centroid for imperial Rome


I honestly don't even know where you are getting the percentages of the paper from. In the Excel file I can't find them. Also, it is not very clear which samples they used and which they did not for the percentages, and we cannot know how the actual Campanians and Sicilians would behave with their methods or what percentage they would get.




> but since southern Italians cluster quite northern to the centroid of imperial Rome, there must have been another northern gene flow that pulled them to their position, which means that they must have started with a higher level of Levant_N than that of the average for imperial Rome: do you get why it is nonsensical?


It is very possible that Campania, on average, had higher Levant_PPNB in the Imperial period than it does now, probably in line with the Imperial Roman average or slightly less.




> 7)Notice that according to the data in the paper Anatolia experience and decrease in Levant_N ancestry from the BA to the byzantine period, so the suggestion that western Anatolia overall experienced and increase in levantine ancestry compared to antiquity is debunked.


Are we looking at the same paper? Mugla in the Byzantine period has increased Levant_PPNB than Mugla in the Archaic Greek period.



```
Sample,CHG, EHG,Levant_PPN, SRB_Iron_Gates_HG, TUR_Marmara_Barcın_N
TUR_Aegean_Muğla_Değirmendere_Anc,31.316667,2.6916667,9.7166667,0.13333333,56.15
TUR_Aegean_Muğla_Camandras_Dalagöz_Rom,37.45,1.05,17.45,1.15,42.875
TUR_Aegean_Muğla_Samantaş_Byz,36.5,3.3,17.571429,1.0571429,41.6
TUR_Aegean_Muğla_Stratonikeia_Byz,38.208333,3.9916667,19.058333,0.86666667,37.891667
TUR_Aegean_Muğla_Çapalıbağ_Mdv,50.933333,12.833333,22.766667,0.975,12.483333
```




> 9) Anyway, the Daunian paper and the last paper about southern Italians found no affinities of modern south Italians towards MENA people compared to ancient Mycenaean samples. so I am just arguing to show that there is still a discrepancy (again) between this paper and G25 when it comes to Italians.


It is there though, and this is also shown by Dodecad K12b. How come Global25 is to be boycotted while Dodecad K12b is not? In the end it has more to do with liking or disliking their creators.



```
Mycenaean,4.4596429,0.21285714,1.9146429,0.26571429,37.233571,8.125,0.64928571,0.38857143,11.450714,0.13642857,34.551786,0.6125
Daunian,0.84166667,0.55166667,1.7216667,0.58666667,41.583333,24.648333,0.048333333,0.11,6.9766667,0.16333333,22.45,0.32

Distance to:    Syrian_Christian
24.86734204    Italian_Campania
29.08288909    Mycenaean
46.00632953    Daunian
```

----------


## Er Monnezza

> Can you please stop confounding the PCA with these made-up clusters? I have stated before, the paper itself has them divided by haplotype sharing, and they form as clusters.
> 
> Dodecad K12b may not be a good calculator for analyzing prehistoric source populations that fall outside of the modern genetic continuum of West Eurasians. But Dodecad is indeed a good calculator for looking at modern populations in Southern Europe that do. Of which these Italian samples fall into.
> 
> Also now that we see the difference between G25 and the southern Arc paper's model, we know G25 is also not a good calculator for analyzing prehistoric source populations, given the discrepancy.
> 
> That's exactly what I see when comparing the two calculators to the paper.


Yeah sure, my clusters are made up, while your Dodecad K12b models showing you as 70% Minoan and Angela as 70% Latin are perfectly fine  :Lmao:

----------


## Jovialis

> Yeah sure, my clusters are made up, while your Dodecad K12b models showing you as 70% Minoan and Angela as 70% Latin are perfectly fine


I guess these guys made this up as well.

Raveane et al. 2022:

----------


## Er Monnezza

> None of these samples land in Toscana or Emilia, despite your previous calculations. Instead, as the paper stated, the C6 samples cover the area from CENTRAL Italy to Southern Italy. Of course, there are also samples from more northern parts of Italy.
> 
> In addition, just looking at your PCA and assuming its accuracy for the moment, how could you possibly think using averages is at all helpful? It's useless and leads to inaccurate conclusions. I might even say it's misinformation.



The Levant_PPNB percentages that Leopoldo Leone gave at first for Medieval Rome likely included all outliers (both northern and southern) as well, although it is not very clear. That is why the averages I posted include them.

By the way, I made the clusters for the reason you point out in the second part of the post.

----------


## Leopoldo Leone

@Er Monnezza
1) The link I posted unambiguously stated that "the medieval Roman dialect belonged to the southern family of Italian dialects", you say that "it has very southern features, but I think it is a stretch to ascribe it directly to the southern group": it is again the old problem of "dialect continuum", but let us focus on the important point: the dialect spoken in Latium was " closer to Neapolitan than to Tuscan" but afterwards underwent a "tuscanization" caused by a large numbers of immigrants from Tuscany (or speakers of Tuscan dialects), and the genetic samples from the medieval and renaissance period show a tight cluster of individuals with Sicilians and a sizeable chunk of them that form a cloud from Sicily to north Italy (and a bit more northern), so the natural inference is that the modern Romans formed as a mix of north Italians and southern Italians; I guess it isn't the contentious point, but I get that your insistence that the medieval Roman dialect was a member of the central group depends on the implicit suggestion, opposed to mine, that medieval Romans while not being as northern as modern ones were still more northern than modern Campanians/Sicilians, whereas it is the suggestion implicit in my claim; well, whatever was the category the medieval Roman dialct belonged to, genetically the inhabitants looked Sicilian-like. 
2) We have already said that G25 is suspicious, so can we stick to what appears from the papers? The vast majority of the late antiquity samples cluster around Sicily and Italy_south (Calabria?), _very_ few with Bergamo (five), two are outliers clustering with French or English, so how is it possible that the average comes closer to Tuscany? To be precise, 16/24 cluster with or south of Sicily, five with Bergamo, two roughly with Hungarians/Pannonians, and one is close to Sardinia. I lack a mathematical model but something doesn't seem to add up; the average of the samples that fall into the Italian landscape must be closer to Sicily than Tuscany, so are just two NW European outliers enough to make it plot close to Tuscany?.
3)"A genetic probe into the ancient and medieval history of southern Europe and west Asia", figure 3, A (which I had already posted), you can clearly see that Levant_N decreases from the BA to the Byzantine period.
4)Since every sample on G25 get lower levels of Levant_N compared to what shown in this paper, then it is practically sure Sicilians and Campanians would show higher Levant_N too, otherwise you have any suggestion why they would behave differently from all the other samples.
5)


> It is there though, and this is also shown by Dodecad K12b. How come Global25 is to be boycotted while Dodecad K12b is not? In the end it has more to do with liking or disliking their creators


 Do you like being self referential? You can claim whatever you want, and I can agree that G25 samples need higher Levantine (and it is also why they are iffy to me), but the Daunian paper ( https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1....454498v1.full , read the section " *The pan-Mediterranean genetic landscape of Iron Age Apulia*") and the last paper on southern Italians (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1....482072v1.full , read the section " *Modelling the relationship between modern Southern Italian and ancient Eurasians*") both say:



> We also investigated whether the PCA scattering was due to varying African or Levantine contributions with _f_4(_Rome Republican, IAA, Levant_N/YRI, Mbuti)_ and tried the same on Medieval ancient Apulians (ORD010 and SGR001). However, none of the tested ancient Apulians shows a significant excess of YRI ancestry when compared to the contemporary Roman Republicans, even though ORD014, SAL007 and SAL011 show negative _f_4 values with a Z-score between 2 and 3







> However, when the affinity of Italian groups with African and Middle Eastern populations was tested, Southern Italians resulted not significantly closer to any of the two








Attachment 13581Attachment 13581Attachment 13581

Attachment 13582

----------


## Francesco

> Yeah sure, my clusters are made up, while your Dodecad K12b models showing you as 70% Minoan and Angela as 70% Latin are perfectly fine



If I understood correctly she's from north western Tuscany, so70% Latin - like makes perfect sense. 

The area was between the etruscan and ligurian world and was later heavily colonized by Romans, so much so the variety of Italian spoke there is the more closely related to Latin.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> If I understood correctly she's from north western Tuscany, so70% Latin - like makes perfect sense. 
> The area was between the etruscan and ligurian world and was later heavily colonized by Romans, so much so the variety of Italian spoke there is the more closely related to Latin.



Angela is 1/2 Emilian, 1/4 Eastern Ligurian, 1/4 north western Tuscan (Massa-Carrara). Of course, how his ancestors identified themselves is another matter. That area between Liguria, Tuscany and Emilia has always been the gateway between Liguria/Tuscany and northern Italy (Po Valley, Appennines). Besides the fact that Liguria is clearly already northern Italy.


The problem with Romanisation is that the Latins were a small group, not the largest in Italy. When we speak of Romanisation, it is not the same as saying Latin colonists.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> @Er Monnezza
> 1) The link I posted unambiguously stated that "the medieval Roman dialect belonged to the southern family of Italian dialects", you say that "it has very southern features, but I think it is a stretch to ascribe it directly to the southern group": it is again the old problem of "dialect continuum", but let us focus on the important point: the dialect spoken in Latium was " closer to Neapolitan than to Tuscan" but afterwards underwent a "tuscanization" *caused by a large numbers of immigrants from Tuscany* (or speakers of Tuscan dialects), and the genetic samples from the medieval and renaissance period show a tight cluster of individuals with Sicilians and a sizeable chunk of them that form a cloud from Sicily to north Italy (and a bit more northern), so the natural inference is that the modern Romans formed as a mix of north Italians and southern Italians; I guess it isn't the contentious point, but I get that your insistence that the medieval Roman dialect was a member of the central group depends on the implicit suggestion, opposed to mine, that medieval Romans while not being as northern as modern ones were still more northern than modern Campanians/Sicilians, whereas it is the suggestion implicit in my claim; well, whatever was the category the medieval Roman dialct belonged to, genetically the inhabitants looked Sicilian-like.



I do not believe there is any evidence that the Tuscanisation of Romanesco is due to large migrations of Tuscans to Rome. Migrations from Tuscany to Rome did take place, among the 'foreign' communities, the Florentine one was one of the most numerous but it is a slightly more complicated matter. Before the sack of Rome (1527), the city had already been declining in population for years. After the sack of Rome (1527), there is a further demographic collapse, and the city was gradually repopulated. Probably yes, between 1400 and 1600, the population of Rome changed a lot demographically. but the Tuscanisation of the language was, I believe, also due to other factors.

----------


## Francesco

> The problem with Romanisation is that the Latins were a small group, not the largest in Italy. When we speak of Romanisation, it is not the same as saying Latin colonists.


Correct, but in Nortwestern Tuscany, from Florence to Pisa, the merely demographic impact of latinization was probably pretty important: all of most important cities in the area (wich today is the most dendely populated of all Tuscany) have been founded (or refounded) by roman (Firenze) or latin (Lucca) colonist, while in pre-roman time the same area was not densely populated (at least the regions west of Florence), were only small villages of etruscan and ligures existed. The fact that the tuscan dialect is the most similar to latin probably have something to do with this process, I guess.

Then, of course, the ethnic substratum preceding this colonization was already pretty analogue to the latin one, so it's no surprise that an individual from this area is pretty similar to an Iron age roman. 

The same could also apply for Emilia as well, even if in this case the celtic invasion must be taken in to account.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> Correct, but in Nortwestern Tuscany, from Florence to Pisa, the merely demographic impact of latinization was probably pretty important: all of most important cities in the area (wich today is the most dendely populated of all Tuscany) have been founded (or refounded) by roman (Firenze) or latin (Lucca) colonist, while in pre-roman time the same area was not densely populated (at least the regions west of Florence), were only small villages of etruscan and ligures existed. The fact that the tuscan dialect is the most similar to latin probably have something to do with this process, I guess.
> 
> Then, of course, the ethnic substratum preceding this colonization was already pretty analogue to the latin one, so it's no surprise that an individual from this area is pretty similar to an Iron age roman. 
> 
> The same could also apply for Emilia as well, even if in this case the celtic invasion must be taken in to account.



I don't know if Tuscan is the closest to Latin, there is also Sardinian for example. The language question does not prove much, because it was an imposed language, as in the case of Sardinian. In fact, if memory serves, many linguists consider Sardinian to be the closest.

Then there is another problem. The Latins were very genetically similar to the Etruscans, they even shared many uniparental markers.

----------


## Francesco

That's a correct point, language doesn't necessarily prove a comman ancestry, yet a continuity in language could hint to a demographic continuity since its adoption. Regarding wich is more similar to latin between tuscan and sardinian (wich also share direct contact by themselves, due to the pisan domination in the northern part of the island), I can't give a proper answer, since I'm not a linguist, but I found this article pretty interesting: https://www.viv-it.org/schede/5-3-sardegna-e-toscana

----------


## Pax Augusta

> That's a correct point, language doesn't necessarily prove a comman ancestry, yet a continuity in language could hint to a demographic continuity since its adoption. Regarding wich is more similar to latin between tuscan and sardinian (wich also share direct contact by themselves, due to the pisan domination in the northern part of the island), I can't give a proper answer, since I'm not a linguist, but I found this article pretty interesting: https://www.viv-it.org/schede/5-3-sardegna-e-toscana



The Sardinians themselves are living proof that an imposed language proves nothing. Or at least it is not sufficient proof. For years it was mistakenly believed that Romanization was equivalent to Latinization in the genetic sense. So much so that R1b U152 and related clades were attributed to Romanization. When it was discovered that the Etruscans also had similar uniparental markers. The Latins were too few, it would be enough to take a map of Latium vetus, to have a significative genetic impact on the rest of Italy. We are waiting for the studies on the rest of Iron Italy that were supposed to be out by now, and which will help shed light. Let's see if they confirm that it is true that the Latin-Etruscan was a genetic profile (autosomal DNA) common to most of the peoples of pre-Roman Italy.

----------


## Angela

> If I understood correctly she's from north western Tuscany, so70% Latin - like makes perfect sense. 
> The area was between the etruscan and ligurian world and was later heavily colonized by Romans, so much so the variety of Italian spoke there is the more closely related to Latin.


The 70% Latin was based on the four Latini from Republican Era Rome. How representative of them they are will remain to be seen when we hopefully get more samples. The other 30% is Minoan like.

My ancestral breakdown is as Pax describes it. 

The Emilian part is from the Appennines. According to Cavalli Sforza, if my memory serves, most of the inhabitants probably fled up into the mountains from the Pianura Padana, as that is the easiest access route. The reason was simple: there was no lord breathing down their necks, with the authority over them granted to the Bishop in Parma, who could rarely be bothered with them. Otherwise, why choose such a difficult place to make a living? 

In my father's particular line there were, however, two exceptions: one was a family from Firenze* (a Roman colony itself), of some means, apparently, who arrived in the 1500s, no surprise given the vicissitudes of life in the city at that time, and the other was a man from Rimini, a "pirate" as my family tells it, although probably a privateer. In my nonna's time, the family still had a golden ewer and two silver salt-shakers from him. The Florentines were the ones who controlled the village, and it is their name and coat of arms carved over the gate into the village.** The majority do indeed seem to have come from the plains around Parma, which, of course, was a Roman colony, founded in 183 B.C. by 2000 families, although the Etrurians were there first. At the same time, that area, and the Apennines themselves were also home to a few Gallic tribes. 

The other half of my ancestry comes from my mother and is from eastern Liguria (La Spezia) and Northwest Tuscany. The latter is indeed politically the province of Massa Carrara, but her maternal family came more specifically from the area around the northern and central Magra valley, usually called by us the Lunigiana. The dialect is closer to Emilian than to Ligurian or Tuscan, although those languages influenced the local speech. As the name implies, it was the hinterland of the Roman city of Luni, settled by Rome in 177 B.C. 

"Luna was the frontier town of Etruria, on the left bank of the river Macra (now Magra), the boundary in imperial times between Etruria and Liguria.[3] When the Romans first appeared in these parts, Etruscans and the Ligurians were already in possession of the territory.[4]The Roman city was established in 177 BC by Publius Aelius, Marcus Aemilius Lepidus and Gnaeus Sicinius[4][5] It was a military stronghold for the campaigns against the Ligures. "

When the great city of Luni was destroyed, the Bishop led the people inland away from the coast and settled in Sarzana shortly after 1000 AD. I would assume that as a cosmopolitan city there were merchants and artisans from other parts of the Empire, including Southern Italy, Greece, Anatolia etc. There are even a few attested Jewish families who got in trouble with the Bishop because they were converting their slaves. In addition, in the wars between the Lombards and Byzantines, it was for a time ruled by the Byzantines. 

This is all to say that while I'm not going to go around proclaiming to everyone I meet that I'm 70% Latin/Roman, or 30% Minoan like, for that matter, I don't think it's an impossibility or even improbability that I am indeed descended from people with those kinds of genetic profiles. I know that all my ancestors, with a few minor holes in the record, came from what could be called Lunezia for at least the last 500 years and some lines go back to 1000 A.D. Italics of one sort or another, the Etruscans who were not so different, and Greeks, were certainly there not that long before. As for the Celt-Ligurians who survived the Romans, they also were not "that" different, and hey, perhaps they're the reason I consistently get a slice of French in commercial tools. :)

I also think it's interesting in this regard that I seem very close to Corsican samples, which could be because of Ligurian and Tuscan settlement in Corsica, but could also reflect that Corsicans, like my ancestors, have lived in "relative" isolation, and so could have conserved some of these genes.

Ed.
*The oral history says Toscana, not Firenze. I misremembered.

**The coat of arms over the village gate and the house of my father's maternal family is actually that of the Leni family, who were the "lords" of Monchio, the administrative center for this set of villages. They probably were people from Monchio, associated with the Leni family, who moved even further up into the mountains. So far as I know there is no relationship of the Leni family to the Leni aristocratic family of Rome.

----------


## Cato

Northern Sardinians are not so distant from Iron Age Rome Latins, at least according to Vahaduo/G25 (i don't know how to use other calculators).

I don't know if its due to direct Latin or Corsican ancestry

----------


## Francesco

> Or at least it is not sufficient proof.


That's for sure, even if I think north western Tuscany could be an exception. 

Anyway, I just wanted to point out that a strong continuity in the area since the Iron Age is not surprising at all. The considerations on the dialect were just an additional starting point of reflection that I find quite interesting, since I came roughly from that region.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> Northern Sardinians are not so distant from Iron Age Rome Latins, at least according to Vahaduo/G25 (i don't know how to use other calculators).
> 
> I don't know if its due to direct Latin or Corsican ancestry




Except that it is only one that is considered, according to those results, it's distant, not close. 

The Sardinians both ancient and modern are just different from the Latins who had Steppes between 25 and 30%. Not to mention the uniparental markers. Then for goodness sake you are free to believe what you want, that the Sardinian language is among the closest to Latin because there were mass migrations of Latins to Sardinia. For me, nothing changes.

There is growing evidence that there is not always a relationship between language and genetics, particularly from the Iron Age onwards. This has long been one of the errors, of the many errors, of geneticists, which will slowly be disproved by ancient DNA.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> That's for sure, even if I think north western Tuscany could be an exception. 
> Anyway, I just wanted to point out that a strong continuity in the area since the Iron Age is not surprising at all. The considerations on the dialect were just an additional starting point of reflection that I find quite interesting, since I came roughly from that region.


I do not know whether north western Tuscany might be an exception. There was a 2018 study based only on mtDNA, both modern and ancient samples including Etruscans, which concluded that there was continuity in that area from the Iron Age to present day. But we know that mtDNA is only one side of the story. We still lack analyses of the ancient Ligurians, for example. 

From the first rumours and leaks, geneticists are saying that the genetic profile of Etruscans and Latins (=genetic position), based on autosomal DNA, is that shared also by other peoples of Iron Age Pre-Roman Italy, based on Iron Age samples from Emilia-Romagna (unclear whether they are Villanovan necropolises, hence Etruscan), Umbria (ancient Umbrians plus other Etruscans?), Marche (some Osco-Umbrian-speaking people, at any rate), Lazio (Latins or Sabines or both?).

The key sentence is this "The first results highlight an affinity of the majority of the samples with previously reported Iron Age individuals from Italy". The previously reported Iron Age individuals from Italy are clearly Latins and Etruscans (Daunians were still not published). 


This one was submitted to ISBA9, Summer 2021. It is really unclear why it has still not been published after more than a year since it was presented.

_Unraveling the genetic history of Italians: a genome-wide study of Iron Age Italic populations

Zaro Valentina (1), Vergata Chiara (1), Cannariato Costanza (1), Modi Alessandra (1), Vai Stefania (1), Pilli Elena (1), Diroma Maria Angela (1), Caramelli David (1), Lari Martina (1) Department of Biology, University of Florence, Florence, Italy (Italy)

The high genetic variability of present-day Italians reflects a complex scenario of past population dynamics dating back not only to Late Paleolithic and Neolithic but also Metal Ages. Although many archaeogenetic studies have been recently carried out to investigate the peopling of Europe, only few genomic data have been reported from Italic populations so far, especially the ones belonging to the last phase of Metal Ages: the Iron Age. To outline a picture of Iron Age genetic variability within the Italian context and infer potential gene flow patterns, we collected 78 human remains from 8 Iron Age necropolises covering 5 different regions of Italy (Emilia-Romagna, Umbria, Marche, Latium and Sicily). Double stranded half-UDG libraries were produced and then shotgun sequenced on an Illumina NovaSeq6000 platform to allow for an initial screening of the samples. Raw reads were processed using the EAGER pipeline and then assessment of DNA authenticity and sex determination were performed. Preliminary population genetics tests were run on genotyped data by building a west Eurasian PCA including all the samples with at least 10.000 SNPs covered on the Affymetrix Human Origins panel. The first results highlight an affinity of the majority of the samples with previously reported Iron Age individuals from Italy, while all samples from Sicily overlap with the genetic variability observed in this area during the Bronze Age. Our aim is to deeper investigate these samples which can significantly contribute to better understand past peopling dynamics of the Italian peninsula and reconstruct modern Italians' genetic history._


Then there is this one, also already presented in summer 2021 at EAA, of which PCAs have been circulating. From what the author herself said, the Samnites of Campania were genetically similar (again based on autosomal DNA) to Etruscans and Latins. We know nothing else. And again, it is unclear why after more than a year it has still not been published. 


_EXPLORING THE GENETIC DIVERSITY OF MAGNA GRAECIA – THE CASE OF CAMPANIA

Alissa Mittnik1,2, Alfredo Coppa3,4,5, Alessandra Sperduti6,7, Luca Bondioli6,8, Melania Gigante8, Claudio Cavazzuti9,10, Alessandra Modi11, David Caramelli11, Ron Pinhasi12, David Reich13,2,14,15 1 Department of Human Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138,
USA 2 Max Planck-Harvard Research Center for the Archaeoscience of the Ancient Mediterranean, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA and 07745 Jena, Germany 3 Department of Environmental Biology, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy 4 Department of Genetics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA 5 Department of Evolutionary Anthropology, University of Vienna, 1090 Vienna, Austria 6 Bioarchaeology Service, Museum of Civilization, 00144 Rome, Italy
7 Department of Asia, Africa e Mediterraneo, University of Naples “L’Orientale”, 80121 Naples, Italy 8 Department of Cultural Heritage, University of Padua, 35139 Padua, Italy 9 Department of History Cultures Civilizations, Alma Mater Studiorum - University of Bologna, 40124, Bologna, Italy 10 Durham University – Department of Archaeology, Durham DH1 3LE, UK 11 Department of Biology, University of Florence, 50122, Florence, Italy 12 Department of Anthropology, University of Vienna, 1090 Vienna, Austria 13 Department of Human Evolutionary Biology, Harvard Univeristy, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA 14 Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA 15 Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA 

Starting in the 8th century BCE, coastal Campania in Southern Italy became a melting pot of various cultures and peoples when Etruscan and Greek colonizers joined local Italic tribes. By establishing cities and trade posts, the contact networks of Campania were further expanded across the Mediterranean and inland. We generated ancient genomes from Campania, spanning the 8th to 3rd century BCE, i.e. the Orientalizing, Archaic and Hellenistic-Roman period in this region. While most individuals can be attributed to a genetic ancestry that arose on the Italian mainland, we also discover descendants of migrants from the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean. Most notably, an individual dated to the 8th century at the first Greek settlement, Pithekoussai, a site that also yielded the earliest example of writing in the Euboean alphabet, was genetically of Aegean origin, and we find that this type of ancestry persisted at the site for several centuries. We compare the genetic composition of these descendants of Greek settlers to the local Campanians represented by individuals from the site San Marzano and Etruscan immigrants from Pontecagnano. We integrate a thorough analysis of the associated material culture and, where available, strontium isotopes to establish temporal and cultural patterns of mobility, ancestry and admixture that shaped the genetic landscape of Campanian Magna Graecia._


There may be more studies in the pipeline that we know nothing about. If that was a genetic profile common to several populations in Pre-Roman Italy, this clearly makes it difficult to then work out what the contribution is in the modern Italian population of a specific Pre-Roman population (which is in any case always a very uncertain calculation).

----------


## Poxy

> The sample named Piedmont on G25 is most likely from Val Borbera. It's Piedmont but being it's area linguistically transitional from Ligurian language to Piedmontese is not really representative of Piedmont. The problem was created by Raveane and Capelli (or Cappelli?) who only released a small part of the samples from northern Italy (and did not release samples from Emilia, Piedmont and just one from Liguria). To solve the problem Davidski a few days later uploaded to the G25 the only set of samples that had previously been released from Piedmont, namely the Val Borbera set. 
> 
> Based on the private results I have seen, there are indeed 100 per cent Piedmontese (from eastern Piedmont, usually) who have results like that sample from Val Borbera, and others who go further north genetically and come closer to results more typical of the linguistically Italian northern Alps.
> 
> In northern Italy everywhere there is genetically the dichotomy between the Alps and the Po Valley (with the Apennines possibly in between, depending on the area). With those in the Po Valley being underrepresented both in studies and consequently in amateur calculators.


I would like to know the exact definition of Po Valley. Is it okay if I ask a few questions I have?

HGDP samples of the Bergamo are the Po Valley? or the Alps? 
The metropolitan area of Milan, which accounts for a third of northern Italy's population, is the Po Valley?




> Geneticists, and particularly Italian ones, have never shown much capacity for accuracy, unfortunately. I don't think we will have much more accurate samples in the future than we do today. More samples but not necessarily more accurate.


That's so sad

----------


## Pax Augusta

> I would like to know the exact definition of Po Valley. Is it okay if I ask a few questions I have?
> 
> HGDP samples of the Bergamo are the Po Valley? or the Alps? 
> The metropolitan area of Milan, which accounts for a third of northern Italy's population, is the Po Valley?


HGDP samples from Bergamo, according to CEPH coordinates, are most likely Prealps and Alps, not Po Valley.

Their CEPH coordinates pointed, if I remember correctly, to the Seriana Valley

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Val_Seriana




The exact definition of Po Valley? it's simple, it's the vast plains of northern Italy. You'd have to ask Stuvanè who lives there, but yes, the metropolitan area of Milan is Po Valley, one of the northernmost areas (so much so that from Milan you can easily see the Alps north of Milan). The population of the metropolitan area of Milan may be a third of northern Italy's population, but it is also one of the most demographically modified areas in the whole of Italy. I don't know how many can be those who have all local ancestors there. Then there would be a piece of plain in north-eastern Italy that even though it is in complete continuity with the Po Valley is not considered as such because it is not part of the hydrographic basin of the Po River, I believe.


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

----------


## Poxy

> HGDP samples of the Bergamo, according to CEPH coordinates, are most likely Prealps and Alps, not Po Valley.
> 
> Their CEPH coordinates pointed, if I remember correctly, to the Seriana Valley
> 
> 
> 
> The exact definition of Po Valley? it's simple, it's the vast plains of northern Italy. You'd have to ask Stuvanè who lives there, but yes, the metropolitan area of Milan is Po Valley, one of the northernmost areas (so much so that from Milan you can easily see the Alps north of Milan). The population of the metropolitan area of Milan may have a third of northern Italy's population, but it is also one of the most demographically modified areas in the whole of Italy. I don't know how many can be those who have all local ancestors there. Then there would be a piece of plain in north-eastern Italy that even though it is in complete continuity with the Po Valley is not considered as such because it is not part of the hydrographic basin of the Po River, I believe.


Thank you for your prompt reply. :Great:

----------


## Er Monnezza

> 1) The link I posted unambiguously stated that "the medieval Roman dialect belonged to the southern family of Italian dialects", you say that "it has very southern features, but I think it is a stretch to ascribe it directly to the southern group": it is again the old problem of "dialect continuum"


And mine stated something else. But I agree that the classification of Italian dialects/languages is often ambiguous. The main feature used by linguists to separate the languages of the Neapolitan group from the Central and Sicilian ones is the presence of schwa in words, such as in "liettə" (bed).






> but let us focus on the important point: the dialect spoken in Latium was " closer to Neapolitan than to Tuscan" but afterwards underwent a "tuscanization" caused by a large numbers of immigrants from Tuscany (or speakers of Tuscan dialects)
> 
> [...]
> 
> I guess it isn't the contentious point, but I get that your insistence that the medieval Roman dialect was a member of the central group depends on the implicit suggestion, opposed to mine, that medieval Romans while not being as northern as modern ones were still more northern than modern Campanians/Sicilians, whereas it is the suggestion implicit in my claim; well, whatever was the category the medieval Roman dialct belonged to, genetically the inhabitants looked Sicilian-like.


The point is that in this case the language has nothing to do with autosomal DNA, they are two things disconnected from each other; and the shift from Medieval Romanesque to modern Romanesque from the 15th century onwards does not imply a mass migration from Tuscany to Rome.




> 3)"A genetic probe into the ancient and medieval history of southern Europe and west Asia", figure 3, A (which I had already posted), you can clearly see that Levant_N decreases from the BA to the Byzantine period.


The models I posted come from supplementary file number 5 of the Southern Arc paper itself.




> The genetic samples from the medieval and renaissance period show a tight cluster of individuals with Sicilians and a sizeable chunk of them that form a cloud from Sicily to north Italy (and a bit more northern), so the natural inference is that the modern Romans formed as a mix of north Italians and southern Italians


For the sake of clarity, once I exclude the samples plotting north of Tuscany and south of Calabria/Campania, I obtain the following averages.



```
ITA_Chiusi_MA_(N=5),0.117238,0.1533446,-0.000377,-0.0306204,0.02025,-0.0151716,0.0019272,-0.002123,0.003395,0.0223056,-0.0003246,0.0095314,-0.0119524,0.000055,-0.0057276,-0.0045876,-0.002999,0.0027872,0.0015084,0.0019512,-0.004068,-0.0016816,0.001553,0.004579,0.0027542
ITA_Gavorrano_MA_(N=1),0.112685,0.148267,0.009051,-0.029393,0.023389,-0.016733,-0.00705,-0.003,0.013703,0.031527,0.009094,0.004946,-0.013677,0,-0.002307,-0.001591,0.001956,-0.002027,0.006285,-0.002376,-0.000998,-0.002968,-0.001972,-0.005543,0.009221
ITA_Manciano_Late_Antiquity_(N=1),0.091058,0.150298,0.004903,-0.050711,0.036314,-0.030957,0.00141,-0.003923,0.028633,0.030069,0.00406,0.003897,-0.008771,-0.002202,-0.007736,-0.001591,0.011995,-0.008235,-0.008045,-0.003752,-0.011105,-0.001731,0.013804,0.001928,0.010179
ITA_Montelanico_MA_(N=10),0.1092702,0.1466425,-0.0074668,-0.0413117,0.0147718,-0.0160362,0.0004465,-0.0056305,0.0037836,0.0188613,0.001104,0.002203,-0.0072099,-0.0009082,-0.0091203,-0.004203,-0.0025426,0.0002786,0.0010434,-0.006053,0.0010731,0.003054,-0.0014421,0.0004939,0.0001435
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_(N=10),0.1083596,0.1512123,-0.0031301,-0.0373388,0.0177877,-0.0157016,-0.001739,-0.0053075,0.0044996,0.0219777,0.0008118,0.0047508,-0.0080277,-0.0002064,-0.0074917,-0.002095,0.0026077,0.0002408,0.0026273,-0.0020759,-0.00146,0.0009645,0.0022183,-0.0005784,-0.0006706
ITA_Rome_MA_(N=4),0.11183125,0.15055225,0.00509125,-0.0343995,0.0262355,-0.0114345,-0.00111625,-0.00080775,0.01222025,0.027654,0.0013805,0.00494575,-0.01196725,0.0003785,-0.0065485,-0.00215475,-0.00198825,-0.00072825,0.00248225,-0.005659,0.00171575,0.0061825,-0.00234175,0.0031935,-0.00005975
ITA_Tarquinia_MA_(N=4),0.10756275,0.1472515,0.00197975,-0.02785875,0.02431225,-0.0159665,0.00052875,-0.0028845,0.00797625,0.01986375,0.00426275,0.00861725,-0.01140975,-0.001101,-0.00118725,-0.00474,-0.00195575,0.000063,0.002074,-0.00409575,0.0009045,0.00451325,-0.00252675,-0.00015075,0.003802
ITA_Tivoli_Early_Modern_(N=3),0.11154667,0.14555933,0.00025133333,-0.033053667,0.015284667,-0.010412,-0.0032116667,-0.0024613333,0.0053176667,0.019985333,0.00064966667,0.0039463333,-0.0092666667,-0.0075693333,-0.0033476667,0.0065413333,0.01356,0.00084466667,0.002179,0.0017923333,-0.0024123333,0.0012773333,0.0011093333,0.0057433333,-0.0013573333
```

These are the individual samples.



```
ITA_Chiusi_MA:ETR003___AD_1073___Coverage_22.58%,0.111547,0.1635,0.008297,-0.026809,0.017542,-0.01757,0,-0.005307,0.000409,0.016583,0.005359,0.005695,-0.004757,-0.009771,0.003664,0.000928,-0.004042,0.009755,0.002011,0.003752,0.003993,-0.000618,-0.005053,-0.007953,0.007544
ITA_Chiusi_MA:ETR007___AD_862___Coverage_46.76%,0.119514,0.148267,0.005657,-0.012274,0.029852,-0.005578,-0.004935,-0.008077,0.003681,0.010023,0.002598,0.013038,-0.017988,0.00578,-0.000679,-0.000398,0.000391,-0.00114,-0.000503,0.011756,0.004367,-0.004451,0.00493,-0.001084,0.001317
ITA_Chiusi_MA:ETR010___AD_950___Coverage_57.27%,0.121791,0.152329,0.008297,-0.035853,0.017234,-0.015618,-0.00047,0.000231,0.010226,0.03262,-0.002273,0.012589,-0.014123,-0.004817,-0.002579,-0.013922,-0.007041,0.005701,0.002137,-0.006628,-0.006364,-0.006059,0.006532,0.00964,-0.002515
ITA_Chiusi_MA:ETR013___AD_968___Coverage_55.68%,0.117238,0.150298,-0.000377,-0.037791,0.022158,-0.01506,0.00188,-0.003,0.008795,0.0277,-0.007307,0.014237,-0.013082,0.000826,-0.010315,-0.013524,-0.003912,0.000253,0.00264,-0.006503,-0.009858,-0.000866,-0.002958,0.007712,0.009221
ITA_Chiusi_MA:ETR014___AD_1006___Coverage_30.15%,0.1161,0.152329,-0.023759,-0.040375,0.014464,-0.022032,0.013161,0.005538,-0.006136,0.024602,0,0.002098,-0.009812,0.008257,-0.018729,0.003978,-0.000391,-0.000633,0.001257,0.007379,-0.012478,0.003586,0.004314,0.01458,-0.001796
ITA_Gavorrano_MA:POP001___AD_861___Coverage_69.71%,0.112685,0.148267,0.009051,-0.029393,0.023389,-0.016733,-0.00705,-0.003,0.013703,0.031527,0.009094,0.004946,-0.013677,0,-0.002307,-0.001591,0.001956,-0.002027,0.006285,-0.002376,-0.000998,-0.002968,-0.001972,-0.005543,0.009221
ITA_Manciano_Late_Antiquity:MAS003___AD_465___unknown_coverage,0.091058,0.150298,0.004903,-0.050711,0.036314,-0.030957,0.00141,-0.003923,0.028633,0.030069,0.00406,0.003897,-0.008771,-0.002202,-0.007736,-0.001591,0.011995,-0.008235,-0.008045,-0.003752,-0.011105,-0.001731,0.013804,0.001928,0.010179
ITA_Montelanico_MA:R52___AD_1355___Coverage_53.43%,0.102441,0.147252,-0.001508,-0.046189,0.017542,-0.01004,-0.00799,-0.007154,0.004704,0.027882,0.008444,0.000899,-0.009068,-0.007019,-0.01045,-0.016309,-0.008084,0.004561,0.003142,-0.012881,-0.001123,0.011994,-0.00037,-0.010122,0.002275
ITA_Montelanico_MA:R53___AD_1355___Coverage_75.73%,0.111547,0.147252,-0.011691,-0.041667,0.014156,-0.022032,-0.001645,-0.011538,0.009817,0.020957,0.001461,0.001049,-0.003122,0.008533,-0.011129,-0.0118,-0.009518,-0.00266,-0.000628,-0.005628,0.007986,-0.000124,0.002095,-0.004338,-0.002395
ITA_Montelanico_MA:R54___AD_1355___Coverage_60.26%,0.113823,0.145221,-0.015839,-0.04199,0.018157,-0.013666,0.003055,-0.005538,0.008999,0.017677,-0.002761,0.004946,-0.005054,-0.000413,-0.004614,0.001856,0.004563,-0.003801,0.010182,-0.007504,0.000125,0.006677,0.001972,0.003253,-0.000718
ITA_Montelanico_MA:R56___AD_1355___Coverage_62.53%,0.106994,0.14319,-0.006788,-0.051357,0.014156,-0.016733,-0.00094,-0.008307,-0.003272,0.014032,0.001299,0.003897,-0.008176,0.00289,-0.017372,-0.000265,0.004172,-0.00266,0.00088,-0.008129,-0.000749,0,-0.005176,0.00735,0.003592
ITA_Montelanico_MA:R57___AD_1355___Coverage_72.46%,0.112685,0.150298,-0.012822,-0.031008,0.016311,-0.015897,-0.003525,0.000923,-0.000614,0.021868,0.001461,0.003447,-0.011298,-0.001651,-0.012079,-0.00769,-0.007562,-0.001014,0.003645,-0.003001,0.003494,0.003586,-0.003821,-0.002651,0.000718
ITA_Montelanico_MA:R58___AD_1100___Coverage_81.82%,0.10927,0.150298,-0.010559,-0.046189,0.016003,-0.016455,-0.00141,-0.006461,0.001227,0.016401,-0.004872,0.001798,-0.013379,-0.006055,-0.001357,0.000796,0.004172,-0.002154,-0.001885,-0.003752,0.004367,0.005935,0.000616,0.005663,0.000718
ITA_Montelanico_MA:R59___AD_905___Coverage_79.06%,0.10927,0.148267,-0.003771,-0.037468,0.01908,-0.013108,0.002585,-0.003,0.003272,0.02041,0.001299,-0.004946,-0.003122,-0.000275,-0.013708,-0.017767,-0.010952,0.004307,-0.001885,-0.006128,0.005241,0.004699,-0.009737,-0.010483,0.001796
ITA_Montelanico_MA:R60___AD_905___Coverage_87.24%,0.10927,0.145221,0.00528,-0.028101,0.009848,-0.009761,0.00799,-0.005077,0.012067,0.010023,-0.003573,-0.001948,-0.00446,0.003028,-0.002443,-0.007027,-0.015255,0.002027,-0.00088,-0.004627,-0.00836,-0.00371,-0.002835,0.004699,0.000479
ITA_Montelanico_MA:R64___AD_1110___Coverage_88.28%,0.105855,0.142174,-0.004148,-0.041344,0.009232,-0.02259,0.004465,-0.005769,-0.000409,0.01877,0.007145,0.008692,-0.005946,-0.006193,-0.006786,0.003182,-0.00326,0.003927,0.000754,-0.007754,0.000998,-0.001237,0.000493,0.003615,-0.002515
ITA_Montelanico_MA:R65___AD_1110___Coverage_88.58%,0.111547,0.147252,-0.012822,-0.047804,0.013233,-0.02008,0.00188,-0.004384,0.002045,0.020593,0.001137,0.004196,-0.008474,-0.001927,-0.011265,0.012994,0.016298,0.000253,-0.002891,-0.001126,-0.001248,0.00272,0.002342,0.007953,-0.002515
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:R32___AD_500___Coverage_53.38%,0.101303,0.155376,-0.007542,-0.044574,0.021542,-0.019243,-0.00376,-0.007154,0.002863,0.023326,-0.001137,0.003297,-0.008028,-0.006331,-0.002036,-0.004773,0.005867,-0.003294,-0.005782,0.003877,0.002121,-0.004081,0.003451,-0.011568,-0.000359
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:R35___AD_500___Coverage_50.76%,0.103579,0.150298,-0.011314,-0.046189,0.013541,-0.020638,0.00047,-0.008769,0.006954,0.021868,0.00341,0.002847,0.000149,-0.002064,-0.010179,-0.001724,0.008605,0.0019,0.000754,0.000125,-0.008235,-0.00136,0.002711,-0.010965,0.002395
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:R36___AD_500___Coverage_74.85%,0.114961,0.15436,0.003017,-0.022287,0.022773,-0.008925,0.00658,-0.003692,0.001023,0.018224,0.008931,0.001649,-0.008474,-0.009909,-0.001357,0.002784,0.002347,-0.000633,0.002263,-0.003126,0.003119,0.001484,-0.001356,0.005061,-0.000958
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:R107___AD_500___Coverage_80.22%,0.119514,0.149283,-0.004525,-0.031654,0.022773,-0.02008,-0.00893,-0.004615,0.010226,0.021322,-0.000325,0.005545,-0.00223,0.00578,-0.007872,-0.007425,0.009127,-0.00038,-0.000251,0.007504,-0.003993,-0.001607,0.010106,0.00012,-0.00012
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:R117___AD_500___Coverage_65.46%,0.104717,0.150298,-0.014708,-0.039406,0.011694,-0.015897,-0.00329,-0.01223,0.003272,0.014032,-0.00341,0.010341,-0.013082,0.003853,-0.013843,0.003845,0.004303,0.006841,0.003897,-0.014757,-0.005116,-0.000495,-0.005669,0.005543,-0.00491
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:R118___AD_500___Coverage_51.56%,0.108132,0.145221,0.003771,-0.033915,0.020619,-0.022311,-0.002115,0.003461,0.001227,0.023144,-0.004872,-0.000899,-0.017096,-0.006055,0.000814,0.009016,0.020861,-0.00152,0.006788,0.006128,-0.003369,0.004451,0.001232,0.002771,0.001557
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:R120___AD_500___Coverage_44.44%,0.108132,0.153345,0.012068,-0.03876,0.016926,-0.011435,-0.0047,-0.010615,0.009613,0.023144,-0.000162,0.005845,-0.005054,0.000413,-0.009908,-0.004508,-0.011995,0.007095,0.001257,-0.000375,0.000374,0.010758,0.002095,-0.003976,0.003233
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:R121___AD_500___Coverage_49.71%,0.112685,0.151314,0.000754,-0.031331,0.020927,-0.007251,0.00235,-0.003692,0.005727,0.024602,-0.004872,0.01079,-0.009663,0.001239,-0.013029,-0.006232,-0.008996,0,0.007668,-0.009004,0.001622,0,0.006039,0.000482,-0.011735
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:R122___AD_500___Coverage_78.75%,0.102441,0.153345,0.000377,-0.044574,0.016003,-0.019801,-0.00235,0.000231,0.004909,0.031891,0.003085,0.006894,-0.013231,0.006331,-0.0095,-0.010077,-0.007432,-0.007601,0.003897,-0.005378,-0.001248,-0.005564,0.003574,0.005784,0.000239
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:R136___AD_400___Coverage_86.69%,0.108132,0.149283,-0.013199,-0.040698,0.011079,-0.011435,-0.001645,-0.006,-0.000818,0.018224,0.00747,0.001199,-0.003568,0.004679,-0.008007,-0.001856,0.00339,0,0.005782,-0.005753,0.000125,0.006059,0,0.000964,0.003952
ITA_Rome_MA:R1283___AD_855___Coverage_69.04%,0.108132,0.152329,0,-0.036822,0.028313,-0.009203,0.00141,0.006692,0.01309,0.024966,-0.000162,-0.001199,-0.014866,-0.000688,-0.012622,0.002652,0.001956,-0.007855,0.001131,-0.0005,0.006239,0.003339,-0.003574,-0.000602,-0.00012
ITA_Rome_MA:R1285___AD_1015___Coverage_66.72%,0.112685,0.151314,0.008297,-0.030362,0.027082,-0.011156,-0.004465,-0.004154,0.020248,0.034989,-0.005034,0.004796,-0.015312,0.003991,0,-0.01074,-0.00691,0.005448,0.009176,-0.008504,0.002496,0.010881,-0.003821,-0.004217,-0.001197
ITA_Rome_MA:R1287___AD_1425___Coverage_71.54%,0.118376,0.155376,0.012445,-0.028747,0.031698,-0.01004,-0.002115,-0.002308,0.007567,0.028793,0.004222,0.008243,-0.014866,-0.001651,-0.007465,-0.008221,-0.004824,0.001774,0.004399,-0.011756,0.000873,0.00272,-0.002958,0.006748,0.000479
ITA_Rome_MA:R1290___AD_1348___Coverage_70.05%,0.108132,0.14319,-0.000377,-0.041667,0.017849,-0.015339,0.000705,-0.003461,0.007976,0.021868,0.006496,0.007943,-0.002825,-0.000138,-0.006107,0.00769,0.001825,-0.00228,-0.004777,-0.001876,-0.002745,0.00779,0.000986,0.010845,0.000599
ITA_Tarquinia_MA:TAQ003___AD_841___Coverage_61.68%,0.097888,0.144205,-0.00792,-0.027778,0.013541,-0.017012,0.001175,-0.012692,0.006749,0.018224,0.002761,0.006444,-0.001189,-0.003991,-0.000407,-0.005569,0.005998,0.00266,-0.001508,-0.001251,0.004617,0.002349,-0.006039,0.007109,0.007185
ITA_Tarquinia_MA:TAQ009___AD_978___Coverage_73.49%,0.108132,0.137096,0.001508,-0.037791,0.030467,-0.01506,-0.00047,0,0.011044,0.02041,0.007307,0.008542,-0.015461,0.007844,0.002036,-0.011005,-0.013299,0.006714,0.004399,-0.006003,-0.006239,0.007296,-0.004314,0.001325,-0.001676
ITA_Tarquinia_MA:TAQ011___AD_959___Coverage_66.23%,0.10927,0.157407,0.00792,-0.029393,0.027082,-0.011156,-0.002585,0.006231,0.007567,0.015672,0.006333,0.01154,-0.012339,-0.002202,-0.000271,-0.005436,-0.012126,-0.002534,-0.002514,-0.01038,0.000873,-0.002597,0.001232,-0.00494,0.007903
ITA_Tarquinia_MA:TAQ022___AD_1091___Coverage_51.91%,0.114961,0.150298,0.006411,-0.016473,0.026159,-0.020638,0.003995,-0.005077,0.006545,0.025149,0.00065,0.007943,-0.01665,-0.006055,-0.006107,0.00305,0.011604,-0.006588,0.007919,0.001251,0.004367,0.011005,-0.000986,-0.004097,0.001796
ITA_Tivoli_Early_Modern:R969___AD_1650___Coverage_92.48%,0.113823,0.148267,0,-0.0323,0.01231,-0.012271,-0.000705,0.000231,0.006749,0.022962,0.006496,0.004796,-0.008771,-0.012386,-0.004479,0.011933,0.013821,0.004941,-0.000251,0.004377,-0.003369,0.001607,-0.001232,0.005663,-0.001437
ITA_Tivoli_Early_Modern:R970___AD_1650___Coverage_49.54%,0.10927,0.14319,0.003394,-0.024225,0.023081,-0.000837,-0.00423,-0.004846,0.007772,0.015308,0.001137,0.001948,-0.007433,-0.005092,-0.00095,0.002387,0.015776,-0.006461,0.000126,0.004752,-0.005615,0.003462,0.000246,0.00494,0.001796
ITA_Tivoli_Early_Modern:R973___AD_1650___Coverage_69.60%,0.111547,0.145221,-0.00264,-0.042636,0.010463,-0.018128,-0.0047,-0.002769,0.001432,0.021686,-0.005684,0.005095,-0.011596,-0.00523,-0.004614,0.005304,0.011083,0.004054,0.006662,-0.003752,0.001747,-0.001237,0.004314,0.006627,-0.004431
```

Models with averages and closest Italian populations



PCA with averages and closest Italian populations

----------


## Er Monnezza

> Northern Sardinians are not so distant from Iron Age Rome Latins, at least according to Vahaduo/G25 (i don't know how to use other calculators).
> 
> I don't know if its due to direct Latin or Corsican ancestry


Modern Central Italians are closer to IA Central Italians than Sardinians are.

Distance to: Italy_Center_IA
0.04562886 Italian_Tuscany
0.05430200 Italian_Umbria
0.05513458 Italian_Marche
0.06105049 Sardinian_North
0.06359715 Sardinian

----------


## Angela

> That's for sure, even if I think north western Tuscany could be an exception. 
> Anyway, I just wanted to point out that a strong continuity in the area since the Iron Age is not surprising at all. The considerations on the dialect were just an additional starting point of reflection that I find quite interesting, since I came roughly from that region.


Obviously, we're going to have to wait for ancient dna from the area to know how much continuity from the Iron Age is present. I sincerely hope that there will be samples from the area called Lunezia, which is the area from which all my ancestors, with a few exceptions, come. 

I sincerely doubt it will ever become a political reality, but the proposed borders are below:



https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunezia

The idea of creating a region that would incorporate areas of Liguria,
Tuscany, Emilia-Romagna and Lombardy was first discussed in the 1800s by the
founding fathers of the Italian Republic. To be called Lunezia, a name coined
in 1989 by magistrate Alberto Grassi and based on the names of the areas of
‘Luni’ or ‘Lunigiana’ and ‘Spezia,’ the proposed region would have incorporated
the provinces of La Spezia, Massa-Carrara, Parma, Piacenza, Reggio Emilia and
Mantova, as well as smaller parts of Cremona and Lucca.

So, there was since then a recognition of the historical ties between these areas.
Upon the unification of Italy, however, the areas that would have become Lunezia were incorporated into bordering
regions.

Polling at one point indicated about 45% of the population supported the idea of creating this new administrative unit.

There's a remarkable similarity between the borders of that region, and my ancestral area according to ancestrydna.




Anyway, as you will see, more than half of the region is mountainous, and mountains have always been a refuge.

In terms of yDna, the Garfagnana, the mountainous hinterland region of Lucca, has extremely high levels of R1b U-152. Everyone in my father's area in the Apennines has so far tested U-152, which is also his lineage. 

Now, could some of that be Apuani (Celt-Ligure), as well as Etruscan, Italic and other Iron Age inhabitants of the region? I don't know. Maybe the Romans were right and they killed or exiled most of them, in eastern Liguria if not in the west. They need to do in depth testing of the lines before everyone with all four ancestors from this area are dead. 

What has always surprised and annoyed me is that it's my understanding that all those samples from the Apennines taken by Cavalli-Sforza are still at Stanford. Why on earth haven't they been used? Why aren't they part of upcoming papers for a comparison? They can list them as contributors etc. but why not use such a wonderful resource? 

My guess, although I hope it's an educated guess, is that those people may be close autosomally to the people of Val Borbera, but it would be good to know.

----------


## Vallicanus

> Modern Central Italians are closer to IA Central Italians than Sardinians are.
> 
> Distance to: Italy_Center_IA
> 0.04562886 Italian_Tuscany
> 0.05430200 Italian_Umbria
> 0.05513458 Italian_Marche
> 0.06105049 Sardinian_North
> 0.06359715 Sardinian


It seems that at a distance of 4.5, the modern Tuscans are not radically different from Iron Age Central Italians.

----------


## Jovialis

Non-Tuscan central Italians are indeed Northern-shifted Southerners. Also, Southern Italians are indeed heterogenous. I could be as close to, or distant to people in Umbria, as I am to people in Puglia. My family comes from the same region, from the same province, from the same two towns; time in memorial:

Distance to:
Jovialis

3.19426048
Umbria:PG06

3.38212951
Lazio:NOR28

3.39328749
Marche:MarABY030D

3.47597468
Marche:MarACO100D

3.80215728
Marche:MarACY030D

4.48544312
Marche:MarABP050D

4.48723746
Umbria:PG04

4.49059016
Umbria:PG15

4.50217725
Marche:MarABN020D

4.66113720
Lazio:NOR24

4.77789703
Umbria:PG03

5.01162648
Umbria:PG07

5.20982725
Marche:MarACW080D

5.54261671
Lazio:PG30

5.67623995
Marche:MarABQ080D

5.76707031
Marche:MarABI020D

5.99716600
Umbria:PG11

6.39048511
Marche:MarABG010D

6.42788457
Marche:MarADG030D

6.60829025
Marche:MarACV100D

6.97544264
Marche:MarADC050D

7.67540227
Lazio:PG28

7.78398356
Marche:MarACW030D

8.48450352
Umbria:PG12

8.67656614
Marche:MarABU050D

9.67978306
Umbria:PG08



Distance to:
Jovialis

1.36923336
Abruzzo:15_Behar_2013

1.66129468
Abruzzo:16_Behar_2013

1.71953482
Abruzzo:20_Behar_2013

1.85132385
Molise:PG26_Molise

1.94663813
Abruzzo:9_Behar_2013

2.16529444
Abruzzo:Alp140

2.71775643
Abruzzo:Alp090

2.73558038
Abruzzo:Alp616

2.75210828
Abruzzo:22_Behar_2013

2.82391572
Abruzzo:23_Behar_2013

3.32980480
Molise:PG27

3.41641625
Abruzzo:17_Behar_2013

3.70070264
Abruzzo:Alp503

3.77326119
Abruzzo:ALP161

3.97039041
Abruzzo:19_Behar_2013

4.37315675
Abruzzo:Alp380

4.49109118
Abruzzo:Alp162

4.67142377
Abruzzo:14_Behar_2013

4.77744702
Abruzzo:13_Behar_2013

5.17125710
Abruzzo:ALP205

5.57361642
Abruzzo:21_Behar_2013



Distance to:
Jovialis

2.89611809
Apulia:cera1

2.91856129
Apulia:cera2

3.34511584
Apulia:cera8

3.49479613
Apulia:Pu45

3.80621860
Apulia:cera9

3.92572286
Apulia:ALP583

4.45463803
Apulia:ALP379

4.52702993
Apulia:GS34

4.84129115
Apulia:Pu2

5.32649040
Apulia:GS32

6.43630329
Apulia:GS47

6.95402042
Apulia:Pu7

8.27652101
Apulia:Pu3

8.99969444
Apulia:Pu8



Distance to:
Jovialis

3.78219513
Sicily:TP04_Busby_2015

3.86023315
Campania:NaN212CR

3.93819756
Campania:NaN238DM

4.19687979
Basilicata:PG24

4.28499708
Sicily:TP06_Busby_2015

4.30936190
Basilicata:PG21

4.52765944
Basilicata:PG18

4.57330296
Basilicata:PG17

4.62709412
Basilicata:PG19

4.67279360
Sicily:SR48R_Busby_2015

4.96169326
Campania:NaN119AMR

5.08283386
Sicily:Ag-Sicily8_Behar_2013

5.08283386
Sicily:Ag-Sicily:8

5.10130375
Basilicata:PG25

5.13775243
Campania:NaN289RM

5.17302619
Campania:NaN293SF

5.21470996
Sicily:SR64_Busby_2015

5.21470996
Sicily:Siracusa:SR64_LazaridisNat2014

5.23111843
Sicily:SR60_Busby_2015

5.23111843
Sicily:Siracusa:SR60_LazaridisNat2014

5.24194620
Sicily:C-Sicily50_Behar_2013

5.24194620
Sicily:C-Sicily:50

5.26858615
Sicily:W-Sicily5a_Behar_2013

5.26858615
Sicily:W-Sicily:5a

5.27725307
Sicily:W-Sicily1_Behar_2013

5.27725307
Sicily:W-Sicily:1

5.31319113
Sicily:W-Sicily7_Behar_2013

5.35290575
Campania:NaN43TC

5.41809930
Sicily:W-Sicily4_Behar_2013

5.46488792
Sicily:TP08_Busby_2015

5.47620306
Sicily:SR44_Busby_2015

5.77688497
Campania:NaN128LA

5.87851172
Sicily:Ag-Sicily5_Behar_2013

5.87851172
Sicily:Ag-Sicily:5

5.96128342
Campania:NaN207MM

6.00906815
Campania:NaN58AC

6.07768048
Sicily:TP25_Busby_2015

6.09664662
Sicily:W-Sicily3_Behar_2013

6.09664662
Sicily:W-Sicily:3

6.19121959
Basilicata:PG20

6.19574854
Sicily:C-Sicily57_Behar_2013

6.35270808
Basilicata:PG16

6.47576250
Campania:NaN46TC

6.66920535
Sicily:W-Sicily9_Behar_2013

6.66920535
Sicily:W-Sicily:9

6.67492322
Sicily:W-Sicily5b_Behar_2013

6.69049326
Basilicata:PG22

6.74104591
Sicily:SR23_Busby_2015

7.01009986
Sicily:E-Sicily18_Behar_2013

7.01009986
Sicily:E-Sicily:18

7.01981481
Sicily:TP05_Busby_2015

7.01981481
Sicily:Trapani:TP05_LazaridisNat2014

7.08741843
Calabria:ALP596

7.10824873
Sicily:TP07_Busby_2015

7.10824873
Sicily:Trapani:TP07_LazaridisNat2014

7.63080599
Campania:NaN195ST

7.64138731
Sicily:W-Sicily21_Behar_2013

7.64138731
Sicily:W-Sicily:21

8.42525371
Campania:NaN65DFG

8.81372793
Campania:NaN77FAM

9.62319074
Campania:NaN275IS

9.91437340
Calabria:ALP582

----------


## Jovialis

> The C6 cluster has existed in every period, since R437 in the Iron Age.
> 
> The most likely explanation for the expansion of that group in the imperial era is that southern Italian populations were included into Rome after the unification of the peninsula. The continued existence of it into the present is a testament that. Since foreign populations died away due to the urban graveyard effect.

----------


## Wanderer

> Why on earth would I we need to do that, when they are already divided into clusters based on haplotypes in the paper?


Its interesting to note that sardinia seems to high farmer ancestry. 
While maros culture has high nealithic agean ancestry.

----------


## Stuvanè

> I would like to know the exact definition of Po Valley. Is it okay if I ask a few questions I have?
> 
> HGDP samples of the Bergamo are the Po Valley? or the Alps? 
> The metropolitan area of Milan, which accounts for a third of northern Italy's population, is the Po Valley?
> 
> 
> 
> That's so sad


Sorry, I can only answer you now at the request of Pax.


On the one hand, there is a very 'enlarged' meaning of the Po Valley ( sometimes said 'Padania'), which often has more of a cultural/anthropological meaning equivalent to northern Italy (the Italian territory north of the approximate La Spezia-Rimini line), encompassing both the lowland areas and the surrounding Alpine and Apennine arcs.


Strictly speaking - as geographers - the Po Valley should be distinguished from the surrounding mountainous/hilly areas and would be the territory that hosts the Po river basin below 300 (max. 400) metres in altitude. 
The Val Seriana from which the Bergamo samples are taken is already above this limit, so to be rigorous, its populations are not 'Po Valley' in the strict sense of the word - even though they are immediate neighbours - but would already fall within what we can call pre-alpine and even alpine to all intents and purposes. And usually in the autosomal calculators you find around, the difference is detectable, with lowland populations (and in particular those of the 'Lower' plain) often becoming Tuscan-like in the results or very close to them (perhaps with a more northern and/or eastern cline).


Here I did a quick trick with the old k13 coordinates of modern peoples and an ADC coefficient adjusted to 0.5, without pretending to be scientific, using my own data and those of a mutual friend of mine and Pax's, who is originally from Val Camonica (upper Lombardy in the Brescia area, in practice a valley parallel and more easterly to Val Seriana). I, on the other hand, come from Ferrara and Romagna, so I am mostly located in the lower plain and its eastern/southeastern edge, on the Adriatic coast. You will see that even though we are both northern Italians, we are quite different, and my friend's Mesolithic elevation from Valcamonica, evidently better preserved from later invasions, draws him into a cline closer to southwestern Europe. On the other hand, it is evident that the lowland populations assimilated different influences in both the protohistoric, historic and medieval periods, creating a certain variability in the northern Italian group.

https://imgur.com/a/pc1syJu


Camun Stuvane.png

Milan and its province are located in the middle of the Po Valley, being at an altitude of about 120 metres above sea level, but its population has undergone major demographic changes in the last century (mainly with internal migrations from southern Italy), which does not make it an ideal place to recover indigenous DNA.

----------


## Vallicanus

> Sorry, I can only answer you now at the request of Pax.
> 
> 
> On the one hand, there is a very 'enlarged' meaning of the Po Valley ( sometimes said 'Padania'), which often has more of a cultural/anthropological meaning equivalent to northern Italy (the Italian territory north of the approximate La Spezia-Rimini line), encompassing both the lowland areas and the surrounding Alpine and Apennine arcs.
> 
> 
> Strictly speaking - as geographers - the Po Valley should be distinguished from the surrounding mountainous/hilly areas and would be the territory that hosts the Po river basin below 300 (max. 400) metres in altitude. 
> The Val Seriana from which the Bergamo samples are taken is already above this limit, so to be rigorous, its populations are not 'Po Valley' in the strict sense of the word - even though they are immediate neighbours - but would already fall within what we can call pre-alpine and even alpine to all intents and purposes. And usually in the autosomal calculators you find around, the difference is detectable, with lowland populations (and in particular those of the 'Lower' plain) often becoming Tuscan-like in the results or very close to them (perhaps with a more northern and/or eastern cline).
> 
> ...



How would you explain the 17pc "Romanian"...Balkan influence?

----------


## Stuvanè

> How would you explain the 17pc "Romanian"...Balkan influence?


In every oracle I use that type of genetic component always comes up and not in small percentages.
The Adriatic is a sea that does not act as a barrier in this respect, quite the contrary.


I have no hard data at hand, but I can only speculate on a few facts (which are not mutually exclusive)


1) prehistoric/protohistoric influences from the middle and lower Danube that can often be found in the northern Italians (north-eastern): in the end, it always remains to be understood what the autosomal DNA of certain peoples of the Peninsula other than the Etruscans and Latins was: Italics, Umbrians, Picenes..;


2) influences of historical times: in the Roman age, Ravenna and all its environs hosted the discharged veteran classics of the imperial fleet, about half of whom were recruited in the Balkans, according to some accounts by Tacitus;


3) similar forms of military colonisation from the same regions in the late antique and exarchal age;


4) immigrations of agricultural, military and artisan labourers and/or servants of South Slavic or Albanian stock from the late Middle Ages until the middle of the 16th century (and possibly beyond), following the Black Death of the 14th century and/or the Ottoman expansion.


At home, the latter hypothesis is often rumoured because of some family hearsay that is, however, insufficiently documented

----------


## Jovialis

^^ R1 Protovillanovan clusters with Cetina. I think when we get more samples from Italic samples from the east coast we will see more of this trend.

----------


## Francesco

> ^^ R1 Protovillanovan clusters with Cetina. I think when we get more samples from Italic samples from the east coast we will see more of this trend.


In another post I hypothized that the second wave of proto-italics (assuming there actually were two wave of italic speaking people in the paeninsula) could have been a little bit more balkan shifted than the first one, due to more prolonged contacts with people from the cetina and vucedol cultures.

----------


## torzio

> ^^ R1 Protovillanovan clusters with Cetina. I think when we get more samples from Italic samples from the east coast we will see more of this trend.



we have discussed this in the past .....R1 sample is a woman...born in Liburnia and died in the Liburnian colony of Picene Italy ( martinscuro and tronto areas )



she was either from Nin or city as per link below

https://gohvarblog.com/2016/06/12/th...nd-roman-town/

The last Liburnians in Picene died out or where absorbed into italian society by 440BC

----------


## Jovialis

> we have discussed this in the past .....R1 sample is a woman...born in Liburnia and died in the Liburnian colony of Picene Italy ( martinscuro and tronto areas )
> 
> she was either from Nin or city as per link below
> https://gohvarblog.com/2016/06/12/th...nd-roman-town/
> The last Liburnians in Picene died out or where absorbed into italian society by 440BC


The text doesn't definitively say that she is from there. However, it is clear that she died at the boarder of Le Marche and Abruzzo. Also the material culture indicates she was proto-villanovan.

Cetina is however attested to have existed in Italy.

Veneto in particular is close to Cetina in terms of genetic affinity, based on my analysis.

----------


## Jovialis

I think it is likely, these Northern Italian-like people mixed with southern southern sources, which gave rise to groups like C6.

I think the most imperative samples we need are the oscans, and Lucanians to really know. A good question IMO: Were they similar to Cetina/R1, but a bit more southern-eastern shifted?

If Italic Tribes in the south were more south-eastern, than they would fit well with a two way with "standard" 1:10 Minoan/Yamnaya Mycenaeans.

The Northern-Italian-like Cetina plus EIA Palace of Nestor makes for a fairly good fit. I get about 3.5+ with that.

----------


## Jovialis

Distance to:
GRC_Palace_of_Nestor_EIA:I19368

4.41243697
Basilicata:PG22

5.86587589
Athens:Greek_Athens_TLA018

5.96119116
Greece_F:GreeceF52k

5.98579986
Smyrna:GreeceSmyrna9

6.06666300
Campania:NaN289RM

6.10811755
Greece_F:GreeceF69k

6.37657432
Basilicata:PG20

6.54068039
Apulia:GS47

6.56834835
Athens:Greek_Athens_TLA012

6.57667849
Sicily:W-Sicily5b_Behar_2013

6.58770825
Athens:Greek_Athens_TLA024

6.69323539
Apulia:GS32

6.70374522
Greece_F:GreeceF36k

6.84857649
Apulia:ALP583

6.85011679
Apulia:Pu7

6.89119003
Greece_Central:GreeceCentral8

7.00041427
Sicily:SR23_Busby_2015

7.12744695
Apulia:Pu45

7.21500520
Apulia:Pu3

7.21907889
Apulia:ALP379

7.29932874
Basilicata:PG16

7.31833314
Crete:Crete8

7.37885492
Sicily:W-Sicily1_Behar_2013

7.37885492
Sicily:W-Sicily:1

7.43930104
Abruzzo:ALP205

----------


## Jovialis

Distance to:
GRC_Palace_of_Nestor_EIA:I19368

6.14121324
C5:Imperial_Eastern_Mediterranean:R69_ANAS

6.75556067
C5:Late_Antiquity_Eastern_Mediterranean:R32_Mausol e_di_Augusto

6.96630462
C6:Medieval_Mediterranean:R57_Villa_Magna

7.27677126
C6:Medieval_Mediterranean:R58_Villa_Magna

7.29489548
C6:Medieval_Mediterranean:R53_Villa_Magna

7.73488203
C6:Medieval_Mediterranean:R59_Villa_Magna

7.76294403
C6:Imperial_Mediterranean:R125_Casale_del_Dolce

7.79598615
C6:Medieval_Mediterranean:R973_Tivoli_Palazzo_Cian ti

7.89583434
C6:Imperial_Mediterranean:R49_Centocelle_Necropoli s

8.01438082
C6:Medieval_Mediterranean:R65_Villa_Magna

8.26848837
C5:Late_Antiquity_Eastern_Mediterranean:R122_S_Erc olano_Necropolis_Ostia

8.61850335
C6:Imperial_Mediterranean:R436_Palestrina

8.79553864
C6:Imperial_Mediterranean:R136_Marcellino_&_Pietro

8.80618533
C6:Medieval_Mediterranean:R56_Villa_Magna

8.85637059
C6:Imperial_Mediterranean:R51_Centocelle_Necropoli s

9.00314945
C6:Imperial_Mediterranean:R836_Civitanova_Marche

9.18182444
C6:Imperial_Mediterranean:R1544_Necropolis_of_Mont e_Agnese

9.21876347
C6:Medieval_Mediterranean:R1290_Villa_Magna

9.36573008
C6:Late_Antiquity_Mediterranean:R35_Celio

9.38364535
C6:Medieval_Mediterranean:R54_Villa_Magna

9.39797319
C5:Imperial_Eastern_Mediterranean:R114_Via_Paisiel lo_Necropolis

9.43728775
C6:Imperial_Mediterranean:R137_Marcellino_&_Pietro

9.46988384
C5:Late_Antiquity_Eastern_Mediterranean:R30_Mausol e_di_Augusto

9.88189253
C6:Imperial_Mediterranean:R131_Via_Paisiello_Necro polis

10.01655629
C6:Medieval_Mediterranean:R64_Villa_Magna

----------


## Leopoldo Leone

> I think it is likely, these Northern Italian-like people mixed with southern southern sources, which gave rise to groups like C6.
> 
> I think the most imperative samples we need are the oscans, and Lucanians to really know. A good question IMO: Were they similar to Cetina/R1, but a bit more southern-eastern shifted?
> 
> If Italic Tribes in the south were more south-eastern, than they would fit well with a two way with "standard" 1:10 Minoan/Yamnaya Mycenaeans.
> 
> The Northern-Italian-like Cetina plus EIA Palace of Nestor makes for a fairly good fit. I get about 3.5+ with that.


I believe that "Oscans" and "Lucanians", at least at the beginning, were genetically similar to Latins, but they were the latest arrivals in southern Italy, since before them Greeks invaded the lands occupied by whom they called "Ausones", and they might have made up the bulk of the population in south Italy during the IA ( they themselves, if they were Italic as it is likely, being a mixture of genetically north Italian-like proto-italics and something more southern. Of course with time it is likely they were assimilated by incoming Osco-umbrian speakers and the genetic profile of a "Lucanian" or an "Oscan" might have been thus more similar to that of previous Ausones.

----------


## Jovialis

> I believe that "Oscans" and "Lucanians", at least at the beginning, were genetically similar to Latins, but they were the latest arrivals in southern Italy, since before them Greeks invaded the lands occupied by whom they called "Ausones", and they might have made up the bulk of the population in south Italy during the IA ( they themselves, if they were Italic as it is likely, being a mixture of genetically north Italian-like proto-italics and something more southern. Of course with time it is likely they were assimilated by incoming Osco-umbrian speakers and the genetic profile of a "Lucanian" or an "Oscan" might have been thus more similar to that of previous Ausones.


For me, I think when they proto-Italics arrived they may have been a bit different. Considering the fact that Central Italian ChL had a WHG resurgence. Therefore it was the neolithic inhabitants that already had WHG, prior to mixing with incoming people. Which is why Latins and Etruscans are pulled more to the "west". I think the proto-Italics were a bit more Steppe, and had less if any straight up WHG at all.

For example, R1 doesn't seem to have straight up WHG, like Etruscans/Latins.

----------


## Jovialis

> For me, I think when they proto-Italics arrived they may have been a bit different. Considering the fact that Central Italian ChL had a WHG resurgence. Therefore it was the neolithic inhabitants that already had WHG, prior to mixing with incoming people. Which is why Latins and Etruscans are pulled more to the "west". I think the proto-Italics were a bit more Steppe, and had less if any straight up WHG at all.
> 
> For example, R1 doesn't seem to have straight up WHG, like Etruscans/Latins.


Therefore, I think what Oscans and Lucanians may have looked like depends on the neolithic/ChL people that inhabited the area prior to the arrival of Proto-Italics. Lets say the proto-Italics look more or less like R1 (Steppe + Anatolia_n), the question is, did the neolithic/ChL people of southern Italy also have a WHG resurgence? Did it pass over them? Or did they have more CHG? My theory on the matter is that southern Italian_n and/or ChL was probably more CHG (minon/Greece_N-like) before mixing with proto-Italics.

----------


## torzio

> I believe that "Oscans" and "Lucanians", at least at the beginning, were genetically similar to Latins, but they were the latest arrivals in southern Italy, since before them Greeks invaded the lands occupied by whom they called "Ausones", and they might have made up the bulk of the population in south Italy during the IA ( they themselves, if they were Italic as it is likely, being a mixture of genetically north Italian-like proto-italics and something more southern. Of course with time it is likely they were assimilated by incoming Osco-umbrian speakers and the genetic profile of a "Lucanian" or an "Oscan" might have been thus more similar to that of previous Ausones.



When do you think the Greeks first arrived in Italy ? .................the net states from the 8th century ..............I know the Corinthians took Corfu from the liburnians in 733BC before heading to Italy along the adriatic sea

Oscan ? .........do you mean Oscan-Umbrian 

Samnites and Sabellics are 2 of the many tribes under oscan-umbrian

----------


## torzio

> Therefore, I think what Oscans and Lucanians may have looked like depends on the neolithic/ChL people that inhabited the area prior to the arrival of Proto-Italics. Lets say the proto-Italics look more or less like R1 (Steppe + Anatolia_n), the question is, did the neolithic/ChL people of southern Italy also have a WHG resurgence? Did it pass over them? Or did they have more CHG? My theory on the matter is that southern Italian_n and/or ChL was probably more CHG (minon/Greece_N-like) before mixing with proto-Italics.



Italic tribes where in Italy many centuries before any Greeks arrived in the 8th century BC

The Umbri Italic tribes along the Adriatic sea would have been mixing with Eastern Adriatic balkan tribes many centuries earlier.

----------


## Jovialis

> Italic tribes where in Italy many centuries before any Greeks arrived in the 8th century BC
> The Umbri Italic tribes along the Adriatic sea would have been mixing with Eastern Adriatic balkan tribes many centuries earlier.


Yes, but I propose that South italian_n/ChL were greek_n/Minoan-like. Not actually culturally Greek. But as you said they did arrive later.

We need samples from the region from Neolithic and copper age to confirm.

----------


## Francesco

As I said somewhere else, my bet is that southern italic tribes could plot near the Crete Armenoi sample, due to the minoan-like substratum in southern Italy (while in northern italy the calcholithic substratum was probably sardinian-like). Then, their interaction with the Iron age Greek of Magna Grecia could have gave birth to the C 6 cluster. Further samples from Oscan tribes (Samnitic, Lucani etc.) and Greek colonies from *all* Magna Grecia (and not just from one colony, since the provenience of Greek colonists was pretty diverse) will greatly help in clearing the picture.

----------


## Jovialis

> As I said somewhere else, my bet is that southern italic tribes could plot near the Crete Armenoi sample, due to the minoan-like substratum in southern Italy (while in northern italy the calcholithic substratum was probably sardinian-like). Then, their interaction with the Iron age Greek of Magna Grecia could have gave birth to the C 6 cluster. Further samples from Oscan tribes (Samnitic, Lucani etc.) and Greek colonies from *all* Magna Grecia (and not just from one colony, since the provenience of Greek colonists was pretty diverse) will greatly help in clearing the picture.


Indeed, I think that's a very sensible proposition that I agree with.

----------


## Jovialis

Finally, I believe the interaction of all of these groups together would neatly explain the crux of the Italian-cline.

----------


## Leopoldo Leone

> As I said somewhere else, my bet is that southern italic tribes could plot near the Crete Armenoi sample, due to the minoan-like substratum in southern Italy (while in northern italy the calcholithic substratum was probably sardinian-like). Then, their interaction with the Iron age Greek of Magna Grecia could have gave birth to the C 6 cluster. Further samples from Oscan tribes (Samnitic, Lucani etc.) and Greek colonies from *all* Magna Grecia (and not just from one colony, since the provenience of Greek colonists was pretty diverse) will greatly help in clearing the picture.


 As far as the evidence goes the neolithic substratum in south Italy wasn't Minoan-like (though in central Italy it was already Peloponnesian_N-like), but some minoan-like 
input arrived during the middle bronze age (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1...ntary-material in Sicily, at least, but I'd be surprised it didn't interest other areas of south Italy).

----------


## Jovialis

> As far as the evidence goes the neolithic substratum in south Italy wasn't Minoan-like (though in central Italy it was already Peloponnesian_N-like), but some minoan-like 
> input arrived during the middle bronze age (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1...ntary-material in Sicily, at least, but I'd be surprised it didn't interest other areas of south Italy).


I believe it was Palemro Trapani who discovered that they did indeed find Minoan to be a viable model in the supplement of that paper.

----------


## Jovialis

> Sicilian Bronze Age Proximal Modeling
> 718 We modeled Bronze Age Sicilians as having a local source of ancestry represented by Sicily_MN, 719 and then added combinations of Bell Beaker culture associated populations from the west (as we
> 720 find Iberia-specific Y chromosome haplogroup R1b1a1a2a1a2a1 (Z195) in Early Bronze Age Sicily), 721 namely Iberia and France (Bell_Beaker_Iberia_highsteppe, France_Bell_Beaker). We also use
> 722 Minoan_Lassithi as a proxy for Iranian-related ancestry




I think you're right to say that this admixture may have arrived in the bronze-age. So relying solely on Neolithic and Copper age samples to prove their existence may not be necessary.

----------


## Jovialis

^^curiously that study decided not to go with this model. They probably should have, because the reaction from the community that read it was a near universal rejection. Even the people on anthrogenica thought it was purpostrous. It is probably more woke to say modern Sicilians are 40% morrocan LN or whatever it was. This paper in many ways was sort of like the beginning of the "netflixization" of archeogenetics.

----------


## Francesco

> As far as the evidence goes the neolithic substratum in south Italy wasn't Minoan-like (though in central Italy it was already Peloponnesian_N-like), but some minoan-like 
> input arrived during the middle bronze age (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1...ntary-material in Sicily, at least, but I'd be surprised it didn't interest other areas of south Italy).


Yes, right puntualization: the Sicilian Neolithic was peloponnesian Neolithic-like. By the start of the bronze age we have some beaker associated sample, but still very AN-like.
Then by the middle bronze age we see a shift towards the Minoan cluster. That's the genetic landscape the proto-italic invaders could have found in southern Italy, between middle and late bronze age.

----------


## Palermo Trapani

> I believe it was Palemro Trapani who discovered that they did indeed find Minoan to be a viable model in the supplement of that paper.


Jovialis: In the Southern Italian Ethnogensis thread that you started (a good thread), I noted that the Marcus et al 2020 paper suggested/indicated that Minoan Like ancestry could be used to viably model Bronze Age Sicilians (post #33). The Marcus et al 2020 paper clearly in my view indicates that, even though they did not present it with an empirical model. Figure 4 in that paper clearly shows, in my opinion, that Minoan related ancestry could be used to model Bronze Age Sicily and thus I would suggest it is likely Minoan related would also be a viable source ancestry for other Bronze Age Southern Italians once those samples are available. I had always questioned the use of Late Neolithic Morrocan to model modern Sicilians and actually questioned it in a comment in the pre-print version of the paper, even though Late Neolithic Morrocan was heavy in EEF ancestry, there is no evidence of a migration from EEF to North Africa then into Sicily. Seemed like a lazy choice, or maybe one of convenience or maybe one of those political choices. Leopoldo Leone (post 84 in that thread( found the the supplements that were updated in the Fernandes et al 2020 paper which indeed showed empirically that Minoan ancestry could be used to viably model the Bronze Age Sicilians, along with Bell Beaker (with Steppe admixture) and Neolithic EEF related ancestry.

----------


## Jovialis

> I think you're right to say that this admixture may have arrived in the bronze-age. So relying solely on Neolithic and Copper age samples to prove their existence may not be necessary.


Highly interesting!

Central European Bell Beaker + Minoan

I need to see where it comes from specifically. Seems to coincide with the "aFrance + Minoan" model proposed by Raveanne et al. 2022.





```
Beaker_Central_Europe:E09538:Olalde_2018,6.17,0,0,0.28,39.13,29.52,0,0,2.1,0.4,21.11,1.29
Beaker_Central_Europe:E09568:Olalde_2018,0.31,0.17,1.65,0.42,38.06,43.05,0,0,3.63,0.9,10.46,1.34
Beaker_Central_Europe:E09569:Olalde_2018,8.36,1.44,1.84,0,34.15,42.57,1.92,0,1.04,0,7.05,1.64
Beaker_Central_Europe:I1381:Olalde_2018,13.64,0.85,0,0,30.53,51.38,1.92,0.91,0,0,0,0.78
Beaker_Central_Europe:I1382:Olalde_2018,13.38,1.66,0,0.14,30.09,47.16,1.65,0.79,0,0.13,4.45,0.56
Beaker_Central_Europe:I1389:Olalde_2018,13.64,0.48,1.34,0,37.12,43.47,0.36,2.42,1.16,0,0,0
Beaker_Central_Europe:I1390:Olalde_2018,9.91,1.27,0,0,33.4,46.97,0,0.31,0,0,7.34,0.8
Beaker_Central_Europe:I2364:Olalde_2018,0.04,0.24,2.2,0.33,43.27,22.09,0,0,9.98,0,20.76,1.1
Beaker_Central_Europe:I2365:Olalde_2018,11.64,1.5,0,0.65,31.92,40.4,0,0.81,1.9,0,9.12,2.06
Beaker_Central_Europe:I2741:Olalde_2018,0,0,4.63,0,62.23,9.82,0,0,7.24,0,15.85,0.23
Beaker_Central_Europe:I2786:Olalde_2018,14.38,1.1,0,0.94,26.33,51.44,0,0,0.03,0,4.5,1.28
Beaker_Central_Europe:I2787:Olalde_2018,19.79,1.5,0,0.46,19.01,48.01,1.28,0,0,0,8.74,1.21
Beaker_Central_Europe:I3528:Olalde_2018,1.06,0,0,0,33.2,48.33,1.39,0,5.63,0,10.02,0.37
Beaker_Central_Europe:I3588:Olalde_2018,8.94,0.96,0,0,42.43,33.73,0,0,0,0.78,12.54,0.62
Beaker_Central_Europe:I3589:Olalde_2018,10.6,1.13,1.67,0,32.4,42.17,0,0,0,0,11.51,0.52
Beaker_Central_Europe:I3597:Olalde_2018,9.23,0,0,0,35.26,32.37,3.26,0,5.47,0,14.41,0
Beaker_Central_Europe:I3599:Olalde_2018,20.87,0,0,2.12,33.44,29.94,1.6,0,0,0,12.03,0
Beaker_Central_Europe:I3604:Olalde_2018,13.28,0,3.35,0.18,37.98,33.24,0,0,0,0,10.57,1.4
Beaker_Central_Europe:I3607:Olalde_2018,17.71,0,0,0,40.24,28.03,0,0,6.63,7.39,0,0
Beaker_Central_Europe:I4132:Olalde_2018,16.83,0.23,0,0.39,34.52,46.89,0.16,0.97,0,0,0,0
Beaker_Central_Europe:I4178:Olalde_2018,8.81,0.14,0,0,31.29,45.78,0,0.46,0.76,1.32,10.04,1.39
Beaker_Central_Europe:I4251:Olalde_2018,5.26,2.61,0,0,33.5,45.95,0,0,0,0,11.82,0.86
Beaker_Central_Europe:I4252:Olalde_2018,0,0,2.07,0,42.56,32.93,1.44,3.5,4.49,0,13.01,0
Beaker_Central_Europe:I4253:Olalde_2018,11.92,2.36,0,0,33.96,38.46,0,0,0.75,0,12.09,0.45
Beaker_Central_Europe:I4885:Olalde_2018,7.91,0.38,0.97,0,35.71,32.69,0.1,0,3.35,0,17.65,1.23
Beaker_Central_Europe:I4886:Olalde_2018,5.87,0.93,0.87,0,34.97,37.55,0.93,0.66,1.28,0,16.66,0.29
Beaker_Central_Europe:I4887:Olalde_2018,6.84,0.84,0,0.02,40.33,37.37,0.42,0.8,1.6,0,11.27,0.5
Beaker_Central_Europe:I4888:Olalde_2018,7.04,1.24,0.63,0,35.83,40.58,0,0.1,3.82,0,10.22,0.54
Beaker_Central_Europe:I4889:Olalde_2018,12.13,2.46,0,0,36.67,37.98,0.44,0,0.41,0,9.05,0.86
Beaker_Central_Europe:I4890:Olalde_2018,1.46,0,2.69,0,41.77,33.77,0,0.84,2.56,0,16.91,0
Beaker_Central_Europe:I4891:Olalde_2018,7.79,0.03,1.75,0,37.08,41.1,1.33,0,1.22,0,8.79,0.91
Beaker_Central_Europe:I4895:Olalde_2018,11.76,0.17,0,0,32.7,44.41,1.53,0,0,0,8.73,0.7
Beaker_Central_Europe:I5021:Olalde_2018,16.02,0,0,1.13,22.28,47.78,7,0.01,0,0,4.23,1.55
Beaker_Central_Europe:I5022:Olalde_2018,7.22,0,0,1.1,46.8,25.22,0,0,0.07,0,19.59,0
Beaker_Central_Europe:I5024:Olalde_2018,16.13,0.42,0.05,0,38.72,42.54,0,0,0,0,2.14,0
Beaker_Central_Europe:I5514:Olalde_2018,14.13,0.94,0.55,0,31.45,46.7,0,0.2,0.53,0,4.84,0.67
Beaker_Central_Europe:I5519:Olalde_2018,13.46,1.03,0,0,30.71,48.59,1.95,0.23,0,0,2.79,1.24
Beaker_Central_Europe:I5529:Olalde_2018,5.98,2.07,0,0,37.51,35.91,0.59,0,2.24,0,15.27,0.44
Beaker_Central_Europe:I5530:Olalde_2018,35.32,0,0,0,17.06,17.55,0,0,30.07,0,0,0
Beaker_Central_Europe:I5657:Olalde_2018,8.65,0,0,0,32.54,48.02,0,1.03,0,0,9.76,0
Beaker_Central_Europe:I5659:Olalde_2018,3,0,0,0,31.51,53.89,2.83,0,0.55,0.62,7.61,0
Beaker_Central_Europe:I5660:Olalde_2018,4.05,0,0,0,37.8,35.91,0,1.9,0.09,0,20.25,0
Beaker_Central_Europe:I5661:Olalde_2018,18.81,1.91,0.62,1.51,32.64,40.24,0.51,0,0,0.24,2.01,1.5
Beaker_Central_Europe:I5663:Olalde_2018,23.11,0,0,0,37.8,30.52,0,4.72,0,0.43,3.42,0
Beaker_Central_Europe:I5666:Olalde_2018,11.01,0,0,0,36.33,41.07,0.45,0,0,0,11.03,0.11
Beaker_Central_Europe:I5755:Olalde_2018,0,0,3.63,0.57,31.17,40.03,1.48,0,11.66,0,11.47,0
Beaker_Central_Europe:I5757:Olalde_2018,7.66,0,0,0,39.65,47.94,0,2.31,2.45,0,0,0
Beaker_Central_Europe:I5833:Olalde_2018,7.43,1.26,0,0,39.63,42.07,0.59,0.56,0,0,7.3,1.16
Beaker_Central_Europe:I5835:Olalde_2018,7.28,0.42,0.64,0,42.89,35.63,1.19,0.45,0.51,0,9.6,1.4
Beaker_Central_Europe:I6480:Olalde_2018,12.26,1.55,1.54,0.06,31.64,43.53,0,0.09,0,0,8.09,1.24
Beaker_Central_Europe:I6481:Olalde_2018,19.32,3.99,3.11,0,20.3,53.27,0,0,0,0,0,0
Beaker_Central_Europe:I6534:Olalde_2018,8.09,0,0.27,0,43.42,26.63,0,0,6.45,0,14.74,0.4
Beaker_Central_Europe:I6535:Olalde_2018,0,0,0,0,27.5,72.5,0,0,0,0,0,0
Beaker_Central_Europe:I6580:Olalde_2018,13.26,1.59,0,0,29.14,47.64,1.05,0,0,0,6.18,1.14
Beaker_Central_Europe:I6581:Olalde_2018,6.5,1.55,1.02,0,46.18,28.85,1.23,0,1.39,0,11.96,1.31
Beaker_Central_Europe:I7044:Olalde_2018,0,0,3.14,0.5,44.36,22.25,0,0,9.73,0,19.17,0.84
Beaker_Central_Europe:I7205:Olalde_2018,14,2.16,0,0,31.21,49.05,0.04,0.46,0,0,1.58,1.49
Beaker_Central_Europe:I7210:Olalde_2018,9.66,0.34,0,0.65,35.98,43.58,0,0.5,0,0,8.16,1.12
Beaker_Central_Europe:I7212:Olalde_2018,12.09,0,0,0.71,37.69,44.1,0,0.83,0,0,4.21,0.36
Beaker_Central_Europe:I7249:Olalde_2018,8.5,1.56,0,0,33.55,44.28,0,0.18,2.65,0,8.85,0.43
Beaker_Central_Europe:I7251:Olalde_2018,10.77,0.63,0,0.78,33.72,44.59,0.64,0.02,0,0,7.89,0.97
Beaker_Central_Europe:I7269:Olalde_2018,10.24,1,0,0,36.62,39.96,0,0,0.8,0,10.11,1.26
Beaker_Central_Europe:I7271:Olalde_2018,14.47,0,0,1.42,33.01,46.88,0,0,0,0,2.97,1.25
Beaker_Central_Europe:I7275:Olalde_2018,10.88,0.67,0,0,35.25,37.06,1.05,0,0.93,0,12.94,1.23
Beaker_Central_Europe:I7276:Olalde_2018,8.07,1.15,0.28,0.48,32.93,43.01,0.85,0,0.82,0,11.73,0.68
Beaker_Central_Europe:I7278:Olalde_2018,12.84,1.05,0,0.28,37.4,38.55,0.11,0.38,0.6,0,7.76,1.03
Beaker_Central_Europe:I7282:Olalde_2018,8.53,1.74,1.3,0,41.85,38.9,0,0,0.7,0,5.76,1.22
Beaker_Central_Europe:I7286:Olalde_2018,6.24,0.62,0,0,35.18,52.85,0.78,0,0,0.21,2.99,1.13
Beaker_Central_Europe:I7287:Olalde_2018,9.92,0.43,0.17,0,37.75,41.21,3.72,0.52,0,0,5.15,1.12
Beaker_Central_Europe:I7288:Olalde_2018,8.39,0.06,0,0.63,34.41,52.4,0,3.14,0,0,0,0.97
Beaker_Central_Europe:I7289:Olalde_2018,6.39,0,0.3,1.59,39.89,37.15,0.32,0.17,2.26,0,11.15,0.78
Beaker_Iberia:I0257:Olalde_2018,0,0,1.05,0,75.94,6.05,1.63,0,0,0,15.32,0
Beaker_Iberia:I0261:Olalde_2018,0,0,0.99,0,66.63,8.75,0.73,0,14.27,0.51,8.13,0
Beaker_Iberia:I0458:Olalde_2018,0,0,3.76,0.18,76.34,3.61,1.68,0,8.46,0,5.96,0
Beaker_Iberia:I0460:Olalde_2018,0,0,0.22,0.05,75.94,12.49,1.53,0,4.78,2.08,2.77,0.14
Beaker_Iberia:I0825:Olalde_2018,0,2.73,8.8,1.16,78.61,4.35,1.13,0,3.22,0,0,0
Beaker_Iberia:I0826:Olalde_2018,0,0,1.32,0,73.13,17.11,0,0,0,0,8.18,0.26
Beaker_Iberia:I1970:Olalde_2018,0,0,0.07,0,80.81,4.2,0,0,4.08,0.7,9.69,0.46
Beaker_Iberia:I4229:Olalde_2018,0,0,4.43,0.17,62.61,15.51,0,0,5.18,1.28,9.82,1
Beaker_Iberia:I5665:Olalde_2018,1.52,0,3.51,0.63,54.33,27.92,1.63,0,1.44,0.49,8.16,0.37
Beaker_Iberia:I6471:Olalde_2018,17.84,0,7.51,0.32,30.35,37.99,0,0,0,0,5.99,0
Beaker_Iberia:I6472:Olalde_2018,1.72,2.52,2.43,0,53.91,28.97,0,0,0,0,9.2,1.26
Beaker_Iberia:I6539:Olalde_2018,2.73,0,3.97,1.32,50.47,29.04,0.36,0.66,2.77,0,8.67,0
Beaker_Iberia:I6542:Olalde_2018,0,0,5.09,0.11,66.52,13.07,0,0.02,4.28,1.67,9.24,0
Beaker_Iberia:I6587:Olalde_2018,0,0.15,4.96,0,74,10.62,0,0,1.05,1.19,7.97,0.05
Beaker_Iberia:I6588:Olalde_2018,4.92,0,0,0,41.13,39.96,1.48,0,2.48,0,10.03,0
Beaker_Iberia:I6589:Olalde_2018,5.96,0,0,0,60.18,17.7,14.09,0,2.06,0,0,0
Beaker_Iberia:I6622:Olalde_2018,0,0,0,0,73.85,2.92,0.98,0,18.03,0,4.22,0
Minoan_Lasithi:I0070:Lazaridis_2017,0,0,0.62,0.55,37.53,0,0,0,15.52,0,45.7,0.09
Minoan_Lasithi:I0071:Lazaridis_2017,1.16,0,2.96,0,37.9,0.23,0,0,13.01,0,44.59,0.15
Minoan_Lasithi:I0073:Lazaridis_2017,0,0.05,2.92,0.4,36.38,0,0,0,13.48,0,46.7,0.07
Minoan_Lasithi:I0074:Lazaridis_2017,0.58,0,4.33,0,39.44,0,0,0,12.45,0,43.19,0
Minoan_Lasithi:I9005:Lazaridis_2017,1.52,0,5.68,0,37.33,0,0,0,16.14,0,39.25,0.08
```

----------


## Palermo Trapani

Jovialis: Thanks for the Coordinates. My model with 2 way admixture using Bell Beaker + Minoan. I also included the Early Bronze Age sample from the Yu et al 2022 paper "Genomic and dietary discontinuitiesduring the Mesolithic and Neolithic in Sicily". Regarding UZZ57:

"The fourth and youngest group includes one individual (UZZ57) dated to 4,150–3,970 cal BP and is attributedto the Early Bronze Age (Uzzo EBA). This individual is displaced from the Early Neolithic toward the directionof individuals associated with the Bell Beaker phenomenon and other Late Neolithic and BA groups thatcarry the so-called ‘‘steppe’’-related ancestry. This ancestry was characteristic for the steppe-nomadsfrom western Eurasia and spread across Europe during the Bronze Age (Haak et al., 2015). A similar shiftwas also found in published Early Bronze Age individuals from Sicily (Fernandes et al., 2020). This individualUZZ57 carried the Y-haplogroup R1b1a1b1a1a2, commonly found in Bronze Age Europe, and also previously reported in Sicilian Bronze Age individuals (Data S1.4, Data S5.2) (Fernandes et al., 2020)."

----------


## Palermo Trapani

Jovialis: Using the Dodecad12B coordinates from your post #136 for the Bronze Age Sicilians from Fernandes et al 2020. Model fit exceptionally well using Bell Beaker + Minoan.

----------


## torzio

my data

Target: ScallywagK12b
Distance: 0.1593% / 0.15926943
64.9	Beaker_Central_Europe
31.2	Minoan_Lasithi
3.9	Beaker_Iberia



Distance to:	ScallywagK12b
4.00830259	Beaker_Central_Europe:E09538:Olalde_2018
4.69245844	Beaker_Central_Europe:I4885:Olalde_2018
8.89654427	Beaker_Central_Europe:I3597:Olalde_2018
10.25450633	Beaker_Central_Europe:I6534:Olalde_2018
10.48019561	Beaker_Central_Europe:I5660:Olalde_2018
10.68236865	Beaker_Central_Europe:I5529:Olalde_2018
10.76399090	Beaker_Central_Europe:I4890:Olalde_2018
11.40698032	Beaker_Central_Europe:I4886:Olalde_2018
11.96139624	Beaker_Central_Europe:I2364:Olalde_2018
12.73283158	Beaker_Central_Europe:I7044:Olalde_2018
13.33209286	Beaker_Central_Europe:I4252:Olalde_2018
13.42154611	Beaker_Central_Europe:I5022:Olalde_2018
14.04656898	Beaker_Central_Europe:I3588:Olalde_2018
14.07831666	Beaker_Central_Europe:I7275:Olalde_2018
14.42833670	Beaker_Central_Europe:I7289:Olalde_2018
14.78082542	Beaker_Central_Europe:I6581:Olalde_2018
14.82757566	Beaker_Central_Europe:I4887:Olalde_2018
15.45545535	Beaker_Central_Europe:I3604:Olalde_2018
16.10682464	Beaker_Central_Europe:I4253:Olalde_2018
16.41149597	Beaker_Central_Europe:I5835:Olalde_2018
16.44987234	Beaker_Central_Europe:I4888:Olalde_2018
18.20596118	Beaker_Iberia:I6588:Olalde_2018
18.46969376	Beaker_Central_Europe:I7269:Olalde_2018
18.54500499	Beaker_Central_Europe:I5755:Olalde_2018
18.81048848	Beaker_Central_Europe:I4889:Olalde_2018

----------


## Vallicanus

@Jovialis

What percentages of Beaker_Central_Europe, Beaker_Iberia and Minoan_Lasithi would the Iron Age Latin, Daunian and Etruscan samples have?

----------


## Jovialis

The Bell Beakers are pretty heterogenous, but based on the scores of Latins, it is about 50-60% Bell Beaker, and the rest Minoan.

The Bell Beaker I mostly get comes from Hungry.

Does anyone know where we can get Beakers from France?

----------


## Jovialis



----------


## Jovialis

Try this set, some of the French Beakers were unlabeled in my data set. Which is probably why we missed them all along.



```
France_Bell_Beaker:I3875:Olalde_2018,8.18,0.07,0.01,1.5,40.92,42.65,0,0.02,0,0,5.94,0.69
France_Bell_Beaker:CBV95:Brunel_2020,16.77,0,1.06,0.38,19.29,55.63,0.28,0,0,0,6.58,0
France_Bell_Beaker:Beaker_Central_Europe:I1390:Olalde_2018,9.91,1.27,0,0,33.4,46.97,0,0.31,0,0,7.34,0.8
France_Bell_Beaker:Beaker_Central_Europe:I1381:Olalde_2018,13.64,0.85,0,0,30.53,51.38,1.92,0.91,0,0,0,0.78
France_Bell_Beaker:I1391:Olalde_2018,11.13,4.27,0,0,40.65,36.26,0,0,3.82,0,2.44,1.42
France_Bell_Beaker:Beaker_Central_Europe:I1382:Olalde_2018,13.38,1.66,0,0.14,30.09,47.16,1.65,0.79,0,0.13,4.45,0.56
France_Bell_Beaker:Beaker_Central_Europe:I1389:Olalde_2018,13.64,0.48,1.34,0,37.12,43.47,0.36,2.42,1.16,0,0,0
France_Bell_Beaker:Beaker_Southern_France:I1388:Olalde_2018,0,0,2.3,0,59.39,21.76,0.81,0,7.46,0,8.28,0
France_Bell_Beaker:PEI2:Brunel_2020,0,0.49,1.82,0,67.08,14.74,0.5,0,8.49,0,6.44,0.44
Beaker_Northern_Italy:I2478:Olalde_2018,4.97,0,0,0.15,47.73,28.87,0.74,0,3.49,0.84,12.34,0.86
Beaker_Southern_France:I1388:Olalde_2018,0,0,2.3,0,59.39,21.76,0.81,0,7.46,0,8.28,0
Beaker_Southern_France:I3875:Olalde_2018,8.18,0.07,0.01,1.5,40.92,42.65,0,0.02,0,0,5.94,0.69
Beaker_The_Netherlands:I4068:Olalde_2018,13.41,0,0,0,32.42,50.78,0.94,0.87,0.11,0,1.17,0.31
Beaker_The_Netherlands:I4069:Olalde_2018,10.15,1.02,0,0.26,32.79,50.75,1.27,0,0.06,0.08,2.84,0.77
Beaker_The_Netherlands:I4073:Olalde_2018,12.27,2.51,0,0,30.08,49.84,0.08,0,0,0,3.98,1.24
Beaker_The_Netherlands:I4074:Olalde_2018,14.41,1.05,0,0,30.94,49.82,1.81,0.02,0,0,1,0.95
Beaker_The_Netherlands:I5748:Olalde_2018,16.46,0.1,0,0,28.84,50.16,0.81,0,0,0,2.35,1.27
Beaker_The_Netherlands:I5750:Olalde_2018,12.76,0.91,0,0,33.29,46.9,0.98,0,0,0,4.47,0.69
Bell_Beaker_Augsburg:RISE559:Allentoft_2015,5.7,0,0,0,40.1,37.15,0,0,0.19,0,16.87,0
Bell_Beaker_Augsburg:RISE560:Allentoft_2015,15.69,0,0,0,42.42,41.88,0,0,0,0,0,0
Bell_Beaker_Brandysek:RISE568:Allentoft_2015,0,0,0,0,22.05,72.67,0,0,0,0,5.28,0
Bell_Beaker_Brandysek:RISE569:Allentoft_2015,1.84,0,0.54,0,32.28,57.63,0,0,0.38,0,7.29,0.05
Bell_Beaker_Knezeves:RISE566:Allentoft_2015,4.28,0,0,0,38.81,56.91,0,0,0,0,0,0
Bell_Beaker_Knezeves:RISE567:Allentoft_2015,10.74,0,0,0,17.83,66.34,0,0,0,0,5.1,0
Bell_Beaker_Landau_an_der_Isar:RISE562:Allentoft_2015,19.88,0,0,0.22,34.62,45.28,0,0,0,0,0,0
Bell_Beaker_LN:I0060:Mathieson_2015,15.27,0,0,0,31.48,41.81,1.02,0,0,0,9.03,1.4
Bell_Beaker_LN:I0108:Mathieson_2015,7.49,1.12,1.12,0,43.47,39.38,0.4,0,0.38,0.42,5.38,0.84
Bell_Beaker_LN:I0111:Mathieson_2015,9.74,0.15,1.55,0.31,38.48,39.9,0.89,0,0,0,8.79,0.19
Bell_Beaker_LN:I0112:Mathieson_2015,10.88,0.44,0,0,36.22,46.91,0.3,0.55,0,0,3.98,0.72
Bell_Beaker_LN:I0113:Mathieson_2015,7.82,0.92,0.79,0,40.86,38.66,0,0.29,4,0.52,6.14,0
Bell_Beaker_LN:I0805:Mathieson_2015,6.24,1.65,0,0,36.22,46,0,0,0,0,9.89,0
Bell_Beaker_LN:I0806:Mathieson_2015,9.19,1.42,0,0.3,29.39,47.9,0.35,0.41,0,0,11.05,0
Bell_Beaker_LN:I1546:Mathieson_2015,8.7,0,2.06,0.95,37.83,45.1,0,0,0,0,5.36,0
Bell_Beaker_LN:I1549:Mathieson_2015,14.03,1.08,0.02,0,33.55,46.77,0.69,1.09,0,0,2.32,0.44
Bell_Beaker_LN_1d_rel_I0111:I1530:Mathieson_2015,14.05,0.22,0,0.61,37.14,46.34,1.63,0,0,0,0,0
Bell_Beaker_LN_Quedlinburg_XII:I0112_QUEXII6:Haak_2015,10.12,0.73,0,0.32,34.63,46.31,0.15,0,0,0,6.98,0.76
Bell_Beaker_LN_Quedlinburg_XII:I0113_QUEXII4:Haak_2015,7.45,3.42,3.42,0,40.77,36.24,0,0,4.61,0.65,3.44,0
Bell_Beaker_LN_Quedlinburg_XII:I0806_QLB28:Haak_2015,7.05,2.6,0,0.39,34.62,45.71,0,0.81,0,0,7.85,0.98
Bell_Beaker_LN_Rothenschirmbach:I0060_ROT3:Haak_2015,22.22,0,0,0,25.43,43.68,0,0,0,0,8.67,0
Bell_Beaker_LN_Rothenschirmbach:I0108_ROT6:Haak_2015,8.64,1.11,1.84,0,45.17,38.07,0,1.14,2.01,0,2.02,0
Bell_Beaker_LN_Rothenschirmbach:I0111_ROT4:Haak_2015,6.6,1.02,1.3,1.28,35.36,42.48,0,0,0,0,11.63,0.32
Bell_Beaker_Osterhofen-Altenmarkt:RISE563:Allentoft_2015,6.22,0,0,0,31.7,57.28,0.74,0.75,0,0.02,3.29,0
Bell_Beaker_Osterhofen-Altenmarkt:RISE564:Allentoft_2015,0,0,0,0,42.81,40.34,0,0,0,0,15.97,0.88
Beaker_Central_Europe:E09538:Olalde_2018,6.17,0,0,0.28,39.13,29.52,0,0,2.1,0.4,21.11,1.29
Beaker_Central_Europe:E09568:Olalde_2018,0.31,0.17,1.65,0.42,38.06,43.05,0,0,3.63,0.9,10.46,1.34
Beaker_Central_Europe:E09569:Olalde_2018,8.36,1.44,1.84,0,34.15,42.57,1.92,0,1.04,0,7.05,1.64
Beaker_Central_Europe:I1381:Olalde_2018,13.64,0.85,0,0,30.53,51.38,1.92,0.91,0,0,0,0.78
Beaker_Central_Europe:I1382:Olalde_2018,13.38,1.66,0,0.14,30.09,47.16,1.65,0.79,0,0.13,4.45,0.56
Beaker_Central_Europe:I1389:Olalde_2018,13.64,0.48,1.34,0,37.12,43.47,0.36,2.42,1.16,0,0,0
Beaker_Central_Europe:I1390:Olalde_2018,9.91,1.27,0,0,33.4,46.97,0,0.31,0,0,7.34,0.8
Beaker_Central_Europe:I2364:Olalde_2018,0.04,0.24,2.2,0.33,43.27,22.09,0,0,9.98,0,20.76,1.1
Beaker_Central_Europe:I2365:Olalde_2018,11.64,1.5,0,0.65,31.92,40.4,0,0.81,1.9,0,9.12,2.06
Beaker_Central_Europe:I2741:Olalde_2018,0,0,4.63,0,62.23,9.82,0,0,7.24,0,15.85,0.23
Beaker_Central_Europe:I2786:Olalde_2018,14.38,1.1,0,0.94,26.33,51.44,0,0,0.03,0,4.5,1.28
Beaker_Central_Europe:I2787:Olalde_2018,19.79,1.5,0,0.46,19.01,48.01,1.28,0,0,0,8.74,1.21
Beaker_Central_Europe:I3528:Olalde_2018,1.06,0,0,0,33.2,48.33,1.39,0,5.63,0,10.02,0.37
Beaker_Central_Europe:I3588:Olalde_2018,8.94,0.96,0,0,42.43,33.73,0,0,0,0.78,12.54,0.62
Beaker_Central_Europe:I3589:Olalde_2018,10.6,1.13,1.67,0,32.4,42.17,0,0,0,0,11.51,0.52
Beaker_Central_Europe:I3597:Olalde_2018,9.23,0,0,0,35.26,32.37,3.26,0,5.47,0,14.41,0
Beaker_Central_Europe:I3599:Olalde_2018,20.87,0,0,2.12,33.44,29.94,1.6,0,0,0,12.03,0
Beaker_Central_Europe:I3604:Olalde_2018,13.28,0,3.35,0.18,37.98,33.24,0,0,0,0,10.57,1.4
Beaker_Central_Europe:I3607:Olalde_2018,17.71,0,0,0,40.24,28.03,0,0,6.63,7.39,0,0
Beaker_Central_Europe:I4132:Olalde_2018,16.83,0.23,0,0.39,34.52,46.89,0.16,0.97,0,0,0,0
Beaker_Central_Europe:I4178:Olalde_2018,8.81,0.14,0,0,31.29,45.78,0,0.46,0.76,1.32,10.04,1.39
Beaker_Central_Europe:I4251:Olalde_2018,5.26,2.61,0,0,33.5,45.95,0,0,0,0,11.82,0.86
Beaker_Central_Europe:I4252:Olalde_2018,0,0,2.07,0,42.56,32.93,1.44,3.5,4.49,0,13.01,0
Beaker_Central_Europe:I4253:Olalde_2018,11.92,2.36,0,0,33.96,38.46,0,0,0.75,0,12.09,0.45
Beaker_Central_Europe:I4885:Olalde_2018,7.91,0.38,0.97,0,35.71,32.69,0.1,0,3.35,0,17.65,1.23
Beaker_Central_Europe:I4886:Olalde_2018,5.87,0.93,0.87,0,34.97,37.55,0.93,0.66,1.28,0,16.66,0.29
Beaker_Central_Europe:I4887:Olalde_2018,6.84,0.84,0,0.02,40.33,37.37,0.42,0.8,1.6,0,11.27,0.5
Beaker_Central_Europe:I4888:Olalde_2018,7.04,1.24,0.63,0,35.83,40.58,0,0.1,3.82,0,10.22,0.54
Beaker_Central_Europe:I4889:Olalde_2018,12.13,2.46,0,0,36.67,37.98,0.44,0,0.41,0,9.05,0.86
Beaker_Central_Europe:I4890:Olalde_2018,1.46,0,2.69,0,41.77,33.77,0,0.84,2.56,0,16.91,0
Beaker_Central_Europe:I4891:Olalde_2018,7.79,0.03,1.75,0,37.08,41.1,1.33,0,1.22,0,8.79,0.91
Beaker_Central_Europe:I4895:Olalde_2018,11.76,0.17,0,0,32.7,44.41,1.53,0,0,0,8.73,0.7
Beaker_Central_Europe:I5021:Olalde_2018,16.02,0,0,1.13,22.28,47.78,7,0.01,0,0,4.23,1.55
Beaker_Central_Europe:I5022:Olalde_2018,7.22,0,0,1.1,46.8,25.22,0,0,0.07,0,19.59,0
Beaker_Central_Europe:I5024:Olalde_2018,16.13,0.42,0.05,0,38.72,42.54,0,0,0,0,2.14,0
Beaker_Central_Europe:I5514:Olalde_2018,14.13,0.94,0.55,0,31.45,46.7,0,0.2,0.53,0,4.84,0.67
Beaker_Central_Europe:I5519:Olalde_2018,13.46,1.03,0,0,30.71,48.59,1.95,0.23,0,0,2.79,1.24
Beaker_Central_Europe:I5529:Olalde_2018,5.98,2.07,0,0,37.51,35.91,0.59,0,2.24,0,15.27,0.44
Beaker_Central_Europe:I5530:Olalde_2018,35.32,0,0,0,17.06,17.55,0,0,30.07,0,0,0
Beaker_Central_Europe:I5657:Olalde_2018,8.65,0,0,0,32.54,48.02,0,1.03,0,0,9.76,0
Beaker_Central_Europe:I5659:Olalde_2018,3,0,0,0,31.51,53.89,2.83,0,0.55,0.62,7.61,0
Beaker_Central_Europe:I5660:Olalde_2018,4.05,0,0,0,37.8,35.91,0,1.9,0.09,0,20.25,0
Beaker_Central_Europe:I5661:Olalde_2018,18.81,1.91,0.62,1.51,32.64,40.24,0.51,0,0,0.24,2.01,1.5
Beaker_Central_Europe:I5663:Olalde_2018,23.11,0,0,0,37.8,30.52,0,4.72,0,0.43,3.42,0
Beaker_Central_Europe:I5666:Olalde_2018,11.01,0,0,0,36.33,41.07,0.45,0,0,0,11.03,0.11
Beaker_Central_Europe:I5755:Olalde_2018,0,0,3.63,0.57,31.17,40.03,1.48,0,11.66,0,11.47,0
Beaker_Central_Europe:I5757:Olalde_2018,7.66,0,0,0,39.65,47.94,0,2.31,2.45,0,0,0
Beaker_Central_Europe:I5833:Olalde_2018,7.43,1.26,0,0,39.63,42.07,0.59,0.56,0,0,7.3,1.16
Beaker_Central_Europe:I5835:Olalde_2018,7.28,0.42,0.64,0,42.89,35.63,1.19,0.45,0.51,0,9.6,1.4
Beaker_Central_Europe:I6480:Olalde_2018,12.26,1.55,1.54,0.06,31.64,43.53,0,0.09,0,0,8.09,1.24
Beaker_Central_Europe:I6481:Olalde_2018,19.32,3.99,3.11,0,20.3,53.27,0,0,0,0,0,0
Beaker_Central_Europe:I6534:Olalde_2018,8.09,0,0.27,0,43.42,26.63,0,0,6.45,0,14.74,0.4
Beaker_Central_Europe:I6535:Olalde_2018,0,0,0,0,27.5,72.5,0,0,0,0,0,0
Beaker_Central_Europe:I6580:Olalde_2018,13.26,1.59,0,0,29.14,47.64,1.05,0,0,0,6.18,1.14
Beaker_Central_Europe:I6581:Olalde_2018,6.5,1.55,1.02,0,46.18,28.85,1.23,0,1.39,0,11.96,1.31
Beaker_Central_Europe:I7044:Olalde_2018,0,0,3.14,0.5,44.36,22.25,0,0,9.73,0,19.17,0.84
Beaker_Central_Europe:I7205:Olalde_2018,14,2.16,0,0,31.21,49.05,0.04,0.46,0,0,1.58,1.49
Beaker_Central_Europe:I7210:Olalde_2018,9.66,0.34,0,0.65,35.98,43.58,0,0.5,0,0,8.16,1.12
Beaker_Central_Europe:I7212:Olalde_2018,12.09,0,0,0.71,37.69,44.1,0,0.83,0,0,4.21,0.36
Beaker_Central_Europe:I7249:Olalde_2018,8.5,1.56,0,0,33.55,44.28,0,0.18,2.65,0,8.85,0.43
Beaker_Central_Europe:I7251:Olalde_2018,10.77,0.63,0,0.78,33.72,44.59,0.64,0.02,0,0,7.89,0.97
Beaker_Central_Europe:I7269:Olalde_2018,10.24,1,0,0,36.62,39.96,0,0,0.8,0,10.11,1.26
Beaker_Central_Europe:I7271:Olalde_2018,14.47,0,0,1.42,33.01,46.88,0,0,0,0,2.97,1.25
Beaker_Central_Europe:I7275:Olalde_2018,10.88,0.67,0,0,35.25,37.06,1.05,0,0.93,0,12.94,1.23
Beaker_Central_Europe:I7276:Olalde_2018,8.07,1.15,0.28,0.48,32.93,43.01,0.85,0,0.82,0,11.73,0.68
Beaker_Central_Europe:I7278:Olalde_2018,12.84,1.05,0,0.28,37.4,38.55,0.11,0.38,0.6,0,7.76,1.03
Beaker_Central_Europe:I7282:Olalde_2018,8.53,1.74,1.3,0,41.85,38.9,0,0,0.7,0,5.76,1.22
Beaker_Central_Europe:I7286:Olalde_2018,6.24,0.62,0,0,35.18,52.85,0.78,0,0,0.21,2.99,1.13
Beaker_Central_Europe:I7287:Olalde_2018,9.92,0.43,0.17,0,37.75,41.21,3.72,0.52,0,0,5.15,1.12
Beaker_Central_Europe:I7288:Olalde_2018,8.39,0.06,0,0.63,34.41,52.4,0,3.14,0,0,0,0.97
Beaker_Central_Europe:I7289:Olalde_2018,6.39,0,0.3,1.59,39.89,37.15,0.32,0.17,2.26,0,11.15,0.78
Beaker_Iberia:I0257:Olalde_2018,0,0,1.05,0,75.94,6.05,1.63,0,0,0,15.32,0
Beaker_Iberia:I0261:Olalde_2018,0,0,0.99,0,66.63,8.75,0.73,0,14.27,0.51,8.13,0
Beaker_Iberia:I0458:Olalde_2018,0,0,3.76,0.18,76.34,3.61,1.68,0,8.46,0,5.96,0
Beaker_Iberia:I0460:Olalde_2018,0,0,0.22,0.05,75.94,12.49,1.53,0,4.78,2.08,2.77,0.14
Beaker_Iberia:I0825:Olalde_2018,0,2.73,8.8,1.16,78.61,4.35,1.13,0,3.22,0,0,0
Beaker_Iberia:I0826:Olalde_2018,0,0,1.32,0,73.13,17.11,0,0,0,0,8.18,0.26
Beaker_Iberia:I1970:Olalde_2018,0,0,0.07,0,80.81,4.2,0,0,4.08,0.7,9.69,0.46
Beaker_Iberia:I4229:Olalde_2018,0,0,4.43,0.17,62.61,15.51,0,0,5.18,1.28,9.82,1
Beaker_Iberia:I5665:Olalde_2018,1.52,0,3.51,0.63,54.33,27.92,1.63,0,1.44,0.49,8.16,0.37
Beaker_Iberia:I6471:Olalde_2018,17.84,0,7.51,0.32,30.35,37.99,0,0,0,0,5.99,0
Beaker_Iberia:I6472:Olalde_2018,1.72,2.52,2.43,0,53.91,28.97,0,0,0,0,9.2,1.26
Beaker_Iberia:I6539:Olalde_2018,2.73,0,3.97,1.32,50.47,29.04,0.36,0.66,2.77,0,8.67,0
Beaker_Iberia:I6542:Olalde_2018,0,0,5.09,0.11,66.52,13.07,0,0.02,4.28,1.67,9.24,0
Beaker_Iberia:I6587:Olalde_2018,0,0.15,4.96,0,74,10.62,0,0,1.05,1.19,7.97,0.05
Beaker_Iberia:I6588:Olalde_2018,4.92,0,0,0,41.13,39.96,1.48,0,2.48,0,10.03,0
Beaker_Iberia:I6589:Olalde_2018,5.96,0,0,0,60.18,17.7,14.09,0,2.06,0,0,0
Beaker_Iberia:I6622:Olalde_2018,0,0,0,0,73.85,2.92,0.98,0,18.03,0,4.22,0
Minoan_Lasithi:I0070:Lazaridis_2017,0,0,0.62,0.55,37.53,0,0,0,15.52,0,45.7,0.09
Minoan_Lasithi:I0071:Lazaridis_2017,1.16,0,2.96,0,37.9,0.23,0,0,13.01,0,44.59,0.15
Minoan_Lasithi:I0073:Lazaridis_2017,0,0.05,2.92,0.4,36.38,0,0,0,13.48,0,46.7,0.07
Minoan_Lasithi:I0074:Lazaridis_2017,0.58,0,4.33,0,39.44,0,0,0,12.45,0,43.19,0
Minoan_Lasithi:I9005:Lazaridis_2017,1.52,0,5.68,0,37.33,0,0,0,16.14,0,39.25,0.08
```

----------


## Jovialis

My fit becomes a better with Cetina added.

----------


## Palermo Trapani

Using the the source samples that include the French Bell Beakers in post #143:

----------


## torzio

Target: ScallywagK12b
Distance: 0.1469% / 0.14687366
32.7	Beaker_Central_Europe
29.3	Minoan_Lasithi
16.7	Bell_Beaker_Augsburg
7.3	Bell_Beaker_Brandysek
4.3	Beaker_Iberia
2.7	Bell_Beaker_Knezeves
2.7	Bell_Beaker_LN_Rothenschirmbach
2.7	France_Bell_Beaker
0.8	Bell_Beaker_Landau_an_der_Isar
0.5	Bell_Beaker_Osterhofen-Altenmarkt
0.1	Beaker_Southern_France
0.1	Bell_Beaker_LN
0.1	Bell_Beaker_LN_1d_rel_I0111


my data

----------


## Jovialis

Not a bad fit for many of them. Some require something else.

----------


## Jovialis

The fit improves for many when Cetina is added as well.

----------


## Stuvanè

From #143 post set

Target: Dodecadk12bStuvanè
Distance: 1.4976% / 1.49759321 | ADC: 0.25x RC

68.9
Beaker_Central_Europe



31.1
Minoan_Lasithi






Target: Dodecadk12bStuvanè
Distance: 0.1202% / 0.12019830

48.8
Minoan_Lasithi



20.2
Beaker_Central_Europe



13.4
Bell_Beaker_Brandysek



5.8
Bell_Beaker_Knezeves



4.6
Bell_Beaker_Augsburg



4.4
Bell_Beaker_LN



2.8
Bell_Beaker_LN_Rothenschirmbach




Distance to:
Dodecadk12bStuvanè

1.79849013
49.80% Bell_Beaker_LN:I0806:Mathieson_2015 + 50.20% Minoan_Lasithi:I9005:Lazaridis_2017

2.33166743
55.00% Beaker_Central_Europe:I7249:Olalde_2018 + 45.00% Minoan_Lasithi:I0073:Lazaridis_2017

2.35454634
49.40% Beaker_Central_Europe:I5657:Olalde_2018 + 50.60% Minoan_Lasithi:I9005:Lazaridis_2017

2.43272593
51.00% Beaker_Central_Europe:I4178:Olalde_2018 + 49.00% Minoan_Lasithi:I9005:Lazaridis_2017

2.59963386
47.60% Beaker_The_Netherlands:I4069:Olalde_2018 + 52.40% Minoan_Lasithi:I0073:Lazaridis_2017

2.66433173
54.80% Beaker_Central_Europe:I7249:Olalde_2018 + 45.20% Minoan_Lasithi:I0070:Lazaridis_2017

2.69086701
48.00% Beaker_The_Netherlands:I4073:Olalde_2018 + 52.00% Minoan_Lasithi:I0070:Lazaridis_2017

2.74198784
41.80% Bell_Beaker_Osterhofen-Altenmarkt:RISE563:Allentoft_2015 + 58.20% Minoan_Lasithi:I9005:Lazaridis_2017

2.76171694
47.40% Beaker_The_Netherlands:I4069:Olalde_2018 + 52.60% Minoan_Lasithi:I0070:Lazaridis_2017

2.79657342
54.20% Beaker_Central_Europe:I7276:Olalde_2018 + 45.80% Minoan_Lasithi:I9005:Lazaridis_2017

2.84461878
53.80% Beaker_Central_Europe:I4178:Olalde_2018 + 46.20% Minoan_Lasithi:I0070:Lazaridis_2017

2.87525251
45.60% France_Bell_Beaker:Beaker_Central_Europe:I1381:Ola lde_2018 + 54.40% Minoan_Lasithi:I0073:Lazaridis_2017

2.87525251
45.60% Beaker_Central_Europe:I1381:Olalde_2018 + 54.40% Minoan_Lasithi:I0073:Lazaridis_2017

2.88431590
53.80% Beaker_Central_Europe:I7249:Olalde_2018 + 46.20% Minoan_Lasithi:I0071:Lazaridis_2017

2.90839629
46.40% Beaker_The_Netherlands:I4068:Olalde_2018 + 53.60% Minoan_Lasithi:I0073:Lazaridis_2017

2.92307684
48.00% Beaker_The_Netherlands:I4073:Olalde_2018 + 52.00% Minoan_Lasithi:I0073:Lazaridis_2017

2.98685856
45.40% France_Bell_Beaker:Beaker_Central_Europe:I1381:Ola lde_2018 + 54.60% Minoan_Lasithi:I0070:Lazaridis_2017

2.98685856
45.40% Beaker_Central_Europe:I1381:Olalde_2018 + 54.60% Minoan_Lasithi:I0070:Lazaridis_2017

3.05059380
52.00% Beaker_Central_Europe:I4251:Olalde_2018 + 48.00% Minoan_Lasithi:I9005:Lazaridis_2017

3.06246287
58.80% Beaker_Central_Europe:I4888:Olalde_2018 + 41.20% Minoan_Lasithi:I0073:Lazaridis_2017

3.12665737
43.40% Bell_Beaker_Osterhofen-Altenmarkt:RISE563:Allentoft_2015 + 56.60% Minoan_Lasithi:I0071:Lazaridis_2017

3.12850222
51.60% France_Bell_Beaker:Beaker_Central_Europe:I1390:Ola lde_2018 + 48.40% Minoan_Lasithi:I0070:Lazaridis_2017

3.12850222
51.60% Beaker_Central_Europe:I1390:Olalde_2018 + 48.40% Minoan_Lasithi:I0070:Lazaridis_2017

3.14053265
46.20% Beaker_The_Netherlands:I4068:Olalde_2018 + 53.80% Minoan_Lasithi:I0070:Lazaridis_2017

3.15019881
57.00% Beaker_Central_Europe:I7276:Olalde_2018 + 43.00% Minoan_Lasithi:I0070:Lazaridis_2017

----------


## Jovialis

Here is my two-way:

Distance to:
Jovialis

2.77204576
37.40% Beaker_Central_Europe:I2787:Olalde_2018 + 62.60% Minoan_Lasithi:I0073:Lazaridis_2017

3.05458669
36.20% Beaker_Central_Europe:I2787:Olalde_2018 + 63.80% Minoan_Lasithi:I0071:Lazaridis_2017

3.20845612
33.20% Beaker_Central_Europe:I6481:Olalde_2018 + 66.80% Minoan_Lasithi:I0073:Lazaridis_2017

3.56853758
37.60% Beaker_Central_Europe:I2787:Olalde_2018 + 62.40% Minoan_Lasithi:I0070:Lazaridis_2017

3.75946629
39.20% Bell_Beaker_LN_Rothenschirmbach:I0060_ROT3:Haak_20 15 + 60.80% Minoan_Lasithi:I0073:Lazaridis_2017

3.79017959
33.00% France_Bell_Beaker:CBV95:Brunel_2020 + 67.00% Minoan_Lasithi:I0071:Lazaridis_2017

3.84203355
34.40% Beaker_Central_Europe:I2787:Olalde_2018 + 65.60% Minoan_Lasithi:I9005:Lazaridis_2017

3.85616250
34.20% France_Bell_Beaker:CBV95:Brunel_2020 + 65.80% Minoan_Lasithi:I0073:Lazaridis_2017

3.87112872
36.20% Beaker_Central_Europe:I2787:Olalde_2018 + 63.80% Minoan_Lasithi:I0074:Lazaridis_2017

4.03746495
32.00% Beaker_Central_Europe:I6481:Olalde_2018 + 68.00% Minoan_Lasithi:I0071:Lazaridis_2017

4.17614341
33.40% Beaker_Central_Europe:I6481:Olalde_2018 + 66.60% Minoan_Lasithi:I0070:Lazaridis_2017

4.45717256
31.40% France_Bell_Beaker:CBV95:Brunel_2020 + 68.60% Minoan_Lasithi:I9005:Lazaridis_2017

4.53584815
34.40% France_Bell_Beaker:CBV95:Brunel_2020 + 65.60% Minoan_Lasithi:I0070:Lazaridis_2017

4.67336720
36.40% Beaker_Central_Europe:I5021:Olalde_2018 + 63.60% Minoan_Lasithi:I0073:Lazaridis_2017

4.73093512
39.40% Bell_Beaker_LN_Rothenschirmbach:I0060_ROT3:Haak_20 15 + 60.60% Minoan_Lasithi:I0070:Lazaridis_2017

4.75381172
33.20% France_Bell_Beaker:CBV95:Brunel_2020 + 66.80% Minoan_Lasithi:I0074:Lazaridis_2017

4.83431467
37.80% Bell_Beaker_LN_Rothenschirmbach:I0060_ROT3:Haak_20 15 + 62.20% Minoan_Lasithi:I0071:Lazaridis_2017

5.18422926
35.00% Beaker_Central_Europe:I5021:Olalde_2018 + 65.00% Minoan_Lasithi:I0071:Lazaridis_2017

5.31723572
35.60% Beaker_Central_Europe:I2786:Olalde_2018 + 64.40% Minoan_Lasithi:I0073:Lazaridis_2017

5.48688521
32.00% Beaker_Central_Europe:I6481:Olalde_2018 + 68.00% Minoan_Lasithi:I0074:Lazaridis_2017

5.54375731
36.00% Bell_Beaker_LN_Rothenschirmbach:I0060_ROT3:Haak_20 15 + 64.00% Minoan_Lasithi:I9005:Lazaridis_2017

5.56814827
36.60% Beaker_Central_Europe:I5021:Olalde_2018 + 63.40% Minoan_Lasithi:I0070:Lazaridis_2017

5.57433198
35.20% Beaker_The_Netherlands:I5748:Olalde_2018 + 64.80% Minoan_Lasithi:I0073:Lazaridis_2017

5.78292376
38.00% Bell_Beaker_LN_Rothenschirmbach:I0060_ROT3:Haak_20 15 + 62.00% Minoan_Lasithi:I0074:Lazaridis_2017

5.79169821
27.40% Bell_Beaker_Knezeves:RISE567:Allentoft_2015 + 72.60% Minoan_Lasithi:I9005:Lazaridis_2017

----------


## Leopoldo Leone

> Using the the source samples that include the French Bell Beakers in post #143:


Could you try Cetina to see how the model behaves?

----------


## Angela

My results post 143

There's only 1 Italian Beaker in that set, yes?

Don't we have the coordinates for at least one other one?


Target: Angela
Distance: 1.3611% / 1.36112607 | ADC: 0.25x RC

68.6
Beaker_Central_Europe



31.4
Minoan_Lasithi





Target: Angela
Distance: 0.1454% / 0.14537414

42.8
Minoan_Lasithi



32.8
Bell_Beaker_Augsburg



17.1
Beaker_Iberia



5.4
Beaker_Central_Europe



1.9
Bell_Beaker_LN_Rothenschirmbach




Distance to:
Angela

1.53210360
52.60% Beaker_Central_Europe:I5835:Olalde_2018 + 47.40% Minoan_Lasithi:I0071:Lazaridis_2017

1.53967440
55.00% Beaker_Central_Europe:I3588:Olalde_2018 + 45.00% Minoan_Lasithi:I0074:Lazaridis_2017

1.71728823
52.00% Beaker_Central_Europe:I5835:Olalde_2018 + 48.00% Minoan_Lasithi:I0074:Lazaridis_2017

1.80545659
54.40% Beaker_Central_Europe:I5835:Olalde_2018 + 45.60% Minoan_Lasithi:I0073:Lazaridis_2017

1.85599232
55.80% Beaker_Central_Europe:I3588:Olalde_2018 + 44.20% Minoan_Lasithi:I0071:Lazaridis_2017

1.94877799
45.20% France_Bell_Beaker:I3875:Olalde_2018 + 54.80% Minoan_Lasithi:I0074:Lazaridis_2017

1.94877799
45.20% Beaker_Southern_France:I3875:Olalde_2018 + 54.80% Minoan_Lasithi:I0074:Lazaridis_2017

1.98276441
52.00% Beaker_Central_Europe:I4887:Olalde_2018 + 48.00% Minoan_Lasithi:I0074:Lazaridis_2017

1.99348089
47.60% Bell_Beaker_LN:I0108:Mathieson_2015 + 52.40% Minoan_Lasithi:I0071:Lazaridis_2017

2.01180506
57.60% Beaker_Central_Europe:I3588:Olalde_2018 + 42.40% Minoan_Lasithi:I0073:Lazaridis_2017

2.12326397
48.20% Bell_Beaker_LN:I0111:Mathieson_2015 + 51.80% Minoan_Lasithi:I0074:Lazaridis_2017

2.16381918
46.20% Beaker_Central_Europe:I5833:Olalde_2018 + 53.80% Minoan_Lasithi:I0074:Lazaridis_2017

2.26578032
49.40% Bell_Beaker_LN:I0108:Mathieson_2015 + 50.60% Minoan_Lasithi:I0073:Lazaridis_2017

2.34927777
46.80% Bell_Beaker_LN:I0108:Mathieson_2015 + 53.20% Minoan_Lasithi:I0074:Lazaridis_2017

2.38756499
48.00% Beaker_Central_Europe:I7282:Olalde_2018 + 52.00% Minoan_Lasithi:I0071:Lazaridis_2017

2.39736368
47.40% Beaker_Central_Europe:I7282:Olalde_2018 + 52.60% Minoan_Lasithi:I0074:Lazaridis_2017

2.47002355
52.20% Beaker_Central_Europe:I7289:Olalde_2018 + 47.80% Minoan_Lasithi:I0074:Lazaridis_2017

2.58160545
46.00% France_Bell_Beaker:I3875:Olalde_2018 + 54.00% Minoan_Lasithi:I0071:Lazaridis_2017

2.58160545
46.00% Beaker_Southern_France:I3875:Olalde_2018 + 54.00% Minoan_Lasithi:I0071:Lazaridis_2017

2.67105131
52.80% Beaker_Central_Europe:I4887:Olalde_2018 + 47.20% Minoan_Lasithi:I0071:Lazaridis_2017

2.69946845
45.20% Beaker_Central_Europe:I7287:Olalde_2018 + 54.80% Minoan_Lasithi:I0074:Lazaridis_2017

2.72246212
50.00% Beaker_Central_Europe:I7282:Olalde_2018 + 50.00% Minoan_Lasithi:I0073:Lazaridis_2017

2.73518139
57.40% Beaker_Central_Europe:I3588:Olalde_2018 + 42.60% Minoan_Lasithi:I0070:Lazaridis_2017

2.83993593
54.40% Beaker_Central_Europe:I5835:Olalde_2018 + 45.60% Minoan_Lasithi:I0070:Lazaridis_2017

2.86167289
49.60% Beaker_Iberia:I6588:Olalde_2018 + 50.40% Minoan_Lasithi:I0074:Lazaridis_2017



Distance to:
Angela

9.65707513
Beaker_Central_Europe:I2364:Olalde_2018

10.98498521
Beaker_Central_Europe:I7044:Olalde_2018

12.85027626
Beaker_Central_Europe:E09538:Olalde_2018

13.01848686
Beaker_Central_Europe:I5022:Olalde_2018

14.97863812
Beaker_Central_Europe:I6534:Olalde_2018

17.64306379
Beaker_Central_Europe:I4885:Olalde_2018

18.24869310
Beaker_Central_Europe:I4890:Olalde_2018

19.02237367
Beaker_Northern_Italy:I2478:Olalde_2018

19.19808584
Beaker_Central_Europe:I6581:Olalde_2018

19.32644820
Beaker_Central_Europe:I5660:Olalde_2018

19.71097156
Beaker_Central_Europe:I3597:Olalde_2018

20.42378026
Beaker_Central_Europe:I4252:Olalde_2018

21.12876949
Beaker_Central_Europe:I5529:Olalde_2018

21.43495043
Bell_Beaker_Augsburg:RISE559:Allentoft_2015

21.79244364
Beaker_Central_Europe:I3588:Olalde_2018

22.31130431
Beaker_Central_Europe:I4886:Olalde_2018

23.12518757
Beaker_Iberia:I6539:Olalde_2018

24.00296648
Beaker_Central_Europe:I3604:Olalde_2018

24.28306818
Beaker_Central_Europe:I7289:Olalde_2018

24.48844421
Beaker_Central_Europe:I4887:Olalde_2018

24.65400373
Beaker_Central_Europe:I5835:Olalde_2018

24.68568614
Beaker_Central_Europe:I7275:Olalde_2018

25.01091562
Beaker_Iberia:I6472:Olalde_2018

25.11744812
Bell_Beaker_Osterhofen-Altenmarkt:RISE564:Allentoft_2015

25.21043038
Beaker_Iberia:I5665:Olalde_2018

25.82338862
Minoan_Lasithi:I9005:Lazaridis_2017

26.25814921
Beaker_Central_Europe:I3599:Olalde_2018

26.38328259
Beaker_Central_Europe:I2741:Olalde_2018

26.59358381
Minoan_Lasithi:I0074:Lazaridis_2017

26.81746073
France_Bell_Beaker:Beaker_Southern_France:I1388:Ol alde_2018

26.81746073
Beaker_Southern_France:I1388:Olalde_2018

26.86654983
Beaker_Central_Europe:I4253:Olalde_2018

26.98977955
Beaker_Iberia:I6588:Olalde_2018

27.44410319
Minoan_Lasithi:I0071:Lazaridis_2017

27.76413154
Beaker_Central_Europe:I4888:Olalde_2018

27.90957183
Beaker_Central_Europe:I4889:Olalde_2018

28.10244651
Beaker_Central_Europe:I7269:Olalde_2018

28.38140236
Beaker_Iberia:I4229:Olalde_2018

28.56011905
Bell_Beaker_LN:I0111:Mathieson_2015

28.66067864
Beaker_Central_Europe:I5755:Olalde_2018

28.66220508
Bell_Beaker_LN:I0113:Mathieson_2015

28.71395131
Beaker_Central_Europe:I5666:Olalde_2018

29.01469800
Bell_Beaker_LN_Rothenschirmbach:I0111_ROT4:Haak_20 15

29.11526747
Beaker_Central_Europe:I4891:Olalde_2018

29.11587539
Beaker_Central_Europe:I7278:Olalde_2018

29.26418630
Bell_Beaker_LN_Quedlinburg_XII:I0113_QUEXII4:Haak_ 2015

29.34653472
Minoan_Lasithi:I0070:Lazaridis_2017

29.48955069
Minoan_Lasithi:I0073:Lazaridis_2017

29.51171462
Beaker_Central_Europe:E09568:Olalde_2018

29.60276001
Beaker_Central_Europe:I7282:Olalde_2018

----------


## Jovialis

There's at least 3 Northern Italian Beakers, and 1 Sicily Beaker. Not sure why they're not in the latest spread sheet. But I know they were posted by me, or someone else somewhere on the website.

----------


## Jovialis

```
I2478_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Northern_Italy,5.34,0,0,0,47.45,28.85,0.64,0,3.59,1.22,12.27,0.65
I2477_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Northern_Italy,0,0,6.01,0.21,60.29,7.43,0,0.07,7.60,0.08,18.30,0
I1979_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Northern_Italy,0,1.31,0,0,43.62,20.47,0,0,8.75,0,25.64,0.20
I4930_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Sicily,0,0,10.64,0,41.31,0.42,0,0,9.55,0,38.08,0
```

Found them in an old version from 2020.

I think the reason why they didn't make it into the new one, was because those are strictly from ones I downloaded. While these were ascertained from GEDmatch.

----------


## Jovialis

When Cetina is added, Sicily beaker takes a bigger chunk, and reduces Minoan.



```
HRV_Cetina_BA:I19021,4.89,2.73,3.38,0,32.84,27.29,0,0,0,0,28.00,0.88
HRV_Cetina_BA:_1d.rel.I19027.possible.1d.rel.I19020:I19022,4.22,0,0,0,19.28,26.71,1,0,11.1,0,37.69,0
HRV_Cetina_BA:_dup.or.1d.rel.I19017:I19020,7.26,0,0,0,47.91,25.63,0,0,5.3,1.31,12.6,0
HRV_Cetina_BA:I11843,5.16,0,0,0,33.93,25.71,0,0,9.03,0,25.38,0.79
HRV_Cetina_BA:I18088,6.73,0,0,0,38.45,25.69,0,0,6.41,0,21.67,1.05
HRV_Cetina_BA:I18745,5.15,0,0,0.6,38.5,28.91,0,0.37,3.59,0,22.89,0
HRV_Cetina_BA:I18746,7.41,0,0.88,0,35.85,30.44,0,0.37,3.71,0.17,21.16,0
HRV_Cetina_BA:I18747,4.48,0,4.27,0,32.92,29.03,0,0,5.2,0,23.84,0.27
HRV_Cetina_BA:I18752,7.07,0.12,0.51,0,35.63,29.1,0.26,0,4.38,0,22.77,0.16
HRV_Cetina_BA:I19017,10,0.84,2.64,0,36.71,26.63,0,0,0,0.52,21.44,1.22
HRV_Cetina_BA:I19019,9.86,0.9,2.84,0,32.26,26.81,0,0,1.99,0.05,23.95,1.36
HRV_Cetina_BA:I19025,16.05,0,13.13,0,28.89,30.85,0,0.73,5.49,0,4.87,0
HRV_Cetina_BA:I19026,1.12,0,2.85,0,36.15,30.34,0,0,3.72,2.79,21.43,1.6
HRV_Cetina_BA:I19027,4.86,0,2.12,0,37.59,29.29,0,0,3.55,0,22.59,0
HRV_Cetina_BA:I19029,0,0.97,4.23,0,30.39,32.75,0.2,0,4.34,0,27.12,0
HRV_Cetina_BA:I19032,7.23,0,0.63,0,33.94,27.01,0,0.35,10.24,0,20.6,0
Beaker_Britain:I1767:Olalde_2018,9.62,0.1,0,0.29,37.24,44.1,0.28,0.43,1.08,0,6.5,0.35
Beaker_Britain:I2416:Olalde_2018,4.42,2.18,0,0,48.88,37.29,0,1.35,1.66,0.4,3.82,0
Beaker_Britain:I2417:Olalde_2018,18.31,2.3,0,0,26.21,52.21,0,0,0,0,0,0.97
Beaker_Britain:I2445:Olalde_2018,10.27,1.51,0,0.24,34.19,47.37,1.83,0.14,1.25,0,2.48,0.72
Beaker_Britain:I2447:Olalde_2018,13.42,0.72,0,0.11,33.57,47.63,1.01,0.86,0,1.08,0.56,1.04
Beaker_Britain:I2452:Olalde_2018,11.28,0.65,0,0,33.45,50.01,0.98,0.38,0,0,2.5,0.76
Beaker_Britain:I2453:Olalde_2018,13.29,1.05,0.08,0,31.04,46.94,0.93,0,0,0,6,0.67
Beaker_Britain:I2565:Olalde_2018,14.77,1.64,0,0,30.28,47.92,0,3.92,0,0,1.45,0
Beaker_Britain:I2566:Olalde_2018,10.46,2.85,1.35,0,35.36,46.44,0.75,0,0,0,1.03,1.77
Beaker_Britain:I2568:Olalde_2018,9.42,0,0.58,0,40.38,43.74,1.35,0.24,1.59,0.88,1.36,0.46
Beaker_Britain:I2598:Olalde_2018,14.24,0,0,1,30.29,49.29,2.93,0,0,0,2.25,0
Beaker_Britain:I3256:Olalde_2018,13.59,0,0.03,0,35.75,46,2.95,0,0,0,0.43,1.24
Beaker_Britain:I4950:Olalde_2018,17.23,0.64,0,0,28.82,49.89,1.44,0,0,0,1.37,0.6
Beaker_Britain:I4951:Olalde_2018,12.94,2.73,0,0,23.84,55.89,0,0,0,0,3.33,1.28
Beaker_Britain:I5379:Olalde_2018,10.52,1.35,0.01,0.42,36.2,43,0.32,0,0,0,6.58,1.6
Beaker_Britain:I5382:Olalde_2018,12.52,0,0,0,35.52,46.49,0.4,0.09,0,1.25,2.53,1.2
Beaker_Britain:I5513:Olalde_2018,12.78,1.26,0,0.07,32.2,50.2,0.63,0,0,0.17,1.04,1.66
Beaker_Britain:I6679:Olalde_2018,13.08,0,0,0,32.51,47.9,0,1.47,2.8,0,2.24,0
Beaker_Britain:I6774:Olalde_2018,16.81,0.83,0,0,29.06,49.76,0.75,0.87,0,0,1.49,0.44
Beaker_Britain:I6775:Olalde_2018,15.91,1.41,0,0,35,44.26,1.78,0.61,0,0,0.39,0.64
Beaker_Britain:I6777:Olalde_2018,13,1.11,0,0,32.58,47.57,2.55,0,0,0.25,1.73,1.22
I2478_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Northern_Italy,5.34,0,0,0,47.45,28.85,0.64,0,3.59,1.22,12.27,0.65
I2477_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Northern_Italy,0,0,6.01,0.21,60.29,7.43,0,0.07,7.60,0.08,18.30,0
I1979_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Northern_Italy,0,1.31,0,0,43.62,20.47,0,0,8.75,0,25.64,0.20
I4930_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Sicily,0,0,10.64,0,41.31,0.42,0,0,9.55,0,38.08,0
France_Bell_Beaker:I3875:Olalde_2018,8.18,0.07,0.01,1.5,40.92,42.65,0,0.02,0,0,5.94,0.69
France_Bell_Beaker:CBV95:Brunel_2020,16.77,0,1.06,0.38,19.29,55.63,0.28,0,0,0,6.58,0
France_Bell_Beaker:Beaker_Central_Europe:I1390:Olalde_2018,9.91,1.27,0,0,33.4,46.97,0,0.31,0,0,7.34,0.8
France_Bell_Beaker:Beaker_Central_Europe:I1381:Olalde_2018,13.64,0.85,0,0,30.53,51.38,1.92,0.91,0,0,0,0.78
France_Bell_Beaker:I1391:Olalde_2018,11.13,4.27,0,0,40.65,36.26,0,0,3.82,0,2.44,1.42
France_Bell_Beaker:Beaker_Central_Europe:I1382:Olalde_2018,13.38,1.66,0,0.14,30.09,47.16,1.65,0.79,0,0.13,4.45,0.56
France_Bell_Beaker:Beaker_Central_Europe:I1389:Olalde_2018,13.64,0.48,1.34,0,37.12,43.47,0.36,2.42,1.16,0,0,0
France_Bell_Beaker:Beaker_Southern_France:I1388:Olalde_2018,0,0,2.3,0,59.39,21.76,0.81,0,7.46,0,8.28,0
France_Bell_Beaker:PEI2:Brunel_2020,0,0.49,1.82,0,67.08,14.74,0.5,0,8.49,0,6.44,0.44
Beaker_Northern_Italy:I2478:Olalde_2018,4.97,0,0,0.15,47.73,28.87,0.74,0,3.49,0.84,12.34,0.86
Beaker_Southern_France:I1388:Olalde_2018,0,0,2.3,0,59.39,21.76,0.81,0,7.46,0,8.28,0
Beaker_Southern_France:I3875:Olalde_2018,8.18,0.07,0.01,1.5,40.92,42.65,0,0.02,0,0,5.94,0.69
Beaker_The_Netherlands:I4068:Olalde_2018,13.41,0,0,0,32.42,50.78,0.94,0.87,0.11,0,1.17,0.31
Beaker_The_Netherlands:I4069:Olalde_2018,10.15,1.02,0,0.26,32.79,50.75,1.27,0,0.06,0.08,2.84,0.77
Beaker_The_Netherlands:I4073:Olalde_2018,12.27,2.51,0,0,30.08,49.84,0.08,0,0,0,3.98,1.24
Beaker_The_Netherlands:I4074:Olalde_2018,14.41,1.05,0,0,30.94,49.82,1.81,0.02,0,0,1,0.95
Beaker_The_Netherlands:I5748:Olalde_2018,16.46,0.1,0,0,28.84,50.16,0.81,0,0,0,2.35,1.27
Beaker_The_Netherlands:I5750:Olalde_2018,12.76,0.91,0,0,33.29,46.9,0.98,0,0,0,4.47,0.69
Bell_Beaker_Augsburg:RISE559:Allentoft_2015,5.7,0,0,0,40.1,37.15,0,0,0.19,0,16.87,0
Bell_Beaker_Augsburg:RISE560:Allentoft_2015,15.69,0,0,0,42.42,41.88,0,0,0,0,0,0
Bell_Beaker_Brandysek:RISE568:Allentoft_2015,0,0,0,0,22.05,72.67,0,0,0,0,5.28,0
Bell_Beaker_Brandysek:RISE569:Allentoft_2015,1.84,0,0.54,0,32.28,57.63,0,0,0.38,0,7.29,0.05
Bell_Beaker_Knezeves:RISE566:Allentoft_2015,4.28,0,0,0,38.81,56.91,0,0,0,0,0,0
Bell_Beaker_Knezeves:RISE567:Allentoft_2015,10.74,0,0,0,17.83,66.34,0,0,0,0,5.1,0
Bell_Beaker_Landau_an_der_Isar:RISE562:Allentoft_2015,19.88,0,0,0.22,34.62,45.28,0,0,0,0,0,0
Bell_Beaker_LN:I0060:Mathieson_2015,15.27,0,0,0,31.48,41.81,1.02,0,0,0,9.03,1.4
Bell_Beaker_LN:I0108:Mathieson_2015,7.49,1.12,1.12,0,43.47,39.38,0.4,0,0.38,0.42,5.38,0.84
Bell_Beaker_LN:I0111:Mathieson_2015,9.74,0.15,1.55,0.31,38.48,39.9,0.89,0,0,0,8.79,0.19
Bell_Beaker_LN:I0112:Mathieson_2015,10.88,0.44,0,0,36.22,46.91,0.3,0.55,0,0,3.98,0.72
Bell_Beaker_LN:I0113:Mathieson_2015,7.82,0.92,0.79,0,40.86,38.66,0,0.29,4,0.52,6.14,0
Bell_Beaker_LN:I0805:Mathieson_2015,6.24,1.65,0,0,36.22,46,0,0,0,0,9.89,0
Bell_Beaker_LN:I0806:Mathieson_2015,9.19,1.42,0,0.3,29.39,47.9,0.35,0.41,0,0,11.05,0
Bell_Beaker_LN:I1546:Mathieson_2015,8.7,0,2.06,0.95,37.83,45.1,0,0,0,0,5.36,0
Bell_Beaker_LN:I1549:Mathieson_2015,14.03,1.08,0.02,0,33.55,46.77,0.69,1.09,0,0,2.32,0.44
Bell_Beaker_LN_1d_rel_I0111:I1530:Mathieson_2015,14.05,0.22,0,0.61,37.14,46.34,1.63,0,0,0,0,0
Bell_Beaker_LN_Quedlinburg_XII:I0112_QUEXII6:Haak_2015,10.12,0.73,0,0.32,34.63,46.31,0.15,0,0,0,6.98,0.76
Bell_Beaker_LN_Quedlinburg_XII:I0113_QUEXII4:Haak_2015,7.45,3.42,3.42,0,40.77,36.24,0,0,4.61,0.65,3.44,0
Bell_Beaker_LN_Quedlinburg_XII:I0806_QLB28:Haak_2015,7.05,2.6,0,0.39,34.62,45.71,0,0.81,0,0,7.85,0.98
Bell_Beaker_LN_Rothenschirmbach:I0060_ROT3:Haak_2015,22.22,0,0,0,25.43,43.68,0,0,0,0,8.67,0
Bell_Beaker_LN_Rothenschirmbach:I0108_ROT6:Haak_2015,8.64,1.11,1.84,0,45.17,38.07,0,1.14,2.01,0,2.02,0
Bell_Beaker_LN_Rothenschirmbach:I0111_ROT4:Haak_2015,6.6,1.02,1.3,1.28,35.36,42.48,0,0,0,0,11.63,0.32
Bell_Beaker_Osterhofen-Altenmarkt:RISE563:Allentoft_2015,6.22,0,0,0,31.7,57.28,0.74,0.75,0,0.02,3.29,0
Bell_Beaker_Osterhofen-Altenmarkt:RISE564:Allentoft_2015,0,0,0,0,42.81,40.34,0,0,0,0,15.97,0.88
Beaker_Central_Europe:E09538:Olalde_2018,6.17,0,0,0.28,39.13,29.52,0,0,2.1,0.4,21.11,1.29
Beaker_Central_Europe:E09568:Olalde_2018,0.31,0.17,1.65,0.42,38.06,43.05,0,0,3.63,0.9,10.46,1.34
Beaker_Central_Europe:E09569:Olalde_2018,8.36,1.44,1.84,0,34.15,42.57,1.92,0,1.04,0,7.05,1.64
Beaker_Central_Europe:I1381:Olalde_2018,13.64,0.85,0,0,30.53,51.38,1.92,0.91,0,0,0,0.78
Beaker_Central_Europe:I1382:Olalde_2018,13.38,1.66,0,0.14,30.09,47.16,1.65,0.79,0,0.13,4.45,0.56
Beaker_Central_Europe:I1389:Olalde_2018,13.64,0.48,1.34,0,37.12,43.47,0.36,2.42,1.16,0,0,0
Beaker_Central_Europe:I1390:Olalde_2018,9.91,1.27,0,0,33.4,46.97,0,0.31,0,0,7.34,0.8
Beaker_Central_Europe:I2364:Olalde_2018,0.04,0.24,2.2,0.33,43.27,22.09,0,0,9.98,0,20.76,1.1
Beaker_Central_Europe:I2365:Olalde_2018,11.64,1.5,0,0.65,31.92,40.4,0,0.81,1.9,0,9.12,2.06
Beaker_Central_Europe:I2741:Olalde_2018,0,0,4.63,0,62.23,9.82,0,0,7.24,0,15.85,0.23
Beaker_Central_Europe:I2786:Olalde_2018,14.38,1.1,0,0.94,26.33,51.44,0,0,0.03,0,4.5,1.28
Beaker_Central_Europe:I2787:Olalde_2018,19.79,1.5,0,0.46,19.01,48.01,1.28,0,0,0,8.74,1.21
Beaker_Central_Europe:I3528:Olalde_2018,1.06,0,0,0,33.2,48.33,1.39,0,5.63,0,10.02,0.37
Beaker_Central_Europe:I3588:Olalde_2018,8.94,0.96,0,0,42.43,33.73,0,0,0,0.78,12.54,0.62
Beaker_Central_Europe:I3589:Olalde_2018,10.6,1.13,1.67,0,32.4,42.17,0,0,0,0,11.51,0.52
Beaker_Central_Europe:I3597:Olalde_2018,9.23,0,0,0,35.26,32.37,3.26,0,5.47,0,14.41,0
Beaker_Central_Europe:I3599:Olalde_2018,20.87,0,0,2.12,33.44,29.94,1.6,0,0,0,12.03,0
Beaker_Central_Europe:I3604:Olalde_2018,13.28,0,3.35,0.18,37.98,33.24,0,0,0,0,10.57,1.4
Beaker_Central_Europe:I3607:Olalde_2018,17.71,0,0,0,40.24,28.03,0,0,6.63,7.39,0,0
Beaker_Central_Europe:I4132:Olalde_2018,16.83,0.23,0,0.39,34.52,46.89,0.16,0.97,0,0,0,0
Beaker_Central_Europe:I4178:Olalde_2018,8.81,0.14,0,0,31.29,45.78,0,0.46,0.76,1.32,10.04,1.39
Beaker_Central_Europe:I4251:Olalde_2018,5.26,2.61,0,0,33.5,45.95,0,0,0,0,11.82,0.86
Beaker_Central_Europe:I4252:Olalde_2018,0,0,2.07,0,42.56,32.93,1.44,3.5,4.49,0,13.01,0
Beaker_Central_Europe:I4253:Olalde_2018,11.92,2.36,0,0,33.96,38.46,0,0,0.75,0,12.09,0.45
Beaker_Central_Europe:I4885:Olalde_2018,7.91,0.38,0.97,0,35.71,32.69,0.1,0,3.35,0,17.65,1.23
Beaker_Central_Europe:I4886:Olalde_2018,5.87,0.93,0.87,0,34.97,37.55,0.93,0.66,1.28,0,16.66,0.29
Beaker_Central_Europe:I4887:Olalde_2018,6.84,0.84,0,0.02,40.33,37.37,0.42,0.8,1.6,0,11.27,0.5
Beaker_Central_Europe:I4888:Olalde_2018,7.04,1.24,0.63,0,35.83,40.58,0,0.1,3.82,0,10.22,0.54
Beaker_Central_Europe:I4889:Olalde_2018,12.13,2.46,0,0,36.67,37.98,0.44,0,0.41,0,9.05,0.86
Beaker_Central_Europe:I4890:Olalde_2018,1.46,0,2.69,0,41.77,33.77,0,0.84,2.56,0,16.91,0
Beaker_Central_Europe:I4891:Olalde_2018,7.79,0.03,1.75,0,37.08,41.1,1.33,0,1.22,0,8.79,0.91
Beaker_Central_Europe:I4895:Olalde_2018,11.76,0.17,0,0,32.7,44.41,1.53,0,0,0,8.73,0.7
Beaker_Central_Europe:I5021:Olalde_2018,16.02,0,0,1.13,22.28,47.78,7,0.01,0,0,4.23,1.55
Beaker_Central_Europe:I5022:Olalde_2018,7.22,0,0,1.1,46.8,25.22,0,0,0.07,0,19.59,0
Beaker_Central_Europe:I5024:Olalde_2018,16.13,0.42,0.05,0,38.72,42.54,0,0,0,0,2.14,0
Beaker_Central_Europe:I5514:Olalde_2018,14.13,0.94,0.55,0,31.45,46.7,0,0.2,0.53,0,4.84,0.67
Beaker_Central_Europe:I5519:Olalde_2018,13.46,1.03,0,0,30.71,48.59,1.95,0.23,0,0,2.79,1.24
Beaker_Central_Europe:I5529:Olalde_2018,5.98,2.07,0,0,37.51,35.91,0.59,0,2.24,0,15.27,0.44
Beaker_Central_Europe:I5530:Olalde_2018,35.32,0,0,0,17.06,17.55,0,0,30.07,0,0,0
Beaker_Central_Europe:I5657:Olalde_2018,8.65,0,0,0,32.54,48.02,0,1.03,0,0,9.76,0
Beaker_Central_Europe:I5659:Olalde_2018,3,0,0,0,31.51,53.89,2.83,0,0.55,0.62,7.61,0
Beaker_Central_Europe:I5660:Olalde_2018,4.05,0,0,0,37.8,35.91,0,1.9,0.09,0,20.25,0
Beaker_Central_Europe:I5661:Olalde_2018,18.81,1.91,0.62,1.51,32.64,40.24,0.51,0,0,0.24,2.01,1.5
Beaker_Central_Europe:I5663:Olalde_2018,23.11,0,0,0,37.8,30.52,0,4.72,0,0.43,3.42,0
Beaker_Central_Europe:I5666:Olalde_2018,11.01,0,0,0,36.33,41.07,0.45,0,0,0,11.03,0.11
Beaker_Central_Europe:I5755:Olalde_2018,0,0,3.63,0.57,31.17,40.03,1.48,0,11.66,0,11.47,0
Beaker_Central_Europe:I5757:Olalde_2018,7.66,0,0,0,39.65,47.94,0,2.31,2.45,0,0,0
Beaker_Central_Europe:I5833:Olalde_2018,7.43,1.26,0,0,39.63,42.07,0.59,0.56,0,0,7.3,1.16
Beaker_Central_Europe:I5835:Olalde_2018,7.28,0.42,0.64,0,42.89,35.63,1.19,0.45,0.51,0,9.6,1.4
Beaker_Central_Europe:I6480:Olalde_2018,12.26,1.55,1.54,0.06,31.64,43.53,0,0.09,0,0,8.09,1.24
Beaker_Central_Europe:I6481:Olalde_2018,19.32,3.99,3.11,0,20.3,53.27,0,0,0,0,0,0
Beaker_Central_Europe:I6534:Olalde_2018,8.09,0,0.27,0,43.42,26.63,0,0,6.45,0,14.74,0.4
Beaker_Central_Europe:I6535:Olalde_2018,0,0,0,0,27.5,72.5,0,0,0,0,0,0
Beaker_Central_Europe:I6580:Olalde_2018,13.26,1.59,0,0,29.14,47.64,1.05,0,0,0,6.18,1.14
Beaker_Central_Europe:I6581:Olalde_2018,6.5,1.55,1.02,0,46.18,28.85,1.23,0,1.39,0,11.96,1.31
Beaker_Central_Europe:I7044:Olalde_2018,0,0,3.14,0.5,44.36,22.25,0,0,9.73,0,19.17,0.84
Beaker_Central_Europe:I7205:Olalde_2018,14,2.16,0,0,31.21,49.05,0.04,0.46,0,0,1.58,1.49
Beaker_Central_Europe:I7210:Olalde_2018,9.66,0.34,0,0.65,35.98,43.58,0,0.5,0,0,8.16,1.12
Beaker_Central_Europe:I7212:Olalde_2018,12.09,0,0,0.71,37.69,44.1,0,0.83,0,0,4.21,0.36
Beaker_Central_Europe:I7249:Olalde_2018,8.5,1.56,0,0,33.55,44.28,0,0.18,2.65,0,8.85,0.43
Beaker_Central_Europe:I7251:Olalde_2018,10.77,0.63,0,0.78,33.72,44.59,0.64,0.02,0,0,7.89,0.97
Beaker_Central_Europe:I7269:Olalde_2018,10.24,1,0,0,36.62,39.96,0,0,0.8,0,10.11,1.26
Beaker_Central_Europe:I7271:Olalde_2018,14.47,0,0,1.42,33.01,46.88,0,0,0,0,2.97,1.25
Beaker_Central_Europe:I7275:Olalde_2018,10.88,0.67,0,0,35.25,37.06,1.05,0,0.93,0,12.94,1.23
Beaker_Central_Europe:I7276:Olalde_2018,8.07,1.15,0.28,0.48,32.93,43.01,0.85,0,0.82,0,11.73,0.68
Beaker_Central_Europe:I7278:Olalde_2018,12.84,1.05,0,0.28,37.4,38.55,0.11,0.38,0.6,0,7.76,1.03
Beaker_Central_Europe:I7282:Olalde_2018,8.53,1.74,1.3,0,41.85,38.9,0,0,0.7,0,5.76,1.22
Beaker_Central_Europe:I7286:Olalde_2018,6.24,0.62,0,0,35.18,52.85,0.78,0,0,0.21,2.99,1.13
Beaker_Central_Europe:I7287:Olalde_2018,9.92,0.43,0.17,0,37.75,41.21,3.72,0.52,0,0,5.15,1.12
Beaker_Central_Europe:I7288:Olalde_2018,8.39,0.06,0,0.63,34.41,52.4,0,3.14,0,0,0,0.97
Beaker_Central_Europe:I7289:Olalde_2018,6.39,0,0.3,1.59,39.89,37.15,0.32,0.17,2.26,0,11.15,0.78
Beaker_Iberia:I0257:Olalde_2018,0,0,1.05,0,75.94,6.05,1.63,0,0,0,15.32,0
Beaker_Iberia:I0261:Olalde_2018,0,0,0.99,0,66.63,8.75,0.73,0,14.27,0.51,8.13,0
Beaker_Iberia:I0458:Olalde_2018,0,0,3.76,0.18,76.34,3.61,1.68,0,8.46,0,5.96,0
Beaker_Iberia:I0460:Olalde_2018,0,0,0.22,0.05,75.94,12.49,1.53,0,4.78,2.08,2.77,0.14
Beaker_Iberia:I0825:Olalde_2018,0,2.73,8.8,1.16,78.61,4.35,1.13,0,3.22,0,0,0
Beaker_Iberia:I0826:Olalde_2018,0,0,1.32,0,73.13,17.11,0,0,0,0,8.18,0.26
Beaker_Iberia:I1970:Olalde_2018,0,0,0.07,0,80.81,4.2,0,0,4.08,0.7,9.69,0.46
Beaker_Iberia:I4229:Olalde_2018,0,0,4.43,0.17,62.61,15.51,0,0,5.18,1.28,9.82,1
Beaker_Iberia:I5665:Olalde_2018,1.52,0,3.51,0.63,54.33,27.92,1.63,0,1.44,0.49,8.16,0.37
Beaker_Iberia:I6471:Olalde_2018,17.84,0,7.51,0.32,30.35,37.99,0,0,0,0,5.99,0
Beaker_Iberia:I6472:Olalde_2018,1.72,2.52,2.43,0,53.91,28.97,0,0,0,0,9.2,1.26
Beaker_Iberia:I6539:Olalde_2018,2.73,0,3.97,1.32,50.47,29.04,0.36,0.66,2.77,0,8.67,0
Beaker_Iberia:I6542:Olalde_2018,0,0,5.09,0.11,66.52,13.07,0,0.02,4.28,1.67,9.24,0
Beaker_Iberia:I6587:Olalde_2018,0,0.15,4.96,0,74,10.62,0,0,1.05,1.19,7.97,0.05
Beaker_Iberia:I6588:Olalde_2018,4.92,0,0,0,41.13,39.96,1.48,0,2.48,0,10.03,0
Beaker_Iberia:I6589:Olalde_2018,5.96,0,0,0,60.18,17.7,14.09,0,2.06,0,0,0
Beaker_Iberia:I6622:Olalde_2018,0,0,0,0,73.85,2.92,0.98,0,18.03,0,4.22,0
Minoan_Lasithi:I0070:Lazaridis_2017,0,0,0.62,0.55,37.53,0,0,0,15.52,0,45.7,0.09
Minoan_Lasithi:I0071:Lazaridis_2017,1.16,0,2.96,0,37.9,0.23,0,0,13.01,0,44.59,0.15
Minoan_Lasithi:I0073:Lazaridis_2017,0,0.05,2.92,0.4,36.38,0,0,0,13.48,0,46.7,0.07
Minoan_Lasithi:I0074:Lazaridis_2017,0.58,0,4.33,0,39.44,0,0,0,12.45,0,43.19,0
Minoan_Lasithi:I9005:Lazaridis_2017,1.52,0,5.68,0,37.33,0,0,0,16.14,0,39.25,0.08
```

----------


## Angela

> ```
> I2478_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Northern_Italy,5.34,0,0,0,47.45,28.85,0.64,0,3.59,1.22,12.27,0.65
> I2477_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Northern_Italy,0,0,6.01,0.21,60.29,7.43,0,0.07,7.60,0.08,18.30,0
> I1979_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Northern_Italy,0,1.31,0,0,43.62,20.47,0,0,8.75,0,25.64,0.20
> I4930_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Sicily,0,0,10.64,0,41.31,0.42,0,0,9.55,0,38.08,0
> ```
> 
> Found them in an old version from 2020.
> 
> I think the reason why they didn't make it into the new one, was because those are strictly from ones I downloaded. While these were ascertained from GEDmatch.


Thanks, Jovialis. Yeah, the coordinates are quite different for the same sample. I'm going to run both and see what happens. I also put in other sources from your list I know were in my area such as Remedello, Central Italian Neolithic, LaTene from the supposed Gallic migrations of the first millenium BC, and the Germanic samples from the Lombard cemetery in Collegno as well as these Italian Beakers. 

I'm not sure if I should add in the Croatian samples too. Maybe not for this one.

Distance to:
Angela

7.16744724
I1979_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Northern_Italy

9.65707513
Beaker_Central_Europe:I2364:Olalde_2018

10.43849606
La_Tène_IA:ERS88:Brunel_2020

10.98498521
Beaker_Central_Europe:I7044:Olalde_2018

12.85027626
Beaker_Central_Europe:E09538:Olalde_2018

13.01848686
Beaker_Central_Europe:I5022:Olalde_2018

14.97863812
Beaker_Central_Europe:I6534:Olalde_2018

16.49130377
Hallstatt_C-Early_La_Tène_IA:NOR3-15:Brunel_2020

17.64306379
Beaker_Central_Europe:I4885:Olalde_2018

18.24869310
Beaker_Central_Europe:I4890:Olalde_2018

18.62886202
Hallstatt_C-Early_La_Tène_IA:NOR4:Brunel_2020

18.97519170
I2478_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Northern_Italy

19.02237367
Beaker_Northern_Italy:I2478:Olalde_2018

19.19808584
Beaker_Central_Europe:I6581:Olalde_2018

19.32644820
Beaker_Central_Europe:I5660:Olalde_2018

19.38719165
Hallstatt_C-Early_La_Tène_IA:NOR2B6:Brunel_2020

19.71097156
Beaker_Central_Europe:I3597:Olalde_2018

20.42378026
Beaker_Central_Europe:I4252:Olalde_2018

21.05470256
C_Italian_N:R17:Antonio_2019

21.12876949
Beaker_Central_Europe:I5529:Olalde_2018

21.43495043
Bell_Beaker_Augsburg:RISE559:Allentoft_2015

21.79244364
Beaker_Central_Europe:I3588:Olalde_2018

22.31130431
Beaker_Central_Europe:I4886:Olalde_2018

23.12518757
Beaker_Iberia:I6539:Olalde_2018

23.68040962
La_Tène_B_IA:COL153A:Brunel_2020

23.94735476
La_Tène_B_IA:COL153i:Brunel_2020

24.00296648
Beaker_Central_Europe:I3604:Olalde_2018

24.21534637
Remedello:RISE486:Allentoft_2015

24.21946738
C_Italian_N:R18:Antonio_2019

24.24685753
C_Italian_N:R3:Antonio_2019

24.28306818
Beaker_Central_Europe:I7289:Olalde_2018

24.28506949
C_Italian_N:R9:Antonio_2019

24.48844421
Beaker_Central_Europe:I4887:Olalde_2018

24.65400373
Beaker_Central_Europe:I5835:Olalde_2018

24.68399279
C_Italian_N:R19:Antonio_2019

24.68568614
Beaker_Central_Europe:I7275:Olalde_2018

24.87394420
La_Tène_IA:ERS86:Brunel_2020

24.95429823
C_Italian_N:R10:Antonio_2019

25.01091562
Beaker_Iberia:I6472:Olalde_2018

25.01595091
C_Italian_N:R8:Antonio_2019

25.07561565
I2477_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Northern_Italy

25.11744812
Bell_Beaker_Osterhofen-Altenmarkt:RISE564:Allentoft_2015

25.12523831
C_Italian_N:R2:Antonio_2019

25.21043038
Beaker_Iberia:I5665:Olalde_2018

25.41983871
La_Tène_IA:ERS1164:Brunel_2020

25.50123919
C_Italian_N:R16:Antonio_2019

25.82338862
Minoan_Lasithi:I9005:Lazaridis_2017

26.11584194
La_Tène_C1_IA:BFM265:Brunel_2020

26.25814921
Beaker_Central_Europe:I3599:Olalde_2018

26.383289
Beaker_Central_Europe:I2741:Olalde_2018




Target: Angela
Distance: 0.1362% / 0.13620954

42.8
Minoan_Lasithi



30.7
Bell_Beaker_Augsburg



14.8
Beaker_Iberia



9.1
Beaker_Central_Europe



1.6
La_Tène_B_IA



1.0
Bell_Beaker_LN_Rothenschirmbach





Target: Angela
Distance: 1.3654% / 1.36541772 | ADC: 0.25x RC

68.2
Beaker_Central_Europe



31.7
Minoan_Lasithi



0.1
I1979_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Northern_Italy




Distance to:
Angela

1.53210360
52.60% Beaker_Central_Europe:I5835:Olalde_2018 + 47.40% Minoan_Lasithi:I0071:Lazaridis_2017

1.53967440
55.00% Beaker_Central_Europe:I3588:Olalde_2018 + 45.00% Minoan_Lasithi:I0074:Lazaridis_2017

1.71728823
52.00% Beaker_Central_Europe:I5835:Olalde_2018 + 48.00% Minoan_Lasithi:I0074:Lazaridis_2017

1.80545659
54.40% Beaker_Central_Europe:I5835:Olalde_2018 + 45.60% Minoan_Lasithi:I0073:Lazaridis_2017

1.85599232
55.80% Beaker_Central_Europe:I3588:Olalde_2018 + 44.20% Minoan_Lasithi:I0071:Lazaridis_2017

1.94877799
45.20% France_Bell_Beaker:I3875:Olalde_2018 + 54.80% Minoan_Lasithi:I0074:Lazaridis_2017

1.94877799
45.20% Beaker_Southern_France:I3875:Olalde_2018 + 54.80% Minoan_Lasithi:I0074:Lazaridis_2017

1.98276441
52.00% Beaker_Central_Europe:I4887:Olalde_2018 + 48.00% Minoan_Lasithi:I0074:Lazaridis_2017

1.99348089
47.60% Bell_Beaker_LN:I0108:Mathieson_2015 + 52.40% Minoan_Lasithi:I0071:Lazaridis_2017

2.01180506
57.60% Beaker_Central_Europe:I3588:Olalde_2018 + 42.40% Minoan_Lasithi:I0073:Lazaridis_2017

2.12326397
48.20% Bell_Beaker_LN:I0111:Mathieson_2015 + 51.80% Minoan_Lasithi:I0074:Lazaridis_2017

2.15783364
53.40% Minoan_Lasithi:I0074:Lazaridis_2017 + 46.60% La_Tène_B1_IA:ATT26:Brunel_2020

2.16381918
46.20% Beaker_Central_Europe:I5833:Olalde_2018 + 53.80% Minoan_Lasithi:I0074:Lazaridis_2017

2.26578032
49.40% Bell_Beaker_LN:I0108:Mathieson_2015 + 50.60% Minoan_Lasithi:I0073:Lazaridis_2017

2.34927777
46.80% Bell_Beaker_LN:I0108:Mathieson_2015 + 53.20% Minoan_Lasithi:I0074:Lazaridis_2017

2.36828009
33.20% France_Bell_Beaker:CBV95:Brunel_2020 + 66.80% C_Italian_N:R18:Antonio_2019

2.38756499
48.00% Beaker_Central_Europe:I7282:Olalde_2018 + 52.00% Minoan_Lasithi:I0071:Lazaridis_2017

2.39736368
47.40% Beaker_Central_Europe:I7282:Olalde_2018 + 52.60% Minoan_Lasithi:I0074:Lazaridis_2017

2.47002355
52.20% Beaker_Central_Europe:I7289:Olalde_2018 + 47.80% Minoan_Lasithi:I0074:Lazaridis_2017

2.58160545
46.00% France_Bell_Beaker:I3875:Olalde_2018 + 54.00% Minoan_Lasithi:I0071:Lazaridis_2017

2.58160545
46.00% Beaker_Southern_France:I3875:Olalde_2018 + 54.00% Minoan_Lasithi:I0071:Lazaridis_2017

2.65629990
54.60% Minoan_Lasithi:I0074:Lazaridis_2017 + 45.40% La_Tène_B_IA:COL11:Brunel_2020

2.67105131
52.80% Beaker_Central_Europe:I4887:Olalde_2018 + 47.20% Minoan_Lasithi:I0071:Lazaridis_2017

2.69615339
29.60% Bell_Beaker_Knezeves:RISE567:Allentoft_2015 + 70.40% C_Italian_N:R18:Antonio_2019

2.69946845
45.20% Beaker_Central_Europe:I7287:Olalde_2018 + 54.80% Minoan_Lasithi:I0074:Lazaridis_2017



One of the Italian Beakers shows up in the distance column as my closest, and LaTene is up there two, but the two-way looks the same. I've always felt the two way is not that informative, because, as in my case, it's just showing I'm about half way between the most northern samples provided and the most southern.


Target: Angela
Distance: 0.0805% / 0.08054361

31.0
Minoan_Lasithi



29.4
Bell_Beaker_Augsburg



12.5
I4930_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Sicily



9.7
Beaker_Central_Europe



8.1
Beaker_Iberia



6.3
Bell_Beaker_LN_Rothenschirmbach



2.2
La_Tène_B_IA



0.8
La_Tène_IA

----------


## Palermo Trapani

Leopoldo Leone: My updated model including the Cetina sample. Jovialis: Same thing for me, Sicilian Bronze Age Beaker and Cetina add explanatory power (model fit is better) and Minoan is reduced.

----------


## torzio

mine from post 155 data


Target: Torziok12b
Distance: 0.0306% / 0.03063689
32.0	HRV_Cetina_BA
18.4	Beaker_Central_Europe
16.2	Minoan_Lasithi
11.5	Bell_Beaker_Augsburg
4.8	Beaker_Iberia
3.8	Bell_Beaker_LN_Rothenschirmbach
3.3	Bell_Beaker_Knezeves
3.1	I4930_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Sicily
2.1	France_Bell_Beaker
1.5	Bell_Beaker_Brandysek
1.2	Bell_Beaker_Landau_an_der_Isar
1.0	Bell_Beaker_Osterhofen-Altenmarkt
0.4	Beaker_Southern_France
0.3	Beaker_Britain
0.2	Beaker_The_Netherlands
0.2	I2477_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Northern_Italy


Distance to:	Torziok12b
0.90262115	55.80% Beaker_Britain:I2452:Olalde_2018 + 44.20% Minoan_Lasithi:I0071:Lazaridis_2017
0.91459021	91.60% HRV_Cetina_BA:I19027 + 8.40% Beaker_Central_Europe:I5530:Olalde_2018
1.18191316	54.00% Beaker_The_Netherlands:I4068:Olalde_2018 + 46.00% Minoan_Lasithi:I0074:Lazaridis_2017
1.19557600	55.40% Beaker_Britain:I2452:Olalde_2018 + 44.60% Minoan_Lasithi:I0074:Lazaridis_2017
1.30380868	59.80% Bell_Beaker_LN:I0112:Mathieson_2015 + 40.20% Minoan_Lasithi:I0073:Lazaridis_2017
1.33870165	54.40% Beaker_The_Netherlands:I4068:Olalde_2018 + 45.60% Minoan_Lasithi:I0071:Lazaridis_2017
1.40018225	69.80% HRV_Cetina_BA:I11843 + 30.20% Beaker_Central_Europe:I3604:Olalde_2018
1.44186707	84.60% Beaker_Central_Europe:I4885:Olalde_2018 + 15.40% Minoan_Lasithi:I9005:Lazaridis_2017
1.45718967	51.40% HRV_Cetina_BA:I19027 + 48.60% HRV_Cetina_BA:I19032
1.45735891	59.00% Beaker_Britain:I5382:Olalde_2018 + 41.00% Minoan_Lasithi:I0073:Lazaridis_2017
1.52583586	59.60% Bell_Beaker_LN_Quedlinburg_XII:I0112_QUEXII6:Haak_ 2015 + 40.40% Minoan_Lasithi:I9005:Lazaridis_2017
1.53331215	56.40% HRV_Cetina_BA:I19032 + 43.60% Beaker_Central_Europe:E09538:Olalde_2018
1.54072024	55.60% Beaker_The_Netherlands:I4069:Olalde_2018 + 44.40% Minoan_Lasithi:I0071:Lazaridis_2017
1.55210612	55.20% Beaker_The_Netherlands:I4069:Olalde_2018 + 44.80% Minoan_Lasithi:I0074:Lazaridis_2017
1.56764302	58.20% Beaker_The_Netherlands:I5750:Olalde_2018 + 41.80% Minoan_Lasithi:I0074:Lazaridis_2017
1.59555237	57.80% Beaker_Britain:I2445:Olalde_2018 + 42.20% Minoan_Lasithi:I0071:Lazaridis_2017
1.61057650	57.60% HRV_Cetina_BA:I18746 + 42.40% HRV_Cetina_BA:I19032
1.61495994	58.60% Beaker_The_Netherlands:I5750:Olalde_2018 + 41.40% Minoan_Lasithi:I0071:Lazaridis_2017
1.61724310	58.80% Bell_Beaker_LN:I0112:Mathieson_2015 + 41.20% Minoan_Lasithi:I0071:Lazaridis_2017
1.62981756	54.20% Beaker_Britain:I5513:Olalde_2018 + 45.80% Minoan_Lasithi:I0074:Lazaridis_2017
1.64861265	61.00% Bell_Beaker_LN_Quedlinburg_XII:I0112_QUEXII6:Haak_ 2015 + 39.00% Minoan_Lasithi:I0071:Lazaridis_2017
1.65094076	57.00% Beaker_Britain:I2452:Olalde_2018 + 43.00% Minoan_Lasithi:I0073:Lazaridis_2017
1.68990503	54.60% Beaker_Britain:I5513:Olalde_2018 + 45.40% Minoan_Lasithi:I0071:Lazaridis_2017
1.69188515	61.40% Beaker_Central_Europe:I7251:Olalde_2018 + 38.60% Minoan_Lasithi:I9005:Lazaridis_2017
1.69362273	66.40% Beaker_Central_Europe:I5666:Olalde_2018 + 33.60% Minoan_Lasithi:I9005:Lazaridis_2017

----------


## Jovialis

Sicily Beaker clustering with Minoans on the PCA.

Distance to:
Beaker_Sicily_BA:I4930

7.96258124
Minoan_Odigitria:I9129:Lazaridis_2017

8.85143491
Minoan_Lasithi:I0074:Lazaridis_2017

9.36654686
Minoan_Lasithi:I9005:Lazaridis_2017

11.24128107
Minoan_Lasithi:I0071:Lazaridis_2017

12.25004898
Minoan_Petras_EBA:Pta08:Clemente_2021

13.19076950
Minoan_Lasithi:I0073:Lazaridis_2017

13.30462326
Minoan_Odigitria:I9130:Lazaridis_2017

14.45271947
Minoan_Lasithi:I0070:Lazaridis_2017

16.08773135
Minoan_Odigitria:I9131:Lazaridis_2017

16.17644584
Minoan_Odigitria:I9127:Lazaridis_2017

20.18027502
Minoan_Odigitria:I9128:Lazaridis_2017



It is just about as close to Minoans, as other Minoans are to each other:

Distance to:
Minoan_Odigitria:I9131:Lazaridis_2017

6.83873526
Minoan_Odigitria:I9130:Lazaridis_2017

7.48028743
Minoan_Lasithi:I9005:Lazaridis_2017

9.33055197
Minoan_Lasithi:I0070:Lazaridis_2017

9.39594593
Minoan_Petras_EBA:Pta08:Clemente_2021

9.83219711
Minoan_Lasithi:I0071:Lazaridis_2017

10.60512140
Minoan_Lasithi:I0074:Lazaridis_2017

11.27501220
Minoan_Lasithi:I0073:Lazaridis_2017

12.56756938
Minoan_Odigitria:I9129:Lazaridis_2017

16.96128828
Minoan_Odigitria:I9127:Lazaridis_2017

21.03793716
Minoan_Odigitria:I9128:Lazaridis_2017



*Ergo,

We have a Minoan-like sample in Bronze Age Sicily!

* :Biggrin:

----------


## Jovialis

^^All these years, and it was hiding in plain sight.

----------


## Angela

I wanted to see what would happen if I used all the samples from the groups which were in my ancestral areas in the first millennium B.C. Latins, Etruscans, La Tene, and then added in all the Minoan samples.

Distance to:
Angela

8.05195628
VET001_Dod_K12b

8.26525257
TAQ006:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021

9.04024889
VEU001:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021

9.10639336
R1016_Iron_Age_Castel_di_Decima

9.36452882
VOL001:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021

9.50057893
CSN013:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021

9.50057893
CSN013:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021

9.62536233
R1015_Iron_Age_Veio_Grotta_Gramiccia

9.80933229
R1_Iron_Age_Protovillanovan_Martinsicuro

10.00465891
TAQ015:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021

10.05611257
TAQ024:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021

10.12604069
CSN009:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021

10.12604069
CSN009:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021

10.13955620
VET003_4_Dod_K12b

10.22931572
TAQ013:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021

10.43849606
La_Tène_IA:ERS88:Brunel_2020

10.48135487
CSN006:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021

10.48135487
CSN006:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021

10.54234319
TAQ002:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021

10.66444091
MAG001:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021

10.75834095
R474_Iron_Age_Civitavecchia

10.90037614
R1021_Iron_Age_Boville_Ernica

10.91931317
R473_Iron_Age_Civitavecchia

10.97209187
ETR005:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021

11.24998667
TAQ018:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021

11.25538094
TAQ017:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021

11.25887206
TAQ005:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021

11.44106638
CSN001:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021

11.44106638
CSN001:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021

11.77667186
Latini_IA:R1021:Antonio_2019

11.80969094
VET010:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021

11.98922850
TAQ016:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021

12.26012235
TAQ019:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021

12.39569683
PRZ001:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021

12.52324638
TAQ010:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021

12.54281866
CSN005:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021

12.54281866
CSN005:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021

12.55314702
CSN008:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021

12.55314702
CSN008:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021

12.68186106
TAQ023:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021

12.81293097
TAQ001:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021

13.03825525
CAM001:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021

13.03825525
CAM001:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021

13.16955960
TAQ004:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021

13.31080388
Latini_IA:R851:Antonio_2019

13.42458565
TAQ008:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021

13.44718558
MAS004:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021

14.09166420
R437_Iron_Age_Palestrina_Selicata

14.33875866
CSN004:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021

14.33875866
CSN004:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021




Target: Angela
Distance: 0.4158% / 0.41577757

20.0
Minoan_Odigitria



14.9
La_Tène_C1_IA



12.4
CSN012



10.6
R437_Iron_Age_Palestrina_Selicata



10.2
TAQ021



9.8
R1016_Iron_Age_Castel_di_Decima



6.6
La_Tène_B_IA



5.6
Minoan_Lasithi



4.4
R1021_Iron_Age_Boville_Ernica



2.9
La_Tène_IA



2.6
CSN002




Clearly, the 50%? more eastern ancestry in R850 or R437 obviates the need for any Minoan ancestry. 
Target: Angela
Distance: 1.0079% / 1.00793765 | ADC: 0.25x RC

36.1
R1016_Iron_Age_Castel_di_Decima



33.8
R437_Iron_Age_Palestrina_Selicata



23.8
TAQ006



6.3
R1_Iron_Age_Protovillanovan_Martinsicuro




The above would be 83% Republican Era Romans and Etruscans, and 17% Minoan like ancestry.

Distance to:
Angela

1.52284499
56.40% R1021_Iron_Age_Boville_Ernica + 43.60% R437_Iron_Age_Palestrina_Selicata

1.76844540
24.80% Latini_o:R850:Antonio_2019 + 75.20% R1016_Iron_Age_Castel_di_Decima

1.90472805
51.40% Latini_IA:R851:Antonio_2019 + 48.60% R437_Iron_Age_Palestrina_Selicata

1.90512001
54.60% Latini_IA:R1021:Antonio_2019 + 45.40% R437_Iron_Age_Palestrina_Selicata

2.13802152
70.00% Latini_IA:R1021:Antonio_2019 + 30.00% Latini_o:R850:Antonio_2019

2.15783364
46.60% La_Tène_B1_IA:ATT26:Brunel_2020 + 53.40% Minoan_Lasithi:I0074:Lazaridis_2017

2.15941994
74.40% R474_Iron_Age_Civitavecchia + 25.60% Minoan_Odigitria:I9127:Lazaridis_2017

2.19020507
28.40% Latini_o:R850:Antonio_2019 + 71.60% R1021_Iron_Age_Boville_Ernica

2.30379594
58.20% R1021_Iron_Age_Boville_Ernica + 41.80% TAQ021:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021

2.40841630
67.20% Latini_IA:R851:Antonio_2019 + 32.80% Latini_o:R850:Antonio_2019

2.55977520
42.80% R437_Iron_Age_Palestrina_Selicata + 57.20% MAG001:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021

2.62477467
61.40% R1016_Iron_Age_Castel_di_Decima + 38.60% R437_Iron_Age_Palestrina_Selicata

2.65629990
45.40% La_Tène_B_IA:COL11:Brunel_2020 + 54.60% Minoan_Lasithi:I0074:Lazaridis_2017

2.65674730
60.80% R437_Iron_Age_Palestrina_Selicata + 39.20% UDC_P:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021

2.66463537
31.00% Minoan_Lasithi:I0071:Lazaridis_2017 + 69.00% CSN008:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021

2.66463537
31.00% Minoan_Lasithi:I0071:Lazaridis_2017 + 69.00% CSN008:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021

2.69920679
31.60% Minoan_Lasithi:I0074:Lazaridis_2017 + 68.40% CSN008:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021

2.69920679
31.60% Minoan_Lasithi:I0074:Lazaridis_2017 + 68.40% CSN008:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021

2.73737498
47.00% R437_Iron_Age_Palestrina_Selicata + 53.00% TAQ010:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021

2.76768225
30.60% Minoan_Petras_EBA:Pta08:Clemente_2021 + 69.40% CSN008:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021

2.76768225
30.60% Minoan_Petras_EBA:Pta08:Clemente_2021 + 69.40% CSN008:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021

2.76957301
29.40% Minoan_Lasithi:I0073:Lazaridis_2017 + 70.60% CSN008:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021

2.76957301
29.40% Minoan_Lasithi:I0073:Lazaridis_2017 + 70.60% CSN008:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021

2.78195468
56.40% Latini_IA:R1021:Antonio_2019 + 43.60% TAQ021:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021

2.78546001
39.00% Minoan_Odigitria:I9127:Lazaridis_2017 + 61.00% CSN010:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021



Don't need any Imperial C5 or C6, all the ancestry that is needed was already in Central to Northern Italy in the Republican Age.

If I take half of the R437 ancestry, it comes up 76% non-eastern Republican Era Roman on the two way.

I'm tempted to say Roman strong. :)

Seriously, I tried to be careful, but if I mistakenly included samples from the wrong time period for the Etruscan ones, please let me know.

----------


## torzio

Target: Torziok12b
Distance: 0.0309% / 0.03088296
18.5	Beaker_Central_Europe
12.3	C1
11.8	Bell_Beaker_Augsburg
11.6	Minoan_Lasithi
11.2	Beaker_Iberia
9.8	HRV_Cetina_BA
5.5	C3
5.0	Bell_Beaker_Brandysek
4.1	Bell_Beaker_Knezeves
2.3	Bell_Beaker_Landau_an_der_Isar
2.3	Bell_Beaker_LN_Rothenschirmbach
1.6	C6
1.5	France_Bell_Beaker
0.8	Beaker_Southern_France
0.7	I4930_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Sicily
0.5	C8
0.3	C2
0.1	C7
0.1	C9



Distance to:	Torziok12b
2.79656470	HRV_Cetina_BA:I18752
3.62167089	HRV_Cetina_BA:I18746
4.06081273	HRV_Cetina_BA:I18088
4.45917033	HRV_Cetina_BA:I19027
4.63928874	C4:R105
4.68939228	HRV_Cetina_BA:I19032
4.95979838	C4:R33
5.03359712	HRV_Cetina_BA:I18745
5.73715086	HRV_Cetina_BA:I18747
5.93363295	Beaker_Central_Europe:E09538:Olalde_2018
5.93363295	Beaker_Central_Europe:E09538:Olalde_2018
5.93363295	Beaker_Central_Europe:E09538:Olalde_2018
6.55043510	HRV_Cetina_BA:I11843
6.59958332	Beaker_Central_Europe:I4885:Olalde_2018
6.59958332	Beaker_Central_Europe:I4885:Olalde_2018
6.59958332	Beaker_Central_Europe:I4885:Olalde_2018
7.27697739	HRV_Cetina_BA:I19019
7.33926427	HRV_Cetina_BA:I19017
7.67257454	HRV_Cetina_BA:I19026
7.86207988	C4:R110
8.61864839	C4:R109
8.82411469	Beaker_Central_Europe:I3597:Olalde_2018
8.82411469	Beaker_Central_Europe:I3597:Olalde_2018
8.82411469	Beaker_Central_Europe:I3597:Olalde_2018
9.36527629	C2:R108


*What is sample C1 ?*

----------


## Jovialis

C1 are the Mesolithic samples from Italy.

----------


## Jovialis

> When Cetina is added, Sicily beaker takes a bigger chunk, and reduces Minoan.
> 
> 
> 
> ```
> HRV_Cetina_BA:I19021,4.89,2.73,3.38,0,32.84,27.29,0,0,0,0,28.00,0.88
> HRV_Cetina_BA:_1d.rel.I19027.possible.1d.rel.I19020:I19022,4.22,0,0,0,19.28,26.71,1,0,11.1,0,37.69,0
> HRV_Cetina_BA:_dup.or.1d.rel.I19017:I19020,7.26,0,0,0,47.91,25.63,0,0,5.3,1.31,12.6,0
> HRV_Cetina_BA:I11843,5.16,0,0,0,33.93,25.71,0,0,9.03,0,25.38,0.79
> ...


So basically about a quarter Northwestern European Bell Beaker + a quarter Bronze Age Balkan + a quarter Minoan-like Beaker found in Sicily + and a quarter Minoan-like proxy from Lasithi

That's a very good fit using Bronze Age samples.

Perhaps when they finally give us the appropriate samples from my region, it will show 50% Minoan-like from an even more local source. Maybe even a quarter or 50% Italic from a local source.

----------


## Jovialis

The fit is good not using Minoan at all because of Sicily Beaker!

----------


## Stuvanè

Running with Jovialis' adjusted set (#155)

Distance to:
Dodecadk12bStuvanè

2.56031248
HRV_Cetina_BA:I11843

6.39726504
HRV_Cetina_BA:I19032

6.78388532
HRV_Cetina_BA:I18747

7.57588279
HRV_Cetina_BA:I18088

8.06551920
HRV_Cetina_BA:I18752

8.98129167
HRV_Cetina_BA:I19027

9.36672301
HRV_Cetina_BA:I18745

9.57629365
HRV_Cetina_BA:I19019

9.98744712
HRV_Cetina_BA:I18746

10.40768466
HRV_Cetina_BA:I19021

10.61179532
HRV_Cetina_BA:I19026

11.54012132
HRV_Cetina_BA:I19029

11.61995697
Beaker_Central_Europe:E09538:Olalde_2018

11.98975813
I1979_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Northern_Italy

12.07800066
Beaker_Central_Europe:I2364:Olalde_2018

12.12663185
HRV_Cetina_BA:I19017

13.50762377
Beaker_Central_Europe:I4885:Olalde_2018

13.65098165
Beaker_Central_Europe:I7044:Olalde_2018

15.47870150
Beaker_Central_Europe:I3597:Olalde_2018

15.52451610
Beaker_Central_Europe:I6534:Olalde_2018

16.40372519
Beaker_Central_Europe:I5660:Olalde_2018

16.88515916
Beaker_Central_Europe:I4890:Olalde_2018

17.49940570
Beaker_Central_Europe:I5022:Olalde_2018

17.63851751
Beaker_Central_Europe:I5529:Olalde_2018

17.90779998
Beaker_Central_Europe:I4886:Olalde_2018


Target: Dodecadk12bStuvanè
Distance: 0.7652% / 0.76518444 | ADC: 0.25x RC

89.9
HRV_Cetina_BA



10.1
Minoan_Lasithi






Target: Dodecadk12bStuvanè
Distance: 0.1093% / 0.10928314

35.7
HRV_Cetina_BA



30.1
Minoan_Lasithi



9.3
Beaker_Central_Europe



7.3
Bell_Beaker_Brandysek



6.2
I1979_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Northern_Italy



4.5
Bell_Beaker_LN



3.6
Bell_Beaker_Knezeves



1.1
Bell_Beaker_LN_Quedlinburg_XII



0.9
Bell_Beaker_Augsburg



0.9
I4930_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Sicily



0.4
Bell_Beaker_LN_Rothenschirmbach




Distance to:
Dodecadk12bStuvanè

1.79849013
49.80% Bell_Beaker_LN:I0806:Mathieson_2015 + 50.20% Minoan_Lasithi:I9005:Lazaridis_2017

1.83856930
94.40% HRV_Cetina_BA:I11843 + 5.60% I4930_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Sicily

2.01541633
95.00% HRV_Cetina_BA:I11843 + 5.00% Minoan_Lasithi:I9005:Lazaridis_2017

2.13339462
95.60% HRV_Cetina_BA:I11843 + 4.40% Minoan_Lasithi:I0074:Lazaridis_2017

2.18784716
96.00% HRV_Cetina_BA:I11843 + 4.00% Minoan_Lasithi:I0071:Lazaridis_2017

2.19155686
96.20% HRV_Cetina_BA:I11843 + 3.80% Minoan_Lasithi:I0073:Lazaridis_2017

2.26486209
96.40% HRV_Cetina_BA:I11843 + 3.60% Minoan_Lasithi:I0070:Lazaridis_2017

2.33166743
55.00% Beaker_Central_Europe:I7249:Olalde_2018 + 45.00% Minoan_Lasithi:I0073:Lazaridis_2017

2.35454634
49.40% Beaker_Central_Europe:I5657:Olalde_2018 + 50.60% Minoan_Lasithi:I9005:Lazaridis_2017

2.42754909
97.60% HRV_Cetina_BA:I11843 + 2.40% I2477_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Northern_Italy

2.43272593
51.00% Beaker_Central_Europe:I4178:Olalde_2018 + 49.00% Minoan_Lasithi:I9005:Lazaridis_2017

2.48433944
91.00% HRV_Cetina_BA:I11843 + 9.00% HRV_Cetina_BA:I18747

2.48962543
95.80% HRV_Cetina_BA:I11843 + 4.20% Beaker_Central_Europe:I7044:Olalde_2018

2.49164720
98.20% HRV_Cetina_BA:I11843 + 1.80% Beaker_Central_Europe:I2741:Olalde_2018

2.49196842
95.20% HRV_Cetina_BA:I11843 + 4.80% Beaker_Central_Europe:I2364:Olalde_2018

2.50487310
95.60% HRV_Cetina_BA:I11843 + 4.40% I1979_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Northern_Italy

2.51571881
99.20% HRV_Cetina_BA:I11843 + 0.80% Beaker_Iberia:I0825:Olalde_2018

2.52207706
98.40% HRV_Cetina_BA:I11843 + 1.60% HRV_Cetina_BA:I19025

2.52213918
4.20% HRV_Cetina_BA:I19021 + 95.80% HRV_Cetina_BA:I11843

2.53076427
99.20% HRV_Cetina_BA:I11843 + 0.80% Beaker_Iberia:I0458:Olalde_2018

2.53136415
2.00% HRV_Cetina_BA:_1d.rel.I19027.possible.1d.rel.I1902 0:I19022 + 98.00% HRV_Cetina_BA:I11843

2.53583910
99.20% HRV_Cetina_BA:I11843 + 0.80% Beaker_Iberia:I6542:Olalde_2018

2.54091857
99.20% HRV_Cetina_BA:I11843 + 0.80% Beaker_Iberia:I0261:Olalde_2018

2.54155922
99.40% HRV_Cetina_BA:I11843 + 0.60% Beaker_Iberia:I6622:Olalde_2018

2.54276046
99.20% HRV_Cetina_BA:I11843 + 0.80% Beaker_Iberia:I4229:Olalde_2018

----------


## Jovialis

Insightful results, sorry that I am currently out of votes.

----------


## Jovialis

C6 Romans with the new model, most get a good fit!

----------


## Angela

Jovialis, my version of your complete set doesn't include the coordinates for MKD ancient. Are they Bronze or Iron Age. If Bronze I'd like the include them as I was closer to them than to HRV Cetina. Maybe be a western vs eastern Italy thing.

Also, what do you think about using the Croatia Bronze Age samples from Mathiesen. We have the coordinates on the list.

----------


## Jovialis

> Jovialis, my version of your complete set doesn't include the coordinates for MKD ancient. Are they Bronze or Iron Age. If Bronze I'd like the include them as I was closer to them than to HRV Cetina. Maybe be a western vs eastern Italy thing.
> 
> Also, what do you think about using the Croatia Bronze Age samples from Mathiesen. We have the coordinates on the list.


I haven't updated my latest version in a while. But here is a link to the complete set of samples from the Southern Arc paper conveniently loaded into vahaduo, thanks to Salento:

Oracle | Dodecad K12b Southern Arc (promotopic.com)

----------


## Angela

Thanks to Salento and Jovialis for all this had work.

My run of Bronze Age samples either in Italy in Bronze Age, or Bronze Age samples which might have affected central and Northern Italy:
Beakers, HRV Cetina Bronze Age, Croatia Bronze Age, Central Italian Chalcolithic, and Minoan.

Distance to:
Angela

6.06853360
Croatia_LBA:I3313:Mathieson_2018

7.16744724
I1979_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Northern_Italy

9.28622636
HRV_Cetina_BA:I18088

9.35244888
Croatia_EMBA:I4331:Mathieson_2018

9.65696122
Croatia_EMBA:I4332:Mathieson_2018

9.65707513
Beaker_Central_Europe:I2364:Olalde_2018

10.52358304
HRV_Cetina_BA:I11843

10.98498521
Beaker_Central_Europe:I7044:Olalde_2018

11.26664546
HRV_Cetina_BA:I18745

11.64571166
HRV_Cetina_BA:I19027

12.11066059
HRV_Cetina_BA_outlier:I19031

12.35142097
HRV_Cetina_BA:I18752

12.78110324
HRV_Cetina_BA:I19017

12.85027626
Beaker_Central_Europe:E09538:Olalde_2018

13.01848686
Beaker_Central_Europe:I5022:Olalde_2018

13.12549047
HRV_Cetina_BA:I18747

13.13296996
HRV_Cetina_BA:I19021

13.32905848
HRV_Cetina_BA:I19032

13.49752570
HRV_Cetina_BA:I19019

14.04428353
HRV_Cetina_BA:I18746

14.22454217
HRV_Cetina_BA:I19026

14.97863812
Beaker_Central_Europe:I6534:Olalde_2018

17.53455731
HRV_Cetina_BA_dup.or.1d.rel.I19017:I19020

17.64306379
Beaker_Central_Europe:I4885:Olalde_2018

17.93639875
HRV_Cetina_BA:I19029




Target: Angela
Distance: 1.2105% / 1.21050734 | ADC: 0.25x RC

67.5
Croatia_LBA



12.5
HRV_Cetina_BA_outlier



11.7
I4930_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Sicily



8.3
Minoan_Odigitria




Again, in the above Minoan disappeared bkz of Bronze Age Sicily
Target: Angela
Distance: 0.0547% / 0.05467642

24.3
HRV_Cetina_BA



21.8
Minoan_Lasithi



8.8
Beaker_Iberia



8.3
Beaker_Central_Europe



8.1
Bell_Beaker_Augsburg



7.2
I4930_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Sicily



7.0
C_Italian_ChL



5.0
HRV_Cetina_BA_1d.rel.I19027.possible.1d.rel.I19020



4.1
Bell_Beaker_LN_Rothenschirmbach



3.0
Minoan_Odigitria



0.7
Unetice_EBA



0.6
France_Bell_Beaker



0.5
HRV_MBA_Cetina_lc



0.3
Bell_Beaker_Knezeves



0.2
I2477_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Northern_Italy



0.1
Bell_Beaker_Landau_an_der_Isar




In the one above, the Beakers go way down because of HRV Cetina, and Minoan goes down to 25% because of Sicily Bell Beaker, once again.

The ones with Croatia Late Bronze Age are interesting.
Distance to:
Angela

1.53210360
52.60% Beaker_Central_Europe:I5835:Olalde_2018 + 47.40% Minoan_Lasithi:I0071:Lazaridis_2017

1.53967440
55.00% Beaker_Central_Europe:I3588:Olalde_2018 + 45.00% Minoan_Lasithi:I0074:Lazaridis_2017

1.71728823
52.00% Beaker_Central_Europe:I5835:Olalde_2018 + 48.00% Minoan_Lasithi:I0074:Lazaridis_2017

1.73211616
65.40% Beaker_Central_Europe:E09538:Olalde_2018 + 34.60% Minoan_Odigitria:I9129:Lazaridis_2017

1.74550888
19.40% Minoan_Odigitria:I9129:Lazaridis_2017 + 80.60% Croatia_LBA:I3313:Mathieson_2018

1.80545659
54.40% Beaker_Central_Europe:I5835:Olalde_2018 + 45.60% Minoan_Lasithi:I0073:Lazaridis_2017

1.85599232
55.80% Beaker_Central_Europe:I3588:Olalde_2018 + 44.20% Minoan_Lasithi:I0071:Lazaridis_2017

1.94877799
45.20% France_Bell_Beaker:I3875:Olalde_2018 + 54.80% Minoan_Lasithi:I0074:Lazaridis_2017

1.94877799
45.20% Beaker_Southern_France:I3875:Olalde_2018 + 54.80% Minoan_Lasithi:I0074:Lazaridis_2017

1.98276441
52.00% Beaker_Central_Europe:I4887:Olalde_2018 + 48.00% Minoan_Lasithi:I0074:Lazaridis_2017

1.99348089
47.60% Bell_Beaker_LN:I0108:Mathieson_2015 + 52.40% Minoan_Lasithi:I0071:Lazaridis_2017

2.01180506
57.60% Beaker_Central_Europe:I3588:Olalde_2018 + 42.40% Minoan_Lasithi:I0073:Lazaridis_2017

2.05381598
19.20% I4930_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Sicily + 80.80% Croatia_LBA:I3313:Mathieson_2018

2.12326397
48.20% Bell_Beaker_LN:I0111:Mathieson_2015 + 51.80% Minoan_Lasithi:I0074:Lazaridis_2017

2.16381918
46.20% Beaker_Central_Europe:I5833:Olalde_2018 + 53.80% Minoan_Lasithi:I0074:Lazaridis_2017

2.22070440
18.00% Minoan_Lasithi:I9005:Lazaridis_2017 + 82.00% Croatia_LBA:I3313:Mathieson_2018

2.22755954
45.60% Beaker_Central_Europe:I5666:Olalde_2018 + 54.40% Minoan_Odigitria:I9129:Lazaridis_2017

2.26578032
49.40% Bell_Beaker_LN:I0108:Mathieson_2015 + 50.60% Minoan_Lasithi:I0073:Lazaridis_2017

2.30435853
17.80% Minoan_Odigitria:I9130:Lazaridis_2017 + 82.20% Croatia_LBA:I3313:Mathieson_2018

2.33638700
34.40% I4930_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Sicily + 65.60% Beaker_Central_Europe:E09538:Olalde_2018

2.34612642
17.40% Minoan_Lasithi:I0074:Lazaridis_2017 + 82.60% Croatia_LBA:I3313:Mathieson_2018

2.34747162
68.60% HRV_Cetina_BA:I18745 + 31.40% Minoan_Odigitria:I9129:Lazaridis_2017

2.34927777
46.80% Bell_Beaker_LN:I0108:Mathieson_2015 + 53.20% Minoan_Lasithi:I0074:Lazaridis_2017

2.38756499
48.00% Beaker_Central_Europe:I7282:Olalde_2018 + 52.00% Minoan_Lasithi:I0071:Lazaridis_2017

2.39736368
47.40% Beaker_Central_Europe:I7282:Olalde_2018 + 52.60% Minoan_Lasithi:I0074:Lazaridis_2017



Target: Angela
Distance: 1.2105% / 1.21050734 | ADC: 0.25x RC

67.5
Croatia_LBA



12.5
HRV_Cetina_BA_outlier



11.7
I4930_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Sicily



8.3
Minoan_Odigitria

----------


## Stuvanè

From post#170 set

Distance to:
Dodecadk12bStuvanè

2.56031248
HRV_Cetina_BA:I11843

3.34000000
HRV_Trogir_Byz:I15743

4.02110681
MKD_Anc:I8112

4.33227423
MNE_LBA:I14498

4.35306788
MKD_Anc:I10384

4.57029540
MKD_Anc:I10388

4.71114636
ALB_PostMdv:I14685

4.77368830
HRV_BA:I18712

5.12581701
ALB_MBA:I8471

5.56208594
MNE_LBA:I13172

5.74059230
ALB_Çinamak_Anc:I16251

5.93463562
ALB_Çinamak_Anc:I14692

5.98272513
SRB_IA:I16814

5.99010851
HRV_BA:I18748

6.10929620
MKD_BA:I7231

6.24204293
MKD_Anc:I10391

6.31979430
ALB_PostMdv:I14687

6.39726504
HRV_Cetina_BA:I19032

6.40678547
MKD_Anc:I10377

6.58510440
HRV_BA:I5074

6.64754090
ALB_Mdv:I13834

6.78388532
HRV_Cetina_BA:I18747

6.79011782
ALB_Çinamak_Anc:I16254

6.89478789
HRV_Bezdanjača_BA:I18074

6.92744542
MKD_Anc:I10383




Target: Dodecadk12bStuvanè
Distance: 0.4606% / 0.46061882 | ADC: 0.25x RC

32.7
MKD_Anc



23.7
HRV_Trogir_Byz



21.1
HRV_Cetina_BA



13.7
ALB_PostMdv



4.6
ROU_Arman_BA



4.2
BGR_Smyadovo_EBA_1d.rel.I2176






Target: Dodecadk12bStuvanè
Distance: 0.0455% / 0.04551192

9.0
MKD_Anc



8.5
ROU_Bodrogkeresztur_ChL



8.2
HRV_Cetina_BA



6.6
ALB_MBA



4.3
MNE_LBA



3.7
BGR_ChL_outlier



3.4
GRC_Mycenaean_Kastrouli_BA



3.4
MNE_LBA_mother.or.sister.I13169.I13777



2.7
ALB_Çinamak_Anc_1d.rel.I16256



2.4
TUR_Marmara_Ilıpınar_Byz3



2.2
TUR_Marmara_İznik_Y.kapı_Byz



2.1
HRV_Bezdanjača_BA_brother.I18078.father.I18071



2.1
JOR_PPNB



1.9
ROU_Trestiana_BA



1.8
ROU_Arman_BA



1.8
TUR_Aegean_Muğla_Değirmendere_Anc



1.6
HRV_Bezdanjača_BA



1.6
SRB_BA_outlier



1.5
ALB_NChL



1.5
BGR_KapitanAndreevo_IA



1.5
GRC_Mycenaean_Palace_of_Nestor_BA



1.5
MDA_Ciumai_BA



1.4
MNE_Vrbička_Mes



1.3
HRV_Bezdanjača_BA_1d.rel.I18739



1.3
SRB_Iron_Gates_MBA



1.3
TUR_Marmara_Barcın_N_sister.of.I0736



1.2
GRC_Kastrouli_Anc



1.2
TUR_Aegean_Muğla_Stratonikeia_Byz



1.1
HRV_MBA_Cetina_lc



1.1
MDA_MBA_lc



1.0
MDA_CrihanaVeche_BA



1.0
TUR_SE_Şırnak_BA



0.8
ARM_Bagheri_Tchala_EIA_son.I14065.son.I14066



0.8
ARM_Karnut_EIA



0.8
GRC_Mycenaean_Attica_BA



0.8
GRC_Palace_of_Nestor_EIA



0.8
MKD_BA



0.8
MKD_BA_lc



0.8
ROU_Bodrogkeresztur_ChL_sister.I7133



0.7
TUR_C_Gordion_Anc



0.6
MDA_Catacomb_MBA



0.4
ARM_Lchashen_LBA



0.4
BGR_Boyanovo_EBA



0.4
BGR_ChL



0.4
HRV_MLBA_lc



0.4
TUR_BlackSea_Amasya_EBA



0.4
TUR_BlackSea_Samsun_Anc_A



0.4
TUR_Hellenistic_lc



0.4
TUR_Marmara_Menteşe_N



0.3
ALB_PostMdv



0.3
ARM_Berkaber_KuraAraxes_EBA



0.3
ARM_Black_Fortress_LBA



0.3
ARM_Brardzryal_Urartian



0.3
BGR_Smyadovo_EBA



0.3
CYP_PPNB



0.3
SRB_IA



0.2
ARM_Bagheri_Tchala_EIA



0.2
ARM_Karnut_KuraAraxes_EBA



0.2
BGR_Svilengrad_IA



0.2
MKD_Anc_outlier2



0.2
MNE_Vrbička_N



0.2
ROU_N



0.2
ROU_N_outlier1



0.2
TUR_Aegean_Bodrum_Halikarnassos_Anc1



0.2
TUR_Marmara_Apollonia_Rom



0.1
ARM_Sarukhan_unknown



0.1
ARM_Tavshut_Trialeti_MBA



0.1
BGR_MalakPreslavets_N



0.1
HRV_Cetina_BA_dup.or.1d.rel.I19017



0.1
ISR_Natufian_EpiP



0.1
ROU_Bodrogkeresztur_ChL_brother.I11906



0.1
TUR_EBA_lc



0.1
TUR_SE_Kilis_EBA_A




Distance to:
Dodecadk12bStuvanè

0.76472227
78.80% HRV_Bezdanjača_BA:I18725 + 21.20% TUR_SE_Kilis_EBA_A:I14798

0.78368658
84.80% SRB_BA:I17913 + 15.20% TUR_Hellenistic_lc:I3300

0.78694182
77.80% HRV_Bezdanjača_BA:I18725 + 22.20% TUR_SE_Kilis_EBA_A:I14794

0.84086029
79.40% HRV_Bezdanjača_BA:I18725 + 20.60% TUR_SE_Kilis_MBA_father.I14784.father.I14789:I1478 2

0.85877163
64.20% HRV_Bezdanjača_BA:I18725 + 35.80% TUR_Aegean_Muğla_Stratonikeia_Byz:I20187

1.04393432
79.60% HRV_Bezdanjača_BA:I18725 + 20.40% TUR_SE_Kilis_EBA_A:I14797

1.07136235
75.40% HRV_Bezdanjača_BA:I18724 + 24.60% TUR_SE_Kilis_MBA:I14762

1.07331634
72.20% HRV_Bezdanjača_BA:I18724 + 27.80% TUR_Marmara_İznik_Y.kapı_Byz:I14839

1.07879692
25.80% BGR_Ryahovets_Mdv:I10548 + 74.20% MKD_Anc:I10388

1.08128494
84.00% SRB_BA:I17913 + 16.00% TUR_SE_Kilis_EBA_A:I14792

1.09788361
81.20% MNE_LBA:I14501 + 18.80% TUR_Hellenistic_lc:I3300

1.10415037
68.80% BGR_KapitanAndreevo_IA:I20184 + 31.20% ROU_Trestiana_BA:I6186

1.10517360
78.00% HRV_Bezdanjača_BA:I18725 + 22.00% TUR_SE_Kilis_MBA:I14759

1.11095809
71.20% HRV_Bezdanjača_BA:I18724 + 28.80% TUR_Aegean_Muğla_Samantaş_Byz:I20261

1.11668660
76.00% SRB_BA:I17913 + 24.00% TUR_Aegean_Bodrum_Halikarnassos_Anc1:I3311

1.12572878
90.40% HRV_BA:I18712 + 9.60% TUR_Hellenistic_lc:I3300

1.13427807
69.00% BGR_ChL_outlier:I2181 + 31.00% TUR_SE_Şırnak_ChL_B:I4622

1.14074306
71.60% HRV_Bezdanjača_BA:I18725 + 28.40% TUR_Marmara_İznik_Y.kapı_Byz:I14833

1.15114155
69.00% BGR_ChL_outlier:I2181 + 31.00% TUR_SE_Kilis_EBA_A:I14792

1.15405772
77.80% HRV_Bezdanjača_BA:I18725 + 22.20% TUR_SE_Kilis_MBA:I14786

1.16742766
70.40% HRV_Bezdanjača_BA:I18725 + 29.60% TUR_Aegean_Muğla_Samantaş_Byz:I20259

1.17177468
80.40% HRV_Bezdanjača_BA:I18725 + 19.60% TUR_SE_Kilis_MBA_sister.I14784.daughter.I14782:I14 789

1.17294402
78.60% HRV_IA:I5723 + 21.40% TUR_SE_Şırnak_BA:I4614

1.17394067
69.20% HRV_Bezdanjača_BA:I18072 + 30.80% TUR_Aegean_Muğla_Stratonikeia_Byz:I20574

1.17626329
36.20% BGR_Dzhulyunitsa_N:I17981 + 63.80% BGR_Ryahovets_Mdv:I10548

----------


## Angela

My run with all of the Southern Arc samples. I didn't use all these samples in the run I detailed in post number 161 because some of them are Iron Age or Medieval (MKD ancient are all Iron Age unless I'm mistaken), and some are far to the east in the Balkans, and I was trying to stick with all Bronze Age samples (and prior Italian Chalcolithic since we don't have samples from the mainland of the inhabitants prior to the arrival of the steppe admixed and Greek samples).

Anyway, I'm much closer to these Iron Age, i.e. later first century B.C.E. samples from Northern Macedonia than I am to the Bronze Age ones, whether in Italy or the Balkans, and certainly closer than to Bell Beaker from Central Europe, doubtless because we are descended from a mixture of those Bell Beakers (half-Yamnaya/CW and half-Central/Eastern European farmer) and half local Chalcolithic peoples of Southern Europe.

Distance to:
Angela

3.96764414
MKD_Anc:I10387

4.54598724
MKD_Anc:I10390

4.78524816
MNE_LBA:I13167

5.07185370
MKD_Anc:I10383

5.88070574
MKD_Anc:I10391

5.93506529
MKD_Anc:I10388

5.95793588
MNE_LBA:I13169

6.19116306
ALB_Çinamak_Anc:I14692

6.24270775
BGR_Smyadovo_EBA_contam:I2176

6.45786342
MNE_LBA:I14500

6.57443534
MNE_LBA:I13172

6.57942247
ALB_Mdv:I13834

6.78405483
ALB_PostMdv:I15707

6.84365399
BGR_TellKran_EBA:I19455

7.13084147
BGR_TellKran_EBA:I19452

7.18208187
MKD_Anc:I10381

7.22678352
MNE_LBA:I13775

7.42544275
ALB_Çinamak_Anc:I14688

7.45790185
MKD_Anc:I8112

7.65953001
BGR_TellKran_EBA:I19456

7.66500489
ALB_Çinamak_Anc:I16256

7.92520031
MKD_Anc:I10379

7.94832687
MKD_BA:I7231

7.95380412
BGR_TellKran_EBA:I19451

7.96563871
MNE_LBA_brother.I13169_son.or.brother.I13776:I1377 7




Target: Angela
Distance: 0.7350% / 0.73504221 | ADC: 0.25x RC

51.0
MKD_Anc



32.8
MNE_LBA



7.8
BGR_Smyadovo_EBA_contam



5.4
ROU_Bodrogkeresztur_ChL



3.0
BGR_MalakPreslavets_N




Target: Angela
Distance: 0.0399% / 0.03994554

11.5
HRV_Bezdanjača_BA



10.0
ROU_Bodrogkeresztur_ChL



6.6
MNE_LBA



4.9
MNE_LBA_mother.or.sister.I13169.I13777



4.8
HRV_Cetina_BA



4.8
SRB_BA



3.8
HRV_Bezdanjača_BA_1d.rel.I18739



3.3
BGR_ChL_outlier



3.3
BGR_MalakPreslavets_N



3.3
TUR_Marmara_Menteşe_N



2.8
SRB_ChLBA



2.5
MKD_Anc



2.5
MNE_LateC_EBA_Cetina_lc



2.4
GRC_Mycenaean_Kastrouli_BA



2.0
ARM_Bagheri_Tchala_EIA



1.8
HRV_MLBA_lc



1.7
BGR_KapitanAndreevo_IA



1.7
CYP_PPNB



1.3
ALB_Çinamak_Anc_1d.rel.I16256



1.3
BGR_Yabalkovo_N_lc



1.3
HRV_Vinkovci_MN



1.3
ROU_Bodrogkeresztur_ChL_brother.I15617.brother.I71 35



1.3
ROU_N



1.2
HRV_Vinkovci_Mdv



1.2
MKD_N



1.1
ARM_Karnut_KuraAraxes_EBA



1.1
HRV_Bezdanjača_BA_brother.I18078.father.I18071



1.1
MNE_LBA_1d.rel_I13168



1.0
BGR_Svilengrad_IA



1.0
MNE_Vrbička_Mes



1.0
TUR_Marmara_Apollonia_Rom



0.9
ALB_Mdv_lc



0.9
ARM_Karashamb_LBA



0.9
ROU_N_outlier1



0.8
GRC_Mycenaean_Palace_of_Nestor_BA



0.6
ALB_N



0.6
ARM_Yerevan2_unknown



0.6
ROU_Arman_BA



0.5
ARM_Karmir_Blur_EIA



0.4
BIH_unknown



0.4
IRN_ShahrISokhta_BA2_lc



0.4
MNE_Vrbička_N



0.4
TUR_SE_Şırnak_BA



0.3
BGR_Diamandievo_IA



0.3
BGR_LIA_lc



0.3
GRC_Mycenaean_Lokris_BA



0.3
HRV_Bezdanjača_BA_1d.rel.I18077



0.3
TUR_Aegean_Bodrum_Halikarnassos_Anc1



0.2
ALB_Mdv



0.2
ARM_Harjis_LateUrartian



0.2
ARM_Lchashen_LBA



0.2
BGR_Boyanovo_EBA



0.2
BGR_TellKran_EBA



0.2
GRC_Palace_of_Nestor_EIA



0.2
ROU_Bodrogkeresztur_ChL_sister.I7133



0.2
TUR_BlackSea_Amasya_EBA



0.1
ALB_MBA



0.1
ARM_Berkaber_KuraAraxes_EBA



0.1
HRV_Cetina_BA_dup.or.1d.rel.I19017



0.1
TUR_BlackSea_Samsun_Anc_A



0.1
TUR_BlackSea_Samsun_Anc_B



0.1
TUR_C_Gordion_Anc






As is usually the case, Stuvane and I tend to get similar, although not identical results. For example, my Turkey sample is Neolithic, not Bronze Age or Hellenistic, and I don't get the HRV Byzantine sample. It's totally understandable given the trade and migration links of Adriatic Italy, even found in the IBD analysis of Ralph and Coop, and the barrier of the Apennines running north/south down the spine of Italy.

Distance to:
Angela

0.46990874
77.80% MNE_LBA:I13775 + 22.20% TUR_Marmara_Menteşe_N:I0724

0.83739847
75.40% MNE_LBA:I13775 + 24.60% ROU_N:I0739

1.00289170
76.60% MNE_LBA:I13775 + 23.40% ROU_Bodrogkeresztur_ChL:I20809

1.15204548
76.80% MNE_LBA:I13775 + 23.20% TUR_Marmara_Menteşe_N:I0723

1.33216413
22.60% ALB_NChL:I13838 + 77.40% MNE_LBA:I13775

1.34605704
82.20% MNE_LBA:I13167 + 17.80% ROU_Bodrogkeresztur_ChL:I7130

1.35608147
21.40% MKD_N:I3881 + 78.60% MNE_LBA:I13775

1.38552620
22.60% ALB_NChL:I13840 + 77.40% MNE_LBA:I13775

1.39722745
51.00% BGR_Dzhulyunitsa_N:I11270 + 49.00% HRV_Vinkovci_Mdv:I1879

1.40387779
77.00% MNE_LBA:I13775 + 23.00% TUR_Marmara_Barcın_N:I1583

1.42742061
23.00% BGR_Dzhulyunitsa_N:I11270 + 77.00% MNE_LBA:I13775

1.43265410
22.20% BGR_Dzhulyunitsa_N:I0704 + 77.80% MNE_LBA:I13775

1.44858096
78.40% MNE_LBA:I13775 + 21.60% TUR_Marmara_Ilıpınar_Byz1:I10429

1.45473019
25.60% GRC_Mycenaean_Palace_of_Nestor_BA:I19364 + 74.40% MNE_LBA:I13775

1.45616277
30.00% ALB_N:I15705 + 70.00% MNE_LBA:I13168

1.46092678
77.20% MNE_LBA:I13775 + 22.80% TUR_Marmara_Barcın_N:I1579

1.46371318
65.20% MNE_LBA:I13778 + 34.80% ROU_Bodrogkeresztur_ChL:I14165

1.48441939
23.40% BGR_Yabalkovo_N:I2529 + 76.60% MNE_LBA:I13775

1.48560146
67.40% ALB_Çinamak_Anc:I16256 + 32.60% GRC_Mycenaean_Kastrouli_BA:I13579

1.48946797
60.60% MNE_LBA:I13778 + 39.40% ROU_Bodrogkeresztur_ChL:I14160

1.51842045
77.40% MNE_LBA:I13775 + 22.60% ROU_Bodrogkeresztur_ChL:I7132

1.52924431
82.00% MNE_LBA:I13167 + 18.00% ROU_Bodrogkeresztur_ChL:I15618

1.53144171
81.00% MNE_LBA:I13167 + 19.00% ROU_Bodrogkeresztur_ChL_sister.I7133:I15622

1.54584891
53.80% BGR_MalakPreslavets_N:I1295 + 46.20% HRV_Cetina_BA:I19019

1.54900448
78.40% BGR_MalakPreslavets_N:I1295 + 21.60% MDA_CrihanaVeche_BA:I10439

----------


## Angela

Can any of our Balkanites provide their scores on this run? It would be interesting to see.

----------


## Jovialis

I noticed that my Cetina contribution was being inflated by an outlier from the other:



```
HRV_Cetina_BA:_1d.rel.I19027.possible.1d.rel.I19020:I19022,4.22,0,0,0,19.28,26.71,1,0,11.1,0,37.69,0
```

If I remove it, this is what my modeling looks like; no Cetina, and Sicily Beaker gets greatly reduced.

Nevertheless, Sicily Beaker may possibly have Minoan_Lasithi-like people as well. And/or there may be more people like that particular Cetina sample.

At any rate, I find this model looks a lot closer to the one proposed by Raveane et al. 2022, with aFrance + Minoan.

----------


## Angela

> Thanks to Salento and Jovialis for all this had work.
> 
> My run of Bronze Age samples either in Italy in Bronze Age, or Bronze Age samples which might have affected central and Northern Italy:
> Beakers, HRV Cetina Bronze Age, Croatia Bronze Age, Central Italian Chalcolithic, and Minoan.
> 
> Distance to:
> Angela
> 
> 6.06853360
> ...


This is my redo of the Bronze Age samples added to Central Italian Chalcolithic, since those are the people these Bronze Age Europeans whom I know came to Italy or who might conceivably have been related to people who came to my part of Italy would have encountered: North Italian Beaker's 3 samples, the MKD Bronze Beakers, the MNE samples also from the Balkans which are also Bronze Age samples, Bell Beakers from Spain, France, England, Netherlands and Central Europe, Unetice, HRV Bronze, removing the outlier, Croatia Bronze Age, French Bronze Age to capture perhaps some of the Ligures, and Minoans.

I wish I knew which of our samples are Hungarian Bronze Age.

Anyway:

Distance to:
Angela

4.78524816
MNE_LBA:I13167

5.95793588
MNE_LBA:I13169

6.06853360
Croatia_LBA:I3313:Mathieson_2018

6.45786342
MNE_LBA:I14500

6.57443534
MNE_LBA:I13172

7.16744724
I1979_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Northern_Italy

7.22678352
MNE_LBA:I13775

7.96563871
MNE_LBA_brother.I13169_son.or.brother.I13776:I1377 7

8.67347681
MNE_LBA:I14498

8.91212657
MNE_LBA:I13171

9.28622636
HRV_Cetina_BA:I18088

9.35244888
Croatia_EMBA:I4331:Mathieson_2018

9.65696122
Croatia_EMBA:I4332:Mathieson_2018

9.65707513
Beaker_Central_Europe:I2364:Olalde_2018

10.47783852
MNE_LBA:I13168

10.52358304
HRV_Cetina_BA:I11843

10.98498521
Beaker_Central_Europe:I7044:Olalde_2018

11.05889687
MNE_LBA_1d.rel_I14500:I14497

11.26664546
HRV_Cetina_BA:I18745

11.49653861
MNE_LBA_mother.or.sister.I13169.I13777:I13776

11.64571166
HRV_Cetina_BA:I19027

12.35142097
HRV_Cetina_BA:I18752

12.77132726
MNE_LBA:I14501

12.78110324
HRV_Cetina_BA:I19017

12.81122555
MNE_LBA:I13778





Target: Angela
Distance: 0.3702% / 0.37023771 | ADC: 0.25x RC

75.5
MNE_LBA



11.5
I4930_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Sicily



6.5
I2477_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Northern_Italy



5.3
I1979_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Northern_Italy



1.2
Minoan_Odigitria




Target: Angela
Distance: 0.0425% / 0.04249637

20.1
MNE_LBA



17.9
Minoan_Lasithi



10.8
MNE_LBA_mother.or.sister.I13169.I13777



7.1
Bell_Beaker_Augsburg



6.2
C_Italian_ChL



5.8
Beaker_Iberia



5.0
I4930_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Sicily



4.8
MNE_LBA_1d.rel_I13168



4.4
Minoan_Odigitria



4.3
HRV_Cetina_BA



2.9
MNE_LateC_EBA_Cetina_lc



2.7
Beaker_Central_Europe



2.5
Bell_Beaker_LN_Rothenschirmbach



1.1
France_Bell_Beaker



1.1
HRV_Cetina_BA_1d.rel.I19027.possible.1d.rel.I19020



0.8
I2477_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Northern_Italy



0.6
Bell_Beaker_Brandysek



0.4
Bell_Beaker_Knezeves



0.4
Unetice_EBA



0.3
Beaker_Southern_France



0.3
France_EBA-MBA



0.2
Bell_Beaker_Landau_an_der_Isar



0.2
HRV_MBA_Cetina_lc



0.1
HRV_Cetina_BA_dup.or.1d.rel.I19017




Distance to:
Angela

1.53210360
52.60% Beaker_Central_Europe:I5835:Olalde_2018 + 47.40% Minoan_Lasithi:I0071:Lazaridis_2017

1.53615637
22.60% Minoan_Odigitria:I9129:Lazaridis_2017 + 77.40% MNE_LBA:I13775

1.53967440
55.00% Beaker_Central_Europe:I3588:Olalde_2018 + 45.00% Minoan_Lasithi:I0074:Lazaridis_2017

1.63501932
49.20% Minoan_Lasithi:I0071:Lazaridis_2017 + 50.80% France_EBA:RIX15:Brunel_2020

1.71728823
52.00% Beaker_Central_Europe:I5835:Olalde_2018 + 48.00% Minoan_Lasithi:I0074:Lazaridis_2017

1.73211616
65.40% Beaker_Central_Europe:E09538:Olalde_2018 + 34.60% Minoan_Odigitria:I9129:Lazaridis_2017

1.74550888
19.40% Minoan_Odigitria:I9129:Lazaridis_2017 + 80.60% Croatia_LBA:I3313:Mathieson_2018

1.80545659
54.40% Beaker_Central_Europe:I5835:Olalde_2018 + 45.60% Minoan_Lasithi:I0073:Lazaridis_2017

1.85599232
55.80% Beaker_Central_Europe:I3588:Olalde_2018 + 44.20% Minoan_Lasithi:I0071:Lazaridis_2017

1.86144858
19.00% I4930_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Sicily + 81.00% MNE_LBA:I13169

1.86512734
50.00% Minoan_Lasithi:I0074:Lazaridis_2017 + 50.00% France_EBA:RIX15:Brunel_2020

1.94877799
45.20% France_Bell_Beaker:I3875:Olalde_2018 + 54.80% Minoan_Lasithi:I0074:Lazaridis_2017

1.94877799
45.20% Beaker_Southern_France:I3875:Olalde_2018 + 54.80% Minoan_Lasithi:I0074:Lazaridis_2017

1.98276441
52.00% Beaker_Central_Europe:I4887:Olalde_2018 + 48.00% Minoan_Lasithi:I0074:Lazaridis_2017

1.99348089
47.60% Bell_Beaker_LN:I0108:Mathieson_2015 + 52.40% Minoan_Lasithi:I0071:Lazaridis_2017

2.01180506
57.60% Beaker_Central_Europe:I3588:Olalde_2018 + 42.40% Minoan_Lasithi:I0073:Lazaridis_2017

2.05381598
19.20% I4930_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Sicily + 80.80% Croatia_LBA:I3313:Mathieson_2018

2.07646419
24.20% Minoan_Odigitria:I9129:Lazaridis_2017 + 75.80% MNE_LBA_brother.I13169_son.or.brother.I13776:I1377 7

2.07765978
47.40% Minoan_Lasithi:I0073:Lazaridis_2017 + 52.60% France_EBA:RIX15:Brunel_2020

2.12326397
48.20% Bell_Beaker_LN:I0111:Mathieson_2015 + 51.80% Minoan_Lasithi:I0074:Lazaridis_2017

2.15284540
32.80% Minoan_Odigitria:I9128:Lazaridis_2017 + 67.20% MNE_LBA_mother.or.sister.I13169.I13777:I13776

2.16381918
46.20% Beaker_Central_Europe:I5833:Olalde_2018 + 53.80% Minoan_Lasithi:I0074:Lazaridis_2017

2.16979080
50.40% Minoan_Lasithi:I0074:Lazaridis_2017 + 49.60% France_EBA:BIS130:Brunel_2020

2.22070440
18.00% Minoan_Lasithi:I9005:Lazaridis_2017 + 82.00% Croatia_LBA:I3313:Mathieson_2018

2.22755954
45.60% Beaker_Central_Europe:I5666:Olalde_2018 + 54.40% Minoan_Odigitria:I9129:Lazaridis_2017



Big difference between the Minoan Lasithi samples and the Minoan Odigitria samples.

----------

