• Don't want to see ads? Install an adblocker like uBlock Origin or use a Europe-based privacy-friendly browser like Vivaldi or Mullvad.

Genetic history of Calabrian Greeks reveals ancient events and long term isolation in

Pax Augusta said:
geneticists are anything but infallible, and they are often wrong especially with these very speculative models.
Click to expand...

You trust laymen more?
 
Jovialis said:
You trust laymen more?
Click to expand...

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

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

Professionals adept are not exempt from agendas and mistakes. qpAdm can be used by anyone.
 
Regio X said:
I've posted it just for comparison. I also wanted to compare Barcin vs. Tepecik, but I have no idea on how to use other tools such qpAdm. :)

These would be the amounts of Levantine suggested for Southern Italians by the tool (naturally they may vary depending on the references chosen):
[TABLE="width: 977"]
[TR]
[TD]Target[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Distance[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Levant_PPNB[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]MAR_EN[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]TUR_Barcin_N[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]TUR_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]WHG[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Yamnaya_RUS_Samara[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Sardinian[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.0268524[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]81.8[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]12.2[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]6[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Italian_Abruzzo[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.00768384[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]7.3[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]6.7[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]42.9[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]13.5[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.6[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]29[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Italian_Molise[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.00761903[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]6.5[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]4.3[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]44.8[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]13.5[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.5[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]30.4[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Italian_Campania[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.00787971[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]9.4[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]8.4[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]35.8[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]21.1[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]25.3[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Italian_Apulia[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.00818471[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]7.2[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]3.2[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.2[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]33.5[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]29.2[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.2[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]26.5[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Italian_Basilicata[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.0073524[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]7.9[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]4.8[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.1[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]36.3[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]24.2[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]26.7[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Italian_Calabria[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.00959004[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]9.8[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]2[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1.5[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]33.8[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]30.2[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]22.7[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Sicilian_East[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.00960535[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]7.2[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]7[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1.3[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]27.6[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]31.1[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1.8[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]24[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Sicilian_West[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.01100361[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]8.4[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]6.5[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]2.6[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]35.6[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]19.5[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]4.4[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]23[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Average[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.01064123[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]7.1[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]4.8[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.6[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]41.3[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]20.3[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]2.2[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]23.7[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Click to expand...



It would be better to use Levant Natufian rather than Levant_PPNB that has a lot of EEF. Levant_PPNB can be modelled as almost 50% Natufian and 50% Anatolia_Barcin_N
 
Pax Augusta said:
There are not only these options. Generally speaking, I trust archaeologists far more than any academic or amateur geneticist.



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

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

What agenda are you talking about? You think Harvard, the Max Planck Institute, and various other institutions have an agenda to inflate CHG/Iran_N? Why?
 
Jovialis said:
Than maybe people should used that instead of inferior programs like G25.
Click to expand...



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

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

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

What agenda are you talking about? You think Harvard, the Max Planck Institute, and various other institutions have an agenda to inflate CHG/Iran_N? Why?
 
Jovialis said:
Pardon me, than I misspoke. Btw, I know how it works, I made many data sheets myself, if you haven't noticed.

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

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


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

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

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

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

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...erranean/page3?p=571065&viewfull=1#post571065

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

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

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



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

RUoOU4b.png


If you take a look at the Z-axis on this 3D-PCA, you can see it matches the CHG/IN cline.
 
You guys have already said what I was willing to say: results should not be taken too literally, and they must be discussed and interpreted (which we've been doing here). Taken together, and compared to others, they may provide good clues on ancient movements, as we all know.

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

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

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

@Pax
Yes, I know. IIRC, we discussed it in a thread regarding Caucasus. Even Barcin itself would have a bit of Natufian, and Tepecik would have more, while PPNB would have something about 40% of ANF, if I'm not mistaken. Adding Natufian and eliminating PPNB could result in part of the former going to Anatolian, indeed; however, as Natufian is so old, this extra Natufian should correspond to some actual Levant Neo-like ancestry in that context, I believe, and Levant Neo (as well as Levant BA) did have Anatolian Neo after all. That's why I preferred PPNB, expecting that the tool would accommodate the extra Natufian into the correspondent pop of Levant in the timeframe chosen.
Of course, there would be different ways of estimating "Levantine(-like)" ancestry, from more recent pops to more ancient ones. As you know, shared ancestry is frequently an issue, especially when we use more recent pops as sources.
Apparently one way to estimate/isolate Natufian-like ancestry would be using it with AHG, CHG/Iran Meso etc., but this is another story.
 
Do you think that the percentages of Steppe in South Italians are correct? In Fernandes 2020 Sicilians are 20% yamnaya while in this study nearby Calabrese are less than 15% Steppe emba

Inviato dal mio POT-LX1T utilizzando Tapatalk
 
Jovialis said:
w3KrzYN.jpg


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

ONagPuX.jpg
Click to expand...



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

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

from the paper supplemental :

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



p.s
it is possible the greeks at least partly brought this steppe ancestery to sardinia:thinking:
 
kingjohn said:
thanks for remainding us of this paper:good_job:
about steppe and iranian related ancestery in med isalnads

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

from the paper supplemental :

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



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

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

did the italic tribes( might be source for steppe componnent) made it to sardinia ?:thinking:
 
Cato said:
The Romans in 238 BC

Inviato dal mio POT-LX1T utilizzando Tapatalk
Click to expand...




nice :smile:
but the one of the iron age remains (i16163) already show the steppe signiture
and he is dated to 762-434 bc :thinking:
maybe the early mediveal individual i12221 which is in later period 892-990 ad
show steppe partly from vandal influence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandal_Sardinia
 
I am sure all of these groups all contributed some amount to the steppe throughout Italy:

Q5gZdyK.png
 
Jovialis said:
I am sure all of these groups all contributed some amount to the steppe throughout Italy:

Q5gZdyK.png
Click to expand...

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

Plus the purple need to go into eastern austria

Umbrian and Oscan separated ? ......maybe it should be joined and called Umbrian-Sabellic group
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top