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

[kingdavid]

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

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

unfortuntely , not as far as i know
griko samples from salento -had high e-v13
from what i remember in other paper
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griko_people#/media/File:GrikoSpeakingCommunitiesTodayV4.png


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

 

[torzio]

Northern Italy (Etruscan, Raetic and other non-IE people) from Steppe
Southern Italy (Greek, Oscan and other IE people) from a non-Steppe CHG/Iran_N source

Did I get it correctly?

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

 

[Salento]

unfortuntely , not as far as i know
griko samples from salento -had high e-v13
from what i remember in other paper
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griko_people#/media/File:GrikoSpeakingCommunitiesTodayV4.png

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

https://bari.repubblica.it/cronaca/...te_l_albania_dal_mare_di_alimini-159776344/1/

 

[Shahmiri]

Iran Neo or Caucasus like ancestry was in Central Italy by at least the Neolithic

I have searched about it several times but never found anything, why this very important thing has not been mention in this study and other studies about Sicily, Mycenaeans and etc?

Why do we see this map:

Do you believe Central Italy was the source of Iranian-related ancestry in Bronze Age Europe?

 

[kingdavid]

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

https://bari.repubblica.it/cronaca/...te_l_albania_dal_mare_di_alimini-159776344/1/

amazingly beautifull

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

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

 

[Jovialis]

I have searched about it several times but never found anything, why this very important thing has not been mention in this study and other studies about Sicily, Mycenaeans and etc?
Why do we see this map:

Do you believe Central Italy was the source of Iranian-related ancestry in Bronze Age Europe?

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

 

[Salento]

amazingly beautifull

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

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

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

 

[Jovialis]

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

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

[h=3]The Neolithic transition[/h]The first major ancestry shift in the time series occurred between 7000 and 6000 BCE, coinciding with the transition to farming and introduction of domesticates including wheat, barley, pulses, sheep, and cattle into Italy (Fig. 2) (6, 16).
Similar to early farmers from other parts of Europe, Neolithic individuals from central Italy project near Anatolian farmers in PCA (13, 14, 17–19) (Fig. 2A). However, ADMIXTURE reveals that, in addition to ancestry from northwestern Anatolia farmers, all of the Neolithic individuals that we studied carry a small amount of another component that is found at high levels in Neolithic Iranian farmers and Caucasus hunter-gatherers (CHG) (Fig. 2B and fig. S9). This contrasts with contemporaneous central European and Iberian populations who carry farmer ancestry predominantly from northwestern Anatolia (fig. S12). Furthermore, qpAdm modeling suggests that Neolithic Italian farmers can be modeled as a two-way mixture of ~5% local hunter-gatherer ancestry and ~95% ancestry of Neolithic farmers from central Anatolia or northern Greece (table S7), who also carry additional CHG (or Neolithic Iranian) ancestry (fig. S12) (14). These findings point to different or additional source populations involved in the Neolithic transition in Italy compared to central and western Europe.
During the late Neolithic and Copper Age, there is a small, gradual rebound of WHG ancestry (Fig. 2B and fig. S24), mirroring findings from ancient DNA studies of other European populations from these periods (10, 13, 18, 20). This may reflect admixture with communities that had high levels of WHG ancestry persisting into the Neolithic, locally or in neighboring regions (tables S9 to S11).

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/366/6466/708

 

[Shahmiri]

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

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

 

[Jovialis]

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

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

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

 

[Regio X]

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

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

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

 

[Shahmiri]

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

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

The difference is that we read other things in this study:

All Italian populations were successfully modeled as characterized by a relatively high amount of Anatolian Neolithic ancestry, with the major contribution observed in Sardinians (Fig. 4, Suppl. Table S8). The remaining ancestries were assigned to a lower WHG contribution and to differential influences of Steppe_EMBA and CHG/Iran_N in the profiles of Northern and Southern Italians, respectively (Fig. 4, Suppl. Table S8). In fact, while Steppe ancestry is greater in North Italy (~27%), the Iran_N/CHG-related source is more present in South Italy with the highest values (~29%) observed in the populations from the Aspromonte area.

Iran_N/CHG admixture in Anatolian Neolithic ancestry has been considered but this study talks about further ancestry from Iran_N/CHG-related source.

 

[Angela]

The difference is that we read other things in this study:



Iran_N/CHG admixture in Anatolian Neolithic ancestry has been considered but this study talks about further ancestry from Iran_N/CHG-related source.

Excuse me, but have you been following this thread?

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

 

[Shahmiri]

Excuse me, but have you been following this thread?

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

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

 

[Pax Augusta]

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

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

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

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

 

[Angela]

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

READ the thread. Of course there were.

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

 

[Shahmiri]

READ the thread. Of course there were.

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

Ok, I think there is no disagreement between us, as you said other Indo-Europeans like Mycenaeans also got it.

 

[bigsnake49]

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

 

[Jovialis]

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

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

 

[Shahmiri]

I hope to see the end of these ridiculous theories: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0105920

Etruscan culture has absolutely nothing to do with Iran and South Caucasus.