G25 G25 imperial Greek shift in Greeks and Italians + a comparison with qpAdm

[Idontknowwhatimdoing]

The bulk of the Lombards with 100% Langobard ancestry was northern European

Which samples do you suggest exactly to use?

 

[Pax Augusta]

Eastern Romans, Western Romans, we are all brothers from another mother.

That world no longer exists.

 

[eupator]

That world no longer exists.

And yet here we are, the direct descendants of the ERE, in flesh, language, culture and faith.

 

[Pax Augusta]

And yet here we are, the direct descendants of the ERE, in flesh, language, culture and faith.

This is the problem, taking an interest in ancient history for identity issues of the present.
And in my opinion the Roman world ends with the spread of Christianity.

 

[Idontknowwhatimdoing]

I was referring to the Italians and "Antiquity_Greek". If Antiquity_Greek is too high it raises Langobard/Germanic ancestry in Italians.

As far as I am concerned, Italian history from the Roman Empire onward is too complicated to be simplified with qpAdm or G25. I know too little about Greek history from the imperial period onward, so I refrain.

Thats why my models imply shifts and not direct admix. I say that at the beginning. But we can actually get a good idea that this East Med shift is mainly from Greeks of West Anatolia. It had a large populations and most of the Rome Imperial samples are like West Anatolians. There were even some conservative Romans in that time complaining about the massive Greek influx in Rome from Anatolia.

 

[Idontknowwhatimdoing]

This is the problem, taking an interest in ancient history for identity issues of the present.
And in my opinion the Roman world ends with the spread of Christianity.

The Eastern Roman Empire lasted for 1000 years. Hagia Sophia was literally built by Christians, one of the greatest things built by the Romans. Cultures evolve over time. We cannot expect them to be stay exactly the same without progress for thousands of years. The Eastern Roman Empire as a state started falling after 1000 AD, those cultures though still survived to this day. State != ethnicity/culture.

 

[Pax Augusta]

The Eastern Roman Empire lasted for 1000 years. Hagia Sophia was literally built by Christians, one of the greatest things built by the Romans. Cultures evolve over time. We cannot expect them to be stay exactly the same without progress for thousands of years. The Eastern Roman Empire as a state started falling after 1000 AD, those cultures though still survived to this day. State != ethnicity/culture.

I have already answered, for me the Roman world ends with the spread of Christianity. What comes after that is gradually something different, although the "Greeks" themselves continued to call themselves Romans. Even the Germans will call their empire the Holy Roman Empire centuries later, but no one really considers them Romans.

 

[eupator]

This is the problem, taking an interest in ancient history for identity issues of the present.
And in my opinion the Roman world ends with the spread of Christianity.

It's all relative to interpretation.

For me, the ERE represents the Orthodox nation of Christ, above anything else.

And as far as identity issues, I don't like talking about myself, but you will be hard pressed to find anyone as close to the Eastern Romans/Byzantines as I am (and many others like me), my father is from Rumelian Thrace (the capital province of ERE/Ottomans) and my mother from Trebizond (the capital of the last bastion of the Byzantines). You can't get more Byzantine than me, in flesh, language, culture and Faith.

You see, there's many of us in modern Greece that cherish our Orthodox heritage and our culture, still alive and kicking, and don't larp as bronze age pagans. Just visit one of our churches and you can get to know us better.

 

[Idontknowwhatimdoing]

It's all relative to interpretation.

For me, the ERE represents the Orthodox nation of Christ, above anything else.

And as far as identity issues, I don't like talking about myself, but you will be hard pressed to find anyone as close to the Eastern Romans/Byzantines as I am (and many others like me), my father is from Rumelian Thrace (the capital province of ERE/Ottomans) and my mother from Trebizond (the capital of the last bastion of the Byzantines). You can't get more Byzantine than me, in flesh, language, culture and Faith.

You see, there's many of us in modern Greece that cherish our Orthodox heritage and our culture, still alive and kicking, and don't larp as bronze age pagans. Just visit one of our churches and you can get to know us better.

Around 80-90% of modern Greeks are Orthodox Christian, that should say enough. It's often foreigners who ignore 2000 years of Greek history and think Greek means just 400 BC Spartan and Athenian. Ignoring 2000 years of cultural evolution.

The dark age period Greeks received a lot of Semitic/Phoenician influences before classical times. If we apply western logic on that then the Classical Greeks were not real Greeks like the Achaeans in 1200 BC, these ideas of cultural "purity" of ethnic groups, being unchanged for 4000 years, not learning, adapting and not evolving at all is nonsense. Many of the Greek philosophers, including one of the first ones, were partially Phoenician. If the ancient Greeks and Romans did not learn, adapt and invent new things then they would not end up being so great.

 

[Francesco]

It is absolutely impossible for Italians not to have massive Greek Aegean admix. Both historically and both genetically, we see that they simply have a massive Greek shift that did not exist in Iron age and classical times, for example the Himera samples in Sicily.

I found very likely that the bulk of it derives from the Greek colonization (infact it's higher in regions settled by Greeks) and that it was eventually augmented in later period (imperial and byzantine)

As for wich samples to use as Lombard proxies, I would suggest to try the more north shifted ones

 

[eupator]

Around 80-90% of modern Greeks are Orthodox Christian, that should say enough. It's often foreigners who ignore 2000 years of Greek history and think Greek means just 400 BC Spartan and Athenian. Ignoring 2000 years of cultural evolution.

The dark age period Greeks received a lot of Semitic/Phoenician influences before classical times. If we apply western logic on that then the Classical Greeks were not real Greeks like the Achaeans in 1200 BC, these ideas of cultural "purity" of ethnic groups, being unchanged for 4000 years, not learning, adapting and not evolving at all is nonsense. Many of the Greek philosophers, including one of the first ones, were partially Phoenician. If the ancient Greeks and Romans did not learn, adapt and invent new things then they would not end up being so great.

Well said, I concur, especially with the part of "ignoring" our Byzantine/medieval history, which is done on purpose, because if it's not ignored, then Papal legitimacy is immediately thrown out of the window, but I digress.

 

[Pax Augusta]

It's all relative to interpretation.

For me, the ERE represents the Orthodox nation of Christ, above anything else.

And as far as identity issues, I don't like talking about myself, but you will be hard pressed to find anyone as close to the Eastern Romans/Byzantines as I am (and many others like me), my father is from Rumelian Thrace (the capital province of ERE/Ottomans) and my mother from Trebizond (the capital of the last bastion of the Byzantines). You can't get more Byzantine than me, in flesh, language, culture and Faith.

You see, there's many of us in modern Greece that cherish our Orthodox heritage and our culture, still alive and kicking, and don't larp as bronze age pagans. Just visit one of our churches and you can get to know us better.

The problem is that you keep confusing the past with the present.


The founders of Rome were not Christians, that is a fact, not even an opinion.

 

[Palermo Trapani]

I have already answered, for me the Roman world ends with the spread of Christianity. What comes after that is gradually something different, although the "Greeks" themselves continued to call themselves Romans. Even the Germans will call their empire the Holy Roman Empire centuries later, but no one really considers them Romans.

I would agree with Pax Augusta. Not to turn this into a theological discussion. But early Christianity was indeed all tied to Greco-Roman civilization, language culture and theology of the early Church reflects this in the Latin-Western Church fathers (Hillary of Poitiers, Ambrose of Milan, Augustine of Hippo, Jerome, etc) and Greek-Eastern Fathers (Athanasius, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, etc). The early Church pretty much through the first 4 major councils was confided and concentrated in Southern Europe (Italy and Greece, with Spain also incorporated into it Hosius of Cordoba (Bishop) who presided over the Council of Nicea in 325 AD was from Spain and 1 of 6 Latin Church to go to Nicea) to areas in the East (Anatolia, Levant, Persia, etc). North of the Alps was still from the Early Church perspective pagan till really the early 5th century, over the next 600 years to 1000AD everything from Poland to the British isles would be incorporated into Christendom tied to the Latin/Roman Church. Europeans had their ethnic identities their own Rulers, etc, had their own culture and language but all were tied to the notion of Christendom. To me the end of the Roman empire starts with the 3 R's of the early 16th century, the protestant revolt, rebellion and reformation which ultimately led to national churches tied to national identity and this in my view is what led to a view of nationalism that was more militaristic and conquest oriented and set the stage for many of the wars in Europe that would follow from the early 16th century onward.

 

[eupator]

The problem is that you keep confusing the past with the present.


The founders of Rome were not Christians, that is a fact, not even an opinion.

The founders of Constantinople (and subsequently the move of the capital into ERE) were Christian, though, also a fact.


One of my favorite works of art (related):

 

[Idontknowwhatimdoing]

I found very likely that the bulk of it derives from the Greek colonization (infact it's higher in regions settled by Greeks) and that it was eventually augmented in later period (imperial and byzantine)
As for wich samples to use as Lombard proxies, I would suggest to try the more north shifted ones

If you mean that that profile existed in classical Greek colonies in Sicily/South Italy, I don't think its from pre Hellenistic colonies of South Italy. The samples from classical South Italy did not have a Greek West Anatolian autosomal profile yet. The Greek West Anatolians start moving in Greece during the Hellenistic period. I've shown that on my post.

The samples cluster with West Anatolians and not the classical Greek colony samples of Sicily.
Most of the pre-Hellenistic Greek colony admix in South Italy and Sicily seems to have been replaced by Hellenistic West Anatolian kind of Greeks.

Aegean-West_Anatolia = Rome Imperial samples that cluster with Greek West Anatolians/islanders.

For the migrants to be mainly from the classical Greek colonies of South Italy then it would also require a bigger direct Levantine and East Anatolian/Armenian immigration in Italy to recreate a West Anatolian like profile. So i think its unlikely for them to be just from Greek colonies in Italy.

Out of 46 Imperial Rome samples:
23 of them are closest to modern Greek islanders such as Dodecanese, Cypriots, Kos, Cretans.
1 to Pontic Greek
9 to various Italians
4 to Levant
7 to various Jews, because of the North African admix. Those modern Jews have significant South Italian admix, 50-70%
1 to Spanish

 

[Palermo Trapani]

If you mean that that profile existed in classical Greek colonies in Sicily/South Italy, I don't think its from pre Hellenistic colonies of South Italy. The samples from classical South Italy did not have a Greek West Anatolian autosomal profile yet. The Greek West Anatolians start moving in Greece during the Hellenistic period. I've shown that on my post.

The samples cluster with West Anatolians and not the classical Greek colony samples of Sicily.
Most of the pre-Hellenistic Greek colony admix in South Italy and Sicily seems to have been replaced by Hellenistic West Anatolian kind of Greeks.

Aegean-West_Anatolia = Rome Imperial samples that cluster with Greek West Anatolians/islanders.

For the migrants to be mainly from the classical Greek colonies of South Italy then it would also require a bigger direct Levantine and East Anatolian/Armenian immigration in Italy to recreate a West Anatolian like profile. So i think its unlikely for them to be just from Greek colonies in Italy.

Out of 46 Imperial Rome samples:
23 of them are closest to modern Greek islanders such as Dodecanese, Cypriots, Kos, Cretans.
1 to Pontic Greek
9 to various Italians
4 to Levant
7 to various Jews, because of the North African admix. Those modern Jews have significant South Italian admix, 50-70%
1 to Spanish

I am not trying to be obtuse here but when I here words like "replace" my antenna's go up. That suggest some sort of Rupture. Can you say "replace" definitively? or rather "absorbed" is more accurate. So spell it out, what exactly are trying to say regarding South Italy/Sicily. These models seem to be using, from my view, to many contemporaneous populations. To me you need some Italian Samples that post date those samples you have and run them from the earlier samples to model what say an early Southern Italian/Sicily population might look like and whether it changed (Replacement) or was absorbed (admixture ratios changed, etc).

 

[ihype02]

Relevant leak from upcoming Hellenistic Macedonia samples, it's a leak so not confirmed, the samples show heavy Anatolian overlap.

I admire the work of Agamemnon but I wish he could ignore some population groups in his PCA to make the PCA more clear.

 

[Francesco]

If you mean that that profile existed in classical Greek colonies in Sicily/South Italy, I don't think its from pre Hellenistic colonies of South Italy. The samples from classical South Italy did not have a Greek West Anatolian autosomal profile yet. The Greek West Anatolians start moving in Greece during the Hellenistic period. I've shown that on my post.
The samples cluster with West Anatolians and not the classical Greek colony samples of Sicily.
Most of the pre-Hellenistic Greek colony admix in South Italy and Sicily seems to have been replaced by Hellenistic West Anatolian kind of Greeks.

Aegean-West_Anatolia = Rome Imperial samples that cluster with Greek West Anatolians/islanders.
For the migrants to be mainly from the classical Greek colonies of South Italy then it would also require a bigger direct Levantine and East Anatolian/Armenian immigration in Italy to recreate a West Anatolian like profile. So i think its unlikely for them to be just from Greek colonies in Italy.
Out of 46 Imperial Rome samples:
23 of them are closest to modern Greek islanders such as Dodecanese, Cypriots, Kos, Cretans.
1 to Pontic Greek
9 to various Italians
4 to Levant
7 to various Jews, because of the North African admix. Those modern Jews have significant South Italian admix, 50-70%
1 to Spanish

Many of the Himera inhabitants already show a more west anatolian like profile (while others are decisely Sicanian like). My hypothesis is that there is a strong continuity, despite some degree of migration and mobility, between iron age greeks, classical Greeks and then hellenistic Greeks.

 

[Idontknowwhatimdoing]

I am not trying to be obtuse here but when I here words like "replace" my antenna's go up. That suggest some sort of Rupture. Can you say "replace" definitively? or rather "absorbed" is more accurate. So spell it out, what exactly are trying to say regarding South Italy/Sicily. These models seem to be using, from my view, to many contemporaneous populations. To me you need some Italian Samples that post date those samples you have and run them from the earlier samples to model what say an early Southern Italian/Sicily population might look like and whether it changed (Replacement) or was absorbed (admixture ratios changed, etc).

The admixture ratio changed by like 70-90% then.

"These models seem to be using, from my view, to many contemporaneous populations."

There is no such problem if you are doing it right, i literally posted models with much less proxies and they showed the same thing, i've also compared the results to qpAdm. And before you claim that Anatolia center is being confused with West Anatolian, it is simply is not because the West Anatolians had higher Armenian and Levantine related admix. G25 is good at telling apart related populations. The classical Sicilian civilian's Anatolian admix was mainly Pre Hellenistic Anatolian like.

 

[Francesco]

The admixture ratio changed by like 70-90% then.


There is no such problem if you are doing it right, i literally posted models with much less proxies and they showed the same thing, i've also compared the results to qpAdm. And before you claim that Anatolia center is being confused with West Anatolian, it is simply is not because the West Anatolians had higher Armenian and Levantine related admix. G25 is good at telling apart related populations. The classical Sicilian civilian's Anatolian admix was mainly Pre Hellenistic Anatolian like.

I wouldn't use the himera civilian cluster as a proxy for classical Greek colonists, since there are many individual of clear Sicanian ancestry in there. Some of them are clearly Greek, others are not.