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

[Jovialis]

Also, so my point is not buried, there is a gradient towards C5, which are the imperial era samples. I really don't understand you aggression, because this actually helps serve your point to an extent.

But we need to make some things clear, C6 likely the native type of population that has existed in Italy, since as least the Iron age. A fact proven by the existence of R437.

C6 as well as C5 increased in scale during the Imperial age. It is likely that C6 represents an internal migration from other parts of Italy, likely the south. While C5 represents the Anatolian/Greek Island-like migrants, either from the Greek Colonies, and/or Anatolian immigrants.

Rome after the fall of the empire was repopulated exclusively with C6 and C7-like samples. C5 and C4 disappears.

The Anatolian Immigrants disappeared after the fall of the Roman Empire. They started going to Constantiplole, and they either mixed out of existence or died away in the west. Though it is possible that some C5 immigrants still lived on in parts of the south, or more likely, this signal is due to the Ancient Greek Colonies.

Modeling from Daunian paper, looks like they think it is a viable model:

Here's my take on it for modern samples:

 

[Idontknowwhatimdoing]

Then, I don't understand if you are implying that this second wave of ionian Greeks completely replaced their Iron Age Greek predecessors in Magna Grecia. Because that's what your model seems to hint at with a surprising 0% Mycenean in Apulia and Calabria.

5-10% direct Mycenaean could be being absorbed by the Greek Imperial samples but thats it. There were 400-480 years between the Classical Sicilians and the Imperial samples. We cant tell how sudden the change was. Its possible that Hellenistic age South Italy already was receiving Greeks immigrants for hundreds of years. What we are more "certain" of is that it didn't happen in the Bronze or Iron Age.

 

[Jovialis]

If Apulians can be modelled with simply Minoan then all Greek islanders can be modelled with Simply Minoan, makes no sense. Just because you think something is viable because of your assumptions about the population density, it does not counter actual autosomal DNA data.

Apulians have way too much excess CHG and Levant Neolithic to be just simply Minoan. Just because a model fits on qpAdm or ADMIXTURE it does not make it real. You can fit anything. It makes absolutely no sense to model Apulians with "simply Minoan". Their ANF is not high enough and their CHG/Levant Neolithic is not low enough. They can be modelled with 6% Minoan, thats it.

Basically by Hellenistic times, the Greeks from Greece and Anatolia were mixed with each other and kinda formed one cluster. There were no magical isolations of 5000 years. The same thing happened in South Italy.

Greek Islanders cannot be modele with minoan simply. They are more Anatolia_BA-like. They have a lot more CHG and Levant.

 

[Jovialis]

Your problem is that you are not clinical in the populations you are looking at. You're trying to force one model on populations that have different histories.

 

[Jovialis]

 

[Idontknowwhatimdoing]

Also, so my point is not buried, there is a gradient towards C5, which are the imperial era samples. I really don't understand you aggression, because this actually helps serve your point to an extent.

But we need to make some things clear, C6 likely the native type of population that has existed in Italy, since as least the Iron age. A fact proven by the existence of R437.

C6 as well as C5 increased in scale during the Imperial age. It is likely that C6 represents an internal migration from other parts of Italy, likely the south. While C5 represents the Anatolian/Greek Island-like migrants, either from the Greek Colonies, and/or Anatolian immigrants.

Rome after the fall of the empire was repopulated exclusively with C6 and C7-like samples. C5 and C4 disappears.

The Anatolian Immigrants disappeared after the fall of the Roman Empire. They started going to Constantiplole, and they either mixed out of existence or died away in the west. Though it is possible that some C5 immigrants still lived on in parts of the south, or more likely, this signal is due to the Ancient Greek Colonies.

Modeling from Daunian paper, looks like they think it is a viable model:

Here's my take on it for modern samples:

Okay, because studies are always true and not biased then the study claiming that modern Northern Greeks are directly 90% Bronze Age Logkas proto Greek must be right? Lol

Just because a study fitted a model, it does not make it true. The studies you sent made oversimplified models with very old populations, just like the Logkas study. I've literally attempted their models of the study you sent and i fitted Cypriots without Levant, crazy. I guess Cypriots also have no Levant now. I've sent it before on eupedia and you guys told me "its not legit because Cyprus is close to the Levant but Italy is not", basically the argument was that "i dont believe it therefore its not true".

Stop with the Bronze Age models, they are unrealistic and misleading.

 

[Idontknowwhatimdoing]

Your problem is that you are not clinical in the populations you are looking at. You're trying to force one model on populations that have different histories.

No, the models you sent me are the ones actually forcing models on populations with different histories. They skip thousands of years of migrations and attempt to force Anatolia BA models, assuming that they are actual direct ancestors. The models i made were historical while the models you sent were unhistorical. Like i said before, i could even fit Cypriots with no Levant with your models, obviously that's unrealistic.

 

[Francesco]

Its possible that Hellenistic age South Italy already was receiving Greeks immigrants for hundreds of years. What we are more "certain" of is that it didn't happen in the Bronze or Iron Age.

Of course it's possible, as well as it's possible and totally plausible that by the hellenistic time the newcomers from Greece were more anatolian like. It's just that your models postulate a total ethnic cleansing of the old magna Grecia greeks by their hellenistic counterpart. That's were it start to gets quite dubious, to me.

 

[Jovialis]

I will not stop, because it is a fact you need to live with. Also, you have an infraction for continued brow beating, don't tell me or anyone here to stop doing anything.

It fits, and it matches archaeology, as I have already stated. It also matches what multiple studies have already confirmed, so I subscribe to the studies. That's my right.

 

[Idontknowwhatimdoing]

Of course it's possible, as well as it's possible and totally plausible that by the hellenistic time the newcomers from Greece were more anatolian like. It's just that your models postulate a total ethnic cleansing of the old magna Grecia greeks by their hellenistic counterpart. That's were it start to gets quite dubious, to me.

Its not ethnic cleansing if its just Greeks migrating to Greek regions. 400-500 years have passed since the Classical samples.

 

[Jovialis]

No, the models you sent me are the ones actually forcing models on populations with different histories. They skip thousands of years of migrations and attempt to force Anatolia BA models, assuming that they are actual direct ancestors. The models i made were historical while the models you sent were unhistorical. Like i said before, i could even fit Cypriots with no Levant with your models, obviously that's unrealistic.

Levant is already subsumed into the Anatolian_BA and a bit into Minoan, and other farmer groups. Don't worry, it is there, Jesus Christ! Is that the point of all this?

 

[Jovialis]

My model has been used by the studies you cited (Daunians and Bronze age Sicilian papers) , so what is the problem?

It is only good when it serves your agenda, but it isn't when it proves it wrong?

I think you need to explain yourself.

 

[Idontknowwhatimdoing]

I will not stop, because it is a fact you need to live with. Also, you have an infraction for continued brow beating, don't tell me or anyone here to stop doing anything.

It fits, and it matches archaeology, as I have already stated. It also matches what multiple studies have already confirmed, so I subscribe to the studies. That's my right.

oh i guess Cypriots are just pure Early Bronze Age Anatolians then with 0% Levantine. According to your logic it fits, therefore its true. <- That's why im advising against irrelevant old Bronze Age models. You can fit this on qpAdm too but it doesn't make it historically true.

If you can accept South Italians having 0 Levantine then Cypriots also must have 0% Levantine and 0% Mycenaean ancestry at the same time, i guess Cypriots are just pure Hittites.

 

[Idontknowwhatimdoing]

Levant is already subsumed into the Anatolian_BA and a bit into Minoan, and other farmer groups. Don't worry, it is there, Jesus Christ! Is that the point of all this?

The point is that the majority of the Anatolian ancestry in Italians came after the classical period. I've literally proven it with actual periodical models showing that Bronze Age and Iron Age sicilians did not have such an imperial Anatolian shift.

Just because you can fit Bronze Age unhistorical models, it does not actually mean they were directly ancestors, its just shifts.

 

[Idontknowwhatimdoing]

My model has been used by the studies you cited (Daunians and Bronze age Sicilian papers) , so what is the problem?

It is only good when it serves your agenda, but it isn't when it proves it wrong?

I think you need to explain yourself.

But your models also work on Cypriots, they can be modelled with 0% Levantine, does that make it true?

Another peer reviewed study modelled Northern Greeks as 90% directly Logkas Bronze Age Proto Greek, does that make it true? They literally have 30% Slavic admix.

The same study modelled Cypriots as 60% Minoan 35% CHG and 5% WHG, does that make it true?

That is the problem with over simplified Bronze Age models. They are simply unrealistic, they only show genetic shifts, not ancestry. If you accept the Bronze Age Anatolian models for South Italians then you open the pandora's box and accept any Bronze Age model, like the ones i mentioned above.

 

[Jovialis]

The point is that the majority of the Anatolian ancestry in Italians came after the classical period. I've literally proven it with actual periodical models showing that Bronze Age and Iron Age sicilians did not have such an imperial Anatolian shift.

Just because you can fit Bronze Age unhistorical models, it does not actually mean they were directly ancestors, its just shifts.

No, that is false.

Central Italians other than Tuscans are part of the Southern Italian Cluster overall. There reason is because the majority of their ancestry comes from the repopulation of Rome, which was predominately C6 as antonio et al. 2019 shows. Southern Italians are predominately C6, with a gradiant towards C5 as you go to deeper southern regions like Calabria. This is likely an articate of the Ancient Greek colonies, more than Anatolian Imperial immigrants.

There were deep demographic shifts in Italy after the fall of the Roman Empire.

Also, there is Levantine in Anatolian_BA. If you don't stop acting histrionic and neurotic , I will suspend you for a week or two. Maybe more

 

[Jovialis]

But your models also work on Cypriots, they can be modelled with 0% Levantine, does that make it true?

Another peer reviewed study modelled Northern Greeks as 90% directly Logkas Bronze Age Proto Greek, does that make it true? They literally have 30% Slavic admix.

The same study modelled Cypriots as 60% Minoan 35% CHG and 5% WHG, does that make it true?

That is the problem with over simplified Bronze Age models. They are simply unrealistic, they only show genetic shifts, not ancestry. If you accept the Bronze Age Anatolian models for South Italians then you open the pandora's box and accept any Bronze Age model, like the ones i mentioned above.

Cypriots are so far from Italy, what relevance do they have to Italian modeling in this question? Why does it matter if the model works for Cypriots? are you a narcissist?

 

[Francesco]

Its not ethnic cleansing if its just Greeks migrating to Greek regions. 400-500 years have passed since the Classical samples.

ok, call it demographic replacement then. Still, the point remains: your model imply a 100% replacement of the old colonists of magna Grecia. There is clearly something wrong.

 

[Jovialis]

That means that you unlock the door for all stupid models in the world. Such as Cypriots being almost pure Anatolia BA with 0% direct Levantine. You assume that if a model works from the Bronze Age on Italians, that it must be definitely true that they must have stayed the same for 5000 years.

The model isn't stupid, if it is in line with archeology, for the 1000th time.

Your childish attitude is not welcome here.

 

[Idontknowwhatimdoing]

No, that is false.

Central Italians other than Tuscans are part of the Southern Italian Cluster overall. There reason is because the majority of their ancestry comes from the repopulation of Rome, which was predominately C6 as antonio et al. 2019 shows. Southern Italians are predominately C6, with a gradiant towards C5 as you go to deeper southern regions like Calabria. This is likely an articate of the Ancient Greek colonies, more than Anatolian Imperial immigrants.

There were deep demographic shifts in Italy after the fall of the Roman Empire.

Also, there is Levantine in Anatolian_BA. If you don't stop acting histrionic and neurotic , I will suspend you for a week or two. Maybe more

The actual dozens of Rome Imperial samples on average seem to have a 50% West Anatolian shift, so over time when these people mixed with each other they would have been 50% West Anatolian, then it gets diluted down to 33% by North Italians and then raised up later up to 40% by South Italians.