K12b Analyzing the Mediterranean Cluster C6 from Antonio M et al. 2019

Jovialis said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Jovialis said:
But also, we can see by looking at an individual basis, Southern Italians are heterogeneous. I seriously doubt averages are truly representive.
Click to expand...

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

Jovialis said:
Also, that could be Saracen input from the MA
Click to expand...

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.

Jovialis said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Jovialis said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

deVGJtp.png
 
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 said:
Example of heterogeneity, for Puglia, my region, I get 2.89 all the way to 8.99

Distance to:Jovialis
2.89611809Apulia:cera1
2.91856129Apulia:cera2
3.34511584Apulia:cera8
3.49479613Apulia:pu45
3.80621860Apulia:cera9
3.92572286Apulia:ALP583
4.45463803Apulia:ALP379
4.52702993Apulia:GS34
4.84129115Apulia:pu2
5.32649040Apulia:GS32
6.43630329Apulia:GS47
6.95402042Apulia:pu7
8.27652101Apulia:pu3
8.99969444Apulia: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.

Dnb8VxN.png


Distance to:Jovialis
1.36923336Abruzzo:15_Behar_2013
1.66129468Abruzzo:16_Behar_2013
1.71953482Abruzzo:20_Behar_2013
1.85132385Molise:pG26_Molise
1.94663813Abruzzo:9_Behar_2013
2.16529444Abruzzo:Alp140
2.67432234Greece_NorthEast:GreeceNE231
2.71775643Abruzzo:Alp090
2.73558038Abruzzo:Alp616
2.75210828Abruzzo:22_Behar_2013
2.82391572Abruzzo:23_Behar_2013
2.89611809Apulia:cera1
2.91856129Apulia:cera2
3.19426048Umbria:pG06
3.32980480Molise:pG27
3.34511584Apulia:cera8
3.38212951Lazio:NOR28
3.39328749Marche:MarABY030D
3.41641625Abruzzo:17_Behar_2013
3.47597468Marche:MarACO100D
3.49479613Apulia:pu45
3.70070264Abruzzo:Alp503
3.77326119Abruzzo:ALP161
3.78219513Sicily:TP04_Busby_2015
3.80215728Marche:MarACY030D

Hq75FBT.png


Here is Basilicata:

Distance to:Jovialis
4.19687979Basilicata:pG24
4.30936190Basilicata:pG21
4.52765944Basilicata:pG18
4.57330296Basilicata:pG17
4.62709412Basilicata:pG19
5.10130375Basilicata:pG25
6.19121959Basilicata:pG20
6.35270808Basilicata:pG16
6.69049326Basilicata: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.

1RGLsZw.png


obhq3UZ.png
Click to expand...

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

deVGJtp.png
Click to expand...

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.

PCA.png
 
Do you think the upcoming Magna Graecia paper will be helpful in this matter or will it only add to the confusion?
 
Jovialis said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Jovialis said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Jovialis said:
Levant_PPN is a mixed population. Natufians are a mixed population, that could be conflating with other sources.
Click to expand...

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.

Francesco said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Code: 
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

Leopoldo Leone said:
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)
Click to expand...

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

Code: 
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
 
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.
 
Er Monnezza said:
These samples (excluding Imperials) score more Levant_PPNB than the Campanian average.
Click to expand...

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).

Jovialis said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Leopoldo Leone said:
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.
Click to expand...
Maybe you're right. I'm inclined to believe the theory you have stated.
 
@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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Leopoldo Leone said:
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).
Click to expand...

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.

Juvenal said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

8SQaicG.png


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.
Click to expand...

OdiIPLz.png
 
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.
 
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

1QR7Iw2.png
 
Angela said:
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.
Click to expand...

Even in during Mass on Sunday, the readings make it empathetically clear the distinction between Greeks and Jews. Almost as opposites.
 
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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 30397 times.

Back
Top