@Latgal,
Perhaps it would help if actual academic data and comparisons to actual ancient samples was the source of our "impressions", and not old analyses based on old 23andme clusters and the calculators based on modern populations found on gedmatch. Your post sounds reminiscent of "The World According to Sikeliot" from three to five years ago. There have been a lot of papers and a lot of new statistical analysis since then. I don't understand why, in general, so much of that data hasn't been incorporated by various ethnic groups or internet "experts". Is it because the papers are too hard to read and understand for a lot of people, or the statistics are too difficult, or because they don't fit whatever narrative is being pushed?
I don't know what the ancient dna will show (there goes that disclaimer again) in terms of strictly Italian genetics, but I know that modern Tuscans have more steppe than the Spanish, the mainland Greeks, and the Albanians, despite whatever "Slavic" input they received in the early Medieval period, as Pax pointed out. Maybe seeing a visual will help.
This formulation that the modern Tuscans are a "Bronze Age Southeastern European remnant", which is an extremely speculative comment btw, sounds like Sikeliot reading my posts here and only partly understanding them, or, as he's been doing since 23andme days, twisting what I write. Yes, some ancient samples from the Balkans were described in papers as "Tuscan like", just as the recent poster about ancient Lombard dna describes some samples from the early medieval period, not the Bronze Age mind you, as "Tuscan like". However, these authors are, perhaps for reasons of economy, using only the 1000 genomes data. Had Bulgarians or Romanians, for example, or even Albanians been included in the analysis, perhaps they would have been described as Romanian like or Bulgarian like or even Albanian like. Didn't one of those samples actually land in modern day Bulgaria?
All this means is that the steppe peoples didn't change the genetics of Southern Europeans and perhaps even people like the ones in Pannonia, although that's very speculative, as much as they did the people of Poland, or Germany, or Britain. It also means that when trying to figure out how Northern Italians became Northern Italians, or Tuscans became Tuscans, you have to consider migrations like those of the Celts and the Goths and the Lombards, just as when figuring out mainland Greek genetics you have to consider the Slavs. Genetic change was still going on in Europe in the early Medieval period even as far north as England, where we have the Anglo-Saxon invasions.
Now, as to this perpetual obsession with who has more "Near Eastern" or "Levantine", the Greeks of various sorts or the Southern Italians...my God don't you people ever get bored with this?
Anyway, even the calculator results based on modern populations which are so loved by some people show that the "Caucasus" or Near Eastern in mainland Greeks is at least equal to if not larger than in southern Italians/Sicilians. In Dodecad it's actually larger in mainland Greece. How many times does it have to be repeated? The same is true for Albanians versus Tuscans. The "eastern" pull is partly the pull toward CHG, get it?
See: dodecad K12b below for "Caucasus" scores:
Greeks 37.4
Southern Italians/Sicilians 36.5
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...0SRE5L6ED2osPs9M/edit?hl=en_US&hl=en_US#gid=0
Drum roll please: The Southern Italians/Sicilians have two points more "Southwest Asian" or Levantine than mainland Greeks. BIG WHOOPS! Is it like a thermometer? Anything over 10%, i.e. 12% makes you suddenly Lebanese? No disrespect to the Lebanese btw. I'd rather my kids had a few percent more from people like them than from some other groups I could name.
Pray tell, where is this big difference between these two groups of people in terms of Near Eastern and Levantine, other than in the fevered brain of the usual suspect? Look, I get it. No one wants to see 50,000 posts go into the trash bin, but the data is the data.
The other differences have to do with the fact that the "northern" influence in Greeks is more "Northern" Europe, which in most calculators is really "Northeastern" European, and in Italians it's Germano/Celtic. Anyone who knows any European history whatsoever would have known that even if dna was never analyzed.
That's not even discussing the Greek Islanders.
Take a look at the PCA from the Mycenaean paper for goodness sakes. Albanians and mainland Greeks are pulled toward the Caucasus compared to Tuscans not because they have more total "steppe", but because they have more of the CHG component which also came to them independently of steppe movements. That applies to Sicilians as well. Now, when all those elements arrived in all these areas is going to have to wait for more ancient dna, not just from Italy, but also from Greece, because we have no Classical Era Greek samples.
Or go to the thread on the Geneplaza calculator based on ancient samples.
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...ncient-Calculator-Results?highlight=Geneplaza
Whether certain people like it or not, Mycenaeans land smack dab on top of Sicilians.
I'm tired of pointing out the same data and papers over and over again. Just read the papers and stop with the amateur analysis from five years ago.
@Davef,
Sarno et al is strictly about Italian genetics. This thread is about the Mycenaeans and Minoans. Sarno is also a mess of a paper based strictly on modern populations.
We've been side-tracked enough. Back on topic.