Genetic and Cultural Differences between Jews and Greeks

Some gedmatch kits:
See if people here can see some
cool stuff....🤔




A619640 Cosenza, Calabria
A172427 Crotone, Calabria
A405665 Reggio Calabria
T476333 Mammola, Reggio Calabria
A454745 Abruzzo + Calabria
A482096 Messina, Sicily
A538499 Messina, Sicily
M765905 Messina, Sicily
M164106 Catania, Sicily
M041450 Catania, Sicily
T303793 Trapani, Sicily
M090932 Caltanisseta, Sicily
A185048 Maltese
A185048 Maltese
M119302 Maltese
M053465 Chios, Aegean Greece
A947163 Chios, Aegean Greece
M168143 Chios, Aegean Greece
A140718 Ikaria, Aegean Greece
A484290 Symi, Dodecanese Greece
M871606 Karpathos, Dodecanese Greece
A454108 Asia Minor (Syrmia, Istanul) Greek
 
KingJohn: I assume those are individuals and no population samples. I quickly compared my K13_updated samples with 4 of the samples from Sicily, 1 from Trapani, where 2 Great Grandparents were born and one from Messina, Catania and Caltanisseta, none of which I have any ancestors from going back to late 1700's. Palermo and Agrigento provinces would be where my other 5 great grandparents were from. Nothing really strange on the surface to me. Thanks for the GEDMATCH Kit numbers.

Distance to:PalermoTrapani
3.63130830West_Sicilian
4.27984813Molise
4.53094913Apulia
4.54467821Abruzzo
5.01440924Campania
5.30913364Sicily
5.36017724Basilicata
6.03359760Malta
6.04806581East_Sicilian
6.68697989Calabria
7.02694101Central_Greek
8.55354313Marche
8.61175360Lazio
8.68674277Greek_Andros_Island
9.16282162Greek_Western-Thrace
9.23201495Ashkenazi
9.66857280Umbria
9.72998972Moroccan_Jew
10.07475062Greek_Symi_Island
10.19252177Italian_Jewish
10.65898213Romagna
10.74883249Sephardic_Jewish
10.85722801Tuscan
10.87747213Algerian_Jewish
11.43605920GR_Peloponese

Distance to:Trapani_T303793
3.70154022West_Sicilian
5.35001869Lazio
5.58572287Marche
6.08359269Abruzzo
6.41497467Umbria
6.41820068Greek_Western-Thrace
6.41829417Molise
6.71370985Romagna
6.82280001Tuscan
7.04081671Apulia
7.27886667Basilicata
7.87010165FrenchCorsica
8.47181799East_Sicilian
8.80345955Campania
8.85411204Central_Greek
8.94103462Sicily
9.00021666Vlach_Central-Macedonia
9.18394795Albanian_south_Albania
9.47358433Tuscany
9.60130200Greek_Thessaly
9.65426331Albanian_Albania
9.81643010Malta
10.04365969Greek_Peloponnese
10.06625675GR_Peloponese
10.09306197Albanian_central_Albania

Distance to:Catania_M164106
4.28092280Calabria
4.39643037Greek_Symi_Island
4.95814734Greek_Dodecanese
5.25383669Greek_Chios
6.47349210Sicily
6.49840750Malta
6.63251838Campania
7.61128767East_Sicilian
7.99337851Apulia
8.01282098Central_Greek
8.89203014Algerian_Jewish
8.93801432Molise
9.01433303Sephardic_Jewish
9.13830947Italian_Jewish
9.77375568Basilicata
9.86351357Abruzzo
9.99702456Ashkenazi
10.61402374Greek_Andros_Island
11.20586454West_Sicilian
11.40750192Turk_Cypriot
11.73206290Moroccan_Jew
12.61255723Tunisian_Jewish
13.09044690Cyprian
13.09044690Greek_Cypriot
13.37321203Libyan_Jewish

Distance to:Caltanisseta_M090932
4.70653801Sicily
4.95561298Malta
5.67312083Calabria
5.77072786East_Sicilian
6.32250741Campania
6.53849371Apulia
7.14332556Central_Greek
7.51171751Molise
7.66469177Basilicata
7.82092066Greek_Symi_Island
8.02998132West_Sicilian
8.14906743Abruzzo
8.38818365Greek_Dodecanese
8.88602273Greek_Chios
9.59487363Algerian_Jewish
10.02236000Greek_Andros_Island
10.12977789Sephardic_Jewish
10.59731570Ashkenazi
10.97844707Italian_Jewish
11.49078326Moroccan_Jew
12.03139643Greek_Peloponnese
12.35911000Turk_Crete
12.56138925Greek_Western-Thrace
12.85162636Lazio
12.90243775Marche

Distance to:Messina_A482096
4.33734942Calabria
4.34764304Malta
4.47524301East_Sicilian
4.64686991Ashkenazi
5.61713450Campania
5.98025083Central_Greek
6.01720866Sicily
6.57429844Apulia
7.00442182Greek_Dodecanese
7.15024475Molise
7.68193335Greek_Symi_Island
7.81034570Greek_Chios
7.81236200Abruzzo
7.86653672Basilicata
7.94328647Greek_Andros_Island
8.25807484Italian_Jewish
8.26742402Algerian_Jewish
8.57458454Sephardic_Jewish
9.04114484West_Sicilian
10.24185530Moroccan_Jew
10.45465925Turk_Crete
10.87774448GR_Peloponese
11.58896458Greek_Eastern-Thrace
11.94208525Greek_Macedonia_Thrace
11.95187433Tunisian_Jewish
 
@Ygorc,

What do Admixed Peruvians or Columbians have to do with South Asians? It doesn't even have to do with similar ancient source population rates, but rather a misleading result of the 2D-PCA.

p1FR5vr.png


If Ashkenazi are a little less than half middle eastern, and a little less than half Southern European, it would surely take some Eastern or Northern European to pull them into the position they are on the PCA. Otherwise, they would be intermediary between South Italians, and the Levant. It doesn't mean they have similar ancient source population rates.
 
I guess a lot of people didn't read this paper either, or chose to ignore it? Now, granted, it's hard to do IBD back really far, but still, looks like there must be a non-negligible amount of northeastern ancestry in Ashkenazi Jews wouldn't you say?

UQ1lINq.png


Oh, and the next person who wants to opine about all the northern Barbarian ancestry in Italy after the fall of the Empire which "pulled Italy back", please be prepared to have up to date percentages for I1 and U-106. Also, with regard to southern Italy please note where the Lombard kingdoms ended, and have data on how many actual Lombards manned those castles, especially the southern ones.

You might want to explain this too, from Ralph and Coop. Another paper ignored? Can't say some northern sources weren't included.
QMg2PdW.png


It seems to me that the numbers were small enough than when spread out over the population it didn't make much of a blip.
 
KingJohn: I assume those are individuals and no population samples. I quickly compared my K13_updated samples with 4 of the samples from Sicily, 1 from Trapani, where 2 Great Grandparents were born and one from Messina, Catania and Caltanisseta, none of which I have any ancestors from going back to late 1700's. Palermo and Agrigento provinces would be where my other 5 great grandparents were from. Nothing really strange on the surface to me. Thanks for the GEDMATCH Kit numbers.
Distance to:PalermoTrapani
3.63130830West_Sicilian
4.27984813Molise
4.53094913Apulia
4.54467821Abruzzo
5.01440924Campania
5.30913364Sicily
5.36017724Basilicata
6.03359760Malta
6.04806581East_Sicilian
6.68697989Calabria
7.02694101Central_Greek
8.55354313Marche
8.61175360Lazio
8.68674277Greek_Andros_Island
9.16282162Greek_Western-Thrace
9.23201495Ashkenazi
9.66857280Umbria
9.72998972Moroccan_Jew
10.07475062Greek_Symi_Island
10.19252177Italian_Jewish
10.65898213Romagna
10.74883249Sephardic_Jewish
10.85722801Tuscan
10.87747213Algerian_Jewish
11.43605920GR_Peloponese
Distance to:Trapani_T303793
3.70154022West_Sicilian
5.35001869Lazio
5.58572287Marche
6.08359269Abruzzo
6.41497467Umbria
6.41820068Greek_Western-Thrace
6.41829417Molise
6.71370985Romagna
6.82280001Tuscan
7.04081671Apulia
7.27886667Basilicata
7.87010165FrenchCorsica
8.47181799East_Sicilian
8.80345955Campania
8.85411204Central_Greek
8.94103462Sicily
9.00021666Vlach_Central-Macedonia
9.18394795Albanian_south_Albania
9.47358433Tuscany
9.60130200Greek_Thessaly
9.65426331Albanian_Albania
9.81643010Malta
10.04365969Greek_Peloponnese
10.06625675GR_Peloponese
10.09306197Albanian_central_Albania
Distance to:Catania_M164106
4.28092280Calabria
4.39643037Greek_Symi_Island
4.95814734Greek_Dodecanese
5.25383669Greek_Chios
6.47349210Sicily
6.49840750Malta
6.63251838Campania
7.61128767East_Sicilian
7.99337851Apulia
8.01282098Central_Greek
8.89203014Algerian_Jewish
8.93801432Molise
9.01433303Sephardic_Jewish
9.13830947Italian_Jewish
9.77375568Basilicata
9.86351357Abruzzo
9.99702456Ashkenazi
10.61402374Greek_Andros_Island
11.20586454West_Sicilian
11.40750192Turk_Cypriot
11.73206290Moroccan_Jew
12.61255723Tunisian_Jewish
13.09044690Cyprian
13.09044690Greek_Cypriot
13.37321203Libyan_Jewish
Distance to:Caltanisseta_M090932
4.70653801Sicily
4.95561298Malta
5.67312083Calabria
5.77072786East_Sicilian
6.32250741Campania
6.53849371Apulia
7.14332556Central_Greek
7.51171751Molise
7.66469177Basilicata
7.82092066Greek_Symi_Island
8.02998132West_Sicilian
8.14906743Abruzzo
8.38818365Greek_Dodecanese
8.88602273Greek_Chios
9.59487363Algerian_Jewish
10.02236000Greek_Andros_Island
10.12977789Sephardic_Jewish
10.59731570Ashkenazi
10.97844707Italian_Jewish
11.49078326Moroccan_Jew
12.03139643Greek_Peloponnese
12.35911000Turk_Crete
12.56138925Greek_Western-Thrace
12.85162636Lazio
12.90243775Marche
Distance to:Messina_A482096
4.33734942Calabria
4.34764304Malta
4.47524301East_Sicilian
4.64686991Ashkenazi
5.61713450Campania
5.98025083Central_Greek
6.01720866Sicily
6.57429844Apulia
7.00442182Greek_Dodecanese
7.15024475Molise
7.68193335Greek_Symi_Island
7.81034570Greek_Chios
7.81236200Abruzzo
7.86653672Basilicata
7.94328647Greek_Andros_Island
8.25807484Italian_Jewish
8.26742402Algerian_Jewish
8.57458454Sephardic_Jewish
9.04114484West_Sicilian
10.24185530Moroccan_Jew
10.45465925Turk_Crete
10.87774448GR_Peloponese
11.58896458Greek_Eastern-Thrace
11.94208525Greek_Macedonia_Thrace
11.95187433Tunisian_Jewish
You welcome yes individual samples ( nothing special regular non -outliers)
Here since this thread deal with greeks:)
Some greeks (including 2 cretan):
A318570 Kalymnos, Dodecanese
M179262 Karpathos, Dodecanese
A059192 Olympia and Kalymnos
A570896 Andros, Aegean
M846042 Volos and Eubea
M838603 Cretan
M523801 Cretan

P.s
I will look for full maniot also :unsure:
There you go::)

laconia
south greece
M398587
 
@Angela:
I guess a lot of people didn't read this paper either, or chose to ignore it? Now, granted, it's hard to do IBD back really far, but still, looks like there must be a non-negligible amount of northeastern ancestry in Ashkenazi Jews wouldn't you say?

Wasn't that the paper with the bad references without German? I know that paper and mentioned it earlier, don't know whether this exact graph is from it. In any case AJ have significant recent Western (mostly French), Central (mostly German) and Eastern European (mostly Russian-Ukrainian) ancestry it seems. The exact estimates are still unresolved from my point of view.

Concerning the Northern admixture in Italians, its not decided yet, but it looks like it was quite significant.
Oh, and the next person who wants to opine about all the northern Barbarian ancestry in Italy after the fall of the Empire which "pulled Italy back", please be prepared to have up to date percentages for I1 and U-106. Also, with regard to southern Italy please note where the Lombard kingdoms ended, and have data on how many actual Lombards manned those castles, especially the southern ones.

First of all, these are the absolute core lineages, so its not like these are the only ones historical people loaded with Germanic ancestry would have brought. Some males, just a few, but still, might have made it to the Lombard ranks in Pannonia and even more might have accompanied them which were mixed. And even in the relatively "pure" Germanic samples from North of the Alps, you find other haplogroups than just I1 and R1b-U106 for sure. But even if we look at these absolute male core lineages, and consider that they seem to have come as families, the impact was significant already, especially in the Northern provinces. More than 10 percent as the absolute minimum contribution is not nothing in my book.

Yet it is clear we need more samples from the rural Imperial Roman population of Italy. How much of the "cosmopolitan" influences of Rome reached the peasantry in Latium? Or in Etruria? And how much of it survived the collapse? These are so far unanswered questions with speculative answers at best.

The Northern influences didn't end with the Goths and Lombards by the way. There was a further influx of Frankish people and historical Germans too, still at different rates for different provinces.
 
@Angela:


Wasn't that the paper with the bad references without German? I know that paper and mentioned it earlier, don't know whether this exact graph is from it. In any case AJ have significant recent Western (mostly French), Central (mostly German) and Eastern European (mostly Russian-Ukrainian) ancestry it seems. The exact estimates are still unresolved from my point of view.

Concerning the Northern admixture in Italians, its not decided yet, but it looks like it was quite significant.


First of all, these are the absolute core lineages, so its not like these are the only ones historical people loaded with Germanic ancestry would have brought. Some males, just a few, but still, might have made it to the Lombard ranks in Pannonia and even more might have accompanied them which were mixed. And even in the relatively "pure" Germanic samples from North of the Alps, you find other haplogroups than just I1 and R1b-U106 for sure. But even if we look at these absolute male core lineages, and consider that they seem to have come as families, the impact was significant already, especially in the Northern provinces. More than 10 percent as the absolute minimum contribution is not nothing in my book.

Yet it is clear we need more samples from the rural Imperial Roman population of Italy. How much of the "cosmopolitan" influences of Rome reached the peasantry in Latium? Or in Etruria? And how much of it survived the collapse? These are so far unanswered questions with speculative answers at best.

The Northern influences didn't end with the Goths and Lombards by the way. There was a further influx of Frankish people and historical Germans too, still at different rates for different provinces.

Think about what you are asking, why the hell would economic immigrants travel thousands of miles to live in the back waters of a foreign country? This truly is grasping at straws. Even if they did (which they probably didn't), these areas were heavily concentrated with people already living there. Does the fact that these foreigners are non-existent in later eras even mean anything to you?

tARy19H.jpg
 
Of course there was such a thing as European in the times of ancient Rome. Besides, native Romans and Gauls were both Indo-European people who were linguistically connected.

let me guess, this doesn't apply to indians or persians anymore.

Italics derive 50% of their ancestry from the Bell Beaker folks which hailed from Central Europe/South Germany. The fact that a Roman would be an exotic sight in Gaul doesn't negate the notion that Romans and Gauls were both European.

is beaker ancestry from central europe your definition of "europeanness"?

However, I know from another thread that you are person who attacks the European identity by denying it. From what I recall you've claimed that black or Indo- Brits which are descendants of recent African or Indian migrants are as English as the native white English.

if they are english by culture they are english. what else should they be?
 
Think about what you are asking, why the hell would economic immigrants travel thousands of miles to live in the back waters of a foreign country? This truly is grasping at straws. Even if they did (which they probably didn't), these areas were heavily concentrated with people already living there.

Most of it was in my opinion secondary dispersals from within Italy, the original settlement was more concentrated. I might just, once more, refer to Bergamo valley as an example.
 
So the English don’t exist as a genetically distinct ethno-cultural group of people? If so, by that logic not one group of people on Earth exists as distinct and separate, even though the hard science (biology and population genetics) says other wise. If I move to China and adopt some aspects of Han Chinese culture, does that make me Han Chinese? The simple answer is of course not. What is English culture by the way? The Queen, phone booths, pubs and football? The peoples and cultures of the world are separate from each other, with the members of those separate groups sharing a common genetic heritage and history with other group members, that is what underlies a people and their culture, this also applies to Western Europeans like the English. For some reason it is okay to deny that Europeans like the English, have a distinct ethno-cultural heritage, but the same “reasoning” isn’t applied to groups like the Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, Turks, and Indians. Sorry to get a little political here but that is just wrong on so many levels.
 
Most of it was in my opinion secondary dispersals from within Italy, the original settlement was more concentrated. I might just, once more, refer to Bergamo valley as an example.

This is the operating word of the sentence, now isn't it.

I don't see how on earth you could know that, or verify it. Also, immigrants didn't come in as a chain-migration in droves.
 
@Angela:


Wasn't that the paper with the bad references without German? I know that paper and mentioned it earlier, don't know whether this exact graph is from it. In any case AJ have significant recent Western (mostly French), Central (mostly German) and Eastern European (mostly Russian-Ukrainian) ancestry it seems. The exact estimates are still unresolved from my point of view.

Concerning the Northern admixture in Italians, its not decided yet, but it looks like it was quite significant.


First of all, these are the absolute core lineages, so its not like these are the only ones historical people loaded with Germanic ancestry would have brought. Some males, just a few, but still, might have made it to the Lombard ranks in Pannonia and even more might have accompanied them which were mixed. And even in the relatively "pure" Germanic samples from North of the Alps, you find other haplogroups than just I1 and R1b-U106 for sure. But even if we look at these absolute male core lineages, and consider that they seem to have come as families, the impact was significant already, especially in the Northern provinces. More than 10 percent as the absolute minimum contribution is not nothing in my book.

Yet it is clear we need more samples from the rural Imperial Roman population of Italy. How much of the "cosmopolitan" influences of Rome reached the peasantry in Latium? Or in Etruria? And how much of it survived the collapse? These are so far unanswered questions with speculative answers at best.

The Northern influences didn't end with the Goths and Lombards by the way. There was a further influx of Frankish people and historical Germans too, still at different rates for different provinces.

You keep saying it was quite significant but you have yet to prove any such thing. Since you're making the assertion it is up to you to present the data from academic sources to substantiate it.

I'll give you a hint, however. According to a list I found using the Myres paper data, U-106 represents about 50% and more of the yDna in Denmark, Sweden, and Northern Germany, areas which should be used as sources for the Langobards. I1 is about another 35%. So, let's stop using "all the other" ydna in northern Europe as a smokescreen. They're a homogeneous bunch, and the vast majority carry those haplogroups. Before you propose this hypothesis again, present academic data showing those figures are way off. I'll be happy to entertain them. What I will not accept is more baseless pulling ideas out of thin air.

Second of all, the Goths were a tiny group, an elite take over. The Franks likewise. Before you cite them again have actual data on the numbers involved in those migrations, or in the case of the Franks, political take over, and from a reputable source if you please.

The Gauls are irrelevant. Aren't you keeping track of your time periods? Their migrations ended about 400 BC. Your hypothesis is that northern migrations changed Italians, brought them back from the Imperial genetic signature you find in Antonio et al. That signature, even if it existed, was created 500 years and more after the arrival of the Gauls.

Until you have actual, academic, data to prove these points incorrect, the discussion is over. I'm tired of listening to the exact same baseless speculation over and over from you.

There are places where baseless speculation is accepted as a valid argument. This isn't one of them.
 
So the English don’t exist as a genetically distinct ethno-cultural group of people? If so, by that logic not one group of people on Earth exists as distinct and separate, even though the hard science (biology and population genetics) says other wise. If I move to China and adopt some aspects of Han Chinese culture, does that make me Han Chinese? The simple answer is of course not. What is English culture by the way? The Queen, phone booths, pubs and football? The peoples and cultures of the world are separate from each other, with the members of those separate groups sharing a common genetic heritage and history with other group members, that is what underlies a people and their culture, this also applies to Western Europeans like the English. For some reason it is okay to deny that Europeans like the English, have a distinct ethno-cultural heritage, but the same “reasoning” isn’t applied to groups like the Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, Turks, and Indians. Sorry to get a little political here but that is just wrong on so many levels.

That's exactly what it is. Everybody has a unique heritage except Europeans to these people. Our heritage is all basically Middle Eastern or East Asian ultimately. Everybody else's heritage is worthy of being preserved except ours.
 
This is the operating word of the sentence, now isn't it.

I don't see how on earth you could know that, or verify it. Also, immigrants didn't come in as a chain-migration in droves.

I don't know, but I presume. In my runs Lombardy and Tuscany have both increased levels of Deu_MA-like ancestry. Its also interesting that in this recent study on Italian yDNA the samples from Bergamo valley and Volterra have both increased levels of R1b-U106. And I-M253 is present throughout Italy in non-negligible levels too.
Also there is a Slavic-like component present in my runs, this in regions like Apulia and Calabria too. This is another source of Northern shifted ancestry and its related to increased levels of R1a, compare again with the study and the increased levels of R1a from a Slavic-like or Germanic population, also in places like Borbera valley. Of course, we don't know when exactly it came in to Italy, but especially for R1a-M458 its more likely a later influx spread it imho and this in turn would make the spread of R1a in general more likely related to a later migration.

Recent yDNA study:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29382284/

Quick check for M458 and some clades of Italians:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-M458/

Apulia and Calabria pick up additional Slavic in my runs, which aligns well with the yDNA.

I might quote on that from the historical perspective:
Slavs from the Balkans had settled in Bari and the Capitanata. Some of these were servants or even slaves, but at Devia, on the Gargano peninsula, for example, there was a free Slav colony.

From: The Age of Robert Guiscard: Southern Italy and the Northern Conquest. In Norman times additional North and West European people came to Southern Italy, but like we see in this example, also Slavs from the Eastern side of the Adriatic. These left a mark on the land, they surely did. It also explains the sometimes significant differences between different subregions and even villages in the South: Both ancient and recent settlement patterns could vary quite a lot.

Its worth to mention that Sicilians picked in my runs nothing or close to Nothing from the Early Slav, but regions like Apulia, Basilicata and Calabria get the highest hits because of both ancient and very recent migration from the Eastern Adriatic region, not just Illyrians and Greeks, but also Slavs and Albanians. How much is ancient, how much is recent, we will see. But just check some R1a-M458 from Italy. Even some of those which made it to Sardinia, and the resolution for the Sardinian samples might not always be ideal, has a TMRCA of 350 AD (!) and is closest to Scandinavians and Slavs. Another sample same age 500 AD, clade with Slavs.

So its not like there was no migration. We have autosomal affinities (percentage of DEU_MA or Czech_Early_Slav respectively), we have yDNA (I1, at least R1b-U106, but also other subclades of R1b, but also of G2 and E-V13 among others in all likelihood, as well as R1a-clades like M458, and we have historical accounts of Lombard and Gothic settlements, the Lombard ones attracted additional Frankish-Bavarian immigration, you can check that in the study on Collegno, and we have Slavic and Albanian immigration, also changing the landscape.

Its quite striking that the Northern shift in Sicily got more Germanic-like and Apulia more Slavic-like in my runs. And looking at the history and uniparentals, I don't think that's just a coincidence and rather shows what can be picked up. From Grugnietal et al. especially figures 2 and 3 are quite informative. For example the variation of clades of R1b in Italy. There are peaks of relative percentages for U106 in the North and Tuscany, but also in Sicily (!). Apulia sticks out with R1b-M412, from p. 48:

On the other hand, R1b-M412, so far described only in Turkey, Iran, Cyprus and Crete (Myres et al., 2011; Voskarides et al., 2016), is observed in all the four Southern Italian samples, all from the ancient Magna Graecia area, but only sporadically in population groups from Northern Italy.

They seem to think most of the R1a is ancient, but they can't be sure, especially since M458 is present:
Taking into account that it is found virtually only as R1a-M17(xM458) in both the Southern Italian samples and in mainland Greece, it is likely that R1a-M17 is a signature of the Southern Balkan
(mainland Greece) influence into Southern Italy. Thus, differently to haplogroup R1b-M412, R1a-M17 seems a hallmark of a significant male seaborne input from Balkan populations towards the eastern coast of Southern Italy.

M458 is at least present at a level of 1 percent. But more needs to be done to be sure about its origin.
 
I don't know, but I presume. In my runs Lombardy and Tuscany have both increased levels of Deu_MA-like ancestry. Its also interesting that in this recent study on Italian yDNA the samples from Bergamo valley and Volterra have both increased levels of R1b-U106. And I-M253 is present throughout Italy in non-negligible levels too.
Also there is a Slavic-like component present in my runs, this in regions like Apulia and Calabria too. This is another source of Northern shifted ancestry and its related to increased levels of R1a, compare again with the study and the increased levels of R1a from a Slavic-like or Germanic population, also in places like Borbera valley. Of course, we don't know when exactly it came in to Italy, but especially for R1a-M458 its more likely a later influx spread it imho and this in turn would make the spread of R1a in general more likely related to a later migration.

Recent yDNA study:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29382284/

Quick check for M458 and some clades of Italians:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-M458/

Apulia and Calabria pick up additional Slavic in my runs, which aligns well with the yDNA.

I might quote on that from the historical perspective:


From: The Age of Robert Guiscard: Southern Italy and the Northern Conquest. In Norman times additional North and West European people came to Southern Italy, but like we see in this example, also Slavs from the Eastern side of the Adriatic. These left a mark on the land, they surely did. It also explains the sometimes significant differences between different subregions and even villages in the South: Both ancient and recent settlement patterns could vary quite a lot.

Its worth to mention that Sicilians picked in my runs nothing or close to Nothing from the Early Slav, but regions like Apulia, Basilicata and Calabria get the highest hits because of both ancient and very recent migration from the Eastern Adriatic region, not just Illyrians and Greeks, but also Slavs and Albanians. How much is ancient, how much is recent, we will see. But just check some R1a-M458 from Italy. Even some of those which made it to Sardinia, and the resolution for the Sardinian samples might not always be ideal, has a TMRCA of 350 AD (!) and is closest to Scandinavians and Slavs. Another sample same age 500 AD, clade with Slavs.

So its not like there was no migration. We have autosomal affinities (percentage of DEU_MA or Czech_Early_Slav respectively), we have yDNA (I1, at least R1b-U106, but also other subclades of R1b and E-V13 in all likelihood, as well as R1a-clades like M458, and we have historical accounts of Lombard and Gothic settlements, the Lombard ones attracted additional Frankish immigration, you can check that in the study on Collegno, and we have Slavic and Albanian immigration, also changing the landscape.

Its quite striking that the Northern shift in Sicily got more Germanic-like and Apulia more Slavic-like in my runs. And looking at the history and uniparentals, I don't think that's just a coincidence and rather shows what can be picked up. From Grugnietal et al. especially figures 2 and 3 are quite informative. For example the variation of clades of R1b in Italy. There are peaks of relative percentages for U106 in the North and Tuscany, but also in Sicily (!). Apulia sticks out with R1b-M412, from p. 48:



They seem to think most of the R1a is ancient, but they can't be sure, especially since M458 is present:


M458 is at least present at a level of 1 percent. But more needs to be done to be sure about its origin.

All insignificant percentages not probative of your point.

Drop it.
 
All insignificant percentages not probative of your point.

Drop it.

What is significant then, can you give me a number? 25 percent? 50 percent? 75 percent? For the North many regions have well above 25 percent historical immigration from Germanics and Slavs respectively. In regions like Siciliy or Apulia its far less, but still significant.
 
We go around and around and around, but some things are clear:

We've known since the 2016 Kilinc paper often discussed here that if one Anatolian sample is to be used for Southern Europeans, it is the Tepecik one, or perhaps the Kumtepe one.

From Kilinc:
"Previous work [6] had noted genetic affinity between Kumtepe from northwest Anatolia and the Tyrolean Iceman [23] from northern Italy. We found that the three Remedello individuals from Chalcolithic northern Italy [24], largely contemporary and possibly genetically and culturally affiliated with the Iceman, also had high affinity to Kumtepe in D statistics (Figure 3B; Data S3). A similar tendency for Kumtepe allele sharing was seen for a Chalcolithic individual from Hungary, CO1 [7], but was non-significant (Figure S3E; Data S3). Intriguingly, the Iceman/Remedello group was more similar to Kumtepe than to Boncuklu, Barcın, Tepecik-Çiftlik, or European Neolithic individuals. We further found that both Kumtepe and the Iceman/Remedello group carried more CHG alleles than other Neolithic populations (Figure 3C). This pattern of additional CHG allele sharing simultaneously observed in Iceman/Remedello and in Kumtepe is not mirrored in convergent allele sharing with other European hunter-gatherers (Figures S3F and S3G). We also found that Tepecik-Çiftlik individuals were consistently closer to Iceman/Remedello and to Kumtepe than to any other Anatolian or European early Neolithic population, including their contemporary Barcın and the neighboring Boncuklu (Figure 3D). These results point to gene flow from an eastern source into Chalcolithic Kumtepe and later into Europe, which could have crossed central Anatolia already before the Chalcolithic."

"
Nearly 1,500 years later, Tepecik-Çiftlik and Barcın, fully established Neolithic populations practicing mixed farming (and within 200 km east and 400 km northwest of Boncuklu, respectively), were significantly more diverse (Figure 2B). Part of this increased genetic diversity could be linked to (1) putative southern gene flow (Figure 3A) that could be related to the Aceramic Neolithic to Pottery Neolithic transition in the Neolithic Levant or could be related to widespread interactions in the late Aceramic Neolithic between central Anatolia and the Fertile Crescent in the late Pre-Pottery Neolithic B [26]; (2) migration from the east related to similar factors of inter-regional exchanges (Figure S3D); and (3) admixture among local populations. Southern and eastern gene flow into Tepecik-Çiftlik is consistent with the site’s presumed role as an obsidian hub and its cultural links with the Levant and might have started already before the Pottery Neolithic [15, 16]. For Barcın, these results are also in line with archaeological evidence indicating cultural influx from central Anatolia [27]. This diverse Neolithic population most likely served as one of the sources for the well-documented wave of Neolithic migration to Europe [8, 9]."

". Finally, the Tepecik-Çiftlik population shows significant affinity to the Iceman/Remedello group and Kumtepe relative to other Anatolian and European Neolithic populations (Figure 3D); but Tepecik-Çiftlik also predates Iceman/Remedello by approximately 3,000 years. This implies gene flow events from Tepecik-Çiftlik-related populations into the Kumtepe-related west Anatolian populations, as predicted by archaeological evidence [29], and further gene flow that reached northern Italy by the fourth millennium BC. We propose an additional, yet undescribed, gene flow process from Anatolia into Europe as a better explanation than a contribution from a hypothetical third source into Neolithic central Anatolia, Chalcolithic northwest Anatolia, and Chalcolithic central Europe. Thus, Neolithic population dynamics that initiated in the Anatolian region resulted in multiple waves of expansion and admixture in west Eurasia."

From the first analysis of The Iceman by Dienekes, it was clear that he was both more "Southern" and "Eastern" than the other samples, and it was often stated here.

The finding of that study and some other evidences accumulated over time is one of the reasons I still have some doubts about the modelling choices and conclusions made by authors in most other genetic papers, like that one on which you posted a thread recently, which shows the dispersal of farming communities in Neolithic Europe. It seems to assume a common source population in the Balkans moving in different directions after they reach the Western Balkans. Lazaridis' 2017 supplementary material on Minoans, BA Anatolians and Mycenaeans also explicitly says the same: one common source splitting in two different (Danubian and Mediterranean) routes. They always seem to assume that it was essentially a Barcin_N-like group that gave birth to all other EEF groups after mixing with WHG.

And then you have these other studies pointing to something not dramatically different, but different enough to indicate a pretty different history, with a Northwestern Anatolian and a Southwestern Anatolian expansion, which would have profound cultural, linguistic and genetic implications, perhaps explaining the linguistic diversity of pre-IE Europe (e.g. Basque, Etruscan and Eteocretan don't look to be part of the same remote language family at all).

But, finally, something needs to be investigated further, which is this flow of ANF people that were nonetheless not the same ANF already established in Europe. I don't think Cardial Ware can be explained easily as an expansion of Tepecik-Ciftlik-like people unlike the majority Barcin_N-like people that settled other parts of Europe further from the Mediterranean zone, because in that case you'd find Levantine and CHG affinities in all ancient and modern EEF-derived DNA samples from Iberia to Greece.

Then the authors you quote add this: "This implies gene flow events from Tepecik-Çiftlik-related populations into the Kumtepe-related west Anatolian populations, as predicted by archaeological evidence [29], and further gene flow that reached northern Italy by the fourth millennium BC. We propose an additional, yet undescribed, gene flow process from Anatolia into Europe as a better explanation than a contribution from a hypothetical third source into Neolithic central Anatolia, Chalcolithic northwest Anatolia, and Chalcolithic central Europe." That would imply some parts of Europe saw this yet undescribed properly (by aDNA studies) gene flow that created a different kind of EEF only in the LN/ECA and, to account for what we see in the aDNA published so far from Italy and the Balkans, remained relatively localized in some areas until it spread more in the MLBA. Who could they be? The same people that also brought extra CHG/Iran_N along with already Iran and Levant-shifted Tepecik-Ciftlik ANF?
 
@Ygorc,

What do Admixed Peruvians or Columbians have to do with South Asians? It doesn't even have to do with similar ancient source population rates, but rather a misleading result of the 2D-PCA.

p1FR5vr.png


If Ashkenazi are a little less than half middle eastern, and a little less than half Southern European, it would surely take some Eastern or Northern European to pull them into the position they are on the PCA. Otherwise, they would be intermediary between South Italians, and the Levant. It doesn't mean they have similar ancient source population rates.

Those aren't fair comparisons, because one PCA is including exclusively West Eurasian populations and ancestral components and another one is including extremely divergent population clusters. Such problems always occur in inadequately modelled PCA graphs that include heavily divergent populations. Not the case when you're comparing most Europeans and Middle-Easterners. So, honestly I don't think your explanation is the best one.

Well, Ashkenazi Jews do have Eastern and Northern European admixture though that is often ignored for a more parsimonious and simple Southern European + Near Eastern explanation, which is not the whole story. Ashkenazi Jews are clearly pulled apart from a simple 2-way mix, and when you run some models of genetic ancestry the reason is immediately clear: most of them have non-negligible Northern/Northeastern European admixture. That also explains the similar position in PCA plots with South Italians and Sicilians, because Ashkenazi Jews would've had to have been almost entirely Southern European and very little Levant_BA/IA-like to have that much influence of steppe ancestry. But that is compounded by the fact that they got Northern European admixture that is very rich in steppe ancestry, so they ended up getting somewhat similar amounts of Yamnaya/Khvalynsk-like admixture as Sicilians and Cretans.
 
Think about what you are asking, why the hell would economic immigrants travel thousands of miles to live in the back waters of a foreign country? [...] Does the fact that these foreigners are non-existent in later eras even mean anything to you?

A very arguable point IMO, Jovialis. Assimilation and acculturation are very real things. We should never conflate genetic ancestry with ethnic identity, which is ultimately a cultural construct even if correlated (imperfectly) with genealogical roots. In the case of the Late Antiquity and early Middle Ages, city depopulation and massive de-urbanization process with exodus to rural areas is a given.People mix, move, get displaced, change their identity, get subjected to very different social and political circumstances and change accordingly. That's e.g. how ancient Greeks were an Indo-European that was mostly pre-IE Aegean genetically, and how Franks became Romance-speaking and heavily Gallo-Roman-like French people. Those people didn't simply disappear.
 
Those aren't fair comparisons, because one PCA is including exclusively West Eurasian populations and ancestral components and another one is including extremely divergent population clusters. Such problems always occur in inadequately modelled PCA graphs that include heavily divergent populations. Not the case when you're comparing most Europeans and Middle-Easterners. So, honestly I don't think your explanation is the best one.

Well, Ashkenazi Jews do have Eastern and Northern European admixture though that is often ignored for a more parsimonious and simple Southern European + Near Eastern explanation, which is not the whole story. Ashkenazi Jews are clearly pulled apart from a simple 2-way mix, and when you run some models of genetic ancestry the reason is immediately clear: most of them have non-negligible Northern/Northeastern European admixture. That also explains the similar position in PCA plots with South Italians and Sicilians, because Ashkenazi Jews would've had to have been almost entirely Southern European and very little Levant_BA/IA-like to have that much influence of steppe ancestry. But that is compounded by the fact that they got Northern European admixture that is very rich in steppe ancestry, so they ended up getting somewhat similar amounts of Yamnaya/Khvalynsk-like admixture as Sicilians and Cretans.

I think it is a fair comparison, because the point is that you can have populations that are at different admixture rates , land on the close position of a PCA. Fine, you want something more relevant, Modern Estonia cluster with their ancient ancestors. However, they have markedly different admixture rates.

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Tahoma,Calibri,Geneva,sans-serif]https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-02825-9#Sec9[/FONT]

BTW, are you the user, [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Tahoma,Calibri,Geneva,sans-serif]piquerobi on Anthrogenica?
[/FONT]
 

This thread has been viewed 188601 times.

Back
Top