Genetic and Cultural Differences between Jews and Greeks

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.

They were never present in significant amounts to begin with. Don't conflate modern immigration, with ancient dynamics.
 
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.

Let me give you my two cents, because I'm sensing some mutual confusion in your conversation with Angela: she is saying that whatever you are claiming about Northern and Eastern European influence in Italy was way too minor to have significantly changed the genetic landscape away from a certain "average Imperial Rome" (which as I already explained before is a deceiving population average, because more than half of the samples look like immigrants or recent descendants of immigrants in particularly cosmopolitan and commercial areas that were very far from the average people in Italy as a whole).

I agree with her here. I definitely don't doubt there was that post-Antiquity influence of Germanic and Slavic migrations as well as Frankish and Norman conquests later, but if that amounts to 10% in any part of Italy (which is not negligible, but not massive either) that's already an optimistic upper end of an estimate, not enough to cause virtually Cypriot-like (the average Imperial Rome genetic makeup) to become South Italian-like, Central Italian-like, let alone North Italian-like. The bulk of the genetic structure was already there pretty much well defined by the onset of the Roman Empire, and only some slight changes happened afterwards in any direction (towards Northern Europe, East Mediterranean or whatever).
 
Cretans also have some eastern european
Slavic dna contrary to sicilians 🤔
Where the north atlantic is the higher element
Thats is why the overlapp in genetic markers of ashkenazi is even better with cretans than with sicilians /south italians🤔
 
They were never present in significant amounts to begin with.

Yes, but then what? They still didn't disappear, simply mixed and diluted amidst a large population. That's all.

Don't conflate modern immigration, with ancient dynamics.

What do you mean? Assimilation, acculturation and ethnic mixing didn't happen back then, is that what you mean?

One thing is to say (correctly) that those migrations left a detectable but really minor genetic impact because of extreme dilution over centuries. Another very different thing is to say that they simply ceased to exist because they were so insignificant as to "vanish" in a few centuries.
 
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.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-02825-9#Sec9

BTW, are you the user, piquerobi on Anthrogenica?

If the point is that, then you should use something that reflects that issue, not another issue, which is that PCA often works really badly when you compare extremely divergent populations. Also, there is no evidence that Ashkenazi Jews and South Italians belong to very different ancestral components. What they really do vary a lot is in the proportio of those admixtures, some higher, some lower. If you mix a Levant_IA people with a lot of Aegean-like people and then add some Northern European to it, the result is seemingly similar to South Italians despite a very distinct genetic history. That's what I'm saying all this time, and it's my impression that you're not understanding it and instead thinks I'm saying they have the same genetic history and exactly the same admixtures.

I don't use Anthrogenica nor any other population genetics forum. I didn't have patience enough to be at them.
 
Yes, but then what? They still didn't disappear, simply mixed and diluted amidst a large population. That's all.



What do you mean? Assimilation, acculturation and ethnic mixing didn't happen back then, is that what you mean?

One thing is to say (correctly) that those migrations left a detectable but really minor genetic impact because of extreme dilution over centuries. Another very different thing is to say that they simply ceased to exist because they were so insignificant as to "vanish" in a few centuries.

I think what ever admixture from these people may be, is extremely insignificant. It is arguable how detectable it is, (fractions of a percent perhaps) but I think we both agree there was extreme dilution. The point I was making however, is that it is nothing like today's immigration in terms of demographic change. What Riverman is proposing, is that these immigrants significantly changed the genetic profile of the Italian peninsula.
 
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.
Apulia has more Germanic Y DNA than Slavic, both minor though.
 
I think what ever admixture from these people may be, is extremely insignificant. It is arguable how detectable it is, (fractions of a percent perhaps) but I think we both agree there was extreme dilution. The point I was making however, is that it is nothing like today's immigration in terms of demographic change. What Riverman is proposing, is that these immigrants significantly changed the genetic profile of the Italian peninsula.

Oh, I see. I didn't get that that was the point he's trying to make. That the immigration took place and left some genetic impact (detectable autosomally and especially, given that these are more objective, through uniparental markers) I don't doubt, but it was too minor to have changed the genetic profile of the peninsula, also because I'm sure they were not the only people to have migrated to Italy since Antiquity, so more "northern" people evened out more "southern" people and in the end not much changed.
 
Let me give you my two cents, because I'm sensing some mutual confusion in your conversation with Angela: she is saying that whatever you are claiming about Northern and Eastern European influence in Italy was way too minor to have significantly changed the genetic landscape away from a certain "average Imperial Rome" (which as I already explained before is a deceiving population average, because more than half of the samples look like immigrants or recent descendants of immigrants in particularly cosmopolitan and commercial areas that were very far from the average people in Italy as a whole).

I agree with her here. I definitely don't doubt there was that post-Antiquity influence of Germanic and Slavic migrations as well as Frankish and Norman conquests later, but if that amounts to 10% in any part of Italy (which is not negligible, but not massive either) that's already an optimistic upper end of an estimate, not enough to cause virtually Cypriot-like (the average Imperial Rome genetic makeup) to become South Italian-like, Central Italian-like, let alone North Italian-like. The bulk of the genetic structure was already there pretty much well defined by the onset of the Roman Empire, and only some slight changes happened afterwards in any direction (towards Northern Europe, East Mediterranean or whatever).

I never intended to say that the pull South-East vs. North-West was caused exclusively by historical Northern European admixture or that all of Italia was mixed like "Imperial_Roman". Basically its like taking the Italian population from the starting point at the Iron Age, it was not unified, it was not homogeneous to begin with. In Imperial times there was both an internal shift South, as well as massive immigration from the relative East and South. The Imperial_Roman sample, but also other samples from throughout the Empire prove it. The shift back being caused by the larger agglomerations going into decay and even complete collapse on the one hand, Northern immigration on the other and internal shifts too, but this time Northern provinces giving more initially. This is also the reason for my proposed "Celtic shift", its not actually Celtic, but Northern Italians with Celtic (and Germanic) ancestry repopulating and expanding. There were both internal (North : South, rural : urban), as well as external (Germanic, Slavic) reasons for the shift back North.
I think regionally the Germanic influence will by far exceed 10 percent, I already mentioned Aosta and Bergamo valley, for which we can be pretty sure. And the increase of the "Germanic core lineages" correlates well with overall Germanic autosomal ancestry. I want to repost the map from Maciamo concerning the Germanic core of yDNA lineages, you see various provinces by exceed 10 percent, at thats just I1, I2a2a-L801, R1a-L664, R1a-Z284, R1b-U106, and R1b-L238:
Germanic_Europe.gif


Concerning the homogeneity of the Germanic yDNA, well, the Lombards in Szolad show mixture, and they had company. This company was not always Germanic or Roman-like, but also more Central-Eastern European shifted. This means not everything the Germanics brought which shifted people North was actually Northern European, but it was Northern in comparison to at least most Italian populations. Same is true for Normans and Franks, even if mixed. Also the Lombards and Franks were obviously not coming straight from Southern Sweden...

What Riverman is proposing, is that these immigrants significantly changed the genetic profile of the Italian peninsula.

Yes, I think they did have a significant impact. But in the meantime, after the last comments, I try to figure out (honestly) what different people mean by "significant". Its not like I propose that the Southern Italians approach Greeks just because of Levantine and North African admixture or anything like that, if you think that. That's just a clearly defined part of the bigger picture. Insignificant to me is something like much below 10 percent for either events, and that's, I think, not the case.

@Ygorcs:
also because I'm sure they were not the only people to have migrated to Italy since Antiquity, so more "northern" people evened out more "southern" people and in the end not much changed.

Completely agree with that.
 
KingJohn: Thanks again, I have never made my GEDMATCH kit number available for other users, only researchers. Are these folks that you have the Kit numbers for people you have met on this site, or some other site. Really good to run these. I ran all of them against K13_Updated samples, and also against Me to see who I am the closest with. I also ran all these samples against the Roman samples from Antonio et al 2019 top 25, all but 1 of them have several, 1 up to like 10, distances less than 5. Each of them has at least 1 Republican_Iron Age Roman in top 25. A45475 (R437), MO41450 (R437), A405665 (R437), T303793 (R437), A482096 (R850), A538499 (R850), T4776333 (R850), A619640 (R850). M090932 is only one that has 2 Iron Age Romans (R437, and R850), A172427 is only 1 with No Iron_Age Romans in top 25.

So these samples are in line with what has been reported here by those whose ancestors are South Italian.

Distance to:PalermoTrapani
3.88926728Abruzzo_Calabria_A454745
4.65228976Catania_M041450
5.25850739ReggioCalabria_A405665
5.30446981Trapani_T303793
6.55443361Crotone_Calabria_A172427
6.94892797Caltanisseta_M090932
7.47133857Messina_A482096
7.97375069Messina_A538499
8.12771186Mammola_ReggioCalabria_T476333
8.50699712Catania_M164106
10.59093008Cosenza_Calabria_A619640
 
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.

Please provide reputable academic sources showing regions in Northern Italy having above 25% I1 and U-106, which, as I pointed out to you are the only ydna which can safely be attributed to Germanic invasions which might have "changed" the genetic signature of the Italians of the end of the Imperial period.

Did you somehow miss the fact that ALL the ydna of the Lombards so far is U-106?

U-152 and many other R1b ydna lines are ITALIC, or Gallic, neither of which have anything to do with your hypothesis y because they entered Italy long before the period in question.

You have no idea what you're talking about. For one thing, the amount of Slavic dna in Italy is MINISCULE.

Now I'm the one who is shouting.
 
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.

if you think the english culture is just waving to the queen or football then you don't know what culture really is. i'm not saying there are no ethnic groups but can you define what "europeanness" should be and what kind of relevance the "europeanness" of the romans should have? can you be more or less european and does it have a correlation with beeing more or less roman? until now we have central european beaker ancestry or having a indo-european language. of course it was not directly said this way but noone wanted or simply couldn't be clear. it's really just about feelings i guess.
 
Yes, I think they did have a significant impact. But in the meantime, after the last comments, I try to figure out (honestly) what different people mean by "significant". Its not like I propose that the Southern Italians approach Greeks just because of Levantine and North African admixture or anything like that, if you think that. That's just a clearly defined part of the bigger picture. Insignificant to me is something like much below 10 percent for either events, and that's, I think, not the case.

@Drac, Greeks have been in Southern Italy from even before the unification of the Italy, by the Romans. Moreover, it is likely that Greek-like people have been in Italy from before the colonization of the Greeks. Because we can model Sicily Beaker as 95% as ABA I2683, so we know there was an Anatolian_N+CHG influence early on. That is why helps put Southern Italians close to Greeks. The infinitesimal admixture by North African and Levantines, would not make any discernable change.
 
Please provide reputable academic sources showing regions in Northern Italy having above 25% I1 and U-106, which, as I pointed out to you are the only ydna which can safely be attributed to Germanic invasions which might have "changed" the genetic signature of the Italians of the end of the Imperial period.

U-152 and many other R1b ydna lines are ITALIC, or Gallic, neither of which have anything to do with your hypothesis.

"My hypothesis" was not however, that only "pure Germanics" came in, but Northern shifted people in Late Antiquity and afterwards. So this actually includes e.g. Frankish people of Gallo-Roman descent, Pannonians of Illyro-Celtic descent, Bavarians which became part Celtic-Slavic and so on. Like if a Frankish noble took servants and artisans, a whole entourage with him, that too, would have been, relative to the population of Imperial era Rome, "Northern shifted". Like Slavs from the Balkans too were not "pure Slavs" necessarily, but still a half Slav-Balkan Croat, to give a concrete example, would have been fairly Northern shifted relative to most of Italy at the time in question.
So basically its always what was present at time X in place Y vs. time Z in place Y. If they were newcomers to a region, let's say the region of Lombardy, I would count them, regardless of whether they are pure I1 Scandinavians and Viking like or not. What changed is the flow. In Imperial times it was mostly from the East Mediterranean and North African provinces, with further reach, from Late Antiquity on it was more transalpine, to put it that way. That shift was caused by Germanics, but it was not just "pure Germanics". Like you can see in Szolad and Collegno, there was some variation and mixture in them as well already, and that being said even without artisans and other specialised they might have called for from transalpine regions, which might have been even more mixed than they were. That's why you see more Celtic-like and Slavic-like admixture too.

I'm really curious as to what more complete early Medieval cemeteries in Italy and elsewhere might look like. I guess many, many samples will be like Szolad and Collegno, with recent mixtures where you can see someones great-grandmother was a Slav, or a grandfather a Lombard and so on. And this will be a widespread phenomenon. Actually more than the wild mixture of the outliers from the Imperial Roman sample, because they didn't make it en masse up to the Northern provinces, while this trend will make it down to Sicily.
 
@Riverman, how do you explain North African signals in Northern Europe? Could it be the SEMITIC SUPERPOWER's influence?

https://phys.org/news/2020-07-shillings-gods-runes-clues-language.html

Is it above trace levels? Do you have a sample which has a sufficient resolution and is included in G25? In this case I prefer modern Berbers as a reference by the way, because general Natufian-like ancestry can be picked up by some models probably which don't fit well.
 
Is it above trace levels? Do you have a sample which has a sufficient resolution and is included in G25?

I don't know you tell me, I don't use Garbage 25. The graphic speaks for itself, it is from Antonio M. et al 2019.
 
"My hypothesis" was not however, that only "pure Germanics" came in, but Northern shifted people in Late Antiquity and afterwards. So this actually includes e.g. Frankish people of Gallo-Roman descent, Pannonians of Illyro-Celtic descent, Bavarians which became part Celtic-Slavic and so on. Like if a Frankish noble took servants and artisans, a whole entourage with him, that too, would have been, relative to the population of Imperial era Rome, "Northern shifted". Like Slavs from the Balkans too were not "pure Slavs" necessarily, but still a half Slav-Balkan Croat, to give a concrete example, would have been fairly Northern shifted relative to most of Italy at the time in question.
So basically its always what was present at time X in place Y vs. time Z in place Y. If they were newcomers to a region, let's say the region of Lombardy, I would count them, regardless of whether they are pure I1 Scandinavians and Viking like or not. What changed is the flow. In Imperial times it was mostly from the East Mediterranean and North African provinces, with further reach, from Late Antiquity on it was more transalpine, to put it that way. That shift was caused by Germanics, but it was not just "pure Germanics". Like you can see in Szolad and Collegno, there was some variation and mixture in them as well already, and that being said even without artisans and other specialised they might have called for from transalpine regions, which might have been even more mixed than they were. That's why you see more Celtic-like and Slavic-like admixture too.

I'm really curious as to what more complete early Medieval cemeteries in Italy and elsewhere might look like. I guess many, many samples will be like Szolad and Collegno, with recent mixtures where you can see someones great-grandmother was a Slav, or a grandfather a Lombard and so on. And this will be a widespread phenomenon. Actually more than the wild mixture of the outliers from the Imperial Roman sample, because they didn't make it en masse up to the Northern provinces, while this trend will make it down to Sicily.

I told you not to spout unsubstantiated hypotheses here. In fact, I specifically told you not to continue to spam posts about this without documented data.

I guess you didn't think I was serious. You are now banned; you need a time out.
 
What would be interesting is an analysis of all Europeans using the Tepecik instead of the Barcin sample.

Regardless, of course, Tepecik is what should be used for at least Italy if we're going to follow the very clear picture provided by Kilinc et al. Then we'll see how much extra "Levantine" shows up.
 
Is there an interesting thread concerning Italian population genetics, where I can share my own results?
 

This thread has been viewed 189615 times.

Back
Top