Genetic and Cultural Differences between Jews and Greeks

First of all please don't make me a strawman or use my failure for accusing David and G25 of failing. Because I just start using these tools and my mistakes are not his. Also, I never claimed I have the authority to decide things with my quick runs, I just shared results I created and am open to correction and criticism.
I looked at YGorcs results and I quickly realised what went wrong with Sicilians and why it worked for Italians much better: They need additional North African admixture, while other Italians don't need any significant amount of it. This was what ruined my run. If adding ancient North African to the run, it looks like Sicilians are like other Southern Italians, just with some small percentage of North African ancestry. This was present in Ygorcs run and I can repeat it with both prehistoric and modern samples.

Prehistoric North African reference:
View attachment 12245

Modern North African reference:
View attachment 12246


This doesn't mean my model is good, but I think it shows that this additional slight NA is there and that was my mistake before. Its not more Levantine, but more North African admixture which was swallowed by Levantine because I didn't include it in the run and it wasn't necessary for other Italians, which was my main objective before. That was my fault.

As for the historical accounts of Levantine admixture into the Imperial Roman population: Yes, we had little hard data, but the study on ancient Romans delivered it with many clearly Near Eastern derived inhabitants. And while we can't be sure how many of those were permanent residents, we know from the historical records many descriptions of neighbourhoods and the people of Rome changing. But this can be, of course, subjective accounts. What else do we have? We have accounts of real people and biographies and nobody can deny that the percentage of people with "Eastern" ancestry in their pedigree was constantly rising from Early Republican (almost all Latin, Italic and Etruscan only) to later Imperial (many with Greek, Greco-Levantine and outright Near Eastern or North African) ancestry. Even in the senatorial class, among politicians, writers, soldiers, but also common people where we have accounts and of course masses of slaves coming in, like private teachers, farmworkers, merchant helpers, which often stayed as freed men and so on. This is of course hard to evaluate statistically, and I'm not a competent authority to make a definitive claim at all, so please keep that in mind when reading what I write. I doubt anybody can right now, but its impossible to deny this influx as if it didn't happen. Its amount can only be evaluated by even more samples and there is a decrease of clearly Near Eastern derived ancestry in Late Antiquity when the urban settlements were in decay and new people from rural areas and the North repopuled the later Medieval agglomerations.This is a very important moment, because it means whatever was there in the Imperial time, was reduced because of the collapse of urban Roman life throughout the imperium, but particularly in Central Italy. We all know the numbers for Rome at its height and after its collapse. I say a lot of these people moved to the East again, others died or sought refuge in the provinces, but some left descendents in the region.
The other reason seems to me therefore panmixture, in which only a slight shift remained, but no clear Levantine profile any more and the Northern influx pulled everything "up again". But that's just my opinion based on the latest study's results and historical accounts, but I have no troubles changing it according to the data anyone can provide. Sorry if anybody felt bad because of my comments, I had no intention to stir anything up, but just shared my opinion and ideas, which might sometimes just be wrong and need correction.
That's why I like honest debates, we all can improve. Ygorcs corrected my model from before, which was just wrong. That was not G25 data's failure, but my fault.

Riverman, you can't use "Roman Imperial" as a source because you have no way of knowing if they were "locals" or transients. It's just "wrong". The Antonio paper provided a lot of samples, but it didn't do the kind of thorough job that was done for the Langobard cemeteries, where, because of the testing they did, it was clear which samples were local and which were newcomers from the northwest and which were Langobards. Without at least those kinds of analyses, you can't use the samples in this way.
 
Going back to the original question of the thread, culturally Jews and Greeks don't have much in common. In fact, there are so many regional Jewish populations that even Jews don't have much in common with many other Jews apart from their ancestry and religion (if they are religious, which is less and less the case in the West). An Azerbaijani Jew has probably little in common with a French Jew, just like a Yemeni Jew is worlds apart from a New Yorker Jew.

If we only consider Ashkenazi Jews, their original culture owes a lot of Central and Eastern European cultures, but most now live in the USA and have become culturally American. Once again, not much in common with Greece for, well almost anything.

Genetically, Jews and Greeks share some broad Eastern Mediterranean ancestry from the Neolithic and Bronze Age, but so do most Europeans with one another. An Irish, a Swede and a Pole all have predominantly ancestry derived from the Corded Ware and Central European Bell Beaker people. But that doesn't mean they are considered ethnically close today. They are not even classified in the same ethnic groups (Celtic, Germanic and Slavic).

Ashkenazi Jews probably got most of their South European ancestry in Italy during the Roman Imperial period. They are even Jewish Y-DNA clades that are specifically Roman, like R1b-U152>Z56. Greeks also have a bit of Roman ancestry, but so do a lot of Europeans in former parts of the empire.

Ashkenazi Jews also absorbed some German DNA in the Rhineland during the Early Middle Ages, before expanding east and mixing with Central and East Europeans. Greeks have some East European ancestry too, but from the Gothic and Slavic invasions of the Late Antiquity.

So both populations have a combination of very distant ancestry from more or less the same regions. That's why they plot close on a PCA chart. And incidentally that is why I never use PCA charts as they are extremely misleading.
 
@Riverman

This study demonstrates Iran_N ancestry was in Central Italy since the Neolithic, as will as J2:

CJZMg27.png


https://science.sciencemag.org/content/366/6466/708.full

there is also this study:

European populations display low genetic differentiation as the result of long-term blending of their ancient founding ancestries. However, it is unclear how the combination of ancient ancestries related to early foragers, Neolithic farmers, and Bronze Age nomadic pastoralists can explain the distribution of genetic variation across Europe. Populations in natural crossroads like the Italian peninsula are expected to recapitulate the continental diversity, but have been systematically understudied. Here, we characterize the ancestry profiles of Italian populations using a genome-wide dataset representative of modern and ancient samples from across Italy, Europe, and the rest of the world. Italian genomes capture several ancient signatures, including a non–steppe contribution derived ultimately from the Caucasus. Differences in ancestry composition, as the result of migration and admixture, have generated in Italy the largest degree of population structure detected so far in the continent, as well as shaping the amount of Neanderthal DNA in modern-day populations.

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/9/eaaw3492.full
 
I wonder if this hyper focus from this AG contingent, on associating Greeks with Jews, is motivated by some kind of personal vendettas for the fact that Greece is the most anti-Semitic country in Europe:

It's also all part of the original theapricity, forumbiodiversity, Stormfront theory that all Europeans with too much Middle Eastern in them should be kicked out of Europe.

Like I said, everybody now has collective amnesia.
 
I say you are delusional and agenda driven, because the studies point to prior in regards to Iran_N.

Your directly insulting me very moderator friendly of you, you come all the way to AG to stir a argument, you think nobody realizes what you are doing?

Ask your self which populations were heavy in Iran_Neo?

Have you familiarized yourself with Uniparentals at all? It was blatantly obvious from when I was 20 (5 years ago) that I first took a dna test and transferred my results to ftdna and saw all the projects that there is huge diversity in Italy, especially in South.

We are (Southern Italians) primarily 90% (85-95 range) identical to Late Antiquity Italians, no one is here to deny it, my point was always and still is Iron Age and Roman Age Italy was a Genetic Sink, the results from the Antonio et al. paper might as well been written by the crowd from AG because it pretty much vindicated what we've all been saying for years. The only thing I was wrong about and admit I was wrong was the origins of the Etruscans.
 
Honestly a model is...a model: a possible way to explain the data and that could depict a past situation, but Italians are one of the most studied people on Europe and it is hard to believe that no researcher before now has realised that the best way to model Italians would be with a post neolithic Levant gene flow. Futhermore, according to this study, "continuity and Admixture in the last five millenia of levantine histori from ancient canaanite and present-day Lebanese genome sequences.", Sardinian and north Italians share more alleles with ancient levantines among European populations (Sidon_B in the study) because they are ones with higher EEF. It is one study and might be wrong ( and something else looks wrong, at least to me, such as the admixture graph), but imo it falls well with the other results we have ( as Lazaridis 2017 found no statistical reasons to model Myceneans with post neolithic Levant, which suggests it was not a source of subsequent migrations ). There is also a second reason why I do not trust results from G25 and/or data taken from the internet (and given the division between "Sicily east" and "Sicily ovest" I think the results are from there): under other conditions it would be certainly paranoid, but for reasons that go well beyond sane human understanding, there were individuals who spent long periods of their lives polluting the databases by sending handpicked and/or fake results in order to make Italians (especially southern Italians) appear as much "exotic" as possible, and on the other hand admixture softwares used/tinkered with by Davidsky tend to be very unreliable for Italians ( by making them "more exotic" than in reality, and there are many threads here, and the likeliest explanation is that Davidsky himself is not a honest broker and for reasons beyond my understanding wants Italians to "stand out" compared to other Europeans ). Certainly this judgment is possible only because we have accademic papers that debunk what one would see scrolling through "anthropology" fora and blogs. On a final note I also think it is not very reasonable to take literally the imperial Roman average as a surrogate for incoming gene flow for all Italy: actually only C4 samples were "exotic" and the other could have been natives or Greeks immigrants (thus very similar genetically), so it is no wonder they work so well as a proxy for modern Italians, but it is hard to see how all Italy should be like Rome in having received similar level of immigration ( If you were a merchant or could settle in another place than your homeland in the empire it was natural to choose the capital [ and the desappearance of the "levant teal" after Rome was no longer the capital seems to confirm this]; certainly other cities saw some immigration, but the point is that very likely it was not to the extent Rome saw it). As usual these are my two cents.

This has been my point from the beginning and why I think the models, like the models for the Etruscans, are wrong. If you have more EEF you have more Levantine, because the EEF were almost a third Levantine Neolithic.

That's why you have to use proximate sources if you want to show if and how much actual "Levantine" gene flow "remained" in Southern Italy from migrations during the Republic and Empire.

Whatever the final number is will be perfectly alright with me. I have absolutely no prejudices in that direction; in others, perhaps yes if I'm honest.

You can't be a literal thinker if you want to understand this topic; you have to think globally.
 
@Riverman & Azzurro

The pattern of variation reported across Italian groups appears geographically structured across three main regions in Italy: Southern, Northern, and Sardinia. Similarly to Europe, the genetic structure reflects isolation by distance following population movements since prehistoric times (1) and historical admixture from the fringes of the continent (2). The analysis of both modern and ancient data suggests that in Italian populations, ancestries related to CHG and EHG derive from at least two sources. One is the well-characterized steppe (SBA) signature associated with nomadic groups from the Pontic-Caspian steppes. This component reached Italy from mainland Europe at least as long ago as the Bronze Age, as suggested by its presence in Bell Beaker samples from North Italy (data file S4). The other contribution is ultimately associated with CHG ancestry, as previously suggested (21), and predominantly affected Southern Italy, where it represents a substantial component of the ancestry profile of local modern populations. Although the details of the origins of this signature are still uncharacterized, it may have been present as early as the Bronze Age in Southern Italy (data file S4). The very low presence of CHG signatures in Sardinia and in older Italian samples (Remedello and Iceman), but its occurrence in modern-day Southern Italians, might be explained by different scenarios not mutually exclusive: (i) population structure among early foraging groups across Italy, reflecting different affinities to CHG; (ii) the presence in Italy of different Neolithic contributions, characterized by a different proportion of CHG-related ancestry; (iii) the combination of a post-Neolithic, prehistoric CHG-enriched contribution with a previous AN-related Neolithic layer; and (iv) a substantial historical contribution from Southeastern Europe across the whole of Southern Italy.
No major structure has been highlighted so far in pre-Neolithic Italian samples (6). An arrival of the CHG-related component in Southern Italy from the Southern part of the Balkan Peninsula, including the Peloponnese, is compatible with the identification of genetic corridors linking the two regions (Fig. 1E) (9) and the presence of Southern European ancient signatures in Italy (Fig. 2). The temporal appearance of CHG signatures in Anatolia and Southern East Europe in the Late Neolithic/Bronze Age suggests its relevance for post-Neolithic contributions (33). Our results suggest contributions from ancestries additional to the three “canonical” ones considered so far in the literature (WHG, AN, and SBA). The differential distribution of these ancestries contributed to the differentiation observed between Northern and Southern Italian clusters. Additional analyses of aDNA samples from around this time in Italy are expected to clarify what ancient scenario might best support the structure related to ancient ancestry composition presented here.

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/9/eaaw3492


So there you have it, and this study was release prior to Anotino M. et al 2019, which shows some Iran_N as far back as the Neolithic in a smaller amount. I don't know if there was a larger increase by the EBA, or if it was just trickling in since then.

 
as a jewish person ( although not relgious at all,)
I will say this
We are not greeks and we wiil
Never be
We are jews.... thats it
And those from anthrogenica need to deal with it....
We just happen to have some southern european admixture (thats it)
and overlapp in genetic markers... :unsure:

I hear you.

First there was a drive to eradicate Jews by killing them, now it's a drive to deprive them of their unique identity.
 
Your comment is spot on.
It's also all part of the original theapricity, forumbiodiversity, Stormfront theory that all Europeans with too much Middle Eastern in them should be kicked out of Europe.

Like I said, everybody now has collective amnesia.

What is too much? Every European would be kicked out by their logic. Also what about Northerners with actual Siberian ancestry that is truly foreign to Europe?
 
Riverman, you can't use "Roman Imperial" as a source because you have no way of knowing if they were "locals" or transients. It's just "wrong". The Antonio paper provided a lot of samples, but it didn't do the kind of thorough job that was done for the Langobard cemeteries, where, because of the testing they did, it was clear which samples were local and which were newcomers from the northwest and which were Langobards. Without at least those kinds of analyses, you can't use the samples in this way.

I thought so too, but it just fits the best, it really does, so it captures a genetic profile, even by lumping obviously different groups up, which is real. And I saw sample selections without the exotic outliers landing pretty much at the same spot. In the end its always "Kos-like" and seems, to me, useful. But I don't deny a better selection and more regional samples would be preferable. Sure.

@Jovialis: Thank you, its this paper.

Concerning yDNA, I think that J can't be automatically associated with that big of an increase in the Iranian Neolithic component. The connection to the Eastern Mediterranean was closer, even in the Neolithic, but this resulted just in a very minor shift towards the Iranian ancestral component.

They write about the next shift, mostly steppe derived:
The second major ancestry shift occurred in the Bronze Age, between ~2900 and 900 BCE(Figs.2and3,AandB,and tablesS13andS14). We cannot pinpoint the exact time of this shift because of a gap in our time series.

and
In contrast to prehistoric individuals, the Iron Age individuals genetically resemble modern European and Mediterranean individuals, and display diverse ancestries as central Italy becomes increasingly connected to distant communities through new networks of trade, colonization, and conflict

During the Imperial period ( n = 48 indi- viduals), the most prominent trend is an ancestry shift toward the eastern Mediterranean and with very few individuals of primarily western European ancestry(Fig. 3C). The distribution of Imperial Romans in PCA largely overlaps with modern Mediterraneanand Near Eastern populations, such as Greek, Maltese, Cypriot,andSyrian(Figs.2Aand3C).This shift is accompanied by a further increase in the Neolithic Iranian component in ADMIXTURE(Fig.2B)and is supported by f -statistics(tablesS20 and S21): compared to Iron Age individuals, the Imperial population shares more alleles with early Bronze Age Jordanians ( f 4 statistics Z-score = 4.2) and shows significant introgression signals in admixture f 3 for this population,as well as for Bronze Age Lebanese and Iron Age Iranians (Z-score < − 3.4)

https://www.academia.edu/42665239/Ancient_Rome_A_genetic_crossroads_of_Europe_and_the_Mediterranean

So they detected additional Iranian ancestry early on, but its nowhere close to the levels reached in Imperial times, even less so for Central Italy. Or did I miss something?

What the paper also suggests that a large portion of the pull "back to the North" in Italy being caused by Northern Italian and Germanic immigration to Central and Southern Italy. And I think all runs show that too. All regions of Italy if modelled with Imperial_Roman need additional Northern admixture, but not just Italic one, but rather Celtic, Germanic and Slavic.

Edit:
Although the details of the origins of this signature are still uncharacterized, it may have been present as early as the Bronze Age in Southern Italy (data file S4). The very low presence of CHG signatures in Sardinia and in older Italian samples (Remedello and Iceman), but its occurrence in modern-day Southern Italians, might be explained by different scenarios not mutually exclusive: (i) population structure among early foraging groups across Italy, reflecting different affinities to CHG; (ii) the presence in Italy of different Neolithic contributions, characterized by a different proportion of CHG-related ancestry; (iii) the combination of a post-Neolithic, prehistoric CHG-enriched contribution with a previous AN-related Neolithic layer; and (iv) a substantial historical contribution from Southeastern Europe across the whole of Southern Italy.

Simple put: CHG/Iran Neolithic was there before, but then we have a gap and when historical and modern people appear, they have much more of it. When and how exactly is unknown, but to dismiss historical movements of people is, in my opinion, no option. But we can all have our opinions on the issue, because its still undecided.
Your argument is like claiming steppe people were already expanding some thousands years earlier, because some Carpathian and Balkan HG groups might have had EHG ancestry at some percentage. That doesn't work out. We deal with different migrations and can't know, right now, when the more important increases took place. We will, hopefully, see with more samples trickling in who was right.
 
Your directly insulting me very moderator friendly of you, you come all the way to AG to stir a argument, you think nobody realizes what you are doing?

Ask your self which populations were heavy in Iran_Neo?

Have you familiarized yourself with Uniparentals at all? It was blatantly obvious from when I was 20 (5 years ago) that I first took a dna test and transferred my results to ftdna and saw all the projects that there is huge diversity in Italy, especially in South.

We are (Southern Italians) primarily 90% (85-95 range) identical to Late Antiquity Italians, no one is here to deny it, my point was always and still is Iron Age and Roman Age Italy was a Genetic Sink, the results from the Antonio et al. paper might as well been written by the crowd from AG because it pretty much vindicated what we've all been saying for years. The only thing I was wrong about and admit I was wrong was the origins of the Etruscans.
Then you have not understood a single word from that paper, because it also stated that the "levant teal" disappeared after the imperial age and that "by the founding of Rome, the genetic composition of the region approximated that of modern (north) Mediterranean population". Also there are two fallacies in your argumentation: first, you use the encrease in Iran-neolithic as a proof of Levant migration to Italy when such a component is not exclusively found in the natives of that region. What would be a decisive proof would be a significant encrease in Levant-neolithic, which no accademic paper has found, and the only "evidence" for such an event comes from the aforementioned unreliable sources. Secondly, I don't see why all Italy, all regions or most regions ought to have seen the same level of migration Rome experienced, and in fact the "explanation" given by your folk in AG was that there were " massive internal migrations" even if many genetic papers about Italy have showed evidence against such eventuality.
 
Then you have not understood a single word from that paper, because it also stated that the "levant teal" disappeared after the imperial age and that "by the founding of Rome, the genetic composition of the region approximated that of modern (north) Mediterranean population".

But the reason is also rural and Northern repopulation of the crashed urban and central places. There was a real pull North from Late Antiquity well into Medieval/Rennaissance Italy. Also, the second reason is panmixture, because if you look at the crude table with the "Near Eastern" component disappearing, there was never such a large "Mediterranean" component there since the Bronze Age. Where should it come from? Its the panmixture of old Italic with the Eastern immigrants which created this new unified ancestry so simialr to Greeks. And because of the Northern shift Italians end up almost where they were before. There was continuity from the Italic times, but not as much to explain any of this away and the study just interpretes it that way:
F3.large.jpg

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/366/6466/708/F3.large.jpg
 
But the reason is also rural and Northern repopulation of the crashed urban and central places. There was a real pull North from Late Antiquity well into Medieval/Rennaissance Italy. Also, the second reason is panmixture, because if you look at the crude table with the "Near Eastern" component disappearing, there was never such a large "Mediterranean" component there since the Bronze Age. Where should it come from? Its the panmixture of old Italic with the Eastern immigrants which created this new unified ancestry so simialr to Greeks. And because of the Northern shift Italians end up almost where they were before. There was continuity from the Italic times, but not as much to explain any of this away and the study just interpretes it that way:
F3.large.jpg

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/366/6466/708/F3.large.jpg

Again, there are no reasons to think that the situation of Rome was the same or almost the same of all or most other parts of Italy ( or south of Rome), and there is no reason to postulate a panmixia (and if that was the case it is at odd with the steep downfall of J1 haplogroup in the samples after the imperial reason) between "old italic" and eastern immigrant to explain today's genetic cline in Italy, given that it is much more parsimonious to think that it was created by "old italic" mixing with a "minoan-like" farmer substrate, and such a scenario is what the evidence we have best supports (given the early presence of Iran_neolithic from Sicily to at least Latium). Also, according to Razib Khan, and to the general literature ( now I can't recall the exact papers but I am sure the other users of the forum will supply them if needed ), the Germanic migrations did not leave such a big genetic impact that it would have "shifted back north" Italy ( about Rome it has been proposed in this forum that during the middle ages, after the bubonic plague, it was repopulated by settlers from central-north Italy). Not enough recent north european genetic markers are found to support such a scenario.
 
Again, there are no reasons to think that the situation of Rome was the same or almost the same of all or most other parts of Italy ( or south of Rome), and there is no reason to postulate a panmixia (and if that was the case it is at odd with the steep downfall of J1 haplogroup in the samples after the imperial reason) between "old italic" and eastern immigrant to explain today's genetic cline in Italy, given that it is much more parsimonious to think that it was created by "old italic" mixing with a "minoan-like" farmer substrate, and such a scenario is what the evidence we have best supports (given the early presence of Iran_neolithic from Sicily to at least Latium). Also, according to Razib Khan, and to the general literature ( now I can't recall the exact papers but I am sure the other users of the forum will supply them if needed ), the Germanic migrations did not leave such a big genetic impact that it would have "shifted back north" Italy ( about Rome it has been proposed in this forum that during the middle ages, after the bubonic plague, it was repopulated by settlers from central-north Italy). Not enough recent north european genetic markers are found to support such a scenario.

I can largely agree with what you said and said something similar myself before. A large portion of the shift back can be attributed to the urban settlements being in decay, with many lineages dying out or moving on and with rural inhabitants, Northern provinces and additional Northern immigration pulling back North again later.
Now we can debate about the exact extent of the real Northern immigration, which is hard to assess, because Germanic, Frankish, French and German etc. people are not one unified, homogeneous block neither. But clearly provinces like Veneto/North East need both Germanic and Slavic immigration, deviate much more strongly from Imperial_Roman than other provinces. And the North Western provinces all need Celtic and Germanic input, even real Germanic (DEU_MA). This is evident. Its not that much overall, but its there and its spread out, even down to Sicily its clearly there. The peak for Germanic seems to be Aosta_Valley, but regions like Bergamo, Tuscany and Piedmont definitely need it too. Lazio much less of it, this could have been even more indirect actually (?).
But then again, you can model the regional subpopulations in many different ways.
 
And for the record, West Sicily does not shift Further East, in fact it seems to drift more towards Campania, not East. I have never seen West Sicily plot closer to the Near East or even closer to Greece than East Sicily and East Sicily doesn't either, although I think it may drift closer to Calabria and Puglia, but again, I tend to look at all those G25 deals with a critical lense.
It's funny because Sicily faced major changes in it's regions even thousands years ago, the Carthaginian colonies were mostly wiped, if ones takes Roman historians literally, and even nowdays Sicilians have grandparents from many different parts of the island. So it's really ignorant to look Sicily with a Classical age map, and believe East Sicilians=Greeks, West Sicilians=Levantines, many people do.
 
Last edited:
@Riverman,

There is a clear and gradual increase of Iran_N, even the Iron age samples show it, which is absolutely consistent with what I have been saying. These groups descended from the North, into the center, where there was most likely higher amounts. I suspect samples like R850, which is predominately Iran_N, and forms a clade with Anatolian_ChL, is illustrative of more native samples from the south, and center. R850 looks like many Medieval samples, which mostly cluster with the south.

Please consider the fact that many of the "Imperial samples" are from two cemeteries outside of the city of Rome, and in no way represent the whole of the Italian peninsula. Many of which are actually Cretan-to-Cypriot-like. Very few are actual Near easterners. Moreover, that the people of these haplotypes are absent in Medieval Italian samples. The increase of Iran-like ancestry in Central Italy could have come by re-population of the cities, after the fall of the Western Empire. There was no more immigration coming from these areas, and even when they were, it was not like today. Cities are demographic sinks up until recent times, when Immigrants could fundamentally change demographics, thanks to modern public works. Where there immigrants, yes, of course. Could that have contributed this much Iran_N, not likely. Instead, I think it is likely that Greeks from Southern Italy, who were many, could have made these contributions, after the Romans unified Italy.:

I6ZWkwE.png


The broad analysis of Antonio et al 2019, is somewhat shallow and naïve, with how it infers population changes in the text. For example, the use of Iberomauruian, which seems to pop up in areas which are highly unlikely, in the table above.

Futhermore, many of the Imperial sample plot right in the area of southern Italy, which is where samples have been popping up since the Iron Age, R850, and R437 on into the medieval period.
 
I can largely agree with what you said and said something similar myself before. A large portion of the shift back can be attributed to the urban settlements being in decay, with many lineages dying out or moving on and with rural inhabitants, Northern provinces and additional Northern immigration pulling back North again later.
Now we can debate about the exact extent of the real Northern immigration, which is hard to assess, because Germanic, Frankish, French and German etc. people are not one unified, homogeneous block neither. But clearly provinces like Veneto/North East need both Germanic and Slavic immigration, deviate much more strongly from Imperial_Roman than other provinces. And the North Western provinces all need Celtic and Germanic input, even real Germanic (DEU_MA). This is evident. Its not that much overall, but its there and its spread out, even down to Sicily its clearly there. The peak for Germanic seems to be Aosta_Valley, but regions like Bergamo, Tuscany and Piedmont definitely need it too. Lazio much less of it, this could have been even more indirect actually (?).
But then again, you can model the regional subpopulations in many different ways.

And, pray tell, how much I1 and U-106 are in the Northern Italian provinces? I'll save you the trouble. Not much.
 
@Riverman, the very next section after the one you have quoted from the study, also verifies what I have been saying as well:

Late Antiquity and the fall of Rome

Late Antiquity was characterized by deep demographic changes and political reorganization, including the split of the Roman Empire into eastern and western halves, the movement of the capital from Rome to Byzantium (later Constantinople), and the gradual dissolution of the Western Roman Empire (maps in Fig. 3, C and D) (1, 3).


As for modeling, I fit well with using even solely the Iron age samples:

e1aDWHe.png

 

Modeling the ancestry composition of ancient Italian samples

To obtain temporal insights into the emergence of the differences between Northern and Southern Italy in relation to SBA and ABA ancestries, we performed the same qpAdm analysis on post-Neolithic/Bronze Age Italian individuals (data file S4). Iceman and Remedello, the oldest Italian samples included here [3400 to 2800 Before Common Era (BCE)], were composed of high proportions of AN (74 and 85%, respectively). The Bell Beaker samples of Northern Italy (2200 to 1930 BCE) were modeled as ABA and AN + SBA and WHG. Although ABA estimates in these samples were characterized by large standard errors (SE), the detection of steppe ancestry, at approximately 14%, was more robust. In contrast, Bell Beaker samples from Sicily (2500 to 1900 BCE) were modeled almost exclusively as ABA, with less than 5% SBA (data file S4). Despite the fact that the small number of SNPs and prehistoric individuals tested prevents the formulation of conclusive results, differences in the occurrence of AN ancestry, and possibly also of Bronze Age–related contributions, are suggested to be present between ancient samples from North and South Italy. Differences across ancient Italian samples were also supported by their projections on the PCA of modern-day data (Fig. 2I). Remedello and Iceman clustered with European Early Neolithic samples, together with one of the three Bell Beaker individuals from North Italy, as previously reported (23), and modern-day Sardinians. The other two Bronze Age North Italian samples clustered with modern North Italians, while the Bell Beaker sample from Sicily was projected in between European Early Neolithic, Bronze Age Southern European, and modern-day Southern Italian samples (Fig. 2I). These results suggest a differentiation in ancient ancestry composition between different areas of Italy, dating at least in part back to the Bronze Age.

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/9/eaaw3492.full
 
And, pray tell, how much I1 and U-106 are in the Northern Italian provinces? I'll save you the trouble. Not much.

We'll see with more Lombard samples and of course we deal with Frankish and Bavarian influx too. But seriously, especially for provinces like Aosta and Bergamo the results make no sense otherwise. Looking at the data from Bergamo Valley, even the core lineages (and there is no reason that they were the only ones brought by Germanics, which were diverse too) of I1 and R1b-U106 account for 11,6 % of the local male population
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/suppl/10.1080/03014460.2017.1409801?scroll=top

Also compare - just the core lineages - from Eupedia maps:
Germanic_Europe.gif


In the end, if assuming that whole families came and many were already more or less mixed with Celto-Roman and other people before, we deal with quite a significant Northern-Central European immigration from the end of Antiquity up into early modern times.
 

This thread has been viewed 188546 times.

Back
Top