Genetic history of Calabrian Greeks reveals ancient events and long term isolation in

Interesting!

I don't know why I remember the purple as southern-central vs the 'tuscan' as northern-central but I may be wrong.
That's more or less in line with how we consider these areas in Italy (centro-sud at least)

Here is the excerpt from the paper:

A sharp north-south division in cluster distribution was detected, the separation between northern and southern areas being shifted north along the peninsula (Fig. 1B) (12). The reported structure dismissed the possibility that the Central Italian populations differentiated from the Northern and Southern Italian groups (Fig. 1A) (13). Individuals from Central Italy were, in fact, assigned mostly to the Southern Italian clusters, except for samples from Tuscany, which grouped instead with the Northern Italian clusters (Fig. 1, A and B) (12). Contrary to previous results, no outliers were detected among the Northern Italian clusters (12).

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

Tuscans are Northerners, the rest of Central Italy is technically Southern.


There is a cline however, central Italy is where Northern Italian and Southern Italian-like DNA intersect. So you could say one is North-Central, and the other is South-Central. But the center is not a cluster, unto itself according to Raveane et al. 2018.
 
Here is the excerpt from the paper:



Tuscans are Northerners, the rest of Central Italy is technically Southern.


There is a cline however, central Italy is where Northern Italian and Southern Italian-like DNA intersect. So you could say one is North-Central, and the other is South-Central. But the center is not a cluster, unto itself according to Raveane et al. 2018.


going by this ............the Umbrians should be classified with the Tuscans and whatever group they are
 
As Jovialis explained, those are clusters, it has nothing to do with how one should be classified.

ok...we all know that the Samnites, Sabellics, Sabines and a few other ancient tribes come via Umbrian stock .................why classify these as Southern when they should be classified Central ?
Lucania another group that came via samnites

There is no Greek association

I think we are misleading people by calling them southern instead of central
 
ok...we all know that the Samnites, Sabellics, Sabines and a few other ancient tribes come via Umbrian stock .................why classify these as Southern when they should be classified Central ?
Lucania another group that came via samnites

There is no Greek association

I think we are misleading people by calling them southern instead of central

The map from Raveane et al. 2018 represents modern Italians, not Iron age Italics. As far as I know, we don't know where those particular tribes would end up genetically. Probably similar to Latini, I would guess. Maybe those groups may have been a bit different, IDK.


If you look at the composition of samples found in central Italy during the medieval era, you see a lot of C6 i.e. Mediterranean Southern Italian-like samples, along with C7. So either during the Roman Unification of Italy, or the resettlement of those areas; those areas became Southern Italian-like. I would bet my bottom dollar, it has something to do with the Greek population in the south and/or pre-Italic southerners who may have also been greek-like.
 
Interesting study. This PCA shows that Calabria is most similar to the Copper & Bronze Age Anatolia and Mycenaean Greece.

Sarno-2021-Calabria-PCA.png


Did I miss something or did they not provide any Y-DNA data?

Indeed, it can be said for all Southern Italians. Here it is from the following excerpt:

Consistently with previous results3,27, the PCA performed by projecting ancient samples onto the modern genetic variation reveals specific patterns of population relationships (Suppl. Figure S8). In fact, all the Southern Italian groups, besides showing a general high affinity with Anatolian and European Neolithic farmers, cluster also closely with the Chalcolithic and Bronze Age samples from Anatolian and Aegean (Minoan and Mycenaean) populations.

I recall, some posters here and from other forums tried to doubt it as a mere coincidence on the PCA. It is nice to see it said here in the study, and that the doubters were wrong.
 
The map from Raveane et al. 2018 represents modern Italians, not Iron age Italics. As far as I know, we don't know where those particular tribes would end up genetically. Probably similar to Latini, I would guess. Maybe those groups may have been a bit different, IDK.


If you look at the composition of samples found in central Italy during the medieval era, you see a lot of C6 i.e. Mediterranean Southern Italian-like samples, along with C7. So either during the Roman Unification of Italy, or the resettlement of those areas; those areas became Southern Italian-like. I would bet my bottom dollar, it has something to do with the Greek population in the south and/or pre-Italic southerners who may have also been greek-like.

If you are talking about medieval period, then the greek influence in the south is minimum at best............yes, there was some albanian influence after 1500 in the kingdom of Naples as they ( Naples ) became a haven for fleeing albanians from the ottomans
 
If you are talking about medieval period, then the greek influence in the south is minimum at best............yes, there was some albanian influence after 1500 in the kingdom of Naples as they ( Naples ) became a haven for fleeing albanians from the ottomans

I am not speaking particularly about Medieval Greeks, though I am sure they had some influence too. Rather, I am talking about Greeks from Magna Grecia, who have lived in Italy from before the Roman Unification of Italy, and/or Pre-Italic Greek-like Southern Italians. Who ever it was, there is a reason why 60% of the Medieval Central Italians samples fall into the C6 Southern Italian-like cluster:

9PrZLOH.jpg
 
You could model them as half-Barese/half-Umbrian, according to this paper.

The purple, brown, and yellow components are all considered Southern Italian genetically, in that paper. Which is also consistent with AncestryDNA's broad component for Southern Italians.

SN9pIYc.jpg

iqfk4vL.png
 
I am indifferent to the ethnogenesis of particular Europeans, I am only interested in the general European genetic tapestry.

I have problems with a lot of papers on dna and genetics. In that Stanford University, Jonathan Pritchard, paper I feel the paper is mixing apples with oranges. North Africans, Europeans, East Mediterraneans (which is an odd category) and Mediterraneans are all people who were formed in the various periods and are admixed. Think about the Cypriots, Lebanese and Anatolian Turks (the East Mediterranean?), they themselves are admixed, some more recently than others (the Turks), but essentially they are all in the Near Eastern group, and share a lot of ancestry with other Near Eastern groups. Europeans in the report only came into existence in the Bronze Age, thanks to the Yamnaya folk, and are admixed. North Africans of today are not the North Africans before the Islamic push, similar but not identical. I consider the East Mediterranean an artifact, it is just Near Eastern groups closer to Europe. In the report they refer to Bronze Age Iranians, those people are not identical with Iranian farmers of the West Asian Neolithic.

Also the researcher should use graphs, images based on the first three greatest dimensions to produce a 3D image. Why so? Because certain national/ethnic groups are not as close as they appear on two dimensions. Example: the Ashkenazi Jews on 3D are not close to Sicilians, Southern Italians, including Calabrians, and Greeks as they appear on two dimensions. The Basques and Sardinians (and Finnic speaking peoples) are quite removed from other Europeans. In the diagram, they say that the people of the Imperial Age are essentially the same as modern Mediterranean people. So did those Imperial Age Romans decamp Latium and head south around the Mediterrranean?

Anyway that is my thoughts on the paper.
 
Here is a good reason why Sarno et al. 2021 is a superior paper to Sarno et al. 2017:

In Sarno et al. 2017, they only use SIMULATIONS of purported unmixed populations to infer ancestry. This particular graphic is very illuminating, considering that it also wrongly infers Near Eastern (Levantine) in ancient population that we know do not have any, especially at such high rates:

vfbbrIc.png


Sarno et. al 2021, is indeed a better paper, as it uses actual Ancient DNA with qpadm to determine admixture rates, which don't even pick up this component:

ONagPuX.jpg
 
^^Just an example, POP2 is "Sardinian-like" which is already also a false way to determine so-called "un-mixed" populations, because we know that Sardinians did receive some CHG, WHG, and some small amount of steppe.




Maybe if they used Anatolian_N, instead of a f*ake-population based on MODERN people, it would have saved us all a lot of faulty analysis from amateur-"experts".


EDIT: Why is the word F*ake censored?
 
^^Just an example, POP2 is "Sardinian-like" which is already also a false way to determine so-called "un-mixed" populations, because we know that Sardinians did receive some CHG, WHG, and some small amount of steppe.




Maybe if they used Anatolian_N, instead of a f*ake-population based on MODERN people, it would have saved us all a lot of faulty analysis from amateur-"experts".


EDIT: Why is the word F*ake censored?


****book is how I say it

WOW...whats wrong with this site when you cannot use the word **** ( F A K E ) .....................
 
Interesting Crete Armenio is clustering with Myceneaens too in this PCA.
 

It Is possible to know the actual percentages or we have this graph only?

Edit: apparently the Suppl. Table S8 was not included in the online version
 
Going back to re-read this paper.

This part sounds like it could have been written by me :)

Sarno et al. 2021 is consistent with my point of view on this matter.

Previous surveys on the ancient genetic legacy of Southern Italy pointed to genetic contributions linking Southern Italy and Mediterranean Greek islands with Anatolia and the Caucasus tracing back to migratory events occurred during the Neolithic and the Bronze Age, in which the Mediterranean served as a preferential crossroad3,13,27. In particular, while the expansion of Anatolian Neolithic farmers significantly impacted all the Peninsula, differential Bronze-Age contributions were observed for Southern Italy with respect to Northern Italian populations. Bronze Age influences in the gene pool of Southern Italians have been in fact associated to a non-steppe Caucasian-related ancestry carried along the Mediterranean shores at the same time, but independently from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe migrations that occurred through Continental Europe. Consistently with this viewpoint, genetic analyses performed by comparing our modern populations with the main ancient ancestral sources have displayed the clustering of analysed Southern Italian groups with Neolithic and Bronze Age samples from Anatolian, Aegean Minoan and Mycenaean populations, as opposed to the affinity of Northern Italy with Late-Neolithic and Bronze-Age samples from continental Europe (Suppl. Figure S8). Accordingly, both f3-outgroup, qpGraph and qpAdmixture analyses (Fig. 4, Suppl. Figure S9, Suppl. Figure S10) revealed influences related to a Steppe ancestry in the Northern Italian groups, instead paralleled in Southern Italy by an analogous Caucasian-related contribution from a non-Steppe CHG/Iran_N source. Importantly, the same ancestral sources are equally shared both by the present-day “open” (i.e. not-isolated) Southern Italian populations of Benevento, Castrovillari and Catanzaro, as well as by the geographically and linguistically-isolated communities of the Aspromonte mountain area (Fig. 4, Suppl. Table S8), thus signaling a common genetic background that possibly predates the linguistic hypotheses originally suggested about the times of formation of the Greco language in Southern Italy. Accordingly, we hypothesize that the genetic continuity between Southern Italian populations and the other Mediterranean groups may date back to these Neolithic and post-Neolithic events and may have been subsequently maintained and in some cases reinforced by continuous and overlapping gene flows following similar paths of diffusion and interaction between populations, among which the migrations of Greek-speaking people during the classical era (Magna Graecia) and/or in Byzantine and subsequent times. Therefore, the observed patterns could be linked to a tendency to mobility that has always characterized these populations, resulting in continuous cultural and genetic exchanges over time. That being so, the Calabrian Greek ethno-linguistic minorities of Southern Italy may be interpreted as the remnants of a wider area of Greek influence, that by virtue of their geographic isolation have preserved and evolved a unique variety of Greek which has survived through centuries in the mountains of the Aspromonte area. At this respect, the communities showing higher signatures of genetic isolation (Roghudi, Gallicianò, Condofuri and Roccaforte del Greco; Suppl. Figure S4, Suppl. Figure S5) are also the ones located in the more impervious areas of the Aspromonte, at the same time still conserving a certain number of Greco speakers (Suppl. Table S1)40,41.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-82591-9
 
My official position on Southern Italians, consistent with Sarno et al. 2021's hypothesis:

Genetic continuity with Neolithic/post-Neolithic Mediterranean groups and southern Italians; only re-enforced by subsequent historical events.
 
My official position on Southern Italians, consistent with Sarno et al. 2021's hypothesis:

Genetic continuity with Neolithic/post-Neolithic Mediterranean groups and southern Italians; only re-enforced by subsequent historical events.

Jovialis: Your last two post are dead on in my view. Have those new Calabrian samples been made available to the public yet?
 
Modern samples have a lot of regulations for use, even if they are "public data".

Ok, thanks. I can understand the reason for that given the people are still alive!! Makes sense.
 

This thread has been viewed 44778 times.

Back
Top