Adriatic Sea through the analysis of genome-wide data from Southern Italy

[Jovialis]

^^Indeed, notice that Southern Italians/Sicilians, and I are modeled with majority Minoan plus steppe. While the others are different combinations, despite goodness of fit.

[Leopoldo Leone]

What is to be seen is what caused south Italians to be modelled best as Minoan+steppe, which suggests an increase in CHG/Iran_N with respect to their ancestors in the IA.
What is peculiar is that the Steppe doesn't seem to have decreased (at least noticeably), so it seems that a potential donour population had higher caucasus-related ancestry to south Italians in the IA but comparable Steppe. I have a hunch that the so called Italic outliers might play a role, and if there was a massive gene flow in the Roman era it must have been from western Anatolia.

[Jovialis]

What is to be seen is what caused south Italians to be modelled best as Minoan+steppe, which suggests an increase in CHG/Iran_N with respect to their ancestors in the IA.
What is peculiar is that the Steppe doesn't seem to have decreased (at least noticeably), so it seems that a potential donour population had higher caucasus-related ancestry to south Italians in the IA but comparable Steppe. I have a hunch that the so called Italic outliers might play a role, and if there was a massive gene flow in the Roman era it must have been from western Anatolia.

The Daunians were Late bronze age migrants. I actually think calling them native IA Apulians is not valid, there were people there before them. They were not natives, they were invaders. I know even this study proposes that question; but considering some of the authors are from the Daunian paper, that's expected.

Both Minoans and Yamnaya are Bronze age groups that existed in the same time.

The hypothetical Minoan-like people in Apulia are proposed to have existed in this time too. The Balkans is only a hop skip, and jump away, which is where the Yamnaya migrated into. As I mentioned earlier, in another thread, my own halpogroup is from the Balkans in the early bronze age.



Nevertheless, to say they were formed from this two-way admixture, and remained unchanged since would be a bit preposterous. However, I do think this is what created the lion's share of their genetic profile, and was re-enforced by similar populations, such as the Ancient Greeks, who were also a combination of Minoan and Steppe.

[alais]

We can therefore summarise that among southern Italians there is predominantly ancient Greek DNA and little or no Italic DNA. Thoughts?

The Daunians were Late bronze age migrants. I actually think calling them native IA Apulians is not valid, there were people there before them. They were not natives, they were invaders. I know even this study proposes that question; but considering some of the authors are from the Daunian paper, that's expected.

Both Minoans and Yamnaya are Bronze age groups that existed in the same time.

The hypothetical Minoan-like people in Apulia are proposed to have existed in this time too. The Balkans is only a hop skip, and jump away, which is where the Yamnaya migrated into. As I mentioned earlier, in another thread, my own halpogroup is from the Balkans in the early bronze age.



Nevertheless, to say they were formed from this two-way admixture, and remained unchanged since would be a bit preposterous. However, I do think this is what created the lion's share of their genetic profile, and was re-enforced by similar populations, such as the Ancient Greeks, who were also a combination of Minoan and Steppe.

This map seems very inaccurate. More Yamnaya/Steppe related ancestry in central and eastern Anatolia than in many areas of Europe? Not possible.

[Jovialis]

We can therefore summarise that among southern Italians there is predominantly ancient Greek DNA and little or no Italic DNA. Thoughts


This map seems very inaccurate. More Yamnaya/Steppe related ancestry in central and eastern Anatolia than in many areas of Europe? Not possible.

No, greek-like but native to the south. But re-enforced by Greek. I can't speak for the map, I didn't make it. The study models Apulia as 37% aFrance, which I would guess could be Italo-Celtic or similar. The rest minon.

[enter_tain]

Minoan language was likely CHG and spread with J2a assimilating G2a, probably all J2a in South-East Europe were Minoan-like.

What is "CHG" language? You go to the Caucauses today and you have 4 different language families completely unrelated to one another.

[Leopoldo Leone]

We can therefore summarise that among southern Italians there is predominantly ancient Greek DNA and little or no Italic DNA. Thoughts?

It is hard to tell, in terms of direct ancestry, but in terms of affinity yes it's true overall, taking Latin_IA as "Italic" (Italic was a linguistic group foremost, and if upcoming Sicily_IA samples were Sicels then not all Italics were Latin-like)

This map seems very inaccurate. More Yamnaya/Steppe related ancestry in central and eastern Anatolia than in many areas of Europe? Not possible.

Another thing that doesn't look right: there may be lower steppe in south Italy compared to north Italy but it is nonsense that Morocco has more steppe than Sicily.

The hypothetical Minoan-like people in Apulia are proposed to have existed in this time too. The Balkans is only a hop skip, and jump away, which is where the Yamnaya migrated into. As I mentioned earlier, in another thread, my own halpogroup is from the Balkans in the early bronze age.

There were no Minoan-like people in Italy in the IA, and the Daunian paper shows some heterogeneity in the samples, which could be due either to their low coverage or to the fact the population was the result of a recent mixing event, so compatible with "locals and invaders" scenario, but what is interesting is the fact that the samples fall in a PCA space between Latin_IA and Sicily_BA (and Sicily_IA then, reported to be identical to Sicily_BA as for PCA position). It looks like that was the ancient "Italian cline"; the pre-IE substrate in Sicily_BA (rather, what you would end up having if you substracted the steppe admixture) had indeed caucasus related ancestry, which made Sicily_BA much closer to Myceneans than Latin_IA were, but it wasn't minoan-like: it had too little caucasus-related ancestry and/or too WHG. Modern south Italians get best modelled with Minoan because they have higher caucasus-related ancestry and less WHG than Sicily_BA, though they might have higher steppe.

The bulk of the ancestry of south Italians did originate in the Iron age, since they are as "east shifted" as central and north Italians to IA ltalic samples, but what caused the east shift isn't clear yet.

Furthermore it was a phenomeno that interested all south Europea seemingly, since also medieval and modern Iberians appear east shifted compared to their IA ancestors, and also do other SE europeans (if you substract their slavic ancestry it seems they still need some caucasus related ancestry compared to their IA ancestors): Bulgarians can be modelled as having Wusun ancestry because it is an artefact of the excess of caucasus related ancestry and steppe ancestry they have now compared to their ancestors (
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1....02.446576v1); I think something similar explains the Minoan in the modelling of south Italians.

[Jovialis]

I think it is likely the Daunians were eventually mixed out of existence by the population at large (the actual natives of Apulia), during the Roman period.

[torzio]

I think it is likely the Daunians were eventually mixed out of existence by the population at large (the actual natives of Apulia), during the Roman period.

that's correct ...................since their neighbours inland where the samnites, I suspect it would be them

Venosa was a samnite town IIRC

[Jovialis]

We can therefore summarise that among southern Italians there is predominantly ancient Greek DNA and little or no Italic DNA. Thoughts?






This map seems very inaccurate. More Yamnaya/Steppe related ancestry in central and eastern Anatolia than in many areas of Europe? Not possible.

Take note of the modeling of modern day Turkey, from the Antonio et al. 2019 paper on Ancient Rome. Do you agree with it? EHG in them looks unexpectedly high... Frankly, I don't know how much Steppe is in modern west Turkey.

[Jovialis]

Romans, Etruscans, Daunians, and later period Italians, in K8 model:



Modern Italians with the same model applied:

[Jovialis]

Romans, Etruscans, Daunians, and later period Italians, in K8 model:



Modern Italians with the same model applied:

Minoan is a good proxy population to apply to nearly all of them. I think considering these results, combined with the theory of this paper, it serves to help add weight it.

[Jovialis]

^^It seems to me that at some point the minoan-like population became more prevalent. I think it is likely this happened during the Imperial period, in Italy. However, I do not think that it is due to mass immigration from abroad. But rather, mass migration internally throughout the peninsula, from south to north, when Rome united it. In fact, the minion-like ancestry looked like it permeated to the north, even before that, since the Latins and Etruscans get some of it too. The probably has to due with migrations prior to the arrival of Italics, perhaps.


In the model, Latins and Etruscans resemble North Italians for the reason that they both have a large Remedello component. However, they also get an equal amount of minoan to their remedello. South Italians, especially south-eastern Italians like me, look more Ancient Greek-like because we get a majority minoan, and a smaller component of steppe; however more steppe than Mycenaeans. However, at least in this model, I myself get equal amount of steppe to Northerners, a bit more than a quarter.

[Leopoldo Leone]

^^It seems to me that at some point the minoan-like population became more prevalent. I think it is likely this happened during the Imperial period, in Italy. However, I do not think that it is due to mass immigration from abroad. But rather, mass migration internally throughout the peninsula, from south to north, when Rome united it. In fact, the minion-like ancestry looked like it permeated to the north, even before that, since the Latins and Etruscans get some of it too. The probably has to due with migrations prior to the arrival of Italics, perhaps.


In the model, Latins and Etruscans resemble North Italians for the reason that they both have a large Remedello component. However, they also get an equal amount of minoan to their remedello. South Italians, especially south-eastern Italians like me, look more Ancient Greek-like because we get a majority minoan, and a smaller component of steppe; however more steppe than Mycenaeans. However, at least in this model, I myself get equal amount of steppe to Northerners, a bit more than a quarter.

Your wording is a bit ambiguous (was it a "minoan-like" as in literally "minoan-like" or a population that had a more minoan-like substrate/it's ideally better modelled with minoan as a substrate?), anyway, we have in my opinion enough information to have a reasonable picture of the Italian genetic landscape in the iron age, and it would seem that Latium and central Italy was genetically an extention of the Po valley (upcoming samples from Emilia are reported to be identical to Latins as for PCA position), whereas in Apulia there was already some more pull towards the "northeast" med (Greece and Anatolia), and Sicilians from the IA are reported to be identical to Sicilians in the BA. As this picture stands it seems to me that there is little plausible room for some pockets of Minoan-like populations in the Iron age.

The folks at anthrogenica are dumb but not so dumb they forgo any attention to the details of their theories: they have a "pataphysician" approach to archeogenetics, that is they postulate the most absurd and ridicolous facts to make their theories stand, instead of trying to formulate the most parsimonious scenarios, yet they acknowledge that the supposed great mixing of Latins and "east med folks" (a category that doesn't even exist as a cluster, since Anatolians and Caucasians belong to a well defined different cluster than Levantines, but let's keep this remark short) happened too fast: republicans are west med but early Imperials are already "imperial Roman" genetically (and let's overlook the fact that very likely such a genetic profile is just an abstract average of different genetic clusters that likely didn't exist in reality if not for a very few persons, as if one averaged the inhabitants of the USA and believed that such average is really the genetic profile a random American posseses), which is mighty implausible, thus they believe it started in the hellenistic era.

There can be a nugget of truth here: the "east shift" seems to interests the area of intense roman colonization such as Iberia, even south French seem "east shifted" to where they plotted in the IA (and I've read an abstract of an upcoming paper that talks about some "east med" gene flow in south France), so it looks like a late republic/early empire phenomenon, not something that happened in the late empire or antiquity.

We need more samples to draw more secured theories, since as they stand now they aren't enough, but here it is my conjecture: look where Bulgaria_IA plot and where the bulk of Balkanite samples from Serbia plot, they are significantly "east shifted" compared to Bulgaria_IA, and they are east shifted compared to Croat_IA and Slovenia_IA as well, and there are still many samples that cluster around Bulgaria_IA: my impression is that the Balkans' genetic landscale had some width (calling the X axis "length" and the Y axis "width"), and roughly the same width the Aegean BA and IA cluster had, so I think either it was already present in the IA or was caused by interactions with populations rich in caucasus-related ancestry, that is either Anatolians or some eastern Iranics or both.
Anyway, historically the Balkans had tight connections with south Italy, especially what is today Albania and Greece, so my conjecture is that Balkanites (at least southern Balkanites: it would look like northern Balkanites can better be explained as a two way mixture between IA Croat and Slovenia-like and Russian-like ancestries)are east shifted compared to their IA ancestors for processes already happening in the classical age, and it later extended to south Italy (partially due to Messapians and partially to Greeks e.g.) prior to the annexion to the Roman republic or slightly later, and south Italy, if so is the case, became the reservoir of men for Rome, and such ancestry spread during Roman colonization.

I have no idea whether historical demography supports such a picture, but at least I think it's much more plausible than competing theories imo.

[Jovialis]

Your wording is a bit ambiguous (was it a "minoan-like" as in literally "minoan-like" or a population that had a more minoan-like substrate/it's ideally better modelled with minoan as a substrate?), anyway, we have in my opinion enough information to have a reasonable picture of the Italian genetic landscape in the iron age, and it would seem that Latium and central Italy was genetically an extention of the Po valley (upcoming samples from Emilia are reported to be identical to Latins as for PCA position), whereas in Apulia there was already some more pull towards the "northeast" med (Greece and Anatolia), and Sicilians from the IA are reported to be identical to Sicilians in the BA. As this picture stands it seems to me that there is little plausible room for some pockets of Minoan-like populations in the Iron age.
The folks at anthrogenica are dumb but not so dumb they forgo any attention to the details of their theories: they have a "pataphysician" approach to archeogenetics, that is they postulate the most absurd and ridicolous facts to make their theories stand, instead of trying to formulate the most parsimonious scenarios, yet they acknowledge that the supposed great mixing of Latins and "east med folks" (a category that doesn't even exist as a cluster, since Anatolians and Caucasians belong to a well defined different cluster than Levantines, but let's keep this remark short) happened too fast: republicans are west med but early Imperials are already "imperial Roman" genetically (and let's overlook the fact that very likely such a genetic profile is just an abstract average of different genetic clusters that likely didn't exist in reality if not for a very few persons, as if one averaged the inhabitants of the USA and believed that such average is really the genetic profile a random American posseses), which is mighty implausible, thus they believe it started in the hellenistic era.
There can be a nugget of truth here: the "east shift" seems to interests the area of intense roman colonization such as Iberia, even south French seem "east shifted" to where they plotted in the IA (and I've read an abstract of an upcoming paper that talks about some "east med" gene flow in south France), so it looks like a late republic/early empire phenomenon, not something that happened in the late empire or antiquity.
We need more samples to draw more secured theories, since as they stand now they aren't enough, but here it is my conjecture: look where Bulgaria_IA plot and where the bulk of Balkanite samples from Serbia plot, they are significantly "east shifted" compared to Bulgaria_IA, and they are east shifted compared to Croat_IA and Slovenia_IA as well, and there are still many samples that cluster around Bulgaria_IA: my impression is that the Balkans' genetic landscale had some width (calling the X axis "length" and the Y axis "width"), and roughly the same width the Aegean BA and IA cluster had, so I think either it was already present in the IA or was caused by interactions with populations rich in caucasus-related ancestry, that is either Anatolians or some eastern Iranics or both.
Anyway, historically the Balkans had tight connections with south Italy, especially what is today Albania and Greece, so my conjecture is that Balkanites (at least southern Balkanites: it would look like northern Balkanites can better be explained as a two way mixture between IA Croat and Slovenia-like and Russian-like ancestries)are east shifted compared to their IA ancestors for processes already happening in the classical age, and it later extended to south Italy (partially due to Messapians and partially to Greeks e.g.) prior to the annexion to the Roman republic or slightly later, and south Italy, if so is the case, became the reservoir of men for Rome, and such ancestry spread during Roman colonization.
I have no idea whether historical demography supports such a picture, but at least I think it's much more plausible than competing theories imo.

Not sure if understand the question. The minons are an ambiguous group within and of themselves, we only call them that because of Sir Auther Evans gave it to them based on the legend of King Minos. We don't know what they called themselves or the full extent of their influence, their boarders, if they had them. Read the book by Eric Cline, they were artisans that traveled far from Crete. Egyptians had minoan artists create works for them as an example. Imo, they are a broad group of pre-indo European people, who were mostly Anatolian_N and a bit of CHG, which matches what is described as the essential components of the Mediterranean Genetic Continuum. The idea they went to south Italy is absolutely plausible, and geneticist are starting to notice they're a plausible component. Btw, which is something we figured out first, while other sites were coming up with hair brained theories.

Eupedia.com ftw.

[Jovialis]

Also minon + Yamnaya already explains their "eastern" position on the PCA.

[Jovialis]

that's correct ...................since their neighbours inland where the samnites, I suspect it would be them
Venosa was a samnite town IIRC

One of the middle ages samples from Puglia was Minoan-like. I wonder if there were still some people like that actually that late in history.

[torzio]

One of the middle ages samples from Puglia was Minoan-like. I wonder if there were still some people like that actually that late in history.

Do you mean the Foggia "viking " sample ?

[Jovialis]

Do you mean the Foggia "viking " sample ?

This is what I mean, the one from the Aneli paper.

[torzio]

This is what I mean, the one from the Aneli paper.

the two Medieval individuals are shifted toward modern Middle Eastern and
Caucasus populations (ORD010 and SGR001),


but this is a female with mtdna of X2i circa 985AD

[Jovialis]

the two Medieval individuals are shifted toward modern Middle Eastern and
Caucasus populations (ORD010 and SGR001),
but this is a female with mtdna of X2i circa 985AD

It is possible they are hold overs from the Imperial and Late Antiquity era. Nevertheless, there was a lot of social upheaval and ethnic cleansing in later periods during the middle ages.

They fall outside the range of modern puglia, and it turns out, upon closer analysis they actually aren't close to minoans, despite what the PCA leads one to believe.

Distance to:	Minoan_Petras_EBA:Pta08:Clemente_2021
17.81026109	Apulia_MA:ORD010:Aneli_2022
21.72332387	Daunian_Apulia_IA:SAL003:Aneli_2022
22.64898011	Foggia_Apulia_MA:VK534
22.67651649	Foggia_Apulia_MA:VK536
22.91536602	Apulia_MA:SGR001:Aneli_2022

---

Distance to:	Minoan_Odigitria:I9131:Lazaridis_2017
16.65875145	Apulia_MA:ORD010:Aneli_2022
21.90183554	Foggia_Apulia_MA:VK536
22.45506179	Daunian_Apulia_IA:SAL003:Aneli_2022
22.53075232	Foggia_Apulia_MA:VK535
23.07786385	Foggia_Apulia_MA:VK537

---

Distance to:	Minoan_Odigitria:I9130:Lazaridis_2017
20.42451223	Apulia_MA:ORD010:Aneli_2022
21.04931590	Daunian_Apulia_IA:SAL003:Aneli_2022
22.12816531	Daunian_Apulia_IA:Aneli_2022:SGR003
23.14476399	Foggia_Apulia_MA:VK536
25.51864612	Foggia_Apulia_MA:VK535

---

Distance to:	Minoan_Odigitria:I9129:Lazaridis_2017
19.80050504	Daunian_Apulia_IA:SAL003:Aneli_2022
20.42839690	Daunian_Apulia_IA:Aneli_2022:SGR003
22.87767471	Foggia_Apulia_MA:VK536
23.20804171	Apulia_MA:ORD010:Aneli_2022
26.27822292	Foggia_Apulia_MA:VK535

---

Distance to:	Minoan_Odigitria:I9128:Lazaridis_2017
20.38795478	Daunian_Apulia_IA:SAL007:Aneli_2022
20.43678546	Daunian_Apulia_IA:Aneli_2022:SGR003
24.44898362	Foggia_Apulia_MA:VK536
24.45845866	Daunian_Apulia_IA:SAL003:Aneli_2022
26.28790026	Daunian_Apulia_IA:SAL011:Aneli_2022

---

Distance to:	Minoan_Odigitria:I9127:Lazaridis_2017
24.43287335	Daunian_Apulia_IA:SAL003:Aneli_2022
25.52666253	Apulia_MA:SGR001:Aneli_2022
26.18389390	Apulia_MA:ORD010:Aneli_2022
27.70998917	Daunian_Apulia_IA:Aneli_2022:SGR003
28.11194586	Foggia_Apulia_MA:VK536

---

Distance to:	Minoan_Lasithi:I9005:Lazaridis_2017
17.52335299	Apulia_MA:ORD010:Aneli_2022
20.72439866	Daunian_Apulia_IA:SAL003:Aneli_2022
21.17220584	Foggia_Apulia_MA:VK536
22.29505102	Daunian_Apulia_IA:Aneli_2022:SGR003
22.53516585	Foggia_Apulia_MA:VK535

---

Distance to:	Minoan_Lasithi:I0074:Lazaridis_2017
20.76463339	Apulia_MA:ORD010:Aneli_2022
20.79335471	Daunian_Apulia_IA:SAL003:Aneli_2022
23.05624427	Foggia_Apulia_MA:VK536
23.17234990	Daunian_Apulia_IA:Aneli_2022:SGR003
24.60491821	Apulia_MA:SGR001:Aneli_2022

---

Distance to:	Minoan_Lasithi:I0073:Lazaridis_2017
20.55502128	Apulia_MA:ORD010:Aneli_2022
22.95548954	Daunian_Apulia_IA:SAL003:Aneli_2022
23.85620884	Apulia_MA:SGR001:Aneli_2022
24.93708684	Foggia_Apulia_MA:VK536
24.94148352	Foggia_Apulia_MA:VK534

---

Distance to:	Minoan_Lasithi:I0071:Lazaridis_2017
20.01706522	Apulia_MA:ORD010:Aneli_2022
21.37651749	Daunian_Apulia_IA:SAL003:Aneli_2022
23.32388690	Foggia_Apulia_MA:VK536
23.55467894	Apulia_MA:SGR001:Aneli_2022
24.09803519	Daunian_Apulia_IA:Aneli_2022:SGR003

---

Distance to:	Minoan_Lasithi:I0070:Lazaridis_2017
20.41366209	Apulia_MA:ORD010:Aneli_2022
22.88559809	Daunian_Apulia_IA:SAL003:Aneli_2022
24.94875949	Apulia_MA:SGR001:Aneli_2022
25.11757552	Foggia_Apulia_MA:VK536
25.55505625	Foggia_Apulia_MA:VK534

---

Distance to:	Minoan_Petras_EBA:Pta08:Clemente_2021
17.81026109	Apulia_MA:ORD010:Aneli_2022
21.72332387	Daunian_Apulia_IA:SAL003:Aneli_2022
22.64898011	Foggia_Apulia_MA:VK534
22.67651649	Foggia_Apulia_MA:VK536
22.91536602	Apulia_MA:SGR001:Aneli_2022

---

Distance to:	Minoan_Odigitria:I9131:Lazaridis_2017
16.65875145	Apulia_MA:ORD010:Aneli_2022
21.90183554	Foggia_Apulia_MA:VK536
22.45506179	Daunian_Apulia_IA:SAL003:Aneli_2022
22.53075232	Foggia_Apulia_MA:VK535
23.07786385	Foggia_Apulia_MA:VK537

---

Distance to:	Minoan_Odigitria:I9130:Lazaridis_2017
20.42451223	Apulia_MA:ORD010:Aneli_2022
21.04931590	Daunian_Apulia_IA:SAL003:Aneli_2022
22.12816531	Daunian_Apulia_IA:Aneli_2022:SGR003
23.14476399	Foggia_Apulia_MA:VK536
25.51864612	Foggia_Apulia_MA:VK535

---

Distance to:	Minoan_Odigitria:I9129:Lazaridis_2017
19.80050504	Daunian_Apulia_IA:SAL003:Aneli_2022
20.42839690	Daunian_Apulia_IA:Aneli_2022:SGR003
22.87767471	Foggia_Apulia_MA:VK536
23.20804171	Apulia_MA:ORD010:Aneli_2022
26.27822292	Foggia_Apulia_MA:VK535

---

Distance to:	Minoan_Odigitria:I9128:Lazaridis_2017
20.38795478	Daunian_Apulia_IA:SAL007:Aneli_2022
20.43678546	Daunian_Apulia_IA:Aneli_2022:SGR003
24.44898362	Foggia_Apulia_MA:VK536
24.45845866	Daunian_Apulia_IA:SAL003:Aneli_2022
26.28790026	Daunian_Apulia_IA:SAL011:Aneli_2022

---

Distance to:	Minoan_Odigitria:I9127:Lazaridis_2017
24.43287335	Daunian_Apulia_IA:SAL003:Aneli_2022
25.52666253	Apulia_MA:SGR001:Aneli_2022
26.18389390	Apulia_MA:ORD010:Aneli_2022
27.70998917	Daunian_Apulia_IA:Aneli_2022:SGR003
28.11194586	Foggia_Apulia_MA:VK536

---

Distance to:	Minoan_Lasithi:I9005:Lazaridis_2017
17.52335299	Apulia_MA:ORD010:Aneli_2022
20.72439866	Daunian_Apulia_IA:SAL003:Aneli_2022
21.17220584	Foggia_Apulia_MA:VK536
22.29505102	Daunian_Apulia_IA:Aneli_2022:SGR003
22.53516585	Foggia_Apulia_MA:VK535

---

Distance to:	Minoan_Lasithi:I0074:Lazaridis_2017
20.76463339	Apulia_MA:ORD010:Aneli_2022
20.79335471	Daunian_Apulia_IA:SAL003:Aneli_2022
23.05624427	Foggia_Apulia_MA:VK536
23.17234990	Daunian_Apulia_IA:Aneli_2022:SGR003
24.60491821	Apulia_MA:SGR001:Aneli_2022

---

Distance to:	Minoan_Lasithi:I0073:Lazaridis_2017
20.55502128	Apulia_MA:ORD010:Aneli_2022
22.95548954	Daunian_Apulia_IA:SAL003:Aneli_2022
23.85620884	Apulia_MA:SGR001:Aneli_2022
24.93708684	Foggia_Apulia_MA:VK536
24.94148352	Foggia_Apulia_MA:VK534

---

Distance to:	Minoan_Lasithi:I0071:Lazaridis_2017
20.01706522	Apulia_MA:ORD010:Aneli_2022
21.37651749	Daunian_Apulia_IA:SAL003:Aneli_2022
23.32388690	Foggia_Apulia_MA:VK536
23.55467894	Apulia_MA:SGR001:Aneli_2022
24.09803519	Daunian_Apulia_IA:Aneli_2022:SGR003

---

Distance to:	Minoan_Lasithi:I0070:Lazaridis_2017
20.41366209	Apulia_MA:ORD010:Aneli_2022
22.88559809	Daunian_Apulia_IA:SAL003:Aneli_2022
24.94875949	Apulia_MA:SGR001:Aneli_2022
25.11757552	Foggia_Apulia_MA:VK536
25.55505625	Foggia_Apulia_MA:VK534

Nevertheless, I am not sure why that study has the conviction this is what medieval Apulians looked like as a standard, when they aren't close to other medieval Apulians..

Distance to:	Apulia_MA:ORD010:Aneli_2022
8.76409151	Foggia_Apulia_MA:VK534
9.15991266	Foggia_Apulia_MA:VK537
10.58379894	Foggia_Apulia_MA:VK535
13.00875090	Foggia_Apulia_MA:VK536
17.52377813	Daunian_Apulia_IA:SAL003:Aneli_2022
19.86418385	Daunian_Apulia_IA:Aneli_2022:SGR003
23.06862588	Daunian_Apulia_IA:ORD009:Aneli_2022
23.88543280	Daunian_Apulia_IA:ORD011:Aneli_2022
24.11470506	Daunian_Apulia_IA:ORD019:Aneli_2022
25.86694609	Daunian_Apulia_IA:ORD001:Aneli_2022
26.83879096	Daunian_Apulia_IA:ORD006:Aneli_2022
27.33587021	Foggia_Apulia_MA:VK538
32.38286121	Daunian_Apulia_IA:ORD014:Aneli_2022
33.89687891	Daunian_Apulia_IA:ORD004:Aneli_2022
34.05523308	Daunian_Apulia_IA:SAL007:Aneli_2022
35.46685636	Daunian_Apulia_IA:Aneli_2022:SGR002
39.43728692	Daunian_Apulia_IA:SAL001:Aneli_2022
43.56782528	Daunian_Apulia_IA:SAL010:Aneli_2022
45.88699707	Daunian_Apulia_IA:SAL011:Aneli_2022

---

Distance to:	Apulia_MA:SGR001:Aneli_2022
13.39262110	Foggia_Apulia_MA:VK534
14.83034052	Foggia_Apulia_MA:VK537
16.59772876	Foggia_Apulia_MA:VK536
17.13341180	Foggia_Apulia_MA:VK535
21.02096097	Daunian_Apulia_IA:SAL003:Aneli_2022
21.45472908	Daunian_Apulia_IA:ORD019:Aneli_2022
23.09161753	Daunian_Apulia_IA:Aneli_2022:SGR003
26.81557197	Daunian_Apulia_IA:ORD009:Aneli_2022
28.59332265	Daunian_Apulia_IA:ORD011:Aneli_2022
29.96815476	Daunian_Apulia_IA:ORD001:Aneli_2022
30.01409669	Foggia_Apulia_MA:VK538
31.39179351	Daunian_Apulia_IA:ORD006:Aneli_2022
34.52383814	Daunian_Apulia_IA:ORD004:Aneli_2022
34.69470997	Daunian_Apulia_IA:ORD014:Aneli_2022
37.82602411	Daunian_Apulia_IA:SAL007:Aneli_2022
39.22920468	Daunian_Apulia_IA:Aneli_2022:SGR002
41.84822577	Daunian_Apulia_IA:SAL001:Aneli_2022
44.75803168	Daunian_Apulia_IA:SAL010:Aneli_2022
49.57407286	Daunian_Apulia_IA:SAL011:Aneli_2022

[Francesco]

I'm sorry if the question sounds a bit naive, but would it be possible to model south italians with Sicily Late Bronze Age (which should be minoan like) + Broion Bronze age (wich, on the other hand, was heavily steppe admixed)?