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

[Jovialis]

37% aFrench-like + 63% Minoan

You could also see that as

37% Italo-Celtic + 63% Adriatic-Ionian Bronze Age.

If the aDNA provides verification.

 

[Malaparte]

I thought I would link to the freely downloadable pdf of this amazing 500+ page compendium of research articles, published in 2021, concerning the Punta di Zambrone harbor site in Vibo Valentia. Unfortunately, they haven't had much success in the way of DNA analysis, other than to identify one person as having mtDNA HV4. But the archaeological finds are amazing. Very deep & systematic trade contacts with the Aegean world, suggesting that the site was either a trading emporium for the Monte Poro region or even a center of piracy (thin line between merchants and pirates). Suggests that Bronze Age Italians were much betters sailors than commonly imagined.

https://www.austriaca.at/0xc1aa5576_0x003c97a2.pdf

Tangential to this thread, but for those who might be interested in archaeology of Punta di Zambrone

 

[Jovialis]

The authors are quite aware that ancient dna from the Neolithic through to the Middle Ages is necessary to prove exactly how the Southern Italian/Sicilian genome came to be.

They mention it numerous times, including here:
"Differently from the rest of Europe, Greece and Southern Italy appear to havebeen less impacted by this demic dispersal [steppe], being characterized by an additional Iranian related ancestry (16–19). However, the lack of Southern Italian ancient genomes from theNeolithic period keeps open essential questions regarding this major cultural anddemographic transition in the region.

Mindful, however, that we can learn a lot from archaeology, they also state:

"Starting from the mid 3rd millennium Before Current Era(BCE) archaeological evidence allows to outline a network of cultural connections interactingalong the Adriatic-Ionian axis, operating between two or more different core areas andradiating across trajectories of link and expansion which likely triggered small human groupsmovements (20,21). As a matter of fact, from about 4.3 to 4 kya, the well-know Cetina-typecultural elements, also related to the Bell Beaker phenomenon in the North-WesternBalkans, played an active role spreading from the Dalmatian core area Southwards across the Adriatic in Northern Apulia and South-Eastern Italy also influencing the Ionian Islandsand Western Greece (22).Later on, during the 2nd millennium BCE a flourishing and continuous cultural relationshipwas established between Southern Italy and Aegean communities especially from theRecent Bronze Age (3.3 to 3.2 kya) onward (23,24). Although the demographic extent ofthese contacts is not clear, some valuable insights on mobility could be inferred fromceramic crafts. The most recent analytical evidence, relating to the Aegean-type pottery fromthe core sites of Punta di Zambrone (Tyrrhenian Calabria) and Roca Vecchia (SouthernAdriatic Apulia), allow to highlight a strong connection with the Western Greek regions(Ionian Islands, Acarnania, Achaea and Elis) and, to a lesser extent, with Western Crete(25)."

The following is also important:

"In the second half of the 7th century BCE, some of these settlements,specifically in South-Eastern Sicily (Siracusa and Megara Iblea) and Apulia (Taranto), wereattributed to Eastern Peloponnesian founders (31,32)"

The nature of the early settlements, the scale of their demographic impact and geneticlegacy are still a matter of debate. Some genetic studies (33,34) have tried characterise thedemographic impact of these processes in Southern Italy using present-day Italianpopulations, but none of them had the intent of finely dissecting these ancient components.Furthermore, a recent aDNA study (35) showed that Iron Age Apulians were not yetsuperimposable to contemporary Southern Italians, pointing to later processes as keys forthe understanding of present-day genetic diversity in Italy."

However, there is also this:

"In this study, we highlighted a high similarity between Southern Italy and the Peloponnese.In fact, our cluster analysis showed that present-day South-Eastern Peloponnesianpopulations have high genetic affinity with modern Apulians, Calabrians and South-EasternSicilians, all characterised by a cluster composition different from those displayed by otherGreek groups (Fig. 1B, Fig. S3). Additionally, individuals from Western Sicily showsimilarities with populations inhabiting the Western part of Peloponnese (Fig. 1B, Fig. S4).Although establishing the chronological context for this affinity using present-day genomesmight be challenging, our results are in accordance with archaeological and historicalsources that attributed the origin of Greek colonies in South-Eastern Sicily and Apulia frompopulations inhabiting the southern and Eastern parts of the Peloponnese (31,32).Uniparental Y-chromosome findings are also in agreement with these observations revealingEastern Peloponnesian ancestries in East Sicily (34) and shared haplogroups amongmodern-day Greeks and populations living in Southern Italian areas colonised by Greekssuch as the Salento (Apulia) and the Ionian coast of Calabria (56). The lower affinity withother Balkan populations could be attributed to a lower influence by inland populations, suchas Slavic-related people (57) and/or genetic drift in Tsakones and Maniots as suggested by historical sources (39). Therefore, our results imply a high affinity between Southern Italiansand Peloponnesians possibly abrupted very recently by major events of migrations and/oradmixture as the one recorded during the Middle Age period (58). However the observationthat, in some analyses, Southern Italians and ancient Greeks share more alleles thanmodern and ancient Peloponnesians, may suggest a scenario including the preservation ofan ancient population signal in the genome of Southern Italians that was likely diluted byinland migrations in Greece (Fig. 3)."

"Overall, these results are inagreement with the detection of a small proportion of Iranian-related ancestry in SicilianMiddle Bronze Age samples (17), which could be tentatively linked to the spread of theMycenaean culture (59). Interestingly, our results modelled the source of this contribution asa mixture of AN and Iran Chalcolithic ancestries (14). The latter was found consistentlyacross Southern Italy and the Peloponnese, confirming again common genetic sourcesshared between these two regions (Fig. 2)."

All of the above, btw, has been speculated here first based solely on history and archaeology then reinforced by dodecad anayses, and finally further reinforced and clarified by Jovialis' work.

As for the method used. The prior paper on the Peloponnese was in 2017. Obviously, the authors used different software from that available at that time, which was the point of my statement.

Even further back in history, people like my grandfather knew they had a strong connection to the Greeks. All without the use of genetics, but knowledge passed down from word of mouth.

 

[Jovialis]

Using Ancient Greeks plus Yamnaya in the modeling;

 

[Angela]

Using Ancient Greeks plus Yamnaya in the modeling;

I don't think this is optimum even for all Italians; the shift away from Minoans starts with Tuscans, but the fits start declining in accuracy.

Although, for those who don't remember Cavalli Sforza maps:

 

[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.

 

[Shahmiri]

The interesting thing in this study is that it talks about Iran in the Chalcolithic period:

We further explored the admixture model of Southern Italian groups using qpAdm, which fits a vector of f4 values by summarising the relationships of test and source groups (left populations) to a set of right populations. First, we used the main ancestral populations of present-day Europeans (Anatolia_N, WHG, Iran ChL and EHG) (14,42) as putative sources (Fig. 2A). Notably, all the tested populations, with the exception of Sardinians and Greece Macedonians, show remarkably similar proportions of Anatolia Neolithic source, suggesting that any difference in ancestry observed with the f4-outgroup statistics is very subtle. Moreover, most of the tested populations but Sardinians show a relatively high proportion (from ∼ 28 to 54 %) of ancestry related to samples inhabiting Iran in the Chalcolithic period (Fig. 2A).

 

[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/10.1101/2021.06.02.446576v1); 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.