The diverse genetic origins of a Classical period Greek army

Could you provide the sample numbers, please?


BX514OT.png


Aua0mAB.png
 
Pax Augusta: Thanks for the PCA's you posted to the community here in this forum. Since there are no new modern Sicilian samples in the Reitsema et al 2022 paper, can you tell me where do the modern Sicilian samples that we have published to date and have coordinates estimated from various amateur calculators plot on your PCA with these new samples.
 
Pax Augusta: Thanks for the PCA's you posted to the community here in this forum. Since there are no new modern Sicilian samples in the Reitsema et al 2022 paper, can you tell me where do the modern Sicilian samples that we have published to date and have coordinates estimated from various amateur calculators plot on your PCA with these new samples.

I will do others, but with K12b in the post #177 you can find the Sicilian academic samples in the PCAs.
 

117884, the Himera sample so close to Dodecad's combined Sicilian/Southern Italian set is my husband's closest sample, at 7.9.

This is his two way: 62%117884 and 38% 120166, a very eastern shifted Himera civilian population. Also, the soldiers in the 409 B.C. Battle were local hoplites.
Distance to:AJF
1.8561932462.40% Himera_409_BC_Battle_Med:I17884 + 37.60% Himera_Civilian_Pop_Med:I20166
4.6124035174.60% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Med:I10952 + 25.40% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Caucasus_lc:I17872
4.7421088672.60% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Med:I10948 + 27.40% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Caucasus_lc:I17872
4.7570610523.60% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Caucasus_lc:I17872 + 76.40% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Med:I7217
4.8680014258.00% Himera_409_BC_Battle_Med:I17884 + 42.00% Himera_Civilian_Pop_Med:I20168
4.9512931527.80% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Caucasus_lc:I17872 + 72.20% Himera_409_BC_Battle_Med:I7224
4.9830011827.60% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Caucasus_lc:I17872 + 72.40% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Med:I7218
5.2909322979.00% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Med:I10945 + 21.00% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Caucasus_lc:I17872
5.5072936967.00% Baucina_MtFalcone_Sicani_Med:I13125 + 33.00% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Caucasus_lc:I17872
5.8919724834.60% Himera_409_BC_Battle_Med:I17866 + 65.40% Himera_409_BC_Battle_Med:I17884
5.9371149171.00% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Med:I10948 + 29.00% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Caucasus:I10951
6.0076927277.40% Himera_409_BC_Battle_Med:I17866 + 22.60% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Caucasus_lc:I17872
6.0579874535.20% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Caucasus:I10951 + 64.80% Himera_Civilian_Pop_Med_lc:I17878
6.0660671869.80% Himera_409_BC_Battle_Med:I17884 + 30.20% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Med:I7221
6.1225749219.20% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Balkans_Cent-Europe:I10950 + 80.80% Himera_409_BC_Battle_Med:I17884
6.2516037831.00% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Med:I10952 + 69.00% Himera_409_BC_Battle_Med:I17884
6.3311074264.60% Himera_Civilian_Pop_Med:I20166 + 35.40% Himera_Civilian_Pop_Med_lc:I20167
6.4023824073.00% Himera_409_BC_Battle_Med:I17884 + 27.00% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Med:I7219
6.430593038.00% Himera_480_BC_Battle_NE-Europe:I10943 + 92.00% Himera_409_BC_Battle_Med:I17884
6.472573197.80% Himera_480_BC_Battle_NE-Europe_lc:I10949 + 92.20% Himera_409_BC_Battle_Med:I17884
6.5553056635.20% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Med:I10945 + 64.80% Himera_409_BC_Battle_Med:I17884
6.6268017232.40% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Caucasus:I10951 + 67.60% Himera_Civilian_Pop_Med_lc:I20162
6.6499589327.00% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Caucasus_lc:I17872 + 73.00% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Med:I7219
6.6624404533.60% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Caucasus_lc:I17872 + 66.40% Himera_409_BC_Battle_Med:I7223
6.7358943723.80% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Caucasus:I10951 + 76.20% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Med:I7217


I wonder if someone from Anthrogenica would like to come here and tell me that it would require a mass replacement from Anatolia and the Levant in the Imperial and Byzantine Eras to produce Southern Italian genomes?
 
117884, the Himera sample so close to Dodecad's combined Sicilian/Southern Italian set is my husband's closest sample, at 7.9.

This is his two way: 62%117884 and 38% 120166, a very eastern shifted Himera civilian population. Also, the soldiers in the 409 B.C. Battle were local hoplites.
Distance to:AJF
1.8561932462.40% Himera_409_BC_Battle_Med:I17884 + 37.60% Himera_Civilian_Pop_Med:I20166
4.6124035174.60% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Med:I10952 + 25.40% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Caucasus_lc:I17872
4.7421088672.60% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Med:I10948 + 27.40% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Caucasus_lc:I17872
4.7570610523.60% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Caucasus_lc:I17872 + 76.40% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Med:I7217
4.8680014258.00% Himera_409_BC_Battle_Med:I17884 + 42.00% Himera_Civilian_Pop_Med:I20168
4.9512931527.80% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Caucasus_lc:I17872 + 72.20% Himera_409_BC_Battle_Med:I7224
4.9830011827.60% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Caucasus_lc:I17872 + 72.40% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Med:I7218
5.2909322979.00% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Med:I10945 + 21.00% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Caucasus_lc:I17872
5.5072936967.00% Baucina_MtFalcone_Sicani_Med:I13125 + 33.00% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Caucasus_lc:I17872
5.8919724834.60% Himera_409_BC_Battle_Med:I17866 + 65.40% Himera_409_BC_Battle_Med:I17884
5.9371149171.00% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Med:I10948 + 29.00% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Caucasus:I10951
6.0076927277.40% Himera_409_BC_Battle_Med:I17866 + 22.60% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Caucasus_lc:I17872
6.0579874535.20% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Caucasus:I10951 + 64.80% Himera_Civilian_Pop_Med_lc:I17878
6.0660671869.80% Himera_409_BC_Battle_Med:I17884 + 30.20% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Med:I7221
6.1225749219.20% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Balkans_Cent-Europe:I10950 + 80.80% Himera_409_BC_Battle_Med:I17884
6.2516037831.00% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Med:I10952 + 69.00% Himera_409_BC_Battle_Med:I17884
6.3311074264.60% Himera_Civilian_Pop_Med:I20166 + 35.40% Himera_Civilian_Pop_Med_lc:I20167
6.4023824073.00% Himera_409_BC_Battle_Med:I17884 + 27.00% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Med:I7219
6.430593038.00% Himera_480_BC_Battle_NE-Europe:I10943 + 92.00% Himera_409_BC_Battle_Med:I17884
6.472573197.80% Himera_480_BC_Battle_NE-Europe_lc:I10949 + 92.20% Himera_409_BC_Battle_Med:I17884
6.5553056635.20% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Med:I10945 + 64.80% Himera_409_BC_Battle_Med:I17884
6.6268017232.40% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Caucasus:I10951 + 67.60% Himera_Civilian_Pop_Med_lc:I20162
6.6499589327.00% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Caucasus_lc:I17872 + 73.00% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Med:I7219
6.6624404533.60% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Caucasus_lc:I17872 + 66.40% Himera_409_BC_Battle_Med:I7223
6.7358943723.80% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Caucasus:I10951 + 76.20% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Med:I7217


I wonder if someone from Anthrogenica would like to come here and tell me that it would require a mass replacement from Anatolia and the Levant in the Imperial and Byzantine Eras to produce Southern Italian genomes?

To be fair Er Monnezza has been banned so I doubt they can come here to tell you, and they would also add that it would require also a very conspicuous gene flow from northern Europe, or another very big gene flow from northern Italy.

Anyway, commenting on such models, an anthrogenica user smugly asserts that the sample Italian_South:puG33 (taken as example for south Italians overall I guess) has a lot of Levantine, since on G25 he scores around 17% Levant_N and 24% Yamna: I ran some models with the source pops Latins-Sicani-Himera Greeks-Anatolians-Levantines-Germanic, according to what they say, and that individual comes out as 40% Anatolian, 16% Levant_BA and 21% Germanic (the rest Greek); if we suppose that the coordinates haven't been manipulated (hey, the lack of transparency of how the conversion works opens the legitimacy of skepticism), it is clear that such modelling is unrealistical beyond every historical plausibility (even if we accepted that the 56% Anatolian-Levantine is possible, what about a 20% Germanic input? It doesn't add up with historical records) and so G25 isn't good for modelling south Italians. The biggest problem with the "east med" replacement theories is that they require also a significant later northern genetic input in order to work, which is totally implausible.
 
117884, the Himera sample so close to Dodecad's combined Sicilian/Southern Italian set is my husband's closest sample, at 7.9.

This is his two way: 62%117884 and 38% 120166, a very eastern shifted Himera civilian population. Also, the soldiers in the 409 B.C. Battle were local hoplites.
Distance to:AJF
1.8561932462.40% Himera_409_BC_Battle_Med:I17884 + 37.60% Himera_Civilian_Pop_Med:I20166
4.6124035174.60% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Med:I10952 + 25.40% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Caucasus_lc:I17872
4.7421088672.60% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Med:I10948 + 27.40% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Caucasus_lc:I17872
4.7570610523.60% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Caucasus_lc:I17872 + 76.40% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Med:I7217
4.8680014258.00% Himera_409_BC_Battle_Med:I17884 + 42.00% Himera_Civilian_Pop_Med:I20168
4.9512931527.80% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Caucasus_lc:I17872 + 72.20% Himera_409_BC_Battle_Med:I7224
4.9830011827.60% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Caucasus_lc:I17872 + 72.40% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Med:I7218
5.2909322979.00% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Med:I10945 + 21.00% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Caucasus_lc:I17872
5.5072936967.00% Baucina_MtFalcone_Sicani_Med:I13125 + 33.00% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Caucasus_lc:I17872
5.8919724834.60% Himera_409_BC_Battle_Med:I17866 + 65.40% Himera_409_BC_Battle_Med:I17884
5.9371149171.00% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Med:I10948 + 29.00% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Caucasus:I10951
6.0076927277.40% Himera_409_BC_Battle_Med:I17866 + 22.60% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Caucasus_lc:I17872
6.0579874535.20% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Caucasus:I10951 + 64.80% Himera_Civilian_Pop_Med_lc:I17878
6.0660671869.80% Himera_409_BC_Battle_Med:I17884 + 30.20% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Med:I7221
6.1225749219.20% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Balkans_Cent-Europe:I10950 + 80.80% Himera_409_BC_Battle_Med:I17884
6.2516037831.00% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Med:I10952 + 69.00% Himera_409_BC_Battle_Med:I17884
6.3311074264.60% Himera_Civilian_Pop_Med:I20166 + 35.40% Himera_Civilian_Pop_Med_lc:I20167
6.4023824073.00% Himera_409_BC_Battle_Med:I17884 + 27.00% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Med:I7219
6.430593038.00% Himera_480_BC_Battle_NE-Europe:I10943 + 92.00% Himera_409_BC_Battle_Med:I17884
6.472573197.80% Himera_480_BC_Battle_NE-Europe_lc:I10949 + 92.20% Himera_409_BC_Battle_Med:I17884
6.5553056635.20% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Med:I10945 + 64.80% Himera_409_BC_Battle_Med:I17884
6.6268017232.40% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Caucasus:I10951 + 67.60% Himera_Civilian_Pop_Med_lc:I20162
6.6499589327.00% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Caucasus_lc:I17872 + 73.00% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Med:I7219
6.6624404533.60% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Caucasus_lc:I17872 + 66.40% Himera_409_BC_Battle_Med:I7223
6.7358943723.80% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Caucasus:I10951 + 76.20% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Med:I7217


I wonder if someone from Anthrogenica would like to come here and tell me that it would require a mass replacement from Anatolia and the Levant in the Imperial and Byzantine Eras to produce Southern Italian genomes?

I17784 is low quality sample and I20166 is ancient Greek. Look at high Caucasus in other charts.

And there was never replacement just admixture from other regions.​





 
I17784 is low quality sample and I20166 is ancient Greek. Look at high Caucasus in other charts.
And there was never replacement just admixture from other regions.​

What the heck are you talking about?

First of all, how dare you tell me they weren't talking about REPLACEMENT level gene flow??? I freaking READ IT with my own eyes!

Second of all what idiotic nonsense is this about 120166? Do you understand that this was the population of a Greek polis in Sicily? Of course they were Greeks! What should we expect? Poles???

The fact is that those people came as a folk migration, STAYED, and became ancestors of southern Italians. Do you understand that?

As to 11784 he was a soldier from the 409 B.C. battle, and therefore a hoplite from the polis, a SETTLER. If you ever carefully read papers, you would have seen that. As for being low quality, if it was good enough quality for Reich trained people it should be good enough quality for you.

Your problem has always been, in post after post, that you don't want to acknowledge that the Greeks contributed a lot of ancestry to Southern Italians, and that you can't STAND the fact that the Greeks have an illustrious heritage, part of it forged in Southern Italy.

My husband's ancestry is all from areas immediately adjacent to Greek settlements, and some of his people spoke Greek until 200 years ago. In isolated parts of the world language and genes are conserved. Educate yourself: look at a map of Calabria; it's perfect for that scenario.

As for this fairy tale about this huge migration of Northern Europeans into Southern Italy, it is complete NONSENSE, certainly where Calabria is concerned. There was absolutely no HUGE migration from Northern Europe. There was no such migration at all. There weren't even any Lombard settlements in Calabria.

I defy anyone to provide me with proof in the historical record for any such migration of large numbers of Northerners to the depths of Calabria. More importantly, SHOW me the yDna data that would prove it. If you can't, then be quiet!
 
Last edited:
^ 62.40% Himera_409_BC_Battle_Med:I17884 + 37.60% Himera_Civilian_Pop_Med:I20166
I17884 is a very low quality sample. And the other one is a high quality Ancient Greek (civilian) sample.
I was not talking about Northern European admixture at all. Your own model imply >25% West Asian admixture with a very distant source and it has quite a good fit without any North European source.
I did post those models you did.
74.60% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Med:I10952 + 25.40% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Caucasus_lc:I17872
And most of others have the Caucasus source too.
 
Jovialis: I have been thinking of some additional analyses to with the New Iron Age Sicilian samples. Since it is not disputable that the Sicani were an Iron Age Sicilian population and the evidence based on the new Reitsema et al 2022 study, likely autochthonous, here are the Sicani samples using your Italian model (with Minoan source populations). It works quite well in my opinion.

xOkVA0g.jpg

OoMtzNI.jpg
 
Nice salento(y)
Can you check also the greek samples
Mainland, and islanders ?
@KingJohn … it seems that the Stamatoyannopoulos samples in the dataset, don’t carry enough Y chr. calls for a confident y Haplogroup prediction in the Y-Morley, and Yseq oracle.

... example:
rs9786038 Y 14140277 --
rs17306699 Y 14144593 --
rs16980473 Y 14159846 --
rs9786290 Y 14171665 --
rs9786774 Y 14193384 --
rs16980478 Y 14199284 --
rs9786736 Y 14199508 --
rs35248080 Y 14286528 --
rs17269396 Y 14288981 --
....
 
Jovialis: I have been thinking of some additional analyses to with the New Iron Age Sicilian samples. Since it is not disputable that the Sicani were an Iron Age Sicilian population and the evidence based on the new Reitsema et al 2022 study, likely autochthonous, here are the Sicani samples using your Italian model (with Minoan source populations). It works quite well in my opinion.

xOkVA0g.jpg

OoMtzNI.jpg

Great observation! Thanks for running the samples, the fit is good for all of them.
 
@KingJohn … it seems that the Stamatoyannopoulos samples in the dataset, don’t carry enough Y chr. calls for a confident y Haplogroup prediction in the Y-Morley, and Yseq oracle.

... example:
rs9786038 Y 14140277 --
rs17306699 Y 14144593 --
rs16980473 Y 14159846 --
rs9786290 Y 14171665 --
rs9786774 Y 14193384 --
rs16980478 Y 14199284 --
rs9786736 Y 14199508 --
rs35248080 Y 14286528 --
rs17269396 Y 14288981 --
....

OK
bummer
anyway thanks for all your efforts ;)
 
^ 62.40% Himera_409_BC_Battle_Med:I17884 + 37.60% Himera_Civilian_Pop_Med:I20166
I17884 is a very low quality sample. And the other one is a high quality Ancient Greek (civilian) sample.
I was not talking about Northern European admixture at all. Your own model imply >25% West Asian admixture with a very distant source and it has quite a good fit without any North European source.
I did post those models you did.
74.60% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Med:I10952 + 25.40% Himera_480_BC_Battle_Caucasus_lc:I17872
And most of others have the Caucasus source too.

Honestly, I don't think you're cut out for this hobby.

120166 is the civilian population of Himera in SICILY, who became ancestors of the Sicilians. What aren't you getting here? Is there some simpler way of putting it so you understand it?

THEY ARE BOTH GREEK SAMPLES, from SICILY. Do you think I'm going to ignore the first result because YOU say it's too low quality? Think again.

So, many of his two way models need some extra Caucasus, about 25%. So what?

Checking the models with good fits which use that Caucasus sample, first one is closest to Campanians, but at a distance of 10, same for the second one and same for the third.

So, not Greek like, much less Ionian Greek like, so he needs the extra Caucasus to get a good fit. That's how Oracle works. If you don't understand it have someone explain it to you because my patience is gone.

Oh, and if you didn't know that far southern Calabrians have more Caucasus related ancestry than Campanians, you do now.

Now, my conversation with you is over. I have neither the patience nor the time to waste on going over the same thing over and over again.

Oh, and btw, spamming is against the rules, so stop doing it!
 
Last edited:
I17884 has 5% coverage and is distant from other Greek samples with a minimum distance of 12.

I was looking for it in G25 database and it was not put there because it has only 5% coverage. There was also even an E-V13 sample plotting with Caucasus with even lower coverage which also was ignored by G25.
 
Jovialis: The other Sicilian (Himera) IA samples. I did 2 separate runs. The Non Meds (Steppe, Central Europe, Caucus, NE Europe) group, and the Himera Locals (Meds, both Military and Civilian). My quick observation and summary, your Model with the Minoan as a proxy to capture Southern Italian ancestry works for the Himera Sicilians quite well, consistent with the same model for the Sicani Sicilians. Curios about your thoughts and observations. So kudos again for your work here.

HB8pCdb.jpg



ub8zDsH.jpg


WMVvLv2.jpg
 
Distance to:Prenestini_o_IA:R437:Antonio_2019
5.28451511Himera_480_BC_Battle_Med:I10945
5.85285400Himera_480_BC_Battle_Med:I7217
6.49901531Himera_480_BC_Battle_Med:I10952
7.53094948Himera_409_BC_Battle_Med:I7224
7.54061669Himera_409_BC_Battle_Med:I17866
7.66384368Himera_480_BC_Battle_Med:I7218
8.25112114Himera_480_BC_Battle_Med:I10948
9.17234975Himera_480_BC_Battle_Med:I7219
9.22609885Himera_Civilian_Pop_Med:I20168
10.75663981Himera_409_BC_Battle_Med:I17884
11.33649858Himera_480_BC_Battle_Med:I7221
11.35824370Himera_Civilian_Pop_Med_lc:I20162
11.93048616Baucina_MtFalcone_Sicani_Med:I13125
12.71922954Himera_409_BC_Battle_Med:I7223
12.72982325Himera_Civilian_Pop_Med:I20166
13.06781925Himera_409_BC_Battle_Med:I7225
14.40472492Himera_Civilian_Pop_Med_lc:I17878
14.62044459Polizzello_Sicani_Med:I13376
15.86945494Polizzello_Sicani_Med:I13377
16.04456294Polizzello_Sicani_Med:I13384
16.22346449Baucina_MtFalcone_Sicani_Med_lc:I13128
16.33732842Polizzello_Sicani_Med:I13379
16.34700890Polizzello_Sicani_Med:I13386
16.51218338Himera_Civilian_Pop_Med:I20163
16.55102414Polizzello_Sicani_Med:I13390


An relatively decent fit.
 
I17884 has 5% coverage and is distant from other Greek samples with a minimum distance of 12.
I was looking for it in G25 database and it was not put there because it has only 5% coverage. There was also even an E-V13 sample plotting with Caucasus with even lower coverage which also was ignored by G25.



When people lie they get banned. A few months off may do wonders for you.

Distance to:Himera_409_BC_Battle_Med_lc:I17884
10.50687870Himera_480_BC_Battle_Med:I7217
11.09019387Himera_Civilian_Pop_Med_lc:I17881
11.25451021Himera_480_BC_Battle_Med:I10948
11.30400372Himera_480_BC_Battle_Med:I10945
11.41643990Himera_Civilian_Pop_Med_lc:I17878
13.32291635Himera_Civilian_Pop_Med_lc:I20162
13.33521278Himera_480_BC_Battle_Med:I7218
14.48035911Himera_480_BC_Battle_Med:I10952
14.49883788Baucina_MtFalcone_Sicani_Med:I13125
14.52935993Himera_409_BC_Battle_Med:I17866
14.98962975Himera_409_BC_Battle_Med:I7224
15.73845926Himera_Civilian_Pop_Med:I20168
15.80759944Himera_480_BC_Battle_Med:I7219
15.82558372Himera_409_BC_Battle_Med:I7225
16.29403572Himera_480_BC_Battle_Med:I7221
17.72009029Polizzello_Sicani_Med:I13377
17.73477939Himera_409_BC_Battle_Med:I7223
17.82512272Polizzello_Sicani_Med:I13384
18.14798887Polizzello_Sicani_Med:I13385
18.20148620Polizzello_Sicani_Med:I13386
18.21596827Himera_Civilian_Pop_Med_lc:I17879
18.31825592Polizzello_Sicani_Med:I13382
18.37818544Polizzello_Sicani_Med:I13383
18.38578255Himera_Civilian_Pop_Med:I17432
18.40606965Polizzello_Sicani_Med:I13376



Target: Himera_409_BC_Battle_Med_lc:I17884
Distance: 3.1102% / 3.11018596
76.8Himera_Civilian_Pop_Med_lc
13.7Himera_480_BC_Battle_Caucasus_lc
9.5Himera_480_BC_Battle_Med
Target: Himera_409_BC_Battle_Med_lc:I17884
Distance: 3.1102% / 3.11018596
76.8Himera_Civilian_Pop_Med_lc
13.7Himera_480_BC_Battle_Caucasus_lc
9.5Himera_480_BC_Battle_Med
 
Jovialis: Yes, I think many of us here have been hoping for more samples from the Iron Age somewhere South of Lazio that showed similar ancestry to R437 from Antonio et al 2019, the Republican Roman who was genetically similar to modern Southern Italians. While it of course would be great to have more IA Italian samples from all regions from Lazio to Sicily, I think the Sicily_Himera Meds I10495 and I7217 are close enough to show R437 Southern Italian type ancestry was already present in Republican Rome and suggest R437 is not just some random one off individual.
 

This thread has been viewed 47411 times.

Back
Top