Comparing Ancient Greek populations to modern Greeks and Italians

[Francesco]

Should we discard that an ancient person from Thessaly is similar to a modern person from that same region? Just because the specimens pre-date Mycenaeans? Or should we head towards the direction that Ancient Greeks were made of Mycenaeans, Logkas type people and later on Western Anatolians?
Where the Logkas type people mostly settled in the interior parts of the mainland? Was South Italy mostly colonized by coastal (Mycenaean) Greeks, rather than Logkas type Greeks?

Is the Bronze Age collapse related to people from the interior of Greece/Balkans taking over coastal regions, adding new people to their ranks, then pillaging other parts of the world?

I doubt that the bronze age collapse was singlehandedly caused by logkas-like individuals (dorians) invading the mycenean kingdoms, but your point still stands, in my opinion: we shouldn't assume archaic and classical age greeks were genetically indistinguishable from their bronze age predecessors. Incidentally, if you add logkas-like individuals and anatolian-like individuals to the mycenean profile, you get a mix wich should be more similar to cycladic and deep maniotes inhabitants (with less AN and more CHG and EHG). Historically, this scenario seems sound.

 

[ihype02]

Should we discard that an ancient person from Thessaly is similar to a modern person from that same region? Just because the specimens pre-date Mycenaeans? Or should we head towards the direction that Ancient Greeks were made of Mycenaeans, Logkas type people and later on Western Anatolians?
Where the Logkas type people mostly settled in the interior parts of the mainland? Was South Italy mostly colonized by coastal (Mycenaean) Greeks, rather than Logkas type Greeks?

Is the Bronze Age collapse related to people from the interior of Greece/Balkans taking over coastal regions, adding new people to their ranks, then pillaging other parts of the world?

I think Logkas type people co-existed with Minoans not with Mycenaeans. I believe they were mixed out of existence with other components before the Bronze Age collapse occurred.

 

[Archetype0ne]

Should we discard that an ancient person from Thessaly is similar to a modern person from that same region? Just because the specimens pre-date Mycenaeans? Or should we head towards the direction that Ancient Greeks were made of Mycenaeans, Logkas type people and later on Western Anatolians?
Where the Logkas type people mostly settled in the interior parts of the mainland? Was South Italy mostly colonized by coastal (Mycenaean) Greeks, rather than Logkas type Greeks?

Is the Bronze Age collapse related to people from the interior of Greece/Balkans taking over coastal regions, adding new people to their ranks, then pillaging other parts of the world?

I do not think we should discard Logkas. Back when everyone was saying Logkas was just an outlier, a dead end, having nothing to do with modern people, before Southern Arc even came out, a Greek friend on discords, DFST was pointing out to me that using Logkas for modern Greeks and Albanians was giving viable runs. To be honest, we were trying every sample we could. But the point is that everyone was discarding those samples a priori, because their profile at the time was a total outlier, even in the paper they came out in they were described as such IIRC.

Ps. I understand that nationalism is very strong in the wider region, and Greeks hold history with pride, as they should. But what I fail to grasp is why everything has to immediately be covered with the label Greek even on semi serious fora. Greek Minoans, Greek Myceneans, Greek Logkas, Greek Anatolians, lol. I mean this in a reasonable way, although I obviously find it funny. How can Logkas, Anatolians, as well as Myceneans be simultaneously Greek despite their differences in culture and genetics... seems contradictory.
I am not even an expert in any of these fields, but a contradiction is a contradiction.

Edit: I also think this very paper will try to answer the questions you raised, and clarify what synthesis of peoples and cultures took place in Greece. Is it known how many samples it contains?

 

[Idontknowwhatimdoing]

G25 proximal models are consistent with qpAdm but dodecad are not. Also that model is forcing Isparta to inflate, there is no Levantine + South East Anatolian + Armenian related proxy, which are both absolutely necessary for Cypriots. Dodecad is not a good PCA either, it is useless as a PCA.

Look at what actual Anatolians score compared to Cypriots/Dodecanese. Do not use Anatolia BA as a proxy, the Anatolians who migrated to classical/Hellenistic/Roman Greece and Cyprus were not Isparta like, Isparta is too old. The North_Macedonia_South_Border samples are Logkas like with extra ANF. This will give you a good idea of what is going on,

That's the post I cited too. Have you even bothered to read it?; Davidski said:

To me this suggests that most present-day Greeks harbor significant levels of Slavic ancestry and some sort of recent Cypriot-related ancestry, and in large part they're only coincidentally similar to ancient Aegeans, including those from the MBA (labeled Greece_Helladic_MBA in my graphs).

This doesn't inspire confidence about your modeling ability.

When discussing coincidence, he mainly meant the Logkas Thessaly proto Greek samples. The reason modern Greeks coincidentally cluster with the Logkas samples is due to a combination of Mycenaean, Anatolian/Levant, Balkan, and Slavic related admixture. The context of his statement was related to a study that modeled modern Greeks with 95% Logkas (Proto-Greek). Davidski simply acknowledged the coincidental clustering of modern Greeks with Logkas, which is an evident fact. Just like how Tuscany plots with Logkas but it's simply coincidental because they are not directly descended from Proto-Greeks.

A similar example of coincidental clustering can be observed with Greek Cypriots and Greek Central Anatolians. The proximity between these populations in PCA plots is coincidental as well. Upon examining their Iron Age admixture, it becomes clear that they received genetic contributions from distinct sources. You can see that on the G25 admixture chart i posted above.

When mentioning Cypriot-related ancestry, it refers to the pre-Slavic population of Greece and not literal direct Cypriot ancestry. Therefore, the proximal admixture of modern Southern Greeks involves a mix of pre-Slavic Cypriot-like southern Greeks and Medieval Slavs. He did not assert that mainland Greeks possess direct Cypriot ancestry, but rather that the pre-Slavic Greeks plotted with Cypriots.

This below is what Davidski thinks:
Mycenaean + Anatolian/Levant = Classical Greek
Classical Greek + Anatolia/Levant = Hellenistic/Roman Greek (Cypriot like)
Hellenistic/Roman Greek (Cypriot like) + Medieval Slavs + Balkans = modern Southern Greeks

 

[Idontknowwhatimdoing]

I do not think we should discard Logkas. Back when everyone was saying Logkas was just an outlier, a dead end, having nothing to do with modern people, before Southern Arc even came out, a Greek friend on discords, DFST was pointing out to me that using Logkas for modern Greeks and Albanians was giving viable runs. To be honest, we were trying every sample we could. But the point is that everyone was discarding those samples a priori, because their profile at the time was a total outlier, even in the paper they came out in they were described as such IIRC.

Ps. I understand that nationalism is very strong in the wider region, and Greeks hold history with pride, as they should. But what I fail to grasp is why everything has to immediately be covered with the label Greek even on semi serious fora. Greek Minoans, Greek Myceneans, Greek Logkas, Greek Anatolians, lol. I mean this in a reasonable way, although I obviously find it funny. How can Logkas, Anatolians, as well as Myceneans be simultaneously Greek despite their differences in culture and genetics... seems contradictory.
I am not even an expert in any of these fields, but a contradiction is a contradiction.

Edit: I also think this very paper will try to answer the questions you raised, and clarify what synthesis of peoples and cultures took place in Greece. Is it known how many samples it contains?

Logkas was never an outlier, it was just too old. Its like taking Yamnaya samples and saying "look they are outliers compared to modern populatons". Logkas is simply ancestral to ancient Greeks. The samples from the South border of North Macedonia seem to be mostly Logkas like.

I'm simply showing the shifts here. You can see that the samples from the south border of North Macedonia are Logkas like. The samples are dating at around 500-100 BC. Ignore the 300BC tag

 

[Francesco]

Do not use Anatolia BA as a proxy, the Anatolians who migrated to classical/Hellenistic/Roman Greece and Cyprus were not Isparta like, Isparta is too old

I'm not an expert on modeling, but in order to better distinguish different sources, isn't it preferable to use relatively unadmixed proxies like Anatolia BA, rather than more proximal, admixed population (like iron age west anatolians, some of wich were in fact half mycenean, half central anatolian)?

 

[Francesco]

Ps. I understand that nationalism is very strong in the wider region, and Greeks hold history with pride, as they should. But what I fail to grasp is why everything has to immediately be covered with the label Greek even on semi serious fora. Greek Minoans, Greek Myceneans, Greek Logkas, Greek Anatolians, lol. I mean this in a reasonable way, although I obviously find it funny. How can Logkas, Anatolians, as well as Myceneans be simultaneously Greek despite their differences in culture and genetics... seems contradictory.
I am not even an expert in any of these fields, but a contradiction is a contradiction.
[/FONT][/COLOR]

Western Anatolians, at least those living in the poleis on the Aegean coast, can be seen as Greeks and as such were considered by the ancient Greeks themselves. Erodotus came from this very mileu, being born in Halicarnassus. We have few samples from hellenistic Halicarnassus and, if I remember correctly, they are modelled - roughly - as half anatolian and half mycenean. Of course, if we go further in the anatolian central regions, your reasoning is absolutely valid.

 

[kingjohn]

Autosomal not my forte
But i still would be interested to see the T dude
I7833 individual
From roman era marathon greece analysis

p.s
i know he was extremely east med shifted
below
(his k12b closest modern populations)
maybe in the roman era there were more greeks
like him or he was indeed an outlier

Distance to:	GRC_Marathon_Rom:I7833
3.74384829	Turk_Cyprus
5.27386955	Greek_Cypriot
5.72965968	Greek_Rhodes
6.06739648	Greek_Kos
7.04785074	Nusayri_Turkey
7.33906670	Greek_Cappadocia
8.84430890	Greek_Crete
9.31784310	Greek_Icaria
9.57099786	Lebanese_Christian
10.11107808	Greek_Fournoi
10.44829651	Sephardic_Jew
10.47603933	Lebanese_Muslim
10.98962238	Italian_Jew
11.47641930	Palestinian_Christian
11.55190028	Greek_Izmir
11.94193033	Italian_Calabria
12.25397487	Jordanian_Christian
12.28464082	Syrian_Christian
12.33497872	Turk_Central_East
12.43109810	Turk_Central_West
12.53544574	Moldovan_Jewish
12.59154081	Ashkenazi_Jew
13.24814327	Turk_West_Black_Sea
13.37739885	Assyrian_West
13.54507290	Palestinian

 

[eupator]

I understand that nationalism is very strong in the wider region, and Greeks hold history with pride, as they should. But what I fail to grasp is why everything has to immediately be covered with the label Greek even on semi serious fora. Greek Minoans, Greek Myceneans, Greek Logkas, Greek Anatolians, lol. I mean this in a reasonable way, although I obviously find it funny. How can Logkas, Anatolians, as well as Myceneans be simultaneously Greek despite their differences in culture and genetics... seems contradictory.

It's because you are coming from a Western perspective.

The region (broadly speaking) cannot be viewed under the prism of 'blood and soil' type of nation building of interconnections (strong or loose) of patrilinear lineages and clans, like in the West.

In order to understand it better it has to be viewed with the understanding that we are talking about an expansive language (first) and culture (second) when it comes to ancient/Hellenistic expansion and religion (first) and language (second) from the early Medieval on.

The identity of the modern Greek ethnos is a conflicted subject because of this attempt to approach it from the perspective of Western European 17th-19th Romantic (mostly) notions, which creates all sorts of cognitive dissonance, imo, like "ancient Thessalians are the direct ancestors of modern Thessalians because that PCA told me so even though the majority of the non-Anatolian patrilinear haplos on FTDNA tell us otherwise".

It's un-historical to use such an approach to appease the Western audience and it does injustice to the 'natives' so to speak (another discussion), eg you can't argue for ancient Greek origins of a group that is dominant in I2a-din haplos (talking about non-Anatolian Northern Greek haplos), it's idiotic.

Modern Greeks are the direct descendants of the Orthodox nation of the medieval Kingdom/Empire of the ERE. The modern Greeks are Greek by religion (first) and language (second). They exist on a cline currently because there's not really that many of them left (they were replaced by the Ottomans in their respective territories).

What happened to the actual ancient Greeks of antiquity? Can't answer for sure, surely some survived by becoming Orthodoxes Romans, a lot perished either from war, famine, pestilence, or persecution, as the historical accords of the Medieval tell us. Greeks became Romans but not all Romans were Greeks. See where I am going with this?

Albania is a country emerging from a recent communist past and all that such a thing entailed. You should be careful to avoid the traps and tropes of the Western narratives when it comes to your identity (of course that's entirely up to you).

Just some thoughts on the matter.

 

[Idontknowwhatimdoing]

I'm not an expert on modeling, but in order to better distinguish different sources, isn't it preferable to use relatively unadmixed proxies like Anatolia BA, rather than more proximal, admixed population (like iron age west anatolians, some of wich were in fact half mycenean, half central anatolian)?

Nothing is unadmixed, especially Anatolia BA. Its actually easier to tell apart Anatolia Central IA (separated from the Hellenistic samples) and Mycenaean than Anatolia BA and Mycenaean. Also i didn't even use iron age West Anatolians to model modern Greeks on that chart so i don't get how they are relevant. I only used as proxies populations without ancient Greek ancestry. Mycenaean/North_Macedonia vs Anatolia Central IA/Levant BA/Slavic, South Slavic.

Basically central Anatolians before the Hellenistic were easier to distinguish from Mycenaeans because of mixing with Eastern stuff. While the earlier you go back the higher the ANF and more overlap with Mycenaeans. So its best to avoid using Anatolia BA as a proxy, especially alone since Anatolia Isparta Bronze Age did not time travel to the classical era and migrate to Greece. Iron age Central Anatolians had more Eastern admix than Isparta

 

[Idontknowwhatimdoing]

Western Anatolians, at least those living in the poleis on the Aegean coast, can be seen as Greeks and as such were considered by the ancient Greeks themselves. Erodotus came from this very mileu, being born in Halicarnassus. We have few samples from hellenistic Halicarnassus and, if I remember correctly, they are modelled - roughly - as half anatolian and half mycenean. Of course, if we go further in the anatolian central regions, your reasoning is absolutely valid.

I think there is also something missing, perhaps South Anatolian was more Eastern shifted, CHG/Iran N + Levant. It makes sense since migrations have always happened mainly from coastal South Anatolia -> West Anatolia because other routes have mountains, plus the sea making it even easier to travel by following the coast.

Even with a Bronze age West Anatolian proxy, the Iron age West Anatolians still score 40% Mycenaean.


Without the Bronze age West Anatolian proxy to estimate the total Mycenaean like part.

 

[Francesco]

Basically central Anatolians before the Hellenistic were easier to distinguish from Mycenaeans because of mixing with Eastern stuff. While the earlier you go back the higher the ANF and more overlap with Mycenaeans. So its best to avoid using Anatolia BA as a proxy, especially alone since Anatolia Isparta Bronze Age did not time travel to the classical era and migrate to Greece. Iron age Central Anatolians had more Eastern admix than Isparta

Makes sense. I didn't know IA central Anatolia was lacking any mycenean input, but if that's the case, then they could be a good proxy, I guess.

 

[Francesco]

I think there is also something missing, perhaps South Anatolian was more Eastern shifted, CHG/Iran N + Levant. It makes sense since migrations have always happened mainly from coastal South Anatolia -> West Anatolia because other routes have mountains, plus the sea making it even easier to travel by following the coast.
Even with a Bronze age West Anatolian proxy, the Iron age West Anatolians still score 40% Mycenaean.
View attachment 13932
Without the Bronze age West Anatolian proxy to estimate the total Mycenaean like part.
View attachment 13933

That's interesting. It seems, just by looking at these models, that bronze age west Anatolia izmir yassitepe already had some degree of mycenean admixture by the middle bronze age. That's quite early.

 

[Archetype0ne]

It's because you are coming from a Western perspective.

The region (broadly speaking) cannot be viewed under the prism of 'blood and soil' type of nation building of interconnections (strong or loose) of patrilinear lineages and clans, like in the West.

In order to understand it better it has to be viewed with the understanding that we are talking about an expansive language (first) and culture (second) when it comes to ancient/Hellenistic expansion and religion (first) and language (second) from the early Medieval on.

The identity of the modern Greek ethnos is a conflicted subject because of this attempt to approach it from the perspective of Western European 17th-19th Romantic (mostly) notions, which creates all sorts of cognitive dissonance, imo, like "ancient Thessalians are the direct ancestors of modern Thessalians because that PCA told me so even though the majority of the non-Anatolian patrilinear haplos on FTDNA tell us otherwise".

It's un-historical to use such an approach to appease the Western audience and it does injustice to the 'natives' so to speak (another discussion), eg you can't argue for ancient Greek origins of a group that is dominant in I2a-din haplos (talking about non-Anatolian Northern Greek haplos), it's idiotic.

Modern Greeks are the direct descendants of the Orthodox nation of the medieval Kingdom/Empire of the ERE. The modern Greeks are Greek by religion (first) and language (second). They exist on a cline currently because there's not really that many of them left (they were replaced by the Ottomans in their respective territories).

What happened to the actual ancient Greeks of antiquity? Can't answer for sure, surely some survived by becoming Orthodoxes Romans, a lot perished either from war, famine, pestilence, or persecution, as the historical accords of the Medieval tell us. Greeks became Romans but not all Romans were Greeks. See where I am going with this?

Albania is a country emerging from a recent communist past and all that such a thing entailed. You should be careful to avoid the traps and tropes of the Western narratives when it comes to your identity (of course that's entirely up to you).

Just some thoughts on the matter.

I think we are on the same wavelength, meaning that I agree.
My point was not on what makes a modern identity, ie. the rigorous definition from whatever chosen frame of reference. But rather the asynchronic application of modern identity terms to peoples of the past makes little sense.
I have little doubt that more or less all these ancient people contributed to the moderns in the region cumulatively as far as genetics and evolutively as far as culture, as you can see from the way I carefully tried to word my statements.

And as the others mentioned Anatolia was Hellenic/ized at one point so I understand also that frame of reference. But in my example I was talking about the EEF people, to juxtapose them to the straight out of the steppe Logkas group, as well as the Myceaneans. All these peoples at the start not only had different autosomals, but also Ys and cultures. Now if we talk about Greeks in the ancient sense, there was a symbiosis of the three to create them. But this does not mean that all three were Greek a priori... In fact at most if one was the core of the Greek language, with more rigorous research one can be called -proto*-Greek.

The thing that rubs me the wrong way though, is when people implicitly write their statements to connect 18th century Greek ethnos to these peoples. The asynchronism is... yeah. Let me rephrase it, to make it more evident:
"Albanian Myceneans, Albanian L283 Illyrians, Albanian V13 Thracians, Albanian R1b Yamnayas" <- Just because all of these peoples lead to the formation of the modern definition of the Albanian ethnos (whatever definitional standard one uses).

I would like to apologize for getting a bit of topic, but I think a disclaimer here and there is constructive.

A final note, for all the pride people (including me) have in post medieval national identities, in some regards umbrella identities like "Hellenic", "Roman" or "Ottoman" were far less abrasive. I guess that is where the EU and predecessor institutions are aiming with the creation of the supplemented "European" identity. Good luck tackling good old nationalism though.

 

[Jovialis]

G25 proximal models are consistent with qpAdm but dodecad are not. Also that model is forcing Isparta to inflate, there is no Levantine + South East Anatolian + Armenian related proxy, which are both absolutely necessary for Cypriots. Dodecad is not a good PCA either, it is useless as a PCA.

Look at what actual Anatolians score compared to Cypriots/Dodecanese. Do not use Anatolia BA as a proxy, the Anatolians who migrated to classical/Hellenistic/Roman Greece and Cyprus were not Isparta like, Isparta is too old. The North_Macedonia_South_Border samples are Logkas like with extra ANF. This will give you a good idea of what is going on,

View attachment 13929


When discussing coincidence, he mainly meant the Logkas Thessaly proto Greek samples. The reason modern Greeks coincidentally cluster with the Logkas samples is due to a combination of Mycenaean, Anatolian/Levant, Balkan, and Slavic related admixture. The context of his statement was related to a study that modeled modern Greeks with 95% Logkas (Proto-Greek). Davidski simply acknowledged the coincidental clustering of modern Greeks with Logkas, which is an evident fact. Just like how Tuscany plots with Logkas but it's simply coincidental because they are not directly descended from Proto-Greeks.

A similar example of coincidental clustering can be observed with Greek Cypriots and Greek Central Anatolians. The proximity between these populations in PCA plots is coincidental as well. Upon examining their Iron Age admixture, it becomes clear that they received genetic contributions from distinct sources. You can see that on the G25 admixture chart i posted above.

When mentioning Cypriot-related ancestry, it refers to the pre-Slavic population of Greece and not literal direct Cypriot ancestry. Therefore, the proximal admixture of modern Southern Greeks involves a mix of pre-Slavic Cypriot-like southern Greeks and Medieval Slavs. He did not assert that mainland Greeks possess direct Cypriot ancestry, but rather that the pre-Slavic Greeks plotted with Cypriots.

This below is what Davidski thinks:
Mycenaean + Anatolian/Levant = Classical Greek
Classical Greek + Anatolia/Levant = Hellenistic/Roman Greek (Cypriot like)
Hellenistic/Roman Greek (Cypriot like) + Medieval Slavs + Balkans = modern Southern Greeks

My model works well for everyone except Cypriots. The point was seeing who can be modeled with the ancient people, Cypriots need Anatolian-Syrian admixed people. However, every single one of the other populations didn't need it. Perhaps instead of "Ancient Greek", what I really mean to say is "Ancient Achaean" , which is the Yamna : Neolithic/EBA_Aegean (Minoan-like) ratio. Cypriots are part of the broader Greek ethnicity. I guess what I mean by Ancient Greeks is sort of what people mean by Roman, when they really mean Latins.

I think Lokgos4 and Lokgos2 represent a position on a cline from the steppe to the Aegean neolithic. There's no indication that steppe was consistent with social class, as evident from the graves.

There's nothing wrong with the Dodecad modeling or projection of PCA btw.

You're inflating Anatolian-Syrian input into Italians and Greeks just to accommodate Cyprus in the model.

 

[Jovialis]

G25 proximal models are consistent with qpAdm but dodecad are not. Also that model is forcing Isparta to inflate, there is no Levantine + South East Anatolian + Armenian related proxy, which are both absolutely necessary for Cypriots. Dodecad is not a good PCA either, it is useless as a PCA.

Look at what actual Anatolians score compared to Cypriots/Dodecanese. Do not use Anatolia BA as a proxy, the Anatolians who migrated to classical/Hellenistic/Roman Greece and Cyprus were not Isparta like, Isparta is too old. The North_Macedonia_South_Border samples are Logkas like with extra ANF. This will give you a good idea of what is going on,

View attachment 13929


When discussing coincidence, he mainly meant the Logkas Thessaly proto Greek samples. The reason modern Greeks coincidentally cluster with the Logkas samples is due to a combination of Mycenaean, Anatolian/Levant, Balkan, and Slavic related admixture. The context of his statement was related to a study that modeled modern Greeks with 95% Logkas (Proto-Greek). Davidski simply acknowledged the coincidental clustering of modern Greeks with Logkas, which is an evident fact. Just like how Tuscany plots with Logkas but it's simply coincidental because they are not directly descended from Proto-Greeks.

A similar example of coincidental clustering can be observed with Greek Cypriots and Greek Central Anatolians. The proximity between these populations in PCA plots is coincidental as well. Upon examining their Iron Age admixture, it becomes clear that they received genetic contributions from distinct sources. You can see that on the G25 admixture chart i posted above.

When mentioning Cypriot-related ancestry, it refers to the pre-Slavic population of Greece and not literal direct Cypriot ancestry. Therefore, the proximal admixture of modern Southern Greeks involves a mix of pre-Slavic Cypriot-like southern Greeks and Medieval Slavs. He did not assert that mainland Greeks possess direct Cypriot ancestry, but rather that the pre-Slavic Greeks plotted with Cypriots.

This below is what Davidski thinks:
Mycenaean + Anatolian/Levant = Classical Greek
Classical Greek + Anatolia/Levant = Hellenistic/Roman Greek (Cypriot like)
Hellenistic/Roman Greek (Cypriot like) + Medieval Slavs + Balkans = modern Southern Greeks

Logkos2 and 4 are modeled perfectly with the Northern model, you don't need to do all of these gymnastics just to accommodate Cypriots.

 

[Idontknowwhatimdoing]

That's interesting. It seems, just by looking at these models, that bronze age west Anatolia izmir yassitepe already had some degree of mycenean admixture by the middle bronze age. That's quite early.

What, no, i was using izmir as a proxy, i didnt model Izmir itself with Mycenaean.

 

[Idontknowwhatimdoing]

My model works well for everyone except Cypriots. The point was seeing who can be modeled with the ancient people, Cypriots need Anatolian-Syrian admixed people. However, every single one of the other populations didn't need it. Perhaps instead of "Ancient Greek", what I really mean to say is "Ancient Achaean" , which is the Yamna : Neolithic/EBA_Aegean (Minoan-like) ratio. Cypriots are part of the broader Greek ethnicity. I guess what I mean by Ancient Greeks is sort of what people mean by Roman, when they really mean Latins.

I think Lokgos4 and Lokgos2 represent a position on a cline from the steppe to the Aegean neolithic. There's no indication that steppe was consistent with social class, as evident from the graves.

There's nothing wrong with the Dodecad modeling or projection of PCA btw.

You're inflating Anatolian-Syrian input into Italians and Greeks just to accommodate Cyprus in the model.

I inflated nothing since i removed nothing. I did not inflate Anatolian-Syrian input in Italians and Greeks, that is not possible to happen unless they have Persian admix. To inflate Anatolian-Syrian in someone i would need to take a population that has Iranian and model them without Iranian and just use Anatolian-Syrian. Basically this is what you are doing in Greeks/Italians.

Dodecad is inaccurate for admixture modelling and PCA. Fitting a model with forced proxies on qpAdm also does not make it true.

 

[Idontknowwhatimdoing]

Logkos2 and 4 are modeled perfectly with the Northern model, you don't need to do all of these gymnastics just to accommodate Cypriots.

How is Logkas even relevant, modern Greeks are not just Logkas + Minoan + Bronze Age Anatolian. Anatolia didn't stay unmixed for 1000 years after the Bronze Age.

 

[Jovialis]

Isparta is absolutely relevant to southern Italy, read Raveane et al. 2019.

The majority of CHG was introduced in the LN or EBA, that's what the data is showing.