Comparing Ancient Greek populations to modern Greeks and Italians

[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.

According to what? Bad Bronze age Dodecad models? Dodecad is irrelevant, its not accurate in any way. Stop using irrelevant bronze age proxies that didn't even contribute to people. Isparta did not migrate to Greece in the classical-roman-hellenistic times since it did not even exist in the Iron Age. Iron age like West+South Anatolians and Levantines genetic profiles did migrate to Greece

 

[Idontknowwhatimdoing]

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.

Just because they fited some bad models totally against qpAdm theory rules that literally work on everyone, it does not make them true.

Why don't Bronze and Iron age Sicilians samples have no such genetic profiles with such high Iran N and Levant?

You are 100% proven wrong based on the fact that there were no such genetic profiles in Bronze and Iron age Sicily with such high CHG/Iran N and Levantine

It's simply impossible for the majority of South Italian CHG being introduced in the Bronze Age. There is no such evidence. You can clearly see on the models below. That the maximum CHG/Iran N admix shows up as 5.6% in the Bronze age and it seems like it was diluted, Iron age Sicilians score 0%. I bet they will score some on qpAdm which is more accurate but we can see the proportions here and get a good idea of the fact that South Italians received almost all CHG/Iran N and Levantine admix in the classical-Hellenistic-Roman periods and not in the Bronze Age.

 

[Jovialis]

According to what? Bad Bronze age Dodecad models? Dodecad is irrelevant, its not accurate in any way. Stop using irrelevant bronze age proxies that didn't even contribute to people. Isparta did not migrate to Greece in the classical-roman-hellenistic times since it did not even exist in the Iron Age. Iron age like West+South Anatolians and Levantines genetic profiles did migrate to Greece

According to every paper I've seen on the topic. Including Clemente, Lazaridis, Raveane, Sarno, Aneli, Fernandes, all use the Minoans as a proxy. The only person I see making outlandish claims are you alone.

 

[Jovialis]

Just because they fited some bad models totally against qpAdm theory rules that literally work on everyone, it does not make them true.

Why don't Bronze and Iron age Sicilians samples have no such genetic profiles with such high Iran N and Levant? You are 100% proven wrong based on the fact that there were no such genetic profiles in Bronze and Iron age Sicily. It's simply impossible for the majority of South Italian CHG being introduced in the Bronze Age. There is no such evidence. You can clearly see on the models below. That the maximum CHG/Iran N admix shows up as 5.6% in the Bronze age and it seems like it was diluted, Iron age Sicilians score 0%. I bet they will score some on qpAdm which is more accurate but we can see the proportions here and get a good idea of the fact that South Italians received almost all CHG/Iran N and Levantine admix in the classical-Hellenistic-Roman periods and not in the Bronze Age.
View attachment 13934

Here we go again, the now we go through the motion of dismissing academics. Are you David?

 

[Idontknowwhatimdoing]

According to every paper I've seen on the topic. Including Clemente, Lazaridis, Raveane, Sarno, Aneli, Fernandes, all use the Minoans as a proxy. The only person I see making outlandish claims are you alone.

According to obvious bad papers. Irrelevant. I explained to you why their models are bad, also Lazaridis' old papers don't count, he often refutes his own old papers.

 

[Idontknowwhatimdoing]

Here we go again, the now we go through the motion of dismissing academics. Are you David?

I'm simply dismissing bad biased academic models. According to your Logkas paper, modern mainland Greeks are 95% Logkas and Cypriots have no steppe but they magically have 65% Minoan, 31% CHG and 4% WHG. Obviously that's absurd. In reality there probably isn't even 50% Bronze age Aegean ancestry in Cyprus, let alone 65% Minoan.

Should i believe their findings solely based on the fact that it comes from a published paper? It appears that they deviated from the established principles of qpAdm theory and misapplied qpAdm methodology. Many of the papers you referenced seem to have completely disregarded the fundamental guidelines of qpAdm analysis. However, when qpAdm is correctly utilized, it becomes evident that all the sources you mentioned are entirely incorrect.

 

[Jovialis]

According to obvious bad papers. Irrelevant. I explained to you why their models are bad, also Lazaridis' old papers don't count, he often refutes his own old papers.

how is it a bad model, when Lazaridis confirmed in the southern Arc paper that the Northern model is more viable than the Armenian eastern model?

You dismiss papers, but maybe you should read them too.

Funny, you claim Dodecad is bad, yet I use it to replicate what the papers show about Greeks and Italians. I don't care what tool you are using, because your analysis is flawed, there wasn't wholesale population replacement. An idea so far fetched, that no academic paper has ever proposed.

It speaks for itself. By the way, how many times are we going to be over this? I really don't care what you think either way.

 

[Jovialis]

I'm simply dismissing bad biased academic models. According to your Logkas paper, modern mainland Greeks are 95% Logkas and Cypriots have no steppe but they magically have 65% Minoan, 31% CHG and 4% WHG. Obviously that's absurd. In reality there probably isn't even 50% Bronze age Aegean ancestry in Cyprus, let alone 65% Minoan.

Should i believe their findings solely based on the fact that it comes from a published paper? It appears that they deviated from the established principles of qpAdm theory and misapplied qpAdm methodology. Many of the papers you referenced seem to have completely disregarded the fundamental guidelines of qpAdm analysis. However, when qpAdm is correctly utilized, it becomes evident that all the sources you mentioned are entirely incorrect.

The basis of your analysis is flawed because it completely ignores archeology, in addition to already being untenable regarding genetic research. Applied correct, that must be a joke. Why not apply populations that actually make sense.

So Greeks and South Italians can't be descended from their prehistoric ancestors, in addition to cultures that actually make sense for them, just because you're mad that Cypriots can't.

 

[Jovialis]

The majority of the CHG in Greeks and Southern Italy came in the Late Neolithic and/or EBA, so Isparta is the proper Anatolian source to use.

 

[Jovialis]

Adding Corded Ware as a proxy for Slavic-input greatly improves the fit of many modern Greeks:

It is no wonder that Cyprus is poorly modeled, with this set, yet every single southern Italian, and Greek from north to south, and islands, are modeled well. Cyprus falls outside of the continuum of those ancient contemporaneous samples, even beyond that of Isparta_BA. The reason is they need something else, clearly more Levant_BA related.

Topic of the thread, comparing Greeks and Italians to Ancient Greeks.

You can use the Northern Model to model Greeks and Southern Italians, with some relatively small augmentation. Cypriots, you need to use Syrian-admixed Anatolians.

Why is this a controversial topic?

 

[Jovialis]

It appears that there is a misunderstanding in your response, indicating a lack of proper comprehension of the papers and my words. The Northern vs Armenian model point you raised is not related to what i've said.

Lazaridis' Armenian eastern model refers to the origin of Proto-Greeks and their potential connection to Armenia, rather than the topic I addressed which was about the origin of the Bulk of Iran N + Levant Neolithic admix in modern Greeks/Italians. My statement did not involve the claim that Proto-Greek originated from Armenia. I don't get how you assumed that it had anything with what i've said.

What I have actually suggested is that the significant CHG/Iran N + Levant admixture observed in modern Greeks/Italians predominantly arrived during the Classical-Hellenistic-Roman periods, originating from West/South Anatolia and the Levant. This assertion emphasizes the historical timeframe and specific geographical sources of admixture. Lazaridis Armenian Eastern model had nothing to do with these periods.

It is relevant , because you are claiming that there's whole sale population replacement. I am stating that this was the formation of the populations, and it lives on in the modern people.

 

[Idontknowwhatimdoing]

The majority of the CHG in Greeks and Southern Italy came in the Late Neolithic and/or EBA, so Isparta is the proper Anatolian source to use.

100% proven wrong based on the fact that no such high Iran N + Levant proportions were found in Bronze-Iron age Sicily. Why do all Bronze-Iron age Sicilian samples lack the levels of Iran N and Levant admix that modern South Italians and Sicilians have? Where did it spawn from?

 

[Jovialis]

It appears that there is a misunderstanding in your response, indicating a lack of proper comprehension of the papers and my words. The Northern vs Armenian model point you raised is not related to what i've said.

Lazaridis' Armenian eastern model refers to the origin of Proto-Greeks and their potential connection to Armenia, rather than the topic I addressed which was about the origin of the Bulk of Iran N + Levant Neolithic admix in modern Greeks/Italians. My statement did not involve the claim that Proto-Greek originated from Armenia. I don't get how you assumed that it had anything with what i've said.

What I have actually suggested is that the significant CHG/Iran N + Levant admixture observed in modern Greeks/Italians predominantly arrived during the Classical-Hellenistic-Roman periods, originating from West/South Anatolia and the Levant. This assertion emphasizes the historical timeframe and specific geographical sources of admixture. Lazaridis Armenian Eastern model had nothing to do with these periods.

Condescending attitude earned you another 7 days of banning. Try again later.

 

[Jovialis]

100% proven wrong based on the fact that no such high Iran N + Levant proportions were found in Bronze-Iron age Sicily. Why do all Bronze-Iron age Sicilian samples lack the levels of Iran N and Levant admix that modern South Italians and Sicilians have? Where did it spawn from?
View attachment 13935

These were the formative migrations that spawned modern Northern and Southern Europeans:

IA Sicily, these averages? What does it really prove? Again, Fernandes modeled Sicily EBA with Minoan. The same could be done with Daunians, as Aneli showed. Lazaridis showed that many Balkanites could be modeled with the Northern model.

We also know that Minoans had some various percentages of CHG/Levant_PPN.

Also, I do think there was some impact from the Eastern Mediterranean people in the Imperial era, but not to a major extent. I do think some of the extra levant could have come from the Greek Colonies too by the way. But whole sale population replacement is preposterous.

 

[Jovialis]

Condescending attitude earned you another 7 days of banning. Try again later.

You know, I actually don't think you are a stupid person, otherwise it would have been a lifetime ban. I just wish you would be less confrontational.

 

[Jovialis]

I wonder if Aneli used Minoan_Lashiti and Zakros, it would account for that extra CHG/IN in Apulians (who are quite heterogenous and span from Marche to Calabria).

Odigitra plots quite differently, and I think it is a low-res sample too.

 

[eupator]

I don't have major criticisms on Lazaridis' model (north vs armenian) but I do have a concern about his sampling in the 2017 paper.

His claims of modern Greek similarity to Myceneans are based on the usage of Cyprus, Crete and Thessaloniki (samples).

The first two are evidently close to proximity on any PCA but the third category (Thessaloniki) should have had an asterisk.

If you run them on any software (qpAdm or PCA) you can see those 2 Thessaloniki samples have substantial Armenia-BA related admixture, implying that the samples have mixed origins with Anatolians/Pontics thrown in the mix. However, this mixed profile wouldn't exist before the 1920s, it was exactly that Armenia-BA related admixture that pulls the more Balkan non-Anatolian Northern Greek profile south in close proximity to Crete (and hence the Myceneans).

Whether this was done on purpose, I do not know, someone would argue that this is the current average profile of people from Thessaloniki (mixed Balkan-Anatolian types of varying degrees) and I would be inclined to agree, but an asterisk should have been put in place to give the historical perspective of this development.

That's my only pet peeve.

 

[eupator]

Also, apparently 2 of the 8 2017 Cypriot samples are of Maronite origins, w/o them Cyprus would be closer to the Mycenean cluster, apparently Lazaridis didn't know about this when asked on twitter.

Another tidbit for context.

 

[Jovialis]

I wonder if Aneli used Minoan_Lashiti and Zakros, it would account for that extra CHG/IN in Apulians (who are quite heterogenous and span from Marche to Calabria).

Odigitra plots quite differently, and I think it is a low-res sample too.

Comparing my model to that of Aneli et al. 2021 on Daunians.

My Minoan component is based on Lashiti, and Isparta (the Anatolia_BA sample that makes sense and is shown to have great affinity to Southern Italy in Raveane et al. 2019) eats up the mysterious extra Iran_N in the Modern Apulians.

Isparta was used here:

Raveane et al 2022 concluded it was better to use Minoan as the proxy, which is probably why it showed affinity to Isparta, as well as Neolithic Greece.

@Idontknowhatiamdoing I understand all of the papers that matter on the subject for the ethnogenesis of Greeks and Italians, particularly southern Italians. Insinuating that I lack comprehension is absurd. The population remained mostly the same since the EBA, with some slight augmentation from historical events.

 

[Jovialis]

It is worth noting that the Dodecanese, and the Kos are almost monolithically Anatolia BA, and the fit is pretty good. I think they are a great example of what ancient Anatolians from Isparta would have been.