Comparing Ancient Greek populations to modern Greeks and Italians

How is C6 a mix, when they decern those populations from one another. What you are saying makes no sense, based on that.

C6 is a population separate from east med (C5), Levantine (C4), and Germanic (C7)

C6 existed before and after those groups arrived.

C6 was a native group formed in the EBA, and that is supported by pre-historic migration.

C6's existence prior to the arrival of these groups is doubtful. There's no evidence of C6's presence during the Bronze Age, and it's challenging to identify any Bronze Age Italian samples resembling the C6 cluster.

The idea that C6 was a native group forming during the Bronze Age lacks support from ancient DNA samples. Notably, no profiles akin to C6 are evident from the Bronze or Iron Age. Where are they? Show me the DNA samples that resemble the C6 cluster.
kAoiqjQ.png


Modern South Italians have less ANF, more Natufian, more Iran N and more Steppe than Bronze and iron age South Italians.

It is likely the city of Rome started to get C6 people during the unification of Italy, from the South.

And these people from the South were literal Graeco-Anatolians. C6 people are simply a mix of Graeco-Anatolian + Italic + Germanic + Levantine. The Graeco-Anatolians must have come from the Greek colonies in South Italy who almost replaced the pre-Greek South Italians/Sicilians.
yUoXKh9.png

The samples from the C6 cluster appear to be a mix of Graeco-Anatolian, Italic, Germanic, and Levantine. This mix is observable in samples from the 1st to 2nd centuries AD, the Imperial Rome period (i also included the other C6 samples you sent me, not just the samples from Rome, i just forgot the Rome_Imperial tag there).

The study you shared seems to have taken a set of samples that coincidentally cluster with present-day South Italians. Given the cosmopolitan nature of ancient Rome during that era, characterized by a multitude of diverse combinations/mixes, it's possible to find a range of distinct clusters, from modern profiles like South Italian to North Italian to Levantine and Cypriot profiles, this does not imply that any of these clusters existed in the Bronze or Iron age.

It's possible that these profiles gradually started taking shape during the Iron Age, potentially influenced by Greeks and Phoenicians, and gained momentum during the Hellenistic and Imperial Rome. However, these profiles don't seem to have originated from native Bronze Age Italians because no profiles akin to C6 were found in the Bronze or Iron Age Italy.

What you are zeroing in on is a coincidence of PCA. I already showed you actual qpAdm from professionals that prove you wrong.

When I provide evidence from peer reviewed studies that make my case, you think dismissing their credibility makes you somehow more credible? It doesn't, in fact it does the exact opposite

modern South Italians, can INDEED be modeled with Steppe/Minoan with some augmentation according to academic studies:

They cannot be modelled as Steppe + Minoan, the study did not use proper qpAdm standards and thats why they could not determine accurately if the model is actually plausible or not. When you apply actual qpAdm standards than these models are completely impossible. Their models allow impossible models to pass because of how bad and compltely against qpAdm theory/standards their reference/outgroups were. Bad references/outgroup combinations will make impossible admixtures to appear plausible on qpAdm, that is a very good way to trick people that don't know much about qpAdm theory and make misleading papers on it.

Many population genetic studies exhibit significant flaws, often being contradicted by subsequent research. Merely appealing to authority does not validate a study's accuracy, and disregarding valid critiques solely on the basis of it being peer-reviewed is illogical.

The individuals behind these studies may hold various PhDs and degrees, but that doesn't automatically make them experts in qpAdm analysis. Their studies sometimes lack critical thinking and deviate from the established rules and standards of qpAdm theory, just like the study you mentioned.

The CHG/IN came from farmer migrations that went directly:
Modern Italians have excess Iran N when modelling them with Anatolian Neolithic Farmers so what you said is irrelevant.
 
YES where are they for you to disprove it? We have Calabrian sample from the Neolithic that does indeed support the hypothesis that Southern Italians were formed in the EBA. If you follow the trajectory of literally everywhere else in the region.

Because if you follow trends of ancient migrations, it is absolutely a fact that CHG/IN has been trickling in since the Neolithic. The Calabrian sample from the Neolithic is similar to Greece_N. Yet, somehow, according to you samples from other parts of Italy make the south is uniform Italic?

This shows that you have a general ignorance of prehistoric migrations within the region. You are completely negating this possibility, and continue to try to reiterate this narrative where somehow everyone in southern Italy was from Greco-Anatolian origins.

Take a look at Northern, Central, and now a Southern sample from the Neolithic, they all follow they same north to south cline as they do in the past.

You are trying to shoehorn a false narrative on the available day. Italy was always heterogeneous, they even suspect that goes by the the Paleolithic!

Just give it up already, because that is a fatal flaw in your reasoning.

Than tell, me, why are the dialects in many parts of the south from the Northern Peloponnesus? Why is it than Southern Italians, and a select few Greek populations show a higher affinity to Minoans according to now only PCA, but other sophisticated analysis?

Also, again with G25, you keep moving the goal post back and forth. You said yourself it is merely a coincidence of PCA. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the peer-reviewed qpaDm models I provided. To me this make me feel like you're not being completely fair in the debate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Syd
Thats because if you have a big capital cosmopolitan city that has a ton of West Anatolians, Germanics, Italics, Levantines and people mixed with all of these with various proportions then obviously you will find samples that cluster with modern Italians from all regions. The C6 cluster is a cluster mixed with Greek Anatolian, Italic, Germanic and Levantine. So that does not disprove that modern Italians have Graeco-Anatolian ancestry because no such C6 cluster existed in the Bronze and Iron age. Im sure we will find more samples like that in the Iron age if we sample Italy a lot but these will just be relatively recent arrivals.

I don't think there were many germanic people in Imperial Rome. There might have been some, however, since slaves might have come from all over the empire. So, mixed individuals of germanic levantine ancestry are definitely a possibility, but I don't think they would have been too common.

So, the origin of C6 are probably to be searched elsewhere.

I also believe the great Greek colonization from the Iron Age played a pivotal role in its development (we see C6 like samples already in Iron age Latium as well, so in Magna Grecia could have been a pretty common profile).

The arrival of greek colonists in Southern Italy was just another chapter of a long story of contacts with the Aegean world, wich progressively enriched the local population with CHG admixture.

Later movement of people likely augmented C6, but not too drastically, I believe.
 
YES where are they for you to disprove it? We have Calabrian sample from the Neolithic that does indeed support the hypothesis that Southern Italians were formed in the EBA. If you follow the trajectory of literally everywhere else in the region.

Because if you follow trends of ancient migrations, it is absolutely a fact that CHG/IN has been trickling in since the Neolithic. The Calabrian sample from the Neolithic is similar to Greece_N. Yet, somehow, according to you samples from other parts of Italy make the south is uniform Italic?

This shows that you have a general ignorance of prehistoric migrations within the region. You are completely negating this possibility, and continue to try to reiterate this narrative where somehow everyone in southern Italy was from Greco-Anatolian origins.

Take a look at Northern, Central, and now a Southern sample from the Neolithic, they all follow they same north to south cline as they do in the past.

You are trying to shoehorn a false narrative on the available day. Italy was always heterogeneous, they even suspect that goes by the the Paleolithic!

Just give it up already, because that is a fatal flaw in your reasoning.

Than tell, me, why are the dialects in many parts of the south from the Northern Peloponnesus? Why is it than Southern Italians, and a select few Greek populations show a higher affinity to Minoans according to now only PCA, but other sophisticated analysis?

Also, again with G25, you keep moving the goal post back and forth. You said yourself it is merely a coincidence of PCA. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the peer-reviewed qpaDm models I provided. To me this make me feel like you're not being completely fair in the debate.
Where is the 30-40% Iran N Neolithic Italian sample? For modern South Italians to have so much Iran N they would need a high steppe and high Iran N source at the same time, which samples is it? Give me the sample ID.
 
Where is the 30-40% Iran N Neolithic Italian sample? For modern South Italians to have so much Iran N they would need a high steppe and high Iran N source at the same time, which samples is it? Give me the sample ID.
Again, likewise, show me what samples from those time periods in the south that says otherwise. We already see the North South cline in the Neolithic, compare C_Italian_N to Calabria_N, it follows the pattern.
 
So to summarize our different takes on the matter of when did the the majority of CHG/Iran_N ancestry arrived in Southern Italy (wich is extimated between 20-25%):

1 Jovialis: during the bronze age;
2 Francesco: during the Iron Age (archaic and classical period);
3 Idontknowwhatimdoing: hellenistic/early imperial period from the Ionian coast

Only extensive sampling of Greece and Magna Grecia during Iron Age and Hellenistic Age will tell us what happened.
 
So to summarize our different takes on the matter of when did the the majority of CHG/Iran_N ancestry arrived in Southern Italy (wich is extimated between 20-25%):

1 Jovialis: during the bronze age;
2 Francesco: during the Iron Age (archaic and classical period);
3 Idontknowwhatimdoing: hellenistic/early imperial period from the Ionian coast

Only extensive sampling of Greece and Magna Grecia during Iron Age and Hellenistic Age will tell us what happened.
I don't think it stopped in the Bronze Age, it could also have had some additional admixture of CHG/IN in the IA, and also the Imperial age. I just think the lion's share of it came in the Bronze age.

The thing I take the most issue with is the idea that prior to the Imperial Age, all of Italy is somehow uniformly Italic/Etruscan.

Pointing the neolithic samples, we do see the North-South cline from C_Italian_N and S_Italian_N. This is explicitly due to the fact that there is more WHG in the Northern areas, and more CHG in the Southern areas. The Neolithic Calabrian sample is similar to the Greece_N average.
 
Jovialis/Francesco: Regarding Iran_N related ancestry (i.e. CHG), the Fernandes et al 2020 paper "The Spread of Steppe and Iranian-related ancestry in the islands of the Western Mediterranean" documents Steppe admixture entering Sicily around 2200 BC (early Italian Bronze Age) and by Mid 2nd millennium BC (Middle Bronze Age which is 1700 to 1350 BC), Iranian-related/CHG ancestry in Sicily that is not related to the Steppe admixture.

In Lazio (Antonio et al 2019 ancient Roman paper), they document in addition to increased Steppe ancestry, an increase in Iran_N ancestry (See Figure 2) in that paper.

So 2 papers (Antonio et al 2019 and Fernandes et al 2020) document an additional Iran_N/related ancestry signal that predates the Imperial Roman era. The additional Iran_Related signal hits Sicily maybe as early as 1700 BC, no later than 1350 BC, which means it was present in the rest of the South of Italy. In the Iron Age, which starts in roughly 1200 BC and ends by 550BC, Antonio et al 2019 documents that same signal in Lazio. Imperial Rome does not start till 30 BC.
 
Also, as I said earlier Calabria_N would not be that much CHG/IN yet. Because there's a EBA increase of CHG/IN that came after.
There are no samples with such high CHG/Iran N levels in the Bronze age, the Iron age samples seem to lack that. There is simply no evidence of such profiles being from the Bronze age. I sent you above models with tons of bronze and iron age samples. None of them are like that. Sign of a sample with 5% Iran N when all the other later samples lack that is not proof.
 
There are no samples with such high CHG/Iran N levels in the Bronze age, the Iron age samples seem to lack that. There is simply no evidence of such profiles being from the Bronze age. I sent you above models with tons of bronze and iron age samples. None of them are like that. Sign of a sample with 5% Iran N when all the other later samples lack that is not proof.
What the hell are you talking about!? IA does, R437 and R850 are high in CHG/IN from Antonio et al 2019. The BA in the south isn't even tested yet. Either you familiarize yourself with the pertinent material, or stop making false statements based on ignorance of the topic.
 
What the hell are you talking about!? IA does, R437 and R850 are high in CHG/IN from Antonio et al 2019. The BA in the south isn't even tested yet. Either you familiarize yourself with the pertinent material, or stop making false statements based on ignorance of the topic.
These are outliers, recent immigrants, mixed. They are clearly mixed outliers compared to the other samples from the area. This is just evidence of Greeks from colonies migrating in the iron age and it continues until Imperial Rome.
 
These are outliers, recent immigrants, mixed. They are clearly mixed outliers compared to the other samples from the area. This is just evidence of Greeks from colonies migrating in the iron age and it continues until Imperial Rome.
Yes, I have held that theory. When the study first came out, I said when Rome conquered the South, and incorporated it into Roman Italia, this is what may have brought CHG/IN levels higher in Rome. But these particular samples have a material culture that is not Greek. Also it is reasonable to suggest that the South had a Greek-like genetic profile, before the arrival of the Greeks. Again, the Calabrian_N sample is similar to Greece_N. We will know when we have a comprehensive samples from the EBA in the south. Otherwise, we are going to keep arguing this topic, without evidence other than from other time periods.
 
9PrZLOH.jpg


Read the explanation of haplotype-sharing groups:

In population genetics, groups based on haplotype-sharing can demonstrate several important aspects of population structure, history, and evolutionary dynamics. Here are some key points:

### Genetic Relatedness
Haplotype-sharing groups can indicate a higher degree of genetic relatedness among individuals within the group compared to those outside the group. This can be useful in identifying subpopulations or even familial relationships.

### Ancestral Lineages
Groups based on haplotype-sharing can reveal information about common ancestral lineages. This is often used in studies that aim to understand the migration patterns and origins of different human populations.

### Disease Susceptibility
Certain haplotypes are associated with specific diseases. Groups sharing these haplotypes may have similar susceptibilities or resistances to particular diseases, which can be crucial for medical research and public health planning.

### Evolutionary History
Haplotype-sharing can provide insights into the evolutionary pressures that a population has faced. For example, a high degree of haplotype-sharing in a particular gene could indicate that the gene is under strong positive selection.

### Gene Flow and Isolation
Patterns of haplotype-sharing can also indicate the level of gene flow between populations. A lack of shared haplotypes between two populations may suggest geographical or reproductive isolation.

### Adaptation
In some cases, shared haplotypes may be indicative of a shared environmental adaptation, such as resistance to a particular parasite or adaptation to a specific climate.

### Cultural Practices
In some human populations, cultural practices like cousin marriage can lead to a high degree of haplotype-sharing. This can have implications for the health and genetic diversity of the population.

### Conservation Efforts
In wildlife populations, haplotype data can be used to inform conservation efforts. For example, a lack of genetic diversity (i.e., many individuals sharing the same haplotypes) could indicate a population at risk of extinction due to inbreeding.

In summary, groups based on haplotype-sharing in population genetics can offer a wealth of information about the genetic structure, evolutionary history, and health of populations.
 
Impossible models, post your right pops, i can tell that they are 100% unscientific, wrong, against qpAdm rules, against every single qpAdm standard.

The right pops are very important, you can make an italian score a passing p value with 100% Germanic or 100% Lebanese if your right pops are wrong for that model.

Minoans dont even have enough Iran N to cover your Iran N.
 
Last edited:
Impossible models, post your right pops, i can tell that they are 100% unscientific, wrong, against qpAdm rules, against every single qpAdm standard.

The right pops are very important, you can make an italian score a passing p value with 100% Germanic or 100% Lebanese if your right pops are wrong for that model.

Minoans dont even have enough Iran N to cover your Iran N.
Claim the hell down, I'm not beat for your antagonistic attitude. This is merely a fun exercise for me, your impassioned nonsense is beneath me. You are so pathetic, because even if I didn't do the models correctly, others have which passed peer review. so It is not impossible, stop with your rhetorical BS. I feel like I have given you too many chances, and frankly, I sick of you and your attitude. If you want to share how do stuff fine, but don't brow beat people with fringe conspiracy theories about the integrity of models produced by academic institutions. Don't PM me about whole populations like Turks "coping" you racist piece of garbage.

I have not problem showing you the outgroups. But I have been changing them up a lot since that it is impossible. Right now I'm busy, but I have no problem showing the outgroups I am using NOW, and even re-running this model.
 
Claim the hell down, I'm not beat for your antagonistic attitude. This is merely a fun exercise for me, your impassioned nonsense is beneath me. You are so pathetic, because even if I didn't do the models correctly, others have which passed peer review. so It is not impossible, stop with your rhetorical BS. I feel like I have given you too many chances, and frankly, I sick of you and your attitude. If you want to share how do stuff fine, but don't brow beat people with fringe conspiracy theories about the integrity of models produced by academic institutions. Don't PM me about whole populations like Turks "coping" you racist piece of garbage.

I have not problem showing you the outgroups. But I have been changing them up a lot since that it is impossible. Right now I'm busy, but I have no problem showing the outgroups I am using NOW, and even re-running this model.
What antagonistic attidude? Are we not supposed to debate on a genetics forum? I'm trying to explain to you that you are basing everything on the misuse of qpAdm. The paper you base your models on broke every single qpAdm standard, all the qpAdm rules.

Anything can pass peer reviewing, for example the paper claiming that mainland Greeks are 90-95% pure Proto Greek Logkas and Cypriots 60% Minoan with no Levantine. Obviously that peer reviewed paper is unscientific.

Anyone who assumes a paper is right just because its peer reviewed is naive.

Showing qpAdm models without the outgroups is pointless, you have to show them. I can post any model and fit any population if i have bad outgroups, obviously your outgroups are bad because scientific outgroups dont allow such models to pass. The paper you base everything on is 100% scientifically confirmed to be unscentific. It is one of the most extreme cases of unscientific papers i have ever seen, even worse than the papers claiming Ashkenazis are 50% Levantine when they are not.

"Academic institutions", "conspiracy theories", it is a confirmed scientific fact though that their papers are completely wrong, dont hit me with "conspiracy theorist'. Do you think that all peer reviewed papers are even close to good? Most of them are bad and unscientific.

Nothing racist about laughing at racist people who cope and make up lies about being pure bronze age Hittites.
 
You know it goes to a certain extent, not to absurd extremes, like outright rejecting every academic paper that offends your sensibilities. You're the rule master of qpaDm, those academics should have consulted with you first. Give me a break man.

Whatever, I already creating a statistical robustness test script that will give an unbias interpretation of the result. I am basing the criteria on documentation about qpadm. I don't need you to tell me anything buddy.

I can't express to you how much I don't give a shit about your opinion, especially in contravention of credible sources.
 

This thread has been viewed 140353 times.

Back
Top