Comparing Ancient Greek populations to modern Greeks and Italians

Again, Himera was founded by Ionians in the second phase.

LBA Cretans, which overlaps with Modern Puglia were Dorian-Speakers. The people who colonized Puglia were also Dorian-Speakers. Dorian Speakers also colonized a large part of Sicily. Achaean-Doric were likely genetically similar to Dorian-Speakers.

Thus I think it is more likely that these Dorian-Speaking Greeks who colonized large parts of the South, were largely responsible for much of the Southern Italian genetic profile via Magna Graecia.

1QR7Iw2.png


I see this in my own genetics:

AO6HMDn.png
 
Again, Himera was founded by Ionians in the second phase.

LBA Cretans, which overlaps with Modern Puglia were Dorian-Speakers. The people who colonized Puglia were also Dorian-Speakers. Dorian Speakers also colonized a large part of Sicily. Achaean-Doric were likely genetically similar to Dorian-Speakers.

Thus I think it is more likely that these Dorian-Speaking Greeks who colonized large parts of the South, were largely responsible for much of the Southern Italian genetic profile via Magna Graecia.

1QR7Iw2.png


I see this in my own genetics:

AO6HMDn.png

Himera seems to be founded in 640BC by colonizers from Messina and later migrants from Syracuse. This makes it a colony of colonies, so I would presume the parent population centers to be further Aegean like during the same time period. We also have the one 35-40 year old Pompeian male who necessarily died in the 79AD Mt. Vesuvius eruption which overlaps modern Greek islanders. Basic math dictates he was born ~39-44AD, so just 66-71 years after the start of the imperial era, which is usually denoted by Augustus' rule as first Emperor.

If this individual ends up being typical for southern Italians for this time frame, it is highly unlikely that this Aegean shift started just 70 years prior.

1709826683727.png
 
Last edited:
I personally respect ihype's point of view even if I don't agree with it.

That's quite interesting. If those inside the black dots are actually the latin outliers from the Rome study, with the two samples from Ischia we would already have four iron age samples from continental Italy wich could be a great source population for the east med shift, well before the roman empire. Then of course you could add some later influx in the imperial era from the levant, but you wouldn't need some big number.
It's seams that the "trojan source" , probably related with Anatolians and greeks, for romans was true. And some of the roman gens (mostly from "Latium vetus") were eastern mediterraneans, as their tradition stated, such as the famous gens Iulia. As a relevant archeological aspect that needs to be taken in account, the latin alphabet derived from the Euboean greek and greek ancient scripts were found in Gabii (close to Rome) on a vase as old as the VIII th century BC. https://www.controluce.it/area-archeologica-di-gabii/ , confirming an old and solid relationship between ancient "latium" and the Greek and/or the Eastern Mediterranean.
 
Himera seems to be founded in 640BC by colonizers from Messina and later migrants from Syracuse. This makes it a colony of colonies, so I would presume the parent population centers to be further Aegean like during the same time period. We also have the one 35-40 year old Pompeian male who necessarily died in the 79AD Mt. Vesuvius eruption which overlaps modern Greek islanders. Basic math dictates he was born ~39-44AD, so just 66-71 years after the start of the imperial era, which is usually denoted by Augustus' rule as first Emperor.

If this individual ends up being typical for southern Italians for this time frame, it is highly unlikely that this Aegean shift started just 70 years prior.

View attachment 15536
Pompeii was colonized by Romans in 1st century BC.
Although the battle-hardened troops of the Social League, headed by Lucius Cluentius, helped in resisting the Romans, Pompeii was forced to surrender after the conquest of Nola. The result was that Pompeii became a Roman colony named Colonia Cornelia Veneria Pompeianorum. Many of Sulla's veterans were given land and property in and around the city, while many who opposed Rome were dispossessed of their property.

Population increase in Pompeii:
By 79, Pompeii had a population of 20,000,[45] which had prospered from the region's renowned agricultural fertility and favourable location, although more recent estimates are up to 11,500 based on household counts.[3]

Up to 40% of the population in Pompeii were slaves. How many Jews were in Europe before the Holocaust? Up to 10 million. Which empire brought most of them in Europe? Where do you think Cilicians, Anatolians, Syrians and others go?

The transport from the Delos started in 200BC. (Merchants, slaves and veterans.)



I personally respect ihype's point of view even if I don't agree with it.

That's quite interesting. If those inside the black dots are actually the latin outliers from the Rome study, with the two samples from Ischia we would already have four iron age samples from continental Italy wich could be a great source population for the east med shift, well before the roman empire. Then of course you could add some later influx in the imperial era from the levant, but you wouldn't need some big number.
I really don't understand your point. Imperial Romans are not in the middle Ischia and Italics. Levant and Anatolia are pretty close to each other, so I prefer the term West Asia. Even though in the past I claimed that the bulk of migrants came from the Levant now I have shifted towards Anatolia but in general I use "West Asia" to include both of the regions.
 
Up to 40% of the population in Pompeii were slaves. How many Jews were in Europe before the Holocaust? Up to 10 million. Which empire brought most of them in Europe? Where do you think Cilicians, Anatolians, Syrians and others go?

The transport from the Delos started in 200BC. (Merchants, slaves and veterans.)
Jews were a small minority in the mediterranean and in Europe after their diaspora and experienced a significative population increase in the middle age, if I recall correctly. Of course, the Romans didn't bring 10 million jews to Europe. I don't see why Syrians and Anatolians should have followed jews to Europe after their diaspora.

Of course, a fair amount of people from middle east was likely present in the cities of empires, along with people from other parts of the empire, but the east med shift in Italy starts earlier. Those samples from Ischia and the Latin outliers hint in this direction.
 
Jews were a small minority in the mediterranean and in Europe after their diaspora and experienced a significative population increase in the middle age, if I recall correctly. Of course, the Romans didn't bring 10 million jews to Europe. I don't see why Syrians and Anatolians should have followed jews to Europe after their diaspora.

Of course, a fair amount of people from middle east was likely present in the cities of empires, along with people from other parts of the empire, but the east med shift in Italy starts earlier. Those samples from Ischia and the Latin outliers hint in this direction.
I did not say Romans brought 10 million Jews. I said there were 10 million Jews in Europe before the Holocaust most of which were descendants from Jewish migrants in the Roman era.
 
Last edited:
Pompeii was colonized by Romans in 1st century BC.
Although the battle-hardened troops of the Social League, headed by Lucius Cluentius, helped in resisting the Romans, Pompeii was forced to surrender after the conquest of Nola. The result was that Pompeii became a Roman colony named Colonia Cornelia Veneria Pompeianorum. Many of Sulla's veterans were given land and property in and around the city, while many who opposed Rome were dispossessed of their property.

I don't see what this is supposed to prove or evidence. There is no historic reference to the expulsion of noncombatants which would've made up the vast majority of the city and there would be no reason to assume such a thing. You seem to be implying a population replacement scenario which is not historically supported, as Pompeii was an Italian city like the countless others that were colonized.

Additionally, many of Sulla's troops would've been of southern Italic extraction as well. The Italic social war was not a conflict simplistically fought between Roman citizens and Socii tribes. There were many incentives given during the war to fight with and remain loyal to the Romans for the Socii states, including the distribution of citizenship itself as per Lex Julia. This is what it made such a pivotal war in Italian politics.

Population increase in Pompeii:
By 79, Pompeii had a population of 20,000,[45] which had prospered from the region's renowned agricultural fertility and favourable location, although more recent estimates are up to 11,500 based on household counts.[3]

Up to 40% of the population in Pompeii were slaves. How many Jews were in Europe before the Holocaust? Up to 10 million. Which empire brought most of them in Europe? Where do you think Cilicians, Anatolians, Syrians and others go?

The transport from the Delos started in 200BC. (Merchants, slaves and veterans.)


I'm even more confused on what you are attempting to claim here. First of all there is zero evidence whatsoever that anywhere near 40% of Pompeii's population was composed of slaves. We have been over this once before and from what I remember you were pulling this figure out of thin air and had no source on this claim.

As for the very off topic comment about the holocaust which happened roughly 2000 years later, the Romans very clearly had zero intention of "bringing Jews to Europe". To start with there was more than one occasion in which Jewish populations were legally expelled from Italy by the Emperors. More accurately Jews of all types after their defeat in all three Roman-Jewish wars became a diaspora population which fled to many diverse lands around the Mediterranean. The idea that Rome had some sort of desire to mass import Jews is really rather a silly notion. The Romans did not stereotype Jews favorably in any way whatsoever when we look at what they've written. I'm not sure what Cilicians, Anatolians or Syrians have to do with any of this. You are all over the place, here. Many Jews migrated to their lands as well.
 
I really don't understand your point. Imperial Romans are not in the middle Ischia and Italics. Levant and Anatolia are pretty close to each other, so I prefer the term West Asia. Even though in the past I claimed that the bulk of migrants came from the Levant now I have shifted towards Anatolia but in general I use "West Asia" to include both of the regions.

The Ischians seem solidly imperial like to me. I don't see how you can get two samples that are more stereotypically imperial. Here's what I see:
Iron age campania labelled.jpg


0qjmhr.jpg

Moots' PCA with moderns for comparison:
Screen Shot 2021-03-22 at 2.37.30 AM.png
 
Last edited:
You guys are deliberately trying to be misleading with the PCAs where hypothetically X should land. And then flat out reject the official results.

It is obvious that old Greeks were plotting close but opposite of Sicilians and overlapping partially with the borders of Sicilians, fact. Besides that, native Italians were not 100% replaced either so southern Italians have and had a lot of indigenous Italic ancestry. It does matter if it is 80% Greek and 20% Italic or the vice-versa you don't get the Imperial Roman cluster. That is as simple as 1+1=2.

No - there was a hidden Bronze Age Anatolian somewhere, no - Himerian Greeks are not true or fully representative, no - one outlier of 25 Greeks turned out to be East-shifted we should focus on that one.

The scientists said the truth, that's all I have to say. I have no dog in this race and I am kinda getting bored of this hobby either war.
 
You guys are deliberately trying to be misleading with the PCAs where hypothetically X should land. And then flat out reject the official results.

It is obvious that old Greeks were plotting close but opposite of Sicilians and overlapping partially with the borders of Sicilians, fact. Besides that, native Italians were not 100% replaced either so southern Italians have and had a lot of indigenous Italic ancestry. It does matter if it is 80% Greek and 20% Italic or the vice-versa you don't get the Imperial Roman cluster. That is as simple as 1+1=2.

No - there was a hidden Bronze Age Anatolian somewhere, no - Himerian Greeks are not true or fully representative, no - one outlier of 25 Greeks turned out to be East-shifted we should focus on that one.

The scientists said the truth, that's all I have to say. I have no dog in this race and I am kinda getting bored of this hobby either war.
Give me a break, "dots are too big".

You're being obtuse about where the official pca plots for LBA Cretans, and completely ignoring that Mycenaeans are different from Dorians who conquered them. You are ignoring that Himera are Ionic-speakers from a different ethnic-subset of Greeks.
 
I did not say Romans brought 10 million Jews. I said there were 10 million Jews in Europe before the Holocaust most of which were descendants from Jewish migrants in the Roman era.
I know you didn't say that. I just don't think jews could have been a significant source of east med ancestry due to their low number, expecially when compared to the Greek colonization during the Iron Age. Of course, other movements of people from the Levant might have augmented this shift caused by the Greeks.
 
I know you didn't say that. I just don't think jews could have been a significant source of east med ancestry due to their low number, expecially when compared to the Greek colonization during the Iron Age. Of course, other movements of people from the Levant might have augmented this shift caused by the Greeks.
Personally, I have strong doubts that any of it has to do with the Levant.
 
We also know for a fact, since 2019 that some G2 and J2 came to Italy at least as early as the Neolithic, as per Antonio et al. 2019:
G2-P287 and J2-M172 are Paleolithic macrohaplogroup designations. No author should argue based on Paleolithic TMRCAs. That is the main problem and every conclusion based on them will be false. For instance G2a-L497 has a completely different migration pattern from G2a-M406+. Unfortunately most Italian authors have contributed to that kind of output (e.g. proposing some mysterious MENA affiliations for obviously European haplogroups) so I don't really see Antonio being a good rebutal of such methodology, rather the opposite, moreso a prime example. I remember Moots' article on the Central Adriatic being one of the more ridiculous examples though. The references they use are insanely outdated crap.
 
Give me a break, "dots are too big".

You're being obtuse about where the official pca plots for LBA Cretans, and completely ignoring that Mycenaeans are different from Dorians who conquered them. You are ignoring that Himera are Ionic-speakers from a different ethnic-subset of Greeks.
Indeed. The LBA Cretans are very different from MBA Cretans. Consider that a part of the Mycenaean Cretan population which plotted close to Minoans is not visible in LBA Cretans. A totally new cluster is formed which is different even compared to the MBA Mycenaeans. A clear population shift.

We know that Crete became Doric.
It is likely that Log 2 is representative of Dorians. This migration has been overseen by many. There was also Log 1 which was over 50 procent EEHG.
 
U8Sgbmv.png


Code:
# ---- Skourtanioti et al. 2023 qpAdm Reference model ----


# Set the correct dataset path
prefix <- "D:\\Bioinformatics\\01_Admixtools_Dataset\\v54.1.p1_HO_Jovialis_Plink\\Skourtanioti_2023\\v54.1.p1_HO_Jovialis"
my_f2_dir <- "D:\\Bioinformatics\\my_f2_dir_Jovialis"


# Load necessary libraries
library(admixtools)
library(tidyverse)


# Define populations
target <- c('Jovialis')
left <- c('Greece_Minoan_Lassithi', 'Germany_CordedWare')
right <- c('Ethiopia_4500BP.SG', 'Russia_Ust_Ishim_HG.DG', 'Russia_Kostenki14.SG', 'Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic', 'WHG', 'CHG', 'EEHG', 'W_Anatolia_N', 'Iran_GanjDareh_N', 'Israel_Natufian', 'ANE')


# Generate f2 Stats
mypops <- c(right, target, left)
extract_f2(prefix, my_f2_dir, pops = mypops, overwrite = TRUE, maxmiss = 1)
f2_blocks <- f2_from_precomp(my_f2_dir, pops = mypops, afprod = TRUE)


# Run the Model
results <- qpadm(prefix, left, right, target, allsnps = TRUE)
results$weights
results$popdrop

 

This thread has been viewed 140362 times.

Back
Top