G25 G25 imperial Greek shift in Greeks and Italians + a comparison with qpAdm

I wouldn't use the himera civilian cluster as a proxy for classical Greek colonists, since there are many individual of clear Sicanian ancestry in there. Some of them are clearly Greek, others are not.

Still, not a single sample from Classical Sicily is like the Imperial Rome Greek cluster. Obviously there was a big immigration from West Anatolia. Some people here like to claim that its just "Anatolia BA/Minoan" that was already there in Sicily but it was clearly not in the Bronze Age, not in the Iron Age, not in the Classical age.

I'm not saying that the population was massively different genetically, compared to the rest of the world obviously they are related but tools such as qpAdm and G25 can helps us tell apart related populations.

Also the Himera_1 samples was fully mainland Ionian genetically.
 
Still, not a single sample from Classical Sicily is like the Imperial Rome Greek cluster. Obviously there was a big immigration from West Anatolia. Some people here like to claim that its just "Anatolia BA/Minoan" that was already there in Sicily but it was clearly not in the Bronze Age, not in the Iron Age, not in the Classical age.
I'm not saying that the population was massively different genetically, compared to the rest of the world obviously they are related but tools such as qpAdm and G25 can helps us tell apart related populations.
Also the Himera_1 samples was fully mainland Ionian genetically.
Actually, if I remember correctly, there are several samples from Himera wich falls in an hypothetical imperial Rome Greek cluster. Not all of them, of course. Even some samples from Iron Age Rome seem similar to this aegean profile and could be some kind of Greek colonist
Overall, we still need more late iron age / classical antiquity samples from Greece, that's for sure.
 
Actually, if I remember correctly, there are several samples from Himera wich falls in an hypothetical imperial Rome Greek cluster. Not all of them, of course. Even some samples from Iron Age Rome seem similar to this aegean profile and could be some kind of Greek colonist
Overall, we still need more late iron age / classical antiquity samples from Greece, that's for sure.

Which iron age samples seem to have this Aegean profile? The profile didn't really exist in the iron age of West Anatolia, it was similar of course but G25 can help us tell them apart.
 
Actually, if I remember correctly, there are several samples from Himera wich falls in an hypothetical imperial Rome Greek cluster. Not all of them, of course. Even some samples from Iron Age Rome seem similar to this aegean profile and could be some kind of Greek colonist
Overall, we still need more late iron age / classical antiquity samples from Greece, that's for sure.

The only classical mainland Greek samples we have are the mercenaries in Sicily, but we dont know exactly where from they are. We need samples from the main classical mainland cities such as Sparta, Athens, Corinth etc.
 
Picking only ancient samples from Italy


hVrO83x.png


y2onvLn.png




G0gnIMV.png
 
Picking only ancient samples from Italy
hVrO83x.png

y2onvLn.png

G0gnIMV.png
The imperial Romans cluster is not omogenous and goes from Central Europe to the Aegean sea and then to Middle East and it's not a good source for a model. Otherwise you get strange things, like the 40% Swedish admixture in Friuli...
 
The imperial Romans cluster is not omogenous and goes from Central Europe to the Aegean sea and then to Middle East and it's not a good source for a model. Otherwise you get strange things, like the 40% Swedish admixture in Friuli...


It is the average that corresponds exactly to what was stated in the peer-reviewed studies. I don't think that's the problem.
 
It is the average that corresponds exactly to what was stated in the peer-reviewed studies. I don't think that's the problem.
Of course it's an average, that's exactly why it doesn't tell you wich the source population is, being just a "miscellanea".

I try to explain myself: the average happens to plot roughly in the Aegean-southern Italy cluster: should we infer that the calculator see the imperial Romans just as a proxy for an aegean population, or that it sees it as an actual mix of those specific different populations that make up the cluster? We cannot know.
 
The admixture ratio changed by like 70-90% then.


There is no such problem if you are doing it right, i literally posted models with much less proxies and they showed the same thing, i've also compared the results to qpAdm. And before you claim that Anatolia center is being confused with West Anatolian, it is simply is not because the West Anatolians had higher Armenian and Levantine related admix. G25 is good at telling apart related populations. The classical Sicilian civilian's Anatolian admix was mainly Pre Hellenistic Anatolian like.

lOykDgr.png

What do these "pre-Hellenistic" Anatolians look like vs. "post-Hellenistic" Anatolians look. I am well aware based on numerous papers that Anatolia was a genetic continuity from the Neolithic to late Bronze Age (per the Southern Arc papers). But just how different are those populations.

Next, what do the G25 results show relative to the Dodecad 12B, which from my perspective, still do a better job of modeling Italian populations than G25 (which is better than what the old K13 use to do, but still IMO, not as good as Dodecade 12B)?
 
Unfortunately I can't. As far as I know we have two groups of Lombard samples, one from Collegno, in northern Italy, and another one in Hungary. Interestingly, they both show a bulk of samples that is, unsurprisingly, central European like, but they also show a non negligible amount of samples that already plot near modern northern Italian, while others even plot with modern Aegean people. These should probably be removed from the equation if we want to detect a more realistic germanic input in Italy.

collegno and hungary are the exact same people ..........SZ are the one that remained in Hungaria and the CL are the ones that migrated to Italy ( both are lombard groups )
 
Of course it's an average, but it doesn't tell you wich exactly the source population is, being just a "miscellanea"

Imperial Rome was indeed a miscellany of peoples and it will be difficult, if not impossible, to understand where they all came from.
 
Imperial Rome was indeed a miscellany of peoples and it will be difficult, if not impossible, to understand where they all came from.
We know roughly where they came from. Here I try to explain it a bit better
Of course it's an average, that's exactly why it doesn't tell you wich the source population is, being just a "miscellanea".
I try to explain myself: the average happens to plot roughly in the Aegean-southern Italy cluster: should we infer that the calculator see the imperial Romans just as a proxy for an aegean population, or that it sees it as an actual mix of those specific different populations that make up the cluster? We cannot know.
 
Let's see if you can understand me that way. Your models make no sense historically, because they imply a massive Greek and North Germanic presence throughout Italy, from the Alps to Sicily.

once you mix BC peoples with AD peoples...the admixture will be 100% error

here is another to add ............the normans of southern Italy ............lets add this as well and make a bigger "minestone" soup of people
 
We know roughly where they came from. Here I try to explain it a bit better

In fact, I agree with you, we'll never know, and I think it's nonsensical to even ask it and trace that average back to a specific ethnicity.
 
The imperial Romans cluster is not omogenous and goes from Central Europe to the Aegean sea and then to Middle East and it's not a good source for a model. Otherwise you get strange things, like the 40% Swedish admixture in Friuli...

Ostrogoths........where in Northeast italy 100 Years before the Lombards arrived.............their capital was Ravenna

Actually, the lombards had to defeat and annex the ostrogoths to conquer Italy
 
The admixture ratio changed by like 70-90% then.


There is no such problem if you are doing it right, i literally posted models with much less proxies and they showed the same thing, i've also compared the results to qpAdm. And before you claim that Anatolia center is being confused with West Anatolian, it is simply is not because the West Anatolians had higher Armenian and Levantine related admix. G25 is good at telling apart related populations. The classical Sicilian civilian's Anatolian admix was mainly Pre Hellenistic Anatolian like.

You have no idea how admixture models are to be interpreted, since they just show how a population can be modelled, it does not literally show what the actual ancestral genetic make-up of a people is- it shows "a possibility", as far as the samples and the algorithm used go, a possibility that must be weighed against other historical evidence; it has already been noted that your model is extremely implausible since it has too a significant presence of germanic admixture from the Alps to Sicily.
A 70-90% replacement is impossible on account of internal migration(individual citizens, often the middle-upper class, deciding to move, not any generalised "folk migration" as in the case of indo-europeans moving into western Europe), it doesn't even happen today and it is extremely unlikely it will, and such levels are even hard to obtain in the case of folk migrations, but somehow "it just happened".
Furthermore, your model makes no sense because ancient southern Italians were already similar to ancient Greeks(the Sicilian bell beaker sample plotted closely to where BA Sicilians plotted), and they saw too a significant gene flow from ancient Greeks themselves, who included both "classical", for lack of a better term, greeks with a Mycenaean-like profile and Greeks with some Anatolia_BA admixture; then, as I said since 2021 at least, a significant gene flow from Anatolia-like, more precisely Anatolia_IA gene flow is very plausible in Italy during the empire, but "significant" means that it was on top of Sicily_IA-like+ Mycenaean-like, not the ridiculous claimed 70-90% replacement from far away places as I keep reading from people that have an agenda for ethnic self-aggrandizement.
 
You have no idea how admixture models are to be interpreted, since they just show how a population can be modelled, it does not literally show what the actual ancestral genetic make-up of a people is- it shows "a possibility", as far as the samples and the algorithm used go, a possibility that must be weighed against other historical evidence; it has already been noted that your model is extremely implausible since it has too a significant presence of germanic admixture from the Alps to Sicily.
A 70-90% replacement is impossible on account of internal migration(individual citizens, often the middle-upper class, deciding to move, not any generalised "folk migration" as in the case of indo-europeans moving into western Europe), it doesn't even happen today and it is extremely unlikely it will, and such levels are even hard to obtain in the case of folk migrations, but somehow "it just happened".
Furthermore, your model makes no sense because ancient southern Italians were already similar to ancient Greeks(the Sicilian bell beaker sample plotted closely to where BA Sicilians plotted), and they saw too a significant gene flow from ancient Greeks themselves, who included both "classical", for lack of a better term, greeks with a Mycenaean-like profile and Greeks with some Anatolia_BA admixture; then, as I said since 2021 at least, a significant gene flow from Anatolia-like, more precisely Anatolia_IA gene flow is very plausible in Italy during the empire, but "significant" means that it was on top of Sicily_IA-like+ Mycenaean-like, not the ridiculous claimed 70-90% replacement from far away places as I keep reading from people that have an agenda for ethnic self-aggrandizement.

Well I agree, I tried to be diplomatic, this 70-90% replacement is a well take the italian word str.....on............... and add grande in front of it, in english a Huge BS.
 
The admixture ratio changed by like 70-90% then.


There is no such problem if you are doing it right, i literally posted models with much less proxies and they showed the same thing, i've also compared the results to qpAdm. And before you claim that Anatolia center is being confused with West Anatolian, it is simply is not because the West Anatolians had higher Armenian and Levantine related admix. G25 is good at telling apart related populations. The classical Sicilian civilian's Anatolian admix was mainly Pre Hellenistic Anatolian like.

lOykDgr.png


Central Sicilians being 7% Slavic and 0% native makes total sense.
 
Where did you find the hellenistic macedonia samples?It is interesting
 
Ihype02: Central Sicilians being 7% Slavic and 0% native makes total sense? I do hope you are being very, very, very, tongue and cheek so to speak. I am assuming your are!

So let me just say, it makes 100% no sense.
 
Last edited:

This thread has been viewed 21832 times.

Back
Top