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

[Idontknowwhatimdoing]

I think you are neglecting the fact that there were other people that lived in Southern Italy, who were not Daunians, Etruscans, or Italic.

"Iron Age Italians" you are speaking so broadly, because there were in fact other people that existed there before the Italics. R437 exists in the Iron Age and approximates with Southern Italians. C6 is the native central Mediterranean group that existed before the large scale migration of Anatolians (C5)

I think they are a mix of the prehistoric CHG/Anatolian-rich migrants that have been arriving since he the LN-EBA, and the northern influences from Etruscans/Italic+NW European influence. That's what the Minoan model from the 2022 paper makes sense.

That doesn't discount the fact that there were Imperial era immigrants, and I do think they had some impact. Southern Italians actually exist between C6 and C5 there's some overlap.

I did not neglect that at all. If you actually read my first post you would have known that. It seems that people here are commenting without even bothering reading everything i wrote on my original post. I've talked about the Bronze Age, Iron Age and classical age Sicilians many times in this thread. There was no such high CHG Anatolian migration in Italy ever until the Imperial period.

The Bronze Age, Iron Age and classical age Sicilians did not have an autosomal profile like the imperial West Anatolians. Of course they were similar, but they were not exactly the same direct people. There were no such high CHG Anatolian immigrants in any period in Sicily from the Bronze to the Iron Age. Only the Himera civilians show some shift towards Anatolia but its a pre-Hellenistic Anatolian shift, not the same one we see in the Rome Imperial samples and modern Italians.

And about your PCA, looking 2D PCA'S oversimplify the complex admixtures/shifts that happened. If you actually bother to model the samples you will see that they are not the same direct population. Looking at coincidental 2D PCA clusters and assuming they are the same direct population is absurd, it is the same logic as claiming that modern Northern Greeks are 90% directly descended from the Bronze Age Logkas samples because they are close to them on the PCA and that they have no Slavic admix. Obviously that's absurd.

Aegean-West_Anatolia = Rome Imperial samples that cluster with West Anatolians.

Explain to me why there are no samples ever in ancient Sicily that are this close to the Rome Imperial sample except Imperial West Anatolians, why? If there was such a high CHG Anatolian migration into Italy then where is it? Pay attention to the models below.

This is not implying direct ancestry, its meant to show the shifts so you can understand that the Imperial Rome Greek cluster was recent Hellenistic-Imperial related. It did not exist during Bronze Age or Iron age Sicily, In classical Sicily we see an Anatolian shift but it is Pre-Hellenistic and not the same Hellenistic-Imperial one.

I had this on my original post but without the modern South Italians, i will replace them with these ones since so you can see them compared to modern South Italians. Maybe it will help you people understand. Those high CHG and Levant shifts did not exist in The Bronze or Iron age Sicily. They only start appearing in classical times but they were still not the same Hellenistic/Imperial shifts, they are pre-Hellenistic Anatolian shifts in Classical Sicily.

 

[Juan.delajara]

Lazaridis et al. argue strenuously in the Southern Arc supplementals that the Imperial Roman influx was not just Anatolia/East Med like, but actually from Anatolia. If memory serves, that would be people from the Hellenistic places studied in the Southern Arc. Waiting and wondering if J2a-L70 will be found somewhere in the Hellenistic Anatolia or Greek world. Southern Arc and other papers show that all Mycenaean J2a men were L26 but not L24 and L25 (below L24, and L70 is below L25). The first L25 sample was found in Classical Himera and had a Mediterranean aDNA profile (Z7706 if memory serves). Another L25 was found in Hellenistic Halicarnassus, but had a mostly Levantine profile. Southwest Anatolia seems to have been a hotspot for the L25 men, based on Southern Arc, including a Medieval below/above L70 sample.

We still don't have a clear picture where JL70 was born (for me somewhere between Anatolia and the Aegean). It was on the Italian peninsula on the late republic/early imperial times, according to the Urbino sample that had a local Admixture. We still need to wait for further ancient classical greek samples to see if they find any JL70, but the impact of this clade on central/southern Italy and on Greek Islands today is relevant. Let's see if the Mycenaean that is said to be JL70 is confirmed by a formal publication. JL70's subclades probably played a role on Greek expansion in the Mediterranean, as the Finocchio et Al. paper from 2018 stated. According to the distribution of some of its subclades in western Europe today, probably it was expanded during roman times.

 

[Jovialis]

I did not neglect that at all. If you actually read my first post you would have known that. It seems that people here are commenting without even bothering reading everything i wrote on my original post. I've talked about the Bronze Age, Iron Age and classical age Sicilians many times in this thread. There was no such high CHG Anatolian migration in Italy ever until the Imperial period.

The Bronze Age, Iron Age and classical age Sicilians did not have an autosomal profile like the imperial West Anatolians. Of course they were similar, but they were not exactly the same direct people. There were no such high CHG Anatolian immigrants in any period in Sicily from the Bronze to the Iron Age. Only the Himera civilians show some shift towards Anatolia but its a pre-Hellenistic Anatolian shift, not the same one we see in the Rome Imperial samples and modern Italians.

And about your PCA, 2D PCA'S oversimplify the complex admixtures/shifts that happened. If you actually bother to model the samples you will see that they are not the same direct population.

Aegean-West_Anatolia = Rome Imperial samples that cluster with West Anatolians.

Explain to me why there are no samples ever in ancient Sicily that are this close to the Rome Imperial sample except Imperial West Anatolians, why? If there was such a high CHG Anatolian migration into Italy then where is it? Pay attention to the models below.

I had this on my original post but without the modern South Italians, i will replace them with these ones since so you can see them compared to modern South Italians. Maybe it will help you people understand. Those high CHG and Levant shifts did not exist in The Bronze or Iron age Sicily. They only start appearing in classical times but they were still not the same Hellenistic/Imperial shifts, they are pre-Hellenistic Anatolian shifts in Classical Sicily.

Of course there was a higher CHG signal before the Imperial era. Frankly, your disagreement on this fundamental fact in my opinion disqualifies your theory.

 

[Jovialis]

Also that's a snapshot from a 3D pca.

 

[Jovialis]

If you're not going to speak in a civilized manner, I can fix that for you.

 

[Idontknowwhatimdoing]

Of course there was a higher CHG signal before the Imperial era. Frankly, your disagreement on this fundamental fact in my opinion disqualifies your theory.

What? There are literally no Bronze age and Iron Age Sicilian samples with this high CHG and Levantine shifts as the Rome Imperial ones, ZERO. Frankly, your disagreement on this fundamental fact objectively disqualifies your theory.

Explain to me why there are no samples ever in ancient Sicily that are this close to the Rome Imperial sample except Imperial West Anatolians, why? If there was such a high CHG Anatolian migration into Italy then where is it? Pay attention to the models below.

This is not implying direct ancestry, its meant to show the shifts so you can understand that the Imperial Rome Greek cluster was recent Hellenistic-Imperial related. It did not exist during Bronze Age or Iron age Sicily, In classical Sicily we see an Anatolian shift but it is Pre-Hellenistic and not the same Hellenistic-Imperial one.

 

[Idontknowwhatimdoing]

Also that's a snapshot from a 3D pca genius.

I meant you looking at the PCA on your 2D screen which oversimplifies the reality.

 

[Jovialis]

Who says there aren't. C5 is similar, and there was R850 in the Iron Age.

 

[Jovialis]

I meant you looking at the PCA on your 2D screen which oversimplifies the reality.

Frankly I don't understand, it's from a specific angle. What do you want, a GIF?

 

[Palermo Trapani]

The paper is showing that Hellenistic urban Macedonians were 50-70% Anatolian. Something like that happened later in imperial South Italy. Now i do not know if the shift happened in 10 or 50 or 100 or 200 years. Its possible that these people also moved to South Italy during the Hellenistic period and then in the Imperial period from South Italy to Rome. But what is certain is that South Italians have 40-60% admix from those people from West Anatolia which match the Imperial West Anatolian profile. The rest of the admix is Italian iron age, excess Levant, North African.

Half of the samples in the city of Imperial Rome are identical to imperial Greek West Anatolians. It is very likely that half of the population during that time was literally Greek in the city. They do not seem to be mixed yet with Iron Age Italians.

Again, I am not disputing Greek-like admixture in Italy, Southern Italy mainland and Sicily in particular. Nobody is disputing that, but 70-90% replacement is a heck of number you are hypothesizing here. Regarding admixture from Near East, there was already in both Antonio et al 2019 and the Fernandes et al 2020 paper (Bronze Age Sardinia and Sicily) excess CHG/Iran_Neolithic signals that were not associated with the arrival of Steppe ancestry (EHG+CHG mix). So there was already a shift towards Myceneans and Minoans and Greeks in general in the Bronze age, per those 2 studies.

 

[Idontknowwhatimdoing]

If you're not going to speak in a collegic manner, I can fix that for you.

Everyone on this post is 100% ignoring everything i'm saying, only looking at one model and then rushing to comment their opinion and ask questions about things that i have already explained. I've showed the Bronze and Iron age Sicilians, why did you even assume that i ignored them, it means you did not even bother reading my post. they were not like the Rome Imperial samples who are identical to the West Anatolians.

 

[Jovialis]

R850 was C5 in the Iron Age in Central Italy.

 

[Idontknowwhatimdoing]

Again, I am not disputing Greek-like admixture in Italy, Southern Italy mainland and Sicily in particular. Nobody is disputing that, but 70-90% replacement is a heck of number you are hypothesizing here. Regarding admixture from Near East, there was already in both Antonio et al 2019 and the Fernandes et al 2020 paper (Bronze Age Sardinia and Sicily) excess CHG/Iran_Neolithic signals that were not associated with the arrival of Steppe ancestry (EHG+CHG mix). So there was already a shift towards Myceneans and Minoans and Greeks in general in the Bronze age, per those 2 studies.

I've explained many times that those Rome Imperials had a much higher CHG and Levant Neolithic shift than the Bronze and Iron age Sicilians. I've addressed that many times, why are you still asking about it.

Explain to me why there are no samples ever in ancient Sicily that are this close to the Rome Imperial sample except Imperial West Anatolians, why? If there was such a high CHG Anatolian migration into Italy then where is it? I'm not saying that there was no CHG Anatolian migration in South Italy in the Bronze Age, i'm saying that it happened again with a population with even higher CHG and Levant Neolithic during the Hellenistic/Imperial period. Pay attention to the models below.

This is not implying direct ancestry, its meant to show the shifts so you can understand that the Imperial Rome Greek cluster was recent Hellenistic-Imperial related. It did not exist during Bronze Age or Iron age Sicily, In classical Sicily we see an Anatolian shift but it is Pre-Hellenistic and not the same Hellenistic-Imperial one.

 

[Francesco]

Those high CHG and Levant shifts did not exist in The Bronze or Iron age Sicily. They only start appearing in classical times but they were still not the same Hellenistic/Imperial shifts, they are pre-Hellenistic Anatolian shifts in Classical Sicily.

If you are saying that hellenistic era greek were a little bit more anatolian admixed than their iron age predecessor, I think we can all agree. I just don't think there were some kind of genetic rupture with the Iron Age. So, to summarize it, I find the hypothesis of an hellenistic more anatolian shifted greek influx in southern Italy and in Greece plausible; but if we talk about a nearly total replacement of the pre existing Greek population we're far from reality, in my opinion.
In your model, for instance, southern Italian are modeled like 0%Myceneans (!) and 60% hellenistic greek: I believe that might very well depends on the fact that the latter component is eating up the first, being overall very similar.

 

[Idontknowwhatimdoing]

If you are saying that hellenistic era greek were a little bit more anatolian admixed than their iron age predecessor, I think we can all agree. I just don't think there were some kind of genetic rupture with the Iron Age. So, to summarize it, I find the hypothesis of an hellenistic more anatolian shifted greek influx in southern Italy and in Greece plausible; but if we talk about a nearly total replacement of the pre existing Greek population we're far from reality, in my opinion.
In your model, for instance, southern Italian are modeled like 0%Myceneans (!) and 60% hellenistic greek: I believe that might very well depends on the fact that the latter component is eating up the first, being overall very similar.

It could only be eating it if South Italy also experienced a large East Anatolian/Armenian and Levantine migration and recreated an identical profile to the Imperial West Anatolians. But then that would mean that the migrants were not Greek, which i don't think its the case. Most of the "Eastern" admix came from Greeks.

They were not just a bit more Anatolian admixed, they had literal 50-70% Anatolian admix in northern Greece during the Hellenistic period, their pre Hellenistic Balkan admix was down to 30-50% and the rest was Anatolian.

If a massive pre Imperial migration of Armenians and Levantines happened in Italy then i was wrong, but it doesn't match up.

 

[Jovialis]

This is complete nonsense, Apulians can be modeled simply with Minoan. That's the proxy for the neolithic population that has lived there since 6000 BC. The farmer migrations to Apulia and the surrounding region would have been more densely populated than that of most other areas due to the proximity of the source across the Adriatic. So it would make sense that these neolithic people would have a big impact on the substrate of the local population. That's a viable model regardless of whatever you say. That was indeed used in the supplements to model Bronze Age Sicilians, and Daunians as well. So frankly, I think to take a strident stance as you have taken is being short sighted. You can have your opinion, but you are not allowed to brow beat.

I'm not shutting down the thread because I simply disagree, I don't have the right to do that. so I don't understand your complaints.

 

[Idontknowwhatimdoing]

R850 was C5 in the Iron Age in Central Italy.

It's just an outlier, there weren't even West Anatolians with this high CHG shift in that period. Look at the 750-480 BC West Anatolian samples.

This model is just comparing shifts, not actual ancestry.

 

[ihype02]

It could only be eating it if South Italy also experienced a large East Anatolian/Armenian and Levantine migration and recreated an identical profile to the Imperial West Anatolians. But then that would mean that the migrants were not Greek, which i don't think its the case. Most of the "Eastern" admix came from Greeks.

They were not just a bit more Anatolian admixed, they had literal 50-70% Anatolian admix in northern Greece during the Hellenistic period, their pre Hellenistic Balkan admix was down to 30-50% and the rest was Anatolian.

If a massive pre Imperial migration of Armenians and Levantines happened in Italy then i was wrong, but it doesn't match up.

Also considering all Western Anatolians assimilated at some time during the Hellenistic period is a bit of a stretch. I believe most of them outside polises kept their religion, customs and identity until the spread of Christianity.

 

[Francesco]

It could only be eating it if South Italy also experienced a large East Anatolian/Armenian and Levantine migration and recreated an identical profile to the Imperial West Anatolians. But then that would mean that the migrants were not Greek, which i don't think its the case. Most of the "Eastern" admix came from Greeks.

They were not just a bit more Anatolian admixed, they had literal 50-70% Anatolian admix in northern Greece during the Hellenistic period, their pre Hellenistic Balkan admix was down to 30-50% and the rest was Anatolian.

If a massive pre Imperial migration of Armenians and Levantines happened in Italy then i was wrong, but it doesn't match up.

Then, I don't understand if you are implying that this second wave of ionian Greeks completely replaced their Iron Age Greek predecessors in Magna Grecia. Because that's what your model seems to hint at with a surprising 0% Mycenean in Apulia and Calabria.

 

[Idontknowwhatimdoing]

This complete nonsense, Apulians can be modeled simply with Minoan. That's the proxy for the neolithic population that has lived there since 6000 BC. The farmer migrations to Apulia and the surrounding region, would have been more densely populated that most other areas due to the proximity across the Adriatic. So it would make sense that it would have a big impact on the substrate of the local population. That's a viable model regardless of whatever you say. That was indeed used in the supplements to model Bronze Age Sicilians as well. So frankly, I think to take a strident stance as you have taken is being short sighted. You can have your opinion, but you are not allowed to brow beat.

I'm not shutting down the thread because I simply disagree, I don't have the right to do that. so I don't understand your complaints.

If Apulians can be modelled with simply Minoan then all Greek islanders can be modelled with Simply Minoan, makes no sense. Just because you think something is viable because of your assumptions about the population density, it does not counter actual autosomal DNA data.

Apulians have way too much excess CHG and Levant Neolithic to be just simply Minoan. Just because a model fits on qpAdm or ADMIXTURE it does not make it real. You can fit anything. It makes absolutely no sense to model Apulians with "simply Minoan". Their ANF is not high enough and their CHG/Levant Neolithic is not low enough. They can be modelled with 6% Minoan, thats it.

Basically by Hellenistic times, the Greeks from Greece and Anatolia were mixed with each other and kinda formed one cluster. There were no magical isolations of 5000 years. The same thing happened in South Italy.