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

[Jovialis]

Banned for 1 month until you can grow up and have a normal debate like an adult.

 

[Jovialis]

The actual dozens of Rome Imperial samples on average seem to have a 50% West Anatolian shift, so over time when these people mixed with each other they would have been 50% West Anatolian, then it gets diluted down to 33% by North Italians and then raised up later up to 40% by South Italians.

In your fantasy world it makes sense, but that's not what the evidence in the paper shows, when you look the the haplotypes.

 

[Palermo Trapani]

That means that you unlock the door for all stupid models in the world. Such as Cypriots being almost pure Anatolia BA with 0% direct Levantine. You assume that if a model works from the Bronze Age on Italians, that it must be definitely true that they must have stayed the same for 5000 years.

I don't know what your game is. The problem I have is your models, for example Republican Rome and Imperial Roman Samples, and the model with Tuscany has variables, lets call them predictors, X variables (independent variables) to explain a given population Y (Dependent variable) that are also contemporaneous. You then talk about 70%-90% replacement and say their is no continuity. Those models don't take into account the contemporaneous populations have many of the same source populations, albeit in different admixture proportions.

What happened in Iron Age Italy to this "Imperial Age" construct that seems to be very popular with the G25 sycophants is that you/others it appears are suggesting a total discontinuity where an immigrant population totally changed the local ancestral population when it is more likely a partial or some significant continuity so to speak, not 100% total continuity (nobody is saying that), where the locals/ancestral population admixed with some of the immigrants but the the original dna signals are still there.

 

[Jovialis]

My model has been used by the studies you cited (Daunians and Bronze age Sicilian papers) , so what is the problem?

It is only good when it serves your agenda, but it isn't when it proves it wrong?

I think you need to explain yourself.

When you present me with a document, and ignore part of the document that confirms what I am saying, that is extraordinary.

You should run for George Santo's vacancy.


That model has been used by others as well, because as I have emphatically stated, it make sense with the archeology according to neolithic migrations from across the Adriatic from Greece and Albania in 6000 BC.


These people didn't just spontaneously combust the minute someone else came in!

 

[Jovialis]

The C6 cluster from antonio et al. 2019 is native to Italy, it does not match up with Modern Greeks, nor do they match up with Ancient Greeks. But it does match up with Modern Italians, particularly southern and central Italians. That informs me that Modern Southern Italians were indeed at least approximated by the Iron age in Italy, as R437 show. This ancestry became a dominate group in Rome during the Imperial era, along with C5 and C4. But odds are they migrated from somewhere within Italy.


The C6 cluster represent the non-Etruscan pre-Italic people of Italy more in ancestry. I do not believe they were Greeks. But perhaps the C5 cluster were indeed Anatolian and Island Greek-like people.

 

[ihype02]

Relevant leak from upcoming Hellenistic Macedonia samples, it's a leak so not confirmed, the samples show heavy Anatolian overlap.

If you don't mind me to ask can you post a link where is this PCA coming from? I would like to hear any additional details that've might been revealed there.

 

[Francesco]

Anyway, in my opinion this is not totally a bad model, just as long as you imply that those samples labeled as Antiquity Greek are a proxy summing up both for the Iron Age Greeks and the hellenistic ones that came to Italy later. If one sees it this way, despite the probable inflation of the germanic component in Tuscany, the model looks somewhat credible. The excess in Anatolia_BA some regions show in Jovialis models could actually be explained by this later greek influx.

 

[Jovialis]

The C6 cluster from antonio et al. 2019 is native to Italy, it does not match up with Modern Greeks, nor do they match up with Ancient Greeks. But it does match up with Modern Italians, particularly southern and central Italians. That informs me that Modern Southern Italians were indeed at least approximated by the Iron age in Italy, as R437 show. This ancestry became a dominate group in Rome during the Imperial era, along with C5 and C4. But odds are they migrated from somewhere within Italy.


The C6 cluster represent the non-Etruscan pre-Italic people of Italy more in ancestry. I do not believe they were Greeks. But perhaps the C5 cluster were indeed Anatolian and Island Greek-like people.

This is true for all era of C6.

 

[torzio]

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

You need clarity on this T ydna person from etruscan owned Ardea town in Lazio. .......................not truly known unless I missed something that you have.

some say, of Cretan origin and some say a corsican of greek origin .........................IIRC his wife was Corsican

 

[Pax Augusta]

Anyway, in my opinion this is not totally a bad model, just as long as you imply that those samples labeled as Antiquity Greek are a proxy summing up both for the Iron Age Greeks and the hellenistic ones that came to Italy later. If one sees it this way, despite the probable inflation of the germanic component in Tuscany, the model looks somewhat credible. The excess in Anatolia_BA some regions show in Jovialis models could actually be explained by this later greek influx.

These are nothing more than probablistic calculations based on the genetic position of an average (itself based on a some samples, certainly not the entire population), nothing more. It is not the oracle of truth. If the Germanic part is inflated in the Tuscans, it is because the other parts on the opposite side (the Roman Empire samples) closest to the Aegean are as well. There is no other possible reading. The Tuscans are part, like all Italians, of the Italian cline. It means that the Germanic part and the Roman Empire part, which we generically call Aegean/Anatolian, must always be proportionate to the position of a given Italian population within the cline, with the Germanic part always being higher in the northernmost part of the Italian cline and the Roman Empire or Aegean part (which we continue to call so for convenience) always being higher in the southernmost populations of the Italian cline. If the Germanic part goes down, the Aegean part must also go down.

The problem is that, even if a trend can be glimpsed, ancient samples from many areas of Italy are still missing to get the full picture. Just as there are almost no samples for Iron Age Greece.

 

[Jovialis]

You need clarity on this T ydna person from etruscan owned Ardea town in Lazio. .......................not truly known unless I missed something that you have.

some say, of Cretan origin and some say a corsican of greek origin .........................IIRC his wife was Corsican

I think it is just a coincidence that R850 is plotting with Kos for example in my PCA. I think he just represents an ancient Eastern Mediterranean-like population that arrived in Italy at least by the EBA. Antonio et al. 2019 said he clusters with Anatolia_ChL.

 

[Jovialis]

This is true for all era of C6.

R850 is C5_Iron_Age_Eastern_Med on the PCA.

 

[Francesco]

These are nothing more than probablistic calculations based on the genetic position of an average (itself based on a some samples, certainly not the entire population), nothing more. It is not the oracle of truth. If the Germanic part is inflated in the Tuscans, it is because the other parts on the opposite side (the Roman Empire samples) closest to the Aegean are as well. There is no other possible reading. The Tuscans are part, like all Italians, of the Italian cline. It means that the Germanic part and the Roman Empire part, which we generically call Aegean/Anatolian, must always be proportionate to the position of a given Italian population within the cline, with the Germanic part always being higher in the northernmost part of the Italian cline and the Roman Empire or Aegean part (which we continue to call so for convenience) always being higher in the southernmost populations of the Italian cline. If the Germanic part goes down, the Aegean part must also go down.

The problem is that, even if a trend can be glimpsed, ancient samples from many areas of Italy are still missing to get the full picture. Just as there are almost no samples for Iron Age Greece.

Yes, that's clear

Anyway, relevant to the thread and regarding the interaction between the Greek and the anatolian world in the Iron Age, I remember this post from Lazaridis' Twitter account, where he said that anatolians show a progressive shift towards the Greek in the Iron Age. I think we could assume that the same happened the other way around approximately in the same time frame.

https://twitter.com/iosif_lazaridis/status/1618099945608994819?s=20

 

[Jovialis]

All of this is so dumb, C6 existed in the same time as C5!

C6 outlasted C5, and is shown to have become the dominate group after the middle ages.

Modern Central and Southern Italians are predominately C6.

This is why Umbria, Lazio, and Marche are part of the Southern Italian cluster in Raveane et. al 2019. Because it was C6 people that repopulated medieval Rome. That is the main component that is shared by central and southern Italians.

They're northern-shifted southerners; they're (C6) that mixed are on a gradient to C7, which is brought by Northern Italian influence, as well as influence from north of the Alps.

South Italians are also predominately (C6) on a gradient to C5, which like has more to do with the Greek colonies. I recall Sarno et. al. 2021 on Calabrian Greeks.

Northern Italians are also on a gradient between C7 and C6, they too must have ancestry related to non-Etruscan, pre-Italic people. But they probably have more Italic/Etruscan-like ancestry perhaps, along with a small but notable contribution from north of the Alps.

It is all very simple actually.

 

[Jovialis]

non-Etruscan, pre-Italic people of the South were likely similar to the Neolithic Greeks (CHG + Anatolia_N), as migrations from the region have been coming since 6000 BC. Something that is supported by genetics, and pre-historic records.

It is so absurd to suggest on CHG-rich people arrived only in the Imperial era. Once again, I refer to the Daunian paper that saw this dynamic of mixing with mysterious, high CHG people. Likely remnants of people who lived there before Daunians arrived in the late bronze age.

 

[Pax Augusta]

Yes, that's clear
Anyway, relevant to the thread and regarding the interaction between the Greek and the anatolian world in the Iron Age, I remember this post from Lazaridis' Twitter account, where he said that anatolians show a progressive shift towards the Greek in the Iron Age. I think we could assume that the same happened the other way around approximately in the same time frame.
https://twitter.com/iosif_lazaridis/status/1618099945608994819?s=20

Not to mention that a significant part of Anatolia became Greek for a few centuries, certainly the Greeks were among the first to mix with the Anatolians. Then the Persians arrived in Anatolia and the Levant. Persian rule undoubtedly caused a number of Anatolians and Levantines to flee westwards.

Lazaridis also said that this Aegean-Anatolian migratory current had an impact on Greece and the Balkans (and he was referring to Serbia, thus also the central and northern Balkans) as well as Italy. But there is still a lack of ancient samples, I repeat, in many cases. Then other phenomena may also have played a role, resurgence of more Iron Age profiles and demographic declines, bottlenecks and so on. Then everyone gets obsessed with imperial Rome, but there are centuries after the collapse of Rome that we know little about, not least because of the chaos that was created.

 

[Jovialis]

Not to mention that a significant part of Anatolia became Greek for a few centuries, certainly the Greeks were among the first to mix with the Anatolians. Then the Persians arrived in Anatolia and the Levant. Persian rule undoubtedly caused a number of Anatolians and Levantines to flee westwards.

Lazaridis also said that this Aegean-Anatolian migratory current had an impact on Greece and the Balkans (and he was referring to Serbia, thus also the central and northern Balkans) as well as Italy. But there is still a lack of ancient samples, I repeat, in many cases. Then other phenomena may also have played a role, resurgence of more Iron Age profiles and demographic declines, bottlenecks and so on. Then everyone gets obsessed with imperial Rome, but there are centuries after the collapse of Rome that we know little about, not least because of the chaos that was created.

Indeed, everyone forgets that the paper where all of these imperial samples comes from also said they disappear from Rome, and there are deep demographic shifts.

 

[Jovialis]

Let's ask RazibGPT

 

[bigsnake49]

Do we have any historical facts of this supposed massive migration of Anatolian Hellenistic Greeks into Macedonia to change the population so drastically. What precipitated it? I don't seem to recall any massive urban centers in Macedonia becoming so attractive to migrants. Certainly, extant archeology does not support a massive population movement.

We know that Athens then Rome then Constantinople attracted artists, artisans and intellectuals from all over but Macedonia?

 

[Leopoldo Leone]

Do we have any historical facts of this supposed massive migration of Anatolian Hellenistic Greeks into Macedonia to change the population so drastically. What precipitated it? I don't seem to recall any massive urban centers in Macedonia becoming so attractive to migrants. Certainly, extant archeology does not support a massive population movement.

We know that Athens then Rome then Constantinople attracted artists, artisans and intellectuals from all over but Macedonia?

Indeed no one in his right mind speaks of drastical population changes, because any one who has a sound historical understanding grasps the difference between a scenario in which upper middle class foreigners moved into urban centers and a scenario in which somehow an entire region got repopulated by at least hundred thousands of foreigners, with the natives vanishing into thin air and the lands those foreigners came from somehow being able to sustain a gargantuan population size.
Keeping in mind that depending on the time period the funerary rituals can indeed result in bias in the surviving remains (if the locals cremate their dead it is logical that the bones we find today in graveyards are more likely to be from foreigners that used to bury their dead), it is not hard to see that because archaeogenetics find what we knew from the literature and archaeology (relatively high proportions of foreigners in major urban centers, with respect to the previous eras that is) then most of those whose remains we analysed today "must" have contributed to the subsequent gene pool. A priori it is a possibility but not a necessity, and given the evidence we have now it seems that the urban graveyard model is mostly correct. Furthermore the "Macedonia_IA" samples we have are not from Macedonia proper (modern northern Greece) but from modern Macedonia, which covers mostly the land called Paeonia in antiquity, and we aren't sure where the Paenonians were from originally- they might have been a more recent arrival in the region maybe from the northern Balkans. If ethnic Macedonian were significantly more Mycenaean-like there is a very big overlap between the genetic gene pool of Macedonia (northern Greece) in the previous ages and in the hellenistic ones.