Southern Italian Ethnogenesis (My theory)

Jovialis

Advisor
Messages
9,313
Reaction score
5,878
Points
113
Ethnic group
Italian
Y-DNA haplogroup
R-PF7566 (R-Y227216)
mtDNA haplogroup
H6a1b7
Relevant updates:

Neolithic Calabrian DNA:

qpAdm: C_Italian_N/ChL to Model Iron Age & Modern Italians

Original post, models were conducted with Dodecad K12b. Since then I've moved on to qpAdm for more rigorous and accurate analysis, as linked above. Below is the OP :

I would like to make this thread to articulate my theory on the ethnogenesis of southern Italians. It is something I talk about often, and I'd like this thread to be a point of reference. Rather than me re-iterating my theory ad nauseum.

Recent studies show a strong affinity to Ancient Greeks in Southern Italians (Sarno et al. 2021 & Raveane et al. 2022). Moreover, Raveane et al 2022 even uses Minoan as an ultimate source population to model Puglia. In Lazaridis et al. 2017, the Minoan/Steppe admixture model was known as the "Northern Model" to explain the ethnogenesis of Mycenaeans. Clemente et al 2021 also implicitly uses the Northern Model for Helladics:

t1OdfWFl.png

(Source: Lazaridis lecture graphic)

F2J8PjY.jpg

(Source: Clemente et al. 2021)

epI5kEs.png

(Source: Raveane et al. 2022)

rC3hiavl.png

(Source: Lazaridis lecture graphic)


Some critics in the past think this model neglects to incorporate the Eastern Mediterranean influence that arrived in the in later period. It does not, in fact, my analysis can show that both may be true, as the Anatolia_BA-cline in South Italy demonstrates. For people obsessed with finding Levantine in South Italy (sadly for nefarious reasons) that could be also explained by the component Anatolia_BA is modeled as 5% "Levantine Farmer". Nevertheless, to their dismay, it is an exceedingly small percentage overall in southern Italian autosomal admixture:

Rol2SxG.png



The Anatolia_BA component could be partly attributed by Aegean Islanders in Greek Colonies. We see that modern Aegean Islanders can be modeled with Anatolia_BA, some almost completely. Eastern Mediterranean found in the Roman Imperial era are genetically similar to the modern Aegean Islanders. Thus, it is possible throughout the Iron Age-Imperial Age there could have been ample opportunity for admixture with this Anatolian_BA heavy group to occur. It should be noted that the R850 Latin sample is also very similar to modern Aegean Islanders.

Modern Mainland Greeks & Aegean Islanders:
aRRsEaN.png


Eastern Mediterranean Imperial Age Romans:
fzyXPiK.png


Magna Graecia:

1QR7Iw2.png


Going back to the chart that shows the Anatolia_BA-cline in modern Southern Italians, it demonstrates that Anatolia_BA is found throughout the whole south. But an important caveat is the degree of which it is present in individual samples. Anatolia_BA could be minimal admixture to about 50%, as well as some showing none at all. I speculate the reason may be Southern Italian towns were isolated from one another for a variety of reasons. Some towns were re-founded, and perhaps more of one particular ancestry may have been present in that particular town. Once the region was united, it allowed this sporadic signal to be created to a degree. I don't think you can say south Italy can be modeled in just one way as a whole.

There are also other admixture events that had some impact I am sure, such as the Moors, Saracens, Normans, etc. For the Moors, I think that could explain higher Iberomarusian in some modern samples. However, that is also hard to decern considering it shows up in ancient Italians as well:

ehx19SR.png
 
Last edited:
The "Imperial Rome" samples look to be light on the "Yamnaya", lacking in "Remedello" entirely, but heavy on the "Anatolian BA", possibly due to drawing in people from the east. The "Etruscan" samples, on the other hand are lacking in "Anatolian BA" entirely, but heavy in "Remedello".

"In a 2015 study published in Nature, the remains of three individuals ascribed to the Remedello culture were analyzed. All of them were determined to belong to haplogroup I.[3]"

-- http://https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remedello_culture

 
I believe southern Italian ethnogenesis was already largely completed at the start of the Iron age. We don't have southern italic samples yet (oscan tribes) but maybe they could have already been a bit more Minoan shifted than their more northern cousins (Latins and etruscan); maybe southern Italy could be modeled as two way admixture between Iron Age southern italics and Iron age Aegean. After all Ravenae already modeled Puglia as Minoan + French (wich could be seen as a proxy for Iron Age Latins).

By the way, wich samples are you using for southern Italy? I'm asking because I've noticed some differences between the PCA's made with G25 and the academic ones, with the latter showing southern Italy consistently west of Myceneans.
 
Southern Italians (in this case you mentioned Apulians) have a Natufian/Levant_PPN component that is not covered even by BA Central Anatolians, let alone Minoans! Compared to Kaman-Kalehoyuk_MLBA, Apulians score 78% of the Natufian and 67% of the Levant_PPN components, thus suggesting this Middle Eastern component was not only brought by West or Central Anatolians but also by peoples from further southeast, most likely the Northern Levant and neighboring parts of South Anatolia.

I also disagree about the Moors/Saracens, Taforalt must surely have been well spread in Southern Italy as early as the Roman period with similar percentages as today. Of course there may have been mixed individuals with Moor or Saracen ancestry, no one denies that, but the North African component was long established in the area.

In the following models I have tried to use only samples with acceptable quality. I am well aware that this is a difficult topic to address, as because of our origins we have been subjected to racism and trolled for years in forums like TA.

Target: Italian_Apulia
Distance: 0.0300% / 0.03000451
44.5 TUR_Boncuklu_N:ZHAG_BON004___BC_7950___Coverage_67.13%
12.2 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N:I1954___BC_8212___Coverage_79.77%
11.9 GEO_CHG:KK1___BC_7728___Coverage_99.87%
10.7 TUR_Pinarbasi_HG_ZBC_IPB001___BC_13461___Coverage_73.74%
9.9 UKR_Meso:I1763___BC_8131___Coverage_70.73%
6.9 Levant_Natufian_contam:I1072___BC_10750___Coverage_38.21%
3.9 TUR_Boncuklu_N:ZMOJ_BON014___BC_7950___Coverage_45.31%

Target: TUR_Kaman-Kalehoyuk_MLBA
Distance: 0.0399% / 0.03993636
32.1 TUR_Boncuklu_N:ZMOJ_BON014___BC_7950___Coverage_45.31%
27.9 TUR_Boncuklu_N:ZHAG_BON004___BC_7950___Coverage_67.13%
15.8 IRN_Wezmeh_N:WC1___BC_7264___Coverage_99.82%
15.3 GEO_CHG:KK1___BC_7728___Coverage_99.87%
8.9 Levant_Natufian_contam:I1072___BC_10750___Coverage_38.21%

Target: Italian_Apulia
Distance: 0.0274% / 0.02741353
41.9 TUR_Boncuklu_N:ZHAG_BON004___BC_7950___Coverage_67.13%
15.7 Levant_PPNC:I1699___BC_6750___Coverage_25.43%
12.3 GEO_CHG:KK1___BC_7728___Coverage_99.87%
11.9 UKR_Meso:I1763___BC_8131___Coverage_70.73%
9.8 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N:I1954___BC_8212___Coverage_79.77%
8.4 TUR_Boncuklu_N:ZMOJ_BON014___BC_7950___Coverage_45.31%

Target: TUR_Kaman-Kalehoyuk_MLBA
Distance: 0.0335% / 0.03350472
27.6 TUR_Boncuklu_N:ZMOJ_BON014___BC_7950___Coverage_45.31%
23.5 Levant_PPNC:I1699___BC_6750___Coverage_25.43%
17.1 GEO_CHG:KK1___BC_7728___Coverage_99.87%
15.8 TUR_Boncuklu_N:ZHAG_BON004___BC_7950___Coverage_67.13%
11.9 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N:I1954___BC_8212___Coverage_79.77%
3.1 TUR_Boncuklu_N:ZHAJ_BON034___BC_7950___Coverage_42.25%
1.0 IRN_Wezmeh_N:WC1___BC_7264___Coverage_99.82%
 
Levant_Natufian_contam:I1072 is a very poor sample to use by the way.
But also, this is not a viable model considering the recent studies. Show me a study that considers it a viable sample or population to use. That's what I am basing minoan on. They test all of the Natufian samples too, but did not find it suitable to model southern Italy according to their expert opinion.
Previous studies suggest Anatolian_ba. But the same author, Raveane suggest Minoan more recently.

Also, if you read the OP, individuals within a single province can be modeled quite different on a case by case basis.

Also is a coincidence you are being visited by tr0lls and banned posters?
The last 9 visitor(s) to this page were:
Azzurro, davef, franci-s91, Gabriele Pashaj, gidai, Jovialis*, Panda, Pax Augusta*+, Pygmalion

I believe southern Italian ethnogenesis was already largely completed at the start of the Iron age. We don't have southern italic samples yet (oscan tribes) but maybe they could have already been a bit more Minoan shifted than their more northern cousins (Latins and etruscan); maybe southern Italy could be modeled as two way admixture between Iron Age southern italics and Iron age Aegean. After all Ravenae already modeled Puglia as Minoan + French (wich could be seen as a proxy for Iron Age Latins).
By the way, wich samples are you using for southern Italy? I'm asking because I've noticed some differences between the PCA's made with G25 and the academic ones, with the latter showing southern Italy consistently west of Myceneans.
The Italian samples are all academic ones processed by Salento and Pax.
Also, I wish we did have some relevant Italic samples too to test.
 
Last edited:
Levant_Natufian_contam:I1072 is a very poor sample to use by the way.

Such ancient samples from the Levant are few, and those few are almost all low coverage. I still prefer to use Natufian because Levant_PPN makes the Middle Eastern component skyrocket.

But also, this is not a viable model considering the recent studies. Show me a study that considers it a viable sample or population to use. That's what I am basing minoan on. They test all of the Natufian samples too, but did not find it suitable to model southern Italy according to their expert opinion.
Previous studies suggest Anatolian_ba. But the same author, Raveane suggest Minoan more recently.

This is actually a very simple model; there is no need for confirmation by geneticists. The "experts" get it wrong several times, such as when in 2022 they still believe PIE is from Iran or when they model Sicilians as 40% Morocco_LN. Moreover, Raveane in his study of modern Italians included too few samples from Liguria, avoided Emilia-Romagna, and oversampled the Alpine areas of northern Italy.

We have Daunian samples (only ORD009 has acceptable coverage though), we do not need Minoans at all.

Link on imgur: eHFgfy1.png

Also, if you read the OP, individuals within a single province can be modeled quite different on a case by case basis.

This is true, there is individual variation, but the trend described in my previous post everyone has it.

Also is a coincidence you are being visited by tr0lls and banned posters?
The last 9 visitor(s) to this page were:
Azzurro, davef, franci-s91, Gabriele Pashaj, gidai, Jovialis*, Panda, Pax Augusta*+, Pygmalion

Don't even know who those people are except for a couple of them.
 
I'm glad you mentioned the Daunians because the authors of that paper are also on Raveane et al 2022. They think Minoans are indeed a viable sample. I would also like to point out once again that Daunians were LBA invaders, not natives.
 
Look, if we are going to get into a debate where you think amateurs with one tool know better then a large cohort of professionals with multiple tools, there can be no dialogue between us. Our standards are clearly alien from one another.

This is another topic discussed ad nauseum. You have said your piece and I have said mine.
 
Sicilians are highly variable interims of autosomal DNA, just like the rest of the south. I think people need to understand that Southern Italy has over 13.6 million people. With an additional 5 million in Sicily. I see that Albanian users are acutely and emphatically aware of variation within their population, which only has 2.8 million people. Thus it stands to reason that there is also great variation in terms of autosomal DNA in the South and Sicily. There are Sicilians who are about half Anatolia_BA, and there are Sicilians that have none at all.

a6Fvhei.png


Furthermore, Iberomarusian is indeed a good indicator of Moorish admixture, as we can clearly see it elevated in Spain and Portugal. Some of that may be prehistoric, or from Imperial Roman times. But I would bet a large share in that case may come from the North African Moors.

DeHJsK7.png
 
I would like to make this thread to articulate my theory on the ethnogenesis of southern Italians. It is something I talk about often, and I'd like this thread to be a point of reference. Rather than me re-iterating my theory ad nauseum.

Like Ancient Greeks, Southern Italians can be modeled as a Minoan/Steppe admixture. Recent studies show a strong affinity to Ancient Greeks in Southern Italians (Sarno et al. 2021 & Raveane et al. 2022). Moreover, Raveane et al 2022 even uses Minoan as an ultimate source population to model Puglia. In Lazaridis et al. 2017, the Minoan/Steppe admixture model was known as the "Northern Model" to explain the ethnogenesis of Mycenaeans. Clemente et al 2021 also implicitly uses the Northern Model for Helladics:

t1OdfWFl.png

(Source: Lazaridis lecture graphic)

F2J8PjY.jpg

(Source: Clemente et al. 2021)

epI5kEs.png

(Source: Raveane et al. 2022)

rC3hiavl.png

(Source: Lazaridis lecture graphic)


Some critics in the past think this model neglects to incorporate the Eastern Mediterranean influence that arrived in the in later period. It does not, in fact, my analysis can show that both may be true, as the Anatolia_BA-cline in South Italy demonstrates. For people obsessed with finding Levantine in South Italy (sadly for nefarious reasons) that could be also explained by the component Anatolia_BA is modeled as 5% "Levantine Farmer". Nevertheless, to their dismay, it is an exceedingly small percentage overall in southern Italian autosomal admixture:

Rol2SxG.png



The Anatolia_BA component could be partly attributed by Aegean Islanders in Greek Colonies. We see that modern Aegean Islanders can be modeled with Anatolia_BA, some almost completely. Eastern Mediterranean found in the Roman Imperial era are genetically similar to the modern Aegean Islanders. Thus, it is possible throughout the Iron Age-Imperial Age there could have been ample opportunity for admixture with this Anatolian_BA heavy group to occur. It should be noted that the R850 Latin sample is also very similar to modern Aegean Islanders.

Modern Mainland Greeks & Aegean Islanders:
aRRsEaN.png


Eastern Mediterranean Imperial Age Romans:
fzyXPiK.png


Magna Graecia:

1QR7Iw2.png


Going back to the chart that shows the Anatolia_BA-cline in modern Southern Italians, it demonstrates that Anatolia_BA is found throughout the whole south. But an important caveat is the degree of which it is present in individual samples. Anatolia_BA could be minimal admixture to about 50%, as well as some showing none at all. I speculate the reason may be Southern Italian towns were isolated from one another for a variety of reasons. Some towns were re-founded, and perhaps more of one particular ancestry may have been present in that particular town. Once the region was united, it allowed this sporadic signal to be created to a degree. I don't think you can say south Italy can be modeled in just one way as a whole.

There are also other admixture events that had some impact I am sure, such as the Moors, Saracens, Normans, etc. For the Moors, I think that could explain higher Iberomarusian in some modern samples. However, that is also hard to decern considering it shows up in ancient Italians as well:

ehx19SR.png

Probably will be more accurate to discuss ethnogenesis of each particular population as follows since also their path to south Italy is different:
Ausones, Oenotrians and Iapyges (these last ones were subdivided into three tribes: Daunians, Peucetians and Messapians).


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum
 
I would also like to point out once again that Daunians were LBA invaders, not natives.

They were natives.

Look, if we are going to get into a debate where you think amateurs with one tool know better then a large cohort of professionals with multiple tools, there can be no dialogue between us. Our standards are clearly alien from one another.
This is another topic discussed ad nauseum. You have said your piece and I have said mine.

If the "professionals" say that within a regional population Anatolian ancestry varies from 0 to 50%, that we are essentially Steppe-enriched Minoans, that Dodecad K12b is great for modeling, then yes: we have very different standards.
 
It should be noted that the R850 Latin sample is also very similar to modern Aegean Islanders.

Wonder if that could hint to a connection between the presence of this ABA signal and the Iron Age Greek colonization. As far as I know, we still don't have many samples from Iron age Aegean, the few samples we have seem similar to Mycenean though.
 
They were natives.

A simple search can repudiate that. End of the Bronze Age is when they showed up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daunians

At the end of the Bronze Age (11th-10th centuries BC) and during the transition to the Iron Age, Illyrian groups from the eastern Adriatic migrated to Italy.[5] The descendants of the tribes which arrived in Apulia, collectively known as the Iapygians, were the Peucetians, Messapians and Daunians. The broader region was inhabited by Italic peoples of Southern Italy with whom the Iapygians maintained contacts; among them are the Ausones/Oscans, Sabines, Lucani, Paeligni, Bruttii, Campanians, Aequi, Samnites and Frentani. Strabo in a mythological construction to explain the foundation of Taranto, connects the Iapygians with Cretans. Strabo recounts that they were descendants of Iapyx and a Cretan woman. Archaeological material shows little contact between Iapygians and Greek colonists.[6] The retroactive ascription of a Cretan or Arkadian heritage for the Iapygians was simply constructed for political purposes of the time these sources were written.[7]
 
If the "professionals" say that within a regional population Anatolian ancestry varies from 0 to 50%, that we are essentially Steppe-enriched Minoans, that Dodecad K12b is great for modeling, then yes: we have very different standards.

Please produce the a recent and relevant paper that supports Natufian in modeling the south. Because all I have seen from recent papers is CHG, which is different.
 
Natufians do not have CHG in them, when papers point to CHG as being an influence, why are you insisting that a population which is absent of that be viable? It makes absolutely no sense. Natufians are modeled as Anatolia_N + Taforalt (Iberomarusian). The reason why papers don't use it because you can not decern those ultimate source populations, from others who also have it. Clearly there is an affinity with Ancient Greeks and Southern Italy, thus Minoan is the ideal component to use. Going by history, going by genetics.
 
Wonder if that could hint to a connection between the presence of this ABA signal and the Iron Age Greek colonization. As far as I know, we still don't have many samples from Iron age Aegean, the few samples we have seem similar to Mycenean though.

Lazaridis does have a Marathon sample that is used to model the Aegean islands, that has a shift towards the Levant. So I do think there is some slightly more admixture there. We have to wait and see how that jives with the current data. Nevertheless, I see from my model ABA is the dominate component. It is also likely that ABA+Iberomaurusian could be partly influence by some near eastern ancestry. However, you cannot model near easterners with ABA + Iberomaurusian, the fit is terrible.

In fact the chart I posted with Europeans, Western Jews, and the Uralics has a very good fit, but drops in goodness significantly for the middle eastern countries.

All in all, we need those key samples.
 
Sicilians are highly variable interims of autosomal DNA, just like the rest of the south. I think people need to understand that Southern Italy has over 13.6 million people. With an additional 5 million in Sicily. I see that Albanian users are acutely and emphatically aware of variation within their population, which only has 2.8 million people. Thus it stands to reason that there is also great variation in terms of autosomal DNA in the South and Sicily. There are Sicilians who are about half Anatolia_BA, and there are Sicilians that have none at all.

a6Fvhei.png


Furthermore, Iberomarusian is indeed a good indicator of Moorish admixture, as we can clearly see it elevated in Spain and Portugal. Some of that may be prehistoric, or from Imperial Roman times. But I would bet a large share in that case may come from the North African Moors.

DeHJsK7.png
Somehow I am skeptical that all the samples collected with self-identified individuals from London (Behar) and other who are also anonymous donours (busby) are representative, other studies haven't found such a big internal variation. Imo around 0-25% of variation of Anatolia_BA is more reasonable. (because Minoan and Anatolia_BA aren't so different, so little differences in CHG could translate to big variations of Minoan vs Anatolia_BA).
 
Southern Italians (in this case you mentioned Apulians) have a Natufian/Levant_PPN component that is not covered even by BA Central Anatolians, let alone Minoans! Compared to Kaman-Kalehoyuk_MLBA, Apulians score 78% of the Natufian and 67% of the Levant_PPN components, thus suggesting this Middle Eastern component was not only brought by West or Central Anatolians but also by peoples from further southeast, most likely the Northern Levant and neighboring parts of South Anatolia.

I also disagree about the Moors/Saracens, Taforalt must surely have been well spread in Southern Italy as early as the Roman period with similar percentages as today. Of course there may have been mixed individuals with Moor or Saracen ancestry, no one denies that, but the North African component was long established in the area.

In the following models I have tried to use only samples with acceptable quality. I am well aware that this is a difficult topic to address, as because of our origins we have been subjected to racism and trolled for years in forums like TA.

Target: Italian_Apulia
Distance: 0.0300% / 0.03000451
44.5 TUR_Boncuklu_N:ZHAG_BON004___BC_7950___Coverage_67.13%
12.2 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N:I1954___BC_8212___Coverage_79.77%
11.9 GEO_CHG:KK1___BC_7728___Coverage_99.87%
10.7 TUR_Pinarbasi_HG_ZBC_IPB001___BC_13461___Coverage_73.74%
9.9 UKR_Meso:I1763___BC_8131___Coverage_70.73%
6.9 Levant_Natufian_contam:I1072___BC_10750___Coverage_38.21%
3.9 TUR_Boncuklu_N:ZMOJ_BON014___BC_7950___Coverage_45.31%

Target: TUR_Kaman-Kalehoyuk_MLBA
Distance: 0.0399% / 0.03993636
32.1 TUR_Boncuklu_N:ZMOJ_BON014___BC_7950___Coverage_45.31%
27.9 TUR_Boncuklu_N:ZHAG_BON004___BC_7950___Coverage_67.13%
15.8 IRN_Wezmeh_N:WC1___BC_7264___Coverage_99.82%
15.3 GEO_CHG:KK1___BC_7728___Coverage_99.87%
8.9 Levant_Natufian_contam:I1072___BC_10750___Coverage_38.21%

Target: Italian_Apulia
Distance: 0.0274% / 0.02741353
41.9 TUR_Boncuklu_N:ZHAG_BON004___BC_7950___Coverage_67.13%
15.7 Levant_PPNC:I1699___BC_6750___Coverage_25.43%
12.3 GEO_CHG:KK1___BC_7728___Coverage_99.87%
11.9 UKR_Meso:I1763___BC_8131___Coverage_70.73%
9.8 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N:I1954___BC_8212___Coverage_79.77%
8.4 TUR_Boncuklu_N:ZMOJ_BON014___BC_7950___Coverage_45.31%

Target: TUR_Kaman-Kalehoyuk_MLBA
Distance: 0.0335% / 0.03350472
27.6 TUR_Boncuklu_N:ZMOJ_BON014___BC_7950___Coverage_45.31%
23.5 Levant_PPNC:I1699___BC_6750___Coverage_25.43%
17.1 GEO_CHG:KK1___BC_7728___Coverage_99.87%
15.8 TUR_Boncuklu_N:ZHAG_BON004___BC_7950___Coverage_67.13%
11.9 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N:I1954___BC_8212___Coverage_79.77%
3.1 TUR_Boncuklu_N:ZHAJ_BON034___BC_7950___Coverage_42.25%
1.0 IRN_Wezmeh_N:WC1___BC_7264___Coverage_99.82%



Is it G25 or Dodecad12?
 

This thread has been viewed 70999 times.

Back
Top