Southern Italian Ethnogenesis (My theory)

Results for Iron Age and Classical samples from Italy.

TargetDistanceDaunianEtruscanEtruscanEtruscanEtruscan_UDC_PNE-Europe_MercCaucasus_MercSicaniBalkans_W-Europe_MercCaucasus_MercHimera_Med
Angela0.19236444•19.61.224.82.23.81.02.27.210.01.226.8
Average0.19236444•19.61.224.82.23.81.02.27.210.01.226.8

32% Etruscan, then 26.8% Himera Mediterranean, then almost 20% Daunian, and 7% Sicani and 10% Balkan. Makes sense to me.
 
Angela said:
Results for Iron Age and Classical samples from Italy.

TargetDistanceDaunianEtruscanEtruscanEtruscanEtruscan_UDC_PNE-Europe_MercCaucasus_MercSicaniBalkans_W-Europe_MercCaucasus_MercHimera_Med
Angela0.19236444•19.61.224.82.23.81.02.27.210.01.226.8
Average0.19236444•19.61.224.82.23.81.02.27.210.01.226.8

32% Etruscan, then 26.8% Himera Mediterranean, then almost 20% Daunian, and 7% Sicani and 10% Balkan. Makes sense to me.
Click to expand...

Excellent fit, and it makes total sense.
 
torzio said:
There is no Himera Cetina culture, unless these cretans migrated to southern italy after Adriatic Cetina



the first Greeks into Italy are corinthian Greeks from not earlier than 740BC .................unless you want to claim Myceneans ( which is another story )
Click to expand...

Distance to: Torziok12b
2.99656470 HRV_Cetina_BA:I18752
3.62167089 HRV_Cetina_BA:I18746
4.06081273 HRV_Cetina_BA:I18088
4.45917033 HRV_Cetina_BA:I19027
4.68939228 HRV_Cetina_BA:I19032
4.77466229 Balkans_Cent-Europe_Merc:Himera_480_BC_Battle_Balkans_Cent-Europe:I10946
4.90795273 Etruscan:IA:R474:Antonio_2019
4.94308608 Protovillanovan:IA:R1:Antonio_2019
5.03359712 HRV_Cetina_BA:I18745
5.38670586 Balkans_W-Europe_Merc:Himera_480_BC_Battle_Balkans_W-Europe_lc:I17870
5.73715086 HRV_Cetina_BA:I18747
5.93363295 Beaker_Central_Europe:E09538:Olalde_2018
6.35208627 Daunian:Apulia_IA:ORD009:Aneli_2022
6.55043510 HRV_Cetina_BA:I11843
6.59958332 Beaker_Central_Europe:I4885:Olalde_2018
6.78342097 Helladic_Logkas_MBA:Log04:Clemente_2021
7.27697739 HRV_Cetina_BA:I19019
7.33926427 HRV_Cetina_BA:I19017
7.47945854 Etruscan:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN005
7.67257454 HRV_Cetina_BA:I19026
7.77274083 Etruscan:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_427-265BCE:CSN009
8.30833918 Theopetra_BA:G23_Aegean_2335–2140_calBCE
8.82411469 Beaker_Central_Europe:I3597:Olalde_2018
8.85378450 Etruscan::Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN008
9.51541907 Balkans_Cent-Europe_Merc:Himera_480_BC_Battle_Balkans_Cent-Europe:I10950


Target: Torziok12b
Distance: 0.0498% / 0.04976175
12.5 Beaker_Central_Europe
7.3 HRV_Cetina_BA
5.9 Etruscan
5.8 Beaker_Augsburg
5.6 GRC_Mycenaean_Kastrouli_BA
5.3 Daunian
4.5 Beaker_Brandysek
4.4 Minoan_Lasithi
4.0 Beaker_Iberia
4.0 Beaker_LN_Rothenschirmbach
3.9 GRC_Mycenaean_Palace_of_Nestor_BA
3.6 Beaker_Landau_an_der_Isar
3.4 Balkans_W-Europe_Merc
3.3 Beaker_Knezeves
3.3 Himera_Med
3.1 France_Bell_Beaker
2.4 Perachora_BA
1.9 Minoan_Odigitria
1.6 GRC_Mycenaean_Lokris_BA
1.5 Mygdalia_LBA
1.4 Greece_N
1.3 Armenoi_Crete
1.2 GRC_Kastrouli_Anc
1.2 GRC_Mycenaean_Attica_BA
1.2 Lazarides_LBA
1.2 Mygdalia_LBA-related
1.2 NE_Iberia_Hel_(Empúries2)
0.8 Beaker_The_Netherlands
0.8 GRC_Palace_of_Nestor_EIA
0.7 Caucasus_Merc
0.6 Sicani
0.5 Beaker_Sicily
0.4 Beaker_Britain
0.2 Etruscan_UDC_P
 
View attachment 13948
that's the full south italian ethnogenesis, levantine/anatolian admixture was earlier bringed by aegean greeks, and later by other immigrants in roman imperial age, NA component is practically zero, descendants of moors/saracens don't exist in the area, but in western sicily.
View attachment 13949
that's the ancestry model I created, etruscan and latin samples are good and reliable, being related to oscans and samnites.
 
What I would like to see are Apennine culture samples.

Not insinuating this towards you Nick. But I feel like people only seem to think Italy became populated as soon as the Italics arrived. There were people and material cultures there before them.
 
According to ChatGPT
9a577864e44a1bec8c97a4e13e681111.jpg
 
nick6899 said:
View attachment 13948
that's the full south italian ethnogenesis, levantine/anatolian admixture was earlier bringed by aegean greeks, and later by other immigrants in roman imperial age, NA component is practically zero, descendants of moors/saracens don't exist in the area, but in western sicily.
View attachment 13949
that's the ancestry model I created, etruscan and latin samples are good and reliable, being related to oscans and samnites.
Click to expand...

According to the actual evidence, there isn't "Levantne/Anatolian" admixture in southern Italians, and I dare say that according to the actual evidence it isn't at all likely that it will be discovered because it "flew under the radar"- it hasn't been found because it isn't at detectable levels (either very low or non-existent). By now it ought to be clear that "Levantine/Anatolian" (and this label isn't a particularly precise) admixture isn't a "significant" component, and by "significant" I mean it isn't a component linked to a historical group that partook in the ethnogenesis of southern Italians (to elucidate further: Greeks would be a significant group because individuals who identified as Greeks migrated en masse into south Italy and contributed to the further gene pool; seldom merchants of any background coming in and leaving some traces would not be significant group).
I'd like that the proponents of "other theories", to put it politely, bring unto the tables good arguments and solid evidence and also address the fact that their theories aren't supported by the current literature by other means rather than dismissing it by claiming that somehow the authors are biased against finding admixture because of "nationalistic" biases (and to be honest, to me it seems that the current zeitgeist in modern science is the total, utter contrary of that).

I'll spend a few words about "Anatolian": I think that "Anatolian" components were already present in the ethnogenesis of Mycenaeans, hence by Greeks' contribution into south Italy's gene pool there would be Anatolian components, but the proponents of the "Levantine/Anatolian" theories (again, to put it politely) by "Anatolian" means much more recent "Anatolian", and particularly an Anatolia_BA-like profile heavily mixed with Levantine_BA, which doesn't seem to be in Italians at all, so there is a difference between what I call "Anatolian" and the "Anatolian" others speak about.
 
Leopoldo Leone said:
According to the actual evidence, there isn't "Levantne/Anatolian" admixture in southern Italians, and I dare say that according to the actual evidence it isn't at all likely that it will be discovered because it "flew under the radar"- it hasn't been found because it isn't at detectable levels (either very low or non-existent). By now it ought to be clear that "Levantine/Anatolian" (and this label isn't a particularly precise) admixture isn't a "significant" component, and by "significant" I mean it isn't a component linked to a historical group that partook in the ethnogenesis of southern Italians (to elucidate further: Greeks would be a significant group because individuals who identified as Greeks migrated en masse into south Italy and contributed to the further gene pool; seldom merchants of any background coming in and leaving some traces would not be significant group).
I'd like that the proponents of "other theories", to put it politely, bring unto the tables good arguments and solid evidence and also address the fact that their theories aren't supported by the current literature by other means rather than dismissing it by claiming that somehow the authors are biased against finding admixture because of "nationalistic" biases (and to be honest, to me it seems that the current zeitgeist in modern science is the total, utter contrary of that).

I'll spend a few words about "Anatolian": I think that "Anatolian" components were already present in the ethnogenesis of Mycenaeans, hence by Greeks' contribution into south Italy's gene pool there would be Anatolian components, but the proponents of the "Levantine/Anatolian" theories (again, to put it politely) by "Anatolian" means much more recent "Anatolian", and particularly an Anatolia_BA-like profile heavily mixed with Levantine_BA, which doesn't seem to be in Italians at all, so there is a difference between what I call "Anatolian" and the "Anatolian" others speak about.
Click to expand...

You were just proven wrong, instead. In my previous post there is a simple and very brief clarification of that reality, and this is obvious, south italians have a large extra-european admixture, like the greeks, they have very often a look that resembles that one of east med populations, different from typical western or southwestern european look.
 
Jovialis said:
What I would like to see are Apennine culture samples.
Not insinuating this towards you Nick. But I feel like people only seem to think Italy became populated as soon as the Italics arrived. There were people and material cultures there before them.
Click to expand...

Yes, obviously, in all Europe we had an EEF/Paleo-European stock, then the Bronze Age opened doors to the creation of the next recent cultures and peoples in the IA. Appenine Culture had probably the same proportions of the ancient genetic components of its descandant the Proto-Villanovian culture, maybe had a little more of Steppic ancestry, but that's all. I think we need rather ligures and golasecchian samples.
 
torzio said:
very odd to mix more than 1200 years into a admixture and expect to get clarity ................the Normans arrived in sicily and southern Italy prior to 1000AD and who did they mix with ?, clearly any Roman admixture was already pre-mixed with ostrogoths, Lombards as well as Greeks etc etc well before any Normans arrived
Click to expand...

I find there's little to no Norman, Lombard, or Gothic DNA in the south from what I've seen. The closest thing I've ever seen is 0.3% Finnish that 23andme gives me, which is likely noise.
 
Jovialis said:
What is odd? The algorithm wrote that, 1s and 0s. Based on the papers.
There's little to no Norman, Lombard, or Gothic DNA in the south from what I've seen. The closest thing I've ever seen is 0.3% Finnish that 23andme gives me, which is likely noise.
Click to expand...

AI is still very imperfect as tool, the ethnology and anthrogenetics matters are very biased by it
 
nick6899 said:
AI is still very imperfect as tool, the ethnology and anthrogenetics matters are very biased by it
Click to expand...
AI is indeed imperfect. But in this case, I had it analyze the 6 PDFs where it accurately conveyed what they said, and cross referenced each. For example the EBA section is supported by 6 sources.
 
nick6899 said:
Yes, obviously, in all Europe we had an EEF/Paleo-European stock, then the Bronze Age opened doors to the creation of the next recent cultures and peoples in the IA. Appenine Culture had probably the same proportions of the ancient genetic components of its descandant the Proto-Villanovian culture, maybe had a little more of Steppic ancestry, but that's all. I think we need rather ligures and golasecchian samples.
Click to expand...
There's been CHG coming into Europe for 10,000 years according to Nick Patterson. EEF is Anatolian_N + WHG.
We see in Greece and the Balkans they had Anatolian_N + CHG.
Appenine Culture and subsequent cultures had constant exchange with the Aegean. Also there's clear affinity to Greece Neolithic in southern Italy.
 
nick6899 said:
You were just proven wrong, instead. In my previous post there is a simple and very brief clarification of that reality, and this is obvious, south italians have a large extra-european admixture, like the greeks, they have very often a look that resembles that one of east med populations, different from typical western or southwestern european look.
Click to expand...

How was I "proven wrong" and how is your "a simple and very brief clarification of [that] reality", and how is this "obvious that south Italians (or Greeks) have large extra-european admixture"? I'll bring up just the most recent paper, https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.02.26.482072v1, but it is already a known fact that the the majority of the literature, up to now, doesn't support such claims. It is getting tiresome that such claims just keep getting made without further backing up because, it is said, "they're obvious", yet the literature doesn't back them up.

To briefly state what the "state of the art" is up to now, it's true that south Italians and Greeks have higher affinities towards middle easterners because of their higher caucasus-related ancestry compared to other Europeans, and I agree that it is useful (not "ontologically true" or as "natural kinds", for those more philosophically inclined) to distinguish between "Europeans" and "Middle Easterners", since as intra-caucasoid groupings they seem very reliable and "real" as far as it is very easy to tell them apart, though I'd add that "Middle Easterners" ought to be broken down into further subgroups and as a label "Middle Easterner" just stands for "Not European". However, these are groupings that came to be during the bronze age, and the gene pool of Italy and Greece were either largely formed by its end or further contributions came from inside Europe (barring maybe some further Iron age augmentations from Anatolia and the known low levels of north African in some southern Italians), as the extra CHG Greeks and Italians carry was already present in similar levels in samples from all the way back to the Mycenaean period. If caucasus-related ancestry by itself is "extra-european" because it peaks in Caucasians-whereas, for example, Anatolian neolithic related ancestry peaks in south west Europe-, then we must also coherently say that north Europeans are less European than south west Europeans or than Sardinians because the steppe component which in Europe peaks in the north carries 40% caucasus-related ancestry. Said otherwise, the components in south Italy and Greece's gene pools were already present during the BA, the period the "European" and "Middle Eastern" gene pools formed, and it doesn't seem that further contributions from the Middle East are needed in order to explain the south Italians and Greeks' genetic make up, and actually there is evidence AGAINST such scenarios (for examples that haplogroups don't add up).

Since you brought up appearance as a kind of evidence, though it is not since we're strictly speaking of genotype/autosomal, I'd say that you're an American that hasn't set foot in Italy: as an Italian, precisely some one who has always lived in Sicily (Sicilian from mother's side, Emilian from father's side), it is my experience that it is extremely easy to tell apart "east meds", by which I take you mean Turks and Levantines, from all Italians, and usually it is Americans because of debatable casting choices made by Hollywood or other pop culture phenomena (including cherry-picked photos on the internet) that think otherwise. It may be true that such judgements are subjective and lack any substance to them (why I prefer to speak about autosomal), and it isn't to deny the existence of "funny looks" in Italy, but since it has been brought up I'll say that to me and the persons I've interactions with it is extremely easy to tell apart us Middle Easterners, indeed common folks in Sicily call every one that is visibly darker than us "Turcu", "Turk", and our "funny looks" are different from what we can call "east med" looks.
 
To echo Count Metternich,

Eastern Mediterranean is only a geographic expression.

Aegean is based primarily on Greece_N (Anatolian_N + CHG).

Add a bit of steppe and you have Ancient Achaean-like.

I've been to Greece, southern Italy, and Turkey.
All three have predominantly different looks, despite some overlap.

Greeks, even Greeks that are genetically similar to Southern Italians, simply look different. Southerners still look more "western" imho.

There's a ton of phenotypic diversity in Turkey, to match their genetic diversity.
 
Leopoldo Leone said:
How was I "proven wrong" and how is your "a simple and very brief clarification of [that] reality", and how is this "obvious that south Italians (or Greeks) have large extra-european admixture"? I'll bring up just the most recent paper, https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.02.26.482072v1, but it is already a known fact that the the majority of the literature, up to now, doesn't support such claims. It is getting tiresome that such claims just keep getting made without further backing up because, it is said, "they're obvious", yet the literature doesn't back them up.

To briefly state what the "state of the art" is up to now, it's true that south Italians and Greeks have higher affinities towards middle easterners because of their higher caucasus-related ancestry compared to other Europeans, and I agree that it is useful (not "ontologically true" or as "natural kinds", for those more philosophically inclined) to distinguish between "Europeans" and "Middle Easterners", since as intra-caucasoid groupings they seem very reliable and "real" as far as it is very easy to tell them apart, though I'd add that "Middle Easterners" ought to be broken down into further subgroups and as a label "Middle Easterner" just stands for "Not European". However, these are groupings that came to be during the bronze age, and the gene pool of Italy and Greece were either largely formed by its end or further contributions came from inside Europe (barring maybe some further Iron age augmentations from Anatolia and the known low levels of north African in some southern Italians), as the extra CHG Greeks and Italians carry was already present in similar levels in samples from all the way back to the Mycenaean period. If caucasus-related ancestry by itself is "extra-european" because it peaks in Caucasians-whereas, for example, Anatolian neolithic related ancestry peaks in south west Europe-, then we must also coherently say that north Europeans are less European than south west Europeans or than Sardinians because the steppe component which in Europe peaks in the north carries 40% caucasus-related ancestry. Said otherwise, the components in south Italy and Greece's gene pools were already present during the BA, the period the "European" and "Middle Eastern" gene pools formed, and it doesn't seem that further contributions from the Middle East are needed in order to explain the south Italians and Greeks' genetic make up, and actually there is evidence AGAINST such scenarios (for examples that haplogroups don't add up).

Since you brought up appearance as a kind of evidence, though it is not since we're strictly speaking of genotype/autosomal, I'd say that you're an American that hasn't set foot in Italy: as an Italian, precisely some one who has always lived in Sicily (Sicilian from mother's side, Emilian from father's side), it is my experience that it is extremely easy to tell apart "east meds", by which I take you mean Turks and Levantines, from all Italians, and usually it is Americans because of debatable casting choices made by Hollywood or other pop culture phenomena (including cherry-picked photos on the internet) that think otherwise. It may be true that such judgements are subjective and lack any substance to them (why I prefer to speak about autosomal), and it isn't to deny the existence of "funny looks" in Italy, but since it has been brought up I'll say that to me and the persons I've interactions with it is extremely easy to tell apart us Middle Easterners, indeed common folks in Sicily call every one that is visibly darker than us "Turcu", "Turk", and our "funny looks" are different from what we can call "east med" looks.
Click to expand...

No you are lying, research confirms what I said and what genetic calculators tell, southeastern euros, above all sicilians and island greeks, are peripheral populations, they have large CHG, Natufian, etc..DNA, we see on the g25, on the PCA.. stop denying and cope.
 
Jovialis said:
To echo Count Metternich,
Eastern Mediterranean is only a geographic expression.
Aegean is based primarily on Greece_N (Anatolian_N + CHG).
Add a bit of steppe and you have Ancient Achaean-like.
I've been to Greece, southern Italy, and Turkey.
All three have predominantly different looks, despite some overlap.
Greeks, even Greeks that are genetically similar to Southern Italians, simply look different. Southerners still look more "western" imho.
There's a ton of phenotypic diversity in Turkey, to match their genetic diversity.
Click to expand...

doesn't matter, they look very similar because the very similar genetic pattern, period.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 69997 times.

Back
Top