Southern Italian Ethnogenesis (My theory)

Every time you re-appear your father's ancestry changes. :)
 
Every time you re-appear your father's ancestry changes. :)

No, I used to post my results, and you said they provided no real insight because of the genetic distance between my parents.

So I finally persuaded my father to take a test, and I somehow thought that LivingDNA would be a good choice. Now I'm not entirely confident in the raw data that the test yielded. So I will have him test with Ancestry at some point, the same test my mother and I took.

That said, I have always suspected that we skewed more toward Carthage, the Levant, even Egypt than typical Southern Italians. Pan-Mediterranean, really. However, so far as I know, my ancestors were proud peasants for at least the past 500 years and deeply rooted in Vibo Valentia (Monte Poro, Tropea area).
 
Southern Italians have large east med ancestry (aegean/anatolian/levantine), by Magna Graecians (Islander Greeks) in the Iron Age and by blending with MENA immigrants in the Antiquity, myriads of judean, syrian slaves were imported by Rome in Italy and other parts of Europe.
 
Southern Italians have large east med ancestry (aegean/anatolian/levantine), by Magna Graecians (Islander Greeks) in the Iron Age and by blending with MENA immigrants in the Antiquity, myriads of judean, syrian slaves were imported by Rome in Italy and other parts of Europe.

I don't want to sound excessively rude, but you keep repeating the same thing over and over again and it seems you might be a bit uniformed: jews were always a minority in their mediterranean diaspora, they couldn't have drastically change the demography of their host population. A contribution from near eastern populations during the hellenistic age in the cities of magna Grecia is possible, but it's hard to tell how much until we don't have a good sampling of Iron age magna Grecia.
 
I don't want to sound excessively rude, but you keep repeating the same thing over and over again and it seems you might be a bit uniformed: jews were always a minority in their mediterranean diaspora, they couldn't have drastically change the demography of their host population. A contribution from near eastern populations during the hellenistic age in the cities of magna Grecia is possible, but it's hard to tell how much until we don't have a good sampling of Iron age magna Grecia.

It is no use to pretend any coherent words from the user nick6899, since he showed no compliance to the basic requirements of discourse, namely to back up what one says. Therefore, it is only just, not rude at all, to regard what he says as utter blabbering, devoid of any sensible information. As they say, claims presented without evidence or arguments can be (I dare say must) be dismissed without any argument.

I suspect he is some Sickeliot's sock because not even the not so bright guys on anthrogenica insist on the imagined phenotypic resemblance between "east meds" and southern Italians as a piece of evidence on their supposed genotypic connections, first because they've figured out that the usual "southern Italians" in many such photos presented in anthrofora aren't even ethnic southern Italians, second because they at least know that the relationship between phenotype and genotype isn't as reliable and strong as some may believe (it does exist but it isn't much reliable, for example Poles and Germans have very similar genotypes, but their average phenotypic differences are significantly greater than what their genotypic similarity would lead one to expect on the assumption that there is a sort of 1 to 1 correspondence between phenotype and genotype).
 
Southern Italians have large east med ancestry (aegean/anatolian/levantine), by Magna Graecians (Islander Greeks) in the Iron Age and by blending with MENA immigrants in the Antiquity, myriads of judean, syrian slaves were imported by Rome in Italy and other parts of Europe.

The netflix-version of history.

It is no use to pretend any coherent words from the user nick6899, since he showed no compliance to the basic requirements of discourse, namely to back up what one says. Therefore, it is only just, not rude at all, to regard what he says as utter blabbering, devoid of any sensible information. As they say, claims presented without evidence or arguments can be (I dare say must) be dismissed without any argument.

I suspect he is some Sickeliot's sock because not even the not so bright guys on anthrogenica insist on the imagined phenotypic resemblance between "east meds" and southern Italians as a piece of evidence on their supposed genotypic connections, first because they've figured out that the usual "southern Italians" in many such photos presented in anthrofora aren't even ethnic southern Italians, second because they at least know that the relationship between phenotype and genotype isn't as reliable and strong as some may believe (it does exist but it isn't much reliable, for example Poles and Germans have very similar genotypes, but their average phenotypic differences are significantly greater than what their genotypic similarity would lead one to expect on the assumption that there is a sort of 1 to 1 correspondence between phenotype and genotype).

Bumping this for truth, so it doesn't get buried.

I don't want to sound excessively rude, but you keep repeating the same thing over and over again and it seems you might be a bit uniformed: jews were always a minority in their mediterranean diaspora, they couldn't have drastically change the demography of their host population. A contribution from near eastern populations during the hellenistic age in the cities of magna Grecia is possible, but it's hard to tell how much until we don't have a good sampling of Iron age magna Grecia.

This guy has been doing this for over a decade.
 
I don't want to sound excessively rude, but you keep repeating the same thing over and over again and it seems you might be a bit uniformed: jews were always a minority in their mediterranean diaspora, they couldn't have drastically change the demography of their host population. A contribution from near eastern populations during the hellenistic age in the cities of magna Grecia is possible, but it's hard to tell how much until we don't have a good sampling of Iron age magna Grecia.

They are genetically proxime to ashkenazis and islander greeks, and other levantines.. because the hellenic influence (Magna Grecia) but also because the mass emigration from the near east during the Imperial age. That's the fact.
 
They are genetically proxime to ashkenazis and islander greeks, and other levantines.. because the hellenic influence (Magna Grecia) but also because the mass emigration from the near east during the Imperial age. That's the fact.

As others already pointed out, it's litterally the other way around: ashkenazis plot near southern europeans due to having absorbed aegean, italian and later northeastern european admixture after the diaspora. that's simple common sense, since a few immigant cannot drastically change a far greater host population. If common sense shouldn't be enough, I suggest the following reading: https://razib.substack.com/p/ashkenazi-jewish-genetics-a-match
 
As others already pointed out, it's litterally the other way around: ashkenazis plot near southern europeans due to having absorbed aegean, italian and later northeastern european admixture after the diaspora. that's simple common sense, since a few immigant cannot drastically change a far greater host population. If common sense shouldn't be enough, I suggest the following reading: https://razib.substack.com/p/ashkenazi-jewish-genetics-a-match

A lot of aegean greeks bringed anatolian/levantine admixture in South italy with their settlement, and I said they are proxime to the anatolian/levantines in general, on g25, modern studies etc.. tell they have 16-22% of that ancestry, they are distant from the North italians because that. Everybody in the anthro-genetics forums/blogs sphere know that.
 
There's really no need to comment, because his staggeringly low-IQ posts speak for themselves.

Well, I will actually say something.

A lot of aegean greeks bringed anatolian/levantine admixture in South italy with their settlement, and I said they are proxime to the anatolian/levantines in general, on g25, modern studies etc.. tell they have 16-22% of that ancestry, they are distant from the North italians because that. Everybody in the anthro-genetics forums/blogs sphere know that.

An imbecile comment, I don't care what you, your socks, and 58 other nobodies think about on a sub-optimal platform. Pay attention to #1, which is cited by 6 studies, which are salient to the topic.


Here's what an algorithm using actual studies determines:

8mVC7KQ.png


Most of the CHG likely came in the EBA, which was most likely the genetic approximation of Southern Italians.

Btw, Northern Italians have a different origin from the south, moron. (i.e. ChL cultures and prior)

yeah, everyone on anthorgenica also thinks Turks with a distance of 22+ are one in the same as Greeks and Italians? Even they wouldn't claim that I don't think.

You're a joke.
 
Anatolian and Levantine are two separate populations.

Eastern Mediterranean is a geographic expression.

Northern and Southern Italy had different origins, they were never one in the same.

This is why people with an IQ of less than 120 have no business on this website, or in college. Within a generation, they will have no business on this planet. Good riddance.

AI has already made the anthro-tard obsolete:

Well, I will actually say something.



An imbecile comment, I don't care what you, your socks, and 58 other nobodies think about on a sub-optimal platform. Pay attention to #1, which is cited by 6 studies, which are salient to the topic.


Here's what an algorithm using actual studies determines:

8mVC7KQ.png


Most of the CHG likely came in the EBA, which was most likely the genetic approximation of Southern Italians.

Btw, Northern Italians have a different origin from the south, moron. (i.e. ChL cultures and prior)
 
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


Could there be some connection?:

dYX3zOQ.png


8mVC7KQ.png
 
It seems I have been able to replicate the model from Raveane et al. 2022 in qpADM using French_Bell_Beaker, and Minoan_Lassithi:


rwiLQEl.png



VfDn2OS.png


Fascinating, Imperial era C6 can also be modeled similarly in qpADM:

xzynMix.png


Imperial era C6 can be modeled 32.6% France_Bell_Beaker + 67.4% Greece_Minoan_Lassithi in qpADM

HXewSzI.png


ChatGPT summary of the results in the Imperial era graphic above:



This output appears to be from a statistical analysis, most likely related to genetic ancestry or population genetics. The analysis seems to be focused on determining the contributions of various ancient or historical populations (i.e., sources) to the present-day genetic makeup of "Italian_South_ITS7.HO" (likely a modern Southern Italian population or individual sample). Here's what I interpret from the provided output:


1. **results$weights**:
- This table shows the estimated weight (contribution) of each ancient source to the target (Italian_South_ITS7.HO).
- "weight" indicates the estimated percentage contribution from each source, though it's worth noting that some weights are negative, which typically isn't meaningful in a genetic context and might indicate issues with the model or the populations being tested.
- "se" is the standard error associated with each weight, which provides an idea of the uncertainty around the weight estimates.
- "z" is a z-score, calculated as the weight divided by the standard error. This gives an idea of how many standard deviations the estimate is from zero, which can be used to assess significance.


2. **results$popdrop**:
- This table seems to be from a model testing different combinations of source populations to see how well they fit the target population's genetic data.
- "pat" indicates which source populations are included in the model (1 for included, 0 for excluded).
- "wt" is the number of sources included in the model.
- "dof" stands for degrees of freedom, which is a measure used in statistical tests.
- "chisq" is the chi-squared statistic, which measures the goodness of fit of the model. A higher value usually indicates a worse fit.
- "p" is the p-value associated with the chi-squared statistic. Smaller p-values suggest that the model is a significant improvement over a null model.
- "f4rank" is likely a rank statistic based on the f4-statistic, commonly used in population genetics.
- The columns with abbreviated names show the estimated contributions (weights) of each source population for that particular model.
- "feasible" indicates if the model is feasible (i.e., if the weights make sense and there are no issues like negative contributions).
- "best" might be indicating the best-fitting models based on some criteria.


**Interpretation**:


From the data:
- The first ancient source (C7_Italy_Imperial_oCentralEuropean.SG) has a negative weight, which is not typically meaningful in this context.
- The second source (C6_Italy_Imperial_Central_Med.SG) has the highest positive weight, suggesting it might be the most significant contributor to the modern Italian_South_ITS7.HO population.
- Several models with different combinations of sources have been tested. Some are feasible, while others aren't.
- The models with the lowest p-values (especially those close to zero) suggest that those combinations of sources are the most likely contributors to the Italian_South_ITS7.HO population.


In summary, this analysis aims to determine which ancient or historical populations contributed to the present-day genetic makeup of a Southern Italian population or individual. The results suggest that the "C6_Italy_Imperial_Central_Med.SG" population might be the primary contributor, but more context (and possibly additional analyses) is needed for a definitive conclusion.




I think France_Bell_Beaker is a proxy for what the Italics were like that came to the South, and mixed with a pre-Italic Minoan_Lassithi-like people that were cumulatively enriched from the east since the Neolithic.

xzynMix.png

rwiLQEl.png

FM7f7eL.png

8ctcHtu.png

EkGfD02.png

Sg8zwZv.png

nclIeYz.png
 
I don't recall any Greeks being in Italy before 750BC
 
I don't recall any Greeks being in Italy before 750BC

The Calabria sample from the Neolithic was similar to Greece_N. Like Greece, I suspect enrichment from the east made pre-Italic southerners, minoan-like, before the Italic (France_Bell_Beaker-proxy) came later.
 
The Calabria sample from the Neolithic was similar to Greece_N. Like Greece, I suspect enrichment from the east made pre-Italic southerners, minoan-like, before the Italic (France_Bell_Beaker-proxy) came later.


are you one that sees bronze age tribes in modern Greece as Greek or not..............ie Myceneanes, Minoans etc ??
 
The first documented was at that time Cumae(741BCE)


correct ................and then the taking of Corfu by the Corinthians in 733BC from the Liburnian owned island
 
wNjyM5x.png

J032msQ.png

tMzADt7.png


Here's the "default" version of the prompt, which I rearranged and pruned o test different models:

Code:
# Define paths for dataset
prefix = "D:\\Bioinformatics\\01_Admixtools_Dataset\\v54.1.p1_HO_Jovialis_Plink\\v54.1.p1_HO_Jovialis"
my_f2_dir = "D:\\Bioinformatics\\my_f2_dir_Jovialis"


# Load necessary libraries
library(admixtools)
library(tidyverse)


# Replication of Raveane et al. 2022, which uses Moroccan.HO in place of modern Morocan samples in the study due to data limitations.
# Plink converted v54.1.p1_HO merged with WGS30x personal genome of Jovialis.
# uses variations for left 'Europe_EN', 'Iran_ChL', 'Minoan', 'Peloponnese_N', 'Steppe_EMBA', 'Moroccan.HO'
# alternates left and right for 'WHG', 'Iran_N', 'EHG', 'CHG', 'Anatolia_N'
# outgroups that must remain right 'El_Miron', 'Goyet', 'Kostenki14', 'Malta1', 'Natufian', 'Ust_Ishim', 'Vestonice16', 'Levant_N', 'AfontovaGora3', 'Mota'


#Define populations
target = c('Jovialis')
left = c('Europe_EN', 'Iran_ChL', 'Minoan', 'Peloponnese_N', 'Steppe_EMBA', 'Moroccan.HO')


#Outgroups
right = c('WHG', 'Iran_N', 'EHG', 'CHG', 'Anatolia_N', 'El_Miron', 'Goyet', 'Kostenki14', 'Malta1', 'Natufian', 'Ust_Ishim', 'Vestonice16', 'Levant_N', 'AfontovaGora3', 'Mota')


# Generate f2 stats
mypops = c(right, target, left)
extract_f2(prefix, my_f2_dir, pops = mypops, overwrite = TRUE, maxmiss = 1)
f2_blocks = f2_from_precomp(my_f2_dir, pops = mypops, afprod = TRUE)


# Run the model
results = qpadm(prefix, left, right, target, allsnps = TRUE)
results$weights
results$popdrop



FAM for sample references:
 
I don't recall any Greeks being in Italy before 750BC
There is strong evidence archaeologically of Greeks settling Sicily as early as the bronze age. The genetic evidence backs this up too, as Sicilians go from being EEF like during the neolithic to being pulled towards the Aegean with no further nothern or southern pulls of ancestry, unlike what was experienced in more northern Italy where a notable increase in EHG-like ancestry could be observed.
 

This thread has been viewed 62285 times.

Back
Top