Southern Italian Ethnogenesis (My theory)

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.

It is G25, but also, I am unburying this post above.
 
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).

The Dodecad populations show even less on average, actually:

yQMXfCW.png


FYI The fit is better for the south, so the north needs something more.
 
Easy way to show that Natufian is a bad component to use is that it also shows up in G25 modeling Northern Italians, as we have seen before from models made by other posters.

lgwiq9F.png


Why are you doing that? I have nearly 7,000 posts btw.
 
Last edited:
A simple search can repudiate that. End of the Bronze Age is when they showed up.

So what? Italics also emerged around that time, but no one says that Latins were invaders and not natives.

Why are you doing that? I have nearly 7,000 posts btw.

I was looking for your GEDmatch results (Eurogenes K36, Eurogenes K13 and MDLP K23b), I saw few from Apulia. Where exactly are you from? By the way, I am Ajeje Brazorf from Anthrogenica, but I also lurk here occasionally.

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.

You don't need a paper to state that 2+2=4.

Stefania Sarno said:
Besides a predominant Neolithic background, we identify traces of Post-Neolithic Levantine- and Caucasus-related ancestries, compatible with maritime Bronze-Age migrations.
 
So what? Italics also emerged around that time, but no one says that Latins were invaders and not natives.



I was looking for your GEDmatch results (Eurogenes K36, Eurogenes K13 and MDLP K23b), I saw few from Apulia. Where exactly are you from? By the way, I am Ajeje Brazorf from Anthrogenica, but I also lurk here occasionally.



You don't need a paper to state that 2+2=4.

Italics were invaders, because there were neolithic and copper age populations that lived there before them. The Latins are a result of those invaders' offspring. The Proto-Greeks were invaders too in Greece. But that misses the point of what I am saying. South Italy was already densely populated by farmer populations, why do you discount these people?

I'm not going to give that out, but I have shared my results plenty on this website. My family comes from the region of Bari, and if you look at the charts, I am included with the samples.

You are referring to Sarno et al. 2017 that used simulated fake populations? Why not cite Sarno et al. 2022 that actually lends support to my theory, and used actual aDNA?
 
So what? Italics also emerged around that time, but no one says that Latins were invaders and not natives.



I was looking for your GEDmatch results (Eurogenes K36, Eurogenes K13 and MDLP K23b), I saw few from Apulia. Where exactly are you from? By the way, I am Ajeje Brazorf from Anthrogenica, but I also lurk here occasionally.



You don't need a paper to state that 2+2=4.

The Sarno paper had some issues, like that bit where the authors inferred post-neolithic Levantine ancestry from their ADMIXTURE, but the red component that was labelled "near eastern" because it peaked in Yemenis shows up in considerable amounts (higher than in the Italian samples) in Anatolia_neolithic and EEF and also north Europe_BA; the problem, as far as I see it, lies in the fact that they took the component peaking in Sardinians as a proxy for EEF, which is actually imperfect since Sardinians have also not trivial WHG, so Anatolia_neolithic and EEF are modelled as having something more basal compared to Sardinians to compensate- that is the yemeni/natufian-like component. (https://static-content.springer.com...4/MediaObjects/41598_2017_1802_MOESM1_ESM.pdf supplementary pag 4)
 
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.

@Er Monnezza

Take a look, some of the Natufian-like ancestry may have been present among Aegean Islanders, considering what we know about the "Roman_Greek" sample from Marathon. My model shows that something Aegean Islander-like is among southern Italians. We don't know exactly how much Levantine is in the Roman_Greek. but if it is indeed similar to Anatolia_BA, which the model seems to like for modern Aegean Islanders; than it must not be much, if ABA is only 5% "Levantine Farmer". So we are talking about a small percent of a minority component.
 
So what? Italics also emerged around that time, but no one says that Latins were invaders and not natives.



I was looking for your GEDmatch results (Eurogenes K36, Eurogenes K13 and MDLP K23b), I saw few from Apulia. Where exactly are you from? By the way, I am Ajeje Brazorf from Anthrogenica, but I also lurk here occasionally.



You don't need a paper to state that 2+2=4.

If you are not an Italian citizen, take down that Italian flag. Am I clear?
 
[h=3]Ancient genetic heritage of Southern Italian populations[/h]Since present-day patterns of genetic variation reflect both local dynamics of differentiation and the ancestral population history, in order to provide a temporal overview on the ancestral genetic legacy of analyzed Southern Italian groups we finally compared the genetic landscape defined by modern populations with a large panel of ancient DNA samples extracted from the literature and timewise spanning from the Mesolithic to the Iron Age (Suppl. Table S7).
Consistently with previous results3,27, the PCA performed by projecting ancient samples onto the modern genetic variation reveals specific patterns of population relationships (Suppl. Figure S8). In fact, all the Southern Italian groups, besides showing a general high affinity with Anatolian and European Neolithic farmers, cluster also closely with the Chalcolithic and Bronze Age samples from Anatolian and Aegean (Minoan and Mycenaean) populations. Differences in affinity patterns were formally tested with the outgroup-f3 statistic measuring the extent of shared drift between modern Italian groups and the main ancient genetic components represented by Western European Hunter-Gatherers (WHG), Eastern European Hunter-Gatherers (EHG), Caucasian Hunter-Gatherers (CHG), Anatolian Neolithic farmers (AN) and Pontic-Steppe Yamnaya (EMBA). Overall Sardinia shows the highest levels of shared drift with samples of Neolithic-related ancestry compared to Northern and Southern Italy. Both Sardinians and Northern Italians show higher affinity to WHG than Southern Italians, who instead appear more affected by CHG-related groups. On the other hand, Yamnaya Steppe and EHG share more affinity to North Italy than to both Southern Italians and Sardinians (Suppl. Figure S9). In addition, qpGraph-based phylogenies consistently recapitulate the observed genetic patterns, with Sardinians showing a good fit to a two-way mixture model between populations representing Early European Farmers and West European Hunter-Gatherers (Suppl. Figure S10a), and North Italy instead achieving a successful fit to a graph model with an additional admixture event from an EHG-related lineage (Suppl. Figure S10b). Interestingly, when fitting present-day Southern Italian populations into the tested qpGraph models we find them compatible with an additional contribute that, differently from Northern Italy, does not originate from an EHG-related source but instead from a CHG-related lineage (Suppl. Figure S10c). This fits to the data in the sense that there are no f-statistics more than |Z| > 3 different between model and expectation.

Finally, to better characterize the ancestral composition of Southern Italian populations, we inferred their mixture proportions with respect to a four-population model of admixture including all the above-mentioned WHG, Neolithic, CHG/Iran_N and Steppe-related main sources, using qpAdm. All Italian populations were successfully modeled as characterized by a relatively high amount of Anatolian Neolithic ancestry, with the major contribution observed in Sardinians (Fig. 4, Suppl. Table S8). The remaining ancestries were assigned to a lower WHG contribution and to differential influences of Steppe_EMBA and CHG/Iran_N in the profiles of Northern and Southern Italians, respectively (Fig. 4, Suppl. Table S8). In fact, while Steppe ancestry is greater in North Italy (~ 27%), the Iran_N/CHG-related source is more present in South Italy with the highest values (~ 29%) observed in the populations from the Aspromonte area.

Genetic history of Calabrian Greeks reveals ancient events and long term isolation in the Aspromonte area of Southern Italy | Scientific Reports (nature.com)

Sarno et al. 2021
 
Italics were invaders, because there were neolithic and copper age populations that lived there before them. The Latins are a result of those invaders' offspring. The Proto-Greeks were invaders too in Greece. But that misses the point of what I am saying. South Italy was already densely populated by farmer populations, why do you discount these people?

Neolithic and Copper Age populations were invaders, because there were hunter-gatherers that lived there before them.

I'm not going to give that out, but I have shared my results plenty on this website. My family comes from the region of Bari, and if you look at the charts, I am included with the samples.

All right, that's your choice. I am half from Campania and half from Lucania.

You are referring to Sarno et al. 2017 that used simulated fake populations? Why not cite Sarno et al. 2022 that actually lends support to my theory, and used actual aDNA?

Stefania Sarno said:
Comparisons with modern and ancient populations highlighted ancient, long-lasting genetic links with Eastern Mediterranean and Caucasian/Near-Eastern groups as ancestral sources of Southern Italians.

The Sarno paper had some issues, like that bit where the authors inferred post-neolithic Levantine ancestry from their ADMIXTURE, but the red component that was labelled "near eastern" because it peaked in Yemenis shows up in considerable amounts (higher than in the Italian samples) in Anatolia_neolithic and EEF and also north Europe_BA; the problem, as far as I see it, lies in the fact that they took the component peaking in Sardinians as a proxy for EEF, which is actually imperfect since Sardinians have also not trivial WHG, so Anatolia_neolithic and EEF are modelled as having something more basal compared to Sardinians to compensate- that is the yemeni/natufian-like component.

What many people here do not understand is that ALL papers have problems and make outlandish claims. Just because a paper states that Sicilians are 40% Morocco_LN or that Sardinians are 15% Iran_N or that Proto-Indo-European was first spoken in Iran does not automatically make these claims as true. Geneticists are the first to make erroneous claims, but many put them on a pedestal.

If you are not an Italian citizen, take down that Italian flag. Am I clear?

I was born in Italy and have lived here all my life.
 
What many people here do not understand is that ALL papers have problems and make outlandish claims. Just because a paper states that Sicilians are 40% Morocco_LN or that Sardinians are 15% Iran_N or that Proto-Indo-European was first spoken in Iran does not automatically make these claims as true. Geneticists are the first to make erroneous claims, but many put them on a pedestal.

Yes, some genetists make mistakes, but for the matter at hand the Sarno paper made a claim- that they spotted Levantine ancestry in south Italians- based on a mistake, since the methodology is obviously wrong and by strict logic they would also need to infer some direct Natufian ancestry in sintashta, for example, so it is inconsequential to bring this paper up, then say that "genetists make mistakes, let's not delve on such a technicality ", or to imply that since this one paper has this mistake, then we are inconsistent in bringing up other papers that go against your models, since it is a matter of overall converging results. Some genetists may make mistakes, but it is really hard that the consensus up to now has been so blind to the data that genetists have not spotted a very consistent Levantine admixture in south Italians (ranging at least in the double digits), which is your thesis.

Furthermore, I have issues with G25: where there hell are many samples not taken from the available official studies from? Who gathered them and who was sampled? These questions start to have a bearing when one sees really wild results from individuals labelled as native to an area.
 
i believe that the only southern Italians where Sicilian Italic tribes

the rest of Italy ( except the north of Italy ....that is north of the Po river ) where central italic tribes....be these Etruscans, Latins or the more numerous Umbri tribes and sub-tribes ( sabines, Sabellics, Samnites, Lucanians, Brutti etc etc ) ....................they ruled from the Po river to the toe of Italy ...............we see Illyrians in Italy from 1000BC and Greeks from 730BC.

So, the bulk of Italy is made up of Central Italians

that is what I was always taught and see no reason to change
 
A couple of points. Regarding the Morroco_Late Neolithic being used in the Fernandes et al 2020 paper, that does appear questionable. However, when you consider that Morroco_Late Neolithic is overwhelmingly Minoan or Mycenean like and heavy EEF ancestry, the modeling in Marcus et al 2020 (Figure 4) more accurately models Modern Sicilian populations and approximates North African admixture documented In Raveane et al 2019 (Figure 2A) and similar, albeit maybe lower than the 4.6% documented in Sazzini et al 2016. Why the Morroco_LateNeolithic sample was used is still kind of puzzling. But my guess is the number of samples from that period were not as large as it is now. For example, the Neolithic samples from Antonio et al 2019 and the ones just published in 2022 from Sicily itself (Yu et al 2022) were not available.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-14523-6


As for Italic tribes in Sicily, the Siculi were the dominate one, but also there would be Morgetes, Ausones, and also Campanians (Mamertines) who were military mercenaries fighting in Sicily before the 1st Punic war broke out (the rival cities of Syracuse of Messina I think it was) but by the 300BC Campania and much of Southern Italy was now part of the Roman Republic and war broke out between Rome and Carthage, the Romans already had allied forces in Sicily, who had already cut the Island in half driving down from Messina To Gela in Caltanissetta (which for WW2 History fans is where General Patton's USA 7th Army forces would land in Summer of 1943).

Of course the origins of the Sicani (Perhaps West Mediterranean as far a Iberia) and Elymians is still up to debate, evidence points to the Elymians being also an Italic tribe or related to the ancient Ligures based on linguistic evidence (DNA evidence not available yet to confirm that) which seems to be in line with what the Ancient historians wrote.
 
I was born in Italy and have lived here all my life.

I see, but your name is Ajeje Brazorf, or you just used that name to hide your Italian identity while on anthrogenica? Since you're so fond of looking up people's info, maybe I should look up "your" posts on anthrogenica. I wonder how many would be about, let's see, perhaps Albanian ancestors? Or, some other Balkan group, or maybe, I have it, Portuguese/Portuguese islander or other Iberian related tweets? You know, some, let's see, what was the latest? Portuguese Princess bit the dust long ago, but maybe Portuguese/Polish on one side and Sicilian on the other? Was that the last one?

How incredibly pathetic. Trust me, if I find that's the case, this sock account will be burned too.

Whatever, there's nothing to learn from you so you're joining the ignore list.
 
@Er Monnezza,
My model has Anatolia_BA. That's mostly Anatolian_N, about a quarter CHG and 5% levant farmers, so how does that violate Sarno? Even Minoan is 15% CHG + the rest Anatolian_N, that is also two "near eastern" ultimate source populations, so what is the hang up?
 
I see, but your name is Ajeje Brazorf, or you just used that name to hide your Italian identity while on anthrogenica? Since you're so fond of looking up people's info, maybe I should look up "your" posts on anthrogenica. I wonder how many would be about, let's see, perhaps Albanian ancestors? Or, some other Balkan group, or maybe, I have it, Portuguese/Portuguese islander or other Iberian related tweets? You know, some, let's see, what was the latest? Portuguese Princess bit the dust long ago, but maybe Portuguese/Polish on one side and Sicilian on the other? Was that the last one?

How incredibly pathetic. Trust me, if I find that's the case, this sock account will be burned too.

Whatever, there's nothing to learn from you so you're joining the ignore list.
Ajeje Brazorf is from an Italian comedy. I remember watching it as a kid. I don't think whoever uses it is trying to hide his Italian identity and I've never seen Ajeje getting involved in Albanian topics/discussions.
 
I see, but your name is Ajeje Brazorf, or you just used that name to hide your Italian identity while on anthrogenica?

I don't understand what you are talking about. I have never felt the need to lie about my Italian origins, why should I after all?

Since you're so fond of looking up people's info, maybe I should look up "your" posts on anthrogenica. I wonder how many would be about, let's see, perhaps Albanian ancestors? Or, some other Balkan group, or maybe, I have it, Portuguese/Portuguese islander or other Iberian related tweets? You know, some, let's see, what was the latest? Portuguese Princess bit the dust long ago, but maybe Portuguese/Polish on one side and Sicilian on the other?

Is it so scandalous to visit users' profiles? Go ahead if you wish. I'll save you the trouble, I have no reason to say I am those ethnic groups you listed.

Was that the last one?

Oreo_cookie, that name particularly stuck with me HAHA.

How incredibly pathetic. Trust me, if I find that's the case, this sock account will be burned too.

With all due respect, I find this paranoid attitude of yours about seeing trolls and fake accounts everywhere far more pathetic. If you are really interested in Sikeliot you can find him safely on Reddit under the username OddGuidance907. He has abandoned anthroforas for years now.

Whatever, there's nothing to learn from you so you're joining the ignore list.

Heck, I'm not going to sleep tonight...
 
Ajeje Brazorf is from an Italian comedy. I remember watching it as a kid. I don't think whoever uses it is trying to hide his Italian identity and I've never seen Ajeje getting involved in Albanian topics/discussions.

I know who "he" was, and I'm pretty sure I know why the name was adopted, but no matter.

I was also pretty sure he's not Albanian, but nice to have it confirmed.
 
@Er Monnezza,
My model has Anatolia_BA. That's mostly Anatolian_N, about a quarter CHG and 5% levant farmers, so how does that violate Sarno? Even Minoan is 15% CHG + the rest Anatolian_N, that is also two "near eastern" ultimate source populations, so what is the hang up?
No response, good. Because my theory is better thought out, coincides with mainstream papers on the topic, and is yield from 1000s of hours of analysis. I've personally downloaded and processed those samples myself; thousands of them. I am more informed on the pertinent data and nuances. I remember arguing with you on anthrogenica, I was Fourilegge. I'm happy you're here so I can point out how wrong you were/are. This time I won't be shutdown and banned by imbecile moderators or a zerg rush of low-IQ posters, and shouted down in their thuggish ignorance. My theory is Iron-clade, as I have demonstrated.
 
After the last paper from Raveane, the idea of a natufian influence on Southern Italy has been definitely disproved from a genetic standpoint, assuming it ever had any archeological or historical sense. Levantine ancestry was found throughout the entire empire in the imperial era, before disappearing after the collapse of the Roman urban civilization, so I don't understand why Southern Italy should have experienced a different phenomenon.
The aegean connection highlighted by Raveane, on the contrary, make perfect sense even from an archeological and historical point of view, since Southern Italy was where italic and Greek cultures met.
 

This thread has been viewed 72054 times.

Back
Top