# Population Genetics > Y-DNA Haplogroups >  More Y Dna results from Italy

## Angela

In this case, although the paper is behind a pay wall, the Supplementary material, which is the meat of it, is publicly available. 

See:*Reconstructing the genetic history of Italians: new insights from a male (Y-chromosome) perspective*Viola Grugni et al

http://tandfonline.com/doi/figure/10...eedAccess=true

"Abstract*Background: Due to its central and strategic position in Europe and in the Mediterranean Basin, the Italian Peninsula played a pivotal role in the first peopling of the European continent and has been a crossroad of peoples and cultures since then.*
*Aim: This study aims to gain more information on the genetic structure of modern Italian populations and to shed light on the migration/expansion events that led to their formation.*
*Subjects and methods: High resolution Y-chromosome variation analysis in 817 unrelated males from 10 informative areas of Italy was performed. Haplogroup frequencies and microsatellite haplotypes were used, together with available data from the literature, to evaluate Mediterranean and European inputs and date their arrivals.

*
*Results: Fifty-three distinct Y-chromosome lineages were identified. Their distribution is in general agreement with geography, southern populations being more differentiated than northern ones.*

*Conclusions: A complex genetic structure reflecting the multifaceted peopling pattern of the Peninsula emerged: southern populations show high similarity with those from the Middle East and Southern Balkans, while those from Northern Italy are close to populations of North-Western Europe and the Northern Balkans. Interestingly, the population of Volterra, an ancient town of Etruscan origin in Tuscany, displays a unique Y-chromosomal genetic structure.

*This is the link to the Supplementary material, which includes a Word Document describing the areas from which the new samples were taken, and lots of tables. 

http://tandfonline.com/doi/suppl/10....801?scroll=top

Thanks to Jovialis for help in getting it into an easier format for my computer. 

It's of particular interest to me because they include Tortona/Voghera and Val Borbera as well as both the plains and valleys of Bergamo, along with Volterra, the two sides of Calabria, northern and southern Puglia, and Sicily.


I've been pouring over the tables for the better part of 2 hours. Table 6 is the highest resolution (although it could still be better), because it shows the newest samples. Table 7 is the dating. I'm still working on correlating the two things. The word document is important especially for those who aren't familiar with the history and pre-history of these areas.

With regard to southern Italian and Sicilian y dna they're talking about higher levels of E and J2, although there's clearly some in the north as well. 

In terms of Volterra, without the paper I'm at a loss as to what they see as so unique in the yDna structure, other than 4% "T". If anyone can see anything else, please share. 

I'm going to organize my impressions more, and then I'll post them if they seem worthwhile.

----------


## Sile

agree 
on Volterra it says
*VOLTERRA
Geography
Volterra is a town of Tuscany - Central Italy - in the province of Pisa. It is located on a rocky hill, between the Bra and Cecina rivers. Along with the districts of Castelnuovo Val di Cecina, Montecatini Val di Cecina and Pomarance, it is part of the Upper Cecina Valley. This region is surrounded by other neighbouring valleys: on the West there are the Lower Cecina and the Cornia Valleys; on the North the Era Valley, and on the East the Upper Elsa Valley. On the South it confines with the Colline Metallifere, a mountain-hill group in the Tuscan Anti-Apennine.
In the surroundings of Volterra, the forests of Berignone-Tatti and Monterufoli are some of the wooded areas that form the landscape, often characterized by the Mediterranean shrub land, the dramatic landslides of the Balze area and rolling hills.
Historical background
The hill on which Volterra is located was already settled from the Iron Age onwards, as the Villanovan necropolis shows. During the Neolithic, Volterra was an important settlement of the Etruscans; part of the principal twelve cities of the Etruscans confederation. Volterra was more isolated than the other Etruscan cities, due to its geographical position, and it was one of the last cities to join the Roman Republic, in the III century B.C..
The origin of Etruscans is still controversial and different hypotheses have been made: one sustains they came from Anatolia, another claims an autochthonous process of formation from the preceding Villanovan society. Lastly, influence from Northern Europe has also been hypothesized. 
*
I was interested in Vicenza with its 5% of T .............only because of a paternal line of mine, Matteo married Teresa Greslin in Schio ~1670 ..............Vicenza had a mix of trevisani and trentini merging there

Only the T-M70 from this paper
Picene , if ancient are Histri/Liburnian Illyrians
L`Aquila with its 20% ( some found to be haplogroup LT ) would mostly likey be Samnites , speaking Sabellic , if so, can be also some South-Picene language which is also Sabellic
.
La Spezia to Massa in just north of ancient Volterra

----------


## Maciamo

> In terms of Volterra, without the paper I'm at a loss as to what they see as so unique in the yDna structure, other than 4% "T". If anyone can see anything else, please share.


Volterra is also special for having 1% of haplogroup F* (possibly H) and 1% of K* (possibly L), both of which are exceedingly rare. But as they sample size is only 113, these are just single individuals. They might not be representative. Volterra also has a relatively high percentage of G2a (13.3%), closer to southern Italy than to the Tuscan average.

----------


## kingjohn

thanks angela for sharing :)
there was also m123* without the e-m34 mutation in volterra 1.8%
up until now those rare cases where found in north portugal .....
but to find it in volterra an etruscan area.... surprising.
and e-m35*{m78,m81,m123} was found in 3.5% in ligurian valley 
for me personally it is nice to see e-m34 in 6% in apuglia {samples from southern area but not the grico minority}
and e-v13 is one of common y haplogroups along with j2,g2, r1b-s116,r1b-u152
with kind regards
adam

----------


## Regio X

Besides T, an appreciable % of G-L497 in Volterra, perhaps comparable to the % in Trentino, Austrian Tyrol...

----------


## Angela

^^Yes, I was about to say that most of the G in Volterra is G-L497. The total G there is 13.3%, and G-L497 is 7.1%. Total "G" is higher in the Val Borbera where the total G is 15.3%, and G-L497 is 12.9%.

Central Italy is pretty high, with a total of 13.3%.

The "G" in the south is actually a bit lower, and is largely of a different type:

Tyrhennian Calabria: 12.3%
Apulia 11.8
Sicily 10.9
S.Italy 8.5
Ionian Calabria 5.3%

So, I think to look at total "G" numbers is a little misleading; you have to look at the sub-clades. Plus, as I said, much of southern Italy actually has lower numbers than Central Italy, probably because the G-L497 wave didn't have as much impact there. You had some coming up the peninsula, some down, and where they met in Central Italy, you have some of the highest numbers. 

Makes you wonder who brought that G-L497.

I also think it's important not to make too much of any of the results from the Val Borbera. This area is even more remote than my father's villages in the Val Cedra. In his area the roads went in during the 1920s or so. The Val Borbera didn't have good roads until a couple of years ago. The authors make a point of emphasizing that they do genetic studies there because of the inbreeding. So, y lines are going to drift to prominence randomly.

I think that also explains the three E-M35* samples found there. Btw, Kingjohn, there's no E-M81 there. That shows up in southern Italy. In addition to those E-M35* samples, there's 1 E-M78 and 1 E-V13. The last two would, I think, probably have drifted up from the coast, which had its own small Greek emporia, and which was also close to the Greek colony in Massalia.

----------


## Angela

Some interesting graphics from the paper on yDna frequency and variance for some of these y clades Europe wide. The column to the left is frequency, the column to the right is variance. 
Attachment 9713

Attachment 9714

Attachment 9715

I would speculate that the R1b S116 correlates with the ties between southern France and northwestern Italy, which is the only place it appears in these percentages. (You can see it in the figures for the Val Borbera especially, but also in Tortona and Bergamo.) 

Might that explain the consistent "Iberian" percentages we get in autosomal calculators?

G-L497 definitely looks like it's coming from the north, but with whom?

As to J2, there doesn't seem to be one particular clade that is prominent in Toscana does there according to this graphic? It looks like it has a bit of a few of them, including J2b.

Surprised at the amount of J2a-M67* in Portugal and northwestern Spain. It looks as if it went from the southern Balkans, hit far southern Italy, and then went through the Straits of Gibralter to western Iberia. 

E-V13s highest variance is Turkey/Anatolia. Perhaps a spread from there to the Balkans, and up into Central Europe, and also on to Italy?

----------


## Sile

> Some interesting graphics from the paper on yDna frequency and variance for some of these y clades Europe wide. The column to the left is frequency, the column to the right is variance. 
> Attachment 9713
> Attachment 9714
> Attachment 9715
> I would speculate that the R1b S116 correlates with the ties between southern France and northwestern Italy, which is the only place it appears in these percentages. (You can see it in the figures for the Val Borbera especially, but also in Tortona and Bergamo.) 
> Might that explain the consistent "Iberian" percentages we get in autosomal calculators?
> G-L497 definitely looks like it's coming from the north, but with whom?
> As to J2, there doesn't seem to be one particular clade that is prominent in Toscana does there according to this graphic? It looks like it has a bit of a few of them, including J2b.
> Surprised at the amount of J2a-M67* in Portugal and northwestern Spain. It looks as if it went from the southern Balkans, hit far southern Italy, and then went through the Straits of Gibralter to western Iberia. 
> E-V13s highest variance is Turkey/Anatolia. Perhaps a spread from there to the Balkans, and up into Central Europe, and also on to Italy?


G-L497 is from Berger 2013 Austrian paper, where the austrians have about 80% of this SNP of their total G haplogroup..........it is also linked to Northern Romania. It was noted in that paper that its origins is tyrolese............

http://www.blutspendezuerich.ch/Medi...20G%282%29.pdf

----------


## Sile

> Besides T, an appreciable % of G-L497 in Volterra, perhaps comparable to the % in Trentino, Austrian Tyrol...


Looks like a lot of tyrolese moved to Tuscany , Lombardy and Veneto ................the question is , were they germans at that point in time or did they flee germans or the earlier celts who entered the alps from central/south Germany

----------


## Salento

> Looks like a lot of tyrolese moved to Tuscany , Lombardy and Veneto ................the question is , were they germans at that point in time or did they flee germans or the earlier celts who entered the alps from central/south Germany


I’ve been wandering why the Y T is not as popular as others modern haplogroups. 
We are the minority everywhere, regardless of the Subclades, We are few, but widespread.
Something Really Bad probably happened at some point to the Primary T Tribe. Unlesss our Ancestors were ugly and Women didn’t find them Attractive, lol

----------


## kingjohn

> ^^Yes, I was about to say that most of the G in Volterra is G-L497. The total G there is 13.3%, and G-L497 is 7.1%. Total "G" is higher in the Val Borbera where the total G is 15.3%, and G-L497 is 12.9%.
> 
> Central Italy is pretty high, with a total of 13.3%.
> 
> The "G" in the south is actually a bit lower, and is largely of a different type:
> 
> Tyrhennian Calabria: 12.3%
> Apulia 11.8
> Sicily 10.9
> ...


*yes but it was found in 6% in sicily in this study 
wish i knew from where in sicily the samples were taken :)
kind regards
adam 

p.s
you have a point on the val borbera though.... 
although i do believe that some e-m35* could have been present among the ligurians
*

----------


## bicicleur

> I’ve been wandering why the Y T is not as popular as others modern haplogroups. 
> We are the minority everywhere, regardless of the Subclades, We are few, but widespread.
> Something Really Bad probably happened at some point to the Primary T Tribe. Unlesss our Ancestors were ugly and Women didn’t find them Attractive, lol


T is still widespread
C1a2 and H2 became very rare

----------


## Johane Derite

> Some interesting graphics from the paper on yDna frequency and variance for some of these y clades Europe wide. The column to the left is frequency, the column to the right is variance.


The attachments are not opening up. If you go to https://imgur.com/ and click "new post" you can then just drag and drop all the files you wish to create
a URL for and then attach them onto Eupedia with a url the way you usually attach photos of people from the web.

----------


## Regio X

@Sile
It seems the frequency of G-L497 in Austrian Tyrol is relatively high, similar to the observed in SW Germany, Swiss, Trentino and perhaps even TV province etc. (subclade G-L42 probably being more common in these areas) and parts of Central Italy (like Foligno, with abt. 16%, based on Boattini's study and DYS388=13), however, I'm not sure about its diversity. In the paper discussed here there's a map showing the highest diversity around Central Germany, and that's surprised me, since I would have guessed it was around SW Germany, Swiss... Possibly this is true just to its most common subclade Z1823 (the best G-L497 phylogenetic trees are in the related project in FTDNA), which is pretty widespread.
Btw, the Tryppilian Outlier (in Ukraine) from a recent study was identified as G-L42, but I'm not sure it's reliable, since it's not in the latest versions of the paper. 
Anyway, G-L497 is an old Neolithic haplogroup, and its subclades must have different stories, naturally. 




> G-L497 definitely looks like it's coming from the north, but with whom?





> Looks like a lot of tyrolese moved to Tuscany , Lombardy and Veneto ................the question is , were they germans at that point in time or did they flee germans or the earlier celts who entered the alps from central/south Germany


I wonder too. My speculations: maybe Celts/Italics, since its distribution resembles a bit the U152's. Indeed, a skeleton from Mitterkirchen related to the Celts was identified as G-L140, and according to me the guy was probably G-L497 based on his STR markers. But Germanic tribes could have brought some lineages more recently, like, say, G-CTS4803, G-Z16775...
Some subclades (even main - more common - subclades) could be related to the Etruscan/Rhaetians too. Who knows! Hope we figure it out. :)

----------


## Angela

> The attachments are not opening up. If you go to https://imgur.com/ and click "new post" you can then just drag and drop all the files you wish to create
> a URL for and then attach them onto Eupedia with a url the way you usually attach photos of people from the web.


Thanks, Johane. I'm just going to do it here.

Some interesting graphics from the paper on yDna frequency and variance for some of these y clades Europe wide. The column to the left is frequency, the column to the right is variance. 
[IMG][/IMG]





I would speculate that the R1b S116 correlates with the ties between southern France and northwestern Italy, which is the only place it appears in these percentages. (You can see it in the figures for the Val Borbera especially, but also in Tortona and Bergamo.) 

Might that explain the consistent "Iberian" percentages we get in autosomal calculators?

Interesting also that the highest variance is in southern France over toward the Spanish border, but that Spain has extremely low variance.

G-L497 definitely looks like it's coming from the north, but with whom?

[IMG][/IMG]

As to J2, there doesn't seem to be one particular clade that is prominent in Toscana does there according to this graphic? It looks like it has a bit of a few of them, including J2b.

Surprised at the amount of J2a-M67* in Portugal and northwestern Spain. It looks as if it went from the southern Balkans, hit far southern Italy, and then went through the Straits of Gibralter to western Iberia. 

E-V13s highest variance is Turkey/Anatolia. Perhaps a spread from there to the Balkans, and up into Central Europe, and also on to Italy?

This is the network for U-152.
[IMG][/IMG]

----------


## Atlantische

> Btw, the Tryppilian Outlier (in Ukraine) from a recent study was identified as G-L42, but I'm not sure it's reliable, since it's not in the latest versions of the paper.


Good that someone finally writte about it here. It's definitely that G-L42 from first version of that study is ''fake'', considering that is the only sample which is deleted in latest version. From the first version it was be clear that there is something strange with that sample, considering that L42 TMRCA and forming date doesn't coincides with that L42 dating. 




> Anyway, G-L497 is an old Neolithic haplogroup, and its subclades must have different stories, naturally.


Exactly.

----------


## Angela

A few notes about comparing the Val Borbera and Tortona, barely fifty minutes apart by car, and which are both part of the province of Alessandria, Piemonte (although the Val Borbera was part of Liguria until very, very recently): 
[IMG][/IMG]

I wanted to see if, in addition to the founder effects and drift in Val Borbera, some different migration patterns might be the cause of the differences in frequencies, such as they are.

I say such as they are, because the U-152 is much the same (35 vs. 30), the total R1b is much the same (56 to 63), and many of the other clade frequencies are pretty close. 

There are a few differences. One is that Val Borbera has more S116 than Tortona, 12.8% versus 8.3%, yet it is Tortona which has the documented Celtic settlements. Val Borbera was first settled by Ligures in the Iron Age, but Tortona was first settled in the Neolithic, and there is then a record of Ligures, Iberian, Celtic, and Roman presence. ( This is the first I've heard of an "Iberian" presence. I'm going to have to investigate that.) Is that just drift in operation again? 

In terms of Tortona vs Val Borbera, one of the biggest differences, I think, is that Tortona has 20% J2 (2 clades) to only 8% for Val Borbera. Might that be because Tortona/Vorghera was the site of a very large Roman settlement, at the junction of two very important roads? 

I was also interested to see if there were traces of the Langobard presence in Val Borbera, given the plethora of Langobard castles there. Oddly, it is Tortona, not Val Borbera, which has 4% R1b U-106, and some few percent of "I" more than Val Borbera. So, I don't know what to make of that.

Tortona also has 8% R1a M17*; there is no 458 which is the only specific clade for which they tested. I don't know what to make of that either. Could it be something carried by the Langobards, and again, it's not that this wasn't present in Val Borbera, but it drifted out?

Here is the chart from the Supp:

[IMG][/IMG]

----------


## Sile

Interesting that the Greeks brought to apulia 16% of R1a-M17

----------


## Pax Augusta

> In terms of Volterra, without the paper I'm at a loss as to what they see as so unique in the yDna structure, other than 4% "T". If anyone can see anything else, please share.


I really don't understand why they are saying that Volterra displays a unique Y-chromosomal genetic structure. It's not really true. 

Volterra is 49,6% R1b-M269 (U152, S116, U106), 13,3% G-M201, 13,3% J2-M172, 7,1% E1b-M78 (E-V13), 4,4% I-M170 (xM26), 4,4% T-M70, 2,7% I2-M26... There are differences with the rest of Tuscany, but this could be due to internal sub-regional differences or to just random variation. Also the size of the sample could play a role.




> 









> I wonder too. My speculations: maybe Celts/Italics, since its distribution resembles a bit the U152's. Indeed, a skeleton from Mitterkirchen related to the Celts was identified as G-L140, and according to me the guy was probably G-L497 based on his STR markers. But Germanic tribes could have brought some lineages more recently, like, say, G-CTS4803, G-Z16775...Some subclades (even main - more common - subclades) could be related to the Etruscan/Rhaetians too. Who knows! Hope we figure it out. :)





> Besides T, an appreciable % of G-L497 in Volterra, perhaps comparable to the % in Trentino, Austrian Tyrol...



It could be indeed an old Etruscan-Rhaetian link, dating back to a Neolithic/Late Neolithic/Early Chalcolithic.





> Looks like a lot of tyrolese moved to Tuscany , Lombardy and Veneto ................the question is , were they germans at that point in time or did they flee germans or the earlier celts who entered the alps from central/south Germany



Volterra has also 7,1% of R1b-U106, 2,7% of I-M233, 1,8% of I-M253... a Germanic influence seems to really exist there. Even some of G and T could have arrived with a Germanic movement. The Longobards?





> A few notes about comparing the Val Borbera and Tortona, barely fifty minutes apart by car, and which are both part of the province of Alessandria, Piemonte (although the Val Borbera was part of Liguria until very, very recently):



I think the majority of the inhabitants of the Borbera Valley still speak today a dialect of the Ligurian and not Piedmontese type.

----------


## Sile

> I really don't understand why they are saying that Volterra displays a unique Y-chromosomal genetic structure. It's not really true. 
> Volterra is 49,6% R1b-M269 (U152, S116, U106), 13,3% G-M201, 13,3% J2-M172, 7,1% E1b-M78 (E-V13), 4,4% I-M170 (xM26), 4,4% T-M70, 2,7% I2-M26... There are differences with the rest of Tuscany, but this could be due to internal sub-regional differences or to just random variation. Also the size of the sample could play a role.
> 
> It could be indeed an old Etruscan-Rhaetian link, dating back to a Neolithic/Late Neolithic/Early Chalcolithic.
> Volterra has also 7,1% of R1b-U106, 2,7% of I-M233, 1,8% of I-M253... a Germanic influence seems to really exist there. Even some of G and T could have arrived with a Germanic movement. The Longobards?
> I think the majority of the inhabitants of the Borbera Valley still speak today a dialect of the Ligurian and not Piedmontese type.


Maciano thinks that H and L ( ydna ) could also be in Volterra
Btw, was the area between Parma and the adriatic , along the Po river still underwater then which would mean the north ( alps ) to south route was determined by nature

----------


## Pax Augusta

> Maciano thinks that H and L ( ydna ) could also be in Volterra


Based on F-M89* and K-M9 (xM173,M70).

Anyway F-M89* according to Boattini 2013 is 3,9% and 3,3% in north Italy, respectively in Liguria (Savona/Genoa) and Piedmont (Cuneo), higher than Volterra (0,9%). 

And according to this study, K-M9 is 1,3% in north Italy, in Lombardy, in both Bergamo plain and valleys, higher than Volterra (0,9%). 

Is F-M89* H? And K-M9 (xM173,M70) is L?




> Volterra is also special for having 1% of haplogroup F* (possibly H) and 1% of K* (possibly L), both of which are exceedingly rare.


Well, according to this study K-M9 is 1,3% in north Italy, in Lombardy, in both Bergamo plain and valleys. And according to Boattini 2013 F-M89* is 3,9% and 3,3% in north Italy, in Liguria (Savona/Genoa) and Piedmont (Cuneo), higher than Volterra (0,9%). I mean, Volterra isn't that special in this either.

----------


## Angela

> I really don't understand why they are saying that Volterra displays a unique Y-chromosomal genetic structure. It's not really true. 
> 
> Volterra is 49,6% R1b-M269 (U152, S116, U106), 13,3% G-M201, 13,3% J2-M172, 7,1% E1b-M78 (E-V13), 4,4% I-M170 (xM26), 4,4% T-M70, 2,7% I2-M26... There are differences with the rest of Tuscany, but this could be due to internal sub-regional differences or to just random variation. Also the size of the sample could play a role.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's what I was wondering too about all of those haplogroups up in the area of the Piemonte, Liguria, Lombardia, Emilia border, the "Quattro Province" area. 

The authors of the paper mention the Langobards up there in the Val Borbera, but their castles are in the whole area, and also all over the Lunigiana and down into Toscana too. Some of the old calculators consistently give Tuscans about a third "Germanic" type ancestry. These "Germanic" y lines, which would have been minority lines, just might not have totally drifted out of the pool of y haplogroups in these more remote areas. 

Did you see where the area of greatest variation is for G2a-L497? It's not in the Alps, it's just below Denmark. Although originally a Neolithic line, it might have gotten picked up by Indo-European groups and then spread into both Celtic speaking and Germanic speaking peoples.

Yes, they speak Ligurian dialects up there, largely because the villages were feudatories of families from Genova. 

"in provincia di Alessandria, l'Oltregiogo storico a sud di Ovada e Novi Ligure include i centri di Gavi, Arquata Scrivia e Serravalle Scrivia, la val Lemme e la val Borbera, che fecero parte della Repubblica di Genova o furono amministrati come feudi da famiglie genovesi"
https://www.visitriviera.info/tradiz...lingua-ligure/

"The Val Borbera (_val Borbëa or Borbéia" in Ligurian, val Borbaja in Piedmontese) is a valley formed by the River Borbera, a tributary of the Scrivia, located in the province of Alessandria. It was historically linked to the Republic of Genoa, the Ligurian Republic and is still strongly tied to Liguria.[1]:

"_It is surrounded by high mountains, making it a place isolated from the surrounding valleys, little touched by industrialization and with a well-preserved environment. Up until the beginning of the 20th century, there was no road connecting the upper with the lower valley, the main passageway being the gravel riverbed in the dry season. It is the only valley of Piedmont bordering on the Emilia-Romagna region.""Its population has been considered a genetic isolate.[3]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Val_Borbera

Actually, the paper that is the subject of the OP says the road wasn't paved until a couple of decades ago. 

The sample that is used in some modern population genetics studies (and labelled Piemonte, which is a bit inaccurate, although the political borders are a bit irrelevant), comes from a study done there precisely because it is a genetic isolate.

"In this paper we report a demographic and epidemiological analysis of a genetically isolated population, settled in Val Borbera, a large valley in the North West Apennines, in Italy. Around 60% of the modern descendants, still living in the 7 main villages of the valley or in the nearby areas, have been recruited based on their ancestry. Analysis of the large genealogy constructed starting from city and parish archives showed not only that endogamy was high in the past, but also that >90% of the participants to the study had 4 grandparents born in the valley and that 87% were connected in a unique large genealogical tree that included up to 16 generations tracing back to the 16th century."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2761731/

I think the best way to think of them is probably as a very drifted segment of the population of the "Quattro Province". 

Interesting article in Italian:
https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quattro_Province

This is the English version:
https://translate.google.it/translate?hl=en&sl=it&u=https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quattro_Province&prev=search

"From a linguistic point of view it is difficult to give an exact classification of the Gallo-Italic linguistic varieties still spoken today, together with Italian , in the area of ​​the Four Provinces [6] . In the territory in question, dialects of the Ligurian language and transitional dialects between Ligurian, Emilian and Piedmontese intersect.On the other hand, among the provinces in question, it is only Genoa that is at the center of the linguistic system of its administrative region of belonging. Theprovince of Piacenza is characterized by Emilian varieties in contact with Lombardy , which, however, going back up the Apennine valleys are gradually affected by Ligurian characters. The Emilian dialect then extends to the Oltrepò Pavese , where the continuity with the Piacenza area gives way to Piedmontese influences as one approaches the border with the province of Alessandria , whose easternmost portion - the Tortonese - is still interested from the dialectal continuum of Emilia [7] [8] to the river Scrivia [9] . In the Alessandria area, going westwards there are gradual changes that gradually lead to a rapprochement with the Piedmontese, while to the south we approach the Ligurian [9] , similarly to what happens in the province of Pavia and in the Piacenza area."

"There are many evidences of the presence of the Ligurians since the Stone Age ( Neolithic village in Travo , val Trebbia piacentina ) and in the Iron Age (_castelliere_ , fortified village, of Guardamonte in the Alessandrino ). [ _citation needed_ ] [3]Also well documented the presence of the Romans : many toponyms, archaeological finds (remains of the city of Libarna in Val Scrivia ) and historical documentation ( _Tabula alimentaria Traiana_ of the municipality of Velleia of the second century AD ). According to the historian Polybius , in December 218 BC ,Hannibal inflicted a heavy defeat on the Roman consul Tito Sempronio Longo in the battle of Trebbia . Some toponyms of Val Trebbia and Val Boreca , as Zerbaseems to trace traces from the passage of Hannibal's troops.
From the fourth century , under the increasing pressure of the barbaric peoples, there was a migration from the Ligurian coast and from the plain towards the mountainous areas. Thus new settlements were formed based on an agro-pastoral subsistence economy.
The history of the territory is strongly linked to the presence of the monastery of Bobbio (PC), historical and cultural center of primary importance and richmonastic fief with possessions throughout northern Italy, founded in the seventh century by the Irish monk San Colombano , also in function of point of control of traffic to and from the Ligurian Sea , especially for the control of salt traffic towards the salt route .
After the fall of the Lombards by Charlemagne , the Holy Roman Empire later reassigned the territory constituting first the Marca Obertenga and then the imperial feuds , with the aim of maintaining a safe passage to the sea, in addition to the bishopric of Bobbio, assigned these territories starting from 1164 , to families (first descendants of the ancient Obertenghi ) such as: the Malaspina , the Fieschi , the Doria , the Pallavicino , the Landi and the Farnese ) who dominated these feuds for centuries."


I've posted a lot of their music and dancing.





This is specifically from one of the villages tested. If one thing stands out to me about their appearance, it's their height and the fact they're very lean. Height was, according to the genetics paper, one of the extremely heritable traits they possessed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1miA5VJztI

----------


## Sile

> Based on F-M89* and K-M9 (xM173,M70).
> Anyway F-M89* according to Boattini 2013 is 3,9% and 3,3% in north Italy, respectively in Liguria (Savona/Genoa) and Piedmont (Cuneo), higher than Volterra (0,9%). 
> And according to this study, K-M9 is 1,3% in north Italy, in Lombardy, in both Bergamo plain and valleys, higher than Volterra (0,9%). 
> Is F-M89* H? And K-M9 (xM173,M70) is L?
> Well, according to this study K-M9 is 1,3% in north Italy, in Lombardy, in both Bergamo plain and valleys. And according to Boattini 2013 F-M89* is 3,9% and 3,3% in north Italy, in Liguria (Savona/Genoa) and Piedmont (Cuneo), higher than Volterra (0,9%). I mean, Volterra isn't that special in this either.


K-M9 is only valid if it retained its "purity", ie not mutated into another haplogroup ................I am positive for K-M9
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_K-M9
.
All the haplogroups in the spreadsheet from K-M9 to T inclusive............all have positive K-M9
.
tyrol/austria/south Germany has a higher % of K-M9
.
I am sticking with its origins........... being south of the caspian sea

----------


## Maciamo

> ^^Yes, I was about to say that most of the G in Volterra is G-L497. The total G there is 13.3%, and G-L497 is 7.1%. Total "G" is higher in the Val Borbera where the total G is 15.3%, and G-L497 is 12.9%.
> 
> Central Italy is pretty high, with a total of 13.3%.
> 
> The "G" in the south is actually a bit lower, and is largely of a different type:
> 
> Tyrhennian Calabria: 12.3%
> Apulia 11.8
> Sicily 10.9
> ...





> G-L497 definitely looks like it's coming from the north, but with whom?
> 
> As to J2, there doesn't seem to be one particular clade that is prominent in Toscana does there according to this graphic? It looks like it has a bit of a few of them, including J2b.


I didn't notice in the frequency table that the G2a in Volterra was mostly L497. That actually solves the problem. I have maintained at least since 2013 in my Genetic History of the Italians (specifically here) that G2a-L497 was the second main Hallstatt lineage after R1b-U152, and by extension also that of the Italic tribes and La Tène (Gaulish/Belgic) tribes. The correlation between G2a-L497 and R1b-U152 is very strong.






I have explained in detail in the G2a page that it is particularly the G2a-Z1816 branch of L497 that seems to have spread with R1b from Yamna until the Alps. The oldest Z1816 was found in a Trypillian outlier just before the Yamna expansion.

I explained in the Genetic History of the Italians that the four main haplogroups of the ancient Italic tribes, including the Romans, were R1b-U152 (esp. the Z56 and Z192 branches), G2a-L497 (Z1816, although specific deep clades remain to be identified) and J2a-L70.

J2b is more likely of Greek or Balkanic origin. I have associated J2b2-L283 with the Illyrians and Mycenaean Greeks, while J2b1 is more widely West Asian, Greek and West Balkanic.

----------


## Hauteville

> *yes but it was found in 6% in sicily in this study 
> wish i knew from where in sicily the samples were taken :)
> kind regards
> adam 
> 
> p.s
> you have a point on the val borbera though.... 
> although i do believe that some e-m35* could have been present among the ligurians
> *


Because of small number of samples. In Heraklides et al. there were 765 samples from Sicily and E-M81 was only 1.6%.

----------


## Vallicanus

> Because of small number of samples. In Heraklides et al. there were 765 samples from Sicily and E-M81 was only 1.6%.


Interesting.
Do you have a link to the Heraklides study?

----------


## Hauteville

> Interesting.
> Do you have a link to the Heraklides study?


http://journals.plos.org/plosone/art...l.pone.0179474

----------


## Angela

All you have to do is google Heraklides et al:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/art...l.pone.0179474

All of the tables are in the Supplement. That particular one is Table 7. All of them are pretty interesting.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/art...0179474#sec018


It really should be more well known. They've collected a lot of data in one place. Should I add it to the list of papers for newbies? I think I thought it was too specific.

Anyway, I think what perhaps isn't sufficiently appreciated is that in a country like Italy, which is so mountainous, and where so many communities were isolated and were endogamous for so many years, certain y lines can drift to prominence in a small community. If that community happens to be one that is sampled for yDna, there's the danger that the results can be extrapolated to apply to a wider region than is justified.

----------


## kingjohn

> Interesting.
> Do you have a link to the Heraklides study?


thanks for this table that 13% e-m123 in greek cypriotes 
more common than in the levnat 5% in modern times ... :)
i think maybe e-m123 was more common in ancient time :)
i still would like to know from where in sicily the samples were taken in this study .....
maybe from place there was more carthegenian influence in sicly ?
or more moors print ?

----------


## Angela

> thanks for this table that 13% e-m123 in greek cypriotes 
> more common than in the levnat 5% in modern times ... :)
> i think maybe e-m123 was more common in ancient time :)
> i still would like to know from where in sicily the samples were taken in this study .....
> maybe from place there was more carthegenian influence in sicly ?
> or more moors print ?


I believe this is from Ahmed Reguig et al 2014 



However, some of the data comes from DiGaetano et al
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2985948/

It would seem to be Caccamo and Piazza Amerina, but you're talking about sample sizes of 16 and 28. This is actually a perfect example of what I was pointing out above.

Caccamo is now part of the metropolitan area of Palermo. So far as I know Caccamo's recorded history starts with the Normans. However, this was the area of the Carthaginian settlement.

On the other hand, other areas in the northwest have almost none of it. It looks to me as if somebody in Caccamo carrying E-M81 got lucky in terms of sons.

You can see what I mean in this chart from DiGaetano:
[IMG][/IMG]




Piazza Armerina is actually one of the Lombard communes of Sicily, so called because northern Italians were brought in to colonize the area. Of course, there were probably people in the vicinity before that time, but I'm not aware of any particular tie to Carthaginians or the Moors. 

I think I vaguely remember it has a lot of "I" or U-152 as well. Does anyone have a better recall of that?

Maciamo's map, because he uses so many sources, also shows very low levels of E-M81 in Sicily.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> i still would like to know from where in sicily the samples were taken in this study .....
> maybe from place there was more carthegenian influence in sicly ?
> or more moors print ?


Not clear the exact location of the Sicilian sample from this study. Of course the results from Heraclides et al. 2017 are closer to a more accurate Sicilian average.



From Grugni et al 2017







> Piazza Armerina is actually one of the Lombard communes of Sicily, so called because northern Italians were brought in to colonize the area. Of course, there were probably people in the vicinity before that time, but I'm not aware of any particular tie to Carthaginians or the Moors.


Yes, but I don't think that all the people from Piazza Armerina descend from these northern Italian settlers.

----------


## Sile

> agree 
> on Volterra it says
> *VOLTERRA
> Geography
> Volterra is a town of Tuscany - Central Italy - in the province of Pisa. It is located on a rocky hill, between the Bra and Cecina rivers. Along with the districts of Castelnuovo Val di Cecina, Montecatini Val di Cecina and Pomarance, it is part of the Upper Cecina Valley. This region is surrounded by other neighbouring valleys: on the West there are the Lower Cecina and the Cornia Valleys; on the North the Era Valley, and on the East the Upper Elsa Valley. On the South it confines with the Colline Metallifere, a mountain-hill group in the Tuscan Anti-Apennine.
> In the surroundings of Volterra, the forests of Berignone-Tatti and Monterufoli are some of the wooded areas that form the landscape, often characterized by the Mediterranean shrub land, the dramatic landslides of the Balze area and rolling hills.
> Historical background
> The hill on which Volterra is located was already settled from the Iron Age onwards, as the Villanovan necropolis shows. During the Neolithic, Volterra was an important settlement of the Etruscans; part of the principal twelve cities of the Etruscans confederation. Volterra was more isolated than the other Etruscan cities, due to its geographical position, and it was one of the last cities to join the Roman Republic, in the III century B.C..
> The origin of Etruscans is still controversial and different hypotheses have been made: one sustains they came from Anatolia, another claims an autochthonous process of formation from the preceding Villanovan society. Lastly, influence from Northern Europe has also been hypothesized. 
> ...


l`Aquila
This was the land of Samnium inhabited by the Caraceni
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caraceni_(tribe)
.
Their northern neighbours
*The Frentani[1] were an Italic tribe occupying the tract on the east coast of the peninsula from the Apennines to the Adriatic, and from the frontiers of Apulia to those of the Marrucini. They were bounded on the west by the Samnites, with whom they were closely connected, and from whom they were originally descended. Hence Scylax assigns the whole of this line of coast, from the frontiers of Apulia to those of Picenum, to the Samnites.[2] Their exact limits are less clearly defined, and there is considerable discrepancy in the statements of ancient geographers: Larinum, with its territory (extending from the Tifernus (modern Biferno) to the Frento), being by some writers termed a city of the Frentani,[3] while the more general opinion included it in Apulia, and thus made the river Tifernus (Biferno) the limit of the two countries.[4] The northern boundary of the Frentani is equally uncertain; both Strabo[5] and Ptolemy[6] concur in fixing it at the river Sagrus (modern Sangro), while Pliny extends their limits as far as the Aternus,* 
.
both spoke a Sabellic language

----------


## Angela

> Not clear the exact location of the Sicilian sample from this study. Of course the results from Heraclides et al. 2017 are closer to a more accurate Sicilian average.
> 
> 
> 
> From Grugni et al 2017
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Clearly not. They didn't settle in empty territory.

In table S3 in the Supplement to this Grugni et al 2018 paper, it says their Sicily samples come from Boattini et al, 2013, which were taken from Agrigento, Catania, and Ragusa/Siracusa.

See: Boattini et al 2013
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/art...l.pone.0065441

I think that was wise sampling: they hit the major areas of Sicily, and particularly the areas in the south where the Berbers mostly settled, and the total for E-M81 was 2.8%. 



The more samples the better, so the best estimate is probably the one from Heraklides et al, because they compiled lots of studies. Maciamo, who does the same thing also came up with something similar.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> That's what I was wondering too about all of those haplogroups up in the area of the Piemonte, Liguria, Lombardia, Emilia border, the "Quattro Province" area. 
> 
> The authors of the paper mention the Langobards up there in the Val Borbera, but their castles are in the whole area, and also all over the Lunigiana and down into Toscana too. Some of the old calculators consistently give Tuscans about a third "Germanic" type ancestry. These "Germanic" y lines, which would have been minority lines, just might not have totally drifted out of the pool of y haplogroups in these more remote areas. 
> 
> Did you see where the area of greatest variation is for G2a-L497? It's not in the Alps, it's just below Denmark. Although originally a Neolithic line, it might have gotten picked up by Indo-European groups and then spread into both Celtic speaking and Germanic speaking peoples.


You're right, I also didn't notice that the G2a in Volterra was mostly L497. Also Grugni in her paper concludes that G2a-L497 is a Central European lineage.

A couple of PCAs based on Y-DNA frequencies. The first scatterplot includes, beyond the samples from this study, also the ones from Capelli 2007, Ferri 2008, Di Gaetano 2009, Boattini 2013...

----------


## Angela

> Clearly not. They didn't settle in empty territory.
> 
> In table S3 in the Supplement to this Grugni et al 2018 paper, it says their Sicily samples come from Boattini et al, 2013, which were taken from Agrigento, Catania, and Ragusa/Siracusa.
> 
> See: Boattini et al 2013
> http://journals.plos.org/plosone/art...l.pone.0065441
> 
> I think that was wise sampling: they hit the major areas of Sicily, and particularly the areas in the south where the Berbers mostly settled, and the total for E-M81 was 2.8%. 
> 
> ...


Sorry, I need to correct that. The Sicilian samples used by this Grugni et al 2018 paper come not only from Boattini et al 2013, but also from Di Gaetano et al 2009. Grugni says they also used Capelli et al 2007, but I don't see any Sicilian samples listed there. The DiGaetano et al numbers are upthread.

The two outliers are Caccamo and Piazza Armerina, which bring up the average. Caccamo was the site of a Carthaginian emporia, but as I said upthread, other similar areas near by have zero or very low levels, so it may be a bit of an anomaly, founder effect of some sort. Piazza Armerina may have been a refuge area for the Saracens, which may explain the numbers there. Lombards were deliberately settled in areas which had had a Saracen presence.

You can see what Boattini et al 2013 showed for Sicily: Roman Numeral 7 is Sicily.




It didn't make sense to me that using only Boattini and DiGaetano data the number in Grugni was 6.3, while Boattini was 2.8, so I re-ran the numbers myself for Boattini. I think there's a typo in Boattini. I think the average for Sicily in Boattini is 3.8%, not 2.8%. That comes from Ragusa/Siracusa, which had 3 E-M81 compared to 1 each for Catania and Agrigento. Still a stretch to get to 6.3% using just DiGaetano numbers in addition to Boattini. Does anyone know if maybe there is another paper they might have used in place of Capelli et al or if they added samples of their own, perhaps from central Sicily?

This is Capelli et al 2007: I don't see Sicily in the chart.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.ed..._in_the_It.pdf


Feel free to check all of the above. It was a quick and dirty overview, and I want it to be correct.

Now, as to Heraklides et al, they used Brisighelli, but also studies I've never looked at, and some medical papers. I didn't check the number of samples for each paper or where they came from, but 767 samples seems like a really big number. Maybe someone who has the time can see if they're all brand new samples or some are duplicates or what.

Tofanelli S, Brisighelli F, Anagnostou P, Busby GB, Ferri G, Thomas MG, et al. (2016) The Greeks in the West: genetic signatures of the Hellenic colonisation in southern Italy and Sicily. Eur J Hm Genet 24: 429–436. pmid:26173964

Herrera KJ, Lowery RK, Hadden L, Calderon S, Chiou C, Yepiskoposyan L, et al. (2012) Neolithic patrilineal signals indicate that the Armenian plateau was repopulated by agriculturalists. Eur J Hum Genet 20: 313–320. pmid:2208590

Bekada A, Fregel R, Cabrera VM, Larruga JM, Pestano J, Benhamamouch S, et al. (2013) Introducing the Algerian mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome profiles into the North African landscape. PLoS One 8: e56775. pmid:23431392

Brisighelli F, Alvarez-Iglesias V, Fondevila M, Blanco-Verea A, Carracedo A, Pascali VL, et al. (2012) Uniparental markers of contemporary Italian population reveals details on its pre-Roman heritage. PLoS One 7: e50794. pmid:23251386

----------


## kingjohn

honestly i think the e-m81 in sicily here 
are *new samples* it is written inthe right *this study* 
if it was based on older refernces it would have been written on the right the name of the refernces 
you can see in sile post above of the table S.4  what i mean ..... :)

----------


## Angela

> honestly i think the e-m81 in sicily here 
> are *new samples* it is written inthe right *this study* 
> if it was based on older refernces it would have been written on the right the name of the refernces 
> you can see in sile post above of the table S.4  what i mean ..... :)


Yes, you're right, King John, that's the 64 on the map which Pax provided. From the placement, which looks accurate for the others, it looks like it's perhaps Caltanissetta. Given its history it makes sense there would be higher levels there, as there are in Piazza Armerina. 

That's in addition to the ones from Boattini, which were from Agrigento, Catania, and Ragusa/Siracusa, and the ones from Di Gaetano listed above. As I said, I couldn't find any Sicilian samples in Capelli et al, so maybe it's another paper.

So, we're looking at over 400 samples, compared to the 767 from Heraklides. Perhaps Heraklides used all of these plus others in the additional papers I saw? 

Grugni may have deliberately picked the refuge area in Central Italy (Caltanissetta) to see if there are remaining traces, as Boattini deliberately picked areas in the south where there is more evidence of Berber settlement. DiGaetano just did broad sampling across Sicily.

Bottom line, it seems that 6.3% figure is not for Sicily as a whole. It is for that central area which is perhaps Caltanissetta. That correlates with the figure for Piazza Armerina. Looking at all the Sicily samples from Table 4, E-M81 ranges from 1.6% in western Sicily to that high of 6.3%. It's higher in the areas that you would expect, perhaps close to 4% in some southern areas, and around 6% in that refuge area in central Sicily.

----------


## kingjohn

> Yes, you're right, King John, that's the 64 on the map which Pax provided. From the placement, which looks accurate for the others, it looks like it's perhaps Caltanissetta. Given its history it makes sense there would be higher levels there, as there are in Piazza Armerina. 
> 
> That's in addition to the ones from Boattini, which were from Agrigento, Catania, and Ragusa/Siracusa, and the ones from Di Gaetano listed above. As I said, I couldn't find any Sicilian samples in Capelli et al, so maybe it's another paper.
> 
> So, we're looking at over 400 samples, compared to the 767 from Heraklides. Perhaps Heraklides used all of these plus others in the additional papers I saw? 
> 
> Grugni may have deliberately picked the refuge area of Central Italy (Caltanissetta) to see if there are remaining traces, as Boattini deliberately picked areas in the south where there is more evidence of Berber settlement. *DiGaetano just did broad sampling across Sicily.*


*

*if thats the case than the real picture of *e-m81 in sicily* is probably from 
his data :)

----------


## Angela

> [/B]if thats the case than the real picture of *e-m81 in sicily* is probably from 
> his data :)


That's exactly what I was thinking: in fact I was going to post that. :) However, there's Heraklides to consider. With more samples from more widely diffused areas, it seems to go way down in terms of an island wide average.

I think Italian researchers, knowing the history of their country pretty well, have a tendency to sample in areas where they know there might be traces of certain migrations. (That's with the exception of DiGaetano.) That's great for historical or pre-historical purposes, but it might give a false impression of average distributions in an area. 

It's even worse, I think, when they pick areas that are so isolated and inbred that they do disease studies there, because you have so much founder effect and drift.

Her data, btw: Cornelia Di Gaetano. Lots of Italian pop gen researchers are women.

----------


## Trojet

There is an interesting peak of J2b-M241 (L283) in NW Italy and Apulia. This is the second study I have seen to have J2b-L283 in Apulia at 5-6% range. I wonder if this could be tied to the ancient Illyrian migrations. It would be interesting to have these samples NGS tested, but I have a hunch (as suggested by an STR study) some might be under Z1296>Y20899, Z1296>>Y23094, etc, which are pretty commonly found on the other side of the Adriatic. E-V13 is pretty common in Apulia as well...

----------


## Salento

> There is an interesting peak of J2b-M241 (L283) in NW Italy and Apulia. This is the second study I have seen to have J2b-L283 in Apulia at 5-6% range. I wonder if this could be tied to the ancient Illyrian migrations. It would be interesting to have these samples NGS tested, but I have a hunch (as suggested by an STR study) some might be under Z1296>Y20899, Z1296>>Y23094, etc, which are pretty commonly found on the other side of the Adriatic. E-V13 is pretty common in Apulia as well...


This might explain some hypothesis about Illyrian migrations: The Iapygians
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iapygians

----------


## Sile

> There is an interesting peak of J2b-M241 (L283) in NW Italy and Apulia. This is the second study I have seen to have J2b-L283 in Apulia at 5-6% range. I wonder if this could be tied to the ancient Illyrian migrations. It would be interesting to have these samples NGS tested, but I have a hunch (as suggested by an STR study) some might be under Z1296>Y20899, Z1296>>Y23094, etc, which are pretty commonly found on the other side of the Adriatic. E-V13 is pretty common in Apulia as well...


maybe *or* only half via across the adriatic sea and the other half down from the alps ...............8.8% R1b-U152 and also otzi` G2a-L91 is found in apulia

----------


## Azzurro

Excellent points from both Trojet and Salento, to add more to the Illyrian-Iapygian connection, in ftdna datbases we see results of E-V13>S2972 and R1b-PF7563 in Puglia which can be further evidence.

----------


## Sile

> Excellent points from both Trojet and Salento, to add more to the Illyrian-Iapygian connection, in ftdna datbases we see results of E-V13>S2972 and R1b-PF7563 in Puglia which can be further evidence.


confusing part is the AP and GS ( lecce ) both known as messapic and both with a high R1a-M17 ............clearly GS is greek or maybe they might mean epirote.
and both similar in E-V13
.
plus I have doubts like this article that I read
https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._centuries_BCE
that messapic is Illyrian.
.
If it is Illyrian I think it might be to do with the 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iapydes
who either sailed from the north Adriatic sea near istria or where brought to Apulia by the seafaring Liburnians who at that stage should have still owned corfu

----------


## Salento

> confusing part is the AP and GS ( lecce ) both known as messapic and both with a high R1a-M17 ............clearly GS is greek or maybe they might mean epirote.
> and both similar in E-V13
> .
> plus I have doubts like this article that I read
> https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._centuries_BCE
> that messapic is Illyrian.
> .
> If it is Illyrian I think it might be to do with the 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iapydes
> who either sailed from the north Adriatic sea near istria or where brought to Apulia by the seafaring Liburnians who at that stage should have still owned corfu


It’s probably a bit of Everything:

Roca (also known as Rocavecchia or Roca Vecchia) is an archaeological site located on the Adriatic coast of Apulia in Southern Italy, ......
The site, which has been explored since the end of the 1980s by a team of the University of Salento, has produced some of the best-preserved monumental architecture of the Bronze Age (2nd millennium BC) in Southern Italy, along with the largest set of Mycenaean pottery ever recovered west of mainland Greece.
....... writing of thousands of dedications to a local deity in three languages: Greek, Messapic and Latin.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roca...ological_site)

Messapian language
..... is an extinct Indo-European language of southeastern Italy, once spoken in the region of Apulia. It was spoken by the three Iapygian tribes of the region: the Messapians, the Peucetians and the Daunians. The language has been preserved in about 300 inscriptions dating from the 6th to the 1st century BC.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messapian_language

----------


## Azzurro

> confusing part is the AP and GS ( lecce ) both known as messapic and both with a high R1a-M17 ............clearly GS is greek or maybe they might mean epirote.
> and both similar in E-V13
> .
> plus I have doubts like this article that I read
> https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._centuries_BCE
> that messapic is Illyrian.
> .
> If it is Illyrian I think it might be to do with the 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iapydes
> who either sailed from the north Adriatic sea near istria or where brought to Apulia by the seafaring Liburnians who at that stage should have still owned corfu


In that article it never says that Messapic isn’t Illyrian? R1a in Puglia could be Slavic in origin and probably has nothing to do with Illyrians and Greeks.

This paragraph from the Molise Croats page on wikipedia talks about the history of Slavs in Italy which isn’t limited to Molise Croats.

”The Adriatic Sea since the Early Middle Agesconnected the Croatian and Italian coast.[11]The historical sources from 10-11th centuries mention Slavic incursions in Calabria, and Gargano peninsula.[11]Gerhard Rohlfs in dialects from Gargano found many old Croatian lexical remains, and two toponyms _Peschici_(_*pěskъ-_) and _Lesina_ (_*lěsь_, forest), which indicate Chakavian dialect.[12] In 12th century are confirmed toponyms _Castelluccio degli Schiavoni_ and _San Vito degli Schiavoni_.[11] In 13th and until 15th century toponyms _Slavi cum casalibus_ (Otranto, 1290), _Castellucium de Slavis_ (Capitanata, 1305), _casale Sclavorum_(Lavorno, 1306), _clerici de Schalvis_ (Trivento, 1328), _S. Martini in Sclavis_ (Marsia, 13th century), _S. Nikolò degli Schiavoni_ (Vasto, 1362).[13] In 1487 the residents of Anconadiffered the _Slavi_, previously settled, and the newcomers _Morlacchi_.[10] In 16th century, Abraham Ortelius in his Theatrum Orbis Terrarum (1570), West of Gargano in today's province of Molise mentioned _Dalmatia_,[14] and on Gargano also exist cape _Porto Croatico_ and cove _Valle Croatica_.[15]”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molise_Croats

This probably explains the R1a.

As for Iagypians and the Illyrian link, these 3 haplogroups shared between Albanians and Pugliese give a nice support, keep in mind that Puglia also has very little Arbereshe settlements (3 in total, 2 in Foggia and 1 in Taranto), so this would mean the connection is quite old.

----------


## Angela

^^From the Grugni et al 2018 paper which is the subject of this thread:

T and U are Apulia, and V and W are Grecia Salentina. These necessarily look like Slavic y lines to you? Do the STRS say all that M17* is "Slavic"? If not, then they're apparently not.

[IMG][/IMG]

----------


## Angela

> ^^From the Grugni et al 2018 paper which is the subject of this thread:
> 
> T and U are Apulia, and V and W are Grecia Salentina. These necessarily look like Slavic y lines to you? Do the STRS say all that M17* is "Slavic"? If not, then they're apparently not.
> 
> [IMG][/IMG]


Plus, a lot of the attributed "Slavic" in places like Croatia and the parts of the Balkans facing Apulia and Grecia Salentina is by way of "I2" lines, yes? If you look at the chart, not much of that in Apulia and Grecia Salentina either, unless I'm missing something.

That would seem to point rather to older migrations it seems to me.

----------


## Jovialis

> R1a in Puglia could be Slavic in origin and probably has nothing to do with Illyrians and Greeks.


This is an unwarranted assumption considering the long ancient history of Greek and Illyrian settlement in Puglia.

----------


## Litovoi

> There is an interesting peak of J2b-M241 (L283) in NW Italy and Apulia. This is the second study I have seen to have J2b-L283 in Apulia at 5-6% range. I wonder if this could be tied to the ancient Illyrian migrations. It would be interesting to have these samples NGS tested, but I have a hunch (as suggested by an STR study) some might be under Z1296>Y20899, Z1296>>Y23094, etc, which are pretty commonly found on the other side of the Adriatic. E-V13 is pretty common in Apulia as well...


What about the 11,4% EV13 from Bergamo?
The city was of big military importance in Roman period, destroyed by Attila,which,despite the reputation ,has become very selective ,it automatically leads us to Bird's study

http://www.jogg.info/pages/32/bird.htm

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergamo

EDIT
Bergomum was connected with the Friuli region through a military road,from where you could have reached the Lower Danube,via the Sava and Drava valleys.
EDIT
Bergamo is also an isolated,mountainous, province,that would explain the preservation of a higher percentage of V-13,I mean,they were lucky this time.
Same thing for the Romano-Britons ,with the Saxon invasion that spreads them into the higher locations,like Wales,Western England,thus,keeping their genes.

----------


## Angela

If you look at the maps upthread the "E-V13" is all the way up the peninsula. It may have diffused from the coasts inland. Liguria has quite a bit, and so does the Adriatic coast.

----------


## Angela

I think it would be good to take a good look at the age estimates in Table S7. Too bad they don't do all the areas. 

The J2a M67* seems to be very young in Portugal and very old in Italy and southeast Europe: 1.4 thousand years ago for the former. 

The only relatively recent J2a-M92 in Italy is in Sardinia, which makes complete sense. In the rest of Italy it's also got older dates.

Going strictly by the dates, E-V13 is oldest in Turkey, then Greece and Bulgaria, then Ukraine, then Fyrom Albanian, then Bosnian Serb, then Grecia Salentina, then Calabria and regular Albanian about the same time, and then Croatia, yes? Am i interpreting this correctly? Wish they had Liguria.

Also interesting is J2b-M241:

It seems to be oldest in Apulia: 6.7. Bulgaria, Volterra and Sardinia seem to be about the same: 4.1. Perhaps metalsmiths from "Old Europe". Then Albania at 3.2. Of course, these are approximations at best. 

Maybe Trojet can chime in.

----------


## Angela

Half of it is isolated and mountainous. That's why there are two sets of results for Bergamo. They wanted to see if it made a difference. The higher percentage is actually in the plain for E-V13: 11.4%. The mountainous valleys is lower with 7.7%.

More "J" in the plain, although the "high" is 6.3%, more U-152 on the plain by 53 to 46, but more total R1b in the mountain valleys, including that S116, for a total R1b of 81% in the mountain valleys vs 71% on the more accessible plains. Those are Garfagnana type levels, which I thought were the highest. Maybe DF-27 or L-21? Also a bit more upstream R1b in the mountainous valleys.

By the way, could someone get a legible screen shot of Table S6 with the higher resolution for all the new samples? I can't seem to do it.

Ed. The dating page would be nice too.

----------


## A. Papadimitriou

> I think it would be good to take a good look at the age estimates in Table S7. Too bad they don't do all the areas. 
> 
> The J2a M67* seems to be very young in Portugal and very old in Italy and southeast Europe: 1.4 thousand years ago for the former. 
> 
> The only relatively recent J2a-M92 in Italy is in Sardinia, which makes complete sense. In the rest of Italy it's also got older dates.
> 
> Going strictly by the dates, E-V13 is oldest in Turkey, then Greece and Bulgaria, then Ukraine, then Fyrom Albanian, then Bosnian Serb, then Grecia Salentina, then Calabria and regular Albanian about the same time, and then Croatia, yes? Am i interpreting this correctly? Wish they had Liguria.
> 
> Also interesting is J2b-M241:
> ...


I haven't seen the data about age estimates etc. but I have said elsewhere that E-V13 may have something to do with Cardial Neolithic (other haplogroups could have played a role, possibly more important, I don't know). It is found for example in Epicardial Spain.

I also believed it was wrong to connect it to proto-Greeks. Maybe Myceneans didn't have any or had little but later (more 'northern') groups like the Dorians or maybe the Macedonians had more, especially if an important entry point in Europe was in or around Thessaly.

----------


## Azzurro

I think an NGS dna paper on Italy is desperately needed, subclades are too vague in this paper, deeper anaylsis is crucial.

----------


## Angela

More, and more resolved data is always better. However, the VAST majority of R1a in Apulia and even in Grecia Salentina is certainly not M-458 (only 1.2% of it TOTAL is M-458, for which they tested), and I don't see any big amounts of "Slavic I2" there either, which there would be if it came after the Slavic invasions, since that's the majority of the "Slavic" y which is in the areas from which it would have come, so I see no logical justification for speculating that most of it is from the Slavic migrations.

----------


## Azzurro

> More, and more resolved data is always better. However, the VAST majority of R1a in Apulia and even in Grecia Salentina is certainly not M-458 (only 1.2% of it TOTAL is M-458, for which they tested), and I don't see any big amounts of "Slavic I2" there either, which there would be if it came after the Slavic invasions, since that's the majority of the "Slavic" y which is in the areas from which it would have come, so I see no logical justification for speculating that most of it is from the Slavic migrations.


R1a in Italy is very low in general, the high R1a in Graecia Salentina is probably founder effect and thus not really representative. The majority of Italian R1a is under CTS1211 as seen from results in ftdna, CTS1211 is also largely Slavic as well. The other 2 R1a’s found in Italians usually are under Z284 (Germanic) and Z93 (which is the least common R1a branch in Italy).

Also Byzantines imployed Slavic mercenaries, there are Yfull results from the Sardinian paper on Yfull which are both under M458 and CTS1211 and they could have only came with the Byzantines.

----------


## Trojet

> I think it would be good to take a good look at the age estimates in Table S7. Too bad they don't do all the areas. 
> 
> The J2a M67* seems to be very young in Portugal and very old in Italy and southeast Europe: 1.4 thousand years ago for the former. 
> 
> The only relatively recent J2a-M92 in Italy is in Sardinia, which makes complete sense. In the rest of Italy it's also got older dates.
> 
> Going strictly by the dates, E-V13 is oldest in Turkey, then Greece and Bulgaria, then Ukraine, then Fyrom Albanian, then Bosnian Serb, then Grecia Salentina, then Calabria and regular Albanian about the same time, and then Croatia, yes? Am i interpreting this correctly? Wish they had Liguria.
> 
> Also interesting is J2b-M241:
> ...


Those "diversity estimates" are based on low STR resolution, which in today's age of NGS technology should not be taken seriously, as they mutate randomly and can't take into account bottlenecks, etc. It's the same methodology used by Dienekes years ago when he claimed E-V13 in Albania is coalescent of Roman/Late Antiquity times, suggesting a "recent" entrance in the Albanian gene pool, or something like that.

As Azzurro mentioned, Next Generation Sequencing is what's needed to understand these things better, and obviously ancient DNA.

----------


## Angela

> R1a in Italy is very low in general, the high R1a in Graecia Salentina is probably founder effect and thus not really representative. The majority of Italian R1a is under CTS1211 as seen from results in ftdna, CTS1211 is also largely Slavic as well. The other 2 R1a’s found in Italians usually are under Z284 (Germanic) and Z93 (which is the least common R1a branch in Italy).


Let's not get off topic. We're talking strictly about Puglia and especially Grecia Salentina. If you think the R1a there is not important, why draw the conclusions you drew from it? The northeast, areas near Slovenia etc., are a completely different topic.

You cannot logically draw the conclusions you are drawing for these areas from this paper. There is virtually nothing from M-458 that would indicate the presence of "Slavic" y. There is no indication of Slavic I2a being much of a possibility either, which you would think would be higher than any R1a anyway. 

I also don't understand why you would think Grecia Salentina is particularly isolated. It's all nice and flat. No isolated, high altitude valleys there.

Now, perhaps you're drawing your conclusions from private testing company results. I'd like to see screen shots of the results from Grecia Salentina to see all this "Slavic" dna. I'm not interested in any "private" collections.

Of course, even if it exists in those data banks, those collections can be very deceiving. For one thing, no one is checking to see all four grandparents or, in this case, that the paternal grandfather is from the area. Also, it's self selected, not a random sample. In the early days a lot of incorrect predictions were made about R1b clades in Britain because people relied on results like that.

I think at this stage, unless I'm blown away by all the "Slavic" y lines in the data from the private testing companies, I would say that there doesn't seem to be much of an indication that the R1a and I2 in Puglia and especially Grecia Salentina is from the post Slavic era Balkans, particularly in light of the thousands of years of interactions between the two areas. Why on earth single that time period out?

Of course, people can believe whatever they want to believe, for whatever reason, and often do.

----------


## Angela

[QUOTE=Trojet;531831]Those "diversity estimates" are based on low STR resolution, which in today's age of NGS technology should not be taken seriously, as they mutate randomly and can't take into account bottlenecks, etc. It's the same methodology used by Dienekes years ago when he claimed E-V13 in Albania is coalescent of Roman/Late Antiquity times, suggesting a "recent" entrance in the Albanian gene pool, or something like that.

*As Azzurro mentioned, Next Generation Sequencing is what's needed to understand these things better, and obviously ancient DNA.[*/QUOTE]

Yes, dating is always iffy, in admixture too. When we get ancient dna we'll have to look back at this and see how close they got.

As to the rest, perhaps you missed my post:

"More, and more resolved data is always better. However, the VAST majority of R1a in Apulia and even in Grecia Salentina is certainly not M-458 (only 1.2% of it TOTAL is M-458, for which they tested), and I don't see any big amounts of "Slavic I2" there either, which there would be if it came after the Slavic invasions, since that's the majority of the "Slavic" y which is in the areas from which it would have come, so I see no logical justification for speculating that most of it is from the Slavic migrations."

Of course, ancient dna is best, then high resolution modern data. Given the history of the area, the data we do have, and no sufficiently resolved randomly selected data showing "Slavic" y dna in Puglia, why would you conclude, as Azzurro did, that most of it was from migrations after the era of the Slavic input into the Balkans, particularly from contact with Croatians in the Middle Ages and *probably* has nothing to do with Greeks or Illyrians? Based on what?

Perhaps it was just carelessness, but there's not justification for that. Can't go confusing newbies to the topic.



It makes no sense to me. At best, say we can't yet tell.

----------


## Azzurro

> Let's not get off topic. We're talking strictly about Puglia and especially Grecia Salentina. If you think the R1a there is not important, why draw the conclusions you drew from it? The northeast, areas near Slovenia etc., are a completely different topic.
> 
> You cannot logically draw the conclusions you are drawing for these areas from this paper. There is virtually nothing from M-458 that would indicate the presence of "Slavic" y. There is no indication of Slavic I2a being much of a possibility either, which you would think would be higher than any R1a anyway. 
> 
> I also don't understand why you would think Grecia Salentina is particularly isolated. It's all nice and flat. No isolated, high altitude valleys there.
> 
> Now, perhaps you're drawing your conclusions from private testing company results. I'd like to see screen shots of the results from Grecia Salentina to see all this "Slavic" dna. I'm not interested in any "private" collections.
> 
> Of course, even if it exists in those data banks, those collections can be very deceiving. For one thing, no one is checking to see all four grandparents or, in this case, that the paternal grandfather is from the area. Also, it's self selected, not a random sample. In the early days a lot of incorrect predictions were made about R1b clades in Britain because people relied on results like that.
> ...


I said R1a in general is not common in Italy, and it can clearly be that the high R1a in Graecia Salentina can be from Founder effect, its possible that all the samples in Graecia Salentina in this paper could be from one village, and could drastically be different from the next village.

Again M458 is not the only Slavic R1a, CTS1211 is also largely Slavic and is much more common than M458, to your point about I-CTS10228, no R1a is more common than I-CTS10228 in the Slavic world.

Whoever said its isolated? Your added ideas that I never mentioned.

Its your decision not to see ftdna as valid as low resolution dna papers, there is over 2000 Italians (in projects) who tested their Y dna at ftdna of which a good 100-150 tested BigY, if anything more can be learnt from ftdna than this paper or many of the papers unfortunately, hopefully the next papers will be NGS tested.

As for your final comment you can believe what you want to be believe your entitled to your own opinion.

----------


## Jovialis

> Yes, dating is always iffy, in admixture too. When we get ancient dna we'll have to look back at this and see how close they got.
> 
> As to the rest, perhaps you missed my post:
> 
> "More, and more resolved data is always better. However, the VAST majority of R1a in Apulia and even in Grecia Salentina is certainly not M-458 (only 1.2% of it TOTAL is M-458, for which they tested), and I don't see any big amounts of "Slavic I2" there either, which there would be if it came after the Slavic invasions, since that's the majority of the "Slavic" y which is in the areas from which it would have come, so I see no logical justification for speculating that most of it is from the Slavic migrations."
> 
> Of course, ancient dna is best, then high resolution modern data. Given the history of the area, the data we do have, and no sufficiently resolved randomly selected data showing "Slavic" y dna in Puglia, why would you conclude, as Azzurro did, that most of it was from migrations after the era of the Slavic input into the Balkans, particularly from contact with Croatians in the Middle Ages and *probably* has nothing to do with Greeks or Illyrians? Based on what?
> 
> Perhaps it was just carelessness, but there's not justification for that. Can't go confusing newbies to the topic.
> ...


I wholeheartedly agree. Given the extensive contact with Greeks dating all the way back to Magna Grecia, as well as the Illyrian settlement, it would only be plausible that these R1a lines could have come from these populations. It would be highly unlikely that it would connected to a Slavic contribution to that area. There's been migrations going back and forth from this area long before Slavs entered the Balkans. To say it came specifically from Slavs would be highly-dubious. One could defer to the history of the area to get an idea of where the lines may have originated.

----------


## Jovialis

> Its your decision not to see ftdna as valid as low resolution dna papers, there is over 2000 Italians (in projects) who tested their Y dna at ftdna of which a good 100-150 tested BigY, if anything more can be learnt from ftdna than this paper or many of the papers unfortunately, hopefully the next papers will be NGS tested.As for your final comment you can believe what you want to be believe your entitled to your own opinion.


Can you verify the paper isn't NGS tested?


Also can we expect to get a down vote for disagreeing as well?

----------


## Azzurro

> I wholeheartedly agree. Given the extensive contact with Greeks dating all the way back to Magna Grecia, as well as the Illyrian settlement, it would only be plausible that these R1a lines could have come from these populations. It would be highly unlikely that it would connected to a Slavic contribution to that area. There's been migrations going back and forth from this area long before Slavs entered the Balkans. To say it came specifically from Slavs would be highly-dubious. One could defer to the history of the area to get an idea of where the lines may have originated.


R1a in Greece is almost entirely Slavic and fairly recent sorry to burst your bubble. The only R1a that could be Greek in origin is Z93, and Z93 has been found in Bronze Age Bulgaria so it’s plausible, though Greeks have very low amounts of Z93 today, majority of R1a in Greece is CTS1211 and M458 which are Slavic in Greece’s case.

----------


## Azzurro

> Can you verify the paper isn't NGS tested?
> 
> Also can we expect to get a down vote for disagreeing as well?


NGS testing is when snp’s are tested, like BigY, this test is low resolution str markers and you deserved that downvote.

----------


## Jovialis

> R1a in Greece is almost entirely Slavic and fairly recent sorry to burst your bubble. The only R1a that could be Greek in origin is Z93, and Z93 has been found in Bronze Age Bulgaria so it’s plausible, though Greeks have very low amounts of Z93 today, majority of R1a in Greece is CTS1211 and M458 which are Slavic in Greece’s case.


Sorry to burst YOUR bubble, but that doesn't verify that the R1a in puglia is Slavic. How do you know it didn't come there from an earlier time from those other greek R1a?

----------


## Jovialis

> NGS testing is when snp’s are tested, like BigY, this test is low resolution str markers and you deserved that downvote.


Really, why did I deserve it, for not believing your far-flung theory?

That completely violates what you said about people being entitled to their opinion.

----------


## Azzurro

> Really, why did I deserve it, for not believing your far-flung theory?
> 
> That completely violates what you said about people being entitled to their opinion.


Because you wrote ridiculous assumption, then changed it to look better.

----------


## Jovialis

> This is an unwarranted assumption considering the long ancient history of Greek and Illyrian settlement in Puglia.


Let's analyze this post Azzurro, tell me why it deserves a down vote. I'm curious to know.

----------


## Azzurro

> Sorry to burst YOUR bubble, but that doesn't verify that the R1a in puglia is Slavic. How do you know it didn't come there from an earlier time from those other greek R1a?


It could be Z93 or a mix of the too. That’s why looking at results from ftdna is important because we can see what R1a’s are found and quite a few results of ftdna had NGS testing. On ftdna the most common R1a in Southern Italy is CTS1211 (which is largely Slavic), then M458 (Slavic), Z284 (Germanic) and finally Z93 (which in itself is a large branch, some could be Greek and others from the Middle East). Most of these samples are also from Southern Italians which includes samples from Puglia.

----------


## Azzurro

> Let's analyze this post Azzurro, tell me why it deserves a down vote. I'm curious to know.


I answered you above.

----------


## Angela

> I said R1a in general is not common in Italy, and it can clearly be that the high R1a in Graecia Salentina can be from Founder effect, its possible that all the samples in Graecia Salentina in this paper could be from one village, and could drastically be different from the next village.
> 
> Again M458 is not the only Slavic R1a, CTS1211 is also largely Slavic and is much more common than M458, to your point about I-CTS10228, no R1a is more common than I-CTS10228 in the Slavic world.
> 
> Whoever said its isolated? Your added ideas that I never mentioned.
> 
> Its your decision not to see ftdna as valid as low resolution dna papers, there is over 2000 Italians (in projects) who tested their Y dna at ftdna of which a good 100-150 tested BigY, if anything more can be learnt from ftdna than this paper or many of the papers unfortunately, hopefully the next papers will be NGS tested.
> 
> *As for your final comment you can believe what you want to be believe your entitled to your own opinion.*


Excuse me, you don't get to re-write history here. I'm not the one pushing any particular explanation or "theory" for the R1a in Puglia and in particular in Grecia Salentina. You did.

"Azzurro: In that article it never says that Messapic isn’t Illyrian?* R1a in Puglia* could be Slavic in origin and *probably has nothing to do with Illyrians and Greeks.*

This paragraph from the Molise Croats page on wikipedia talks about the history of Slavs in Italy which isn’t limited to Molise Croats.

”The Adriatic Sea since the Early Middle Agesconnected the Croatian and Italian coast.[11]The historical sources from 10-11th centuries mention Slavic incursions in Calabria, and Gargano peninsula.[11]Gerhard Rohlfs in dialects from Gargano found many old Croatian lexical remains, and two toponyms _Peschici_(_*pěskъ-_) and _Lesina_ (_*lěsь_, forest), which indicate Chakavian dialect.[12]In 12th century are confirmed toponyms _Castelluccio degli Schiavoni_ and _San Vito degli Schiavoni_.[11] In 13th and until 15th century toponyms _Slavi cum casalibus_ (Otranto, 1290), _Castellucium de Slavis_ (Capitanata, 1305), _casale Sclavorum_(Lavorno, 1306), _clerici de Schalvis_ (Trivento, 1328), _S. Martini in Sclavis_ (Marsia, 13th century), _S. Nikolò degli Schiavoni_ (Vasto, 1362).[13]In 1487 the residents of Anconadiffered the _Slavi_, previously settled, and the newcomers _Morlacchi_.[10] In 16th century, Abraham Ortelius in his Theatrum Orbis Terrarum (1570), West of Gargano in today's province of Molise mentioned _Dalmatia_,[14] and on Gargano also exist cape _Porto Croatico_ and cove _Valle Croatica_.[15]”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molise_Croats

This probably explains the R1a."

The particular source you're pushing is Croatians in the Middle Ages. 

There's no particular justification for that, especially not among Griko speaking Salentini, and especially not since, as you point out, the M17* is not further resolved. 

I also doubt the proportion of I2a and R1a in the regions across the Adriatic from Grecia Salentina is in R1a's favor. 

I'm still waiting for the screen shot of all the "Slavic" R1a in Grecia Salentina. I told you I'm prepared to be bowled over. What more do you want? I do want a screen shot however, and the total such "Slavic" R1a out of the total samples for that area. 

Why would I care whether that small amount of R1a in Griko speaking Salentini is from Greeks from before or after the Slavic migrations or from all sorts of migrations? It's immaterial. I just don't like big conclusions being drawn from insufficient evidence. The Croats in Molise, for example, are, sorry, really lame for Griko speakers. 

Yes, you are the one who said the Salentina area is isolated. Where do you think founder effects matter? Where do you think they occur?

"Azzurro: the high R1a in Graecia Salentina is probably founder effect and thus not really representative." 

Actually, there may be a bit of a founder effect in Grecia Salentina, because of language isolation. Regardless, again, you brought it up, not me.

The R1a in Greece has nothing to do with this. There were documented folk migrations into Greece by Slavic speaking tribes. 

Please stick to the topic, which is Puglia, and especially Grecia Salentina, and the predictions and conclusions *you* reached. I merely showed why that isn't necessarily the case. 

You know, there's no shame in having overstated the case, or been careless. Everybody does it at times.

As you yourself mentioned, until we have more resolution on those results there's no way of knowing.

----------


## Azzurro

> Excuse me, you don't get to re-write history here. I'm not the one pushing any particular explanation or "theory" for the R1a in Puglia and in particular in Grecia Salentina. You did.
> 
> "Azzurro: In that article it never says that Messapic isn’t Illyrian?* R1a in Puglia* could be Slavic in origin and *probably has nothing to do with Illyrians and Greeks.*
> 
> This paragraph from the Molise Croats page on wikipedia talks about the history of Slavs in Italy which isn’t limited to Molise Croats.
> 
> ”The Adriatic Sea since the Early Middle Agesconnected the Croatian and Italian coast.[11]The historical sources from 10-11th centuries mention Slavic incursions in Calabria, and Gargano peninsula.[11]Gerhard Rohlfs in dialects from Gargano found many old Croatian lexical remains, and two toponyms _Peschici_(_*pěskъ-_) and _Lesina_ (_*lěsь_, forest), which indicate Chakavian dialect.[12]In 12th century are confirmed toponyms _Castelluccio degli Schiavoni_ and _San Vito degli Schiavoni_.[11] In 13th and until 15th century toponyms _Slavi cum casalibus_ (Otranto, 1290), _Castellucium de Slavis_ (Capitanata, 1305), _casale Sclavorum_(Lavorno, 1306), _clerici de Schalvis_ (Trivento, 1328), _S. Martini in Sclavis_ (Marsia, 13th century), _S. Nikolò degli Schiavoni_ (Vasto, 1362).[13]In 1487 the residents of Anconadiffered the _Slavi_, previously settled, and the newcomers _Morlacchi_.[10] In 16th century, Abraham Ortelius in his Theatrum Orbis Terrarum (1570), West of Gargano in today's province of Molise mentioned _Dalmatia_,[14] and on Gargano also exist cape _Porto Croatico_ and cove _Valle Croatica_.[15]”
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molise_Croats
> ...


Nothing I say is careless this is what I think it is. I will state it exactly as I see it, Greeks and Illyrians are probably not responsible for R1a in Puglia and Slavic migrants from Croatia along with Byzantine Mercenaries are the most likely source which also correlate with results from ftdna, Sorry but until NGS samples are taken this is my opinion.

----------


## Angela

> Nothing I say is careless this is what I think it is. I will state it exactly as I see it, Greeks and Illyrians are probably not responsible for R1a in Puglia and Slavic migrants from Croatia along with Byzantine Mercenaries are the most likely source which also correlate with results from ftdna, Sorry but until NGS samples are taken this is my opinion.


I guess that means there's not a plethora of "Slavic" y dna in Grecia Salentina in FTDNA?

Fine, that's your opinion. I'll leave it to readers to determine if you've backed that up with any yDna or historical and cultural proof, anything other than your ingrained belief that virtually everything in southern Italy *must* stem from migrations after the Romans. Why you have that ingrained belief is beyond me.

----------


## Falco

> I guess that means there's not a plethora of "Slavic" y dna in Grecia Salentina in FTDNA?
> 
> Fine, that's your opinion. I'll leave it to readers to determine if you've backed that up with any yDna or historical and cultural proof, anything other than your ingrained belief that virtually everything in southern Italy *must* stem from migrations after the Romans. Why you have that ingrained belief is beyond me.


FTDNA's Italy project:
https://www.familytreedna.com/public...frame=yresults

No R1a in Puglia/Grecia Salentina, but curiously, several samples from Calabria test positive for it (plus two from Sicily).

----------


## Azzurro

> I guess that means there's not a plethora of "Slavic" y dna in Grecia Salentina in FTDNA?
> 
> Fine, that's your opinion. I'll leave it to readers to determine if you've backed that up with any yDna or historical and cultural proof, anything other than your ingrained belief that virtually everything in southern Italy *must* stem from migrations after the Romans. Why you have that ingrained belief is beyond me.


No, there are Roman-Italic Y dna is also prevalent in Southern Italy, U152 lineages are found in the South, plus we have lineages of J2a-L70, E-V13>S7461, G-L13, T-CTS54. There is even Neolithic lineages that are still found too. Also Greek brought in many lineages too before the Romans.

In the case of R1a most of it is post Roman, only Z93 could during and before Roman period.

----------


## Angela

> FTDNA's Italy project:
> https://www.familytreedna.com/public...frame=yresults
> 
> No R1a in Puglia/Grecia Salentina, but curiously, several samples from Calabria test positive for it (plus two from Sicily).



There is one Brindisi, yes, although not the Salento?
R-Z283

Some don't have a location listed. Have they been contacted or did you check surnames? These are the ones I quickly noticed that are Southern Italian generally but might perhaps be from Puglia. Can't tell, though: nothing definite.

Raffa and Filardo-(R-YP3994, and R-M198)


Gasbarro-R-M173

So, I definitely don't see Slavic R1a here. 

Actually, given the history of Puglia, with all the contacts with the Northmen, I would think Scandinavian R1a makes more sense than Slavic, but who knows?

" Among the most remarkable of these Norman adventurers were the sons of Tancred de Hauteville, who established their rule over the southern Italian regions of Calabria and Puglia (Apulia) in the 1050s and over Sicily in the following decades. Their possessions were amalgamated by Roger II, a grandson of Tancred, in the early 12th century as the kingdom of Sicily, whose rulers retained a basically Norman character until the last decades of that century."
http://www.orbilat.com/Encyclopaedia/N/Normans.html

----------


## Falco

> There is one Brindisi, yes, although not the Salento?
> R-Z283
> 
> Some don't have a location listed. Have they been contacted or did you check surnames? These are the ones I quickly noticed that are Southern Italian generally but might perhaps be from Puglia. Can't tell, though: nothing definite.
> 
> Raffa and Filardo-(R-YP3994, and R-M198)
> 
> 
> Gasbarro-R-M173
> ...


Ah, I didn't catch that one from Brindisi.

The name Raffa appears to be from Campania, Sicily or Calabria:


Filardo looks to be from Calabria or Sicily:


And Gasbarro down from Abruzzo to Molise and Puglia:

----------


## Angela

@Falco,

I was trying to give a huge benefit of the doubt, but you're right. 

FtDna doesn't prove anything that was alleged either. So much for that.

Jovialis was correct: with all these migrations throughout history being a possibility, and the results we did have, there was no reason to believe it was necessarily going to be Slavic. 

Now, despite what was claimed, FTDNA doesn't show Slavic y there either. 

The only thing to do is wait for the ancient dna and also for results like the ones in this Grugni paper to be further resolved.

----------


## Azzurro

> @Falco,
> 
> I was trying to give a huge benefit of the doubt, but you're right. 
> 
> FtDna doesn't prove anything that was alleged either. So much for that.
> 
> Jovialis was correct: with all these migrations throughout history being a possibility, and the results we did have, there was no reason to believe it was necessarily going to be Slavic. 
> 
> Now, despite what was claimed, FTDNA doesn't show Slavic y there either. 
> ...


Ftdna does not disprove it either, in Calabria and Basilicata mostly either CTS1211 or M458, anyways the high R1a in Graecia Salentina is an outlier, and in all honesty its only 8-9 samples in total. There is Slavs that settled in Puglia, so saying it cannot be Slavic is false.

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1a?iframe=ymap

One result in Foggia is projected to be under CTS1211, there is also the Z283 result in Brindisi. Granted the result in Foggia is under YP413 which is under Z93.

----------


## Salento

> There is one Brindisi, yes, although not the Salento?
> R-Z283
> 
> Some don't have a location listed. Have they been contacted or did you check surnames? These are the ones I quickly noticed that are Southern Italian generally but might perhaps be from Puglia. Can't tell, though: nothing definite.
> 
> Raffa and Filardo-(R-YP3994, and R-M198)
> 
> 
> Gasbarro-R-M173
> ...


Brindisi is part of Salento:
It encompasses the entire administrative area of the province of Lecce, a large part of the province of Brindisi and part of that of Taranto.

The peninsula is also known as Terra d'Otranto, and in the past Sallentina.

Also, I’m not sure if is important, but I see the Norman been mentioned, There is town in the province of Brindisi call San Vito Dei Normanni: Norman and some Slavic connection,
The village dates back to the Middle Ages (late 10th century), presumably by a colony of Slavs (emigrated from Slavonia) escaping the persecutions of the Saracens, and decided to settle in the fertile areas of San Vito founding "Castro Sancti Viti".[citation needed]

Some scholars believe that the city was founded by the Norman Bohemond of Hauteville ( 1050 - 1111 AD), son of Robert Guiscard, who, to satisfy his love of hunting, ordered the construction of a square tower, which still exists today.[6]

The small village originally grew in the late Middle Ages when the Normans ensured security from the constant attacks of the Saracens.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Vito_dei_Normanni

----------


## Angela

> Brindisi is part of Salento:
> It encompasses the entire administrative area of the province of Lecce, a large part of the province of Brindisi and part of that of Taranto.
> 
> The peninsula is also known as Terra d'Otranto, and in the past Sallentina.


Great. It's not, however, the Grecia Salentina I take it, from which the samples came, because there is a list of them in the paper and Brindisi is not listed.

Even if that were not the case, just how does this one sample, one which I pointed out, btw, change the fact that we were led to believe that FTDNA would show high levels of "Slavic" R1a in Puglia, and specifically in Grecia Salentina?

I'll save you the bother of answering. It doesn't.

I specifically asked for this data, which I was accused of discounting, btw, not once but twice. It wasn't made available until the poster Falco produced it. 

Once posted, from the results of Grugni proving the R1a in Grecia Salentina is Slavic, to FtDna proving it, we move on to, well, FTDNA doesn't disprove it. Is this what's called a rearguard action?

There is no proof whatsoever for the assertions which were made but the poster's desire that this be the case, for who knows what reason. It makes no sense to me.

It's immaterial to me, btw, whether it is or not. I'm content to wait for actual proof of which one of the many possibilities is the correct one. 

What is upsetting is that on this Board we really shouldn't have to fact check statements made by people who claim expertise in a subject. 

That's it. As far as I'm concerned far too much time has already been wasted checking data and debating what seems to be a claim for which there is no factual evidence.

----------


## zanipolo

> Let's analyze this post Azzurro, tell me why it deserves a down vote. I'm curious to know.


I have never read anything that says beyond a doubt that Illyrians settled in Puglia. All I know is that Messapic system comes from an Ionion system .

----------


## Salento

> Great. It's not, however, the Grecia Salentina I take it, from which the samples came, because there is a list of them in the paper and Brindisi is not listed.
> 
> Even if that were not the case, just how does this one sample, one which I pointed out, btw, change the fact that we were led to believe that FTDNA would show high levels of "Slavic" R1a in Puglia, and specifically in Grecia Salentina?
> 
> I'll save you the bother of answering. It doesn't.
> 
> I specifically asked for this data, which I was accused of discounting, btw, not once but twice. It wasn't made available until the poster Falco produced it. 
> 
> Once posted, from the results of Grugni proving the R1a in Grecia Salentina is Slavic, to FtDna proving it, we move on to, well, FTDNA doesn't disprove it. Is this what's called a rearguard action?
> ...


I edited the post, some Norman and Slav input.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Vito_dei_Normanni

----------


## Salento

I’m starting to realize that some people don’t know what Salento and Grecia Salentina is, or the Location, plus they mix them up, and I’m Confuse at time.

----------


## Salento

> I have never read anything that says beyond a doubt that Illyrians settled in Puglia. All I know is that Messapic system comes from an Ionion system .


I’ve never heard that the didn’t for sure either. Hopefully one day we will find out for sure.

----------


## Salento

I’m going to tell you a Fable, just a Generational Story that some people say and is not written anywhere:
A Tribe of Ancien Illyrian split in 2, one went toward what today is Venice, and the other went to Puglia. For a while they coordinated together to Control all the Adriatic Sea From North to South. Eventually they just remained in Veneto e Puglia. 
It’s just an old Legend, with NOT scientific proof, but never the less is still more believable if a compare it with some of the Theory I’ve been reading.

----------


## Promenade

> I have never read anything that says beyond a doubt that Illyrians settled in Puglia. All I know is that Messapic system comes from an Ionion system .


I've read books that stated it as a fact, as for a connection of R1a in Puglia with Illyrians it's impossible to tell since we don't even know what y-dna Illyrians had. It's not hard to connect the dots and assume an ancient population from what is now Albania is responsible for elevated J2b in Puglia on the other hand though. Illyrians (Iapygians) would be a likely culprit.

----------


## FIREYWOTAN

The new version of Office seems to add a number of different apps. The hardest part seems to be figuring out how to utilize them.

----------


## Litovoi

> What about the 11,4% EV13 from Bergamo?
> The city was of big military importance in Roman period, destroyed by Attila,which,despite the reputation ,has become very selective ,it automatically leads us to Bird's study
> http://www.jogg.info/pages/32/bird.htm
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergamo
> EDIT
> Bergomum was connected with the Friuli region through a military road,from where you could have reached the Lower Danube,via the Sava and Drava valleys.
> EDIT
> 
> Bergamo is also an isolated,mountainous, province,that would explain the preservation of a higher percentage of V-13,I mean,they were lucky this time.
> Same thing for the Romano-Britons ,with the Saxon invasion that spreads them into the higher locations,like Wales,Western England,thus,keeping their genes.


It is important not only to link these haplogroups with certain historical contexts,but,even more,to go further, by establishing real chains,because only this way you can get a clear picture of the entire preservation and dispersion processes.
Concretely,the Bergamo lowlanders(BGP) have even higher levels of Italian ancestry,given by the U152 comparison,naturally, many of their genes are inherited from the original highlanders,the ancestors of today's BGVs,with the dispersions taking place for both general and specific reasons:the plains offers more food,by practising farming,that's why the polenta has become the traditional dish in North Italy,we have to consider here both spontaneous migrations,caused by starvation, and more institutionalized ones,because the Habsburgs have encouraged lowland settlings, for economical and security reasons.


To balance things,the BGVs have acquired additional I1, U106 and R1a-M17 from the Alpine German speakers,with the help of Habsburgs or not.


https://books.google.ro/books?id=vgo...olenta&f=false


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yodeling

----------


## Maciamo

> This is an unwarranted assumption considering the long ancient history of Greek and Illyrian settlement in Puglia.


Most of the R1a in Puglia, and indeed across most of Italy, is CTS1211, the main Slavic, or at least East European, branch.




I have analysed the R1a-CTS1211 in Italy, southern France and Spain and most of it falls under Y2902 clade, which has a TMRCA of only 2400 years according to Yfull. Most of the Y2902 subclades found both in Eastern Europe, Italy, southern France and Spain are less than 2000 years old. So the most reasonable explanation is that it is of Gothic origin. These R1a were originally East Europeans but were assimilated by the Goths when they moved to Poland and Ukraine, and came to Italy, France and Spain with the Ostrogoths and Visigoths.

So the R1a in Pulglia is neither Greek nor directly Slavic (as in Slavic migrations), but rather Gothic.

----------


## FIREYWOTAN

Thanks for the insights. At times it all seems overwhelming but having a focus changes my dynamics.

----------


## Wonomyro

> Most of the R1a in Puglia, and indeed across most of Italy, is CTS1211, the main Slavic, or at least East European, branch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have analysed the R1a-CTS1211 in Italy, southern France and Spain and most of it falls under Y2902 clade, which has a TMRCA of only 2400 years according to Yfull. Most of the Y2902 subclades found both in Eastern Europe, Italy, southern France and Spain are less than 2000 years old. So the most reasonable explanation is that it is of Gothic origin. These R1a were originally East Europeans but were assimilated by the Goths when they moved to Poland and Ukraine, and came to Italy, France and Spain with the Ostrogoths and Visigoths.
> 
> So the R1a in Pulglia is neither Greek nor directly Slavic (as in Slavic migrations), but rather Gothic.


It seems that the map is no longer accurate regarding Croatia. The majority of R1a of Croatians, previously believed to be R1a-458, actually belong to a subclade R1a-CTS1211 (aka R1a-558). That makes sense as the similar proportions within R1a haplogroup exist in neighbouring Slovenia and Herzegovina. The exact percentages could be be found here:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...22876/abstract

Detail data from different regions is also presented. (I can help in identifying of the geographic locations).

Some Italian R1a-CTS1211 therefore could arrived with the 15th century refugees from the Croatian coast as the effect of the Ottoman invasion. It was a real exodus actually. Some of them can still be found in Molise region:

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

However, the majority of others were assimilated.

----------


## Johane Derite

[QUOTE=Angela;531834]


> Those "diversity estimates" are based on low STR resolution, which in today's age of NGS technology should not be taken seriously, as they mutate randomly and can't take into account bottlenecks, etc. It's the same methodology used by Dienekes years ago when he claimed E-V13 in Albania is coalescent of Roman/Late Antiquity times, suggesting a "recent" entrance in the Albanian gene pool, or something like that.
> 
> *As Azzurro mentioned, Next Generation Sequencing is what's needed to understand these things better, and obviously ancient DNA.[*/QUOTE]
> 
> Yes, dating is always iffy, in admixture too. When we get ancient dna we'll have to look back at this and see how close they got.
> 
> As to the rest, perhaps you missed my post:
> 
> "More, and more resolved data is always better. However, the VAST majority of R1a in Apulia and even in Grecia Salentina is certainly not M-458 (only 1.2% of it TOTAL is M-458, for which they tested), and I don't see any big amounts of "Slavic I2" there either, which there would be if it came after the Slavic invasions, since that's the majority of the "Slavic" y which is in the areas from which it would have come, so I see no logical justification for speculating that most of it is from the Slavic migrations."
> ...


I dont think Trojet was getting involved on the slav comment, but rather said that just in regard to the supposed diversity estimates of ev13 in turkey. My mistake if I understood him wrong.

----------


## Trojet

> I dont think Trojet was getting involved on the slav comment, but rather said that just in regard to the supposed diversity estimates of ev13 in turkey. My mistake if I understood him wrong.


That's exactly right, brother :)

----------


## Salento

> It seems that the map is no longer accurate regarding Croatia. The majority of R1a of Croatians, previously believed to be R1a-458, actually belong to a subclade R1a-CTS1211 (aka R1a-558). That makes sense as the similar proportions within R1a haplogroup exist in neighbouring Slovenia and Herzegovina. The exact percentages could be be found here:
> 
> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...22876/abstract
> 
> Detail data from different regions is also presented. (I can help in identifying of the geographic locations).
> 
> Some Italian R1a-CTS1211 therefore could arrived with the 15th century refugees from the Croatian coast as the effect of the Ottoman invasion. It was a real exodus actually. Some of them can still be found in Molise region:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molise_Croats
> ...


I’m posting this again. Croatian and Norman Connections:
- San Vito Dei Normanni -
The village dates back to the Middle Ages (late 10th century), presumably by a colony of Slavs (emigrated from Slavonia) -(Slavonia is part of Croatia) - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavonia escaping the persecutions of the Saracens, and decided to settle in the fertile areas of San Vito founding "Castro Sancti Viti".
Some scholars believe that the city was founded by the Norman Bohemond of Hauteville ( 1050 - 1111 AD), son of Robert Guiscard, who, to satisfy his love of hunting, ordered the construction of a square tower, which still exists today.

The small village originally grew in the late Middle Ages when the Normans ensured security from the constant attacks of the Saracens. 
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Vito_dei_Normanni

----------


## Sile

The AP and GS both fall under messapian and history states messapic settled in Italy anytime between 900-600BC. We also know by strabo and levy ( roman historians ) that the illyrians began in the east-alps and only reached dalmatia by ~600BC, clearly these messapic could only be the following people, Greek, Thracian, Epirote or proto-albanian. We also have historians establishing both Greek and Thracian in the balkans from 3200BC

----------


## Angela

> Most of the R1a in Puglia, and indeed across most of Italy, is CTS1211, the main Slavic, or at least East European, branch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have analysed the R1a-CTS1211 in Italy, southern France and Spain and most of it falls under Y2902 clade, which has a TMRCA of only 2400 years according to Yfull. Most of the Y2902 subclades found both in Eastern Europe, Italy, southern France and Spain are less than 2000 years old. So the most reasonable explanation is that it is of Gothic origin. These R1a were originally East Europeans but were assimilated by the Goths when they moved to Poland and Ukraine, and came to Italy, France and Spain with the Ostrogoths and Visigoths.
> 
> So the R1a in Pulglia is neither Greek nor directly Slavic (as in Slavic migrations), but rather Gothic.


Maciamo, could you point me to the studies that resolve the R1a in different areas of Italy by snp? I really want to add that to my files with citations to the papers if the question arises again. 

Are you instead going by str data like that present in Boattini for the three samples from Lecce, perhaps? Boattini does provide 19 (ISOGG 2009)strs for each haplogroup in their study, although they only label it M17*.

I just quickly took a look at DiGaetano et al and they don't have Puglia samples. Plus, they only have 8 or 9 strs, which I would think wouldn't be sufficient.

Brisighelli et al does have the benefit of having samples from Grecia Salentina, which is the source of virtually all the R1a in this study for Puglia. They have values for, what, 16 strs? Strange that they don't post detailed resolutions if they're available. They find R1a in other places, but not in Grecia Salentina.

Very confusing. Are there other private companies besides FTDNA which give detailed resolutions by snp or lots of strs?

----------


## Sile

apulia dna ................I think the information was gathered from ftdna ..........I will check

E: 22%
J2a: 20%
G: 15%
R1b: 13%
J1: 8%
I2: 8%
I1: 6%
T: 5%
R1a: 5%

For E: We have 6 E-V13, which breakdown into 4 E-Y3183, 1 E-L17 and 1 E-FGC11457. We have 2 E-V12 and 1 E-Y2947.

For J2a: We have 2 J-M92, 2 J-Z6048, 1 J-PH4970 (J-L1064), 1 J-CTS7683 (needs further testing), 1 J-Z482 (very likely J-Y15222) and 1 J-M319.

For G: We have 1 that could not be further predicted so G-M201, 1 G-PF3345, 1 G-L293 (G-Z6653), G-L79 (seems very close to G-M377) and 1 G-CTS5990.

For R1b: We have 2 R-PF7563, 1 R-Y28788 and 2 just at R-M269.

For J1: We have 1 J-PF4872 (J-L829), 1 J-Z2324, and 1 J-ZS2513.

For I2: All under I-P37 there is 3.

For I1: We have one just at I-M253, 1 I-BY3411, and 1 I-L38

For T: We have 1 T-CTS8862 and 1 T-L131...................both belong to T1a2 branch

For R1a: We have 1 R-M12280 and 1 R-Z283.

----------


## davef

> FTDNA's Italy project:
> https://www.familytreedna.com/public...frame=yresults
> 
> No R1a in Puglia/Grecia Salentina, but curiously, several samples from Calabria test positive for it (plus two from Sicily).


Thanks, I'm going to see if my surname is in this list, I know nothing beats getting tested but it'll be fun

----------


## Angela

> apulia dna ................I think the information was gathered from ftdna ..........I will check
> 
> E: 22%
> J2a: 20%
> G: 15%
> R1b: 13%
> J1: 8%
> I2: 8%
> I1: 6%
> ...


Is this maybe from the list Falco posted? The one sample from Brindisi was R-Z283.

----------


## Sile

> Thanks, I'm going to see if my surname is in this list, I know nothing beats getting tested but it'll be fun


compare with this site which shows households.............you can also drill down further into the region and province

http://www.cognomix.it/mappe-dei-cog...liani/GASBARRO

----------


## Azzurro

> apulia dna ................I think the information was gathered from ftdna ..........I will check
> 
> E: 22%
> J2a: 20%
> G: 15%
> R1b: 13%
> J1: 8%
> I2: 8%
> I1: 6%
> ...


Sile, that’s my work, this is the second time you do this.

----------


## Wonomyro

> I’m posting this again. Croatian and Norman Connections: - San Vito Dei Normanni - The village dates back to the Middle Ages (late 10th century), presumably by a colony of Slavs (emigrated from Slavonia) -(Slavonia is part of Croatia) - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavonia escaping the persecutions of the Saracens, and decided to settle in the fertile areas of San Vito founding "Castro Sancti Viti". Some scholars believe that the city was founded by the Norman Bohemond of Hauteville ( 1050 - 1111 AD), son of Robert Guiscard, who, to satisfy his love of hunting, ordered the construction of a square tower, which still exists today. The small village originally grew in the late Middle Ages when the Normans ensured security from the constant attacks of the Saracens. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Vito_dei_Normanni


Thanks for the post. To be more accurate, the term Sclavonia (Slavonia) was sometimes, especially in the beginning, used as an alternate name for (the whole) Croatia (the land where Slavs lived). Over time the term "Slavonia" remained to be used only for the northern parts due to the different political status within the Hungaran-Croatian kingdom. 

The name was recycled again in the 18th century to name what is now Eastern Croatia. 

The name should, of course, not be confused with a modern country of Slovenia which got that name much later (19th/20th century).

----------


## davef

IMG_1494.jpgWHOA OMG my surname peaks unanimously in Apulia, 2nd highest is Lazio....kind of ironic since that province seems to be getting a lot of attention in this thread! Ill add that the count for Apulia is almost 3x that of Lazio. 

Cool stuff!

----------


## Sile

> Sile, that’s my work, this is the second time you do this.


THanks, but azzurro is not the name I was given .................are you saying it is an erred set of data?

----------


## Azzurro

> THanks, but azzurro is not the name I was given .................are you saying it is an erred set of data?


I’m Principe on Anthrogenica, I made that list.

----------


## Sile

> Thanks for the post. To be more accurate, the term Sclavonia (Slavonia) was sometimes, especially in the beginning, used as an alternate name for (the whole) Croatia (the land where Slavs lived). Over time the term "Slavonia" remained to be used only for the northern parts due to the different political status within the Hungaran-Croatian kingdom. 
> 
> The name was recycled again in the 18th century to name what is now Eastern Croatia. 
> 
> The name should, of course, not be confused with a modern country of Slovenia which got that name much later (19th/20th century).


On many maps made between the 15th and 17th centuries, sclavonia lands where positioned between Croatia and Hungaria ..............I assume they refer to ancient Pannonia

----------


## Wonomyro

> On many maps made between the 15th and 17th centuries, sclavonia lands where positioned between Croatia and Hungaria ..............I assume they refer to *ancient Pannonia*


Southern part, yes. Durring the period of Croatian Kingdom it was not called Slavonia. It wouldn't make sense.

----------


## Ygorcs

Is it just my fancy imagination or is the higher concentrations in the map of variance of J2a-M67 relatively similar to the maps of Hurrian-Urartian kingdoms/dominions during ? I have myself wondered if there is any possible link between the expansion of several clades of J2 and the clear north-to-south and northeast-to-northwest expansion of Hurrian and Urartian languages/peoples in the Bronze Age _(not that the J2 expansion happened only with them, but that they were maybe one of the latest stages of that expansion that we could only know about because they were already in a literate civilized age)._ 

In my admittedly lunatic, but funny, speculations about the main original language family of haplogroups that expanded more recently (from the Copper Age on), I tend to associate J2 with Hurrian-Urartian and Northeast Caucasian. But let's leave it at that.  :Wink: 

See maps of the territory of Mitanni (Indo-Aryan military/political elite, but mostly a Hurrian-speaking state and area), Urartu and other Hurrian-Urartian kingdoms:

----------


## davef

> compare with this site which shows households.............you can also drill down further into the region and province
> 
> http://www.cognomix.it/mappe-dei-cog...liani/GASBARRO


Well Sile, I'm now aware of my Apulian heritage. I no longer claim ancestry from Lazio.
IMG_1494.jpg



[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]*1015* Puglia
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]*384*[/COLOR] Lazio
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]*267*[/COLOR] Lombardia
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]*135*[/COLOR] Toscana
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]*120*[/COLOR] Molise
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]*119*[/COLOR] Marche
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]*104*[/COLOR] Basilicata
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]*103*[/COLOR] Emilia-Romagna
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]*89*[/COLOR] Piemonte
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]*66*[/COLOR] Umbria

[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]*46*[/COLOR] Campania
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]*44*[/COLOR] Liguria
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]*32*[/COLOR] Veneto
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]*29*[/COLOR] Abruzzo
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]*17*[/COLOR] Sardegna
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]*15*[/COLOR] Calabria
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]*14*[/COLOR] Friuli V.G.
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]*9*[/COLOR] Trentino A.A.
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]*8*[/COLOR] Sicilia
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]*2*[/COLOR] Valle d'Aosta


[/COLOR]
i apologize to all for this off topic post

----------


## Aaron1981

> @Sile
> It seems the frequency of G-L497 in Austrian Tyrol is relatively high, similar to the observed in SW Germany, Swiss, Trentino and perhaps even TV province etc. (subclade G-L42 probably being more common in these areas) and parts of Central Italy (like Foligno, with abt. 16%, based on Boattini's study and DYS388=13), however, I'm not sure about its diversity. In the paper discussed here there's a map showing the highest diversity around Central Germany, and that's surprised me, since I would have guessed it was around SW Germany, Swiss... Possibly this is true just to its most common subclade Z1823 (the best G-L497 phylogenetic trees are in the related project in FTDNA), which is pretty widespread.
> Btw, the Tryppilian Outlier (in Ukraine) from a recent study was identified as G-L42, but I'm not sure it's reliable, since it's not in the latest versions of the paper. 
> Anyway, G-L497 is an old Neolithic haplogroup, and its subclades must have different stories, naturally. 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder too. My speculations: maybe Celts/Italics, since its distribution resembles a bit the U152's. Indeed, a skeleton from Mitterkirchen related to the Celts was identified as G-L140, and according to me the guy was probably G-L497 based on his STR markers. But Germanic tribes could have brought some lineages more recently, like, say, G-CTS4803, G-Z16775...
> Some subclades (even main - more common - subclades) could be related to the Etruscan/Rhaetians too. Who knows! Hope we figure it out. :)


I've speculated that G-P303 was the "Caucasus" minority of Maykop among the predominantly R1b IE speakers.

----------


## FIREYWOTAN

The facts are that there is more sources and less time yet the pools of wisdom sometimes need a chance to bubble up. The review process continues but a timeline desres an opportunity to breath. I'll keep sorting and working through the sources . Thanks for all of your patience. some of latest excels show npromise.

----------


## FIREYWOTAN

Working with the material is a fantastic oportuntiy to learn and hopefuly to add to the Forum. I'll certainly be more vigilant as i prepare my thoughts. Thank you for showing me what to do.

----------


## Angela

^^You have posted in the wrong section. This thread is specifically for a discussion of Italian yDNA. 

I'll give you some time to copy and paste in a more appropriate one.

----------


## FIREYWOTAN

I'm sorry I didn't realisethat I was in the wrong place. I've just tried to cut it out any suggestions of how to make the change would be greatly appreciated. I certainly did do it on purpose. Thanks for any help.

----------


## Angela

> I'm sorry I didn't realisethat I was in the wrong place. I've just tried to cut it out any suggestions of how to make the change would be greatly appreciated. I certainly did do it on purpose. Thanks for any help.


No problem. I could tell it was inadvertent. 

You could just copy the text and then create a new post on a thread about the Indo-Europeans. The most recent thread discussing them is, I think, this one, but it's up to you.
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...INdo-Europeans

I could delete your post above but that takes points away from you, so just delete the text and put something like "Sorry, wrong section". 

Or, if you want, I can just move it for you.

----------


## FIREYWOTAN

Thanks for the information. I went on that site and was surprised on how information was available. The fact is that everywhere I look I find more ideas and at times I'm overwhelmed. Thanks again for sharing .

----------


## italouruguayan

Hello everyone!
I'm from Montevideo (Uruguay) and my paternal grandfather was from San Martino di Lupari (Padova). My Y-DNA is R1b U106 L44 + L163-. According to a historian, the "patriarch" of my family arrived in Veneto in 1467, from his homeland in Rota (valleys of Bergamo). I asked the historian if my family could be of Longobard origin, and he answered that the origin would be more likely in the Allemanic or Cimbrian peoples. What do you think?

----------


## FIREYWOTAN

Thank you for sharing the family and a piece of who you are. The ability to know about our past adds an element of dimension of our story.

----------


## Sile

> Hello everyone!
> I'm from Montevideo (Uruguay) and my paternal grandfather was from San Martino di Lupari (Padova). My Y-DNA is R1b U106 L44 + L163-. According to a historian, the "patriarch" of my family arrived in Veneto in 1467, from his homeland in Rota (valleys of Bergamo). I asked the historian if my family could be of Longobard origin, and he answered that the origin would be more likely in the Allemanic or Cimbrian peoples. What do you think?


more chance you are lombard than cimbrian ..........cimbrian are medieval bavarians who settled mostly in veneto and a bit in trentino

allemanic or swabian !

http://www.cognomix.it/mappe-dei-cog...ROTA/LOMBARDIA
4273 households with the Rota surname

----------


## italouruguayan

Thank you Fireywotan!

----------


## italouruguayan

Thanks Sile.
My surname is Bergamin; a man named Bergamino de Bergamini arrived from Rota di Bergamo to San Martino di Lupari in 1467. I have seen the distribution of the surname in Cognomix: the place where it is most abundant is Veneto, within this, the province of Padova, and in this, San Martino di Lupari. Everything indicates that this man was the founder of the surname.

----------


## Pygmalion

Has anyone else mentioned this?

"The detection of I2-M26 Y chromosomes in Volterra is noteworthy. This sub-haplogroup is known for its high frequency (>30%) in Sardinia (Francalacci et al., 2013 Francalacci P, Morelli L, Angius A, Berutti R, Reinier F, Atzeni R, Pilu R, et al. 2013. Low-pass DNA sequencing of 1200 Sardinians reconstructs European Y-chromosome phylogeny. ; Rootsi et al., 2004 Rootsi S, Magri C, Kivisild T, Benuzzi G, Help H, Bermisheva M, Kutuev I, et al. 2004. Phylogeography of Y-chromosome haplogroup I reveals distinct domains of prehistoric gene flow in Europe. 
; Zei et al., 2003 Zei G, Lisa A, Fiorani O, Magri C, Quintana-Murci L, Semino O, Santachiara-Benerecetti AS. 2003. From surnames to the history of Y chromosomes: the Sardinian population as a paradigm. Eur J 
), so its presence in the Volterra sample suggests a connection between Tuscany and Sardinia. This link could be related to the first peopling of the island or represent the signature of the extensive trade exchanges that Etruscans had with Sardinia (I imagine he's talking about the Nuragic period), or alternatively could be due to the rather recent migration of numerous shepherds from the island to Tuscany. However, taking into account that (i) all the Volterra I2-M26 Y chromosomes belong to the deepest and less represented branches (*-star- and alfa) of I2-M26 (data not shown), not involved in the expansion of this clade in Sardinia (Francalacci et al., 2013 Francalacci P, Morelli L, Angius A, Berutti R, Reinier F, Atzeni R, Pilu R, et al. 2013. Low-pass DNA sequencing of 1200 Sardinians reconstructs European Y-chromosome phylogeny. 
), (ii) the carriers of these chromosomes belong to families that reside in Volterra from at least four generations and (iii) all are characterised by local monophyletic surnames, we can exclude that their presence in Tuscany is due to recent gene flow."

----------

